NAIF Affirmative – 7wk HJPP – Summer 2013

1ac

1ac

Plan

The United States Federal Government should substantially increase its North American Investment Fund economic engagement toward Mexico.

Relations Advantage

Advantage es Mexico

Obama has rhetorically centered relations on development – investment key to amplify that commitment Ramos, 13 [5/28/13, The U.S. and Mexico Have Much to Learn from Each Other Vincent Guilamo-Ramos is a professor and co-director of the Center for Latino Adolescent and Family Health at the Silver School of Social Work at New York University, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/vincent-guilamoramos/us-mexico-relations_b_3347068.html] Barack Obama's recent visit to Mexico, the fourth of his presidency, represented an important, deliberate attempt to shift the focus of Mexico-U.S. relations from security to economic improvement.¶ But it also represented

much more -- a chance to allay the public's profoundly negative conceptions of Mexico by shifting the conversation to education, labor, environment, and other human-scale issues that are truly vital to the future of both countries. While much media coverage focuses on Mexican immigration

battles, drug wars and narco-trafficking, the relationship between the U.S. and Mexico has been evolving in complex

and positive ways.¶ That is really not so surprising when one considers that the Latino population in the U.S. surpassed 50 million not too long ago, and people of Mexican ancestry account for more than 60 percent of this total. Mexico's economy and middle class are growing.¶ And there is Obama's pivotal "100,000 Strong in the Americas" initiative, launched in 2011 to expand study-abroad exchange opportunities between the U.S. and Latin America. Increasing student exchange, and building understanding through higher education, offers at least the potential to help offset the tarnished public perception of bilateral relations. Not incidentally, this cross-border tradition contributes heavily to both countries' economies.¶ Obama's trip reminded us that the two neighbors have much to learn from each another. In the U.S., about a third of the population is under 25, while in Mexico, half of the population is less than 25, a bountiful group of potential college attendees. While higher education has long presented a roadmap to better jobs and futures for young people in America, our increasing educational fees and student debt loads are making such prospects more difficult to realize, particularly among lower-income families. Mexico's landscape is of course different. Public education is free, but just 1 out of every 3 individuals of eligible age enters college, showing limitations in the existing capacity of the country's education system.¶

Despite encouraging macro-economic signs in present-day Mexico, the number of people living in poverty in the country has been growing. In contrast, the U.S. faces growing disparities in educational attainment based on income level.

Our low-income individuals have less access to higher education, let alone student exchange programs.¶ The U.S. can do far more to help prepare young people in both countries to contribute to bilateral cooperation and a better regional future. In addition, it can and should give a great deal of sustained attention to low-income youth of both nations who face particularly high hurdles to

educational attainment.¶ By investing in disadvantaged students in Mexico and the U.S. who are most at risk of involvement in drug- and gang-

related activity, both countries can promote economic development within and without -- and, not incidentally, lessen the need to focus so heavily on security measures and bad news.¶ There's a lot riding on Obama's trip, perhaps even more than many people in

both countries realize. Now that he's back, the work of improving bilateral relations for the sake of both Mexico and the U.S. --

and the people of both lands -- can and should go forward with renewed purpose.

Rhetorical commitment isn’t sufficient – the plan bridges the rhetorical gap Pastor, 09 [CLOSING THE DEVELOPMENT GAP: A PROPOSAL FOR A NORTH AMERICAN INVESTMENT FUND Robert A. Pastor, Center for North American Studies, American University Samuel Morley, International Foo d Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) Sherman Robinson, International Food Policy Research Institute, http://www.american.edu/sis/cnas/upload/PastorInvestmentPaper0803.pdf]The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) officially began on January 1, 1994. Since then, the economic and social integration of Mexico, Canada, and the United States accelerated, but the development gap separating Mexico from its two northern

neighbors has not narrowed . Some critics hold NAFTA accountable, but the truth is that NAFTA succeeded for what it was designed to do. It reduced barriers to trade and investment, and trade and investment nearly tripled in a decade. 1NAFTA did

fail to achieve compliance in a few controversial areas –trucking, softwood lumber, agriculture -but its principal flaw was what it omitted. It has not addressed the uneven economic development, the different vulnerabilities, and the wide disparities among the three countries. The failure to take these differences into account meant that the burden of financial problems, such as the “peso crisis” of 1994, has fallen disproportionately on the weaker parties. It has also meant that the three

countries did not have the capacity to anticipate, coordinate, or plan for new shocks or take advantage of opportunities.Soon after he won Mexico’s presidential election on July 2, 2000, Vicente Fox proposed a Common

Market to replace the free-trade area, and he also volunteered the idea of a compensation fund for the poorest country. He invited President George W. Bush to his home in February 2001 and persuaded him to endorse the “The Guanajuato Proposal.” A key part of the proposal said: “After consultation with our Canadian partners, we will strive to consolidate a North American economic community whose benefits reach the lesser-developed areas of the region and extend

to the most vulnerable social groups in our countries.” 2This idea promised a very different approach to North America than the one envisaged in NAFTA, but

thatpromise has not been fulfilled. While some might attribute the failure to September 11th, the hard truth is that the three governments made no

progress on this theme before that. This does not mean that the proposal is impractical, only that the three

governments have not yet taken it seriously enough to convert promise into policy. In the long-term, however,

there is a compelling reason for 2returning to the Guanajuato concept, and so we shall explore its origins and analyze its prospects further. Fox and his then-Foreign Minister Jorge Castañeda consciously modeled the Guanajuato proposal on Europe’s programs to reduce disparities in income between rich and poor countries. During the last forty years, Europe experimented with many approaches to this problem, and it has had considerable success. The EU is based on a very different model than NAFTA, but with such longexperiencein forging economic integration among disparate parts, North America would be foolish not to try to learn from what it has done or failed to do. The question for North America is not whether to adopt the European model; the two cases are different. The relevant questions are: Is there something to be learned from Europe’s experience? Which of its initiatives failed and should be avoided by NAFTA? And which projects succeeded and could be adapted, and in what ways? This paper is organized in three parts. First, it examines the European model and extracts

lessons of pertinence to NAFTA. Secondly, we analyze the evolution, success, and failure of Mexico’s development experience and then identify the principal sourcesof growth and the magnitude of the resources necessary to

stimulate a 6 percent rate of growth for a decade as a step toward narrowing the development gap . Finally, we will

offer a very specific proposal and strategy for a North American Investment Fund.

The plan establishes an overriding commercial interest and institutionalizes strong and effective relations – reversing the development gap is key Manley, et al. 05 [Creating a North American Community Chairmen’s Statement Independent Task Force on the Future of North America Sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations in association with the Consejo Mexicano de Asuntos Internacionales and the Canadian Council of Chief Executives John P. Manley, Pedro Aspe, and William F. Weld Chairs Thomas P. d’Aquino, Andrés Rozental, and Robert A. Pastor, http://www.cfr.org/canada/creating-north-american-community/p7912] The ever-deepening integration of North America promises enormous benefits for its citizens. These benefits, however, are neither inevitable nor irreversible. The process of change must be properly managed. As government officials, we

wrestled on a daily basis with the challenges that North America confronts. Now, as private citizens, we are able to reflect more systematically on these challenges and to articulate a long-term vision of how to meet them. To that end, we offer this Chairmen’s Statement in anticipation of the trinational summit, which comes at a pivotal time in our relationship. This statement reflects the consensus of the three chairmen and three vice chairs of the Task Force. The Task Force’s complete report, to be issued in the spring, will take stock of the results of the Texas summit and reflect the views of the full Task Force membership. This statement does not necessarily represent the views of other Task Force members. The Independent Task Force on the Future of North America is sponsored by the Council on Foreign 5 Relations in association with the Consejo Mexicano de Asuntos Internacionales and the Canadian Council of Chief Executives. Eleven years ago, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) liberalized trade and investment in most sectors, provided crucial protections for intellectual property, created pioneering dispute-resolution mechanisms, and established new procedures for enforcing labor and environmental standards. Since then, NAFTA has accelerated commercial exchange in North America, helping to unlock the region’s economic potential and demonstrating that nations with different levels of development can negotiate commercial arrangements. To build on the advances of the past

decade and to craft an agenda for the future, we propose the creation by 2010 of a community to enhance security, prosperity, and opportunity for all North Americans. To that end, we propose a community based on the premise that each member benefits from its neighbor’s success and is diminished by its problems. The boundaries of the community would be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter. Within this area, the movement of people and products would be legal, orderly, and safe. The overarching goal is to guarantee a free, safe, just, and prosperous North America. What We Face

Today, our nations face three common challenges. 1. Shared security threats. Over the last decade, terrorist and criminal activity has underscored North America’s vulnerability. All of the 9/11 terrorists

succeeded in entering the United States directly from outside North America, but the arrest of a person in 1999 trying to cross the

Canadian-U.S. border as part of a plot to bomb the Los Angeles airport shows that terrorists also will try to gain access to the United States through Canada and Mexico. Hundreds of thousands of people cross illegally into the United States each year and both Canada and Mexico

also must deal with persistent flows of undocumented immigrants. 6 Failure to secure the external borders of North America will inhibit

the legitimate movement of people and goods within the continent, to our collective detriment. After the 9/11 attacks, delays at the Canadian-U.S. border prompted unplanned parts shortages in both countries, costing manufacturing facilities millions of dollars an hour. These downstream consequences mean that Canada and Mexico have an overriding

commercial interest in increasing North American security, apart from any other considerations. In

addition, future terrorist assaults could target sites in any of the three countries, and even an attack aimed exclusively at an American city or installation could spill over to Mexico or Canada. The reality of North American interdependence is that all three countries must work together to ensure the security of the continent. Beyond terrorism, international criminal activity poses a continuing threat to public safety in the region. Perhaps most notable in this regard is drug- and gang-related violence along the Mexican-U.S. frontier. Because these threats cross borders, they cannot be addressed adequately by any one government alone. Failure to address security issues will ultimately undermine gains on other fronts. In the North

American context, failure to collaborate effectively to address security issues will have a direct impact on commercial relationships, as well as on our freedoms and quality of life. 2. Shared challenges to enhance our competitiveness. Over the last decade nations around the world, from China to India to Latin America to the expanded membership of the European Union, have become increasingly integrated into the global market.

NAFTA dramatically spurred the pace of economic integration within North America, but we need to address issues that today place burdensome restraints on our ability to compete. Unwieldy rules of origin, increasing congestion at ports of entry, and regulatory differences among the three countries raise our costs instead of reducing them. Trade in natural resources, foodstuffs, and other key areas—including the crucial energy sector—remains far from free. Finally, the NAFTA partners have been unable to resolve a number of important trade and investment disputes, which have created friction in our commercial relationships. 3. Shared interest in broad-

based development. While trade and investment flows have increased dramatically among our three countries, the development gap between Mexico and its two northern neighbors has widened. This disparity undermines cooperation on areas of common interest and gives rise to regional problems. Low wages and lack of economic opportunity in parts of Mexico

stimulate undocumented immigration and contribute to human suffering, which sometimes translates into criminality and violence. As a matter of their own national interests, all three countries should do more to encourage broad-based economic development in Mexico. These challenges require urgent

attention. Although North America remains the world’s economic powerhouse, increasing global competition could undermine its long-run prosperity. What We Can Do Trinational collaboration is essential to ensure regional prosperity and security. Although there are some issues where bilateral cooperation has historically been much more intense—such as U.S.-Canadian military-to-military cooperation—there are many more issues for which a trinational approach would be beneficial. Shared concerns range from regional economic competitiveness to law enforcement, from energy security to regulatory policy, from dispute resolution to continental defense.

NAIF key – generates economic prosperity and creates a forum for cooperation Cornyn, 06 [John Cornyn III is the senior United States Senator for Texas, serving since 2002. He is a member of the Republican Party and the current Senate Minority Whip for the 113th Congress, http://www.american.edu/sis/cnas/upload/nafund_cornyn.pdf] NORTH AMERICAN INVESTMENT FUND MR. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation – previously introduced in the 108 th Congress – which I believe is important to the long-term competitiveness of North America. And I would like to thank my distinguished colleague, Sen. Coleman, for his support and recognition of

the va lue of this legislation. He is an original co-sponsor of the bill, and I look forward to working with him and others to ensure its success. Currently, a significant development gap exists between Mexico and the United States and Canada. I believe it is in our best interests to find creative ways to bridge this development gap. As my colleagues undoubtedly are aware, Me xico will elect a new President this weekend. When President Fox was elected in 2000 it was a watershed event for Mexico because the election was fair and t he transfer of power was peaceful. I hope that the same fair, peaceful process take s place this weekend. So I wish all the candidates well and I look forward to work ing with the new Administration and the new Congress on issues of mutual importance to our countries. Mr. President, considered in the context of history, Mexico has – particularly within the past decade – made significant stri

des related to its system of government and its trade policies. However, much wo rk remains to be done, and I think it is important that we explore ways to help our neighbor move their development efforts to the next level, to assist t hem as they continue on a path of prosperity and growth. I have come to view the creation of a North American Investment Fund as both central to our relationship with Mexico and necessary to ensure the economic prosperity of

North America as part of an ever-changi ng and growing global economy. I hope that this legislation will be a

useful vehicle to help jump-start discussions on this very important topic. My bill authorizes the President to negotiate the creation of a North American Investment Fund with the

governments of Canada and Mexico. The fund can only be created if Mexico satisfies two conditions. • First, the government of Mexico must raise tax revenue to 18 percent of the gross domestic product of Mexico.

Their current tax rate is approximately 9 percent. • Second, Mexico must develop and execute a program of economic reforms to increase private investment and economic growth , while also maintaining economic stability in Mexico. These steps are of the utmost importance because any lasting changes in Mexico must start from within.

The plan’s investment is guaranteed, but spinoff effects guarantee successful Mexican economic reform Friedman, 04 [Narrow the Income Gap for Best Results, THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN THE NEW YORK TIMES, April 8, 2004, http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2004-04-08/news/0404070641_1_mexico-city-mexico-and-america-revolutions]

MEXICO CITY — Because it happened so peacefully, it's easy to forget that Mexico in one decade has gone through two remarkable revolutions. One of the oldest one-party governments in the world was eased out with ballots, not bullets, and a poor developing country lowered its tariff barriers and became America's second-largest trading partner. Good news, right? So why does it feel like so many people here who were riding high three years ago are losing confidence? The short answer is that Mexico's political and economic revolutions, driven from the top, were great for the 1990s. But unless they are followed up now by a third revolution -- a reform revolution -- that mobilizes and upgrades the skills of the whole society, Mexico will not stay competitive, and people here know it. But their politics are gridlocked. If Mexico does not get some real leadership, it's likely to have a real crisis. It is hard to stay competitive when you collect the lowest percentage of taxes among leading Western economies, or when you are an oil-rich country but you import energy from America because your constitution restricts foreign investment in the energy sector. If Mexico were where Australia is, this would not worry me. Not only is it next door, but Mexico's huge bubble of Baby Boomers born in the 1970s are now entering their prime working years. If Mexico can't develop an economy that can keep them at home, they will flock to a theater near you. "What NAFTA accomplished was to get Mexicans to think forward and outward instead of inward and backward," said Luis Rubio, president of Mexico's Center of Research for Development. "[But] NAFTA was seen as an end, more than a beginning. It was seen as the conclusion of a process of political and economic reforms and was meant to consolidate them. Not only did Mexico not have a strategy for going forward, neither did America." Which is why it's time to start thinking out of the box -- or maybe into a

bigger box. "This situation doesn't have to end in crisis , but it will if Mexico, the U.S. and Canada fail to act," says Robert Pastor, director of the Center for North American Studies at American University and author of Toward a North American Community. Pastor has proposed a way out -- deeper integration .

Canada, Mexico and America have to go beyond NAFTA and start building "a North American

Community" -- which addresses continental issues, from transportation to terrorism, in a wider framework. Among

other things, Pastor proposes that the U.S., Canada and Mexico establish a North America investment fund, which, over 10 years, will invest in roads , telecommunications and post-secondary education in Mexico. (Amazingly, there is no highway today that runs directly from resource-rich southern Mexico to the U.S. border. You have to go

through clogged Mexico City.) When the European Union brought in the poorer countries of Spain, Portugal, Greece and Ireland, it invested big, big money in roads and education in the four new states and narrowed their income gap with the rest of Europe, giving their workers an incentive to stay home.

"The United States and Canada should only contribute to such a fund, though, if Mexico contributes an equal amount through new taxes and implements the reforms that will make its economy more competitive," said Pastor. "If the U.S. shaped this approach with Mexico as part of building a larger community, it could break the Mexican stalemate on reforms . Without reform, Mexico will never develop to the next stage, and without Mexican development, no U.S. immigration plan will stem the flow. The only effective migration strategy is one that narrows the income gap. This is also good

business, because as Mexico grows, it buys 80 cents of every dollar of its imports from the U.S. -- unlike China." President Dwight Eisenhower said: If a problem can't be solved as it is, enlarge it. Right now Mexico does not have the resources or consensus to reform, and America does not have a strategy for managing immigration or the relationship with its neighbors. Neither will solve its problem without a larger canvas.

Certain high level leadership reverses the development gap and prevents cascading Mexican economic collapse and instability – also reverses anti American sentiment that kills hegemony Pastor, 04 [Robert A. Pastor is Professor of International Relations and Director of the Center for North American Studies at American University. He is the author of Toward a North American Community: Lessons from the Old World for the New, North America's Second Decade, Foreign Affairs 83.1 (Jan/Feb 2004): 124-135] Summary: In just ten years, NAFTA has created the world's most formidable free trade area. But in the absence of true partnerships and multilateral institutions,

movement toward further regional integration has slowed. The United States, Mexico, and Canada have many

common interests; they need to pursue them in common ways. ¶ A FIRST DRAFT ¶ The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) went into effect on January 1, 1994, amid fears of job loss in the United States and cries of revolution in the south of Mexico. Yet, in a single decade, the three nations of North America have built a market larger than, and almost as integrated as, the 15-nation European Union. Trade and investment have nearly tripled, and the United States, Mexico, and Canada have experienced an unprecedented degree of social and economic integration. For the first time, "North America"

is more than just a geographical expression. ¶ In 2000, the election victories of George W. Bush, Vicente Fox, and Jean Chretien raised hopes still further that the promise of a trilateral partnership might be fulfilled. Four years later, however, relations among the three governments have deteriorated. No leader refers to "North America" in the way that Europeans speak of their continent. Indeed, anti-NAFTA name-calling has surfaced again in debates among U.S. presidential candidates. After ten years, it is time to evaluate what NAFTA has accomplished and where it has failed and to determine where it should go from here. What should be the goals for North America's second decade, and what must North American leaders do to achieve them? ¶ NAFTA was merely the first draft of an economic constitution for North America. It was a deliberately lean document, intended only to dismantle barriers to

trade and investment. Its architects planned neither for its success nor for the crises that would confront it. Although NAFTA fueled the train of continental integration, it did not provide conductors to guide it. As a result, two setbacks -- the Mexican peso crisis of 1995 and the terrorist

attacks of September 11, 2001 -- have threatened to derail the integration experiment. ¶ The peso crisis was a blow to the Mexican economy and to U.S. and Canadian faith in integration. NAFTA's authors had assumed that eliminating restrictions on the movement of capital and goods would, by dint of the market's magic, lead to unalloyed prosperity. No clause in the agreement established a mechanism to anticipate or respond to market failures. Whereas the EU had created too many intrusive institutions, North America made the opposite mistake: it

created almost none. ¶ The second shock to the North American body politic occurred on September 11, 2001. If a true partnership had existed, the leaders of the United

States, Mexico, and Canada would have met in Washington in the days after the tragedy to declare that the attack was aimed at all of North America and that they would respond as one. Instead, in the absence of common institutions, the governments reverted to old habits. Acting unilaterally, Washington virtually

closed its borders; Mexican and Canadian leaders responded ambivalently, afraid of how the angry superpower would react. ¶ Both events signify missed opportunities. The establishment of the U.S.

Department of Homeland Security places North America once again at a crossroads. One course -- the more likely one -- would strengthen border enforcement and impede movement, even by friends. Trade and investment would decline, tensions would rise, and the myriad benefits of integration would begin to recede. In an alternative course, however, security fears would serve as a catalyst for deeper integration. That would require new structures to assure mutual security, promote trade, and bring Mexico closer to the First

World economies of its neighbors. Progress can occur only with true leadership , new cooperative institutions, and a redefinition of security that puts the United States,

Mexico, and Canada inside a continental perimeter, working together as partners. ¶ EVALUATING NAFTA ¶ From its outset, NAFTA was subjected to blistering criticism, often based on outlandish predictions. U.S. presidential candidate Ross Perot warned of a "giant sucking sound" -- jobs leaving the United States for Mexico. Mexicans and Canadians, meanwhile, feared that their economies would be taken over by U.S. companies. Opponents predicted that free trade would erode environmental and labor standards in the United States and Canada. ¶ Few of these prophecies have been borne out. The United States experienced the largest job expansion in its history in the 1990s. Although both Mexico and Canada attracted considerable new U.S. investment (since NAFTA gave them privileged access to the U.S. market), the percentage of U.S.-owned companies in each country did not increase. (In fact, Canadian investment in the United States grew even faster than did U.S. investment in Canada.) In Mexico, income disparity did worsen, but only because those regions that do not trade with the United States grew much more slowly than those that do; the problem was not NAFTA, but its absence. Environmental standards in Mexico have actually improved faster than those in Canada and the United States, and Mexico's 2000 election was universally hailed as free and fair. And although Mexico and Canada became more dependent on the U.S. market, as opponents of integration warned, the reverse also happened: U.S. trade with its neighbors grew roughly twice as fast as did its trade with the rest of the world. By 2000, in fact, the United States imported 36 percent of its energy from its most important trading partners -- Canada and Mexico -- and exports to its neighbors were 350 percent greater than exports to Japan and China and 75 percent greater than exports to the EU. ¶ So much has been attributed to NAFTA that it is easy to forget that it was simply an agreement to dismantle most restrictions on trade and investment over the course of ten years. With a few notable exceptions -- such as trucking, softwood, lumber, and sugar -- where U.S. economic interests have prevented compliance, the agreement largely succeeded in what it was intended to do: barriers were eliminated, and trade and investment soared. ¶ In the 1990s, U.S. exports to Mexico grew fourfold, from $28 billion to $111 billion, and exports to Canada more than doubled, increasing from $84 billion to $179 billion. Annual flows of U.S. direct investment to Mexico, meanwhile, went from $1.3 billion in 1992 to $15 billion in 2001. U.S. investment in Canada increased from $2 billion in 1994 to $16 billion in 2000; Canadian investment flows to the United States grew from $4.6 billion to $27 billion over the same period. Travel and immigration among the three countries also increased dramatically. In 2000 alone, people crossed the two borders 500 million times. The most profound impact came from those people who crossed and stayed. The 2000 census estimated that there were 22 million people of Mexican origin in the United States, about 5 million of whom were undocumented workers. Nearly two-thirds of these have arrived in the last two decades. ¶ North America is larger than Europe in population and territory, and its gross product of $11.4 trillion not only eclipses that of the EU (and will even after the EU expands to 25 nations in May 2004) but also represents one-third of the world's economic output. Intraregional exports as a percentage of total exports climbed from around 30 percent in 1982 to 56 percent in 2001 (compared to 61 percent for the EU). As in the auto industry -- which makes up nearly 40 percent of North American trade -- much of this exchange is either intraindustry or intrafirm. Both industries and companies have

become truly North American. ¶ But although NAFTA has successfully increased trade and investment, it has failed to confront some of the major challenges of integration. This failure has not only harmed the three countries, it has also seriously undermined support for the

agreement, thus preventing North America from seizing opportunities for further progress. ¶ First, NAFTA was silent on the development gap between Mexico and its two

northern neighbors, and that gap has widened . Second, NAFTA did not plan for success: inadequate roads and

infrastructure cannot cope with increased traffic. The resulting delays have raised the transaction costs of regional trade more than the elimination of tariffs has lowered them. Third, NAFTA did not address immigration, and the number of undocumented workers in the United States jumped in the 1990s from 3 million to 9 million (55 percent of whom came from Mexico). Fourth, NAFTA did not address energy issues, a failure highlighted by the catastrophic blackout that Canada and the northeastern United States suffered last August. Fifth, NAFTA made no attempt to coordinate macroeconomic policy, leaving North American governments with no way to prevent market catastrophes such as the Mexican peso crisis. Finally, NAFTA did nothing to address security -- and as a result, the fallout from September 11 threatens to cripple North American integration. ¶ OLD LESSONS FROM NEW EUROPE ¶ The thread that connects these failures is the lack of true trilateral cooperation. Integration has usually taken the form of dual bilateralism -- U.S.-Mexican and U.S.-Canadian -- rather than a continental partnership. The recent negotiation of "smart" border agreements after September 11 is a good example: instead of creating a uniform North American standard, Washington signed separate but almost identical treaties with its neighbors. The failure to construct multilateral institutions has been largely deliberate. Canada often thinks that it can extract a better deal from the United States when acting alone (a claim for which there is no evidence). And because Washington is not in a multilateral mood these days, Mexico has been the lone advocate of trilateral cooperation. Successful integration, however, requires a new mode of governance in North America, based on rules and reciprocity. ¶ The European experience with integration has much to teach North American policymakers, provided one understands the clear differences between the European and North American models. European unity grew out of two cataclysmic wars, and its principal members are comparable in terms of both population and power. The per capita GDP of the EU's wealthiest nation (Germany) is roughly twice that of its poorest (Greece), while the per capita GDP of the United States is nearly six times that of Mexico. North America's model has a single dominant state and has always been more market-driven, more resistant to bureaucracy, and more deferential to national autonomy than Europe's; these elements will always distinguish the two. But despite these differences, 50 years of European integration should teach North American policymakers that they must address the failures and externalities of an integrating market -- whether currency crises, environmental degradation, terrorist threats, infrastructural impediments, or development gaps. ¶ There was a moment early in the Fox and Bush administrations when North American leaders appeared to accept this point. In February 2001, Fox and Bush jointly endorsed the Guanajuato Proposal, which read, "After consultation with our Canadian partners, we will strive to consolidate a North American economic community whose benefits reach the lesser-developed areas of the region and extend to the most vulnerable social groups in our countries." Unfortunately, they never translated that sentiment into policy (with the exception of the symbolic but substantively trivial $40 million Partnership for Prosperity). ¶ All three governments share the blame for this failure. Bush's primary goal was to open the Mexican oil sector to U.S. investors, while Chretien showed no interest in working with Mexico. Fox, for his part, put forth too ambitious an agenda with too much emphasis on radical reform of U.S. immigration policy. His proposal called for raising the number of legal temporary workers and legalizing millions of undocumented ones. Bush's initial response was polite, but he soon realized he could not deliver (reportedly in part because his adviser

Karl Rove reminded him that two out of three naturalized Mexicans vote Democratic). The illegal immigration issue remains unsolved. Ultimately, however, it is more

symptom than cause: the only way to reduce illegal immigration is to make Mexico's economy grow faster than

that of the United States. ¶ MIND THE GAP ¶ For North America's second decade, there is no higher priority than reducing the economic divide between Mexico and the rest of NAFTA . A true partnership is simply not possible when the people of one nation earn, on average, one-sixth as much as do people across the border. Mexico's underdevelopment is a threat to its stability , to its neighbors, and to the future of integration. ¶ The EU experience is instructive here as well. From 1986 to 1999, the per capita GDP of the EU's four poorest countries rose from 65 percent to 78 percent of the average for all member states, thanks to free trade, foreign investment, and generous annual aid (.45 percent of EU GDP). Good policy on the part of aid recipients -- and the fact that aid was conditioned on such policies -- also made an important difference. Admittedly, not all EU aid money has been spent well, and North America can learn from the EU's failures as well as its successes. North America should avoid excessive bureaucracy and concentrate aid on areas such as infrastructure and postsecondary education, which have a strong multiplier effect on the rest of the economy. But two basic lessons stand: growth in one country benefits the others, and limiting the volatility of the poorest helps

all. ¶ Mexico needs a new development strategy, partly financed by its North American partners. To reduce the development gap with the United States by 20 percent in the next ten years, Mexico will need to achieve an annual growth rate of 6 percent. At that rate, closing the gap entirely will take decades, but a sustainable strategy that results in small annual reductions will have an

important economic and psychological effect. Such growth will require a new, labor-intensive strategy and significant public investment . ¶ Although Mexico as a whole has benefited from NAFTA, free trade and increased foreign investment have skewed development and exacerbated inequalities within the country. Ninety percent of new investment has gone to just four states, three of them in the north. These border states have grown ten times as fast as states in Mexico's south and have become a magnet for migrants from those poor regions. The border area would seem to have a disadvantage in attracting foreign investors: labor is three times as expensive as it is in the south, annual workforce turnover is 100 percent, and congestion and pollution are chronic. But roads from the border to the south are in terrible shape, and other infrastructure is even worse. The World Bank estimates that Mexico needs to spend $20 billion per year for the next ten years to overcome this

infrastructure deficit. ¶ To correct this disparity, the three governments should establish a "North American Investment Fund" that would invest $200 billion in infrastructure over the next decade. Washington should provide $9

billion a year, and Canada $1 billion -- but only on the condition that Mexico matches the total amount by gradually increasing tax revenues from 11 percent to 16 percent of its GDP . Fox has tried unsuccessfully to institute fiscal reform in the past, but the offer from Mexico's neighbors might help him persuade his Congress to accept this and other reforms . (The U.S. contribution would be much less than European aid to its poorest member states and only one-half of the amount of the Bush administration's aid to Iraq. The return on an investment in Mexico, moreover, would benefit

the U.S. economy more than any aid program in history.) A new agency is not necessary: the World Bank or the Inter-American Development Bank should administer the funds. Ultimately, improved roads and infrastructure would attract investors to the center and south of the country, and income disparities and immigration would decline as a result. The reforms would also make Mexico more competitive with China. ¶ NORTH AMERICAN PLANS ¶ NAFTA has failed to create a partnership because North American governments have not changed the way they deal with one another. Dual

bilateralism, driven by U.S. power, continues to govern and to irritate. Adding a third party to bilateral disputes vastly increases the chance that rules, not power, will resolve problems. ¶ This trilateral approach should be institutionalized in a new "North American Commission" (NAC). Unlike the sprawling and intrusive European Commission, the NAC should be lean and advisory, made up of just 15 distinguished individuals, 5 from each nation. Its principal purpose should be to prepare a North American agenda for leaders to consider at biannual summits and to monitor the implementation of the resulting agreements. It should also evaluate ways to facilitate economic integration, producing specific proposals on continental issues such as harmonizing environmental and labor standards and forging a competition policy. ¶ The U.S. Congress should also merge the U.S.-Mexican and U.S.-Canadian interparliamentary groups into a single "North American Parliamentary Group." This might encourage legislators to stop tossing invective across their borders and instead start bargaining to solve shared problems. ¶ A third institution should be a "Permanent Court on Trade and Investment." NAFTA established ad hoc dispute panels, but it has become increasingly difficult to find experts who do not have a conflict of interest to arbitrate conflicts. A permanent court would permit the accumulation of precedent and lay the groundwork for North American business law. It would also prevent the erosion of environmental standards and make proceedings more transparent. ¶ Canada and Mexico have long organized their governments to give priority to their bilateral relationships with the United States. Washington alone is poorly organized to address North American issues. President Bush must take into account the extent to which the domestic interests of the United States collide with those of its neighbors by appointing a White House adviser for North American affairs. Such a figure would bridge national security, homeland security, and domestic policy councils and chair a cabinet-level interagency task force on North America. No president can forge a coherent U.S. policy toward North America without such a wholesale reorganization. ¶ September 11, and the subsequent U.S. response, highlighted a basic dilemma of integration: how to facilitate legitimate flows of people and goods while stopping terrorists and smugglers. When Washington virtually sealed its borders after the attacks, trucks on the Canadian side backed up 22 miles. Companies that relied on "just-in-time" inventory systems began to close their plants. The new strategy -- exemplified by the "smart" border agreements already in the works before September 11 -- is to concentrate inspections on high-risk traffic while using better technology to expedite the transit of low-risk goods and people. This approach, however, is too narrow to solve so fundamental a problem. Now, the establishment of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has unintentionally threatened integration as well. ¶ Overcoming the tension between security and trade requires a bolder approach to continental integration: a North American customs union with a common external tariff (CET), which would significantly reduce border inspections and eliminate cumbersome rules-of-origin provisions designed to deny non-NAFTA products the same easy access. All three governments must also rethink the continental perimeter. Along with the CET, they should establish a "North American Customs and Immigration Force," composed of officials trained together in a single professional school, and they should fashion procedures to streamline border-crossing documentation. Most important, the Department of Homeland Security should expand its mission to include continental security -- a shift best achieved by incorporating Mexican and Canadian perspectives and personnel into its design and operation. ¶ Security obstacles, however, are only the beginning of North America's transportation problems. As a May 2000 report by a member of Canada's Parliament concluded, "Crossing the border has actually gotten more difficult over the past five years. ... While continental trade has skyrocketed, the physical infrastructure enabling the movement of these goods has not." The bureaucratic barriers to cross-border business, meanwhile, make the infrastructural problems seem "minor in comparison." Washington has been criticized for imposing its own safety standards on Mexican trucks, but the truth is even more embarrassing: there are 64 different sets of safety regulations in North America, 51 of which are in the United States. A NAFTA subcommittee struggled to define a uniform standard and concluded that "there is no prospect" of doing so. ¶ The NAC should develop an integrated continental plan for transportation and infrastructure that includes new North American highways and high-speed rail corridors. The United States and Canada should each develop national standards on weight, safety, and configuration of trucking and then negotiate with Mexico to establish a single set of standards. ¶ In addition, the United States and Canada should begin to merge immigration and refugee policies. It will be impossible to include Mexico in this process until the development gap is narrowed. In the meantime, the three governments should work to develop a North American passport, available to a larger group of citizens with each successive year. ¶ Finally, North American governments can learn from the EU's efforts to establish EU Educational and Research Centers in the United States. Centers for North American Studies in the United States, Canada, and Mexico would help people in all three countries to understand the problems and the potential of an integrated North America -- and to think of themselves as North Americans. Until a new consciousness of North America's promise takes root, many of these proposals will remain beyond the reach of policymakers. ¶ OLD ARGUMENTS, NEW VISIONS ¶ Opponents of integration often attack such proposals as threats to national sovereignty. Sovereignty, however, is not a fixed concept. In the past, Canada used sovereignty to keep out U.S. oil companies, Mexico relied on it to bar international election monitors, and the United States invoked it as an excuse to privilege "states' rights" over human rights. In each case, sovereignty was used to defend bad policies. Countries benefited when they changed these policies, and evidence suggests that North Americans are ready for a new relationship that renders this old definition of sovereignty obsolete. ¶ Studies over the past 20 years have shown a convergence of values, on personal and family issues as well as on public policy. Citizens of each nation tend to have very positive views of their neighbors, and there is modest net support for NAFTA. (There is also a neat consensus: each nation agrees that the other signatories have benefited more than it has.) Fifty-eight percent of Canadians and 69 percent of Americans feel a "strong" attachment to North America, and, more surprisingly, 34 percent of Mexicans consider themselves "North American," even though that term in Spanish refers specifically to U.S. nationals. Some surveys even indicate that a majority of the public would be prepared to join a North American nation if they believed it would improve their standard of living without threatening their culture. An October 2003 poll taken in all three countries by Ekos, a Canadian firm, found that a clear majority believes that a North American economic union will be established in the next ten years. The same survey found an overwhelming majority in favor of more integrated North American policies on the environment, transportation, and defense and a more modest majority in favor of common energy and banking policies. And 75 percent of people in the United States and Canada, and two-thirds of Mexicans, support the development of a North American security perimeter. ¶ The U.S., Mexican, and Canadian governments remain zealous defenders of an outdated conception of sovereignty even though their citizens are ready for a new approach. Each nation's leadership has stressed differences rather than common interests. North America needs leaders who can articulate and pursue a broader vision. ¶ North America's second decade poses a distinct challenge for each government. First, the new Canadian prime minister, Paul Martin, should take the lead in replacing the dual bilateralism of the past with rule-based North American institutions. If he leads, Mexico will support him, and the United States will soon follow. Mexico, for its part, should demonstrate how it would use a North

American Investment Fund to double its growth rate and begin closing the development gap. Finally, the United States should redefine its leadership in the twenty-first century to inspire support rather than resentment and fear. If Washington can adjust its interests to align with those of its neighbors, the world will look to the United States in a new way. These

three challenges constitute an agenda of great consequence for North America in its second decade. Success will not only energize the continent; it will provide a model for other regions around the world.

US lead role key – the plan changes relational psychology Pastor, 02 [Robert Pastor is Goodrich C. White Professor of International Relations, “Become a resident of North America”http://www.emory.edu/EMORY_REPORT/erarchive/2002/February/erFeb.4/2_4_02firstperson.html] Illegal immigration will not be reduced until the income gap between Mexico and its northern neighbors is reduced. The European Union lifted its poorest countries—Spain, Portugal, Ireland and Greece—and we could learn from their experience. From 1986–99, per capita GDP of those countries rose from 65 percent to 78 percent of

the EU average, and emigration slowed markedly. The astonishing progress was due in part to free trade and foreign investment, but mostly to the transfer of aid that amounted to 2–4 percent of the recipient’s GDP. The most effective resulting projects were in infrastructure and education.¶ NAFTA is deliberately laissez faire, but the result is that most foreign investment has concentrated in the congested, polluted border area between the United States and Mexico, where it has served as a magnet attracting workers from the heart of Mexico. From there, many immigrate illegally to the United States. In other words, the absence of a strategy has meant that NAFTA has been encouraging illegal migration , not reducing it. ¶ Foreign companies would prefer to invest in the interior (where the workforce would be more stable), but the roads and infrastructure are inadequate. The World Bank estimates Mexico needs $20 billion a year for 10 years just for infrastructure.¶ The

three leaders should establish a North American Development Fund, whose priority would be to connect the border to central and southern Mexico. If roads were built, investors would come,

immigration would decline and income disparities would narrow. If Mexico’s growth rate leapt to twice that of its neighbors, the psychology of the people and their relationships would be

transformed. ¶ There is much more that a North American Commission could propose —a continental plan for

infrastructure and transportation, a plan for harmonizing regulatory policies, a customs union, a common currency. But the boldest accomplishment would be a Development Fund. The three leaders should not create a

new bureaucracy; the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank could administer it. But it will need an injection of

funding comparable to the Alliance for Progress.¶ The three North American governments could contribute in proportion to their wealth,

but the United States needs to lead. Fox has focused on migration because he knows that Mexicans want respect from United

States, but the only solution to our relationship is narrowing the income disparities between our two countries. That should be the building block of a new community. Then, we all would begin to think of ourselves proudly as “North Americans.”

Instability collapses hegemonyHaddick 8 - a contractor at U.S. Special Operations Command who wrote the “This Week at War” column for Foreign Policy - (Robert, “Now that would change everything” December 2008, http://westhawk.blogspot.com/2008/12/now-that-would-change-everything.html)//WLThere is one dynamic in the literature of weak and failing states that has received relatively little attention, namely the phenomenon of “rapid collapse.” For the most part, weak and failing states represent chronic, long-term problems that allow for management over sustained periods. The collapse of a state usually comes as a surprise, has a rapid onset, and poses acute problems. The collapse of Yugoslavia into a chaotic tangle of warring nationalities in 1990 suggests how suddenly and catastrophically state collapse can happen - in this case, a state which had hosted the 1984 Winter Olympics at Sarajevo, and which then quickly became the epicenter of the ensuing civil war. In terms of worst-case scenarios for the Joint Force and indeed the world, two large and important states bear consideration for a rapid and sudden collapse: Pakistan and Mexico. Some forms of collapse in Pakistan would carry with it the likelihood of a sustained violent and bloody civil and sectarian war, an even bigger haven for violent extremists, and the question of what would happen to its nuclear weapons. That “perfect storm” of uncertainty alone might require the engagement of U.S. and coalition forces into a situation of immense complexity and danger with no guarantee they could gain control of the weapons and with the real possibility that a nuclear weapon might be used. The Mexican possibility may seem less

likely, but the government, its politicians, police, and judicial infrastructure are all under sustained assault and pressure by criminal gangs and drug cartels. How that internal conflict turns out over the next several years will have a

major impact on the stability of the Mexican state. Any descent by the Mexico into chaos would demand an American response based on the serious implications for homeland security alone. Yes, the “rapid

collapse” of Mexico would change everything with respect to the global security environment. Such a collapse would have enormous humanitarian, constitutional, economic, cultural, and security implications for the U.S. It would seem the U.S. federal government, indeed American society at large, would have little ability to focus serious attention on much else in the world. The hypothetical collapse of Pakistan is a scenario

that has already been well discussed. In the worst case, the U.S. would be able to isolate itself from most effects emanating from

south Asia. However, there would be no running from a Mexican collapse.

Hegemonic decline causes global warsHaas, 2/25/13 [Lawrence J. Haas is a senior fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council, Lawrence Haas | U.S. must maintain leadership role in world's dangerous areas, http://www.centredaily.com/2013/02/25/3515265/lawrence-haas-us-must-maintain.html] Surveying the Greater Middle East, where chaos reigns from Egypt to Syria and where chances of war

among any number of players are rising, you can hardly blame the typical American for wanting to wish it away. But the 43 percent of U.S. voters who think that America is "too involved" in the Middle East, according to a recent Rasmussen poll, or the 58 percent who think that we should "leave things alone" in the Islamic world have it backward. "Let me underscore the importance of the United States continuing to lead in the Middle East, North Africa and around the world ," a departing Secretary of State Hillary

Clinton put it aptly at recent congressional hearings. "When America is absent, especially from unstable environments,

there are consequences . Extremism takes root, our interests suffer and our security at home is threatened." Indeed, the tumult across the Greater Middle East of late, which has emboldened America's state and non-state adversaries and worried our allies, shows what happens when the United States reduces its voice and footprint. We want to believe that, as President Obama likes to say "the tide of war is receding" but, beyond America's shores, the world hasn't received the memo. Quite the contrary, as the United States seeks a respite from the region's messiness, our reduced role is a big reason why dangers are mounting. In Syria , for instance, our reticence to work with our European and regional allies to establish a no-fly zone that would throttle Syria's air force has left a predictable vacuum, with Syria's neighbors predictably unable to mount a collective effort to more effectively pressure Bashar al-Assad or aid the rebels. By enabling al-Assad to hang on, U.S. reticence has lengthened the bloodbath through which al-Assad has now slaughtered an estimated 60,000 of his own people while giving jihadists more time to enter the playing field and position themselves to shape a post-Assad Syria in ways that we'll regret. In Iran, the regime continues to make progress in its nuclear pursuit, with no signs that the economic and financial sanctions that are clearing impairing the nation's economy are deterring its leaders. Meanwhile, with America's withdrawals from nearby Iraq and Afghanistan sending clear signals about our long-term commitment to the region, a dangerous Tehran seeks regional supremacy while Saudi Arabia and our other allies in the Gulf Cooperation Council struggle for ways to counteract its expansionism. In Egypt, the United States showers the Muslim Brotherhood-led government with economic and military aid, presumably to buttress regional stability by strengthening the regime and preventing a national collapse. But, Washington sends a disturbing signal to secular reformers in the region by staying largely mute as Cairo violates civil liberties and threatens to build a religious autocracy to

replace its secular predecessor. At least twice before, the U nited St ates has seen the harmful consequences of

its retreat on the world stage. After Versailles , our isolationism of the 1920s and '30s nourished not only the global economic warfare that fueled the Great Depression but also the European and Asian militarism that produced World War II. After Vietnam, an uncertain United States turned inward again, leaving the Soviet Union to stoke Third World revolution in Ethiopia, Angola, and Rhodesia before invading Afghanistan in late 1979 . The Islamic Revolution topped a staunch U.S. ally in Iran, students stormed the U.S. embassy in Tehran and seize our personnel, and America assumed the embarrassing posture of a paper tiger. That's true today has been true for decades. The world looks to America for leadership. The more dangerous is the region, the higher are the stakes when we decide whether to assume or avoid the role.

Mexican econ decline shatters the world economy Rangel 95 - fellow at the Monterrey Bureau (Enrique Rangel, ““Pressure on the Peso; Mexico’s Economic Crisis carries global implications”, Dallas Morning News, 11/28, Lexis//JS

With the exception of 1982 - when Mexico defaulted on its foreign debt and a handful of giant New York banks worried they would lose billions of dollars in loans - few people abroad ever cared about a weak peso. But now it's different, experts say. This time, the world is keeping a close eye on Mexico's unfolding financial crisis for one simple reason: Mexico is a major international player. If its economy were to collapse, it would drag down a few other countries and thousands of foreign investors . If recovery is

prolonged, the world economy will feel the slowdown. "It took a peso devaluation so that other countries could notice the key role that Mexico plays in today's global economy," said economist Victor Lopez Villafane of the Monterrey Institute of Technology.

"I hate to say it, but if Mexico were to default on its debts, that would trigger an international financial collapse" not seen since the Great Depression, said Dr. Lopez, who has conducted comparative studies of the Mexican economy and the economies of some Asian and Latin American countries.

Nuclear warHarris and Burrows, 9 – *counselor in the National Intelligence Council, the principal drafter of Global Trends 2025, **member of the NIC’s Long Range Analysis Unit “Revisiting the Future: Geopolitical Effects of the Financial Crisis”, Washington Quarterly, http://www.twq.com/09april/docs/09apr_burrows.pdf)

Increased Potential for Global ConflictOf course, the report encompasses more than economics and indeed believes the future is likely to be the result of a number of intersecting and interlocking forces. With so many possible permutations of outcomes, each with ample opportunity for unintended consequences, there is a growing sense of insecurity. Even so,

history may be more instructive than ever. While we continue to believe that the Great Depression is not likely to be repeated, the lessons to be

drawn from that period include the harmful effects on fledgling democracies and multiethnic societies (think Central Europe in 1920s and 1930s) and on the sustainability of multilateral institutions (think League of Nations in the same period). There is no reason to think that this would not be true in the twenty-first as

much as in the twentieth century. For that reason, the ways in which the potential for greater conflict could grow would seem to be even more

apt in a constantly volatile economic environment as they would be if change would be steadier.In surveying those risks, the report stressed the likelihood that terrorism and nonproliferation will remain priorities even as resource issues move up on the international agenda. Terrorism’s appeal will decline if economic growth continues in the Middle East and youth unemployment is reduced. For those terrorist groups that remain active in 2025, however, the diffusion of technologies and scientific knowledge will place some of the world’s most dangerous capabilities within

their reach. Terrorist groups in 2025 will likely be a combination of descendants of long established groups inheriting organizational structures, command and control processes, and training procedures necessary to conduct sophisticated attacks and newly emergent collections of the angry and

disenfranchised that become self-radicalized, particularly in the absence of economic outlets that would become narrower in an economic downturn.

The most dangerous casualty of any economically-induced drawdown of U.S. military presence would almost certainly be the Middle East . Although Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons is not inevitable, worries about a nuclear- armed Iran could lead states in the region to develop new security arrangements with external powers, acquire additional weapons, and consider pursuing their own nuclear ambitions. It is not clear that the type of stable deterrent relationship that existed between the great powers for most of the Cold War would emerge naturally in the Middle East with a nuclear Iran. Episodes of low intensity conflict and terrorism taking place under a nuclear umbrella could lead to an unintended escalation and broader conflict if clear red lines between those states involved are not well established. The close proximity of potential nuclear rivals combined with underdeveloped surveillance capabilities and mobile dual-

capable Iranian missile systems also will produce inherent difficulties in achieving reliable indications and warning of an impending nuclear attack. The lack of strategic depth in neighboring states like Israel, short warning and missile flight times, and uncertainty of Iranian

intentions may place more focus on preemption rather than defense, potentially leading to escalating crises.

Types of conflict that the world continues to experience, such as over resources, could reemerge, particularly if protectionism grows and there is a resort to neo-mercantilist practices . Perceptions of renewed energy scarcity will drive countries to take actions to assure their future access to energy supplies. In the worst case, this could result in interstate conflicts if government leaders deem assured access to energy resources, for example, to be essential for maintaining domestic stability and the survival of their regime. Even actions short of war, however, will have important geopolitical

implications. Maritime security concerns are providing a rationale for naval buildups and modernization efforts, such as China’s and India’s development of blue water naval capabilities. If the fiscal stimulus focus for these countries indeed turns inward, one of the most obvious funding targets

may be military. Buildup of regional naval capabilities could lead to increased tensions, rivalries, and counterbalancing moves, but it also will create opportunities for multinational cooperation in protecting critical sea lanes. With water also becoming scarcer in Asia and the Middle East, cooperation to

manage changing water resources is likely to be increasingly difficult both within and between states in a more dog-eat-dog world.

Growth solves war—strong studiesRoyal 10 – Jedediah Royal, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction at the U.S. Department of Defense, 2010, “Economic Integration, Economic Signaling and the Problem of Economic Crises,” in Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal and Political Perspectives, ed. Goldsmith and Brauer, p. 213-214

Less intuitive is how periods of economic decline may increase the likelihood of external conflict. Political science literature has contributed a moderate degree of attention to the impact of economic decline and the security and defence behaviour of interdependent states. Research in this vein has been considered at systemic, dyadic and national levels. Several notable contributions follow. First, on the systemic level, Pollins (2008) advances

Modelski and Thompson's (1996) work on leadership cycle theory, finding that rhythms in the global economy are associated with the rise and fall of a pre-eminent power and the often bloody transition from one pre-eminent leader to the next. As such, exogenous shocks such as economic crises could usher in a redistribution of relative power (see also

Gilpin. 1981) that leads to uncertainty about power balances, increasing the risk of miscalc ulation (Feaver, 1995). Alternatively, even a relatively certain redistribution of power could lead to a permissive environment for conflict as a rising power may seek to challenge a declining power (Werner. 1999). Separately, Pollins (1996) also shows that global economic cycles combined with parallel leadership cycles impact the likelihood of conflict among major, medium and small powers, although he suggests that the causes and connections between global economic conditions and security conditions remain unknown. Second, on a dyadic level, Copeland's (1996, 2000) theory of trade

expectations suggests that 'future expectation of trade' is a significant variable in understanding economic conditions and security behaviour of states . He argues that interdependent states are likely to gain pacific benefits from trade so long as

they have an optimistic view of future trade relations. However, if the expectations of future trade decline , particularly for difficult to

replace items such as energy resources, the likelihood for conflict increases , as states will be inclined to use force to gain access to those resources . Crises could potentially be the trigger for decreased trade expectations either on its

own or because it triggers protectionist moves by interdependent states.4 Third, others have considered the link between economic decline and external armed conflict at a national level. Blomberg and Hess (2002) find a strong correlation between internal conflict and external conflict , particularly during periods of economic downturn . They write: The linkages between internal and external conflict and prosperity are strong and mutually reinforcing. Economic conflict tends to spawn internal conflict,

which in turn returns the favour. Moreover, the presence of a recession tends to amplify the extent to which international and external conflicts self -reinforce each other . (Blomberg & Hess, 2002. p. 89) Economic decline has also been linked with an increase in the likelihood of terrorism (Blomberg, Hess, & Weerapana, 2004), which has the capacity to spill across borders and

lead to external tensions. Furthermore, crises generally reduce the popularity of a sitting government. " Diversionary theory" suggests that, when facing unpopularity arising from economic decline, sitting governments have increased incentives to fabricate external military conflicts to create a 'rally around the flag' effect . Wang (1996), DeRouen (1995). and Blomberg, Hess, and Thacker (2006) find supporting evidence showing that economic decline and use of force are at least indirectly correlated.

Gelpi (1997), Miller (1999), and Kisangani and Pickering (2009) suggest that the tendency towards diversionary tactics are greater for democratic states than autocratic states, due to the fact that democratic leaders are generally more susceptible to being removed from office due to

lack of domestic support. DeRouen (2000) has provided evidence showing that periods of weak economic performance in the United States, and thus weak Presidential popularity, are statistically linked to an increase in the use of force. In summary, recent economic scholarship positively correlates economic integration with an increase in the frequency of economic crises, whereas

political science scholarship links economic decline with external conflict at systemic , dyadic and national levels.5 This implied connection between integration, crises and armed conflict has not featured prominently in the economic-security debate and deserves more attention.

Relations solve extinctionBaker, 7 – works with U.S. Northern Command J5/Theater Security Cooperation, retired Joint Specialty Officer, Defense Institute of Security Assistance Management graduate, and former Security Assistance Officer with the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait (Dr. Biff, “The United States and Mexico Enhanced Military Cooperation”, The DISAM Journal of International Security Cooperation Management, July 2007, http://www.disam.dsca.mil/pubs/Vol%2029_3/Baker_Biff.pdf)//KG

Diplomatic relationships between the United States and Mexico have waxed and waned since our close ties

during World War II. In 1941 and 1942, one could argue that survival of our nations and ways of life mandated

closer cooperation . More recently, some writers contended the following: . . . after September 11, 2001, Washington effectively lost interest in Latin America, and the United States relations with Latin America will not improve soon.30 However, in contrast to this generalization about Latin America as a whole, United States and Mexico cooperation has grown stronger during the past two years in part due to the historic meeting at Waco, Texas, on March 23, 2005, when the elected leaders of Canada, Mexico and the United States jointly announced a cooperative venture called the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP).31 During this trilateral meeting, all three North American leaders described the security and prosperity of our nations as mutually dependent and complementary and explained the impetus for this new initiative. They observed that over the past decade, our three nations have taken important steps to expand economic opportunity for our people and create the most vibrant and dynamic trade relationship in the world. In addition, as part of their efforts to protect North America from external threats, prevent and respond to threats within North America and streamline legitimate cross-border trade and travel, the three nations’ leaders committed to the following. • Implement common border-security strategies • Enhance infrastructure protection • Implement a common approach to emergency response • Implement improvements to aviation and maritime security • Enhance intelligence partnerships • Combat transnational threats • Implement a border-facilitation strategy They stated “in a rapidly changing world, we must develop new avenues of cooperation that will make our open societies safer and more secure, our businesses more competitive and our economies more resilient.”32 Although this is not a formal treaty or agreement, they contend that this new North American partnership would work to achieve these ends and “is committed to reach the highest results to advance the security and well-being of our people.”33 The SPP outlines the intent of our national leaders to protect our continent in the face of adversity, and therefore complements, the foci of the United States’ National Security Strategy (NSS), U.S. National Strategy for Homeland Security (NSHS), and the Secretary of Defense’s Security Cooperation Guidance (SCG). The NSS outlines primary goals of political and economic freedom, peaceful relations with other states and respect for human dignity. It also focuses on strengthening our alliances, working with others, and ensuring that enemies do not threaten the United States allies and friends. The NSHS complements the NSS by providing a comprehensive framework for organizing the efforts of federal, state, local and private organizations whose primary functions are often unrelated to national defense.34 Similarly the SCG outlines the Secretary of Defense’s priorities to help our friends or allies achieve their defense and security goals. In addition to the historic SPP, NSS, NSHS, and SCG, the recent publication of the United States National Drug Control Strategy (2007) acknowledges the significant contributions of President Felipe Calderon in fighting the war on drugs; applauding efforts which impact significantly on the drug situation in the United States.35 Progress in homeland security and counter drug activities is complemented by slow, but steady cooperation between USNORTHCOM, SEMAR and SEDENA. Military Instrument of Power Conventional conflicts will continue throughout the rest off the world and will continue to have little direct effect upon the North American continent. However, the asymmetric threat to Mexico and the United States has never been greater. Non-traditional, or non-conventional threats may include narcotics traffickers, terrorists, or natural threats such as a pandemic influenza, none of which respect our common national borders. The September 11, 2001 attacks changed

former perceptions of the threat, such that superior information and intelligence sharing have become essential to the viability of our shared economic infrastructure, as well as the safety and survival of our nations. Although stationing Mexican soldiers on American soil or American soldiers on Mexican soil might be unpalatable to citizens in

both nations, our nations have a common interest in defending our people from external threats. The

Louisiana offshore oil fields are as vulnerable to potential external threats as are the Campache oil fields. Therefore, cooperative

ventures must be expanded , which do not adversely impact upon sovereignty concerns. In addition, trust is the foundation of every relationship whether it is between two individuals or two nations.

And, they are effective at resolving global transnational challengesSelee and Wilson, 12 - Andrew Selee is Vice President for Programs and Senior Advisor to the Mexico Institute and Christopher Wilson is an associate with the Mexico Institute, (Andrew and Christopher, Wilson Center, November 2012, http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/a_new_agenda_with_mexico.pdf)//sawyerThe depth of economic ties with Mexico, together with declines in illegal immigration and organized crime violence in Mexico, Open up an opportunity for U.S. policymakers to deepen the economic relationship with Mexico and to engage Mexico more on major global issues. Security cooperation, especially strengthening institutions for rule of law and disrupting money laundering, will remain important to the relationship, and there are clear opportunities to reform the U.S. legal immigration system over the next few years, which would have important implications for the relationship with Mexico. The strongest engagement, going forward, is likely to be on the economic issues that

can help create jobs for people on both sides of the border, and on the shared global challenges that both countries face. Few countries will shape America’s future as much as Mexico. The two countries share a 2,000 mile border, and Mexico is the second largest destination for U.S. exports and third source of oil for the U.S. market. A quarter of all U.S. immigrants are from Mexico, and one in ten Americans are of Mexican descent. Joint security challenges, including both terrorist threats and the violent operations of drug cartels, have forced the two governments to work more closely than ever. What’s more, cooperation has now extended to a range of

other global issues, from climate change to economic stability. Nonetheless, the landscape of U.S.-Mexico relations is changing. and organized crime violence, which has driven much of the recent cooperation, is finally declining. Violence will remain a critical issue, but economic issues—bilateral and global—have risen to the fore as both countries struggle to emerge from the global slowdown. Trade has increased dramatically, connecting the manufacturing base of the two countries as never before, so that gains in one country benefit the other. To keep pace with these changes, U.S. policymakers will need to deepen the agenda with Mexico to give greater emphasis to economic issues, including ways to spur job creation, and they will have opportunities to strengthen cooperation on global issues. Security cooperation will remain critical, and determined but nuanced followthrough to dismantle the operations of criminal groups on both sides of the border will be needed to continue the drop in violence. With less illegal immigration, it will be easier to address legal migration in new ways. However, economic issues are likely to dominate the bilateral agenda for the first time in over a decade. Strengthening economic ties and creating Jobs In most trading relationships, the U.S. simply buys or sells finished goods to another country. However, with its neighbors, Mexico and Canada, the U.S. actually co-manufactures products. Indeed, roughly 40 percent of all content in Mexican exports to the United States originates in the United States. The comparable figures with China, Brazil, and India are four, three, and two percent respectively. Only Canada, at 25 percent, is similar. With the economies of North America deeply linked, growth in one country benefits the others, and lowering the transaction costs of goods crossing the common borders among these three countries helps put money in the pockets of both workers and consumers. Improving border ports of entry is critical to achieving this and will require moderate investments in infrastructure and staffing, as well as the use of new risk management techniques and the expansion of pre-inspection and trusted shipper programs to speed up border crossing times. Transportation costs could be further lowered — and competitiveness further strengthened — by pursuing an Open Skies agreement and making permanent the cross-border trucking pilot program. While these are generally seen as border issues, the benefits accrue to all U.S. states that depend on exports and joint manufacturing with Mexico, including Michigan, Ohio, Nebraska, Iowa, South Dakota, New Hampshire, and Georgia, to name just a few. Mexico also has both abundant oil reserves and one of the largest stocks of shale gas in the world. The country will probably pursue a major energy reform over the next couple years that could spur oil and gas production, which has been declining over the past decade. If that happens, it is certain to detonate a cycle of investment in the Mexican economy, could significantly contribute to North American energy security, and may open a space for North American discussions about deepened energy cooperation Reinforcing Security cooperation Organized crime groups based in Mexico supply most of the cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamines, and some of the marijuana, to U.S. consumers, who, in return, send six to nine billion dollars to Mexico each year that fuels the violence associated with this trade. The U.S. and Mexican governments have significantly improved intelligence sharing, which has helped weaken many of these criminal networks and disrupt some of their financial flows. At the same time, the congressionally funded Merida Initiative, which has provided $1.6 billion to Mexico for national and public security since 2008, has been successfully strengthening the Mexican government’s capacity and rule of law institutions. These efforts appear to be yielding some success as violence has dropped noticeably since mid-2011. Going forward, the two countries will need to do more to disrupt the southbound flows of illegal money and weapons that supply the criminal groups, strengthen communities under the stress of violence, and improve the performance of police, prosecutors, and courts in Mexico. In many ways, Mexico has been successful at turning a national security threat into a public security threat, but the country now requires significant investment to create an effective and accountable criminal justice system and to slow the flow of illegal funds from the U.S. that undermine these efforts. As Mexico’s security crisis begins to recede, the two countries will also have to do far more to strengthen the governments of Central America, which now face a rising tide of violence as organized crime groups move southward. Mexico is also a U.S. ally in deterring terrorist threats and promoting robust democracy in the Western Hemisphere, and there will be numerous opportunities to strengthen the already active collaboration as growing economic opportunities reshape the region’s political and social landscape managing Legal migration flows Since 2007, the number of Mexican migrants illegally entering the United States has dropped to historically low levels, with a net outflow of unauthorized immigrants from the U.S. over the past three years. The drop is partially because of the weak U.S. economy, but it also has to do with more effective U.S. border enforcement and better economic opportunities in Mexico. This shift offers the potential for both countries to explore new approaches to migration for the first time in a decade In the United States, policymakers have an opportunity to look specifically at how to reform the legal immigration system. Almost all sides agree that the current immigration system, originally developed in the 1960s, fails to address the realities of a twenty-first century economy. A renewed discussion on this issue could focus on how to restructure the U.S. visa system to bring in the kinds of workers and entrepreneurs the United States needs to compete globally in the future. This includes both high-skilled and lowerskilled workers, who fill important gaps in the U.S. economy. Policymakers should consider whether those already in the United States, who have set down roots and are contributing effectively to the economy and their communities, might also be able to apply through a restructured visa system. Mexican policymakers, on the other hand, have huge opportunities to consolidate Mexico’s burgeoning middle class in those communities where out-migration has been a feature of life so as to make sure that people no longer need to leave the country to get ahead. There are a number of ambitious efforts, including some led by Mexican migrants that can serve as models for this. Mexican policymakers could also facilitate U.S. reform efforts by indicating how they could help cooperate with a new U.S. visa system if the U.S. Congress moves forward on a legal immigration reform. Addressing Major Global Issues With Mexico Over the past few years, the U.S. and Mexican governments have expanded beyond the bilateral agenda to work closely together on global issues, from climate change to international trade and the economic crisis. The U.S. government should continue to take advantage of the opportunities this creates for joint problem-

solving . Mexico’s active participation in the G-20, which it hosted in 2012, and in the U.N. Framework on Climate Change, which it hosted in 2010, have helped spur this collaboration, and the recent accession of Mexico into the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations provides one obvious avenue to continue it. The two countries also coordinate more extensively than ever before on diplomatic issues, ranging from the breakdown of democratic order in Honduras to Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Mexico is likely to play an increasingly active role on global economic and environmental issues, areas where the country has significant experience, and through cooperative efforts the U.S. can take advantage of Mexico’s role as a bridge between the developed and developing worlds, and between North America and Latin America. The bilateral agenda will remain critically important — and the increasingly deep integration of the two economies and societies means that efforts on trade, security, and migration will remain vital for the future of both countries. In addition, the maturation of the bilateral relationship means that it may one day resemble that between the United States and Canada, in which global issues can be as important as the strictly bilateral issues. A balanced and wide-ranging U.S.-Mexico agenda—one that seeks creative and collaborative approaches on topics ranging from local gangs to global terrorist networks and from regional supply chains to international finance—promises significant mutually beneficial results in the coming years. Key Recommendations Work together with Mexico and Canada to strengthen regional competitiveness and to grow North American exports to the world. Economic issues can drive the next phase in deepening U.S.-Mexico cooperation. Investments in trusted shipper programs, pre-inspection programs, and enhanced border infrastructure will be crucial. Deepen support for Mexico’s criminal justice institutions, and strengthen U.S. antimoney laundering efforts in order to combat organized crime and violence. Reform the legal immigration system to ensure U.S. labor needs are met for both high-skilled and low-skilled workers, and incorporate those who are already contributing to the U.S. economy and their communities. Engage Mexico more actively on hemispheric and extra-hemispheric foreign policy issues, ranging from terrorism to international trade and finance, as Mexico’s role as a global power grows.

Immigration Advantage

Advantage dos es Inmigración

Illegal immigration skyrocketing now Pavlich, 13 [4/1/13, Exclusive: Illegal Border Crossings Double, Border Becomes Less Secure as Beltway Gets Close to Deal on Immigration Reform, http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/04/01/exclusive-illegal-border-crossings-double-as-beltway-gets-close-to-deal-on-immigration-reform-n1554148] As the immigration reform Gang of Eight inside the Beltway prepares to announce a deal later this week, claiming border security will come

before a path to citizenship for millions of illegals, Border Patrol agents have seen illegal border crossings

double and warn the cutting of agent work hours will only result in less border security, not more.¶

"We've seen the number of illegal aliens double, maybe even triple since amnesty talk started happening," an agent told Townhall, who asked to remain unnamed due to fears of retaliation within Customs and Border Protection [CBP], something he said is

common. "A lot of these people, although not the majority, are criminals or aggravated felons. This is a direct danger to our

communities."¶ Data obtained by Townhall and reported within CBP from February 5 through March 1, 2013 shows 504 illegal aliens were spotted exploiting the Tucson/Nogales area, 189 were caught on CBP intelligence cameras. Of those 504, only 174 were apprehended and 32 of the 189 on camera were carrying large drug load packs for Mexican cartels. Some were armed with AK-47 style weapons.¶ Below are selected photos obtained by Townhall from CBP intelligence cameras in Southern Arizona near the border with Mexico. Sensitive information has been redacted in order to protect the security and identity of the camera locations.¶ Last week, Fox News reported sections of the border will soon become unpatrolled as hours for on-the-ground agents are cut. Townhall has learned Border Patrol agents working the border have been fully funded, yet internal political battles within CBP may be causing funds to be funneled to managers, rather than those getting their boots dirty on patrols.¶ "Customs and Border Protection has been given enough money to fully staff the border but has chosen to use the money elsewhere, we believe it is to fund the salaries of Supervisory CBP Officers. The money they are diverting was to go to AUO (Administratively Uncontrollable Overtime) which is actually straight pay and is used to pay Border Patrol Agents for anything past eight hours. Being that we have to maintain staffing 24/7 this is a huge part of border security. The criminals and drugs don't stop coming so we have to make sure we have people out there. Cutting AUO will be a 30% pay cut for our agents but more importantly a minimum 20% loss of staffing out in the field," Vice President of the National Border Patrol Council Shawn Moran tells Townhall. "It is internal politics within CBP and also with immigration reform. There are still battles between legacy Customs, INS, and Border Patrol managers as to the direction CBP takes and how the funds are being used. Meanwhile both parties claim no immigration reform until the border is secured, well this surely will not secure the border."¶ RELATED: FACEBOOK COMMUNITY SAYS SECURE OUR BORDER FIRST¶ As sequestration goes into full effect April 7 and a deal in Washington on immigration reform gets locked in, illegal crossings are expected to get worse. ¶ "We have seen increased crossings and smuggling since word of staffing cuts began circulating. The illegals have even told us that is why they

tried crossing. The border is safer but by no means secure," Moran says.¶ Another agent expressed the same sentiment, saying when apprehended, some illegal aliens ask where they can go to find amnesty.¶ Despite border security being put further at risk through bad policy, the push for immigration reform well before full border security is ongoing. The AFL-CIO reached a deal with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on a guest worker program late last Friday. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham said the Gang of Eight has reached a deal on immigration reform on CNN's State of the Union over the weekend, but Republican Senator Marco Rubio has said reports of a deal are pre-mature.

Domestic reform doesn’t solve – increasing investment in Mexico key WaPo, 05 [Washington Post, Sanchez, Immigration Reform, Hopefully the New Foreign Aid, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44793-2005Mar17.html?nav=rss_world/columns/sanchezmarcela]WASHINGTON -- Perhaps the only point of agreement in the contentious debate about immigration in the United States is that the system is

broken. The increase in illegal immigrants crossing the U.S.-Mexican border -- as well as the growing number dying

in the attempt -- is the clearest indication that what is supposed to curb the influx does not work. ¶ A decade of border initiatives that failed to slow the flow should serve as evidence that law enforcement alone can never solve the problem. What's more, border deaths should remind us that any system in which people are willing to risk their lives to circumvent is doomed to fail. Next week, President Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin are scheduled to hold a mini-summit in Texas in which immigration will be on the agenda. In preparation for the gathering, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice traveled to Mexico last

week to foreshadow Bush's message: Washington is committed to an immigration system that is "humane,'' that "respects America's laws'' and that "recognizes the economic realities between Mexico and the United States.'' ¶ The Bush administration should be lauded for setting a goal to transform the reality of immigration. Indeed, it is when policy-makers grapple with the humanity of the situation that the search for solutions becomes comprehensive enough. ¶ The question to be begged, however, is whether the reforms being contemplated would do enough to directly address the desperation that drives hundreds of thousands every year to risk crossing an ever more fortified border. ¶ Bush favors a guest worker program that, as he explains it, would seek to match a willing foreign worker with a willing U.S. employer. To a degree, concern for the worker is part of the proposal. The program would give temporary legal passage to immigrants who have fulfilled the needs of U.S. employers. However, past experience with such a guest worker program was at best mixed. And religious leaders and other immigrant rights advocates fear the number of workers who would benefit under the Bush proposal would be so limited that illegal immigration would remain virtually intact. ¶ Currently, Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., are crafting legislation that would follow the guidelines of Bush's proposal. Meanwhile, Republican leaders in the House favor more enforcement and punitive measures rather than far-reaching reform. Their initiative, which passed the House in February, would restrict immigrant driver's licenses, and make it more difficult to obtain political

asylum. ¶ Neither Bush's nor the competing legislative proposals come close to the comprehensive nature

of creating a N orth A merican I nvestment Fund in which money from Canada and the United States would help Mexico

reverse its growing development gap with its northern neighbors. The idea for the f und was presented this week by the Council on Foreign Relations. The proposalis not new and skeptics doubt whether Bush's team will consider a proposal of such nature when the president meets with Fox and Martin.

The mechanism of the plan provides the ONLY long term solution to illegal immigration – comprehensive development attacks the root of immigration decisions Pastor, 10 [professor of international relations and co-director of the Center for North American Studies and the Center for Democracy and Election Management at American University in Washington, DC. He has written or edited 16 books and many articles about international relations, including “A Century’s Journey: How the Great Powers Shape the World” (Basic Books, 1999) and “Exiting the Whirlpool: U.S. Foreign Policy Toward Latin America and the Caribbean” (Westview, 2001). Dr. Pastor is now completing a new book called “The North American Idea,” which offers a vision and a blueprint for a new relationship between the United States, Mexico, and Canada, http://blog.nafsa.org/2010/05/06/solving-income-gap-is-missing-link-to-immigration-reform/] In a May 1 op-ed in the Washington Post, Bruce Morrison and Paul Donnelly make a compelling case for the need for a better system than E-verify to ensure that only legal workers secure jobs in the United States. Morrison, a former member of Congress from Connecticut who chaired the House Subcommittee on Immigration from 1989 to 1991 and served on the U.S. Commission on

Immigration Reform, and Donnelly, who served as communications director for the commission, are indeed no strangers to the complexities of the issue. While Morrison and Donnelly say that developing a secure, biometric system of national identification is a critical but difficult step to reduce illegal migration, they fail to mention that the only long-term solution to the problem is to narrow the income gap between Mexico and its

northern neighbors, because undocumented migrants do not come seeking jobs in the United States. In fact, 93% of them have jobs before they leave their home countries — they come to the United States seeking higher wages. When Congress passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, its sponsors knew that its fatal flaw was an inadequate identification system, and they were right. The number of undocumented migrants soared from a few million to 11 million today, and the demand for counterfeit social security cards grew at an even faster rate. Some propose that we enhance the social security card, but that would be as mistaken as using drivers’ licenses. Both cards serve vital and different purposes. We want everyone on our roads to have a driver’s license, whether they are here legally or illegally, but if we deny driver’s licenses to undocumented workers, we only make our roads less safe. Similarly, we want our hard-pressed social security system to provide checks to the elderly, and we don’t want to use it to separate people who seek jobs legally from those who don’t. We need, in short, a national biometric ID system in order to deal with

undocumented migration, national security threats, electoral integrity, and to combat identify fraud. But there is simply no way to halt the

illegal flow of immigrants from Mexico to the United States until Washington joins with Ottawa and Mexico City to construct a North American Investment Fund to build infrastructure in the south of Mexico and connect it to its northern neighbors. This is not only the missing link of comprehensive

immigration reform; it is also the missing link of the North American Free Trade Agreement ( NAFTA ). Only with a

comprehensive development strategy in North America will we ever see Mexico join the first world and North America become a formidable competitor to China and Europe.

The impact is extinction – every existential impact imaginable Grant and Bouvier 94 - *retired National Security Council staff member and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Environment and Population AND **Adjunct Professor of Demography at Tulane University and Senior Fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies. He served as demographic consultant to the U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on Population and the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy (*Lindsey, **Leon, “Perspectives on Immigration: The Issue is Overpopulation,” The Los Angeles Times, August 1994, http://www.npg.org/footnote/perspective.htm)//ACGiven recent budgetary problems, it may be difficult to convince Californians that the drain on public services is not the principal issue in determining how much immigration we can afford. In the long run, however, the impact on population growth will be the most lasting legacy of our current immigration policies.¶ Largely as a result of immigration, the United States now has the fastest-growing population in the developed world, while immigration-driven population growth in California rivals that of some Third World countries. Population growth comes at great cost that cannot always be measured in dollars and cents.¶ First, we must realize that the human race is a part of the natural ecosystem of the Earth, not a privileged super-species that can transcend the laws of nature. The United States, because of its size and consumption habits, is most destabilizing entity within Earth's fragile ecosystem. Population growth here has a far more profound impact on that ecosystem than growth elsewhere.¶ The disturbances caused by human activities have accelerated dramatically in the past half a century. Driven by population growth and the technological explosion, these disturbances threaten not only the perpetuation of a way of life we have come to take for granted, but even the continuation of life systems as we understand them .¶ The good news is

that the means for controlling and reversing these terrible forces are within our power. What we require, as a society, is the wisdom and understanding to employ them.¶ The United States grew from a nation of 76 million in 1900 to 249 million in 1990 (and to an estimated 260 million in 1994). Forty-three percent of that growth consisted of post-1900 immigrants and their descendants. Present immigration and fertility patterns place us on the path to a population of 397 million by 2050 and 492 million in 2100. More than 90% of that growth will be a direct result of post-2000 immigration.¶ In other words, our immigration policies place us in a league with the ruinous population growth patterns of countries like India and Bangladesh. Moreover, our growth is far more destructive because of our style of living. Continued high levels of consumption combined with the Third World-like population growth is a prescription for disaster.¶ We find the idea of another doubling of U.S. population thoroughly frightening. Consider the impact on many of the nation's current problems; urban decay and unemployment; energy dependence,

nuclear waste and sewage disposal; loss of biodiversity and resistance of agricultural pests and

diseases to pesticides and medicines; acid rain, climate change, depletion of water resources, topsoil

erosion, loss of agricultural lands and destruction of forests, wetlands and fisheries , to name just some.¶ Nevertheless, there is the possibility of light at the end of the tunnel. We could bring population growth to a halt in the next century

and even turn it around. First, fertility would have to fall gradually from current levels of 2 children per woman to and average of 1.5.

But even that would not be enouwgh to achieve population stablization in the United States. Without substantial reductions in immigration, to perhaps 200,000 annually, our population still would reach 337 million by 2050.¶ A return of immigration to the levels that prevailed through the middle of this century will not happen by itself. We must persuade our national leaders that, while the problems of Haitian boat people and other would-be immigrants are heart-rending and real, they cannot be solved by sacrificing our own future. The United States has an obligation to its own people and descendants, one that cannot be served by allowing the population to swell to half a billion .¶ A commitment to our own future does not mean ignoring the problems of the rest of the world. Many developing countries are caught in a population explosion, and the United States should make family-planning assistance the first priority in foreign aid. No amount of aid will have much significance unless population growth is curbed as well.¶ Our primary obligation is to our own future and our primary responsibility is to control our own consumption and population growth. Our national policy goal should be to avoid adding to the annual load of pollution and environmental damage, and then to reduce it. That can happen only if we lower our fertility rate and our immigration level.

High levels of immigration fuel population growth which spurs urban sprawl, destroys biodiversity, and accelerates warmingCafaro and Staples, 9 – * associate professor of philosophy at Colorado State University, AND ** wildlife biologist with a master’s thesis in environmental philosophy (Philip and Winthrop, “The Environmental Argument for Reducing Immigration to the United States,” Center for Immigration Studies, June 2009, http://www.cis.org/EnvironmentalArgument) // MS

The environmental argument for reducing immigration to the United States is relatively straightforward and is based on the following five

premises:¶ Immigration levels are at a historic high and immigration is now the main driver of U.S. population growth.¶ Population growth contributes significantly to a host of environmental problems within our borders.¶ A growing population increases America’s large environmental footprint beyond our borders and our disproportionate role in stressing global environmental systems. ¶ In order to seriously address environmental problems at home and become good global environmental citizens, we must stop U.S. population growth . ¶ We are morally obligated to address our environmental problems and become good global environmental citizens.¶ Therefore, we should limit immigration to the United States to the extent

needed to stop U.S. population growth.¶ This conclusion rests on a straightforward commitment to mainstream

environmentalism, easily confirmed empirical premises , and logic . Despite this, it is not the consensus position among

American environmentalists.¶ Some environmentalists support continued high levels of immigration, while most are uncomfortable with the topic and avoid discussing it. So strong is this aversion that groups such as the Sierra Club, which during the 1970s prominently featured strong commitments to U.S. population stabilization, have dropped domestic population growth as an issue.1 Several years ago, the group Zero Population Growth went so far as to change its name to Population Connection (“PC” for short).¶ In 2006, the United States passed the 300 million mark in population — that’s 95 million more people than were here for the first Earth Day in 1970 — with little comment from environmentalists. In 2007, as Congress debated the first major overhaul of immigration policy in nearly 20 years, leaders from the principal environmental organizations remained silent about proposals that could have added hundreds of millions more Americans during the 21st century.¶ Like immigration policy for the past 50 years, immigration policy for the next 50 looks likely to be set with no regard for its environmental consequences. We believe this is a bad thing. As committed environmentalists, we would like to see our government set immigration policy (and all government policy) within the context of a commitment to sustainability. We don’t believe that the goals we share with our fellow environmentalists and with a large majority of our fellow citizens — clean air and clean water; livable, uncrowded cities; sharing the land with the full complement of its native flora and fauna — are compatible with continued population growth. It is time to rein in this growth — or forthrightly renounce the hope of living sustainably here in the United States.¶ Defending the

Argument¶ Our claim, then, is that “the environmental argument” is sound and that America should scale back immigration.

Some readers will disagree. So let’s look at the argument in more detail.¶ Immigration levels are at a historic high and immigration is now the main driver of U.S. population growth. Consider some demographic history. Between 1900 and 2000, the U.S. population almost quadrupled, from 76 million to 281 million people . The largest decadal population increase was also the most recent: a 32.7 million increase between 1990 and 2000.2 This population growth resulted from a mixture of natural increase and immigration, which, as Figure 1 shows, has varied widely over the past century.¶ From 1880 to the mid-1920s, America experienced an immigration boom, “the Great Wave,” during which immigration averaged 600,000 annually. U.S. population numbers grew rapidly in these years, due to a combination of high birth rates and high levels of immigration. For the next 40 years, from 1925 to 1965, the United States had a relatively restrictive immigration policy, which allowed 200,000 people into the country annually, on average. The U.S. population grew substantially during this time, too, from 115 million to 194 million, primarily due to high rates of natural increase. During the 1950s, for example, American women had an average of 3.5 children each, far above the 2.1 total fertility rate (TFR) necessary to maintain the population of a nation with modern health care and sanitation.¶ By the 1970s, American women were averaging fewer babies — in 1975 the TFR stood at a lowest-ever 1.7 — and the United States was well-positioned to transition from a growing to a stable population. One study found that without post-1970 immigration, the U.S. population would have leveled off below 250 million in the first few decades of this century.3 It didn’t happen, however, because in 1965 and several times thereafter, Congress greatly increased immigration levels. Between 1965 and 1990, immigration averaged one million people annually — five times the average in the previous four decades. Since 1990, immigration has increased even more, to approximately 1.5 million annually (one million legal and half a million illegal) — the highest rate in history.¶ For these reasons, the United States population has continued to grow, resulting in a missed opportunity to get one key aspect of sustainability — human numbers — under control. Currently our population stands at over 306 million people, and it continues to grow rapidly.¶ Such is our demographic past; what of our demographic future? The Grand Council of the Iroquois famously looked “seven generations” out concerning the impacts of their decisions. Looking four generations into the future, in 2000 the U.S. Census Bureau released the population projections in Table 1.¶ Each of the three projections or “series” holds fertility rates

steady, while varying immigration levels, so annual immigration rates make the main difference between them. Under the zero immigration projection, the U.S. population continues to grow throughout the 21st century, adding over 100 million people by 2100. Under the middle projection, with immigration a little less than one million annually, we instead add nearly 300 million people and almost double our population by 2100. And under the highest scenario, with over two million immigrants annually, our population nearly triples by 2100, adding almost 600 million more people by the end of the century. Obviously, according to the Census Bureau, immigration makes a huge difference to future U.S. population numbers.4 So our first premise is true.¶ Population growth contributes significantly to a host of environmental problems within our borders. For example in the past two decades sprawl, defined as new development on the fringes

of existing urban and suburban areas, has come to be recognized as an important environmental problem in the United States. Between 1982 and 2001, the U nited States converted 34 million acres of forest, cropland, and pasture to developed uses , an area the size of Illinois . The average annual rate of land conversion increased from 1.4 million acres to 2.2 million acres over this time, and continues on an upward trend.5 Sprawl is an environmental problem for lots of reasons, including increased energy consumption, water consumption, air pollution, and habitat loss for wildlife. Habitat loss is by far the number one cause of species endangerment in the United States;6 unsurprisingly, some of the worst sprawl centers (such as

southern Florida and the Los Angeles basin) also contain large numbers of endangered species . ¶ What causes sprawl? Transportation policies that favor building roads over mass transit appear to be important sprawl generators. So are zoning laws that encourage “leapfrog” developments far out into the country, and tax policies that allow builders to pass many of the costs of new development on to current taxpayers rather than new home buyers. Between 1970 and 1990, these and other factors caused Americans’ per capita land use in the hundred largest metropolitan areas to increase 22.6 percent. In these same areas during this same period, however, the amount of developed land increased 51.5 percent.7¶ What accounts for this discrepancy? The number one cause of sprawl, by far: population growth . New houses, new shopping centers, and new roads are being built for new residents. As Figure 2 illustrates, in recent decades, cities and states with the highest population growth rates have also shown the most sprawl.¶ The most comprehensive study to date on the causes of sprawl in the United States analyzed several dozen possible factors. Grouping together all those factors that can increase per capita land use and comparing these with the single factor of more “capitas,” it found that in America between 1982 and 1997, 52 percent of sprawl was attributable to population increase, while 48 percent was attributable to misguided policies that increased land use per person.8¶ Some “smart growth” advocates resist the conclusion that population growth is an important sprawl factor, partly because they don’t want to obscure the need for good planning and land use policies. They point out that several metropolitan areas that lost population in recent decades exhibited significant sprawl, including St. Louis, Detroit, and Pittsburgh. Of America’s 100 largest metropolitan areas, 11 lost population between 1970 and 1990, yet they sprawled an average of 26 percent (see figure 2a). This shows that poor land use planning and bad transportation, zoning, and tax policies are indeed important in generating sprawl.¶ On the other hand, cities with growing populations sprawled even more. Several states that managed to decrease their per capita land use during this period also sprawled, due to high rates of population growth. From 1982 to 1995, Nevada decreased its per capita land use 26 percent while sprawling 37 percent, due to a whopping 90 percent population increase. Arizona decreased per capita land use 13 percent while its population increased 58 percent, generating 40 percent sprawl.9 This shows that population growth also causes sprawl.¶ The bottom line is that if we want to stop sprawl we must change the transportation, tax, zoning, and population policies that encourage it. We will not stop sprawl if we simply accept as inevitable that factor — population increase — which the best research shows accounts for over half of the problem. Nor will we solve our other major domestic environmental problems. That is because our second premise also is true.¶ A growing population increases America’s large environmental footprint beyond our borders and our disproportionate role in

stressing global environmental systems. Consider global warming . Nothing mortifies American environmentalists more than our

country’s failure to show leadership in dealing with this, the most important environmental challenge facing the world in the 21st century. As the world’s largest economy and historically largest greenhouse gas emitter, the U nited States has a moral obligation to lead the world in meeting this challenge. A good start would be striving to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions at 1990 levels (the Kyoto protocol, rejected by the United States, calls for an initial reduction of 5 percent below 1990 levels). Meeting even this modest objective will prove difficult, however, if our population continues to grow.¶ Look at the numbers. The United States’ CO2 emissions increased 20.4 percent between 1990 and 2005, from 4,991 to 6,009 million metric tons.10 That means we would have to decrease our emissions by 20.4 percent per person to

get back to 1990 levels, at our current population. But if we double our population, as we are on track to do in six or seven

decades, we will have to decrease per capita emissions 58.5 percent in order to reduce CO2 emissions to 1990 levels — almost three times as great a per capita reduction. Such reductions will be much more expensive and demand greater sacrifice from Americans. They are thus less likely to happen.

ExtinctionCairns 2004 (John, Distinguished Emeritus University Prof. Env. Biology @ Virginia Tech, “Future of Life on Earth,” Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, http://www.int-res.com/esepbooks/EB2Pt2.pdf)

One lesson from the five great global extinctions is that species and ecosystems come and go, but the evolutionary process continues. In short, life forms have a future on Earth, but humankind’s future depends on its stewardship of ecosystems that favor Homo sapiens. By practicing sustain- ability ethics, humankind can protect and preserve ecosystems that have services favorable to it. Earth has reached its present state through an estimated 4550 million years and may last

for 15000 million more years. The sixth mass extinction, now underway, is unique because humankind is a major contributor to the process. Excessive damage to the ecological life support system will markedly alter

civilization, as it is presently known, and might even result in human extinction . However, if humankind learns to live sustainably, the likelihood of leaving a habitable planet for posterity will dramatically increase . The 21st century represents a defining moment for humankind—will present generations become good ancestors for their descendants by living sustainably or will they leave a less habitable planet for posterity by continuing to live unsustainably?

Illegal immigration destroys US educationFAIR, 5 – national, nonprofit, public-interest, membership organization of concerned citizens who share a common belief that our nation's immigration policies must be reformed to serve the national interest (Federation for American Immigration Reform, “Breaking the Piggy Bank: How Illegal Immigration is Sending Schools Into the Red,” 2005, http://www.fairus.org/publications/breaking-the-piggy-bank-how-illegal-immigration-is-sending-schools-into-the-red-updated-2005) // MS

With states straining under gaping budget shortfalls , public schools throughout the country are facing some of the most significant decreases in state education funding in decades . In some states, drastic cuts mean lay-offs for teachers, larger class sizes, fewer textbooks, and eliminating sports, language programs, and after-school activities. Nearly two-thirds of the states have cut back or proposed reductions in support for childcare and early childhood programs. Some are even shortening the school week from five days to four.While these massive budget deficits cannot be attributed to any single source, the enormous impact of large-scale illegal immigration cannot be ignored. The total K-12 school expenditure for illegal immigrants costs the states nearly $12 billion annually , and when the children born here to illegal aliens are added, the costs more than double to $28.6 billion.1This enormous expenditure of the taxpayers’ hard-earned contributions does not, however, represent the total costs. Special programs for non-English speakers are an additional fiscal burden as well as a hindrance to the overall learning environment. A recent study found that dual language programs represent an additional expense of $290 to $879 per pupil depending on the size of the class.2 In addition, because these children of illegal aliens come from families that are most often living in poverty, there is also a major expenditure for them on supplemental feeding programs in the schools. Those ancillary expenditures have not been included in the calculations in this report.The data presented here provide yet one more illustration of the costs of turning a blind eye to illegal immigration and should provide further impetus for states to demand that the federal government finally take effective and decisive action to restore integrity to our nation's immigration laws.3Providing K12 Education to Illegal Immigrants: Costs to StatesThe 1.5 million school-aged illegal immigrants residing in the United States4 and their 2 million U.S.-born siblings can be divided among the states using government estimates of the illegal alien population.5 Using each state’s per-pupil expenditure reported by the U.S. Department of Education,6 cost estimates for educating illegal immigrants in each state are shown below. The calculation of the number of children of illegal aliens in the K-12 public school system indicates that more than 15 percent of California’s students are children of illegal aliens, as are more than ten percent of the students in Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Nevada, and Texas. More than five percent of the students

are the children of illegal aliens in Florida, Georgia, Kansas, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, and Washington.Defenders of illegal aliens assert that the cost of educating illegal alien students is offset by the taxes paid by their parents, but study after study shows that immigrants cost taxpayers much more in public services used than they pay in to the system via taxes .7 This is particularly true of illegal immigrants, who are disproportionately low-skilled and thus low-earning and are much more likely to be working in the underground economy or providing contractual services and not withholding taxes.A look at the top ten highest state expenditures provides a stark illustration of the trade-offs for accommodating large-scale illegal immigration:8In California, the $7.7 billion spent annually educating the children of illegal immigrants —nearly 13% of the overall 2004-5 education budget— could: Cover the education budget shortfall for the 2004-05 school year , estimated by the Legislative Analyst Office at $6 billion and nearly cover the $2 billion reduction this year from the Proposition 98 formula.Or, the remaining $1.7 billion could pay the salaries of about 31,000 teachers and reduce per student ratios, or it could furnish 2.8 million new computers —enough computers for about half of the state’s students.Prevent educational shortfalls estimated at $9.8 billion over the past four years that have impacted on “…class size, teacher layoffs, shorter library hours and fewer counselors, nurses, custodians and groundskeepers.” (See Los Angeles Times, March 11, 2005)In Texas, the $3.9 billion spent annually educating the children of illegal immigrants could:Cover more than the $2.3 billion shortfall identified by the Texas Federation for Teachers for such things as textbooks and pension contributions.Make Texas’ salaries for teachers more competitive by national standards, thereby reducing costly attrition, and recruit the 5,000 new teachers needed each year.In New York, the $3.1 billion spent annually educating the children of illegal immigrants could:Nearly cover the estimated $3.3 billion required by the state’s Supreme Court under the decision in the Campaign for Fiscal Equity case to establish equitable state funding for New York City’s public school system.Help to reduce the $1.8 billion revenue shortfall for fiscal year 2005 in New York City.Provide enough additional funding to nearly meet the $3 billion in health care cuts in the current proposed budget for payments to hospitals and nursing homes.In Illinois, the $2 billion spent annually educating the children of illegal immigrants could:Balance the current state budget—estimated to be $2 billion in the red—and make unnecessary adoption of the new taxes in the Education Funding Reform Act of 2005.Help close the potential gap resulting from decreased federal 2006 funding to the state of between $1.07$1.35 billion.9In New Jersey, the $1.5 billion spent annually educating the children of illegal immigrants could:Go a long way toward solving the dilemma Gov. Codey noted on March 1, 2005, when he said, “I wish I could be here discussing a major investment in higher education or an expansion of health care because those are investments New Jersey needs to make, but I can't have those discussions, not with this [fiscal] mess in front of us.”Help close the potential gap resulting from decreased federal 2006 funding to the state of between $682$845 million.In Florida, the $1.2 billion spent annually educating the children of illegal immigrants could:Fund the services eliminated as a result of a cut in federal funding to Florida public schools estimated by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities to be $565 million over the next five years beginning in 2006. Over the same period, the Center estimated an additional $321 million has been lost to the state for adult and vocational education as well as $3.2 billion in grants to the state and local governments and $392 million in “Strengthening America’s Communities” block grants.Help close the potential gap resulting from decreased federal 2006 funding to the state of between $1.52$1.89 billion.In Georgia, the $952 million spent annually educating the children of illegal immigrants could:Raise the performance of the state’s schools described by Gov. Perdue in his 2003 State of the State Address in these terms, “Georgia’s education system is not what it should be. The National Assessment of Education Progress is the nation’s education report card. It shows Georgia is behind the national average on reading, writing, math, and science. For each of those subjects more than 50% of Georgia children are below the proficient level. Georgia also has one of the lowest high school graduation rates in the nation. And, to our shame, we rank 50th in SAT scores. We can sum up our report card in two words: “Needs improvement.”Help close the potential gap resulting from decreased federal 2006 funding to the state of between $847$1,071 million.In North Carolina, the $771 million spent annually educating illegal immigrant children could:Redress part of a $1.2 billion state budget shortfall and obviate the need for new taxes proposed by Gov. Mike Easley for the 2006 budget.Help close the potential gap resulting from decreased federal 2006 funding to the state of between $888$1,129 million.In Arizona, the $748 million spent annually educating illegal immigrant children could:Improve state funding for education, which in this year’s Quality Counts 2005 state-by-state education report ranked Arizona 50th in per-pupil spending. To close the gap with the national average in spending per student would cost the state an additional $1.6 billion.Help close the potential gap resulting from decreased federal 2006 funding to the state of between $587$763 million.In Colorado, the $564 million spent annually educating illegal immigrant children could:Reduce the state budget deficit estimated at $900 million in the 2003’04 budget, and more recently by the Independence Institute at around $158 million for 2006.Help close the potential gap resulting from decreased federal 2006 funding to the state of between $270$337 million.Implications for the Move to Give In-State Tuition Rates to Illegal AliensEfforts are underway in several states and in Congress to allow illegal aliens to pay steeply discounted in-state tuition at public colleges and universities— rates not available to American citizens from other states. As state universities across the country increasingly limit enrollment, increasing the intake of illegal aliens into these schools will mean fewer opportunities and less aid for U.S. citizens and legal immigrants. It will also mean a higher cost to the state taxpayers; out-of-state tuition is typically two to 3.5 times higher than in-state tuition.10In 2000, about 126,000 illegal immigrants under 21 were enrolled in college, according to research from the Congressional Research Service.11 Using 2000 data, we calculated that at non-resident tuition rates, they would be paying between $503 million and $655 million annually. If they were made eligible for in-state tuition discounts, they would be paying less than one-third of that amount, i.e., $155 million to $201 million—leaving taxpayers to make up the difference of $348 million to $454 million.12We estimate that both the number of illegal alien students and the tuition costs will have increased since 2000. In 2004 the estimated outlays would be about $839 million to $1.092 billion, and the discount for in-state tuition would reduce that to about $258 million to $336 million—leaving the taxpayers to make up the difference of $581 million to $756 million.The cost estimates in the table at the right, distributed to each state according to their proportion of the illegal immigrant population,13 are for the 15 states with the highest estimated expenditures:14 Several of these states are already incurring these costs. In-state tuition provisions for illegal aliens are currently in effect in California, Texas, New York, Illinois, Washington and—through ‘don’t-ask, don’t tell’ provisions—in Georgia and Arizona.Proposed federal legislation to give illegal aliens in-state tuition rates would carry additional substantial costs. According to the Congressional Budget Office, making illegal alien students eligible for federal tuition assistance through Pell grants would have cost $195 million in 2003 and $362 million over the 2003-2006 period.15, 16The estimate by the Congressional Budget Office of costs for providing tuition assistance to illegal alien students and the state cost estimates of providing access to in-state tuition at taxpayer expense above do not include the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens because they are already eligible to attend college as in-state residents. However, it should be noted that these expenses,

like their education at the primary and secondary level, result from the illegal immigration of their parent(s) and could be avoided if the immigration authorities more effectively deterred illegal immigration and identified and removed those illegally residing in the country.Conclusion

All of our children —native-born and immigrants alike— are receiving a poorer education as a result of the federal government passing its immigration law enforcement failures on to the states. The implications for the coming generations of workers, our future economy, and our long-term competitiveness in the world cannot be ignored .If the federal government remains unwilling to undertake serious enforcement of the United States’ immigration laws, it will eventually be forced to provide massive federal education funds to the states. A far more logical and cost-effective alternative—and one with considerable pay-offs in other areas as well—would be to substantially reduce illegal immigration.Without a serious commitment to doing just that, the open borders and lax enforcement that allow millions of illegal aliens to enter the U.S. each year— and to obtain driver’s licenses and other official identification documents with virtually no fear of the law—will continue to undermine the will of the America n people, overburden our communities’ financial resources, and imperil our children’s

future .

That includes STEM educationZuckerman, 12 – Canadian-born American real estate tycoon and media proprietor, co-founder, chairman and CEO of Boston Properties, owner and publisher of the New York Daily News, and editor-in-chief of U.S. News & World Report (Mortimer, “For the U.S. Economy the News Is Bad and Worse,” US News, 7/18/2012, http://www.usnews.com/opinion/mzuckerman/articles/2012/07/18/for-the-us-economy-the-news-is-bad-and-worse) // MS

Here now is the worse news: America is adding to the length of unemployment lines in the future by falling behind today in skill areas where global competition has become so intense. Too few of our young er people are benefiting from what is called STEM education . STEM stands for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, the human capital at the core of any productive economy . America has long been a STEM leader . We have dominated the world in innovation over two centuries but most recently in computer and wireless power, the development of the Internet, and cellphones, and with those innovations came well-paying jobs. But our leadership is at risk .[Check out the U.S. News STEM Blog.]A stunning illustration of how far America has started to lag in training its youth is that we are only one of three countries in the 34-member Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development where the youngsters are not better qualified than their fathers and mothers. Men and women ages 55 to 64 have the same or better education than the 25-to-34 generation. The younger workers in most other OECD countries are much better educated than those nearing retirement.This is an astonishing commentary on the limits of, and the deterioration of , America's system of public education . The National Academies warned years ago that the United States would continue to lose ground to foreign economic rivals unless the quality of its science education improved . In a 2010 report by the academies, an advisory group on science and technology, the United States ranked 27th among 29 wealthy countries in the proportion of college students with degrees in science and engineering. In a larger study conducted by the OECD in 2009, American 15-year-olds were 31st in math and 23rd in science. Yet another study found American 12th graders near the bottom of students from 20 nations, and this doesn't even focus on the achievement gap between low-income and minority students and their peers.

