Poverty has created conflict and violence specifically in ...
Politics disadvantage – Immigration reform
***Shells***
1NC Immigration reform bad 2
1NC Immigration reform good 4
***Uniqueness***
Immigration reform no 6
Immigration reform no – bipartisan split 7
Immigration reform no – proposal fatigue 8
Immigration reform yes – new amendments 9
Immigration reform yes – democrats 10
Bush capital low 11
Bush capital high 12
***Link***
Bush gets the blame 14
Link – foreign aid bipartisan 15
Link – foreign aid popular 16
Link – foreign aid popular with conservatives 17
Link – foreign aid unpopular 18
Link – AIDS/Malaria bipartisanship 19
Link – AIDS not bipartisan 20
Link – debt relief popular 21
Link – debt relief unpopular with conservatives 22
Link – global gag rule popular with conservatives 23
Link – PEPFAR popular 24
***Impact***
Immigration inevitable 26
Legal v illegal 27
Impact – immigration reform ↓ racism 28
Impact – immigration reform ↑ economy 29
Impact – immigration reform ↓ economy 31
Impact – immigration ↑ economy 32
A2 They’re stealing our jobs 34
Impact – Immigration ↓ economy 35
Internal link – U.S. economy key to global economy 36
Impact – immigration reform ↓ terrorism 37
Impact – immigration reform ( terrorism 38
A2 Immigration ( terrorism 39
***Miscellaneous/Internal link***
No internal link 41
Bush agenda 42
Bush agenda 42
LOL KIDZ KHARDS 43
1NC Immigration reform bad
A. Uniqueness – Republicans recent immigration failure means it will not pass in the near future.
Stephen Dinan staff writer July 25 2007 "Border reform not a priority for Democrats" Washington Times accessed 7/26/07 (WR)
The congressman's statement was reported by a Hispanic activist and confirmed by Mr. Emanuel. "Congressman Rahm Emanuel said to me two weeks ago, there is no way this legislation is happening in the Democratic House, in the Democratic Senate, in the Democratic presidency, in the first term," Juan Salgado, board chairman of the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, told the National Council of La Raza (NCLR) at its annual convention last weekend. Through a spokesman, Mr. Emanuel, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, blamed Republicans for botching this year's debate and said that makes it tougher for Democrats to return to the issue.
B. Link – plan is popular/bipartisan
C. Impact – Immigration reform shackles anti-terrorism efforts.
Kris W. Kobach 5/24/2006 “Terrorist Loophole: Senate Bill Disarms Law Enforcement”
In the wake of the attacks, the Department of Justice announced the conclusion of a new Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion: state and local police officers do have the legal authority to arrest any deportable illegal alien. This announcement did not create any new authority—the police had possessed it all along. Rather, the announcement reminded local law enforcement agencies of the crucial role that they could, and should, play in the war against terrorism by making immigration arrests. The OLC opinion affirmed the conclusion of numerous U.S. Courts of Appeals that states have the inherent authority to assist the federal government by making immigration arrests. Moreover, Congress has never acted to displace, or “preempt,” this inherent authority. As the Tenth Circuit concluded in United States v. Santana-Garcia (2001), federal law “evinces a clear invitation from Congress for state and local agencies to participate in the process of enforcing federal immigration laws.” Police departments across the country responded to the lessons of 9/11 and the OLC opinion by exercising their inherent arrest authority with renewed determination. The number of calls to LESC by local police officers who had arrested illegal aliens nearly doubled, reaching 504,678 in FY 2005—or 1,383 calls per day, on average. Local police have become a crucial participant in the enforcement of federal immigration laws. Disarming Law Enforcement The Senate’s immigration reform proposal would change all of that. Section 240D would restrict local police to arresting aliens for criminal violations of immigration law only, not civil violations. The results would be disastrous. All of the hijackers who committed immigration violations committed civil violations. Under the bill, police officers would have no power to arrest such terrorists. Moreover, as a practical matter, CIRA would discourage police departments from playing any role in immigration enforcement. Most police officers (indeed, most lawyers) do not know which immigration violations are criminal and which violations are civil. There is no particular logic to the distinctions. Overstaying a visa (something hijackers from the Middle East are more likely to do) is a civil violation, but marriage fraud is a criminal violation. Which one is more dangerous to national security? Afraid of arresting the wrong type of illegal alien—and getting sued as a result—many police departments will stop helping the federal government altogether. As the country is making progress in the war against terrorism, the Senate is poised to unilaterally disarm the men and women on the front line. Sadly, many senators aren’t even aware of the damage they might inflict on U.S. national security.
1NC Immigration reform bad
The impact is extinction.
Yonah Alexander (professor and director of the Inter-University for Terrorism Studies in Israel and the United States) 8/28/2003 The Washington Times
Last week's brutal suicide bombings in Baghdad and Jerusalem have once again illustrated dramatically that the international community failed, thus far at least, to understand the magnitude and implications of the terrorist threats to the very survival of civilization itself. Even the United States and Israel have for decades tended to regard terrorism as a mere tactical nuisance or irritant rather than a critical strategic challenge to their national security concerns. It is not surprising, therefore, that on September 11, 2001, Americans were stunned by the unprecedented tragedy of 19 al Qaeda terrorists striking a devastating blow at the center of the nation's commercial and military powers. Likewise, Israel and its citizens, despite the collapse of the Oslo Agreements of 1993 and numerous acts of terrorism triggered by the second intifada that began almost three years ago, are still "shocked" by each suicide attack at a time of intensive diplomatic efforts to revive the moribund peace process through the now revoked cease-fire arrangements [hudna]. Why are the United States and Israel, as well as scores of other countries affected by the universal nightmare of modern terrorism surprised by new terrorist "surprises"? There are many reasons, including misunderstanding of the manifold specific factors that contribute to terrorism's expansion, such as lack of a universal definition of terrorism, the religionization of politics, double standards of morality, weak punishment of terrorists, and the exploitation of the media by terrorist propaganda and psychological warfare. Unlike their historical counterparts, contemporary terrorists have introduced a new scale of violence in terms of conventional and unconventional threats and impact. The internationalization and brutalization of current and future terrorism make it clear we have entered an Age of Super Terrorism [e.g. biological, chemical, radiological, nuclear and cyber] with its serious implications concerning national, regional and global security concerns. Two myths in particular must be debunked immediately if an effective counterterrorism "best practices" strategy can be developed [e.g., strengthening international cooperation]. The first illusion is that terrorism can be greatly reduced, if not eliminated completely, provided the root causes of conflicts - political, social and economic - are addressed. The conventional illusion is that terrorism must be justified by oppressed people seeking to achieve their goals and consequently the argument advanced by "freedom fighters" anywhere, "give me liberty and I will give you death," should be tolerated if not glorified. This traditional rationalization of "sacred" violence often conceals that the real purpose of terrorist groups is to gain political power through the barrel of the gun, in violation of fundamental human rights of the noncombatant segment of societies. For instance, Palestinians religious movements [e.g., Hamas, Islamic Jihad] and secular entities [such as Fatah's Tanzim and Aqsa Martyr Brigades]] wish not only to resolve national grievances [such as Jewish settlements, right of return, Jerusalem] but primarily to destroy the Jewish state. Similarly, Osama bin Laden's international network not only opposes the presence of American military in the Arabian Peninsula and Iraq, but its stated objective is to "unite all Muslims and establish a government that follows the rule of the Caliphs." The second myth is that strong action against terrorist infrastructure [leaders, recruitment, funding, propaganda, training, weapons, operational command and control] will only increase terrorism. The argument here is that law-enforcement efforts and military retaliation inevitably will fuel more brutal acts of violent revenge. Clearly, if this perception continues to prevail, particularly in democratic societies, there is the danger it will paralyze governments and thereby encourage further terrorist attacks. In sum, past experience provides useful lessons for a realistic future strategy. The prudent application of force has been demonstrated to be an effective tool for short- and long-term deterrence of terrorism. For example, Israel's targeted killing of Mohammed Sider, the Hebron commander of the Islamic Jihad, defused a "ticking bomb." The assassination of Ismail Abu Shanab - a top Hamas leader in the Gaza Strip who was directly responsible for several suicide bombings including the latest bus attack in Jerusalem - disrupted potential terrorist operations. Similarly, the U.S. military operation in Iraq eliminated Saddam Hussein's regime as a state sponsor of terror. Thus, it behooves those countries victimized by terrorism to understand a cardinal message communicated by Winston Churchill to the House of Commons on May 13, 1940: "Victory at all costs, victory in spite of terror, victory however long and hard the road may be: For without victory, there is no survival."
1NC Immigration reform good
A. Uniqueness – Immigration Reform bill will pass out of necessity
Eunice Moscoso July 25, 2007 “Border Security ‘Cannot Wait’ ” accessed July 26, 2007 [ao]
Rep. Brian Bilbray, R-Calif., who chairs the Immigration Reform Caucus, was not happy to read that Democrats may wait until the second-term of the next president to push an immigration overhaul. “Just a few months ago, everyone in Washington was talking about the importance of employer enforcement and border security,” Bilbray said, in a statement. ”The problems of illegal immigration didn’t disappear overnight…Employer enforcement and border security cannot wait until the second term of new administration.”
B. Link – plan is unpopular/hurts political capital.
C. Impact – Immigration reform is key to the U.S. economy.
David Esmond 6/2/2007 “Bush's immigration reform worthy of support”
Immigration reform is one of President Bush's good ideas (he's had some). It deserves the support of all Americans.