STEM is key to solve nuclear terrorism and deterrenceChiles ’08 (Henry G,- chairman of the Task Force on Nuclear Deterrence Skills) America’s nuclear deterrence and nuclear weapons expertise resides in what the task force terms the “nuclear security enterprise.” This enterprise includes not only those nuclear activities in the Departments of Defense and Energy, but also in the Intelligence Community and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). All activities within the enterprise need to be driven by and connected to strategy, policy, and assessment of future threats. The nuclear weapon system programs

historically and to a great extent still train and support the majority of experts available to work on the emerging challenges of proliferation and terrorism. In today’s environment of reduced work forces and minimal systems development activities, some skills are only being sustained by work “one-step- removed” from actual nuclear efforts. Understanding the interconnections

and relationships across this enterprise, depicted in Figure 1, is an important step towards developing capable and sustainable nuclear deterrent skills for the future. Our approach was intended to further this understanding. The changing political and threat environments have

and will continue to challenge the nuclear skills needed for the future. Increasingly, nuclear skills to support non-proliferation, intelligence, countering nuclear terrorism, and response to use of nuclear weapons —both on the battlefield or domestically — are at the center of ensuring the nation’s security. To date, these fields have been largely

managed independently from the nuclear weapons programs, though they draw on many of the same core knowledge and skill sets. Figure 1 depicts the nuclear skills community and functions. Prior Applicable Studies In the last ten years, two significant Defense Science Board (DSB) studies were conducted in the last ten years on nuclear deterrence including expertise within DOD that apply to the current study: the October 1998 Defense Science Board Task Force on Nuclear Deterrence (referred to as 1998 DSB Task Force) and the March 2006 Defense Science Board Task Force on Future Strategic Strike Skills (referred to as 2006 DSB Task Force). Neither was cited in the Terms of Reference for this study as a specific benchmark. The current status of applicable, abbreviated recommendations for each study is provided in Tables 1 and 2. At the request of the Congress, a detailed analysis of DOE nuclear weapons expertise was conducted in the 1998–1999 timeframe. The results—in the Report of the Commission on Maintaining United States Nuclear Weapons Expertise, March 1999—provides the reference point for this (2007/2008) assessment of DOE nuclear weapons expertise. The abbreviated recommendations of the report are highlighted in Table 3, along with a brief assessment of the progress made in the last decade toward implementing the recommendations. The necessity for the mission is seldom articulated by senior government officials. The national commitment to the mission and the vital role it plays in the security of the nation remain weak at best. Most notably, implementation of an integrated, comprehensive, and long-term stockpile life extension plan has been slow. In the past 15 years, only one major stockpile life extension program has been completed for Minuteman and one has just begun for Trident. There have always been plans, but the reality is that the design-development-production work for the nuclear weapon complex has been far from steady and predictable over the last 15 years. This issue is a major stumbling block to ensuring NNSA proficiency over the long term. Since the 1999 Commission report, the nuclear weapon complex has made progress in recruiting, training, and retaining the right level of technical talent for the mission, including making use of retirees. However, the NNSA workforce of government and contractor personnel is old relative to the U.S. workforce. The weapons laboratory contractors are old relative to the U.S. population of PhD scientists and engineers in the workforce. Across all NNSA sites, the population over 40 is in the 70 to 80 percent range. The percent of the workforce eligible to retire has grown since the

Commission report in 1999, but not as fast as had been projected. Recent hiring rates are a trickle compared to the pool of eligible retirees at the NNSA facilities and the rate at which people could retire in the next five years. In general, across a wide range of survey questions (similar or the same as those used in 1998), employee responses to the current survey strongly indicate that the NNSA government and contractor workforce attitudes are more positive than reported in 1999. Attitudes are distinctly more positive at the NNSA production plants than reported in 1999. However, attitudes about the future are more negative at Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories in the face of impending workforce layoffs, most notably at Los Alamos. There is concern about recruitment in specific knowledge fields as discussed in this report. However, this task force’s view is that the lack of national commitment to the nuclear weapons program and the lack of a stable base workload of design-development-production work will eventually erode the capability to attract the right level technical talent across a wide spectrum of skills needed to maintain competence. NNSA Defense Programs does not have an advisory committee. In general, Congressional interest, oversight, and support of the nuclear weapons program continues to need invigoration. Methodology To cover the range of nuclear skills identified in the Terms of Reference, the scope of this effort was necessarily broad. The task force investigation extended to the entirety of personnel whose responsibilities include the evaluation, management, or execution of any element of nuclear weapon systems—that is, the integrated nuclear weapon, launch, or carrier vehicle, and supporting command, control, communications and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (C3/ISR) infrastructure These elements span policy, research, development, testing, production, acquisition, deployment (including security), operational training, and operational employment. Also included are those personnel responsible for understanding and, where possible, defeating potential nuclear weapons threats to U.S. interests—nuclear weapons effects such as electromagnetic pulse, shock, overpressure, and neutron, x-ray and gamma radiation; collateral damage and other fallout; as well as nuclear weapons or materials being smuggled out of legitimate repositories for illegal transfer to adversaries hostile to the United States and its allies. Table 4 captures the actors and areas that the study addressed. To accomplish this extensive study of nuclear deterrence skills, the task force embarked on a four-part fact-finding effort that included:2 briefings to the task force from the range of organizations and facilities identified in Table 4 site visits to key installations and facilities data requests workforce survey Through this approach, the task force was able to draw insights from those involved in most aspects of the weapons programs and from many levels of the organization. Site visits included not only briefings from senior officials but focus groups and one-on-one sessions with individuals in the nuclear career field. Their experiences and observations, combined with survey results of an even larger population of the workforce, provided important inputs into the task force assessment, directly influencing its findings and recommendations. After highlighting, in the section below, the principal observations that emerged from the task force investigation, the remainder of this report will detail the findings and recommendations of this study. It begins with an overview of the nuclear threat and the need for a national commitment in response. The report then focuses on the task force findings which fall into eight areas: DOD nuclear weapons work, NNSA expertise, intelligence, military operational competencies, weapons effects, domestic nuclear event response capability, reorganizations and staff reductions, and personnel management. The final chapter provides recommendations for the way ahead. Findings and recommendations are highlighted in bold print. Principal Observations The cumulative work conducted by the task force has lead to the following principal observations: The task force is concerned that adequate nuclear deterrence competency will not be sustained to meet future challenges. National strategy has not been emphasized and, as a consequence, there is disillusionment that could lead to decline in the remaining critical skills. Existing and emerging WMD threats and adversary intentions are not well understood. Intelligence assessments lack the needed focus and expertise. The perception exists that there is no national commitment to a robust nuclear deterrent, reflected in downgrading activities within OSD policy, the Joint Staff, STRATCOM, U.S. Air Force, and congressional action on the RRW. Management and work force in industry and the nuclear weapon contractors believe that “sustainment” programs (e.g. life extension programs [LEPs]) will not retain skills necessary to competently solve major problems with existing systems or initiate new programs. Pessimism exists about follow-on nuclear deterrence systems becoming a reality. Priorities have shifted strongly, and to a degree appropriately, but the pendulum has swung too far. Now we are faced with about $100 billion of decisions (RRW, Complex Transformation, land-based strategic deterrent, sea-based strategic deterrent), with an eroded capability to think about these issues. Chapter 2. Nuclear Threats and National Commitment The Threat Environment At the start of World War II, the most urgent nuclear threat was the possibility that Nazi Germany was secretly pursuing a nuclear weapon and might acquire that capability in the short term. During the Cold War, the most urgent threat was posed by the Soviet Union. The most urgent nuclear threats facing the nation today are nuclear terrorism and nuclear proliferation. As well, all other nation states with nuclear

weapons are still developing weapons or continuing technology initiatives. While it is difficult to predict what the most urgent nuclear threat will be in the future, it is prudent to assume that there will continue to be nuclear threats. Tens of thousands of nuclear weapons were produced around the globe since the advent of the nuclear age. We cannot know with certainty where all of the weapons or their components are. Even if all nuclear weapons were somehow eliminated today, the knowledge of how to make them and the fissile materials required for their construction would still remain, as well as the ability to develop radiological weapons (‘dirty bombs’). The nuclear dimension, in short, cannot be removed from the threat equation now or in the conceivable future. It can at best be managed. And we

cannot rule out the possibility that in the decades ahead a significant number of nuclear weapons again could be directed at the U nited S tates, our forces abroad, and/or our allies and friends. Today’s overall threat environment is increasingly complex. Globalization has broadened the number of threats and challenges facing the United States. To cope with the new complexity, the Defense Department in its 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) shifted its military planning from a threat-based to a capabilities-based approach.3 Senior American officials continue to think and talk in terms of threats, however. The National Security Strategy, issued under the President’s signature, states that the first duty of the government is to protect the American people and American interests. This duty “obligates the government to anticipate and counter threats [emphasis added], using all elements of national power, before the threats can do grave damage.”4 The strategy argues that the proliferation of nuclear weapons poses the greatest threat to national

security and acknowledges that nuclear weapons have a special appeal for terrorists and states of concern (also sometimes called rogue states). In the most recent annual threat statement by the Director of National Intelligence to the Congress, the ongoing efforts of states and terrorists to acquire (and if

they already possess them, to improve) nuclear weapons/postures are highlighted. Al-Qa’ida and its affiliates are discussed extensively, Iran and North Korea are identified as specific concerns, and the nuclear competition between India and Pakistan is discussed briefly (as is

the question of Pakistan nuclear security given the ongoing political uncertainty in Pakistan). Further, the judgment is advanced that China ’s nuclear capabilities will increase rapidly in terms of range, lethality, and survivability over the next ten years, and the revival of Russia n national power (to include its military power) is noted.5 The National Security Adviser spoke at Stanford University on February 11, 2008, stating that

the “threat of a nuclear attack on the American homeland remains very real —although the nature of the threat has changed

dramatically over the last two decades,” and focusing on “the proliferation of nuclear weapons and nuclear materials into the hands of nations or individuals who would do us harm.”6 Major nations other than the United States, including Russia and China, continue to modernize their nuclear postures, sustain and extend

nuclear expertise, and develop new doctrines for nuclear forces. The range of current and potential nuclear threats extends across the full spectrum

from nuclear terrorists, to hostile regional powers, to hostile major powers . Even if nuclear weapons were somehow

banished by political agreement, a latent nuclear threat would remain. In today’s world, given the dynamics of proliferation, a regional nuclear confrontation not initially involving the United States can threaten vital U.S. interests as well. It is important to acknowledge that the threat environment in which nuclear threats exist also includes other high-priority military capabilities (cyber warfare and counter-space), potent non-military capabilities (the use of financial or energy leverage to achieve political ends), other weapons of mass destruction (especially

biological weapons), and advanced military technologies and systems. In short, our nation’s ability to deal with the current and anticipated threat environment calls for a base of nuclear expertise that is even broader than it was during the Cold War. The challenge of sustaining nuclear expertise in such a diffuse and rapidly evolving threat environment is daunting. Deterrence and nuclear operations can turn out to be far different from those supported by the nuclear enterprise during the Cold War. The detonation of a single terrorist nuclear weapon in a major city is a strategic problem

demanding a rigor to technically informed analysis that once was devoted to civilization-threatening arsenal exchanges.7 China and Russia now appear to consider nuclear attack options that, unlike their Cold War plans, employ electromagnetic pulse (EMP) as a primary or sole means of attack.8 However, they have at their disposal hundreds and even thousands of weapons that can be used as they see appropriate when the time comes. Tactical and regional use of nuclear weapons is a demanding and quite plausible problem. So is detecting, capturing, and rendering safe a nuclear weapon that is being smuggled for terrorist use. Nuclear Weapons Consensus Conditions of the Cold War helped foster a strong national commitment and consensus on developing, maintaining, and operating a nuclear deterrent force and preserving nuclear expertise that was second to none. That consensus allowed for considerable disagreement on details and priorities, but it was sufficiently coherent and deep-rooted across political and intellectual divides that it helped underwrite a clear national commitment to the nuclear deterrence mission. U.S. allies and foes knew this. So did the men and women in the American nuclear weapons enterprise. They lived in a culture that continually refreshed the reservoir of nuclear deterrence expertise. There also was a consensus during the Cold War to oppose nuclear proliferation, although in practice this consensus allowed for many compromises. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that the fundamental framework of today’s nuclear nonproliferation regime was the result of American leadership exercised on a number of occasions by a number of different administrations and Congresses, spanning decades of time.9 Nobody wants to return to the Cold War. As the American Secretary of Defense told Russia’s leaders in 2007, one Cold War is enough in anyone’s lifetime. It arguably was inevitable with the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the superpower confrontation that the role for nuclear weapons would devolve away from center stage, at least for the United States with its strong armed forces across the board. What was not inevitable was the steep decline in national consensus in the United States as to what was needed for the nuclear deterrence mission. In part, the lack of national consensus results from the more complicated threat environment. Attention is paid to core nuclear issues, but they are not the same core nuclear issues that animated consensus in an earlier era. Nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism today are the primary focus of American policy, not deterrence of major-power nuclear war. This task forces finds that the extent to which a national nuclear weapons consensus still exists in this country, it resides in the propositions that the United States should not renounce its nuclear weapons while other countries have them, that America’s nuclear weapons should be as safe and secure as possible, and that nuclear terrorism and nuclear proliferation are near-term threats requiring high-priority responses. It may also extend to other propositions as well. One is that the United States should have the strongest possible intelligence capabilities for understanding foreign nuclear weapons activities. Another is that a major improvement is needed in technical and operational capabilities to detect nuclear weapons being smuggled into or toward the country, and to attribute responsibility for a nuclear explosion. The limited consensus does not extend to what should be a bedrock proposition—namely, that so long as anyone on earth has a nuclear weapon or has the ability to get a nuclear weapon, American nuclear expertise should be second to none. Today there appears to be deep disagreement in the American body politic on almost every nuclear weapons issue: the role of nuclear weapons, retention of nuclear alert operations, whether to declassify nuclear stockpile numbers, the wisdom of nuclear modernization plans such as the Reliable Replacement Program, whether to ratify and use American influence to bring into force the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), and whether the regime built around the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty can be relied on in the future. This situation contributes to political deadlock and drift and to the continued decline in nuclear expertise documented in this study. There also continues to be a lack of appreciation by senior American leaders that this decline is serious. A necessary, although far from sufficient condition for reversing that decline is for the Executive Branch and Congress to arrive at a new national consensus and commitment on the need for nuclear weapons, a connected strategy for dealing with all issues raised by nuclear weapons, and a determination of the specifically nuclear deterrent requirements that flow from these. This is not the first study to identify erosion of national consensus as a

fundamental issue for the health of the U.S. nuclear expertise endeavor. The capstone recommendation of the 1999 Report of the Commission on Maintaining United States Nuclear Weapons Expertise was a call to reinforce the national commitment and fortify the sense of mission.10 In a similar vein, the initial key issue identified by the 2006 Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Nuclear Capabilities was the absence of a national consensus on the nature of the need for and the role of nuclear weapons.11 During the Cold War, nuclear deterrence was at the heart of American national security strategy. Some of the best minds inside and outside of government were devoted to this topic. Although the details of the nuclear deterrent strategy changed over time through a succession of administrations, the Executive Branch and Congress largely agreed on the imperative to keep the nuclear deterrent strong. After the Cold War nuclear deterrence no longer played the central role it once did in American security affairs—a well documented fact that requires little elaboration. This state of affairs naturally required a broad range of adaptation in the American nuclear enterprise. So did the congressionally mandated end to nuclear testing in 1992, followed by negotiation (but not formal entry into force) of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.12 Geopolitically, the threat environment shifted as nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism evolved in disturbing new directions. Nuclear issues became more, not less, complex in a rapidly changing world. The United States has invested heavily in the transformation of its armed forces into a powerful instrument that many would argue can achieve a number of effects that nuclear deterrence once offered, with America’s unmatched non- nuclear means. This outcome is welcome in many ways, but it further contributes to the erosion of nuclear expertise as those who once would have devoted their careers to being expert in nuclear affairs turned their attention elsewhere. As for the evolution of the public face of nuclear deterrence policy guidance, on May 1, 2001, the President gave a major speech at National Defense University where he argued that “we need new concepts of deterrence” and that deterrence “can no longer be based solely on the threat of nuclear retaliation.” He called for a new framework incorporating missile defenses that would strengthen deterrence, reduce the incentive for nuclear proliferation, and allow for further reductions in nuclear weapons. The President argued that nuclear weapons “still have a vital role to play in our security and that of our allies” but did not further elaborate that role.13 In addition to the President’s speech, other announcements later in 2001, that took place after the traumatic events of 9/11, further shaped the nuclear framework—the nation’s intent to reduce its operationally deployed nuclear weapons to 1,700 to 2,200 in number14 and formal notification to Russia of its intent to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.15 The new imperatives of combating global terrorism intersected the QDR and NPR of 2001 to provide an evolving vision, framework, and strategic priorities for defense planning, albeit a framework that left unclear in the public mind what specifically would henceforth define nuclear deterrence. The associated framework for combating WMD that was outlined in the National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction (December 2002) and the National Military Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction (February 2006) is elaborate, still evolving, and further submerges thinking about nuclear deterrence and its requirements in a broader set of issues. The Report to the President by the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction (March 2005) and the QDR report of February 2006 is very broad as well. Hence, thought specifically addressing nuclear deterrence and its requirements has become defocused and has been shifted to ever-lower levels in the national security establishment over time. The task force believes that this combined set of factors contributes to the current state of affairs across all sectors of national security expertise—from policy to planning (intelligence and targeting), from project management and acquisition to weapons effects, from design and logistics to safety and security, from command and control to operations and execution—in Congress as well as the executive branch. The result is that a number of the personnel engaged in the nuclear weapons enterprise believe their work is important and underappreciated. In 2007, in the midst of the debate over the future of the RRW, the Secretaries of Energy, Defense, and State submitted a short statement on U.S. national security and nuclear weapons entitled “Maintaining Deterrence in the 21st Century.”16 This high-level engagement did not create support for the RRW, and in its FY 2008 defense authorization and appropriation actions, the Congress now has called for a new NPR, a commission on the strategic posture of the United States, and a commission on the prevention of WMD proliferation and terrorism. At the same time, a distinguished community of retired senior American national security officials has helped spearhead the call for a new strategic vision of American nuclear requirements.17 All of this takes place against the backdrop of an upcoming presidential election where national security affairs are playing a prominent role and where a strategic vision of a different nuclear future is being addressed explicitly by leading candidates. The task force concludes that the erosion of U.S. nuclear deterrent expertise cannot be reversed

absent a renewed national commitment and strong leadership. Chapter 3. DOD Nuclear Weapons Work The industrial base skills that created and sustain ed DOD’s nuclear deterrent capabilities over the past 60 years are substantially less than they once were, and are in danger of significant further erosion in the area of ballistic missiles. DOD programs are managed by the services and they rely upon a program management structure featuring a program office responsible for implementing national guidance through design, development, sustainment, and operations of the weapon systems, including integration of the NNSA- supplied weapons. The service program management team typically relies upon a contractor team (prime and its subs or an associate contractor arrangement) to achieve its goals. In the absence of continuing development programs, it is increasingly dubious whether the DOD nuclear deterrence infrastructure, especially its human capital, can be characterized as “responsive” as called for in the 2001 NPR. Any new programs will require time for recruiting and training new employees; dependence upon inexperienced employees is likely to stretch out development times and even then result in program delays and developmental failures on the way to program completion. The magnitude of the problem will vary by weapon system type but appears to be most significant with respect to ballistic missiles. Industry is uniformly emphatic that expertise can only be maintained by the exercise of skills requiring funded programs for which the skills are necessary. The skills that are being exercised today for nuclear-capable deterrent forces are almost exclusively related to the less demanding sustainment of the systems first deployed many years ago: Minuteman III, Trident D5, B-52, B-2, air-launched cruise

missile (ALCM), Tomahawk Land Attack Missile-Nuclear (TLAM-N), F-16, and F-15. The nuclear deterrence industrial base for aircraft and standoff weapons now depends on non-nuclear weapon system activities for its sustainment , but in important areas no surrogates exist. The industries that have supported the nation’s long-range ballistic missile capability are clear that design and system engineering skill in areas unique to strategic missiles will disappear in the near term in the absence of new programs. Even the life extension programs that exist for some of these systems are scheduled to conclude in the near future. The program management structure used by the services to conduct the weapons systems programs (design, develop, produce, deploy, and sustain) relies upon a variety of management models. For example, the Air Force intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) program from inception in 1954 used an associate contractor structure with individual contractors having responsibilities (deliverables) for specific elements of the weapon system. The contractor team was integrated by the program office with the assistance of a systems engineering contractor. In 1997, the ICBM program shifted to a smaller program office that engaged a prime contractor to integrate and manage the elements of the life extension programs. The Navy submarine launched ballistic missile (SLBM) program from inception has had not only acquisition but also operational responsibility. A dedicated industry team with defined responsibilities for missile system, guidance, fire control, etc., has been integrated by the program office to meet operational requirements. The Air Force bomber and cruise missile programs have historically used program office/prime integrating contractor arrangements in which the small program offices are located with the acquisition commands and the prime integrating contractors manage the design, development, and production of the elements of the system from facility locations around the country. The continuous modernization of nuclear capable forces (e.g. for ICBMs Thor, Atlas, Titan I, Titan II, Minuteman I, Minuteman II, Minuteman III, MX) that existed until the early 1990s ensured that the skills needed for the job were rigorously exercised, and kept pace with evolving technology. The challenge of new systems brought a continuing stream of eager, intelligent workers into the force to work side-by-side with experienced mentors. New systems exercised the skills needed for research, design and system engineering, development, testing, and production. Even system concepts that were never deployed (such as, for ICBMs, deep underground, rail mobile, off-road mobile, air-launched) fully engaged the design and engineering skills while the concepts were evaluated. Today, there are no new funded nuclear deterrent systems or exploratory development programs for which to recruit, develop, and exercise relevant skills. New non-nuclear system concepts, like the Air Force’s Common Aero Vehicle and Navy’s Conventional Trident Modification (CTM) program would have contributed significantly to keeping some nuclear-relevant design and system engineering skills alive. The 2008 defense legislation deleted funding explicitly requested for these programs (prohibited use of funds for CTM). It did, however, allocate half the total $200 million sought to a defense- wide account that could be applied to propulsion and guidance systems, mission planning, re-entry vehicle design, modeling and simulation efforts, command and control, launch system infrastructure, intermediate-range missile concepts, advanced non-nuclear warheads, and other mission-enabling capabilities. To a certain extent, these funds may

sustain programs previously funded by the Application Programs in Re-Entry, Propulsion, and Guidance that had been drastically cut by the Air Force and Navy, despite their long-term advocacy by those concerned with the demise of industrial base personnel competency in these crucial and uniquely nuclear-related areas. While application of funding to technology in these areas via the Application Programs was helpful, industry had always been clear that these programs alone could not sustain competency. The 2008 $100 million program managed by OSD could continue to be helpful to skill preservation in areas important to nuclear ballistic missile systems, depending upon how funds are applied. The delay in commitment to specific system development programs poses the threat that employees who once brought the current systems into existence will retire before they can train a next generation of work force on any new systems. The remainder of this chapter addresses each nuclear deterrent system capability in more detail. Intercontinental Ballistic Missile The first version of the Minuteman III (MMIII) entered the force in 1970. An extensive life extension program has been underway that includes replacement of the aging guidance system; remanufacture of the solid-propellant rocket motors; replacement of standby power systems; repair of launch facilities; and installation of updated, survivable communications equipment, and new command and control consoles to enhance immediate communications. With these changes, the projected lifetime of MMIII calls for retirement beginning in 2020. Speculation about extended retention of MMIII until 2030 has begun. To date no analysis has been performed to support such a retirement extension nor has funding been provided that would permit surveillance sufficient for early enough detection of incipient failures in time to develop and deploy a replacement before major problems developed in the deployed system. Expertise that provided the designs for hardened and survivable launch control facilities, silos, communication, launch systems, reentry systems, and offensive countermeasures is not now available. It is estimated that fewer than 5 percent of those once responsible for assessing the damage effectiveness of ICBM targeting remain available. The Air Force’s Land-Based Strategic Deterrent Analysis of Alternatives study to address the successor to MMIII was completed in 2005. No action has been taken since on a replacement system. It was reported that the Air Force has not undertaken any effort to reassess the state of industrial skills needed to sustain, let alone undertake, new ICBM programs, nor has it motivated or provided incentives to industry to evaluate the state of its critical skills or propose programs that might sustain expertise in the most critical areas. Under these circumstances, the industries that supported the ICBM force have no motivation to preserve design and system engineering critical skills or recruit new talent to this task. An evaluation performed by the Air Force ICBM Program Office in 2004, concluded that skills would be below a critical mass in the areas of guidance, re-entry, and propulsion no later than 2010, and reconstitution would carry significant risk. No subsequent action has been taken to reverse these conclusions. Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missile The Navy’s Strategic Systems Programs (SSP) organization manages the SLBM activities from cradle to grave and has been cognizant of the challenge to maintaining excellence in industrial skills in all technical areas relevant to SLBM since the early 1990s. The current SLBM capability is 14 Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) outfitted with Trident-II (D5) missiles. A D5 Life Extension program currently underway is expected to extend the service life of the weapon system until 2042. Thus, a next generation SLBM design and engineering effort is at least 10–15 years in the future. As a result, some shipboard systems based on commercial off-the-shelf components, such as fire control and submarine navigation, have been planned for periodic refresh cycles that exercise relevant critical skills. Industrial partners have incentives to track critical skills and develop critical skill preservation programs, although compliance has been mixed. The life extension program has been sufficient for training and transferring knowledge to the next generation of inertial guidance and electronic engineers. However, in the areas of propulsion and re-entry, the life extension program has not offered the opportunity to train another generation of designers and system engineers. A most promising recent development is the proposal to continue D5 missile motor production at the rate of 12 per year. This proposal would ensure that some large diameter rocket motor production skills, that were once predicted to die as early as 2012, would be sustained and available for future SLBM and ICBM application. However, essential expertise for the design and development of hardened reentry systems remains at risk. Aircraft and Air Breathing Systems The B-52H (delivered to Air Force 1962) and B-2 (first flown 1989) are the current long-range aircraft capable of nuclear delivery via lay-down bombs and cruise missile (ALCM). Until the June 2006 announcement that the Air Force would begin to examine a next generation strategic bomber, it had been expected that the existing aircraft would be the sole capability until 2040. It remains unclear how soon the replacement aircraft will be available, although 2018 has been stated as an objective by the Secretary of the Air Force. Effects of nuclear engagements (surface-to-air missile encounters, fratricide, etc.) on aircraft performance are now, at best, a low priority for the Air Force. The Air Force Weapons Laboratory, once responsible for leading analysis and experimentation, no longer exists. Unlike the missile area, industry has remained confident that the production of large body commercial aircraft and tactical military aircraft has retained the critical skills needed to design, develop, and produce a new nuclear-capable strategic aircraft. The task force finds no reason to doubt these conclusions by industry with the exceptions of two areas: aircraft survivability to nuclear effects and meeting nuclear surety requirements. With respect to the latter, modern technology might make this task much simpler and less expensive than it was in the past. It is not too soon to aggressively explore this possibility to understand what can actually be achieved. The Navy’s nuclear-capable TLAM-N (delivered in 1984) and the Air Force’s nuclear-capable ALCM (delivered in 1981) have both been allowed to wither technologically, as there have been no upgrades since initial production two decades ago. (The more recent nuclear-capable Advanced Cruise Missile is being retired.) However, very aggressive conventionally armed cruise missile development has kept pace with technology (most recently TACTOM Block IV for the Navy and JASSM-ER for the Air Force). This development provides an experienced skill base in virtually all relevant technical areas should a next-generation sea-based or air-delivered nuclear-capable standoff missile be required. As noted in the above discussion of long-range bombers, most glaringly the design and system engineering skills important to nuclear-armed standoff missile surety and survival to nuclear effects are not being exercised in current cruise missile programs and, hence, would introduce risks in any future development. The F-15 (delivered in 1974) and F-16 (delivered in 1979) are nuclear- capable, while the more modern F-22 is not. The next generation nuclear-capable short-range aircraft is scheduled to be the F-35 Block 4 which would come on- line in 2020 as the F-15 and F-16 retire. Ongoing design and engineering efforts for the F-22 and F-35 and similar commercial aircraft activities continually exercise most of the skills needed to accomplish a nuclear-capable F-35 Block 4, with the same exceptions noted above regarding skills for survival to nuclear effects and to meet nuclear surety requirements. Chapter 4. NNSA Nuclear Weapons Expertise The DOE/NNSA relies upon a management structure for implementing its responsibilities to national guidance that is based upon a “government owned/contractor operated” arrangement across the weapons program sites developed during and shortly after WWII (the “weapons complex”). In practice, the work force, though contractors, actually functions as “pseudo government” employees with only the top management of the sites representing a contractor interest. That is, management teams operate the laboratories, production plants, and test sites for NNSA, but the resident work force typically remains in place as the contractor management leadership changes through contract awards. NNSA competency begins with the quality of the technical staff it can attract and retain at headquarters and within the contractor workforce for its nuclear deterrence mission. For this purpose, NNSA competency is defined as the demonstrated ability of the agency to execute its mission to provide the United States with a safe, secure, and reliable nuclear weapons stockpile. This definition of competency also requires a judgment about the timeliness of mission execution; proficiency is perhaps a better word to describe this attribute. The framework used for assessing NNSA’s competence to perform its mission is comprised of three main elements: basic educational qualifications, workforce training to acquire nuclear weapons

knowledge, and experience gained by actually performing the mission. Basic Educational Qualifications In general, there does not appear to be a current problem in recruiting high caliber technical graduates to the NNSA and its contractors. There are two main areas of concern—

computer science/engineering and nuclear engineering. Graduates in computer science/engineering are in high demand both

nationally and internationally. This talent is most critical for the NNSA weapons laboratories . While the weapons laboratories

may not be able to compete with private industry salaries, they do offer the opportunity to work with some of the most advanced computation and simulation capabilities in the world. Graduates in nuclear engineering are scarce because the demand has been low since the United States stopped building new civilian nuclear power plants several decades ago. Current plans for building new nuclear power plants in the United States may create the demand that will expand the nuclear engineering programs offered by U.S. universities. On the other hand, growth in the civilian nuclear power industry could also siphon away graduates from nuclear national security missions. Today, NNSA and the contractors report that they are able to find qualified recruits for critical positions. There is concern that, in

the long term, recruitment of high caliber technical talent for the NNSA and its contractors will be challenged by the general decline in the proportion of U.S. citizens acquiring post-graduate degrees in

science and engineering at U.S. universities (Figure 2). A DOE “Q clearance” is required for virtually all nuclear weapons mission-critical skills, and

U.S. citizenship is a requirement. This diminishes the talent pool available to the NNSA for its nuclear weapons mission, and it is particularly troublesome for the weapons laboratories that need the highest caliber technical talent.

extinctionIFPA ’10 (The Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis @ International Security Studies Program of The Fletcher School, Tufts University,- a conference report summarizing the consenus of experts at “Air, Space, & Cyberspace Power in the 21st-Century” Prepared by Robert L. Pfaltzgraff, Jr. President, IFPA and Shelby Cullom Davis Professor of International Security Studies The Fletcher School, Tufts University) In marked contrast, the second nuclear age is characterized by multiple, independent nuclear decision-making centers. Some of these independent nuclear weapons states are potential adversar- ies, some are rivals, and some are friends, all of whom Washington will seek to influence, signal, and restrain. In addition, the Unit- ed

States may need to continue to provide security guarantees to non-nuclear friends and allies. It may face the possibility of cata- lytic warfare where, for

example, an American ally such as Israel, or a third party such as China could initiate action that might escalate to include the U nited S tates.5 [Footnote] Catalytic to refer to the “notion that some third party or nation might for its own reasons deliberately start a war

between two major powers .” According to Kahn, “the widespread diffusion of nuclear weapons would make many na- tions able,

and in some cases also create the pressure, to aggravate an on- going crisis, or even touch off a war between two other powers

for purposes of their own.” See Herman Kahn, Thinking the Unthinkable, (New York: Horizon Press, 1962), 57, 217. In such a scenario, the U nited S tates

would not have been directly a party to the decision chain to initiate such escalation, even though it could be drawn into the escalating

conflict . By the same token, there is likely to be a learning curve between nuclear weapons acquisition and the determination of how, when, or whether the

weapons will be used. What is the learning curve, for example, for a nuclear North Korea or a nuclear Iran? Will either or both be prepared actually to use nuclear

weapons? In the absence of a definitive answer to such questions, the U.S. nuclear deterrent must restrain a wider variety of actors today than it did during the Cold War. Deterrence functions by denying benefits, imposing costs, and encouraging restraint. An effective deterrence posture requires a range of capabilities and the capacity to orient forces to address specific challenges. The deterrent must provide security guarantees and assurances sufficient to prevent the initiation of catalytic war- fare by an ally, while deterring an adversary from resorting to nuclear escalation. As Dr. Bracken pointed out, compared to the exten- sive literature on deterrence, there has been little recent attention devoted to the dynamics of escalation in a multi-nuclear world. For example, how does one measure escalation? What are the different escalation frameworks? Is escalation the intensification of the use of force? Is it about crossing thresholds? What is counter-escalation when one party escalates against another? In short, there is abun- dant need for developing and understanding the strategic interac- tions and therefore escalation in a multinuclear world. In light of the complexities of today’s security environment, General Kevin Chilton, Commander, U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM), described his efforts to develop a broader, whole- of-government approach to deterrence. This combines military, economic, diplomatic, political, and information resources to dissuade or deter potential adversaries from making decisions that put America’s vital national interests at risk. General Chilton spoke about the need not only to define vital interests as clearly as possible, but also to understand which actors have the capabilities or might be developing the means to hold these interests at risk, understanding the key decision makers and their processes as well as what they value the most and, just as important, what they fear. Elaborating on deterrence requirements, General Chilton em- phasized the importance of four critical elements: early warning, command and control, delivery systems, and weapons. In each, the Air Force plays an indispens- able role. In the early warning area, the United States relies on the Air Force through satellites and radar network. In command and control, key elements are provided by the Air Force, including Milstar satellites and, in the future, advanced extremely high fre- quency (AEHF) satellites. In the area of delivery systems, as not- ed earlier, two legs of the strategic triad, ICBMs and bombers, are furnished by the Air Force. For nuclear weapons, the Air Force has crucially important responsibilities to ensure the safety and secu- rity of the current stockpile. General Chilton outlined the continu- ing need for a comprehensive stockpile management program that ensures that warheads have built into them the requisite safety and security measures while ensuring their continued reliability. The discussion of nuclear weapons and deterrence included a detailed consideration of extended deterrence in a multinuclear world. As Dr. Clark A. Murdock, Senior Adviser, International Se- curity Program, Center for Strategic and International Studies, sug- gested, the United States faces a three-dimensional problem: how to reduce its reliance on nuclear deterrence while assuring allies that extended deterrence can be trusted, and maintaining a safe, secure, and effective nuclear arsenal. America will need both to deter potential

adversaries while it assures allies of the reliability of an extended security guarantee. The U nited S tates also faces the need to deter use of

biological or chemical weapons. The United States has demonstrated in the post-Cold War era (in Iraq for ex- ample) that it is not deterred by the prospect that its adversaries may have biological or chemical weapons. However, America has sought to prevent nuclear acquisition by potential adversaries out of fear that it might be deterred if they possess nuclear weapons. As long as nuclear weapons exist, extended deterrence and as- commitments. This means sustaining a robust nuclear weapons capability. The logic set forth by Dr. Murdock in- cluded the assumption that global re- ductions in nuclear inventories can only be achieved if nations lessen their reliance on nuclear weapons. Yet we have nations seeking nuclear weapons not necessarily to use them in war but instead to prevent or even threaten their use. Nuclear weapons may be acquired not only for defen- sive or deterrent purposes but also for offensive uses, including nuclear blackmail. If in the second nuclear age there are increasing numbers of nuclear weapons states, this means that such states are becom- ing more dependent on nuclear weapons. Therefore, striking the proper balance between reducing U.S. reliance on nuclear weapons and maintaining credible extend- ed deterrence and assurance becomes an imperative for U.S. secu- rity policy. Building on the theme of sharp differentiation between the bipo- lar Cold War era and the emerg- ing multinuclear world, Dr. Ca- mille Grand, Director, Fondation Dr. Camille Grand, Director, Fonda- pour la Recherche Stratégique in tion pour la Recherche Stratégique

France, underscored the fact that nuclear proliferation is accelerating and could cease to be manageable. The quickening pace of nuclear proliferation is evident in the fact that in the first fifty years of the nuclear age we had on av- erage one new nuclear power per decade. In the last

twelve years alone four additional nuclear players have emerged, in this case from regions where international tensions are great, namely East Asia, South Asia, and the Middle East. In addition to the problem of a growing number of nuclear-weapon states is the proliferation of missiles and other WMD. The discussion of nuclear deterrence, according to Dr. Grand, is complicated by the nuclear abolitionist debate, which has attract- ed widespread attention. This contrasts sharply with the paucity of thinking about the future of deterrence. The need to rethink deterrence may have been inhibited by the abolition debate. The is- sues are intertwined, especially if we retain nuclear weapons but rely less on such capabilities. Dr. Grand suggested that we

cannot disconnect the various aspects of the nuclear debate, missile de- fense, space policy, and conventional strike capabilities. Added to this mix is a global civilian

nuclear energy renaissance that is likely to lead additional countries to acquire expertise that could evolve toward nuclear weapons if they choose to take that path. Among the effects of such trends will be the weakening of the nonproliferation regime. Dr. Grand observed that the NPT will not survive the withdrawal of a second country (in addition to North Korea) that cheats

within the treaty and subsequently withdraws. Contrary to the wishes of nuclear abolitionists, we may see the re-nuclearization of i nternational

r elations, with increased risk of use. Dr. Grand warned that delegitimizing nuclear weapons would lead to the de-legitimization of deterrence,

which would create the very instability that is contrary to the goals of the abolitionists. He pointed to the need to think about and define the key features of an interim world order that will remain stable and safe even as we hold out the long-term vision of a nuclear-weapons-free world.

Nuke terrorismSpeice ‘06 (Patrick, JD Candidate – College of William and Mary, “Negligence and Nuclear Nonproliferation: Eliminating the Current Liability Barrier to Bilateral U.S.-Russian Nonproliferation Assistance Programs”, William and Mary Law Review, 47 Wm and Mary L. Rev. 1427, February, Lexis)

Terrorist groups could acquire a nuclear weapon by a number of methods, including "steal[ing] one intact

from the stockpile of a country possessing such weapons, or ... [being] sold or given one by [*1438] such a country, or [buying or stealing] one

from another subnational group that had obtained it in one of these ways." 40 Equally threatening, however, is the risk that terrorists will steal

or purchase fissile material and construct a nuclear device on their own. Very little material is necessary to construct a highly destructive nuclear

weapon. 41 Although nuclear devices are extraordinarily complex, the technical barriers to constructing a workable weapon are not significant. 42 [Footnote 42] n42 Allison et al., supra note 2, at 55-62 (identifying a number of simple nuclear weapon designs that are within the reach of terrorists with fissile material); Bunn et al., supra note 2, at 12 (citing several studies that confirm the ease with which terrorists could construct a nuclear weapon after stealing fissile material); Bill Keller, Nuclear Nightmares, N.Y. Times Mag., May 26, 2002, at 22 (articulating the

ease of acquiring knowledge detailing how to construct a nuclear device). [End Footnote] Moreover, the sheer number of methods that could be

used to deliver a nuclear device into the United States makes it incredibly likely that terrorists could successfully employ a nuclear weapon once it was built. 43 [Footnote 43, supra note 2] Matthew Bunn of the Belfer Center for International Affairs at Harvard University

writes that [i]f stolen or built abroad, a nuclear bomb might be delivered to the United States, intact or in pieces, by ship or aircraft or truck, or the materials could be smuggled in and the bomb constructed at the site of its intended use. Intercepting a smuggled nuclear

weapon or the materials for one at the U.S. border would not be easy. The length of the border, the diversity of means of transport, and the ease of shielding the radiation from plutonium or highly enriched uranium all operate in favor of the terrorists. The huge volume of drugs successfully smuggled into this country provides an alarming reference point.Matthew Bunn et al., Project on Managing the Atom & Nuclear Threat Initiative, Securing Nuclear Weapons and Materials: Seven Steps for Immediate Action, at v (2002), available at http://www.nti.org/e research/securing nuclear weapons and materi als May2002.pdf; see also Graham T. Allison et al., Avoiding Nuclear Anarchy: Containing the

Threat of Loose Russian Nuclear Weapons and Fissile Material 12-13 (1996) (describing the porous border and "essentially infinite" means of delivering a nuclear device into the United States). [End supra note 2, from footnote 43] Accordingly, supply-side controls that are aimed at preventing terrorists from acquiring nuclear material in the first place are the most effective means of countering the risk of nuclear terrorism. 44 Moreover, the end of the Cold War eliminated the rationale for maintaining a large military-industrial complex in Russia, and the nuclear cities were closed. 45 This

resulted in at least 35,000 nuclear scientists becoming unemployed in an economy that was collapsing. 46 Although the economy has stabilized somewhat, there [*1439] are still at least 20,000 former scientists who are unemployed or underpaid and who are too young to retire, 47 raising the chilling

prospect that these scientists will be tempted to sell their nuclear knowledge, or steal nuclear material to sell, to states or terrorist

organizations with nuclear ambitions. 48 The potential consequences of the unchecked spread of nuclear knowledge and

material to terrorist groups that seek to cause mass destruction in the United States are truly horrifying. A terrorist attack with a nuclear weapon

would be devastating in terms of immediate human and economic losses. 49 Moreover, there would be immense political pressure in the United States to discover the perpetrators and retaliate with nuclear weapons, massively increasing the

number of casualties and potentially triggering a full-scale nuclear conflict. 50 [Footnote 50] Albright, supra note 32 ("The desire for revenge may lead the United States, or perhaps its allies, to respond with nuclear weapons, eliminating the perpetrators if they could be immediately

identified, but likely causing untold suffering to civilian populations."); Greenfield At-Large: America's New War: Nuclear Threats (CNN television broadcast Nov. 1, 2001) (statement of Gregg Easterbrook, Writer and Visiting Scholar, Brookings Institute), available at

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0111/01/ gal.00.html ("[I]f an atomic warhead goes off in Washington, ... in the 24 hours that followed, a hundred million Muslims would die as U.S. nuclear bombs rained down on every conceivable military target in a dozen Muslim countries."). [End Footnote] In addition to the threat posed by terrorists, leakage of nuclear knowledge and material from Russia will reduce the barriers that states with nuclear

ambitions face and may trigger widespread proliferation of nuclear weapons. 51 This proliferation will increase the risk of nuclear

attacks against the United States [*1440] or its allies by hostile states, 52 as well as increase the likelihood that regional conflicts will draw in the U nited S tates and escalate to the use of nuclear weapons. 53

Case

Immigration Mechanics

2ac plan solves immigration/maybe a 1ac card if you are fast

Plan uniquely bolsters the Mexican economy and reverses illegal immigration – everything else failsHing, 13 – Professor of Law, University of San Francisco (Bill Ong, “Mexico: Too Big to Fail,” Huffington Post, 5/06/13, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-ong-hing/mexico-too-big-to-fail_b_3203620.html)//MS

As President Obama visits Mexico to discuss, among other things, U.S. immigration reform, it's too bad that members of Congress who are involved in drafting legislation have left out a key ingredient to addressing undocumented immigration from Mexico: investing in Mexico in order to create jobs and ease the need for migrants to cross the border to seek employment. Apparently, the Obama Administration gets this. Ben Rhodes, an Obama deputy national security adviser, has acknowledged, "If the Mexican economy is growing, it forestalls the need for people to migrate to the United States to find work."The fact that the Congress and the White House are tackling comprehensive immigration reform is good news for the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States and their supporters. However, if the package does not include at least the first steps toward help ing Mexico improve its economy and infrastructure, undocumented Mexican migration will not be solved permanently . In 1994, we were told that NAFTA would solve the undocumented problem because jobs would be created in Mexico. But NAFTA contributed to huge job losses in Mexico . For example, Mexican corn farmers could not compete with heavily-subsidized U.S. corn farmers, and now Mexico imports most of its corn from the U nited States. For years, Mexico provided support to rural areas through systems of price supports for producers and reduced prices of agricultural products for consumers, but after NAFTA, Mexico withdrew this support. The United States, however, continued to produce subsidized corn in huge quantities at low prices, undercutting Mexico's corn prices; this subsidized system displaced Mexican workers because corn was a major source of rural income. The wages for low-wage workers have declined, and the rural poverty rate has increased . The idea of NAFTA-created jobs that would reduce pressure to migrate simply has not become a reality.The fact that Mexico has faced job creation challenges under the NAFTA manufacturing model is even more troubling when placed in the context of the worldwide framework. Mexico was the first low-wage country that became a free trade partner with the United States and Canada. However, more and more free-trade agreements are being consummated, and WTO membership is growing. China's acceptance to the WTO created more competition for Mexico's manufacturing exports (especially in apparel and electronics). China is now the largest exporter to the United States, followed by Canada and Mexico. The United States and China are entering into more free-trade agreements with other countries, meaning other low-wage countries are gaining access to U.S. markets. U.S. agreements with Central American countries also mean that countries other than Mexico are using low-wage labor to produce goods headed for the United States.Economic development in Mexico is the key to stopping undocumented migration. An investment fund to invest in roads, telecommunications, and post-secondary education in Mexico must be initiated. A national plan for infrastructure and transportation must be developed. Reducing geographical disparities within Mexico would likely decrease pressures to emigrate , and a first priority should be improving the road system from the U.S. border to the central and southern parts of

Mexico. In spite of the growth in trade under NAFTA, significant investment in transportation and infrastructure has not occurred . Although Mexico and the United States have developed the border area and NAFTA has helped to infuse new investment, the border region is burdened. By building up the central part of the country, border congestion could be relieved, and the whole system could be better managed.Focusing on the education al system in Mexico also is key. Mexican students fall near the bottom in cross-country comparisons on basic literacy, math, and science . While the adult education level in the United States is twelve years, in Mexico, the level is about seven years. This low education level has severe implications for economic competitiveness and the standard of living for Mexicans whether they remain in Mexico or migrate to the United States.One thing NAFTA has taught us is that, if we expect employment growth in Mexico to materialize as a result of trade agreements, investments must be targeted. We have to determine how to help Mexico's domestic industries by, for example, using domestic parts and supplies in production exports.The rural parts of Mexico suffered under NAFTA . Subsistence farmers did not receive assistance or time to adjust to the new trade regime. Nothing was done to help protect their incomes as trade conditions changed. Forced to leave agriculture, these rural workers had little help moving into other sectors.In order for any significant effect on Mexican migration to take place, significant investment in new technologies in small and medium-sized industries is necessary . Some of this new investment can be achieved through tax incentives to spur economic growth in the country's interior. Fruit and vegetable production development can absorb some of the rural workers previously displaced. Mexico's public infrastructure should be a major priority.The recent Senate legislation on immigration reform crafted by the bi-partisan Gang of Eight allocates an additional $6.5 billion for border enforcement. The wisdom of huge, additional enforcement dollars targeting individuals who are entering in search of work to feed their families is questionable . Those funds would be spent so much more wisely and effectively on helping Mexico with its economy. The notion of a strong border may sound appealing, but a strong Mexican economy is the real way to reduce economic migration.

2ac solves immigration

The plan reverses the immigration magnetPastor, 06 [Robert A. Pastor is a professor and director of the Center for North American Studies at American University. He wrote this for the Los Angeles Times, http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2006-12-05/news/0612040291_1_income-gap-felipe-calderon-mexico] The main reason that emphasizing immigration was a mistake is that the United States won't do the two things necessary to stem the flow of migrants: strict enforcement of employer sanctions for hiring illegal workers (because business wants a cheap, docile workforce) and creation of a fraud-proof national identification card (because it is expensive and some view it as intrusive). Without these two measures, the United States should blame itself, not Mexico, for failing to stop illegal migration.¶ For a long-term solution, the United States needs to take another step. Migrants come to the United States for higher income, and so the only way to stop them is to narrow the income gap between Mexico and its northern neighbors. The North American Free Trade Agreement succeeded in stimulating the economy of northern Mexico because of its proximity to the United States. The north grew 10 times faster than the south, but it served as a magnet , pulling labor from the south. Part of the solution to Mexico's development problem should be to extend NAFTA to the south with new highways. Jobs would follow.¶ Bush and Calderon should work with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper to create a North American Investment Fund to invest $20 billion a year for a decade in infrastructure -- roads, ports, railroads, communications -- to connect the southern part of Mexico with the lucrative North American market.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, has introduced a little-noticed bill for such a fund . The three leaders should support it.¶

The United States is unlikely to give any aid to Mexico unless Washington is convinced that the funds will be well-spent. That is why we should note Calderon's Nov. 9 comments to Bush and hold him to them: "I did not come to the U.S. looking for the Americans to solve Mexico's problems. We have to solve them on our own." If Mexico begins needed reforms on energy, electricity, education , labor and taxes, and puts up half the money for the North American Investment Fund, the United States and Canada should pledge the other half.¶ Such an initiative would not only begin to heal the political and economic division within Mexico, it also would stimulate the second-largest, but potentially fastest-growing, market for U.S. goods. If the initiative succeeded in doubling Mexico's growth rate, the income gap with the United States would be reduced by 20 percent in a decade, and Mexicans would begin to think about their future in Mexico rather than seek jobs to the north.

2ac income gap key

All efforts to stop illegal immigration will fail absent the plan’s reduction of the income gap between Mexico and the U.S.Pastor, 10 – professor of international relations and co-director of the Center for North American Studies and the Center for Democracy and Election Management at American University in Washington, DC (Robert, “Solving Income Gap is Missing Link to Immigration Reform,” NAFSA, 5/06/2010, http://blog.nafsa.org/2010/05/06/solving-income-gap-is-missing-link-to-immigration-reform/)//MS

While Morrison and Donnelly say that developing a secure, biometric system of national identification is a critical but difficult step to reduce illegal migration, they fail to mention that the only long-term solution to the problem is to narrow the income gap between Mexico and its northern neighbors , because undocumented migrants do not come seeking jobs in the United States. In fact, 93% of them have jobs before they leave their home countries — they come to the United States seeking higher wages . When Congress passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, its sponsors knew that its fatal flaw was an inadequate identification system, and they were right. The number of undocumented migrants soared from a few million to 11 million today, and the demand for counterfeit social security cards grew at an even faster rate. Some propose that we enhance the social security card, but that would be as mistaken as using drivers’ licenses. Both cards serve vital and different purposes. We want everyone on our roads to have a driver’s license, whether they are here legally or illegally, but if we deny driver’s licenses to undocumented workers, we only make our roads less safe. Similarly, we want our hard-pressed social security system to provide checks to the elderly, and we don’t want to use it to separate people who seek jobs legally from those who don’t. We need, in short, a national biometric ID system in order to deal with undocumented migration, national security threats, electoral integrity, and to combat identify fraud.But there is simply no way to halt the illegal flow of immigrants from Mexico to the U nited States until Washington joins with Ottawa and Mexico City to construct a North American Investment Fund to build infrastructure in the south of Mexico and connect it to its northern neighbors. This is not only the missing link of comprehensive immigration reform; it is also the missing link of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Only with a comprehensive development strategy in North America will we ever see Mexico join the first world and North America become a formidable competitor to China and Europe.

2ac immigration increasing now

Mexican immigration increasing at an unprecedented rateBorjas and Katz, 5 – * American economist and the Robert W. Scrivner Professor of Economics and Social Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School AND ** Elisabeth Allison Professor of Economics at Harvard University (George and Lawrence, “The Evolution of the Mexican-Born Workforce in the United States,” National Bureau of Economic Research, April 2005, http://www.nber.org/papers/w11281.pdf?new_window=1) // MS

The population of Mexican-born persons residing in the U nited States has increased at an unprecedented rate in recent decades. This increase can be attributed to both legal and illegal immigration. During the entire decade of the 1950s, only about 300 thousand legal Mexican immigrants entered the United States, making up 12 percent of the immigrant flow. In the 1990s, 2.2 million Mexicans entered the United States legally, making up almost 25 percent of the legal flow (U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 2002). In addition, it is estimated that ( as of January 2000 ) there were 7 million illegal aliens residing in the U nited States, with 4.8 million (68 percent of this stock) being of Mexican origin (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2004). As a result of the increase in the number of legal and illegal Mexican immigrants, nearly 9.2 million Mexican -born persons resided in the United States in 2000 , comprising about 29.5 percent of the foreign-born population (U.S. Census Bureau, 2003). It is instructive to place the Mexican immigrant influx of the late 20th century in the context of earlier immigrant flows. In 1920, towards the end of the First Great Migration, the largest two national origin populations enumerated by the 1920 Census were Germans and Italians, and together these two populations comprised about 23.7 percent of the foreign-born population at the time (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1975). From this perspective, it is clear that the Mexican -born population of the late 20th Century is historically unprecedented, being both numerically and proportionately larger than any

other immigrant influx in the past century .

2ac key to mexican econ

Plan reverses immigration and boosts the Mexican economyBansal, 7 – Staff Writer for the Crosswalk (Monisha Bansal, “Helping Mexican Economy Key to Ending Illegal Immigration, Says Expert,” The Crosswalk, 1/30/2007, http://www.crosswalk.com/1466713) // MS*citing Doug Massey, co-director of the Mexican Migration Project at Princeton

(CNSNews.com) - Amid a growing national debate over how to deal with illegal aliens, one expert suggested Monday that the way to solve the immigration problem in the United States is to boost the Mexican economy . "If you solve the Mexico problem, the rest becomes much easier to deal with. That is the heart of the

problem ," said Doug Massey, co-director of the Mexican Migration Project at Princeton University.Massey was joined at a Capitol Hill press conference by Jeffrey Passel, a demographer with the Pew Hispanic Center. According to Passel, the number of illegal immigrants has been steadily increasing over the past 20 years and is probably now approaching 12 million.About 56 percent of them are from Mexico, he said. As many as 85 percent of Mexicans who enter the United States each year do so illegally."There is a very strong relationship between availability of jobs in the U.S. and the flow of illegal immigration," said Passel, adding that undocumented aliens comprise five percent of the workforce in the U.S. Massey said the goal of undocumented Mexicans in the U.S. is not to live in the country permanently but "to use the U.S. labor market as an instrument to raise money to solve an economic problem at home.""We've tried this experiment over the last 20 years of trying to integrate the North American economy without including labor, and it has backfired," he argued. "It has resulted in a record number of illegal people working in the United States."Massey said the policy was one of "contradiction.""It's not because there was an increase in the inflow. It's because there is a decrease in the outflow," he said. "The decrease in the outflow is due to our own border policies."Massey advocated "amnesty" for those who entered the United States as minors and a path for earned legal immigration status for other illegal immigrants in the U.S. To disincentivize Mexicans from crossing the border illegally, Massey said, the U.S. should help their home country to raise its economic outlook.He also questioned expensive border enforcement strategies, like the building of a border fence. "Rather than spending $3 or 4 billion per year on border enforcement , I think the United States would do much better by taking some of that money and translating it into other areas of national security and the war on terror," Massey said.But many believe strongly in the need for stricter law enforcement along the U.S.-Mexican border."It is often said that our borders are our nation's first line of defense," said Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), who proposes extending the San Diego border fence through Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. The fence has been authorized and partially funded."Through the implementation of additional border fencing and its accompanying infrastructure, our borders will truly be our first line of defense and not our greatest vulnerability," Hunter said in a statement.

"Based on our experiences in San Diego County, we know that border fencing works," he said. "Since fence construction began in 1996, crime rates have dropped dramatically, vehicle drug drive throughs have been eliminated and apprehensions have decreased as a result of fewer crossing attempts."Massey said he doubted the fence extension would be built. "Even if they did they would have to use illegal labor," he told Cybercast News Service ."Putting more money on the Mexican border is useless , is counterproductive ," he said. " We're wasting our money on enforcing our border with our largest trading partner who poses no conceivable security threat and is in fact a close ally ."

2ac investment fund key

Unemployment and low wages are pushing Mexicans to the U.S. in the squo – investment fund solvesAguila, 12 – Ph.D. in economics, University College London; M.Sc. in economics, University College London; B.A. in economics, Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México (Emma, United States and Mexico: Ties That Bind, Issues That Divide, p. 37-42) // MS

Supply-Push: Performance of the Mexican Economy Mexican Economic Conditions Are Critical to the Decision to Migrate Immigration to the United States from Mexico has risen following economic problems in Mexico, such as the debt crisis in 1982 and the exchange-rate collapse in 1994 (Massey and Singer, 1995; Passel and Suro, 2005). Economic instability leads to unemployment and low real wages . Figure 6.2 presents the real minimum wage from 1986 to 2010. In this figure, we observe that economic crises have eroded real wages in Mexico. Although the real minimum wage has been stable since 2000, the lack of job opportunities in Mexico has led to high migrant flows . Unemployment in Mexico Is Relatively Low but Still Stimulates Migration According to employment statistics, unemployment in Mexico is low when compared with other countries with similar development levels. However, these numbers can be misleading because Mexican unemployment statistics do not include some individuals who would be counted as unemployed under U.S. measurement standards. For instance, due to a weak unemployment-compensation scheme, persons without work in Mexico are often forced into marginal activities (e.g., street vending, moving, repairing ), which results in their classification as employed rather than unemployed even if they work as little as one hour per week. According to Fleck and Sorrentino (1994), the reported rate would still be relatively low after its adjustment to the U.S. concept. The last time the unemployment rate in Mexico was at a level considered high relative to rates in other countries (around 8 percent) was following the December 1994 peso devaluation. After achieving macroeconomic and financial stability, the private sector and temporary government public works programs absorbed a sizable fraction of the Mexican active population, which led to a boost in employment (Lustig, 1998). Figure 6.3 shows a clear inverse relationship between migratory flows from Mexico to the United States and Mexican GDP growth during the 1990s. After 1999, however, Mexican GDP growth and migration flows appear to move in the same direction, an indication that both factors were following the U.S. GDP decline and recovery during those years (as observed in Figure 6.3). Figure 6.3 also shows the unemployment rate in Mexico, which fluctuates significantly less than migration flows except for the spike during the 1995 crisis but still appears to be related to them: Higher unemployment is associated with more migration to the U nited States.The 2007 U.S. Recession Increased Unemployment in Mexico Given that the Mexican economy grew more slowly in 2008 and contracted severely in 2009 due to the economic recession in the U nited States (and elsewhere), there was another rise in unemployment in Mexico. According to INEGI, Mexican annual real GDP grew 3.3 percent in 2007 and by an additional 1.5 percent in 2008 but fell by 6.1 percent in 2009. It rebounded to 5.5 percent in 2010. Unemployment rose until the third quarter of 2009, when it peaked at 6.2 percent, still lower than in the 1995 economic crisis. It had fallen to 5.3 percent as of the fourth quarter of 2010. The actual performance of the unemployment level depends on just how sluggishly the economy performs because economic stagnation naturally leads to less hiring and the loss of jobs. As explained earlier, the impact that higher unemployment has on migration flows is not entirely clear because U.S. economic growth appears to

dominate the supply-push effects of Mexican unemployment. The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that the number of unauthorized immigrants from Mexico living in the United States did not increase from 2007 to 2008 (Passel and Cohn, 2008b). Poverty and Economic Performance in Mexico In 2010, Mexico was ranked 56th in the United Nations’ Human Development Index, falling within the classification of high human development (UNDP, 2010). According to this measure, Mexico’s main deficiencies are in the proportion of population that is illiterate, malnutrition, scarcity of physicians, and high income inequality UNDP, 2007). Mexico’s purchasing power– adjusted GDP per capita in 2010 was US$14,566.

2ac econ key

Poverty pushing Mexicans to immigrate to the US now – plan solvesBread for the World, 11 – collective voice urging our nation’s decision makers to end hunger at home and abroad (“Poverty in Mexico and Migration to the United States: A Call for Integrated Development Policies,” November 2011, http://www.bread.org/institute/research/fact-sheets/poverty-in-mexico-fact-sheet.pdf) // MS

Latin American development and unauthorized immigration to the United States are linked. Although the region has made progress in reducing poverty in the past decade, some countries in Latin America continue to suffer from poverty and hunger. According to the United Nations there were 53 million undernourished Latin Americans in 2010.1Hundreds of thousands of Latin Americans—particularly from Mexico and Central America—immigrate to the United States every year to escape poverty in their own countries. Lengthy waits of up to 23 years for visas and a generally dysfunctional immigration system results in many immigrants entering the United States without authorization in order to support their families at home.Although they play an important role in the U.S. economy and typically improve their earnings in the United States, lack of legal status is an obstacle to immigrants’ economic prospects, psychological well-being, and ability to visit family members.2The “root causes” that drive unauthorized immigration from Mexico to the U nited States are often missing from the discussion of U.S. immigration reform . One of these causes is poverty. U.S. development policies in Mexico and Latin America must be synchronized with our domestic immigration policy goals. In order to address immigration we must analyze and address the sources of unauthorized immigration in Latin America and the “push” factors that drive millions of impoverished workers to leave their homes, taking dangerous journeys to the United States. This is particularly relevant for Mexico, the country of origin for more than half (58 percent) of all unauthorized immigrants to the U.S.3Mexico and Rural PovertyAlthough it’s the 14th largest economy in the world, rural Mexico is still very unequal.4 Depending on the measure, between one-third and one-half of Mexicans live in poverty and up to 18 percent live in extreme poverty, unable to meet their basic food needs.5• Poverty is concentrated in rural Mexico where small farmers during the 1990s and 2000s found it increasingly difficult to support their families, due in part to shifts in U.S. policies related to trade and agriculture. More than half of rural Mexicans live in poverty and 25 percent live in extreme poverty.6• Experts recognize that poverty is one of the “push” factor s in Mexican migration to the U nited States.7 Many Mexican small farmers end up migrating to the United States and some of them work in U.S. agriculture after leaving Mexico. Although only about one-quarter of Mexicans live in rural areas, rural migrants comprise 44 percent of all Mexicans immigrating to the United States (see Figure 1).8Poverty and Unauthorized MigrationThe immigration debate, while focused on domestic issues, largely overlooks the principal causes of unauthorized migration to the United States including poverty in Latin America. The U.S. government identifies Latin America as the primary source (more than 80 percent) of unauthorized immigration, but its responses—internally and at the border—focus on enforcement, neglecting the underlying causes of immigration.9

• U.S. spending on immigration enforcement increased from $1 billion to $15 billion between 1990 and 2009. During this time the U.S. unauthorized immigrant population increased from 3 million to almost 12 million.10 It is clear that enforcement-focused funding alone cannot address unauthorized immigration from and through Mexico.11• In a 2010 case study of an immigrant-sending community in Mexico, 61 percent of male migrants reported that economic opportunities–higher wages and more jobs–were the primary motivating

factor for migration to the U nited States.12• To comprehensively reform immigration policy, the United States must acknowledge the links in Latin America between poverty, inequality, and migration, and work with migrant-sending countries to address the reasons why people migrate to the United States.RecommendationsIn order to have a balanced foreign assistance agenda with Mexico and other migrant-sending countries in Latin America, the U.S. must increase its focus on addressing poverty as one of the causes of migration. These efforts should include poverty reduction and job-creation projects targeted to migrant-sending communities—particularly in rural zones, where poverty is concentrated.13Building sustainable livelihoods in rural migrantsending communities has the potential to not only reduce a major cause of unauthorized immigration to the United States, but could also impact violence and lawlessness in Mexico. While the reasons for the violence are complex, poverty and a lack of economic opportunity for Mexican youth certainly facilitate involvement in illicit activity along with out-migration.14• U.S. foreign assistance to Mexico is overwhelmingly focused on security, rather than development and poverty reduction. In 2009, 96 percent of the U.S. State Department assistance to Mexico was directed toward military and police assistance. Job-creation projects that reduce migration pressures totaled $11.2 million or .01 percent of total U.S. assistance to Mexico, an overwhelming low percentage of U.S. assistance (see Table 1).15• U.S. assistance to Mexico also pales in comparison to U.S. spending on border enforcement efforts, which in 2010 totaled more than $17 billion,16 despite having proved statistically insignificant in deterring or apprehending unauthorized immigrants.17 • U.S. foreign assistance agencies working in migrantsending regions should integrate analysis of migration issues into development projects. Projects that seek to reduce migration through job-creation and poverty reduction deserve increased attention from U.S. policymakers, including support for pilot projects and evaluations in order to grow such programs. • Since a disproportionate percentage of unauthorized immigrants come from rural Mexico , assistance aimed at providing would-be migrants with options other than migration should be directed toward small-scale farmers. Mexican small-scale farmers’ greatest needs include assistance with agricultural production and marketing. Increasing access to credit can also help farmers and small-scale entrepreneurs in rural areas.

2ac pastor says so

Income gap reversal eviscerates illegal immigrationPastor 12 - professor and director of the Center for North American Studies at American University (Robert, “The Solution to North America’s Triple Problem: The Case for a North American Investment Fund”, Center for North American Studies, January 2008, http://www.american.edu/sis/cnas/upload/triple_problem_pastor.pdf)//WLTheir motives for moving ¶ probably are diverse . The conventional view is that they come to the United States in ¶ search of jobs. But several surveys of Mexican immigrants in the United States during ¶ the past twenty years found that the overwhelming majority had jobs before leaving ¶ Mexico . According to the Mexican Migration Project (a fifteen-year bi-national project ¶ directed by Jorge Durand at the University of Guadalajara

and Douglas Massey at the ¶ University of Pennsylvania), the percentage of immigrants who were unemployed before ¶ leaving Mexico for the United States declined steadily from 13 percent in 1970 to 6.4 ¶ percent in the 1990s. Another survey found that since the 1990s, more than 93 percent of ¶ Mexican immigrants to the United States—legal and illegal—left jobs in Mexico ¶ (Durand, Massey, Zenteno, 2001, table 4, p. 121). This data is consistent with several ¶ other large data sets from both the Mexican statistical agenda and the US Census Bureau. ¶ Research on the causes of migration from the Caribbean in the early 1980s also found ¶ that the emigrants left jobs (Pastor, 1984, p. 14). ¶ They are coming in search of higher wages, and in Table 4, the gap in hourly ¶ wages for production workers in manufacturing between 1980 and 2005 more than ¶ doubled —from 4.4 to 9.1. Still, another study suggests that current wage differentials are ¶ 10 to 1 and are expected to grow to 13 to 1 (Lara Ibarra and Soloaga, 2005, p. 11).

What ¶ this means is that the average Mexican worker in a manufacturing plant can earn perhaps ¶ ten times or more working in the United States than he or she could in Mexico. Although ¶ family networks play an important role in determining where immigrants locate, the most ¶ powerful magnet is the economy. ¶ Other studies have shown that the higher US wages are relative to Mexican ¶ wages, the higher the probability of migration

(Jewell and Molina, 2004). Using ¶ regression analyses based on data collected by the Mexican Migration Project (MMP), ¶ Jewell and Molina estimate that a 10% increase in the Mexican wage leads to a 6.9% ¶ reduction in migration, while a 10% decrease in the Mexican wage leads to a 4.6% ¶ increase in migration. However, a 10% increase in the US wage increases migration by ¶ 8.8%. If the wage gap narrowed as a result of a 10% reduction in US wages, migration ¶ would be reduced by 13.1%. If the wage gap were closed, the probability of migration ¶ sinks to practically 0 (Jewell and Molina, 2004) . As long as Mexicans can earn much ¶ more in the United States for the same work, the lure of migration will remain ¶ compelling . In a poll on migration, Alducin y Asociados (2003, p. 17) found that 81.4 ¶ percent of Mexicans would emigrate to the United States if they could. A Pew Hispanic ¶ Center study found fewer - 46 percent – ready to move if given the chance. ¶ While the numbers differ in the four tables and the estimates of the impact of the ¶ wage differential on the magnitude of migration differ on the margin, the pattern is ¶ similar and persuasive. With every measure and table, the gap has worsened since 1980. ¶ Mexico’s goal of convergence has slipped further away since NAFTA began and the ¶ impact on migration to the United States is indisputable. The larger the gap in income, ¶ the more immigrants will come.

2ac income gap key

The income gap is directly correlated to stinting illegal immigration – integration solvesThe Economist, 11 – (“Now let us praise labour-market integration”, Democracy in America, 7/8/11, http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/07/mexico-migration-and-growth)//NK

HOW do you keep Mexicans on the Mexican side of the Rio Grande? Narrow the gap between American and Mexican living standards. An important article in the New York Times reports that illegal Mexican migration to America has "sputtered to a trickle". According to Douglass Massey, a professor of sociology who co-directs Princeton's Mexican Migration Project, "a trickle" may overstate it: “No one wants to hear it, but the flow has already stopped,” Mr. Massey said, referring to illegal traffic. “For the first time in 60 years, the net traffic has gone to zero and is probably a little bit negative.” Why? Lots of reasons. Ramped-up border policing and harsher treatment of undocumented Mexicans living in the US has probably had some effect. But, much more importantly, Mexico has become a better place to live. Here's the Times: Over the past 15 years, this country once defined by poverty and beaches has progressed politically and economically in ways rarely acknowledged by Americans debating immigration. Even far from the coasts or the manufacturing sector at the border, democracy is better established, incomes have generally risen and poverty has declined. Circumstances in Jalisco, a state in west-central Mexico, are illustrative: The recession cut into immigrant earnings in the United States, according to the Pew Hispanic Center, even as wages have risen in Mexico, according to World Bank figures. Jalisco's quality of life has improved in other ways, too. About a decade ago, the cluster of the Orozco ranches on Agua Negra's outskirts received electricity and running water. New census data shows a broad expansion of such services: water and trash collection, once unheard of outside cities, are now available to more than 90 percent of Jalisco's homes. Dirt floors can now be found in only 3 percent of the state's houses, down from 12 percent in 1990. Still, education represents the most meaningful change. The census shows that throughout Jalisco, the number of senior high schools or preparatory schools for students aged 15 to 18 increased to 724 in 2009, from 360 in 2000, far outpacing population growth. I was recently admiring Walker Evans's photographs of Depression-era sharecroppers in "Let Us Now Praise Famous Men", his masterpiece with the writer James Agee. The pictures of dirty-faced families in tattered clothes and tumbledown shacks reminded me that within my grandparents' lifetime America was to a large extent a "second-world" country (if that), by today's standards. In the broad sweep of history, American standards of living have come a long way in an amazingly short period of time. America may have, per Tyler Cowen's "great stagnation" thesis, picked most of its "low-hanging fruit", but in Mexico low-hanging fruit has for decades rusted on the vine. As Mexico continues to improve its physical and institutional infrastructure, educate its populace, and put productivity-enhancing technology to better and more widespread use, its standard of living will swiftly approach America's. "Catch-up" growth is swift. When a typical Mexican can expect to live at a level of comfort comparable to a typical 1960s American, the "problem" of Mexican immigration will be no more. An overwhelming majority of Mexicans want to stay in Mexico and, as we are seeing, they do stay when Mexico offers even a relatively middling level of opportunity and material welfare. That Mexican development is the main solution to America's complaints about Mexican immigration suggests that American immigration reform should focus on speeding Mexican development. That means seeking a level of economic integration with Mexico that goes well beyond NAFTA. I would prefer an EU-like common North American labour market, as well as expanded Mexican access to American colleges and universities. But I would happily settle for a large guest-worker programme that

would make it much easier for Mexicans to legally live and work in America, as well as taking the risk out of cycling back home. Walker Evans' Alabama now looks pretty much like the rest of America in no small part because of the guarantees of free interstate trade and migration built into the constitution. America's big northern cities no longer struggle with the problem of assimilating a massive influx of impoverished, poorly-educated, low-skill workers from the south. The once large regional gap in opportunity and income has largely disappeared. Indeed, the trend in American in-migration has shifted toward the south and the southwest. To be sure, immigration reform focused on accelerating Mexican development by facilitating labour-market integration might have some unintended consequences. For example, 30 years from now, Mexicans may be hotly debating what to do with the tens of millions of Americans thronging their sunny shores.

Decreasing the income gap with Mexico key to stopping illegal immigration – NAFTA and other measures actually make it worsePastor, 6 – Professor and Director, Center for North American Studies, American University (Robert, “Breaking Out of the Box,” Newsweek International, March 21, http://www.american.edu/sis/cnas/upload/Newsweek_2006-03-21_Breaking_Out_of_the_Bowc.pdf)//SY

Illegal immigration has increased and if anything, NAFTA has inadvertently fueled immigration by encouraging foreign ¶ investment near the U.S.-Mexican border, which in turn serves as a magnet for workers in central and southern Mexico. ¶ As a result, the number of undocumented Mexican workers who live in the United States has skyrocketed in the NAFTA ¶ era, from an estimated 1 million in the mid-1990s to about 6 million today. One of every six undocumented immigrants is ¶ under 18 years old, and since the mid-1990s the fastest growth of the population has occurred in states like Arizona and ¶ North Carolina that had relatively small numbers of foreign-born residents in the past.

This has fueled an increasingly loud backlash in the United States, where several measures meant to crack down on the ¶ migrant flow are working their way through the U.S. Congress. Lawmakers have proposed everything from more walls ¶ along segments of the Mexican border and more Border Patrol agents, to a guest-worker program and "regularization" of ¶ undocumented workers. Yet none of these measures will end the immigration crisis, and most would actually make it ¶ worse. Roughly 90 percent of all Mexican illegal immigrants leave jobs to come to the United States; they seek higher ¶ wages. Illegal immigration is unlikely to shrink until the income gap begins to narrow.

Helping the Mexican economy through the Investment Fund would substantially decrease illegal immigration by narrowing the income gap – EU provesPastor, 6 – Professor and Director, Center for North American Studies, American University (Robert, “Breaking Out of the Box,” Newsweek International, March 21, http://www.american.edu/sis/cnas/upload/Newsweek_2006-03-21_Breaking_Out_of_the_Bowc.pdf)//SY

How to do so? Valuable lessons can be gleaned from the continent that supplied America's original pool of immigrants. ¶ When the European Union added Greece, Spain and Portugal as member countries in the 1980s, it channeled massive ¶ amounts of aid to these newcomers and Ireland to narrow the income gap separating them from more-prosperous nations ¶ like Germany and France. About half of the $500 billion in aid was spent unwisely; the best investments were in roads ¶ and communications

linking these four countries to richer markets. Between 1986 and 2003, the per capita GDP of the ¶ four nations rose from 65 percent of the average EU member country's economic output to 82 percent. Spain spent much ¶ of the $120 million it received on new roads that boosted commerce and tourism. As a result, Spanish immigration to ¶ other EU countries all but ceased. Ireland now ranks as the second richest member of the EU in per capita terms—and for ¶ the first time in its history, it is actually receiving rather than sending immigrants. North America isn't Europe. But the region's three countries should draw on the EU's experience and think in more ¶ regional terms. The leaders of the United States, Canada and Mexico must articulate a vision that recognizes how ¶ instability or recession in one affects the other two. At the same time, they need to remind their constituents that when the ¶ value of a neighbor's house rises, so does theirs.

Investment Fund is cheap and would cause massive growth in Mexico, decreasing illegal immigrationPastor, 6 – Professor and Director, Center for North American Studies, American University (Robert, “Breaking Out of the Box,” Newsweek International, March 21, http://www.american.edu/sis/cnas/upload/Newsweek_2006-03-21_Breaking_Out_of_the_Bowc.pdf)//SY

While the idea of funding Mexican development may sound ludicrous, this investment would also benefit the U.S. ¶ economically, and the total is less than half of what the EU spent. Washington's $80 billion contribution would amount to ¶ about a third of what the Bush administration has spent in the last three years in Iraq.

The fund won't end illegal immigration overnight or even in a decade. But if the investment eventually helps Mexico to ¶ achieve 6 percent growth rates, double those of its northern neighbors, the income gap will be reduced by 20 percent in ¶ just the first decade. Only then will Mexicans begin to think about their future in Mexico rather than plan for an exit north.

North American Investment Fund key to Mexican economic development, North American integration, and solving illegal immigrationPastor, 4 – Professor and Director, Center for North American Studies, American University (Robert, "North America's Second Decade," Foreign Affairs, Vol.83, No. 1, pp. 129-131, January/February, http://maihold.org/mediapool/113/1132142/data/Pastor1.pdf)//SY

FOR NORTH AMERICA'S second decade, there is no higher priority ¶ than reducing the economic divide between Mexico and the rest of ¶ NAFTA. A true partnership is simply not possible when the people ¶ of one nation earn, on average, one-sixth as much as do people across ¶ the border. Mexico's underdevelopment is a threat to its stability, to ¶ its neighbors, and to the future of integration. ¶

The EU experience is instructive here as well. From 1986 to 1999, ¶ the per capita GDP of the EU'S four poorest countries rose from 65 percent ¶ to 78 percent of the average for all member states, thanks to free trade, ¶ foreign investment, and generous annual aid (.4S percent of EU GDP). ¶ Good policy on the part of aid recipients-and the fact that aid was ¶ conditioned on such policies-also made an important difference. ¶ Admittedly, not all EU aid money has been spent well, and North Amer ¶ ica can learn from the EU'S failures as well as its successes. North ¶ America should avoid excessive bureaucracy and concentrate aid on ¶ areas such as infrastructure and postsecondary education, which have ¶ a strong

multiplier effect on the rest of the economy. But two basic ¶ lessons stand: growth in one country benefits the others, and limiting ¶ the volatility of the poorest helps all. ¶

Mexico needs a new development strategy, partly financed by its ¶ North American partners. To reduce the development gap with the ¶ United States by 20 percent in the next ten years, Mexico will need ¶ to achieve an annual growth rate of 6 percent. At that rate, closing ¶ the gap entirely will take decades, but a sustainable strategy that ¶ results in small annual reductions will have an important economic ¶ and psychological effect. Such growth will require a new, labor ¶ intensive strategy and significant public investment. ¶

Although Mexico as a whole has benefited from NAFTA, free ¶ trade and increased foreign investment have skewed development ¶ and exacerbated inequalities within the country. Ninety percent of ¶ new investment has gone to just four states, three of them in the north. ¶ These border states have grown ten times as fast as states in Mexico's ¶ south and have become a magnet for migrants from those poor regions. ¶ The border area would seem to have a disadvantage in attracting ¶ foreign investors: labor is three times as expensive as it is in the south, ¶ annual workforce turnover is loo percent, and congestion and pollution ¶ are chronic. But roads from the border to the south are in terrible ¶ shape, and other infrastructure is even worse. The World Bank estimates ¶ that Mexico needs to spend $zo billion per year for the next ten years ¶ to overcome this infrastructure deficit. ¶

To correct this disparity, the three governments should establish a ¶ "North American Investment Fund" that would invest $2oo billion ¶ in infrastructure over the next decade. Washington should provide ¶ $9 billion a year, and Canada $1 billion-but only on the condition ¶ that Mexico matches the total amount by gradually increasing tax ¶ revenues from 1i percent to 16 percent of its GDP. Fox has tried un ¶ successfully to institute fiscal reform in the past, but the offer from ¶ Mexico's neighbors might help him persuade his Congress to accept ¶ this and other reforms. (The U.S. contribution would be much less ¶ than European aid to its poorest member states and only one-half ¶ of the amount of the Bush administration's aid to Iraq. The return ¶ on an investment in Mexico, moreover, would benefit the U.S. ¶ economy more than any aid program in history . ) A new agency is ¶ not necessary: the World Bank or the Inter-American Develop ¶ ment Bank should administer the funds. Ultimately, improved ¶ roads and infrastructure would attract investors to the center and ¶ south of the country, and income disparities and immigration ¶ would decline as a result. The reforms would also make Mexico ¶ more competitive with China.

North American Investment Fund key to solve illegal immigration and US securityPastor, 8 – Professor and Director, Center for North American Studies, American University (Robert, “The Solution to North America’s Triple Problem: The Case for a North American Investment Fund,” Norteamerica, Year 2, Number 2, July, http://www.american.edu/sis/cnas/upload/triple_problem_pastor.pdf)//SY

A major cause of the deterioration of relations is the failure of the three¶ governments to find agreement on immigration, trade, and security. None of these¶ problems can be solved easily or soon but serious progress is not possible until the three¶ governments begin to construct a “community of interests” in which each of the them¶ commit significant resources and undertake reforms to close the income gap between¶ Mexico and its two neighbors and forge institutions and procedures to sustain trust.

Why is the income gap so important to each of the three issues? Contrary to¶ conventional wisdom, more than 90 percent of the undocumented workers from Mexico do not come to the United States seeking jobs. They leave jobs in Mexico for much¶ better wages in the United States. Unless the income gap is significantly narrowed,¶ migration from Mexico will continue to expand. Securing the United States after 9/11¶ depends on a secure continent and that is difficult when one of the weakest links is¶ Mexico’s poverty. Finally, free trade policies have become unpopular because of chronic¶

disputes, the view by some in the United States that it loses jobs because of free trade, the¶ failure of the United States to comply with NAFTA courts, and the view that Mexico¶ would be more developed if free trade worked.

All three problems point to the same solution: a North American Investment Fund¶ which invests $20 billion per year for a decade to close the income gap by grants to build¶ infrastructure—roads, communications, railroads, ports—to connect the poor center and¶ south of Mexico to its northern neighbors. Ten billion dollars would come from¶ additional taxes by Mexicans; $9 billion would come from the United States, and $1¶ billion from Canada. But these would only be part of an arrangement whereby Mexico¶ undertakes the kinds of reforms that would allow it to make effective use of these¶ resources.

2ac creates investment

Plan reduces migration and establishes substantial investment in MexicoOppenheimer, 6 – Pulitzer Prize-winning Latin American editor and syndicated foreign affairs columnist, Miami Herald (Andres, “Oppenheimer: How to make better use of the $37 billion border fence fund,” 11/26, Salt Lake Tribune, ProQuest, http://search.proquest.com/docview/282087367/13EE761597642A95DB/34?accountid=88361)//SY

The total $37 billion price tag is more than twice last year's total foreign investment in Mexico, and it would not do much to stop Mexicans from crossing the border. As long as Mexicans and other Latin Americans can't find jobs in their home countries, they will find a way to go north. If they don't do it through Canada or by sea, they will continue flying into the United States as tourists and overstaying their visas, as nearly half of unauthorized migrants do now.¶ What would be a more effective way of spending this money? Here are three ideas that would help reduce migration by improving living conditions south of the border, rather than just helping Halliburton, Boeing and other major U.S. defense contractors get richer.¶ First, Congress should approve a bill sponsored by Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, to create a North American Investment Fund to build highways, roads and broadband Internet lines in southern Mexico, where most migrants are coming from.¶ Half of the money would be paid by Mexico and the rest by the United States and Canada, linked to Mexico's responsible economic behavior.¶ Largely because the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement generated considerable foreign investment in northern Mexico, the north of Mexico has boomed, while southern Mexico has remained rural and poor.¶ People from southern and central Mexican states are moving first to northern Mexico, and later - because they are away from home anyway -

to the United States.¶ Most experts agree that there are few investments in southern Mexico because - while wages

there are often three times lower than in northern Mexico - there are no highways to ship goods to the U.S. market. All southern Mexico roads lead to Mexico City, one of the most traffic-congested areas in the world.¶ Robert Pastor, head of American University's Center of North American Studies in Washington and one of the pioneers in seeking ways to reduce the U.S.-Mexico income gap, says southern Mexico could become a big magnet for investments with the proper infrastructure, and the incentive to migrate would be greatly reduced.¶ "If you build the roads, the ports, the communications in southern Mexico, foreign investment will come,'' Pastor says.¶ ''The most important thing is to open a new highway corridor that avoids Mexico City and goes straight to the U.S. border, perhaps through Monterrey.''

2ac plan key to immigration

Strengthening the Mexican economy is the only way to prevent illegal immigration Bansal 07 - staff writer at CNS news (Monisha Bansal, “Helping Mexican Economy is key to Ending Illegal Immigration, Says Expert”, 1/30, http://www.crosswalk.com/1466713/)//JS

Amid a growing national debate over how to deal with illegal aliens, one expert suggested Monday that the way to solve the immigration problem in the United States is to boost the Mexican economy. "If you solve the Mexico problem, the rest becomes much easier to deal with. That is the heart of the problem," said Doug Massey, co-director of the Mexican Migration Project at Princeton University. Massey was joined at a Capitol Hill press conference by Jeffrey Passel, a demographer with the Pew Hispanic Center. According to Passel, the number of illegal immigrants has been steadily increasing over the past 20 years and is probably now approaching 12 million. About 56 percent of them are from Mexico, he said. As many as 85 percent of Mexicans who enter the United States each year do so illegally. "There is a very strong relationship between availability of jobs in the U.S. and the flow of illegal immigration," said Passel, adding that undocumented aliens comprise five percent of the workforce in the U.S. Massey said the goal of undocumented Mexicans in the U.S. is not to live in the country permanently but "to use the U.S. labor market as an instrument to raise money to solve an economic problem at home." "We've tried this experiment over the last 20 years of trying to integrate the North American economy without including labor, and it has backfired," he argued. "It has resulted in a record number of illegal people working in the United States." Massey said the policy was one of "contradiction." "It's not because there was an increase in the inflow. It's because there is a decrease in the outflow," he said. "The decrease in the outflow is due to our own border policies." Massey advocated "amnesty" for those who entered the United States as minors and a path for earned legal immigration status for other illegal immigrants in the U.S. To disincentivize Mexicans from crossing the border illegally, Massey said, the U.S. should help their home country to raise its economic outlook. He also questioned expensive border enforcement strategies, like the building of a border fence. "Rather than spending $3 or 4 billion per year on border enforcement, I think the United States would do much better by taking some of that money and translating it into other areas of national security and the war on terror," Massey said. But many believe strongly in the need for stricter law enforcement along the U.S.-Mexican border. "It is often said that our borders are our nation's first line of defense," said Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), who proposes extending the San Diego border fence through Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. The fence has been authorized and partially funded. "Through the implementation of additional border fencing and its accompanying infrastructure, our borders will truly be our first line of defense and not our greatest vulnerability," Hunter said in a statement. "Based on our experiences in San Diego County, we know that border fencing works," he said. "Since fence construction began in 1996, crime rates have dropped dramatically, vehicle drug drive throughs have been eliminated and apprehensions have decreased as a result of fewer crossing attempts. Massey said he doubted the fence extension would be built. "Even if they did they would have to use illegal labor," he told Cybercast News Service . "Putting more money on the Mexican border is useless, is counterproductive," he said. " We're wasting our money on enforcing

our border with our largest trading partner who poses no conceivable security threat and is in fact a

close ally. " Make media inquiries or request an interview with Monisha Bansal.

Immigration Impacts

2ac disease impact

Illegal immigration turns all their disease impacts Wagner, no date – researcher and author of “The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration” (P. F., “The Dark Side Of Illegal Immigration,” n.d., http://www.usillegalaliens.com/impacts_of_illegal_immigration_diseases.html) // MS

Legal immigrants are required to have medical screening to ensure that they do not bring any contagious diseases into the United States. Illegal aliens are not screened and many are carry ing horrific third world diseases that do not belong in the US A. Many of these diseases are highly contagious and will infect citizens that come in contact with an infected illegal alien. This has already happened in restaurants, schools, and police forces.Malaria was eradicated from the US A in the 1940s but recently there were outbreaks in southern California, New Jersey, New York City, and Houston. Additionally, Malaria tainted blood has been discovered in the blood supply.Dengue was first recognized in the 1950s, affects most Asian countries and has become a leading cause of death among children in the infected areas. Heretofore unknown in the US, Dengue outbreaks have now occurred in the United States.Leprosy , a scourge of Biblical days, is caused by a bacillus agent and is now know as Hansen's Disease . In the 40 years prior to 2002, there were only 900 total cases of leprosy in the US. In the following three years there have been 9,000 cases and most were illegal aliens. As noted in the article Leprosy in America: new cause for concern by Dr. William Levis, head of the New York Hansen's Disease Clinic. "It's creeping into the U.S. ... This is a real phenomenon. It's a public health threat. New York is endemic now, and nobody's noticed." In the same article, Dr. Terry Williams, who runs a Houston-based clinic serving leprosy patients across southern Texas, said that the bulk of the cases treated by his clinic were immigrants. "A lot of our cases are imported," he said. "We see patients from everywhere--Africa, the Philippines, China, South America." (emphasis added)Hepatitis A-E is a viral infection that primarily attacks the liver. In 2004, more than 650 people contacted Hepatitis A at a single Chi-Chi's Mexican restaurant in Pennsylvania. Four latter died. Hepatitis B is one of the major diseases of mankind and is a serious global public health problem. It is estimated that 2 BILLION people are infected and about one million persons die each year. The new vaccine is only 95% effective in preventing an infection and will not cure a person who already has Hepatitis B, which results in a lifelong infection, cirrhosis (scarring) of the liver, liver cancer, liver failure, and early death. An estimated 1.3 million people in the US are currently infected. No vaccine is currently available to prevent Hepatitis C-E and treatment for chronic Hepatitis C costs about $1,500 per person.Tuberculosis (TB) kills approximately 2 million people each year. It is estimated that between 2002 and 2020, approximately 1,000,000,000 people will be newly infected, over 150 million people will get sick, and 36 million will die. TB is a highly contagious disease. Like the common cold, it spreads through the air. When infectious people cough, sneeze, talk or spit, they propel TB germs, known as bacilli, into the air. Each person with active TB will infect on average between 10 and 15 people every year.The United States currently has one of the lowest rates of TB in the world. Mexico has 10 times the rate of prevalence and many African countries along with Afghanistan, Cambodia, the Philippines, and Indonesia have rates that are 100 – 150 times higher. Making matters worse, a few years ago a Multi-Drug-Resistant (MDR) strain of TB has emerged that is resistant to all standard anti-TB drugs. Treating a single case of MDR TB costs over $250,000 and as much as $1,200,000 per person, and even with treatment about half of the patients with MDR-TB prematurely die.

In an article in the Journal of the American Medical Assn., Dr. Reuben Granich, a lead investigator for the CDC commented on MDR-TB:"Evidence of it has surfaced in 38 of 61 California health jurisdictions, and it could ‘threaten the efficacy of TB control efforts,' Granich said. The infected were said to be four times as likely to die from the disease and twice as likely to transmit the disease to others ... Reluctant to label the infected as ‘illegal' or even ‘undocumented' aliens, the report notes that of the 407 known cases of MDR-TB, 84% were ‘foreign-born' patients, mainly from Mexico and the Philippines who'd been in the U.S. less than five years. The percentage of TB cases among the ‘foreign-born' jumped from 29% in 1993 to 53% as of last year."Recently, there was a TB Outbreak In Oklahoma City in a hospital affecting thousands. Hopefully, this will not be the new extensively drug-resistant XDR strain just be ing brought in by

illegal aliens (now 4% of US cases) and which is currently impossible to cure at any cost . In any case, it would not be surprising to find that the source of the outbreak is an illegal alien working in the hospital or an infected resident worker who became infected through contact with an infected illegal alien since the TB rate for residents in the USA is very low.

Immigrants spread life-threatening diseases and increase healthcare costsThe Washington Times 5 – Newspaper (“Disease, unwanted import,” The Washington Times, 2/12/5, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/feb/12/20050212-112200-6485r/?page=all)//ACContagious diseases are entering the United States because of immigrants, illegal aliens, refugees and travelers, and World Health Organization officials say the worst could be yet to come.¶ In addition to a list of imported diseases that includes tuberculosis, sickle cell anemia, hepatitis B, measles and the potentially deadly parasitic disease Chagas, officials fear what could happen if the avian flu, which is flourishing among poultry in Southeast Asia, mutates so that it is capable of human-to-human transmission through casual contact. ¶ The bird flu has killed at least eight Asians since early January. Several of those deaths — in Vietnam and Thailand — were believed to have been caused when the virus passed between people who had sustained contact. If the avian flu mutates so that it can be transmitted with only casual contact, WHO authorities predict at least 7 million and as many as 100 million would die in a worldwide pandemic. ¶ Another concern with Asian immigrants in this country is the link between Asians and hepatitis B, said Jordan Su, program manager for the Asian Liver Center at Stanford University. She said the link is alarming enough to warrant action on its own.¶ Hepatitis B is a “very common epidemic in Asia” and more than half of the 1.3 million cases in this country are among Asians, who make up only 4 percent of the U.S. population, she said.¶ “We hope the government will pass a bill that requires every immigrant to be tested for hepatitis B,” Ms. Su said.¶ “People, in general, bring in diseases from their home countries. But I don’t want to say all immigrants are carrying diseases,” said Dr. Walter Tsou, president of the American Public Health Association.¶ Dr. Kenneth Castro, director of the Division of TB Elimination at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, said the job of preventing these diseases must extend beyond the United States.¶ “Many diseases know no borders, but all policies to prevent the importation of disease need to be reasonable and implementable, and our efforts to improve disease control cannot be restricted to our borders,” he said.¶ Concerns about imported disease prompted the State Department on Jan. 21 to temporarily suspend travel to this country by Hmong refugees from the Wat Tham Krabok camp in Thailand. The order came after federal health officials learned of at least 25 confirmed cases of TB among refugees from that camp who had resettled in California, Wisconsin and Minnesota.¶ Enhanced medical screening and treatment of the refugees are under way both in Thailand and this country, and State Department officials say it could be six months before the travel ban is lifted.¶ TB a growing threat¶ According to international health officials, about a third of the world’s population is infected with the bacteria that

cause tuberculosis. TB that is resistant to multiple drugs is rampant in many parts of the world, including Peru, Russia, the Baltic nations, Hunan province in China, the Dominican Republic and parts of South Africa, according to Dr. Castro. Some of the cases of TB diagnosed among Hmong refugees resettled in this country are drug-resistant, which makes them far more difficult and costly to treat.¶ Personnel with the CDC’s Division of TB Elimination have said in various reports that “immigration is a major force that sustains the incidence of tuberculosis” in the United States and other developed countries.¶ “TB cases among foreign-born individuals remain disproportionately high, at nearly nine times the rate of U.S.-born persons,” researchers said in a 2004 report in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.¶

The report found that people from outside the United States accounted for 53.3 percent of all new tuberculosis cases in this country in 2003. That was up from fewer than 30 percent in 1993. In 2003, nearly 26 percent of foreign-born TB patients in the United States were from Mexico. Another third of the foreign-born cases were among those from the Philippines, Vietnam, India and China, the CDC report said.¶ But Dr. Tsou says TB data are “misleading.” He points out that an immigrant might be in this country for years with “inactive” tuberculosis. “But now, after being here for a long time, that person’s immunity wanes,” and he or she develops active TB, which can become contagious, he said. ¶ The fear of imported disease has led to a push by Rep. Tom Tancredo, Colorado Republican, for a moratorium on immigration.¶ In a recent statement, Mr. Tancredo, chairman of the House Immigration Reform Caucus, cited the “serious consequences” associated with the “smuggling” of illegals into the United States without proper medical screening. ¶ “ Among them are the possibilities of the spread of diseases for which we have few, if any, antidotes,” he said.¶ Mr. Tancredo’s worries were prompted, in part, by the rising migration of Hispanics to the United States and a potential increase in the number of cases of Chagas disease, which is spread by insect bites in South America and which can be spread through blood transfusions. It is curable in its early stages, but kills about a third of the people infected if it is not caught in time.¶ The American Red Cross estimates that nationally, the risk of a blood donor having antibodies to Chagas or being infected with the disease is 1 in 25,000. The risk is 1 in 5,400 in Los Angeles and 1 in 9,000 in Miami. The Red Cross says it will begin screening donors for Chagas, once a suitable test is found.¶ Blood supply at risk¶ “An estimated 15 million South Americans [plus Mexicans and Central Americans] are suffering from Chagas,” said Dr. Arthur C. Aufderheide of the University of Minnesota School of Medicine. “I’m amazed” that only five cases have turned up in the U.S. blood supply since 1986.¶ Federal data suggest that as many as 10 percent of the approximately 1,000

Mexicans who emigrate to the United States daily probably are infected with Chagas , said Dr. Louis V. Kirchhoff, a Chagas specialist and a professor at the University of Iowa’s medical school.¶ Other researchers say immigration is resulting in population shifts that are contributing to a rise in sickle cell anemia.¶ While many incorrectly believe the disease is a condition that afflicts only blacks or it has been eradicated, one in every 16 Hispanics — the fastest-growing U.S. immigrant group — also carry the

genetic trait that can cause the painful and incurable blood disorder . ¶ The number of Hispanic sickle cell cases in the United States has risen rapidly, and one in every 900 Hispanic infants in this country is born with the disease, said Gil Pena, outreach director for the American Sickle Cell Anemia Association, based at the Cleveland Clinic.¶ Dr. Samuel L. Katz, one of the world’s foremost authorities on measles and a professor of pediatrics at Duke University, says the childhood illness is another contagious disease linked to immigration. In the 1960s, he was part of a team that developed an effective vaccine against the disease.¶ “Instead of having millions of measles cases, as we did in the old days, in the last 10 years, there have been less than 100 cases of measles per year in this country,” Dr. Katz said. “We’re able to study the genes of the virus to learn where it came from, and almost all of the measles cases that have been found in the United States [in recent years] were imported from a variety of different countries,” he said.¶ The pediatrician noted that many of the imported measles cases have come from Japan,

Germany and Italy. Those developed nations “have not been as aggressive about measles immunization” as some other countries, he said.¶ While acknowledging that certain illnesses occur predominantly in foreign-born people, Dr. Alfred DeMaria, director of the Bureau of Communicable Disease Control of the Massachusetts Health Department, said foreign travel, not immigration, is the real culprit.¶ Dr. DeMaria cited a case in his state last fall in which a Haitian-born woman was diagnosed with diphtheria. The throat infection is common in places such as Haiti and other countries in South and Central America, Asia, Africa, the Middle East, Turkey and Albania, but it is extremely rare in this country because of mass immunization.¶ Dr. DeMaria said it is believed the 60-year-old woman got diphtheria from her husband, who recently had traveled to Haiti. Although he had no symptoms, health officials found evidence of the infection in his throat.¶ “If I vacationed in Tanzania, I could bring any number” of tropical diseases back home to this country, as could a globe-trotting businessman, he said. But “there’s very limited risk of transmission in this country,” Dr. DeMaria said, concluding that “refugees and immigrants don’t account for major problems” in terms of public health.¶ Despite the risks, the CDC’s Dr. Castro said the “facility of movement” between countries must be preserved.¶ “If everyone is required to have a chest X-ray before getting on a plane, it’s not going to work,” he said.¶ But immigration opponents contend immigrants are carrying Third World diseases — some of which had been virtually eradicated here — to the United States. ¶ “Mass immigration is a threat to our nation’s health. Diseases nearly eradicated are breaking out again,” the U.S. Immigration Reform Political Action Committee says at its Web site.¶ The cost of care¶ Immigrants, particularly illegals, also impose “huge costs” on the U.S. health care system, especially in states bordering Mexico, says Steven A. Camarota, research director for the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS).¶ According to a survey by the American Hospital Association (AHA), hospitals in 24 Southwest border counties in Arizona, California, Texas and New Mexico reported uncompensated care totaling nearly $832 million in 2000.¶ A subsequent report prepared for the U.S.-Mexico Border Counties Coalition determined that about 25 percent of those nonreimbursed costs resulted from emergency medical treatment provided to undocumented immigrants.¶ Ray Borane, mayor of Douglas, Ariz., says he knows about those financial burdens firsthand.¶ “The city of Douglas is the major crossing point for illegals … and there have been some people who have come over here specifically to get dialysis or complicated eye surgery. They’ve established illegal residency in this country in order to thrive off the health care system,” he said, adding, “Illegals and undocumented immigrants don’t have any health insurance. We’ve never been reimbursed for their care, and the federal government has looked the other way, so they are not held responsible.” ¶ However, Mr. Borane, a Democrat, said medical services available for illegals have been “drastically” reduced since Arizona voters enacted Proposition 200 last November, which requires proof of U.S. citizenship for those seeking medical treatment or other public services in that state.¶ For the most part, however, “hospitals treat first and bill later, and they aren’t required to ask about a person’s citizenship before providing treatment,” said Tiffany Himmelreich, spokeswoman for the Ohio Hospital Association.¶ She said hospitals in that state treat their share of immigrants, particularly Somalis in Columbus and “many Latin farm workers in the Cleveland and Toledo areas.” She was unable to say how many lack health insurance.¶ Under new federal Medicare rules that took effect Oct. 1, medical workers are required to “make a good-faith effort to obtain citizenship information” from patients who receive emergency care in hospitals or doctors’ offices. The rules were issued in July after Congress established a $1 billion immigrant health program under the 2003 Medicare law to assist those who provide emergency care to undocumented aliens.¶

Advocates for illegals fear the new rules will drive those without papers underground, and they will not get the health services they need. They are seeking legislation that would prohibit health care providers from informing immigration officials about people who are in this country illegally.¶ A report by CIS, using 2004 data, “found that 35 percent of [all] immigrants don’t have health insurance, and an estimated 65 percent of illegals don’t have it,” Mr. Camarota said. In contrast, fewer than 13 percent of U.S. natives and their children lack health insurance, the analysis showed. In 2002, he said, the federal

government spent $2.5 billion to provide families of illegal immigrants with Medicaid and another $2.2 billion to provide medical treatment for uninsured illegals.¶ “State and local governments probably spent another $1.6 billion on top of that providing health insurance for illegal aliens,” said Mr. Camarota, whose group analyzes Census Bureau data.¶ The health system of Los Angeles County, Calif., has been described as the largest safety net for the uninsured in the nation.¶ “We have 2.5 million uninsured people in Los Angeles County out of a population of 9.6 million,” said Dr. Brian Johnston, a trustee of the Los Angeles County Medical Association.¶ California state law requires that counties provide medical care for the uninsured. “But we have the lowest rates of reimbursement for Medicaid of any program in the United States,” he said.¶ Dr. Johnston said the situation has been bleak for health providers and patients alike.¶ “In 2002, [emergency rooms] and trauma centers in California provided $520 million worth of medical care for which they received no reimbursement. About $150 million was lost in Los Angeles County alone,” he said. Those losses were 18 percent higher than in 2001, and those in 2001 were 16 percent ahead of 2000. “So this puts the entire system at risk,” Dr. Johnston said.¶ He noted that Los Angeles County experienced the closings of seven emergency rooms last year and 16 clinics the year before.¶ Although many of the uninsured people flooding emergency rooms and clinics in Los Angeles are illegal immigrants, Dr. Johnston doesn’t think most are trying to rip off the system.¶ “Illegals come here to work, and they do work. But they can’t get health insurance,” he said.¶ Screening at home¶

Some see stepped-up health screening in immigrants’ home countries or immigration bans as methods to attack imported health crises.¶ “I’m sympathetic to the plights of many states that are spending lots of resources for services for immigrants. But to deny people health care is counterproductive,” Dr. Tsou said.¶ He says it’s “necessary to detect these diseases early” in the foreign-born. But this country’s health care system makes that difficult, “since Medicaid is denied to legal immigrants for five years.”¶ “Pregnant immigrant women are examples of how this health care system is dysfunctional, since they are denied prenatal care. But their babies do receive Medicaid. We should give people medical care, regardless of their citizenship status,” Dr. Tsou said.

2ac economy impact

Illegal immigration kills the economy and turns poverty impactsCamarota, 99 – Director of Research at the Center for Immigration Studies, Ph.D. in Public Policy Analysis from the University of Virginia (Steven, “Importing Poverty: Immigration's Impact on the Size and Growth of the Poor Population in the United States,” Center for Immigration Studies, September 1999, http://cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/articles/poverty_study/povstudy.pdf) // MS

Impact on the Poor Already Here. One may reasonably ask whether it matters what proportion of persons in immigrant households, or even in native households, live in poverty. What effect, if any, does a higher national or local poverty rate have on the quality of life in a community or the country as a whole, especially for the majority of the population who are not poor? In addition to altruism, there are a number of very practical reasons to be concerned about poverty in America and the role that immigration policy may be playing in its perpetuation and growth. Probably the most obvious reason for concern is the impact on the poor already here, both native and immigrant. The cost of anti- poverty programs depends in large part on the number of people who are eligible to receive benefits and services. If immigration increases the number of people who are in need of assistance , then the total cost of means-tested programs must grow accordingly. Increasing the total cost of anti-poverty programs can only reduce political support for programs that are often already unpopular. Alternately, if government outlays on programs for the poor are kept constant, then the benefit level or services provided to each recipient must be reduced so that overall costs remain the same. This too is clearly not in the interest of American's poor. In addition to means-tested programs, other services may also be strained by increasing the size of the poor population. Many school systems that serve large numbers of low-income or at-risk students may be overwhelmed by the arrival of large numbers of children from poor immigrant families. A large increase in the size of the poor population may also strain the resources of non-governmental institutions, such as charities which serve low-income populations. Therefore, if one is concerned about the poor already here, increasing the number of people below or near poverty through immigration is clearly counter-productive.Effect on the Tax Base. Probably the most self-interested reason to be concerned about increasing poverty through immigration is its effect on public coffers . As is the case in all Western industrial democracies, each individual on average must be able to pay a good deal in taxes to cover his use of public services. In the United States, expenditures by federal, state, and local governments now account for roughly one-third of GDP. Because of the progressive nature of most income taxes, families with incomes below the poverty line pay very little in federal, state, and local income taxes. Of course, the poor do pay some taxes such as real-estate (directly as owners or indirectly through their rent) and sales taxes. However, commensurate with their very low income, the amount of non-income taxes generated by persons living in poverty is also very low. In addition to very low tax contributions, the poor are the primary beneficiaries of means-tested programs such as Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, Supplemental Security Income, Food Stamps, and subsidized housing. In short, there is no question that persons living in poverty , almost without exception, are a net fiscal drain .4 Therefore, if immigration increases the size of the poor population, then it is very likely that there will be a negative effect on public coffers. This is especially true in cities and states where large number of poor immigrant households are concentrated.Impact on Societal Stability. In addition to the effect on the poor already here and taxpayers, there are more subtle but perhaps equally important reasons to be concerned about the size of the poor population. While many factors contribute to the general stability of society, the distribution of

income clearly matters. As the well-known political scientist Seymour Martin Lipset (1959) has pointed out, democracy can only really work in societies that are not beset by widespread poverty and deprivation. Not surprisingly, recent scholarship has found a strong correlation between the level of wealth and income enjoyed by society's members and democratic stability (Rueschmeyer, Stevens, and Stevens, 1992; Gasiorowski and Power, 1998). Uslaner (1999) has found that the level of income inequality has an impact on how people view one another: with more poverty comes less trust and a greater suspicion of others. In addition to social science research, common sense suggests that greater disparities in income create greater social distance between society's members and thus will have a negative impact on political and social harmony.Exacerbation of Social and Economic Problems. A variety of societal problems are closely linked to poverty. It is well established that children who grow up in poverty are more likely to be involved in illicit activity , have higher teenage pregnancy rates, exhibit lower academic achievement, and suffer from a host of other social problems than are children who do not grow up in poverty (Devine and White, 1993). The size of the poor population may also have important implications for the overall competitiveness of the American economy . Not only because of the added tax burden it brings, but also because immigrants earning poverty level wages clearly do not have the kind of skills necessary to compete in an increasingly global marketplace.

2ac environment/warming

Immigration drastically exacerbates environmental degradation and warming – increases consumption and overpopulationFAIR, 2 – national, nonprofit, public-interest, membership organization of concerned citizens who share a common belief that our nation's immigration policies must be reformed to serve the national interest (Federation for American Immigration Reform, “How Immigration Hastens Destruction of the Environment,” October 2002, https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CC8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.firecoalition.com%2Farticles%2FHow_Immigration_Hastens_Destruction.doc&ei=bG7LUfqAEcTdyAHDz4G4AQ&usg=AFQjCNEWvBjt-ijhUSvTAS2mPo4OMdDV5w&sig2=2cOLAfNHyGYRbML_ufhzWw&bvm=bv.48340889,d.aWc) ** modified for gendered language // MS

Environment degradationThe rate of environmental degradation is the speed at which a person does damage to the environment through consumption of its resources. Most immigrants to the U nited States come from less technologically advanced countries. Because of the lifestyles of those countries, their people tend to consume and damage the earth’s resources more slowly ; that is, they have a low rate of environment degradation. How it increases when immigrants come to the United StatesWhen immigrants come to the United States, they do not maintain the old lifestyle of their home country. They begin to adapt to the American lifestyle. As they do, they become greater consumers and damagers of natural resources ; their individual rate of environment degradation increases .For example, the rate at which the average immigrant uses up freshwater is sixty-three percent higher than the rate at which he would have been using it up at home. On the back page is a chart of how much higher the average immigrant’s individual rate of environment degradation is than those who remain in the home country.How immigration and overpopulation harm the environmentBut it is not just that immigrants’ individual rates of environment degradation goes up after they get here (although that is obviously a serious problem in itself). The worst thing about immigration for the environment is that it is causing overpopulation . Environment degradation is not simply about the rate at which individuals degrade the environment; it is also a result of how many people there are.The more people there are in the United States, the more we as a whole degrade the environment . This is the problem of population growth, and immigration worsens it severely.Immigration is responsible for over forty percent of the population growth since 1970. The U nited States will never be able to level off or reduce the amount of overall damage we do to the environment unless we can get the size of our population to level off. But the size of our population can never level off as long as we continue to have the heavy immigration we have now. For sake of our environment, we need a moratorium on immigration.What the environment degradation factors meanMethane Production. The gas methane contributes to the greenhouse effect , which is causing dangerous rises in the world temperature. The consequences of this rise in temperature will undoubtedly be extreme, unpleasant, and perhaps impossible to manage .

Freshwater Consumption. In most regions, we are depleting or poisoning freshwater much faster than it is being replaced. As immigrants increase their freshwater consumption, they add to the problem even more.Industrial CO 2 Production. CO2 (carbon dioxide) is the primary gas that contributes to the greenhouse effect. CO2 is perhaps our worst and most immediate environmental danger, and immigrants triple their CO2 production by coming to the United States.Energy Consumption. This is total energy consumption, a major degrader of the environment. The average person who immigrates here more than triples his energy consumption.Cattle Production. While cattle production may seem benign, it is not. Cattle emit methane, increase erosion rates, and occasion the destruction of forest for range land. Immigration more than quintuples the average immigrant's effect on the production of cattle .Fertilizer Consumption. Although fertilizer does increase short-term crop yields, it harmfully salts the earth, ultimately ruini ng land and water systems. By coming to the U nited States, the average immigrant increases his their use of fertilizer by a factor of six .Fish Production. Over-fishing and pollution are serious threats to the world's fish populations . Many of the world's major fisheries are no longer productive. On average, when people immigrate to the United States, they contribute to the problem over six times more than would had they remained home .

Illegal immigration devastates the environmentNumbersUSA, no date – an education & research foundation that provides a civil forum of moderates, conservatives & liberals working for immigration numbers that serve America's finest goals (“Illegal Immigration's Negative Impact on the Environment,” n.d., https://www.numbersusa.com/content/learn/issues/environment/illegal-immigrations-negative-impact-environment.html) // MS

The Park Service has closed the ohono O'odham Indian Reservation, Organ Pipe National Monument, and Buenos Aires Wildlife Refuge due to the "unacceptable level of risk to the public and staff" from the "high level of illegal activity going on."Trash An estimated more than 2,000 tons of trash is discarded annually in Arizona's borderlands.The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) estimates that illegal aliens dumped more than 25 million pounds of trash in the Arizona desert between 1999 and 2005— that is almost 2,100 tons of trash each year . See report and pictures.The accumulation of disintegrating toilet paper, human feces, and rotting food has become a health and safety issue for residents of and visitors to some of these areas, and is threatening water supplies in some areas.Birds and mammals , some endangered , die when they eat or become entangled in the trash .FiresIn 2002 in southern Arizona, illegal aliens were suspected of having caused at least eight major wildfires that burned 68,413 acres (Illegal Immigrants Tied to Costly Wildfires Associated Press, Dateline Tucson, Arizona, September 9, 2002). In May of 2007, illegal aliens set at least five fires in the Coronado National Forest over a 10-day period in an effort to burn out Border Patrol agents conducting a law enforcement operation in the area (Illegals using fire to clear border. Washington Times, June 18, 2007).Illegal Roads and Abandoned VehiclesBy early 2004, the Chief Ranger at Organ Pipe estimated that illegal aliens and smugglers had created 300 miles of illegal roads and “thousands of miles of illegal trails."

More than 30 abandoned vehicles are removed from Organ Pipe alone each year.Since its creation in 2000, more than 50 illegal roads have been created in the Ironwood Forest National Monument, and more than 600 vehicles are abandoned there each year.There are an estimated 20-25 abandoned vehicles in the Cabeza Prieta NWR at any given time.An estimated 180 miles of illegal roads were created in Cabeza Prieta between 2002 and 2006.Declining Wildlife PopulationsAccording to the Fish and Wildlife Service, mass illegal immigration is a likely contributing factor in the dramatic 79 percent decline in the U.S. Sonoran pronghorn population between 2000 and 2002. These are just a few examples of the massive environmental destruction being caused by rampant

illegal immigration in southern Arizona. Similar damage is being done to remote, fragile lands in California, New Mexico, and Texas.

2ac laundry list

Increasing illegal immigration will destroy the US economy, education, health care, resources, and environmentTing, 11 – former assistant commissioner of the Immigration & Naturalization Service, professor of law at Temple University, and a fellow of the Center for Immigration Studies (Jan, “Downsides of High Immigration,” New York Times, 10/16/2011, http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/10/16/fewer-babies-for-better-or-worse/downsides-of-high-immigration) // MS

The Pew Research Center projects that the U.S. population will grow to 438 million by 2050 if all present trends continue, an increase of 129 million over the 2010 census count of 309 million. Most of the population growth over the next 40 years will be attributable to post-2010 immigrants and their descendants, with only a small portion attributable to the natural growth of the 2010 baseline population.How will we provide good jobs , good education al opportunities, good health care, and good housing for 129 million additional residents given our current track record? How many more vehicles will be added to our highways? How many more millions of barrels of oil will we have to import from the Middle East, or extract from deep-water wells drilled into the ocean floor ? How many more millions of tons of coal will have to be burned, or nuclear power plants built, to generate electricity for another 129 million people?In recent years the U.S. has been admitting approximately 1 million legal immigrants every year, mostly based on family connections, which is more than the number of legal immigrants admitted to any other country. If we count only those receiving comparable permanent residence and a clear path to full citizenship, the U.S. admits more legal immigrants than all the nations of the world combined. In addition, illegal immigrants have succeeded in violating U.S. immigration law so that the illegal immigrant population in the U.S. is estimated to be around 11 million.

2ac laundry list (2)

Empirics prove – Mexican collapse causes problems Greenspan 07 (Alan Greenspan, The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World, page 157, http://books.google.com/books?id=WcebhdfeC34C&pg=PA157&lpg=PA157&dq=%22if+mexico%27s+economy%22&source=bl&ots=Lq7G231Z0S&sig=-AK2cdrJHrWXacWgE2rrY05JAYE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=4IjMUcOZMYWQyQGTo4CICA&ved=0CFoQ6AEwBTgU#v=onepage&q=%22if%20mexico's%20economy%22&f=false)//JS

None of us had forgotten the Latin American debt crisis of 1982, when a $80 billion default by Mexico had triggered a cascade of emergency refinancings of Brazil, Venezuela, Argentina, and other countries. That episode nearly toppled several giant U.S. Banks, and had set back economic development in Latin America by a decade. The crisis of late 1994 was smaller. Yet the risk was heard to overstate. It, too, could spread to other nations, and because of growing integration of world financial markets and trade, it threatened not just Latin America but other parts of the developing world. What’s more, as NAFTA demonstrated, the United States and Mexico were increasing interdependent. If Mexico’s economy were to collapse, the flow of immigrants to the United States would redouble and the economy of the Southwest would be clobbered.

2ac mexican economy

Most recent evidence indicates illegal immigration empirically collapses the Mexican economy Darwish, 6/19 – author for the Front Page Magazine (Nonie, "Is Illegal Immigration Good For Mexico?”, 6/19/2013, The Front Page Magazine, http://frontpagemag.com/2013/nonie-darwish/is-illegal-immigration-good-for-mexico/) // MS

The debate over immigration reform, illegal aliens and border security presupposes that absorbing a constant flow of illegal immigrants, mainly from Mexico, is a good thing for Mexico and its people. But this presumption has neglected an important question: is the constant influx of poor and unskilled labor out of Mexico good for Mexico as an independent nation? Even if we ignore the fact that the US cannot absorb and assimilate all the people who want to come to America, we cannot ignore the question of whether we are doing Mexico a favor with our open borders. No doubt, life as an illegal alien in the US is much better than being unemployed and poor in Mexico or any other third world country.At face value illegal immigration seems to be good for Mexico, which benefits tremendously from the pouring of US dollars into its economy, supporting families and relatives of immigrants in America. That is why the Mexican government is not complaining and is happy to maintain the status quo on its borders. The government of Mexico acts like it is a right for its citizens to cross the borders into the US to find work. Not a bad deal for any government that does not want to be accountable to its own citizens to improve their lives, the economy and human rights conditions. The message of the Mexican government to its citizens is: You want a job, human rights and medical care, then go to the US if you can’t afford it here.The natural urge for any country to improve comes from pressure from the lower classes that demand employment and pressure governments to work hard to educate citizens to meet the demands of job competition. By absorbing Mexico’s unskilled workers, the US government has become an enabler in this equation.That is why the US government cannot claim to be an innocent victim here since it has politicized, used and abused the illegal immigration issue and narrowed it down to getting the Hispanic vote, name-calling Americans who want to respect the law and maintain border control, while neglecting the bigger picture: open border policies’ impact on the rights of American citizens and the healthy functioning of both Mexican and American sovereignty and economies.If the huge number of illegal immigrants from Mexico was good for Mexico as a nation, then how come its economic , political and security conditions have not improved over the years, but instead have steadily deteriorated? The steady absorption of the bottom of Mexican society by the US has deprived Mexico of its motivation to improve its economy and to become a government that serves the welfare and living conditions of its poor and unemployed. Why should Mexico work hard on improv ing conditions for the poor and unemployed if America is doing the job for them? It is not easy for any nation to be located on the border with a giant economic super power like the United States. This situation tempts smaller nations to exist like small fish living off the crumbs and leftovers of a giant whale.The situation in both Mexico and the US is unnatural and self-defeating, leaving Mexico stagnant and unmotivated to improve and meet the needs of its citizens. Groups in America who claim moral superiority for being on the side of open borders and absorbing all illegal aliens because they have big hearts are in fact absolving the Mexican government of its duty toward its citizens and economy and are

contributing to the internal problems of Mexico and the United States. In the long run, we are not doing Mexico a favor with our open borders, but we are crippling them and robbing them of the healthy functioning of their nation.

2ac US economy

Illegal immigration devastates the US economy – multiple warrantsSnyder, 11 – graduate of the University of Florida law school and former attorney in Washington D.C. (Michael, “The Beginning Of The End,” 5/11/2011, The Economic Collapse, http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/barack-obama-is-wrong-18-facts-which-prove-that-illegal-immigration-is-an-absolute-nightmare-for-the-u-s-economy) // MS

Once many illegal immigrants arrive in the U nited States they either try to make a living legally (by directly compet ing with blue collar American workers for jobs and driv ing their wages down ) or illegally by sell ing drugs or being involved in other kinds of criminal activity.Apparently Barack Obama believes that this kind of behavior should be rewarded with a "path to citizenship".The vast majority of illegal immigrants pay absolutely no federal or state income taxes and they never intend to . At the same time, they seem more than happy to take advantage of the free social services and benefits offered to them. In fact, stories of how "good" life in America is just encourages more and more immigrants to come to the United States illegally.We need an immigration policy that insists that everyone come in through the front door.Is there anyone out there that cannot agree with that?We also need to set immigration levels that our economy can handle.Right now our economy is struggling. Millions upon millions of Americans are out of work . 44 million Americans are on food stamps. 47 million Americans are living in poverty. We just can't take in a whole lot of extra workers right now. You would think that would just be common sense.But instead, Barack Obama wants to grant amnesty to all of the illegal immigrants that are already here and put them on a path to citizenship.Wow - do you think that might embolden millions more illegal immigrants to come flooding in?Barack Obama is against a border fence. He says we don't need it.Meanwhile, thousands more illegal immigrants pour into this country every single day.Barack Obama supports all of the "sanctuary cities" that have openly declared that they are not going to enforce our immigration laws.So where do you think illegal immigrants are going to flock to? The truth is that word about these "sanctuary cities" gets around really fast. If you live in one of these cities, then you probably know all about it.If Barack Obama gets his way, nobody will be breaking our immigration laws because essentially there will not be any more immigration laws.Not that George W. Bush was any better. He was an absolute disaster on immigration as well.The truth is that our immigration policy has been slowly eroding the U.S. middle class for many decades.But according to Barack Obama, we desperately need to implement his "immigration reform" plan for the good of the middle class...."One way to strengthen the middle class in America is to reform the immigration system, so that there is no longer a massive underground economy that exploits a cheap source of labor while depressing wages for everybody else."What a joke. The reality is that illegal immigration hurts that U.S. middle class and it is severely

damaging to the U.S. economy . Because of illegal immigration, every single day wages are lost, taxes don't get collected, hospitals provide "free health care" for which they are never paid, huge criminal

gangs of foreigners are roaming our streets and the cost of providing social services to illegal aliens is slowly bankrupting state and local governments.The following are 18 facts which prove that illegal immigration is an absolute nightmare for the U.S. economy....#1 Illegal immigrants take jobs away from American citizens. According to a review of U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and Census Bureau data, legal and illegal immigrants gained over a million additional jobs between 2008 and 2010 even as millions of American citizens were losing their jobs during that same time period.#2 The majority of our immigrants now sneak in through the "back door" that the federal government purposely leaves open. Thanks to the negligence of the federal government, far more people move into the United States illegally than come in through the legal immigration process. This has got to change.#3 Illegal immigrants generally don't pay taxes. The vast majority of illegal aliens would never even dream of paying income taxes, but Mexicans living in America send billions upon billions of dollars out of the United States and back to Mexico every single year.#4 Although illegal aliens pay next to nothing in taxes, they have no problem receiv ing tens of billions of dollars worth of free education benefits, free health care benefits, free housing assistance and free food stamp benefits . Many communities in the United States now openly advertise that they will help illegal aliens with these things.#5 The cost of educating the children of illegal immigrants is staggering. It is estimated that U.S. taxpayers spend $12,000,000,000 a year on primary and secondary school education for the children of illegal immigrants.#6 Thanks to illegal immigration, California's overstretched health care system is on the verge of collapse. Dozens of California hospitals and emergency rooms have shut down over the last decade because they could not afford to stay open after being endlessly swamped by illegal immigrants who were simply not able to pay for the services that they were receiving. As a result, the remainder of the health care system in the state of California is now beyond overloaded. This had led to brutally long waits, diverted ambulances and even unnecessary patient deaths. Sadly, the state of California now ranks dead last out of all 50 states in the number of emergency rooms per million people.#7 It was estimated that there were approximately 7.7 million illegal aliens employed by U.S. employers during 2008. How much better would our economy look if all of those jobs were being filled by American workers?#8 The region along the U.S./Mexico border is now an open war zone. Just across the U.S. border, the city of Juarez, Mexico is considered to be one of the most dangerous cities on the entire planet because of the brutal drug war being waged there. In fact, Juarez has now become the murder capital of the western hemisphere. Much of that violence has begun to spill over into areas of the southwestern United States.For example, a while back NPR described one incident in the Juarez Valley that involved American citizens....A couple of weeks ago, gunmen in the Juarez Valley killed the Mexican relative of a Fort Hancock high school student. When the student's family in Fort Hancock heard about it, they crossed the border at 10 a.m. to see the body, and took the student with them."By 10:30, they had stabbed the relatives that went with him, which included his grandparents, with an ice pick," says school superintendent Jose Franco. "My understanding is that the gentleman is like 90 years old, and they poked his eyes out with an ice pick. I believe those people are still in intensive care here in a hospital in the U.S."#9 A substantial percentage of young illegal immigrants end up in gangs. U.S. authorities say that there are now over 1 million members of criminal gangs operating inside the United States. According to federal statistics, these 1 million gang members are responsible for up to 80% of the violent crimes

committed in the U.S . each year. Latino gangs made up primarily of illegal aliens are responsible for much of this violence.According to the Center for Immigration Studies, some of the most notorious gangs in the country are made up almost entirely of illegal immigrants...."Gang investigators in Virginia estimate that 90% of the members of MS-13, the most notorious immigrant gang, are illegal immigrants."#10 The "18th Street Gang" is certainly giving MS-13 a run for their money. It is believed that the 18th Street Gang has thousands of members in the city of Los Angeles alone. In fact, the gang has become so notorious that there are even rumors that some police officers in Los Angeles simply will not venture into the areas most heavily controlled by the 18th Street gang.The following is what Wikipedia says about the 18th Street Gang....A US Justice Department report from 2009 estimates that the 18th Street gang has a membership of some 30,000 to 50,000 with 80% of them being illegal aliens from Mexico and Central America and is active in 44 cities in 20 states. Its main source of income is street-level distribution of cocaine and marijuana and, to a lesser extent, heroin and methamphetamine. Gang members also commit assault, auto theft, carjacking, drive-by shootings, extortion, homicide, identification fraud, and robbery.#11 The "drug war" in northern Mexico is one gigantic bloodbath. The Mexican government says that as many as 28,000 people have been slaughtered by the drug cartels since 2007. A very significant percentage of those deaths have happened in areas right along the U.S. border, and yet our federal government still sees no reason to get serious about border security.#12 It is an open secret that Mexican drug cartels are openly conducting military operations inside the United States. The handful of border patrol agents that we have guarding the border are massively outgunned and outmanned.One agent who patrols the border and who asked to remain anonymous told Fox News the following...."To say that this area is out of control is an understatement."A different federal agent put it this way in an email to Fox News...."Every night we’re getting beaten like a pinata at a birthday party by drug, alien smugglers."#13 Federal border officials say that Mexican drug cartels have not only set up shop on U.S. soil, but they are actually maintaining lookout bases in strategic locations in the hills of southern Arizona. If you go to Arizona today, there are actually signs that have been put up by the federal government warning American citizens not to venture into certain wilderness routes that are used by Mexican drug cartels to bring in drugs.#14 The drug war being waged on both sides of the border is so violent that it is almost unimaginable. For example, one very prominent Mexican assassin known as "the soupmaker" has confessed that he made approximately 300 bodies disappear by dissolving them in acid baths. But right now there is essentially nothing that is preventing the next "soupmaker" from crossing the U.S. border and moving into your neighborhood.#15 Arizona police are being openly warned by the Mexican drug cartels that if they try to interfere with the drug traffic in their area that they will be "taken out" by drug cartel snipers.#16 While the U.S. military endlessly hunts for "members of al-Qaeda" in the caves of Afghanistan and on the streets of Iraqi cities, a very real threat has been building just south of the border. Over the past 15 to 20 years, Hezbollah has set up operations all over Mexico, Central America and South America. Hezbollah is reportedly making a lot of money in the drug trade and in trafficking illegal aliens. Sadly, our government is largely ignoring this.#17 Each year, it costs the states billions of dollars to incarcerate illegal immigrant criminals that should have never been allowed into the country in the first place. It is estimated that illegal aliens make up approximately 30 percent of the population in federal, state and local prisons and that the total cost of incarcerating them is more than $1.6 billion annually.

#18 The drug cartels and the gangs always seem to be a couple steps ahead of our agents along the border. Approximately 75 tunnels along the U.S. border with Mexico have been discovered by law enforcement authorities in the last four years alone.How much do you think all of this crime , gang violence and drug cartel activity is costing our economy?

Research show US action now is key to solve immigration from collapsing our economyMassey & Sana, 3 – *Professor at Princeton University AND **Research Associate at Louisiana State University (Douglas and Mariano, “Patterns of U.S. Migration from Mexico, the Caribbean, and Central America”, COLEF, 7/4/03, http://www2.colef.mx/migracionesinternacionales/revistas/mi05/n05-005-039.pdf)//NK

The largest sustained migratory flow in the world occurs between Mexico and the United States. In the twentieth century, some 5.8 million Mexicans were admitted into the United States as legal permanent residents, with 2.2 million arriving in the 1990s alone. It is not surprising, therefore, that Mexican immigration has been much studied by researchers, not only those in Mexico and the United States, but throughout the world. Research has established a high rate of undocumented migration among Mexicans, a high circularity of movement, and a pattern of selectivity that historically has favored young, poorly educated males from smaller communities, who arrived to take unskilled, unstable jobs in the U.S. secondary labor market. Inevitably, this profile colors what most observers see as “Latino” migration to the United States. After all, Mexicans constitute nearly 60% of all legal immigrants from Latin America and around 80% of those who arrive without documents (see Bean et al., 1998; Woodrow-Lafield 1998). Despite Mexico’s prominence among sending countries, however, many hundreds of thousands of immigrants come from other Latin American nations. According to data from the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (2002), during the 1990s, some 527,000 legal immigrants arrived from Central America; another 505,000 came from the Spanish-speaking Caribbean, and 540,000 came from South America. During the 1990s, nearly 1.6 million Latin Americans entered the United States from countries other than Mexico. Given these large numbers, generalizations about Latin American immigration based on the Mexican experience are likely to be misleading, and often, they are completely wrong. As Massey et al. (1998, 107) point out in their exhaustive review of the empirical literature on immigration to North America, “far too much of the research is centered in Mexico, which because of its unique relationship to the USA may be unrepresentative of broader patterns and trends.” To address this gap in the research literature, the Latin American Migration Project (LAMP) was launched in 1998. Modeled on the Mexican Migration Project (MMP), which began in 1982, the explicit goal of the LAMP was to compile data on immigration from non-Mexican source countries by applying a similar blend of ethnographic and survey methods to sending communities throughout Latin America. To date the LAMP has made data publicly available from surveys of 21 communities in Puerto Rico, the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, and Costa Rica, each accompanied by a purposive sample of settled out-migrants, who were located and interviewed in the United States. In this analysis, we draw upon these data to develop a profile of Caribbean and Central American migrants to the United States, comparing their patterns of migration with those of Mexican migrants.

North American economic integration is the best method for economic growth and maintaining competitiveness – preserves political capitalPastor, 12 – Professor and Director, Center for North American Studies, American University (Robert, “Beyond the Continental Divide,” American Interest, July/August, http://www.the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=1269)//SY

At the same time, the United States has been chasing a phantom in East Asia. At the APEC Summit in November 2011, the Obama Administration put its weight behind the “Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement” (TPP), a free-trade agreement with eight countries whose combined gross product is a mere one-seventh that of Canada and Mexico. Of course, the TPP is not a trade strategy, or at least not a serious one. Its real purpose is to prevent China from unifying the Asian economy because it includes provisions—for example, on state-owned operating enterprises—that China cannot accept. But that TPP strategy was pre-empted within a week of the APEC Summit when China, Japan and South Korea joined the ASEAN countries in free-trade talks.

Whatever its actual purpose, a TPP is likely to take a long time to negotiate and yield comparatively little in terms of additional trade. Moreover, like all trade agreements, the Administration would have to invest time and considerable political capital to get it approved by Congress. That would be a waste of political capital compared to the North American alternative. Just do the math: U.S. trade with Canada and Mexico in 2010 exceeded $1 trillion, 30 percent more than trade with China and Japan. More importantly, the best markets to expand U.S. exports are not in Asia but with our immediate neighbors. For every additional dollar that Canada and Mexico buy from abroad, more than eighty cents are U.S. exports, and for every additional dollar we import from our neighbors, a large proportion—about forty cents—is actually composed of our exports to them. In other words, the balance of trade is less important with our neighbors than the overall volume, since our production and marketing arrangements are already so intertwined. The opposite is true of our trade with Asia.

The best strategy to compete against China, double our exports and invigorate our economy is to deepen economic integration with our neighbors and to do it together rather than apart. Unfortunately, the latter approach has prevailed since NAFTA. The three leaders mostly meet one-on-one in separate bilateral forums. The three North American leaders met as a group in Guadalajara in August 2009 and pledged to meet annually, but they missed the next two years. On April 2, 2012, Obama hosted Harper and Calderon in Washington. Their “Joint Statement” emphasized “deep economic, historical, cultural, environmental, and societal ties”, but their initiatives remained packaged in two separate bilateral compartments.