America has benefited enormously from the energy and initiative of immigrants. The bipartisan compromise proposal that has received administration support includes a way to legalize the status of those aliens now working as productive members of our economy, as well as provide a path to citizenship for those who are willing and able to meet the requirements for that status. It strengthens border controls and increases enforcement and sanctions directed toward ensuring employer compliance with its provisions. Immigration reform is an essential investment for our future, and will help ensure the vitality and productivity of our society in the decades ahead.
D. U.S. Economic Downturn goes global and causes nuclear war.
Walter Russel Mead, Senior fellow in American FoPo @ the Council on Foreign Relations, World Policy Institute, 1992.
Hundreds of millions, billions , of people have pinned their hopes on the international market. They and their leaders have embraced market principles and drawn closer to the west because they believe the system can work for them? But what if it can’t? What if the global economy stagnates or even shrinks? In that case, we will face a new period of international conflict: North against South, rich against poor, Russia, China, India, these countries with their billions of people and their nuclear weapons will pose a much greater danger to the world than Germany and Japan did in the 30’s.
***Uniqueness***
Immigration reform no
It is unclear whether the immigration reform bill will pass
Mary M. Shaffrey ,Staff writer, June 27, 2007 "Burr holds out hope for bill on immigration; Dole still opposed: He says changes could improve it; she won't budge" Winston-Salem Journal lexis nexis accessed 7/26/07 (WR)
Whether the bill will pass in the Senate remains unclear. Most Republicans are opposed to it, as are several Democrats. The bill got more than the 60 votes needed to proceed yesterday, but that does not ensure that it will advance. "The big hurdle for this bill is the Senate, (and) I would say 64 is the high-water mark. And the 64 they got (in yesterday's vote) is not the same 64 they will get at the end of the week," said John Dinan, a professor of political science at Wake Forest University.
Immigration reform no – bipartisan split
Democrats and republicans are extremely split on the issue of immigration reform
Nicole Gaouette, Times Staff Writer July 26, 2007 "GOP border bill fails in Senate;
Amid bickering, the $3-billion plan is derailed by Democrats opposed to its broad enforcement measures." Los Angeles Times lexis nexis acccessed 7/26/07 (WR)
Lawmakers clashed anew over immigration Wednesday as Senate Republicans pushed to introduce far-reaching new enforcement measures and California's senators led an impassioned plea to allow in more foreign agriculture workers. The extended exchanges -- often tart, sometimes angry -- came during debate on the homeland security spending bill, creating new fault lines and deepening old ones. At one point, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) objected when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) tried to persuade the Senate to agree unanimously to a border enforcement measure without a roll-call vote. Reid accused Cornyn of impeding the measure for political reasons. "It seems sometimes people like to have the issue rather than solving the issue," Reid said. "This [measure] would have gone a long ways toward easing the friction on both sides toward problems with immigration," he said. "It hasn't, and my friend ... still has an issue to talk about. Maybe that's more important to him than solving this problem." Cornyn snapped back: "I thought we were getting along well until that last comment."
Washington divisiveness has prevented immigration reform from passing specifically on agriculture
Ruben Navarrette Jr, staff writer, July 22, 2007, "Who will pick our fruit?" San Diego Union-Tribune lexisnexis accessed 7/26/07 (WR)
So farm groups pressed Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform. They were especially interested in the Agricultural Job Opportunities, Benefits and Security Act of 2006, or AgJobs, which would have created a new guest-worker program and granted legal status to hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants who work in agriculture. Instead, farmers watched Republicans push racist hot buttons over how we shouldn't have to "press one for English" and how any illegal immigrant who gets legal status would go on welfare. Then they watched Democrats attack the guest-worker plan in order to pander to organized labor desperate to protect union members from having to compete with foreign laborers. Meanwhile, pundits in Washington and New York showed their ignorance. The city folk suggested that farmers use machines to pick crops, but farmers maintain that could bruise fruits and vegetables and destroy their profit margin. Try picking blueberries with a machine -- you'll wind up with puree. Do it with strawberries and, before you know it, you'll have jam. Then there's the money. Congress' failure to pass immigration reform is especially galling since many in agriculture have forked over millions in campaign contributions to officeholders from both parties. And when farmers asked for one thing in return, they got the runaround. They also got insulted; the anti-reform lobby painted them as greedy growers hungry for more illegal immigrants to exploit.
The current Senate has terrible leadership and won't be able to pass any immigration reform
Herbert G. Klein, national fellow of the American Enterprise Institute, July 13, 2007 "Immigration reform one step at a time" San Diego Union-Tribune lexis nexis accessed 7/26/07 (WR)
Where are great Senate leaders such as Lyndon Johnson and Everett Dirksen when we need them? The current leaders, Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell, just don't measure up. This is a critical time for the nation, but Congress seems to simply debate the issues and then back away, leaving the problems unresolved. Social Security and Medicare reforms were widely debated in Congress, but nothing happened. Now with the August recess fast approaching, we find the same situation with immigration. The complex bipartisan immigration bill was defeated and then left hanging, though several parts of the bill appeared to have majority support if considered separately. The dominant public opinion is that there will be no action on immigration until after the 2008 presidential elections; and who knows when constructive changes in Social Security and Medicare will take place? The word "amnesty" has developed strong emotions, and thus the fate of an estimated 12 million illegals will remain undetermined. During the Senate debate, no one came up with an acceptable solution to the question of what to do with this growing percentage of our population. The major problem is clear, but not the answers.
Immigration Reform bill has no hope of passing due to its extremely complex structure
John Hanbury July 25, 2007 “Myths of immigration 'reform'” accessed July 26, 2007 [ao]
Virtually everyone agrees that the current immigration system is broken, primarily because we do not enforce our current laws. Yet "reform" proponents want us to believe that an 800-page bill that was so complex that no senator bothered to completely read, will be much better enforced?
Immigration reform no – proposal fatigue
Previous failures prove immigration reform won’t pass in the future
Marianne Kolbasuk McGee 6-28-07 “Immigration Reform Bill Is Dead, But H-1B Visa Debate Lives On”, Information Week, 7-26-07 [LE]
The U.S. Senate on Thursday morning failed to pass a motion that would've ended debate and allowed its comprehensive immigration reform legislation to move forward. This is the second time in about a month that the bill has failed to get enough votes to move forward. Washington, D.C., insiders say it's unlikely that legislators will try to revive the controversial bill another time before the presidential elections in 2008.
Lack of senator support and past failures insure immigration reform will always fail
Jake Tapper 6-28-07 “Immigration Reform Bill Dies in Senate” ABC News 7-26-07
The Senate's immigration reform bill died once again this morning; it needed 60 votes to survive a procedural motion but failed to achieve even a majority of 50 -- a feeble showing for a bill that had supposedly been revived. It was another loss for not only the legislation but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and President Bush, who was making phone calls this morning to lobby wavering Republicans -- apparently to little avail.
Only 46 senators voted in favor of the bill, with 53 casting votes against the measure. The lopsided vote on the procedural motion signified paltry support for the compromise as two of the original compromisers -- Sens. Johnny Isaskson and Saxby Chambliss, Republicans of Georgia -- worked against the bill.
Immigration reform yes – new amendments
Amendment changes have led to the Senate being likely to pass immigration reform
Maura Reynolds, Times Staff Writer, July 15, 2007, "Senate leaders strike a deal to revive immigration bill" Los Angeles Times lexis nexis accessed 7/26/07 (WR)
Senate leaders agreed Thursday to a list of amendments to be considered, clearing the way for debate to resume. The decision followed President Bush's announcement that he supports a move to immediately set aside more than $4 billion to beef up enforcement of immigration laws. The two actions significantly improve the chances that the Senate will pass the comprehensive bill, which would provide a path to citizenship for many of the nation's estimated 12 million illegal immigrants. "We believe that there are enough votes," White House spokesman Tony Snow said Thursday. A senior Democratic aide said that Senate leaders agreed to specific amendments, with 11 for each side, but did not describe them. One will certainly be the amendment drafted by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) to guarantee that the federal government spends billions of dollars to improve border security and crack down on businesses that hire illegal workers. The measure is intended as an answer to conservatives who doubt the administration's commitment to enforcement.
Immigration reform is likely to pass in the Senate and Democrats are pushing hard for it in the House.
Maura Reynolds, Times Staff Writer, May 30 2007, "Bush assails critics of immigration bill; Opponents haven't read the legislation and are engaging in 'empty political rhetoric,' the president says." Los Angeles Times lexis nexis accessed 7/26/07 (WR)
The immigration package survived several legislative challenges last week, its first on the floor of the Senate. The administration and other supporters say they are optimistic that the Senate will pass the bill with its central compromise intact: legal status for many of those already here in exchange for shifting from family unification toward a more merit-based system. The bill's fate in the House of Representatives is less certain. Last year, an immigration overhaul package squeaked past the Senate only to die in the House. This year, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) has said the White House needs to deliver 70 Republican votes or the bill will not make it to the president's desk. "I appreciate the Republicans and Democrats in the United States Senate ... who put politics aside and put courage first to work on a comprehensive bill," Bush said. "It takes a lot of courage in the face of some of the criticism in the political world to do what's right, not what's comfortable. And what's right is to fix this system now before it's too late."
Immigration reform yes – democrats
Democrats are bringing the parties together on immigration issues
Anne C. Mulken Denver Post Staff Writer May 29, 2007 "Salazar lauded for central role in compromise" Denver Post lexis nexis accessed 7/26/07 (WR)
A key breakthrough on immigration reform came in an early-morning phone call from Democratic Sen. Ken Salazar to a South Carolina Republican. Senators rewriting immigration laws had deadlocked hours earlier, in part over how much to favor college graduates over others seeking to come to the United States. Salazar offered a compromise to Sen. Lindsey Graham: People with trade-school degrees should also get a small boost, Salazar suggested, so that a new point system for green cards won't tilt too far toward the most educated. The suggestion helped pull a foundering deal together. Within hours, after a flurry of other calls and meetings, senators had ironed out other differences and announced their sweeping plan to reshape immigration.
Kennedy is optimistic about immigration reform
United Press International June 24 , 2007 "Kennedy expects immigration bill to pass" lexis nexis accessed 7/26/07 (WR)
Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., said Sunday he believes a second try at immigration reform will pass and will garner "good support" among Republicans. The reason it will pass with GOP support is the bill is "tough, fair and practical, Kennedy said on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulous." Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, said earlier, however, he didn't think the measure would pass. The legislation contains $4.4 billion for beefing up border security and is tough on worksite enforcement, Kennedy said. "And finally, we will have a tamper-proof card to make sure that we can really have an effective immigration policy," Kennedy said. The bill also is fair, he said. "It says to the undocumented here, you're going to go to the back of the line for all of those that are waiting to come to the United States who have been playing by the rules, you go to the back of the line." Yes, there are critics who say the bill would hurt Americans and legal immigrants, Kennedy said, "but there is recognition in this country that doing nothing ... is not an alternative. The problem is going to get worse."
Bush capital low
Bush Is a Lame Duck—Will Get No Agenda Items
Andrew Greeley, June 22 2007 “Latest Bush Iraq Plan Will Fail.” Chicago Sun Times
The vice presidency, John Nance Garner is alleged to have told his fellow Texan Lyndon Johnson, isn't worth a bucket of warm spit. A lame-duck presidency isn't worth much more. While George W. Bush was traveling through Europe on what should have looked like a triumphal journey, back home, Republican senators were burying his immigration reform bill and the secretary of defense was confessing that he could not reappoint Bush's handpicked chairman and vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Does Bush comprehend that the public and Congress are repudiating him? His jaunty swagger on the shore of the Baltic Sea does not look like a man with his back to the wall. The appointment of new military leaders may represent a dying gasp of the Iraq war, though, as Navy Adm. Michael Mullen, Bush's choice as new chairman of the JCS, suggests it may be a gasp that goes on for 10 years. Neocon commentator David Brooks argued on PBS the other night that the new leadership will be able to sell a new strategy in September when it becomes evident that the "surge" of troops into battle has been less than a complete success. He described this newest of plans -- what others are calling Plan B -- as one that the next president would be able to support, hinting that the next president would have no choice but to accept it when he takes office. Plan B will involve "a draw-down" of troops before next year's elections, the concentration of American forces in "forts" (a string of Fort Apaches?), and preparations for a "long war" like the one in Korea. Americans would no longer attempt to police Baghdad, and there would be fewer casualties. If Plan B is a "success," Bush can stumble out of office in a year and a half with another "mission accomplished" and the claim that he had won a victory in the "war on terror." Plan B sounds like another cockamamie scheme cooked up by the neocons. The Democrats in Congress will tear it to shreds. Their presidential candidates will repudiate it. The public will be profoundly skeptical. There is no reason to believe that it would work any better than previous brilliant strategic schemes. Nor will it diminish the public demand that the United States get out of Iraq immediately. A new president, even if he is a Republican, will find it very hard not to respond to such a demand. Indeed, the conceit that an unpopular -- and increasingly despised -- lame-duck president can control the decisions of his successor is the most arrogant assumption yet of an administration that has lived off arrogance. There is also a moral issue. A war that was unjust at the beginning because it was based on deceptions does not become any less immoral because it ends slowly. Besides, if one believes the current polls, the three finalists in November 2008 will be liberal Democrats -- indeed, New York Democrats. Sen. Hillary Clinton is a real Democrat, and Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Mayor Michael Bloomberg are both liberal Democrats who masqueraded as Republicans to win a place on the mayoral ballot that they could not win in a Democratic primary. (The polls also show that any of the Republican candidates, real or fictional, would beat Clinton.) Bush has made such a mess of the country (the passport foul-up is Hurricane Katrina written small) that such a comedic end of his years in the White House is not impossible. It may be time for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia to prepare a court decision to cancel such a crazy election and declare Vice President Dick Cheney president for life.
Bush is Lame Duck—His Political Will Is Irrelevant
New York Times June 9 2007. “As Senate Deal Sinks, So Does Bush’s Power.”
The breakthrough on the ''grand bargain'' on immigration a few weeks ago had brought new life to a White House under siege, putting a long-sought goal suddenly within reach. After many grim months, there was almost giddiness at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. But that early euphoria only made the grand bargain's grand collapse on Thursday night all the more of a blow, pointing up a stubbornly unshakable dynamic for President Bush in the final 19 months of his term: With low approval ratings and the race to succeed him well under way, his ability to push his agenda has faded to the point where he can fairly be judged to have entered his lame duck period. In all, 38 of the 48 Senate Republicans effectively voted against the White House on the crucial procedural vote on the immigration bill, leaving the president's No. 1 domestic priority somewhere between stalled and dead. The White House has similarly been through a sharp reversal on the domestic politics of the Iraq war. After receiving a lift last month in the defeat of Democratic efforts to link war finances to Iraq withdrawal dates, the White House acknowledged Friday that it could not renominate Mr. Bush's chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Peter Pace, because of expected opposition on Capitol Hill. For a president whose muscular assertions of executive authority had overshadowed Congress for years, it was a striking indicator of how the balance of power in Washington has shifted away from him.
Bush capital high
Bush has political capital, although base support is fragile
New York Times, 6-30-2007 () 7-27-07
But as lawmakers look ahead to their own re-election campaigns, political analysts predict more rough times ahead for Mr. Bush. After years of demanding that Republicans work in service of his agenda, the president has “very little good will stored up,” said Calvin C. Jillson, a political scientist at Southern Methodist University in Texas, Mr. Bush’s home state. With 2008 looking like a tough year for Republicans, Mr. Jillson said lawmakers would look back to their districts, rather than to Washington and the White House, for guidance on how to vote. That was abundantly clear on immigration, when even Mr. Bush’s closest Republican allies — including two Texans, Senators John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchison — openly opposed him. “When John Cornyn defects from the president,” Mr. Jillson said, “you know the president’s mojo is completely gone.”
Republican party is gaining popularity
Greg Simmons 7-6-07 “Conservatives Chalk Up Win Streak, But Still No Reason to Cheer” New York Times 7-27-07
"The news for the most part — especially immigration and the Libby pardon — bodes well for the Democrats in 2008," Mann said. The Libby commutation, while making conservatives happy, won't last long in the public eye, he said. In addition, when it comes to immigration, Democrats — although in control of Congress — should easily be able to fault Republicans with the defeat and strengthen the Democratic position among sought-after Hispanic voters. "Certainly, the conservative position of the Republican Party was victorious, but so too was the populist, left position in the Democratic Party who joined with them on this," Mann said. But Darling, who has worked on the staffs of several Republican senators, said he believes the recent wins could mean an opening for more conservative issues to come to the forefront, making room for Republican candidates to appeal to voters before the next administration takes office.
***Link***
Bush gets the blame
Bush supports African aid.
Michael A. Fletcher (Staff, Washington Post) 12/31/2006 “Bush Has Quietly Tripled Aid to Africa” Washington Post , accessed 07/27/07
President Bush's legacy is sure to be defined by his wielding of U.S. military power in Afghanistan and Iraq, but there is another, much softer and less-noticed effort by his administration in foreign affairs: a dramatic increase in U.S. aid to Africa. The president has tripled direct humanitarian and development aid to the world's most impoverished continent since taking office and recently vowed to double that increased amount by 2010 -- to nearly $9 billion.
Link – foreign aid bipartisan
Bush has received bipartisan support for foreign aid programs
Orna T. Blum (Public Affairs Officer, Embassy of the United States of America) 07/10/2003 “A Commitment to Africa” , accessed 07/26/07
The new Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief is a work of mercy beyond all current international efforts to help the people of Africa. President Bush asked Congress to commit $15 billion over the next five years to turn the tide against AIDS in the most afflicted nations of Africa and the Caribbean. The President received bipartisan support from Congress, and passed the appropriations bill with unprecedented speed.
Aid to Africa is Bipartisan and Increases Bush’s Political Capital
Nicholas D. Kristof Feb. 23, 2006, “Extreme Makeover Needed: What Bush Should Do to Reinvigorate His Presidency”, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Mr. Bush should emphasize policy goals that can generate bipartisan support. Mr. Bush's recent push for alternative energy sources was a fine example of that, as are his efforts to organize a U.N. peacekeeping force to stop genocide in Darfur. A trip to Africa to meet Darfur refugees and see how U.S. programs are fighting AIDS and poverty would help build bridges to critics at home and abroad. These kinds of moves would completely change the tone of the Bush administration.