Integrating North American markets key to competitiveness, efficiency, and US influencePastor, 13 – Professor and Director, Center for North American Studies, American University (Robert, “Shortcut to U.S. Economic Competitiveness: A Seamless North American Market,” Policy Innovation Memorandum No. 29, March, http://www.cfr.org/north-america/shortcut-us-economic-competitiveness-seamless-north-american-market/p30132)//SY

With rising competitive pressures from overseas and weak growth at home, the quickest external route to economic recovery and enhanced competitiveness is to stretch the U.S. market to include 113 million Mexicans and 34 million Canadians. The Obama administration has made it a priority to complete the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) with Asia and has announced its intention to launch a new

U.S.-European Union Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. But the administration has neglected its two neighbors despite the fact that their combined product is more than six times that of other TPP countries and that U.S. exports to them exceed those to the EU. Mexico and Canada are already the United States' two largest export markets, its two largest sources of energy imports, and in the case of Mexico, the largest source of immigrants. The three countries also make products together. Unlike U.S. trade with most other countries, roughly 25 to 40 percent of the value of U.S. imports from Canada and Mexico comes from components made in the United States, and then assembled into finished goods in one of the two countries. Closer integration would translate into a more efficient supply chain and improved competitiveness. With labor costs in China rising to those in Mexico, and the cost of transportation across the Pacific increasing, a North American supply chain is not only more efficient than an Asian route, but it could also become a strong export platform to Asia. Moreover, if the United States seeks a unified approach to trade negotiations with Mexico and Canada, Asia and Europe will recognize that Washington has other options, and prospects for concluding transpacific and transatlantic trade deals would likely improve. For example, in the 1990s, world trade talks were stalemated until NAFTA was signed.

2ac refugee/instability extension

Mexican collapse causes refugee crisis Holub 10 (Hugh Holub, “What happens if Mexico collapses?”, Tuscon Citizen, http://tucsoncitizen.com/view-from-baja-arizona/2010/07/30/what-happens-if-mexico-collapses/, 7/30, http://tucsoncitizen.com/view-from-baja-arizona/2010/07/30/what-happens-if-mexico-collapses/)(

If Mexico blows up, my guess is that the border will be overwhelmed with people trying to come north. And not just on the ground. Private planes could be landing all over the countryside…even on the freeways. We could see several hundred thousand people at our border in a matter of days if Mexico blows up. ¶ Huge refugee camps would have to be set up all over the Southwest US. Transport would have to be arranged from the border to these refugee camps. Hundreds of thousand would have to be fed and clothed. ¶ Solutions like SB 1070 barely scratch the surface of the really deep problems facing our border with Mexico.¶ The enormous drug demand from US drug users is making the Mexican drug cartels a formidable military force in Mexico. Between buying politicians and cops, and beheading the ones that don’t cooperate, there are reportedly already serious portions of Mexico that the central and state governments do not control.¶ The whole approach of US border policy presumes that maybe 90% of Mexico’s population actually doesn’t want to head north. Roughly ten percent of Mexico’s population has already left their country which has probably kept the dampers on a left-wing revolutionary movement like the Zapatistas from gaining much ground.¶ But if Mexico’s economy collapses, or the drug cartels really take over, all bets are off.¶ As they say in Mexico “So far from God and so close to the United States”

2ac econ impact

Economic Decline causes widespread immigration Littlefield 2009 – Council on Hemispheric Affairs research associate (Edward H. Littlefield, “As Mexico’sProblems Mount: The Impact of Economic Recessions on Migration Patterns from Mexico”, Council on Hemispheric Affairs, 3/09, http://www.coha.org/as-mexico%E2%80%99s-problems-mount-the-impact-of-the-economic-recession-on-migration-patterns-from-mexico/) //JS

As migration from, and remittances to, Mexico have decreased as a result of the current recession, the Mexican economy ominously worsens Migration, remittances, and the national economy should be considered as integral components in the debate over whether Mexico deserves to be classified as a “failed state,” and what should be United States policy The Mexican economy and many of its national institutional structures may be on the brink of collapse. While drug war violence has dominated the recent news about the possible irreversible status as a society beyond remediation, the topic of immigration has been either marginalized or used to further promote fears that the conflict may spread to the United States. Drugs, national security, and economic recession have replaced immigration reform on the United States’ policy agenda. However, the current financial crisis, and its impact south of the border, is intricately linked to matters of immigration, security, and Mexico’s very cohesion. Previous Mexican Economic Crises and their Impact on Migration the past, economic crises in Mexico have precipitated spikes in immigration to the United States. In 1982, falling oil prices forced a 72 percent devaluation of the peso, resulting in a 30 percent increase in Mexicans apprehended along the U.S. border, from 1 million to 1.3 million, in 1983 and 1984. In 1994, as the indigenous Zapatistas in the southern Chiapas region welcomed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with an uprising, the economic crisis resulting from the peso’s devaluation resulted in another 30 percent increase in border apprehensions. Additional factors, both internal and external, shaped Mexican migration to the United States in the 1990s. The Mexican economy could not produce enough jobs to accommodate the country’s dramatic population growth (68 million in 1980 to 94 million in 1995). Consequently, the preferred solution on both sides of the border was to bolster the Mexican economy through NAFTA, which intended to limit the population’s incentive to immigrate illegally to the United States. Increased border security and United States employment levels were expected to further curb migration in the mid 1990s. However, the 1994 peso devaluation increased the relative value of dollars earned by Mexicans in the United States, providing a major incentive for the population to seek employment north of the border and send earnings back home

Overpopulation impacts

Immigration exacerbates problems including destroying our environmentGrant and Bouvier 95 - *retired National Security Council staff member and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Environment and Population AND **Adjunct Professor of Demography at Tulane University and Senior Fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies. He served as demographic consultant to the U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on Population and the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy (*Lindsey, **Leon, How Many Americans? September 26, 1995, pg. 3-4)//ACEven without population growth, our nation's voracious ¶ consumptive appetite is a problem. But population growth ¶ exacerbates the problem, and the more rapid (and unplanned) that growth, the more damaging it is. ¶ The messages in this book are really quite straightforward. First, the human race is a part of the natural ecosystem of the Earth, not a privileged superspecies given "the\ ¶ earth as [its] inheritance."¶ 2 ¶ Second, the disturbances caused by human activities have accelerated so dramatcally in this half-century, driven by population growth and{ ¶ the technological explosion, that they threaten not only the continuation of a way of life that we have come to take for) ¶ granted, but perhaps even the continuation of life systems as we understand them. Third, the United States, because · ¶ of its size and consumption habits, is most destabilizing ¶ unit of the vast ecosystem we call the Earth; moreover, present migration and fertility patterns will only strengthen ¶ that destabilizing influence in the next half- century or ¶ more. And fourth, the means for controU_ing and reversing ¶ these terrible forces lie within our hands, if only as a society ¶ we can be wise enough to understand and employ them. ¶ Simple as this sounds, it will take a profound reordering of our society's philosophical underpinnings, and some ¶ very difficult practical political decisions, to carry out such ¶ a program. ¶ The population issue, as we see it, is a double one: rapid ¶ and unplanned growth itself has high costs and detrimental ¶ effects on the quality of life of all humans; and the resultant ¶ numbers-the sheer size of the populations that have resulted from that growth-put intolerable strains on the environment that supports us.

Overpopulation causes a laundry list of impacts – US is uniquely keyGrant and Bouvier 95 - *retired National Security Council staff member and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Environment and Population AND **Adjunct Professor of Demography at Tulane University and Senior Fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies. He served as demographic consultant to the U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on Population and the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy (*Lindsey, **Leon, How Many Americans? September 26, 1995, pg. 13-14)//ACThere is a simple little riddle: "If there are a dozen water ¶ lilies in a pond, doubling daily, and they cover the pond in ¶ 30 days, when was the pond half covered?" The answer, of ¶ course, is on the 29th day. The expansion of human activities on the Earth resembles the story of that pond, as will ¶ become clear later in this book. The explosive growth of inputs into agriculture and industry is altering our habitat. ¶ We humans have been introducing new combinations of ¶ chemicals and elements-compounds of mercury, lead, ¶ hydrocarbons, chlorine, and on and on-into the biosystem unlike anything it has borne before. We are introducing ¶ more familiar things such as nitrogen and carbon compounds at an unprecedented rate. ¶ These disturbances are having profound effects on the ¶ world around us. Acid rain. Climate change. Too little ¶ ozone in the stratosphere and too much at ground level. The ¶ destruction of life forms at a rate that has been compared to ¶ the Cretaceous extinctions. The rapid loss of forests under ¶ the double onslaught of overharvesting and environmental ¶ damage. Farinlcmd destruction and

desertification. Perhaps even more ominous, we do not really know what we ¶ are doing. Of the 11 million chemicals registered by the ¶ Chemical Abstract Service, some 60,000 are in regular commercial use. Of these, very few have been tested for primary ¶ health effects/ to say nothing of the multiple consequences ¶ as they break down, combine and move through the ecosystem. ¶ Even many environmentalists may think of these disruptions simply as threatening rather remote good things, like ¶ caribou herds in Alaska, or creating unpleasant conditions ¶ like smog or crowding that degrade the quality of life. Certainly, the changes are having such effects, and others such ¶ as the social collapse of our cities, but the issue may be ¶ graver than the bland term "quality of life" suggests. Humanity is on a course that, if continued, could threaten our own survival . ¶ There has been much debate about "growth/collapse" cycles. The Earth is remarkably resilient, and nobody really ¶ knows how much abuse it can take, but the human tribe ¶ seems intent on testing the limits. Civilizations have overstretched their limits before, and collapsed, leading to population declines. The dangers of the course humankind has ¶ embarked upon are not simply the imaginings of zealots. ¶ Witness the unprecedented joint warning in 1992 by the officers of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and ¶ the Royal Society of London: ¶ If current predictions of population growth prove accurate and patterns of human activity on the planet remain ¶ unchanged, science and technology may not be able to ¶ prevent either irreversible degradation of the environment or continued poverty for much of the world. ¶ 2 ¶ Or the somber and eloquently phrased rumination by Daniel Koshland, editor of Science magazine, that we must ¶ "curb our primordial instinct to increase replication of our ¶ own species at the expense of others because the global ¶ ecology is threatened. So ask not whether the bell tolls for ¶ the owl or the whale or the rhinoceros; it tolls for us."¶ 3 ¶ Scientists understand connections that politicians so far have ¶ generally hoped to ignore. We have been warned. ¶ What do these gloomy speculations have to do with the ¶

specific issue of U.S. population? The United States is a major part of the global problem. If the total human population ¶ is quadrupling in this century, the United States is not far ¶ behind; we have more than trebled: We are the third largest ¶ nation on Earth and, because of our consumption-intensive ¶ way of living, the leading source of some of the most immediate threats to the future of humankind: climate warming, acid precipitation and the loss of stratospheric ozone. ¶ We contribute to species impoverishment by altering habitat and cutting down our remaining old forests, and our demand for timber, along with that of the other industrial ¶ nations, hastens the destruction of tropical forests. ¶ We Americans are not just degrading the globe; we are the ¶ victims of our own behavior.

Overpopulation causes oil dependence – leads to climate change, water and soil acidification, and air pollutionGrant and Bouvier 95 - *retired National Security Council staff member and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Environment and Population AND **Adjunct Professor of Demography at Tulane University and Senior Fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies. He served as demographic consultant to the U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on Population and the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy (*Lindsey, **Leon, How Many Americans? September 26, 1995, pg. 24-25)//ACENERGY ¶ It used to be easy to believe complacently that the rising ¶ prosperity 9f most Americans during this century-until ¶ very recently-was the result of "American know-how" or ¶ our particular organizational abilities. It would be more accurate to ascribe that prosperity to our early discovery and ¶

exploitation of fossil fuel resources. By the 1970s, our annual use of fossil fuels was about 1.4 times as high as the total primary energy production (the capture of solar energy ¶ in plant photosynthesis) in the United States.¶ 15 ¶ In other ¶ words, we have been living beyond our resources, on fossil ¶ energy, just as we have been relying on fossil water in agriculture. ¶ We are now approaching the downslope of the

fossil fuel ¶ era. Let us take a closer look at U.S. energy sources. ¶ Petroleum ¶ Petroleum will be the first to go. The U.S. Geological Survey ¶ (USGS) in 1989 estimated that total remaining petroleum, ¶ including known reserves and potential resources still undiscovered, equaled about 16 years' consumption at current rates.¶ 16 ¶ The estimate had been driven progressively ¶ downward as exploration failed to find petroleum in promising offshore locations. ¶ In 1985, U.S. crude oil production reached a high of 9 ¶ million barrels per day, drawing on the new Alaskan fields. ¶ By 1993 production stood at only about 6.9 million barrels.17 Today U.S. reliance ,on imported oil is about 50 percent of consumption. Two-thirds of the world's estimated ¶ petroleum resources are in the Persian Gulf area. How long ¶ can we depend on those supplies? How long can we afford ¶ them, even if renewed instability in that volatile region ¶ does not imperil their availability? Natural Gas ¶ Nut·u.ral gas resources are somewhat more plentiful than pelroloum, but not by much. The USGS estimates total reJoverable domestic .resources at 671 trillion cubic feet, or ¶ l-lttnugh for about 36 years at the current rate of consumption. (This figure ignores imports, which provide about 3 ¶ porcent of current consumption.) ¶ When specialists talk of a 36-year supply, beware. There ¶ are two deep pitfalls here. First, the projection assumes currunt consumption levels. If population is rising, either the ¶ resource is used faster or the per capita consumption must ¶

diminish every year. Second, as oil becomes scarce and the ¶ pr·lce rises, a shift to gas will occur, accelerating its depletion. (Gas consumption in the 1970s during the oil price ¶ tlhocks was higher than it is now.) ¶ The oil companies know what is happening. Amoco has ¶ unnounced a policy of deemphasizing further exploration ¶ In the United States. The four companies that once held the ¶ most oil and gas acreage in the United States (Amoco, ¶ Exxon, Texaco and Shell) have reduced that acreage by 46 ¶

pe.rcent as they moved their exploration overseas.¶ 18 ¶ During 1991, by the way, the natural gas industry found ¶ new reserves to replace only 85 percent of the natural gas it ¶ produced in the lower 48 states, down from 101 percent average replacement in the previous five years. ¶ Coal ¶ We need to move away from fossil fuels not simply because ¶ they are being exhausted. They are the principal drivers of ¶ climate change, water and soil acidification and the various ¶ forms of air pollution. ¶

Overpopulation causes a dependency on coal – this bars a shift to renewable sources – key to reduce emissionsGrant and Bouvier 95 - *retired National Security Council staff member and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Environment and Population AND **Adjunct Professor of Demography at Tulane University and Senior Fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies. He served as demographic consultant to the U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on Population and the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy (*Lindsey, **Leon, How Many Americans? September 26, 1995, pg. 25-27)//AC Coal is our most abundant remaining fossil fuel resource. ¶ It is also the dirtiest. If it were not for coal, we could perhaps ¶ console ourselves with the thought that environmental ¶ damage from fossil fuels will eventually be self-limiting as ¶ we run out of them. Not so with coal. About 75 percent of ¶ 25 ' ¶ ¶ known bituminous coal reserves are in China, the former ¶ USSR, and the United States. The United States has proven ¶ recoverable reserves of 113 billion metric tons, and that ¶ much again in reserves not presently economically recoverable.19 These reserves represent a supply for a century or ' ¶ 1 ¶ two at current levels of consumption (again noting thecaveat that c;onsumption levels may change). The prospects ¶ for discovering extensive new deposits are remote. ¶ Since the country will become more reliant on coal in the ¶ future ( barring a remarkably rapid shift to solar and other ¶ renewable sources ), there are some heavy national investments ahead if the United States is serious about controlling sulfur oxide emissions. At present, some 86 percent of ¶ our coal consumption goes into generating electricity, but ¶

as recently as 1950 more went into commercial and residential heating than into electricity. We will

need to discourage a return to the use of coal in individual furnaces, ¶ which by their nature are more polluting than properly designed large thermal electric plants. We will also need to ¶ promote a widespread conversion to heat pumps for warming, to use the electricity more efficiently. ¶ If we are not to choke on the added pollution from a ¶ greater reliance on coal, the country will need to finance ¶ a wholesale conversion of our thermal electric plants to ¶ more modern designs. Pilot testing has been carried out ¶ on several "clean" systems, notably the IGCC (integrated ¶ gasification-combined cycle) process that operated until ¶ recently under multiple sponsorship at Cool Water, California. Such new approaches lead to dramatic reductions ¶ in pollution and even permit the recovery of the pollutants ¶ for commercial use. The principal remaining problem, ¶ aside from the cost of the new technology, is that means ¶ must still be found to sequester the carbon dioxide emissions to avoid contributing further to global warming. ¶ There are opportunities for the clean use of coal, but only ¶ with massive replacement of present generating capacity. ¶ Consider this statement from a recent National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program (NAPAP) study: "In 2020. . . sulfur dioxide emissions from utilities were ¶ projected to be 5 million tons when a 40-year retirement age ¶ was assumed, compared with 19 million tons under a 70- ¶ year retirement age assumption ."¶ 20 ¶ This dramatic difference in air pollution from coal in the two investment underlines the critical importance of finding the ¶ resources to invest in cleaner energy . ¶

The costs do not stop there. The atmosphere is global. ¶ None of the other major coal producers-China and the ¶ uccessor states to the USSR-is in a good position to pay a ¶ premium for its energy. China in particular, with more than ¶ holf the Earth's recoverable reserves, is rapidly expanding ¶ Its use of coal. It is in all countries' interest to encourage ¶ China to use the least damaging technology possible, even ¶ If the industrial countries must help pay for licensing arrangements or the differential costs of using more benign ¶ technologies. ¶

All non-renewables failGrant and Bouvier 95 - *retired National Security Council staff member and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Environment and Population AND **Adjunct Professor of Demography at Tulane University and Senior Fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies. He served as demographic consultant to the U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on Population and the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy (*Lindsey, **Leon, How Many Americans? September 26, 1995, pg. 27-29)//ACBiomass ¶ People turn to biomass as a solution when they discover ¶ t·hat we must move away from fossil fuels. (Biomass fuel is ¶ Organic matter that can be burned directly or converted to a ¶ more convenient gaseous or liquid fuel by distillation

or ¶ pyrolysis.) ¶ The problem is that biomass must come either from farms ¶ or from forests. Recent efforts at biomass conversion (methonol from corn) used more energy than they generated. That ¶ problem could be addressed by improving the technology ¶ ond relying on other sources, such as cornstalks or bagasse ¶ from sugarcane, but the dilemma does not end there. Biomass production from agriculture competes with existing ¶ uses of the land, and we shall shortly see that agriculture already needs more cropland than it has, for food and fiber ¶ production. ¶ Firewood ¶ It sounds almost quaint to speak of firewood, but it is the ¶ original form of biomass for conversion to energy. Until ¶ 27 ¶ :J.880, firewood (mostly from local woodlots) provided over ¶ Jlalf our total energy. It may have been a toilsome resource to ¶ extract, but it was close by, and staying warm in the winter ¶ Jid not depend on long gas pipelines or Middle East oil ¶ gupplies. ¶ Firewood became less and less important, though there ¶ something of a return to it after the second oil crisis. It ¶ jlOW provides about 3 percent of total energy consumption. ¶ Jnterestingly enough, the total tonnage of firewood burned ¶ jS again about the same as in 1880.¶ 21 ¶ The differenceis that ¶ our total energy consumption has gone up 17-fold. ¶ Environmentalists at first looked on the return to fireas somehow desirable. Indeed, if the woodlots are ¶ maintained and replanted, they harvest energy production from current photosynthesis and do not run down ¶ the resource. They therefore do not add to the problem of ¶ carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. However, the enthusifor wood burning is fading. It turned out that wood fires ¶ (particularly in the efficient airtight stoves popular in the ¶ :J.970s) themselves are a source of air pollution. The little re-¶

5ort town of Tell uri de, Colorado, achieved a certain fame in ¶ this regard. Controlled by environmental activists, and located in a box canyon, it quickly discovered that its charmjug wood fires were generating dense smog. The town ¶ government enacted ordinances requiring that smoke detectors-be installed in all chimney flues and regulating how ¶ often one could have a wood fire. Other towns, in one way ¶ 0¶ rthe other, have had to follow There are environmentallimits to the use of wood as a household fuel. ¶ Over time, there is a more ominous

consequence of the ¶ ehift to firewood. It is a singularly vulnerable resource. If we ¶ 111ay offer anecdotal evidence on a matter where hard data ¶ notoriously weak, let us cite what happened in the Appalachians west of Washington, D.C., in the 1970s, when oil ¶ pecame expensive and wood fashionable. The whine of ¶ chain saws reached a crescendo in the autumn, as countrytrJen laid in their winter wood supplies and cut for the ex-¶ 28 ¶ ¶ p1111ded suburban market. An observer familiar with the ¶ lll'l!fl could see the spines of the ridges as the woodlands ¶ wore thinned out. In the West, and particularly in the Nallonal Forests, firewood poaching is a serious problem. If ¶ (or rather, when) there is another fuel crisis, illegal wood ¶ Hlllhering will probably become a critical threat to walursheds and standing timber in many areas. It is politically ¶ difficult for the U.S. Forest Service to take stern action ¶ IIHfllnst such seemingly harmless activity by people who ¶ IHJOd the firewood. ¶ for reasons that will become clear later in this chapter, ¶ the timber statistics lag behind the reality and may actually ¶ I 111 falsified. The impending pressures on fossil fuels may in ¶ roe,;t create a serious threat to our forests. ¶ Nuclear Energy ¶ Nuclear energy offers a devil's choice. It doesn't generate sorts of pollution that fossil fuels do. However, the clangors are all too obvious and have been well publicized by ¶ Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and the waste management ¶

problems already mentioned. Moreover, uranium supplies, ¶ like fossil fuels, are finite. Nuclear energy is itself no more ¶ than a transitional fuel unless one turns to plutonium or the ¶ hreeder reactor, both of which intensify all the problems of ¶ '¶

1¶ conventional" nuclear energy: radiation accidents, nuclear proliferation, theft and the possible conversion to ¶

weapons by any reasonably sophisticated technical organization: ¶ We didn't need to have this dilemma. If the U.S. population were still what it was during World War II, as Paul and ¶ Anne Ehrlich point out, the United States, even without ¶ cutting its consumption habits, could meet its energy appetite "without burning one drop of imported oil or one ¶ ounce of coal."¶ 22 ¶ (In fairness, be it said that in that case we ¶ would still be heading toward an energy crisis, albeit at a ¶ slower pace, since consumption goes on and resources are ¶ finite.) ¶ 29

The costs of immigration and overpopulation trade-off with renewablesGrant and Bouvier 95 - *retired National Security Council staff member and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Environment and Population AND **Adjunct Professor of Demography at Tulane University and Senior Fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies. He served as demographic consultant to the U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on Population and the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy (*Lindsey, **Leon, How Many Americans? September 26, 1995, pg. 30-31)//AC New Technologies ¶ The way out of the energy crisis probably lies in solar, wind, ¶ geothermal and perhaps other new and exotic technologies, ¶ along with such innovations as the introduction of fuel ¶ cells and pure hydrogen as a fuel. There may also be hope ¶ for nuclear fusion; if scientists ever learn to make it generate more energy than it consumes. We shouldn't count on it, ¶ or forget that fission energy was once promised as a clean ¶ and inexhaustible source. What will we learn about the side ¶ effects of fusion? ¶ The shift to renewable sources is technically feasible. (A ¶ NASA study once pointed out that, theoretically, we could ¶ meet U.S. energy needs with wind power alone.) ¶ 23 ¶ From ¶ what we presently know about those technologies, they are ¶ relatively benign, environmentally. ¶ The problem is to get on with it. The major roadblock ¶ right now is government policy . As long as oil gushes out of ¶ the ground in the Persian Gulf region, it will be cheaper ¶ than developing new technologies-assuming that we can ¶ afford the foreign exchange to buy it, that the Middle Eastern countries do not exploit their monopoly position, and ¶ that political instability does not endanger the supply. This ¶ price differential has discouraged companies from moving ¶ more aggressively into the new technologies. The government could close the price gap with sufficient taxes on fossil and nuclear fuels. Such taxes would not necessarily be a ¶ distortion of the market. The energy companies are now ¶ having a free ride. They and ultimately the users should be ¶ taxed for the immediate environmental costs of our reliance ¶ on these fuels, and perhaps for the military costs of attempting to assure a stable supply of oil from abroad. Regrettably, ¶ no imaginable tax will pay for the societal costs of climate ¶ change generated by fossil fuels, or probably the cleanup ¶ costs and continuing risks from the nuclear power industry. ¶ The center of the problem is money. All in all, it appears ¶ that we will be paying a very stiff price for our gradual emergency from the fossil fuel era. The conversion promises to ¶ be one of the most expensive structural changes that humankind has yet undertaken. ¶ Population enters the situation in two ways. First, the sheer I size of the population (returning to the formula 1mpoet= Population x Consumption Levels x

Technology) will ¶ determine just how much energy capacity must be built. ¶ Second, there is a competition for available capital between ¶ this new investment and the social expenditures necessary ¶ to deal with our urban problems and to provide for (and ¶ ottempt to control) the large and growing population of ¶ unskilled people outside our economic mainstream. ¶ 24 ¶ Alienation imposes high costs, including lost creativity ¶ and labor and the expense of dealing with crime, drugs, ¶ vondalism and welfare dependency. ¶ Again, we encounter an interlocking connection between the costs of a large population per se and the incremental costs imposed by the high fertility and immigration ¶ rates that lead to a large population.

Overpopulation causes deforestation – obliterates biodiversity – your evidence is made of false dataGrant and Bouvier 95 - *retired National Security Council staff member and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Environment and Population AND **Adjunct Professor of Demography at Tulane University and Senior Fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies. He served as demographic consultant to the U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on Population and the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy (*Lindsey, **Leon, How Many Americans? September 26, 1995, pg. 31-34)//AC¶ FORESTS ¶ It: is fashionable to berate the Brazilians for allowing the detection of their rainforests, but as a pair of NASA photographs recently dramatized,¶ 25 ¶ the United States is cutting ¶ down its remaining old-growth forests much more thoroughly. ¶ The old coniferous forests of the Northwest are disappearing. The saddest part is that we are letting it happen in ¶ our National Forests. The demand for sawtimber, simply ¶ put, has proven politically irresistible . Western senators ¶ have turned into bare-knuckled advocates for excessive forost exploitation. Responding to the pressure, the Forest Service now issues harvest quotas to its Regional Foresters ¶ from Washington, D.C., rather than following the earlier ¶ practice of determining locally the sustainable cut on the ¶ basis of what the forests could bear. This change-and the ¶ Increasing pressures to get out the cut at the expense of biological diversity-led to an unprecedented rebellion ¶ within the Forest Service . In 1989, a group of employees ¶ created AFSEEE (Association of Forest Service Employees ¶ for Environmental Ethics) to protest the mismanagement of ¶

our National Forests. Shortly thereafter, all ten western regional forest supervisors sent memoranda to Forest Service ¶ Chief F. Dale Robertson protesting that current policies violated their responsibility for land stewardship under the ¶ multiple-use philosophy decreed by the National Forest ¶ Management Act of 1976.¶ 26 ¶ The Forest Service management responded with soft ¶ words. It instituted a "New Perspectives" campaign with ¶ the publicized adoption of "Ecosystem Management"-¶ and it began to transfer or force out those who complained, ¶ including at least one Regional Forester. Citizen action was ¶ circumvented by eliminating the provision for public appeals of Forest Service "decision notices" announcing harvesting plans. The cut goes on. ¶ Rising demand, driven by population growth, may be ¶ leading us onto a very serious path of self -delusion . It is one ¶ thing to overcut. It is more serious when data are doctored ¶ to hide the overcut. There have been several disturbing indications recently that this is happening. In the spring of ¶ 1992, a Forest Service stand examiner testified under oath ¶ before a hearing of the House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee that the Forest Service keeps two sets of data on ¶ standing timber , and that the "FORPLAN" figures, on ¶ which cutting plans and congressional presentations are ¶ based, overstated standing timber in the Kootenai National ¶ Forest by 36 percent and ignored 75 percent of the clearcuts. He went on to say that the classification system systematically overstates standing timber. He documented ¶ his charges with aerial photographs. ¶ A conservation group created after that testimony, the Inventory Inquiry Project, systematically compared the two ¶

Forest Service inventories for the Kootenai and came up ¶ with even worse figures. The U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service ¶ 32 ¶ ¶ official responsible for grizzly bear habitat in the Kootenai ¶ came to similar conclusions in a very forceful memorandum.28 ¶ Perhaps most telling, the House Committee on Interior ¶

and Insular Affairs staff assembled a growing number of accounts of how the Forest Service and the BLM (Bureau of ¶ Land Management, Interior Department) "overestimated ¶ timber inventories and overstated reforestation success" in ¶ the Northwest and California . While the staff did not attempt to quantify the results, the collection of reports on ¶ each forest is somber reading.¶ 29 ¶ Falsification of data is a disturbing development. Denial ¶ is hardly the way to a cure . This precedent is an ominous ¶ one for our entire statistical system. ¶ What is driving this process is not just greed, though ¶ there is plenty of that in the industry. A dying industry generates serious local unemployment problems. Denial, however, simply defers the problem and leaves a devastated ¶ ecology when the forests do run out. ¶ Contrary to the popular impression, our forest problems ¶ do not stem from our exports . True, we were net importers ¶ until about 1962. With growing world demand we have ¶ become exporters, but exports still represent less than 5 ¶ percent of our total production of roundwood. Domestic demand is the

problem. And that demand is population driven. From 1950 until the late 1980s, population and domestic wood consumption both rose about two-thirds.¶ 30 ¶ In ¶ other words, the threat to our forests is a result of the effort ¶ to keep up with population growth . ¶ As to forest resources and population, the official numbers tell a revealing story, optimistic though they may be. ¶ From 1952 until 1987, the figures for total standing timber rose by 24 percent.¶ 31 ¶ The official estimate of standing ¶ stock in the West declined 10 percent in the period. The ¶ growth was in Southeastern pine plantations-a reflection ¶ of the same trend toward monoculture that makes our agriculture vulnerable-and in unmanaged Northeastern ¶ 33 hardwood forests. (Pastures that once fed work horses before the advent of the tractor are still reverting to woodland.) So far so good. The hitch is that our total population ¶ in that period rose by 57 percent, so the per capita timber ¶ stand went down 21 percent-even if the data are not ¶ cooked. ¶ Over-harvesting is not the only threat to our forests. The ¶ industrial age itself threatens them, in the form of pollution, acid rain and the prospect of rapid global warming. ¶ The extent and causes of forest damage are too contentious ¶ and complex a subject for treatment in a general overview. ¶ The range of opinion is best shown in the difference between the official German view of damage to their forests ¶ and the conclusions of NAPAP, the most extensive U.S. ¶ study. In 1985, the Germans estimated that 52 percent of ¶ their forests had been damaged by acid rain. The 1992 ¶ NAPAP study, by contrast, concluded that the United States ¶ had suffered "no widespread forest or crop damage" from ¶ acid rain other than to sugar maples in some areas and to ¶ high-altitude spruce and pines.¶ 32 ¶ This is an optimistic assessment, but other studies suggest that some combination ¶ of acidity, pollutants (particularly tropospheric ozone) and ¶ specific soil deficiencies combine to damage forests. ¶ Intuitively, one would assume that climate warming will ¶ harm or at least change forests, particularly if conditions ¶ get drier. Although little research exists to support a more ¶ concrete prediction, at least one intriguing theory has been ¶

proposed, based on the rate at which certain tree species are ¶ known to have "migrated" northward to cooler climes at the ¶ beginning of the current warming cycle. The theory suggests that, if global warming continues as the major models ¶ predict, the speed of warming will exceed the speed at ¶ which the forests can move northward, wiping out most of ¶ certain species such as beech. ¶ 33 ¶ At the most sanguine, the conclusion is that U.S. forests ¶ are potentially threatened by the present pattern of industrial growth and economic activity, which in turn reflects ¶ the size and growth of the population to be served . ¶

Overpopulation causes a need for hyper-efficient farming techniques– obliterates biodiversity, accelerates soil erosion, contributes to climate change and ozone depletion, causes cancer, and results in starvationGrant and Bouvier 95 - *retired National Security Council staff member and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Environment and Population AND **Adjunct Professor of Demography at Tulane University and Senior Fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies. He served as demographic consultant to the U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on Population and the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy (*Lindsey, **Leon, How Many Americans? September 26, 1995, pg. 35-40)//AC34 ¶ ¶ AGRICULTURE ¶ Compared with most of the world, the United States is well ¶ endowed with agricultural land. We have 0.75 hectares of ¶ arable land per person, compared with 0.12 hectares for the ¶ United Kingdom or 0.08 hectares for China. Nevertheless, ¶ we are entering a technological trap because, like the ¶ other advanced countries, we have moved to high-yield ¶ monocultures dependent on several unreliable inputs: fertilizers, which are becoming less and less effective; groundwater pumping, at a rate 25 percent faster than aquifers are ¶ being recharged; ¶ 34 ¶ the continuing development of crop varieties that require the additional fertilizer and water; fossil ¶ fuels to run tractors and make fertilizer- as the petroleum ¶ era draws to a close; and pesticides, which over the years ¶ lose potency as pesticide- resistant pests evolve. ¶ The trap is this: we have adopted these technologies to ¶ meet the rising demand of a growing population, but the ¶ technologies are not sustainable over the long term, and ¶ they are a major source of environmental damage . ¶ The rise in agricultural yields since 1950, in the United ¶ States and most of the world, historically is unparalleled. ¶ More than half of U.S. agricultural production today is dependent on the new inputs described above.¶ 35 ¶ A convenient ¶ measure is to compare U.S. production of cereals in 1948-¶ 1950, when the technologies were just coming .into widespread use, with present production. Today we are producing 2.2 times as much tonnage on 79 percent of the earlier ¶ acreage. That is a remarkable gain in yield of 2.5 percent per ¶ year over a 40-year period. Nothing like that has occurred ¶ before, anywhere. ¶ The question is: Can we keep it up? Agricultural technologies are becoming more expensive, or less effective, or ¶ running into absolute limits. ¶ We have used technological props to keep ahead of demand, but consider what they do to the environment: accelerated soil erosion resulting from monocultures and the ¶ associated heavy

equipment; the degrading of wetlands and tidal areas where fish breed , due to fertilizer runoff and ¶ pesticide poisoning ; threats to our own health from the poisoning of groundwater supplies; the accelerated release of ¶ methane and of nitrous oxides that contribute to climate ¶ warming, acid

precipitation and ozone depletion . ¶ With massive investment, subsidies to the agricultural ¶ sector that run about $12 billion per year,¶ 36 ¶ and serious ¶ damage to the environment, what have we really achieved? ¶ Erosion ¶ The Department of Agriculture's estimate of annual U.S. ¶ cropland erosion is 3 billion tons.¶ 37 ¶ That works out to about ¶ 18 tons per hectare, annually. Some of our most fertile and ¶ deep soils (such as in Iowa or eastern Washington State) ¶ have lost about half their topsoil in the century or so they ¶ have been cultivated. In less fortunate areas, soils are now ¶ too thin to accommodate root growth. Topsoil loss reduces ¶ production and requires heavier fertilization. The rate of ¶ decline is highly dependent on local conditions, but the ¶ key point is that we are literally losing rather than gaining ¶ ground , and the effect on future agricultural production is ¶ necessarily negative. ¶

Fertilizers ¶ The effectiveness of fertilizers is on the decline. The Worldwatch Institute reports, for example, that in the corn belt an ¶ additional ton of fertilizer now produces only one-quarter ¶ as much corn as it did in the 1960s. ¶ 38 ¶ Even if it were not for ¶ that inconvenient problem, we need to limit the use of ¶ nitrates and phosphates for environmental reasons . The ¶ discovery in 1913 of a way to extract nitrogen from the ¶ atmosphere, together with the exploitation of the great Florida phosphate deposits,

has led to the introduction of nitrogen and phosphorus compounds into the environment at a ¶ rate rivaling or surpassing natural releases. These compounds are poisoning our groundwater, wiping out coastal ¶ fisheries (oyster harvests in the Chesapeake Bay have declined about 80 percent in this century)¶ 39 ¶ and perhaps generating the problems in our oceans that will be described ¶ later. ¶

Phosphate fertilizer use may in some degree be self-limiting, since the higher-grade U.S. deposits are being exhausted. Future supplies will probably cost more and may ¶ have to be imported.¶ 40 ¶ Irrigation ¶

In the future, the prospects are for less water for irrigation. ¶ Urban demand and the need to protect wetlands threaten ¶ the cheap, subsidized irrigation supplies in California, our ¶ largest agricultural producer. Moreover, the groundwater ¶ aquifers are subsiding in areas where agriculture has become critically dependent on them. The Ogallala Aquifer ¶ .in the plains states is thedargest and most important example. Some experts estimate that it may be entirely depleted within the next 25 years.¶ 41 ¶ As the water table ¶ subsides, the cost of pumping the water rises. As energy ¶ costs rise, the cost of pumping water will rise even faster. ¶ The prospect, already a reality in some areas, is for a reversion to lower-yield dry land agriculture or, on fragile soils, ¶ to rangeland. ¶ Pesticides ¶ Pesticide applications have increased around 33-fold since ¶ World War II (the range of estimates is enormous). Nevertheless, the loss of potential harvests to pests keeps rising. ¶ Losses from insect pests alone are estimated to have doubled from 7 to 13 percent in that period. In the case of one ¶ major crop, continuous monoculture cultivation of corn, ¶ pesticide applications have risen 1,000-fold, but losses to ¶ insects have risen 4-fold. ¶

42 ¶ The pests can absorb enormous losses from pesticides ¶ without being wiped out. Farmers here and abroad have ¶ been engaged in a gigantic, uncontrolled and unplanned ¶ experiment, learning what new and ever more ferocious ¶ pests will evolve in the cauldron of accelerated environmental change as they adapt to handle new pesticides. Having won an early round, thanks to the explosion of pesticide ¶

technology in the 1950s and 1960s, farmers are now on the ¶ defensive. One expert reports that "447 species of insects, ¶ ticks, and mites are now resistant to some or all pesticides." 43 Another estimate put the number of resistant agricultural arthropod pests at 260 species as of 1980.¶ 44 ¶ Even ¶ more alarming is the fact that at least one pest has developed resistance to a strain of biopesticide, Bacillus thuringiensis, that had been heralded as a promising new ¶ "natural" control.¶ 45 ¶ These ephemeral gains in agricultural productivity have ¶ other costs as well. Pesticides work their way into streams, ¶ rainwater and groundwater, where they threaten birds and ¶ wildlife, beneficial insects such as bees, and human health . ¶ In health terms alone, a National Academy of Sciences report suggested that as many as 1.46 million cases of human ¶ cancer. may result from exposure to pesticide residues . ¶ Since the banning of DDT a generation ago, a national tugof-war has raged over the use of various pesticides.¶

46 ¶ For our ¶ purposes, the important point is that pesticides are becoming less and less effective; they remain thoroughly dangerous, and there is no reason to expect that they will continue ¶ to boost agricultural yields as they did for 30 or 40 years. ¶ Nevertheless, we are hooked on pesticides because, in ¶ modern monocultures, the pests would take over if we ¶ ceased their application. ¶ To grapple with these problems, crop improvement efforts in coming decades may need to focus on pest resistance rather than crop responses to' fertilizers. ¶ The lesson is that you don't go very far on a treadmill. ¶ There are ways to get off the treadmill: a reversion to crop ¶ rotation to deprive the pests periodically of their habitat; ¶ the use of different varieties, not just the highest-yielding ¶ ones, to reduce the vulnerability of crops to epidemics; the ¶ return to windbreaks and shelterbelts to help hold the soil ¶ in place, particularly where farmers must return to dry land ¶ farming. (We learned about shelterbelts after the Dust Bowl ¶ and then abandoned them for boundary-to-boundary fields ¶ 38 ¶ ¶ nor greater production.) We could practice organic farming, ¶ I'Oduced tillage and harvesting practices that leave more orHU nic material in the soil. These practices reduce the dependence on artificial nitrogen fertilizer, arrest erosion and ¶ 1:ounteract the compaction of the soil under heavy agricul-¶ 1 ural machinery. ¶ The nation's farmers have already embraced the last of ¶ lhese approaches. "Conservation farming," with reduced ¶

llllage and the retention of crop residues, was still a curiIJI;.i ty in 1980. It is now used on more than one-

quarter of our ¶ ;fOpland.¶ 47 ¶ This shift may be responsible for one of the ¶ healthier recent trends: commercial fertilizer use, which ¶ pea ked in 1980, has dropped by more than 15 percent. Crop

production has been fluctuating since then, but overall it is ¶ lip, rather than down.¶ 48 ¶ This record offers hope that more ¶ l>onign agricultural practices may be practicable. ¶ The problem is that most of those approaches will probltuly mean smaller yields. They can be put in effect without ¶ Imperiling our diets or our exports only if demand-and ¶ therefore population-can be held constant or reduced. ¶

( genetic engineering has not yet resulted in any real breakthrough that would increase yields dramatically, and at ¶ present no techniques exist to maintain the sort of growth ¶ wo have enjoyed since the 1950s. ¶ We could adopt the reforms described above without ¶ tmving Americans, at least at this stage. We could phase ¶ ut our heavy consumption of meat and rely increasingly ¶ on grains and vegetables. For a while, the shift would be ¶ dietetically good for us. When we have used up that slack, ¶

however, the question arises: "What next?" With current ¶ demographic trends carrying us toward millions and millions more people in the next century, with current praclluos damaging our soils, with an uncertain energy future, ¶ with the prospect that irrigation will necessarily decline, ¶ with the decreasing effectiveness of pesticides and with the ¶ uncertainties associated with acid precipitation and climate change, the possibility of real hunger may not seem so ¶ remote two or three generations hence . ¶ 39 ¶

The incurable optimist says "If we are efficient we can, ¶ like Japan and the newly industrializing countries, import ¶ food and finance it with exports." But where would we ¶ import the food from, in a world where we have been the residual food exporter? (In 1990, we supplied about two thirds of the corn and soybeans entering world trade, and ¶ almost one-third of the wheat.}¶ 49 ¶ In fact, the inability of the ¶ United States to export food would result in starvation in ¶ some countries most dependent on our food exports. ¶ In the face of serious unresolved uncertainties concerning the progress of agricultural production, we would be ¶ well advised to control our demand-and that means limiting our population size, while we still have time. ¶

Rising soil acidity collapses the biosphere – microbes cannot survive nor adaptGrant and Bouvier 95 - *retired National Security Council staff member and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Environment and Population AND **Adjunct Professor of Demography at Tulane University and Senior Fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies. He served as demographic consultant to the U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on Population and the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy (*Lindsey, **Leon, How Many Americans? September 26, 1995, pg. 40-43)//ACBIODIVERSITY ¶ The current or threatened elimination of familiar species ¶ stirs sympathy that is politically very potent. Our government, responding to public feelings, has expended considerable effort on protecting whales, dolphins enmeshed in ¶ tuna nets, various designated endangered species and migratory songbirds. ¶ Our national policies, understandably, address the ¶ things we notice. Our laws protect creatures we can see and ¶ identify with-mammals and birds, mostly-but not those ¶ that shape our environment. The Endangered Species Act ¶ focuses on the "higher" taxa. There are 61 species of mammals listed, 85 of birds, 87 of fishes, 81 of all invertebrates, ¶ 240 of plants, but no microbes or simple plants. The list reflects a very simplistic view of biodiversity. Opinion leaders and policy makers seem to be thoroughly confused. A ¶ furious debate rages over the snail darter and the spotted ¶ owl, while we ignore organisms that are fundamental to our ¶ survival. ¶ We humans tend to think of ourselves as the principal inhabitants of the Earth. Yet there are very few of us-or of all ¶ vertebrates taken together-compared to the insect tribe. ¶ As one entomologist wryly remarked: "Bugs are not going ¶ 40 ¶ ¶ to inherit the Earth. They own it now. So we might as well ¶ make our peace with the landlord." Another scientist, by ¶ way of corroboration, estimated that in the Brazilian Amazon basin the social insects alone outweigh-literally-the ¶ mammal population by a ratio of 7 to 1.¶ 50 ¶ And each of those ¶ Insects is an organism struggling to perpetuate itself. ¶ As to microbes, they outnumber us by literally billions to ¶ one. And it is, particularly, the microbes that have shaped ¶ ond maintain the environment, for better or worse. We are ¶ quite capable of crippling the Earth's regenerative capacity ¶ without noticing it, because we cannot readily see the coInhabitants that we are endangering. ¶ The role of "lower" orders is not limited to providing humans with medicines such as penicillin. Their function ¶ can be as obvious as pollination : most of the

flowering ¶ plants and trees (angiosperms) depend for survival on bees ¶ und other insects. ¶ The role can be more mysterious and even more fundamental. Witness this ominous speculation, from a Presidential Acid Rain Review

Committee, appointed by (of all ¶ people) President Reagan: ¶ We as a committee are especially concerned about possible deleterious effects of a sustained increase in the acidity of unmanaged soils. Its microorganism population is ¶ particularly sensitive to a change in acidity. But it is just ¶ this bottom part of the biological cycle that is responsible ¶ for the recycling of nitrogen and carbon in the food chain. ¶ The proper functioning of the denitrifying microbes is a ¶ fundamental requirement upon which the entire

biosphere depends . The evidence that increased acidity is ¶ perturbing populations of microorganisms is scanty, but ¶ the prospect of such an occurrence is grave.¶ 51 ¶ One has to read that statement twice to realize how fundamentally important it is. The "entire biosphere" includes ¶ all of us. ¶ So far, fortunately, ongoing acid precipitation studies do ¶ not suggest that the threat is proximate. But we still lack ¶ 41 ¶ critical evidence, in part because NAPAP, which produced ¶ the principal study on acid rain, failed to pursue the longterm effects of acid precipitation on soils and forest ecosystems.52 . ¶ In short, here at the close of the twentieth century and ¶ amid a shift of world attention to environmental issues, we ¶ fail to take notice of the most numerous and fundamental ¶ components of the animal kingdom, and we simply do not ¶ yet understand the functioning of the ecosystems that support them and us. Even at the time of our apparent triumph,

¶ humankind wields the partial power to destroy but not the ¶ power to sustain. The record so far suggests that we are ¶ pretty bad managers. The human tribe is connected with ¶ the other tribes of the Earth in a far more complex relationship than we had imagined. ¶ There are mysterious die offs of species of frogs and salamanders that had been around for 200 million years and ¶ survived the Cretaceous extinctions . A mysterious decline ¶ of mushrooms and fungi in Europe may further stress host ¶ trees already suffering from acid rain, since the trees and ¶ the fungi are symbiotic. ¶ 53 ¶ There are die backs of coral reefs, of dolphins off our coast ¶ and of European harbor seals. The deadly "red tides" kill ¶ fish farther north along our Atlantic coast than before. Amnesic shellfish poisoning has turned up in the Gulf of St. ¶ Lawrence, caused by diatoms that heretofore had been considered nontoxic, while a potentially lethal paralytic toxin ¶ has appeared for the first time in Alaskan shellfish. There is ¶ "brown slime" in the Adriatic, and the "bro·wn tide" has ¶ wiped out the scallop industry off Long Island.¶ 54 ¶ The precise cause of this burst of activity in the oceans is not ¶ known, but it is thought to be associated with the pumping ¶ of nutrients (especially nitrogen and phosphorus) into ¶ coastal waters from agricultural and sewage runoff.¶ 55 ¶ Many signals suggest that the explosion of human activity is having profound and deleterious effects on ecological ¶ systems, but human knowledge is not yet up to comprehending just what the causes and ramifications may be. The ¶ 42 ¶ ¶ of two joint statements by the National Academy of ¶ lances and the Royal Society of London (following the ¶ 0110 on population already cited) warned of the threat ¶ posed by the loss of biological diversity and called for the ¶ creation, worldwide and particularly in tropical countries, ¶ of Institutes to promote the preservation and wise use of ¶ habitats and species.¶ 56 ¶ There is a bitter irony in all this. Human activity is killing ¶ off species that enrich our lives or that may be of use to us, ¶ and promoting the evolution of species that harm us. Scholars worry that we are creating a

manmade environment; in ¶ reality we are simply ruining the existing environment, to ¶ our own detriment and that of other species. ¶ The key factor is habitat destruction. Wherever we destroy their habitat, we eliminate species, including sometimes those that-whether we have yet learned it or not ¶ - can be of benefit to us or perhaps even essential to our ¶ survival . By and large, the species on the Endangered Species List got there because we destroyed their habitat. ¶ On the other hand, we create other kinds of habitats such as giant cornfields and crowded slums-and other ¶ species learn to thrive in them, usually by preying on us or ¶ on the things that we seek to raise. The microbes and insects can take enormous losses, so long as they have a viable environment. The effort to control them with antibiotics or ¶ means that, in an otherwise hospitable environment, survival favors the strains that are resistant to that ¶ particular toxin. Our efforts to exterminate them simply ¶ load to rapid evolutionary improvements that make them ¶ more resilient. ¶

Overpopulation allows disease to spread which threatens extinction - disease has evolved to be drug-resistantGrant and Bouvier 95 - *retired National Security Council staff member and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Environment and Population AND **Adjunct Professor of Demography at Tulane University and Senior Fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies. He served as demographic consultant to the

U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on Population and the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy (*Lindsey, **Leon, How Many Americans? September 26, 1995, pg. 43-47)//AC In discussing agriculture, we have cited some examples ¶ of human promotion of various forms of unwanted biodiversity. Let us cite some others. ¶ Cholera reappeared in 1991 in Peru, after a lapse of many ¶ years. It thrived on the wind borne dust of fecal matter blowing around the shanty cities that have sprung up around ¶ Lima, themselves the product of runaway population ¶ in the hinterland. The cholera didn't stay there. It has spread northward as far as Mexico, killing over 6,000 ¶ people in Latin America since its initial reappearance.¶ 57 ¶ There was a scare when it appeared in Los Angeles, transported by an airline passenger. Modern transportation ¶ makes neighbors of us all. ¶ A number of viral diseases have developed, mutated and ¶ spread because of the expansion of human activities and ¶

the worldwide movement of people and organic materials. ¶ The influenza "A" virus breeds and mutates in Chinese ¶ ducks and pigs, which spread it to humans (they live very ¶ close together in China), who in turn pass it on through ¶ travel and commerce to the rest of the world. The deadly ¶ Ebola virus reached the United States in laboratory man· ¶ keys from the Philippines. The Argentine virus that causes ¶ hemorrhagic fever spread when the pampas were cleared ¶ for corn cultivation, which led to the proliferation of the ¶ field mouse that harbors the virus. ¶ 58 Antibiotics, now almost universally used in animal feed ¶ in the United States, apparently led to the development ¶ of drug-resistant salmonella in the animals, which, when ¶ eaten by humans, cause severe intestinal ailments .¶ 59 ¶ After generations of decline, tuberculosis is on the rise, ¶ and a new drug-resistant strain-presumably created by ¶ the selection process described above-has arisen. By 1991 ¶ the new strain was reported in 36 states and had resulted

in ¶ at least 13 deaths in the New York prison system alone.¶ 60 ¶ Tuberculosis is a disease of crowdep slums. Its resurgence, ¶ coupled with its new drug resistance, has led the World ¶ Health Organization to declare it a "global health emergency," predicting that it will kill30 million people worldwide in the next decade.¶ 61 ¶ People in the United States are dying from the newly discovered hantavirus. ¶ Science magazine described the emergence of viral and ¶ -} bacterial resistance to antibiotics as a "crisis," saying: ¶ Those who believed a plague could not happen in this ¶ century have already seen the beginning of one in the ¶AIDS crisis, but the drug-resistant strains in this issue, ¶ which can be transmitted by casual contact in movie theaters, hospitals and shopping centers, are likely to be even ¶

more terrifying.¶ In medicine, as in agriculture, we are watching what the ¶ Science editorial called "a subterranean war." Mircroorganisms are responding to and being transformed by the ¶ poisons and antibiotics that have been unleashed upon ¶ thorn for the past two generations. Humankind is being ¶

subjected, in a sense, to a counterattack in a war that we ¶ thought we had won. (The U.S. Surgeon General in 1969 ¶ 1l111:l.ured that the war against infectious disease was effecllvoly finished.) ¶ This sudden and sobering turn of events should purge us ¶

of the hubris that has grown with the scientific and technological successes of recent decades. We had thought we ¶ wore masters of the Earth, when in fact we have been agents ¶ of disruption, and the disruption has been tolerable only ¶ because until these explosive last few decades-the ¶ ecosystems had the capacity to absorb and buffer ¶ most of the damage. We are past that point. ¶ We saw ourselves as dominant, and invincible, when in ¶ front we are only one small part of the system. We are vulnerable to the natural consequences of the disruption we ¶ have generated, as the pathogens and microorganisms adjust to the fury of our recent attack. ¶ This changed appreciation of humans' relationship to ¶ the rest of nature should profoundly influence our view of ¶ the human tendency to appropriate large parts of the system for our own use. Few people would want science to ¶ abandon the "subterranean war" against pathogens, but a ¶ fundemental change of strategy may be needed. We aren't ¶ going to overwhelm the pathogens with chemical warfare, ¶ owe may need all the help we can get from other organisms ¶ that have developed defenses against them or that prey on ¶ them. For example, we may need to protect the monkeys* ¶ 1 that carry the Ebola virus, to learn how they have adjusted ¶ 45 ¶ biologically to live with a virus that is deadly to humans. ¶ The very complexity of nature may be our best ally in this ¶ undeclared war. ¶ )c. The point here is that we have an interest, not just in protecting certain species that we know we may need, but in ¶ preserving the complexity of the biosystem itself, because ¶ we don't know what the next threat will be or what genetic ¶ characteristics, hidden somewhere in nature, may help to ¶ deal with it. We should look at the rest of the life forms in ¶ the biosphere as fellow travelers on the Earth and as maintainers of the environment. We must begin to take a less ¶ cavalier view of human activities that disturb ecological ¶ systems. ¶ Not all the ills described in this chapter are the result of ¶ population growth. (The emergence of AIDS and the proliferation of Asian flu, for example, more likely have their ¶ roots in modern mores and communications, which provided the pathogens with opportunities to move into new ¶ and hospitable environments.) Most of the disturbances, ¶

however, have been driven by population growth: the ¶ sludge and toxic wastes, the hydrocarbons and agricultural ¶ runoff that are fouling our coastal waters; the use and misuse of fossil fuel; the destruction of our forests; the ignorant ¶ proliferation of chemicals; the advent of intensive agriculture; the

overcrowding of our cities that led to the reappearance of cholera in Peru and promotes the spread of ¶ diseases of crowding such as tuberculosis in the United ¶ States . We ourselves suffer when pampas are replaced by ¶ grain fields, or virgin forests with tree farms, or wetlands ¶ with superhighways and shopping malls. We ourselves are ¶ threatened when our pollution threatens forests or, finally, ¶ the denitrifying microbes described in the 1983 report of ¶ the Presidential Committee. ¶ Since these changes are driven by total demand and ¶ therefore in part by population growth, we will reduce the ¶ threats to the ecosystem by stopping or reversing further ¶ growth . Quite practically, we had better save a system that, eventually, may save us from inadvertent self-destruction as we ¶ tinker with a planet we do not fully understand.

¶ Beyond that, usefulness to the human tribe is not necessarily the only standard we should apply when we consider ¶ the human role in promoting the extinction of some species ¶ and the proliferation of others. Reasonable modesty and a ¶ sense of prudence both suggest that we should leave a substantial fraction of nature unengineered. Philosophically, ¶ the preservation of the complexity of the global ecosystem ¶ into which we were born would seem far preferable to a ¶ world barren of all life but our own artifacts. The Endangered Species Act and the drive to create designated Wilderness Areas are evidence of the strength of this generous ¶ Impulse among Americans. ¶ After this century of unprecedented and accelerating disturbance, we need to make a conscious decision to preserve a considerable part of the biosphere as free as possible from human interference. That decision inevitably will constrict ¶ the area and resources that we can manipulate, as well as ¶ our freedom to continue dumping pollutants into the air ¶ and water. Thus the population factor arises again. Denying ¶ ourselves those options will limit the total resources available to humans and the freedom to dispose of wastes. If we ¶ are interested in preserving the owl or the whale-or ourselves-will conservation and technology alone allow humankind to get by on the reduced resources? Or must we ¶ address population-the fundamental driver in the ¶ I= PCT formula? ¶

Overpopulation must be solved to ensure biosphere preservationGrant and Bouvier 95 - *retired National Security Council staff member and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Environment and Population AND **Adjunct Professor of Demography at Tulane University and Senior Fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies. He served as demographic consultant to the U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on Population and the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy (*Lindsey, **Leon, How Many Americans? September 26, 1995, pg. 47-)//ACTHE TORN WEB ¶ Taken together, what does all this evidence, from sewage ¶ sludge to endangered species, suggest? ¶ There are two conflicting visions of where we stand as a ¶ nation. One sees us simply as being at an indefinite point on ¶ on upward curve, with growth in all directions lying before ¶ us. The other sees us at a point just beyond the peak of such ¶ o period, facing the limitations that unrestrained growth ¶ has itself generated. Humankind has a very short attention ¶ 47 ¶ span, and it would be comfortable to believe that a brief ¶ spurt of growth unparalleled in history could be maintained indefinitely, but the evidence summarized in this ¶ chapter makes a compelling case for the second viewpoint. ¶ Difficult though their task is, scientists are telling the nation that the free ride is close to being over. ¶ The industrial era, the accompanying transformation of agriculture and the pattern of life that our society has built on the temporary foundation of fossil energy have skewed and threatened the underpinnings of our lives, from the liv ability of our cities to the life support systems around us. ¶ In some respects, such as the use of certain chemicals or ¶ the appropriation of wilderness to human use, we may simply have to stop doing certain things. In other areas, such as ¶ toxic and nuclear waste cleanup, we face horrendous bills ¶ to undo the damage our society has already done, and ¶ higher prices to transform, recycle or safely dispose of the ¶ toxins that we have heretofore simply dumped on the environment. In still other spheres, such as agriculture, we ¶ may need to unlearn new practices and relearn those we ¶ have abandoned, at considerable potential loss of production. In the case of energy, we face both the enormous capital costs of the shift to sustainable sources and the prospect ¶ that energy will be more expensive in that new era than it ¶ has been during the halcyon years when it simply gushed ¶ out of holes in the ground. ¶ \- Behavior that is socially acceptable when there is little ¶ pressure on the land becomes unacceptable when the pressure rises. There is a tradeoff between individual freedom ¶ and social responsibility, and freedom is circumscribed as ¶ the pressures increase. To give a few examples: Not all the ¶ old-growth stands in the Northwest are on public land. ¶ Many of the old stands on private lands may need to be protected, but their owners will see such action as taking their ¶ property. In the Southeastern woodlands, the forest is ¶ mostly private. Preservation of biological diversity urgently demands that some mixed stands be preserved or ¶ 48 ¶ ¶

reinstated among the endless pine tree farms, particularly ¶ ulong the stream and river bottoms . The same is true of ¶ Western ranch lands. In the high plains, land that reverted ¶ I o range after the Dust Bowl is being converted back to cropplng, thanks to our tax and agricultural subsidy policies, ¶ otting the scene for another Dust Bowl. <:;ases, ¶ I be public interest comes in conflict with tenaciously held l' ¶ pl'ivate interests and with the thoroughly American mind- . ¶ ROt that one has a right to do what one pleases with one's ¶ own land. ¶ We have recently gone through the most sudden and ¶ 1 Drastic alteration of the human condition in history, and the ¶ correction of its excesses will require profound adjustments and costs. Because the United States carried the industrial revolution so far, we will be paying a major share of ¶ the cost. ¶ .In a sense,

the bill has come due. In case after case, the ¶ growth of economic activity and its concomitant plollution - which in sheer physical terms often dwarfs the economic product-has overwhelmed the absorptive capacity ¶ of the biosphere. We must now begin not only to pay the cleanup costs but to assess and hold ourselves accountable, -y ¶ rur the true costs of that activity. We can no longer allow so-\ ¶ , loty to "externalize" the cost of our waste by simply throwIng it away. ¶ The United States is already beginning to change its habltll to address these problems, even though we still perceive ¶ lhem dimly and in fragmented fashion. The 1970s wave of ¶ environmental legislation and the recent enthusiasm for recycling are evidence of that spirit. We should be of good ¶ l10art. Stabilization is not the end of the world. Most nations ¶ In history have necessarily lived within tight resource contraints. After all,

they didn't have an empty continent in ¶ which to shape an ethics of unlimited space and resources. ¶ The element to be added to

the national will to do something about these problems is, of course, population. It is critical that we as a nation realize that an expansionist view of population, given the inevitable limits of future economic growth, is a prescription for increasing misery, since ¶ it means that consumption per capita must keep declining. ¶

Conservation and technology fail so long as US population continues to growGrant and Bouvier 95 - *retired National Security Council staff member and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Environment and Population AND **Adjunct Professor of Demography at Tulane University and Senior Fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies. He served as demographic consultant to the U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on Population and the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy (*Lindsey, **Leon, How Many Americans? September 26, 1995, pg. 57-61)//ACConservation ¶ The nation must indeed practice conservation. In this ¶ consumption-driven society, conservation can be a good ¶ thing-such as shifting the American diet away from meat ¶ and feeding less cereal to livestock. However, conservation ¶ is a limited remedy. It becomes harder and harder as we ¶ move beyond the easier sacrifices. It may be well to eat less ¶ meat, but must we give it up altogether? And then, what ¶ about vegetables? And finally, cereals themselves? Conservation is a solution that wears out rapidly. When the demand points out that U.S. population is growing ¶ nearly 10 percent each decade, the conservationist says "I can easily find ways to cut back 10 percent without real deprivation." The demographer says "What about the next ¶ generation?" and the conservationist gives the same answer, perhaps less confidently. It is a debate the conservationist cannot win . Each 10 percent gain in conserving ¶ resources is a smaller absolute gain, and the end point is zero. ¶ Meanwhile, population growth drives that inescapable formula , I=PCT, and wipes out those benefits of conservation. ¶ It is all very well to berate ourselves with the charge of ¶ "consumerism" and to idealize a simpler life, but how far ¶ back in time does even the zealot want to go? There is nothing inherently wrong with wanting to have a warm house in ¶ winter or to drive a car. The problem arises when the demand grows to the point where we imperil our own environment. ¶ Technology ¶ As for technology, it too should certainly be employed, but ¶ with

discretion. In some limited areas, application of technology may be a sufficient solution. Take the case of the ¶ threat of increased ultraviolet radiation resulting from ¶ household and industrial use of CFCs. Technology is finding substitutes for these compounds, particularly after successive Montreal Protocols ordered a phase-out of CFC production. Recent evidence suggests that emissions are ¶ declining and the rate of increase of stratospheric CFCs has ¶ slowed . It may take half a century or more to eradicate the ¶ problem, but the

world is on the right track.74 ¶ In other areas, technology can satisfy at least part of the ¶ problem . The introduction of energy-

efficient light bulbs, ¶ for instance, should make some dent in electricity consumption. ¶ Over time, we will undoubtedly learn to do things more ¶ efficiently, and with less waste and damage. Proposals ¶ can be found today in almost every sphere of activity. ¶ A Japanese firm has even proposed a technique for con· ¶ verting carbon dioxide into carbohydrates through photosynthesis, thus at one stroke attacking the problem of ¶ global warming and producing the raw material for food or ¶ fueU5 ¶ Our government, under considerable prodding, has been ¶ seeking to address environmental problems with technology, sometimes with real success. Control of lead emissions ¶ represents one example. Lead may have impaired the learn· ¶ ing ability of a generation or more of children. By passing ¶ laws banning its use and requiring substitutes, the nation ¶ has brought annual emissions down from over 200,000 tons ¶ in 1970 to about 10,000 tons in 1989. Other laws have been ¶ almost as effective. Sulfur oxide emissions declined 26 percent in the same period (mostly before 1980); carbon monoxide decreased 40 percent, and particulate matter about ¶ 61 percent?¶ 6 ¶ One can hardly fault these improvements. The danger ¶ lies, however, in assuming that they are sufficient. Germany, it is said, has achieved a 50 percent reduction in

airborne nitrogen oxide emissions in the past decade. The ¶ next 50 percent reduction will be a much greater challenge. ¶ Progress at that pace simply cannot be sustained, short of an ¶ economic collapse. As Paul Werbos has

illustrated with respect to automobiles, the first gains in conservation and ¶ technology-smaller cars, proven efficiencies-are relatively easy. It becomes progressively more difficult to keep ¶ 58 ¶ ¶ up the rate of gain, and eventually one encounters physical limits to further gains.7¶ Technology is not necessarily benign. The opposite

case ¶ 11i.m be better made. Don't wait for a technological "quick fix." The modern world has been riding a technological ¶

quick fix for most of this century, and it has gotten us into deep trouble. Technology has caused most of the environmental problems the industrial world presently faces. It has ¶ created the primary threats to the climate and the atmosphere. ¶ A. major task facing modern societies is to find new technologies-and the money to pay for them-to address the ¶ environmental issues that the old technology has generated. ¶ 'The story of the automobile has already been told. As a ¶ convenience, or a technology, or even a way to create demand and stimulate the economy, the automobile is a miracle. As a new

element in the environment, it has become a ¶ disaster. ¶ The moral: Solutions usually create problems. ¶ Technology is

either irrelevant or harmful in addressing ¶ the problem of labor redundancy throughout the industrial ¶ world. As a result of the technological revolution, demand ¶ 'or unskilled labor has declined, producing a devastating ¶effect, particularly in our cities. If it is to solve that problem, ¶ the government must

eventually tackle the issues of immigration and fertility, and thereby reduce the competition for ¶ that diminishing pool of jobs. Neither T nor C will be of help ¶ hure. ¶ Thue believers in technology ignore the ecologists' warnIng that "you cannot do simply one thing." A technical fix ¶ cllrocted toward one problem may create even graver problurns elsewhere. We have cited the example of Telluride, ¶ ( :oJorado. New, airtight wood stoves saved energy but multiplied smog and toxic chemicals in the valley. Around the ¶ houses have been buttoned up to conserve energy, ¶ 1t11 cl we have suddenly discovered the problem of indoor air ¶ IIOII ution. ¶ 59 ' ,, .. ¶ ',,t·• ¶ II: "' ¶ ¶ Much more serious is the case of chemicals. We have described the state of scientific ignorance concerning their ¶ environmental effects. People had uses for all those chemicals, but society hasn't begun seriously to consider the byproducts of human economic activity. ¶ The moral here, as we suggested at the start of this cha ter, is that as a nation, we don't know what we are doing. In ¶ our present state of knowledge, proposing to solve problems with chemical quick fixes, without a far better process ¶ of foresight to look to the potential consequences, is akin to ¶ entrusting a steamroller to a blind man ?¶ 8 ¶ Among the various objections to reliance on technology ¶ , as deus ex

machina, there are two particularly formidable ¶ ft ¶ 1 ¶ arguments. First, don't count your chickens before they ¶ 1 ¶ ,hatch? ¶

9 ¶ The technologies are by no means all hatched that , would solve the problems generated by growing human economies. It is an act of sheer faith to count on them to turn ¶ up. For example, the recent gains in agricultural yields are ¶ unprecedented in human history, and they have generated ¶ the serious problems described above. There is no reason to ¶ expect that we can maintain that spurt, or to believe that it ¶ can be pursued at tolerable environmental cost. (Indeed, ¶ the growth seems to be slowing down already.) Second, at ¶ some point one approaches the ridiculous. Is the entire ¶ state of Florida to be paved to provide for its exponentially ¶ growing fleet of automobiles? Can we envisage an agriculture-on eroding soil-that produces more and more tons ¶ per acre, forever, through technological innovation? Ten ¶ tons? Twenty? One hundred? ¶ Believers in technology as a solution should perhaps reread the warning from the scientists of the National Academy and the Royal Society: it is not a sufficient solution. ¶ Behind these proffered palliatives of conservation and ¶ technology, population change remains the driving and ¶ most intractable part of the problem. Without its being ¶ addressed, population growth simply eats up the gains ¶ from conservation and technology and leaves us with tho ¶ 60 ¶ ¶ pi'Oblem and the easier solutions already ¶ \!Had up. ¶ ne cannot squirm out of the problem. Population ¶ Hruwth becomes a trap at some stage. Most of the third ¶ world is already in that trap, and the United States is at the ¶

cusp. Population growth cannot continue forever in a finite ¶ world- on the Earth or in the United States. The question is ¶ not "Should it stop?" but rather "When should it stop, and ¶ how?"

Overpopulation impedes preserving the biosphere – it increases demand for economic products that destroy the natural worldGrant and Bouvier 95 - *retired National Security Council staff member and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Environment and Population AND **Adjunct Professor of Demography at Tulane University and Senior Fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies. He served as demographic consultant to the U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on Population and the Select Commission on

Immigration and Refugee Policy (*Lindsey, **Leon, How Many Americans? September 26, 1995, pg. 88-90)//AC¶ Biodiversity ¶ The forests' condition is just one part of the larger issue of ¶ biodiversity . We made the case in

chapter 1 that, with human disturbance of the biosphere that supports us at a historic peak, perhaps the most pressing of all tasks is to ¶ preserve natural systems against further destruction. Continued population growth will only impede such an effort, ¶ because it increases the demand for food, for lumber, for energy to run the system and keep us warm, and for all the ¶ other economic products whose manufacture drives the destruction of the natural world. Against the political power ¶ of the demand for "more," the appeal to protect the biosphere comes to seem a rather distant abstraction.¶ Let us look now at the problems generated by growth itself, ¶ aside from the eventual numbers. ¶ The Problem of Capital ¶ Speaking of abstractions: the idea of "capital" and its im· ¶ may sound to the reader like a rather arcane matter ¶ Nothing could be further from the truth, ¶ is to deal with the problems already gene.t'· ¶ growth, and to reform its economic practices to avoid further damage, the capital requirements are ¶ numerous. In chapter 1 we detailed some of the bills already outstanding: cleaning up nuclear and hazardous ¶ waste; finding and financing ways of handling solid ¶ WIIRtos and sewage sludge; managing the energy transition ¶ woy from petroleum and eventually all fossil fuels; rehullding and maintaining the physical plant of the cities; ¶ lnlurnalizing the "externalities" in manufacturing, agriculturo, power generation and transportation that drive pollullon; generating benign economic growth sufficient to ¶ II!H'tni t employment of the working-age population. This is ¶ 11 Intimidating list for a nation with net private savings ¶ IHOllnting to only 4 percent of GNP and with a government ¶ \Ill Willing to finance even its current requirements, as evitlllm:ed by our persistent budget deficits. ¶ There is always competition between the need for capital ¶ fur social infrastructure, on the one hand, and capital for ¶ 11 productive" investment, on the other, and that competition is intensified by population growth. The nation needs ¶ capital for social infrastructure if we are not to suffer a decline in the per capita availability of classrooms, colleges, ¶ h1111 pitals, police departments, roads, parks, urban water ¶ Ill) plies, sewage treatment plants and all the other requirellllmts of a modern urbanized society. This bill goes up if the ¶ tlltmber of people to be served is rising. At the same time, ¶ business investment must also grow to provide the added ¶ numbers of people with jobs. Indeed, it must grow faster ¶ than population, if labor productivity is to rise and allow ¶ llo.r lives for workers. ¶ This competition is further intensified when, as at present, is needed to deal with postponed environment and resource problems. We believe that a central advantage of stopping population growth (and one overlloked by most commentators on population) is that it frees ¶ resources for productive investment in the tasks that lie ¶ ahead, such as the energy transition, by holding down infrastructure costs and applying them to a smaller ¶ 89 ¶ population base. For example, $1 million applied to educating 200 students will be more likely to develop them into ¶ productive adults than if it is applied to 400 students. ¶ California and Florida, where recent growth has been ¶ most extreme, provide the best lessons as to the look of the ¶ future. In 1963, California surpassed New York to become ¶ the natio_n's largest state. What joy in the Golden State! ¶ What anguish in the Empire State! Between 1980 and 1990, ¶ California gained seven additional seats in the U.S. Congress, all because of the continuing rise in population. But ¶ what about the downside of such monumental growth? ¶ Overcrowded classrooms, clogged freeways, unemployment and related cultural clashes, increasingly severe ¶ water shortages, environmental decay-all derive to a certain extent from one common cause: overpopulation. While ¶ other factors have contributed to California's mounting ¶ problems, overpopulation is clearly a major component. ¶ Marginal cost is rising faster than average cost. In response ¶ to this state of affairs, Sacramento Bee columnist Dan Walters recently issued a challenge: ¶ What's needed is the creation of a state population/development policy. We need to decide what level of development we want, including population size, that's ¶ consistent with maintenance of the quality of Californians' lives and adopt strategies that will implement that ¶ goal.¶ 6 ¶

Solving overpopulation key to prevent extinction – but we have to concentrate on the US firstGrant and Bouvier 95 - *retired National Security Council staff member and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Environment and Population AND **Adjunct Professor of Demography at Tulane University and Senior Fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies. He served as demographic consultant to the U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on Population and the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy (*Lindsey, **Leon, How Many Americans? September 26, 1995, pg. 97-98)//ACTHE THREAT TO LIFE ITSELF ¶ 'l'lw Impact of human activities on the Earth's life support ¶ remains to a disturbing degree unknown. Yet already, and with remarkable callousness, we have changed ¶ the biosphere so

dramatically that other species are disappearing at a rate apparently unmatched since the Cretaceous extinctions. At the worst, we may so alter the planet ¶ as to cause the collapse or extinction of our

own species . ¶ The scientists whom we quoted in chapter 1 were not ¶ ,"J)Ooking idly. The ignorant multiplication of chemicals, ¶ tho massive introduction of nitrogen, sulfur, carbon and ¶ 11hosphorus compounds into the environment, the alteration of the climate, the acidification of soils, the destruction ¶ of species with which we are perhaps unknowingly symbiotic-any or all of these problems may be involved in the ¶ present wave of extinctions, and some combination of them ¶ could possibly imperil the human

species . ¶ The third world seems to be headed toward another doubling of population, if their ecologies can bear it, much as ¶ I hoy may try

to avoid it and despite what we may do to help ¶ them. Faced with that prospect, and with the impact it will ¶ have on the entire biosphere, what can we in the United ¶ States do? ¶ Help to those countries in protecting their resources and ¶ environment should be second only to family planning assistance in the priorities for U.S. foreign aid programs. Yet ¶ In occ ordance with the principle that we "think globally, ¶ act locally," our primary responsibility lies at home. The ¶ national goal should be, first, to avoid adding to the annual ¶ load of pollution and environmental degradation; and ¶ then, to reduce it. ¶ The population scenario sketched in chapter 2 holds out ¶ little hope that we will reach that goal, as a matter of practical politics. With population growth demanding something like an 8 percent increase each decade in food, can, ¶ energy, housing, education and infrastructure, and with the ¶ voters demanding that their standard of living be safeguarded at all costs, the nation will not be likely to set aside ¶ farms and forests for biological preserves, or stop the proliferation of new chemicals, or lead the way to sustainable ¶ farming, or finance an orderly energy transition. As a result, ¶ most of the problems we have now are likely to get worse. ¶ What can be done demographically to help assure that ¶ these somber projections can be avoided?

2ac health care impacts

Illegal Immigrants raise the cost of healthcare – they don’t qualify for health insuranceBecerra et al 12 – PhD in Social Work and Professor at Arizona State University (David, “Fear vs. Facts: Examining the Economic Impact of Undocumented Immigrants in the U.S.,” 39 Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare 111, December 2012, http://www.wmich.edu/hhs/newsletters_journals/jssw_institutional/institutional_subscribers/39.4.Becerra.pdf)//ACHealth Care¶ Health care costs associated with providing care to undocumented immigrants is another contentious issue. The overwhelming majority of undocumented immigrants do not have ¶ health insurance because they are not eligible for government ¶ programs and are often not eligible for employer-provided ¶ health insurance (Goldman, Smith, & Sood, 2006). Although ¶ studies indicate that undocumented immigrants underutilize ¶ health care compared to the general population, undocumented immigrants often use emergency rooms because they are ¶ mandated to provide care regardless of immigration status or ¶ ability to pay (Ku & Matani, 2001; Marshall, Urrutia-

Rojas, Soto ¶ Mas, & Coggin, 2005). This mandate can lead to higher costs ¶ for hospitals , especially for non-emergency

related health care ¶ issues (Okie, 2007). As a result, there is an estimated economic ¶ cost associated with providing health care to undocumented ¶ immigrants of between $6 and $10 billion per year (Camarota, ¶ 2004; Goldman, Smith, & Sood, 2006). ¶ Under the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, the federal ¶ 116 Journal of Sociology & Social Welfaregovernment provided $250 million annually through 2008 to ¶ reimburse hospitals and other health care providers for the ¶ costs associated with providing emergency health care services ¶ to undocumented immigrants (CBO, 2007). Although there are ¶ costs associated with health care provision to undocumented ¶ immigrants, due to their lower rates of use of health care services, these expenditures account for only 1.5% of U.S. medical ¶ costs (Okie, 2007) and the estimated tax burden per household ¶ was only $11 per year for providing health care to undocumented immigrants (Goldman, Smith, & Sood, 2006). While ¶ some may argue that no tax dollars should go toward providing services to a population who many believe should not ¶ even be in the U.S., the $11 annual per household tax burden ¶ is not the overwhelming financial burden that the media and ¶ many politicians claim.

Immigrants raise healthcare premiums and taxesCamarota 1 - Director of Research for the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) and a Ph.D. in public policy analysis (Steven, “Immigration From Mexico, Assessing the Impact on the United States,” CIS, July 2001, http://cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/articles/2001/mexico/mexico.pdf)//ACHealth Insurance Coverage¶ One of the most troubling social trends in recent years has been the rapid increase in the¶ number of people without health care insurance. Although there was a decline in the number¶ of uninsured between 1998 and 1999, 42.6 million U.S.-residents are without health insurance coverage — almost 11.5 million more than in 1987. A larger uninsured population has¶ broad-ranging effects on the nation’s entire health care system. Increases in the size of the¶ uninsured population strain the resources of health care providers who struggle to provide ¶ services to the uninsured. Moreover, Americans with insurance have to pay higher premiums as ¶ health care providers pass along some of the costs of treating the uninsured to paying costumers . Taxpayers , too, are affected as federal, state, and local governments struggle to provide care ¶ to the growing ranks of the uninsured . While no definitive estimate exists, it is likely that¶ between $15 and $30 billion a year, not including the cost for Medicaid, is spent providing¶ services to the uninsured by governments at all levels. Although there is no single government¶ program involved, providing care to the uninsured is a significant expense for society, with¶ much of the cost borne by taxpayers and those who do have health insurance. Lack of Health Insurance Common Among Mexican Immigrants. More than half (52.6 percent) of Mexican-born persons living in the United States have no health insurance. For natives¶ the corresponding figure is 13.5 percent.25 While not as prevalent as among Mexicans, lack of¶ insurance is also common among immigrants in general. In 1999, 33.4 percent of the foreignborn were uninsured. Not surprisingly, lack of insurance is also a severe problem among the¶ U.S.-born children (under age 18) of Mexican immigrants, with almost one-third lacking coverage.26 The children of Mexican immigrants are more likely to have insurance than their parents because a large percentage of those born in the United States are covered by Medicaid.¶ Figure 17 shows the percentage of Mexican immigrants and their American-born children without health insurance. The figure shows that 45.9 percent of Mexican immigrants and¶ their U.S.-born children do not have health insurance , compared to 13.1 percent of natives and¶ their children. The figure also shows that 18.5 percent of Mexicans and their children are¶ covered by

Medicaid compared to 9.7 percent of natives. The fact that Mexican immigrants¶ and their children are more likely than natives to use Medicaid means that by itself, lack of¶ Medicaid use does not explain why so many Mexican immigrants and their children do not¶ have health insurance. The results in Figure 17 show that 64.4 percent of Mexican immigrants¶ and their children either have no health coverage or have it provided to them at government¶ expense. ¶ Overall, Mexican immigration has contributed significantly to the size of the nation’s¶ uninsured population. Although they comprise 4.2 percent of the nation’s entire population,¶ the 5.3 million Mexican immigrants without health coverage and their U.S.-born children¶ under age 18 account for 12.5 percent of the uninsured. Moreover, immigration from Mexico¶ accounts for a significant share of the increase in the nation’s uninsured population over the last¶ decade. Mexican immigrants who arrived between 1988 and 1999 and the children born to¶ these immigrants after they settled in the United States accounted for 28.7 percent or 3.3 million of the total growth in the size of¶ the uninsured population after 1987. Thus¶ Mexican immigration has played a significant role in exacerbating the nation’s health¶ insurance coverage crisis .¶ Lack of Health Insurance Remains a Problem Even for Long-Time Mexican Immigrants. Even after they have lived in the country for¶ many years, lack of health insurance remains a severe problem among Mexican immigrants.¶ Figure 18 shows health insurance coverage among Mexicans based on years of residence in the¶ United States. The figure shows that 62.9 percent of immigrants from Mexico who have lived¶ in the United States for 10 years or less are uninsured. For those who have lived in the United¶ States between 11 and 20 years, 47.5 percent are uninsured; among those who came to the¶ country 21 to 30 years ago, 38.8 percent were without health insurance; and for those who¶ arrived more than 30 years ago, 28 percent were still uninsured in 2000. Thus, while Mexican¶ immigrants clearly make progress the longer they live in the United States, those who have lived¶ in the country for many years are still more than twice as likely as natives to be without health¶ insurance.¶ Insurance Coverage Among Legal and Illegal Mexican Immigrants. Among the nearly three¶ million illegal aliens from Mexico in the CPS, we estimated that more than two-thirds, 68.4¶ percent, do not have health insurance coverage. However, lack of insurance is common even¶ among the estimated 4.9 million legal Mexican immigrants living in the United States. We¶ estimated that 41.4 percent of legal Mexican immigrants do not have insurance, making them¶ more than three times as likely as natives to be uninsured. Clearly, lack of health insurance¶ coverage among the Mexican-born population is not simply a matter of legal status.¶ As is the case with poverty, income, and welfare, the low skill level of Mexican immigrants has a direct bearing on why so many lack insurance. Because of the limited value of their¶ labor in an economy that increasingly demands educated workers, many immigrants hold jobs¶ that do not offer health insurance, and their low incomes make it very difficult for them to¶ purchase insurance on their own.

2ac cleveland national forest add on

Illegal immigrants destroy the biodiversity in the Cleveland National Forest and cause forest firesWeeks et al 2 –PhD in demography and Distinguished Professor of Geography (John, “Environmental Impacts of Illegal Immigration on the Cleveland National Forest in California*,” San Diego State University, 2002, http://geography.unt.edu/~hudak/ex-immi.pdf)//AC San Diego State University¶ Since the inception of Operation Gatekeeper along the U.S.-Mexico border, there has been an increase in environmental impacts on the Cleveland National Forest, in eastern San Diego County, California. This is almost certainly¶ due to an increase in the number of undocumented immigrants using the area as a gateway to the interior of the¶ United States . In this research, we use the tools of geographic information systems (GIS) to measure the scope and¶ extent of this impact, focusing on the creation of illegal trails and the impact of illegal campsites and campfires on the¶ environment of the Descanso Ranger District within the national forest. Our findings suggest that between the start¶ of Operation Gatekeeper in late 1994 and the end of the study period in 1999, there were 772 meters of new trail created per 1,000 unauthorized immigrants, accompanied by 656 square meters of area disturbed per 1,000 immigrants,¶ fifty kilograms of litter left behind per 1,000 immigrants, eleven illegal campfires per 1,000 immigrants, and 1.7 hectares burned by wildfires attributed to illegal immigrants. Key Words: California, environmental impacts, GIS,¶ illegal immigration, migration.¶ Introduction¶ Over the past decade, policy-makers and researchers have shown a growing interest¶ in the relationship between human migration¶ and the environment. Traditionally, environmental impacts of migration have occurred ¶

within national boundaries. Until recently, the¶ international dimension of this relationship has ¶ been largely overlooked. With the pace of¶ globalization accelerating, however, the international dimension is increasing in scale and¶ importance (Hugo 1996). Participants in the¶ 1996 “International Symposium on Environmentally Induced Population Displacements¶ and Environmental Impacts Resulting from¶ Mass Migrations” in Switzerland discussed¶ four categories of negative migration-driven¶ environmental impacts: (1) those that directly¶ damage ecosystems, primarily affecting forests¶ and fresh water resources; (2) those that indirectly affect local markets and prices and cause¶ game-park barrier destruction; (3) those that¶ indirectly affect environmental health conditions, including water supply and air quality;¶ and (4) political impacts, such as strife between¶ local residents and temporary camp dwellers,¶ where competition for natural resources can¶ act as a pretext for refugees to ignore local resource management practices and regulations.¶ In the county of San Diego, California, the¶ impact from migratory movement is being felt¶ on a daily basis. Unauthorized or illegal immigration from Mexico has long been a hotly debated issue along the U.S.-Mexico border. Historically, the San Diego area has been one of¶ the most popular places to cross illegally. This ¶

westernmost segment of the U.S.-Mexico border was the site of 45 percent of all illegal immigrant apprehensions in 1993 alone (Cornelius and Kuwahara 1998). In response to this¶ problem, the United States Border Patrol unveiled Operation Gatekeeper in October 1994.¶ Gatekeeper—a result of legislative efforts¶ originally sponsored by San Diego congressman Duncan Hunter—is part of a $540 million¶ immigration initiative that seeks to deter illegal ¶ immigrants from entering the country by physically preventing them from crossing the border by building a fence and hiring more law enforcement agents to patrol the U.S. side of the¶ border (Becks 1997). Funding for this project ¶ was enhanced by the 1996 amendments to the¶ Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), embodied in the Illegal Immigration Reform and¶ Immigrant Responsibility Act (P.L. 104–208) ¶ (U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service¶ 2002). ¶ The success of Operation Gatekeeper in deterring illegal immigration in San Diego is a matter of some debate. Gatekeeper followed¶ on the heels of a similar operation in El Paso,¶ Texas, but the effort has been compared to¶ placing a bandage on a gaping wound (Perryman 1995). Border Patrol apprehensions have¶ since declined in the San Diego sector, but increased in Arizona (Martin 2000a), suggesting¶ a displacement but not a reduction in the flow¶ of undocumented immigrants across the border. Plenty of evidence exists worldwide that¶ host governments will have great difficulty¶ stopping an influx of immigrants just by militarizing their frontiers (International Organization for Migration 1996). Surveys of Mexican¶ migrants by Donato and colleagues (1992) reveal that they will simply keep trying to cross¶ the border until they succeed. Regardless of¶ how many times they are apprehended, almost¶ every migrant who truly wants to enter the¶ United States eventually gets in (Donato, Durand, and Massey 1992).¶ Nonetheless, based upon apprehension data¶ supplied by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (1998), it appears that Operation¶ Gatekeeper has pushed illegal immigrant traf-¶ fic out of the traditional crossing routes near¶ Imperial Beach and San Ysidro and into the¶ eastern, more rural portions of San Diego¶ County. Imperial Beach, the westernmost Border Patrol station in San Diego County, had¶ previously been the site of over 25 percent of¶ all apprehensions in San Diego County. This¶ rate began to fall in 1995, after the start of Operation Gatekeeper in October 1994, and has¶

been under 10 percent since then. Campo, the¶ easternmost station in San Diego County, had¶ annually been the site of less than two percent¶ of all apprehensions in the County. This number began to rise after 1995, with Campo’s apprehension rate exceeding 16 percent in the¶ following three years.¶ This shift in migration patterns has exerted¶ an unexpected impact on the natural environment. In the Cleveland National Forest, to the¶ east of San Diego, as many as 100 illegal immigrants per day are estimated to pass through¶

the Descanso Ranger District, including the¶ Hauser and Pine Creek National Wilderness ¶ Areas. Hundreds of trails have been created in¶ hillsides and thousands of illegal campfires ¶ have been left unattended by undocumented¶ migrants since the inception of Operation ¶ Gatekeeper. Meadows and sensitive plants have¶ been trampled and surface-water quality may ¶ have been significantly damaged by human¶ waste (U.S. Forest Service 1998a; Pasek 1999).¶ Although we cannot definitively prove that immigrants have caused

this impact, the circumstantial and anecdotal evidence is compelling.¶ The timing of the impact is consistent with this¶

hypothesis, since the observed environmental¶ degradation began shortly after Operation ¶ Gatekeeper was put into place. Furthermore,¶ the number of arrests of illegal immigrants has ¶ increased, and much of the trash left behind in¶ illegal campsites appears to have originated in ¶ Mexico, according to employees of the U.S.¶ Forest Service (Ron Woychak, Resource Manager for the Descanso Ranger District of the¶ Cleveland National Forest, notes by first author from interview, 1998). ¶ The environmental impact that can result¶ from immigration is potentially severe and ¶ multifaceted. Refugee movement into a spatially restricted area already vulnerable to environmental degradation can be devastating¶ (Hugo 1996), and also long-lasting (Bloesch¶ 1996). The unprecedented number of people¶ in the world who are refugees or otherwise¶ displaced (over 50 million; International Organization for Migration 1996) has culminated in the need to measure the environmental impacts of illegal immigration on natural¶ resources.¶ The purpose of this study is to measure the¶ environmental impacts of illegal immigration¶ on the natural resources of the Descanso¶ Ranger District in the Cleveland National Forest in southern California. State parks and national forests along the U.S.-Mexico border¶ face unique challenges unheard of in other¶ parts of the country. The squeezing of immigration in their direction has made them a natural route for immigrants attempting to make¶ their way undetected across the border. Using¶ geographic information system (GIS) methods,¶ we located and measured the road and trail network that had been created in the Cleveland¶ National Forest, presumably by illegal immigrants as well as by law enforcement personnel,¶ since the inception of Operation Gatekeeper.¶ We then compared this road and trail network¶ to the network that existed prior to the start of¶ Operation Gatekeeper. We also made use of¶ data that have been compiled by the U.S. Forest Service on immigrant apprehensions and counts of illegal campfires, litter collected, and¶ wildfires in the area.¶ Background¶ Despite growing interest on the effects of migration, knowledge of the environmental impacts resulting from migration remains limited.¶ The analysis that has been performed tends to¶ be rudimentary, although work has been done¶ to develop frameworks for analyzing alternative policies as they relate to the sustainable use¶ of forest trees in the presence of refugees in¶ Malawi (Babu and Hassan 1995). Few studies¶ have investigated the medium- and long-term¶ impacts of international migration. In particular, there has been little investigation to discover the long-term significance of these relatively short-term effects, the extent to which¶ ecosystems can rebound from impacts due to¶ mass migrations, and the factors that enhance¶ environmental recovery (Hansch and Jacobsen¶ 1996).¶ Congressional briefing papers prepared by¶ the U.S. Forest Service (1996) have discussed ¶ the impact of illegal campfires left behind by¶ undocumented migrants. These fires are often ¶ built in wilderness areas that have not recently¶ experienced a significant wildfire. They have ¶ been likened to “ticking time bombs,” because¶ wildfires in these generally arid areas can ¶ spread quickly, destroying homes and property¶ worth millions of dollars (U.S. Forest Service ¶ 1996). Information provided by the U.S. Forest Service (1998b) indicates there were over¶ 800 illegal campfires in the Cleveland National ¶ Forest in 1996 and over 1,300 in 1997. These¶ campfires led to forty wildfires in 1996 that resulted in over 400 hectares of Forest Service¶ land being burned (U.S. Forest Service 1997). ¶ Bloesch (1996) and Hansch and Jacobsen¶ (1996) also discuss another impact, soil erosion. ¶ It often results directly from vegetation destruction and deforestation. In Mozambique,¶ Malawi, Zimbabwe, Zambia, and Ethiopia, international refugees and internally displaced¶ groups are forced by their desperate situation ¶ to remove trees for energy and shelter. This deforestation has had increased impact on soil¶ erosion and has produced an almost moonscape-like environment in these areas (Singh¶ 1996). In Haiti, 50 percent of the country is¶ reported to have been affected by increased¶ erosion, with eroded soil accumulating in the¶ streets of Port-au-Prince, where it must be removed by bulldozers. This erosion is the direct¶ result of deforestation by internally displaced ¶ people using the forest resources for fuel and¶ building material (Claussen 1994). Soil erosion¶ has also been cited as a problem resulting from¶ the increased number of trails that have developed in the Cleveland National Forest as a result of immigration traffic (U.S. Forest Service¶ 1998c). ¶ The activities of the Border Patrol and other¶ immigration enforcement agencies comprise¶ another indirect impact of international migration. Border Patrol vehicles have expanded¶ previously existing roads and reopened old¶ roads that Forest Service personnel intended to¶ be taken out of use and thus reclaimed by vegetation (Woychak, interview, 1998; Edward¶ Heinrich, fire prevention specialist with the¶ U.S. Forest Service, notes by first author from¶ interview, 1999). Border

Patrol agents operate¶ sport utility vehicles (SUVs) that contribute to¶ erosion and cause other environmental impacts¶ similar to ones discussed in studies of off-highway¶ vehicle (OHV) impacts to the environment¶ (Fridell 1990; Pudoff 1992).¶ The third category of impact is the deterioration of environmental health conditions involving sanitation issues, damage to the water¶ supply, accumulation of litter and human ¶ waste, and personal safety. Waterways in the¶ Descanso Ranger District were the subject of¶ water quality testing in 1997 by the City of San¶ Diego, which operates two reservoirs in the¶ area. Most of the testing showed no consistent¶ change from upstream to downstream; however, the results from a site along Cottonwood¶ Creek in Hauser Canyon showed consistent¶ changes (Jeff Pasek, head biologist for the City¶ of San Diego’s Water Department, notes by¶ first author from interview, 1999). Over 11,000¶ kilograms of litter—including human waste—¶ were retrieved from the Descanso Ranger District in 1997 alone (U.S. Forest Service 1998b).¶ Wood is a common source of fuel for refugee¶ populations throughout the world. Smoke¶ from wood burning for cooking and heating is¶ documented as a health risk to the upper respiratory tract (International Organization for¶ Migration 1996). In addition, in general, when¶ displaced and refugee people have to walk long¶ distances to gather wood for fuel, they risk acts of physical violence, including rape (International Organization for Migration). ¶ In the first four years after the start of Operation Gatekeeper, 130 illegal immigrants died¶ in San Diego County (Ector Benegas, Mexican¶ Consul, San Diego, personal communication¶

via email to first author, 1999). Most deaths are¶ to males, and usually their deaths are attributed¶ to dehydration or hypothermia; however,¶ others have died in motor vehicle accidents or¶ by drowning. This phenomenon is not limited¶ to San Diego County. In 1998 there were seventy-eight deaths reported by the El Centro¶ Border Patrol Station (U.S. Border Patrol¶ 1998). Other deaths may have occurred among¶ illegal immigrants who were able to return to¶ Mexico before dying or were just never found.¶ Deaths by dehydration, hypothermia, and¶ drowning illustrate the dangers immigrants¶ now face when attempting to cross the border¶ in the rugged mountains of eastern San Diego¶ county. Several incidents occurring in the Descanso Ranger District, where illegal immigrants have either died or had to be rescued¶ from exposure to inclement weather, illustrate¶ the danger to personal safety (Sanchez 1998).¶ In 1996, 22 illegal immigrants died from exposure, 19 died in 1997 (U.S. Forest Service¶ 1998c) and 6 died in one week in 1999 (Fox¶ 1999). In March 1999, a San Diego–area Border Patrol agent and three illegal immigrants¶ he was transporting were killed when the¶ agent’s vehicle rolled down a steep cliff during¶ heavy fog (Portillo 1999). This accident took¶ place just a few miles west of the Descanso¶ Ranger District.¶ The final category of impact is strife between¶ local residents and immigrants. Homer-Dixon ¶ (1996) studied the relationship between environmental scarcities and violent conflicts. He¶ notes that scarcities of certain environmental ¶

resources, such as agricultural land, clean¶ water, and forest resources, are contributing to ¶ mass violence all over the world. In addition,¶ these scarcities have contributed to fierce competition and violence among ethnic groups in¶ areas where shortages and distribution inequities have forced rival groups to live together¶ (Homer-Dixon 1996). In the Cleveland National Forest, residents have complained about¶ heavy traffic and intrusion by illegal immigrants, citing break-ins and thefts (U.S. Forest¶ Service 1996). ¶ There have also been confrontations between U.S. residents and the Border Patrol in¶ the backcountry east of the City of San Diego.¶ Residents in the sparsely populated Mountain¶ Empire region east of San Diego have filed¶ suits against the Border Patrol in order to limit¶ their activities. The suits are based upon claims¶ that the Border Patrol is interfering with residents going about their daily lives; specifically,¶ residents have complained of frequent stops¶ and searches. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) counters that some residents are engaged in illegal activities and notes¶ that forty-six area residents have been arrested¶ for trafficking drugs and eight for smuggling¶ illegal immigrants (Martin 2000a, 2000b).¶ Environmental impacts identified as resulting from international migration are similar in¶ many ways to environmental impacts associated with recreational forest use (hiking and¶ camping) and its management. Recreational¶

use of wilderness has been cited as affecting¶ both physical and biological resources (Hammitt and Cole 1987; Kuss, Graefe, and Vaske¶ 1990). Littering and deterioration of trails and ¶ campsites are among the most commonly reported impacts. Undesired trails tend to develop along frequently used cross-country¶ routes and in popular destination areas. Campsites proliferate in destination areas where use¶ is not limited to a relatively small number of¶ campsites. Wilderness rangers are forced to¶ spend a large proportion of their time picking¶ up litter. Human waste is also a problem when¶ use is relatively high (Cole, Lucas, and Petersen 1987).¶ Aquatic systems are affected by increasing ¶ turbidity and sedimentation loads from erosion¶ along trails and other denuded areas. Human ¶ waste pollutes waterways. Concentrated recreation use along trails and campsites affects soils¶ and vegetation. Soils are altered physically,¶ biologically, and chemically by impacts associated with recreation. Vegetation abundance¶ and community composition are changed when ¶ plants are killed or damaged. Animals are impacted when their habitat is disturbed or are¶ approached too closely by recreational visitors ¶ (Cole 1994).¶ A study by Mortensen (1989) noted the impact of recreation use on trails, including increases in trail width, exposure of mineral soil¶ and soil compaction, loss of duff, and campsite development. Bayfield (1973) analyzed the impact of newly created and unmanaged Scottish¶ hillpaths, demonstrating the patterns of deterioration and the lateral spread of people (walkers)¶ across and away from the hillpaths. He observed¶ that the width of unmanaged footpaths increased¶ with the wetness, roughness, and steepness of the¶ path surface and that walkers took the most convenient route in terms of surface and direction.¶ Research has been conducted on ecological¶ changes in campsites in designated wilderness¶ areas and the extent to which these changes become more pronounced as use increases (Cole¶ 1983, 1988). A significant correlation has been¶ found between the amount of use and the¶ change in (or loss of) vegetation cover, seedlings, and the exposure of mineral soil. The impact of canoeists on newly developed campsites¶ has also been studied (Merriam and Smith¶ 1974). Much work

has gone into designing an¶ impact monitoring system (Cole 1994; Cole et¶ al. 1997) as well as modeling wilderness campsites to determine factors that influence the¶ degree of impact (Cole 1992).¶ Studies of impacts to trails and campsites¶ from recreational usage show that much of the¶ damage is inflicted after only a few visits or¶ passes through an area and that the spatial distribution tends to be fairly static (Mortensen 1989;¶ Cole 1994). Impacts from illegal immigrants are¶ different in that illegal immigrants are constantly in flight from capture during their passage through the forest. As existing trails and¶ campsites are identified and patrolled by law enforcement agents, illegal immigrants establish¶ new trails and campsites in an effort to escape.¶ This creates a cat and mouse game in which immigrants recycle old trails while simultaneously¶ establishing new trails and campsites. ¶ Data and Methods¶ Description of the Study Area¶ This study was conducted in the southern portion of the Descanso Ranger District in the¶ Cleveland National Forest, located in San Diego County, California (Figure 1). The area¶ contains a variety of vegetation communities,¶ including coastal sage scrub, chaparral, broadleaf woodland, conifer forest, grassland, and riparian habitat. This area was selected because¶ of its proximity to Mexico, which is experiencing large northward migratory movement. The¶ presence of Interstate 8, a major transportation¶ artery bisecting the Descanso Ranger District¶ some twenty-four to thirty-two kilometers¶ north of the border, has made the area a natural¶ avenue for illegal immigration since the inception of Operation Gatekeeper. Access to the¶ forest is provided by a combination of interstate, state, county, and interior roads, approximately half of which are under Forest Service¶ jurisdiction (U.S. Forest Service 1986).¶ Data Collection¶ The study was conducted by integrating several sources of data into a geographic information system, using ESRI ArcInfo software.¶ Data layers included (1) road and trails, (2) litter, (3) number of campfires, (4) area burned by¶ fires, and (5) immigrant data. Data on roads¶ and trails were collected using three methods.¶ First, the locations of roads and trails in existence prior to Operation Gatekeeper were obtained from the U.S. Forest Service in digital¶ format. The trails were divided into two classi-¶ fications, maintained trails and unmaintained¶ trails. Maintained trails are trails within the¶ Cleveland National Forest maintained by Forest Service personnel on a regular basis—e.g.,¶ the Pacific Crest Trail. Unmaintained trails,¶ hereafter known as social trails, are trails that¶ are present within the forest and acknowledged¶ by the Forest Service to exist but that were not¶ created nor maintained by Forest Service personnel (Tom White, member of the U.S. Forest Service in the Cleveland National Forest,¶ notes by first author from interview, 1999). ¶ Next, the locations of roads, trails, and¶ campsites created in the Hauser subarea as a¶ result of illegal immigration were recorded¶ through field measurement. The roads, trails,¶ and campsites in the Hauser subarea were¶ mapped using a portable global positioning¶ system (GPS). Road and trail width was measured by stretching a tape measure perpendicular to the road or trail. As each road or trail was¶ traversed, all places obviously disturbed by¶ camping were located. Each camping site was¶ mapped as a point feature using the GPS.¶ Camping sites were easily recognizable by the¶ large amount of litter present, including discarded food wrappers, empty water bottles, and¶ clothes, and by disturbance to the ground cover¶ and the presence of fire scars. Finally, the locations of pioneered trails created by illegal immigrants in the other forest subareas were¶ determined using Forest Service field maps and¶ information provided during informal interviews with Forest Service field personnel.¶ Within the GIS, the Descanso Ranger District was divided into a series of subareas using a¶ method similar to one utilized by the U.S. Forest Service. Methods were developed to rapidly¶ quantify the spatial extent and degree of impact¶

caused by immigration. The network of maintained and social trails that existed prior to the¶ inception of Operation Gatekeeper was combined. The coverages containing trails created¶ as a result of illegal immigration since the start¶ of Operation Gatekeeper were also combined,¶ so that all pioneered trails were together in the¶ same coverage. Arc Macro Language (AML)¶ programs were written to compute the length¶ of pre-and post-Operation Gatekeeper trails¶ and roads in each forest subarea. The number¶ of trail intersections (nodes) in each subarea before and after the inception of Operation Gatekeeper was computed using the same programs.¶ The coverage of maintained and social trails from before Operation Gatekeeper was clipped¶ to each separate forest subarea and a point or¶ node coverage of trail intersections was created.¶ Next, the coverage of pioneered trails from¶ after the start of Operation Gatekeeper was¶ appended with the coverage of maintained and¶ social trails from before Operation Gatekeeper.¶ This coverage was also clipped to the forest¶ subarea and a point or node coverage of trail intersections was created. These coverages were¶ appended together to create a point or node¶ coverage of trail intersections for both periods.¶ The density of the trail network was evaluated¶ in terms of the number of intersections represented by nodes in the trail coverages.¶ Data on other categories of impact—¶ including the amount of litter, number of illegal campfires, number of illegal wildfires, and¶ hectares burned by wildfires—were obtained¶ through informal interviews with Forest Service personnel and local government officials¶ and by reviewing of historical documentation,¶ and were recorded in either a weekly incident¶ report or monthly summary. Data concerning¶ number of immigrant apprehensions and immigrant deaths were obtained through informal interviews with federal law enforcement¶ personnel as well as from historical records.¶ Data Analysis¶ Our analysis focused on the calculation of the¶ environmental impact per immigrant, as a way¶ of producing a more generalizable assessment¶ of what it means for unauthorized immigrants¶ to be traversing a relatively fragile ecosystem.¶ First we calculated each factor of disturbance¶ that is presumably due to the impact of illegal¶ immigrants: (1) how many meters of new trail¶ were added, (2) how many new trail intersections (or nodes) were created, (3) how much¶ ground cover was disturbed on an annual basis, (4) the amount of litter left behind by the¶ migrants, (5) the number of illegal campfires attributed to the migrants, and (6) the hectares¶ burned by wildfires attributed to the migrants.¶ Next we estimated the number of unauthorized immigrants traversing the study area for¶ each year under study, based on multipliers¶ applied to apprehension data, as developed by¶ Espenshade and Acevedo (1995). For these¶ estimates, we created a range of high, medium,¶ and low, reflecting the uncertainty about the¶ exact number of immigrants. Then, using our¶ estimates of the annual volume of migration¶ through the area, we were able to estimate the¶ annual pattern of disturbance for each factor.¶ Finally, we calculated the per-immigrant affect¶ of each type of environmental impact.¶ Results¶ Estimates of Environmental Impact¶ Overall, our estimates in Table 1 show that¶ 240,165 meters of trail were added to the Descanso Ranger District between the inception of¶ Operation Gatekeeper in late 1994 and the end of the study period in 1999. Figure 2 shows the¶ location of these new trails. It can be seen that¶ the additional trails were especially created in¶ the more southerly subareas, which are the¶ areas closest to the U.S.-Mexico border, representing the places where illegal immigrants will¶ first enter the area and where their impact will¶ probably be felt even if they are subsequently¶ apprehended before reaching the more northerly subareas. The data in Table 1 also show¶ that very little creation of new roads occurred¶ during this time period, and that what did occur was concentrated in the Hauser subarea,¶ the one that is most southerly and thus closest¶ to the U.S.-Mexico border.¶ The amount of ground cover disturbed was¶ calculated using trail width measurements¶ taken during the course of mapping trails in¶ Hauser Canyon. The average trail width was¶ calculated by taking the mean of

these measurements. The total area of ground cover disturbed was calculated by taking the average¶ trail width and multiplying it by the total trail¶ length, as follows: Thus, we estimate that the creation of new¶ trails disturbed a total of 204,140 square meters¶ of area, apportioned by area according to the¶ length of new trails created.¶ Data on litter collected were available for¶ 1997 through July of 1999. The amount of litter collected (weight) was based on the number¶ of garbage bags filled. Each bag was assumed to¶ weigh 4.5 kilograms (Woychak, interview,¶ 1998). The amount of litter collected (weight)¶ for each subarea was compiled on a monthly¶ basis and then summarized annually. The total¶ amount of litter collected was calculated from¶ these annual summaries. Table 2 shows the¶ ratio of kilograms of litter per 100 hectares¶ over these three years. Overall, 15,673 kilograms of litter have been recovered. Not surprisingly, the greatest amount of litter was¶ found in the Pine Creek subarea, which is also¶ the area that saw the greatest absolute increase¶ in the length of trails during this period of¶ time. At the same time, litter tended to accumulate somewhat farther north of the border¶ than where the trails are originating, which is¶ consistent with the idea that litter is associated¶ especially with campsites and that campsites¶ will be located a bit north of where people initially enter the national forest after crossing the¶ border. Overall, the Pearson product-moment¶ correlation coefficient between the amount of¶ trail created and the amount of litter is 0.63.¶ Data on the number of illegal campfires discovered were available for 1996 through June¶ of 1999. Forest Service fire prevention personnel counted campfires during patrols throughout the Descanso Ranger District. Every time a¶ campfire or the remains of a campfire was discovered, its location was recorded and it was¶ eradicated so that the same campfire would not¶ be counted again. The number of illegal camp-¶ fires in each forest subarea was compiled on a¶ monthly basis and summarized annually. The¶ size of each forest subarea was computed¶ within the ArcInfo GIS environment. The total¶ number of campfires discovered was calculated¶ from these annual summaries. Table 2 shows¶ the ratio of illegal campfires per 100 hectares¶ over the last four years. Overall, a total of 3,498¶ illegal campfires were discovered, with the Pine ¶ Creek subarea having the greatest number, ¶

consistent with its having the greatest amount¶ of trash as well as the highest amount of trail ¶ creation. The correlation among subareas between the amount of trash and the number of¶ illegal campfires was 0.65.¶ Data on wildfires attributed to

illegal immigration were available for 1996 through 1998.¶ Illegal immigrants presumably caused wildfires¶ when they

failed to properly extinguish their¶ campfires or failed to take precautions with cigarettes and other

burning items. Flames from ¶ campfires spread easily, particularly during dry ¶ conditions in an area that has not been burned¶ in several years. Wildfires threaten human life ¶ and public property and can cost millions of¶ dollars to extinguish. The number of wildfires,¶ number of hectares burned, and amount of¶ money spent fighting wildfires in each subarea was compiled on a monthly basis and then summarized annually. The total hectares burned,¶ total amount of money expended fighting wild-¶ fires, and amount spent per burned hectare¶ were calculated from these summaries, as¶ shown in Table 3. The Pine Creek area led all¶ subareas with respect to wildfires, as it did for¶ campfires, litter, and trail creation. The correlation coefficient between the number of¶ campfires and dollars spent fighting wildfires¶ was 0.58.¶ Table 4 summarizes the correlation coeffi-¶ cients among the environmental impact variables, calculated in terms of both the Pearson¶ product-moment correlation coefficient and¶ the Spearman rank-order correlation coeffi-¶ cient. Regardless of which measure of correlation is used among the eleven subareas, the¶ data suggest that there is a high correlation¶ among the environmental impact variables.¶ Areas with a higher amount of trail creation¶ were also associated with more litter attributable to illegal immigrants, more campfires, and¶ more wildfires.¶ Estimates of Unauthorized Immigrants ¶ Traversing the Study Area¶ The number of immigrants passing through¶ the Cleveland National Forest was estimated¶ from several different sources of information.¶ Data regarding immigrant apprehensions and¶ immigrant traffic were available from the U.S.¶ Forest Service. Complete data on apprehensions by U.S. Forest Service law enforcement¶ officers during Operation Linebacker (a federally mandated law-enforcement interdiction¶ operation designed to address the movement of¶ smuggling and illegal border crossings into the¶ Cleveland National Forest and East San Diego¶ County) were available for 1997. Data from¶ trail sensors were also available for certain areas¶ of the forest. This information included only¶ apprehensions made by U.S. Forest Service law¶ enforcement personnel, and not apprehensions¶ made by the Border Patrol in the Cleveland¶ National Forest.¶ Estimates of p, the probability of being apprehended by the Border Patrol on any given¶ attempted illegal entry, vary widely—between¶ 0.17 and 0.75 (Espenshade and Acevedo 1995).¶ Nonetheless, Espenshade and Acevedo were¶ able to derive an estimate of p 0.32 that any¶ group of illegal immigrants attempting to cross¶ the border at any one time are apprehended by¶ law enforcement agents, in spite of any increased efforts made by law-enforcement agencies. Using this estimate of p, we can estimate¶ that 18,313 illegal immigrants attempted to¶ pass through the Cleveland National Forest¶ during 1997, based upon the number of apprehensions made by the U.S. Forest Service Law¶ Enforcement branch. Border Patrol agents also operate in the¶ Cleveland National Forest; both in support of¶ and independent of U.S. Forest Service law enforcement operations (Ivan Bartolichek, law¶ enforcement officer for the Descanso Ranger¶ District of the Cleveland National Forest, personal communication 1999). Given this factor,¶ coupled with the fact that the number of Border Patrol arrests is not necessarily a reliable¶ guide to the flow of undocumented migrants¶ (Espenshade and Acevedo 1995), it is advisable¶ to establish a range of the number of illegal immigrants attempting to traverse the forest during any given year. Given the fact that there are¶ only two full-time Forestry law enforcement¶ officers tasked with patrolling the Descanso¶ Ranger District (Bartolichek, personal communication 1999), we can hypothetically assume that the Border Patrol apprehended at¶ least twice as many illegal immigrants in 1997¶ as did the U.S. Forest Service.¶ 5,860 2 11,720 (3)¶ Adding the number of apprehensions made by¶ the U.S. Forest Service to this number gave the¶ following:¶ 11,720 5,860 17,580 (4)¶ Factoring in Espenshade and Acevedo’s apprehension rate produced an estimate of:¶ 17,580/p 54,938 (5)¶ Repeating this procedure, but assuming, first,¶ that the Border Patrol apprehended as many as¶ four times as many people as the Forest Service, and second, that they apprehended as¶ many as six times as many people as the Forest¶ Service, produced the following calculations:¶ (5,860 4) 5,860 29,300/p 91,563 (6)¶ (5,860 6) 5,860 41,020/p 128,188 (7)¶ This established a range (54,938 to 128,188)¶ for the number of illegal immigrants passing¶ through the forest in 1997. The middle number in this range (91,563) corresponds closely¶ to data from two U.S. Forest Service trail sensors. The cumulative total for Sensor A showed¶ 68,570 passing by in 1996. Sensor B showed¶ that 8,681 passed by over a four-month period¶ before it ceased operating. To extrapolate the¶ number from this sensor out over one year’s¶ time, we compared it to the data from Sensor¶ A. 25,577 had passed Sensor A at the same¶ time. This represents 37 percent of the total for¶ that sensor in 1996. Assuming immigrants¶ passed Sensor B at the same rate as Sensor A,¶ 8,681 is 37 percent of the total for that sensor¶ for that year. Thus, 23,462 passed