Foreign aid has new popular and bipartisan support
Lael Brainard (senior fellow at the Brookings Institution), June 26, 2002, “With Help From the Famous, Foreign Aid Resurges”, The Los Angeles Times,
First, aid advocates have developed a powerful four-part recipe for mobilizing public support: a simple, compelling goal; surprising spokespersons, such as U2's Bono, Microsoft's Bill Gates and the pope; transnational coalitions such as Drop the Debt and the Global AIDS Alliance that unite opposite ends of the political spectrum; and a focus on high-profile international gatherings, such as annual meetings of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. The first big victory came in 1998, when the unbeatable team of Bono and the pope, working with activists, persuaded leaders of the richest nations to adopt an unprecedented initiative to forgive the debt of the poorest nations. A similarly eclectic coalition, including Gates and some of the economics profession's best and brightest, helped rivet world attention on the global HIV/AIDS crisis. As a result, in 2000, even as budget authority for development aid fell overall, President Clinton won authorization for nearly $1 billion for debt forgiveness for the poorest nations and for global efforts to fight HIV/AIDS. Second, since Sept. 11, the campaign against terrorism has provided a rationale for foreign assistance missing since the end of the Cold War. Having enlisted critical foreign partners in the fight against international terrorism, the Bush administration could hardly ignore the need to do more in the fight against international poverty. This was evident in President Bush's proposal for a $10-billion increase in U.S. development spending. And leading Democrats have sounded a similar call. House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt has called the case for foreign aid a "strategic rationale."
Link – foreign aid popular
Congress wants aid to Africa to be better funded
Garesia La'Shay Randle (Scripps Howard Foundation Wire) June 30, 2007 “Congress urges aid group to speed up relief efforts in Africa” AXcess News Accessed: 7/27/07
(AXcess News) Washington - Congress is pushing foreign aid organizations to improve progress for economic growth, health care and decreased poverty, with an emphasis on African countries. The Millennium Challenge Corporation, a foreign assistance program, and its progress in Africa was the main topic of discussion at a hearing Thursday before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs' subcommittee on African and global health. Congress and other critics claim MCC's efforts may be too slow to be considered progress because allocated funds remain unspent and programs are stalled.Congress has allocated more than $6 billion to MCC since its inception in 2004. MCC has given only $3 billion in grants. Rep. Donald Payne, D-N.J., the subcommittee chairman, said that, although MCC has made some progress in Africa, it is not moving fast enough.
Disease aid to Africa is popular in Congress
Jun 29, 2007 “Senate Appropriations Committee Reduces Funding for MCC, Increases Aid to HIV/AIDS Programs, Global Fund” Accessed: 7/27/07
The Senate Appropriations Committee on Thursday voted to reduce President Bush's funding request for the Millennium Challenge Corporation and to increase aid for HIV/AIDS programs, including the Global Fund To Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, the AP/Yahoo! News reports (Taylor, AP/Yahoo! News, 6/28). MCC is a program meant to encourage economic and political reforms in developing countries (Kaiser Daily HIV/AIDS Report, 2/6). The Senate's foreign aid bill would reduce Bush's $3 billion request for MCC to $1.2 billion. It also would increase Bush's $4.2 billion request for global HIV/AIDS programs by $940 million, including $590 million for the Global Fund, the AP/Yahoo! News reports (AP/Yahoo! News, 6/28).
Link – foreign aid popular with conservatives
There is new popular support for foreign aid, even amongst conservatives
The Brookings Institution, “A New Urgency: International Development and U.S. Foreign Policy”, June 20th, 2005,
International development is increasingly a focus of U.S. foreign policy. This shift is a result of emerging international realities and reflects the changing attitudes toward international engagement of American citizens and their political leaders. Public opinion polls, even before 9/11, found growing support among the American public for development aid (even as the public greatly overestimated the size of aid actually provided). Charitable private giving to nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to further development abroad more than doubled between 1999 and 2003. Foundation giving for international purposes doubled between 1998 and 2002, rising faster than overall giving by a significant amount, with most of this aid provided to developing countries. Corporate giving and engagement in developing countries appear to be expanding as well. Finally, the outpouring of private giving and public support for generous government relief aid in the wake of the tsunami disaster in Asia was extraordinary. We are observing not only an increase in public awareness of economic and social development needs of poor countries, but also an increased engagement in development by a variety of new actors— individuals, corporate enterprises, foundations, NGOs, and religious organizations. Evangelicals and others from the “Christian right” have become increasingly involved and outspoken in support of U.S. government policies and programs to improve the welfare of the poor and disadvantaged abroad, including those for HIV/AIDS victims and, most recently, for environmental protection. All these groups and individuals provide a much expanded constituency supporting the federal government’s efforts to push forward international development.
Link – foreign aid unpopular
Aid to Africa is unpopular
Steve Schifferes (BBC Online Writer) 8 July, 2003 “Congress set to slash Africa aid” BBC News Online Accessed: 2/27/07
AS US President George W Bush proclaims his commitment to Africa during this week's five-day trip, his Republicans in Congress are planning on cutting back the money allocated to his much-vaunted plans to tackle HIV/Aids and encourage development. The White House says Bush is underlining his commitment to Africa
At the heart of the president's new focus on Africa are two initiatives for which the administration has promised a significant increase in funding. Mr Bush has pledged $15bn to fight HIV/Aids, primarily in Africa, over the next five years, and an additional $10bn in additional foreign aid over the next three years in a new Millennium Challenge Account. But the House of Representatives Appropriations Committee - which determines how much money will actually be spent in next year's budget - looks set to cut back that request when it meets on Thursday. Representative Jim Kolbe, chairman of the subcommittee on foreign operations, said that in his view Congress would be unlikely to allocate the full amount because neither initiative will be fully operational by the time the fiscal year begins.
Foreign aid is one of the most unpopular programs in existence
The Cato Institute, “Cato Handbook for Congress”, 2001,
Foreign aid is among the most unpopular of all government programs with the American public. Although the public continues to place the alleviation of world poverty and the promotion of development in poor countries as priorities on its list of foreign policy concerns—a view consistent with the American tradition of generosity—it has lost confidence that the U.S. government is well suited to achieve those goals. That apprehension is not unfounded, nor is it limited to average American citizens. Today, the failure of conventional government-to-government aid schemes is widely recognized and has brought the entire foreign assistance process under scrutiny. For example, a Clinton administration task force conceded that, ‘‘despite decades of foreign assistance, most of Africa and parts of Latin America, Asia and the Middle East are economically worse off today than they were 20 years ago.’’ As early as 1989 a bipartisan task force of the House Foreign Affairs Committee concluded that U.S. aid programs ‘‘no longer either advance U.S. interests abroad or promote economic development.’’
Link – AIDS/Malaria bipartisanship
Disease Aid for Africa is Builds Bipartisanship—Even Unexpected Increases Are Popular
Sabrina Eaton October 26, 2003, “Who's the sexiest? Ooooh, Howie”, lexis
Some issues really do transcend politics and party lines. The fight against the AIDS epidemic in Africa is one of these. Witness the strong bipartisan support Sen. Mike DeWine has for a foreign aid bill amendment raising by $289 million the first-year commitment in President Bush's Global AIDS Initiative. Bush promised $15 billion over five years to help combat AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria abroad, but his first-year pledge of just over $2 billion seemed to put the president behind schedule. DeWine's amendment, raising the stake, apparently would not be offset by cuts in other spending, an unusual departure when money for nonmilitary outlays is tight. DeWine said on Friday that senators should be judged not just on what they do, but on "what we are willing to tolerate." America cannot tolerate, he said, "a world where so many millions of people are suffering from HIV and AIDS."
Increased Funding for Fighting Aids in Africa is Massively Bipartisanship
Steve Neal November 28, 2003, “Hyde leads U.S. in fight against AIDS”, The Chicago Sun-Times
An initiative to triple U.S. AIDS funding to Africa that Hyde co-sponsored with Rep. Tom Lantos (D-Calif.), the ranking minority member of the International Relations Committee, was approved last spring by an overwhelming bipartisan majority and promptly signed by President Bush. "Rarely does Congress act with decisiveness and alacrity for the benefit of so many suffering in the developing world," Hyde said. "But that is precisely what we are doing."
Link – AIDS not bipartisan
Conservatives and Liberals will disagree regarding AIDS prevention strategies
Holly Burkhalter (Director of U.S. Policy and of the Health Action AIDS campaign at Physicians for Human Rights) February 2004 “The Politics of AIDS: Engaging Conservative Activists” Foreign Affairs , accessed 07/26/07
Thanks to recent activism by conservative political and religious groups, AIDS has finally started to gain foreign policy attention commensurate with its substantive importance. Prodded by its conservative evangelical base, the Bush administration has pushed AIDS to the forefront of its international agenda, backing record increases in U.S. assistance for AIDS treatment abroad and beginning to address issues such as sex trafficking and the dangers of HIV transmission from unsafe injections and blood transfusions. The future of U.S. global AIDS policy will be complicated, however, because the conservative groups interested in the issue have different tactical priorities than their liberal counterparts and the broader medical establishment. They have traditionally been hostile to some important AIDS-prevention strategies such as comprehensive sex education and condom distribution, and they are much more enthusiastic than others about policies such as the promotion of abstinence.