Sensor B in¶ 1996.¶ 8,681/0.37 23,462 (8)¶ This number, added to the number derived¶ from Sensor A, showed a total immigrant passage of 92,032.¶ 23,462 68,570 92,032 (9)¶ This corresponds closely to the middle number¶ in the range (91,563) we established above that¶ assumed the Border Patrol apprehended four¶ times as many illegal immigrants as the U.S.¶ Forest Service. Using the mean of these two¶ numbers, a rough count of the number of¶ immigrants passing through the Cleveland¶ National Forest in 1997 is 91,797:¶ 91,563 92,032/2 91,797 (10)¶ Although we were able to make this detailed¶ calculation only for 1997, we assumed that¶ the pattern of immigrants traversing through the¶ area each year would be consistent with the pattern of apprehensions each year made by the¶ Campo/Boulevard Border Patrol Station—the¶ nearest station to the study site. Thus, we created an estimate of the rate at which immigrants have passed through the forest since the¶ start of Operation Gatekeeper by looking at¶ apprehension data from the Campo/Boulevard¶ Border Patrol Station. We began with the¶ number of apprehensions for each year from¶ the Campo/Boulevard Border Patrol station¶ and then incorporated Espenshade’s (1994) estimate of the percentage of immigrants caught¶ during a crossing attempt to calculate the estimated number of immigrants passing through¶ the area. Table 5 shows these results. We thus¶ estimated that between 1994 (just before the¶ start of Operation Gatekeeper) and 1999 (the¶ end of the 1998 fiscal year), there were 311,176¶ unauthorized immigrants passing through the¶ study site. Less than 1 percent of these passages¶ occurred in 1994; the number increased dramatically in 1995, and then rose to a peak in 1997.¶ We assume that the environmental impact of the immigrants was proportionate to their¶ number, and that therefore the distribution of¶ immigrants by year can serve as a proxy for the¶ environmental impact per year.¶ Per-Immigrant Impact on the Environment¶ We now have the data required to estimate the¶ per-immigrant environmental impact within¶ the study area. Between the start of Operation¶ Gatekeeper and the end of the study period in¶ 1999, 240,164 meters of new trail were created¶ in the Descanso Ranger District. Because of¶ the restrictions placed by the U.S. Forest Service on legal campers, we attribute all of this¶ trail creation to the unauthorized immigrants¶ traversing the area during this period of time.¶ Since we estimate there to have been 311,176¶ illegal immigrants, the impact per 1000 immigrants is thus 772 new meters of trail for each¶ 1,000 immigrants passing through this section¶ of the forest. As shown in Table 6, we estimate¶ that the area disturbed in the creation of new¶ trails was 656 square meters per 1,000 immigrants. There were an estimated fifty kilograms¶ of litter left behind per 1,000 immigrants, and ¶ eleven illegal campfires per 1,000 immigrants, ¶

which led to an average of 1.7 burned hectares¶ from wildfires per 1,000 immigrants. ¶ Discussion and Conclusions¶ Operation Gatekeeper has successfully pushed¶ illegal immigrants from their traditional crossing points near Imperial Beach and San Ysidro¶ into the more inhospitable and rugged backcountry of eastern San Diego County. Little¶ evidence exists, however, to show whether¶ Gatekeeper has truly been effective in preventing and/or deterring illegal entry from Mexico¶ into the United States. According to the General Accounting Office, no reliable data exist to¶ indicate that once they are apprehended, illegal¶ immigrants will not attempt to cross again¶ (Martin 1999). In fiscal year 1999, the INS apprehended some 470,499 illegal immigrants in¶ Arizona, double the number they apprehended¶ there in fiscal year 1995. This would indicate¶ that the flow of illegal immigrants attempting¶ to enter the country has not stopped, but has¶ shifted to a different area where programs similar to Gatekeeper are not in place (Martin¶ 1999). Research by Cornelius and Kuwahara¶ (1998) indicates that not only have employers¶ in San Diego seen no change in the number of¶ illegal immigrants applying for jobs since the¶ inception of Gatekeeper, but many have noticed an increase in the number of immigrant¶ job seekers since Gatekeeper began.¶ While the success of Operation Gatekeeper¶ as a means of preventing and/or deterring illegal immigration is still undetermined, the environmental impacts that have resulted are, in¶ our view, unmistakable. From Otay Mountain¶ east to the Imperial County line, San Diego¶ County has seen portions of its backcountry¶ disturbed by the passage of thousands of illegal¶ immigrants. This damage, manifested in the¶ form of unmanaged footpaths and campsites, illegal campfires, wildfires, and litter, is so widespread that it may be years before the long-term¶ impact is fully understood and even longer¶ before the area recovers. Studies performed on campsite degradation in Western (arid) regions¶ have found minimal recovery occurring over¶ the three- to five-year period since the campsites have been closed (Cole 1988).¶ The Descanso Ranger District of the Cleveland National Forest has been hit particularly¶ hard by this influx of illegal immigrants and¶ their pursuers, the U.S. Border Patrol. Hundreds of thousands of meters of new trail have¶ been added and hundreds of thousands of¶ square meters of ground have been disturbed.¶ The U.S. Forest Service, which was taken completely by surprise by these events, has worked¶ hard to catch up with the damage to sensitive¶ portions of their ecosystem. However, they are¶ barely able to keep pace with the damage currently being done and are still behind in making repairs to damage inflicted early in this¶ phenomenon.¶ In conclusion, we note that our quantitative¶ estimates of the impact per immigrant is almost¶ certainly a conservative set of estimates. It was¶ not possible to map every single trail created by¶ illegal immigrants during the course of this¶ study, because there are simply too many.¶ Rather, this investigation focused on the primary north/south immigration routes as well as¶ the main east/west connector routes, since that¶ is where the majority of the traffic occurs. Further research could result in a more statistically¶ accurate quantitative assessment, but such research would require resources beyond the¶ scope of the current study. Although environmental impact statements are not routinely¶ part of the background analysis that goes into¶ legislation dealing with illegal immigration, ¶ our research suggests that the environmental¶ impact of shifting illegal crossings to wilderness areas is significant and potentially very ¶

costly both to the environment and to¶ taxpayers ¶

Cleveland National Forest is globally linked and key to the ecosystemSpencer et al 1 – Ph.D and Principle Investigator for California’s Mammal Species of Special Concern project (Wayne, “Conservation Prioritiesfor a Biodiversity Hotspot,” Conservation Biology Institute, October 2001, http://d2k78bk4kdhbpr.cloudfront.net/media/reports/files/orange-1.pdf)//ACSome of the largest remaining populations of certain rare plant species within some of¶ the last and best examples of such rare ecological communities as southern alkali¶ marshes and alkali grasslands.¶ Based on these biological facts, principles of conservation biology and planning,

and¶ guidance provided by the Southern Orange County NCCP Science Advisors, we mapped¶ those areas most critical to retaining these resource values in the region. Four core¶ biological resource areas (Arroyo Trabuco, Chiquita, San Juan, and San Mateo) must be¶ conserved essentially intact, without further internal fragmentation, significant reduction¶ in size, or degradation by development, to retain these resources and the ecosystem¶ processes they depend upon. Conserving private lands within these four areas would¶ consolidate a large ecosystem reserve in conjunction with adjacent existing protected¶ areas, such as the San Mateo Canyon Wilderness Area, Cleveland National Forest,¶ Caspers Wilderness Park, Rancho Mission Viejo Conservancy, and Audubon Starr Ranch¶ Sanctuary.¶ The findings and recommendations of this report should help guide NCCP planning for¶ the Southern Orange County NCCP subregion, which is the last best hope to conserve a¶ large, ecologically intact representation of the globally unique coastal foothills and¶ terraces ecosystem. This hope can be achieved through the NCCP process as long as¶ society agrees that these resource values are irreplaceable.Introduction and¶ Overview¶ Most Southern Californians remain¶ unaware that a globally significant ¶ ecological jewel lies near the heart of their¶ region—a relatively intact and functioning ¶ ecosystem that rates as a global “hotspot” of biological diversity and conservation value.¶ Having so far escaped the urban sprawl enveloping much of south- coastal California, the¶ undeveloped lands of southern Orange County represent one last large and relatively¶ undisturbed block of what was once a more extensive and unique ecosystem—the southern ¶

coastal foothills of the California Floristic Province.¶ Little remains of the natural habitats that once covered the coastal foothills and terraces that¶ drain toward the Pacific Ocean between Los Angeles and Tijuana. Over 85 percent of the¶ coastal sage scrub habitat has been converted to houses, roads, and golf courses; the native¶ grasslands are all but lost to development and weedy invasions; and all but one major stream¶ has been dammed and diverted. But what remains of this unique ecosystem still supports an¶

assemblage of plants and animals dazzling in its variety and unlike any other in the world.¶ The information summarized in this report suggests that a remarkably intact representation of¶ this remnant ecosystem lies in southern Orange County, in an area large enough to support¶ core populations of key wildlife species and to allow for the continued action of natural¶ ecological processes and cycles. Unfortunately, many of these species and ecological¶ functions are threatened with extinction unless large, interconnected habitat areas are¶ conserved essentially intact, without further fragmentation by roads or other development.¶ Southern Orange County is a “subregion” under the State of California’s Natural Community¶ Conservation Planning (NCCP) program. The 1991 NCCP Act seeks to sustain multiple¶ species on a landscape level, while accommodating economic development outside of¶ preserve areas. The Southern California NCCP Conservation General Process Guidelines¶ (California Department of Fish and Game 1998) require “conservation of habitat on an¶ ecosystem level…based on recognized principles of conservation biology.”¶ NCCP planning was recently reinitiated in the Southern Orange County Subregion after¶ several years of hiatus. Unfortunately, development plans have proceeded piecemeal in the¶ interim, precluding some opportunities for comprehensive ecosystem planning. In 1996 a¶ panel of scientific experts was convened to ensure that NCCP planning efforts for the¶ “It has long been my opinion that this area [southern¶ Orange County] stands in a class by itself as our¶ ONLY opportunity to conserve a large, unfragmented,¶ ecologically intact portion of southern California's¶ coastal ecosystems. The regional and global¶ significance of this area cannot be overstated.”¶ Dr. Paul Beier¶ Northern Arizona University¶ Objectives of This Report¶ • Summarize available information to educate decision-makers and the public about¶ the unique biological resources of Southern California and the Southern Orange¶ County NCCP subregion.¶ • Use principles of conservation planning to delineate core resource areas that must¶ be conserved intact to retain these unique resource values.Ecological Significance of Southern Orange County¶ 2¶ subregion were informed by the best available science, as required by law. This report¶ supplements the Science Advisors’ guidance by translating pertinent biological data,¶ guidelines, and principles into a conservation framework for the region that would provide¶ for the continued viability of this unique, remnant ecosystem and its imperiled species.¶ We delineated four core biological resource units in southern Orange County using widely¶ accepted principles of conservation planning and specific guidance provided by the Science¶ Advisors. These areas support a diverse mosaic of native habitats over broad environmental¶ gradients, including coastal sage scrub, vernal pools, alkali marshes, native grasslands, oak¶ woodlands, and pristine riparian and aquatic communities. Together with adjacent¶ wilderness reserves and federal lands, these four areas allow such wide-ranging species as the¶ golden eagle, mule deer, and mountain lion to persist in south-coastal California. These four¶ areas are also crucial to the continued viability and recovery of such rare species as the¶ southern steelhead, California gnatcatcher, coastal cactus wren, arroyo toad and numerous¶ other rare and endemic species. To maintain these species and the natural ecological¶ processes that define this unique coastal ecosystem, these four areas must be conserved¶ without further internal fragmentation or substantial reduction in size.¶ Information Sources and¶ Limitations¶ We collected no new data for this¶ report. Rather, we compiled and¶ analyzed available scientific¶ information from published and¶ unpublished works, existing¶ geographic data, data collected by¶ field biologists, and expert opinion¶ recorded by the Science Advisors¶ and others.¶ This report does not analyze all¶ species or issues that an NCCP¶ plan document or environmental¶ assessment must cover. Instead,¶ we present information on selected¶ resources and issues that we¶ believe deserve high priority in¶ designing a viable preserve for the¶ subregion.¶ Data Sources¶ Digital Map Information¶ Multi-resolution Land Characterization Consortium, US¶ EPA/USGS, 1999, National Land Cover¶ California Gap Analysis Project, UC Santa Barbara¶ Biogeography Lab, 1998, Land Status and Ownership¶ Bureau of Land Management, 1999, Land Ownership¶ GreenInfo Network, 2001, California Protected Areas¶

USGS digital elevation model (30 and 90 meter)¶ Teale Data Center, 1997, Transportation Digital Line Graph,¶ 1:100,000¶ US Forest Service, 2000, Ecological Subsections¶ Conservation International, 2000, Global Biodiversity Hotspots¶ California Department of Conservation, Farmland and¶ Mapping Monitoring Program (FMMP), 1996, Urban Areas¶ Paper Maps¶ Dudek & Associates, 1998b, Vegetation, 1:48,000 and¶ 1:24,000¶

Dudek & Associates, 1998c, Species Locations, Selected¶ Plants and Animals, 1:24,000¶ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2000, Wetland Resources,¶ Regulated Aquatic Resources, Riparian Vegetation, and¶ Hydrogeomorphic Surfaces, ≈1:36,432Ecological Significance of Southern Orange County¶ 3¶ Key Terms and Concepts¶ Biodiversity: The array of life on Earth,¶ including all its different organisms, their¶ genetic codes, and their interconnections within¶ ecosystems and communities.¶ Biodiversity Hotspots: Those spatially limited¶ areas of Earth supporting the greatest¶ concentrations of living species, especially¶ those endemic to a region.¶ Ecosystem: A dynamic complex of plants,¶ animals, and other

organisms that interact with¶ one another and their non-living environment¶ as a unit.¶ Endemic Species (Endemism): Species¶ restricted in distribution, occurring nowhere¶ outside a defined geographic area, such as a¶ particular ecoregion.¶ Biodiversity Hotspots¶ Since the British ecologist Norman Myers¶ conceived the hotspot concept in the late 1980s,¶ it has become an essential tool for setting¶ conservation priorities throughout the world.¶ Hotspots are those areas harboring the greatest¶ concentrations of living species, especially¶ those species found nowhere else on Earth¶ (endemics). By concentrating conservation¶ efforts in these relatively small samples of the¶ Earth’s surface, we theoretically gain the¶ greatest “bang for the buck” from limited¶ conservation funds.¶ Leading conservation scientists have identified¶ 25 global biodiversity hotspots (Figure 1). The¶ naturally vegetated portions of these 25 hotspots comprise only 1.44 percent of the Earth’s¶ land surface, but support about 70 percent or more of all vascular plant species. Moreover,¶ as measured by species endemic to only a single hotspot, these 25 hotspots account for 44¶ percent of all plant diversity, 35 percent of all terrestrial vertebrate species, and 75 percent of¶ all terrestrial animal species listed as threatened by the IUCN-World Conservation Union.¶ Figure 1 – The 25 global biodiversity hotspots (Mittermeier et al. 1999).¶ 1. Atlantic Forest¶ 2. California Floristic Province¶ 3. Cape Floristic Region¶ 4. Caribbean¶ 5. Caucasus¶ 6. Central Chile¶ 7. Brazilian Cerrado¶ 8. Choco-Darien-Western Ecuador¶ 9. Eastern Arc Mountains & Coastal Forests¶ 10. Indo-Burma¶ 11. Madagascar & Indian Ocean Islands¶ 12. Mediterranean Basin¶ 13. Mesoamerica¶ 14. New Caledonia¶ 15. New Zealand¶ 16. Philippines¶ 17. Polynesia & Micronesia¶ 18. Mountains of S. Central China¶ 19. Succulent Karoo¶ 20. Sundaland¶ 21. Southwest Australia¶ 22. Tropical Andes¶ 23. Guinean Forests of West Africa¶ 24. Wallacea¶ 25. Western Ghats & Sri Lanka¶ source: Conservation International ¶ The¶ 25 Global ¶ Biodiversity ¶ Hotspots¶ 17¶ 17¶ 14¶ 15¶ 21¶ 18¶ 10¶ 16¶ 20¶ 24¶ 25¶ 11¶ 3¶ 19¶ 9¶ 5¶ 12¶ 23¶ 2¶ 13 4¶ 8¶ 22¶ 6¶ 7¶ 1Ecological Significance of Southern Orange County¶ 4¶ Overall, this 1.44 percent of the Earth’s surface appears to account for roughly 60 percent or¶ more of the remaining diversity of life on Earth, considering all groups of species¶ (Mittermeier et al. 1999, Mittermeier et al. 1998). Although we cannot discount the species¶ and habitats outside of these hotspots as unworthy of conservation, the hotspots clearly¶ represent areas of concentrated biodiversity and high conservation priority.¶ California’s South Coastal¶ Hotspot¶ The hotspot concept has been studied and¶ applied by numerous biologists to identify¶ conservation priority areas using different¶ groups of species, different spatial and¶ temporal scales, and different analytical techniques (for example, by mapping plant diversity,¶ the number of endemic species, or the number of threatened and endangered species across¶ the globe, or across the United States). Regardless of the techniques, scales, or species used,¶ these analyses invariably identify south-coastal California as a hotspot for species diversity,¶ endemism, endangerment, and conservation priority (Myers 1988, Myers 1990, Kiester et al.¶ 1996, Dobson et al. 1997, Flather et al. 1998, Mittermeier et al. 1998, Wilcove et al. 1998,¶ Mittermeier et al. 1999, Griffin 1999, Rickets 1999, Myers et al. 2000, Stein et al. 2000,¶ Rutledge et al. 2001).¶ For example, Wilcove et al. (1998) identified hotspots within the United States for all¶ federally listed threatened and endangered species. They found south-coastal California to¶ be a hotspot for nearly every group of species, including plants, invertebrates, birds,¶ mammals, and reptiles. Most recently, Rutledge et al. (2001) tested how this endangered¶ species hotspot pattern holds within the United States when examined across different time¶ spans—beginning in 1967 when the government started listing species. Unlike other¶ hotspots that were added or subtracted from the hotspot list over time (due, for example, to¶ changing priorities in species listing), the southern California hotspot endured throughout the¶ entire study period.¶ Figure 2 shows one recent hotspot map for the continental United States and Hawaii. The¶ map indicates major concentrations of imperiled species (as listed by the country’s state¶ Natural Heritage Programs), weighted by the rarity of each species (those with the smallest¶ geographic ranges count most). This weighting scheme assumes increased conservation¶ significance for areas supporting large numbers of rare species that occur nowhere else.¶ Hence, these hotspots represent “irreplaceable” places for preventing species extinctions¶ (Stein et al. 2000). By this method, south-coastal California stands out as one of the six¶ greatest hotspots for imperiled species in the U.S. Of these six hotspots, Southern California¶ supports the second greatest number of federally threatened and endangered species after¶ Hawaii (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2001).¶ “We always tend to equate biodiversity only with¶ places like Brazil or Indonesia. But as you look more¶ deeply, you begin to realize that it’s as if North¶ Americans have won the biological lottery, but forgot¶ to look at the ticket.”¶ Dr. Eric Dinerstein¶ Chief Scientist, World Wildlife FundEcological Significance of Southern Orange County¶ 5¶ Figure 2 – Biodiversity hotspots in the continental U.S. and Hawaii (map courtesy of¶ The Nature Conservancy, Stein et al. 2000).¶ Looking successively closer at biogeographic patterns shows south-coastal California to be a¶ “hotspot within a hotspot,” and southern Orange County to lie at its heart.¶ The Global Scale: The California Floristic Province—At a global scale, southern¶ California lies within the California Floristic Province, which extends from southern Oregon¶ to northern Baja and includes most of California west of the interior deserts and the Sierran¶ Crest. It includes essentially all of the Pacific coast hotspots in Figure 2. This floristic¶ province supports one of the richest plant assemblages in the world, supporting about 25¶ percent of all plant species occurring north of Mexico—and about half of these species are¶ endemic to the province (Mittermeier et al. 1999, Raven and Axelrod 1978). Only five¶ floristic provinces in the world are defined by Mediterranean climatic conditions (hot, dry¶ summers and cool, moist winters, mediated by proximity to oceans). All five of these¶ provinces are global hotspots, each with an exceptionally high proportion of endemic plants.¶ Of the five, the California Floristic Province has the greatest diversity of soil types and¶ moisture regimes (Stebbins and Major 1965), which further contributes to its wide array of¶ plant communities and associated species—from Mediterranean shrublands (such as coastal¶ sage scrub and maritime chaparral) to coniferous forests—and from perennial grasslands to¶ alkali marshes, riparian forests, oak woodlands, and vernal pools.¶ The Continental Scale: The South Coast Ecoregion—Within the California Floristic¶ Province, that portion lying generally south and west of the Transverse and PeninsularEcological Significance of Southern Orange County¶ 6¶ mountain ranges along the Pacific coast comprises the South Coast Ecoregion (Figure 3).¶ This ecoregion—bounded as it is by the Pacific Ocean and a dramatic series of mountain¶ ranges—mixes a complex array of geological substrates, topographic features, climatic¶ regimes, soil types, and other physical factors. The mountains also serve as barriers to plant¶ and animal dispersal, thus isolating this area somewhat from other ecological communities¶ and species. The result is a natural laboratory of speciation and ecological innovation that¶ has made the South Coast Ecoregion a “hotspot within a hotspot.” It supports more endemic¶ plant and animal species (at least 138) and more imperiled species (158 and counting) than¶ any other ecoregion in the U.S. (Stein et al. 2000). According to the California Department¶ of Fish and Game (1996), this ecoregion supports more than one-third of California’s native¶ plant species on only 8 percent of the land area.¶ Figure 3 – California’s South Coast Ecoregion showing ecological sections and¶ subsections (Goudey and Smith 1994).¶ The Regional Scale: The Coastal Hills and Coastal Terraces Ecological¶ Subsections—Much of the diversity and endangerment in the South Coast Ecoregion is¶ concentrated in those areas closest to the coast, within two ecological subsections highlighted¶ in Figure 3—the Coastal Hills and Coastal Terraces Ecological Subsections (as mapped by¶ Southern California¶ Mountains and Valleys¶ Ecological Section¶ Southern California¶ Coast Ecological¶ Section¶ Ecological Subsections¶ 1¶ 2¶ 3¶ 4¶ 5¶ 6¶ 7¶ 8¶ 9¶ 10¶ 11¶ 12¶ Santa Ynez Valleys and Hills¶ Northern Transverse Ranges¶ San Rafael-Topatopa Mountains¶ Santa Ynez-Sulphur Mountains¶ Sierra Pelona-Mint Canyon¶ San Gabriel Mountains¶ Oxnard Plain-Santa Paula Valley¶ Upper San Gabriel Mountains¶ Little San Bernardino-Bighorn Mountains¶

Simi Valley-Santa Susana Mountains¶ San Gorgonio Mountains¶ Los Angeles Plain¶ 13¶ 14¶ 15¶ 16¶ 17¶ 18¶ 19¶ 20¶ 21¶ 22¶ 23¶ 24¶ Upper San Gorgornio Mountains¶ Fontana Plain-Calimesa Terraces¶ Santa Monica Mountains¶ Santa Ana Mountains¶ Perris Valley and Hills¶ San Jacinto Foothills-Cahuilla Mountains¶ Desert Slopes¶ San Jacinto Mountains¶ Coastal Hills¶ Coastal Terraces¶ Palomar-Cuyamaca Peak¶ Western Granitic Foothills¶ County Boundaries¶ Ecological Section Boundaries¶ Southern Orange County NCCP Area¶ Universal Transverse Mercator (Zone 11) Projection¶ N¶ 0 10 20 30 40 50 Miles¶ 0 10 20 30 40 50 Kilometers¶ San¶ Diego¶ Los¶ Angeles¶ Santa¶ Barbara¶ 21¶ 22¶ 1¶ 4¶ 3¶ 2¶ 7¶ 10¶ 15¶ 5¶ 6¶ 8¶ 12¶ 14¶ 13¶ 9¶ 17¶ 24¶ 23¶ 19¶ 18¶ 20¶ 11¶ 16Ecological Significance of Southern Orange County¶ 7¶ Key Terms and Concepts¶ Edge Effects: Habitat degradation concentrated¶ near the interface between natural and disturbed¶ areas, such as increases in weedy species,¶ pollutants, soil erosion and compaction, and¶ predation by house pets.¶ Habitat Degradation: Human-induced changes in¶ the physical, chemical, or biological properties of¶ natural habitats that reduce their ability to support¶ native species and ecological processes.¶ Habitat Fragmentation: The reduction of remnant¶ habitats into smaller and more isolated blocks, each¶ of which may be too small to continue supporting¶ viable populations of species or ecosystem¶ processes that operate over large landscapes, such¶ as fire and hydrological cycles.¶ Internal Fragmentation: Fragmentation within¶ otherwise contiguous habitat areas, thus creating¶ “donut holes” in the habitat matrix.¶ the ECOMAP program: Bailey et al. 1994, Goudey and Smith 1994, McNab and Avers¶ 1994). These gentle slopes draining to the Pacific are covered by coastal sage scrub and¶ other associated vegetation communities whose distributions are limited by a unique¶ combination of physical conditions, especially the Pacific Ocean’s strong moderating effect¶ on climate (Westman 1981, 1983; Miles and Goudey 1998). More than 100 threatened or¶ endangered species are associated with coastal sage scrub vegetation (Atwood 1993,¶ California Department of Fish and Game 1996), and the coastal foothills and terraces are¶ widely considered to support among the greatest diversity of endemic plant species in North¶ America (Stebbins and Major 1965, Stein et al. 2000).¶ The coastal foothills and terraces landscape is also favored by humans, which have¶ developed most of it for their own uses. The resultant removal and fragmentation of the¶ region’s natural communities threatens many endemic species with extinction.¶ The Subregional Scale: Southern Orange County—Nearly all of the Southern Orange¶ County NCCP Subregion falls within the Coastal Hills Ecological Subsection (excluding¶ Cleveland National Forest lands, which lie in the higher elevation Santa Ana Mountains¶ Ecological Subsection). Together with large adjacent habitat blocks in the Santa Ana¶ Mountains and Camp Pendleton, this NCCP subregion supports a tremendous diversity of¶ imperiled species within a globally unique ecosystem. As discussed in more detail below,¶ southern Orange County and adjacent natural areas represent a last best example of the¶ coastal foothills ecosystem. Thus, southern Orange County lies at the heart of a global¶ biodiversity hotspot.¶ Effects of Human¶ Development and Gaps in¶ Ecosystem Protection¶ The principal causes of species¶ endangerment are the direct removal or¶ degradation of habitat and fragmentation of¶ remaining habitat areas into smaller and¶ more isolated blocks (Ehrlich and Ehrlich¶ 1981, Diamond 1984, Wilcox and Murphy¶ 1985, Noss and Cooperrider 1994, Noss et¶ al. 1997, Flather et al. 1998, Stein et al.¶ 2000, Czech et al. 2000). A review by Stein¶ et al. (2000) found that about 85 percent of¶ imperiled species in the U.S. are affected by¶ habitat loss and fragmentation, 49 percent¶ by alien species, 24 percent by pollution, 17¶ percent by overexploitation, and 3 percent by disease. In Southern California, the principalEcological Significance of Southern Orange County¶ 8¶ causes of species endangerment are residential and industrial development (56 percent of¶ endangered species), exotic species (52 percent), agricultural development (45 percent),¶ heavy equipment, including military training (44 percent), and livestock grazing (36 percent)¶ (Flather et al. 1998).¶ Considered in a slightly different way, the leading cause of species endangerment in¶ California is urban sprawl—low-density, automobile-dependent development that sprawls¶ into natural areas outside existing cities and towns. Sprawl is estimated to imperil 66 percent¶ of the listed species in California (Czech et al. 2001). In addition to directly removing¶ habitats required by native species, sprawl also fragments remaining habitat areas into small¶ or isolated blocks, each of which may be too small to sustain natural ecological functions or¶ populations of certain species. Fragmentation also increases adverse edge effects, such as¶ incursions by exotic, weedy species, trampling by humans, predation by house pets, and¶ changes in fire frequency or intensity. The following major factors of habitat degradation are¶ of particular importance in southern Orange County.¶ Internal Fragmentation—All else being equal, habitat removal from the interior of a habitat¶ area is more deleterious than habitat removal around the edges. Simple geometry dictates¶ that internal fragmentation by development “bubbles” or “donut holes” within natural¶ landscapes causes greater edge effects than an equal area of development at the habitat edge.¶ Moreover, the adverse effects of these internal edges occur where they generally do the most¶ harm to native species and ecological processes. “Leap-frog” development patterns that¶ create internal fragmentation also require new roads, utility lines, and other infrastructure¶ across the intervening habitat, thus further compounding adverse effects on native species¶ and ecological processes. For example, the Wildlife Research Institute reports that 67¶ percent of all golden eagle deaths in Southern California since 1987 have been caused by¶ collisions with electrical distribution and transmission lines, which is considered a leading¶ cause in the species’ decline here (D. Bittner and P. Bloom personal communication).¶ Roads—Roads, in particular, cause increased edge effects, direct mortality via road kill,¶ disruption of natural migration or movement patterns, interference with species¶ communication, changes in water runoff and flow patterns, and air, water, and soil pollution¶ (Trombulak and Frissell 2000, Forman and Deblinger 2000, Jones et al. 2000, Reijnen et al.¶ 1997). During Beier’s (1993, 1995) study of mountain lions in the Santa Ana Mountains,¶ vehicles killed 33 percent of the population, including four lions killed at one road crossing¶ during a 2-year period. Horn et al. (1993) predicted that planned roads in Orange County¶ would help to complete the already partial isolation of existing reserves, leading to further¶ species extinctions in the region.¶ Changes in Fire Regimes—Southern California vegetation communities have evolved with¶ fire, which typically burned Mediterranean shrub communities at intervals of 20 to 50 years¶ (Keeley 1986). Overly frequent fires may “type-convert” shrublands to grasslands. The¶ establishment of exotic annual grasses provides a fuel load that decreases the return interval¶ between fires, creating a positive feedback loop that favors non-native grasses over native¶ species even more (Minnich and Dezzani 1998). On the other hand, fire suppression by manEcological Significance of Southern Orange County¶ 9¶ leads to ecological stagnation and increased fuel loads—with larger, hotter, catastrophic fires¶ as the eventual result. Maintaining natural fire cycles is therefore essential to retaining¶ natural ecosystems and native species in Southern California. Achieving this goal requires¶ large native landscapes of many thousands of acres to allow for natural fire and successional¶ patterns to persist away from areas of human habitation.¶ Changes in Hydrology—Many southern California habitats and species also depend on the¶ natural flood-scour-deposition cycles in watersheds unaltered by dams, diversions, irrigation,¶ or vegetation removal. These natural hydrological cycles are necessary to replenish¶ nutrients, create openings, refresh riparian vegetation communities, replenish sands in coastal¶ estuaries and on beaches, and open coastal lagoon mouths. Exotic plants, fishes, and¶ amphibians are also far more common in drainages with altered hydrology, and are primary¶ causes of endangerment for numerous aquatic and riparian species (Swift et al. 1993,¶ Jennings and Hayes 1994, Stephenson and Calcarone 1999). Thus, maintaining natural¶ watershed areas and their hydrological processes is essential for retaining many imperiled¶ species.¶ Pollution—Air and water pollution, especially coupled with changes in natural fire regimes¶ and hydrological processes, have significantly degraded habitats throughout much of¶ Southern California (Zedler et al.

1983, Zedler 1995, Minnich and Dezzani 1998, Allen et al.¶ 1996, Stephenson and Calcarone 1999). Increased nitrogen input into soils from automobile¶ exhaust greatly favors weedy annual species over native perennial species (Allen et al. 1996).¶ When this effect is combined with invasion of exotic grasses and unnaturally frequent fires,¶ coastal sage scrub and other native communities are rapidly converted to non-native¶

grasslands or weedy fields (Minnich and Dezzani 1998). This process is likely to accelerate¶ under global climate change, as discussed below (Field et al. 1999, M. Allen personal¶ communication).¶ Climate Change—Climate models suggest that Southern California will experience¶ increased winter precipitation, hotter and drier summers, and more severe El Niño events¶ (Field et al. 1999). One effect of these changes will likely be a general shift in the¶ distribution of vegetation communities and individual species to higher elevations and¶ latitudes (Field et al. 1999). Simulation models suggest that this ecological migration will¶ occur at an average rate of about 0.1 to 1 kilometer per year (Malcolm et al. 2001). The¶ availability of broad elevational and other ecological gradients within contiguous habitat¶ areas is critical to accommodate such changes in ecological conditions and species¶ distributions. The primary effect of climate change on Southern California’s vegetation will¶ likely be further expansion of non-native grasslands into areas currently dominated by coastal¶ scrub and chaparral, especially in areas suffering from altered fire regimes and air pollution¶ (Field et al. 1999). Southern Orange County may be less susceptible to this exotic¶ encroachment than other areas in Southern California due to its relatively clean air and¶ natural fire regimes (M. Allen personal communication).¶ Conclusion—Maintaining functional ecosystems requires large, unfragmented natural areas¶ over which natural environmental and ecological processes operate. The loss andEcological Significance of Southern Orange County¶ 10¶ Key Terms and Concepts¶ Ecological Integrity: The degree to which an¶ ecosystem retains its naturally functioning parts and¶ processes, without adverse modifications by man.¶ Focal Species: Species selected for conservation¶ analyses because they serve as surrogates for larger¶ groups of species or ecosystem functions, such as¶ species requiring large areas or that are especially¶ sensitive to habitat degradation.¶ Gap Analysis: An assessment of existing protection¶ levels for aspects of biodiversity (species,¶ ecosystems) to identify “gaps” in protection offered¶ by existing reserve networks.¶ Representation Analysis: An assessment of the¶ range of environmental attributes present in an¶ ecosystem or region of interest, and the proportion¶ of this range that is captured within existing or¶ proposed reserves.¶ Special Elements Analysis: An assessment of how¶ well a reserve system conserves particular species,¶ places, or biological occurrences of high¶ conservation value, such as biodiversity hotspots or¶ rare community types.¶ fragmentation of natural areas result in a variety of anthropogenic effects that degrade¶ ecological integrity and lead to extirpation of species. Southern Orange County possesses¶ several attributes favoring its ability to maintain natural processes and the species that¶ depend on them: clean air, large area, broad ecological gradients, intact watersheds and¶ hydrological cycles, and good connections to existing reserves and other public lands.¶ Analyzing Conservation Priorities¶ Conservation scientists use variants of three¶ general methods to establish conservation¶ priorities: (1) special element analysis, (2)¶ representation (or gap) analysis, and (3)¶ focal species analysis. Special elements are¶ species, places, or biological occurrences of¶ high conservation value (Noss et al. 1999),¶ such as biodiversity hotspots or unique¶ habitat types like vernal pools or alkali¶ marshes. Representation approaches select¶ samples of habitat types or environmental¶ gradients that “capture” the full range of¶ environmental attributes necessary to¶ maintain biodiversity and ecosystem¶ processes (Hummel 1989, Scott et al. 1993,¶ Soulé and Sanjayan 1998). A variant of¶ representation analysis, gap analysis uses¶ geographic information systems (GIS) and¶ geographic data to identify aspects of¶ biodiversity that are under-represented¶ within existing reserves and therefore are “gaps” in protection of particular ecological¶ communities, habitats, or species. Focal species approaches select key species that, if¶ adequately conserved, help ensure adequate reserve size, configuration, and connectivity to¶ maintain most or all of the other species and processes comprising a functional ecosystem¶ (Miller et al. 1998/99). Focal species are often those requiring large areas for survival, such¶ as mountain lions or eagles, or that are most sensitive to human activities, such as¶ amphibians or fishes that cannot tolerate pollution (Lambeck 1997).¶ Combining these three approaches results in the most complete evaluation of natural¶ variability and therefore the most robust and defensible reserve designs (Kirkpatrick and¶ Brown 1994, Noss et al. 1999). Given the global conservation importance of the Coastal¶ Hills and Coastal Terraces Ecological Subsections, we recommend a combined approach for¶ analyzing conservation priorities. A reserve system for the region should capture the full¶ range of environmental conditions, ecological communities, and species within these¶ subsections; and a reserve design for southern Orange County should capture all its special¶ elements (including vernal pools, alkali marshes, seeps, cliffs, and core breeding habitats)Ecological Significance of Southern Orange County¶ 11¶ and the full representation of environmental variability in the subregion (including all¶ vegetation communities, elevations, slopes, aspects, and distances from the coast).¶ Moreover, the reserve should ensure continued persistence of wide-ranging and highly¶ sensitive focal species by maintaining large core habitat areas that are sufficiently linked to¶ maintain natural movement patterns and ecosystem functions that operate at the landscape¶ scale. This report only touches on certain aspects of this approach. More complete analyses¶ that address all sensitive species occurring in the subregion should be conducted as part of¶ the NCCP process.¶ Gaps in Protection for the Coastal Foothills and Terraces¶ Figure 4 maps current land protection status within the Coastal Hills and Coastal Terraces¶ Ecological Subsections. It portrays the pattern of urban and agricultural development in the¶ area, as well as existing and proposed conserved lands. Unprotected lands that still support¶ native habitats represent potential gaps in protection. Thus, this map helps illustrate those¶ areas most worthy of conservation attention, especially the larger, more intact private lands¶ that are adjacent to existing reserve areas.¶ Figure 4 shows military lands distinct from other public and private lands, due to their unique¶ land use and legal issues. The military does not set aside or “conserve” land. Rather, it¶ attempts to manage land areas consistent with federal resource protection laws, while¶ pursuing its primary mission of national security. The military is exempt from state and local¶ regulations (Boice 1996).¶ Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton supports many threatened and endangered species and¶ outstanding examples of southern California vegetation communities (M. Allen personal¶ communication) and is a significant component of regional biodiversity and ecosystem¶ function. In combination with southern Orange County and habitats in the Santa Ana¶ Mountains, the open spaces of Camp Pendleton contribute greatly to maintaining ecological¶ functions and values in the region.¶ Outside of military lands, five large areas of unprotected private lands remain within the¶ Coastal Hills and Coastal Terraces Ecological Subsections (Figure 4, Table 1). These areas¶ are described below, from north to south, in terms of their current conservation status,¶ support of important biological resources, and connections to conserved habitats. Because¶ each area comprises a unique set of ecological conditions and species—and together¶ represent the full north to south and coastal to inland gradients of the coastal foothills and¶ terraces landscape—they represent a complementary set of natural areas, and each is worthy¶ of substantial protection.Ecological Significance of Southern Orange County¶ 12¶ Figure 4 — Land protection status in the Coastal Hills and Coastal Terraces¶ Ecological Subsections.Ecological Significance of Southern Orange County¶ 13¶ North Interior Orange County¶ This area is adjacent to Cleveland National Forest on the steep hills rising above urbanized¶ Orange County. It represents the northernmost inland extension of the Coastal Hills¶ Ecological Subsection. The NCCP preserve for this area includes a large block of habitat in¶ Limestone Canyon (chaparral, native grasslands, and riparian woodlands), with remnant¶ lower-elevation coastal sage scrub on southern slopes. Other portions of the preserve are¶ relatively small and

fragmented by highways and housing developments. This area also¶ includes the Irvine Company’s North Ranch, which is intact but unprotected habitat adjacent¶ Table 1. Characteristics of the largest remaining unprotected land areas in the Coastal Hills¶ and Coastal Terraces Ecological Subsections (excluding military lands).¶ Area¶ Gross¶ Acreage¶ Acres of¶ Natural¶ Habitat¶ Dominant¶ Vegetation¶ Communities1¶ Physiography Status/Comments¶ North Interior¶ Orange County¶ 43,651 43,085 Chaparral, coastal¶ sage scrub,¶ grasslands (nonnative and native),¶ riparian woodland¶ 15 to 25 miles¶ from coast; 900¶ to 2,000 feet¶ elevation¶ Adjacent to Cleveland National¶ Forest, but otherwise somewhat¶ isolated from other habitat areas by¶ urban development. NCCP plan¶ protects about 20,000 acres.¶ Coastal Orange¶ County¶ 23,252 22,398 Coastal sage scrub,¶ grasslands (nonnative and native),¶ chaparral¶ 0 to 5 miles¶ from coast; 0 to¶ 1,200 feet¶ elevation¶ Isolated from other large habitat¶ areas by urban development.¶ Approved NCCP plan protects¶ about 18,000 acres.¶ Southern¶ Orange County¶ 64,092 46,835 Coastal sage scrub,¶ grassland (native¶ and non-native),¶ chaparral, riparian¶ woodlands and¶ forests¶ 0 to 15 miles¶ from coast; 0 to¶ 1,625 feet¶ elevation¶ Not yet planned under NCCP;¶ relatively little fragmentation. Well¶ connected to existing large¶ wilderness areas and other habitat¶ reserves.¶ Lake HodgesOlivenhain¶ Area, San¶ Diego County¶ 60,137 2¶ 52,480¶ (40,861)¶ Chaparral, coastal¶ sage scrub¶ 0 to 15 miles¶ from coast; 0 to¶ 1,700 feet¶ elevation¶ Existing NCCP agreement for south¶ half allows substantial development¶ and fragmentation; largely isolated¶ from other large habitat areas.¶ North half currently being planned¶ under NCCP (North San Diego¶ County MSCP Subarea Plan).¶ OtaySweetwater¶ Area, San¶ Diego County¶ 98,498 3¶ 87,032¶ (59,645)¶ Coastal sage scrub,¶ chaparral, nonnative grasslands,¶ riparian scrub¶ 5 to 25 miles¶ from coast; 250¶ to 2,000 feet¶ elevation¶ Existing NCCP agreement and¶ independent state and federal¶ acquisitions are conserving¶ significant habitats, but in a more¶ fragmented configuration than¶ current conditions.¶ 1¶ Aggregated vegetation communities listed in order from greatest to least acreage (source: California Gap¶ Program)¶ 2¶ Approved MSCP plan permits about 11,619 acres of habitat removal, which will reduce natural habitat acres to¶ about 40,861, not accounting for potential permitted development under the North County Subarea MSCP Plan.¶ 3¶ Approved MSCP plan permits about 27,387 acres of habitat removal here, which will reduce natural habitat acres¶ to about 59,645.Ecological Significance of Southern Orange County¶ 14¶ to Cleveland National Forest that is considered essential to persistence of wide-ranging¶ species like mountain lions and golden eagles in the Santa Ana Mountains (T. Smith personal¶ communication). It is well connected to other portions of the Coastal Hills and Coastal¶ Terraces Ecological Subsections as well as the Santa Ana Mountain subsection via Cleveland ¶

National Forest, but lower elevation connections are threatened with development.¶

Illegal immigrants create forest fires, threaten water supplies, and devastate biodiversityJenks 8 - Director of Government Relations (Rosemary, “Illegal Immigration's Negative Impact on the Environment,” NumbersUSA, 4/28/8, https://www.numbersusa.com/content/files/pdf/2008-04-28%20Enviro%20Impact-HNatRec.pdf)//ACIllegal Immigration's Negative Impact on the Environment¶ Some of the devastating environmental impacts of illegal immigration through these protected areas include: ¶ Trash ¶ An estimated more than 2,000 tons of trash is discarded annually in Arizona's borderlands.¶ The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) estimates that illegal aliens dumped more than 25 million pounds of trash in the Arizona desert between 1999 and 2005—that is almost 2,100 tons of trash each year. See report and pictures.¶ The accumulation of disintegrating toilet paper, human feces, and rotting food has become a health and safety issue for residents of and visitors to some of these areas, and is threatening water supplies in some areas. ¶ Birds and mammals, some endangered, die when they eat or become entangled in the trash.¶ Fires¶ In 2002 in southern Arizona, illegal aliens were suspected of having caused at least eight major wildfires that burned 68,413 acres (Illegal Immigrants Tied to Costly Wildfires Associated Press, Dateline Tucson, Arizona, September 9, 2002). ¶ In May of 2007, illegal aliens set at least five fires in the Coronado National Forest over a 10-day period in an effort to burn out Border Patrol agents conducting a law enforcement operation in the area (Illegals using fire to clear border. Washington Times, June 18, 2007).¶ Illegal Roads and Abandoned Vehicles¶ By early 2004, the Chief Ranger at Organ Pipe estimated that illegal aliens and smugglers had created 300 miles of illegal roads and “thousands of miles of illegal trails." ¶ More than 30 abandoned vehicles are removed from Organ Pipe alone each year.¶ Since its creation in 2000, more than 50 illegal roads have been created in the Ironwood Forest National Monument, and more than 600 vehicles are abandoned there each year.¶ There are an estimated 20-25 abandoned vehicles in the Cabeza Prieta NWR at any given time.¶ An estimated 180 miles of illegal roads were created in Cabeza Prieta between 2002 and 2006.¶ Declining Wildlife Populations¶ According to the Fish and Wildlife Service, mass illegal immigration is a likely contributing factor in the dramatic 79 percent decline in the U.S. Sonoran pronghorn population between 2000 and 2002.¶ These are just a few

examples of the massive environmental destruction being caused by rampant illegal immigration in southern Arizona. Similar damage is being done to remote, fragile lands in California, New Mexico, and Texas.

2ac income gap

Illegal immigration increases the income gap and puts pressure on infrastructureGerber 9 - DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR LATIN AMERICAN STUDIES, AND PROFESSOR OFECONOMICS¶ SAN DIEGO STATEUNIVERSITY (James, “Developing the U.S.–Mexico Border Region¶ for a Prosperous and Secure Relationship:¶ Human and Physical Infrastructure Along¶ the U.S.Border with Mexico,” JAMESA.BAKER III INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY¶ RICEUNIVERSITY, 3/27/9, http://www.bakerinstitute.org/publications/LAI-pub-BorderSecGerber-032709.pdf)//ACAbstract¶ The population of the U.S. border with Mexico has several characteristics that differentiate it¶

from the rest of the nation, and that help to explain itslower than average personal incomes per¶ capita. Growth of the population has been far above the national average and has led to a series¶ of challenges for policymakers. Meeting the challenges will help determine whether or not the¶ U.S. border region will continue to be one of the poorer areas of the country. The population¶ along the U.S. border with Mexico is heavily concentrated in a few metropolitan areas, and with¶ socio-demographic characteristicsthat cause incomesto be 87 percent of the national average, or¶ 65 percent if the county of San Diego is excluded. Border residents have higher youth¶ dependency ratios and lower labor force participation rates, both of which reduce the share of the¶ population that contributes to income. In addition, they have lower levels of schooling, and a¶ larger share of the population that has not mastered English. In theory, the ability of border ¶ communities to serve as gateways for U.S. trade with Mexico increases incomes and ¶ opportunities, and while there issome evidence to support this, the lack of physical infrastructure ¶ for a smoother, more rapid flow of commercial trade and personal border crossings, constrains ¶ the benefits from increased trade flows. Unmet needs for additional infrastructure are likely to ¶ grow as Mexico is currently investing heavily in its seaports and railroad networks in order to ¶ increase the flow trade originating in Mexico and the Pacific, and as environmental infrastructure ¶ investment haslagged far behind the needs projected during the pre-NAFTA debates.¶ Introduction¶ No characteristic is more central to the Mexico-U.S. border’s unique opportunities and ¶ challengesthan itssustained high rate of population growth overseveral decades. The border is a¶ destination for internal migrants in both Mexico and the United States, for retirees, for seasonal¶ residentslooking for warmer winters, for job seekers, and forstudents. It is also a destination for¶ international migrants, although primarily on the U.S.side where wages are higher and jobs have¶ been relatively plentiful. Indeed, it is argued here that the border’s relative economic success is¶ reflected in the high rate of population growth, which, in turn, is the source of many of the¶ problems and challenges confronting the region. Put another way, the border’s environmental,¶ 4¶ human, and social challenges stem largely from its rapid rate of population growth and the¶ correlated expansion of jobs and incomes.¶ To be sure, the long-run expansion of jobs has not produced a plentiful supply of high wage¶ positions, particularly on the U.S. side, where wages and incomes lag behind the national¶ average, often by a large margin. Nevertheless, wages and incomes are consistent with the¶ human capital characteristics of U.S. border residents, while the economic dynamism of the¶ region isreflected in the relatively high rate of growth of the labor force over the long run. One ¶ of the primary challenges for residents of the U.S. border with Mexico is to close the income ¶ (and poverty) gap with the U.S. average. This is a task that will require more investment in ¶ people and education, and will be extremely difficult as long as the U.S. resident population is ¶ constantly replenished by Mexican immigrants who bring a much lower level of average ¶ educational attainment. ¶ Rapid population growth has put pressure on physical infrastructure as well as the region’s ¶ naturalsystems. Roads, housing, energy, water, and air quality have all been stretched to provide ¶ necessary services. In many instances,state and local government revenues are inadequate to the¶ task of providing public goodssuch asschools, water, and waste treatment, and federal resources¶

have not kept pace with the growth in trade and the need for border crossing infrastructure for¶ trade

facilitation and community development. Other needs, such as the need for private¶ investment in energy supplies, are shaped by conditions along the border, but are part of a much¶ largerset ofissuesthat are important to the Southwest and the entire nation.¶ In what follows, the U.S.-Mexico border is defined asthe counties and municipiosthat touch the¶ international boundary.¶ 1¶

2ac warming

Immigration is the underlying issue of GHGs and global climate changeCamarota and Kolankiewicz 8 - *Director of Research for the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) AND **environmental scientist and national natural resources planner, B.S. in forestry and wildlife management, M.S. in environmental planning and natural resources management (Steven AND Leon, “Immigration to the United States and World-Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions,” Center for Immigration Studies, August 2008, http://www.cis.org/GreenhouseGasEmissions)//ACImpact of U.S. Immigration on Global Emissions¶ It is instructive to put the estimated output of immigrants into context. The estimated 637 million tons of CO2 emissions generated by immigrants is roughly equal to the annual CO2 emissions of Brazil, Argentina, and Venezuela combined (the three largest emitting countries in South America). It is also equal to the CO2 emissions of Great Britain and Sweden together. If immigrants in the United States were a separate country, they would rank seventh in world CO2 emissions, behind China,

the United States, Russia, Japan, India, and Germany.¶ Of course, if immigrants had stayed in their home countries, they also would have produced greenhouse gases. If the current stock of immigrants in the United States had stayed in their countries of origin rather than migrating to the United States, their estimated annual CO2 emissions would have been only 155 metric tons, assuming these immigrants had the average level of CO2

emissions for a person living in their home countries. This is 482 million tons less than the estimated 637 tons they will produce in the United States. This 482 million ton increase represents the impact of immigration on global emissions. It is equal to approximately 5 percent of the increase in annual world-wide CO2 emissions since 1980.17 If the 482 million ton increase in global CO2 emissions caused by immigration to the United States were a separate country, it would rank 10th in the world. Immigration to the United States thus has significant implications for global greenhouse gas emissions. And it is the total output that matters to CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, because CO2 emitted anywhere is dispersed everywhere.¶ It should be noted that Tables 3 and 4 are based on the assumption that immigrants in the United States would have emitted CO2 at rates like the average person in their country of origin if they had remained there. However, in certain cases, particularly Asian countries, this assumption may understate immigrants’ actual emission rates if they had stayed in their home countries because immigrants in the United States from several Asian countries are more educated than is the average person in their home countries. Higher education levels should result in higher incomes and higher CO2 emissions in their home countries. This would mean that the immigrant-induced increase in global emissions would be lower than estimated above. However, there is a strong reason to believe that even if CO2 emissions were higher for immigrants from these countries it would not significantly change the above estimates.¶ If we assume that immigrants from India would have produced three times the CO2 emissions as the average person in that country and that those from China, the Philippines, and Vietnam would have doubled, it changes the underlying findings only slightly.18 Even making this assumption of much higher emissions in their home countries would still mean that immigrants overall would produce 3.7 times as much CO2 in the United States as they would have in their home counties. This is very similar to the 4.1-fold increase found in Table 4. It must be remembered that highly educated immigrants from Asia account for a modest share of all immigrants in this country. It also should be remembered that immigrants from the largest sending country, Mexico, have very similar education levels to the average person in that country. Moreover, even if their emissions were much higher in their home countries, their output would still be much less than in the United States.¶ Assuming no change in U.S. immigration policy, 30 million new legal and illegal immigrants are likely to settle in the United States in the next 20 years.19 Primarily because of immigration (new immigrants plus their descendents), the U.S. population is projected to grow by more than 20 percent over this time period, or by at least 60 million .20 Even if per capita CO2 emissions could be reduced by 20 percent in the United States over the next 20 years, total annual U.S. CO2 emissions would remain the same. Total emissions are what matters for the global environment. Efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions must include some understanding of how immigration and population growth contribute to greenhouse gas emissions.¶ Conclusion¶ Overall, our findings indicate that the average immigrant (legal or illegal) in the United States produces somewhat less CO2 than the average native-born American. However, immigrants in the United States produce about four times more CO2 in the United States as they would have in their countries of origin. The estimated 637 metric tons of CO2 U.S. immigrants produce is 482 million tons more than they would have produced had they remained in their home countries. This 482 million ton increase represents about 5 percent of the increase in annual world-wide CO2 emissions since 1980. These figures do not include the impact of children born to immigrants in the United States. If they were included, the impact would be even higher.¶ When it comes to dealing with global warming, environmentalists in the United States have generally chosen to adopt what might be described as piecemeal efforts to oppose new sources of fossil fuel-based energy, such as the construction of new coal-fired power plants. They have

also supported energy conservation/efficiency (e.g., compact fluorescent light bulbs) and more use of renewable sources like wind and solar energy. But they have assiduously avoided the underlying issue

of growing energy demand driven by immigration-fueled population growth . In response to concerns over immigrant-induced population growth, some American environmentalists have even argued that it does not matter where on the Earth people live because the world’s environment is so interconnected. This analysis has shown that when it comes to CO2 emissions it matters a great deal where people live. Per capita CO2 emissions are dramatically higher in the United States than in almost every immigrant-sending country. Large-scale immigration to the United States therefore has enormous implications for world-wide CO2 emissions.¶ Some may be tempted to see this analysis as “blaming immigrants” for what are really America’s failures. It is certainly reasonable to argue that Americans could do much more to reduce per capita emissions. And it is certainly not our intention to imply that immigrants are particularly responsible for global warming. As we report in this study, immigrants produce somewhat less CO2 on average than native-born Americans. But to simply dismiss the large role that continuing high levels of immigration play in increasing U.S. and world-wide CO2 emissions is not only intellectually dishonest, it is also counter-productive. One must acknowledge a problem before a solution can be found. The effect of immigration is certainly not trivial. If immigrants in the United States were their own country, they would rank seventh in the world in annual CO2 output, ahead of such countries as Canada, France, and Great Britain.¶ Unless there is a change in immigration policy, 30 million (legal and illegal) immigrants are likely to settle in the United States over the next 20 years. One can still argue for high levels of immigration for any number of reasons. However, one cannot make the argument for high immigration without at least understanding what it means for global efforts to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.¶ Some involved in the global warming issue have recognized immigration’s importance. Chief U.S. climate negotiator and special representative for the United States, Harlan Watson, has acknowledged high immigration to the United States is thwarting efforts to slow its rising GHG emissions. “It’s simple arithmetic,” said Watson. “If you look at mid-century, Europe will be at 1990 levels of population while ours will be nearing 60 percent above 1990 levels. So population does matter.”21 This research confirms Watson’s observation.

Illegal immigrants cause massive new amounts of CO2Bauer 10 – Staff Writer for Politico (Gary, “Immigration, climate change collide,” Politico, 6/2/10, http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38006.html)//ACAt the nexus of the Democrats’ two most urgent policy priorities — reducing CO2 emissions and immigration reform that includes amnesty for 12 million illegal immigrants — lies an uneasy reality: Enactment of the latter may prove to be the key obstacle to achieving the former.¶ The economic and national security implications of open borders have been examined in depth. Less study, however, has been devoted to the possible environmental impact of immigration.¶ People migrate to the United States to improve their standard of living. But the liberal wish of immigration amnesty may have deleterious effects on the environment, as millions of people from developing countries settle down in, or are encouraged to move to, the world’s largest energy-consuming country and quickly embrace all the CO2-causing ways of the world’s richest economy .¶ This liberal conundrum is illustrated by the events going on today in the Gulf of Mexico, since a demand for fuel sparked the recent chain of events.¶

According to liberal wisdom, population growth is the primary cause of heavier traffic, urban sprawl, further depletion of natural resources and increased CO2 emissions. And immigration is the principal cause of U.S. population growth today. More than 1 million people become permanent U.S. residents every year, and nearly as many become American citizens.¶ The U.S. Census Bureau estimates that the population, more than 300 million Americans today, will grow to 400 million as early as 2030 and 420 million by 2050.¶ Most of this population surge is expected to be because of immigration from less developed countries. A recent Pew study projected that immigration will account for 82 percent of population growth over the next four decades.¶ When people move from poor countries to America, they quickly adapt in at least one way — their consumption habits. Studies show that recent immigrants’ consumption patterns, including energy use, quickly resemble those of native-born Americans.¶ But it is important to compare immigrants’ CO2 emissions not with

those of native-born Americans but with compatriots who stay home.¶ In a 2008 report, “Immigration to the United States and

World-Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions,” Patrick McHugh of the Center for Immigration Studies found that, on average, immigrants increase their emissions fourfold after coming to the United States.¶ U.S. immigrants produce an estimated 637 million metric tons of CO2 emissions annually. That’s 482 million tons more than they would have produced had they remained in their home countries.¶ McHugh calculates that if the 482- million-ton increase caused by U.S. immigration constituted emissions for a separate country, it would rank 10th in the world in emissions.

2ac econ (2)

Immigration hurt the Mexican economy – remittances cause inflation and sap enterpriseDiaz 6 – Correspondent for the Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune (Kevin, “Migration's impact felt in Mexico as well as U.S.,” Naples News, 7/16/6, http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2006/jul/16/migrations_impact_felt_mexico_well_us/?perspective)//ACSome economists also question whether this steady infusion of American dollars truly improves the fortunes of towns like Axochiapan, or makes them increasingly reliant on future generations of migrants. They fear that the flow of American money has fostered a culture of dependency that stifles local work.¶

Steven Camarota of the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, D.C., says that the millions of dollars sent back to towns such as Axochiapan cause inflation and sap enterprise . ¶ "It goes back to national aspiration," he said. "Sure, I can work in the fields, and sure, I can open up a business. But why don't I just go to Minneapolis illegally and work for a while?" Not everyone in Axochiapan feels the pull north. One who has resisted fiercely is Jose Sarafin, a 56-year-old gypsum miner with leathery hands and a sister and brother in Minneapolis.¶ "Yes, you can make money in America," he said. "But I'm proud of my work. We can live well here." Other locals decry the migration north as a continuation of Mexico's historic domination by the United States. They fear the weakening of traditions and the loss of their regional identity. "Unfortunately, those who leave are the young," said Isodoro Sanabria, a retired high school history teacher in Axochiapan. "Many get spoiled by life in America, or they start new families there, or only bring back problems like drug addiction." Sanabria worries about a drain on the town's talent and brains; those who head north, he said, seem to be the ones with the most ambition and education.¶ Studies by the Pew Hispanic Center indicate that those who go to the States have a higher level of education than the adult population of Mexico at large.

Immigration hurts the Mexican economy –distorts incentives causing labor shortagesWall 1 – Writer for VDare and resided in Mexico for a decade and a half, where he worked as an English teacher in various schools and at various levels(Allan, “Memo From Mexico | DOES EMIGRATION REALLY HELP MEXICO?,” VDare, 10/11/1, http://www.vdare.com/articles/memo-from-mexico-by-allan-wall-155)//ACI would contend that mass Mexican immigration to the U.S. is, in the long run, an impediment to authentic progress in Mexico. It has infected Mexican society with a self-defeating mindset, which seeks to solve social problems by exporting, rather than developing, the Mexican people. It exercises a corrosive influence on Mexican society, distorts the economy and deceives the populace. It is, in short, an addiction, and like any addiction, requires ever-heavier dosages to keep getting high.¶ Many would justify mass Mexican immigration as a way to help Mexico's poor. Illegal aliens are lionized here in Mexico, glorified and defended by the government, the entertainment industry (through music, TV and cinema) and Mexican intellectuals. A vast social network exists on both sides of the border which facilitates illegal crossings, and then, job acquisition and housing in the U.S. Many Mexican emigrants do not even consider other options—as one remarked in an interview—"We're Mexicans, what else can we do?"¶ The real incentive is the money available, made possible by the huge wage disparity between the two nations. Since American wages are on average about 9 times higher than Mexican wages (and 30 times higher in agriculture!), even Mexicans who are already employed are tempted to go north to work.¶ A former co-worker of mine, for example, quit his full-time job in a school in which I was working, left his wife and two young daughters, and headed for the border. He was apprehended twice by the border patrol, but the third time was the charm. The last I heard, he was working in a certain northeastern state you've no doubt heard of.¶ This siren call of American wages, in addition to skewing the job market here in Mexico, exacerbates family disintegration, which is on the increase here in Mexico, immigration definitely being a factor. Husbands and fathers leave their families months on end, AIDS is spread, and family bonds are weakened. We're told that the illegal aliens are working to feed their families, but that's not always the case. Immigration can also serve as a way for men to evade family responsibilities. The

ex-husband of another former co-worker of mine, for example, used immigration to the U.S. to avoid paying any child support. How many others do something similar?¶ Do the remittances sent back home by immigrants make all this moral devastation worthwhile? The total value of remittances has been estimated to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 6 to 11 billion dollars. The Mexican government admits that the remittances form the country's third-highest source of income, after petroleum and tourism. Some estimates actually put remittances in second place.¶ In 1998, then-independent senator Adolfo Aguilar Zinser correctly observed that "The government's economic policy is dependent on unlimited emigration to the United States." Aguilar Zinser was talking about the PRI government, which was defeated in 2000 by Fox. Now it's even worse. Fox has expanded the same policy and made it the centerpiece of bilateral relations. Candidate Fox criticized the PRI's use of the emigration safety valve and promised an economy which would provide all Mexicans a job in Mexico. But President Fox has made preservation and expansion of the safety valve his number one foreign policy priority. And Aguilar Zinser—well he's helping Fox do so, as his National Security Adviser!¶ But the fact that 6 to 11 billion dollars is flowing into Mexico just has to be helping people, hasn't it? Well, it does serve as a source of income for many families, and probably keeps a number of grocery stores afloat. But as a source of long-term job-creating investment, the effectiveness of remittances is more dubious. About 95% of the remittance money is spent on food and day-to-day supplies, not in meaningful investment which increases long-term job creation. A small percentage of the remittance money has been donated to local communities for paving projects and

refurbishing churches, and a smaller percentage specifically targeted to investment, but most of it is eaten up in groceries.¶ In short, rather like welfare payments in the U.S., remittances have a real downside – they distort incentives.¶ In fact, since immigration begets more immigration, and America's nepotistic chain migration scheme allows immigrants to import their relatives, small rural towns in Mexico are depopulated by emigration to the U.S.A. The majority of the residents of a town called Casa Blanca, for example, have deserted it, most of them moving to Tulsa, Oklahoma. Or take the case of the village of Huacao, Michoacan, whose population has been reduced from 2,200 only a decade ago to 400 today. The devastation of these rural towns results in even more pressure for remaining inhabitants to emigrate.¶ Catholic priest Samuel Fernandez described the situation thusly: "Yes, they have raised their lives a bit economically, but it is a pity, the divided houses we have here. The people morally, psychologically, have many problems. The families lose control, they lose unity, they lose the sense of being families. Every year more people leave. Every year the towns are more and more alone."¶ So many towns in rural Mexico have been depopulated in this way that you have to ask if the cure is worse than the disease. It's rather like the Vietnamese village that had to be destroyed in order to be saved. Such small rural towns have been depositories of traditional Mexican culture, which is attractive to many people. But the disastrous socialism practiced by the 20th-century Mexican government has ruined village life economically, and the immigration safety valve looks to ruin it socially. As Mario Garcia, mayor of a small community in Zacatecas state has bemoaned, "People have one thing in mind, and that is to go to the United States."¶ This run-for-the-border mentality has skewed the Mexican economy in other ways. Now, there are actually complaints in Mexico about labor shortages in various regions of the country and sectors of the economy—including construction and agriculture (two magnets for illegal aliens in the United States, remember!). This phenomenon has two causes. One is the abandonment of the local labor force by those who emigrate. The other reason: some Mexicans who do stay refuse to work in Mexico even if employment is available!

Emigration hurts the Mexican economy – prevents improvements in infrastructureMeeks 8 – Staff Reporter for Wired PR News (Jason, “How Illegal Immigration Hurts the Mexican Economy,” Wired PR News, 8/22/8, http://www.wiredprnews.com/2008/08/22/illegal-immigration_20080822622.html)//ACFort Worth, TX (WiredPRnews.com)—One of the rarely-reported aspects of illegal immigration across the Southern US border is how much it hurts the Mexican economy and its people. Aside from the deaths in the desert and the physical abuse from the coyotes and drug traffickers, the exportation of Mexico’s poverty to the United States prevents Mexico from improving its infrastructure and business climate.¶ In the short term, Mexico benefits heavily from the remittances sent from illegal aliens who work in the US. It’s a win-win situation for Mexico because of the wealth of hard currency coming into the country and the reduced need for the government to build and improve roads, schools and jails. However, in the long term it shows the fundamental problems of the Mexican economy.¶ Like most third- world nations, there is a large underclass, a significant and powerful upper class, and a nearly non-existent middle class. While the Mexican middle class is slowly expanding, it will only do so at a snail’s pace when the nation exports its poor instead of improving them.¶ How does a nation do this? By seriously

rooting out government corruption, investing in solid infrastructure improvements (roads and schools) and making the economy more business friendly. Businesses, not governments, are responsible for creating jobs in capitalist economies. Yet most firms are reluctant to expand in a nation that is rife with corruption and a decaying infrastructure. Why would any firm want to set up retail outlets or transport its goods if the threat of extortion by government officials or robbery by groups of bandits is a serious concern?¶ One goal should be efficiently tapping Mexico’s wealth of oil reserves by deregulating and disbanding the government-run oil company PEMEX. This is just another one of the countless examples of why privately owned, profit-driven entities are far more efficient and

effective than socialized, government-run bureaucracies.¶ With increased immigration enforcement and a weaker dollar, Mexico may be forced to improve its economy and internal infrastructure faster than it had anticipated.

2ac racism

Allowing immigration is racist – it disproportionately affects African AmericansMulder and Kirsanow 13 – *Staff Writer for the Reporter AND **attorney and a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (*Carissa, **Peter, “Illegal Immigration and Black Unemployment,” National Review Online, 2/18/13, http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/340913/illegal-immigration-and-black-unemployment-peter-kirsanow)//ACAs politicians rush to grant effective amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, there’s one aspect of the “debate” over the issue that receives almost no attention from members of either party: the demonstrably deleterious effect illegal immigration has on the employment and wage levels of low-skilled Americans, particularly blacks.¶ In 2008, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights examined the issue, conducting a hearing at which experts from across the political spectrum testified. As might be expected, there was some disagreement as to the precise magnitude of the impact of illegal immigration on black employment. But despite the ideological diversity on the panels, the witnesses were unanimous that illegal immigration has an adverse impact on black employment, reducing job opportunities and depressing wages — especially for black men.¶ The reason illegal immigration hurts blacks is quite basic. Blacks, particularly black men, are disproportionately concentrated in the low-skill labor market and are disproportionately likely to have no more than a high-school diploma . Likewise, illegal immigrants are disproportionately male and also disproportionately likely to have minimal educational levels. Both groups compete with one another in the low-skill labor market (and the competition is most fierce in some of the very industries in which blacks historically have been highly concentrated). Blacks frequently lose that competition, crowded out by illegal immigrants who, for various reasons, are preferred by many employers. As Professor Vernon Briggs of Cornell’s School of Industrial and Labor Relations noted, it’s not because low-skilled Americans — regardless of race — are unwilling to work, it’s that they’re unwilling to work at the cut-rate wages (and often substandard conditions) offered to illegal immigrants — a cohort highly unlikely to complain to the EEOC, OSHA, or the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor.¶ The impact of illegal immigration on the employment and wage levels of low-skilled workers is especially pronounced in today’s stagnant economy, even with a reduced influx of illegal immigrants. In 2007, the unemployment rate for blacks without a high-school diploma was 12.0 percent. By 2011 that rate had more than doubled to 24.6 percent. Obviously, the supply of low-skilled workers far exceeds the demand. This bodes ill for all such workers, but particularly black males, who, according to evidence adduced at the hearing, are significantly disfavored by employers in certain sectors of the economy.¶ In a letter sent last week to President Obama, congressional leadership, and the head of the Congressional Black Caucus, my colleague Abigail Thernstrom and I noted the negative consequences of illegal immigration on wage levels. For example, a study done by an economist for the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta estimated that “as a result of the growth in the share of undocumented workers, the annual earnings of the average documented worker in Georgia in 2007 were 2.9 percent ($980) lower than they were in 2000. . . . Annual earnings for the average documented worker in the leisure and hospitality sector in 2007 were 9.1 percent ($1,520) lower than they were in 2000.”¶ Again, the evidence before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights shows that while the negative impact on black employment and wage levels was much more pronounced, illegal immigration hurts all low-skilled American workers. It’s peculiar, however, that those who can usually be counted on to highlight any disparity between blacks and whites — whatever the reason and no matter how slight the disparity – have said not a word about the effect of illegal immigration on blacks.

Your evidence is wrong – immigration unemploys African AmericansJefferson 10 - regular contributor to The Root (Cord, “How Illegal Immigration Hurts Black America,” The Root, 2/10/10, http://www.theroot.com/views/how-illegal-immigration-hurts-black-america)//ACIn October 2008, amidst claims that one of its subsidiaries was knowingly hiring illegal immigrants, North Carolina poultry producer House of Raeford Farms initiated a systematic conversion of its workforce.¶

Following a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement raid that nabbed 300 undocumented workers at a Columbia Farms processing plant in Columbia, S.C., a spooked House of Raeford quietly began replacing immigrants with native-born labor at all of its plants. Less than a year later, House of Raeford’s flagship production line in Raeford, N.C., had been transformed, going from more than 80 percent Latino to 70 percent African-American, according to a report by the Charlotte Observer.¶ For More About Immigration, Read: 'Since When Did Tijuana Become More Appealing Than Texas?'¶ Under President George W. Bush, showy workplace raids like the one that befell Raeford were standard—if widely despised—fare. And though the Obama administration has committed itself to dialing down the practice, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has occasionally found herself the bearer of bad news to immigration activists who expected the raids to end entirely under her watch.¶ For the most part, the workplace crackdowns themselves are unremarkable—gaudy, ad hoc things that mitigate America’s immigration problem the way a water balloon might a forest fire. Increasingly however, their immediate aftermaths—in which dozens of eager African-American job applicants line up to fill vacancies—call into question a familiar refrain from the nation’s more vocal immigration proponents: Illegal immigrants do work American citizens won’t. Even former Mexican President Vicente Fox fell victim to the hype, infamously declaring in 2006 that Mexican immigrants perform the jobs that “not even blacks want to do.”¶ Four years later, with national unemployment hovering around 10 percent and black male unemployment at a staggering 17.6 percent, it seems even less likely that immigrants are filling only those jobs that Americans won’t deign to do. Just ask Delonta Spriggs, a 24-year-old black man profiled in a November Washington Post piece on joblessness, who pleaded, “Give me a chance to show that I can work. Just give me a chance.”¶ Spriggs has a difficult road ahead. In this recessed United States, competition for all work is dog-eat-dog. But that holds especially true for low-skilled jobs, jobs for which high school dropouts (like Spriggs) and reformed criminals (also like Spriggs) must now vie against nearly 12 million illegal immigrants, 80 percent of whom are from Latin America. What's more, it seems that, in many cases, the immigrants are winning. From 2007 to 2008, though Latino immigrants reported significant job losses, black unemployment, the worst in the nation, remained 3.5 points higher.¶ “I don't believe there are any jobs that Americans won't take, and that includes agricultural jobs,” says Carol Swain, professor of law at Vanderbilt University and author of Debating Immigration. “[Illegal immigration] hurts low-skilled, low-wage workers of all races, but blacks are harmed the most because they're disproportionately low-skilled.” ¶ Despite President Fox’s assertion, of the Pew Hispanic Center’s top six occupational sectors for undocumented immigrants (farming, maintenance, construction, food service, production and material moving), all six employed hundreds of thousands of blacks in 2008. That year, almost 15 percent of meat-processing workers were black, as were more than 18 percent of janitors. And although blacks on the whole aren’t involved in agriculture at anywhere near the rates of illegal immigrants—a quarter of whom work in farming—about 14 percent of fruit and vegetable sorters are African-American.¶ For their efforts, African Americans were paid a median household income of $32,000 in 2007. In the same year, the median household income for illegal immigrants was $37,000.¶ Audrey Singer is a senior fellow specializing in race and immigration at the Brookings Institution. She agrees that blacks are disproportionately hindered by illegal immigration, but says that pay is a necessary variable to note when talking about work Americans will and won’t do. “There is evidence that shows people at the lower end of the skill spectrum are most affected by immigrant labor, particularly illegal immigrant labor,” she says. “But would Americans do the jobs illegal workers do at the wages that they’re paid? I don’t think so.” ¶ Besides competing for work while

simultaneously attempting to avoid drastically deflated paychecks and benefits, unemployed African- American job seekers must also frequently combat racial discrimination. In a 2006 research paper called “Discrimination in Low-Wage Labor Markets,” a team of Princeton sociologists discovered that, all else being equal, black applicants to low-wage jobs were 10 percent less likely than Latinos to receive positive responses from potential employers. Furthermore, employers were twice as likely to prefer white applicants to equally qualified blacks.¶ "To be blunt, a lot of employers would rather not deal with black American workers if they have the option of hiring a docile Hispanic immigrant instead,” says Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies. Krikorian’s organization advocates a large-scale contraction of immigration to America, one of the main reasons being that low-skilled immigrants aren’t contributing to the U.S. labor force in a way that American citizens can’t. Nevertheless, Krikorian says that easily exploitable immigrants remain attractive to businesses looking to eliminate hassles. “[Illegal immigrants] are not going to demand better wages, and they're not going to ask for time off,” he adds. “And frankly, a lot of bosses are thinking, 'I don't want to deal with a young black male.'"¶ Most political analysts expect the debate over immigration reform to find new life in 2010, under a president who thoughtfully supports both increased border enforcement and the “recognition of immigrants’ humanity.” Wherever the discussion meanders, however—from amnesty on the left to expulsion on the right—from here on, it seems that anyone interested in speaking thoroughly on the matter can no longer do so without discussing its impact on black America.¶ This type of discussion has proved difficult in the past, however. “Many of the black scholars dance around this hard issue,” says Swain. “They do their research in such a way that it doesn’t address how immigration affects blacks. There’s a lot of pressure to say the politically correct thing—that immigrants aren’t hurting African Americans. Well, that’s not true.”

Economy Impact

This will saddle tax payers will hundreds of billions in new taxesRector & Kim, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow in Domestic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation(5/21/2007, Robert Rector and Christine Kim, Executive Summary: The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skill Immigrants to the U.S. Taxpayer,” Special Report #14, http://www.heritage.org/research/immigration/sr14es.cfm)

In FY 2004, low-skill immigrant households received $30,160 per household in immediate benefits and services (direct benefits, means-tested benefits, education, and population-based services). In general, low-skill immigrant households received about $10,000 more in government benefits than did the average U.S. household, largely because of the higher level of means-tested welfare benefits received by low-skill immigrant households. In contrast, low-skill immigrant households pay less in taxes than do other households. On average, low-skill

immigrant households paid only $10,573 in taxes in FY 2004. Thus, low-skill immigrant households received nearly three dollars in immediate benefits and services for each dollar in taxes paid.A household's net fiscal deficit equals the cost of benefits and services received minus taxes paid. When the costs of direct and means-tested benefits, education, and population-based services are counted, the average low-skill household had a fiscal deficit of $19,588 (expenditures of $30,160 minus $10,573 in taxes).

At $19,588, the average annual fiscal deficit for low-skill immigrant households was nearly twice the amount of taxes paid. In order for the average low-skill household to be fiscally solvent (taxes paid equaling immediate benefits received), it would be necessary to eliminate Social Security and Medicare, all means-tested welfare, and to cut expenditures on public education roughly in half.American families often are net tax payers during working age and net tax takers (benefits exceeding taxes) during retirement. This is not the

case for low-skill immigrant households; in these households benefits substantially exceed taxes at every age level. Consequently, low-skill immigrant households impose substantial long-term costs on the U.S. taxpayer. Assuming an average adult life span of 60 years for each head of household, the average lifetime costs to the taxpayer will be nearly $1.2 million for each low-skill household for immediate benefits received minus all taxes paid.As noted, in 2004, there were 4.5 million low-skill immigrant households. With an average net fiscal deficit of $19,588 per household, the total annual fiscal deficit for all of these households together equaled $89.1 billion (the deficit of $19,588 per

household times 4.54 million low-skill immigrant households). Over the next ten years, the net cost (benefits minus taxes) to the taxpayer of low-skill immigrant households will approach $1 trillion. Current immigrants (both legal and illegal) have very low education levels relative to the non-immigrant U.S. population. At least 50 percent and perhaps 60 percent of illegal immigrant adults lack a high school degree.[1] Among legal immigrants the situation is better, but a quarter still lack a high school diploma. Overall, a third of immigrant households are headed by individuals without a high school degree. By contrast, only 9 percent of non-immigrant adults lack a high school degree. The current immigrant population thus contains a disproportionate share of poorly educated individuals. These individuals will tend to have low wages, pay little in taxes, and receive above average levels of government benefits and services.Recent waves of immigrants are disproportionately low skilled because of two factors. For years, the U.S. has had a permissive policy concerning illegal immigration: the 2,000-mile border with Mexico has remained porous and the law prohibiting the hiring of illegal immigrants has not been enforced. This encourages a disproportionate inflow of low-skill immigrants because few college-educated workers are likely to be willing to undertake the risks and hardships associated with crossing the southwest U.S. deserts illegally. Second, the legal immigration system gives priority to "family reunification" and kinship ties rather than skills; this focus also significantly contributes to the inflow of low-skill immigrants into the U.S.Understanding of the fiscal consequences of low-skill immigration is impeded by a lack of understanding of the scope of government financial redistribution within U.S. society. It is a common misperception that the only individuals who are fiscally dependent (receiving more in benefits than they pay in taxes) are welfare recipients who perform little or no work, and that as long as an individual works regularly he must be a net tax producer (paying more in taxes than his family receives in benefits).In reality, the present welfare system is designed primarily to provide financial support to low-income working families. Moreover, welfare is only a modest part of the overall system of financial redistribution operated by the government. Current government policies provide extensive free or heavily subsidized aid to low-skill families (both immigrant and non-immigrant) through welfare, Social Security, Medicare, public education, and many other services. At the same time, government requires these families to pay little in taxes. This very expensive assistance

to the least advantaged American families has become accepted as our mutual responsibility for one another, but it is fiscally unsustainable to apply this system of lavish income redistribution to an inflow of millions of poorly educated immigrants.Finally, it is sometimes argued that since higher-skill immigrants are a net fiscal plus for the U.S. taxpayers, while low-skill immigrants are a net loss, the two cancel each other out and therefore no problem exists. This is like a stockbroker advising a client to buy two stocks, one that will make money and another that will lose money. Obviously, it would be better to purchase only the stock that will be profitable and avoid the money-losing stock entirely. Similarly, low-skill immigrants increase poverty in the U.S. and impose a burden on taxpayers that should be avoided.U.S.immigration policy should encourage high-skill immigration and strictly limit low-skill immigration. In general,

government policy should limit immigration to those who will be net fiscal contributors, avoiding those who will increase poverty and impose new costs on overburdened U.S. taxpayers.

The impact is global nuclear warKerpen, 8 – policy director for Americans for Prosperity (Phil, The National Review, “From Panic to Depression? The dangers of blaming free trade, low taxes, and flexible labor markets for our current troubles,” 10/28/2008, http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OWQ3ZGYzZTQyZGY4ZWFiZWUxNmYwZTJiNWVkMTIxMmU=)

Second, taxes. President Herbert Hoover’s infamous Revenue Act of 1932 was the biggest and worst-timed tax hike in U.S. history. The bill was a bipartisan “achievement,” a compromise between the Hoover administration’s plan to raise income taxes and the Democratic Congress’s plan to institute a national sales tax. The top marginal income-tax rate was raised from 25 to 63 percent. New excise taxes were put on everything from cars and trucks to refrigerators, chewing gum, soft drinks, and electricity. The death tax was doubled.And the results were tragic. By raising taxes during an economic downturn, the economic pain of the 1930s was made deeper and more permanent. The higher Hoover taxes discouraged work, savings, and investment, prevented capital formation, and depressed consumer spending.Today, even liberal congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts has said there should be no tax hikes in the next year because of the current economic weakness. Yet Barack Obama remains committed to a program of raising the top marginal tax rate from 35 percent to 39.6 percent while also hiking capital-gains taxes, dividend taxes, and the death tax. All this will put the brakes on economic activity right when we need to hit the accelerator.Third, labor. Economists at UCLA have determined that President Franklin Roosevelt’s anti-competitive, pro-union policies prolonged the Depression seven full years. In particular, those policies led to artificially expensive products that discouraged consumer spending and artificially high wages that prevented employment from recovering.Despite this lesson, congressional Democrats, including Obama, are today poised to give unions their greatest power boost since Roosevelt’s 1935 National Labor Relations Act. The vehicle this time is the shamelessly named Employee Free Choice Act, which, among other pro-union legal changes, would abolish secret-ballot elections for union organizing.By way of a new procedure called card check, workers will be openly pressured to sign union cards, after which, if a majority of workers sign, unions will be automatically certified. Coercive tactics by union bosses would run rampant if this policy is ever enacted. And as unions gain in power and force wages unnaturally high, mass unemployment could be the unintended result.It’s important that we avoid all these policy errors — not just for the sake of our prosperity, but for our survival. The Great Depression, after all, didn’t end until the advent of World War II, the most destructive war in the history of the planet. In a world of nuclear and biological weapons and non-state terrorist organizations that breed on poverty and despair, another global economic breakdown of such extended duration would risk armed conflicts on an even greater scale.

AT: immigrants fill vacancy of jobs – help the economy

Immigrants cause unemploymentGroening 12 – Reporter for One News Now (Chad, “Illegal labor pool and its impact on unemployment rates,” One News Now, 12/20/12, http://www.onenewsnow.com/politics-govt/2012/12/20/illegal-labor-pool-and-its-impact-on-unemployment-rates#.UcyrVfm1Fsk)//ACAn immigration reform think tank has published a new study that shows the labor pool of illegal immigrants continues to have a negative impact on U.S. unemployment. ¶ The C enter for Immigration Studies says its study has revealed that 79 percent of illegal aliens have no more than a high school education and are in direct competition with less-educated American citizens for employment opportunities. ¶ CIS executive director Mark Krikorian contends there is no shortage of such American- born workers able to do the kind of work done by those who are in the country illegally." When you look at the unemployment numbers for native-born Americans who don't have a high school diploma, they're huge," he emphasizes. "So the idea that there's no people to do the kind of relatively less-skilled jobs that illegal immigrants do is just complete baloney ." ¶ Krikorian says while admittedly there are some Americans who are unwilling to work, that does not mean the solution is to hire illegal immigrants.¶ "By not having to address the kind of work-ethic problems that do exist in some parts of our society, all it's doing is making it worse and kicking the can down the road," he remarks. "Immigration enables a short-term fix for, say, the owners of a restaurant who want reliable dishwashers, [but it] creates long-term problems in the future." ¶ Krikorian admits that with the current political makeup in Washington, it is unlikely that a legislative remedy for the large immigration numbers will be possible anytime soon.

Border enforcement costs 14.9 billion dollars – the aff would eliminate that necessityHanson 9 - Director of the Center on Pacific Economies and a Professor of Economics at the University of California (Gordon, “The Economics and Policy of Illegal Immigration in the United States,” University of California-San Diego and National Bureau of Economic Research, December 2009, https://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/Hanson-Dec09.pdf)//AC4. Enforcement against Illegal Immigration Is Expensive (Relative to the ¶ Potential Gains from Eliminating Illegal Entry) ¶ The US government devotes considerable resources to enforcement against illegal ¶ immigration. Most activity occurs at the borders, particularly the US-Mexico border, where ¶

Border Patrol agents monitor points of entry. Nationwide, the Border Patrol made 723,000 ¶

apprehensions in 2008, down from 877,000 a year earlier.27 The vast majority of these ¶ individuals were caught along the US-Mexico border. Between 1992 and 2008, total annual ¶ officer hours worked by the US Border Patrol increased by a factor of four. The 20,000 ¶ Border Patrol agents currently in the field are an increase from 11,000 in 2004. Additional ¶ resources have been devoted to building and maintaining physical barriers along the borderand upgrading the technology and equipment agents have at their disposal. Interior ¶ enforcement efforts include monitoring and auditing employee roles at US worksites, ¶ working with local law enforcement to find and deport unauthorized immigrants who have ¶

committed crimes (under the Secure Communities and 287(g) programs), and expanding EVerify (an electronic system run by the Department of Homeland Security that allows US ¶ employers to verify the eligibility of their workers, now mandatory for federal contractors).28¶ The cost of enforcement against illegal entry is large. In 2009, the budgets for US Customs ¶ and Border Protection (which oversees border enforcement) and US Immigration and ¶ Customs Enforcement (which oversees interior enforcement) were $9.5 billion and $5.4 ¶ billion, respectively. 29

Immigrants affect those in poverty – this magnifies the cost of welfare and health insuranceCamarota 1 - Director of Research for the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) and a Ph.D. in public policy analysis (Steven, “Immigration From MexicoAssessing the Impact on the United States,” CIS, July 2001, http://cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/articles/2001/mexico/mexico.pdf)//ACImpact on Native-Born Workers¶ The analysis of wages and prices indicates that Mexican immigration in the 1990s has probably¶ reduced wages for high school dropouts by between 3 and 8 percent. So far we have concentrated on the benefits to consumers of lower wages for unskilled workers. While economics can¶ provide an understanding of the size of the wage and price effects of Mexican immigration, it¶

cannot tell us whether this situation is desirable. In order to make a normative judgment, one¶ needs to first examine the characteristics of those workers harmed by Mexican immigration.¶ Workers Harmed Are the Poorest and Most Vulnerable. Although most natives are not in direct¶ competition with Mexican immigrants, those who are include the poorest workers in the United¶ States. Those adversely affected also comprise a large share of those lacking health insurance and ¶ of those on welfare . For example, one-fourth of adult native-born high school dropouts who¶ work full-time live in poverty . Although they comprise only 8 percent of all adult natives who¶ work full-time, high school dropouts account for 26.2 percent of full-time native-born workers¶ living in poverty. Moreover, 31 percent (2.6 million) of the children of the native-born working¶ poor are dependent on an adult who lacks a high school education.20 Natives who lack a high¶ school education are also disproportionately those trying to move from welfare to work. More¶ than one in four natives who worked in 1999, but who also used welfare during the year, had¶ not completed high school.21 High school dropouts and their children are also often without¶ health insurance. Of adult native dropouts who work full time, 30 percent are uninsured and¶ 21.2 percent of their children do not have health insurance. Moreover, one-fifth of all natives¶ and their children who are uninsured are either high school dropouts or a child dependent on¶ a high school dropout for support.¶ The impacts of Mexican immigration also fall disproportionately on the nation’s minority population. Of native-born whites who work full-time, 6.5 percent lack a high school¶

education. In contrast, 11.5 percent of native-born African Americans and 19.8 percent of¶ native-born Hispanics who work full-time do not have a high school diploma. Thus, the negative impact of Mexican immigration is likely to be felt more by native-born minorities than by¶ whites .¶ By reducing the wages and employment opportunities available for workers without a¶ high school education, Mexican immigration can only make it more difficult for the unskilled¶ to escape poverty, move off welfare, and afford health insurance. If policy makers wish to improve the situation for unskilled workers in the United States, then increasing Mexican immigration or leaving at its current high level would seem to be counter-productive, especially in¶ light of the minimal effect on prices.¶ Wages for the Unskilled Declined in the 1990s. Although many in the business community¶ continue to want access to unskilled labor from Mexico, the available evidence indicates that¶ high school dropouts are not in short supply. Between 1989 and 1999, the real wages (adjusted for inflation) of workers who lack a high school education and work full-time year-round¶ declined by 7.2 percent.22 Basic economic theory predicts that if the economy were desperately¶ short of this type of labor, then wages should have risen significantly, rather than fallen. The¶ decline in wages for this group certainly calls into question the idea that not enough of these¶ workers are available. It should also be pointed out that annual wages (adjusted for inflation) of¶

full-time, year-round workers who have completed high school rose 9 percent during the same¶ period . This rise in wages for more skilled workers indicates that the labor market for such¶ workers was much tighter in the 1990s than for dropouts. It also means that the gap between¶ the two groups has widened . The average, full-time, year-round high school dropout has gone¶ from earning 61.7 percent of what

more educated full-time workers make to earning only 52.6¶ percent of what the average worker with at least a high education makes. Thus, both in absolute terms and relative to other workers, the wages of dropouts have declined, not risen as should be¶ the case if there were a shortage of unskilled labor. In fact, demand for unskilled labor is clearly¶ declining . The number of jobs available for dropouts declined by 400,000 during the 1990s.¶ This points to a fundamental incompatibility between the nation’s immigration policy, which¶ admits 150,000 to 200,000 unskilled workers from Mexico each year, and economic developments which cause labor market opportunities for such workers to decline. While some employers may wish to have access to unskilled labor in order to keep labor costs down, there¶

seems to be no shortage of high school dropouts in the United States.

The average fiscal burden for one immigrant is $55,000Camarota 1 - Director of Research for the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) and a Ph.D. in public policy analysis (Steven, “Immigration From MexicoAssessing the Impact on the United States,” CIS, July 2001, http://cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/articles/2001/mexico/mexico.pdf)//ACImpact of Mexican¶ Immigration on Public Coffers¶ So far, this report has generally concentrated on public service use by Mexican immigrants;¶ however, this is only half of the fiscal equation. Immigrants also pay taxes to federal, state, and¶ local governments. The CPS contains estimated federal income tax liabilities for those in the¶ sample. These estimates are based on adjusted gross income, number of dependents, and other¶ tax characteristics. These estimates are useful because they can provide some insight into the¶ likely tax payments made by immigrants and natives. Because of their much lower incomes and ¶ their larger family size, Mexican immigrants pay dramatically less in federal income taxes than ¶ do natives. The March 2000 CPS indicates that in 1999, the average federal income tax payment by households headed by Mexican immigrants was $2,156, less than one third of the¶ $7,255 average tax contribution made by native households. By design, the federal income tax¶ system is supposed to tax those with higher income and fewer dependents at higher rates than¶ those with lower income and more dependents. So the much lower income tax contributions of¶ Mexican immigrants simply reflect the tax code and not some systematic attempt by Mexican¶ immigrants to avoid paying taxes.¶ In 1999, 74 percent of households headed by natives had to pay at least some federal ¶ income tax, compared to only 59 percent of Mexican immigrant households. Even if one confines the analysis to legal Mexican immigrants, the gap between their tax contributions and¶ those of natives remains large. Using the same method as before to distinguish legal and illegal¶ Mexican immigrant households, the estimated federal income liability of households headed¶ by legal Mexican immigrants in 1999 was $2,538. Thus, the very low tax contribution of¶ Mexican immigrants is not simply or even mostly a function of legal status, but rather reflects¶ their much lower incomes and larger average family size.¶ The much lower tax payments made by Mexican immigrants point to a fundamental¶ problem associated with unskilled immigration that seems unavoidable. Even if Mexican Immigrants’ use of public services were roughly equal to natives, there would still be a significant ¶ drain on public coffers because their average tax payments would be much lower. While much¶ of the fiscal concern centers on use of means-tested programs, clearly tax payments matter at ¶ least as much when evaluating the fiscal impact of Mexican immigration . Changing welfare¶ eligibility or other efforts designed to reduce immigrant use of public services will not change¶ the fact that Mexican immigrants pay significantly less in taxes than natives.¶ While the above analysis provides some insight into the impact of Mexican immigrants on tax receipts at the federal level, it does not show the total fiscal impact of Mexican¶ immigration. Over the last decade, a number of studies have attempted to estimate the total ¶ fiscal impact (tax payments minus services used) of immigrants on the United States at the ¶ federal, state, and local levels. ¶ The most comprehensive research on this subject was done by the National Research ¶ Council (NRC), which is part of the National

Academy of Sciences. The study, conducted in¶ 1997, found that more-educated immigrants tend to have higher earnings, lower rates of public service use, and as a result pay more in taxes than they use in services. In contrast, the NRC ¶ found that because of their lower incomes and resulting lower tax payments coupled with their ¶ heavy use of public services, less-educated immigrants use significantly more in services than ¶ they pay in taxes. The NRC estimates indicated that the average immigrant without a high ¶ school education imposes a net fiscal burden on public coffers of $89,000 during the course of ¶ his or her lifetime. The average immigrant with only a high school education creates a lifetime ¶ fiscal burden of $31,000. In contrast, the average immigrant with more than a high school¶

education was found to have a positive fiscal impact of $105,000 in his or her lifetime. The ¶ NAS further estimated that the total combined fiscal impact of the average immigrant (all educational categories included) was a negative $3,000. Thus, when all immigrants are ¶ examined they are found to have a modest ¶ negative impact on public coffers. These ¶ figures are only for the original immigrant, ¶ they do not include public services used or ¶ taxes paid by their U.S.-born descendants .¶ Using the fiscal analysis developed by the NRC, it is possible to roughly estimate the¶ fiscal effect of adult Mexican immigrants on the United States. Applying the NRC’s estimates¶ by educational attainment and age is possible because the NRC’s research is based on the same¶ data as this study — the March Current Population Survey.28 Using the estimates developed by¶ the NRC and based on the educational attainment and age of newly arrived adult Mexican¶ immigrants in 2000, we find that the lifetime fiscal burden created by the

average adult Mexican immigrant is $50,300.29 It should be pointed out that these figures were based

on 1996¶ dollars. Adjusted for inflation, the fiscal burden would be $55,200 in 2000.¶ Since a very large share of Mexican immigrants have little formal education, the fiscal¶ burden they create seems unavoidable. The modern American labor market offers very limited¶ opportunities for the unskilled — immigrant or native. It therefore should come as no surprise¶ that they use a great deal more in public services than they pay in taxes during the course of¶ their lives. While consistent with previous research as well as common sense, the large fiscal ¶ deficit created by Mexican immigration should sound a cautionary note to those who argue ¶ that there is no harm in allowing large numbers of unskilled workers from Mexico into the ¶ country . Even if employers wish to have access to unskilled immigrant labor, the cost to taxpayers indicates that for the nation this may not be wise. Mexican immigration becomes, in effect,¶ a subsidy for employers of unskilled labor, with taxpayers providing services such as education,¶ health insurance and medical care, and income-transfer programs such as the Earned Income¶ Tax Credit to workers who, because of their low incomes, pay nowhere near enough in taxes to¶

cover their consumption of services.

Illegal immigrants cost the federal government $10.4 billion annually – they pay microscopic taxesCamarota 4 - Director of Research for the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) and a Ph.D. in public policy analysis (Steven, “The High Cost of Cheap LaborIllegal Immigration and the Federal Budget,” CIS, August 2004, http://www.cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/articles/2004/fiscal.pdf)//ACBalance of Tax and Cost ¶ Illegals Create Large Net Costs. et Costs. The bottom portion of Table 2 adds together the total tax¶ payments and costs illegals impose on the federal budget. When defense spending is not¶ considered, illegal households are estimated to impose costs on the federal treasury of $6,949 ¶ a year or 58 percent of what other households received . When defense spending is included, their costs are only 46 percent those of other households. However, they pay only ¶ 28 percent as much in taxes as non-illegal households. As a result, the estimated net cost ¶ per illegal household was $2,736. Whether one sees this fiscal deficit as resulting from low ¶ tax payments or heavy use of services is a

matter of perspective. As already discussed, illegal¶ households comprise 3.6 percent of the total population, but as Table 2 shows they account for an estimated 0.9 percent of taxes paid and 1.4 percent of costs. Thus, both their¶ payments and costs are significantly less than their share of the total population. Since they¶ use so much less in federal services than other households, it probably makes the most sense ¶ to see the fiscal deficit as resulting from low tax payments rather than heavy use of public¶ services.¶ Total Deficit Created by Illegals. If the estimated net fiscal drain of $2,736 a year that each ¶ illegal household imposes on the federal treasury is multiplied by the nearly three million ¶ illegal households, the total cost comes to $10.4 billion a year . Whether one considers this¶ to be a large sum or not is, of course, a matter of perspective. But, this figure is unambiguously negative and certainly not trivial. It is also worth remembering that these figures are ¶ only for the federal government and do not include any costs at the state or local level, ¶ where the impact is likely to be significant.

The plan is justified by saving taxpayers moneyCamarota 4 - Director of Research for the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) and a Ph.D. in public policy analysis (Steven, “The High Cost of Cheap LaborIllegal Immigration and the Federal Budget,” CIS, August 2004, http://www.cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/articles/2004/fiscal.pdf)//ACWhy Study the Fiscal Impact of Illegals?¶ Concern over illegal immigration ranges from national security and the rule of law to the¶ risk would-be illegals take to enter the country and their well-being once here. But the¶ fiscal effects are a key part of the issue. In fact, much of the public’s anger over illegal¶

immigration stems from the belief that illegals are a drain on taxpayers. Past policy responses to illegal aliens, such as barring them from welfare programs, were also driven by¶ the desire to minimize fiscal costs. Thus, determining the actual fiscal impact of illegal¶ immigration is critically important to formulating a policy response to illegal immigration.¶ The Fiscal Equation. Simply by living in the United States, illegals unavoidably impose ¶ some costs on government. Like all people, illegal aliens enroll their children in public ¶ schools, drive on the roads, and engage in a host of other activities that necessarily cost ¶ government money . They also unavoidably pay taxes. Even when they are paid “off the¶ books,” they still pay excise and other types of taxes to the government. So the fact that¶ illegal aliens cost public coffers money does not necessarily mean they are a net drain.¶ Conversely, the fact that illegals pay taxes does not necessarily mean that they are a fiscal¶ benefit. At least with regard to fiscal considerations, the key question is the balance between the taxes they pay and the services they use. This study attempts to estimate both¶ their tax payments and costs in order to determine their net fiscal impact at the federal¶ level.¶ Importance of Current Fiscal Impact. Almost all observers agree that illegal immigration is ¶ a problem. The fiscal impact of illegal immigration has enormous bearings on the question ¶ of what to do about illegal immigration. While employers may want access to immigrant ¶ labor, the fiscal costs to taxpayers must be considered. Understandably, employers can be¶ counted on to ignore these costs because they are diffuse, borne by all taxpayers, while the¶ benefit to businesses is obvious. Policy makers, however, must be sensitive to fiscal considerations. If there are net costs, then this could have a significant impact on the availability ¶ of public services or the tax burden on Americans. If the costs are very large, then the ¶ problem is certainly more urgent. And devoting significant resources to reducing illegal ¶ immigration may be justified because doing so would leave taxpayers with a significant net ¶ savings. On the other hand, if illegals impose little or no costs on taxpayers, this too should¶ play some role in shaping policy.

The economy is losing $30 billion dollars annually from remittancesD'Agostino 4 - former associate editor of HUMAN EVENTS, is vice president for Communications at the Population Research Institute (Joseph, “IMMIGRANTS DRAIN $30 BILLION IN CASH ANNUALLY,” Human Events, 5/28/4, http://www.humanevents.com/2004/05/28/immigrants-drain-30-billion-in-cash-annually/)//ACIn the past nine years the cash that immigrants send from the United States back to their home countries has almost doubled, but the Bush Administration is planning to use the upcoming G-8 summit to discuss ways to increase the outward flow of cash. “Technological advances in communication and data transfer–and a surge in labor mobility–have fueled enormous growth in remittances,” Deputy Secretary of the Treasury Samuel Bodman said at a May 17 conference at which a new study on remittances was released. “Since 1995, annual remittances from the United States have nearly doubled. . . . In recognition of the importance of remittances around the world, the G7 is committed to facilitating remittance transfers and increasing options available to recipients to help them improve their own economic livelihood. This is a top priority issue for this year’s G8 Summit to be held in Sea Island, Georgia, next month.” The study, based on a survey of 3,800 Latin American immigrants living in the United States conducted by Bendixen & Associates, found that legal and illegal immigrants send a combined $30 billion annually to their home countries. Mexico alone receives $13.3 billion a year. The largest amount in remittances ($9.6 billion) comes out of California. That is followed by New York ($3.6 billion), Texas ($3.2 billion) and Florida ($2.5 billion). The study says of those surveyed 24% were Latin American-born U.S. citizens, 39% were legal residents, and 32% were “undocumented” aliens. It estimated that 16.7 million people of Latin American origin now live in the United States. Sixty-one per cent of those surveyed said they send money overseas at least once a month. The typical individual transaction ranges from $150 to $250. “It’s money flowing out of some of the poorest communities of the United States,” said Steve Camarota, research director at the Center for Immigration Studies. Camarota said that statistics on remittances are hard to generate accurately due to the large number of illegal immigrants in the United States and to the “informal banking arrangements” that often serve as conduits for money sent home. He said there was no reliable way of estimating how much of the $30 billion was taxed by the United States and how much went under the radar screen. “It’s certainly not being taxed in the way money spent here would be in sales taxes, etc,” he said. “Roughly half of what illegals make is on the books and half off.” Asked if remittances were helping poor Latin American countries stay afloat, Camarota replied, “Does it stymie development in the home country? Everyone sees their economic future dependent on immigration to the United States.” “It encourages governments in other countries to push harder and harder for open borders,” said Rep. Tom Tancredo (R.-Colo.), chairman of the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus. “They want those funds to keep flowing.” In fact, Georgetown Prof. Manuel Orozco reported in a presentation to the Inter-American Development Bank on Sep. 17, 2002, that Haiti depends on remittances for 24.5% of its GDP, El Salvador for 17%, Nicaragua for 22%, Jamaica for 15%, the Dominican Republic for 10%, and Mexico for 1.7%. Since $30 billion out of Latin America’s total remittance receipts of $38 billion come from the United States, these countries are heavily dependent on immigrants to America. Tancredo advocates taxing remittances or reducing our foreign aid to those countries that receive significant sums in remittances from the United States. “It is in our interest to encourage savings and investment inside this country,” he said. “It is also in our interest to discourage illegal immigration into this country.” Remittances provide a financial incentive for families to send members here, he said. A White House fact sheet dated Jan. 13, 2004, boasts of Bush’s success in increasing remittance flows: “Bilateral efforts to promote competition in the market for remittance services and to bring those without bank accounts into the formal financial system have produced dramatic results since 1999: The cost of sending remittances from the United States to Mexico has fallen by 58%. Remittance flows have grown at a rate of 10% annually.” A January 2000 study by J. Edward Taylor, University of California, Davis, found that some U.S. taxpayer money is

finding its way into remittances. “There is no evidence that means-tested income transfers [i.e., most welfare] increase remittances to Mexico,” he wrote. “However, there is a positive association between non-means-tested transfers and remittances. Other things being equal, households that received Social Security or unemployment insurance were 10 to 15% more likely to remit, and their monthly remittances were $150 to $200 higher than those of households not receiving non-means-tested public transfers.”

2ac Warming good

Immigrants solve climate change – they have less children in the USMcKibben 13 - environmentalist, author, and journalist - Schumann Distinguished Scholar and Professor at Middlebury College (Bill, “Immigration reform -- for the climate,” Los Angeles Times, 3/14/13, http://articles.latimes.com/2013/mar/14/opinion/la-oe-mckibben-immigration-environment-20130314)//ACFor environmentalists, population has long been a problem. Many of the things we do wouldn't cause so much trouble if there weren't so many of us. It's why I wrote a book some years ago called "Maybe One: An Argument for Smaller Families." Heck, it's why I had only one child. And many of us, I think, long viewed immigration through the lens of population; it was another part of the math problem. I've always thought we could afford historical levels of immigration, but I understood why some other environmentalists wanted tougher restrictions. More Americans would mean more people making use of the same piece of land, a piece that was already pretty hard-used. ¶ In recent years, though, the math problem has come to look very different to me. It's one reason I feel it's urgent that we get real immigration reform, allowing millions to step out of the shadows and on to a broad path toward citizenship. It will help, not hurt, our environmental efforts, and potentially in deep and powerful ways. ¶

One thing that's changed is the nature of the ecological problem. Now that global warming is arguably the greatest danger we face, it matters a lot less where people live. Carbon dioxide mixes easily in the atmosphere. It makes no difference whether it comes from Puerto Vallarta or Portland. ¶ It's true that the typical person from a developing nation would produce more carbon once she adopted an American lifestyle, but she also probably would have fewer children. A December report from the Pew Research Center report showed that birthrates in the U.S. were dropping faster among Mexican American women and women who immigrated from Mexico than among any other group. ¶ This is a trend reflected among all Latinas in the U.S. As an immigrant mother of two from the Dominican Republic told the New York Times: " Before, I probably would have been pressured to have more , [but] living in the United States, I don't have family members close by to help me, and it takes a village to raise a child. So the feeling is, keep what you have right now." Her two grandmothers had had a total of 27 children. The carbon

math, in other words, may well be a wash.¶

2ac systemic violence

Illegal immigrants caused more deaths than were killed in IraqFarah 6 – Staff Writer for WND (Joseph, “ILLEGAL ALIENS MURDER 12 AMERICANS DAILY,” WND, 11/28/6, http://www.wnd.com/2006/11/39031/)//ACWASHINGTON – While the military “quagmire” in Iraq was said to tip the scales of power in the U.S. midterm elections, most Americans have no idea more of their fellow citizens – men, women and children – were murdered this year by illegal aliens than the combined death toll of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan since those military campaigns began. Though no federal statistics are kept on murders or any other crimes committed by illegal aliens, a number of groups have produced estimates based on data collected from prisons, news reports and independent research.¶ Twelve Americans are murdered every day by illegal aliens, according to statistics released by Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa. If those numbers are correct, it translates to 4,380 Americans murdered annually by illegal aliens. That’s 21,900 since Sept. 11, 2001. ¶ Total U.S. troop deaths in Iraq as of last week were reported at 2,863. Total U.S. troop deaths in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Uzbekistan during the five years of the Afghan campaign are currently at 289, according to the Department of Defense.¶ But the carnage wrought by illegal alien murderers represents only a fraction of the pool of blood spilled by American citizens as a result of an open border and un-enforced immigration laws.¶ While King reports 12 Americans are murdered daily by illegal aliens, he says 13 are killed by drunk illegal alien drivers – for another annual death toll of 4,745. That’s 23,725 since Sept. 11, 2001. ¶ While no one – in or out of government – tracks all U.S. accidents caused by illegal aliens, the statistical and anecdotal evidence suggests many of last year’s 42,636 road deaths involved illegal aliens.¶ A report by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Study found 20 percent of fatal accidents involve at least one driver who lacks a valid license. In California, another study showed that those who have never held a valid license are about five times more likely to be involved in a fatal road accident than licensed drivers.¶ Statistically, that makes them an even greater danger on the road than drivers whose licenses have been suspended or revoked – and nearly as dangerous as drunk drivers.¶

King also reports eight American children are victims of sexual abuse by illegal aliens every day – a total of 2,920 annually.¶ Based on a one-year in-depth study, Deborah Schurman-Kauflin of the Violent Crimes Institute of Atlanta estimates there are about 240,000 illegal immigrant sex offenders in the United States who have had an average of four victims each. She analyzed 1,500 cases from January 1999 through April 2006 that included serial rapes, serial murders, sexual homicides and child molestation committed by illegal immigrants.¶ As the number of illegal aliens in the U.S. increases, so does the number of American victims. ¶ According to Edwin Rubenstien, president of ESR Research Economic Consultants, in Indianapolis in 1980, federal and state correctional facilities held fewer than 9,000 criminal aliens. But at the end of 2003, approximately 267,000 illegal aliens were incarcerated in all U.S. jails and prisons.¶ While the federal government doesn’t track illegal alien murders, illegal alien rapes or illegal alien drunk driving deaths, it has studied illegal aliens incarcerated in U.S. prisons.¶ In April 2005, the Government Accountability Office released a report on a study of 55,322 illegal aliens incarcerated in federal, state, and local facilities during 2003. It found the following:¶ The 55,322 illegal aliens studied represented a total of 459,614 arrests – some eight arrests per illegal alien;¶ Their arrests represented a total of about 700,000 criminal offenses – some 13 offenses per illegal alien; ¶ 36 percent had been arrested at least five times before. ¶ “While the vast majority of illegal aliens are decent people who work hard and are only trying to make a better life for themselves and their families, (something you or I would probably do if we were in their place), it is also a fact that a disproportionately high percentage of illegal aliens are criminals and sexual predators,” states Peter Wagner, author of a new report called “The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration.” “That is part of the dark side of illegal immigration and when we

allow the ‘good’ in we get the ‘bad’ along with them. The question is, how much ‘bad’ is acceptable and at what price?”

Warming Impact

Immigration is the principal cause of population growth in the US –makes reductions in CO2 emissions impossibleMartin, 9- Director of Special Projects for the Federation for American Immigration Reform and a retired diplomat with consular experience (Jack Martin, “Immigration, Energy, and the Environment,” June 2009, http://www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=20877&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1009)

Finally, it is important to note that immigration is also the principal reason the natural rate of population increase is so much higher in the U.S. than in Europe. The 2000 census data show that the Hispanic or Latino population segment, which has surged because of immigration in the past few decades, accounted for 12.5 percent of the resident U.S. population but 18.7 percent of all live births, The Census Bureau has estimated a total fertility rate of 2.049 for women of all races and 2.921 for women of Hispanic origin, i.e., 42.3 percent higher than for the general population.

The data show quite clearly that the United States will not be able to achieve any meaningful reductions in CO2 emissions without serious economic and social consequences for American citizens unless immigration is sharply curtailed. Failure to address the immigration issue is only rendering the energy problem more intractable.E N E R GY, P O P U L AT I O N A N D T H E F U T U R EBeyond the present situation in which we are challenged to reduce energy consumption to reduce CO2 emissions in response to concerns about global warming, the other fact that must be kept in mind is that most of our energy consumption is of fossil fuels and that they are a non-renewable resource. The United States has become increasingly dependent on foreign sources of petroleum ever since we reached peak oil production in the United States in 1970, but consumption of fossil fuels has increased, and therefore imports have increased even more rapidly. This trend of declining domestic production would only be marginally changed by new production offshore and on the Alaskan North Slope.Of even greater importance is the fact that geologists are already seeing depletion of reserves in major foreign oil fields that have been taking up the slack in U.S. production, i.e., in countries such as Saudi Arabia, Mexico and Great Britain. The prospect is for world production to now begin a downward slope, just as the U.S. has already experienced.The same may be expected with regard to natural gas supplies and even coal, although coal reserves are projected to last much longer than petroleum and gas reserves. Current technology does not offer the prospect of replacing these non-renewable resources at a level that offers any hope for avoiding a major forced contraction in energy consumption per capita within a few generations.Once again, the predicament for U.S. policymakers is how to grapple with the effect of a growing population not just in terms of CO2 emissions, but also in terms of our growing dependence on foreign energy suppliers as global shortages develop. Like with greenhouse gas emission reduction, reduction of the nation’s vulnerability to dependence on foreign nonrenewable energy exporters will depend heavily on the rate of change in the U.S. population. The longer we continue to grow at a rate of 3.4 million people per year the more precarious will become the existence of each of us and our children and the sooner that major forced adjustments will arrive.

Climate Change is the greatest threat to human extinction – outweighs nuclear warThe New York End Times 2006 (The New York End Times is a non-partisan, non-religious, non-ideological, free news filter. We monitor world trends and events as they pertain to two vital threats - war and extinction. We use a proprietary methodology to quantify movements between the extremes of war and peace, harmony and extinction. http://newyorkendtimes.com/extinctionscale.asp)

We rate Global Climate Change as a greater threat for human extinction in this century. Most scientists

forecast disruptions and dislocations, if current trends persist. The extinction danger is more likely if we alter an

environmental process that causes harmful effects and leads to conditions that make the planet uninhabitable to humans. Considering that there is so much that is unknown about global systems, we consider climate change to be the greatest danger to human extinction. However, there is no evidence of imminent danger. Nuclear war at some point in this century might happen. It is unlikely to cause human extinction though .

While several countries have nuclear weapons, there are few with the firepower to annihilate the world .

For those nations it would be suicidal to exercise that option. The pattern is that the more destructive technology a nation has, the more it tends towards rational behavior. Sophisticated precision weapons then become better tactical options. The bigger danger comes from nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists with the help of a rogue state, such as North Korea. The size of such an explosion would not be sufficient to threaten humanity as a whole. Instead it could trigger a major war or even world war. Under this scenario

human extinction would only be possible if other threats were present, such as disease and climate change. We monitor war separately. However we also need to incorporate the dangers here.

Warming – Extensions

Immigrants increase total American demand for energy- this is not nativism, it’s arithmetic Attarian, 2- Ph.D. in economics from the University of Michigan(John Attarian, “The Coming End of Cheap Oil,” The Social Contract, Summer 2002, http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc1204/article_1095.shtml)

The coming oil crunch makes curtailment of mass immigration an urgent imperative. Mass migration from Third World countries with low per-capita energy use to affluent nations with high per-capita energy use must necessarily increase total energy demand. Surging immigration, the main contributor to America's population growth, will greatly increase demand for costlier energy. In 1973-1995, American energy consumption rose some 22 percent, some roughly 90 percent of it due to population growth.(42) It is well known that immigration accounts for some 70 percent of population growth since the Seventies. This means immigration accounts for the lion's share of the increase in energy use roughly 63 percent (.9 x .7 = .63). It necessarily follows that we cannot tackle energy without tackling immigration. This is not nativism, this is arithmetic.

Immigration worsens the energy crisis and makes it impossible to find alternative solutionsAttarian, 2- Ph.D. in economics from the University of Michigan(John Attarian, “The Coming End of Cheap Oil,” The Social Contract, Summer 2002, http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc1204/article_1095.shtml)

California's energy crisis is grimly instructive as to what continued mass immigration means. As Ric Oberlink observed, California's total energy consumption more than doubled in 1969-1999, even though per-capita use grew only 22.9 percent (from 5,655 kilowatt-hours to 6,952). The reason? California's population rose from 19.7 million to 33.1 million (up 68 percent), some 95 percent of it due to immigration.(43)Not only will mass immigration worsen the oil problem, most immigrants have no human capital to offer to help cope with it. In fact, immigration will make coping disastrously harder. Floods of immigrant labor will exacerbate productivity and wage stagnation, thereby worsening economic stagnation, making it harder to afford costlier energy, goods, services, and entitlements and harder to finance the urgently needed huge investments in alternative energy sources, meaning our energy plight will worsen. Should hydrocarbon inputs for agriculture decline, yields on already-heavily worked croplands, depleted of natural nutrients, will fall, forcing us to bring more land under cultivation which will collide with the urban sprawl due to immigration-driven population growth. Mass immigration and the decline of conventional oil, then, will create a vicious circle, each one worsening the problems spawned by the other.Colin Campbell warns that America "has to somehow find a way to cut its demand [for oil] by at least five percent a year."(44) This will be impossible without a complete moratorium on immigration, for at least two decades, to see us through the transition from cheap oil to a sustainable mix of substitutes. We cannot simultaneously cut demand for oil while allowing the main force driving it higher to keep operating. The longer mass immigration continues, the more per capita energy use must fall to compensate meaning the more austere and impoverished our lives must become. Put another way,

continued mass immigration in a context of declining conventional oil output will rapidly turn America into an impoverished nation with Third World living standards.Obviously, we must promptly develop alternatives to conventional oil and natural gas. But equally obviously, we must take measures promptly to conserve energy. And an immigration moratorium is at the top of the list.

Immigrants cause population growth, which results in increased energy usageMartin, 9- Director of Special Projects for the Federation for American Immigration Reform and a retired diplomat with consular experience (Jack Martin, “Immigration, Energy, and the Environment,” June 2009, http://www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=20877&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1009)

Between 1974 and 2007 total immigrant admissions were 27 million persons. Thus direct legal immigration accounted for 31.5 percent of the U.S. population increase during this period. The share of population growth attributable to immigration is still higher when illegal immigration and the children born to the immigrants after their arrival are included.The close correlation between increased U.S. energy consumption and increased population is further illustrated by the data in Table 3, which presents a breakdown of energy consumption by consuming sector. The table shows that per capita energy consumption in the residential sector remained virtually unchanged over the 1973–2007 period. Thus the entire 44.7 percent increase in residential energy use was entirely a factor of population growth.

Overpopulation / Environment Impact – 2ac

Illegal immigration causes overpopulation, which results in environmental degradation, water depletion and overfishingFAIR, 2- Federation for American Immigration Reform, a national, nonprofit, public-interest membership organization(Population and Environment, “How Immigration Hastens Destruction of the Environment,” updated 10-2002, www.fairus.org)

How immigration and overpopulation harm the environmentBut it is not just that immigrants’ individual rates of environment degradation goes up after they get here (although that is obviously a serious problem in itself). The worst thing about immigration for the environment is that it is causing overpopulation. Environment degradation is not simply about the rate at which individuals degrade the environment; it is also a result of how many people there are.The more people there are in the United States, the more we as a whole degrade the environment. This is the problem of population growth, and immigration worsens it severely. Immigration is responsible for over forty percent of the population growth since 1970. The United States will never be able to level off or reduce the amount of overall damage we do to the environment unless we can get the size of our population to level off. But the size of our population can never level off as long as we continue to have the heavy immigration we have now. For sake of our environment, we need a moratorium on immigration. [OMMITTED GRAPH HERE]What the environment degradation factors meanMethane Production. The gas methane contributes to the greenhouse effect, which is causing dangerous rises in the world temperature. The consequences of this rise in temperature will undoubtedly be extreme, unpleasant, and perhaps impossible to manage.Freshwater Consumption. In most regions, we are depleting or poisoning freshwater much faster than it is being replaced. As immigrants increase their freshwater consumption, they add to the problem even more.Industrial CO 2 Production. CO2 (carbon dioxide) is the primary gas that contributes to the greenhouse effect. CO2 is perhaps our worst and most immediate environmental danger, and immigrants triple their CO2 production by coming to the United States.Energy Consumption. This is total energy consumption, a major degrader of the environment. The average person who immigrates here more than triples his energy consumption.Cattle Production. While cattle production may seem benign, it is not. Cattle emit methane, increase erosion rates, and occasion the destruction of forest for range land. Immigration more than quintuples the average immigrant's effect on the production of cattle.Fertilizer Consumption. Although fertilizer does increase short-term crop yields, it harmfully salts the earth, ultimately ruining land and water systems. By coming to the United States, the average immigrant increases his use of fertilizer by a factor of six.Fish Production. Over-fishing and pollution are serious threats to the world's fish populations. Many of the world's major fisheries are no longer productive. On average, when people immigrate to the United States, they contribute to the problem over six times more than would had they remained home.

Cascading losses in biodiversity end all earth-lifeTonn 7 – Prof PolSci, Tennessee (Bruce, Futures sustainability, Futures 39, ScienceDirect, AG) The first principle is the most important because earth-life is needed to support earthlife. Ecosystems are composed of countless species that are mutually dependent upon each other for nutrients directly as food or as by-products of earth-life (e.g., as carbon dioxide and oxygen). If the biodiversity of an ecosystem is substantially compromised, then the entire system could collapse due to destructive negative nutrient cycle feedback effects. If enough ecosystems collapse worldwide, then the cascading impact on global nutrient cycles could lead to catastrophic species extinction. Thus, to ensure the survival of earth-life into the distant future the earth’s biodiversity must be protected.

Overpopulations Extensions

Increased immigration causes overpopulation in the US- leads to ecological collapse Lamm, 7- Professor and Co-Director of the Institute of Public Policy Studies at the University of Denver and former Governor of Colorado (Richard D. Lamm, “Immigration: The Ultimate Environmental Issue,” Denver University Law Review, Lexis-Nexis Academic)

Every generation has its challenges, almost inevitably challenges different from that of their parents. The great challenge of public policy is to correctly identify the new challenges and the new realities that society is faced with. Public policy is a kaleidoscope, time changes the patterns we are faced with, and we have to be wise enough to react to the new challenges as these new patterns evolve.

One new pattern/challenge must be to look at the issue of the environment with new eyes. Our globe is under new dramatic environmental pressure: our globe is warming, our ice caps melting, our glaciers receding, our coral is dying, our soils are eroding, our water tables falling, our fisheries are being depleted, our remaining rainforests shrinking. Something is very, very wrong with our eco-system . The environment issue is hydra-headed and complicated, but it is of immense importance that we have all aspects of the issue on the table.

One issue in the current environmental debate, however, is strangely absent: immigration. Immigration is the ultimate environmental issue, but U.S. environmental leaders are AWOL on this issue. The United States with low immigration will stabilize its

population at about 350 million shortly after the middle of this century. n1 With current levels of immigration, the United States will double in size and then double again. n2 The census projections call for an America of 420 million people by 2050 and a billion by the end of this century . n3 Can you imagine the eco-system, already under great strain, with one billion consuming Americans? Our current immigration policy is leaving our grandchildren an unsustainable America of a billion people, which I suggest is public policy malpractice. [*1004] The environmental community would not tell you this (though most know). A combination of political correctness and the recent tendency of the environmental

leadership to play Democratic politics have silenced the almost universal recognition of the early environmental community that population is an indispensable part of environmentalism.Environmental leaders in the 1970s had a formula, I=PAT, which postulated that environmental impact was the product of POPULATION, AFFLUENCE, AND

TECHNOLOGY. n4 To Gaylord Nelson who conceived Earth Day and the early environmental leaders, leaving out Population would be like having a bicycle with only one wheel . n5 Today's environmentalists will discuss U.S. air pollution policy, U.S. wilderness policy, U.S. water-quality policy, U.S. billboard policy, but never a hint of U.S. population policy.Here's my simple experiment I use on my environmental friends who have tragically lost their voice on population. Assume that I had a magic wand and could wave it and accomplish all the goals of today's environmental leadership, but did nothing about the current immigration rate. Is there a scenario where a billion Americans at the end of this century would live in an environmentally-sound America? Have you been to China? India? We could do everything on the current environmental agenda yet still have an unlivable nation. The self-imposed tragedy of the environmental movement in the United States is that the current environmental agenda will not get us to an environmentally-sound America. On the contrary, it locks in a myriad of environmental traumas as the United States careens toward a billion Americans.There is a concerted effort in the environmental community to keep immigration out of the dialogue. But the subject is so central to the environment that it keeps popping out. The President's Council on Sustainable Development concluded in 1996: "We believe that reducing current immigration levels is a necessary part of working toward sustainability in the United States." n6 National commissions have made similar assessments since 1972. n7 [*1005]

The National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society, have both warned that increasing population and increasing consumption threaten to overshoot the earth's ecological carrying capacity . n8

In my view most of the historic ways that societies have grown and developed may be obsolete. I believe we are at a great historical turning point that has to move from the growth paradigm to the sustainability paradigm . Could I be wrong? Of course! But

increasingly we are warned by national and international bodies that planet earth is over-driving its headlights and heading for major traumas. Yet one major, indispensable factor is missing from the debate: population.How could the ecosystem, already showing major signs of collapse, handle a billion consuming Americans. Few Americans want to double the size of America and then double it again. Imagine for a minute that we had taken the advice of President Nixon's Commission on Population Growth and the American Future released in 1972. n9 The Commission recommended, among other things, that America act to end illegal immigration and to freeze legal immigration at 400,000 a year. n10 The Commission found that "the health of our country does not depend on [population growth], nor does the vitality of business, nor the welfare of the average person." n11 Strong words. Wise words.Headed by John Rockefeller, the "Rockefeller Commission" strongly urged stabilizing the population of the United States and asked Americans to get over their "ideological addiction to growth." n12 America at that time had about 200 million Americans, used far less petroleum, and had a much smaller "ecological footprint" on the world environment. n13 But the nation did not listen to the Commission.

It is unfortunate that American policy makers did not listen. We have added almost 100 million Americans since the Commission's brave [*1006] and farsighted

declaration. n14 What problem in contemporary America was made better by population growth and immigration, asks Professor Al Bartlett? We now have over 300 million Americans, n15 we consume far more non-renewable resources, and our "ecological footprint" is one of the major factors in a deteriorating environment worldwide.The geometry of population growth is relentless. The first census (in 1790) found less than 4 million Europeans in America. n16 Two-hundred years later (in 1990) we had approximately 260 million Americans. n17 That means we had six doublings of the original European population (4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256). Please note that two more doublings give us over a billion people sharing America.There are a number of people who postulate that our current population of 300 million Americans is not itself sustainable, let alone 420 million or a billion. n18 Sustainability looks at the long term: Will our resources allow 300 million Americans to live a satisfying life at a decent level of living for the indefinite future? Will our children and grandchildren inherit a decent and livable America? We have not only put this question off limits, we have made it taboo.This is not an issue of immigrants, but of immigration. What possible public policy advantage would there be to an America of 500 million? Do we lack for people? Do we have too much open space? Too much park land and recreation? What will 500 million Americans mean to our environment? There are similar non-environmental questions. Do we need a larger military? Are our schools unpopulated? Do we not have enough diversity? Will we live better lives if our cities double in size? Does immigration help our health care system? Will doubling our population help us build a more fair and just America? Do you want an America of one billion people? These questions seem to answer themselves. n19 [*1007] I do not believe you can have infinite population growth in a finite world. We are living on the shoulders of some awesome geometric curves. The 2000 Census revealed how rapidly immigration is causing our population to skyrocket. The equivalent of another California has been added to the nation -- 32 million people since 1990. n20 Demographers calculate that immigration is now the determining factor in causing America's rapid population growth -- immigrants and their U.S.-born children accounted for more than two-thirds of population growth in the last decade, and will continue to account for approximately two-thirds of our future

growth. n21 Clearly, America's population "growth issue" is an immigration issue.

Overpopulations Extensions

Illegal immigrants cause overpopulation – their birth rates are disproportionate FAIR, 8- Federation for American Immigration Reform, a national, nonprofit, public-interest membership organization(Population and Environment, “Immigration and Population Growth,” updated 07-2008, www.fairus.org)

Of the United States’ total population in 2000 of 281 million people, over eleven percent (31 million) were foreign-born (which includes naturalized citizens, resident legal aliens, resident illegal aliens).1By 2006, the population had grown to 300 million, and one-in-eight (12.5%) were foreign-born residents.

The foreign-born account for a much larger share of U.S. births than their share of the population. Native-born Americans average roughly 13 births per thousand people; immigrants average roughly 28 births per thousand. As a result, the foreign-born have a disproportionate share of the births in the U.S .

According to the Census Bureau, in 2000 births to foreign-born mothers accounted for 17 percent of the births in the United States.2

[OMMITTED GRAPHS HERE]Because of this difference in fertility rates and the growing number of new immigrants every year, immigration is responsible for a disproportionate amount of U.S. population growth. Although immigrants were under ten percent of the U.S. population in the 1990s, they were responsible for 54 percent of the population growth (counting births to immigrants as immigrant births rather than as native births).2 The Census Bureau estimate of the overall U.S. population and the foreign-born population for 2006 and our estimate of the share of U.S. births attributable to immigrant mothers indicate that the share of population increase attributable to immigrants since 2000 has averaged about 75 percent of the annual population increase of about three million people.3

Illegal Immigrants increase population growthThe Christian Science Monitor 2006 (Brad Knickerbocker “For environmentalists, a growing split over immigration” May 12, 2006 http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0512/p01s04-ussc.html)

Even if they do their best to live lightly on the land, their rising numbers are a growing burden on Earth's resources. And whether they sing the "The Star-Spangled Banner" in English or in Spanish really doesn't matter.As politicians and the public heatedly debate immigration, so, too, are environmental activists.The flow of people into the United States is troubling some environmentalists for two reasons. First, more Americans means more people living in one of the world's most resource-consuming cultures. Second, there's new evidence that Hispanic women who move to the US have more children than if they stayed put."We've got to talk about these issues - population, birth rates, immigration," says Paul Watson, founder of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, which confronts whalers, seal hunters, and those who poach wildlife in the Galapagos Islands. "Immigration is one of the leading contributors to population growth . All we're saying is, those numbers should be reduced to achieve population stabilization."

Immigrants are the main cause of U.S. population increasesThe Christian Science Monitor 2006 (Brad Knickerbocker “For environmentalists, a growing split over immigration” May 12, 2006 http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0512/p01s04-ussc.html)

Yet the US population is far from stabilized, and immigrants (legal and illegal) are one of the main reasons. There are about 11 million illegal immigrants in the US today, 57 percent from Mexico, and another 24 percent from other Latin American countries, according to the Pew Hispanic Center. Of the US foreign-born population, nearly 30 percent is illegal, according to Pew.The US Census Bureau this week reported that Hispanics - the largest minority at 42.7 million - are the nation's fastest-growing group. They are 14.3 percent of the overall population, but between July 2004 and July 2005, they accounted for 49 percent of US population growth. Of the increase of 1.3 million Hispanics, the Census Bureau reported, 800,000 was because of natural increase (births minus deaths), and 500,000 was due to immigration.

Overpopulations Extensions

Immigration is the leading cause of overpopulation – contributes to urban sprawlFAIR, 2- Federation for American Immigration Reform, a national, nonprofit, public-interest membership organization(Population and Environment, “Immigration and Urban Sprawl,” updated 10-2002, www.fairus.org)

As human populations increase, they spread out and interfere with the ecosystems that are vital to the health and survival of the planet.

As our population grows it consumes more of everything—land, water, species’ habitats—while producing ever-increasing amounts of environmental waste. The United States now adds close to 2.5 million people to its population every year.1 As a result, the rate at which farmland, forests, and other open space are being developed doubled in the 1990s, from 1.4 million acres a year to 3.2 million acres a year.2

We can’t moderate population growth without reducing immigration. Immigration is the leading cause of population growth in America. Without immigration, the U.S. population would grow from today’s 288 million to 327 million by 2050—an increase of 39 million people.3 Instead, with mass immigration, the population will grow to 404 million by then—an increase of 116 million. By 2100, it will have reached 571 million—almost twice our present population.4Immigration is already contributing to urban sprawl. As immigrants pour into already crowded urban areas, native Americans are pushed out into expanding exurbs and suburbs .5 For example, secondary migration has forced Portland, Oregon—known for its commitment to containing urban sprawl—to develop 4500 acres of virgin land outside its desired borders in order to accommodate population growth.6 Since 1982, 30 million acres in the United States have been lost to development, with over 8700 acres following them every day.7Average Annual Loss of Acreage to DevelopmentAlabama 32,090 Nebraska 3,920Arizona 37,460 Nevada 8,270Arkansas 9,580 New Hampshire 14,920California 80,020 New Jersey 29,860Colorado 30,740 New Mexico16,630Connecticut 8,420 New York 22,510Delaware 3,530 North Carolina 93,580Florida 116,310 North Dakota 8,600Georgia 76,630 Ohio 46,860Hawaii 2,360 Oklahoma 15,680Idaho 8,590 Oregon 16,450Illinois 24,600 Pennsylvania 43,110Indiana 22,830 Puerto Rico 12,460Iowa 5,230 Rhode Island 2,650Kansas 11,700 South Carolina 40,010Kentucky 36,280 South Dakota 6,060Louisiana 26,320 Tennessee 44,110Maine 9,250 Texas 139,250Maryland 14,690 Utah 10,690Massachusetts 23,310 Vermont 6,490Michigan 46,230 Virginia 45,360Minnesota 23,560 Washington 28,830Mississippi 14,430 West Virginia 11,410Missouri 20,450 Wisconsin 24,760Montana 7,960 Wyoming 3,370Source: U.S Dept. of Agriculture, National Resource Inventory.Polls show that nearly everyone believes that it is necessary for the U.S. population to stop growing, but many important interests in our country have come to rely on non-stop growth. While environmentalists see a growing population as a threat to natural habitats or a cause of urban sprawl, many businesses see a growing population as an expanding customer base, particularly the housing industry.According to a 1998 analysis by the Ernst & Young Kenneth Leventhal Real Estate Group, continued immigration at its present pace would necessitate the construction of 30 million new housing units over the next 50 years.8 The short-term interests of the constituency for population growth must be weighed against the long-term interests of our nation in preserving environmental quality, open space, and natural resources.

For the sake of the environment, we must oppose immigration-driven population growth. Stopping America’s rapid population growth is necessary for the sake of the environment and for the preservation

of life for future generations. As a prime factor in the demand for new housing, construction, urban sprawl, and the consumption of natural resources, immigration must be curtailed .

Immigrants have more babies in America than they would in their own countriesThe Christian Science Monitor 2006 (Brad Knickerbocker “For environmentalists, a growing split over immigration” May 12, 2006 http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0512/p01s04-ussc.html)

Steven Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, finds that once women emigrate to the US, most tend to have more children than they would have in their home countries. "Among Mexican immigrants in the United States fertility averages 3.5 children per woman compared to 2.4 children per woman in Mexico," he wrote in a study last October. And the same is true among Chinese immigrants. Fertility is 2.3 in the US compared with 1.7 in China. However,

typically these high fertility rates decline in the successive generations as immigrants assimilate into America."New immigrants (legal and illegal) plus births to immigrants add some 2.3 million people to the United States each year," Camarota writes, "accounting for most of the nation's population increase."

Overpopulations Extensions

Alternative Casualties do not apply – immigration is the number one cause of population growth in the U.S.Staples and Cafaro, 9 – *associate professor of philosophy at Colorado State University and ** wildlife biologist at the Center for Immigration Studies, “The Environmental Argument for Reducing Immigration to the United States,” Winthrop Staples III, Philip Cafaro, http://cis.org/EnvironmentalArgument]

Defending the Argument Our claim, then, is that “the environmental argument” is sound and that America should scale back immigration. Some readers will

disagree. So let’s look at the argument in more detail. Immigration levels are at a historic high and immigration is now the main driver of U.S. population growth. Consider some demographic history. Between 1900 and 2000, the U.S. population almost quadrupled, from 76 million to 281 million people. The largest decadal population increase was also the most recent: a 32.7 million increase between 1990 and 2000.2 This population growth resulted from a mixture of natural increase and immigration, which, as Figure 1 shows, has varied widely over the past century. From 1880 to the mid-1920s, America experienced an immigration boom, “the Great Wave,” during which immigration averaged 600,000 annually. U.S. population numbers grew rapidly in these years, due to a combination of high birth rates and high levels of immigration. For the next 40 years, from 1925 to 1965, the United States had a relatively restrictive immigration policy, which allowed 200,000 people into the country annually, on average. The U.S. population grew substantially during this time, too, from 115 million to 194 million, primarily due to high rates of natural increase. During the 1950s, for example, American women had an average of 3.5 children each, far above the 2.1 total fertility rate (TFR) necessary to maintain the population of a nation with modern health care and

sanitation. By the 1970s, American women were averaging fewer babies — in 1975 the TFR stood at a lowest-ever 1.7 — and the United States was well-positioned to transition from a growing to a stable population. One study found that without post-1970 immigration, the U.S. population would have leveled off below 250 million in the first few decades of this century.3 It didn’t happen, however, because in 1965 and several times thereafter, Congress greatly increased

immigration levels. Between 1965 and 1990, immigration averaged one million people annually — five times the average in the previous four decades. Since 1990, immigration has increased even more, to approximately 1.5 million annually (one million legal and half a

million illegal) — the highest rate in history. For these reasons, the United States population has continued to grow, resulting in a missed opportunity to get one key aspect of sustainability — human numbers — under control. Currently our population stands at over 306 million people, and it continues to grow rapidly. Such is our demographic past; what of our demographic future? The Grand Council of the Iroquois famously looked “seven generations” out concerning the impacts of their decisions. Looking four generations into the future, in 2000 the U.S. Census Bureau released the population projections in Table 1. Each of the three projections or “series” holds fertility rates steady, while varying immigration levels, so annual immigration rates make the main difference between them. Under the zero immigration projection, the U.S. population continues to grow throughout the 21st century, adding over 100 million people by 2100. Under the middle projection, with immigration a little less than one million annually, we instead add nearly 300 million people and almost double our population by 2100. And under the highest scenario, with over two million immigrants annually, our population nearly triples by 2100, adding almost 600 million more people by the end of the century. Obviously, according to the Census Bureau, immigration makes a huge difference to future U.S. population numbers.4 So our first premise is true.

Too much immigration destroys the environment and causes overpopulationStaples and Cafaro, 9 – *associate professor of philosophy at Colorado State Universtiy and ** wildlife biologist at the Center for Immigration Studies, “The Environmental Argument for Reducing Immigration to the United States,” Winthrop Staples III, Philip Cafaro, http://cis.org/EnvironmentalArgument]

The environmental argument for reducing immigration to the United States is relatively straightforward and is based on the following five premises: Immigration levels are at a historic high and immigration is now the main driver of U.S. population growth. Population growth contributes significantly to a host of environmental problems within our borders. A growing population increases America’s large environmental footprint beyond our borders and our disproportionate role in stressing global environmental systems. In order to seriously address environmental problems at home and become good global environmental citizens, we must stop U.S. population growth. We are morally obligated to address our environmental problems and become good global environmental citizens. Therefore, we should limit immigration to the United States to the extent needed

to stop U.S. population growth. This conclusion rests on a straightforward commitment to mainstream environmentalism, easily confirmed empirical premises, and logic. Despite this, it is not the consensus position among American environmentalists. Some environmentalists support continued high levels of immigration, while most are uncomfortable with the topic and avoid discussing it. So strong is this aversion that groups such as the Sierra Club, which during the 1970s prominently featured strong commitments to U.S. population stabilization, have dropped domestic population growth as an issue.1 Several years ago, the group Zero Population Growth went so far as to change its name to Population Connection (“PC” for short). In 2006, the United States passed the 300 million mark in population — that’s 95 million more people than were here for the first Earth Day in 1970 — with little comment from environmentalists. In 2007, as Congress debated the first major overhaul of immigration policy in nearly 20 years, leaders from the principal environmental organizations remained silent about proposals that could have added hundreds of millions more Americans during the 21st century. Like immigration policy for the past 50 years, immigration policy for the next 50 looks likely to be set with no regard for its environmental consequences. We believe this is a bad thing. As committed environmentalists, we would like to see our government set immigration policy (and all government policy) within the context of a commitment to sustainability. We don’t believe that the goals we share with our fellow environmentalists and with a large majority of our fellow citizens — clean air and clean water; livable, uncrowded cities; sharing the land with the full complement of its native flora and fauna — are compatible with continued population growth. It is time to rein in this growth — or forthrightly renounce the hope of living sustainably here in the United States.

Overpopulation Kills the Economy

Population growth can only hurt the economy at this point Staples and Cafaro, 9 – *associate professor of philosophy at Colorado State University and ** wildlife biologist at the Center for Immigration Studies, “The Environmental Argument for Reducing Immigration to the United States,” Winthrop Staples III, Philip Cafaro, http://cis.org/EnvironmentalArgument]

On the other hand, focusing on whether mass immigration is “good for the economy” ignores the fact that any immigration policy creates economic winners and losers. According to Harvard economist George Borjas, “immigration induces a substantial redistribution of wealth, away from workers who compete with immigrants and toward employers and other users of immigrant services.”34 This is because, compared to other industrialized nations, the United States imports a much higher percentage of less-educated, lower-skilled workers. Borjas notes that “between 1980 and 1995, immigration increased the number of high school dropouts by 21 percent and the number of high school graduates by only 4 percent.” During this same period, the wage disparity between these two groups increased 11 percent, with perhaps half of that disparity a result of mass immigration.35 Borjas calculates that between 1980 and 2000, immigration reduced the average annual earnings of high school dropouts by 7.4 percent, or $1,800 on an average salary of $25,000.36 For these workers, who could least afford it, real wages actually declined during this period. While the economic effects of immigration are complex and the details are open to debate, it appears that over the past few decades high immigration levels have contributed to increased economic growth, lower wages for the poorest Americans, and an increase in economic inequality in the United States. Continued high levels of immigration will likely further these trends. Far from strengthening the case for continued mass immigration, these effects provide three additional reasons to oppose it. First, an immigration policy that benefits rich citizens (who hire immigrants) at the expense of poor citizens (who compete with them) seems prima facie unjust.37 If Americans want to help poor foreigners, we should not do so on the backs of our own poor citizens. (Liberal proponents of mass immigration are as loath to accept its effects on workers’ wages as they are to accept its demographic and environmental effects. But this is willed ignorance. After all, trade groups representing landscapers and restaurant owners lobby for increased immigration precisely because it allows their members to hire workers for less money.) Second, accepting greater economic inequality in exchange for greater overall wealth seems a foolish trade-off for Americans today. We are already wealthy enough to provide for our real needs and reasonable desires. Further wealth when combined with greater inequality is a recipe for frustration, envy, and social tension. Third, mass immigration’s contribution to economic growth, far from being a net good, gives environmentalists their most important reason to oppose it. Human economic activity is the primary driver of ecological degradation. Future generations are going to have to reject the paradigm of an ever-growing economy and instead develop a sustainable economy that respects ecological limits.38 The sooner we get cracking on this, the better. Here in the United States, economic and demographic “growthism” are intimately intertwined — yet another reason why American environmentalists cannot ignore domestic population issues. We contend, then, that economic considerations also support our immigration policy proposal — on a proper understanding of “economy.” Eighty-five years ago, in a talk to the Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce (which he once headed), Aldo Leopold asked: “What, concretely, is our ambition as a city? ‘100,000 by 1930’ — we have blazoned it forth like an army with banners…. Can anyone deny that the vast fund of time, brains, and money now devoted to making our city big would actually make it better if diverted to betterment instead of bigness?” Civic-mindedness may be a force for good, Leopold added, but went on to ask his “boosters,” somewhat plaintively: “Is it too much to hope that this force,

harnessed to a finer ideal, may some day accomplish good as well as big things? That our future standard of civic values may even exclude quantity, obtained at the expense of quality, as not worth while?”39 No, this is not too much to hope. Without such a society-wide “revaluation of economic values,” environmentalism will not succeed. We must redefine “the good life” in less materialistic terms and create economies designed to sustain a finite number of such good lives — not to grow indefinitely. These are daunting tasks, but they are not optional for serious environmentalists. In America, where we habitually mistake bigness for goodness and quantity for quality, these tasks are even more urgent. And as Leopold understood, population growth is an important part of the overall picture.

Water Shortages Impact

Population growth caused by illegal immigration leads to severe water shortages and water pollutionFAIR, 3- Federation for American Immigration Reform, a national, nonprofit, public-interest membership organization(Population and Environment, “Immigration & U.S. Water Supply,” updated 10-2003, www.fairus.org)

Water shortages, which used to be limited to the dry western states, are now a problem throughout the U.S. Even regions that once seemed to have limitless supplies of water are facing predictions of shortages within a few years and are imposing water restrictions on residents.As our water supply strains under the constantly increasing demands generated by population growth, ground water is being pumped faster than it is being replenished. Underground aquifers, the source of about 60 percent of the U.S.'s fresh water, are being depleted, and surface water in lakes and rivers is endangered by our increasing population demands. Many towns are halting development because of a lack of affordable fresh water.U.S. Geological Survey associate director Robert M. Hirsch says that some parts of the country are depleting water that has been around since the Ice Age. Several major Southwest cities, such as El Paso, San Antonio, and Albuquerque, face water crises in ten to 20 years.Because immigration is responsible for two-thirds of U.S. population growth, it plays a key role in our growing water crisis.As immigration adds more than one million people to our population each year, demands for water increase drastically. And with immigration set to add tens of millions of additional people to our population by 2050, the problem will only get worse.In addition to its impact on water supply, immigration-driven population growth also means greater water pollution. Thirty-four percent of American coastal waters cannot support aquatic life and 33 percent are considered unacceptable for human use, according to a recent study by the Environmental Protection Agency. Of 1,444 costal beaches examined nationwide, 370 have been closed or issued a contamination advisory at least once in 1999.1

Environment Extensions

Immigration is the major cause of U.S. population growth – this destroys the environment FAIR, 8- Federation for American Immigration Reform, a national, nonprofit, public-interest membership organization(Population and Environment, “Immigration and Population Growth,” updated 07-2008, www.fairus.org)

Immigration-Driven Population Growth is Straining Our Environment and Quality of Life.From 1990 to 2006, the United States population grew by 50.5 million people—an unprecedented 20.3 percent increase. In town after town throughout the U.S., communities are finding that population growth is overcrowding schools, clogging roads, swallowing up open space, taxing the environment, and raising the cost of living for all.The key to population stability is arriving at “replacement rate” fertility—a balance between births and deaths and zero-net immigration—a balance between immigration and emigration. In fact, Americans did achieve replacement rate fertility in the early 1970s. Yet our population hasn’t leveled off, and it isn’t expected to begin to level off. Why? Because of the extraordinarily high rates of immigration that our national leaders have allowed from both legal and illegal flows.Immigration is the driving force behind U.S. population growth. It now adds more than one million people—the equivalent of an additional Rhode Island—to our population every year.As our population grows, demands for resources increase; increased pollution, deforestation, waste, habitat destruction, and soil erosion are the result. America’s environmental priorities can’t be reconciled with the new infrastructure and resource consumption that continued population growth will require. Resources like water and energy are straining under the constantly increasing demand. America’s sprawling urban areas are encroaching on fragile coastal wetlands and paving over farmland at alarming rates. And if you think roads are congested now, what will it be like with tens of millions of more drivers on the roads?Where We’re HeadedToday, U.S. population has reached more than 300 million. The Census Bureau projects that if current immigration levels continue, our population will increase to 404 million by 2050. That’s 104 million additional people needing schools, jobs, and housing—as well as water and other precious natural resources. FAIR’s population projection done later (March 20064) found the U.S. population headed for between 443 and 460 million in 2050 or even higher if immigration is again increased.

Immigrants consume more natural resources when they immigrate to the USFAIR, 2- Federation for American Immigration Reform, a national, nonprofit, public-interest membership organization (Population and Environment, “How Immigration Hastens Destruction of the Environment,” updated 10-2002, www.fairus.org)

Environment degradationThe rate of environmental degradation is the speed at which a person does damage to the environment through consumption of its resources. Most immigrants to the United States come from less technologically advanced countries. Because of the lifestyles of those countries, their people tend to

consume and damage the earth’s resources more slowly; that is, they have a low rate of environment degradation.How it increases when immigrants come to the United StatesWhen immigrants come to the United States, they do not maintain the old lifestyle of their home country. They begin to adapt to the American lifestyle. As they do, they become greater consumers and damagers of natural resources; their individual rate of environment degradation increases.For example, the rate at which the average immigrant uses up freshwater is sixty-three percent higher than the rate at which he would have been using it up at home. On the back page is a chart of how much higher the average immigrant’s individual rate of environment degradation is than those who remain in the home country.

Environment Extensions

Immigrants bad for the environmentLegal Citizens of America 2007 (“Illegal immigration is bad for the environment.” http://www.geocities.com/legalcitizens/notgreen.pdf)

Legal migration to the U.S. can be controlled, is necessary for our future growth, and it’s welcomed by all Americans. Its effects can be managed, and we can slowly adapt to newcomers and constantly assess our growing needs and the effect they will have on our resources. But illegal immigration is by its nature uncontrolled, explosive and dangerous to our environment. Here are Five Reasons Why: 1. Explosive Population Growth Is Not Sustainable Illegal Immigration at the current rate is not sustainable. How many people can the United States support? We stand at 300 million (plus 12-20 million here illegally.) Can we support 350 million? 400 million? A half billion? Native-born Americans had slowed population growth by the 1980s, only to see illegal and legal immigration spike since then. We are in danger of reversing that trend towards sustainability. 2. Illegal Immigration Causes a Drain on Water Resources How many resources will we have to devour to support a rapidly growing illegal population? When population growth explodes, so does the need for food, and the need for land to grow it. Turning deserts into farmland is possible due to modern technology, but water resources are finite, and in some western states, are already at the limit. We need to do all we can to limit explosive growth that put demands on our water resources, or we won’t have them. 3. Illegal Immigration Creates Urban Sprawl Explosive urban growth has occurred in the past decade, causing cities to bulge out into suburbs, which themselves are spreading rapidly. Demographics show that this is caused by overpopulation, and almost all population growth has been caused by immigration. Illegal immigration is an increasingly higher percentage of that immigration. More and more housing projects, fewer and fewer trees. When will it end? 4. Illegal Immigrants are Less Likely to Be Green Just as Western Nations are more likely to push for tighter environmental controls on factories and other polluters, legal citizens care more about their environment, often because they are better off financially and have a greater sense of well being. The converse is also true. Those nations which are living in poverty have fewer “Green” resources and are less likely to employ them in their desperate daily quest for survival. The same is true for illegal immigrants, many living in poverty. 5. Companies that Hire Illegal Immigrants Couldn’t Care Less for the Environment If a company is hiring illegals, does it care about them? The fact is, companies who care only about the bottom line so much that they will hire those it can easily underpay and exploit show contempt for labor regulations. Do you trust them to care about environmental regulations, either?

Moral Obligation to Protect Environment Outweighs ***

We have a greater responsibility to protect the environment for future generations than we have to allow immigrationStaples and Cafaro, 9 – *associate professor of philosophy at Colorado State Universtiy and ** wildlife biologist at the Center for Immigration Studies, “The Environmental Argument for Reducing Immigration to the United States,” Winthrop Staples III, Philip Cafaro, http://cis.org/EnvironmentalArgument]

Environmentalists also worry that increasing human numbers will rob future generations of their right to enjoy a healthy environment with its full complement of native species. As your authors watch increasing numbers of people displace wildlife along Colorado’s Front Range, we recall a rueful passage from Henry Thoreau’s journal, as he reflected on his own Concord landscape: When I consider that the nobler animals have been exterminated here, I cannot but feel as if I lived in a tamed, and, as it were, emasculated country . . . I take infinite pains to know the phenomena of the spring, thinking that I have here the entire poem, and then, to my chagrin, I hear that it is but an imperfect copy that I possess and have read, that my ancestors have torn out many of the first leaves and grandest passages, and mutilated it in many places.24We believe that like Thoreau, our descendants will “wish to know an entire heaven and an entire Earth.” Since a growing population undermines the right of future Americans to enjoy a safe, clean environment and to know and explore wild nature, we must reject a general right to freely immigrate into the United States. For American environmentalists, the interests of nonhuman nature, the right and responsibility of self-government, and our concern for future generations, all come together in our efforts to create a sustainable society. Because we take this responsibility seriously and because it cannot be achieved without stopping America’s population growth, we must reject a general right to immigrate into the United States. Please note: this discussion does not deny the importance of human rights. It presupposes them. Rights allow us to protect important human interests and create egalitarian societies that maximize opportunities for people to flourish. We believe rights are justified ultimately because they contribute to such human flourishing. But when rights are pressed so far as to undermine human or nonhuman flourishing, they should be rejected. Moral Arguments: Welfare. Even if no general right to immigrate exists, however, there might still be good moral reasons for upholding the permissive immigration status quo. Consider the following welfare-based argument. Approximately one and a half million people immigrate into the United States each year, and clearly the majority believe they will improve their own or their families’ welfare by doing so. Otherwise they wouldn’t come. Immigrants may find educational, vocational, or other personal opportunities in the United States that they would otherwise be denied. Immigrants coming from some countries may significantly improve their own or their families’ health and longevity. All else being equal, the potential improvements in would-be immigrants’ welfare seem to make a powerful argument for continuing to allow mass immigration. Of course, all else is not equal, as we have already shown. Whatever may once have been the case, today continued mass immigration into the United States threatens the very existence of many nonhuman beings and species. It compromises future generations’ right to a decent environment, both here and abroad. It makes it easier for common citizens and wealthy elites in other countries to ignore the conditions that are driving so many people to emigrate in the first place. In addition, economists have shown that mass immigration drives down the wages of working-class Americans and increases economic inequality in the United States.26 For all these reasons, the “welfare” argument does not make a convincing case for continuing high levels of

immigration. Indeed, we believe current high immigration levels are so harmful to the welfare of nonhuman beings and poor Americans, that our immigration policy is unjust toward those two groups.27

A2: Tech Solves

Technology can’t solve- their evidence is based on faulty claims and ends up limiting our ability to deal with current issuesStaples and Cafaro, 9 – *associate professor of philosophy at Colorado State Universtiy and ** wildlife biologist at the Center for Immigration Studies, “The Environmental Argument for Reducing Immigration to the United States,” Winthrop Staples III, Philip Cafaro, http://cis.org/EnvironmentalArgument]

Clearly premises two and three are true: U.S. population growth contributes seriously to both domestic and global environmental problems. Can we go further, and state that reining in population growth is essential to environmental success? Yes, we can. In order to seriously address environmental problems at home and become good global environmental citizens, we must stop U.S. population growth. It is of course possible to spin out scenarios in which America’s population doubles, triples, or quadruples, and yet we still manage, through miracles of technological creativity or ethical self-sacrifice, to become ecologically sustainable. Perhaps, as techie magazines like Discover and Wired periodically suggest, we may begin building farms in high rises and let the rest of the landscape return to nature. Perhaps Americans will start taking seriously Jesus’ sayings about the unimportance of wealth and material possessions, and focus instead on what is really important in life (“for where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.”) Meanwhile, back in the real world, such scenarios are implausible. They are therefore morally suspect as a basis for action (or inaction). Given the difficulties of getting 300 million Americans to curb their consumption, there is no reason to think we will be able to achieve sustainability with two or three times as many Americans. (Indeed, there are good reasons to think that 300 million Americans is already much too high. For example, scientists David and Marcia Pimentel suggest a U.S. population of 40 to 100 million might be truly sustainable, given the right environmental policies and consumption levels.15) Environmentalists sometimes assume an infinite elasticity in our ability to reduce environmentally harmful consumption. This might have made sense 30 years ago, when our paradigm for such consumption was burning leaded gasoline or spraying deodorants that contained ozone-depleting CFCs. We could spend some money, remove lead or CFCs from those particular products, and continue happily consuming, minus the negative environmental effects. Today, as human beings cook the earth and cause the sixth great extinction episode in our planet’s history, we measure environmentally harmful consumption in terms of our carbon footprints and the hectares of land necessary to sustain our consumption choices (land which is then not available as habitat for other species). Such personal impacts can and should be reduced. But because carbon emissions and basic resource use are implicated in almost all our consumption acts, they cannot be reduced to zero. As the cost of greener substitutes increases, the general public and then environmentalists themselves refuse to pay them. As we move beyond changing consumption patterns in ways that perhaps more efficiently provide the benefits people want, and instead ask them to reduce consumption of goods and services that they desire or enjoy, sustainability becomes a much harder sell. American environmentalists need to remember that future consumption levels will be set both by government policies and by many billions of individual consumption decisions. These policies and decisions will be made not just by environmentalists, but also by people who are relatively unmoved by environmental considerations. Any reasonable scenario for creating a sustainable society must take this into account. Furthermore, even environmentalists tend to fade to a lighter shade of green when consuming less would seriously harm what we consider our quality of life. Take us, for example. Your authors are serious environmentalists. One of us bicycles to work every day and recently spent tens of thousands of dollars to retrofit his house

with a state-of-the-art heating system. The other lives in a small apartment with few extraneous possessions and has spent much of the last few decades working to protect endangered wildlife. Still, we drive our cars, when that is necessary or convenient. We eat fairly conventional diets. We occasionally fly on airplanes to visit relatives or attend scholarlyre conferences. We might be willing to do without some of these amenities, in order to help create a sustainable society. Still, there are limits . . . and we suspect that long before we reach ours, our fellow citizens will have reached theirs.

A2: Other Countries

Other countries don’t matter because the US’s environmental impact per capita is higherThe Christian Science Monitor 2006 (Brad Knickerbocker “For environmentalists, a growing split over immigration” May 12, 2006 http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0512/p01s04-ussc.html)

Though China and India have much larger populations, the US has the highest population growth rate of all developed countries. Also, experts say, Americans on average have greater environmental impact. The equation for this is I = PAT (Impact = Population x Affluence x Technology), with such impact being the main thing determining whether an area's "carrying capacity" has been exceeded.Harvard University ecologist Edward Wilson figures that the "ecological footprint" - which he defined in a Scientific American article in 2002 as "the average amount of productive land and shallow sea appropriated by each person in bits and pieces from around the world for food, water, housing, energy, transportation, commerce, and waste absorption" - is about 5 acres per person worldwide. In the US,each individual's ecological footprint is about 24 acres, according to Dr. Wilson."Our responsibility for pollution and resource use is all out of proportion to our numbers," says Alan Kuper, a retired physicist in Cleveland and founder of Comprehensive US Sustainable Population. The group publishes a "Congressional Environmental Scorecard" on lawmakers' votes about conservation, consumption, and population, including immigration. "It's not a matter of where or how people come, it's the growth that we have to be concerned with," says Dr. Kuper. "If you're going to be an environmentalist, you have to be concerned about the numbers as well as the usual issues - public lands, energy, pollution, and so forth - because the numbers will just wipe you out."

Environmental impacts from immigration spill over globally – global warming proves Staples and Cafaro, 9 – *associate professor of philosophy at Colorado State Universtiy and ** wildlife biologist at the Center for Immigration Studies, “The Environmental Argument for Reducing Immigration to the United States,” Winthrop Staples III, Philip Cafaro, http://cis.org/EnvironmentalArgument]

A growing population increases America’s large environmental footprint beyond our borders and our disproportionate role in stressing global environmental systems. Consider global warming. Nothing mortifies American environmentalists more than our country’s failure to show leadership in dealing with this, the most important environmental challenge facing the world in the 21st century . As the world’s largest

economy and historically largest greenhouse gas emitter, the United States has a moral obligation to lead the world in meeting this challenge. A good start would be striving to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions at 1990 levels (the Kyoto protocol, rejected

by the United States, calls for an initial reduction of 5 percent below 1990 levels). Meeting even this modest objective will prove difficult, however, if our population continues to grow. Look at the numbers . The United States’ CO2 emissions increased 20.4 percent between 1990 and 2005, from 4,991 to 6,009 million metric tons.10 That means we would have to decrease our emissions by 20.4 percent per person to get back to 1990 levels, at our current population. But if we double our population, as we are on track to do in six or seven decades, we will have to decrease per capita emissions 58.5 percent in order to reduce CO2 emissions to 1990 levels — almost three times as great a per capita reduction. Such reductions will be much more expensive and demand greater sacrifice from Americans. They are thus less likely to happen. “Hold on a minute,” critics may respond. “We can and should cut our carbon emissions 60 percent or even more. The technologies exist and America is wealthy enough to meet our moral obligation to address global warming. The problem, above all, is Americans’ hoggish overconsumption.” We agree.11 Limiting consumption must play an important role in addressing global warming. American environmentalists should work to enact policies that reduce our fossil fuel consumption as much as possible. Such policies should include increased taxes on fossil fuels, redirecting transportation funding from highway construction to mass transit, heavy subsidies for wind and solar power, large increases in auto fuel standards, improved building codes that reduce the energy needed for heating and cooling, and more. However, re-engineering the world’s largest economy and

changing the consumption patterns of hundreds of millions of people are immense undertakings that will be difficult, expensive and (we may assume) only partly successful. Al Gore has stated that global warming is “the

moral challenge of our time;” many of us agree with him. But if Americans are serious about doing our part to limit global warming, the “multiplier effect” of population growth is too important to ignore. Again, look at the numbers. Between 1990 and 2003, U.S. per capita CO2 emissions increased 3.2 percent, while total U.S. CO2 emissions increased 20.2 percent.12 Why the discrepancy? During that same period, America’s population increased 16.1 percent.13 More people drove more cars, built more houses, etc. Population growth greatly increased total emissions, and it is total emissions, not per capita emissions, that quantify our full contribution to global warming. Before we go on, please note: we do not claim that by itself, halting U.S. population growth will solve sprawl, or meet our global warming responsibilities. On the contrary, Americans must reduce our per capita consumption of land and energy in order to meet these challenges. On the other hand, the evidence clearly shows that recent population growth has increased Americans’ total land and energy consumption and made these problems even worse. Americans must address both overconsumption and overpopulation if we hope to create a sustainable society and contribute to a sustainable world.14

A2: Other Countries

Overpopulation in the U.S. spill over globally. Action on the local and global level is key.Staples and Cafaro, 9 – *associate professor of philosophy at Colorado State Universtiy and ** wildlife biologist at the Center for Immigration Studies, “The Environmental Argument for Reducing Immigration to the United States,” Winthrop Staples III, Philip Cafaro, http://cis.org/EnvironmentalArgument]

Another argument made by many American environmentalists is that overpopulation is important, but that it is a global, not national issue that can only be solved through international action. The world’s population increased by 76 million people in 2006 and 95 percent of that increase occurred in the developing world. Rather than cutting immigration to keep our own population from growing, they argue, we should fund family planning overseas. We should provide more foreign aid, and redirect trade and other government policies to help the poor, so fewer of them will feel compelled to leave their countries in order to live decent lives. If we do these things, we will act humanely and help both poor people and the environment. Before analyzing this argument, we should pause for a moment to appreciate its oddity. No one argues: “Deforestation is a global problem, therefore we shouldn’t worry about deforestation in our own country, or on the local landscape.” Or: “Species loss is a global problem, therefore we should fund species protection efforts elsewhere, to the exclusion of efforts where we live.” Those who care about deforestation or species extinction often work especially hard to prevent them in the places they know best, and are applauded for doing so. Besides, “global” efforts to halt deforestation and species loss are largely a summing up of local and national efforts focused on particular forests and species. This is how environmentalism works, when it works. Advocates for an exclusively global approach to overpopulation owe us explanations for why this one issue should play out differently and how it could play out differently, while still leading to environmentally acceptable results. But no such arguments are forthcoming, and none seem remotely plausible. Comforting as it is, the “globalist” argument fails, partly because it mischaracterizes overpopulation, which in fact can occur at various scales. It makes sense to say: “The world is overpopulated; we do not know whether essential global ecosystem services can be sustained at these numbers over the long haul.” But it also makes sense to say: “Tokyo is overpopulated; its sidewalks, streets and trains are so crowded that there is no room to move.” Or: “Nigeria is overpopulated; its population is so large and is growing so fast that it has trouble providing jobs for its young adults, or building sufficient water and sewer facilities for its cities.” And just as Tokyo’s citizens may try to alleviate local air pollution and Nigeria’s citizens may try to protect their remnant forests, so they may try to address local or national overpopulation. After all, they will have to live directly with their failure to do so and they cannot wait for the world to solve all its problems before they act to solve their own. Returning to the United States, a strong case can be made that we are overpopulated right now. Signs of stressed ecosystems and lost biodiversity abound. Certainly we have not yet found a way to bring air and water pollution within limits acceptable to human health, nor have we stemmed the loss of productive farmlands and wildlife habitat, nor have we recovered more than a handful of the hundreds of species we have endangered. And as we have seen when considering global warming, a large and growing population also makes it much harder for Americans to live up to our environmental responsibilities as global citizens. Let us be clear: Advocates for international action are correct that wealthy countries should help poor countries stabilize their populations. However, “think globally, don’t act locally” is terrible advice. It is possible and necessary to work on multiple levels at once. We can make more generous contributions to the United Nations

Population Fund and cut back on national immigration levels and limit local building permits. Efforts at one level and in one place can only strengthen efforts at other levels and in other places. Meanwhile, population growth is a problem in America right now. If you live in the United States, the chances are good that your community is threatened by environmentally damaging development that is being caused (or justified, in the planning stages) by population growth.

Diseases Impact – 2ac

Immigrants spread several deadly diseasesWalsh 2006- former federal prosecutor and associate general counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service (James H., “Illegal Aliens' Impact on Public Health and Environment” May 9 2006 http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/5/8/230000.shtml)

The men, women, and children who are sneaking across the border into the United States do so without medical inspection, which in itself is a criminal offense and a public health travesty.Unexamined, they are free to spread out through the country carrying any infectious diseases they may have. In the past, when Europeans made up the majority of immigrants in the United States, each person who sought to enter the country was subject to a health examination. Those diagnosed with an unacceptable health condition were immediately returned to their port of origin.They were allowed no elongated appeal process, no asylum claims, no refugee provisions, and no street demonstrations demanding entitlements and decrying any effort to secure U.S. borders.Section 212 of the 1954 Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182) defined the classes of aliens ineligible for visas or admission into the United States.The Public Health Service Act as amended (42 U.S.C., Section 264) authorized the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to make and enforce regulations necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries.The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and its various divisions are the protectors of U.S. borders with regard to diseases.The CDC Division of Global Migration and Quarantine (DGMQ) is the agency that has the mission to enforce measures to stop the introduction, transmission, and spread of diseases from outside the United States. Executive Order 13295, April 4, 2003, signed by President George Bush, sets forth that regulations for the apprehension and detention of individuals to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of suspected communicable diseases.These include cholera, diphtheria, tuberculosis (TB), plague, leprosy, smallpox, malaria (yellow fever), and viral

hemorrhagic fevers. Among these fevers are Lassa, Marburg, Eboli, Crimea-Congo, South American, and others not yet

isolated or named. Add to these, SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) and sexually transmitted diseases (STD),

among them HIV/AIDS.Vaccine preventable diseases include mumps, measles, rubella, polio, influenza type B, and hepatitis B. All of the listed diseases have been introduced and transmitted into the United States.

Infectious Diseases Risk ExtinctionSouth China Morning Post, 96 (Kavita Daswani, “Leading the way to a cure for AIDS”, 1-4, L/N)

Despite the importance of the discovery of the "facilitating" cell, it is not what Dr Ben-Abraham wants to talk about. There is a much more pressing medical crisis at hand - one he believes the world must be alerted to: the possibility of a virus deadlier than HIV.If this makes Dr Ben-Abraham sound like a prophet of doom, then he makes no apology for it. AIDS, the Ebola outbreak which killed

more than 100 people in Africa last year, the flu epidemic that has now affected 200,000 in the former Soviet Union - they are all, according to Dr Ben-Abraham, the "tip of the iceberg".Two decades of intensive study and research in the field of virology have convinced him of one thing: in place of natural and man-made disasters or nuclear warfare, humanity could face extinction because of a single virus, deadlier than HIV.

"An airborne virus is a lively, complex and dangerous organism," he said. "It can come from a rare animal or from anywhere and can mutate constantly. If there is no cure, it affects one person and then there is a chain reaction and it is unstoppable. It is a tragedy waiting to happen."That may sound like a far-fetched plot for a Hollywood film, but Dr Ben -Abraham said history has already proven his theory.

Fifteen years ago, few could have predicted the impact of AIDS on the world. Ebola has had sporadic outbreaks

over the past 20 years and the only way the deadly virus - which turns internal organs into liquid - could be contained was

because it was killed before it had a chance to spread. Imagine, he says, if it was closer to home: an outbreak of

that scale in London, New York or Hong Kong. It could happen anytime in the next 20 years - theoretically, it could happen tomorrow.The shock of the AIDS epidemic has prompted virus experts to admit "that something new is indeed happening and that the threat of a deadly viral outbreak is imminent", said Joshua Lederberg of the Rockefeller University in New

York, at a recent conference. He added that the problem was "very serious and is getting worse".Dr Ben-Abraham said: "Nature isn't benign. The survival of the human species is not a preordained evolutionary programme. Abundant sources of genetic variation exist for viruses to learn how to mutate and evade the immune system."He cites the 1968 Hong Kong flu outbreak as an example of how viruses have outsmarted human intelligence. And as new "mega-cities" are being developed in the Third World and rainforests are destroyed, disease-carrying animals and insects are forced into areas of human habitation. "This raises the very real possibility that lethal, mysterious viruses would, for the first time, infect humanity at a large scale and imperil the survival of the human race," he said.

Disease Extensions

Immigrants carry typhoid into the countryWalsh 2006- former federal prosecutor and associate general counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service(James H., “Illegal Aliens' Impact on Public Health and Environment” May 9 2006 http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/5/8/230000.shtml)

Researchers at the National Institutes of Health determined that recent outbreaks of typhoid have been attributed to food handlers who had recently emigrated from countries where the disease is common. The CDC and the pharmaceutical companies that supply vaccines estimate some 2,000 typhoid carriers are present in the United States at any given time. No data is available on the number of carriers who are illegal aliens.

Terrorism Impact – 2ac

Illegal immigration spurs terrorismMalkin, 2- Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute(Michelle Malkin, “The Wall Street Journal: bordering on idiocy,” 03-22-2002, http://townhall.com/columnists/MichelleMalkin/2002/03/22/the_wall_street_journal_bordering_on_idiocy)

What does combating illegal immigration have to do with combating Middle Eastern terrorists in America? Well, duh. Let's review: Three of the 19 Sept. 11 hijackers were illegal visa overstayers. Seven of the 19 obtained fraudulent ID cards with the help of illegal alien day laborers in Virginia. Two of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers were illegal aliens. At least two bin Laden-linked bomb plotters attempted to cross illegally through our land borders. More than 115,000 people from Middle Eastern countries are here illegally. More than 1,000 of them were smuggled through Mexico by convicted global crime ringleader George Tajirian. And some 6,000 Middle Eastern men who have defied deportation orders remain on the loose. The connection between illegal immigration reform and homeland security is now fantastically obvious to most Americans, but the loose-and-open borders crowd is as blind and dumb as ever. Leading the senseless is the Wall Street Journal editorial page, which I admired in the past for its stalwart promotion of the rule of law and abhorrence of race-card demagoguery. On March 18, the paper betrayed both principles with disturbing flippancy. "So Atta got his visa. That's no reason to kick out Mexican workers," pooh-poohed an online summary of an editorial titled "Immigrants and Terrorists." In it, the Journal's unrepentant open borders proponents approve of bipartisan efforts -- foolishly embraced by President Bush and favored by Mexican president Vicente Fox -- to extend partial amnesty to hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens who have been in the country since 1998. The so-called 245(i) provision of federal immigration law will allow illegal aliens who have found employer or family sponsors to obtain visas in the U.S. for a $1,000 fee, instead of being forced to return home -- where consular offices would thoroughly scrutinize their native criminal records before approving applications. The 245(i) program would also allow these applicants to bypass a 1996 federal law barring illegal aliens from re-entering the U.S. for up to 10 years. The manner in which the Bush administration initially attempted to ram this proposal through -- by a stealth "cloaked" vote -- was cravenly Clintonesque. But not a peep of complaint was heard from the Journal on that. Instead, the editorial board lambasted principled conservative critics of 245(i) such as Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., for "scapegoating" Mexicans who "bus tables." Drop the Jesse Jackson imitation, guys. This isn't just about innocent Mexican bus boys. The amnesty would be extended to any law-breaking alien from any country who can hustle up an American employer or "spouse" and pay a good immigration lawyer to cook up an eligibility claim. Section 245(i) is not a family values plan. It is a law-enforcement evasion plan. The Journal says it doesn't want to overburden consular offices abroad. But what about the dangerous bureaucratic onslaught this program is causing here at home? As we have seen in the past, amnesty is an open invitation for marriage fraud, document fraud, endless litigation, and swamped adjudications offices. It is also a known loophole for terrorists. At least one al Qaeda-linked operative, convicted in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing plot, obtained amnesty through a program intended for farm workers. Who knows how many more are now lurking among us as amnestied American citizens? The Journal editorial board and its ilk perpetuate a perilous myth -- that we can continue to reward "good" illegal immigrants streaming across the borders while keeping the "bad" illegal immigrants out. "There's always a chance that terrorist cells lie dormant among these folks," the Journal concedes. But even after the heinous murder of 3,000 people in its backyard at the hands of these sleepers who slipped through, the New York-based paper is far more concerned about not wanting to "upend the lives of Mexican nannies in San Diego." This takes the cake. While the Wall Street Journal editors and their border-crashing allies remain obsessed with protecting illegal Mexican workers from the slightest inconvenience, the lives of countless American soldiers and their families across the country have been "upended" in the war on terror to ensure that we remain a safe and sovereign nation. Which side are our friends at the Journal on, anyway?

ExtinctionWright 7 – New America Foundation senior fellow (Robert, 4/28, Planet Of The Apes, http://select.nytimes.com/2007/04/28/opinion/28wright.html, AG) 

(3) Terrorism. Alas, the negative-feedback loop -- bad outcomes lead to smart policies -- may not apply here. We reacted to 9/11 by freaking out and invading one too many countries, creating more terrorists. With the ranks of terrorists growing -- amid evolving biotechnology and loose nukes -- we could within a decade see terrorism on a scale that would make us forget any restraint we had learned from the Iraq war's outcome. If 3,000 deaths led to two wars, how many wars would 300,000 deaths yield? And how many new terrorists? Terrorism alone won't wipe out humanity. But with our unwitting help, it could strengthen other lethal forces. It could give weight to the initially fanciful ''clash of civilizations'' thesis. Muslim states could fall under the control of radicals and opt out of what might otherwise have become a global civilization. Armed with nukes (Pakistan already is), they would revive the nuclear Armageddon scenario. A fissure between civilizations would also sabotage the solution of environmental problems, and the ensuing eco-calamity could make people on both sides of the fissure receptive to radical messages. The worse things got, the worse they'd get. So while no one of the Big Three doomsday dynamics is likely to bring the apocalypse, they could well combine to form a positive-feedback loop, a k a the planetary death spiral. And the catalyst would be terrorism, along with our mishandling of it.

Immigration Undermines the Rule of Law

Immigration kills the rule of law—reasonsMortensen, 09-- PhD, is a retired career U.S. Foreign Service Officer and former Society for Human Resource Management senior executive. (Ronald W. Mortensen, Backgrounders and Reports along with the Center of Immigration Studies, “Illegal, but Not Undocumented: Identity Theft, Document Fraud, and Illegal Employment”, June 2009, http://cis.org/IdentityTheft)

As Transparency International points out, “People are as corrupt as the system allows them to be. It is where temptation meets permissiveness that corruption takes root on a wide scale.”28 Thus, under a permissive U.S. system that fails to control the nation’s borders, that allows a fraudulent document market to flourish, that allows employers turn a blind eye to the legal status of their workers, and where civic, religious, and political leaders support felons over victims, it is not surprising that illegal aliens without a pre-existing allegiance to the rule of law see nothing wrong with using fraudulent documents to obtain jobs and benefits that they are not entitled to. Those sworn to uphold the law also contribute to the permissiveness that leads to corruption and a weakening of the rule of law. When a human trafficking bill was being debated in the Utah House of Representatives, an attorney and former judge amended the bill to allow farmers to transport illegal aliens up to 100 miles without being charged with trafficking.29 Utah’s Attorney General told illegal aliens present at a massive rally for illegal alien rights that “Many of my fellow Republicans will criticize me for being here. They’ll tell me instead of speaking to you, that as the chief law enforcement of Utah I should be arresting you. [That’s] not going to happen.”30 In some cities, sanctuary policies prohibit law enforcement officials from questioning aliens about their immigration status or from contacting or assisting ICE. This culture of corruption is reinforced when illegal aliens are offered special benefits such as in-state tuition, drivers licenses, financial services, and religious offices and privileges in spite of their multiple, ongoing violations of civil and criminal law. The increasing acceptance of corruption has a debilitating effect on the overall respect for the rule of law with the result that illegal aliens become involved in a wide range of other criminal activities including tax fraud; mortgage fraud; violation of drivers license, insurance, and traffic laws; and gang membership.

Immigration Causes Ethnic Strife

Mass immigration causes isolation and ethnic strife FAIR, 2- Federation for American Immigration Reform, a national, nonprofit, public-interest membership organization(Societal Issues, “How Mass Immigration Impedes Assimilation,” updated 10-02, www.fairus.org)

One of the most immediate effects of the overly high immigration level our country has today is the growth of groups of people who are not well assimilated into our larger national culture. This exacerbates ethnic separatism and related problems.

The civic involvement upon which our free society is founded is weakened:“Inability to speak English impairs the capacity of a citizen to digest political speech, to serve on juries, to participate in judicial proceedings, to serve in the armed forces, and to participate in a military mobilization. From the viewpoint of society, the fact that some citizens will escape the obligations and miss the opportunities of America will only enhance the prospect for isolation and ethnic strife.”1Business and social transaction costs rise, as time, effort, and money are spent overcoming language and cultural barriers. Communication becomes difficult, often due to language barriers.2 “But as more and more commerce is fouled by fast-food clerks who mistake orders, taxicabs drivers who misunderstand directions and telemarketers who can’t explain why they called, sociologists and consumer behaviorists detect a palpable, collective complaint that’s evolved into one of the most politically incorrect questions of the ’90s: Can’t anyone here speak English? ... Poor English skills among foreign-born residents cost more than $175 billion a year in lost productivity, wages, tax revenue and unemployment compensation, says Ohio University economist Lowell Gallaway.”3Furthermore, in today’s economy, notes Cornell University labor economist Vernon Briggs:“it’s accentuated because 80 percent of the workforce is employed in service jobs. A lot of these jobs are filled by immigrants. But by definition, service means communication. If workers can’t communicate, it certainly effects quality of life.”4Language aside, cultural differences alone can create problems. In November 1996, an Iraqi immigrant was jailed in Nebraska for forcing his 13- and 14-year-old daughters to marry men more than twice their age, who were also jailed for statutory rape. The men explained that they were following the tradition of their country and did not understand our government’s reaction.5As a natural result of cultural conflict, ethnic strife and separatism grow:“American secessions have rarely been viewed with alarm [but] in the 1990s...we are more inclined to consider them a serious threat to national unity, especially since that unity is being stretched to the breaking point by ethnic revanchiste movements fueled by Third World immigration. ... In any major city, the peace is disturbed by Latino, black, and Asian nationalist gangs, which in some cases are only the shock troops of ethnic movements seeking the racial dismemberment of the United States. In refusing to control immigration, the Federal Government is writing a script for ethnic civil war. Why?”6Sometimes this ethnic separatism is clear and overt:“A peaceful mass of people, hardworking, carries out slowly and patiently an unstoppable invasion, the most important in human history. ... The territory lost in the 19th century by Mexico ...seems to be restoring itself through a humble people who go on settling various zones that were once ours on the old maps. Land, under any concept of possession, ends up in the hands of those who deserve it.”7“Aztlan is a country with no borders and no government, but it has a militant student movement with big plans. Some of the activists dream of the day when they can “liberate” a large portion of the southwestern United States, which they consider to have been stolen by gringos, and raise their own flag over it.”8Sometimes separatism takes other forms, such as demands for ethnic representation, separatist studies, or special status and treatment:“We submit the following measures:create a 100 mile free labor zone from the border;illegal aliens should have access to public health care and benefits that are culturally sensitive and respectful of language difference;legislation be enacted that mandates institutions of higher learning to incorporate into their curriculum courses which reflect and promote cultural diversity and give full credit for immigrant contributions to this nation.decrease the residency requirement for naturalization from five years to one year administer citizenship exams in the applicant’s native language;increase in the visa quota for Mexico and Latin American countries pass legislation that will afford voting rights to all immigrants in certain nonfederal elections that affirmative action be used so that the INS staff at all levels reflects the service population;”9Often, as in Canada, the strife begins with language issues:

“Scratch most nationalist movements and you find a linguistic grievance. ... Language is a convenient surrogate for monolinguistic claims that are often awkward to articulate, for they amount to a demand for more political and economic power.10Demands for a recognition of a “distinct” nature of an area or people were the beginnings of the separatist movement in Canada. We need look no further than our northern neighbor to see the result of encouraging such tendencies:“What the Quebecers and the Hispanic American communities have in common is a determination to preserve a way of life. Dominant languages seem a threat to that, a challenge to family, church, and historical memory, and so they are resisted. ... We are fooling ourselves if we fail to understand the lessons that Canada’s experience holds for us. Racial and linguistic minorities are aggressively asserting their distinctiveness in New America. Even now we may anticipate that the demands of these groups for recognition of that distinctiveness may become requests for some sort of separate polity. Those Quebecers who aspire to sovereign control within their borders, combined with economic relationships with those around them, view such an arrangement as a successful formula for an independent state. That same formula political self-determination plus economic confederation will serve as a ready model for this nation’s would-be separatists. Given the policies we are pursuing, there is no reason to believe that we are immune from that which has afflicted Canada.”11While there are many things that could be done to encourage assimilation in the United States, none can be effective as long as we continue to admit 900,000 immigrants a year. Only by reducing the level of immigration to more traditional levels (say, to below 200,000) can we stanch the contribution of immigration to ethnic separatism in the United States.

Immigration Causes Ethnic Strife

Illegal immigration creates an underclass of ethnic minorities- this leads to social unrest Lamm, 7 – Former Governor of Colorado and Co-Director of the Institute for Public Policy Studies at the University of Denver(Richard D. Lamm, Defend Colorado Now, “Liberals Beware: There is a High Cost to ‘Cheap’ Labor,” http://www.defendcoloradonow.org/perspective/art_liberals_beware.html)

Impact on our Social FabricIllegal immigration is having a heavy impact on our social fabric. A vast majority of illegal immigrants are from Spanish speaking countries. The sheer numbers are retarding assimilation as large ethnic ghettos develop and a de facto apartheid is forming. It is important to America's future that we look at how our Hispanic immigrants are doing. Too many of our Hispanic immigrants live in ethnic ghettos, too many are unskilled laborers, too many are uneducated, too many live in poverty, too many are exploited, too many haven't finished 9th grade, too many drop out of school.The Center for Immigration Studies issued a report last year, which found nationwide: “Almost two-thirds of adult Mexican immigrants have not completed high school, compared to fewer than one in ten natives not completing high school. Mexican immigrants now account for 22 percent of all high school dropouts in the labor force.” But what is most disturbing is that second and third generations don't do much better. Again, the study from The Center for Immigration Studies: “The lower educational attainment of Mexican immigrants appears to persist across the generations. The high school dropout rates of native-born Mexican-Americans (both second and third generation) are two and a half times that of other natives.” It found that Mexican immigrants and their young children comprise 4.2percent of the nation's total population, yet they comprise 10.2 percent of all persons in poverty. They also comprise 12.5 percent of those without health insurance and their use of welfare is twice that of Native Americans.Robert J. Samuelson writing in the Washington Post states:“Our interest lies in less immigration from Mexico, while Mexico's interest lies in more. The United States has long been an economic safety value for Mexico: a source of jobs for its poor. By World Bank estimates, perhaps 40 percent of Mexico's 100 million people have incomes of less than $2 a day. The same desperate forces that drive people north mean that once they get here they face long odds in joining the American economic and social mainstream… Surely we don't need more poor and unskilled workers, and Mexican immigrants fall largely into this category. The stakes here transcend economics.” (July 20, 2000)The question has to be asked: “By tolerating illegal immigration are we laying the foundations for a new Hispanic underclass? A Hispanic Quebec?” The mere phrase makes liberals cringe. Frankly, it makes me cringe, but immigration is building the new future of America. Are we not building up a large, unintegrated, unassimilated underclass similar to what France is suffering from currently? Is this not a harbinger of social unrest in our own society? We owe it to our children to have a candid dialogue.

Poverty Impact / Turns the Case – 2 ac

Illegal immigrants are a significant cause of povertyLamm, 7 – Former Governor of Colorado and Co-Director of the Institute for Public Policy Studies at the University of Denver(Richard D. Lamm, Defend Colorado Now, “Liberals Beware: There is a High Cost to ‘Cheap’ Labor,” http://www.defendcoloradonow.org/perspective/art_liberals_beware.html)

Supply Side PovertyConsequently, we have a group of workers who pay no, or reduced withholding taxes, with above average birthrate (thus above average impact on schools), impacting our school system, with more, and more arriving every year. It is Orwellian to call this “cheap labor.” It is “supply side” poverty added to our society so a few employers can get “cheap labor.” It is happening nationwide. Mortimer B. Zuckerman, Editor in Chief of U.S. News and World Report, speaking of U.S. poverty asks:“So why haven't overall poverty rates declined further? In a word -- immigration. Many of those who come to the United States are not only poor but also unskilled. Hispanics account for much of the increase in poverty -- no surprise, since 25 percent of poor people are Hispanic. Since 1989, Hispanics represent nearly three quarters of all increase in overall poverty population. Immigration has also helped keep the median income for the country basically flat for five straight years, the longest stretch of income stagnation on record.” (10/3/05)Nationwide people and organizations are starting to object. The Atlanta Business Chronicle wrote that “Georgia taxpayers spend $231 million a year to educate illegal alien children” while “public schools (are) facing some of the most significant decreases in state education funding in decades, communities' tax dollars are being diverted to accommodate mass illegal immigration.” How can the American educational system improve when it is impacted, year after year, by this source of “supply side poverty.”

Poverty Extensions

Illegal immigrants import poverty FAIR, 2- Federation for American Immigration Reform, a national, nonprofit, public-interest membership organization(Societal Issues, “Immigration and Poverty,” updated 10-02, www.fairus.org)

Because U.S. immigration policy slants toward admitting relatives rather than immigrants with needed workplace skills, our immigration system literally imports poverty. [OMMITTED DIAGRAM HERE]Sixteen percent of all immigrant households live below the poverty level, and one out of every five households of non-citizens is poor (versus eleven percent poverty among native households).1The median household income for immigrant households is 13 percent lower than that of native households, and, for the households of non-citizens, it is 23 percent lower.Poverty among immigrant households in not likely to improve, if recent trends are any indication. The median household income for immigrant households dropped 5.3 percent from 2000 to 2001, and, in non-citizen households, it fell 4.2 percent.Child poverty has been particularly affected. In 2000, one in four poor children had at least one foreign-born parent. Immigrant children themselves are more than twice as likely as native children to be poor (35 percent versus 17 percent). Even when adjusting for other factors, such as single-parenthood, joblessness, and low education, the children of immigrant households still suffer substantially more from poverty.2Compared to children of natives, children of immigrants are more than four times as likely to live in crowded housing (29 percent versus 7 percent), twice as likely to live with a family paying more than half its income for rent or mortgage (14 percent versus 6 percent), twice as likely to be uninsured (22 percent versus 10 percent), three times as likely to have no usual source of health care (14 percent versus 4 percent), and twice as likely to be in only fair or poor health (9 percent versus 4 percent).3In immigration-heavy states, the effects are even more pronounced. Nearly three-fifths of all poor children in California are immigrants, and the poverty rate of the state’s immigrant children (29 percent) is significantly higher than that of its native children (17 percent).4Our country could do a better job helping the poor (be they native or immigrant) pull themselves out of poverty. But the war against poverty has been made unwinable by an immigration policy that continually imports yet more poverty, condemning us to be perpetually bailing out a leaking boat. Immigration law should be changed to eliminate preferences for extended family members and instead emphasize education and skills so that there is a better fit between the skills of immigrants and the nation’s needs.

Illegal immigration hurts low-income Americans who directly compete with them for jobs – turns poverty adv Lamm, 7 – Former Governor of Colorado and Co-Director of the Institute for Public Policy Studies at the University of Denver(Richard D. Lamm, Defend Colorado Now, “Liberals Beware: There is a High Cost to ‘Cheap’ Labor,” http://www.defendcoloradonow.org/perspective/art_liberals_beware.html)

Americans pay in more ways than taxes. Cheap labor drives down wages as low income Americans are forced to compete against these admittedly hard working people. Even employers, who don't want to wink at false documents, are forced to lower wages just to be competitive. It is, in many ways, a “race to the bottom” fueled by poor people often recruited from evermore-distant countries by middlemen who profit handsomely. It isn't only wages, the employers of this abused form of labor often violate minimum wage requirements, Occupational Safety and Health Administration standards, and overtime laws. Further, if injured, illegal workers often have no access to Workmen's Compensation.The Americans who pay the price are those at the bottom of the economic ladder who directly compete with this illegal workforce. The very people that liberals profess to speak for and care about pay the price in lost and suppressed wages while employers get the benefits of reduced wages. Professor George Borjas of Harvard, an immigrant himself, estimates that American workers lose $190 billion annually in depressed wages caused by the constant flooding of the labor market from newcomers.

Poverty Extensions

Immigration is the root cause of poverty and our economic troubles—they take jobs away from the already poorest paid workers in the US Camarota 07—The Director of Research at the Center for Immigration Studies. (Steven Camarota, Center for Immigration Studies, “Immigration Is Hurting The U.S. Worker; Low Paid American workers have borne the heaviest impact of immigration”, Spring, 2007, http://www.cis.org/articles/2007/sacoped071107.html)

Low-paid American workers have borne the heaviest impact of immigration. This is largely because of the educational profile of the bulk of today’s immigrants. Nine percent of adult native-born Americans (ages 18 to 64) were high school dropouts in 2006, while 34 percent of recent adult immigrants had not completed high school. (The rate was 60 percent for illegal immigrants.) Common sense, economic theory, and a fair reading of the research on this question indicate that allowing in so many immigrants (legal and illegal) with relatively little education reduces the wages and job prospects for Americans with little education. These are the Americans who are already the poorest workers. Between 2000 and 2005, the number of jobless natives (age 18 to 64) with no education beyond a high school degree increased by over two million, to 23 million, according to the Current Population Survey. During the same period, the number of less-educated immigrants (legal and illegal) holding a job grew 1.5 million. Of greater concern, the percentage of employed native-born without a high school degree fell from 53 to 48 percent in the last five years. African Americans have particularly been affected. A September 2006 National Bureau of Economic Research paper found that immigration accounted for about a third of the decline in the employment rate of the least-educated African American men over the last few decades. The disproportionate flow of undereducated immigrants to the U.S. has also depressed wages for native-born workers on the lower rungs of the economic ladder. In the last two-and-a-half decades, average hourly wages for male workers with less than a high school education declined more than 20 percent relative to inflation. For those with only a high school degree they are down almost 10 percent. Typically, pro-immigration voices argue that immigration is essential because there are not enough Americans to fill all the low wage jobs. But if this were so, then the wages and employment rates of such workers should be rising as employers try desperately to retain and attract workers. Yet quantitative evidence for such a phenomenon doesn’t exist. The only evidence of a labor shortage comes from the employers. In addition to harming the poorest and least educated American workers, our immigration system has created a large burden for taxpayers. The best predictor of poverty and welfare dependence in modern America is education level. Given the low educational levels of most recent immigrants, we would expect them to be a greater drain on public coffers than the immigrants who came before them. Indeed this is the case. In 1997 the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) estimated that immigrant households consumed $20 billion more in public services than they paid in taxes each year. Adjusted for inflation, with the current size of the immigrant population today, this figure would be over $40 billion.

Crime / Public Safety Impact – 2ac

Illegal immigrants are a threat to national security – they empirically fuel crime and prison populationsFAIR, 2- Federation for American Immigration Reform, a national, nonprofit, public-interest membership organization(Societal Issues, “Criminal Aliens,” updated 10-02, www.fairus.org)

The criminal alien problem is growing.Criminal aliens—non-citizens who commit crimes—are a growing threat to public safety and national security, as well as a drain on our scarce criminal justice resources. In 1980, our federal and state prisons housed fewer than 9,000 criminal aliens. By the end of 1999, these same prisons housed over 68,000 criminal aliens.1 Today, criminal aliens account for over 29 percent of prisoners in Federal Bureau of Prisons facilities and a higher share of all federal prison inmates.2 These prisoners represent the fastest growing segment of the federal prison population. Over the past five years, an average of more than 72,000 aliens have been arrested annually on drug charges alone. Continued illegal immigration aggravates the problem.Despite the Border Patrol making over one million apprehensions last year, they estimate they miss two or more illegal bordercrossers for every apprehension. Most enter for short periods, but there is an estimated net increase of about 300,000 a year from illegal bordercrossers who stay. An additional net increase of 200,000 comes from people who enter legally as nonimmigrants and then violate their status. Among the alien federal prisoners, over half (55 percent) were illegally in the United States at the time of their conviction.

Crime Extensions

Criminal aliens cost taxpayers billions of dollars per yearFAIR, 2- Federation for American Immigration Reform, a national, nonprofit, public-interest membership organization(Societal Issues, “Criminal Aliens,” updated 10-02, www.fairus.org)

Administering justice to criminal aliens costs the taxpayer dearly.Incarceration of criminal aliens cost an estimated $624 million to state prisons (1999) and $891 million to federal prisons (2002), according to the most recent available figure from the Bureau of Justice Statistics.The New York State Senate Committee on Cities estimates that the annual criminal justice costs for criminal aliens in New York is $270 million. The Committee has called for a national moratorium on immigration to help alleviate this problem.3 According to the Illinois Governor’s Office, Illinois spends over $40 million just on the incarceration of criminal aliens. The cost to Florida’s judicial and correction system for criminal aliens was $73 million in 1993. 4 In 1988, there were 5,500 illegal immigrants in California’s prisons. By fiscal year 1994- 1995, that is estimated to have increased to more than 18,000 illegal immigrants in state prisons—a three-fold increase. California taxpayers have spent over a billion dollars in the last five years to keep these convicted felons in prison, and the FY 9495 cost of incarcerating these offenders exceeded $375 million.5 The federal government has begun to reimburse heavily alien-impacted states for some of the costs of illegal alien prisoners in their state prisons. For 1996, Congress appropriated $300 million for this program.

Illegal immigration puts an immense strain on the economy Kouri, 6 – vice president of national association of chiefs of police[ Newswithviews.com, “The Big Govn't. Lie: Illegal immigration Benefits Americans, “Jim Kouri, 3-21-06, http://www.newswithviews.com/Kouri/jim42.htm]

It's widely been reported that illegal aliens comprise upwards of 27 percent of the US prison and jail population. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection -- two agencies within the Department of Homeland Security -- claim in several reports that they've apprehended over 100,000 criminal aliens whose offenses go far beyond violation of immigration laws and regulations. Sadly, only about 25 percent of expenses for imprisoning criminal aliens is reimbursed by the federal government to state and local governments. This creates a hardship for taxpayers in states with high incarceration rates for criminal aliens. The proponents of open borders or lax immigration enforcement always point to the benefits derived from illegal immigration such as the amount of taxes they pay into the government system. Evidence, however, exists that refutes those claims. For instance, there is an abundance of anecdotal evidence that suggests a large number of illegal aliens are paid "off-the-books" therefore those wages are not taxed. The National Research Council has estimated that the net fiscal cost of immigration ranges from $11 billion to $22 billion per year, with most government expenditures on immigrants coming from state and local coffers, while most taxes paid by immigrants who actually do pay taxes go to the federal treasury.The net deficit is caused by a low level of tax payments by immigrants, because they are disproportionately low-skilled and thus earn low wages, and a higher rate of consumption of government services, both because of their relative poverty and their higher fertility. This is especially true of illegal immigration. Even though illegal aliens make little use of welfare, from

which they are generally barred, the costs of illegal immigration in terms of government expenditures for education, criminal justice, and emergency medical care are significant. Californian officials have estimated that the net cost to taxpayers in order to provide government services to illegal immigrants approached $3 billion during a single fiscal year. The fact that states must bear the cost of federal failure turns illegal immigration, in effect, into one of the largest unfunded federal mandates existing today. In addition, according to the Center for Immigration Studies, even with free trade, the United States continues to enjoy a higher real wage than other nations, due to the superiority of US technology. If taken to an extreme and the US removed all barriers to migration, most foreign workers would move to the United States, lured by the higher wages available here; Foreign labor would essentially cease to exist. However, with all labor now in the United States, the prices of goods would return to their level of self-sufficiency, prior to the opening of trade. That is, perfectly free migration entirely eliminates the gains from trade that US natives had enjoyed. World income rose with the migration, but the natives of foreign countries in this case received more than all of this rise, since the income of US natives declined. With the world's majority of low-wage workers in the US, there would be tremendous damage to free trade and its benefits, with US middle and upper-middle class workers suffering the brunt of declining wages. The urge for a utopian state of existence and a desire to make all things equal by the American Left has given way to a desire simply to make all things equal sans utopia. In their passion for a neo-Marxist level for the masses, they've decided consciously or subconsciously that if they could not bring the World's population up to the American level of prosperity and wealth, then they will bring US citizens down to the World's level of poverty and misery. For this is a result of seeing free trade as a zero-sum entity, and self-alienation of the American Left from their own country, the USA.

Crime Extensions

Illegal Immigrants ruin public safety—they create a gang problem Mortensen, 09-- PhD, is a retired career U.S. Foreign Service Officer and former Society for Human Resource Management senior executive. (Ronald W. Mortensen, Backgrounders and Reports along with the Center of Immigration Studies, “Illegal, but Not Undocumented: Identity Theft, Document Fraud, and Illegal Employment”, June 2009, http://cis.org/IdentityTheft)

Rather than using mass transit because they are ineligible for drivers licenses or automobile insurance, many illegal aliens break the law by driving without licenses or with fraudulent licenses. In addition, studies suggest that Hispanic illegal aliens may have an exceptionally high rate of alcohol-related automobile accidents and fatalities.39 States contribute to the culture of corruption by allowing illegal aliens to register their vehicles. A handful of states give in to illegal aliens who threaten to drive without licenses or insurance and issue drivers licenses or driving privilege cards rather than enforcing existing laws.40 A continual weakening of the rule of law results in illegal aliens contributing to a community’s gang problem. Gangs are considered the single most important public safety threat today — a recent federal assessment said gangs were responsible for 80 percent of crime in some communities.41 Some illegal aliens have gang ties even before unlawfully entering the United States and many others become involved in gang activity once in the United States. According to a recent Center for Immigration Studies Backgrounder, “Immigrant gangs are considered a unique public safety threat due to their members’ propensity for violence and their involvement in transnational crime…. Once in the United States, immigrant gang members rarely make a living as gangsters. They typically work by day in construction, auto repair, farming, landscaping, and other low-skill occupations where employers are less vigilant about checking status, often using false documents.”42 In spite of this, employers continue to hire individuals without verifying their documents and identities and cities continue to enforce sanctuary policies. Both of these practices facilitate gang activity. Justifying and Facilitating Illegal Alien Identity Theft In spite of the damage caused by rampant illegal alien document fraud and identity theft, many of America’s political, media, civic, religious, education, and business leaders continue to defend illegal aliens. When forced to acknowledge that illegal aliens are committing felonies, these elites often rationalize the criminal acts and offer support to those committing the crimes rather than supporting the rule of law. They rarely, if ever, acknowledge the victims. They criticize those who enforce the laws and resolutely oppose efforts to protect American citizens and legal residents from illegal alien-driven document fraud and identity theft.

Criminal aliens that are released from prison empirically commit more crimesFAIR, 2- Federation for American Immigration Reform, a national, nonprofit, public-interest membership organization(Societal Issues, “Criminal Aliens,” updated 10-02, www.fairus.org)

Many criminal aliens are released into our society to commit crimes again.Too often, criminal aliens are not identified in local and state jails, the INS is not informed of their presence, detention facilities are not available when they are released, they fail to report for deportation, or they return to the United States after deportation. In March 2000, Congress made public Department of Justice statistics showing that, over the previous five years, the INS had released over 35,000 criminal aliens instead of deporting them. Over 11,000 of those released went on to commit

serious crimes, over 1,800 of which were violent ones (including 98 homicides, 142 sexual assaults, and 44 kidnappings). In 2001, thanks to a decision by the Supreme Court, the INS was forced to release into our society over 3,000 criminal aliens (who collectively had been convicted of 125 homicides, 387 sex offenses, and 772 assault charges).6

Immigrants Hurt Education

Immigration overburdens US schools and costs taxpayers billions each yearFAIR, 2- Federation for American Immigration Reform, a national, nonprofit, public-interest membership organization(Societal Issues, “Immigration and School Overcrowding,” updated 10-02, www.fairus.org)

Immigration is overwhelming school systems.“The level of immigration is so massive, it’s choking urban schools ...It’s bad enough when you have desperate kids with U.S.

backgrounds who require massive resources. In come kids with totally different needs, and it creates crushing burdens on urban schools.”-David W. Stewart, author of Immigration and Education: The Crisis and OpportunitiesThe U.S. school-aged population has reached an all-time high of 55 million. Between 1990 and 2000, enrollment increased by 14 percent. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, the size of the student body will almost double by 2100. Yet without school-age immigrants (about 250,000 a year) and the children of immigrants (about 725,000 a year), school enrollment would not be rising at all.The share of students in the U.S. who are immigrants or the children of immigrants has tripled in the past 30 years; in 1970, they were only 6.5 percent of the student body. Today, one in five students has at least one foreign-born parent. In California, almost half of the students starting school are immigrants or the children of immigrants.As a result of this immigration-driven population growth, about 14 percent of schools exceed their capacity by six to 25 percent, and eight percent exceed it by more than 25 percent. To alleviate overcrowding, more than one-third of schools use portable classrooms, and one-fifth hold classes in temporary instructional space, such as cafeterias and gyms.The problem has become severe enough that there is now a federal Bilingual/Immigrant State Grant program to assist school systems that experience large increases in their student population due to immigration. This program awards about $700 million a year to affected districts (National Association of Bilingual Education).Immigration is a drain on badly needed education resources.Rather than being used to improve the quality of education for current students, communities’ limited tax dollars are instead being diverted to build new schools to accommodate population growth and to meet the special needs of immigrant children. Including special programs such as bilingual education, which can cost nearly 50 percent more than regular schooling, immigration costs the taxpayers over $24 billion a year in education costs.The growth in federal grants for special language programs has more than doubled, from $157 million in 1995 to $460 million in 2002.In California, funding for the state’s 1.3 million limited-English students has increased to $319 million (from $108 million in 1986). Funding for low-income students (often blacks) decreased to $64 million from $93 million while the number of low-income students grew to 1.9 million from one million. Stanford education professor Kenji Hakuta observes, “It’s a sad situation for schools right now. We’ve got extremely scarce resources. We have people fighting over bread crumbs. And we have groups with equally strong and important needs for which society isn’t willing to provide. When the stakes are like this, the fight only gets more and more vicious.”By a five-to-four decision in 1982, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in Plyler v. Doe that the equal protection provision of the Constitution's 14th Amendment requires public schools to admit illegal alien children, on the presumption that denial of public education to children whose parents brought them illegally to the United States is not a rational response to states' concerns about illegal immigration.1 The opinion, however, was based on specific circumstances that could change and it did not apply to education beyond mandatory public schooling.Mass immigration poses daunting educational challenges.The growth in the limited-English-proficiency student population to high immigrant drop-out rates to gaps in teacher training all pose serious challenges to school systems that are already struggling to meet basic education challenges, such as raising academic achievement levels.

Illegal Immigrants raise education costs Camarota 06—The Director of Research at the Center for Immigration Studies. (Steven Camarota, Center for Immigration Studies, “Immigration's Impact on Public Coffers--Testimony Prepared for the

House Judiciary Committee--Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims” , August 24th, 2006, http://www.cis.org/articles/2006/sactestimony082406.html)

Public Education. State and local governments spent some $400 billion on public education in 2003. Between 5 and 6 percent of all children in public schools are themselves illegal aliens or are the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens. Putting aside the higher costs associated with educating language-minority children, the costs of providing education to these children still comes to $20 to $24 billion for state and local governments. The federal government also provides funding for public education, a significant share of which is specifically targeted at

low-income, migrant, and limited English students. The Federation for American Immigration Reform estimated that the costs of educating illegal alien children at all levels of government, including federal expenditures, was nearly $12 billion in 2004; and when the children born here are counted, they estimated the figure at $28 billion. Policy Options for Dealing With Illegal Immigratio. The negative impact on the federal budget from illegal immigration need not be the only or even the primary consideration when deciding what to do about illegal immigration. But assuming that the fiscal status quo is unacceptable, there are three main changes in policy that might reduce or eliminate the fiscal costs of illegal immigration. One set of options is to allow illegal aliens to remain in the country, but attempt to reduce the costs they impose. A second set of options would be to grant them legal status as a way of increasing the taxes they pay. A third option would be to enforce the law and reduce the size of the illegal population and with it the costs of illegal immigration.

A2: Our Argument is Nativist / Racist

Careful economic considerations are important to avoid debates that devolve to ideological or emotional attachment to immigrantsBorjas, 99- Professor of Economics at Harvard(George J. Borjas, Heaven’s Door: Immigration Policy and the American Economy, p. 104)

Regardless of what objectives the United States chooses to pursue, however, I would still argue that the calculation of the immigration surplus and of the distributional impact of immigration is extremely useful for three distinct reasons. First, economic considerations matter-and, often enough, they matter more than most other considerations. Second, the economic impact of immigration is measurable, so the questions posed by the immigration debate can be argued over facts rather than over ideology or emotional attachment to the mythic history embodied in Emma Lazarus's famed refrain of "Give me your tired, your poor, ... The wretched refuse of your teeming shore." Finally, people living in a democratic society should be fully informed about what they are giving up when they choose to pursue immigration policies that minimize or ignore economic considerations.

A2: Morality Arguments

There is no moral imperative to allow immigration. In fact, increased immigration kills our right to self government and violates other key ethical issuesStaples and Cafaro, 9 – *associate professor of philosophy at Colorado State University and ** wildlife biologist at the Center for Immigration Studies, “The Environmental Argument for Reducing Immigration to the United States,” Winthrop Staples III, Philip Cafaro, http://cis.org/EnvironmentalArgument]

Moral Arguments: Rights. Perhaps the most important objections raised against restrictive immigration policies are that they are unjust, because they are unfair to potential immigrants. One concise way of stating this is to say that would-be immigrants have a right to live and work in the United States. While some immigrants’ rights proponents argue for abolishing national borders altogether, most assert a general human right to freely move and settle without regard to national borders, subject to reasonable state restrictions to keep out criminals and prevent gross harms to receiving societies. Clearly this right does not exist in American law. The Constitution names no right to immigrate, and the Supreme Court has consistently upheld the federal government’s right to regulate immigration into the country . Neither does such a right exist in international law. The U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not assert a general human

right to immigrate into the country of one’s choice, nor do other major framework international rights treaties.19 Proponents, then, claim first the existence of a moral right to immigrate freely across borders, and second that national laws should be amended accordingly. What arguments do they provide for creating this new and important legal right? Political theorist Chandran Kukathas gives the following “liberal egalitarian” argument for open borders. From a proper universalistic moral point of view, he maintains, citizens of rich countries have no special claims to the resources and opportunities into which they have been born. “Egalitarianism demands that the Earth’s resources be distributed as equally as possible,” he writes, “and one particularly effective mechanism for facilitating this is freedom of movement.” Egalitarians want to equalize not just resources, but opportunities. Allowing people to migrate from poor, overcrowded countries with high unemployment and little chance for economic advancement to wealthier, less crowded countries equalizes opportunities. “Our starting point,” Kukathas suggests, “should be a recognition of our common humanity and the idea that both the resources of the Earth and the cooperation of our fellows are things to which no one has any privileged entitlement.” For these reasons, “the movement of peoples should be free.”20 This is a powerful argument, since it rests on egalitarian values that many people share. It also relies on the common thought: “what right do I have to ‘shut the door’ on people who are just as good as I am and who, through no fault of their own, have been born into less happy circumstances?” Kukathas’ argument may speak particularly strongly to people who feel some sympathy with egalitarianism, but not enough to do anything about it personally. For it says to wealthy Americans: “You don’t have to give up anything yourself to help poor people overseas live better lives. You can fulfill any moral obligations you may have toward them by allowing them to come here and cut your grass, cook your food, and diaper your children.” Nevertheless, despite these strengths, there are good reasons to reject the liberal egalitarian argument for open borders. Any rights claim must be tested against its effects on all interested parties — not just the parties pressing the claim. Even widely accepted, fundamental human rights must be balanced against other rights and other important interests. As we have seen, current high levels of immigration into the United States are leading to a larger population, which makes it much harder to share the landscape generously with nonhuman beings. Allowing a general right to immigrate into the United States would greatly accelerate this process. With

“open borders,” the interests of nonhuman nature would be sacrificed completely to the interests of people. The economic interests of would-be immigrants would trump the very existence of many nonhuman organisms, endangered species, and wild places in the United States. Kukathas (and most immigrants’ rights advocates) can accept this trade-off. As the previous quotes illustrate, Kukathas sees nature essentially as “the Earth’s resources;” the only question to ask about them is how people may divide them up fairly and efficiently. In seeking to make sense of Australian environmentalists’ arguments for limiting immigration, he reduces these to worries that “parks and sewerage services” will be “degraded” — a revealingly soulless way of speaking.21 But those of us who reject this anthropocentric perspective must consider the interests of the nonhuman beings that would be displaced by an ever-increasing human presence. We ourselves believe that the human appropriation of natural landscapes has progressed so far in America that any further appropriation is unjust. Some readers might not be willing to go that far (although if that is the case, we wonder what you are waiting for). But it is important to realize that accepting a general right to immigrate leaves no room to take nature’s interests seriously, in the United States or elsewhere, since it undermines any possibility of limiting the human appropriation of

nature. For this reason alone, it must be rejected by anyone committed to generous sustainability. A general right to immigrate also would conflict with American citizens’ right to self-government. Immigration can change the character of a society, for better or worse; large-scale immigration can change a society quickly, radically, and irrevocably (just ask the Tibetans). Since self-government is a fundamental and well-established human right, the citizens of particular nations arguably should retain, through their elected officials, significant control over immigration policies. As Michael Walzer puts it, in an influential discussion of immigration: “Admission and exclusion are at the core of communal independence. They suggest the deepest meaning of self-determination. Without them, there could not be communities of [a specific] character, historically stable, ongoing associations of men and women with some special commitment to one another and some special sense of their common life.”22 The citizens of a nation may work hard to create particular kinds of societies: societies that are sustainable, for example, or that limit inequalities of wealth, or that treat women and men as equals. They typically develop feelings of affiliation and social commitments that have great value in themselves and that enable communal projects that create further value. It seems wrong to suggest that these achievements, which may provide meaning, secure justice, and contribute substantially to people’s quality of life, must be compromised because people in other countries are having too many children, or have failed to create decent societies themselves. Such a situation does not call for the creation of a new right that undermines the self-government of others. Instead it suggests that would-be immigrants need to take up responsibilities for self-government that they and their leaders have neglected in their own countries.23

A2: Morality Arguments

Illegal immigration is unethicalLegal Citizens of America 2007 (“Illegal is Immoral” http://www.geocities.com/legalcitizens/illegalimmoral.pdf)

Legal Citizens believe that supporting illegal immigration is immoral, and is like a “Reverse Underground Railroad.” Supporting the importation of illegal labor is akin to supporting the importation of slaves. While that may sound harsh, it’s no indictment against the desperate human beings who are entering the U.S. simply because they can, it’s an indictment against those who help make it happen and those who benefit: major corporations and other, smaller unscrupulous employers. In particular, men and women of the cloth should NOT confuse compassion for human beings with helping immoral companies import people who will become easily exploitable commodities. Here’s Why Illegal Immigration Is Immoral: 1. Illegals Are Exploited for Sweatshop Wages The temptation for companies to pay illegal workers substandard wages is powerful, especially when politicians turn a blind eye to it, and clergy facilitate it. Corporations need cheap labor and are eager to exploit those who should be treated with dignity and paid fair wages. But a constant flow of slave labor allows the cycle to continue. 2. Illegals Tolerate Abuse Illegal immigrants are unlikely to report theft, corruption, harassment and abuse by other employees, because they fear being sold out to the police and possibly even turned into immigration authorities. This allows illegal or even hazardous practices in the workplace to continue, endangering lives.. 3. Illegals Hurting the Working Poor, Especially Minorities Legal immigrants and the working poor - especially minorities - are often most hurt by illegal immigrants who drive down wages in traditional low-wage jobs. 4. Illegals Live in Fear Like escaped slaves in the antebellum South, illegal immigrants live in fear - in fear of their employers, in fear the police, in fear of being captured by immigration authorities and returned to their country of origin. 5. Helping Illegals Makes You A Criminal, Too Illegals have broken the law, and they work for those who break the law. Work for better laws, work for more liberal immigration policies, work for a Guest Worker program that works, but don’t become a criminal to help facilitate abuse, exploitation and fear.

A2: Center for Immigration Studies Indicts

The Center for Immigration Studies report we cite is the most comprehensive and conclusive study.Rector 2006 - Senior Research Fellow in Domestic Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation, master's degree in political science from Johns Hopkins (5/12, Robert, "Amnesty and Continued Low Skill Immigration Will Substantially Raise Welfare Costs and Poverty", http://www.heritage.org/research/immigration/bg1936.cfm, WEA)

The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) has performed a thorough study of the federal fiscal impacts of amnesty.[59] This study found that illegal immigrant households have low education levels and low wages and currently pay little in taxes. Ille gal immigrant households also receive lower levels of federal government benefits. Nonetheless, the study also found that, on average, illegal immigrant families received more in federal benefits than they paid in taxes. [60]

Granting amnesty would render illegal immi grants eligible for federal benefit programs. The CIS study estimated the additional taxes that would be paid and the additional government costs that would occur as a result of amnesty. It assumed that welfare utilization and tax payments among current illegal immigrants would rise to equal the levels among legally-admitted immigrants of similar national, educational, and demographic back grounds. If all illegal immigrants were granted amnesty, federal tax payments would increase by some $3,000 per household, but federal benefits and social services would increase by $8,000 per household. Total federal welfare benefits would reach around $9,500 per household, or $35 billion per year total. The study estimates that the net cost to the federal government of granting amnesty to some 3.8 million illegal alien households would be around $5,000 per household, for a total federal fiscal cost of $19 billion per year. [61]

Relations Mechanics

2ac plan key

Plan’s key to Mexican relations and their economyCornyn, 6 – senior U.S. Republican Senator for Texas, current Senate Minority Whip, graduate of Trinity University, and recipient of Master of Laws from the University of Virginia School of Law (John, “North American Investment Fund,” Center for North American Studies, 6/29/06, http://www.american.edu/sis/cnas/upload/nafund_cornyn.pdf)//MS

Currently, a significant development gap exists between Mexico and the U nited States and Canada. I believe it is in our best interests to find creative ways to bridge this development gap. As my colleagues undoubtedly are aware, Mexico will elect a new President this weekend. When President Fox was elected in 2000 it was a watershed event for Mexico because the election was fair and the transfer of power was peaceful. I hope that the same fair, peaceful process takes place this weekend. So I wish all the candidates well and I look forward to working with the new Administration and the new Congress on issues of mutual importance to our countries. Mr. President, considered in the context of history, Mexico has – particularly within the past decade – made significant strides related to its system of government and its trade policies. However, much work remains to be done, and I think it is important that we explore ways to help our neighbor move their development efforts to the next level, to assist them as they continue on a path of prosperity and growth. I have come to view the creation of a North American Investment Fund as both central to our relationship with Mexico and necessary to ensure the economic prosperity of North America as part of an ever-changing and growing global economy. I hope that this legislation will be a useful vehicle to help jump-start discussions on this very important topic. My bill authorizes the President to negotiate the creation of a North American Investment Fund with the governments of Canada and Mexico. The fund can only be created if Mexico satisfies two conditions. • First, the government of Mexico must raise tax revenue to 18 percent of the g ross domestic product of Mexico. Their current tax rate is approximately 9 percent. • Second, Mexico must develop and execute a program of economic reforms to increase private investment and economic growth, while also maintaining economic stability in Mexico . These steps are of the utmost importance because any lasting changes in Mexico must start from within.The purpose of this Fund is to reinforce efforts already underway in Mexico to ensure their own economic development. The funding would make grants available for projects to construct roads in Mexico to facilitate trade, to develop and expand their education programs, to build infrastructure for the deployment of communications services and to improve job training and workforce development for high-growth industries. Mr. President, as I have mentioned on several occasions, I have heard from Mexico leaders who say they want desperately to “export goods and services, not people ” to our country . Well, I think we all recognize that opportunity in one’s home country and immigration are linked, and I believe we should be more involved in helping to promote the strength and stability of our neighbors. Development provides a positive and stabilizing influence on economies, on government institutions, and also on immigration. We’ve seen, in past years, a steady flow of immigrants – particularly undocumented workers – coming across our borders. A vast number of these immigrants are here to work hard so they can send money home to their families and relatives. They may be well-intentioned, but at the same time, these hard workers are doing nothing to help their own economies.

Mexico does not want the most entrepreneurial members of its society to permanently leave. What it wants most of all is for economic development to grow in their region, so that citizens would have real opportunities to stay and grow the economy there. But with the entrepreneurs and risk-takers coming to the United States, Mexico cannot hope to improve its own economy. Economic growth creates new jobs and raises incomes. This growth lifts people out of poverty even as it spurs positive economic reform. The potential for good is nearly limitless; as with such a fund we could spur sustainable development, strengthen private property rights, while also encouraging competition, regional integration, the open flow of technology. So the best solution for all of us is a Mexico economy that is vibrant – and one important way is to ensure its continued development of infrastructure and resources . The legislation I am proposing today would encourage this development, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

2ac fdi key

FDI is key to Mexico’s economyAguilera, 13 – BA in Economics from the Universidad de las Américas & MSc in Social Policy and Development from the London School of Economics (Rodrigo, “Mexico: The Case of the Missing FDI,” Huffington Post, 2/12/13, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rodrigo-aguilera/mexico-foreign-direct-investment_b_2671967.html)//MS

Less capital flows, more FDIAlthough FDI in itself is not a panacea for growth, in such a large and open economy as Mexico's , it is undoubtedly a gauge of how attractive the country is in the eyes of the rest of the world -- and certainly a better long-term measure than portfolio flows, which Mexico has received in abundance ($57 billion in three quarters, compared to just $16 billion in Brazil for the whole year) but which are potentially short-term and speculative. Mexicans even have an unflattering name for them: capital golondrino, a term that evokes vivid memories of sudden capital flight during the 80s and 90s.As it is, Mexico's poor FDI numbers stand as an unsightly smudge in what is a n otherwise encouraging macroeconomic picture. There is encouraging evidence to show that this can change for the better over the next few years. But if it doesn't, Mexico's Moment may not end up living up to the hype .

2ac NAIF Key

NIAF solves every internal to relations – immigration, trade and securityPastor 08 – Robert Pastor is professor and director of the Center for North American Studies at American University, (Robert, “The Solution to North America’s Triple Problem: The Case for a North American Investment Fund”, Center for North American Studies, January 2008, http://www.american.edu/sis/cnas/upload/triple_problem_pastor.pdf)//sawyerA major cause of the deterioration of relations is the failure of the three ¶ governments to find agreement on immigration, trade, and security . None of these ¶ problems can be solved easily or soon but serious progress is not possible until the three ¶ governments begin to construct a “community of interests” in which each of the them ¶ commit significant resources and undertake reforms to close the income gap between ¶ Mexico and its two neighbors and forge institutions and procedures to sustain trust. ¶ Why is the income gap so important to each of the three issues? Contrary to ¶ conventional wisdom, more than 90 percent of the undocumented workers from Mexico do not come to the United States seeking jobs. They leave jobs in Mexico for much ¶ better wages in the United States. Unless the income gap is significantly narrowed, ¶ migration from Mexico will continue to expand. Securing the United States after 9/11 ¶ depends on a secure continent and that is difficult when one of the

weakest links is ¶ Mexico’s poverty. Finally, free trade policies have become unpopular because of

chronic ¶ disputes, the view by some in the United States that it loses jobs because of free trade, the

¶ failure of the United States to comply with NAFTA courts, and the view that Mexico ¶ would be more

developed if free trade worked . ¶ All three problems point to the same solution: a North American

Investment Fund ¶ which invests $20 billion per year for a decade to close the income gap by grants to build ¶ infrastructure—roads, communications, railroads, ports—to connect the poor center and ¶ south of Mexico to its northern neighbors. Ten billion dollars would come from ¶ additional taxes by Mexicans; $9 billion would come from the United States, and $1 ¶ billion from Canada. But these would only be part of an arrangement whereby Mexico ¶ undertakes the kinds of reforms that would allow it to make effective use of these ¶ resources.

2ac perception key

Perception is key to overcome alt causes – relations spill overSelee & Wilson, 12 - *Vice President at Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars; Senior Adviser for the Wilson Center AND **Associate for the Mexico Institute at the Wilson Center (Andrew & Christopher, “Getting ready for a new era in US-Mexico ties”, CNN, 12/3/12, http://www.as-coa.org/articles/viewpoints-what-should-top-priority-be-us-mexican-relations)//NK

U.S.-Mexico relations have been dominated for the past six years by efforts to address drug trafficking and organized crime-related violence. This was the right thing to do while violence spiked in Mexico, but with a new administration in office after the swearing in of President Enrique Peña Nieto over the weekend, the time has come to re-balance the bilateral relationship. Ties tend to have the same top three items on the agenda year after year and administration after administration: immigration; drugs and violence; and trade and economic relations. Drugs and violence have dominated in recent years, and cooperation in addressing the transnational flows of drugs, arms and illicit money, as well as support for Mexico’s efforts to strengthen public security, must continue. Although the gains are still tenuous and the situation fluid, violence in Mexico does appear to have begun to decline at a national level and major advances have been made in key border cities such as Tijuana and Ciudad Juarez. Immigration dominated the early 2000's as presidents Bush and Fox sought a bilateral deal on the topic, but it has since become clear that immigration reform is first and foremost a domestic political issue in the United States. The rate of unauthorized immigration from Mexico has now dropped to historically low levels – there are at least as many leaving as arriving – which should allow for a more rational and reasoned debate on this issue in the United States. More from GPS: Misconceptions about Mexico However, not since the negotiation and implementation of NAFTA in the 1990s have economic relations topped the bilateral agenda. Trade and jobs should once again top the U.S. agenda with Mexico for three main reasons. First, the economy most likely will be the top issue in both the United States and Mexico for the next several years. Economic issues were clearly the top issue for voters in the recent U.S. presidential elections, and in Mexico they matched public security as the top set of concerns. Second, by focusing on the creation of jobs and improving the competitiveness of manufacturers on both sides of the border, we can improve the tone of the relationship. We may even find that the stickier issues of security and migration become a little less intractable. Finally, the economic agenda between the two countries has the potential to yield tangible results, creating jobs and improving the competitive position of North America vis-a-vis Asia. For years, Mexico has oriented its economy toward the U.S. in hopes of harnessing the growth of the world’s most dynamic economy. Now, at a time when Mexico is growing around four percent a year – faster than the United States – Mexico can return the favor and provide a boost to the U.S. economy. Meanwhile, Mexico’s large and growing middle class has become an increasingly important market for U.S. products. More from CNN: New president measured against old corruption As it turns out, U.S. and Mexican companies do not simply sell products to one another, they build products together, with parts zigzagging back and forth across the border as goods are manufactured. As a result, a product imported from Mexico is, on average, made of 40 percent U.S. parts and materials, meaning forty cents of every dollar spent of Mexican imports stays right here in the United States. Chinese products, in contrast, contain just four percent U.S. content. This also means the competitiveness of our two countries is closely linked, and improvements in productivity in one nation make a co-manufactured product cheaper and more competitive on the global market. That is to say, growth in Mexico or the United States will boost exports from both countries: when it comes to manufacturing, we are in it together. To produce

results, the U.S.-Mexico economic agenda needs substance, and there is plenty to do. To start out, we must make the southwest border more efficient without sacrificing security. Today, long and unpredictable wait times act as a type of border tax, cutting away at manufacturers’ competitiveness a bit more each time they send goods across the border. Since we manufacture and export together, the United States should also join forces with Mexico and Canada in designing and implementing a global trade strategy. The first step is robust cooperation in the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations, but the end goal must be to expand the agreement until countries like China and India feel they will lose out if they do not join in. The countries could also tackle ways of making customs procedures more efficient, ensuring regulatory frameworks are compatible, and integrating our transportation and logistics networks to keep up with regional manufacturers, who have already integrated production. In the end, it is a matter of perspective. If Mexico is seen more as a business partner than a source of intractable problems, a whole range of policy options that were previously considered too risky to be tried will be within reach. If such a change in perception occurs, the results will speak for themselves.

Plan changes US perception of Mexico – key to access strategic concessions.Garza, 12 – Former U.S. Ambassador to Mexico; Chairman of Cross-Border Consultancy (Antonio, “Viewpoints: What Should the Top Priority Be for US-Mexican Relations?”, Americas Society & Council of the Americas, 12/3/12, http://www.as-coa.org/articles/viewpoints-what-should-top-priority-be-us-mexican-relations)//NK

The United States and Mexico have enjoyed a very healthy and respectful relationship. On issues of shared interest—primarily trade and security—we’ve cooperated, though mostly out of necessity. Yet neither country has ever truly leveraged the bilateral relationship strategically. What will it take to bring about this kind of fundamental shift? A first step is to get rid of outdated perceptions—on both sides. You simply can’t expect to have a strategic relationship that functions in real time if perceptions lag present realities. There’s been new research and insightful commentary recently highlighting the gap between Americans’ perceptions of Mexico and the country’s current reality. President Enrique Peña Nieto faces the daunting task of moving Main Street U.S. perceptions of Mexico closer to where the views of economists, investors, and discerning travelers are on the country. He will help this along by conveying his administration’s absolute commitment to carrying through promised economic reforms, implementing anti-corruption and transparency initiatives, and reinforcing cooperation on security. For President Obama, it’s important to signal that his new team is completely schooled in the reality of today’s Mexico and that they are prepared to take advantage of the moment to recast the relationship to the benefit of both countries. Delivering on immigration reform and the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement are rare opportunities for a U.S. administration to fundamentally alter Mexicans’ perceptions of their northern partner. As Mexico’s place in the world rises and the U.S. continues to recalibrate its foreign alliances, there’s a unique opportunity to move the bilateral relationship to a more strategic level—but it will take some work.

2ac key to reform

Plan gives the Mexican people what they want – provides momentum for Nieto’s reform agendaFarnsworth & Werz, 12 - *Vice President of the Council of the Americas Society AND **Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress (Eric & Michael,”The United States and Mexico: The Path Forward”, Center for American Progress, 11/30/12, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/security/news/2012/11/30/46430/the-united-states-and-mexico-the-path-forward/)//NK

The outgoing government has effectively used its final days in office to promote a reform agenda consistent with Peña Nieto’s stated views. Mexico has one of the longest transition periods of any democracy—five months. While outgoing governments have traditionally done little during this period, this particular transition period has proven different, particularly with regard to the charged issue of strong protections for labor that have been loosened through new legislation in recent weeks. Working together, the National Action Party executive and the Institutional Revolutionary Party-controlled legislature have joined to give the incoming Peña Nieto government a strong tailwind toward economic opening and greater competition, without having to pay the political cost that labor reform might otherwise have entailed. At the same time, north of the border, President Barack Obama has spoken clearly of his desire for meaningful immigration reform this year, which would provide another significant political and economic boost to the new Mexican president. With labor reform out of the way, attention turns to the three policy fields that Peña Nieto has promised to address, perhaps all at once: energy reform, tax reform, and Social Security reform. Should he succeed in addressing these issues effectively, he will have restructured a significant part of Mexico’s economy, preparing Mexico for an economic takeoff that could rival Asian economies. This effort brings risk as well as promise, since failing with these fundamental reforms could throw Peña Nieto’s presidency into turmoil at its inception. Each of these reforms individually would be enough to occupy the Presidential Palace Los Pinos for months and to soak up the political capital of any president. Doing all of them together would be a political project more involved than any other since the Institutional Revolutionary Party first restructured Mexico’s economy in the 1930s. Clearly, the political stakes are huge. A major obstacle to reform could be the Institutional Revolutionary Party itself. Party discipline will largely ensure a supportive if not compliant congressional delegation, but party bosses, governors, and individual congressional representatives, among others, will likely seek to ensure that their political equities are protected in any reform process.

2ac international problem solving

A combined effort helps solve international disputesFarnsworth & Werz, 12 - *Vice President of the Council of the Americas Society AND **Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress (Eric & Michael,”The United States and Mexico: The Path Forward”, Center for American Progress, 11/30/12, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/security/news/2012/11/30/46430/the-united-states-and-mexico-the-path-forward/)//NK

Peña Nieto’s challenge will be to keep them in line, using traditional tools of political coalition building without stepping over the line into corruption. A number of younger, newly elected members of the Mexican Congress in the leftist Party of the Democratic Revolution have indicated that the deepening of democratic reform is their main priority and that there might be room for cooperation with President-Elect Peña Nieto should he push this agenda. The fate of the reform agenda will arguably be the new president’s greatest and most immediate test. He faces a Mexican public that no longer tolerates the old ways of doing politics in Mexico and is skeptical that the Institutional Revolutionary Party has truly changed. But equally importantly, the party has been out of power for 12 years and its leaders now want and expect to receive the rewards that national power bestows. It will be a delicate balancing act for Peña Nieto. But his inauguration also has implications for U.S.-Mexico relations, which will play out on both sides of the border. The path forward Given this backdrop, the new Mexican president needs major political and policy successes in 2013 to consolidate power within his own party and secure congressional majorities for an ongoing economic reform process. Here, the United States has an important role to play: The two countries are intertwined in a unique way and thus the political success of Enrique Peña Nieto will, at least in part, be impacted by what happens north of the border. And the to-do list for the United States is extensive, but it is largely focused on economic policy and immigration reform. Immigration reform is increasingly likely to dominate the domestic debate once the fiscal cliff is resolved. President-Elect Peña Nieto made a strong endorsement of immigration reform at his Washington press conference with President Obama this week, stating that he fully supports President Obama’s proposal. Even though a strong majority of Americans support a pathway to citizenship for the 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the country, it will remain a difficult legislative battle. And while aligning with a popular U.S. president who will be viewed as fighting to legalize Mexican nationals makes obvious sense, there is some risk that a failed legislative effort will trigger collateral damage to Peña Nieto’s image in Mexico. On the economic front, the success of the new Mexican administration’s economic reform and growth agenda is a core interest of the United States. A number of policy fields will be crucial to create a successful North American growth model and will elevate the transactional partnership with Mexico to a strategic relationship much like the United States enjoys with Canada. To achieve this goal, both countries must address a number of issues simultaneously. The creation of jobs will play a central role in domestic politics in both countries. U.S-Mexican trade needs to be encouraged in the border region and beyond. To achieve this, the U.S.-Mexican border needs to be more permeable and allow more crossings at lower cost. To secure energy independence, both countries need to prioritize research and development investments to ensure that technologies that facilitate access to shale gas—such as horizontal drilling combined with hydraulic fracking—do not adversely affect the environment. This is a necessary step to move forward with the development of massive North American shale gas resources—a potential strategic game-changer. Mexican states along the U.S. border are official observers in the Western Climate Initiative, joining California and four Canadian provinces. The federal governments in both the United States and

Mexico should take aggressive steps to make it more feasible for these Mexican states to become full partners in the initiative to achieve meaningful reductions in carbon pollution and move toward greater U.S.-Mexican cooperation on future North American pollution cuts. Both countries need to expand their economic relations with Asia and Europe. President-Elect Peña Nieto sees China as an important future partner for economic growth. Both Mexico and Canada were invited in June to join the negotiations toward the Trans-Pacific Partnership—an important if belated step. Both should also be included at the very beginning of discussions with Europe—should they occur as has been rumored—toward the creation of a free trade zone in the Atlantic. Such trade negotiations would provide an added means for the three North American economies to build cooperation. The war against cartels and gangs involved in the illegal drugs trade continues to rage on both sides of the border, although indications of progress include a reduction in violence, cleaned-up cities, and increasing professionalization of the Mexican security forces. Achieving a reduction of violence will be a key challenge for President-Elect Peña Nieto, with street protests demanding as much. Judicial reform is moving forward, albeit slowly, but Mexican authorities still rely too greatly on confession by apprehended suspects and have deficits in the acquisition and use of intelligence. This fight needs to be framed as a joint challenge, emphasizing the co-responsibility of the United States, as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has expressed several times. The re-launch of a U.S.-Mexican bilateral commission would be an important vehicle to institutionalize cabinet-level discussions across the broad range of issues that affect our countries and maybe trilateralize along with Canada from time to time. Tone and perception count a lot in the bilateral relationship. In addition, both sides should establish permanent working groups to help change the image and perception of Mexico in the United States and vice versa. Such an engagement in public diplomacy could include messaging and outreach to counter the often-distorted perception of Mexican society in the United States. The election of Enrique Peña Nieto and the re-election of President Obama mean that the U.S.-Mexican relationship has a unique opportunity to grow closer and bring numerous benefits to both sides of the border. To fully appreciate this unique opportunity, both sides must invest political capital and be prepared to engage domestic public opinion when it comes to explaining why our countries are united by much more than a fence.