Link – debt relief popular
Debt relief is Popular and Bipartisan
New York Times, Oct.1, 2000, “Expanding Debt Relief” online
Debt relief for the world's poorest nations is an idea with moral urgency and strong bipartisan support. People in these countries, most of which are in Africa, suffer needlessly because their governments use 40 percent or more of their national budgets for interest on a foreign debt that will never be repaid. This leaves little for pressing social needs, including improved health care, and better schools and universities. The Clinton administration and most members of Congress back a program to forgive the debts of impoverished nations that can show they have sensible economic policies and will use the money to help their poor citizens. Uganda has used its debt relief to reduce school fees. Mozambique is planning to stock health clinics with badly needed medicines. But the very popularity of debt relief is allowing a few in Congress to hold the money hostage, using it as a bargaining chip to win financing for other programs. The administration asked for $435 million, which would write down the debt countries owe the United States and contribute to retiring debt held by regional development banks. The House has approved only $225 million, and the Senate an embarrassing $75 million. Congressional assent is also needed for a plan to let the International Monetary Fund retire debts it holds by using investment income from the sale of its gold reserves. The plan is being blocked by Senator Phil Gramm of Texas.
Link – debt relief unpopular with conservatives
Conservatives oppose debt relief
Human Events, Nov. 10th, 2000, “House approves foreign aid, debt relief, abortion funds”, Human Events Publishing Inc.,
Many conservatives opposed the bill. Rep. Joe Scarborough (R.-Fla.) opposed the bill's debt-forgiveness provisions. "The 30 countries whose debts are being forgiven are the least free economically, restrict trade and have more centralized, socialistic-type governments that control the economies of the debtor nations. "Under some circumstances, I might not have a problem forgiving these debts. But today we are forgiving debt without requiring the type of reforms that would prevent these countries from coming back to us to ask for debt forgiveness again in four or five years."
Americans oppose foreign aid and debt relief programs because they fail
Mark Thornton November 14, 2002, “Corruption and Foreign Aid”, Ludwig von Mises Institute,
Alas, Americans are united in their opposition to foreign aid—and with good reason! Foreign aid, military aid, debt relief, economic development assistance, and even disaster assistance money—all with "strings attached" to ensure proper behavior—are associated with "fraud, waste, and abuse." U.S. aid designed to bring about peace in the Middle East is an ideological seedbed of hatred, war, and terrorism. The big players in foreign aid, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, are more likely to bring about economic meltdown and social calamity than economic stability.
Link – global gag rule popular with conservatives
The global gag rule and abstinence only aids education approaches are favorites of conservatives
Suzanne Goldenberg October 10, 2004, “Dying to have a baby: Backward thinking: The US once led the way in reproductive rights. But the Bush regimes sexually conservative policies, combined with funding cuts, have meant tough times for women both at home and abroad”, Guardian Newspapers Unlimited
Two days after his installation in the White House, in January 2001, President Bush resurrected an obscure piece of legislation from the Reagan era, setting out conditions on US foreign aid. Four years on, that event now seems prophetic. The legislation Bush revived in the Mexico City policy, popularly known as the global gag rule, prohibits international organizations funded by the US Agency for International Development from using their own money to provide abortion or abortion counseling, or to lobby their governments to legalize abortion. The gag order, which emerged from a population conference in Mexico City in 1984, was scrapped nine years later by President Clinton. Its renewal, in the first hours of Bush's presidency, was an undeniable signal to the Christian conservatives who helped propel him to power, that his administration, under the stewardship of a man who has been very public about his religious beliefs, was determined to see through a radical, right-wing social agenda. It also put the international community and health professionals on notice; the era when the US government was a key support to international population programmes was decisively over. Washington began providing assistance to population programmes in developing countries in 1965, and American organizations are generally recognized as leaders in the family planning field. The decades of effort yielded results. Such beneficiaries of US aid as Mexico, Indonesia and Columbia have seen a steady drop in the average family size. In Thailand, the average couple now has only two children; the country no longer receives assistance. The foreign aid allotment for family planning has shrunk over the years n Bush cut funding in 2003 to $ 425m n but Washington remains a major player in the field. The US president's decision to re-activate the global gag rule produced a distinct chill, fuelling fears among health professionals that the White House intended a comprehensive break with the past. Many of those fears have since been realized. Four years after President Bush reinstated the rule, health experts describe an onslaught of policy initiatives at home and abroad n that penalize organizations that countenance the very idea of abortion. As an American delegation to a 2002 population conference in Bangkok put it: The United States supports innocent life from conception to natural death.' Meanwhile, the conservative campaign broadened in scope, with rising pressure on non-governmental organizations to preach sexual abstinence for teenagers instead of sexual education, and traditional morality instead of condoms for the prevention of HIV/Aids. At international conferences, a country that was once a pioneer of family planning now found itself allied with Islamist states and the Holy See.
Link – PEPFAR popular
HIV/AIDS programs receive excellent funding and are supported by the President and Congress
Carol J. Lancaster (Associate Professor and former Director of the Master of Science in Foreign Service Program in Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service, member of the USAID Advisory Committee on Voluntary Foreign Aid since 1997) 02/12/2007 “U.S. Foreign Economic Aid in 2008: Winners and Losers in President Bush's Proposed Budget” , accessed 07/26/07
PEPFAR is another big winner. PEPFAR, our readers will remember, is the administration's program to fight HIV/AIDS abroad. The proposed increase in this budget is a whopping 110%, from $1.8 billion estimated for fiscal 2007 to $4.2 billion in 2008. It will be directed primarily to 15 'focus countries', all but three of which (Haiti, Vietnam and Guyana) are in Sub-Saharan Africa for 'prevention, care and treatment programs'. This program is the last year of the President's emergency initiative on HIV/AIDS, announced several years ago in his State of the Union address. (This is not the only source of aid for HIV/AIDS and other health-related issues. The administration has also requested $1.5 billion for "Child Survival" which includes funding for HIV/AIDS, infectious diseases and other health related activities. This is roughly the same amount that is estimated to be spent in 2006.)
Pepfar is popular among people and Congress
Carol J. Lancaster (Associate Professor and former Director of the Master of Science in Foreign Service Program in Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service) February 12, 2007 “U.S. Foreign Economic Aid in 2008: Winners and Losers in President Bush's Proposed Budget” Accessed: 7/27/07
The big question is whether the Congress will appropriate a very large increase in PEPFAR funding for HIV/AIDS. It is a popular program in Congress and among the public and seeks to address a terrible human tragedy. BUT there are two difficult questions that could arise: can the relatively poor recipient countries, with weak health infrastructures, handle such an enormous increase in funding, whether for abstinence and prevention efforts, condom distribution, testing or the provision of anti-retrovirals? And what happens after next year? Who is going to finance the anti-retrovirals after next year or the year after that? The countries with the high infection rates will not be able to afford such expenditures for a long time to come. Will PEPFAR become an entitlement for the foreseeable future - because if we begin to finance widespread distribution of anti-retrovirals, we cannot withdraw that financing until the recipients can finance it themselves or we will be complicit in their certain deaths. These are terrible issues. But it is worth remembering that it may be as important to help countries - even the less stellar performers -- develop to the point of being able to care for their own citizens when they become ill as it is to help care for them ourselves.
***Impact***
Immigration inevitable
Immigration is inevitable, legal means is easier on the economy than avoiding illegal border leaks.
Pensacola News Journal 7/6/2007 “Chasing illegal immigrants won't solve the big problem”
If it isn't done legally, it will be done illegally. To deny that and to seek purely law enforcement solutions that ignore economic reality is to replicate the failed "war on drugs." That badly flawed effort costs hundreds of billions of dollars a year and fills our jails. A "war on illegal immigration" would be just as costly ? if not more so ? and just as flawed as the drug fight if its method is prohibition. The only way to beat illegal immigration is to include an effective guest-worker program that fills the demand for legal immigrant labor. Building fences, demanding large-scale immigration round-ups and chasing down immigrant workers won't solve the immigration problem. The best solution is increased border security and enforcement of labor laws, including stiff fines and even jail sentences for employers who hire illegals. Then the demand for illegal immigrants could be replaced with demand for legal immigrants. If it is tough for illegal immigrants to get jobs here, they won't come. Or they will enter the legal program, which is a win-win for both sides.
Immigration is high despite previous legislation.
Daniel T. Griswold (associate director, Center for Trade Policy Studies, Cato Institute, Washington, D.C.) March, 2003 “Confronting the problem of illegal Mexican migration to the U.S - National Affairs” USA Today
Immigration is the most-conspicuous piece of unfinished business between the U.S. and Mexico. On almost every other front, U.S.-Mexican relations have made dramatic progress in recent years, but a glaring exception to the trend is immigration policy. While the U.S. government has encouraged closer trade, investment, and political ties with Mexico, it has labored in vain to keep a lid on the flow of labor across the border. Since the mid 1980s, in its effort to stop illegal immigration, Washington has imposed new and burdensome regulations on American employers and dramatically increased spending on border control. Despite those aggressive efforts, America's border policy has failed to achieve its principal objective--to stem the flow of undocumented workers into the U.S. labor market.
Immigration is inevitable, management is superior to prevention.
Daniel T. Griswold (associate director, Center for Trade Policy Studies, Cato Institute, Washington, D.C.) March, 2003 “Confronting the problem of illegal Mexican migration to the U.S - National Affairs” USA Today
Once in the U.S., illegal Mexican workers must remain longer to pay the higher price of crossing the border, and they are reluctant to repeat the increasingly expensive and dangerous trip more often than necessary. Yet, the cost of crossing the border continues to be low enough that hundreds of thousands of Mexicans succeed in entering the U.S. illegally each year. Those who do are staying longer and adding to the stock of Mexican migrants already in the country. Before passage of the IRCA in 1986, the median stay in the U.S. of undocumented migrants from Mexico was 2.6 years; by 1998, after the border crackdown of the Clinton years, the median stay had risen to 6.6 years. The border policy aimed at reducing illegal immigration to the U.S. has perversely encouraged illegal immigrants to stay. Another consequence of the suppression policy has been to divert migration flows from a few traditional urban crossing points to more-scattered rural areas--to the frustration of rural residents and the peril of migrants. Up until the mid 1980s, the large majority of Mexican migrants entered the U.S. via three narrow, urban gates--San Diego, Nogales, and El Paso and Laredo, Tex. In response to enhanced border enforcement in those cities, migration patterns shifted to remote rural areas such as the Arizona-Mexico border, where patrols are more scattered, but conditions are also more dangerous. The diverted flow has caused headaches for Americans living in those areas as migrants have trespassed on private property, disturbed livestock, and destroyed property. The remote topography and hostile desert climate have resulted in the deaths of thousands of migrants since the crackdown began. In 2001, 336 migrants were found dead along the border from dehydration and other causes, down slightly from 377 deaths in 2000, but up sharply from the death toll in earlier years.
Legal v illegal
Legal immigration is manageable – the alternative is chaotic illegal immigration.
Daniel T. Griswold (associate director, Center for Trade Policy Studies, Cato Institute, Washington, D.C.) March, 2003 “Confronting the problem of illegal Mexican migration to the U.S - National Affairs” USA Today
A final benefit of legalized immigration would be the almost certain reduction of illegal immigration. If a wide enough channel were opened so that the supply of workers from Mexico could be legally matched with the demand for their labor in the U.S., the rationale for the current illegal flow of Mexican migrants would vanish. Why would Mexican workers bear the cost and risk of sneaking across the border, and then pay a tax on their wages and working conditions for their undocumented status, when they could instead enter the country and work legally? The experience of the Bracero program demonstrates that workers prefer the legal channel. Faced with large-scale illegal immigration in the early 1950s, the Immigration and Naturalization Service more than doubled the number of Bracero visas, enough to meet growing demand, especially in the agricultural sector. As a result, illegal immigration from Mexico plummeted to almost nothing during the second half of the decade. Illegal migration was supplanted by legal migration.
Impact – immigration reform ↓ racism
Immigration reform is key to preventing poor treatment of immigrants and racism in America
ALBOR RUIZ staff writer, July 22, 2007 , "'ILLEGALS' DEBATE REFLECTS BIAS VS. ALL IMMIGRANTS" Daily News, lexisnexis 7/26/06 (WR)
At a time of unprecedented hostility toward immigrants, thousands of them are taking the necessary steps to claim their rightful place in American society. And that's good news. These are people who left behind their country, their language, their family and their friends to pursue the American Dream. What many have found instead is prejudice, persecution, mistrust and outright racism. "I learned that it is a cruel world and that I don't have many choices," said 15-year-old Christian, a Mexican-born undocumented high school student who was brought to New York by his parents when he was 4. He could be speaking for thousands of decent, smart, hard-working immigrants like him. The hostility, no matter what they say, is not directed only toward the undocumented. "Many opponents of immigration reform tried to excuse the vitriol spewed in this debate or argue that it was not about all immigrants, just the so-called 'illegal' ones. But immigrant and ethnic communities can read between the lines and see that this debate is about 'those people' not being welcome here, regardless of immigration status" said Clarissa Martínez of the Coalition for Comprehensive Immigration Reform.
Impact – immigration reform ↑ economy
Immigration Reform Benefits the Economy
Larry Kudlow (National Review Economics Editor) April 4, 2006 “The Economic Truths of Immigration Reform” National Review Online Accessed July 27, 2007
As long as the American boom beckons, Mexicans in search of prosperity will continue to stream to this country. They have a strong incentive to do so. The only way to reduce illegal immigration, therefore, is to raise the unskilled H-2B visa level and bring it in line with job openings in the United States. This is the only feasible economic solution to the chronic problem of illegal immigration. The idea worked forty years ago with the successful Bracero program for farm workers. It can work again. Today’s low visa limit of only 140,000 has caused illegal flows to skyrocket. This must be changed. Tamar Jacoby of the Manhattan Institute estimates that U.S. labor-market conditions can absorb about 400,000 Mexican immigrants per year. This would balance labor supply-and-demand conditions and illegal immigration would plummet. You can build a fence, but desperate Mexicans in search of economic opportunity will climb over it or tunnel under it. This is the reality. And by the way, our H-1B visa program for skilled workers, now at only 65,000, should be unlimited. We need all the scientists and engineers we can get. Once these immigrants get here they work hard. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Hispanic unemployment is only 5.5 percent, compared to 4.8 percent overall. As for the claim that illegal workers don’t pay taxes, Princeton professor Douglas Massey estimates that roughly two-thirds of undocumented immigrants pay the FICA payroll tax. Overall, illegals have fed $7 billion to Social Security and $1.5 billion to Medicare. They are contributing to our wealth, not reducing it. And what do they take from the system? According to Forbes magazine, only 10 percent of illegal Mexicans have sent a child to an American public school and just 5 percent have received food stamps or unemployment benefits. A U-Cal Davis study also shows that more immigrant workers leads to more economic growth. This is standard economics. Multiply an enlarged workforce times existing productivity and you get more economic growth. But for some reason, immigration opponents can’t make this connection. They are blinded by fear-mongering, defeatism, and pessimism. Colorado congressman Tom Tancredo calls illegal immigration “a scourge that threatens the very future of our nation.” Huh? That’s xenophobic nonsense. In economic terms the U.S. has never had it so good. Statistic after statistic says we’re booming, with 175,000 net new jobs created each month and record levels of Americans working. In fact, since the early Reagan 1980s, the U.S. economy has been booming almost uninterrupted, creating 44 million new jobs even during the takeoff of high immigration.
Immigration Reform Helps Economy, Lowers Government Spending
Daniel Griswold (Director of Center for Trade Policy Studies, Cato Institute) May 21, 2007 “The Fiscal Impact of Immigration Reform: The Real Story” Free Trade Bulletin Accessed July 27, 2007 [BGB]
The wilder estimates of the fiscal impact of low-skilled immigrants are contradicted by more credible estimates. In May 2006 the Congressional Budget Office calculated that the 2006 Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (S. 2611) then before the U.S. Senate would have a positive impact of $12 billion on the federal budget during the decade after passage. The 2006 legislation, like current proposals, would have allowed low-skilled foreign-born workers to enter the United States through a temporary worker program, and it would have allowed several million undocumented workers in the United States to obtain legal status. Specifically, the CBO estimated that federal spending would increase $53.6 billion during the period 2007–16 if the legislation became law, primarily because of increases in refundable tax credits and Medicaid spending.2 The additional spending would be more than offset in the same period by an even greater increase in federal revenues of $65.7 billion, mostly due to higher collections of income and Social Security taxes but also because of increased visa fees.3 One frequently cited figure on the cost of low-skilled immigrants comes from the authoritative 1997 National Research Council study, The New Americans: Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. The study calculated the lifetime fiscal impact of immigrants with different educational levels. The study expressed the impact in terms of net present value (NPV), that is, the cumulative impact in future years expressed in today’s dollars. The study estimated the lifetime fiscal impact of a typical immigrant without a high school education to be a negative NPV of $89,000.4 That figure is often cited by skeptics of immigration reform. What is less often considered is that the NRC study also measured the fiscal impact of the descendants of immigrants. That gives a much more accurate picture of the fiscal impact of low-skilled immigrants. It would be misleading, for example, to count the costs of educating the children of an immigrant without considering the future taxes paid by the educated children once they have grown and entered the workforce. The children of immigrants typically outperform their parents in terms of educational achievement and income. As a result, the NRC calculated that the descendants of a typical lowskilled immigrant have a positive $76,000 fiscal impact, reducing the net present value of the fiscal impact of a lowskilled immigrant and descendants to $13,000.5 Even that figure does not give the full picture. As the NRC study was being written, Congress passed the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, otherwise know as the 1996 Welfare Reform Act. The act contains an entire title devoted to restricting immigrant access to means-tested welfare, limiting access of noncitizens to such public benefit programs as food stamps and Medicaid. When the NRC study accounted for the impact of the 1996 Welfare Reform Act, the fiscal impact of a single low-skilled immigrant and descendants was further reduced to $5,000 in terms of net present value.6 If we accept the NRC estimates, then allowing an additional 400,000 low-skilled immigrants to enter the United States each year would have a one-time NPV impact on federal taxpayers of $2 billion. That cost, while not trivial, would need to be compared to the efficiency gains to the U.S. economy from a larger and more diverse supply of workers and a wider range of more affordable goods and services for native-born Americans. In a post–September 11 security environment, comprehensive immigration reform could also reduce federal spending now dedicated to apprehending illegal economic immigrants.