2ac action now key

Nieto gains political capital – US must act nowNavarrette, 12 – Harvard Graduate, CNN Syndicated Columnist (Ruben, “To-Do List for Obama and Mexico’s New President, CNN, 11/27/12, http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/26/opinion/navarrette-mexico-president/index.html)//NK

Those people are now taking another look at the PRI. The way they see it, the party may have been corrupt, but at least it was competent. Unlike the PAN, whose leaders seem obsessed with causes and crusades -- for Fox, defending Mexican immigrants in the United States, and for Calderon, the drug war -- the PRI kept the trains running on time. Can Enrique Peña Nieto save Mexico? As many Mexicans see it, the country needs to move on to other business. They expect Pena Nieto to lead the way. They may not want a complete and unconditional surrender to the drug cartels, but they could live with an accommodation that included an end to the violence. The battle against the drug cartels is sure to be on the agenda Tuesday when Pena Nieto is scheduled to visit the White House and meet with President Barack Obama. I had the chance to meet Pena Nieto during my trip and hear about his vision for building a new and improved Mexico. Despite the knocks that he has taken from the Mexican press and the elites for not appearing to be book-smart, he has more than his share of "EQ" -- emotional intelligence. This will carry him far with a Mexican public that, at this point, wants to have leaders that it can relate to, who will address its everyday concerns. Mexico's misconceptions Like a certain recent U.S. president from Texas, Pena Nieto is taken lightly by many as he enters the office. Yet sometimes being underestimated can be helpful. And just as George W. Bush reached the height of his popularity after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Pena Nieto might yet surprise his critics and rise to the challenge of dealing with a major crisis when faced with one. In his meeting with Obama, the Mexican president-elect is likely to dwell on what he believes the U.S. can accomplish for Mexico. This will probably include delivering the last few hundred million dollars worth of equipment and supplies that is owed to Mexico to help it fight the drug cartels under the $1.4 billion Merida Initiative; safeguarding the rights of Mexican immigrants in the United States regardless of legal status; and supporting the creation of a North American trade alliance (the US, Mexico and Canada) that could compete with Asia and the European Union on the stage of global commerce. But Pena Nieto should also focus on what Mexico can accomplish for the United States. He could pledge to continue the drug war and keep the pressure on the cartels, in the spirit of the Merida Initiative; vow to create more jobs and better-paying jobs in Mexico, especially in the poorest regions that produce most of the illegal immigrants to the United States; commit himself to addressing the severe inequalities between Mexicans, closing the huge gap between rich and poor, and expanding the middle class in a country where more than 50% of the population still lives in poverty; and pledge to open up the Mexican petroleum industry to investment from North America and partnerships with American and Canadian oil companies. Latin America's challenge All of this would benefit not only the relationship between Mexico and the United States, but also the lives of Mexicans. Those people seem to be tired of crusades. Now, it appears that they want their leaders to focus on the basics: creating better-paying jobs, protecting the population, expanding trade, improving access to technology, developing infrastructure in rural areas, and improving relations with foreign countries and trade partners. Those are some of the challenges facing Enrique Pena Nieto. How he addresses them will tell us whether the Mexican people who elected him, and returned his party to power, made a wise choice or a bad mistake.

2ac mexico says yes

Mexico says yes – past prioritization of the bilateral relationship Pastor 12 - professor and director of the Center for North American Studies at American University (Robert, “Beyond the Continental Divide”, The American Interest, July/August 2012, http://www.the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=1269)//WL

Mexico, the weakest of the three partners, has been the boldest in proposing ways to deepen the relationship. The United States has been courteous but mostly unresponsive to new ideas, and it has violated the agreement without notable qualms when special interests have insisted it do so. Canada has been altogether dismissive of Mexico and its trilateral proposals. Embracing its “special relationship” with the

United States, Canada remains oblivious to the overwhelming evidence that its affections are reciprocated with empty gestures, not agreements. The result is that the noble experiment of creating a genuinely new North America that soared in its first decade has been in decline ever since.¶ Instead of forging a community of interests to make the continent more competitive and secure, instead of negotiating a customs union, regulatory harmonization, a single North American pass to transit both borders, a mechanism for reducing the income gap between Mexico and its northern neighbors, a North American Transportation and Infrastructure Plan, proposals for joint research and educational exchanges, a common policy on climate change and energy security, higher labor standards—instead of implementing all of these initiatives, or for that matter, any of them, the political leadership of all three countries from administration to administration in Washington, Toronto and Mexico City essentially reverted to the dysfunctional dual-bilateral relationships—U.S.-Canada and U.S.-Mexico—that had characterized the pre-NAFTA era. ¶ The three countries of North America had an opportunity to create a unique regional alternative to the European Union that would begin with three countries and, like a magnet, could draw the entirety of Latin America and the Caribbean toward it, strengthening the New World’s democracy, prosperity and security in the process. But they dropped the ball. ¶ Instead of that better future, we gained another irony. NAFTA dismantled most trade and investment barriers in North America, and the gravitational attraction of the U.S. market gave birth to a continental

economy with an agenda extending considerably beyond NAFTA’s. That new economy created or exacerbated economic and social

challenges, including immigration, drug-related violence and border and labor-market complexities. Instead of developing more robust forms of collaboration to deal with these issues, our leaders reverted to the method of

dealing with one issue, one crisis, one country at a time. They measured progress by the number of meetings rather than by results. ¶ This strategy of

proliferating transactional costs without generating solutions allowed Asia to acquire a new dynamism while the three countries of North America slipped. And though NAFTA was never empowered to deal with such issues, it was blamed for these problems and much else, morphing into a piñata to be whacked by pandering pundits and politicians in all three countries. The acronym became politically toxic, and the free trade area became a leadership-free zone.

2ac NAIF key to trasnational problem solving

Plan creates cooperation key to solve transnational problemsPastor 12 - professor and director of the Center for North American Studies at American University (Robert, “Beyond the Continental Divide”, The American Interest, July/August 2012, http://www.the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=1269)//WLThere is no paucity of problems to address. The three leaders should call for a North American Plan for Transportation and Infrastructure, for example, and establish a North American Investment fund that would connect the poorest southern regions of Mexico with the richer North American market. Such a fund would create the infrastructure in the south of Mexico that would attract investment and jobs and thus reduce migration to the north. ¶ To create a seamless market, the three countries should negotiate a common external tariff. That would eliminate the excessive “rules of origin” tax of about $500 billion per year, and the nominal common tariff could be used to fund the North American Investment Fund. Building roads, dismantling unnecessary border restrictions, expanding educational opportunities across the continent, harmonizing and raising environmental and labor standards, training tri-national teams of customs officers—these small steps could begin to invigorate the sleeping giant of North America. ¶ It is unrealistic

to expect these ideas to become policy in a short time. Big ideas take time for the body politic to absorb. But we have to keep at it, and there are various ways to gain leverage. Representatives from the border regions could generate support for the “North American Idea”, for example. The nations’ three leaders could articulate a vision

and announce a few, inexpensive initiatives that would nonetheless put the idea on their constituencies’ mental maps. They could merge the two sets of working groups on borders and regulations into a single North American group.

They could ask their Ministers of Transportation to develop a North American Plan in a year. The three countries’ coast guards have much to share and could benefit from more coordination. Our leaders could allocate as little as $15 million for scholarships and support for Research Centers for North America. That research could be connected to a North American Garden initiative to plant trees, conserve fresh water resources and share insights on how to grow healthy food in abundance. All of these would be a good start. ¶ The problem is that our leaders do not think continentally. As long as they persist in focusing on bilateral or Asian relationships, they will be blind to the promise and the problems of North America. At base, today’s problems are the result of the three governments’ failure to govern the North

American space for mutual benefit. Once they visualize “North America” and decide to approach their problems from a continental perspective, solutions will appear that were previously invisible. ¶ None of the many proposals that have been advanced for the region can be achieved without such a vision. Americans and Canadians will not contribute to a North American Investment Fund to narrow the development gap with Mexico without being convinced that Mexico’s growth will benefit their countries. There is little prospect of reaching an agreement on labor mobility, harmonizing environmental standards, forging a transportation plan, or most any proposal that would cost money or change the status quo unless there is a vision of a wider community that could attract the support of the people and their legislatures. The right vision can inspire the three nations to rethink North America and incorporate the idea into our consciousness and policies. We can be more than the sum of our three great countries, but only if we first see the possibility.

2ac pastor run (el pastor taco?)

NAFTA was insufficient for the economy and national security – new method of integration key to narrow the income gap with MexicoPastor, 6 – Professor and Director, Center for North American Studies, American University (Robert, “Breaking Out of the Box,” Newsweek International, March 21, http://www.american.edu/sis/cnas/upload/Newsweek_2006-03-21_Breaking_Out_of_the_Bowc.pdf)//SY

What they should do is think far more boldly. The only way to solve the most pressing problems in the region—including ¶ immigration, security, and declining competitiveness—is to create a true North American Community. No two nations are ¶ more important to the United States than Canada and Mexico, and no investment will bolster security and yield greater ¶ economic benefits for America than one that narrows the income gap between Mexico and its North American partners.

Bridging that gap was supposed to be one of the many benefits that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) ¶ would deliver. And indeed, since NAFTA took effect in 1994, trade and investment among the United States, Mexico and ¶ Canada have nearly tripled, making North America the world's largest free-trade area in terms of territory and gross ¶ domestic product (GDP). Yet the income gap has widened: the annual per capita GDP of the United States ($43,883) ¶ today is more than six times that of Mexico ($6,937).

NAFTA has been inadequate in other ways as well. The agreement made no provisions for cushioning economic ¶ downturns like the Mexican peso crisis of 1994-95. It created no credible institutions that operate on a truly regional basis. ¶ Thus, after terrorists struck New York and Washington on September 11, 2001, the Bush administration unilaterally ¶ tightened security on its international borders while Ottawa and Mexico City reverted to their traditional ambivalence ¶ toward Washington.

Closing the development gap solves North American integration and relations, Mexican economy, and competitivenessPastor, 8 – Professor and Director, Center for North American Studies, American University (Robert, “The Solution to North America’s Triple Problem: The Case for a North American Investment Fund,” Norteamerica, Year 2, Number 2, July, http://www.american.edu/sis/cnas/upload/triple_problem_pastor.pdf)//SY

Unless and until the development gap between Mexico and the U.S. can begin to¶ close, the prospect of having a genuine partnership among the three countries of North¶ America will remain distant. There are other compelling reasons for the three¶ governments to consider the development gap as the paramount challenge facing North¶ America. NAFTA, at best, has run out of steam; the continental relationships are in¶ danger of going into reverse. The policy responses to 9/11 and the creation of the¶ Department of Homeland Security have constructed a formidable speed bump on the two¶ borders that impede trade.¶ NAFTA may be viewed as a problem but “North America” is, actually, a¶ magnificent opportunity. Stimulating Mexico’s economy might be one of the best ways¶ to promote competitiveness for the entire continent. The most effective response to¶ competition from China, for example, is one that merges the comparative advantages of¶ each unit of North America. Developing a

community of interests in which the three¶ governments take steps to make the continent more secure and their relationships fair¶ would establish the region as the model.

To narrow the gap, US must give significant funds to Mexico conditioned on domestic economic reforms – EU provesPastor, 8 – Professor and Director, Center for North American Studies, American University (Robert, “The Solution to North America’s Triple Problem: The Case for a North American Investment Fund,” Norteamerica, Year 2, Number 2, July, http://www.american.edu/sis/cnas/upload/triple_problem_pastor.pdf)//SY

(b) Convergence and Conditionality. Among the many factors responsible for¶ narrowing the gap were a single market, foreign investment, and massive aid programs¶ from the EU. An analysis of the difference in growth rates among the four “Cohesion”¶ countries—between Ireland and Greece, for example—leads to the inescapable¶ conclusion that national policy is a fourth, critical determinant. The most effective¶ “national policies” were those that utilized the incentive of conditionality to maintain¶ stable macro-economic policies and transparency. The lesson is to use the first three¶ factors as an incentive for the recipient government to adopt the appropriate economic¶ policies that would make best use of the resources.(c) Projects and Personnel. The EU has funded almost every imaginable kind of¶ project through many structures but most analysts agree with Rainer Martin that¶ investments in two areas were most effective—infrastructure and human capital (Martin,¶ 1998, pp. 66-72).(d) The Magnitude and the Focus of the Commitment. The task of closing the¶ gap between richer and poorer countries in a free trade area is a formidable one, but the¶ EU has demonstrated that it can be done, provided that its members make a serious¶ commitment and appropriate significant funds for that purpose. Europe has transferred¶ €30 billion per year ($40 billion US). About half—the investments in infrastructure and¶ human capital—had a multiplier effect on development. Much of the other half went to¶ the poorer provinces in the richer countries as “side-payments.”

Investment Fund most effective method for closing the gap – effective use of resources and minimal bureaucracyPastor, 8 – Professor and Director, Center for North American Studies, American University (Robert, “The Solution to North America’s Triple Problem: The Case for a North American Investment Fund,” Norteamerica, Year 2, Number 2, July, http://www.american.edu/sis/cnas/upload/triple_problem_pastor.pdf)//SY

(3) Mechanism/Institution. In the interest of using scarce resources, most¶ effectively, and keeping bureaucracy to the minimum, the three governments should¶ establish a “North American Investment Fund” as the principal instrument for channeling¶ money to narrow the income gap. North America should not create a new bank. Rather,¶ it should deposit money in a Fund that would be administered by the World Bank (and/or¶ the Inter-American Development Bank) under the supervision of a Board appointed by all¶ three governments. To avoid the EU’s problem of perpetual institutionalization, the Fund¶ should have a “sun-set” provision. It should have a ten-year term and it should be¶ continued beyond that date only by decision of all three governments.Some have proposed using the North American Development Bank (NAD Bank),¶ but that institution’s mission is to invest in environmental and small infrastructure¶ projects near the border and it does not have the capability for the large infrastructure¶ projects needed to close the development gap. Rather than provide funds and personnel¶ to give the Bank such a capability, it would make more

sense to use an existing¶ institution with a proven capability. To establish such a fund, the leaders of the three¶ countries would need to make such a request of the President of the World Bank.

2ac relations uniqueness

The aff is key to improve integration and relations with Mexico – solves a laundry listSelee and Wilson, 12 - Andrew Selee is Vice President for Programs and Senior Advisor to the Mexico Institute and Christopher Wilson is an associate with the Mexico Institute, (Andrew and Christopher, Wilson Center, November 2012, http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/a_new_agenda_with_mexico.pdf)//sawyer

The depth of economic ties with Mexico, together with declines in illegal immigration and organized crime violence in Mexico, Open up an opportunity for U.S. policymakers to deepen the economic relationship with Mexico and to engage Mexico more on major global issues. Security cooperation, especially strengthening institutions for rule of law and disrupting money laundering, will remain important to the relationship, and there are clear opportunities to reform the U.S. legal immigration system over the next few years, which would have important implications for the relationship with Mexico. The strongest engagement, going forward, is likely to be on the economic issues that can help create jobs for people on both sides of the border, and on the shared global challenges that both countries face. Few countries will shape America’s future as much as Mexico. The two countries share a 2,000 mile border, and Mexico is the second largest destination for U.S. exports and third source of oil for the U.S. market. A quarter of all U.S. immigrants are from Mexico, and one in ten Americans are of Mexican descent. Joint security challenges, including both terrorist threats and the violent operations of drug cartels, have forced the two governments to work more closely than ever. What’s more, cooperation has now extended to a range of other global issues, from climate change to economic stability. Nonetheless, the landscape of U.S.-Mexico relations is changing . and organized crime violence, which has driven much of the recent cooperation, is finally declining. Violence will remain a critical issue, but economic issues—bilateral and global—have risen to the fore as both countries struggle to emerge from the global slowdown. Trade has increased dramatically, connecting the manufacturing base of the two countries as never before, so that gains in one country benefit the other. To keep pace with these changes, U.S. policymakers will need to deepen the agenda with

Mexico to give greater emphasis to economic issues, including ways to spur job creation , and they will have opportunities to strengthen cooperation on global issues. Security cooperation will remain critical, and determined but nuanced followthrough to dismantle the operations of criminal groups on both sides of the border will be needed to continue the drop in violence. With less illegal immigration, it will be easier to address legal migration in new ways. However, economic issues are likely to dominate the bilateral agenda for the first time in over a decade. Strengthening economic ties and creating Jobs In most trading relationships, the U.S. simply buys or sells finished goods to another country. However, with its neighbors, Mexico and Canada, the U.S. actually co-manufactures products. Indeed, roughly 40 percent of all content in Mexican exports to the United States originates in the United States. The comparable figures with China, Brazil, and India are four, three, and two percent respectively. Only Canada, at 25 percent, is similar. With the economies of North America

deeply linked, growth in one country benefits the others, and lowering the transaction costs of

goods crossing the common borders among these three countries helps put money in the pockets

of both workers and consumers . Improving border ports of entry is critical to achieving this and will require moderate investments in infrastructure and staffing, as well as the use of new risk management techniques and the expansion of pre-inspection and trusted shipper programs to speed

up border crossing times. Transportation costs could be further lowered — and competitiveness further strengthened — by pursuing an Open Skies agreement and making permanent the cross-border trucking pilot program. While these are generally seen as border issues, the benefits accrue to all U.S. states that depend on exports and joint manufacturing with Mexico, including Michigan, Ohio, Nebraska, Iowa, South Dakota, New Hampshire, and Georgia, to name just a few. Mexico also has both abundant oil reserves and one of the largest stocks of shale gas in the world. The country will probably pursue a major energy reform over the next couple years that could spur oil and gas production, which has been declining over the past decade. If that happens, it is certain to detonate a cycle of investment in the Mexican economy, could significantly contribute to North American energy security , and may open a space for North American discussions about deepened energy cooperation Reinforcing Security cooperation Organized crime groups based in Mexico supply most of the cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamines, and some of the marijuana, to U.S. consumers, who, in return, send six to nine billion dollars to Mexico each year that fuels the violence associated with this trade. The U.S. and Mexican governments have significantly improved intelligence sharing, which has helped weaken many of these criminal networks and disrupt some of their financial flows. At the same time, the congressionally funded Merida Initiative, which has provided $1.6 billion to Mexico for national and public security since 2008, has been successfully strengthening the Mexican government’s capacity and rule of law institutions. These efforts appear to be yielding some success as violence has dropped noticeably since mid-2011. Going forward, the two countries will need to do more to disrupt the southbound flows of illegal money and weapons that supply the criminal groups, strengthen communities under the stress of violence, and improve the performance of police, prosecutors, and courts in Mexico. In many ways, Mexico has been successful at turning a national security threat into a public security threat, but the country now requires significant investment to create an effective and accountable criminal justice system and to slow the flow of illegal funds from the U.S. that undermine these efforts. As Mexico’s security crisis begins to recede, the two countries will also have to do far more to strengthen the governments of Central America, which now face a rising tide of violence as organized crime groups move southward. Mexico is also a U.S. ally in deterring terrorist threats and promoting robust democracy in the Western Hemisphere , and there will be numerous opportunities to strengthen the already active collaboration as growing economic opportunities reshape the region’s political and social landscape managing Legal migration flows Since 2007, the number of Mexican migrants illegally entering the United States has dropped to historically low levels, with a net outflow of unauthorized immigrants from the U.S. over the past three years. The drop is partially because of the weak U.S. economy, but it also has to do with more effective U.S. border enforcement and better economic opportunities in Mexico. This shift offers the potential for both countries to explore new approaches to migration for the first time in a decade In the United States, policymakers have an opportunity to look specifically at how to reform the legal immigration system. Almost all sides agree that the current immigration system, originally developed in the 1960s, fails to address the realities of a twenty-first century economy. A renewed discussion on this issue could focus on how to restructure the U.S. visa system to bring in the kinds of workers and entrepreneurs the United States needs to compete globally in the future. This includes both high-skilled and lowerskilled workers, who fill important gaps in the U.S. economy. Policymakers should consider whether those already in the United States, who have set down roots and are contributing effectively to the economy and their communities, might also be able to apply through a restructured visa system. Mexican policymakers, on the other hand, have huge opportunities to consolidate Mexico’s burgeoning middle class in those communities where out-migration has been a feature of life so as to make sure that people no longer need to leave the country to get ahead. There are a number of ambitious efforts, including some led by Mexican migrants that can serve as models for this. Mexican policymakers could also facilitate U.S. reform efforts by indicating how they could help cooperate with a new U.S. visa system if the U.S.

Congress moves forward on a legal immigration reform. Addressing Major Global Issues With Mexico Over the past few years, the U.S. and Mexican governments have expanded beyond the bilateral agenda to work closely together on global issues, from climate change to international trade and the economic crisis. The U.S. government should continue to take advantage of the opportunities this creates for joint problem-solving. Mexico’s active participation in the G-20, which it hosted in 2012, and in the U.N. Framework on Climate Change, which it hosted in 2010, have helped spur this collaboration, and the recent accession of Mexico into the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations provides one obvious avenue to continue it. The two countries also coordinate more extensively than ever before on diplomatic issues, ranging from the breakdown of democratic order in Honduras to Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Mexico is likely to play an increasingly active role on global economic and environmental issues, areas where the country has significant experience, and through cooperative efforts the U .S. can take advantage of Mexico’s role as a bridge between the developed and developing worlds, and between North America and Latin America. The bilateral agenda will remain critically important —and the increasingly deep integration of the two economies and societies means that efforts on trade, security, and migration will remain vital for the future of both countries. In addition, the maturation of the bilateral relationship means that it may one day resemble that between the United States and Canada, in which global issues can be as important as the strictly bilateral issues. A balanced and wide-ranging U.S.-Mexico agenda—one that seeks creative and collaborative approaches on topics ranging from local gangs to global terrorist networks and from regional supply chains to international finance—promises significant mutually beneficial results in the coming years. Key Recommendations Work together with Mexico and Canada to strengthen regional

competitiveness and to grow North American exports to the world. Economic issues can drive the next phase in deepening U.S.-Mexico cooperation. Investments in trusted shipper programs, pre-inspection programs, and enhanced border infrastructure will be crucial. Deepen support for Mexico’s criminal justice institutions, and strengthen U.S. antimoney laundering efforts in order to combat organized crime and violence. Reform the legal immigration system to ensure U.S. labor needs are met for both high-skilled and low-skilled workers, and incorporate those who are already contributing to the U.S. economy and their communities. Engage Mexico more actively on hemispheric and extra-hemispheric foreign policy issues, ranging from terrorism to international trade and finance, as Mexico’s role as a global power grows.

2ac econ key to relations

Economic collaboration is the bedrock of bilateral relations with MexicoFarnsworth 12 – Eric Farnsworth is the Vice President of the Council of the Americas, (“What Should the Top Priority Be for U.S.-Mexican Relations?”12/6/12, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-farnsworth/top-priority-us-mexico_b_2245025.html)//sawyer

In terms of the bilateral relationship, however, both governments (including their legislatures) should recognize the nature of economic integration that has occurred since NAFTA, making our two economies virtually inseparable, along with Canada, as a joint production platform. This new reality should both be celebrated and also enhanced. Joint approaches within the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations can be a means to achieve NAFTA 2.0. If coupled with a North American approach to potential trade negotiations with the EU, North American economic integration can advance to a point unthinkable even a few short years ago. With continued economic and commercial pressure from China, India, and elsewhere, this approach will support the long-term economic well-being of the United States and North America more broadly. A joint economic agenda is now more achievable than before. The Hispanic community in the United States has found its voice politically, manufacturing is returning to the United States due to lower prices for natural gas, and, despite ongoing concerns about violence and the drugs trade, Mexico is doing well enough economically to entice investors back from China. Now is perhaps the best opportunity in recent memory to intensify economic collaboration. It should be the top bilateral priority.

The economic relationship is keyVillarreal 13 - Specialist in International Trade and Finance, (Angeles, “U.S.-Mexico Economic Relations: Trends, Issues, and Implications”, April 5, 2013, http://international-trade-reports.blogspot.com/2013/04/us-mexico-economic-relations-trends.html)//sawyer

The bilateral economic and trade relationship with Mexico is of interest to U.S. policymakers because of Mexico’s proximity to the United States , the high level of bilateral trade, and the strong cultural and economic ties that connect the two countries. Also, it is of national interest for the United States to have a prosperous and democratic Mexico as a neighboring country. Mexico is the United States’ third-largest trading partner, while the United States is, by far, Mexico’s largest trading partner. Mexico ranks third as a source of U.S. imports, after China and Canada, and second, after Canada, as an export market for U.S. goods and services. The United States is the largest source of foreign direct investment (FDI) in Mexico.¶ The United States and Mexico have strong economic ties through the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which has been in effect since 1994. Prior to NAFTA, Mexico had followed a strong protectionist policy for decades until it began to unilaterally liberalize its trade regime in the late 1980s. Not all trade-related job gains and losses since NAFTA can be entirely attributed to the agreement because of the numerous factors that affect trade, such as Mexico’s trade liberalization efforts, economic conditions, and currency fluctuations. NAFTA may have accelerated the ongoing trade and investment trends that were already taking place at the time. Most studies show that the net economic effects of NAFTA on both countries have been small but positive, though there have been adjustment costs to some sectors within both countries.

The income gap between Latin America and the US is the crux of bad relationsPrzeworksi & Curvale, 5 – *Professors of Politics at New York University AND **Assistant Professor of Politics at New York University (Adam & Carolina, “Does politics explain the economic gap between the United States and Latin America?”, 3/3/03, http://www.dri.fas.nyu.edu/docs/IO/2800/ba_gap.pdf)//NK

Abstract In 1700, and perhaps as late as in 1800, per capita incomes were about the same in Latin America and the United States. By 2000, Latin American per capita income was about one-Öfth that of the United States. The gap was already visible by 1820 and it became large by 1870. Between 1870 and 1980, Latin America grew at about the same rate as the United States. But compounded at the same rate, the 1870 di§erence became enormous by 2000. Hence, Latin America fell behind during the wars of independence and the political turmoil that ensued in their aftermath. The di§erence in the e§ects of independence between the North and the South was a consequence of the breakdown of institutional continuity in Latin America: the disintegration of Spanish colonial administration left the continent without an institutional framework that could absorb and regulate economic and political conáicts. When stable institutions were Önally established and where they permitted some political pluralism, Latin American economies grew. What mattered was not whether these institutions were egalitarian, but whether they channelled conáicts into a regulated framework. Inequality, however, led to political crises, and the recurrent political instability was costly to growth.

2ac now key

Peña Nieto’s administration offers great opportunity for building US-Mexico relations – now is keyCarpenter, 12 – Senior fellow, Cato Institute (Ted Galen, “How Mexico’s New President Can Make or Break Its Future,” US News and World Report, 12/6, http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/2012/12/06/how-mexicos-new-president-pea-nieto-can-make-or-break-its-future)//SY

U.S. officials also need to work in a more cooperative and creative manner with Mexico City on resolving the problem of illegal immigration. Finally, American government and business leaders need to heed Mitt Romney's correct observation during his third debate with President Obama that Latin America offers far greater economic opportunities than is generally recognized. That is especially true of Mexico.

Peña Nieto's presidency may be the most crucial one that Mexico has experienced in many decades. The policies he pursues—and whether Washington supports or impedes needed changes—will go a long way toward determining whether Mexico becomes the latest BRIC or drifts toward greater violence and economic stagnation.

2013 is the best time to advance US-Mexico relations – right economic and political conditionsFarnsworth, 12 – Vice President, Council of the Americas (Eric, “What Should the Top Priority Be for U.S. Mexican Relations?” Huffington Post, 12/6, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-farnsworth/top-priority-us-mexico_b_2245025.html)//SY

"Should be" and "will be" have frequently been two very different things in the U.S.-Mexico bilateral relationship. The coming year offers the opportunity for a new approach.

For their own domestic purposes and in the wake of their respective elections, the United States should quickly tackle immigration reform while Mexico should liberalize its energy sector.

In terms of the bilateral relationship, however, both governments (including their legislatures) should recognize the nature of economic integration that has occurred since NAFTA, making our two economies virtually inseparable, along with Canada, as a joint production platform. This new reality should both be celebrated and also enhanced. Joint approaches within the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations can be a means to achieve NAFTA 2.0. If coupled with a North American approach to potential trade negotiations with the EU, North American economic integration can advance to a point unthinkable even a few short years ago. With continued economic and commercial pressure from China, India, and elsewhere, this approach will support the long-term economic well-being of the United States and North America more broadly.

A joint economic agenda is now more achievable than before . The Hispanic community in the United States has found its voice politically, manufacturing is returning to the United States due to lower prices for natural gas, and, despite ongoing concerns about violence and the drugs trade, Mexico is doing well enough economically to entice investors back from China. Now is perhaps the best

opportunity in recent memory to intensify economic collaboration. It should be the top bilateral

priority.

Reinforcing relations now is key – Mexico able to reform and US able to change perceptionsGarza, 12 – Former US ambassador to Mexico (Antonio, “Viewpoints: What Should the Top Priority Be for U.S. Mexican Relations?” Americas Society – Council of the Americas, 12/3, http://www.as-coa.org/articles/viewpoints-what-should-top-priority-be-us-mexican-relations)//SY

What will it take to bring about this kind of fundamental shift? A first step is to get rid of outdated perceptions—on both sides. You simply can’t expect to have a strategic relationship that functions in real time if perceptions lag present realities. There’s been new research and insightful commentary recently highlighting the gap between Americans’ perceptions of Mexico and the country’s current reality.

President Enrique Peña Nieto faces the daunting task of moving Main Street U.S. perceptions of Mexico closer to where the views of economists, investors, and discerning travelers are on the country. He will help this along by conveying his administration’s absolute commitment to carrying through promised economic reforms, implementing anti-corruption and transparency initiatives, and reinforcing cooperation on security.

For President Obama, it’s important to signal that his new team is completely schooled in the reality of today’s Mexico and that they are prepared to take advantage of the moment to recast the relationship to the benefit of both countries. Delivering on immigration reform and the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement are rare opportunities for a U.S. administration to fundamentally alter Mexicans’ perceptions of their northern partner.

As Mexico’s place in the world rises and the U.S. continues to recalibrate its foreign alliances, there’s a unique opportunity to move the bilateral relationship to a more strategic level—but it will take some work.

Now is key – first two years after federal elections is the ideal time to achieve economic reformsDiaz-Cayeros, 13 – Director, Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, University of California, San Diego (Alberto, “Mexico in Transition,” CoBank Outlook, Volume 10, Number 6, June, interviewed by Outlook, http://www.cobank.com/~/media/Files/Searchable%20PDF%20Files/Newsroom%20Financials/Outlook/Outlook%202013/Outlook_0613.pdf)//SY

ADC: I don’t think we’ll see any major turmoil or challenges in the next ¶ few years. The Mexican political system has no elections at the state level ¶ during the first two years after a federal election, so it’s very easy to create ¶ coalitions to pass reforms. There is, however, a question as to whether the ¶ lack of security from drug violence will give birth to paramilitary groups or ¶ community police forces in indigenous communities. Those groups promise ¶ to protect locals from drug lords but they are heavily armed. In at least once ¶ community, Cheran, such a group canceled an election at a municipal level. ¶

They said, ‘We don’t want there to be an election. We will just say who our ¶ new mayor will be.’OUTLOOK: What should the U.S. do to enhance its relationship with

Mexico?ADC: I don’t think the Obama administration has put very much attention on ¶ Mexico. Washington, D.C. is very much out of touch with what the governors ¶ of the border states are thinking about. States like Texas and Arizona are ¶ paying attention to investments in energy and manufacturing and they’re ¶ worried about violence in Mexico creeping in. Washington is focused on the ¶ immigration debate and the Arizona law instead of on trade and economics.

Now is the best opportunity for increasing US-Mexico economic relations – possible reforms and energy boomInter-American Dialogue, 13 (“A More Ambitious Agenda,” February, http://www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/IAD9042_USMexicoReportEnglishFinal.pdf)//SY

U¶ S President Barack Obama was sworn in for his second four-year term on January 20, ¶ less than two months after Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto took office for a ¶ single term of six years. Their nearly concurrent inaugurations come at an especially ¶ auspicious moment for relations between the United States and Mexico. Today, more than at any time since the signing of the NAFTA treaty in 1992, the two nations ¶ have the opportunity to substantially upgrade their already robust economic partnership. ¶ Mexico’s proposed reform of its energy sector coupled with the oil and natural gas boom taking ¶ place in the United States are particularly promising. Together, they could bring North America ¶ closer than ever to energy independence.

Must strengthen US-Mexico relations now – key to stay competitive in faltering global marketsInter-American Dialogue, 13 (“A More Ambitious Agenda,” February, http://www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/IAD9042_USMexicoReportEnglishFinal.pdf)//SY

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).

“Post-honeymoon” period ideal time for increasing relations –now key for reformsGarza, 13 – Former US Ambassador to Mexico (Antonio, “Obama Goes to Mexico: Time is Ripe to Advance Bilateral Relations,” Fox News Latino, April 29, http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/opinion/2013/04/29/obama-goes-to-mexico-time-is-ripe-to-advance-bilateral-relations/)//SY

As strong as the bilateral relationship is now, however, it must deepen and evolve in order to ensure expanded opportunity and security for both countries going forward. Presidents Peña Nieto and Obama have both entered a post-honeymoon environment that demands hard work and successively heavier lifts on every policy goal.With the stakes potentially so high on so many issues fundamental to the relationship, only the highest-level commitment will advance the agenda. There may never be a more opportune time.

Election of Obama and Peña Nieto offers opportunity for strengthening economic ties Lobe, 13 – Journalist and the Washington Bureau Chief, agency Inter Press Service (Jim, “Think Tank Urges “More Ambitious” U.S.-Mexican Agenda,” Inter Press Service, 2/6, http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/02/think-tank-urges-more-ambitious-u-s-mexican-agenda/)//SY

WASHINGTON, Feb 6 2013 (IPS) - The electoral and political stars are aligning in ways that offer the United States and Mexico major opportunities to substantially deepen their cooperation, particularly on trade, energy, and immigration, according to a report released here Wednesday by a special commission of the Inter-American Dialogue (IAD).

With Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto taking office at virtually the same time as Barack Obama begins his second presidential term, the two leaders have four years to address some of the most difficult and longstanding bilateral challenges, according to the report, entitled “A More Ambitious Agenda”.

Like a longer one on the same subject released two weeks ago by the Mexico Institute of the Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars here, the IAD report comes at a particularly auspicious moment, given both the strong performance of the Mexican economy and the apparent willingness of long-resistant Republicans in Congress to make key compromises on immigration reform.

These include finding ways to legalise the status of the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the U.S., more than half of whom are believed to be Mexican.

“There is an enormous amount of optimism right now in the bilateral relationship, and the reason of that is because there’s an idea that this is a new beginning ,” said Duncan Wood, co-author of the Wilson Center report, entitled “New Ideas for a New Era”.

“There’s optimism about the Mexican economy and the real potential for immigration reform in the United States,” he told IPS.

“So you have the opportunity for a much more positive dialogue, particularly when you compare it with what we saw during the (Felipe) Calderon administration, when the primary focus was on security, violence and death. There’s now an opportunity to reframe the relationship, and I would say the economic issues lead that.”

Changes in Mexican government make boosting relations now keyWilson and Wood 13 – Associate, Mexico Institute of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars AND Director, Mexico Institute of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars (Christopher and Duncan, “New Ideas for a New Era: Policy Options for the Next Stage in U.S.-Mexico

Relations,” Mexico Institute of the Wilson Center, May, http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/new_ideas_new_era.pdf)//SY

The presence of so many opportunities in bilateral relations does not mean that the ¶ path ahead is obstacle-free. In fact, due to the intense blend of domestic politics and ¶ international affairs that makes up the U.S.-Mexico relationship, without a determined ¶ effort on the part of both governments to keep the bilateral relationship positive and ¶ productive, it can easily be pulled off track by scandals and disagreements. Some policy ¶ areas are particularly sensitive. On security cooperation, for example, some joint efforts ¶ implemented with the previous Mexican administration may be considered too risky by ¶ the new team; officials will have to take care to move forward with an overall approach ¶ based on collaboration and shared responsibility even as the details of cooperation are ¶ renegotiated. On the issue of energy, any discussion of cooperation in the area of oil still ¶ requires sensitivity on the part of the United States, particularly at this time of potential ¶ change in the legislative framework in Mexico. Similarly, the ability of Mexico to push ¶ for progress on a U.S. immigration reform is limited, and Mexican officials will have to ¶ choose their strategy carefully.

2ac eu proves solvency

EU closure of wealth gaps proves plan’s efficacyPastor 12 - professor and director of the Center for North American Studies at American University (Robert, “The Solution to North America’s Triple Problem: The Case for a North American Investment Fund”, Center for North American Studies, January 2008, http://www.american.edu/sis/cnas/upload/triple_problem_pastor.pdf)//WL

Theories of economic convergence predict that the gap in incomes between richer ¶ and poorer states or sub-regions in a free trade area will narrow because capital will ¶ invest and deploy technology where it can gain greater returns. The United States offers ¶ proof of the theory. After the Civil War, the difference in income between the northern ¶ and southern states was very wide. With the benefit of a single currency and free ¶ movement of labor, capital, and goods, that gap narrowed significantly, though it took a ¶ century and it involved a massive migration of six million African-Americans northward ¶ between 1916 and 1970 (Kim, 1997; Postrel, 2004; Foner, 1991). In other words, under ¶

the most optimal conditions of free movement of factors of production within a single ¶ nation-state, more than 100 years were needed to achieve real convergence in income ¶ between rich and poor regions. ¶ In contrast, the European Union significantly closed its income gap between the ¶ richer and the four poorest countries in just fifteen years. North America represents a ¶ very different model than Europe’s and few in the United States would consider ¶ replicating the model but failing to learn from fifty years of experience with regional ¶ economic integration would be a serious mistake.¶ The issue for North America is not ¶ whether to adopt the European model; the two cases are too different. The question is: ¶ What can be learned and adapted from Europe's experience? ¶ Europe defined one of its principal goals as reducing disparities among members, ¶ but it did not allocate serious resources to achieve it for nearly thirty years. The rationale ¶ was that “wide disparities are intolerable in a community, if the term has any meaning at ¶ all.” The EU narrowed the gap between its four poorer “Cohesion” members – Spain, ¶ Portugal, Greece, and Ireland – in a remarkably short time. From 1986- 2003, the per ¶ capita GDP in the four Cohesion countries rose from 65% of the EU average to 82% by ¶ 2003 (European Commission, 1996, p. 13; European Commission, 2003). ¶ While all four Cohesion countries have made substantial progress since entering ¶ the EU, an analysis of the differences in their rates of growth is useful for assessing the ¶ relative effectiveness of the EU’s regional policies. Ireland has been the most successful ¶ with its per capita income moving from the poorest country in the European Union in ¶ 1980 to one of its richest, today .

Although some believe Ireland succeeded because it ¶ reduced taxes and did not receive aid, for the decade beginning in 1989, Ireland received ¶ € 10.2 billion—equal to 2.8% of its GDP—from EU Structural and Cohesion Funds and ¶ the government matched that amount with counterpart investments, which raised the total ¶ investment to 5% of GDP (European Commission, 1997, pp. 73-75). The EU funds ¶ began to arrive in 1989, just when there was a substantial backlog of projects and urgent ¶ infrastructural needs. “Without the support of the structural funds,” a report by the ¶ Economic and Social Research Institute in Dublin concludes, “congestion in public ¶ infrastructure and constraints in third level education would have limited the recovery.” ¶ Using several models, the Institute concluded that the combined effect in the period ¶ 1995-99 raised GNP by 3-4% above the level it would have been without the EU funding ¶ (Honohan, 1997, pp. xv-xxi, especially at xviii). Ireland’s trajectory was astonishing but ¶ the other three poor countries—Spain, Portugal, and Greece—also made substantial ¶ progress for much the same reasons . The European Union transferred more than € 450 ¶ billion during the past twenty years (European Commission, 1996; European ¶ Commission, 1997, p. 45). ¶ To what extent did these funds contribute to growth in the four Cohesion ¶ countries and to the reduction of income disparities? Using regression analyses, Robert ¶ Leonardi of the London School of Economics tested various explanatory variables, and ¶ concluded that structural and cohesion aid “made a substantial contribution to economic ¶ investment and overall GDP in the three nations. [It] acted as a significant stimulus to ¶ the national economies, explaining in part the surge of these countries toward ¶ convergence ” (Leonardi, 1995, pp. 133, 170-176). ¶ In its

“Third Report on Economic and Social Cohesion,” The European ¶ Commission found that the structural funds boosted the gross domestic product in Spain ¶ by 1.5% more than would have occurred without such funds. The funds increased growth ¶ in Greece by 2%, in Ireland by almost 3%, and in Portugal by 4.5% higher than would ¶ have occurred in the absence of such support (European Commission, 2004, p. xviii). ¶ What specific lessons should be drawn from the EU experience for North ¶ America? ¶ (a) Goals and Institutions. Europe’s leaders defined a goal of solidarity and ¶ community for security and economic

reasons. These goals inspired member states and ¶ provided a benchmark from which they could measure progress. The EU established too ¶ many supra-national institutions that continue because it is too hard to eliminate them . ¶ The lesson is that some institutions are necessary to promote development but policymakers should incorporate a “sunset” provision into every new institution and, in the case ¶ of North America, it might be better to use an existing institution, such as the World ¶ Bank, rather than create new ones. ¶

(b) Convergence and Conditionality. Among the many factors responsible for ¶ narrowing the gap were a single market, foreign investment, and massive aid programs ¶ from the EU . An analysis of the difference in growth rates among the four “Cohesion” ¶ countries—between Ireland and Greece, for example—leads to the inescapable ¶ conclusion that national policy is a fourth, critical determinant. The most effective ¶ “national policies” were those that utilized the incentive of conditionality to maintain ¶ stable macro-economic policies and transparency. The lesson is to use the first three ¶ factors as an incentive for the recipient government to adopt the appropriate economic ¶ policies that would make best use of the resources. ¶ (c) Projects and Personnel. The EU has funded almost every imaginable kind of ¶ project through many structures but most analysts agree with Rainer Martin that ¶ investments in two areas were most effective—infrastructure and human capital (Martin, ¶ 1998, pp. 66-72).

¶ (d) The Magnitude and the Focus of the Commitment. The task of closing the ¶ gap between richer and poorer countries in a free trade area is a formidable one, but the ¶ EU has demonstrated that it can be done, provided that its members make a serious ¶ commitment and appropriate significant funds for that purpose. Europe has transferred ¶ €30 billion per year ($40 billion US). About half—the investments in infrastructure and ¶ human capital—had a multiplier effect on development. Much of the other half went to ¶ the poorer provinces in the richer countries as “side-payments.” ¶

2ac latin american econ

The plan will bolster Latin American living standards by strengthening industriesCoatsworth, 5 – Latin America Scholar of Economic, Social and International History in Mexico; Provost; Professor of International and Public Affairs; Professor of History at Columbia University; Taught in Mexico, Caribbean, Argentina (John, “Structures, Endowments, and Institutions in the Economic History of Latin America”, Project MUSE, http://f11.middlebury.edu/ECON0224A/coatsworth05.pdf, pg.126-144)//NK

The experience of individual countries varied, of course. Argentina reaped spectacular gains up to 1913 and grew more slowly than the rest of Latin America after 1930. Mexico’s productivity gains of the pre-1930 era were interrupted by the revolution of 1910, but the Mexican economy grew faster than most during the ISI era. 9. The Mexican case is representative. See INEGI, Estadísticas históricas de México, 2 vols. (Mexico: INEGI, 1985). Countries and regions of predominantly European settlement with130 Latin American Research Review to 30 or less per 1000 in most countries. New work on the height of populations going back to the pre-Hispanic era has begun to shed light on fluctuations in the biological standard of living.10 While differences are apparent across regions and time periods, sustained improvements are largely a twentieth-century phenomenon. This pattern differs from that of earlier industrializations in Britain, the United States, and Western Europe where productivity rose rapidly during the nineteenthcentury industrial revolution while living standards fell or stagnated and did not catch up until decades later.11 In Latin America, productivity and welfare indicators rose together in the twentieth century. Though living standards rose, inequality also increased. Modernization appears to have produced a massive new concentration of land ownership provoked, inter alia, by railroads that brought opportunities for commercial exploitation to once isolated regions; technological change (especially in sugar) that created economies of scale; the rapid development of large banana plantations in the tropics; and the sale of public lands in large blocks to land and survey companies and well-connected entrepreneurs.12 The new concentration of land ownership provoked violence in the densely populated indigenous provinces of central and smaller populations of indigenous or African descent tended to raise literacy and achieve improvements in health indicators more rapidly than others.

2ac protectionsim

Plan solves protectionism – halts internationalization of capitalCoatsworth, 5 – Latin America Scholar of Economic, Social and International History in Mexico; Provost; Professor of International and Public Affairs; Professor of History at Columbia University; Taught in Mexico, Caribbean, Argentina (John, “Structures, Endowments, and Institutions in the Economic History of Latin America”, Project MUSE, http://f11.middlebury.edu/ECON0224A/coatsworth05.pdf)//NK

Indeed, Latin America was the most protectionist region in the entire world for as far back as the data go, that is, the mid-nineteenth century. Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, Peru, and Chile all adopted explicit policies of industrial protection well before World War I. In the 1930s, when conventional accounts suggest that the region turned inward, Latin America actually lost its position as the most protectionist region in the world, as other regions adopted high tariff strategies and caught up. What changed in Latin America in the 1930s, but then only slowly, was the use of nontariff barriers to complement the high tariff regimes that had already been in place for a century—and the beginnings of state-led industrial promotion in addition to protection.19 Third, we now also know that the United States supported, promoted and pressured for the adoption of ISI policies throughout the less-developed world in the 1950s. It is true that the United States opposed the creation of CEPAL and did its best to discredit the agency and its advice, but the U.S. objections to CEPAL had nothing to do with ISI per se. They focused on CEPAL’s advocacy of state planning and regulation. The United States feared that CEPAL-influenced economic policies would lead to the creation of state enterprises or subsidies to domestic companies, either of which would close off opportunities for U.S. multinational businesses that were seeking to jump over tariff walls and build branch plants producing for domestic markets in the larger Latin American countries.20 The key link between the structuralists and the later dependency school writers—apart from the fact that they were often the same people—was the preoccupation of both with institutions as key determinants of economic success or failure. For Raúl Prebisch, the key to understanding the alleged deterioration in terms of trade, which he thought affected most of Latin America and the developing world, lay not in the market place but in the institutional arena. Terms of trade deteriorated for primary product producers because union contracts in the manufacturing industries of the developed world made it difficult to lower wages during recessions and oligopolistic industries effectively colluded to reduce production rather than lower prices when demanded.

2ac us key

US influence will guide the Mexican economy – they can’t achieve opulence aloneCoatsworth, 5 – Latin America Scholar of Economic, Social and International History in Mexico; Provost; Professor of International and Public Affairs; Professor of History at Columbia University; Taught in Mexico, Caribbean, Argentina (John, “Structures, Endowments, and Institutions in the Economic History of Latin America”, Project MUSE, http://f11.middlebury.edu/ECON0224A/coatsworth05.pdf, pg.126-144)//NK

STRUCTURES, ENDOWMENTS, AND INSTITUTIONS 137 quite ended, most of the Big Questions had now been settled. The research of this era looked at the impact of technological change (especially railroads),30 industrial and business history,31 and the design of policies and institutions in key sectors of the region’s larger economies.32 This work contributed significantly to the economic historiography of Latin America. It also makes it possible to return to the Big Questions with a much more solid empirical and analytical foundation. In the twenty-five years of the Washington Consensus, the Latin American economies have experienced their worst quarter century since the catastrophic second quarter of the nineteenth century. Initially, the collapse of growth rates was attributed to the effects of the financial crisis precipitated by the Mexican devaluation and de facto default in August 1982. By the mid-1980s, however, most of the region had begun abandoning the failed ISI strategies of the previous half century and was embracing market-friendly reforms, including greater openness to external trade and investment. While growth rates did recover somewhat in the 1990s, they fell again in the recession that greeted the twentyfirst century. In a number of cases, growth remained anemic or proved short-lived despite major economic policy reforms. The empirical evidence linking growth rates to Washington Consensus structural reforms is weak (except for openness to trade, which is associated with faster growth).33 Economists have generally argued, nonetheless, that a major determinant of the crises and difficulties in the 1990s and early 2000s was failure to implement the reforms fully, especially those related to fiscal restraint.34 Most also take the view that while economic reforms may constitute a necessary condition for success, they are not sufficient 30. John H. Coatsworth, Growth Against Development: The Economic Impact of Railroads in Porfirian Mexico (DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1981); William R. Summerhill, Order Against Progress: Government, Foreign Investment, and Railroads in Brazil, 1854–1913 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2003).

2ac causes integration

North American Investment Fund would improve the Mexican economy and integrate Mexico into the North American marketPastor, 12 – Professor and Director, Center for North American Studies, American University (Robert, “Beyond the Continental Divide,” American Interest, July/August, http://www.the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=1269)//SY

It is possible, of course, that a trilateral approach might not yield any more effective policies than the dual-bilateral efforts have so far. Nevertheless, it is clear that the only way to move forward on the agenda is for the leaders to grasp the North American opportunity, give it a high priority and organize their governments to accomplish their goals. It’s also clear we need to create institutions to help the three governments think continentally. At a minimum, we need a North American Advisory Commission to prepare continental options for all three leaders to consider and choose at annual summits. There is no paucity of problems to address. The three leaders should call for a North American Plan for Transportation and Infrastructure, for example, and establish a North American Investment fund that would connect the poorest southern regions of Mexico with the richer North American market. Such a fund would create the infrastructure in the south of Mexico that would attract investment and jobs and thus reduce migration to the north. To create a seamless market, the three countries should negotiate a common external tariff. That would eliminate the excessive “rules of origin” tax of about $500 billion per year, and the nominal common tariff could be used to fund the North American Investment Fund. Building roads, dismantling unnecessary border restrictions, expanding educational opportunities across the continent, harmonizing and raising environmental and labor standards, training tri-national teams of customs officers—these small steps could begin to invigorate the sleeping giant of North America.

North American Investment Fund would dramatically improve the Mexican economy and decrease illegal immigration to USPastor, 6 – Professor and Director, Center for North American Studies, American University (Robert, “Breaking Out of the Box,” Newsweek International, March 21, http://www.american.edu/sis/cnas/upload/Newsweek_2006-03-21_Breaking_Out_of_the_Bowc.pdf)//SY

Transforming that vision into programs to promote development in Mexico, the trio's poorest partner, will require ¶ leadership, capital and institutions that have been sadly lacking in recent years. Take for example transportation: the three ¶ governments have never put together a continentwide plan for transportation and infrastructure despite the huge increase ¶ in trade crossing their borders. The first thing NAFTA partners should do is establish a North American Investment Fund ¶ that would invest $200 billion over 10 years in roads and communications connecting the poorer southern part of Mexico ¶ to the North American market. If we build them, they will stay: companies will be more likely to invest there, encouraging ¶ many Mexican workers to stay home and others, already in the United States, to return. Experts estimate that such ¶ investment could double Mexico's rate of GDPgrowth.

2ac pollution add on

Solving the income gap would decrease pollution levelsMichida and Nishikimi 07- Etsuyo Michida and Koji Nishikimi both work for the Institute of Developing Economies (Estuyo Michida and Koji Nishikimi, “North–South trade and industry-specific pollutants”, 2007 http://dl2af5jf3e.search.serialssolutions.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/?sid=sersol%3ARefinerQuery&citationsubmit=Look+Up&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&l=DL2AF5JF3E&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsersol%3ARefinerQuery&SS_LibHash=DL2AF5JF3E&SS_ReferentFormat=JournalFormat&rft_id=info%3Adoi%2F10.1016%2Fj.jeem.2007.02.002&rft.genre=article&SS_doi=10.1016%2Fj.jeem.2007.02.002&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal, Volume 54, Issue 2, 229-243)//sawyer

Recent progress in economic integration within the European Union, the North American Free Trade Area, and in Asia has led to debate on the environmental consequences of liberalized trade. One of the focuses of this debate has been the widely believed prediction that freer trade will result in the creation of pollution havens in developing countries as pollution-intensive firms leave developed countries that impose stringent environmental regulations and migrate to developing countries with lax regulations. As a result, trade liberalization might lead to a change in the global distribution of industries in such a way that developing countries become more polluted. This prediction is commonly called the Pollution Haven Hypothesis (PHH).1 Copeland and Taylor [4] provide the theoretical foundation of the PHH.2 They develop a general equilibrium model of international trade between a high-income North and a low-income South. In the model, the environment is considered to be a luxury good, and the governments, the benevolent social planners, set more stringent environmental regulation in North than in South. This difference in environmental regulations causes a trade pattern such that South specializes in producing dirtier goods and imports cleaner goods from North. As a result, total emissions increase in South and decrease in North. Because the authors assume that the same pollutant is discharged from all industries, the model exhibits a clear-cut PHH outcome in which specialization in dirtier industries leads to a larger volume of overall pollution in South. The model with a common pollutant is well-suited for analyses of the energy-related pollutants discharged in processes that involve the combustion of fossil-fuels, e.g., sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide. Grossman and Krueger [9], Antweiler et al. [1], Copeland and Taylor [5], and Frankel and Rose [8], for example, empirically study the PHH based on sulfur dioxide concentrations,3 whereas Kahn and Yoshino [13] carry out an analysis using energy intensity as a proxy for energy-related pollutants.4 These studies examine a pollutant that is discharged across industries with the aim of investigating whether the environment deteriorates in South with trade liberalization. In contrast, Hettige et al. [10], Kahn [12], and Chintrakarn and Millimet [3] employ toxic-release data to examine pollution patterns.5 In terms of industrial pollution, there exist a large variety of toxic substances, some of which are not common across different industries. In fact, there are a number of chemicals, heavy metals, and other toxic agents that are used and disposed of solely from specific industrial processes.6

2ac econ uniqueness

Rising poverty in Mexico now – plan solves and boosts Mexican econGuilamo-Ramos, 13 – Director, Doctoral Program at the Silver School of Social Work (Vincent, “The U.S. and Mexico Have Much to Learn from Each Other,” Huffington Post, 5/28/13, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/vincent-guilamoramos/us-mexico-relations_b_3347068.html)//MS

Despite encouraging macro-economic signs in present-day Mexico, the number of people living in poverty in the country has been growing . In contrast, the U.S. faces growing disparities in educational attainment based on income level. Our low-income individuals have less access to higher education, let alone student exchange programs.The U.S. can do far more to help prep are young people in both countries to contribute to bilateral coop eration and a better regional future . In addition, it can and should give a great deal of sustained attention to low-income youth of both nations who face particularly high hurdles to educational attainment.By investing in disadvantaged students in Mexico and the U.S. who are most at risk of involvement in drug- and gang-related activity, both countries can promote economic development within and without -- and , not incidentally, lessen the need to focus so heavily on security measures and bad news.

2ac fdi increasing

FDI to Mexico decreasing nowAguilera, 13 – BA in Economics from the Universidad de las Américas & MSc in Social Policy and Development from the London School of Economics (Rodrigo, “Mexico: The Case of the Missing FDI,” Huffington Post, 2/12/13, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rodrigo-aguilera/mexico-foreign-direct-investment_b_2671967.html)//MS

By the standards of the past three decades, Mexico's economic performance since 2010 has given much room for optimism. Headlines such as "Mexico's Moment" and "The Aztec Tiger" are now as ubiquitous as those which not too long ago painted Brazil as the region's economic darling. Yet among the glowing macroeconomic numbers is one which casts doubt on whether Mexico is really living up to its newfound expectations : foreign direct investment (FDI). Despite three years of strong growth, a cheap currency, and NAFTA to back it up, FDI in Mexico is at its lowest (relative to GDP) since 1993 . Explaining this paradox may give some insights on what to expect on the investment front in the next few years.Strong trade, weak investmentSince the signing of NAFTA in 1994, much of Mexico's appeal has been in each successive government's policy of being open for business. At least on the trading front, the strategy has had measureable success: Mexico today has one of the world's largest networks of free trade agreements (with 43 countries) which aside from NAFTA, also include the EU and Japan. Its ratio of trade-to-GDP is three times higher than Brazil's and is even higher than China's. Perhaps the biggest testament to the Mexican economy's post-NAFTA transformation is the fact that it alone accounts for nearly two-thirds of Latin America's total exports of manufacturing goods.But on the investment front, the results have been less spectacular as of late. Since NAFTA, FDI to Mexico has averaged a decent 2.6% of GDP , peak ing at $31.5 billion in 2007 before the 2009 global recession slashed it in half. But despite the economy's recovery, it has remained stagnant since. In 2010, GDP grew by 5.4% but FDI recovered to just $20 billion, still a third below its peak. In 2011, it actually declined to $19.5 billion despite being another year of robust growth. Worse yet, the story for 2012 will likely be similar as only $13 billion was received in the first three quarters of the year. Barring some miraculously high influx in the last three months, FDI will come in this year at its lowest as a share of GDP since 1993 , the year before NAFTA was implemented.Solving the investment puzzleIf the Mexican economy is doing so well, why is FDI so low? Brazil, which will struggle to grow this year much above 1% received a whopping $65 billion while Chile, an economy just one-fifth the size of Mexico's has received nearly $18 billion in the first three quarters. In fact, investment from Mexico abroad has actually exceeded the amount received at home -- a rarity among developing countries . There is no single explanation which accounts for his phenomenon but three peculiar features of the Mexican economy come to mind.

2ac certainty US Signal key

Serious and tangible commitment key – cp fails Pastor, 09 [CLOSING THE DEVELOPMENT GAP: A PROPOSAL FOR A NORTH AMERICAN INVESTMENT FUND Robert A. Pastor, Center for North American Studies, American University Samuel Morley, International Foo d Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) Sherman Robinson, International Food Policy Research Institute, http://www.american.edu/sis/cnas/upload/PastorInvestmentPaper0803.pdf]Lessons from the EU’s Experience. Let us extract the lessons from the EU that may be relevant to NAFTA. 1. A

Declaration of Goals. From the beginning, European leaders set goals of solidarity and community –a sense that the peoples of

Europe would cooperate in new ways to bring peace and well-being to all. These goals provided general guidance to member

states, but not in defining specific policies. The lesson is that a clear statement of goals is necessary but not sufficient to construct a community of nations.2. Institutions at Sunset. The EU established many supra-national institutions. Most of them are needed to implement EU laws, but some of them exist because it is too hard to eliminate them, and many have expanded their activities because no one has stopped them. Clearly, one could identify a golden mean between the excessive institutionalism of the EU and the under-institutionalized NAFTA. The lesson is that policy-makers should incorporate a “sunset” provision into every institution or funding mechanism, lest each assume a permanence that would diminish the capacity to reduce disparities. 3. Convergence and Conditionality. The spectacular reduction in the income gap between the richer and poorer countries of Europe in a relatively short period of time (since 1986) offers hope that regional trading schemes could be an effective vehicle for lifting middle-income countries. Among the many factors responsible for narrowing the gap was the establishment of a single market, foreign investment, and the massive aid programs from the EU. An analysis of the difference in growth rates among the 8four “Cohesion” countries leads to the inescapable conclusion that national policy is a fourth, critical determinant. There is a consensus that all four factors contributed to the reduction of disparities, but some disagreement as to which is most important. The lesson is to use the first three factors to induce the recipient government to adopt the appropriate economic policies that would make best use of the resources. 4. The Best Projects for Regional Assistance. The EU has funded almost every imaginable kind of project through many channels, but most analysts believe that the most effective projects aimed at infrastructure and higher level education. 5. Reducing Volatility.While convergence did occur between richer and poorer countries, the poorer ones did not follow a straight path upwards. Rather what occurred is that the cohesion countries outperformed the EU average in the boom years and did worse than the EU average during recessions.25The opportunities and the dangers of integration are much more serious for the weaker countries than for the more advanced ones. Another study by Rainer Martin also found greater volatility among the weaker partners of an integration effort. 26The lesson is that the richer countries need to find ways to cushion the swings that the poorer economies suffer. Macro-economic policy coordination and financial arrangements should be undertaken to protect the poorer countries from foreign exchange crises. 6. Growing Inequality. In many cases, rapid integration tended to coincide with accelerating inequality among the regions in the poorer country. More often, this is not because the poor became poorer but because the prosperous regions -the ones tied to the EUby both exports and inward flows of investment -sped ahead. The poorer regions grew more slowly or just halted their growth. The lesson is that a supra-national agency needs to monitor the progress within each member state.7. Funds for the Affluent. More than half of the structural funds go to poor regions in the rich countries, and several of the richer countries (notably France and Denmark) obtain large subsidies from the Common Agricultural Policy, which is half of the EU budget. ("Regional policies" take 30% of the budget.) 27Given the greater difficulty of narrowing differences among regions than among states, it would be more efficient to concentrate the funds in the poorer states. Since the presence of EU projects in the richer countries gives its people a sense of community, some symbolic projects should remain there. The lesson is to concentrate the money where it is most needed. 8. Emigration. As the disparities between rich and poor countries were reduced, migration was significantly reduced. 9.

The Magnitude of the Commitment. The task of closing the gap between richer and poorer countries in a free trade area is a formidable one, but the EU has demonstrated that it can be done, provided that its members made a serious commitment and appropriate significant funds expressly for that

purpose.

Solvency Advocate -- Extension

Manley, et al. 05 [Creating a North American Community Chairmen’s Statement Independent Task Force on the Future of North America Sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations in association with the Consejo Mexicano de Asuntos Internacionales and the Canadian Council of Chief Executives John P. Manley, Pedro Aspe, and William F. Weld Chairs Thomas P. d’Aquino, Andrés Rozental, and Robert A. Pastor, http://www.cfr.org/canada/creating-north-american-community/p7912] Stimulate economic growth in Mexico. To realize the full benefits of economic integration, and to ensure that these

benefits are distributed broadly, Mexico must increase and sustain a rate of growth commensurate with its development goals. Mexico must devise a set of policies that commands broad public support and decide on the steps it will take to attract investment and stimulate growth. In conjunction, the U nited

S tates and Canada should support Mexico by establishing a North American Investment Fund to create infrastructure to link the poorer parts of the country to the markets in the north, and to support education and technical training for Mexican states and municipalities committed to transparency and new development. The fund should be seen as a productive investment by all three countries in the future competitiveness of North America’s economic zone.

Relations Impacts

2ac integration impact add ons

North American integration key to solve environmental degradation

Wilson-Forsberg, 2 – Assistant Professor, Human Rights and Human Diversity, Wilfrid Laurier University (Stacey, “North American Integration: Back to the Basics,” Canadian Foundation for the Americas, August, http://focal.ca/pdf/north%20america_Wilson-Forsberg-FOCAL_north%20american%20integration%20back%20to%20basics_August%202002_FPP-02-08.pdf)//SY

Since environmental degradation¶ is not localized within national¶ borders, environmental

protection¶ is an obvious trilateral issue in the¶ North American context. However,¶ given Mexico’s need to put higher¶ priority on the benefits of¶ production (higher employment and¶ income) relative to the benefits of environmental¶ quality, dialogue still occurs between two¶ developed countries, on the one hand, and a¶ developing country on the other. The North¶ American Commission for Environmental¶ Cooperation (CEC) is perhaps the only major¶ advocate of trilateral environmental solutions. It¶ provides useful monitors of environmental trends¶ in the region and mechanisms for investigating¶ allegations of non-enforcement of national¶ environmental laws.¶ According to the CEC, those environmental issues¶ that are central to the economic integration¶ occurring between Canada, the United States,¶ and Mexico, can be discussed and worked on¶ trilaterally. These would include: the environmental¶ challenges and opportunities of the evolving North¶ American electricity market (e.g. ensuring that¶ environmental objectives such as clean air, can be¶ achieved while at the same time securing affordable¶ and reliable electricity); the development of a North¶ American tracking system of hazardous waste¶ movement across the borders; and the development¶ of micro-financing mechanisms to encourage¶ sustainable agricultural practices, along the lines of¶ the pollution fund for Mexican small and mediumsized enterprises [North American Commission for¶

Environmental Cooperation 9th Regular Session of¶ the CEC Council, 2002] .

North American integration key to solve oil dependence and investment

Wilson-Forsberg, 2 – Assistant Professor, Human Rights and Human Diversity, Wilfrid Laurier University (Stacey, “North American Integration: Back to the Basics,” Canadian Foundation for the Americas, August, http://focal.ca/pdf/north%20america_Wilson-Forsberg-FOCAL_north%20american%20integration%20back%20to%20basics_August%202002_FPP-02-08.pdf)//SY

The scarcity and high prices of oil, natural gas and¶ electricity makes it more urgent for Canada, the¶ United States and Mexico to protect themselves¶ through the eventual establishment of a North¶ American energy market. The¶ United States, in particular, feels¶ that it needs to reduce dependence¶ on foreign energy sources, and¶ Mexico is in desperate need of both¶ expertise and foreign investment. In¶ the energy sector NAFTA stopped¶ short of achieving a truly open¶ framework for trilateral trade and¶ investment. While the trade¶ agreement only addressed energy in a minimal way,¶ Canada and Mexico are now willing to engage with¶ the United States on the enhancement of the North¶ American energy market. Ministers of the three¶ countries have met to discuss the subject and to¶ identify possible areas for future cooperation. A¶ North American Energy Working Group has also¶ been established to come up with a region-wide¶ approach to energy development.¶

North American integration solves energy security, market access, and terrorism – key to economic prosperity and security throughout the continent

Sands, 8 – Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute (Christopher, “A Vote for Change and U.S. Strategy for North American Integration,” Portal for North America North American Policy Brief No. 1, October, http://www.hudson.org/files/publications/PNA_NA_Policy_Brief_1_-_A_Vote_for_Change.pdf)//SY

After the 2008 election, the 44th president and the 111th Congress of the United States ¶ will have an opportunity to continue to build on North American economic integration. ¶ But to do so, U.S. leaders will need to begin to portray this integration as lowering the ¶ risks of unwelcome change for U.S. voters. They can also proudly point to the ¶ preservation of national sovereignty in all of the steps taken thus far, to counter the critics ¶ who have accused the three governments of selling out in the past, but without proof. For¶ the United States, North American integration should be understood as increasing energy ¶ security, secure market access to two countries that disproportionately favor American ¶ brands and quality, and who share an interest in protecting all North Americans from ¶ future terrorist attacks through close security and intelligence cooperation, at and beyond ¶ shared borders. ¶ This vision of continental integration differs sharply from Europe’s, but in many ways, ¶ the desire for preventing future violence and greater prosperity for ordinary citizens is the ¶ common goal of the leaders pursuing integration on both continents. But the politics of ¶ integration play differently on the two continents: progressive Americans take a cautious, ¶ prudent approach to further liberalization; while conservative Americans favor free ¶ markets and free trade but worry over the potential loss of U.S. sovereignty. On ¶ November 4, 2008, Americans will vote more or less conservatively for change they can ¶ believe in that puts their country first.

North American integration key to solve spread of disease and bioterrorism

NAAMIC, 4 (North American Agricultural Market Integration Consortium, “North American Market Integration,” Farm Foundation Issue Report, Issue No. 3, November, http://www.farmfoundation.org/news/articlefiles/105-FINALISSUEREPORTMarketInt11-15-04.pdf)//SY

The extent to which the markets of¶ Mexico, Canada and the United States¶ should be integrated has become a¶ contentious policy issue. Currently, it is ¶ driven by the need for harmonized¶ regulations to control animal diseases¶ and to deal with threats of bioterrorism.¶ In addition, since the enactment of the¶ Farm Security and Rural Investment Act¶ of 2002 in the United States, there has¶ been increased pressure to harmonize¶ farm policies. Action could be taken by¶ the three governments to smooth the¶ transitions and speed the process.¶ Market integration and direct foreign¶ investment will continue to move forward¶ regardless of what governments do with¶ regulations, programs and policies. How ¶ quickly or fully this happens depends in¶ part on whether reliance on market¶ forces is sufficient, and¶ whether the NAFTA¶ countries decide to go¶ into the WTO or¶ regional negotiations¶ with a common¶ position. The latter does¶ not require complete¶ harmonized/identical¶ regulations, programs¶

and policies. It can also¶ be accomplished by ¶ policy coordination and by actions that¶ are agreed to be equivalent.¶

Integrating the continent key to solving agriculture and bioterrorism

NAAMIC, 4 (North American Agricultural Market Integration Consortium, “North American Market Integration,” Farm Foundation Issue Report, Issue No. 3, November, http://www.farmfoundation.org/news/articlefiles/105-FINALISSUEREPORTMarketInt11-15-04.pdf)//SY

Biological, behavioral and competitive threats cause policy makers to¶ consider actions that either integrate¶ or disintegrate our economies. For¶ example, foot and mouth disease and¶ BSE have caused Canada and the¶ United States to develop means of¶ assuring that these maladies do not¶ destroy agriculture. With expansive¶ common borders, this can effectively be¶ done only through a set of common¶ regulations, programs and policies that¶ cover the North American continent.¶ Dealing with the new threat of bioterrorism can also be most effectively dealt¶ with by common regulation covering the¶ North American continent.

2ac us econ

Collapses the US economyLittlefield 2009 – Council on Hemispheric Affairs research associate (Edward H. Littlefield, “As Mexico’s Problems Mount: The Impact of Economic Recessions on Migration Patterns from Mexico”, Council on Hemispheric Affairs, 3/09, http://www.coha.org/as-mexico%E2%80%99s-problems-mount-the-impact-of-the-economic-recession-on-migration-patterns-from-mexico/) //JS

Evidently, through migration, remittances, and NAFTA-induced trade integration, the Mexican economy has become increasingly dependent upon that of the United States, making the former extremely vulnerable to the effects of the current financial crisis. The decrease in migration flows and remittances is thus implicit in the current debate about

Mexico’s descent into being a “failed state.” A Mexican economic collapse, spurred by a decrease in the migrants and remittances upon which the country’ s economy is reliant, would weaken the state’s capacity to finance counter-narcotics activity, increase pay-rolls to prevent political and military officials from corruption related to drug trafficking, recuperate the depressed economy, and keep their best and brightest at home. These series of developments would have a negative consequence for the United States economy and the Obama

administration, as well. Mexico is the United States’ third largest export market, and the cheap labor that Mexican immigrants provide, although not nearly as coveted given the current recession, is an important part of the national economy. Additionally, Mexico’s potential economic and military collapse deserves to be viewed as a national security threat to the U.S., given the spread of drug-related violence to border states such as Arizona, where authorities blame a rise in home invasions and kidnappings on organized crime from south of the border.

2ac maquiladora industry

Increasing economy of Mexico kills the environment – Maquiladora industryStromberg, 02 - Per is the SSE Centennial Professor of Finance and Private Equity at the Stockholm School of Economics. “The Mexican Maquila Industry ¶ and the Environment; An ¶ Overview of the Issues” December 2002 http://www.eclac.org/publicaciones/xml/2/11862/lcmexl548eDocumento%20Completo.pdf)mm¶

The maquiladora in-bond industry is a key factor for Mexico’s ¶ economic development and dominates the economic activity in the ¶ region of its principal presence - the northern frontier states. For ¶ instance, in the 1993-98

period, the maquiladora exports accounted for ¶ 41.5% of the average Mexican export value (Dussel, 2000). As is the

¶ case for most industrial activity, the maquiladoras have received much ¶ negative attention in terms of their impact on the environment, which ¶ can be summarized in three factors: population, traffic and industrial ¶ activity (EPA, 2000). The complexity is accentuated by growth of ¶ population in the regions of Mexico bordering the United States: ¶

projected to double by 2020 from 10.6 million in 2000.

Maquiladora industry killing border region - population and locationStromberg, 02 - Per is the SSE Centennial Professor of Finance and Private Equity at the Stockholm School of Economics. “The Mexican Maquila Industry ¶ and the Environment; An ¶ Overview of the Issues” December 2002 http://www.eclac.org/publicaciones/xml/2/11862/lcmexl548eDocumento%20Completo.pdf)mm

The failure to properly address environmental problems, in the ¶ form of coordinating industry and natural resource policies, is putting ¶ at risk long-term sustainability in the border region . In this respect, two ¶ drivers to environmental performance stand out as being crucial for ¶ regional sustainability; choice of location, as well as industry-, ¶ population- and traffic growth-rate. Structural factors encourage the ¶ maquilas to locate in the arid northern part of Mexico, and often close ¶ to residential areas. In this perspective, the single most critical ¶ environmental issue is the maquila induced population growth and ¶ subsequent pressure on long run water supply. All the frontier states ¶ (except for Coahuila) experience higher population growth than the ¶ national average, and the maquila intensive state of Baja California is ¶ expected to increase its population with 32.9% in the 2000-2010 ¶ period, the highest in the country. Response indicators on water ¶ infrastructure and pollution abatement-cost suggest that technology ¶ play a crucial role in the maquiladoras’ sustainable development-path. ¶ However, the applications vary in success; in Baja California, the ¶ expected population water coverage rate in 1999 was 95%, the ¶

highest among the frontier states and above the national average (87%). However, at the output-side, this state reported the second lowest drainage rate among the border ¶ states and below the national average. ¶ The data at hand indicates that the maquila industry performs better in environmental terms ¶ than the non-maquila industry. Drivers such as sector-composition and technological vintage ¶ contribute to this situation. For example, the composition of industry sectors is generally more ¶ “clean”, as the maquilas do not incorporate sectors such as metal foundries or cellulose.

Maquiladora industry key to environment destruction of borderlands – watter and air pollution Williams, 95 - Edward J., Ph.D.¶ Professor of Political Science¶ University of Arizona THE MAQUILADORA INDUSTRY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION¶ IN THE UNITED STATES-MEXICAN BORDERLANDS Washington, DC, September 1995. http://beatl.barnard.columbia.edu/urbs3525/2007/OtherCities/MexicoCity/maquil-stats.htm)/mm

The maquiladora industry contributes indirectly and directly to environmental degradation in the Mexican-United States Borderlands. Indirectly, the program forms part of a larger panoply of influences pulling migrants from central and southern Mexico to the Borderlands, creating an overload on the region's urban infrastructure and its fragile ecology. Directly, the assembly plants blight the Borderlands environment through undisciplined and illegal disposal of their waste material. Irregular dumping of hazardous and toxic wastes defines the most egregious example of the transgression. ¶ Population has burgeoned in the binational Borderlands, particularly on the Mexican side. While Mexico's

rate of growth equaled 22 percent in the 1980-1990 decenio, the eight most important Borderlands cities almost doubled that rate at 43 percent. Tijuana may well be the world's most rapidly burgeoning large city, having grown 61 percent in the 1980-90 period.3¶ ¶ A number of influences have pushed and pulled central and southern Mexicans to the region, most importantly its relative wealth compared with the rest of the country. In turn, the Mexican Borderland's relative wealth derives from several influences, most importantly economic spillover from the United States. The maquiladora program forms the richest (save the drug industry?) manifestation of U. S. economic spillover. Potential employment in the maquiladoras defines a significant pull factor encouraging Mexican migrants to crowd the Borderlands. In that sense, the assembly plants explain an indirect contribution to the area's environmental problems. They contribute to a situation composed of too many people massing into a fragile area in a poor country whose government has neither the financial nor human resources to construct and maintain sufficient infrastructure and services.¶ ¶ More directly, the maquiladora industry's production and irregular disposal of waste material blights the region. The assembly plants dump everything from raw sewage through toxic metals into the local environment.4 Numerous reports document the industry's unsafe and illegal disposal practices. They include a case of children being intoxicated at a dump in Ciudad Juárez by sniffing green rocks covered with a solvent containing toluene; and a maquiladora that closed and left in an abandoned building a dozen 55-gallon drums of hazardous material. In 1991, the Texas Water Commission claimed that only sixty percent of the hazardous wastes going from the U. S. to Mexico were being accounted for and returned to the U. S. The other 40 percent may be stored on the Mexican side or disposed of illegally. In 1995 the Mexican Federal Attorney for Environmental Protection asserted that the final disposition of 25 percent, or 13,000 tons, of hazardous and toxic wastes produced by the maquiladora industry were not accounted for.¶ ¶ A study conducted by an environmental action group in several Borderlands cities provides additional evidence. In 1990-91 the National Toxics Campaign Fund - Citizens' Environmental Laboratory sampled waterways in several Borderlands cities adjacent to or near suspected assembly plants. In Tijuana, Nogales, and Matamoros on the Mexican side the¶ ¶ sample detected pollution by petroleum, naphthalene, total xylene, chromium, copper, and other materials.5¶ ¶ Chronologically, the most serious problems with hazardous and toxic wastes derive from relatively recent times. The composition (quality) of the industry has changed and the numbers of plants (quantity) have multiplied, thereby creating new conditions giving rise to new problems dating from the mid-1980s. The apparel industry defined the single major component of the maquiladora industry from its foundation in 1965 through the mid-1970s. A problem with jean washing contributing to water pollution surfaced in El Paso/Ciudad Juarez in the late 1970s, but the apparel industry never constituted a serious threat to the physical environment of the Borderlands.¶ ¶ Beginning in the 1980s, however, electronics, chemical, and furniture industries moved to the area, posing the threat of environmental pollution. The electronics plants multiplied rapidly, and by the early 1980s electronics eclipsed apparels as the largest component of the industry. From 1979 through 1985, the number of apparel plants in the industry shrunk by 10 percent to 108, while the numbers of electronic equipment and electronic component plants increased by 40 and 60 percent, respectively, to a combined total of 274. By the early 1990s, the electronics industry came to dominate the Borderlands assembly plants. In a study of Tijuana, Ciudad Juárez, and Monterrey, electronics installations accounted for 65 percent¶ ¶ of all maquiladoras and fully 80 percent of all assembly plant employment in those three important cities.6 The electronics component of the maquiladora industry introduced significant new threats of environmental degradation. The industry employs large volumes of¶ ¶ industrial solvents in its productive process, the most serious menace to surface and ground water in the binational Borderlands.7¶ ¶ Though never looming so large as electronics, the chemical industry also moved to the Borderlands in the late 1980s. Only three plants existed in 1985, growing to 51 by 1989 and more than doubling to 110 by 1992 and continuing to grow thereafter. From January 1992 to January 1995, employment in the chemical plants grew from just over 8000 to more than 11,600. The chemical industry poses obvious environmental dangers, eliciting damnation and vigilance from environmental activists in the Borderlands.8 Finally, significant segments of California's furniture industry moved to the Mexican Borderlands. The U. S.-owned furniture plants fled newly enacted restrictions on the use of solvent-based paints and requirements to install spray chambers to contain fumes.9¶ ¶ In addition to qualitative changes in the industry, its ever-growing size also creates new challenges to the Borderlands environment. As Table One indicates, the industry's most significant spurt of rapid expansion covers the mid-1980s. Following the initiation of the nation's economic crisis and the devaluation of the peso beginning in 1982, relative wages in Mexico plummeted, catalyzing a period of rapid expansion that continued until the last years of the decade.¶ ¶ As the numbers of assembly plants and workers multiplied in the Borderlands in the context of national economic depression, the threat of environmental degradation increased substantially. In the first instance, more plants spelled more waste materials. In 1990, Mexico's Secretary of Urban Development and Ecology estimated that more than 1,000 maquiladoras may generate hazardous waste materials.10 Secondly, more workers implied increased strain on already inadequate infrastructure. Finally, Mexico's economic crisis of the 1980s compounded the misery of the Borderlands. Especially scarce resources in an already relatively poor country left precious little to satisfy the needs of Borderlands cities for sewage systems, potable water, housing, transportation, etc.¶ ¶ Hence, the Borderlands' environment suffered devastating degradation in the 1980s, bringing the region to the cusp of catastrophe. A now famous report issued by the Council on Scientific Affairs of the American Medical Association in 1990 posited "the major factors affecting environmental health in the border area are water and air pollution." In another¶ ¶

frightening declaration the Council's report charged that "the border area is a virtual cesspool and breeding ground for infectious diseases."11¶ ¶ Another period of rapid assembly plant growth threatens in the mid-1990s. The political forces affecting the Borderlands will significantly influence the environmental impact of the maquiladora industry.

Mexico is a key region for biodiversityGeo Mexico 2010 (This blog supports Geo-Mexico; the geography and dynamics of modern Mexico, the book by Dr. Richard Rhoda and Tony Burton (Sombrero Books 2010). Geo-Mexico is the first book specifically about the geography of the entire country of Mexico, written in English and aimed at an adult audience, ever published, “Mexico’s mega-biodiversity,” http://geo-mexico.com/?p=2765)

People from elsewhere generally think of Mexico as an arid country with lots of cacti. The general impression is that Mexico has relatively little biodiversity in comparison with equator-hugging tropical countries such as Brazil and Indonesia. These impressions could not be farther from the truth. While northern Mexico is indeed arid, many areas in southern Mexico receive over 2,000 mm (80 inches) of annual precipitation, almost entirely in the form of rainfall. The rainiest place in Mexico— Tenango, Oaxaca—receives 5,000 mm (16.4 feet)

of rain annually. Straddling the Tropic of Cancer, Mexico is a world leader in terms of climate and ecosystem diversity. It is one of the only countries on earth with arid deserts, dry scrublands, temperate forests, high altitude alpine areas, subtropical forests, tropical rainforests and extensive coral reefs. The multitude of ecosystems in Mexico supports a very wide range of biodiversity. * Mexico’s vegetation zones. The link is to a pdf map (in

color) of vegetation zones. The map (all rights reserved) is a color version of Figure 5.1 in Geo-Mexico. Mexico’s Environmental Ministry (SEMARNAT) indicates that there are over 200,000 different species in Mexico. This is about 10% – 12% of all the species on the planet. About half of all Mexico’s species are endemic; they exist only in Mexico. An

unknown number of endemic species were forced to extinction by the intended and unintended importation of Old World species by the Spaniards. The U.N. Environment Programme has identified 17 “megadiverse” countries. The list includes Mexico, the USA,

Australia, five South American countries, three African countries, and six Asian counties. Actually, Mexico is among the upper third of this group along with Brazil, Colombia, China, Indonesia and DRC (Democratic Republic of the Congo). The other countries on the list are: the USA, Venezuela, Ecuador, Peru, South Africa, Malagasy Republic, India, Malaysia, The Philippines, Papua New Guinea, and Australia.

Borderland ecosystem and biodiversity loss lead to extinction (kinda)Bandala and Holland , - 2009 Erick R. Bandala1¶ and J. Nathaniel Holland2, Departamento de Ingeniería Civil y Ambiental, Universidad de Las AméricasPuebla, Sta. Catarina Mártir, 2 Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Rice University ¶ “Mexico-U.S. Border and the Environment: ¶ Implications for Bi-National Water Relations*” http://www.puentesconsortium.org/system/files/Bandala_Holland_final_0.pdf)/MM

Overall, the health of borderland ecosystems, and human dependencies upon ¶ such ecosystems (and we should not kid ourselves, we are dependent on the natural ¶ system which we modify to live ), can be

likened to that of Paul Ehrlich's (Stanford ¶ University) now famous analogy of species are to ecosystems as rivets are to planes. In

this analogy, 1, 2, 5 or 10 species extinctions (or local losses in ¶ borderlands) may not lead to drastic changes in individual patterns or

processes of ¶ the ecosystems which sustain us, but eventually, as enough rivets have been ¶ removed , the integrity of

the plane diminishes and ceases to be safe. Thus, it may ¶ well be that as the environmental health of the region continues to decline, so does ¶ the security (health, integrity) of its border populations. On the other hand, as ¶ security efforts to reduce drug traffic and human movements increase, so might the ¶ integrity of those ecosystems upon which we all ultimately depend.

2ac alternative energy

Relations increases jobs and boosts the development of alternative energyWood 10 –Duncan Wood is the Director of the Mexico Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. For 17 years, Dr. Wood was a professor and the director of the International Relations Program at the Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México (ITAM) in Mexico City. He also held the role of researcher at the Centro de Derecho Económico Internacional (CDEI) at ITAM, (Duncan, “Environment, Development and Growth: U.S.-Mexico Cooperation in Renewable Energies “, Wilson Center, May 2010, http://www.statealliancepartnership.org/resources_files/USMexico_Cooperation_Renewable_Energies.pdf)//sawyer

The argument of this paper is that, though many of the opportunities created by bilateral cooperation in¶ the past have gone unexploited by US actors, the long ‐ term impact of this cooperation has been highly¶ beneficial, both for Mexico as a country, producing jobs, new sources of alternative energy, and¶ economic opportunities . For the United States, the development of the RE sector in Mexico offers hope to states such California as they seek to satisfy growing demand for renewable energy . Continued cooperation in the areas of geothermal wind, solar, and biofuels are therefore vital if Mexico’s true potential is to be fully realized.

Relations solves renewable energy Wood 10 –Duncan Wood is the Director of the Mexico Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. For 17 years, Dr. Wood was a professor and the director of the International Relations Program at the Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México (ITAM) in Mexico City. He also held the role of researcher at the Centro de Derecho Económico Internacional (CDEI) at ITAM, (Duncan, “Environment, Development and Growth: U.S.-Mexico Cooperation in Renewable Energies “, Wilson Center, May 2010, http://www.statealliancepartnership.org/resources_files/USMexico_Cooperation_Renewable_Energies.pdf)//sawyer

Further, this report argues that one of the factors that currently prevent the realization of the potential for integration of renewable energy markets is the absence of a comprehensive bilateral agenda for developing renewable energy on the border. Although the Border Governors Conference and the North American Development Bank have made efforts in this direction, it will require meaningful executive leadership on this issue to make meaningful progress. The emphasis by the US Department of State on a “New Border Vision”, announced in March 2010, provides an opportunity to do just that. In addition to the report’s numerous recommendations specifically focusing on geothermal, wind, solar and biofuels, two general recommendations stand out. First, it is vital that financing opportunities are increased for renewable energy projects. This can be achieved through bilateral mechanisms at the border, through international mechanisms such as the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and through the Mexican government’s renewable energy fund, announced in November 2008. The second general policy recommendation is to enhance current programs designed to build human capital in renewable energy. Through the Mexico Renewable Energy Program, the work of the USAID and through the US‐Mexico TIES program, investments in human capital are bringing long term benefits to Mexico’s renewable energy sector, and more should be done in this regard, both through facilitating more and closer collaboration between university level programs and through support for Mexico‐based training

programs in the issue area. Renewable energy stands out as one of the most positive items on the bilateral agenda between Mexico and the US today . Where as the media coverage of Mexico is dominated by drugs, migration and violence, the potential for Mexican renewable energy to contribute to development, employment and growth there, as well as helping to satisfy growing demand for clean energy in the US, should be seen as a truly positive example of what can be achieved through sustained and well ‐ thought ‐ out bilateral cooperation . With continued attention from agencies and firms on both sides of the border, the Mexican renewable energy sector holds enormous potential to contribute even more in the future.

2ac climate adaptation

Binational cooperation will lead to climate adaptation – spills over Hurd 12 - Brian Hurd is an Associate Professor of Agricultural Economics and Agricultural Business at New Mexico State University. He earned his MS and Ph.D. from the University of California, Davis, and a BA in both Economics and Environmental Conservation from the University of Colorado, Boulder, (“Climate Vulnerability and Adaptive Strategies Along the Rio Grande/Rio Bravo Border of Mexico and the United States”, December 2012, http://ucowr.org/issue-149/climate-vulnerability-and-adaptive-strategies-along-the-rio-grande-rio-bravo-border-of-mexico-and-the-united-states)//sawyer

Where vulnerabilities and challenges are shared across a common national border, there may arise opportunities for cooperative adaptation or co-adaptation. Although significant challenges to binational cooperation exist along the U.S./Mexico border (including issues of governance, data-sharing, institutional and legal barriers), it may be possible to explore mutually-beneficial strategies that will enhance adaptive capacity for both sides (Granados et al. 2006). Wilder et al. (2010) have identified some promising pathways for adaptation that explore opportunities under models of cooperation, mutualism, and binational integration. Their research explores transboundary approaches “to improve the adaptive capacity to climate change, especially for water resources management .” In spite of the difficulties of cross-border collaboration, their research supports the hypothesis that:¶ Regional adaptive responses across borders could increase resilience and decrease vulnerability to climatic changes. Such cross-border approaches can emerge through shared social learning and knowledge, by creating binational communities of practice, such as among water managers or disaster-relief planners, and by addressing inequities resulting from uneven development (Wilder et at. 2010).¶ Upon assessing three distinct efforts at binational cooperation along the Arizona-Sonora border, Wilder et al. (2010) conclude that adaptive potential across the border is promising and likely to show positive impacts. Continued efforts following Wilder et al. in these directions show distinct ways for co-adaptation that not only contributes to building regional adaptive capacity in response to climate change but offers a glimpse toward cooperative strategies that may benefit efforts to manage other binational resources and offer a template to other regions.

2ac hegemony

The aff reifies hegemonyBarbee, 12 – Inveer Barbee graduated with a B.A. in Political Science from Simon Fraser University, in Burnaby BC, Canada, in 2008. Barbee completed her M.A. in U.S. Foreign Policy at American University’s School of International Service. (Inveer, “The Path to Customs Union: The European Experience and North American Integration”, Faculty of the School of International Service” 6-14-12, http://www.american.edu/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&pageid=3209906)//sawyer

It may be…that America will succumb to becoming a traditional empire and will reign for a time over what must surely be a moral if not a physical wasteland, and then, like the great empires of the past, will decline or fall….But if I had to bet my money on what is going to happen, I would bet on this younger generation—this generation who reject the inhumanity of war in a poor and distant land, who reject the poverty and sham in their own country, this generation who are telling their elders what their elders ought to have known, that the price of empire is America’s soul and that price is too high.12America may remain the preeminent power in the world for some time, but that will not last forever, nor does it necessarily mean that the remainder of its time on top will positive . If the U.S. truly wants to repair its image abroad and become the leader of its rhetoric and aspirations, then it needs to prove once again, as it did after the Second World War, that its ideals and its system are worthy of emulation. In fact, America has “largely conquered not with tanks but blue jeans, Big Macs, and movies—and of course, the country’s founding ideals.”13 Success is the measure of soft power , and currently, with an 8.3% unemployment rate, 1.5% real growth rate, and over $1 trillion in public debt, the country seems like the antithesis of success. Clearly it is time to try something new. Regional integration may provide the solution to the both the economic and political problems the U.S. is suffering from, and as a result, it is worth examining this option. Lord Salisbury once wrote that “[the] commonest error in politics is sticking to the carcasses of dead policies,” and states that have the capacity to adapt to and even anticipate the changing times will be on the receiving end of success, power and influence.14 Regionalization has exploded in the post-Cold War era, and it is a trend in contemporary international relations that simply cannot be ignored. The U.S. took initial steps in this realm often in protest to the slow pace of progress in multilateral trade talks, but now it has an opportunity with its neighbors to decide the pace, scope and depth of integration, and shaping it in a way that best benefits the U.S. in particular and North America in general. The destiny of this country since its founding has always been tied to its neighbors, and to this continent. It would be wise, therefore, to look not for the path at a distance, but the one that is laid before its feet.

Economic cooperation with Mexico key to US competitivenessWilson 11 - an Associate at the Mexico Institute of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars (Christopher, “Working Together: Economic Ties between the United States and Mexico”, Wilson Center, November 2011, http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/Working%20Together%20Full%20Document.pdf)//WLThe world economic stage can be a competitive and unforgiving environment. ¶ In order to maintain profitability, firms must often be willing to travel the globe ¶ in search of the best location—based on wages, shipping costs, business climate, ¶ and other factors that affect productivity—to manufacture their products. In such ¶ a globalized world, a gain for one country can often signal a loss for another as ¶ producers seek out the lowest costs.¶ With studies focused at the regional level, some analysts have argued that ¶ U.S.-Mexico integration has facilitated the displacement of some American jobs ¶ due to the lower wages paid to Mexican workers. Of course, many others retort ¶ that the U.S. has benefited from strong export growth, cheaper final goods and ¶ inexpensive inputs for U.S. industry, but taking a global perspective moves us ¶ beyond many of these traditional arguments . The reality is that China

and, to ¶ a lesser extent, other emerging suppliers in Asia represent the largest and most threatening

source of competition for the U.S. economy . Due to geographical ¶ proximity and a number of key complementarities,

economic cooperation ¶ with Mexico is one of the best ways for the United States to improve its global competitiveness and defend American industry . ¶ As the baby boom generation begins to hit retirement age, the

U.S. faces ¶ a demographic challenge. For the next several years, the number of nonworking seniors and youth that each working-age American must support will ¶ increase. As a result, a growing share of both personal and national income ¶ will have to be dedicated to the needs, including costly medical care, of an ¶ aging population.

NAIF and North American Trade key to invigorating US economy and competing with ChinaPastor 12 - professor and director of the Center for North American Studies at American University (Robert, “Beyond the Continental Divide”, The American Interest, July/August 2012, http://www.the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=1269)//WL

The global economy seems increasingly divided into three main regions: a dynamic East Asian zone, a crisis-prone eurozone and a semi-

conscious North America. Each region faces formidable challenges, but only North America seems unaware that its future competitiveness

depends more on addressing its internal challenges than in gaining access to the others’ markets. ¶ Taken together, these three regions constitute 80 percent of the world’s product and trade, and more trade passes within each region than between them. A study of 348 of the largest multinational corporations in the world found that 154 firms were North American, with 75 percent of their sales in North America; 127 were European, with 64 percent of their sales in Europe, and 67 firms were based in Asia, with 76 percent of their sales in that region.1 Globalization is not as important as regionalism. ¶

Just as the ability of the United States to project power abroad depends in part on the security of its North American base, so too can U.S.-based multinationals extend their reach into Asia and Europe backed by the power of the largest market in the world. The United States is the single largest national market, but the combined gross national products of Canada ($1.6 trillion) and Mexico ($1 trillion) would rank them the fifth largest economy. Combined with the United States, in 2010 the three had a nominal GDP of $17.1 trillion—larger than the $16.2 trillion of the 27-nation European Union.2¶ Over the past 15 years, the regions have performed somewhat differently than most people think. Parts of East Asia have achieved the highest growth rates, but as a whole the region’s share of world product declined from 25 percent to 22 percent. The European Union’s share improved from 26 percent to 28 percent. Most surprising, the gross product of the three countries of North America soared from 29.5 percent of the world in 1994, when NAFTA began, to 36 percent in 2001. Since then, it has declined to 29 percent, but it remains the largest of the three. ¶ Faced with the most urgent crisis, the European Union has taken the boldest, most long-term approach. Instead of fragmenting or retreating to unilateralism, the region is trying to forge a fiscal union that will discipline its members’ budgets while investing in the region’s future. Whether the EU succeeds at this remains to be seen, but no one can gainsay the effort. When faced with a financial crisis in 1997, Asia assembled a stabilization fund and is now negotiating a free-trade agreement among the ASEAN countries and the three principal economies of China, Japan and South Korea. ¶ By contrast, the three nations of North America took separate paths after the deep recession of 2008. Each pursued its own infrastructure strategies and policies. The United States insisted on a “Buy American” policy and an independent approach to the auto industry, though most cars in the United States are literally North American, being assembled with parts from all three countries. Lily Tomlin, the Canadian comedienne, once quipped, “Together, we are in this alone.” That applies to North America. Successive U.S. administrations have chosen to duplicate their work by addressing the same issues with each neighbor separately rather than addressing them more effectively together. ¶ At the same time, the United States has been chasing a phantom in East Asia. At the APEC Summit in November 2011, the Obama Administration put its weight behind the “Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement” (TPP), a free-trade agreement with eight countries whose combined gross product is a mere one-seventh that of Canada and Mexico. Of course, the TPP is not a trade strategy, or at least not a serious one. Its real purpose is to prevent China from unifying the Asian economy because it includes provisions—for example, on state-owned operating enterprises—that China cannot accept. But that TPP strategy was pre-empted within a week of the APEC Summit when China, Japan and South Korea joined the ASEAN countries in free-trade talks. ¶ Whatever its actual purpose, a TPP is likely to take a long time to negotiate and yield comparatively little in terms of additional trade. Moreover, like all trade agreements, the Administration would have to invest time and considerable political capital to get it approved by Congress. That would be a waste of political capital compared to the North American alternative. Just do the math: U.S. trade with Canada and Mexico in 2010 exceeded $1 trillion,

30 percent more than trade with China and Japan. More importantly, the best markets to expand U.S. exports are not in Asia but with our immediate neighbors. For every additional dollar that Canada and Mexico buy from abroad, more than eighty cents are U.S. exports, and for every additional dollar we import from our neighbors, a large proportion—about forty cents—is actually composed of our exports to them. In other

words, the balance of trade is less important with our neighbors than the overall volume, since our production and marketing arrangements are already so intertwined. The opposite is true of our trade with Asia. ¶ The best strategy to compete against China , double our exports and invigorate our economy is to deepen economic integration with our neighbors and to do it together rather than apart. Unfortunately, the latter approach has prevailed since NAFTA. The three leaders mostly meet one-on-one in separate bilateral forums. The three North American leaders met as a group in Guadalajara in August 2009 and pledged to meet annually, but they missed the next two years. On April 2, 2012, Obama hosted Harper and Calderon in Washington. Their “Joint Statement” emphasized “deep economic, historical, cultural, environmental, and societal ties”, but their initiatives remained packaged in two separate bilateral compartments.

Integration solves US leadershipPastor 12 - professor and director of the Center for North American Studies at American University (Robert, “Beyond the Continental Divide”, The American Interest, July/August 2012, http://www.the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=1269)//WL

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 U nited S tates 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.

Relations solves competitivenessThe White House 13- (“Joint Statement between the United States and Mexico”, The Wall Street Journal, May 2, 2013, http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/05/02/statement-u-s-mexico-stress-greater-cooperation/)//sawyerUnderpinning our successful United States-Mexico economic relationship are trade and investment flows that support jobs in both countries. Bilateral trade was almost half a trillion dollars in 2012. The two Presidents agreed on the need to continue forging a close and productive economic relationship to enhance their nations’ competitiveness and to create more trade and investment opportunities. With this purpose, they decided to establish a High Level Economic Dialogue, which will be chaired at the cabinet level and focus on promoting competitiveness, productivity and connectivity, fostering economic growth and innovation, and partnering for global leadership. The leaders intend for the first meeting of the Dialogue to take place later this year, include representatives from relevant agencies and departments from both governments, and engage with relevant stakeholders, notably the private sector.¶ The two leaders also discussed the importance of the United States and Mexico working together, and with their Canadian partners , to make North America the most dynamic and competitive region in the world. They agreed to seek a successful conclusion to a high-standard Trans-Pacific Partnership this year that includes 21st century provisions that significantly strengthen the North American Free Trade Agreement. They also reiterated their commitment to the resolution of specific trade issues between their countries, and their interest in maintaining close coordination with regards to other relevant trade negotiations.¶ The Presidents also underscored the importance to both countries of a secure and efficient shared border. They noted the recent meeting of the 21st Century Border Management Executive Steering Committee, the first under President Peña Nieto’s tenure, and agreed to support key projects and initiatives that improve infrastructure, support the efforts of local communities, facilitate the secure flow of legitimate trade and travel, and enhance law enforcement cooperation along the border.¶ President Obama and President Peña Nieto welcomed the positive steps the U.S. Congress is taking to implement the Transboundary Hydrocarbon Agreement, which will enhance energy security in North America and bolster the two countries’ responsible stewardship of the Gulf of Mexico. They look forward to full implementation of the Agreement.

North American Integration would improve competitivenessGabriel 12- Dana Gabriel is an activist and independent researcher and cites Robert Pastor who is professor and director of the Center for North American Studies at American University (Dana, “The

North American Leaders Summit and Reviving Trilateral Integration”, March, 26, 12 http://beyourownleader.blogspot.com/2012/03/north-american-leaders-summit-and.html)//sawyerRobert Pastor’s op-ed which appeared in the Toronto Star also conceded that, “Working the U.S. Congress by itself, neither Canada nor Mexico can secure its goals. Working together, with the support of the Obama administration, the three governments could design a seamless market and eliminate an expensive, inefficient tax based on rules of origin.” He recommended, “Instead of competing against each other to gain access to Asian markets, our three countries should focus on continental competitiveness and approach China together on issues related to currency, unfair trade practices and climate change. ” He insisted, “If Canada were to change its ‘divide-and-be-conquered’ strategy to a ‘unite-and-govern together’ approach on the new North American agenda, Mexico and the U.S. would join, as they did with NAFTA. And Canada could achieve its goals and the continent’s at the same time.” Pastor further lays out his plan to rejuvenate trilateral integration in his book, the North American Idea: A Vision of a Continental Future.

Integration solves competitivenessPastor 08 – Robert Pastor is professor and director of the Center for North American Studies at American University, (Robert, “The Solution to North America’s Triple Problem: The Case for a North American Investment Fund”, Center for North American Studies, January 2008, http://www.american.edu/sis/cnas/upload/triple_problem_pastor.pdf)//sawyerNAFTA may be viewed as a problem but “ North America” is, actually, a ¶ magnificent opportunit y . Stimulating Mexico’s economy might be one of the best ways ¶ to promote competitiveness for the entire continent. The most effective response to ¶ competition from China, for example, is one that merges the comparative advantages of ¶ each unit of North America. Developing a community of interests in which the three ¶ governments take steps to make the continent more secure and their relationships fair ¶ would establish the region as the model.

2ac demo and terror

Relations solves terrorism and democracySelee and Wilson, 12 - Andrew Selee is Vice President for Programs and Senior Advisor to the Mexico Institute and Christopher Wilson is an associate with the Mexico Institute, (Andrew and Christopher, Wilson Center, November 2012, http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/a_new_agenda_with_mexico.pdf)//sawyer

As Mexico’s security crisis begins to recede, the two countries will also have to do far more to strengthen the governments of Central America, which now face a rising tide of violence as organized crime groups move southward. Mexico is also a U.S. ally in deterring terrorist threats and promoting robust democracy in the Western Hemisphere , and there will be numerous opportunities to strengthen the already active collaboration as growing economic opportunities reshape the region’s political and social landscape

2ac Disease

Relations prevents a world PandemicBaker 7 - Dr. Biff Baker graduated from the United States Military Academy in 1978. He completed a ¶ Masters in Business Administration while on active duty, and recently graduated with a Doctor of ¶ Management degree from Colorado Technical University, (Biff, “The United States and Mexico Enhanced Military Cooperation”, North American Aerospace Defense Command, July 2007, http://www.disam.dsca.mil/pubs/Vol%2029_3/Baker_Biff.pdf)//sawyer

The World Health Organization (WHO) has identified the Pandemic Influenza (PI) as a potential ¶ threat to the world population. Pandemics killed estimated 40–50 million people during the “Spanish ¶ influenza” in 1918, 2 million during the Asian influenza in 1957, and approximately 1 million deaths ¶ during the Hong Kong influenza in 1968.37 The WHO has used a relatively conservative estimate ¶ for PI from 2 million to 7.4 million deaths because it provides a useful and plausible planning target. ¶ Should another PI occur, lead civilian agencies from Canada, Mexico and the United States would ¶ call upon the militaries of each country to assist civil authorities, hence it makes sense to develop a ¶ bilateral plan whereby cooperation is assured.

Relations solves a pandemicHataley et al 10 - Todd S. Hataley is a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Abelardo Rodríguez Sumano is Professor of International Relations at the ¶ University of Guadalajara and a member and researcher at the National ¶ Council on Science and Technology in Mexico, Richard J. Kilroy, Jr., is Professor of International Studies and Political ¶ Science at Virginia Military Institute in Lexington, VA, (“Toward a New Trilateral Strategic Security¶ Relationship: United States, Canada, and¶ Mexico”, Journal of Strategic Security, March 2010, http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1022&context=jss)//sawyer

Three areas that have witnessed an increase in security cooperation ¶ among the three countries involve natural disasters, pandemic influenza, ¶ and drug trafficking. After Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in September ¶ 2005, both the Canadian and Mexican militaries sent uniformed personnel to the United States to aid in disaster relief. For Mexico, the sight of ¶ Army convoys, traveling north across the U.S.- Mexican border signaled a ¶ new era of security relations with the United States and a new role for the ¶ Mexican military, operating outside its borders.24 For Canada, it was a ¶ routine deployment, providing humanitarian assistance, this time to its ¶ southern neighbor.25¶ In May 2009, the H1N1 swine flu outbreak in Mexico threatened to ¶ become a pandemic, with cases spreading to the United States and around ¶ the world . Mexico moved quickly to control the disease by shutting down ¶ the country for up to three weeks, closing schools, restaurants and even ¶ suspending Cinco de Mayo celebration gatherings. Although some U.S. ¶ members of Congress called for a closing of the border, the Obama ¶ administration refrained from taking any extraordinary measures to halt ¶ travel or commerce between the countries . The sense of cooperation in ¶ the public health sector rapidly escalated as a priority for all three governments. In fact, they had already developed tri-national instruments to ¶ advance communication and the necessity of rapid coordination linked to ¶ the World Health Organization.26 For the United States, this was done ¶ through the Department of Homeland Security; in Mexico, the Ministry of ¶ Public Health; and in Canada, the Public Safety Office. This demonstrated ¶ the ability of all three governments to reach a level of cooperation and ¶ convergence toward a common threat

2ac Econ

Relations key to the economy – interdependence between Mexico and the USBaker, 7 – works with U.S. Northern Command J5/Theater Security Cooperation, retired Joint Specialty Officer, Defense Institute of Security Assistance Management graduate, and former Security Assistance Officer with the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait (Dr. Biff, “The United States and Mexico Enhanced Military Cooperation”, The DISAM Journal of International Security Cooperation Management, July 2007, http://www.disam.dsca.mil/pubs/Vol%2029_3/Baker_Biff.pdf)//KG

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has shown that competition and open capital markets foster innovation, productivity and economic growth. All of which are essential for improving the living standards of our citizens over time. Our unique economic relationship has evolved over the past decade, in part due to an inextricably linked infrastructure, which has shaped our current interests in security and defense. The United States and Mexico have separate and distinct national centers of gravity. From a bilateral perspective the North American economy and related critical infrastructure is a shared center of gravity that must be defended to preserve our ways of life.15 This continental view of defense and security issues became increasingly important after Mexico, the United States, and Canada implemented NAFTA, which eliminated tariffs and removed many of the non-tariff barriers, such as import licenses.16 This agreement resulted in increased trade that is now in the range of $800 to $840 million United States Dollar (USD) per day between the United States and Mexico.17 Security measures and concerns about further terrorist attacks resulted in a short-term recession that adversely impacted on our economies, shown in Figure 1.18 This short-term decline in trade started in 2001 and continued through 2003, with substantial recovery in 2005 and 2006, making it clear that an attack on one nation affects not just the defense and security of that nation, but also the economic well-being of trading partners. Closing the shared border to legal trade had dramatic consequences for both of our economies; we must therefore plan to ensure this does not happen again. In recent years almost 85 percent of Mexico’s exports go to the United States, making the Mexican economic success very dependent on the American economic behavior.19 Specific examples of the United States and Mexico economic interdependency are listed below. • Oil. The United States is the world’s largest net oil importer and Mexico sends 90 per cent of its crude oil exports to the United States.20 • Natural Gas. Pemex operates over 5,700 miles of natural gas pipelines in Mexico and the natural gas pipeline network includes twelve active connections with the United States.21 • Coal. Mexico imports coal from the United States, for electricity generation and steel- making.22 • Electricity. Mexico exported 1,600 megawatt-hours (MWh) of electricity to the United States in 2005, while importing 470 MWh.23 • Manufactured Goods. The majority of U.S. exports to Mexico consist of manufactured goods such as computers, electrical equipment and other manufactured articles.24 The increasing integration of the Mexican, the United States, and Canadian economies stand as models of mutually beneficial trade. In contrast to the gloom and doom debates held in 1993, the implementation of NAFTA in 1994 has been beneficial to our nations. While maintaining distinct monetary, fiscal, economic and social policies and practices that are tailored to each nations’ particular needs and economic structure, our nations have managed to forge an open marketplace where goods, services and capital can move freely.25 To preserve that economic freedom, our defense and security initiatives must be planned and coordinated continentally. However, moving forward in defense and security is contingent upon improving information and diplomatic relations.

Good relations are the only way for successful US and Mexican economies Mares and Canovas, 10 - Professor of Political Science and Adjunct Professor, School of International Relations and Pacific Studies, University of California, San Diego AND professor at Colegio de México, and is an expert on US-Mexican economic relations and North American integration (David R and Gustavo Vega, “The U.S.-Mexico Relationship: Towards a New Era?”, Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, the Mexico Institute of the Woodrow Wilson Center, El Colegio de la Frontera Norte, and El Colegio de México, 2010, http://usmex.ucsd.edu/assets/024/11646.pdf)

The U.S. and Mexico have been neighbors for more than two centuries and within that relationship there is one important constant. Despite intermittent attempts by Mexico to distance itself from the US out of a concern of US protectionism and its political, cultural and economic hegemony, a process of progressive economic and social integration has taken place among the two countries which expresses itself in high levels of trade, financial and labor flows. Mexico is currently the US’ third largest trading partner, after Canada and China, accounting for approximately 8.4 percent of US exports and imports. The United States, on the other hand, is Mexico's dominant trading partner, accounting for two-thirds of both

exports and imports and far outdistancing Mexico's trade with Europe, Japan, and with the rest of Latin America and Canada. The United States is also the major source of foreign investment flows in the Mexican economy, accounting for close to

65 percent of the total. Labor market integration is also very high, with at least 10 percent of the growth of the US labor supply since World War II accounted for by Mexican migration. i Mexicans who work in the US represent close to onefifth of the Mexican work force and their remittances in 2008 were close to 21 billions dollars, representing the first source of foreign exchange surpassing oil and tourism. NAFTA, the latest chapter in this process, accelerated the economic and social integration of both economies to unprecedented levels. By 2001 some analysts and think tanks believed that sufficient progress had been achieved to propose a greater intensification of economic and social relations and even the creation of a North American Community.ii Multiple factors, however, have combined to dramatically transform the context of the relationship. The US and Mexico face a critical juncture in their economic, security, and social relations created by the US embarkation on a global War on International Terrorism after September 11, 2001, a sudden increase in levels of drug trade-related violence in Mexico, the US financial crisis stimulated by the collapse of the subprime mortgage market, challenges thrown up by the dramatic reach of the economic globalization process, failed efforts to integrate the Western Hemisphere, and the need to incorporate new social forces as a result of the beginning of democratization in Mexico and its further development in the U.S. Will the policies adopted by each country to address these challenges lead to further cooperation and deepening of economic and social integration or is the progress previously achieved likely to derail? This chapter begins by briefly characterizing the most recent period of US-Mexico relations, the NAFTA era since 1994. We trace the origins, purposes, and the impact of NAFTA in the two economies and societies. A second section lays out the parameters of a new era in the bilateral relationship, paying particular attention to the challenges to both countries raised by the processes of globalization and democratization. Globalization’s impact on the relationship is best captured in the rise of China and consequent displacement of Mexico in trade relations with the US. Democratization complicates policy responses but improves the likelihood that policy will have some consistency over time. The inadequate manner in which the two countries have responded up to now to these challenges is highlighted. A third section discusses the essence of any appropriate response to these challenges: economic integration. The failure of integration at a regional level is discussed, but we note that Mexico’s long border with the US means that the options open to Brazil, Argentina and Chile in diversifying their economic relations simply are not viable for Mexico. A fourth section evaluates the current relationship and offers suggestions to improve the two countries’ abilities to respond effectively to today’s challenges. Whether Mexico or the US like it or not, they are destined to walk together if they want to be successful in this globalized economy. The conclusion speculates on whether the countries will move towards a more collaborative or distant relationship, thus helping to set the context for the in-depth discussions in subsequent chapters.

US-Mexico relations are the backbone of both economies – (economics, finance, trade, commerce, manufacturing) key to upholding global economyMontealegre, 1/24 – MA in International Relations at University of Westminster-London; BA in Journalism at University of California State-Long Beach; Freelancer specializing in Latin American markets, finance, economics, and geopolitics; (Oscar, “US-Mexico Relations: Love Thy Neighbor”, Diplomatic Courier, 1/24/13, http://www.diplomaticourier.com/news/regions/latin-america/1331-us-mexico-relations-love-thy-neighbor~~====**)//NK

It is not common knowledge that Mexico is the United States’ third largest trading partner, behind Canada and China. Every day, at least a billion dollars of goods flows across the border. Yet, Mexico is

frequently negatively caricaturized, primarily with images of migrants illegally crossing the border into the U.S. and stealing U.S. jobs. Instead of viewing Mexico as a valuable partner that can benefit the U.S. in many facets, it is perceived as a liability, a region that cultivates corruption and violence and is the root of the current U.S. immigration ‘problem’ that has spurred controversial rogue measures like Arizona’s SB 1070. In matters of foreign policy, Mexico is an afterthought—our attention and resources are diverted to the Middle East or to grand strategies based on ‘pivoting’ our geopolitical and economical capacity towards Asia. With the U.S. economy performing at a snail-like pace, an emphasis on exports has re-emerged, but the bulk of the exporting narrative revolves around Asia. This is unfortunate, because our neighbor to the south has quietly positioned itself to be the next jewel in the emerging markets portfolio. For example, Market Watch (a Wall Street Journal subsidiary) recently published a bullish article on Mexico with the following headline: “Mexico: Investor’s New China”. The Economist published an opinion piece titled “The Global Mexican: Mexico is open for business”, highlighting Mexican companies that are investing locally and in the U.S. and arguing that Mexico is fertile ground for more investment, especially in the manufacturing sector. And according to The Financial Times, BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) are no longer the flavor of the month; Mexico is now taking over that distinction. In essence, immigration and the drug trade will no longer anchor the relationship between the U.S. and Mexico; instead, economics, finance, trade, and commerce will dictate the terms between the neighboring countries. However, in order to move forward, undoubtedly the elephant in the room must be addressed promptly.

2ac energy cooperation

Relations solidify energy cooperationWilson et al, 13 - an Associate at the Mexico Institute of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars (Christopher E, “New Ideas for a New Era: Policy Options for the Next Stage in U.S.-Mexico Relations”, Wilson Center: Mexico Institute, January 2013, http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/new_ideas_us_mexico_relations.pdf)//KGLooking ahead to the next six years of interaction between governments of Mexico and the United States, there is the potential for an enormously fruitful relationship in energy affairs. Much of this depends ontwo key factors, political will and the internal changes that are underway in Mexico’s energy sector. In the past, political sensitivities concerning U.S. involvement in the Mexican hydrocarbons industry have limited the extent of collaboration in the oil and gas sectors. This continues to be a cause for concern in any U.S.-based discussion (from either the public or private sectors) of Mexican energy policy and the potential for collaboration, but in recent years there has been a relaxation of sensitivity in this area. Partly in response to the perceived need for international assistance in resolving Mexico’s multiple energy challenges, and partly as a result of a productive bilateral institutional relationship between federal energy agencies, there is now a greater potential for engagement than at any time in recent memory.We can identify three main areas in which bilateral energy cooperation holds great promise in the short to medium-term. First, given the importance of the theme for both countries, there is great potential in the oil and gas industries. This lies in the prospects for investment, infrastructure and technical collaboration. Second, we can point to the electricity sector, where the creation of a more complete cross-border transmission network and working towards the creation of a market for electric power at the regional level should be priorities for the two countries. Third, in the area of climate change policy, existing cooperation on renewable energies and the need for a strategic dialogue on the question of carbon-emissions policy are two issues can bring benefits for both partners. Underlying all three of these areas are broader concerns about regional economic competitiveness and the consolidation of economic development in Mexico. The first of these concerns derives from the hugely important comparative advantage that the North American economic region has derived in recent years from low-cost energy, driven by the shale revolution. In order to maintain this comparative advantage, and to ensure that the integrated manufacturing production platform in all three countries benefits from the low-cost energy, the gains of recent years must be consolidated by fully developing Mexico’s energy resources. With regards to the second concern, economic development, a number of commentators, analysts and political figures in Mexico have identified energy reform as a potential source for driving long-term economic growth and job creation, and the potential opportunities for foreign firms are considerable. While the United States cannot play an active role in driving the reform process, the implementation of any future reform will benefit from technical cooperation with the U.S. in areas such as pricing, regulation and industry best practices.

US-Mexican Relations benefit the energy industry – climate change policyWilson et al, 13 - an Associate at the Mexico Institute of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars (Christopher E, “New Ideas for a New Era: Policy Options for the Next Stage in U.S.-Mexico Relations”, Wilson Center: Mexico Institute, January 2013, http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/new_ideas_us_mexico_relations.pdf)//KGLooking ahead to the next six years of interaction between governments of Mexico and the United States, there is the potential for an enormously fruitful relationship in energy affairs. Much of this

depends ontwo key factors, political will and the internal changes that are underway in Mexico’s energy sector. In the past, political sensitivities concerning U.S. involvement in the Mexican hydrocarbons industry have limited the extent of collaboration in the oil and gas sectors. This continues to be a cause for concern in any U.S.-based discussion (from either the public or private sectors) of Mexican energy policy and the potential for collaboration, but in recent years there has been a relaxation of sensitivity in this area. Partly in response to the perceived need for international assistance in resolving Mexico’s multiple energy challenges, and partly as a result of a productive bilateral institutional relationship between federal energy agencies, there is now a greater potential for engagement than at any time in recent memory.We can identify three main areas in which bilateral energy cooperation holds great promise in the short to medium-term. First, given the importance of the theme for both countries, there is great potential in the oil and gas industries. This lies in the prospects for investment, infrastructure and technical collaboration. Second, we can point to the electricity sector, where the creation of a more complete cross-border transmission network and working towards the creation of a market for electric power at the regional level should be priorities for the two countries. Third, in the area of climate change policy, existing cooperation on renewable energies and the need for a strategic dialogue on the question of carbon-emissions policy are two issues can bring benefits for both partners. Underlying all three of these areas are broader concerns about regional economic competitiveness and the consolidation of economic development in Mexico. The first of these concerns derives from the hugely important comparative advantage that the North American economic region has derived in recent years from low-cost energy, driven by the shale revolution. In order to maintain this comparative advantage, and to ensure that the integrated manufacturing production platform in all three countries benefits from the low-cost energy, the gains of recent years must be consolidated by fully developing Mexico’s energy resources. With regards to the second concern, economic development, a number of commentators, analysts and political figures in Mexico have identified energy reform as a potential source for driving long-term economic growth and job creation, and the potential opportunities for foreign firms are considerable. While the United States cannot play an active role in driving the reform process, the implementation of any future reform will benefit from technical cooperation with the U.S. in areas such as pricing, regulation and industry best practices.

2ac environment impact

Relations key to solve environmental problems – now is keySeelke, 11 - specialist in Latin American Affairs at the Congressional Research Service (Clare Ribando, “Mexico: Issues for Congress”, Congressional Research Service, 6-9-11, http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rl32724.pdf)//KG

The U.S.-Mexico border region has been the focal point of bilateral conservation and environmental efforts, and some argue that it is an appropriate place to intensify U.S.-Mexican environmental cooperation.107 The 2,000-mile border region includes large deserts, numerous mountain ranges, rivers, wetlands, large estuaries, and shared aquifers. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, border residents “suffer disproportionately from many environmental health problems, including water-borne diseases and respiratory problems.”108 The United States and Mexico have been working to address many of these issues through bilateral programs like Border 2012, which relies on local level input, decision-making, and project implementation to address environmental challenges, such as water scarcity. The United States and Mexico have also been collaborating on geothermal energy projects since the 1970s, but the possibility of expanding joint efforts to produce

renewable energy sources has just recently returned to the bilateral agenda . On April 16, 2009, President Obama and Mexican President Calderón announced the Bilateral Framework on Clean Energy and Climate Change to jointly develop clean energy sources and encourage investment in climate-friendly technologies. Among others, its goals include enhancing renewable energy, further exploring the potential of carbon markets, and strengthening the reliability of cross-border electricity grids. On January 26, 2010, the U.S. Department of State hosted the framework’s first bilateral meeting, which was attended by officials from an array of agency officials from both countries. Some maintain that efforts to advance progress under the bilateral framework may hasten now that Mexico has demonstrated a commitment to environmental issues by serving as host of the Sixteenth U.N. Climate Change Conference in Cancún in late 2010. USAID is using $6 million in FY2010 funds to connect Mexican suppliers of renewable energy equipment to markets, contribute to the development of a Mexican national strategy for reduced emissions from deforestation, and promote energy efficiency adoption by states and municipalities that borrow money on Mexican capital markets. Mexico and the United States also continue to work together, along with Canada, to complete a North American Carbon Storage Atlas by April 2012.

Relations create solutions to energy and environmental problems in North AmericaBureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, 12 - part of the U.S. Department of State, charged with implementing U.S. foreign policy and promoting U.S. interests in the Western Hemisphere (“U.S. Relations With Mexico”, US Department of State, 6-25-12, http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35749.htm)//KG

U.S. relations with Mexico are important and complex. U.S. relations with Mexico have a direct impact on the lives and livelihoods of millions of Americans – whether the issue is trade and economic reform, homeland security drug control, migration, or the environment. The scope of U.S.-Mexican relations is broad and goes beyond diplomatic and official contacts. It entails extensive commercial, cultural, and educational ties, with over 1.25 billion dollars worth of two-way trade and roughly one million legal border crossings each day. In addition, a million American citizens live in Mexico and

approximately 10 million Americans visit Mexico every year. More than 18,000 companies with U.S. investment have operations in Mexico, and U.S. companies have invested $145 billion in Mexico since 2000. Cooperation between the United States and Mexico along the 2,000-mile common border includes state and local problem-solving mechanisms; transportation planning; and institutions to address resource, environment and health issues. Presidents Obama and Calderon created a high level Executive Steering Committee for 21st Century Border Management in 2010 to spur advancements in creating a modern, secure, and efficient border. The multi-agency U.S.-Mexico Binational Group on Bridges and Border Crossings meets twice yearly to improve the efficiency of existing crossings and coordinate planning for new ones. The ten U.S. and Mexican border states are active participants in these meetings. Chaired by U.S. and Mexican consuls, Border Liaison Mechanisms operate in "sister city" pairs and have proven to be an effective means of dealing with a variety of local issues including border infrastructure, accidental violation of sovereignty by law enforcement officials, charges of mistreatment of foreign nationals, and cooperation in public health matters. The United States and Mexico have a long history of cooperation on environmental and natural resource issues, particularly in the border area, where there are serious environmental problems caused by rapid population growth, urbanization, and industrialization. Cooperative activities between the U.S. and Mexico take place under a number of arrangements such as the International Boundary and Water Commission; the La Paz Agreement, the U.S.-Mexico Border 2012/2020 Program; the North American Development Bank and the Border Environment Cooperation Commission; the North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation; the Border Health Commission; and a variety of other agreements that address border health, wildlife and migratory birds, national parks, forests, and marine and atmospheric resources. The International Boundary and Water Commission, United States and Mexico, is an international organization responsible for managing a wide variety of water resource and boundary preservation issues.

2ac Failed State

Relations key to prevent a failed Mexican state – leads to increased crimes and drug use in the USBlankenbaker, 9 – United States Army Reserve (John, “THE UNITED STATES ANDMEXICO: THE NEGLECTED RELATIONSHIP”, US Army War College, 3-30-09, http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA494714)//KG

While President Calderon has aggressively attacked drug trafficking and other criminal enterprises since his inauguration in December 2006, these illegal activities still affect U.S. interests. These relatively unchecked criminal activities in Mexico contribute to numerous social problems in the U.S., not the least of which are overburdened criminal justice systems, overcrowded prisons, and overtaxed public health systems. If our relationship with Mexico turns uncooperative these strains on our systems

would likely magnify . With the ongoing Mexican drug war and internal struggle against corruption due to drug trafficking, Mexico is at risk of becoming a failed nation. The Mexican government is not well equipped to handle this drug-funded corruption. An uncooperative or ungoverned Mexico would pose an extreme risk to the U.S.. If the government failed, the cartels would welcome an increased U.S. struggle with crime caused by Mexican citizens.14 Mexicans view unfettered travel to the U.S. as a human right. This belief likely stems in part from the U.S. 1800s annex of half of the Mexican territory in the Mexican/American war. Regardless of the reason, it is likely an uncooperative or ungoverned Mexico would encourage crime and drugs north of the border. To put this in perspective, the U.S. and Mexico now enjoy unprecedented cooperation in combating drugs, combating illegal arms movements, and sharing law enforcement intelligence. In January 2007, Mexico extradited four major drug traffickers, including the head of the Gulf cartel, Osiel Cardenas.67 Cardenas is wanted in Texas for drug charges as well as assaulting and threatening to kill U.S. federal agents. Despite this level of cooperation, Mexico had 2,000 drug related killings in 2006.68 Since the beginning of 2007, just after President Calderon took office, estimates indicate as many as 7,000 people were killed in drug related violence in Mexico through November 2008.69 It is reasonable to believe that more of this violence would spill into the U.S. without the cooperation Mexico and the U.S. now enjoys. If the Mexican government failed, the violence would undoubtedly become cataclysmic. Cooperation on drug trafficking and other crime linking our two countries is always contentious and must be carefully managed.

2ac Latin America

Good relations key to access influence to the rest of Latin AmericaStarr, 9 - director of the U.S.-Mexico Network, a university fellow at the USC Center on Public Diplomacy, and an associate professor of teaching in the School of International Relations and in Public Diplomacy (Pamela K, “Mexico and the United States: A Window of Opportunity?”, Pacific Council on International Policy, April 2009, http://www.pacificcouncil.org/document.doc?id=35)//KG

The futures of Mexico and the United States are inevitably and increasingly intertwined , something that is reflected in the stable, cooperative and institutionalized bilateral relationship that has developed behind the scenes over the past 25 years. Yet public perceptions of the relationship are much less reassuring. Positive attitudes toward the United States have fallen tangibly in Mexico during the past five years. In part, this is due to Mexican disappointment at having been shunted from the center of the U.S. foreign policy stage during the Bush administration’s first months to the margins of Washington’s concerns in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. It is also partly due to the dashing of Mexican hopes for a comprehensive immigration reform in the United States. Beyond the failure of the policy initiative, Mexicans widely perceive a hostile turn in U.S. treatment of Mexican immigrants and see that hostility extending to Mexico itself. These perceptions have been shaped by rhetoric that sometimes turned insulting toward Mexicans and by concrete actions such as the 2006 legislation to build the border “wall” and immigration raids that have split thousands of families since mid-2007. The declining esteem for the United States further reflects Mexicans’ deeply rooted fears about the main features of the Bush foreign policy and especially its unilateralism. Like many others in the United States and abroad, Mexicans have been disheartened by a series of events including the U.S. decision to invade Iraq; its seeming loss of a moral center evidenced by the violations of human rights committed at Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo and apparent support for a 2002 military coup against a democratically elected government in Venezuela; and its unwillingness to listen to the concerns of historic U.S. allies, especially those located in the Western Hemisphere. In a 2008 survey, only 30 percent of Mexicans said they admired the United States, while 29 percent expressed contempt for their northern neighbor, and fully 61 percent said they distrusted the United States (Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas, México, las Américas y el mundo 2008). More recently, media reports painting Mexico as a country overrun by violence and comments by former and current U.S. government officials referring to Mexico as a future “failed state” have rankled Mexicans and fed their sense of vulnerability to the whims of their powerful northern neighbor. Mexican sentiment toward the United States matters. If Mexicans mistrust the United States, question what our country stands for, and feel treated like a second-class ally, it will be difficult for Washington to foster a cooperative relationship that extends beyond drugs and trade. Further, without a cooperative relationship with its nearest Latin American neighbor, it will be difficult for the United States to improve relations with the rest of the region. And as demonstrated by the expansion of Chinese investment, Russian military sales and naval maneuvers, Iranian diplomatic visits, and Hugo Chávez’ regional sway, U.S. influence in the Latin American region can no longer be taken for granted.

2ac Laundry List

US-Mexican cooperation key to a laundry list of impacts – drugs, terrorism, arms trafficking, immigration, Latin American relationsFinckenauer et al, 7 - director of the International Center of the National Institute of Justice, which is the research arm of the U.S. Department of Justice (James O., “Mexico and the United States: Neighbors Confront Drug Trafficking”, National Institute of Justice, 12-26-07, https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/218561.pdf)//KG

While it is not the main causal factor, the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) and other United States (U.S.) foreign policy issues have

relegated maintaining the crucial relationship with Mexico to a secondary priority. Former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, comments the ongoing civil war in Mexico is a severe problem all but ignored by the U.S. government and the media and will be a crisis President Obama must face in 2009.2 Despite these comments the U.S. and Mexico relationship has significantly developed over the past few years; however, the U.S. still neglects Mexico as we address other seemingly more pressing issues outside of North America. The fact is many common interests closely link

the U.S. and Mexico’s collective wellbeing. 3 The relationship between the two countries is complex, plagued by distrust, and

requires nurturing by both sides to stay positive.4 The implications of an unstable Mexico or an uncooperative relationship between the U.S. and Mexico are unsettling at best and critical to national security at worst. The relationship with Mexico is so critical and yet, like a family member, the U.S. often takes it for granted. Largely, Mexico is a

first line of defense against crime, drugs, terrorism, arms trafficking, and human trafficking . In the midst of a massive Mexican offensive against drug traffickers, really narco-terrorism, Mexico faces the possibility of failing as a state. Narco-Terrorism is terrorism conducted to further the aims of drug traffickers. It2 may include assassinations, extortion, hijackings, bombings, and kidnappings directed against judges, prosecutors, elected officials, or law enforcement agents, and general disruption of a legitimate government to divert attention from drug operations.5 If Mexico fails to suppress the narco-terrorist’s violence and regain internal security, both the U.S. and Mexico will feel the effects on their economy, immigration, and national security. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has deeply affected the economic interdependence between the U.S. and Mexico. Since the ratification of NAFTA in November 19936 , trade between Mexico and the U.S. has increased from $49 billion in 1994 to $210 billion in 2007.7 Imports from Mexico account for about 11% of the total $1.9 trillion in worldwide goods the U.S. imported in 2007, making Mexico 3rd behind China and Canada.8 Mexico exports about 80% of all its products to the U.S. while the U.S. exports about 12% of its products to Mexico.9 NAFTA also stimulated foreign investment within North America between the U.S., Mexico, and Canada but also drew funds from investors outside of NAFTA who saw the value of free trade in the region.10 The interdependence of the U.S. and Mexican economy may also have negative affects within Mexico. Because of the current trade balances and interdependence, the U.S. economy drives the Mexican economy, either in a typically positive direction or negative direction when there is a down turn in the international economy. To mitigate any decline in the U.S. economy, Mexico continues to attempt market diversification with limited success.11 As demonstrated recently, the weakening of the U.S. stock market and decline of the dollar greatly affected Mexico’s economy.12 Migrant workers in the U.S. from Mexico are critical to a strong U.S. and Mexican economy; however, immigration is a contentious topic for both countries.3 The Mexican migrant work force includes both legal and illegal immigrants raising some difficult U.S. social, economic and national security issues. A large percentage of Mexican immigrants take jobs that Americans do not desire to perform. While this is beneficial for the U.S. economy in many respects, it has negative impacts when the immigrants are illegal. This illegal immigration drives overall U.S. public opinion of Mexico and causes increased discrimination against legal immigrants. Illegal immigration is a longstanding difficult issue the U.S. faces in its relationship with Mexico. In 2007, estimates of Mexican illegal immigrants currently in the U.S. range from six13 to twelve14 Million. Approximately 400 thousand Mexicans immigrate to the U.S., legally and illegally, yearly.15 That is a staggering number considering the population of the U.S. is about 300 million. President Felipe Calderon of Mexico, after taking office in December 2006, quickly spoke out against U.S. immigration policies.16 Specifically he believes the strengthening of border fences and increased border patrols will lead to additional deaths as illegal immigrants attempt crossings in more desolate areas of the border.17 Despite the rhetoric, President Calderon appears willing to work closely with the U.S., for the long term, to develop a lasting and mutually beneficial solution to immigration. He has introduced ideas in Mexico to limit illegal immigration and improve Mexican social services, increase domestic jobs, increase education opportunities, as well as aggressively lobby the U.S. for immigration

reforms.18 The porous border provides many opportunities for crossings of illegal immigrants seeking a better life in the U.S.; however, it also poses a security threat. In addition to allowing easy movement of low wage workers, the 2000-mile border4 between the U.S. and Mexico provides criminals or terrorists an unfettered gateway to plan, supply, and execute illegal activities within U.S. cities. While illegal immigration can strain U.S. social services, allowing Mexico’s government to fail in the struggle against drug cartels or allowing a terrorist attack by way of the Mexican border could have catastrophic consequences. If we hope to prevent an ungoverned Mexico and possible future terror attacks in the U.S., it is essential for the U.S. and Mexico to have

comprehensive and mutually supporting, law enforcement, drug enforcement, border enforcement

and immigration policies . Specifically he believes the strengthening of border fences and increased border patrols will lead to additional deaths as illegal immigrants attempt crossings in more desolate areas of the border.17 Despite the rhetoric, President Calderon appears willing to work closely with the U.S., for the long term, to develop a lasting and mutually beneficial solution to immigration. He has introduced ideas in Mexico to limit illegal immigration and improve Mexican social services, increase domestic jobs, increase education opportunities, as well as aggressively lobby the U.S. for immigration reforms. The porous border provides many opportunities for crossings of illegal immigrants seeking a better life in the U.S.; however, it also poses a security threat. In addition to allowing easy movement of low wage workers, the 2000-mile border4 between the U.S. and Mexico provides criminals or terrorists an unfettered gateway to plan, supply, and execute illegal activities within U.S. cities. While illegal immigration can strain U.S. social services, allowing Mexico’s government to fail in the struggle against drug cartels or allowing a terrorist attack by way of the Mexican border could have catastrophic consequences. If we hope to prevent an ungoverned Mexico and possible future terror attacks in the U.S., it is essential for the U.S. and Mexico to have comprehensive and mutually supporting, law enforcement, drug enforcement, border enforcement and immigration policies Another important security consideration in our relationship with Mexico revolves around Mexico’s role as a leader in Latin America and with the Caribbean countries. By Latin American standards, Mexico has a strong economy, second only to Brazil. As a result, Mexico wields substantial influence with countries like Venezuela and Cuba. The U.S. has strained relations with these countries and can benefit from proxy communication through a friendlier Mexico. With this in mind, the U.S. must be careful not to undermine Mexico’s prestige in Latin America. Mexico is very proud

and wants to exert influence in both Latin America and North America. It is in the interest of the U.S. to help support Mexico’s prestige in greater Latin America without giving the appearance that Mexico is merely a U.S. puppet state.19

Relations and coordination key to solve terrorism, immigration, and drug traffickingValeriano, 10 - Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Illinois at Chicago, where he focuses much of his research on issues in international relations, international conflict, and Latin America (Brandon, “The United States and Mexico: Prospects for Convergence on Critical Issues during the Obama Administration”, Center for Democracy and Civil Society, 2010, http://www.democracyandsociety.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/ValerianoUSMexico7.1.pdf)

A Moment of Opportunity Since the 9/11 attacks, the foreign policy focus of the United States has been directed away from regional concerns towards problems outside the Western Hemisphere. Latin America has been virtually ignored by recent presidential administrations, and the problem is becoming chronic. While Columbia gets some attention, relations with our neighbor and number two trading partner to the south wither. What of U.S. – Mexican relations? What hope is there for progress on critical issues of concern, and what can be achieved by President Obama? This article, based on recent research by Valeriano and Powers (2010) on American and Mexican public perceptions, explains why now is the time to deal with the significant and pressing problems that occupy U.S. foreign relations

with Mexico . Because public views in both countries are converging in the realms of terrorism, drug trafficking, and immigration, the moment is ripe to deal with these issues. The shift towards democracy, openness, and public consultation on pressing issues within Mexico suggests a moment of opportunity for the Obama administration to engage it. Since this convergence may only be temporary, failure to engage Mexico immediately will prevent the resolution of these pressing issues while engendering anger and continued frustration because the United States continues to ignore the

maintenance of an important international relationship. This article concludes by suggesting some of the policy options open to the Obama administration. The State of Public Perceptions Despite disagreements over a few major issues like NAFTA and Iraq that have soured bilateral relations, there is significant agreement between the publics of Mexico and the United States over several other important areas. Public views in both countries converge around the issues of immigration, terrorism, and drug trafficking. In fact the public and elites in Mexico are more concerned with terrorism and drug trafficking than are the public and elites in the United States. People in both the United States and Mexico are optimistic that the issues of immigration, terrorism, and drug trafficking can be solved if proper attention is focused on solutions and international coordination. Recognizing the linkages among these issues and mobilizing this mutual support will be critical to resolving these outstanding

foreign policy problems . Perhaps the most important issue is terrorism. Obviously, for the United States terrorism has been a critical problem since 9/11. The major focus of U.S. foreign policy has been to tackle this problem in the Middle East, yet it should equally look in its own backyard for solutions to security problems. If the United States is going to achieve domestic security, it must first achieve secure borders. Achieving secure borders does not mean simply building walls to keep out Hispanic immigrants. It means strengthening screening processes at both borders, fixing port security, and remaining vigilant to the threat that comes through air traffic. While no terrorists have yet crossed through the southern border, it is still critical to ensure security at all points of entry. The Mexican and American publics hold similar and stable views regarding terrorism. Both groups view terrorism as a critical threat at levels of 70 to 80 percent. The high level of concern among the Mexican public might be surprising, but one must consider they are neighbors to the biggest terrorist target in the world and have experienced their own incidents of domestic terrorism. Since both publics view the issue as critical, it seems prudent that both states work together towards intelligence sharing and stable borders .

Cooperation solves immigration and illegal drug smuggling across the borderValeriano, 10 - Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Illinois at Chicago, where he focuses much of his research on issues in international relations, international conflict, and Latin America (Brandon, “The United States and Mexico: Prospects for Convergence on Critical Issues during the Obama Administration”, Center for Democracy and Civil Society, 2010, http://www.democracyandsociety.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/ValerianoUSMexico7.1.pdf)

This takes us to our next issue: immigration. U.S. perceptions focus on immigration as a critical internal problem, but it is also a major concern for Mexico. A slight majority of Mexicans believe that the problem of immigration into the United States is a predicament that the Mexican state must deal with, not the United States. Mexicans only account for approximately 30 percent of incoming immigrants; a substantial number of those who come through the U.S. southern border crossed through Mexico from other nations. Consequently, Mexico has many of the same immigration problems as the United States. Instead of playing the blame game, public convergence on this issue indicates the two countries should work together to ameliorate this mutually pressing concern. The final issue on which both Americans and Mexicans agree is that drug trafficking, which is related to immigration by the mutual practice of border smuggling, is a major problem for their respective countries. As much as 89 percent of the Mexican public views drug trafficking as a critical threat, while 63 percent of the American public views the issue as an ‘important’ threat. The ills associated with the practice are just as evident in Mexico as in the United States, since Mexico is a major point of transit for illegal drug smuggling operations. Negative societal effects include rising violence, corruption, and criminality.

Relations key to all major impacts – democratic reform, poverty, security, immigration Blankenbaker, 9 – United States Army Reserve (John, “THE UNITED STATES ANDMEXICO: THE NEGLECTED RELATIONSHIP”, US Army War College, 3-30-09, http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA494714)//KG

US-Mexican cooperation key to anti-drug trafficking Finckenauer et al, 7 - director of the International Center of the National Institute of Justice, which is the research arm of the U.S. Department of Justice (James O., “Mexico and the United States: Neighbors Confront Drug Trafficking”, National Institute of Justice, 12-26-07, https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/218561.pdf)//KG In spite of Mexican fear of intervention, the U.S. must remember Mexico is a key neighbor and the U.S. must invest substantial time to foster that relationship. Mexico does not want direct U.S. intervention in Mexican internal affairs but realizes it does need U.S. attention and support. If the U.S. engages correctly, Mexico will be more receptive. However, if the U.S. fails to consider Mexico’s strong feelings on interventionism and sovereignty, it will perpetuate these historical and residual ill feelings. Feelings often expressed in the press. Mexico teeters on the edge of a transformational period, politically. President Vicente Fox’s historic election in 2000 broke a 70-year rule by an authoritarian political party. The political transformation continued with the election of President Felipe Calderon in 2006, also from President Fox’s party. One of the opposition parties continues to dispute the legitimacy of President Calderon and claims their candidate Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador actually won the election, however, that has not stopped President Calderon from moving his agenda into Congressional and public debate. 38 Despite the overall slow progress in political reform, it is encouraging to see the political system improve. This political struggle in and of itself is evidence of progress. In the past, the majority party ruled in an authoritarian manner without adequate checks and balances. Political moderates credit President Ernesto Zedillo, who left office in November 2000, as instrumental in introducing reforms late in his term. This paved the way for the change to the multi-party political process. Still, Mexico’s three party Congress is slow to act on any significant issues and very little happens legislatively without deep compromises from one or more of the parties. The democratic process in8 Mexico is complex and still quite corrupt but President Calderon and other key allies are struggling to push for a wide range of reforms with some success. Mexico is moving in the right direction with their political process by increasing political reforms, conducting relatively transparent elections, and allowing greater involvement of all political parties. It is in the interest of the U.S. for

Mexico to have a democratic government . Without a democratic government, Mexico would probably be a source of continual aggravation to the US leading to extreme national security risks. The U.S. currently has difficulty slowing illegal activity in the U.S. originating in Mexico even with considerable cooperation between the two countries. A non-democratic government in Mexico could exacerbate illegal activities in the U.S. by Mexican citizens. Economics It is in the U.S. interest to foster a strong relationship with Mexico and continue to develop economic opportunities between the two countries. While NAFTA has helped Mexico’s economy, China overtook Mexico with regards to the value of imports to the U.S. in 2003.39 Mexico’s imports to the U.S. have remained stagnant at about 11% of total U.S. imports since 2004 while China’s imports have gradually increased from 14% to almost 18%.40 If this trend continues, and it certainly could with an unstable U.S. and Mexican relationship, Mexican poverty will increase, especially in its Southern states where poverty is already rampant. As poverty increases, desperation grows causing an increase in the incidence of illegal immigration to the U.S. adding to existing U.S. social concerns and the drain on infrastructure. Illegal immigrants, in the U.S. often have access to public health care and social assistance programs, all charged to the U.S. taxpayer.9 An unstable Mexico or unstable U.S. relationship with Mexico could also reduce trade between the

two countries. This could cause strong U.S. allies, such as Canada and Columbia, to reduce trade with Mexico, as well. It would be very difficult for the U.S. to promote investment and increase trade with an unstable partner. Businesses are leery of uncompensated risk and all things being equal choose to invest in other countries or regions with greater stability. The incentive for the U.S. to continue partnering with Mexico as part of NAFTA would be greatly reduced. The U.S. would likely invest more effort in individual trade agreements with other Latin America countries or securing agreement on the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). President Calderon’s current economic agenda is degraded by disagreement over desired changes on reinvestment of oil revenue, oil company reform, and tax reform. Since President Calderon took office in December 2006, he has embarked on an ambitious economic reform plan; however, a great deal of political infighting and the violent drug war has impeded the progress. Since taking office, President Calderon’s primary economic accomplishment was a coalition with another political party to pass a state pension overhaul bill.41 Since the victory on the state pension bill, little has happened with his economic agenda. He has been unable to reform the state owned oil company, PEMEX, with legislation allowing some level of privatization.42 PEMEX is the sixth largest oil supplier to the U.S. and President Calderon contends Mexico must have some privatization to invest in new oil exploration, oil infrastructure, and reorganize for better efficiency.43 There is a direct correlation between foreign investment in Mexico’s oil sector and the fear of privatization for PEMEX’s future. Without PEMEX privatization with outside10 investment, the U.S. will likely look for other sources of energy to replace Mexican oil as oil production in Mexico is predicted to decline by 800,000 barrels a day by 2012.44 Mexico will become a net importer of oil in 2017 and when that occurs it will have a significant impact on the Mexican government’s ability to fund numerous critical infrastructure and social programs. PEMEX oil revenues account for approximately 40% of the Mexican government’s budget. 45 Poverty and economic disparity between regions in Mexico will continue as problems for both the U.S. and Mexico. Economic development in Mexico is critical to improving the conditions in Mexico and ultimately improving the U.S. relationship with Mexico. The vast difference between per capita income in the U.S. and Mexico increases frustration, immigration, violent crime, and drug trafficking affecting both countries. The 2007 income per capita in the U.S. was $46,040.00 compared to $8,340.00 in Mexico.46 Despite high hopes for Mexico after approval of NAFTA, the divide between Mexico and the U.S. has not narrowed as expected.47 In fact, the divide between regions in Mexico has also widened causing extreme poverty in some areas while other areas have adapted better under NAFTA.48 It is in the U.S. interest to support Mexico’s efforts to reform economic policies and improve infrastructure to increase Mexican prosperity. If Mexico’s prosperity improves, it supports U.S.

interests regarding the economy, immigration, and national security. Without economic reforms and improved infrastructure, it is unlikely Mexico will reduce the internal gap between poverty and those with higher incomes.49 Immigration During 2003, the U.S. Border Patrol made 909,000 arrests on the border with Mexico and in 2004 1.1M arrests.50 Even with the cooperation the U.S. currently has with Mexico, the estimated cost of illegal immigration at the state level is staggering. California estimates spending $7.7 billion on education, $1.4 billion on healthcare, and $1.4 billion in prison costs for illegal immigrants.51 When these costs are coupled with other border states costs, the overall cost of illegal immigration to the US economy is stunning. However, the U.S. must be careful with the way it views immigration and specifically how the approach is perceived in Mexico. Mexicans view immigration from Mexico to the U.S. as a basic right and that right extends to illegal immigration. The Mexican view of immigration strongly condones illegal immigration at all levels of society.52 On the other hand, most Americans view illegal immigration as a complete lack of respect for U.S. law.53 There is also a limited Mexican belief that the U.S. intentionally designs immigration policies to increase deaths as a deterrent to illegal immigration.54 These dissimilar perceptions make this issue difficult for both countries to reconcile. A positive relationship with Mexico when dealing with the issue of

immigration is critically important . With improvement of the U.S. and Mexican relationship in mind, President Bush chose Mexico as the destination for his first foreign visit in February 2001.55 During this visit, he and President Fox committed to collectively resolve the immigration issues on both sides of the border. Immigration became the most significant issue discussed during the U.S. Presidential visit at President Fox’s Guanajuato ranch.56

US must improve relations – key to the economy, soft power, and Latin America connectionsMontealegre, 13 - Los Angeles-based Diplomatic Courier Contributor specializing in Latin American markets, finance, economics, and geopolitics (Oscar, “U.S.-Mexico Relations: Love Thy Neighbor”, Diplomatic Courier, 1-24-13, http://www.diplomaticourier.com/news/regions/latin-america/1331-us-mexico-relations-love-thy-neighbor)//KG

Currently, Mexico is entering a perfect demographic storm. It has a young and growing population, which is expected to last for several decades. Mexico is no longer only looking north for economic advancement, as many of their multinational companies, such as Bimbo and Cemex, are currently doing business in Latin America and Spain. Mexico’s stock market is currently in talks to integrate their stock exchange with the MILA group—the established stock exchanges between Colombia, Peru, and Chile. The U.S. must act soon before it arrives at the party too late. It is in the U.S.’s interests to have Mexico think northward first, and then the other regions second, but the opposite is developing. The interconnectedness between both countries strongly conveys why the dialogue should revolve around bilateral trade and commerce agendas. For Mexico, 30 percent of GDP is dependent on exports, and 80 percent of exports are tagged to the U.S. Most importantly, one of ten Mexicans lives in the U.S., accounting for nearly 12 million Mexicans that consider the U.S. their current residence. Add in their descendants, and approximately 33 million Mexicans and Mexican-Americans reside in the U.S. Let’s put this figure in perspective: Venezuela has a population of 29 million; Greece, 11 million; and Canada, 34 million. Essentially we have a ‘country’ within a country—the beauty of America—but it must be embraced instead of shunned or ignored. Economically, it is a plus for Mexico, because there is a market for Mexican products; it is also a plus for the U.S. in many areas, including soft power, diversity, direct linkages to Mexico and Latin America. A cadre of American-born and educated human capital are able to cross cultures into Mexico and Latin America to conduct business and politics. The presidential election emphasized that Latinos in the U.S. are now a vital demographic when concerning local, Congressional, and Presidential elections. It makes practical sense for the U.S. (regardless of political party) to consider Mexico the front door to Central and South America. The most recent U.S. Census discovered that the Latino population in the United States: 1) now tops 50 million; 2) has accounted for more than half of America’s 23.7 million population increase in the last decade; 3) grew by 43 percent in the last decade; and 4) now accounts for about 1 out of 6 Americans. Latinos are now the largest minority group in the United States. These are extraordinary figures that should be leveraged into something positive. President Obama cannot respond by merely paying lip service to the Latino community. Latino voters have overwhelmingly backed President Obama for two elections now, but no favor is done with complete altruism. Surprisingly, during President Obama’s first term, there were 30 percent more deportations than during George W. Bush’s second term. Yet there is hope that President Obama will fix the broken system with a more humane approach, contrary to laws that are being pushed and backed by the Republican Party in Arizona, Georgia, and Alabama. Some may ask—what does this have to do with Mexico, or even Latin America? It is all about messages, and in the next four years the President must use the available tools to solidify relationships with its partners, paving the road for more trade and commerce, which ultimately will further strengthen the U.S. economy. What

happens in the U.S. means a lot to many countries, and immigration is perhaps one of the most important matters in Mexico, Central, and South America. The U.S. must first focus on re-branding its relationship with Mexico. President Obama and Mexican President Peña Nieto need to formulate a new agenda between the two countries—one that resonates with the 21st century, linking the two countries economically; where the U.S. can envision Mexico as a vibrant emerging market in its own backyard. Obstacles do exist, like the current Mexican drug war and political corruption. But don’t India and China have corruption problems as well? A page will be turned in the next four years. The question remains if progress, commonalities, and cooperation will be spearheaded in unison by both countries’ leaders.

US/Mexico relations can spill over to resolve other issuesVillarreal, 10 – Research Specialist in International Trade and Finance (M. Angeles, “NAFTA and the Mexican Economy”, Congressional Research Service, 6/3/10, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL34733.pdf, pg. 1, 3-11, 17-19)//NK

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), in effect since January 1994, plays a very strong role in the bilateral economic relationship between Mexico and the United States. The two countries are also closely tied in areas not directly related to trade and investment such as security, environmental, migration, and health issues. The effects of NAFTA on Mexico and the Mexican economic situation have impacts on U.S. economic and political interests. A number of policymakers have raised the issue of revisiting NAFTA and renegotiating parts of the agreement. Some important factors in evaluating NAFTA include the effects of the agreement on Mexico and how these relate to U.S.-Mexico economic relations. In the 111th Congress, major issues of concern are related to U.S.-Mexico trade issues, economic conditions in Mexico, the effect of NAFTA on the United States and Mexico, and Mexican migrant workers in the United States. In 1990, Mexico approached the United States with the idea of forming a free trade agreement (FTA). Mexico’s main motivation in pursuing an FTA with the United States was to stabilize the Mexican economy and promote economic development by attracting foreign direct investment, increasing exports, and creating jobs. The Mexican economy had experienced many difficulties throughout most of the 1980s with a significant deepening of poverty. The expectation among supporters at the time was that NAFTA would improve investor confidence in Mexico, increase export diversification, create higher-skilled jobs, increase wage rates, and reduce poverty. It was expected that, over time, NAFTA would narrow the income differentials between Mexico and the United States and Canada. The effects of NAFTA on the Mexican economy are difficult to isolate from other factors that affect the economy, such as economic cycles in the United States (Mexico’s largest trading partner) and currency fluctuations. In addition, Mexico’s unilateral trade liberalization measures of the 1980s and the currency crisis of 1995 both affected economic growth, per capita gross domestic product (GDP), and real wages.

Relations key to a laundry list including trade, terrorism, violence, migration, and competitiveness Rosenblum 11 - Marc R. Rosenblum is a senior policy analyst at Migration Policy Institute, where he works on the labor markets initiative, U.S. immigration policy, and U.S.-Mexican migration issues, (Marc, “Obstacles and Opportunities for Regional Cooperation: The US-Mexico Case”, Migration Policy Institute, April 2011 http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/usmexico-cooperation.pdf)//sawyer

What are the prospects for cooperation at this time? On one hand, the underlying factors that favored cooperation during the 1990s generally remain in place. Despite the intractability of migration policy, the overall US-Mexican relationship has never been closer. With 75 million trucks and passengers entering the United States from Mexico in 2009, $250 billion in legal trade between the countries, and about 30 million Hispanics of Mexican origin living in the United States, the two countries are simply too intertwined to leave any issue of mutual concern off the bilateral agenda. Realistically, neither country can hope to accomplish its core goals at the border — controlling crime and violence, countering terrorist threats, preventing illegal entries, facilitating legal travel and cross-border trade — without close coordination and cooperation with the other . Broader questions about US immigration policy, including how to manage employment-based migration and what to do about the 11 million unauthorized immigrants already in the United States, are also easier to answer if policymakers draw from a cooperative toolkit. The United States and Mexico have a great deal to gain long-term by working together to manage migration policy as a tool for enhancing the region’s human capital, an engine for regional economic growth and increased global competitiveness.

2ac LNG Good

Integration would lead to LNG trade – improves energy securityMelgar 4 – Lourdes Melgar has a PhD in political science and is an independent energy analyst for Mexico (Lourdes, “Energy Security: A North American Approach”, Forging North American Energy Security, April 1, 2004, http://dspace.cigilibrary.org/jspui/bitstream/123456789/276/1/Energy%20Security%20A%20North%20American%20Approach.pdf?1)//sawyer

North America is thinking in terms of LNG. There are currently four LNG facilities in the U.S., and twelve others are under consideration: two in Canada, four in Mexico and the rest in the United States. Importing LNG into the region would confer supply flexibility. More interestingly, it would provide a means to further energy integration among the three countries, by boosting the regional gas market. The natural gas security challenge offers an opportunity to design a NAFTA response that would benefit all parties. By furthering energy integration through the enhancement of the natural gas market, North American energy security would be increased.

2ac Mexican Econ

Good relations key to Mexican economic growthSelee, 13 - director of the Woodrow Wilson Center’s Mexico Institute and an adjunct professor of government at Johns Hopkins University (Andrew, “Two Nations Indivisible: Mexico, the United States, and the Road Ahead by Shannon O'Neil”, Americas Quarterly, 4-22-13, http://www.americasquarterly.org/content/itwo-nations-indivisible-mexico-united-states-and-road-aheadi-shannon-oneil)//KG

No relationship in the Western Hemisphere is more critical for the United States than its relationship

with Mexico . U.S. security is closely tied to Mexico’s ability (and willingness) to strengthen its legal and judicial system, and to Mexico’s economic potential. And conversely, an improving American economy will have an outsized impact on Mexico’s future development. In Two Nations Indivisible: Mexico, the United States, and the Road Ahead, Shannon K. O’Neil, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, provides both a readable recent history of Mexico and a cogent argument for why U.S. policymakers, business leaders and citizens should care about the future of their southern neighbor. In one of her more compelling passages, she imagines what it would be like if Mexico’s economy were to take off as Spain’s did in the 1980s and 1990s. Even allowing for Spain’s current economic problems, the point remains a powerful one. If Mexico were to sustain growth over the next two decades, expand incomes, unlock innovation, and get a handle on violence and corruption—all within reach with the right policies—the consequences, O’Neil argues, would be dramatic and mutually beneficial. The two economies and societies are already so interwoven that gains on one side of the border have

significant impacts on the other side. Her analysis parallels a recent report by Christopher Wilson (Working Together: Economic Ties between the United States and Mexico, Wilson Center, 2011), which found that 40 percent of all Mexican exports to the U.S. are produced by U.S. companies based in Mexico. O’Neil takes the point even further, arguing that shared production between the two countries means that “near-shoring,” where components of U.S. manufacturing or services take place in Mexico, is far preferable for U.S. jobs than offshoring, in which the production process migrates to countries farther away. Indeed, Mexico and the U.S. increasingly take part in the same production process, with jobs created on both sides of the border as these companies become more competitive in the global market. “The border today” O’Neil argues, “is a choreographed dance of parts and processes, moving back and forth to create a final competitive product for our own markets and for the world. This dance, it turns out, can be good for U.S. workers and the U.S. economy.”

US-Mexico relations will collapse absent Mexican economic reformStarr, 4 – (Pamela, “US-Mexico Relations”, Hemisphere Focus, CSIS, 1/9/04, http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/hf_v12_02.pdf)//NK

Mexico’s active support for increased multilateralism in world affairs as a means to protect itself from the unilateralist tendencies of the United States was destined to create friction with one of the most unilateralist U.S. administrations in recent memory. While this traditional aim of Mexican foreign policy had the virtue of mitigating the domestic political costs of Mexico’s new North American policy—the appearance of Mexican subservience to the United States that played so poorly in Mexico—it also risked irritating the Bush administration just as Mexico needed the U.S. president to use his scarce political capital to push a migration accord of unclear political benefit through a reticent

Congress. The volatile nature of the international setting at the time Presidents Bush and Fox took office seemed to ensure that an international crisis would emerge somewhere, sooner rather than later. When this happened, the unilateralist bias of the Bush foreign policy team would inevitably clash with Mexico’s newly activist pursuit of multilateralism. Mexico’s decision to campaign successfully for one of the rotating seats on the Security Council of the United Nations, a clear reflection of the zeal with which the Fox administration would advance multilateralism in global affairs, ensured that this inevitable policy clash would be more visible and hence more damaging to U.S.-Mexico relations and to the success of Mexico’s North American strategy

2ac Oil

North American integration would create oil trade between Canada Mexico and the US – solves oil dependenceMelgar 4 – Lourdes Melgar has a PhD in political science and is an independent energy analyst for Mexico (Lourdes, “Energy Security: A North American Approach”, Forging North American Energy Security, April 1, 2004, http://dspace.cigilibrary.org/jspui/bitstream/123456789/276/1/Energy%20Security%20A%20North%20American%20Approach.pdf?1)//sawyer

Respecting the Constitutional rule that oil exploration and production should be done by the Mexican State through PEMEX, there is still significant space for North American integration . The U.S. oil market offers good prospects for Canada and Mexico. Geographic location is an advantage, as is political closeness. In addition, most Mexican oil and some Canadian are heavy crudes, requiring for their processing high conversion refineries, most of which are located in the United States. This fact reduces the market destination of the product. Increasing oil trading within the region becomes then a win- win situation for all parties and favors the security of oil supply in North America.

2ac Organized Crime

Better military cooperation would solve transnational organized crimeMiles 13- Donna Miles is apart of the American Forces Press Service, (Donna, “Northcom Pursues Closer Engagement With Mexico”, US DOD, January 22, 2013, http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=119074)//sawyer

“During the past two to three years, as the Mexican army and Mexican navy have taken on a larger role beyond internal security issues, our relationship with them has really grown and expanded through security cooperation,” Mahon said. “They have opened up to us and said, ‘Let’s start working closer and closer together.’”¶ That’s good news for the United States, he said, because the United States and Mexico share a 2,000-mile border and are intertwined culturally as well as economically. What happens in Mexico matters to the United States -- in terms of trade, immigration and, of particular concern here at Northcom, U.S. national security, he said.¶ Closer military-to-military cooperation will enable the U.S. and Mexican militaries to share best practices as they collaborate in tackling common challenges, Mahon said. They will be able to deal more effectively with threats such as transnational organized crime, while increasing their ability to provide humanitarian assistance and disaster response throughout the region.

2ac Rule of Law

Relations will institutionalize rule of lawCastro et al. 12 - (Rafael Fernández de is the Chair, Department of International Studies, Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México, former Foreign Policy Advisor to President Calderón, “A Stronger Future Policy Recommendations for U.S.-Mexico Relations”, Wilson Center, July 11, 12, http://sunnylands.org/files/posts/159/stronger_f.pdf)//sawyer

Mexico’s central challenge is building the institutions to uphold the rule of law , including credible police, prosecutors, courts and jails. Bi-national cooperation can play an important supporting role in this effort , including exchanges at a local, as well as federal level. There are opportunities to build joint strategies to avoid witness and judicial intimidation, increase the strategic use of extradition, and eradicate corruption. Due process will be essential to any credible public security strategy.

Institutionalizing rule of law will increase US-Russian relations and crowd out China hegGerson 12- Joseph Gerson serves as AFSC’s disarmament coordinator, as director of programs in New England, and as director of the Peace and Economic Security Program, (Joseph, Maintaining Hegemony, AFSC, January 2012, https://afsc.org/story/maintaining-hegemony)//sawyer

In contrast with China the guidance is notably conciliatory regarding Russia stating that "our engagement with Russia remains important, and we will continue to build a closer relationship in areas of mutual interest and encourage it to be a contributor across a broad range of issues." Does this signal a rapprochement with Russia or does the Russian state remain a strategic competitor?¶ ¶ The Obama Administration has been clear that it seeks to push the “reset button” with Russia, a policy which was pursued with considerable success until recently.¶ ¶ In the second half of the 20th century and the first decades of this century, the struggle for power and dominance of Eurasia (which former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski has described as the ultimate prize of the struggle for world power) is best understood as a three-sided “game.” Nixon’s opening to China in 1971-72 split the Russo-Sino alliance and creating a tacit U.S. alliance with China against the Soviet Union. In the Post-Cold War era China and Russia have found they have common interests in close cooperation to limit U.S. domination.¶ ¶ After the early successes with the reset button which included negotiation and ratification of the New START nuclear arms reduction agreement, the continued U.S. commitment to NATO expansion and its insistence on deploying “missile defenses” around Russia’s periphery have poisoned U.S.-Russian relations. Just this week Russia’s Foreign Minister Lavrov has described Russian relations with the U.S. as being at a nadir and Moscow’s relations with China the best ever.¶ ¶ However, Russia’s increasing social and economic integration with Europe, especially its economic dependence on exporting natural gas to, and importing technology and consumer goods from the West necessitates stable relations with NATO nations, including the United States. Further, the Russian conquest and relatively sparse settlement of eastern Siberia is a relatively recent phenomenon. Vladivostok, for example, became Russian in the 19th century. With China is playing an increasingly dominant economic role in Eastern Siberia – including growing Chinese migration that could over time become a majority

population, Russia’s control over a significant portion of its continental empire is thus less than certain, and long-term Russo-Sino cooperation is thus less than guaranteed.¶ ¶ In these circumstances, some U.S. and NATO strategic thinkers dream of splitting Russia from China and incorporating Moscow into the global system designed to manage and contain China’s rise. A condition for such deepening U.S./NATO ties with Russia includes significant democratic reforms, not the least of which would be the institutionalization of the rule of law.

Institutionalizing rule of law in Mexico will boost relationsMiller and deLeon 09-Stephanie Miller is currently a consultant on U.S.-Latin America relations and was ¶ formerly the Research Associate for the Americas Project on the National Security Team. ¶ Born in Venezuela with family from Colombia, Miller earned her degree from Duke ¶ University in International Comparative Studies with a focus on Latin America. She currently lives in Bogotá, Colombia.¶ Rudy deLeon is the Senior Vice President of National Security and International Policy at ¶ American Progress in Washington, DC. He serves on several non-profit boards and is a parttime college instructor. DeLeon is also a former senior U.S. Department of Defense official, ¶ staff director on Capitol Hill, and retired corporate executive, (“Transcending the Rio Grande¶ U.S.-Mexico relations need to reach beyond the border¶ Recommendations of our Mexico Working Group”, April 2009, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/04/pdf/mexico.pdf)//sawyerThis report contains concrete policy recommendations to help the Obama administration ¶ strengthen and deepen the U.S.-Mexico relationship, focusing on ways the United States ¶ can create a more progressive and robust relationship with Mexico in four critical areas: ¶ • Improving the rule of law and judicial reform in Mexico.¶ • Stopping the illegal flow of arms and money from the United States to Mexico.¶ • Finding ways to enhance economic development.¶ • Promoting alternative energy cooperation and development.¶ We believe our policy recommendations in these four areas would go a long way toward tackling the hard issues both the United States and Mexico confront today. We hope you agree.

Rule of law will bolster human rightsGA 12- UN general assembly, (“WORLD LEADERS ADOPT DECLARATION REAFFIRMING RULE OF LAW AS FOUNDATION¶ FOR BUILDING EQUITABLE STATE RELATIONS, JUST SOCIETIES¶ ¶ Respect for Accepted Norms Cannot be Ambiguous,¶ General Assembly President Stresses as Speakers Warn against Selectivity”, September 24,2012, http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2012/ga11290.doc.htm)//sawyer“At the national level, the rule of law is at the heart of the social contract between the State and individuals under its jurisdiction, ” he continues, and adds that the rule of law ensures that justice permeates society at every level. It guarantees the protection of the full range of human rights , brings citizens and non-citizens alike legitimate avenues of recourse in cases of abuses of power and allows for peaceful and fair resolution of disputes. Strengthening the rule of law fosters an environment that facilitates sustainable human development and the protection and empowerment of women , children and vulnerable groups, such as internally displaced persons, stateless persons, refugees and migrants.¶ Looking ahead, the Secretary-General firmly believes that it is crucial for Member States to agree on key goals in relation to the rule of law, with corresponding targets, so that they and the United Nations have clear objectives towards which to work. Secretary-General Ban proposes that Member States agree to embark on this process at today’s high-level meeting. He also proposes the adoption at the high-level meeting of other mechanisms aimed at strengthening dialogue on the rule of law at the international

and national levels.¶ ¶ The report lists the Secretary-General’s proposals for commitments to be made by Member States and the United Nations, aimed at addressing the current challenges in strengthening the rule of law at the international and national levels. They take the form of a programme of action aimed at creating a common agenda for all Member States and the United Nations so that future discussions in this broad area can be more effectively structured and collective action better targeted. They are gathered under a number of key headings, including, increasing compliance with international law; strengthening United Nations treaty bodies; strengthening the International Court of Justice and its role in international relations; improving national-level service delivery; national data collection; and implementing a normative framework in human rights and social development spheres, among others.¶ ¶ Opening Remarks¶ ¶ “Within States, the just application of the rule of law stands at the foundation of responsible governance,” said VUK JEREMIĆ, President of the General Assembly, noting that it was the first time the issue of the rule of law had been discussed thematically by Heads of State and Government in the General Assembly. The issue was of fundamental importance for political dialogue and cooperation among all States, he stressed, adding that “international law must not be seen as a utopian aspiration with little relevance to the conduct of world affairs”.¶ ¶ The rules and principles codified by centuries of treaties and agreements between nations should serve legitimate State interests, rather than trying to override them. Indeed, he said, quoting the famous philosopher and jurist Hugo Grotius, “once arms are taken up, all respect for law, whether human or divine, is lost — as though by some edict, a fury had been let loose to commit every crime”. When peoples observed international law, they put themselves in the service of preventing that “fury” from being unleashed; it was upon that fundamental tenet that the United Nations had been built.¶ ¶ The high-level meeting represented a “landmark moment” in the global peace process, he said, noting that it was taking place under the sixty-seventh session’s overarching theme on the peaceful settlement of international disputes. Through the course of the day’s deliberations, it was critical not to lose sight of the importance of fully respecting the equality, sovereignty and territorial integrity of United Nations Member States.¶ ¶ To be effective, the corpus of international law must be observed by all States, great and small, rich and poor alike. “If our aim is to strengthen trust between nations, then respect for accepted norms and standards cannot be ambiguous or selective.” Everyone should know that everyone else would adhere to the same principles and rules. Today’s Outcome Document recognized the importance of national ownership in rule of law activities, he said. It stood at the heart of the social contract between a State and its citizens. He, therefore, urged participants to draw inspiration from the words of the French political thinker Montesquieu, who had written, “there is no nation so powerful as the one that obeys its laws not from principles of fear or reason, but from passion.”¶ Following those remarks, United Nations Secretary-General BAN KI-MOON said the rule of law was like the law of gravity: it ensured the world remained grounded, so that order prevailed over chaos. It united societies around common values, anchoring us in the common good. But unlike gravity, rule of law must be nourished by continued efforts by genuine leaders. In that vein, today’s first-ever high-level debate on the rule of law reflected an increasingly vast movement of citizens demanding justice, respect for accountability and an end to impunity. Strengthening rule of law meant consolidating the United Nations’ three pillars: peace, development and human rights.

2ac Security

US support key to Mexican criminal reform – solves securityWilson et al, 13 - an Associate at the Mexico Institute of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars (Christopher E, “New Ideas for a New Era: Policy Options for the Next Stage in U.S.-Mexico Relations”, Wilson Center: Mexico Institute, January 2013, http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/new_ideas_us_mexico_relations.pdf)//KGFor the United States: A long-term commitment to supporting institutional reform in Mexico; reducing illegal drug consumption and disrupting firearms trafficking and money laundering at home. While Mexico’s security strategy is still being fine-tuned by the new administration U.S.-Mexico security relations appear to be stable and strong. Numerous working meetings have already taken place, both with the Peña Nieto transition team and since Peña Nieto’s inauguration. The framework of cooperation that characterized the last six years appears intact. Focused law enforcement and social investments in the most violent neighborhoods can demonstrate the state’s capacity to effectively coordinate and target crime. 21As the relationship is solidified there are two specific areas where U.S. action could be most useful. First, continuity in funding for institutional reform and capacity building, especially for criminal procedure and police reform and modernization, is vitally important. While the amount of U.S. assistance is relatively small compared to what Mexico is spending, U.S. support and cooperation send a signal about their importance and may contribute to ensuring the reform agenda continues and is fully implemented . Finally, the U.S. needs to make significant progress on the domestic policy front to demonstrate the seriousness with which it takes the policy of shared responsibility. Reducing illegal drug consumption and disrupting money laundering and firearms trafficking are enormous challenges, but failure to make progress on these fronts would send a signal to partners in Mexico and the region that the U.S. expects them to assume all the costs of stopping the illegal drug trade. Mexico faces enormous political and societal challenges as a result of the violence resulting from international trafficking and organized crime, so it is important for the U.S. to demonstrate similar courage in tackling such difficult issues as firearms trafficking and reducing drug consumption at home.

Cooperation key to modernization – solves drug securityO’Neil, 13 - Senior Fellow for Latin America Studies, Council on Foreign Relations (Shannon K, “Refocusing U.S.-Mexico Security Cooperation”, Council on Foreign Relations, 6-18-13, http://www.cfr.org/mexico/refocusing-us-mexico-security-cooperation/p30950)//KG

Finally, the United States should prioritize the modernization of the U.S.-Mexico border. This means expanding its roads, bridges, and FAST lanes (express lanes for trusted drivers), as well as increasing the number of U.S. customs officers, agricultural specialists, and support staff that man the ports of entry. The estimated cost of these necessary investments would also be relatively small, with the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol estimating the need for some $6 billion over the next decade. These

investments are vital for security, helping to keep out illicit goods and people . Upgrading the border has an added benefit, as it will facilitate legal trade, where consultants estimate losses in the tens of billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of jobs, due to long border wait times and distances between ports of entry.

The outlined initiatives—many already part of the Merida framework—have a greater chance of reducing violence in Mexico, as they will help strengthen police forces, court systems, and local communities. The border improvements, moreover, will benefit both the U.S. and Mexican economies, which can have indirect positive effects by providing greater legal opportunities to young people. In the end, Mexico's security will depend on the actions and decisions of Mexico. But there is much the United States can do to help or hinder the process. A transition to a justice and a more local level and community-based approach to U.S. security assistance will help Mexico establish more effective and long-lasting tools for combating crime and violence.

Cooperation key to higher security and cooperative border enforcementBlankenbaker, 9 – United States Army Reserve (John, “THE UNITED STATES ANDMEXICO: THE NEGLECTED RELATIONSHIP”, US Army War College, 3-30-09, http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA494714)//KG

Immigration reform will continue its importance in both countries. The priority for President Calderon is clearly the crime associated with drug cartels; however, he has made his opinions clear on immigration issues during his time in office.85 When you look at U.S. strategic objectives for immigration reform in the simplest form, it is very possible to reach agreement on immigration in the near future. Essentially the U.S. end state for Mexican immigration is to substantially reduce illegal immigration to a point where, statistically, it is an insignificant issue. Most Americans understand we cannot totally eliminate illegal immigration. An attempt to define the exact point of insignificance is perhaps fruitless at the strategic level. The U.S. ultimately wants an immigration policy that is acceptable to the populations of both countries because both will live with the consequences and must enforce the policy for it to be effective. The U.S. must take a consolidated approach with Mexico to fully address both Mexican interests and American interests. The key to this is to establish mutually beneficial immigration and border security policies to address the following specific interests of both countries. First, reduce the application and processing time required to receive a visa for Mexicans to enter the U.S. legally. Perhaps couple this with increased immigration ceilings for Mexican citizens in an acknowledgement of the number of U.S. jobs Mexicans fill which U.S. citizens do not desire to fill. Second, decrease the perceived prejudicial treatment of Mexican immigrants by U.S. citizens. Third, resolve19 the issue of amnesty for current illegal Mexicans in the U.S.. Forth, obtain agreement and mutual enforcement on border security policies. Fifth, establish U.S. supported Mexican social programs to reduce poverty and increase economic opportunities. Reaching immigration reform agreement requires the U.S. to make perhaps a disproportionate, relative to Mexico’s commitment, economic and political commitment to Mexico but it is a wise strategic investment. Over time, it is politically feasible to meet the immigration objectives as stated above. The U.S. and Mexico have the means to accomplish immigration reform acceptable to both countries. A true consolidated approach to immigration reform will address the key Mexican interests of unfettered movement to the U.S. and increased quality of life for immigrants in the U.S.. For the U.S., immigration reform as detailed above addresses the interests of undocumented workers and greater cooperation on border enforcement. Reform provides a path to reach common agreement to address the current illegal immigrants through earned amnesty without encouraging more illegal immigrants as with blanket amnesty in 1986.86 This type of cooperation on immigration reform is suitable to resolve immigration concerns and lead to increased

national security with cooperative border enforcement .

Binational relations would increase securityCastro et al. 12 - (Rafael Fernández de is the Chair, Department of International Studies, Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México, former Foreign Policy Advisor to President Calderón, “A Stronger Future Policy Recommendations for U.S.-Mexico Relations”, Wilson Center, July 11, 12, http://sunnylands.org/files/posts/159/stronger_f.pdf)//sawyerIndeed, one of the greatest opportunities for binational cooperation on security, which would help address both Mexican concerns about transnational organized crime and U.S. concerns about terrorism, would be to develop more sophisticated approaches to managing ports of entry at the border. By using risk management techniques and the latest technology, the two countries could develop more effective ways of detecting potential threats, ranging from drugs to firearms to bombs, and simultaneously facilitate commerce and the exchange of people across the border. While much attention has been focused on beefing up security between ports of entry, the reality is that most of the real threats to the two countries are at the ports of entry rather than between them. A new focus on these could be a win-win for both countries and for both security and trade.

Relations decreases the power of drug cartels – boosting securityWeintraub and Wood, 10 - Sidney Weintraub is the emeritus William E. Simon Chair in Political Economy at CSIS, Duncan wood is the Director of the Mexico Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. (Sidney and Duncan, “Cooperative Mexican-US antinarcotic Efforts”, CSIS, November 2010, http://csis.org/files/publication/101108_Weintraub_MexicanUSAntinarc_web.pdf)//sawyerAlthough changes to U.S. domestic gun laws are unlikely to come about as a direct result of drug violence in Mexico, the remaining two options have some potential. On both the northern and the southern borders of Mexico, increased cooperation between U.S. and Mexican government agencies through the Mérida Initiative could have an impact on the ability of the cartels to get hold of weapons. Project Gunrunner, an operation implemented by the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms in 2006, was the source of the eTrace software now being used by Mexi- can authorities (and which has been recently translated into Spanish to facilitate its use). Further efforts to interdict arms shipments across the U.S.-Mexican and Mexican-Guatemalan borders in- volving the coordinated actions of U.S., Mexican, and Central American security and intelligence services would be an important use of Mérida resources. Further efforts to interdict arms shipments across the U.S.-Mexican and Mexican-Guatemalan borders in- volving the coordinated actions of U.S., Mexican , and Central American security and intelligence services would be an important use of Mérida resources. In particular, the strengthening of Mexi- can border controls would likely have an impact on the flow and the cost of transporting weapons into Mexico. The ratification of CIFTA, although controversial and facing powerful opposition in the United States, “would reinforce the Obama administration’s commitment to engagement on issues such as organized crime, seeking a multilateral approach to a problem and reminding our citizens of the interdependence of both the U.S. and Mexico when it comes to security,” accord- ing to Johanna Mendelson Forman of CSIS.4 Furthermore, Mendelson Forman argues, “A ratified treaty would send a clear signal to U.S. gun merchants, large and small, that our government is serious about illegal arms deals.

2ac Spill Over

Relations with Mexico spilloverCastañeda 10 – Jorge Castañeda was foreign secretary of Mexico from 2000 to 2003 in the government of Vicente Fox. He teaches international relations at New York University and is a fellow at the New America Foundation,l (“Time for a reset in U.S.-Mexican relations”, Washington Post, May 17, 2010, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/16/AR2010051602951.html)//sawyer

Mexico should propose, and Obama should welcome, a new stage in bilateral relations whose purpose would be to build what NAFTA left out and to reduce the development gap -- in income, welfare, technology, security, rule of law, health and education -- between Mexico and its wealthier North American partners. The label is secondary to the substance: The concept must include immigration reform in the United States; energy reform in Mexico; security concerns in both countries but also convergence of standards and regulations; and legitimate security and border issues across the region, but addressed honestly. For instance, Arizona's crime rates have dropped since immigration from Mexico began to rise in the late 1990s. It should strive to coordinate policies so that crisis in one country -- say, swine flu in Mexico or Lehman Brothers in the United States -- affects the other only proportionately.¶ A prosperous, democratic and equitable Mexico is greatly in U.S. interests. If the United States is to rebuild its manufacturing base, it will need Mexico. If it is going to compensate for its aging population, enhance security and concentrate on real threats without worrying about its borders, it will need Mexico. If it hopes to establish different relationships with less affluent nations, by preaching through example and constructing one next door, it will need Mexico.

2ac Terrorism

Relations solve terrorismBaker, 7 – works with U.S. Northern Command J5/Theater Security Cooperation, retired Joint Specialty Officer, Defense Institute of Security Assistance Management graduate, and former Security Assistance Officer with the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait (Dr. Biff, “The United States and Mexico Enhanced Military Cooperation”, The DISAM Journal of International Security Cooperation Management, July 2007, http://www.disam.dsca.mil/pubs/Vol%2029_3/Baker_Biff.pdf)//KG

Official information exchanges between Mexico and the United States became linear and more limited during the Cold War and the decades that followed. Linear relationships developed between similar organizations such as Department of State (DoS) and Mexico’s Secretariat of Foreign Relations (SRE) or the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) with Mexico’s Secretariat of National Defense (SEDENA) and Secretariat of the Navy (SEMAR). Our practices of linear information sharing resulted in stove-piped information flows that did not cross among the different domains in a systemic fashion. Deficiencies due to the U.S. stove-piped information sharing have been highlighted in numerous articles and studies,26 including the September 11, 2001 Commission Report which identified: Current security requirements nurture over-classification and excessive compartmentalization of information among agencies. Each agency’s incentive structure opposes sharing, with risks (criminal, civil, and internal administrative sanctions) but few rewards for sharing information. No one has to pay the long-term costs of over-classifying information, though these costs—even in the literal financial terms—are substantial. There are no punishments for not sharing information [nor rewards for the appropriate sharing. Agencies uphold a “need-to-know” culture of information protection rather than promoting a “need-to-share” culture of integration.27 If the United States and Mexico continue to perpetuate these linear relationships, then another September 11, 2001 - type attack will be inevitable , potentially affecting our people living on or near the shared border. Therefore, we need to move towards an inter-relational sharing of information.28 Modifying the information sharing recommendation found in the September 11, 2001 Commission Article to one with a bilateral focus, our nations could work towards this common goal: Mexican and U.S. information sharing procedures should provide incentives for sharing among Mexican and U.S. agencies to restore a better balance between security and shared knowledge.29 Information sharing between Mexico and the United States requires enhancements to processes so that the sharing is routine and systematic, rather than ad-hoc. In addition, informational messages broadcast to the rest of the world are important. Mexico’s desire to withdraw from the Rio Treaty in 2002 sent a negative message about cooperation to potential ntagonists throughout the rest of the world. Without sugar-coating any facts, the United States should encourage Mexico to continue playing the role of an honest broker to the rest of Latin America. This is especially critical in light of the continuous disinformation campaign undertaken by leaders in Cuba, Venezuela and other members of the Foro de São Paulo (São Paulo Forum) who routinely bash the United States. Similarly, United States support of President Calderon-Hinjosa’s initiatives must not waiver. Although the “information” instrument remains predominantly in the unrestricted public sector, the diplomatic instrument of power influences information heavily.

2ac Violence/Drugs

Relations solidify energy cooperationWilson et al, 13 - an Associate at the Mexico Institute of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars (Christopher E, “New Ideas for a New Era: Policy Options for the Next Stage in U.S.-Mexico Relations”, Wilson Center: Mexico Institute, January 2013, http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/new_ideas_us_mexico_relations.pdf)//KGLooking ahead to the next six years of interaction between governments of Mexico and the United States, there is the potential for an enormously fruitful relationship in energy affairs. Much of this depends ontwo key factors, political will and the internal changes that are underway in Mexico’s energy sector. In the past, political sensitivities concerning U.S. involvement in the Mexican hydrocarbons industry have limited the extent of collaboration in the oil and gas sectors. This continues to be a cause for concern in any U.S.-based discussion (from either the public or private sectors) of Mexican energy policy and the potential for collaboration, but in recent years there has been a relaxation of sensitivity in this area. Partly in response to the perceived need for international assistance in resolving Mexico’s multiple energy challenges, and partly as a result of a productive bilateral institutional relationship between federal energy agencies, there is now a greater potential for engagement than at any time in recent memory.We can identify three main areas in which bilateral energy cooperation holds great promise in the short to medium-term. First, given the importance of the theme for both countries, there is great potential in the oil and gas industries. This lies in the prospects for investment, infrastructure and technical collaboration. Second, we can point to the electricity sector, where the creation of a more complete cross-border transmission network and working towards the creation of a market for electric power at the regional level should be priorities for the two countries. Third, in the area of climate change policy, existing cooperation on renewable energies and the need for a strategic dialogue on the question of carbon-emissions policy are two issues can bring benefits for both partners. Underlying all three of these areas are broader concerns about regional economic competitiveness and the consolidation of economic development in Mexico. The first of these concerns derives from the hugely important comparative advantage that the North American economic region has derived in recent years from low-cost energy, driven by the shale revolution. In order to maintain this comparative advantage, and to ensure that the integrated manufacturing production platform in all three countries benefits from the low-cost energy, the gains of recent years must be consolidated by fully developing Mexico’s energy resources. With regards to the second concern, economic development, a number of commentators, analysts and political figures in Mexico have identified energy reform as a potential source for driving long-term economic growth and job creation, and the potential opportunities for foreign firms are considerable. While the United States cannot play an active role in driving the reform process, the implementation of any future reform will benefit from technical cooperation with the U.S. in areas such as pricing, regulation and industry best practices.

Good US-Mexican Relations benefits the energy industry – climate change policyWilson et al, 13 - an Associate at the Mexico Institute of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars (Christopher E, “New Ideas for a New Era: Policy Options for the Next Stage in U.S.-Mexico Relations”, Wilson Center: Mexico Institute, January 2013, http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/new_ideas_us_mexico_relations.pdf)//KGLooking ahead to the next six years of interaction between governments of Mexico and the United States, there is the potential for an enormously fruitful relationship in energy affairs. Much of this depends ontwo key factors, political will and the internal changes that are underway in Mexico’s energy

sector. In the past, political sensitivities concerning U.S. involvement in the Mexican hydrocarbons industry have limited the extent of collaboration in the oil and gas sectors. This continues to be a cause for concern in any U.S.-based discussion (from either the public or private sectors) of Mexican energy policy and the potential for collaboration, but in recent years there has been a relaxation of sensitivity in this area. Partly in response to the perceived need for international assistance in resolving Mexico’s multiple energy challenges, and partly as a result of a productive bilateral institutional relationship between federal energy agencies, there is now a greater potential for engagement than at any time in recent memory.We can identify three main areas in which bilateral energy cooperation holds great promise in the short to medium-term. First, given the importance of the theme for both countries, there is great potential in the oil and gas industries. This lies in the prospects for investment, infrastructure and technical collaboration. Second, we can point to the electricity sector, where the creation of a more complete cross-border transmission network and working towards the creation of a market for electric power at the regional level should be priorities for the two countries. Third, in the area of climate change policy, existing cooperation on renewable energies and the need for a strategic dialogue on the question of carbon-emissions policy are two issues can bring benefits for both partners. Underlying all three of these areas are broader concerns about regional economic competitiveness and the consolidation of economic development in Mexico. The first of these concerns derives from the hugely important comparative advantage that the North American economic region has derived in recent years from low-cost energy, driven by the shale revolution. In order to maintain this comparative advantage, and to ensure that the integrated manufacturing production platform in all three countries benefits from the low-cost energy, the gains of recent years must be consolidated by fully developing Mexico’s energy resources. With regards to the second concern, economic development, a number of commentators, analysts and political figures in Mexico have identified energy reform as a potential source for driving long-term economic growth and job creation, and the potential opportunities for foreign firms are considerable. While the United States cannot play an active role in driving the reform process, the implementation of any future reform will benefit from technical cooperation with the U.S. in areas such as pricing, regulation and industry best practices.

2ac War on Drugs

US responsibility important – key to security in war on drugsO’Neil, 10 - Senior Fellow for Latin America Studies, Council on Foreign Relations (Shannon K, “Mexico-U.S. Relations: What's Next?”, Americas Quarterly, Spring 2010, http://www.cfr.org/mexico/mexico-us-relations-next/p22145)//KG

Another fundamental break from the past is the U.S. response to Mexico’s challenges. Historically, the U.S. “war on drugs”—and U.S. security assistance in general—bypassed Mexico. In the late 1980s and early 1990s the U.S. spent millions of dollars in the Caribbean to cut off the drug trade route through Miami. During the 1990s, through the Andean Regional Initiative’s eradication and interdiction efforts, the U.S. poured billions into South America. Both efforts and outlays largely ignored Mexico’s growing role as a transit country. Plan Colombia further widened the disparities in attention and resources. As recently as 2006, the U.S. was sending $600 million a year to Colombia, even as Mexico received a paltry $40 million in security-related aid. The limited funding reflected deep-seated historical tensions between the two neighbors, as well as distrust rooted in incidents such as the 1985 killing of U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration agent Enrique “Kiki” Camarena and the 1998 Casablanca money laundering sting (in which U.S. officials kept Mexican authorties in the dark while operating on their soil, likely violating the country’s sovereignty). The lingering suspicions meant that genuine cooperation between the U.S. and Mexico was limited to trusted individuals at local levels, rather than creating regular, formal channels of communication or being implemented institutionally. A shift in this status quo began under the George W. Bush administration, prodded by increasing U.S. recognition of the growing violence at the border as well as by support for Calderón’s aggressive stance. A March 2007 meeting between Presidents Bush and Calderón marked a turning point in the U.S.-Mexico bilateral security agenda. From this emerged the Mérida Initiative, which, once passed in June 2008 by the U.S. Congress, launched a $1.4 billion multi-year security package primarily destined for Mexico. With an ambitious mandate to break the power of organized crime, strengthen the U.S. southern border, improve Mexican institutional capacity, and reduce the demand for drugs, Mérida encompassed technology and military equipment, as well as law enforcement training and support for judicial reforms. As important as the financial assistance, the U.S. and Mexican governments began an admittedly slow process of trust-building through official exchanges, training courses and, more recently, information sharing. This was a tacit recognition that taking on multinational criminal organizations requires cross-border cooperation. These efforts now bring together both the binational and inter-agency security processes within and across the two governments through an established office in Mexico City. By all accounts, intelligence sharing has increased substantially from the past (though it remains far from ideal). While unable to push forward many other important bilateral issues—immigration, trade, energy—U.S.-Mexico security cooperation dramatically increased in the last two years of the Bush administration. Mexico has remained near the top of President Barack Obama’s foreign policy agenda—probably to the surprise of his more traditional foreign-policy, heavyweight advisors. Just eight days before his inauguration, the then-president-elect reaffirmed his strong financial commitment to support Mexico’s efforts, meeting with President Calderón in Washington. Over the next three months, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, and Attorney General Eric Holder all made their way south of the border to meet with Mexican officials to discuss mutual security concerns. During her first visit, Clinton made her now-famous remark, “the United States recognizes that drug trafficking is not only Mexico’s problem. It is also an American problem. And we, in the United States, have a responsibility to help you address it.”

Talking about “co-responsibility ,” she went on to explicitly recognize the U.S. role—through the money and guns that flow back south and fuel the drug cartels—in the violence besetting Mexico. This tone opened space for a continued partnership with Mexico under the new administration and, in the process, made possible a revision of the strategic framework underpinning bilateral security cooperation. Community-based programs and local-level initiatives have now joined the traditional focus on disrupting organized crime networks and strengthening Mexico’s police and court systems. Clinton’s visit was quickly followed by President Obama’s own April trip to Mexico City, where he commended Calderón’s courageous stand and reaffirmed the United States’ commitment to “work diligently” to clean up its own house..

2ac Water Wars

Relations are key to prevent water warsBarry 13 -Tom Barry is a senior policy analyst at the Center for International Policy, (Tom, “Changing Perspectives on US-Mexico Relations”, Truthout, May 7, 2013, http://truth-out.org/news/item/16221-changing-perspectives-on-us-mexico-relations)//sawyer

If Obama and Peña Nieto were to talk about common concerns while on the border instead of in sitting rooms of the White House and Los Pinos, they would see a common future in the river that divides the two nations. Climate change-aggravated drought has reduced the Río Bravo to a viscous, milky green trickle. Groundwater reserves in the greater borderlands are being quickly depleted, anad farmers, ranchers, and city planners on both sides of the border are battling over rapidly diminishing supplies in the first skirmishes of the water wars that will surely soon overshadow the drug wars as the main

threat to regional stability.¶ A common commitment by Obama and Peña Nieto for each government to do its part to mitigate and mutually adjust to climate change —which doesn’t respect border lines or border security fortifications—would be a sign that binational relations can move beyond being merely economic partners and fighting on the same side of the drug war. The sad plight of the once glorious Río Bravo should not further divide the two nations, but bring the communities to the north and those to the south together as neighbors and part of the larger North American community with shared interests and responsibilities.¶

2ac WMD

Relations prevents WMD threatsBaker 7 - Dr. Biff Baker graduated from the United States Military Academy in 1978. He completed a ¶ Masters in Business Administration while on active duty, and recently graduated with a Doctor of ¶ Management degree from Colorado Technical University, (Biff, “The United States and Mexico Enhanced Military Cooperation”, North American Aerospace Defense Command, July 2007, http://www.disam.dsca.mil/pubs/Vol%2029_3/Baker_Biff.pdf)//sawyer

¶ Whether the threat comes from narcotics-traffickers or external terrorists, the potential exists for ¶ cooperation between USNORTHCOM, SEMAR and SEDENA against chemical, biological, nuclear, ¶ radiological and high explosive threats (CBRNE). Any weapon of mass destruction of the CBRNE ilk would have a spillover effect from one nation to the other. For example, an attack on Juarez, ¶ would impact upon El Paso Texas; similarly an attack on San Diego, California would impact upon ¶ Tijuana. Hospitals could be overwhelmed, resources depleted and lives lost if bilateral cooperation ¶ did not occur . Development of Mexican Weapons-of Mass Destruction-Civil Support Teams (WMDCST) would not require significant expenditures, but would greatly increase capabilities and lives ¶ saved. In addition, this cooperation could not occur in a mere military to military context, but would ¶ have to be pursued in an inter-agency cooperative environment.¶

2ac Competitiveness / Heg

Mexican Instability lessens America’s ability to project power abroad and leads to a global arms raceHaddick 10 - a contractor at U.S. Special Operations Command who wrote the “This Week at War” column for Foreign Policy (Robert, “This Week at War: If Mexico Is at War, Does America Have to Win It?”, Foreign Policy, 9/10/10, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/09/10/this_week_at_war_if_mexico_is_at_war_does_america_have_to_win_it?page=0,0)//WL

While answering a question on Mexico this week at the Council on Foreign Relations, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, "We face an increasing threat from a well-organized network, drug-trafficking threat that is, in some cases, morphing into, or making common cause with, what we would consider an insurgency." Mexico's foreign minister Patricia Espinosa was quick to dispute this characterization, arguing that Mexico's drug cartels have no political agenda. But as I have previously discussed, the cartels, evidenced by their attacks on both the government and the media, are gradually becoming political insurgents as a means of defending their turf.¶ I note that Clinton used the phrase "We [the United States] face an increasing threat ...," not "they [Mexico]." The cartels are transnational shipping businesses, with consumers in the United States as their dominant market. The clashes over shipping routes and distribution power -- which over the past four years have killed 28,000 and thoroughly corrupted Mexico's police and judiciary -- could just as well occur inside the United States. Indeed, growing anxiety that southern Arizona is in danger of becoming a "no-go zone" controlled by drug and human traffickers contributed to the passage of Arizona's controversial immigration enforcement statute earlier this year.¶ ¶ Both Clinton and Mexican officials have discussed Colombia's struggle against extreme drug violence and corruption, revealing concerns about how dreadful the situation in Mexico might yet become and also as a model for how to recover from disaster. Colombia's long climb from the abyss, aided by the U.S. government's Plan Colombia assistance, should certainly give hope to Mexico's counterinsurgents. But if the United States and Mexico are to achieve similar success, both will have to resolve political dilemmas that would prevent effective action. Clinton herself acknowledged as much when she remarked that Plan Colombia was "controversial ... there were problems and there were mistakes. But it worked."¶ ¶ Isolating Mexico's cartel insurgents from their enormous American revenue base -- a crucial step in a counterinsurgency campaign -- may require a much more severe border crackdown, an action that would be highly controversial in both the United States and Mexico. Plan Colombia was a success partly because of the long-term presence of U.S. Special Forces advisers, intelligence experts, and other military specialists inside Colombia, a presence which would not please most Mexicans. And Colombia's long counterattack against its insurgents resulted in actions that boiled the blood of many human rights observers.¶ ¶ Most significantly, a strengthening Mexican insurgency would very likely affect America's role in the rest of the world. An increasingly chaotic American side of the border, marked by bloody cartel wars, corrupted government and media, and a breakdown in security, would likely cause many in the United States to question the importance of military and foreign policy ventures elsewhere in the world. ¶ ¶ Should the southern border become a U.S. president's primary national security concern, nervous allies and opportunistic adversaries elsewhere in the world would no doubt adjust to a distracted and inward-looking America, with potentially disruptive arms races the result . Secretary Clinton has looked south and now sees an insurgency. Let's hope that the United States can apply what it has recently learned about insurgencies to stop this one from getting out of control.

2ac Global Instab

Mexican econ collapse causes global instabilityHaddick, 10 – Managing Editor of the Small Wars Journal (Robert, “This Week at War: If Mexico Is at War, Does America Have to Win It?”, Foreign Policy, 9/10/10, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/09/10/this_week_at_war_if_mexico_is_at_war_does_america_have_to_win_it)///NK

Most significantly, a strengthening Mexican insurgency would very likely affect America's role in the rest of the world. An increasingly chaotic American side of the border, marked by bloody cartel wars, corrupted government and media, and a breakdown in security, would likely cause many in the United States to question the importance of military and foreign policy ventures elsewhere in the world. Should the southern border become a U.S. president's primary national security concern, nervous allies and opportunistic adversaries elsewhere in the world would no doubt adjust to a distracted and inward-looking America, with potentially disruptive arms races the result. Secretary Clinton has looked south and now sees an insurgency. Let's hope that the United States can apply what it has recently learned about insurgencies to stop this one from getting out of control.

2ac Instab

Mexican Economic collapse leads to drug lords and military leaders taking powerLittlefield 9 - Council on Hemispheric Affairs (Edward, “Immigration Matters: Bolstering Mexico with Immigration and Economic Reforms”, Council on Hemispheric Affairs, March 12 2009, http://www.coha.org/immigration-matters-bolstering-mexico-with-immigration-and-economic-reforms/)//WL

Recent news about Mexico has focused on the horrific and sensational: drug wars, decapitations, and whether or not the United States will soon have a “failed state” as its southern neighbor . However, the economic recession poses equally serious challenges for Mexico. It is intricately connected to immigration, security, and the country’s cohesion. The United States should consider the recession’s effect on the flow of people north and remittances south while formulating a multifaceted approach toward the troubled nation.¶ The Mexican economic crises of 1982 and 1984 each produced 30 percent increases in the number of migrants apprehended along the U.S. border. The current recession, however, appears to be having the opposite effect: Mexicans are migrating less and sending less money home. From August 2007 to August 2008, the outflow of migrants from Mexico decreased by more than 50 percent, from 455,000 to 204,000, according to a recent report by Mexico’s National Statistics, Geography, and Information Institute.¶ Additionally, from January 2008 to January 2009, remittances declined by 11.6 percent. Considering that remittances are second only to oil as Mexico’s largest source of foreign income and that the country is now dependent on the exportation of inexpensive migrant labor, the Mexican economy is increasingly vulnerable to the economic climate here. This year, it is likely to contract by as much as 4 percent, further darkening Mexico’s immediate future.¶ These developments will have grave implications for the 11.8 million Mexicans, or 10 percent of Mexico’s population, living in the United States. Hispanic immigrants, 8 percent of whom were unemployed in 2008, are particularly vulnerable to the economic recession, given their concentration in the construction, manufacturing, hospitality and service industries. Rising concern about job availability in the United States amidst the recession further threatens the livelihoods of both Mexican immigrants and their southern dependents. A massive repopulation of migrants, however, would overwhelm Mexico. Repatriation increased by 24.5 percent in 2007, and, although it remains unclear whether this trend will continue, Mexico’s economy and social infrastructure could not withstand the pressure.¶ Some may be quick to welcome these developments, arguing that an exodus of Mexican immigrants will leave more jobs for Americans. However, Mexico’s plight has grave implications for both Mexico and the United States. An economic collapse would prevent the administration of Felipe Calderón from

combating drug trafficking , political and military corruption that stems from low salaries and the lucrative temptations of the narcotics trade, economic depression, and the exodus of Mexico’s best and brightest. Mexico is the United States’ third largest export market, and the inexpensive labor provided by its migrants is an integral part of the U.S. economy .¶ The United States’ increasing concern

with drug trafficking and the conflict between cartels and the Mexican military, which appears to have

spread to border states like Arizona , further indicates the critical nature of the situation. However, the United States should complement military assistance with immigration reform and financial aid in order to bolster Mexico against organized crime and harsh economic conditions.

Instability hampers economic recovery – the impact is Latin American instability Shirk 11 - Associate Professor, Political Science, and Director, Trans-Border Institute, University of San Diego (David A, “The Drug War in Mexico”, Council on Foreign Relations, March 2011, http://i.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/Mexico_CSR60.pdf)//WLFirst, the weaker the Mexican state, the greater difficulty the United States will experience in ¶ controlling the nearly two-thousand-mile border. Spillover violence, in which DTOs bring their fight¶ to American soil, is a remote worst-case

scenario.3 Even so, lawlessness south of the border directly ¶ affects the United States . A weak Mexican government increases the flow of contraband (such as¶ drugs, money, and weapons) and illegal immigrants into the United States. As the dominant wholesale¶ distributors of illegal drugs to U.S. consumers, Mexican traffickers are also the single greatest¶ domestic organized crime threat within the United States, operating in every state and hundreds of¶ U.S. cities, selling uncontrolled substances that directly endanger the health and safety of millions of¶ ordinary citizens.¶ Second, economically, Mexico is an important market for the United States. As a member of the¶ North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), it is one of only seventeen states with which the¶ United States has a free trade pact, outside of the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT).¶ The United States has placed nearly $100 billion of foreign direct investment in Mexico. Mexico is¶ also the United States’ third-largest trade partner, the third-largest source of U.S. imports, and the¶ second-largest exporter of U.S. goods and services—with potential for further market growth as the¶ country develops. Trade with Mexico benefits the U.S. economy, and the market collapse that would ¶ likely accompany a deteriorated security situation could hamper American economic recovery.¶ Third, Mexican stability serves as an important anchor for the region. With networks stretching¶ into Central America, the Caribbean, and the Andean

countries, Mexican DTOs undermine the ¶ security and reliability of other U.S. partners in the hemisphere, corrupting high-level officials, ¶ military operatives , and law enforcement personnel; undermining due process and human rights;¶ reducing public support for counter-drug efforts; and even provoking hostility toward the United ¶ States. Given the fragility of some Central American and Caribbean states, expansion of DTO ¶ operations and violence into

the region will have a gravely destabilizing effect.¶ Fourth, the unchecked power and violence of these Mexican DTOs present a substantial ¶ humanitarian concern , and they have contributed to forced migration and numerous U.S. asylum ¶ requests . If the situation worsened, a humanitarian emergency could cause an unmanageable flow of ¶ people into the U nited States. It would also adversely affect the many U.S. citizens residing in Mexico.

Economic collapse causes instability Barnes 2011 (Joe Barns, “The future of Oil In Mexico – Oil and US. – Mexico Bilateral Relations”, James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy – Rice University, 4/29, http://bakerinstitute.org/publications/EF-pub-BarnesBilateral-04292011.pdf)//JS

There is already a short- to medium-term risk of substantial instability in Mexico. As noted, the country is enduring extremely high levels of drug-related violence. Even if the Mexican government eventually succeeds in its efforts to suppress this violence, the process is likely to be expensive, bloody, and corrosive in terms of human rights. A period of feeble economic growth, combined with a fiscal crisis associated with a drop in revenues from Pemex, could create a “perfect storm” south of the border. If this were to occur, Washington would have no choice but to respond. In the longer-term, the United States has a clear interest in robust economic growth and fiscal sustainability in Mexico.34 There is at least one major example of the U.S. coming to Mexico’s aid in an economic emergency. In 1994, the United States extended US$20 billion in loan guarantees to Mexico when the peso collapsed, in large part to make U.S. creditors whole.35 Not least, a healthy Mexican economy would reduce the flow of illegal immigration to the United States. To the extent that prospects for such growth and sustainability are enhanced by reform of Pemex, the United States should be supportive. It might be best, in terms of U.S. economic and commercial interests, were Pemex to be fully privatized, but even partial reforms would be welcome. Not all national oil companies are created equal: Pemex’s development into something

Mexican economic collapse creates instability Barnes 11 - the Bonner Means Baker Fellow at the Baker Institute (Joe, “The Future of Oil in Mexico”, James Baker Institute for Public Policy, April 29 2011, http://bakerinstitute.org/publications/EF-pub-BarnesBilateral-04292011.pdf)//WLVII. U.S.-Mexico Relations: A Question of Stability¶ In summary, the slow decline of Mexican oil production, in and of itself, is unlikely to have a¶

dramatic impact on international petroleum markets or prompt any dramatic response from the¶ United States. There is, however, one set of circumstances which this decline would capture¶ Washington’s attention. That is the extent to which it contributes to significant instability in¶ Mexico.¶ There is already a short- to medium-term risk of substantial instability in Mexico. As noted, the ¶ country is enduring extremely high levels of drug-related violence. Even if the Mexican¶ government eventually

succeeds in its efforts to suppress this violence, the process is likely to be¶ expensive, bloody, and corrosive in terms of human rights. A period of feeble economic growth, ¶ combined with a fiscal crisis associated with a drop in revenues from Pemex,

could create a ¶ “perfect storm” south of the border . If this were to occur, Washington would have no choice but ¶ to respond .¶ In the longer-term, the United States has a clear interest in robust economic growth and fiscal ¶ sustainability in Mexico .34 There is at least one major example of the U.S. coming to Mexico’s¶ aid in an economic emergency. In 1994, the United States extended US$20 billion in loan¶ guarantees to Mexico when the peso collapsed, in large part to make U.S. creditors whole.35 Not¶ least, a healthy Mexican economy would reduce the flow of illegal immigration to the United ¶ States. To the extent that prospects for such growth and sustainability are enhanced by reform of¶ Pemex, the United States should be supportive. It might be best, in terms of U.S. economic and¶ commercial interests, were Pemex to be fully privatized, but even partial reforms would be¶ welcome. Not all national oil companies are created equal: Pemex’s development into something¶ like Norway’s Statol would mark an important improvement.

2ac Isolationism

Mexican collapse hurts NAFTA and creates Anti – US Alliance Tobin 2006 (Rick Tobin, “The Coming Civil War in Mexico”, TAO Emergency Management Consulting, 4/29, http://www.scribd.com/doc/6613242/THE-COMING-CIVIL-WAR-IN-MEXICO)//JS

In a fast moving State of War in Mexico, the U.S. government would have to declare neutrality and seal its borders immediately. Within days, the President and Congress would take actions that would be condemned by every country in the world…and of course the U.N. The map on the next page shows the 100-mile buffer zone that would be taken by force by the U.S. military. This would become the new no-man’s zone. Military exchanges would occur between the U.S. and Mexico along the new boundary. After a number of air losses and ground losses, the Mexican government would withdraw and accept the boundary. Every Mexican citizen that remained there would have to carry dual identification at all times. The entire area would be sealed so that traffic of any kind would be highly restricted and monitored. Martial law would be in place with open “shoot-to-kill” orders. At the “old” border, anyone attempting to cross illegally would be shot. The border would be surveilled by the same flying drones now used over Afghanistan and Iraq. They would also be armed with Hellfire missiles. In addition, particularly well-known pathways would be mined and re-mined weekly. In the United States the order would be given to round up all undocumented aliens with Mexican heritage for immediate deportation to the “no-man’s zone.” Those who resisted would be arrested and held in internment camps at abandoned military bases until they could be processed (under the Rex 84 Program and supporting Executive Orders such as11051 and 11002, etc). A permanent marking would be placed on the hands of those so interned (or a RFID chip). If they were found back in the United States they would face felony imprisonment. An underground railroad would develop to move illegal Mexican aliens to Canada. The U.S. would then demand that if Pemex products were interrupted for even a day, the U.S. would take the oil fields and nationalize them for the U.S. Again, this would raise the threat of intense hostilities, leading to new alliance in the Western Hemisphere. Canada would become a neutral party and no longer support NAFTA or trade with the U.S., including cutting water, electrical and petroleum exports. The Latin American countries might unite as a block and form a powerful alliance with a strong socialist, anti-American focus, led by the triad of Mexico, Cuba, and Venezuela. Later, Brazil would join to make the fourth major power. The United States federal government would now face the existence of threats that included unfriendly border neighbors to the north and south, a declining world position, and internal strife with its own citizens, especially those with Mexican heritage or Latin America links. I could continue with this scenario, but it just gets dourer and threatens the very existence of the United States. Needless to say, the strategies for the Best Outcome are truly worth every effort to implement to avoid the B and of course the C scenarios.

Mexican collapse causes US isolationism and large-scale military withdrawalWesthawk 2008; investment research director and portfolio manager, former U.S. Marine Corps officer: infantry company commander, artillery battalion staff officer 12-21-2008, "Now that would change everything," http://westhawk.blogspot.com/2008/12/now-that-would-change-everything.html

Yes, the “rapid collapse” of Mexico would change everything with respect to the global security environment. Such a collapse would have enormous humanitarian, constitutional, economic, cultural, and security implications for the U.S. It would seem the U.S. federal government, indeed American society at large, would have little ability to focus serious attention on much else in the world. The

hypothetical collapse of Pakistan is a scenario that has already been well discussed. In the worst case, the U.S. would be able to isolate itself

from most effects emanating from south Asia. However, there would be no running from a Mexican collapse .

Mexican collapse leads to US isolationismHaddick 8 - a contractor at U.S. Special Operations Command who wrote the “This Week at War” column for Foreign Policy - (Robert, “Now that would change everything” December 2008, http://westhawk.blogspot.com/2008/12/now-that-would-change-everything.html)//WLThere is one dynamic in the literature of weak and failing states that has received relatively little attention, namely the phenomenon of “rapid collapse.” For the most part, weak and failing states represent chronic, long-term problems that allow for management over sustained periods. The collapse of a state usually comes as a surprise, has a rapid onset, and poses acute problems. The collapse of Yugoslavia into a chaotic tangle of warring nationalities in 1990 suggests how suddenly and catastrophically state collapse can happen - in this case, a state which had hosted the 1984 Winter Olympics at Sarajevo, and which then quickly became the epicenter of the ensuing civil war. In terms of worst-case scenarios for the Joint Force and indeed the world, two large and important states bear consideration for a rapid and sudden collapse: Pakistan and Mexico. Some forms of collapse in Pakistan would carry with it the likelihood of a sustained violent and bloody civil and sectarian war, an even bigger haven for violent extremists, and the question of what would happen to its nuclear weapons. That “perfect storm” of uncertainty alone might require the engagement of U.S. and coalition forces into a situation of immense complexity and danger with no guarantee they could gain control of the weapons and with the real possibility that a nuclear weapon might be used. The Mexican possibility may seem less

likely, but the government, its politicians, police, and judicial infrastructure are all under sustained assault and pressure by criminal gangs and drug cartels. How that internal conflict turns out over the next several years will have a

major impact on the stability of the Mexican state. Any descent by the Mexico into chaos would demand an American response based on the serious implications for homeland security alone. Yes, the “rapid collapse” of Mexico would change everything with respect to the global security environment. Such a collapse would have enormous humanitarian, constitutional, economic, cultural, and security implications for the U.S. It would seem the U.S. federal government, indeed American society at large, would have little ability to focus serious attention on much else in the world. The hypothetical collapse of Pakistan is a scenario

that has already been well discussed. In the worst case, the U.S. would be able to isolate itself from most effects emanating from

south Asia. However, there would be no running from a Mexican collapse.

2ac Manufacturing & Competitiveness

US and Mexico’s competitiveness and manufacturing industries and interdependentWilson 12 – Christopher Wilson is an associate at the Mexico Institute of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, DC, (U.S. Competitiveness: The Mexican Connection, Summer 2012, http://www.issues.org/28.4/p_wilson.html)//sawyer

A “giant sucking sound” was the memorable description made by presidential candidate Ross Perot during the 1992 campaign of the impact that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) would have, as businesses and jobs moved from the United States to Mexico. The reity is that economic cooperation with Mexico has been a boon for U.S. industry and has strengthened the country’s competitive position in ways that have produced broad economic benefits. Today, as China and other Asian countries have emerged as major economic challengers, expanding economic cooperation with Mexico is one of the best ways for the United States to improve its global competitiveness.¶ Regional integration between the United States and Mexico is already vast and deep. As the United States’ second largest export market and third largest trading partner, Mexico is clearly important to the U.S. economy. Merchandise made has more than quintupled since NAFTA went into effect in 1994, and in 2011, bilateral goods and services trade reached approximately a half-trillion dollars for the first time. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has calculated that the jobs of six million American workers depend on U.S.-Mexico trade. Many of those jobs are in border states, which have especially close ties to Mexico, but Mexico is also the top buyer of exports from states as far away as New Hampshire (mostly computers and electronics). In fact, 20 states, from Michigan to Florida, sell more than a billion dollars’ worth of goods to Mexico each year, and Mexico is the first or second most important export market for 21 states.¶ The United States and Mexico are also major investors in one another. In fact, combined foreign direct investment holdings now total more than $100 billion. According to the most recent count by the Department of Commerce, U.S.-owned companies operating in Mexico created $25 billion in value added and employed nearly a million workers. Mexican investment in the United States is less than U.S. investment in Mexico, but it is has been growing rapidly in recent years. Several of Mexico’s top companies, which are increasingly global operations, have made significant investments in the United States. Mexico’s Cemex, for example, is North America’s largest maker of cement and concrete products. Grupo Bimbo, which owns well-known brands such as Entenmanns’s, Thomas’s English Muffins, and Sara Lee, is the largest baked goods company in the Americas. Even Saks Fifth Avenue and the New York Times Company are supported by significant Mexican investment.¶ The massive volume of commerce and investment is important, but the depth of regional integration is the primary reason why Mexico contributes to U.S. competitiveness. Mexico and the United States do not just trade products, they build them together. In fact, to understand regional trade, it is necessary to view imports and exports in a different light. Whereas imports from most of the world are what they appear to be—foreign products—the same cannot be said of imports from Mexico. During production, materials and parts often cross the southwest border numerous times while U.S. and Mexican factories each perform the parts of the manufacturing process they can do most competitively. Because of the complementary nature of the two economies, close geographic proximity, and NAFTA, which eliminated most tariff barriers to regional trade, the U.S. and Mexican manufacturing sectors are deeply integrated.¶ Demonstrating this integration is the fact that 40% of the value of U.S. imports from Mexico comes from materials and parts produced in the United States. This means that 40 cents of every dollar the United States spends on Mexican goods actually supports U.S. firms. The only other major trading partner that comes close to this amount is Canada, the United States’ other NAFTA

partner, with 25% U.S. content. Chinese imports, on the other hand, have an average of only 4% U.S. content, meaning that the purchase of imports from China does not have the same positive impact on U.S. manufacturers.¶ The regional auto industry is a good example of this production-sharing phenomenon. The United States, Mexico, and Canada each produce and assemble auto parts, sending them back and forth as they work together to build cars and trucks. Cars built in North America are said to have their parts cross the United States borders eight times as they are being produced, and between 80 and 90% of the U.S. auto industry trade with its North American partners is intra-industry, both of which signal an extremely high level of vertical specialization. As a result, Detroit exports more goods to Mexico than any other U.S. city, and the North American auto industry has proven much more resilient than many expected. Although several of North America’s largest automakers nearly collapsed during the financial crisis in 2008 and 2009, a robust recovery is now under way. Mexico and the United States have each experienced the sharpest rise in vehicle production of the world’s top 10 auto producers during the past two years, growing 51 and 72%, respectively, between 2009 and 2011.

2ac Organized Crime

Organized crime is the root cause of conflict UNODC 09 (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, “Preventing Organized Crime from Spoiling Peace”, UNODC, 2/26, http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/frontpage/preventing-organized-crime-from-spoiling-peace.html) //JS

6 February 2009 - Look at almost any conflict zone in the world, and you'll find spoilers with links to criminal groups. Conflict creates cover for illicit enrichment - whether it be drugs, natural resources, or the trafficking of weapons and people. It also creates profitable new markets for smuggled goods. In the absence of the rule of law and licit competition, criminal groups fill a lucrative vacuum. Since they profit from instability they have few incentives for peace. Organized crime is therefore a major threat to keeping and building peace, and - because of its transnational nature - has an impact on regional security.¶ As a result, conflicts which may seem tractable drag on for years. "Peacekeepers, peacemakers, and peace-builders are starting to wake up to the impact of crime on conflict, and UNODC has a unique skill set that can address this urgent problem", says UNODC Spokesman Walter Kemp,¶

"The establishment of the UN Peacebuilding Commission, an ever-expanding number of peacekeeping operations that include a rule of law component, an increased emphasis on conflict prevention, and greater attention to the political economy of conflict all demonstrate the need for expertise in dealing with organized crime in fragile situations", says Mark Shaw, Chief of UNODC's Integrated Programming Unit.¶ Yet expertise is relatively limited. As the Executive Director of UNODC, Antonio Maria Costa has pointed out, "we need more specialists to fight organized crime. Under the UN flag, there are more than 130,000 soldiers and ¶ 10,000 police. Yet, the UN has less than a dozen experts on organized crime. How can we answer the calls for help when we have few people to send?"¶ UNODC is taking steps to rectify this problem, both within the UN system and among Member States. "UNODC is well-positioned to play a key role in this area since we are the guardian of the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and the developer of a number of key tools to strengthen criminal justice in post-conflict settings", says UNODC Director of Operations Francis Maertens.¶ One such tool was launched in New York on 11 February - Model Codes for Post-Conflict Criminal Justice which was produced in partnership with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the US Institute for Peace, and the Irish Centre for Human Rights. "Blue helmets get most of the attention when people think about building peace and security", said Mr. Costa at the launch, "but long-term security depends first and foremost on the creation or restoration of the rule of law, and that is what this Model Code is for".

2ac Spill-Over

Solving the North American income gap spills over internationallyPastor 08 – Robert Pastor is professor and director of the Center for North American Studies at American University, (Robert, “The Solution to North America’s Triple Problem: The

The first draft was enunciated in Guanajuato, Mexico in February 2001 at the conclusion of the first summit meeting between Presidents Fox and Bush when they pledged: “After consultation with our Canadian partners, we will strive to consolidate a North American economic community whose benefits reach the lesser-developed areas of the region and extend to the most vulnerable social groups in our countries” (Joint Communiqué, 2001). While the promise of that statement was not realized, the fact that a Republican President accepted this goal is not inconsequential and this could be the platform for a genuine North American Community. If North America cannot achieve that goal of narrowing the income gap , then the hopes that many poor and middle-income countries have had in finding a path to modernization through free-trade would be dashed . If North America succeeds, then it will provide an example and an inspiration for the entire world.

2ac Terrorism

Economic Collapse in Mexico results in terrorism Brown 09 - Former Under Secretary of Homeland Security, Author, “Deadly Indifference”, National Security Blog Expert, The National Journal, Founder & Chairman, Apokalyyis, Inc (Michael Brown, “Border Control: Collapse of Mexico is a Homeland Security and National Security Issue”, Michael Brown Today, 1/15, https://www.google.com/search?q=Border+Control%3A+Collapse+of+Mexico+Is+A+Homeland+Security+%26+National+Security+Issue%2C%E2%80%9D&oq=Border+Control%3A+Collapse+of+Mexico+Is+A+Homeland+Security+%26+National+Security+Issue%2C%E2%80%9D&aqs=chrome.0.57j62l3.2146j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)//JS

¶ By failing to secure the borders and control immigration, we have opened ourselves up to a frightening scenario. The United States could face a flood of refugees from Mexico if it were to collapse, overwhelming state and local governments along the U.S.-Mexico border. During a time of economic duress, the costs would be overwhelming and would simply add to the already burgeoning costs at the federal level.¶ ¶ Immigration and border control never was nor should it ever be about racism. Immigration and border control are national security and homeland security issues.¶ ¶ Sleeper cells from numerous terrorist groups could, and probably already have, infiltrated the United States, just laying in wait to attack at an appropriately vulnerable time.¶ ¶ Immigration control should permit as many workers as the country can handle or need. The primary purpose of immigration control should not be about keeping Mexican workers out, but rather simply knowing who is here.¶ ¶ At some point, Congress must demand, and the President must implement, appropriate immigration control and border control, if for no other reason, than to stem the possibility of Mexican refugees, escaping an out of control drug war, overwhelming state and local governments.¶ ¶ And, whether that collapse ever occurs or not, Congress must demand and the President must implement, border and immigration control so we know who is here, and keep out those who would do us harm.

Mexican Instability leads to terrorist attacks on the US – specifically biologicalShingal 11 - University of California, Los Angeles – (Ankur, “At the Tipping Point: Why the United States Must Assist Mexico in the Mexican Drug War”, Agathai Quarterly Journal, Winter 2011, http://www.mortarboardatucla.org/uploads/4/7/8/9/4789362/winter_journal.pdf)//WL

The fourth and final contention as to why the US should further aid Mexico is the risk of a link ¶ developing between the Latin American drug cartels and the Islamic terrorists in the Middle East. While ¶ such linkages may not exist yet, there is currently concern in and around Washington that groups such as ¶ Hezbollah and especially Al Qaeda are beginning to take interest in what is occurring in Mexico. In fact, ¶ the Mexican drug cartels already have a relatively established link with Hezbollah, which has long been ¶ involved with

the South American drug trade. As the drug trade has steadily moved north to Mexico, ¶ Hezbollah‘s influence has come disturbingly closer to the American border. That influence, when ¶ combined with the fact that the American border is very porous and the possibility of a Hezbollah sponsored terrorist attack on US soil, makes many US officials uneasy. According to Michael Braun, a ¶ former assistant administrator and chief of operations at the US Drug Enforcement Administration ¶ (DEA), Hezbollah uses ―the same criminal weapons smugglers, document traffickers and transportation ¶ experts as the drug cartels… [Hezbollah will] leverage those relationships to their benefit, to smuggle ¶ contraband and humans into the US; in fact, they already are [smuggling].‖181¶ Similarly, some Al Qaeda leaders have also indicated an interest in using drug tunnels to help ¶ launch a terrorist attack on U nited States soil. Following the attack on September 11th, the United States ¶ has taken a number of steps to protect itself from terrorist attacks. These have included increasing ¶ security in airports and train stations as well as paying closer attention to people entering and leaving the ¶ country. However, despite all of these improvements, the drug cartels are still able to smuggle drugs into ¶ the country at an alarmingly high rate. Unfortunately, terrorists around the world have noticed: Abdullah ¶ al-Nafisi, a high ranking Al Qaeda recruiter, stated, ―Four pounds of anthrax…carried by a fighter ¶ through tunnels from Mexico into the US are guaranteed to kill 330,000 Americans…there is no need for ¶ airplanes, conspiracies, timings and so on.‖182 As the cartels are only interested in their financial bottom ¶ line, there is no reason why they should not allow other groups to use their routes to enter the United ¶ States if the other groups

were willing to pay – and Al Qaeda would certainly have no qualms about ¶ paying any amount of money if they were promised untraceable access into the US. As one US law ¶ enforcement officer noted, ―That‘s why the border is such a serious national security issue.‖183¶ There are two problems with which the United States will have to contend if the link between the ¶ terrorists and cartels becomes too strong. The first is a problem of money; terrorist groups could start ¶ using the profits of drug smuggling to fund their anti- American operations. Despite America's diplomatic ¶ and military efforts both Hezbollah and Al Qaeda remain able to maintain themselves financially. ¶ American efforts to cut off their funding would only become more difficult if those groups became ¶ closely affiliated with the highly profitable drug cartels. If the terrorists are able to establish a drug trade ¶ through Mexico, American drug users would in effect be supporting the United States' military‘s enemy. ¶ By not sufficiently addressing the Mexican drug smuggling issue, the US is thus leaving the door open for ¶ terrorist groups to profit, which in turn could lead to further attacks .¶ The

second and most distressing issue is that the terrorists could use Mexican drug trafficking ¶ routes to launch attacks in the continental United States. Based on the condition of the Mexican state and ¶ the inability of the United

States to sufficiently protect its border, it is not difficult to imagine Al Qaeda ¶ operatives successfully infiltrating the country. Moreover, it is equally possible that such an operative ¶ could smuggle parts of a bomb or a suitcase full of anthrax through the same tunnels which funnel ¶ thousands of pounds of marijuana and cocaine into the US yearly. The United States cannot afford to take ¶ chances with American lives at stake. Although there is no proof that a terrorist plot will occur via ¶ Mexico, the possibility alone should drive the US government to take steps to finally rein in the drug ¶ cartels by bolstering its aid to the Mexican government. By not doing so, the US is leaving itself open to a ¶ very uncertain future – a future where it may find itself having to fight wars in the Middle East and ¶ protect itself from terrorist attacks launched via imperceptible tunnels across its own border.

2ac bioterror

An attack would be biologicalWashington Times ‘9 (“EXCLUSIVE: Al Qaeda eyes bio attack from Mexico”, June 3 2009, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/03/al-qaeda-eyes-bio-attack-via-mexico-border/?page=1&feat=home_cube_position1, quotes anonymous senior US intelligence officials)//WL

U.S. counterterrorism officials have authenticated a video by an al Qaeda recruiter threatening to smuggle a biological weapon into the United States via tunnels under the Mexico border, the latest sign of the terrorist group’s determination to stage another mass-casualty attack on the U.S. homeland.¶ The video aired earlier this year as a recruitment tool makes clear that al Qaeda is looking to exploit weaknesses in U.S. border security and also is willing to ally itself with white militia groups or other anti-government entities interested in carrying out an attack inside the United States, according to counterterrorism officials interviewed by The Washington Times.¶ The officials, who spoke only on the condition they not be named because of the sensitive nature of their work, stressed that there is no credible information that al Qaeda has acquired the capabilities to carry out a mass biological attack although its members have clearly sought the expertise.¶ The video first aired by the Arabic news network Al Jazeera in February and later posted to several Web sites shows Kuwaiti dissident Abdullah al-Nafisi telling a room full of supporters in Bahrain that al Qaeda is casing the U.S. border with Mexico to assess how to send terrorists and weapons into the U.S.¶ “Four pounds of anthrax — in a suitcase this big — carried by a fighter through tunnels from Mexico into the U.S. are guaranteed to kill 330,000 Americans within a single hour if it is properly spread in population centers there,” the recruiter said. “What a

horrifying idea; 9/11 will be small change in comparison. Am I right? There is no need for airplanes, conspiracies, timings and so on. One person, with the courage to carry 4 pounds of anthrax, will go to the White House lawn, and will spread this ‘confetti’ all over them, and then we’ll do these cries of joy. It will turn into a real celebration.”¶ In the video, obtained and translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute, al-Nafisi also suggests that al Qaeda might want to collaborate with members of native U.S. white supremacist militias who hate the federal government.¶ Sean Smith, a spokesman for Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, said the U.S. takes such threats seriously.¶ “We can never stop being vigilant while there are individuals who seek to do harm on the American people,” he said. “We continue to step up our efforts with additional personnel and better technology along the northern and southern borders and continue to strengthen our sea, land and air ports of entry.”¶ A U.S. counterterrorism official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said al-Nafisi is a “person of interest” and a veteran recruiter for al Qaeda. Misidentified on some blog sites as a professor, he is a Kuwaiti dissident and al Qaeda associate who is thought to have communicated with senior al Qaeda leaders in recent years, the counterterrorism official said. The recruiter is also said to have close ties to Mullah Mohammed Omar, the senior Afghan Taliban leader now thought to be in Pakistan.¶ Al-Nafisi “is a significant ideological player in terrorist circles, and that makes him dangerous because he can inspire his followers to do extremely bad things,” the official said.¶ Drug Enforcement Administration and Defense Department officials have been paying close attention to links between various terrorist organizations, such as Hezbollah, and drug cartels in South America, Central America and Mexico.¶ “It shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone that terrorist organizations would utilize the border to enter the U.S.,” said a DEA official who also asked not to be named because of his involvement in ongoing intelligence operations. “We can’t ignore any threat or detail when it comes to al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations bent on attacking the U.S.”

2ac nuclear terror

Or NuclearThe Hill 9 (Jordy Yager, “Border lawmakers fear drug-terrorism link”,3/7/9, http://thehill.com/homenews/news/18629-border-lawmakers-fear-drug-terrorism-link)//WLMembers of Congress are raising the alarm that war-like conditions on the Mexican border could lead to Mexican drug cartels helping terrorists attack the U.S.¶ “When you have…gangs and they have loose ties with al Qaeda and then you have Iran not too far away from building a nuclear capability, nuclear terrorism may not be far off,” said Rep. Trent Franks (R- Ariz.), a member of the House Armed Services committee.¶ The Mexican drug cartels’ violence accounted for more than 6,000 deaths last year, and in recent months it has begun spilling over into the districts of lawmakers from the southwest region, even as far north as Phoenix, Ariz. -- which has become, Franks noted, the “kidnap capital of the U.S.”¶ Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), whose district borders Mexico, said that while the situation is bad, it could easily get worse.¶ “The goal of the cartels is to make money,” said

Cuellar, who sits on the House Homeland Security committee. “If they can smuggle in drugs and human cargo, then certainly they can smuggle other things in, other devices to cause us harm.”¶ “We have not heard of any

associations, but is there the possibility? I’ll be the first to say, yeah. They have the routes, they can very easily smuggle in other things. If I was a bad guy in another country, I would go into Central America because the U.S. is not paying the proper attention.”

2ac united states economy

Mexican economic trouble has dangerous implications for United States economy - Loss of jobs, trade, income, runaway illegal immigration The Annapolis Institute No Date (The Annapolis Institute, “Mexico’s woes are our worries”, The Annapolis Institute, http://www.annapolisinstitute.net/library/commentaries/mexicos-woes-are-our-worries)

There's an old saying among Mexicans: "Poor Mexico! So far from God; so close to the U.S." This view reflects Mexico's long-standing vulnerability to the U.S. that began with our annexation of Texas in 1845. In the ensuing half century, the U.S. seized nearly half of Mexico's national territory. When the Great Depression hit the U.S. in the 1930s, Mexico's employment, export earnings and GNP plummeted. Since that tune, the economies of the two nations have become increasingly intertwined. ¶ Today, Mexico is in trouble. The peso fell 40% in one month. There is a census of confidence among foreign investors -- not only in Mexico but with other "emerging markets" in Latin America and Asia. The Republican Congress and the Clinton administration are now working on legislation to prevent a serious and prolonged economic crisis in Mexico. A key element is a $40 billion U.S. loan guarantee for Mexico. It's in America's interest to stop the hemorrhaging as soon as possible. Reason: The relationship between the U.S. and Mexico is a two-way street. We are mutually vulnerable.¶ Consider the economic aspects: Mexico is our third largest trading partner -- behind Canada and Japan (and is close to overtaking Japan). More than 700,000 U.S. jobs depend directly on exports to Mexico. Border states like Texas ($13 billion in exports) and California ($5 billion) have a huge stake in the Mexican market -- as do others, such as Michigan ($6 billion). States such as Arizona and New Mexico sell up to 20% of their exports to Mexico so that economic problems in Mexico will cause job and income losses in the U.S. In today's global economy, when Mexico catches a cold, we sneeze. Like it or not, we are stuck¶ Consider the demographics. If Mexico's economy goes into the tank, illegal immigration to the U.S. could explode by more than 30% -- which means an additional 500,000 economic refugees in the U.S. this year. As a Mexico City lawyer -- friend said to me over¶ the weekend, "If Congress says 'no' on the loan guarantees, Gov. Pete Wilson of California will need a Proposition 374 -- twice as strong as Prop. 187 -- to keep the illegals out."¶ This interdependence between the U.S. and Mexico is not because of NAFTA -- the recently ratified North American Free Trade Agreement. It's actually the other way around: NAFTA exists because of the economic interdependence of our two nations -- an¶ example of public policy rushing to catch up and codify what is already happening through informal, cross-border regionalism. ¶ Today, a problem in one country is a problem for the other. A 2,000-mile common border and the information revolution, which permits Mexican farmers and laborers to know everything that is going on across the border, including prevailing wage rates for immigrants in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas, are powerful reasons why Americans must be attentive to developments in Mexico.¶ The loan guarantee agreement needs tweaking, in part. to make sure that Mexico continues its economic reforms, including privatization and deregulation. But this "ounce of prevention" also needs to be supported by members of Congress in both parties. If it isn't, the emerging North American community -- including U.S. wage earners and border towns in the Southwest -- will be losers.

Economic Integration causes Mexican collapse to spillover to the USWilson 11 - an Associate at the Mexico Institute of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars (Christopher, “Working Together: Economic Ties between the United States and Mexico”, Wilson Center, November 2011, http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/Working%20Together%20Full%20Document.pdf)//WL

The Mexican and U.S. economies are tightly integrated, with goods, services, ¶ capital and people traveling back and forth

between the two nations at ¶ unprecedented rates. In trade, Mexico is second only to Canada as the largest export ¶ market for the United States, purchasing $163 billion in U.S. goods in 2010.24 Mexico ¶ and the U nited States are top

sources of both immigrants and tourists for each other, ¶ as well as important destinations for foreign investment and services exports. ¶ Though the two countries have always been bound together by geography, ¶ bilateral economic

integration increased rapidly in the years immediately before ¶ and after the 1994 implementation of the North American Free

Trade Agreement. ¶ NAFTA eliminated many barriers to trade and investment, promoting a ¶ quadrupling of U.S.-Mexico trade since it was put in place. Albeit asymmetrically, ¶ the economies of Mexico and the United States have come to depend on one ¶ another and experience economic growth and setbacks

in a synchronized manner.