Impact – immigration reform ↑ economy
Controlled migration access is key to sustaining the US economy
David Griswold (Associate Director of the Cato Institutes Center for Trade Policy Studies) 2002 "Fixing the Problem of Illegal Mexican" Cato Institute Accessed July 27, 2007 [BGB]
Immigration provides a safety valve for the U.S. labor market, allowing the supply of workers to increase relatively quickly to meet rising demand. In a closed domestic market, the size of the labor force is relatively fixed (or, in economic terms, “inelastic”) in the short run. New workers cannot be produced as rapidly as corn, semiconductors, or mobile telephone service when demand rises. They must be “grown” and educated over the course of at least 16 years before they can join the labor force. Immigration allows new workers to enter the labor force rapidly to fill a variety of positions in response to rising demand for labor. When demand falls, would be immigrants can decide not to enter, and those already here can decide to return home. The result is a more efficient economy that can achieve a higher rate of sustainable growth without encountering bottlenecks or stoking inflationary pressures. Economists generally agree that immigration benefits the United States as a nation. Immigration does lower the wages of the relatively small segment of the workforce that competes directly with immigrants, but those losses are exceeded by the higher return to owners of capital and the lower prices that all workers pay for the goods produced by immigrants. In one of the most comprehensive economic studies ever done on the impact of immigration on the U.S. economy, the National Research Council concluded in a 1997 report that immigration delivers a “significant positive gain” of $1 billion to $10 billion a year to native Americans.24 The President’s Council of Economic Advisers, in its February 2002 Economic Report of the President, estimated that immigrants raise the income of Americans by $1 billion to $14 billion a year.25 Those sums may seem trivial in a $10 trillion economy, but the gains from immigration are positive and real and recur year after year.
Immigration Reform Helps Economy
Shawn Fremstad September 29, 2006 “The Economic and Fiscal Effects of the Senate’s Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006” Immigrants' Rights Update Accessed July 27, 2007 [BGB]
This report draws on government data and estimates to analyze the economic and fiscal effects of proposals to provide new pathways to legal status. Estimates produced by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) show that the provisions of the Senate bill that create new pathways to legal immigration would result in increased federal tax revenues and economic growth. Based on an analysis of the CBO data, a reasonable middle-ground estimate is that the Senate bill would increase the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP) by around $36 billion a year over the next five years and by $134 billion a year in 2012-2016. The actual benefits could be somewhat higher or lower, but there is little question that there would be net economic benefits. Government statistics also reveal that the proposed “enforcement-only” approach would be extremely costly and would provide none of the fiscal and economic benefits of more comprehensive legislation. For example, the enforcement provisions of the Senate bill would increase federal spending, but would have no economic or fiscal benefits, according to CBO. The economic and fiscal benefits of immigration should not be the sole or primary driver of immigration policy. But these benefits are important to keep in mind, particularly because “some of the fundamental economics of immigration are too often obscured by misguided commentary.”[3] A lack of understanding about the economic and fiscal benefits of immigration also has led to misguided public policies that discriminate against immigrants, despite their contributions. For example, ignoring the large economic gains that would result from immigrants’ labor, the Senate bill includes a punitive provision that would prohibit legalizing immigrants from utilizing credits available to all other taxpayers when computing their back taxes. (Continued below Figure 1.)
Immigration reform is popular with the American public and immigration has had a positive effect on the economy
Daniel Weintraub, staff writer, June 7, 2007 "Lungren's lessons learned on immigration reform" Sacramento Bee lexis nexis accessed 7/26/07 (WR)
But a Washington Post poll released this week suggests that overall, Americans support the kind of reform Bush and the senators are proposing. Fifty-two percent support giving illegal immigrants who are working the right to remain here legally, and 53 percent would expand guest-worker programs to allow more people to come here for jobs. Support for those changes is even higher in California, according to recent surveys here. And that's not a surprise. Despite taking in more immigrants, and more illegal immigrants, than any other state over the past 20 years, California has one of the nation's most vibrant economies. Studies show that even illegal immigrants add life to an economy, improving wages for everyone except those at the very bottom of the economic ladder. Even the most critical study, a frequently cited paper by Harvard economist George Borjas, found that only high school dropouts saw a dip in real wages caused by illegal immigration, and for them it was a reduction of at most 8 percent, and probably less. Everyone else was a winner.
Impact – immigration reform ↓ economy
Immigration Reform Hurts Economy
Bill Shipp August 27, 2006 Accessed July 27, 2007
However, one wizened observer notes: "Refusal to compromise on legislation is usually a signal that lawmakers had just as soon maintain the status quo." In truth, the status quo might serve us better than another shoot-from-the-hip congressional remedy that only makes things worse. (See Katrina trailers and Medicare prescriptions.) Carpet makers, poultry processors, home builders and truck farmers want no part of a new law that might hinder labor recruitment. If federal legislation is passed this year - a move that seems increasingly unlikely - you can bet it will include provisions that restrict and complicate hiring immigrants. An already wobbly economy does not need another jolt inspired mostly by partisan wishes to mollify an emotionally galvanized electorate.
Impact – immigration ↑ economy
Immigration bolsters American economic growth – empirically proven.
Daniel T. Griswold (associate director, Center for Trade Policy Studies, Cato Institute, Washington, D.C.) March, 2003 “Confronting the problem of illegal Mexican migration to the U.S - National Affairs” USA Today
Immigration aides the U.S. economy by providing workers to fill gaps in the labor market. Immigrants tend to fill occupations where the gap between the supply of workers and the demand for them is greatest, typically in the highest- and lowest-skilled jobs. That hourglass shape of the immigration labor pool complements the native workforce, where a much larger share of workers falls in the middle range in terms of skills and education. As a result, immigrants do not typically compete for the kinds of jobs held by the vast majority of American workers. Instead, they migrate to those segments of the job market where most Americans are over- or underqualified. America's recent history confirms that its economy can prosper during times of robust immigration. During the long boom of the 1990s, and especially in the second half of the decade, the national unemployment rate fell below four percent and real wages rose both up and down the income scale during a time of high immigration levels. According to a study by the Council of Economic Advisers, household incomes rose strongly from 1993 through 1999 across all income groups, including the poorest one-fifth of American households. The poverty rate fell by three percent during the 1990s, and almost 10% among African-Americans. Those remarkable gains occurred during a decade of large immigration inflows, including low-skilled workers from Mexico.
Key sectors of the United States economy depend on immigrants.
Daniel T. Griswold (associate director, Center for Trade Policy Studies, Cato Institute, Washington, D.C.) March, 2003 “Confronting the problem of illegal Mexican migration to the U.S - National Affairs” USA Today
Low-skilled immigrants, a category that describes most migrants from Mexico, benefit the U.S. economy by filling jobs for which the large majority of American workers are overqualified and that they are unwilling to take. Important sectors of the U.S. economy have turned to low-skilled immigrant workers, documented and undocumented, to cover persistent job vacancies. Hotels and motels, restaurants, construction, manufacturing, health care, retailing, and other services are major employers of low-skilled immigrant labor. Of the roughly 5,000,000 undocumented workers in the American labor force, the Pew Hispanic Center estimates that 1,000,000 are employed in manufacturing; 600,000 in construction; 700,000 in restaurants; and 1,000,000 to 1,400,000 in agriculture. More than half (58%) of those workers are from Mexico.
Impact – immigration ↑ economy
Immigration Benefits the Economy
Gordon H. Hanson (Director, Center on Pacific Economies & Professor of Economics, University of California, San Diego) May 2007 “The Economic Logic of Immigration” Kiplinger Business Resource Center Accessed July 27, 2007 [BGB]
There is a widely held belief that legal immigration is largely good for the country and illegal immigration is largely bad. Despite intense differences of opinion in Congress, there is a strong consensus that if the United States could simply reduce the number of illegal immigrants in the country, either by converting them into legal residents or by deterring them at the border, U.S. economic welfare would be enhanced. Is there any evidence to support these prevailing views? In terms of the economic benefits and costs, is legal immigration really better than illegal immigration? What should the United States as a country hope to achieve economically through its immigration policies? Are the types of legislative proposals that Congress is considering consistent with these goals? This Council Special Report addresses the economic logic of the current high levels of illegal immigration. The aim is not to provide a comprehensive review of all the issues involved in immigration, particularly those related to homeland security. Rather, it is to examine the costs, benefits, incentives, and disincentives of illegal immigration within the boundaries of economic analysis. From a purely economic perspective, the optimal immigration policy would admit individuals whose skills are in shortest supply and whose tax contributions, net of the cost of public services they receive, are as large as possible. Admitting immigrants in scarce occupations would yield the greatest increase in U.S. incomes, regardless of the skill level of those immigrants. In the United States, scarce workers would include not only highly educated individuals, such as the software programmers and engineers employed by rapidly expanding technology industries, but also low-skilled workers in construction, food preparation, and cleaning services, for which the supply of U.S. native labor has been falling. In either case, the national labor market for these workers is tight.