Mexican econ collapse kills US economyWilson 11 - an Associate at the Mexico Institute of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars (Christopher, “Working Together: Economic Ties between the United States and Mexico”, Wilson Center, November 2011, http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/Working%20Together%20Full%20Document.pdf)//WL

Trade with Mexico is vitally important to the U.S. economy and the livelihood ¶ of millions of Americans. A full 6 million jobs are supported by U.S.-Mexico ¶ trade .51 This means one in every twenty-four American workers depend on trade ¶ with Mexico to maintain their employment . 52¶ Jobs related to trade with Mexico are geographically spread throughout the ¶ nation. The border states of California and Texas are home to the most, with ¶ 692,000 and 463,000 trade-related jobs, respectively. But states far away from the ¶ Southwest border also depend on bilateral trade to sustain their local economies. ¶ New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Ohio each have over two hundred ¶ thousand U.S.-Mexico trade-related jobs, and a total of twenty-two states have ¶ over one hundred thousand. Employment related to U.S.-Mexico trade also ¶ occurs across a wide variety of industrial sectors, including transportation, sales, ¶ manufacturing and other services. In fact, just as in the entire U.S. economy, ¶ service sector jobs represent a greater share of U.S.-Mexico trade-related ¶ employment than do manufacturing jobs. ¶ As valuable as Mexico related employment currently is to the United States, its ¶ importance promises to increase as the Mexican economy grows. This is because ¶ Mexico tends to buy more U.S. exports as its GDP grows, thus increasing ¶ the number of export-related jobs in the United States . With Mexico’s GDP ¶ predicted to grow at a steady rate for the

next several years, the number of U.S. ¶ jobs dedicated to producing goods for Mexican consumers and factories should ¶ also be expected to increase.

Plan ensures robust growth in the US – Bilateral relationship keyWilson 11 - an Associate at the Mexico Institute of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars (Christopher, “Working Together: Economic Ties between the United States and Mexico”, Wilson Center, November 2011, http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/Working%20Together%20Full%20Document.pdf)//WLDespite the large and growing number of U.S. jobs dependent on trade with ¶ Mexico, many have argued that the United States-Mexico economic relationship ¶ and especially NAFTA have had a negative impact on domestic employment. On ¶ one side of the traditional trade debate are those who argue that exports represent ¶ job creation and imports represent domestic job losses, as production moves to ¶ other countries .57

On the other side of the debate are the economists who say both ¶ the increased exports and imports associated with free trade benefit the economy ¶ and create jobs. They argue that in addition to the export-supported jobs, cheaper ¶ imports lower U.S. manufacturers’ costs, thus increasing sales and producing jobs.58 Proponents and opponents of NAFTA proffered these arguments in the ¶ early 1990s, often promising economic disasters or miracles vastly greater than ¶ anything experienced. However, the importance of production sharing takes us ¶ largely beyond these debates. The interwoven supply chains and synchronized business cycles of the United ¶ States and Mexico imply that the manufacturing sectors in each country feel the ¶ effects of both good times and

bad together.59 Since forty percent of the value of ¶ U.S. imports from Mexico is actually made in the United States, both exports to ¶ and

imports from Mexico each support U.S. manufacturers and related industries. ¶ In a way unlike trade with any extra- continental partner , U.S.-Mexico bilateral trade keeps production, and therefore jobs, in the United

States . ¶ With the vast majority of growth occurring outside of the United States, ¶ international trade must be an integral part of any

initiative to create U.S. jobs. ¶ Despite the fact that the United States is still the largest economy in the world, 95% ¶ of the world’s consumers, 87% of its economic growth, and 80% of total production ¶ occur outside its borders.60 Armed with such evidence, in 2010 President Obama ¶ launched the National Export Initiative, a plan to double U.S. exports within five ¶ years.61 Mexico can serve as a strong partner to this end. Its growing domestic market ¶ has consumption patterns similar to the United States, suggesting U.S. firms are well ¶ positioned to fulfill Mexico’s increasing demand for consumer goods . Production ¶ sharing could also play an important role in boosting U.S. exports. To best take ¶ advantage of the large and emerging markets outside its borders, U.S. manufacturers ¶ would be well served by linking U.S. and Mexican production in ways that improve ¶ the competitiveness of regional products and take advantage of the free trade ¶ agreements signed by both nations to gain preferential access to world markets.

Mexican economic crash collapses US economyLittlefield 9 - Council on Hemispheric Affairs (Edward, “As Mexico’s Problems Mount: The Impact of the Economic Recession on Migration Patterns from Mexico”, Indigenous Portal, March 28 2009, http://www.indigenousportal.com/Politics/As-Mexico%E2%80%99s-Problems-Mount-The-Impact-of-the-Economic-Recession-on-Migration-Patterns-from-Mexico.html/)//WL

Implications for Mexico and the United States¶ Evidently, through migration, remittances, and NAFTA-induced trade integration, the Mexican economy has become increasingly dependent upon that of the United States, making the former extremely vulnerable to the effects of the current financial crisis. The decrease in migration flows and remittances is thus implicit in the current debate about Mexico’s descent into being a “failed state.” A Mexican economic collapse, spurred by a decrease in the migrants and remittances upon which the country’ s

economy is reliant, would weaken the state’s capacity to finance counter-narcotics activity, increase pay-rolls to prevent political and military officials from corruption related to drug trafficking, recuperate the depressed economy, and keep their best and brightest at home. These series of developments would have a negative consequence for the United States economy and the Obama administration, as well. Mexico is the United States’ third largest export market, and the cheap labor that Mexican immigrants provide, although not nearly as coveted given the current recession, is an important part of the national economy. Additionally, Mexico’s potential economic and military collapse deserves to be viewed as a national security threat to the U.S., given the spread of drug-related violence to border states such as Arizona, where authorities blame a rise in home invasions and kidnappings on organized crime from south of the border.

Mexico is crucial to the US economy – exports, energy, and tourismPastor, 12 – Professor and Director, Center for North American Studies, American University (Robert, “Beyond the Continental Divide,” American Interest, July/August, http://www.the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=1269)//SY

Most Americans think that the largest markets for U.S. exports are China and Japan, and that may explain the Obama Administration’s Asian initiative. But the truth is that Canada and Mexico are the top two markets for U.S. exports. Most Americans also think that Saudi Arabia and Venezuela are the largest sources of our energy imports, but again, Canada and Mexico are more important. And again, we think that most tourists who come and spend money here are European and Asian, but more than half are Canadians and Mexicans. A similar percentage of Americans who travel abroad go to our two neighbors. All in all, no two nations are more important for the U.S. economy than our two closest neighbors.

Solveny

2ac europe proves

Solvency is empirically proven – the European model is transplantableBarbee, 12 – Inveer Barbee graduated with a B.A. in Political Science from Simon Fraser University, in Burnaby BC, Canada, in 2008. Barbee completed her M.A. in U.S. Foreign Policy at American University’s School of International Service. (Inveer, “The Path to Customs Union: The European Experience and North American Integration”, Faculty of the School of International Service” 6-14-12, http://www.american.edu/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&pageid=3209906)//sawyer

Given the analysis of the EEC’s creation, formation and performance, the following observations are noted as the key lessons from the European experience: • Economic integration is a very technical process that often takes place at very high levels of government, but also involves various actors from the private sector, such as industry, business, and civil society; • Integration is a dynamic and evolutionary process, and must adapt as circumstances change; • Clear and achievable benchmarks must be set to motivate member states to meet their long-term goals; • Strong leadership and effective institutions to oversee the process are necessary to overcome obstacles that arise; • The impact on national legislation must be considered early on; • Member countries have to be willing to compromise and maintain a sense of common purpose that can foster the political will necessary for such a project.4 By identifying the key themes and lessons that the Six learned on their path to customs union, one can begin to understand the complexity of the process, while shedding light on those mechanisms that lead to success. In fashioning a model that could apply to North America, these items must be kept in mind and serve as guiding principles , and in some cases, warnings, of what can be expected.

2ac conditioning good

Conditioning giving Mexico funds upon fundamental reforms would alter the stalled political system and allow for domestic changePastor, 8 – Professor and Director, Center for North American Studies, American University (Robert, “The Solution to North America’s Triple Problem: The Case for a North American Investment Fund,” Norteamerica, Year 2, Number 2, July, http://www.american.edu/sis/cnas/upload/triple_problem_pastor.pdf)//SY

5) A Community and Conditionality. Of the $20 billion each year for the North¶ American Investment Fund, Canada and the United States should pay half, with the¶ U.S.—with about nine times the economy of Canada—accounting for 90 percent of that.¶ Mexico should contribute the other $10 billion. The United States and Canada are¶ unlikely to contribute funds unless both countries felt that it would be used wisely and¶ that Mexico would undertake serious long-term reforms. Mexico understands that it¶ needs to undertake fundamental reforms in sensitive sectors such as energy, taxes,¶ pensions, electricity, and the judicial system but the political system has been stalemated.¶ If its partners were to define, together, a community of three nations in which each would¶ contribute to that future, then that might alter the political balance in a way that would¶ make both the reforms and the Fund possible. Absent those changes, the U.S. and¶ Canada might very well conclude that their funds would not be put to good use and¶ would not want to contribute. Spain and Ireland understood the need for reforms but they¶ could only implement them with the support of the EU.

2ac defense of conditions

Unconditional aid to Mexico lacks oversight – conditions and oversight are necessary for proper allocationOlson, 10 – Staff writer for The Washington Times (Alexandra, “Drug war aid to Mexico lacks oversight,” The Washington Times, July 21, 2010, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/21/drug-war-aid-to-mexico-lacks-oversight/?page=all)//SMS*Cites GAO Report

MEXICO CITY | The U.S. State Department has no effective way to measure the success of its billion-dollar program to help Mexico and Central America fight drug traffickers, a congressional report concludes. Slow implementation of the

program forced Mexico at least once to buy some equipment on its own while waiting for promised funds, according to the report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the investigative arm of Congress. Nine percent of the $1.6 billion promised under the Merida Initiative from 2008 to 2010 has been spent, according to the report, which was scheduled to be discussed Wednesday in Washington at a hearing of the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere. The report said the State Department lacks adequate methods to determine whether the initiative is making a difference in the drug war three years after then-President George W. Bush first launched it during a summit with Mexican President Felipe Calderon in the Yucatan Peninsula city of Merida. “That’s silly,” said Rep. Eliot L. Engel, a New York Democrat who commissioned the report along with Rep. Connie Mack, Florida Republican. “We need to find a way of measuring success.”

Modern conditional development partnerships are uniquely effectiveSchmitz, 6 - Deputy Head, Research Division “Russian Federation/CIS” at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (Andrea, “Conditionality in Development Aid Policy,” German Institute for International and Security Affairs, August, http://www.isn.ethz.ch/Digital-Library/Publications/Detail/?ots591=0c54e3b3-1e9c-be1e-2c24-a6a8c7060233&lng=en&id=117699)//SS

In contrast, the example of EU programs demonstrates that when conditionality is framed as development partnership, it is a powerful instrument of political influence. The technical language and the euphemistic style of development policy

literature tends to hide the fact that it is definitely not the “partners,” who determines the direction of reforms. Indeed, the new financial instruments intervene much more deeply in the internal structure the recipient states than the conditionality of past decades. At the same time, the associated risks have been transferred to the recipient, from whom it is expected that they take ownership, and hence responsibility, for the reform programs. In view of the dilemma confronting development policy, , namely that the effects of reform are not predictable, the choice of the ‘right’ measures is difficult, and the source of errors are countless, the development policy community would be well advised to heed two simple, but crucial recommendations: to lower their expectations of their capacity to effect change, and to behave modestly towards the recipients.

Conditional aid allows the combating of the Mexican and drug tradeWyler, 12 – Analyst in International Crime and Narcotics (Liana Sun, “International Drug Control Policy: Background and U.S. Responses,” Congressional Research Service, Oct. 16, http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34543_20121016.pdf)//SS

Congress has historically played a major role in developing counternarcotics-related legislative conditions on U.S. foreign assistance and unilateral trade preference programs. Conditions on Foreign Aid In an effort to deter foreign governments from aiding or participating in illicit drug production or trafficking, the President may suspend U.S. foreign assistance

appropriations to countries that are major illegal drug producers or major transit countries for illegal drugs, known as “drug majors.”86 For FY2013, the President has identified 22 drug majors: Afghanistan, The Bahamas, Belize, Bolivia, Burma, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, India, Jamaica, Laos, Mexico, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, and Venezuela. Of these, Congress requires that the President certify that the drug majors have not “failed demonstrably” to make at least “substantial efforts” to adhere to their obligations during the previous year under international counternarcotics agreements.

Conditional aid has the best track-record for stopping the narcotics tradeVasquez, 3 – director of the Cato Institute’s Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity. He is a member of the Mont Pelerin Society and has been a term member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Prior to joining the Cato Institute in 1992, Vásquez worked on inter-American issues at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and Caribbean/Latin American Action. (Ian, “The Cato Handbook for Congress,” Cato, September, http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-handbook-policymakers/2003/9/hb108-56.pdf)//SS

The main components of the international narcotics control campaign have produced dismal results and hold little promise of improvement. Although that reality may be well recognized by drug-source nations, U.S. law ensures that most of those countries’ governments comply, however reluctantly, with U.S. demands. The Anti-Drug Abuse Acts of 1986 and 1988 condition foreign aid and access to the U.S. market on the adoption of narcotics control initiatives in foreign countries.

Competitive conditional aid is best – creates long term government reform and lifts over 80 million from poverty and starvationMIT, 10 – Massachusetts Institute of Technology (“Competitive Conditional Aid,” MIT, 2010, http://12.000.scripts.mit.edu/mission2014/solutions/competitive-conditional-aid)//SS

Competition creates the incentive that is lacking in the current system of conditional aid. By making aid conditional to relative

progress, nations must show tangible improvement in order to receive aid. Furthermore, the aid is directed towards

countries that would benefit the most as inefficiency in governments would solve themselves in order for the nation as a

whole to receive more aid. This aid can then be distributed through a more transparent system to the impoverished and hungry.

According to the World Bank, if this donor aid is “redirected towards poor countries with good policies, more than 80 million people could be lifted out of poverty for the same aggregate level of foreign aid” (Svensson, Collier & Dollar). The link between poverty and hunger is unmistakable; if aid is allocated efficiently, the number of hungry people will demonstrate a comparable decrease.

Conditional aid can be highly effective in promoting social, political and economic reforms – IMF provesBaccini and Urpelainen, 10 - *Lecturer in International Relations **Assistant Professor of Political Science at Columbia University and a Member of the Arnold A. Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies (Leonardo and Johannes, “Credible Commitments and Costly Adjustments: Does Foreign Aid Promote International Trade Cooperation?*,” Princeton, April 13, 2010, http://www.princeton.edu/~pcglobal/conferences/ptas/BU_pta_paper.pdf)//SS

Another reason why the effect of strategically allocated foreign aid on development need not be negative is that it could help donor and recipients exploit mutually profitable opportunities for international cooperation. For- eign aid could provide the recipient country with resources that facilitate the implementation of policies that are mutually profitable. Indeed, an extensive literature on international politics emphasizes the importance of democracy, transparency, and other elements of good governance in international co- operation (Chayes and Chayes 1995; Keohane and Levy 1996; Lipson 2003; Svolik 2006; Tallberg 2002). If foreign aid can help a developing country continue political and economic reforms that increase economic growth and societal stability, both the donor and the recipient could benefit from trad- ing

some foreign aid for reforms that increase social welfare. For example, Stone (2004, 2008) argues that conditional IMF lending can stabilize and strengthen developing countries, but only if major powers such as the US do not intervene to prevent the enforcement of conditionality. To cite another example, Wright (2009) claims that the promise of future foreign aid can induce dictators to democratize if they can expect to remain in power.

Conditional aid can bolster reforms and economic standingBaccini and Urpelainen, 10 - *Lecturer in International Relations **Assistant Professor of Political Science at Columbia University and a Member of the Arnold A. Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies (Leonardo and Johannes, “Credible Commitments and Costly Adjustments: Does Foreign Aid Promote International Trade Cooperation?*,” Princeton, April 13, 2010, http://www.princeton.edu/~pcglobal/conferences/ptas/BU_pta_paper.pdf)//SS

Is there a role for foreign aid in all this? Summarizing the role of inter- national actors in eight cases across the world, Haggard and Webb (1994, 25) write that while “conditional external support is unlikely to tip the do- mestic political balance in favor of reform when

opposition is strong ... its presence (or absence) can bolster (weaken) the standing of reforms within the government." Similarly, Ancharaz (2003, 423) notes that in Sub-Saharan Africa, virtually all trade reforms ... have been undertaken as an integral component of structural adjustment programmes under the supervision of the IMF

and/or the World Bank. The programmes were ... supported by foreign assistance ... conditional on satisfactory progress." We will provide a systematic quantitative analysis of the determinants of foreign aid for costly adjustment in the context of international trade cooperation.

Even if conditional aid has problems – that’s not a reason to reject itVatican, no date – Catholic Church (“WORLD HUNGER A CHALLENGE FOR ALL: DEVELOPMENT IN SOLIDARITY,” Vatican, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/corunum/documents/rc_pc_corunum_doc_04101996_world-hunger_en.html)//SS

44. It is the responsibility of the industrialised countries not only to increase their aid to the developing countries but also to reappraise the way in which it is distributed. Conditional aid is to be criticised when considered in terms of the lending or donor country, and when it is tied or linked to conditionalities that bind the recipient country to: purchasing goods manufactured in the donor state, using specialised expatriate labour to the detriment of local labour, complying with structural adjustment programmes, etc. Conversely, unconditioned aid may be

considered to truly produce the best results, as evidenced in multiple cases. However, this does not mean that conditional aid should be discarded out of hand, provided that it is designed in such a way that it fairly distributes the benefits to all the parties concerned and makes it possible to manage soundly the resources provided.

Offcase

Counterplans

AT: Border Security CP

CP hurts the economy and relationsVOXXI, 13 – independent voice for Hispanic America, committed to transforming the digital media landscape and catapulting Latinos into the forefront of American dialogue (“A border fence will hurt the economic relationship of Mexico and U.S.,” 5/12/2013, http://www.voxxi.com/border-fence-economic-relation-mexico-us/) // MS

Mexico is the United States’ third largest trading partner, after Canada and China, in terms of total trade in goods, while the U.S. is Mexico’s largest trading partner. As such, the economic ties of the U.S. and Mexico are significantly important to the economy and society in both countries. Further, the U.S.-Mexico border is not a static line drawn on a map, but a dynamic and ever-evolving place along which substantial daily interaction takes place. Yet the resounding refrain we repeatedly hear from some members of Congress is that building a 1,969-mile fence to separate us from one of our largest economic partners , and the eleventh largest economy in the world, is a key component to solving the issues presented by an outdated immigration system and a requirement that must be completed before moving forward with proposed immigration reforms. To be clear, there is a need for secure borders, but there is also a need for further streamlining and efficiently facilitating the daily cross-border flows of people, goods and services important to the bi-national economic relationship of the United States and Mexico—an economic relationship the following facts highlight.The United States and Mexico have an enormous trading partnershipIn calendar year 2011, the United States had a total trade in goods with Mexico of $460.6 billion. And in 2012, the total amount of goods traded was even larger at $494 billion. Only trade with Canada and China were greater.Combined, total trade in goods and services between Mexico and the United States totaled more than $500 billion in 2011. And in 2012, that number was up to $535.9 billion. As such, six million American jobs depend upon the U.S. trade relationship with Mexico.In 2012, Mexico was the United States’ second largest goods export market, with $216.3 billion in goods exported to Mexico that year. 2012 saw a 9.1 percent increase in goods exports from the U.S. to Mexico from 2011 and an increase of 121.9 percent from 2002. The major categories of goods the U.S. exported to Mexico in 2012 include machinery, electrical machinery, mineral fuel and oil, vehicles and plastic, and major industry sectors include computer and electronic products, transportation equipment, chemicals, electrical equipment, appliances and agricultural goods.Mexico was the United States’ third largest recipient of agricultural product exports in 2012, totaling $18.9 billion. Major agricultural product categories the U.S. shipped to Mexico in 2012 include coarse grains, red meats, soybeans, dairy products and wheat.In 2012, in terms of imports, Mexico was the United States third largest supplier of goods, with the U.S. receiving $277.7 billion worth of goods from Mexico. This amount represents an increase of 5.6 percent from 2011 and an increase of 106.3 percent from 2002. In 2012, U.S. imports from Mexico represented 12.2 percent of overall U.S. imports. The five largest import categories in 2012 include electrical machinery, vehicles, machinery, mineral fuel, oil and optic and medical instruments.In 2012, Mexico supplied $16.4 billion in agricultural products to the United States, representing the second largest supplier of such goods. Major agricultural categories of agricultural goods the U.S. imported from Mexico include fresh fruit and vegetables, wine, beer and snack foods.Many U.S. states are in a trading relationship with Mexico as their number one or number two export market. Consider data from 2012 presented in the following table.U.S. investment in Mexico, and Mexican investment in the U.S. is strong.U.S. foreign direct investment (FDI) in Mexico (stock) in 2011 was $91.4 billion, which is an increase of 8.4 percent from 2010. These investments are primarily in manufacturing, nonbank holding companies and finance and insurance sectors.Mexican foreign direct investment in the United States in 2011 was $13.8 billion, which is an increase of 22.2 percent from 2010. Such investments in the U.S. are primarily in manufacturing and wholesale trade sectors.Mexico is one of the largest sources of travelers and tourism spending in the United StatesInternational travel is one of the largest exports for the United States, ranking ahead of agricultural goods and motor vehicles. It is the single largest services sector export, accounting for 25 percent of all service exports in 2011. Mexico is one of the most valuable participants in the United States travel and tourism market, which translates into economic benefits for a host of related service and support industries.Mexico, a middle-income country with over 115 million people (2012 est.) is the second largest international visitor market for the United States, after Canada. There were a total of 13.42 million visits to the U.S. from Mexico in 2011.Mexican tourists represented the fourth largest source of international tourism spending in the U.S. in 2010, at $8.7 billion, after Canada, Japan and the United Kingdom. The amount of spending by Mexicans traveling in the U.S. surpassed $10 billion in 2012.While Mexican tourism to the U.S. can be divided into three categories—fly-in, drive-in and pedestrian—the majority of tourists from Mexico enter the United States through one of the land ports of entry along the U.S. southern border on foot, in buses or in privately owned vehicles. This method of entry undoubtedly brings significant economic benefits and job creation potential to local and state economies along the U.S. southern border.Border communities and populations are dynamically linked with large daily interactions

The U.S.-Mexico border is one of the busiest in the world in terms of cross-border traffic and interactions. The border region, the nearly 2,000 mile long area of land stretching for 62.5 miles north

and south of the border, is comprised of four states in the U.S. and six states in Mexico, a total of 44 counties and 80 municipalities.The busiest international land border crossing facility in the entire world is the border station at San Ysidro, where U.S. Interstate 5 crosses from San Diego into Tijuana in Mexico.One in every ten people entering the United States via sea, air or land enters through the San Ysidro Port of Entry. To put this into context, the San Ysidro port of entry processes more passengers annually than the Los Angeles International Airport, which is the fifth busiest airport in the country.On average, in 2008, the San Ysidro facility processed 50,000 northbound vehicles and 25,000 northbound pedestrians each day (commercial vehicles use a separate port of entry at Otay Mesa, which is the third busiest commercial port of entry on the southern U.S. border).A sizeable component of the daily border crossing traffic at San Ysidro represents commuters between Tijuana and San Diego, which represent the largest bi-national conurbation shared by the U.S. and Mexico and the third largest in the world, with a population of 5.3 million.Many border crossings translate into cross-border shopping trips. Baja California-residing border crossers surveyed between 2003 to 2012 reported estimated daily expenditures averaging between $140 to $170, while over 25 percent stated they would spend more than $200.Cross-border shopping frequency: Surveys at the border also show that Mexico-residing visitors to San Diego County, California, are frequent shoppers. In particular, Baja California residents reported to a 2012 survey that they shopped one to four times per month in San Diego.Cross-border shopping economic impacts: 2012 estimates indicate that economic impacts of cross-border shopping trips account for $10 to $14 million daily from Baja California into San Diego or around $3.5 to $5.0 billion annually.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 U nited 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.

AT: Canada CP

Customs Union not feasible – laundry list of external barriersMendelson, 4 - Senior Scholar with the Caledon Institute of Social Policy in Ottawa, Canada (Michael, “Canada and the American Empire”, University of Victoria, 7-30-04, http://www.globalcentres.org/can-us/economic_mendelson.pdf)//KG

There is no realistic possibility of a customs union between Canada and the US, with or without Mexico included. The US has no interest in a customs union and Canada would have no bargaining power if it attempted to negotiate a customs union with the US. The US would not agree to give up its capacity to make trade policy and hand over its policy-making regarding trade to a multi-national institution, unless the multi-national institution was de facto controlled by the US. The US would not forego its ability unilaterally to impose embargoes on countries such as Cuba and Iran. (Canada has substantial trade with both these countries.) The only way that Canada could enter a customs union with the US would be if Canada agreed to become subject to US trade practices without significant capacity to control these practices. In short, Canada would neither be a sovereign country able to control it own trade policy, nor a part of a democratic customs area in which Canada’s interests were reflected. Canada should not accept such an arrangement, and it is extremely unlikely that such an arrangement could ever be sold politically. Canada is not in Europe. A Canada-US agreement (with or without Mexico) is not the same as an EU agreement. A one-sided customs union agreement would essentially turn Canada back into a colony of a foreign country, much as we were when Britain still controlled our foreign and trade policy. Nor do the possible economic gains, which are highly hypothetical and likely small in any case, seem to be worth giving up Canada’s sovereignty. While it would undoubtedly be nice to fill out fewer forms at Customs, the elimination of rules of origin would have only a small impact on border hassles, which are much more about security, drugs and immigration than about tariffs. The promise of increased foreign direct investment was also made when the original free trade agreement was being negotiated with the US: but the result has been Canada receiving a decreasing proportion of foreign direct investment in North America. It turns out that what is sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander: if the border is permeable why not invest in the US where you can be closer to markets and suppliers, and ship to Canada?

CP excludes MexicoDymond and Hart, 5 - Executive Director of the Centre for Trade Policy and Law at Carleton University and the University of Ottawa AND Simon Reisman Professor of Trade Policy in the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs (Bill and Michael, “Policy Implications of a Canada-US Customs Union”, North American Linkages, June 2005, http://dspace.cigilibrary.org/jspui/bitstream/123456789/400/1/Policy%20Implications%20of%20a%20Canada%20US%20Customs%20Union.pdf?1)//KG

Finally, initial discussions about the implications of deepening integration with the United States assumed that Mexico, by virtue of NAFTA, would necessarily be part of any negotiation between Canada and the United States to craft a new agreement. This assumption does not stand scrutiny. There is no automatic link between membership in a free trade agreement and the move to the next stage. Mexico is one of a number of free trade partners shared by Canada and the United States. Mexico is no more a natural member of a Canada-US customs union than Chile, the Central American

countries, or Singapore. Mexico has, moreover, its own network of free trade agreements, including the European Union and Japan. Despite rather grand ambitions 10 years ago that NAFTA would give rise to a three-country North American economy, the reality is quite different. Instead, NAFTA governs two robust bilateral trade and investment relationships; Canada-Mexico trade and investment remains at miniscule levels. Even if Mexico were interested in joining negotiations for a customs union, the political economy of the negotiating issues in the United States is not the same for Canada and Mexico. Both relationships have long histories and have economic and politicalimportance for the United States, but they have followed divergent paths and responded to different imperatives. In sum, the question of Mexican participation is not one Canada needs to or should resolve and, in any case, is not pertinent to the analysis of the customs union issues discussed below.

Canada says no to the CPLee, 7 - senior economist in the BC office of the Canadian Centrefor Policy Alternatives (Marc, Whose Canada?: Continental Integration, Fortress North America, and the Corporate Agenda, p. 280-281)//KG

While the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has already achieved a high level of economic integration, it can be viewed as one large step towards deeper integration encompassing both economic and non-eco- nomic factors. In terms of economic integration, the next step beyond NAFTA is a customs union. For supporters of free trade, a customs union is a natural extension of the same liberalization logic. As a result, there are many supporters of the custom union concept among Canada's business elite, politicians, and senior bureaucrats. But there are many prominent dis- senters as well. The divisions among Canada`s elite were evident in the hearings of two parliamentary committees. The House of Commons Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade released a report in December zoos. that noted the differences of opinion on a customs union and recom- mended that the government undertake "a detailed review of the advan- tages and disadvantages of the concept in the North American context" � (SCFAIT 2002, 194). The second report, from the Standing Senate Commit- tee on Foreign Affairs, recommended Canada not enter into discussions with the United States on a customs union. The senate committee stated that, "after seriously examining both sides of the issue, the Committee has concluded that upgrading NAFTA to a would not be in Canada's best interests. We are not prepared to make the sacrifices in Cana- dian sovereignty that would be required to realize the economic benefits of a customs union” (SSCFA 2003, 69). Despite being the subject of internal debate within elite policy circles, the idea of a has had comparably little public debate, perhaps because of its potential to polarize. This chapter aims to address this lack of debate by setting out the arguments made in favour of a and subjecting them to critical scrutiny. It proceeds on the presumption that there are both costs and benefits associated with a customs union. We need to carefully assess not only whether the benefits outweigh the costs but also who the winners and losers would be. In fact, the likely benefits of a customs union are quite small and are fre- quently overstated by promoters of the idea. On the other hand there are non-trivial economic and political costs associated with a customs union plus risks entailed in an actual negotiation. Expanding the scope of a nego- tiation could offer greater gains - such as exemption from US trade remedy laws - but would entail higher costs and bigger risks that Canadians are unlikely to support.

Differences in the countries’ political economies make inclusion of Canada impossibleWilson et al, 13 - an Associate at the Mexico Institute of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars (Christopher E, “New Ideas for a New Era:

Policy Options for the Next Stage in U.S.-Mexico Relations”, Wilson Center: Mexico Institute, January 2013, http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/new_ideas_us_mexico_relations.pdf)//KG

Although the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) made a major contribution to policy convergence, it should not be assumed that a Canada-US customs union must include Mexico. Mexico is now just one of a number of free trade partners shared by Canada and the United States. Mexico has, moreover, its own network of free trade agreements. Even if Mexico were interested in joining negotiations for a customs union, the political economy of the negotiating issues in the United States is not the same for Canada and Mexico. The question of Mexican participation in a customs union is not one Canada needs to or should resolve. A decision to enter in the negotiation of a customs union would give rise to a debate about the implications for Canadian sovereignty. As in the past, this debate would be erected on false or outdated premises. For example, tariff sovereignty on trade with third countries will be evoked, although Canada, by virtue of current agreements, has virtually none left. The eggs in one basket argument will be heard, although the reality is that it is economic geography and the economic 2choices of Canadians, not government policy, that fuels economic integration. Canada’s alleged devotion to multilateralism will be held to be an insurmountable obstacle to a customs union, notwithstanding Canada’s historical record of employing multilateral, regional, and bilateral agreements as useful tools to fit circumstances, rather than goals in themselves. Finally, the race-to-the-bottom criticisms in matters of labour and environmental protection will clash with mountains of evidence to the contrary. The decision to negotiate a customs union will provoke, as it should, a searching examination of the policy implications of such a step. This paper argues that the optics of such issues are greater than their substance. Canada could enter a customs union with a modest increase in the level of obligations already inherent in current agreements and in the level of co-operation and co-ordination that already occurs between the two governments to govern their common economic space and interests. The ensuing public debate would doubtless be loud, generating more heat than light. If the government decides to proceed in this direction, it can have confidence that arguments are at hand that convincingly make the case for a customs union.

AT: ID Card CP

Perm is comparatively the best optionPastor, 13 – professor of international relations and co-director of the Center for North American Studies and the Center for Democracy and Election Management at American University in Washington, DC (Robert, “It's time for biometric ID cards,” Commercial Appeal, 2/3/2013, http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2013/feb/03/robert-a-pastor-on-voter-fraud-and-illegal-high/)//MS

A comprehensive immigration solution should not only include legalization and a workplace ID card, but also a North American investment fund to narrow the income gap between Mexico and the United States. The fund would connect North America with better transportation and infrastructure, promoting growth in Mexico that would reduce the incentive for people to migrate. As our second-largest market, Mexico's growth is also good for us.

AT: “Illegal Alien” PIK

Your PIK makes negative senseFAIR, 9 – national, nonprofit, public-interest, membership organization of concerned citizens who share a common belief that our nation's immigration policies must be reformed to serve the national interest (Federation for American Immigration Reform, ‘Illegal Alien or "Undocumented Immigrant?"’, June 2009, http://www.fairus.org/issue/illegal-alien-or-quot-undocumented-immigrant-quot) // MS

America uses the term “illegal alien” to describe someone in our country in violation of our immigration laws not to demean someone , but rather because it is the correct, and legally recognized, term.The enablers of illegal aliens have engaged in a “political correctness” campaign in an attempt to suppress use of the legally recognized term “illegal alien” often asserting that “a person cannot be illegal.” Their alternative term is “undocumented immigrant.” This term blurs the distinction between legally admitted immigrants and those who have sneaked into the country or chosen to violate the terms of a legal entry. They have even gone so far as to advance their “political correctness” efforts in legal journals and in the courts.An alien's unauthorized presence in the United States is not a crime under the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 …. Thus many people find the term undocumented alien preferable to illegal alien, since the former avoid the implication that one's unauthorized presence in the United States is a crime.Elizabeth Hull, Undocumented Aliens and the Equal Protection Clause, 48 Brook. L. Rev. 43, 43 n.2 (1981).The court's use of the term "illegal alien" in the Esparza-Mendoza opinion has been criticized as "pejorative."Romero, Victor C., Alienated: Immigrant Rights, the Constitution, and Equality in America (2005)A clear rejection of this effort may be found in the Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage.1“Illegal alien” is the legally precise and preferred term: The usual and preferable term in American English is illegal alien. The other forms have arisen as needless euphemisms, and should be avoided as near- gobbledygook . The problem with undocumented is that it is intended to mean, by those who use it in this phrase, "not having the requisite documents to enter or stay in a country legally. But the word strongly suggests "unaccounted for" to those unfamiliar with this quasi-legal jargon, and it may therefore obscure the meaning.That statement is only equivocally correct, however: although illegal aliens' presence in the country is no crime, their entry into the country is. As Justice Brennan wrote in Plyler v. Doe,… "Unsanctioned entry in the United States is a crime, 8 U.S.C. € 1325…."2 Moreover, it is wrong to equal illegality with criminality, inasmuch as many illegal acts are not criminal. Illegal alien is not an opprobrious epithet: it describes one present in a country in violation of the immigration laws (hence "illegal").3

AT: TPP CP

Plan preferable to TPP integrationPastor 12 - professor and director of the Center for North American Studies at American University (Robert, “Beyond the Continental Divide”, The American Interest, July/August 2012, http://www.the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=1269)//WL

Asia or North America¶ The global economy seems increasingly divided into three main regions: a dynamic East Asian zone, a crisis-prone eurozone and a semi-conscious North America. Each region faces formidable

challenges, but only North America seems unaware that its future competitiveness depends more on addressing its internal challenges than in gaining access to the others’ markets. ¶ Taken together, these three regions constitute 80 percent of the world’s product and trade, and more trade passes within each region than between them. A study of 348 of the largest multinational corporations in the world found that 154 firms were North American, with 75 percent of their sales in North America; 127 were European, with 64 percent of their sales in Europe, and 67 firms were based in Asia, with 76 percent of their sales in that region.1 Globalization is not as important as regionalism. ¶ Just as the ability of the United States to project power abroad depends in part on the security of its North American base, so too can U.S.-based multinationals extend their reach into Asia and Europe backed by the power of the largest market in the world. The United States is the single largest national market, but the combined gross national products of Canada ($1.6 trillion) and Mexico ($1 trillion) would rank them the fifth largest economy.

Combined with the United States, in 2010 the three had a nominal GDP of $17.1 trillion—larger than the $16.2 trillion of the 27-nation European Union.2¶ Over the past 15 years, the regions have performed somewhat differently than most people think. Parts of East Asia have achieved the highest growth rates, but as a whole the region’s share of world product declined from 25 percent to 22 percent. The European Union’s share improved from 26 percent to 28 percent. Most surprising, the gross product of the three countries of North America soared from 29.5 percent of the world in 1994, when NAFTA began, to 36 percent in 2001. Since then, it has declined to 29 percent, but it remains the largest of the three. ¶ Faced with the most urgent crisis, the European Union has taken the boldest, most long-term approach. Instead of fragmenting or retreating to unilateralism, the region is trying to forge a fiscal union that will discipline its members’ budgets while investing in the region’s future. Whether the EU succeeds at this remains to be seen, but no one can gainsay the effort. When faced with a financial crisis in 1997, Asia assembled a stabilization fund and is now negotiating a free-trade agreement among the ASEAN countries and the three principal economies of China, Japan and South Korea. ¶ By contrast, the three nations of North America took separate paths after the deep recession of 2008. Each pursued its own infrastructure strategies and policies. The United States insisted on a “Buy American” policy and an independent approach to the auto industry,

though most cars in the United States are literally North American, being assembled with parts from all three countries. Lily Tomlin, the

Canadian comedienne, once quipped, “Together, we are in this alone.” That applies to North America.

Successive U.S. administrations have chosen to duplicate their work by addressing the same issues with each neighbor separately rather than addressing them more effectively together. ¶ At the same time,

the United States has been chasing a phantom in East Asia. At the APEC Summit in November 2011, the Obama

Administration put its weight behind the “Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement” (TPP), a free-trade agreement with eight countries whose combined gross product is a mere one-seventh that of Canada and Mexico. Of course,

the TPP is not a trade strategy, or at least not a serious one. Its real purpose is to prevent China from unifying the Asian economy because it includes provisions—for example, on state-owned operating enterprises—that China cannot accept. But that TPP strategy was pre-empted within a week of the APEC Summit when China, Japan and South Korea joined the ASEAN countries in free-trade talks. ¶ Whatever its actual purpose, a TPP is likely to take a long time to negotiate and yield comparatively little in terms of additional trade. Moreover, like all trade agreements, the Administration would have to invest time and considerable political capital to get it approved by Congress. That would be a waste of political capital compared to the North American alternative. Just do the math: U.S. trade with Canada and Mexico in 2010 exceeded $1 trillion , 30 percent more than trade with China and Japan . More importantly, the best markets to expand U.S. exports are not in Asia but with our immediate neighbors. For every additional dollar that Canada and Mexico buy from abroad, more than eighty cents are U.S. exports, and for every additional dollar we import from our neighbors, a large proportion—about forty cents—is actually composed of our exports to them. In other words, the balance of

trade is less important with our neighbors than the overall volume, since our production and marketing arrangements are already so intertwined. The opposite is true of our trade with Asia. ¶ The best strategy to compete against China, double our exports and invigorate our economy is to deepen economic integration with our neighbors and to do it together rather than apart. Unfortunately, the latter approach has prevailed since NAFTA. The three leaders mostly meet one-on-one in separate bilateral forums. The three North American leaders met as a group in Guadalajara in August 2009 and pledged to meet annually, but they missed the next two years. On April 2, 2012, Obama hosted Harper and Calderon in Washington. Their “Joint Statement” emphasized “deep economic, historical, cultural, environmental, and societal ties”, but their initiatives remained packaged in two separate bilateral compartments.

Disad

Spending

No link – the plan gets funded via internal reallocations Barbee, 12 – Inveer Barbee graduated with a B.A. in Political Science from Simon Fraser University, in Burnaby BC, Canada, in 2008. Barbee completed her M.A. in U.S. Foreign Policy at American University’s School of International Service. (Inveer, “The Path to Customs Union: The European Experience and North American Integration”, Faculty of the School of International Service” 6-14-12, http://www.american.edu/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&pageid=3209906)//sawyer

Institutions are also important because the distribution of customs revenues will have to be enforced on an agreed upon formula. Some authors have suggested using the model of the South African Customs Union (SACU), which calculates the amount of revenue allocated to each country by its portion of total intra-union trade and its GDP.12 The EU has employed a system in which the territory of point of origin keeps 25% of the duty for its administrative costs, while the rest of the duty goes towards the community’s central budget. Since the U.S. collects the most revenue in import duties overall, the most likely revenue sharing agreement to be saleable in North America would have to be more similar to the SACU model than the EU. However, the EU model has a particular benefit, in that a set amount of tariff revenue becomes part of the Commission’s ‘own resources’ that make up the EU budget. This revenue helps to fund operations of the community, including a large number of programs that help with member states' economic development. A portion of revenue collected from import duties could be reserved for a common body, such as a North American Investment Fund, which would assist with infrastructure and development projects to further improve the trading relationship.13 This would be particularly helpful to Mexico in closing the development gap, but it would also be 8 tremendously beneficial for critical infrastructure improvements, as 80% of North American trade is done by road.

2ac link uniqueness

Engagement now VOA 13 (Voice of American News, “Growing Economic Cooperation between the U.S., Mexico”, Voice of America – editorials, http://editorials.voa.gov/content/growing-economic-cooperation-between-us-mexico/1660309.html)//JS Speaking of the relationship between the United States and Mexico, former President John Fitzgerald Kennedy once noted that “Geography has made us neighbors. Tradition has made us friends.” And now, said President Barack Obama during his recent trip to Mexico, “Mexico and the United States have one of the largest, most dynamic relationships of any two countries on Earth.” ¶ Growing Economic Cooperation Between U.S., Mexico¶ The United States and Mexico cooperate on a wide range of issues, such as combating cross-border crime; improving citizen security; and preventing traffic in people, weapons and narcotics. But the relationship is much broader than these issues. Among other shared interests, the two countries also enjoy a robust, decades-long economic partnership.¶ Twenty years ago, the two countries and Canada signed the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA. The trade agreement spurred competition and investment through increased trade and more open markets, benefiting all three parties.¶ Today, the United States and Mexico have “a historic opportunity to foster even more cooperation, more trade, more jobs on both sides of the border,” said President Obama.¶ The United States and Mexico conduct more than $500 billion worth of trade every year. “So every day, our companies and our workers -— with their integrated supply chains —- are building products together. And this is the strong foundation to build on,” said President Obama. But together, we can do more:¶

“Let’s keep investing in our roads and our bridges and our border crossings so we can trade faster and cheaper. Let’s help our smaller businesses, which employ most of our workers, access new markets and new capital -- the big markets right across the border. Let’s empower our young entrepreneurs as they create startup companies that can transform how we live. And let’s realize the Trans-Pacific Partnership this year, so our two nations can compete and win in the fast-growing markets of the Asia Pacific.”¶ To further these goals, President Obama and Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto agreed to establish an annual High Level Economic Dialogue and encourage more collaboration between the United States and Mexico on education, research, and innovation. They underscored their commitment to a secure and efficient shared border, and to increased cooperation in the hemisphere and around the world.¶ “The great partnership between our two countries will not simply continue, it’s going to grow stronger and become broader,” said President Obama. “Our guiding mission is to improve the lives of our people.

Energy reforms opening the door for further engagement Taylor 13 – Washington time state department correspondent (Guy Taylor, “Energy Links seen boosting U.S ties to Mexico, The Washington Times, 2/28, http://www.washingtontimes.com/staff/guy-taylor/)//JS A senior Obama administration official voiced optimism about the growing economic relationship between the U.S. and Mexico, stressing that energy sector ties between the two nations have “enormous potential for progress.”¶ Assistant Secretary of State Roberta S. Jacobson told a congressional hearing Thursday that Washington’s overall approach to Latin American ties “is as much about seizing opportunities as it is about countering threats.” ¶ Her remarks during a hearing of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs dovetailed with comments this week from a top Mexican official, who expressed optimism that the nation’s state-run oil monopoly, long managed as a closely held national asset, is on the verge of opening up to billions of dollars in foreign investment. ¶ Emilio Lozoya, the newly tapped chief of the monopoly — known as Pemex — told the Financial Times that he expects Mexican lawmakers to sign off as early as this summer on landmark changes to the sector proposed by recently elected Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto.¶ Pemex is already ranked seventh on the list of the

world’s most productive oil producers, with sales of more than $100 billion a year. The proposed reforms could pave the way for U.S. oil companies to begin tapping that market and helping it grow.¶

According to Mr. Lozoya, the changes would allow the monopoly to begin working for the first time in more than 50 years with the world’s largest oil companies. Several such companies are based in Texas, just north of the border.¶ The potential for foreign firms to become more deeply involved in Mexico’s economic future could signal a significant shift in the narrative of crime and illegal immigration that has dominated relations between the U.S. and its southern neighbor — particularly since nearly 60,000 people were killed in drug-related violence in Mexico during recent years.¶ Mrs. Jacobson sounded a more optimistic note on the crime problem, saying that pressure put on Mexican drug cartels by Mexican and U.S. authorities “is making a difference.” But the ultimate goal, she said, is for law enforcement in both countries to coordinate to bring the violence to a more manageable level

link uniqueness Diplomacy

Presidential dialogue proves increased engagement Office of the Press Secretary 13 (Office of the Press Secretary, “Mexico United States Joint Statement”, IIP Digital – US Embassy, http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/texttrans/2013/05/20130502146755.html#axzz2Xc0Vylv9)//JS

Joint Statement between the United States and Mexico - At the invitation of President Enrique Peña Nieto, President Barack Obama travelled to

Mexico City on May 2-3 to discuss the broad range of bilateral, regional, and global issues that bind the United States and Mexico and touch the

daily lives of citizens of both countries. Building on their positive initial meeting in Washington, D.C. last November, the two Presidents renewed

their commitment to the United States-Mexico relationship. Looking ahead to the next 4 years during which their presidencies will overlap, the

two leaders noted the importance of taking advantage of opportunities and harnessing the enthusiasm and optimism that a new stage in

bilateral relations brings. The Presidents underscored the strategic importance of the bilateral relationship and expressed a desire for even greater cooperation between their two nations. Specifically, the Presidents focused on: 1) economic competitiveness; 2) people-to-people connections; 3) leadership on regional and global issues; and 4)

citizen security. Economic Competitiveness= Underpinning our successful United States-Mexico economic relationship are trade and

investment flows that support jobs in both countries. Bilateral trade was almost half a trillion dollars in 2012. The two Presidents agreed on the need to continue forging a close and productive economic relationship to enhance their nations’

competitiveness and to create more trade and investment opportunities. With this purpose, they decided to establish a High Level Economic Dialogue, which will be chaired at the cabinet level and focus on promoting competitiveness, productivity and connectivity, fostering economic growth and innovation, and partnering for global leadership. The

leaders intend for the first meeting of the Dialogue to take place later this year, include representatives from relevant agencies and

departments from both governments, and engage with relevant stakeholders, notably the private sector. The two leaders also discussed

the importance of the United States and Mexico working together, and with their Canadian partners, to make North America the most dynamic

and competitive region in the world. They agreed to seek a successful conclusion to a high-standard Trans-Pacific Partnership this year that includes 21st century provisions that significantly strengthen the North American

Free Trade Agreement. They also reiterated their commitment to the resolution of specific trade issues between their countries, and their

interest in maintaining close coordination with regards to other relevant trade negotiations. The Presidents also underscored the importance to

both countries of a secure and efficient shared border. They noted the recent meeting of the 21st Century Border Management Executive

Steering Committee, the first under President Peña Nieto’s tenure, and agreed to support key projects and initiatives that improve infrastructure, support the efforts of local communities, facilitate the secure flow of legitimate trade and travel, and enhance law enforcement cooperation along the border . President Obama and President

Peña Nieto welcomed the positive steps the U.S. Congress is taking to implement the Transboundary Hydrocarbon Agreement, which will

enhance energy security in North America and bolster the two countries’ responsible stewardship of the Gulf of Mexico. They look forward to

full implementation of the Agreement.

Engagement increasing now – Obama – Nieto meeting proves Deasy 13 (Kristen Deasy, “Obama meets with Mexico's Peña Nieto, vows to boost trade”, global post news, 5/2, http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/mexico/130502/obama-meets-mexicos-president-pena-nieto-live-video)//JS

US President Barack Obama met with Mexico's new leader, President Enrique Peña Nieto, in Mexico City on Thursday as part of his three-day Latin America trip.¶ Peña Nieto, speaking at a joint press conference held after the talks, announced a series of new bilateral measures aimed at boosting trade, addressing

immigration concerns, and increasing educational cooperation. ¶ Obama put trade at the forefront of his remarks, noting that hot-button issues like immigration can distract from the economic side of the US-Mexican partnership.¶ "As Mexico works to be more competitive, you've got a strong partner in the United States," said the US leader. Mexico is the United States' third-largest trading partner, while America is Mexico's top economic provider. Thus, fiscal growth in Mexico means fiscal growth in America, Obama said Thursday. ¶ The visit between two powerful neighbors comes at a moment of key political transition in their home countries. Contentious immigration reform is on the horizon in Washington and Mexico's young administration is starting to assert itself. ¶ This has not always been to Washington's liking — a key issue being Mexico's drug war, which the United States had gotten used to working rather authoritatively on under Mexico's former President Felipe Calderon.¶ But changes are afoot in that regard, with Peña Nieto consolidating his administration's crime-fighting forces in the interior ministry and some Mexican officials expressing reluctance on testing and intelligence, reported The New York Times.¶ Mexico's democracy has reached a point of "political maturity," Peña Nieto said on Thursday, vowing to implement key reforms he said will spur economic growth. But it is only by increasing US-Mexico economic cooperation that "we can make a more productive, a more competitive region," he added.¶ On immigration, Obama said he briefed Peña Nieto on the latest developments in Washington. The US leader described the immigration reform bill in Congress as "a great place to start" even though "it doesn't contain everything I want" — still, he said, it provides a basic framework for reform.¶ Peña Nieto shied away from making any strong comments on the issue, despite its importance for him domestically, keeping his remarks to an expression of acknowledgement and encouragement. ¶

Obama was expected to discuss security issues with his Mexican counterpart in private. In public, the two world leaders returned again and again to the importance of their shared trade — $500 billion last year — and condemned the drug-fueled crime that has taken some 70,000 lives in Mexico.¶ Peña Nieto has promised a new preventive approach to the latter problem: educational and social reforms, he says, are what's needed in order to really challenge the crime-ridden status quo in Mexico

President talks show further engagement coming Slack 13 (Donovan Slack, “Obama, Pena Nieto: Our Relationship is about more than security”, Politico, 5/2, http://www.politico.com/politico44/2013/05/obama-pea-nieto-our-relationship-is-about-more-than-163151.html)//JS

President Obama and Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto sought Thursday to broaden U.S.-Mexican relations and the focus on those ties beyond security as both touted newly inked cooperative agreements on improving trade and educational exchange.¶ “Too often two issues get attention: security or immigration,” Obama said during a joint press conference after their bilateral meeting.¶ "We are not going to target this relation in one specific area," Peña Nieto said, according to a translator. "We have emphasized trade and commerce in this visit."¶ Both leaders said they had agreed to form a high-level economic working group that will seek to improve trade and foster economic growth on both sides of the border. Vice President Joe Biden will be involved in the effort.¶ They agreed to establish a bilateral forum on higher education, innovation, and research that will develop a shared vision on educational cooperation. They also agreed to work together to try and ensure the completion of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement by the end of the year. ¶ The overarching theme, they said, was to make the region as a whole more productive and competitive in the global economy, while enhancing opportunities within each country. ¶ "We live in a world that is changing rapidly," Obama said. "…Both in the United States and Mexico, we can't be caught flat-footed.... We have to make certain that our economies are competitive around the world."¶ The meeting was the first during Obama's three-day trip to Mexico and Costa Rica. On Friday, he is scheduled to deliver remarks at the Anthropology Museum in Mexico City. He hinted Thursday that he plans to speak about immigration, among other topics.

Presidents promise an increase of economic engagement between the two nationsSchoichet 13 (Catherine E. Schoichet, “U.S., Mexican presidents push deeper economic ties; security issues are still key”, CNN, 5/2, http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/02/world/americas/mexico-obama-visit)//JS

(CNN) -- Two issues -- security and immigration -- often get too much attention when it comes to talking about the U.S.-Mexico relationship, U.S. President Barack Obama said Thursday. ¶ Now, Obama said, it's time to forge deeper economic connections to create more jobs and more trade on both sides of the border. ¶ "That's the focus of my visit," he told reporters after meeting with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto in the country's capital.¶ But even as Obama and Peña Nieto pushed to shift the tone more toward trade and economics, security issues loomed large over Thursday's meeting.¶ Obama visiting major trade partners Obama faces reality in Mexico drug war¶ Peña Nieto said his government remains committed to fighting organized crime, but that the United States and Mexico must "cooperate on the basis of mutual respect, to be more efficient in our security strategy that we are implementing in Mexico."¶ Obama stressed that the countries will continue to cooperate closely on security, but he didn't specify how.¶ "I agreed to continue our close cooperation on security, even as that nature of that close cooperation will evolve," he said.¶ It's up to the Mexican people, Obama said, "to determine their security structures and how it engages with other nations, including the United States."¶ In the meantime, he said, the United States remains committed to reducing the demand for drugs north of the border, and the southward flow of illegal guns and cash that help fuel violence. ¶ " I think it's natural that a new administration here in Mexico is looking carefully at how it's going to approach what is obviously a serious problem," Obama said, "and we are very much looking forward to cooperating in any ways that we can to battle organized crime."¶ High-profile cartel takedowns were a hallmark of former President Felipe Calderon's tenure. Peña Nieto has vowed to take a different approach, focusing more on education problems and social inequality that he says fuel drug violence. The details of his policies are still coming into focus, and analysts say his government has deliberately tried to shift drug violence out of the spotlight.¶ Before Obama's arrival, a spate of news reports this week on both sides of the border detailed changes in how Mexico cooperates with the United States.¶ Under the new rules, all U.S. requests for collaboration with Mexican agencies will flow through a single office, Interior Minister Miguel Angel Osorio Chong told Mexico's state-run Notimex news agency.¶ It is a drastic change from recent years, when U.S. agents enjoyed widespread access to their Mexican counterparts.¶ Critics have expressed concerns that Peña Nieto's government will turn a blind eye to cartels or negotiate with them -- something he repeatedly denied on the campaign trail last year. On Tuesday -- two days before Obama's arrival -- his government arrested the father-in-law of Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman, head of Mexico's Sinaloa cartel and one of the country's most-wanted drug lords.¶ Speaking to reporters after his meeting with Obama on Thursday, Peña Nieto emphasized the importance of reducing violence, and also the importance of Mexico's relationship with the United States extending beyond the drug war.¶

"We don't want to make this relationship targeted on one single issue," he said. "We want to place particular emphasis on the potential in the economic relationship between Mexico and the United States." ¶ To achieve that goal, Peña Nieto said, the presidents agreed to create a new high-level group to discuss economic and trade relations between the two nations. The group, which will include Cabinet ministers from both countries and U.S. Vice President Joe Biden, will have its first meeting this fall, Peña Nieto said.¶ Imports and exports between the United States and Mexico totaled nearly $500 billion last year, and before Obama's arrival officials on both sides of the border said economic relations would be a focal point during the U.S. president's visit.¶ "When the economy in Mexico has grown, and people have opportunity, a lot of our problems are solved, or we have the resources to solve them," Obama said Thursday.¶ The emphasis on the economy Thursday was a significant shift, said Jason Marczak, director

of policy at the Americas Society and Council of the Americas.¶ "The conversations between Mexico and the United States are changing," he told CNN en Español.¶ Obama is scheduled to deliver a speech at the National Anthropology Museum in Mexico City on Friday morning. In the afternoon, he will travel to Costa Rica, where he will meet President Laura Chinchilla and other regional leaders.

link uniqueness: Hydrocarbon

Hydrocarbon Agreement allows from broader engagement U.S Department of State 13 (US Department of States – office of the spokesperson, “US – Mexico Transboundary Hydrocarbon Agreement”, US Department of State, 5/2, http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2013/05/208650.htm)//JS

In 2012, the United States and Mexico signed an agreement concerning the development of oil and gas reservoirs that cross the international maritime boundary between the two countries in the Gulf of Mexico. The Agreement is designed to enhance energy security in North America and support our shared interest to exercise responsible stewardship of the Gulf of Mexico. It is built on a commitment to the safe, efficient, and equitable development of transboundary reservoirs with the highest degree of safety and environmental standards.¶ Mexico is consistently one of the top three exporters of petroleum to the United States.¶ The United States is Mexico’s largest supplier of refined oil products, mostly coming from U.S. Gulf Coast refineries.¶ Former Secretary Clinton and then Mexican Foreign Secretary Espinosa signed the Agreement in Los Cabos in February, 2012. Mexico ratified the agreement in April 2012.¶ The Agreement establishes a framework that promotes unitization of maritime transboundary reservoirs. Upon entry into force, the current moratorium on oil exploration and production along the boundary in the Western Gap portion of the Gulf of Mexico will end.¶ Mexican law currently prohibits Petroleos Mexicanos (PEMEX) from jointly developing resources with leaseholders on the U.S. side of the boundary. Mexico opened the door to such cooperation in a 2008 energy reform law, but only if the cooperation takes place pursuant to an international agreement governing transboundary reservoirs. The Agreement takes advantage of this opportunity.¶ The Agreement facilitates the formation of voluntary arrangements – unitization agreements – between U.S. leaseholders and Pemex for the joint exploration and development of transboundary reservoirs. It also provides appropriate incentives to encourage the formation of such arrangements if a reservoir is proven to be transboundary and a unitization agreement is not formed. Ultimately, the Agreement provides that development may proceed in an equitable manner that protects each nation’s interests.¶ The Agreement provides for ongoing cooperation between the two governments related to safety and the environment, and also provides for joint inspection teams to ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations. Both governments will review and approve all unitization agreements governing the exploration and development of transboundary reservoirs under the Agreement, providing for approval of all safety and environmental measures.¶ Both the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate have introduced bills that would approve the Transboundary Agreement and give the Secretary of the Interior the necessary authorization to implement the agreement. The Administration looks forward to speedy passage of the authorizing legislation.¶ Effect of the Agreement¶ The Agreement will enable U.S. companies to explore new business opportunities and carry out collaborative projects with the Mexican national oil company PEMEX. ¶ It is expected the Agreement will unlock areas for exploration and exploitation along the boundary within U.S. jurisdiction by providing the legal certainty companies need to invest, potentially providing increased revenues and energy security benefits that would result from increases in production.¶ This agreement will make nearly 1.5 million acres of the Outer Continental Shelf more attractive to U.S. operators. The Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) estimates that this area contains as much as 172 million barrels of oil and 304 billion cubic feet of natural gas.¶ The Transboundary Agreement will also help mitigate the safety and environmental risks that would result from unilateral exploration and exploitation along the boundary.

Economic engagement over energy happening now Simmonds 13 (Daniel Simmonds, “U.S.-Mexico Transboundary Hydrocarbons Agreement: A Rare Victory for Oil and Gas in the Obama Era”, Master Recourse – a Free Energy Blog, 4/30, http://www.masterresource.org/2013/04/u-s-mexico-transboundary-hydrocarbons-agreement/)//JS

Mexico is America’s third largest trading partner and has been one of the largest sources of oil exports to the United States. Mexico is the largest recipient of U.S. gasoline exports and the second largest recipient of our natural gas exports.¶ The energy trade between the United States and Mexico is growing, especially for America’s finished petroleum and natural gas exports. Mexico’s heavy oil production is falling, but that means more spare refining capacity on the Gulf Coast if Canadian oil sands can be transported to the Gulf Coast.¶ The Gulf of Mexico is one of the most prolific hydrocarbon-producing areas for both the United States and Mexico. Oil production, especially in deepwater on the U.S. side of the border, has moved closer to the U.S.-Mexico maritime border in recent years. Until last year, however, there was no agreement on how to divide resources between the United States and Mexico for resources that straddle the border.¶ The Agreement¶ A Fact Sheet released by the U.S. Department of State on February 20th announced and described the Transboundary Hydrocarbon Agreement.¶ The United States and Mexico today signed an agreement concerning the development of oil and gas reservoirs that cross the international maritime boundary between the two countries in the Gulf of Mexico. The Agreement is designed to enhance energy security in North America and support our shared duty to exercise responsible stewardship of the Gulf of Mexico. It is built on a commitment to the safe, efficient, and equitable exploitation of transboundary reservoirs with the highest degree of safety and environmental standards.¶ Elements of the Agreement¶ · The United States and Mexico jointly announced their intention to negotiate a transboundary hydrocarbons agreement on June 23, 2010, following the Joint Statement adopted by Presidents Obama and Calderon at the conclusion of President Calderon’s State Visit to Washington on May 19, 2010.¶ Upon entry into force, the current moratorium on oil exploration and production in the Western Gap portion of the Gulf of Mexico will end.¶ The Agreement establishes a cooperative process for managing the maritime boundary region that promotes joint utilization of transboundary reservoirs.¶ The Agreement provides a legal framework for possible commercial activities at the maritime boundary and sets clear guidelines for transboundary developments. It establishes incentives for oil and gas companies to voluntarily enter into arrangements to jointly develop any transboundary reservoirs. In the event such an arrangement is not achieved, the Agreement establishes a process by which U.S. companies and PEMEX can individually develop the resources on each side of the border while protecting each nation’s interests and resources.¶ The legal certainty created by the Agreement will enable U.S. companies to explore new business opportunities and carry out collaborative projects with PEMEX.¶ The Agreement also provides for joint inspections teams to ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations. Both governments will review all plans for the development of any transboundary reservoirs.¶ Evaluation¶ The Transboundary Hydrocarbon Agreement, enacted after decades of indecision between Mexico and the United States, allows oil and natural gas production on 1.5 million acres that was previously off-limits because of border issues. The extent of incremental production, however, depends cooperative relations between the United States and Mexico and American companies and PEMEX. The great promise is for Mexico to reverse decades of declining production–and double its estimated 10.5 billion barrels of proven oil reserves.¶ The potential is certainly there with robust estimates of in-place oil and gas reserves and (U.S.-side) newly developed hydraulic fracturing technologies. For example, one of America’s most prolific shale fields, the Eagle Ford, extends into Mexico, but all of the activity is on the U.S. side of the border. This is similar to areas throughout the U.S. where production is skyrocketing on private and state lands but remaining dormant on federal government lands.¶

Agreement allows for further energy cooperation Wood 2012 - Professor, Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México and Senior Adviser, Mexico Institute, Renewable Energy Initiative (Duncan Wood, “US – Mexico Cross Border Energy Cooperation; a new era in the Gulf of Mexico”, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars – Mexico Institute, 3/2012, http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/March_2012_Transboundary_Oil_Agreement_0.pdf)//JS

On the 20th of February, the governments of Mexico and the United States ¶ signed a Transboundary Hydrocarbons Agreement that resolves the question of ¶ what to do with potential oil reserves along the dividing line between the two ¶ countries in the Gulf of Mexico . Two areas in particular have been disputed for a ¶ number of years: the Western and Eastern polygons, or "donut holes" as they are ¶ more colloquially known, comprise over 500 miles of the maritime border ¶ between the two countries and are thought to hold billions of barrels of crude oil ¶ (though nobody is sure quite how much, as comprehensive seismic scans have ¶ not been undertaken). The signing of the treaty is extremely good news as it ¶ marks the end of a decades-long process to try to determine oil rights in these ¶ two areas, opening the door to exploration and production that offers the ¶ prospect of exciting new modes of cooperation between Pemex and private oil ¶ companies . The question of what to do with the Gulf of Mexico's donut holes goes back to the ¶ 1970s. Following on from negotiations in the United Nations over the ¶ International Law of the Sea, the two countries came together to determine ¶ ownership of resources found in these two areas that were beyond their two hundred miles exclusion zones but entirely surrounded by them (thereby not ¶ qualifying as international waters). Early discussions over the areas broke down, ¶ but in the late 1990s the two countries agreed to a ten year moratorium on ¶

exploration and drilling in order to be able to negotiate a mutually agreeable ¶ settlement. 3¶ In 2008, Mexico's energy reform legislation committed the Calderon ¶ administration to seek a solution to the issue and, when the ten-year deal expired ¶ in 2009, the two governments agreed to begin negotiations towards a binding ¶ deal. In the first year of the talks, the parties engaged in a process of information ¶

exchange, discussing standards, emergency management procedures and ¶ existing seismic data. This data exchange, it is vital to recognize, was not aimed ¶ at establishing what resources might exist in the region, but rather what ¶ geological structures might exist, thereby giving clues to potential oil fields. In ¶

2010, following a commitment made by Presidents Obama and Calderon to ¶ negotiate a transboundary agreement, Mexico and the U.S. determined who ¶ would be the leading actors involved in the negotiations, and then both sides ¶ agreed on an extension of the 1999 moratorium for four more years. In 2011, ¶ preparatory meetings were held, with official negotiations beginning in August. ¶ These negotiations were concluded in December and the Treaty was signed on ¶ February 20th, 2012. ¶ The new agreement has already drawn attention and controversy, even before its ¶ contents were revealed to the public. After the announcement of the signing of ¶ the deal, critics from the left in Mexico declared that the Calderon administration ¶ had sold out to the United States, bowing to pressure from Washington and from ¶ U.S. oil interests to sign a deal that gave disproportionate benefits to the ¶

Americans. Voices from the government rejected these accusations, but it was ¶ only last week, when the Treaty was presented to the Mexican Senate for ¶ ratification, that the true nature of the deal became known to the public. ¶ Ratification is expected to be relatively easy as the Mexican Senate was ¶

consulted frequently during the negotiation process. ¶ The Treaty does not pre-determine the division of oil wealth in the border ¶ regions. Rather it establishes a framework for dividing production based upon a ¶ mutually-agreed evaluation of the size of the resource, the unitization of the field, ¶ and the designation of an operator. Furthermore, in the fashion of Stephen ¶ Krasner's classic definition of an international regime, the agreement outlines ¶ "norms, rules and decision-making procedures around

which actor expectations ¶ converge". The two sides have agreed upon the procedure for identifying a ¶

resource, for notifying all concerned parties, for determining the distribution of the ¶ resource and for dispute settlement. ¶ The Treaty establishes that information must be exchanged on oil-related ¶ activities within 90 days of the entrance into law of the treaty; both governments ¶ must report on activities occurring on their side of the dividing line in the Gulf. ¶ However, if activity occurs within a 3 mile area, notification must be automatic. As ¶ soon as an oil field is identified, production of the resource is prohibited until the ¶ two countries have come to an agreement to unify the oil reserve. At this point ¶ the two sides will exchange information about the field, and determine whether it ¶ is a cross-border resource or not. If the two sides cannot agree, an independent arbitrator will be called in to decide on the issue. The process of unitization of the ¶ field will then begin in order to determine the division of oil from the field.

link uniqueness: Loans

Ex – Im loaning to Pemex now Foxnews 10 (foxnews.com, “U.S Backs $1B Loan to Mexico for Oil Drilling despite Obama Moratorium”, 9/11, http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/11/backs-b-loan-mexico-oil-drilling-despite-obama-moratorium/)//JS

Despite President Obama's moratorium on U.S. deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, the U.S. Export-Import Bank intends to guarantee $1 billion in loans to PEMEX, the Mexican state oil company, to bolster the company's oil drilling in the region.¶ The bank, which is the official American export credit agency, loaned more than $1 billion to PEMEX in 2009 -- when the company was the bank's largest borrower -- in support of its drilling activities. That year, the bank also guaranteed two loans totaling $300 million made by a commercial lender.¶ The latest request comes during a drilling moratorium that was first imposed by Obama in May to find out what was the cause behind the April 20 Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion killed 11 workers and led to 206 million gallons of oil spewing from BP's undersea well.¶ After a federal court struck down the ban amid complaints that it threatened thousands of jobs in the offshore oil industry, the Obama administration issued a new moratorium in July on most deep-water drilling activities that is in effect until Nov. 30.¶ The Export-Import Bank said the moratorium doesn't affect its pending deal with PEMEX.¶ "None of these projects involve deepwater drilling," bank spokeswoman Maura Policelli told FoxNews.com in an e-mail.¶ The $1 billion deal is awaiting approval by the bank's board, which is expected to reach a final decision by Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year. Because the bank is an independent agency, the deal is not subject to congressional approval.¶ "Before deciding whether to approve applications for financing, Ex-Im Bank performs rigorous environmental, safety and financial due diligence activities, including on-site inspections" Policelli said.¶ "After financing is approved, the bank monitors the company's financial, environmental and safety activities and performs on-site inspections as often as twice a year," she said.¶ The 2010 request will support multiple PEMEX projects, including offshore drilling and a $200 million facility to finance sales to U.S. small businesses, Policelli said.¶ By law, the bank's financing is "directly tied to the export of goods and services produced or provided by American workers," Policelli said.¶ Since 1998, the bank has guaranteed $7.7 billion in loans that U.S. and international banks have made to PEMEX. The bank agreed to make the direct loan of $1.05 billion to PEMEX last year in the wake of the financial crisis when commercial lenders tightened their lending.¶ "This loan supported the purchase of U.S. goods and services," Policelli said.¶ Over that 12-year period, Policelli said, the bank's financing of PEMEX has "helped create or sustain the jobs of over 47,000 American workers at over 1,300 U.S. companies, including 915 small businesses and 400 large companies."

link uniqueness: NadBank

NADBank approves investment for Mexican wind energy Aldridge 12 (James Aldridge, “NADBank approves $51 Million in funding for warm wind in Mexico”, San Antonia Business Journal, 2/13, http://www.bizjournals.com/sanantonio/news/2012/02/13/nadbank-approves-51-million-in.html)//JS

The boards of the North American Development Bank and Border Environment Cooperation Commission have cleared a 54-megawatt wind energy farm for certification and financing.¶ The wind energy farm will be located on communal

farmland just southeast of Reynosa, Tamapulipas in Mexico. NADBank has authorized a peso loan equivalent of $51 million for the Mexican company Compañía Eólica de Tamaulipas, S.A. de C.V. (CETSA), which is developing the project and will

operate the wind farm.¶ “This is the first wind energy project in Mexico to be funded by the bank ,” says NADBank

Managing Director Gerónimo Gutiérrez. “NADB is pleased to participate in this important project that will contribute to clean energy generation and is part of Mexico’s efforts to combat climate change.” ¶ The Ejido El Porvenir project, as it will be called, will consist of 30 wind-turbines each with a nominal capacity of 1.8 megwatts. Each installation includes a substation to transfer the energy to the national grid. Ultimately, the electricity produced by the wind farm will be purchased by Mexican retailer Soriana — via Mexico’s national power company — through a long-term power purchase agreement.¶ This project is expected to displace more than 90,976 metric tons of carbon dioxide, 1,442 metric tons of sulfur oxide and 189 metric tons of nitrogen oxides of pollutants out of Mexico’s air during each year of operation.¶ NADBank is a financial institution established and capitalized in equal parts by the United States and Mexico for the purpose of financing environmental infrastructure projects along the common border.

United States led NADBank invests in Mexican projects Hendricks 13 (David Hendricks, “NADBank approves six border projects”, my San Antonio, 5/9, http://www.mysanantonio.com/business/local/article/NADBank-approves-six-border-projects-4503973.php)//JS Six environmental projects, including a biogas facility, will receive loans and grants totaling $44.57 million, two border institutions announced Thursday.¶ Directors of the San Antonio-based North American Development Bank and the Border Environment Cooperation Commission based in Ciudad Juárez approved financing and certification of the projects. Among the projects certified for financing is NADBank's first biogas project, which will capture and use methane gas from the Saltillo, Mexico, landfill to generate electricity. The project will be developed by Lorean Energy Group, S.A.P.I. de C.V., which has the Saltillo concession to use the landfill biomass and operate the biogas recovery and power generation facility.¶ The directors, who were meeting in Matamoros, Mexico, also approved an urban infrastructure project for Hermosillo, Mexico, that will help reduce water, soil and air pollution in the municipality. The work includes improvements to the water and sewage systems, ranging from the installation of 4,500 residential sewer hookups to the construction of two sewage-treatment plants with a joint capacity of 800,000 gallons per day. The plants will serve the communities of Bahía de Kino, La Victoria and Tazajal.¶

The directors also certified two wastewater-system improvement projects in Holtville, in the southern part of Imperial Valley, Calif. The first project will replace the sewer main, while the second project expands the sewer system to an unserved area. These projects also will receive a grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency through the Border Environment Infrastructure Fund. ¶ They also agreed to provide grants for two projects through NADBank's Community Assistance Program: a water-system improvement project in Sunland Park, N.M., and a storm-water infrastructure project in Santiago, Mexico.

link uniqueness: Security

US-Mexico engagement happening now Finklea and Seekle 13 (Clare Ribando Seekle and Kristen M. Finklea, “U.S. – Mexican Security Cooperation: the Merida Initiative and Beyond”, Congressional Research Initiative, 6/12 http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R41349.pdf)//JS

¶ U.S.-Mexican security cooperation increased significantly as a result of the development and ¶

implementation of the Mérida Initiative, a counterdrug and anticrime assistance package for ¶ Mexico and Central America first funded in FY2008. Whereas U.S. assistance initially focused on ¶ training and equipping Mexican counterdrug forces, it now places more emphasis on addressing ¶ the weak institutions and underlying societal p roblems that have allowed the drug trade to ¶ flourish in Mexico. The Mérida strategy now focuses on (1) disrupting organized criminal groups, ¶ (2) institutionalizing the rule of law, (3) creating a 21st century border, and (4) building strong and ¶ resilient communities. As part of the Mérida Initiative, the Mexican government pledged to ¶ intensify its anticrime efforts and the U.S. government pledged to address drug demand and the ¶ illicit trafficking of firearms and bulk currency to Mexico.

link uniqueness: Trade

United States Mexico trade at all time high Fischler 2013 (Jacob Fischler, “Mexican trade – and tourists – are boon for United States business”, The Monitor, 5/28, http://www.themonitor.com/news/local/article_3bf218a2-c734-11e2-b19a-001a4bcf6878.html//JS

As the Congress debates immigration reform legislation, millions of tourists and billions of dollars continue to cross the U.S.-Mexico border in both directions.¶ A study released earlier this month by NDN, a center-left think-tank based in Washington, D.C., shows trade and tourism between the two countries is at an all-time high. ¶ Trade between the two nations in 2012 was estimated at $535 billion. That number is up from $300 billion in 2009, a number that’s projected to double by this year, said Simon Rosenberg, the president of NDN.¶ Texas leads all states with almost $200 billion in imports

and exports with Mexico.¶ Trade with Mexico sustains almost 6 million U.S. jobs, the NDN study said. In the Rio Grande Valley, tourists provide the biggest Mexican boost to the economy.¶ “We really rely heavily on the Mexican market,” said Nancy Millar, the director of the McAllen Chamber of Commerce’s Convention and Visitors Bureau.¶ The economic downturn in 2008 — which coincided with a spike in cartel violence — hurt Mexican tourism to the Valley, Millar said. Prior to those phenomena, 35 percent of income to McAllen’s tourism industry came from Mexico, she said, and it remains a vital part of McAllen’s economy.¶ “There’s no doubt we have a much stronger economy than we would without them — 35 percent stronger,” she said.¶ The NDN report called on lawmakers to use the immigration reform bill to increase the number of ports of entry and staffing of Customs and Border Protection officers at the border to expedite travel from Mexico to the U.S. ¶ “The customs department of (the Department of Homeland Security) is going to have to grow with trade and legal tourism,” Rosenberg said. “We’ve got to invest more in border infrastructure. We’ve got to cut down on wait times.” ¶ Doing so would also help eliminate barriers to further trade between the two countries, said Shannon O’Neil, a senior policy fellow for Latin American studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. And further trade means growing economies on both sides of border, particularly in areas near the border.¶ “When a Ford plant opens in Mexico, it increases employment in the U.S.,” O’Neil said. That is because manufacturing companies take advantage of the free-trade laws that allow easy passage between North American nations to produce different parts in different places for the same finished product. ¶ “Up to 40 percent of a product that’s ‘made in Mexico’ actually comes from here originally,” she said. That’s a departure from just 10 to 20 years ago when most Mexican

exports to the U.S. were natural resources like gas, she added.¶ But reducing waiting times for Mexican tourists to enter the country is only one part of a formula to further improve trade. Border violence has to be controlled.¶

“What’s been interesting is you’ve seen economic growth in Mexico even as security has worsened,” O’Neil said. But she doesn’t see that trend continuing.¶ “In the long term, I don’t see how prosperity and growth that people hope for can continue if you can’t guarantee safety,” she said. “Economic growth and security have to go hand in hand.”¶ Rosenberg believes economic growth can help bring security.¶ “Improving the economy on both sides of the border has to be seen as part of the strategy to weaken transnational criminal organizations,” he said. “One of the ways to attack the cartels is to show that Mexicans have good jobs.”¶ That the trade relationship has flourished in a period of heightened security risks “shows just how resilient and deep and broad this all is,” Rosenberg said.¶

“And it shows that if the security situation improves, my God, what is going to be possible?”

Oil trade specifically EIA 13 (US Energy Information Administration, “Mexico Week: Crude oil moving north, products moving south characterizes U.S.-Mexico trade”, 5/13, http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=11271)//JS

The United States and Mexico conduct a significant amount of trade in crude oil and petroleum products, with the United States primarily importing crude oil from Mexico and exporting refined petroleum products to Mexico. In 2012, the United States imported nearly one million barrels per day (bbl/d) of crude oil from Mexico, while exporting 600,000 bbl/d of petroleum products to Mexico (see chart above). The drivers for recent trends in crude oil and petroleum product trade between the two countries include rising crude oil production in the United States, falling Mexican crude oil production, and rising demand in Mexico for petroleum products such as gasoline and diesel fuel. Mexico is the third largest supplier of crude oil imports to the United States. However, the 972,000 bbl/d of U.S. crude oil imports in 2012 was the first time since 1994 that imports from Mexico were below one million bbl/d. Meanwhile, Mexico's use of refined petroleum products rose 20% over the past 10 years, while its capacity remained the same. Mexico increasingly looks to the United States to meet its growing need for petroleum products. Since 2004, U.S. exports of petroleum products to Mexico—primarily motor

gasoline and diesel fuel—have nearly tripled (see chart below). As a result of declining U.S. crude imports from Mexico and rising U.S. product exports to Mexico, net U.S. imports of crude oil and products combined have declined by about 70% since 2006.

New agreement proves Capobres 13 (Kacy Capobres, “New Program Boosts U.S.-Mexico Trade Relationship”, Fox News – Latino, 1/23, http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/money/2013/01/23/new-program-aims-to-ease-trade-between-us-and-mexico/)//JS

As part of its ongoing effort to strengthen economic ties between the U.S. and Mexico, a delegation from the

Department of State is in Mexico City to roll out the newly-created U.S.-Mexico Business Facilitation Program.¶ The goal of the new program is to increase trade and job creation in both countries by expediting visa processing for employees of qualifying businesses.¶

The delegation, led by Assistant Secretary of State for Economic and Business Affairs Jose Fernandez, will meet with top economic officials from President Enrique Peña Nieto’s administration as well as Mexican business and organization leaders.¶ According to Enrique Alvarez, head of Latin America fixed-income research at IdeaGlobal in New York, the new program is meant to strengthen diplomatic and economic ties between the two countries.¶ Under past administrations “certain areas have been sort of off-limits to U.S. businesses,” Alvarez said. Now that a new administration is in place in Mexico, he added, “the U.S. wants to learn more about what the inner workings are and what the real aims are behind.”¶ He also noted that since Mexico is not a real source of consumption of U.S. goods, this new program is “probably going to be more beneficial to Mexico.”¶ Raul Rodriguez, foreign investment specialist at the Free Trade Alliance, said the creation program proves that, despite a change in administration in Mexico, the two countries continue to need to keep working closely.¶ “Especially with the new second term for President Obama and the new president in Mexico,” said Rodriguez, “the relationship between both countries is only getting stronger.”¶ Mexico's economy is growing at a rate of four percent a year, according to the International Monetary Fund -- that's a faster rate than Brazil, the leading Latin American economy in recent years. Mexico is now a close second and, at this rate, is expected to surpass Brazil in as little as a decade.¶ Mexico is the biggest exporter in Latin America. Over 80 percent of the country's exports are sent to the United States. ¶ In 2012, trade between the two nations amounted to nearly $460 billion.¶ According to the Census, trade between Mexico and the U.S. makes up over 13 percent of the total goods traded between the U.S. and any country.¶ Since the beginning of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between the U.S. and Mexico in 1994, trade has more than quadrupled between the two countries.¶

Energy trade increasing exponentially EIA 13 (U.S Energy Information Administration, “Mexico Week: U.S. is Mexico’s primary energy trade partner amid shifting trade dynamics”, 5/13, http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=11231)//JS

¶ Energy trade between Mexico and the United States in 2012 topped $65 billion and accounted for 13% of the $494 billion in overall trade between the countries. Crude oil and petroleum products account for most of the energy trade; in 2012, Mexico was the third-largest crude oil exporter to the United States, behind only Canada and Saudi Arabia, accounting for 11.4% of all U.S. crude oil imports.¶ The United States is Mexico's primary trading partner, for energy as well as other products, a point made by President Barack Obama in a speech in Mexico City on May 3, 2013. The level of U.S. energy trade with Mexico is based on several key factors:¶ Refineries in the United States process significant amounts of imported Mexican heavy crude oil, some of which is re-exported to Mexico as lighter grade products such as gasoline and diesel fuel.¶ Institutional restrictions limit the roles that foreign companies can play in Mexico's energy sector, especially in the oil sector.¶ An integrated and growing network of cross-border natural gas pipelines facilitates rising U.S. natural gas exports to Mexico.¶ Increasing production of crude oil and natural gas in the United States is changing the energy relationship between Mexico and the United States.¶ A combination of limited capacity and incompatibilities between electricity transmission systems—except for the Southern California and Baja California region—limits electricity trade between the countries.¶ Common use of some trading-point benchmarks such as West Texas Intermediate for crude oil and Henry Hub and Houston Ship Channel for natural gas informs price discovery, commercial decision-making, and trading in both countries. The trade value of various forms of energy exchanged between the United States and the rest of the world and Mexico varies greatly by product. Most of Mexico's energy trade relates to crude oil exports (see charts below). Crude oil: Mexico was the ninth largest supplier of oil in the world in 2012 and is the third-largest oil supplier in the Western Hemisphere. During the first six months of 2012, total crude oil exports accounted for 13% of the value of Mexico's overall exports for goods and services. However, the amount of oil that Mexico produces has steadily decreased because of production declines from Cantarell and other large offshore fields. As a result, Mexican crude oil export volumes to the United States have also been in decline, and fell below 1 million bbl/day last year for the first time since 1994. Although the volume of crude oil that Mexico has exported to the United States has been declining, generally rising crude oil

prices meant that the dollar value of these exports rose from $13.1 billion to $35.7 billion between 2003 and 2012. Mexico's state oil company Petroleos Mexicanos (Pemex) effectively controls crude oil production in Mexico.¶ Petroleum products: Despite its status as one of the world's largest crude oil exporters, Mexico is a net importer of refined petroleum products. In 2012, Mexico remained the largest volumetric importer of U.S. petroleum products, importing nearly one-fifth of all U.S. petroleum product exports and almost two-thirds more than Canada, the next highest importer. Mexico was the top importer of finished motor gasoline from the United States in 2012, accounting for nearly half of all U.S. exports. It was also the second-highest importer of U.S. distillate fuel oil behind the Netherlands, as its demand for distillate fuels exceeded what local refineries could provide. From 2003 to 2012, the dollar value of Mexico's net petroleum product imports from the United States rose from $0.6 billion to $18.7 billion.¶ Natural gas and liquefied natural gas: Mexico's domestic natural gas consumption is rising faster than domestic

production, leading to both record pipeline gas imports from the United States and growth in the country's imports of liquefied natural gas (LNG). Natural gas trade between Mexico and the United States has been growing; estimated average daily net exports from the United States to Mexico so far in 2013 (January 1-May 6) has been 1.6 Bcf/d, up almost 29% over the same period in 2012. Many potential new natural gas pipeline connections between the two countries are planned. Pemex subsidiary PGPB imports most of the natural gas that enters the country via pipeline. In addition, private entities and state electric commission CFE also import pipeline gas into Mexico. In 2006, Mexico began importing LNG shipments from the Gulf of Mexico at its Altamira regasification terminal, and in 2008 began receiving LNG on the Pacific coast at its Costa Azul regasification terminal. Mexico has considerable natural gas resources, but the development of its unconventional shale gas is proceeding slowly.¶ Electricity: Electricity trade between the United States and Mexico has existed since 1905, but it remains small; Mexico has generally been a small exporter of electricity to the United States.¶ On Tuesday, Today in Energy will address Mexican crude oil production and exports to the United States.

link uniqueness: Trans Pacific Partnership

Obama pushing for further engagement through the TPP Donahue 2013 (Bill Donahue, “Obama pushes quick TPP deal in Mexico”, Law360, 5/3, http://www.law360.com/articles/438650/obama-pushes-quick-tpp-deal-in-mexico)//JS

Law360, New York (May 03, 2013, 4:52 PM ET) -- President Barack Obama on Friday reiterated his hope that the ongoing talks for the planned Trans-Pacific Partnership would wrap up within 2013, again stating his ambitious goal for the completion of the free trade agreement during a speech in Mexico City The statements came a day after Obama and Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto issued a joint statement saying the TPP would significantly strengthen the pre-existing North American Free Trade Agreement and help boost a bilateral trade that was already valued at nearly $500 billion Mexico and Canada both joined the talks for the TPP last summer and, with the recent addition of Japan, the proposed free trade zone will cover more than 700 million people and boast a combined gross domestic product of more than $25 trillion. The president and the heads of other TPP nations — Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Vietnam and Singapore — have made it their goal to finalize a framework for the agreement by the end of this year, but thorny issues remain ahead. For instance, U.S. lawmakers and industry lobbying groups have expressed strong concerns with the structure of New Zealand's powerful dairy industry, which is largely controlled by one state-sanctioned monopoly. "Dairy producers and processors in our states are deeply concerned that this market concentration policy provides New Zealand ... with a tremendous advantage in global markets and are insistent on seeing it effectively addressed as a necessary precursor to any expansion of U.S.-New Zealand dairy trade in TPP," Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said in a March letter to U.S. trade negotiators. Japan's entry into the talks last month also sparked criticism, with voices in both Washington and the private sector expressing doubt that the island nation could possibly roll back enough of its restrictions on the automobile, insurance and agriculture sectors to make a free trade agreement fair for the U.S. And many lawmakers — mostly Republicans — have questioned whether the president will be able to meet his own deadline without trade promotion authority, otherwise known as fast-tracking. The authority gives the executive branch the power to negotiate trade deals that Congress can only approve or disapprove but can't amend. The Office of U.S. Trade Representative and the administration itself have said that they plan to formally request TPA, but the White House has yet to do so. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, ranking Republican on the trade-monitoring Senate Finance Committee, has been one of the president's

fiercest critics when it comes to fast-tracking, saying it will be absolutely necessary to close the TPP. "A formal request from the administration for TPA would send a strong signal to our negotiating partners … that the president is serious about making sure the rhetoric surrounding the agreement meets the reality of the negotiating table," Hatch said at a committee hearing last month.

Mexico’s invitation to the TPP talks prove engagement Agweek 12 (agweek, “Canada, Mexico welcomed to TPP talks”, agweek, 6/20, http://www.agweek.com/event/article/id/19944/)//JS

WASHINGTON — The United States-New Zealand Council welcomes the decision by nine countries participating in the Trans Pacific Partnership talks, including the United States and New Zealand, to invite Canada and Mexico to join the TPP negotiations.¶ “Inclusion of Canada and Mexico signals these two countries’ readiness to commit to a high-standard, comprehensive agreement, as outlined by the TPP partners in November 2011,” says William Maroni, president of the US-NZ Council.¶ “We commend U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk and New Zealand Trade Minister Tim Groser for their continued leadership to ensure that all TPP parties pledge to achieve an all-inclusive, high-ambition trade agreement as quickly as possible,” Maroni adds.¶ With the addition of Canada and Mexico, the potential TPP market would increase by more than 150 million people (to more than 650 million) and by $3 trillion in gross domestic product (to more than $20 trillion). Expanding the TPP by these numbers would create substantially greater opportunities for economic growth, new jobs, innovation and higher standards of living for all parties.¶ “The North American Free Trade Agreement has been an important success story for Canada, Mexico and the United States,” Maroni says. “It has contributed to significant increases in trade and investment flows among the three countries, thereby promoting greater transparency, better

economic integration and more efficient supply chains — some of the same objectives of the TPP.”¶ Rule revisions¶ Canada and Mexico’s participation in the TPP also offers the potential to improve outdated North American rules and to address new areas that were not contemplated when NAFTA was negotiated 18 years ago.¶ “The ultimate goal of a Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement has always been to link Oceania, Asia, Latin America and North America,” Maroni says. “With Canada and Mexico’s pledge to embrace the TPP principles, we are a step closer to realizing the power and promise of that worthy ambition.”¶ The TPP, also known as the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement, is a proposed high-standard, comprehensive free trade agreement that would address new and emerging trade issues and 21st-century challenges. Nations currently participating in TPP negotiations are Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States and Vietnam.¶ Editor’s Note: The US-NZ Council is an independent U.S. group dedicated to advancing the business, strategic, and cultural relationship between the United States and New Zealand.

US pushing for Mexico in TPP allows for further engagement Palmer 12 (Doug Palmer, “Mexico to join Trans – Pacific Partnership talks”, Reuters, 6/18, http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/18/us-usa-mexico-transpacific-idUSBRE85H1LC20120618)//JS

(Reuters) - The United States and eight other countries on Monday welcomed Mexico into talks aimed at reaching an Asia Pacific free trade agreement, but continued to mull over Canada and Japan's seven-month-old bids to join the negotiations.¶

"We are delighted to invite Mexico, our neighbor and second-largest export market, to join the (Trans-

Pacific Partnership) TPP negotiations," U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk said in a statement after a meeting between U.S. President

Barack Obama and Mexican President Felipe Calderon at the Group of 20 leading economies summit in Los Cabos, Mexico.¶ The decision to accept Mexico's application was jointly made by the nine countries currently negotiating the TPP pact - the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Peru, Chile, Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam and Brunei, U.S. officials said.¶ Calderon, nearing the end of his six-year presidential term, called it "a great piece of news" that would help Mexico expand its economy and create more jobs at a time when some other countries are facing slowdowns. ¶ "This is one of the free trade initiatives that's most ambitious in the world and would foster integration of the Asia Pacific region, one of the regions with the greatest dynamism in the world," Calderon said.¶ The proposed TPP agreement is part of a broader U.S. strategy to link its economy to fast-growing markets in the Asia Pacific region. The countries involved in the talks are pursuing an agreement that has higher standards in areas such as labor, environment and intellectual property rights protections than previous trade accords and also reduces regulatory barriers to trade.¶ 'BALANCED PACKAGE'¶ "We look forward to working with Mexico as we seek to conclude a comprehensive and balanced package, taking into account the diversity of our levels of development ," New Zealand Trade Minister Tim Gloser said in a statement.¶ Mexico, Canada and Japan last November expressed interest in joining the TPP talks, when Obama hosted a regional economic summit in Honolulu. The nine current TPP members have been discussing the countries' applications since.¶ Japan's possible entry has raised the most concern in the United States because of doubts that Tokyo is really prepared to significantly open its auto, agriculture and services markets to foreign competitors.¶ Canada's application has been stalled by lingering questions over its willingness to negotiate changes to its agricultural supply management programs.¶ Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper signaled on Monday he also expected good news on his country's bid. "We're delighted that the Americans and others have indicated an interest in seeing Canada join the Trans-Pacific Partnership," Harper said.¶ Eric Farnsworth, vice president at the Council of Americas, a U.S. business group, said he thought there potentially could still be a decision on Canada "within the next few days," while it would take longer for one on Japan.¶ Mexico and Canada already are partners with the United States in the North American Free Trade Agreement, which went into force in 1994.¶ Since then, their economies have become so integrated that it is almost more difficult for the United States "to negotiate a trade agreement that doesn't include Canada and Mexico than to negotiate one that does," Farnsworth said.¶ The decision to accept Mexico shows there's an "open door" to other applicants willing to accept the high level of commitments envisioned under the pact, he added.¶ Kirk's office said the Obama administration would shortly notify Congress of its intent to begin trade talks with Mexico.¶ The nine current TPP countries will hold their 13th round of talks in early July in San Diego, California.¶

Business groups are hoping for a deal by the end of the year, but there are many difficult issues left to resolve.¶ (Additional reporting by Louise Egan and Jeff Mason in Los Cabos, Mexico; Editing by Will Dunham)

Politics

Public

The American public supports policies and cooperation with Mexico as importantSmeltz and Kafura, 13 - senior fellow, public opinion and foreign policy at Chicago Council AND at Chicago Council (Dina and Craig, “As President Obama Heads to Mexico, Americans Have Mixed Views of Neighbor across the Border”, The Chicago Council on Foreign Affairs, 4-29-13, http://www.thechicagocouncil.org/UserFiles/File/130429_Mexico_Brief.pdf)//KG

Attitudes toward Bilateral Relations Are Positive, But More Now See Worsening Ties Mexico is seen as an important country to the United States, though somewhat less so than in past years, and Americans place greater weight on other bilateral relationships. Majorities of Americans say that China (89%), Canada (86%), Mexico (68%), and Brazil (61%) are at least “somewhat important” to the United States “in terms of the role each country plays in the world.” Given its impressive economic advances, China is more frequently considered “very important” (50%) to the United States than Canada (43%), Mexico (25%), or Brazil (11%). Back in 2008, more believed that Mexico was “very important” (37% in 2008, 31% in 2010, 25% now), though results show a broadly consistent downshift across time in the percentages deeming each country “very important”(Figure 1). While the American public may view China as more important to the United States for broader strategic reasons, they think that US ties with Canada and Mexico are stronger than ties with China. Six in ten Americans say that relations between the United States and Mexico are good (63%), and nine in ten believe that ties with Canada are good (93%). Eight in ten also say that ties with Brazil are good (82%), while 56 percent think that US-China relations are good. Compared to previous years, more now say that US Mexico relations are staying about the same (49%) with fewer saying that relations are worsening (34%, down 13 percentage points from 47% in 2010). However, only 13 percent say that US-Mexico relations are improving (Figure 2).

Americans support economic and immigration improvement with MexicoRAND Corporation, 12 - nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis (“How Can Economic and Political Ties Between the United States and Mexico Be Strengthened?”, 2012, http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_briefs/2012/RAND_RB9533-1.pdf)//KGU.S.-Mexican Relations Are Affected by Both Policy and Public Opinion U.S. public opinion on Mexican immigrants and NAFTA is mixed. Opinion polls have showed that most Americans think that immigration is good for the United States. Yet when asked specifically about illegal immigration, most respondents said they would like to see it reduced, and more than two-thirds thought that the presence of illegal immigrants weakens the economy. Other opinion polls have showed that about 50 percent of respondents support the renegotiation of NAFTA.

Congress – General

Republicans and Democrats both support Mexico relations as importantSmeltz and Kafura, 13 - senior fellow, public opinion and foreign policy at Chicago Council AND at Chicago Council (Dina and Craig, “As President Obama Heads to Mexico, Americans Have Mixed Views of Neighbor across the Border”, The Chicago Council on Foreign Affairs, 4-29-13, http://www.thechicagocouncil.org/UserFiles/File/130429_Mexico_Brief.pdf)//KG

Partisan Differences Mainly on Perceived Cooperation across Issues There are no consistent age or education differences across these questions, though Americans who are of Hispanic2 and African-American descent are more positive in their ratings of Mexico and US-Mexico relations. Partisan differences among the American public often help explain policy preferences, and to some extent they are at work here. While both Democratic and Republican administrations have pursued close relations with Mexico, Republicans tend to view Mexico somewhat less favorably than Democrats, but they are still generally positive on the US Mexico relationship . While Republicans give Mexico an overall mean rating that is lower than other partisans, majorities across the political spectrum say that relations between the United States and Mexico are good, Mexico is important to the United States,

and Mexico is more of an economic partner than rival (Table 2). Americans of all partisan stripes generally agree about which of the two nations should take the lead of various issues, though Republicans are more likely to believe that the two nations are working in different directions on issues such as combating the trafficking of illegal drugs, securing the US-Mexico border, and finding new sources of energy (Figure 11).

2ac link turns

The plan is popular because of the perception of combatting immigrationPastor, 8 – Professor and Director, Center for North American Studies, American University (Robert, “The Solution to North America’s Triple Problem: The Case for a North American Investment Fund,” Norteamerica, Year 2, Number 2, July, http://www.american.edu/sis/cnas/upload/triple_problem_pastor.pdf)//SY

The American people are increasingly frustrated and worried about the inability¶ of the U.S. government to control the borders. A New York Times/CBS poll in October¶ 2005 found that 75% of Americans think that the government should do much more to¶ keep out illegal aliens, and by May 2007, 82% of Americans felt that way (“Poll finds¶ 69% Believe Illegal Immigrants Should be Deported,” New York Times, May 25, 2007).¶ However, no one has proposed an effective strategy to address the challenge. The reason¶ is that it would be very expensive to solve this problem because there is only one way to¶ reduce that flow. The development gap between the United States and Mexico must be¶ narrowed. A strategy aimed to accomplish that goal would not only reduce illegal¶ migration; it would solve several other chronic problems in North America and beyond.

North American integration is popular and key to the US economy and influencePastor, 13 – Professor and Director, Center for North American Studies, American University (Robert, “Shortcut to U.S. Economic Competitiveness: A Seamless North American Market,” Policy Innovation Memorandum No. 29, March, http://www.cfr.org/north-america/shortcut-us-economic-competitiveness-seamless-north-american-market/p30132)//SY

There is no better path to stimulate the U.S. economy, increase U.S. competitiveness, and bolster U.S. influence in emerging markets in Asia and Europe than by deepening integration with Canada and Mexico. The three countries already trade more than $1 trillion in goods and services each year. A small but vocal group in the United States opposes any further integration, but by and large the public supports freer trade in North America. Leadership is needed from President Barack Obama, the U.S. business community, and border states and communities. Mexico's new president has already expressed support for bolder initiatives to integrate the continent. Canada is more reluctant, but would not want to be left out if there was clear leadership from its neighbors. The place to start is the next North American Leaders Summit, which Mexico will host this year. The three leaders should articulate a clear vision and pledge to create a single continental market of mostly harmonized regulations in which nearly all products, produce, and services would transit borders without impediment.

1ar link turns

Latino influence supports US-Mexican relations – key to influence US politicsSelee and Diaz-Cayeros, 10 – Vice President of Programs at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, adjunct professor of Government at Johns Hopkins University and of International Affairs at George Washington University AND Associate Professor of International Relations and Pacific Studies and Director of the Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies at UC San Diego (Andrew and Alberto, “Mexico and the United States: The Possibilities of Partnership”, Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, the Mexico Institute of the Woodrow Wilson Center, El Colegio de la Frontera Norte, and El Colegio de México, 4-21-10, http://usmex.ucsd.edu/assets/001/503110.pdf)//KG

In addition to these governmental actors, civic organizations in both countries also play an important role in shaping bilateral policies. There are relatively few active binational civil society networks outside of the border region, despite the growth of these around the NAFTA negotiations, but labor unions, environmental organizations, and other issue-based networks do maintain ongoing contact and occasional moments of collaboration on specific efforts. 47 Within the border region, civil society groups often do maintain a very active cross-border engagement often with specific partnerships to address particular issues that have binational dimensions, like economic planning, workers’ rights, healthcare, and migration. Outside the border region, perhaps the most important binational organizing is that of Mexican migrant-led organizations in the United States, which have increasingly developed a capacity to influence policy in their communities and states of origin, with some of the large migrant-led organizations increasingly making strides within U.S. politics as well, often on issues related to immigration reform and local policies towards immigrants. 48 Even more important than binational civic networks, however, is the way that civic organizations in each country influence key policy arenas that affect relations with the other country, although generally without any intention to affect U.S.-Mexico relations as such. The rise of Latino political influence in the United States, for example, has influenced many politicians’ views in that country on immigration policy. 49 Anti-immigration organizations that want to restrict immigration also play a huge role on this issue. Both have significant social bases within different communities, and the interplay between their efforts and elected officials’ political calculations is at the heart of the schizophrenic decision-making in the U.S. Congress and many states and localities on immigration-related issues. The politics of immigration influences other issues in U.S.-Mexico relations, including politicians’ willingness to support other kinds of cooperation with Mexico. 50 The growing weight of Mexican migrants in internal politics within Mexico, often more symbolic than real, is also at the heart of Mexican politicians’ frequent trips to the United States and declarations about U.S. immigration reform.

Congress supports increased US-Mexican cooperation – empirically provenSelee and Diaz-Cayeros, 10 – Vice President of Programs at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, adjunct professor of Government at Johns Hopkins University and of International Affairs at George Washington University AND Associate Professor of International Relations and Pacific Studies and Director of the Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies at UC San Diego (Andrew and Alberto, “Mexico and the United States: The Possibilities of Partnership”, Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, the Mexico Institute of the Woodrow Wilson Center, El Colegio de la Frontera Norte, and El

Colegio de México, 4-21-10, http://usmex.ucsd.edu/assets/001/503110.pdf)//KG

Not surprisingly, the Congresses in both countries have become major influences in bilateral policymaking. This is an entirely new role for the Mexican Congress, which prior to 1997 rarely challenged the executive’s foreign policy decisions. Even today, the Mexican Congress appears to play a less proactive role in Mexico’s policies towards the United States than its counterpart in the United States, given short terms ofservice and more tenuous links to constituents, but this is growing gradually. 44 The U.S. Congress, however, has emerged as a major influence on U.S. policymaking towards Mexico. Given its greater permeability to citizen demands than the executive branch, Congress has weighed in repeatedly in recent years on issues from NAFTA’s effect on the economy and Mexican immigration to border security. Congress has driven legislation to build additional fencing at the border, both to regularize undocumented immigrants and to criminalize them, to ban Mexican trucks from entering the United States from Mexico, and to provide additional funding for Mexico’s struggle with organized crime. In 2009 alone, there were at least fifteen hearings explicitly on Mexico convened by at least ten different congressional committees and subcommittees ranging from the House International Relations Committee and Senate Foreign Relations Committee to the House Committee on Government Oversight, House Committee on Homeland Security, and Senate Committee on Drugs and Crime. 45 This particularly degree of attention was unusual and largely responded to a series of press reports on border violence in Mexico, as well as the administration’s budget request for assistance to Mexico to deal with this. However, these hearings helped focus attention on different areas of cooperation with Mexico, including southbound flows of arms and money from the U.S. to Mexico, the security of border communities, and the amount offinancial aid under the Merida Initiative, a counternarcotics and institutional-building package first approved in 2008 and renewed in successive years. In addition to the hearings, at least five official congressional trips to Mexico took place, bringing legislators in contact with Mexican and U.S. administration officials to discuss these issues.

Congress empirically supported economic ties – Merida Feeley, 13 – Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, U.S. Department of State (John D, “U.S.-MEXICO SECURITY COOPERATION:AN OVERVIEW OF THE MERIDA INITIATIVE 2008-PRESENT”, UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE, 5-23-13, www.hsdl.org/?view&did=737268)//KG

Thank you for the opportunity to testify, along with my State Department and USAID colleagues, on the U.S. – Mexico security relationship and five years of the Merida Initiative. It has been my privilege to serve at our embassy in Mexico on two occasions, first in the days and months after 9/11 when we were forced to re-examine how neighbors must confront the horrors of terrorism in democratic societies; and most recently from 2009-12, when we and our Mexican partners truly transformed our security and commercial relationships in service of the American and Mexican peoples. I must thank the U.S. Congress for its consistent, bipartisan, strong support of the U.S. – Mexico relationship in general, and the Merida Initiative in particular. Merida is a success story, and this Committee’s commitment to and stewardship of this new paradigm in bilateral cooperation has been a cornerstone of that success. Since 2009, 15 Congressional delegations have visited Mexico to engage with U.S. and Mexican officials and helped evolve Merida bi-national cooperation. Begun under the Bush - Calderon administrations, and reaffirmed and strengthened now in the Obama - Pena Nieto administrations, the United States and Mexico coordinate and cooperate to vouchsafe our mutual security in ways unimaginable when I first

reported for duty in Mexico City over a decade ago. This commitment to our shared security goals transcends political parties and extends across both governments’ interagency communities. It has enriched and broadened our relationship. It has sustained us in moments of adversity, such as when, on occasion, our cooperation encroached upon the tired shibboleths of outdated sovereignty redlines and we saw Calderon administration officials justify our bilateral cooperation in front of their own Congress, as it pursued its legitimate oversight role. In short, both governments’ executive and legislative branches, and most importantly, both societies have dedicated themselves to the difficult business of modernizing and deepening a neighborly partnership, with full respect for each other’s sovereignty, but with as full an understanding of the grave asymmetric threat to our people posed by the transnational criminal organizations. On May 2, President Obama traveled to Mexico City to meet with President Enrique Pena Nieto. The Presidents reaffirmed their commitment to improving the lives of all citizens in both our countries, building upon our deep ties, and working with mutual respect and mutual responsibility across a broad range of issues. These include our economic relationship, clean energy, and climate change, building a 21ST century border, education, and our security cooperation. In this context, President Obama emphasized our co-responsibility for the violence associated with the illicit flows of drugs, guns and cash.

Congress always empirically maintained support for Mexico cooperationSeelke, 13 – Specialist in Latin American Affairs, Congressional Research Service (Clare, “U.S.–MEXICO SECURITY COOPERATION: AN OVERVIEW OF THE MERIDA INITIATIVE 2008-PRESENT”, UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE, 5-23-13, www.hsdl.org/?view&did=737268)//KG

Congress, with the power of the purse, has played a major role in determining the level and composition of Mérida funding for Mexico. From FY2008 to FY2012, Congress appropriated more than $1.9 billion for the Mérida Initiative. In the beginning, Congress included funding for Mérida in supplemental appropriations measures in an attempt to hasten the delivery of certain equipment. Congress has also earmarked funds for specific purposes in order to ensure that certain programs

are prioritized , such as efforts to support institutional reform in Mexico. Congress has sought to influence human rights conditions and encourage efforts to combat abuses and impunity in Mexico by placing conditions on Mérida-related assistance to the Mexican military and police. There appears to

be strong support in both the Senate and House for maintaining U.S. support to Mexico provided through Mérida Initiative accounts.16 However, sequestration and future budget constraints could limit the amount of aid provided. Over the past few years, Congress has maintained an interest in ensuring that Mérida-funded equipment and training is delivered efficiently. After initial delays in 2009-2010, deliveries accelerated in 2011, a year in which the U.S. government provided Mexico more than $500 million worth of equipment, training, and technical assistance. As of November 2012, some $1.1 billion worth of assistance had been provided. That total includes roughly $873.7 million in equipment (including 21 aircraft and at least $100 million worth of non-intrusive inspection equipment) and $146.0 million worth of training. Deliveries seem to have remained at roughly the same level over the past seven months.

Congress supported economic assistance to Mexico in the pastSeelke, 13 - Specialist in Latin American Affairs, Congressional Research Service (Clare, “Mexico and the 112th Congress”, Congressional Research Service, 1-29-13, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32724.pdf)//KG

In recent years, Congress has played an increasingly active role in shaping U.S.-Mexican relations through funding and overseeing the Mérida Initiative, an anticrime and counterdrug assistance package that began in FY2008. Prior to that time, Mexico, a middle income country, had not been a major recipient of U.S. foreign assistance. As a result of the Mérida Initiative, U.S. assistance to Mexico rose from $65 million in FY2007 to $406 million in FY2008. Table 1 below provides an overview of U.S. assistance to Mexico funded through the State Department. From FY2008-FY2012, Congress appropriated $1.9 billion in Mérida assistance for Mexico (see Table 2 below), roughly $1.1 billion of which had been delivered as of November 2012. Mérida Initiative assistance has flowed through the International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE), Economic Support Fund (ESF), and, until recently, Foreign Military Financing (FMF) accounts. Whereas Mérida assistance initially focused on training and equipping Mexican counterdrug forces, it now aims to address the weak institutions and underlying societal problems—including corruption and impunity—that have allowed the drug trade to flourish in Mexico. The updated Mérida strategy, announced in March 2010, focuses on four pillars: (1) disrupting organized criminal groups, (2) institutionalizing the rule of law, (3) building a 21st century border, and (4) building strong and resilient communities. The bulk of U.S. assistance under Mérida is supporting training and technical assistance programs for Mexico’s justice sector under pillar two of the Mérida strategy. U.S. assistance has shifted from only supporting the Mexican federal government to assisting certain key states with police and judicial reform efforts, as well as community-based crime prevention programs. Congress has played a major role in determining the level and composition of Mérida funding for Mexico. In the beginning, Congress included funding for Mexico in supplemental appropriations measures in an attempt to hasten the delivery of certain equipment. Congress has also earmarked funds for specific purposes in order to ensure that certain programs are prioritized, such as efforts to support institutional reform in Mexico. Finally, Congress has sought to influence human rights conditions and encourage efforts to combat abuses and impunity in Mexico by placing conditions on Mérida-related assistance (see “Human Rights” below). There appears to be strong support in both the Senate and House for maintaining U.S. support to Mexico provided through Mérida Initiative accounts. The Administration’s FY2013 budget request asked for $234 million in Mérida assistance for Mexico: $199 million in the International Narcotics and Law Enforcement (INCLE) account and $35 million in the Economic Support Fund (ESF) account. The Senate Appropriations Committee’s version of the FY2013 foreign operations appropriations measure, S. 3241 (S.Rept. 112-172), would have met the request for INCLE and provided $10 million in additional ESF for economic development projects in the border region. S. 3241 included restrictions on aid to the Mexican military and police. The House Appropriations Committee’s version of the bill, H.R. 5857 (H.Rept. 112-494), would have increased INCLE funding by $49 million to match the FY2012 enacted level for that account and met the request for ESF. In the absence of a final FY2013 foreign appropriations measure, Congress passed a continuing resolution, H.J.Res. 117, to fund most foreign aid programs—including assistance to Mexico—at FY2012 levels plus 0.6% through March 27, 2013.

Congress is interested in anything that helps US economic gains via MexicoSeelke, 13 - Specialist in Latin American Affairs, Congressional Research Service (Clare, “Mexico and the 112th Congress”, Congressional Research Service, 1-29-13, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32724.pdf)//KG

The bilateral trade relationship with Mexico is of key interest to Congress because of Mexico’s proximity, the high volume of trade with Mexico, and the strong cultural and economic ties between the two countries. The United States and Mexico have strong economic ties through the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which has been in effect since 1994. Since the implementation of NAFTA, U.S.-Mexico trade has quadrupled, with the value of total bilateral trade reaching some $460 billion in 2011.127 Mexico ranks third as a source of U.S. imports, after China and Canada, and second, after Canada, as an export market for U.S. goods and services. The value of U.S. foreign direct investment (FDI) in Mexico rose from $17 billion in 1994 to $91.4 billion in 2011, a 440% increase.128 Most studies show that the net economic effects of NAFTA on both the U.S. and Mexican economies have been small but positive, though there have been adjustment costs to some sectors within both countries. Congress has monitored the implementation of NAFTA, the effects of NAFTA on the U.S. and Mexican economies, and the resolution of NAFTA-related trade disputes. Mexico’s accession to negotiations for a TransPacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement is likely to generate congressional interest.

Congress members support funds to develop Mexican investment in infrastructure and other industriesVillarreal, 10 - analyst in International Trade and Finance at the CRS's Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division (M Angeles, “NAFTA and the Mexican Economy”, Congressional Research Agency, 6-3-10, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL34733.pdf)//KGA possible option to address Mexico’s income disparities with the United States is to consider expanding the mandate of the North American Development Bank (NADBank). NADBank and its sister institution, the Border Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC), were created under a bilateral side agreement to NAFTA called the Border Environmental Cooperation Agreement. The objective of NADBank and BECC is to help U.S.-Mexico border communities plan and finance environmental infrastructure projects. Some Members of Congress and elected officials from Mexico have informally discussed the possibility of expanding the mission of the NADBank to go beyond environmental and border issues. One possibility would be to expand NADBank projects to include transportation and other types of infrastructure projects. Another option would be to expand eligible projects to the entire region of Mexico instead of just the border area. Some policymakers have suggested the possibility of creating an infrastructure fund that would be managed by NADBank to provide investment in infrastructure, communications, or education.

Other

TPP AFF – if someone wants to cut this?

http://www.cfr.org/north-america/shortcut-us-economic-competitiveness-seamless-north-american-market/p30132

http://www.aei.org/outlook/foreign-and-defense-policy/regional/latin-america/an-action-plan-for-us-policy-in-the-americas/

http://latinotimes.com/latinos/113492-us-mexico-relations-obama-should-think-north-america.html

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

“In chapter 5, “Toward a Regional Competitiveness Agenda: U.S.-Mexico

Trade and Investment,”

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

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

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

http://www.aei.org/article/lets-bring-canada-and-mexico-into-the-pacific-trade-pact

http://www.issues.org/28.4/p_wilson.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-wagner/is-the-transpacific-partn_b_3284797.html

http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/texttrans/2013/06/20130618276661.html#axzz2XAL8c3nZ

http://truth-out.org/news/item/16221-changing-perspectives-on-us-mexico-relations

background reading

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/press/books/2013/theendofnostalgia/endofnostalgia_samplechapter.pdf

tpp bad

http://www.coha.org/the-trans-pacific-partnership-free-trade-at-what-costs/

Other Possible AFF ideas

In the fall of 2011, the NADBank's mandate was broadened beyond promoting and financing environmental protection projects along the border to also include projects aimed at developing clean energy. Some U.S. and Mexican policymakers have supported broadening the functions of NADBank further to include other types of infrastructure development; this would likely require approval by both Congresses.

Experts have proposed ideas that Congress might consider to make North American industries more competitive and hasten regional integration. Some proposals that have emerged include calls for rethinking the current trade relationship under NAFTA by broadening the scope of North American integration and cooperation. One idea, for example, is to develop a North American Investment Fund to help close the income gap between Mexico and its northern neighbors. Others include setting up a Customs Union in North America,similar to that of the European Union, with a common external tariff to facilitate trade and deepen North American integration, developing a cooperative approach on immigration, and promoting regulatory convergence.36Finally, Congress may play a significant role indetermining when and how outstanding trade disputes with Mexico are resolved. The U.S. and Mexican governments resolved a long-standing trade dispute in 2011 involving NAFTA trucking provisions. However, pending disputes include

issues related to dolphin-safe tuna labeling and bilateral tomato trade. In the trade realm, potential questions for congressional consideration include: how U.S.-Mexican trade and economic ties can be deepened, how efficiency on the border can be improved without compromising security, and how weaknesses in NAFTA can be addressed.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/security/news/2012/11/30/46430/the-united-states-and-mexico-the-path-forward/

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has long called for comprehensive immigration reform. The United States must advance immigration reform that addresses local, regional, and national security concerns and streamlines the legal flow of people across the U.S.-Mexico border. In addition, improvements should be made to the H-1B visa process to attract needed skilled labor to the United States. The creation of a system that allows those who wish to enter the United States legally and addresses the situation of those living in the United States without legal status will go a long way toward alleviating a major strain on the relationship. Further, it will allow the United States and Mexico to take full advantage of our collective human capital and global competitiveness.

If Obama and Peña Nieto were to talk about common concerns while on the border instead of in sitting rooms of the White House and Los Pinos, they would see a common future in the river that divides the two nations. Climate change-aggravated drought has reduced the Río Bravo to a viscous, milky green trickle. Groundwater reserves in the greater borderlands are being quickly depleted, and farmers, ranchers, and city planners on both sides of the border are battling over rapidly diminishing supplies in the first skirmishes of the water wars that will surely soon overshadow the drug wars as the main threat to regional stability.

A common commitment by Obama and Peña Nieto for each government to do its part to mitigate and mutually adjust to climate change—which doesn’t respect border lines or border security fortifications—would be a sign that binational relations can move beyond being merely economic partners and fighting on the same side of the drug war.  The sad plight of the once glorious Río Bravo should not further divide the two nations, but bring the communities to the north and those to the south together as neighbors and part of the larger North American community with shared interests and responsibilities.

Report of different possible affshttp://www.uschamber.com/sites/default/files/reports/1204EnhancingtheUS-MexicoEconomicPartnership.pdf

This is also an aff - Customs union aff

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/40204297?uid=3739728&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21102447652017