Immigration is Good for the Economy
Gordon H. Hanson (Director, Center on Pacific Economies & Professor of Economics, University of California, San Diego) April 2007 “The Economic Logic of Immigration” Council on Foreign Relations Accessed July 27, 2007 [BGB]
Overall, immigration increases the incomes of U.S. residents by allowing the economy to utilize domestic resources more efficiently. But because immigrants of different types—illegal, legal temporary, and legal permanent—have varying skill levels, income-earning ability, family size, and rights to use public services, changes in their respective inflows have different economic impacts. Immigration also affects U.S. incomes through its impact on tax revenue and public expenditure. Immigrants with lower incomes and larger families tend to be a bigger drain on public spending. Immigrants pay income, payroll, sales, property, and other taxes, with lower-skilled immigrants making smaller contributions. Immigrants use public services by sending their kids to public schools, demanding fire and police protection, driving on roads and highways, and receiving public assistance, with families that have larger numbers of children absorbing more expenditure. Adding the pretax income gains from immigration to immigrants’ net tax contributions—their tax payments less the value of government services they use—allows for a rough estimate of the net impact of immigration on the U.S. economy. Immigration generates extra income for the U.S. economy, even as it pushes down wages for some workers. By increasing the supply of labor, immigration raises the productivity of resources that are complementary to labor. More workers allow U.S. capital, land, and natural resources to be exploited more efficiently. Increasing the supply of labor to perishable fruits and vegetables, for instance, means that each acre of land. under cultivation generates more output. Similarly, an expansion in the number of manufacturing workers allows the existing industrial base to produce more goods. The gain in productivity yields extra income for U.S. businesses, which is termed the immigration surplus. The annual immigration surplus in the United States appears to be small, equal to about 0.2 percent of GDP in 2004.33
A2 They’re stealing our jobs
American workers cannot fill the void.
Daniel T. Griswold (associate director, Center for Trade Policy Studies, Cato Institute, Washington, D.C.) March, 2003 “Confronting the problem of illegal Mexican migration to the U.S - National Affairs” USA Today
Meanwhile, the supply of American workers suitable for such work is falling because of an aging workforce and rising education levels. The median age of American workers continues to increase as the large cohort of baby boomers approaches retirement age. From 1990 to 2010, the median age of U.S. workers is expected to increase from 36.6 to 40.6. Younger and older workers alike are now more educated as the share of adult native-born men without a high school diploma has plunged--from 53.6% in 1960 to nine percent in 1998, for example. During that same period, the share with college degrees went up from 11.4% to 29.8%. With the number of low-skilled jobs expected to grow by more than 700,000 a year, and a shrinking pool of Americans willing to fill those jobs, Mexican migrants provide a ready and willing source of labor to fill the growing gap between demand and supply on the lower rungs of the labor ladder.
Impact – Immigration ↓ economy
Immigration does not pay for itself, economically.
Jon Dougherty (policy analyst at Freedom Alliance) January 6, 2006 “Illegal immigration’s financial impact”
Illegal immigration costs the United States far more than it generates annually in terms of migrant tax payments and the purchasing of goods and services. That is reason enough to consider not simply adopting policies and strategies that will help reduce illegal immigration, but also implementing measures to reduce the number of illegal migrants currently residing in the country. One of the most common arguments used by advocates of open borders – analysts, politicians and political groups opposed to any immigration control and enforcement efforts – is that illegal migrants have a net positive effect on local, state and national economies. But according to a growing body of research, the opposite is true: Illegal immigrants consume far more dollars than they contribute to the nation, and what they do contribute is grossly disproportionate. Immigration costs the United States billions every year. Most costs are borne by state and local governments, while most tax receipts paid by immigrants go to the federal government. And though they don't make much use of public welfare benefits from which they are largely barred by law, illegal aliens generate a huge amount of costs in terms of government expenditures for education, criminal justice, and emergency and non-emergency medical care.
Legal immigration is also bad for the economy.
Jon Dougherty (policy analyst at Freedom Alliance) January 6, 2006 “Illegal immigration’s financial impact”
Indeed, legal immigrants are more expensive; they account for $35 billion of that figure. And these repetitive costs come from many sources – which grow more expensive every year as inflation rises (partly because American systems and programs are being abused by illegal aliens; it's a vicious circle, to some extent). "As high as the cost is now, the rising tide of immigration will lift it even higher in years to come. By the end of 2002, the annual net cost of immigration will have risen $66 billion," said FAIR (a separate study by Dr. Donald Huddle, Professor Emeritus of Economics at Rice University, found that immigrants cost American taxpayers $69 billion in 1997 alone, over and above the taxes they paid). In addition, about two-thirds of illegal aliens lack even a high school diploma. Traditionally low education levels translates into low incomes and, hence, lower tax payments. This phenomenon also adds to the overall negative fiscal impact illegals have on the U.S. economy. Worse, there is no reason to expect future immigrants – most of who are from Mexico – will not be as poverty-stricken as the millions who have come before them. Even immigrants who are granted legal status continue to cost the nation money; as legal residents they qualify for more tax-funded benefits while still only making modest tax contributions. In fact, one study shows, though tax receipts from legalized migrants would increase 77 percent, average costs would increase 118 percent. It also says that, on average, illegal households pay more than $4,200 a year in all forms of federal taxes. Unfortunately, they impose costs of $6,950 per household.
Internal link – U.S. economy key to global economy
U.S. Economy Strength Key Driver of Global Economic Growth
The Herald 2005 Jobs surge lifts gloom in US; (Glasgow) May 7, 2005
Andrew McLaughlin, chief economist at Royal Bank of Scotland, said: "Because the US is the global economy's growth engine, what happens there tends to set the tone for the global economy in terms of confidence. There was obvious concern that the US economy was faltering during March . . . I think the rest of the world will take heart from that (payrolls report). Among other things, it does suggest there will be export demand in the market for Scottish companies and UK companies."
Impact – immigration reform ↓ terrorism
Amnesty through immigration reform would aid the war on terrorism
Marcelo Ballve 10-29-2002“Will Immigration Reform Help the U.S. Fight Terrorism?” Pacific News Service 7-27-07
But earlier this month, Dick Gephardt, House minority leader, introduced a bill that would grant undocumented immigrants from any country, and their close relatives abroad, a chance at legal status. Gephardt says the amnesty would aid the anti-terror war by bringing the hard-working undocumented "out of the shadows" so authorities can focus on catching real terrorists.Stephen E. Flynn, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, says the time is right for an amnesty. "We're about to stir the hornet's nest in Iraq. We're in an especially dangerous time, and if you can get a chunk of the undocumented population processed, it's an advantage to identify who those folks are."
Impact – immigration reform ( terrorism
Immigration Reform is a threat to homeland security
U.S. Newswire May 8, 2007 “Case Closed: Illegal Immigration Is a Threat to Homeland Security” lexis Accessed July 27, 2007 [ao]
The arrest today of six Islamic radicals in a plot to attack Fort Dix, New Jersey, should put an immediate halt to plans by the Senate to craft an illegal alien amnesty bill next week, declared the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). The fortuitous arrest of the six terrorists before they carried out their plot provides strong proof that lax enforcement of our immigration laws does pose a severe threat to the security of the nation, and that the government's screening process for granting green cards and other immigration benefits is perilously flawed. Three of the men arrested in New Jersey today were illegal aliens, while two of their comrades were green card holders, meaning that the government had investigated their backgrounds and failed to identify them as threats to homeland security. The facts of this case demand that Congress end all discussion of an amnesty or a "pathway to legalization" and focus instead on their primary responsibility of protecting the security of the American people, demanded FAIR. "Today we found out once again that our failure to control illegal immigration and our inability to manage the current caseload of people applying for immigration benefits poses a lethal risk to the nation," said Dan Stein, president of FAIR. "After years of denying the obvious -- that terrorists can and will take advantage of the same unenforced immigration policies that have flooded this country with illegal immigrants -- we now have irrefutable proof that the terrorists understand where we are vulnerable. We can be certain that there are many more terrorists who entered the country illegally or overstayed visas, and we may not be as lucky next time."
A2 Immigration ( terrorism
Cutting down on immigration will not decrease the risk of terrorism.
Daniel T. Griswold (associate director, Center for Trade Policy Studies, Cato Institute, Washington, D.C.) March, 2003 “Confronting the problem of illegal Mexican migration to the U.S - National Affairs” USA Today
Long-time opponents of immigration have seized on 9/11 to argue against legalization of Mexican migration in favor of drastic cuts in existing levels of legal immigration. The connection between the Sept. 11 attacks and illegal immigration from Mexico is nonexistent, though. None of the 19 hijackers entered the country illegally or as immigrants. They all arrived in the U.S. with valid temporary nonimmigrant tourist or student visas. None of them arrived via Mexico, and none were Mexican. Sealing the Mexican border with a three-tiered, 2,000-mile replica of the Berlin Wall patrolled by thousands of American troops would not have kept a single Sept. 11 terrorist out of the U.S. Washington can take necessary steps to secure our borders without sacrificing the benefits of immigration. On May 14, 2002, Bush signed the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002. Passed unanimously by Congress, the legislation focuses on identifying potential terrorists abroad and keeping them out of the U.S. Notably absent from the bill were any provisions rolling back levels of legal immigration or bolstering efforts to curb undocumented migration from Mexico.
A more workable immigration policy would actually decrease the risks of terrorism.
Daniel T. Griswold (associate director, Center for Trade Policy Studies, Cato Institute, Washington, D.C.) March, 2003 “Confronting the problem of illegal Mexican migration to the U.S - National Affairs” USA Today
Members of Congress rightly understood, when crafting the legislation, that Mexican migration is not a threat to national security. Indeed, legalizing and regularizing the movement of workers across the U.S.-Mexican border would enhance our national security by bringing much of the underground labor market into the open, encouraging newly documented workers to cooperate fully with law enforcement officials, and freeing resources for border security and the war on terrorism. It would begin to drain the swamp of smuggling and document fraud that facilitates illegal immigration, and would encourage millions of currently undocumented workers to make themselves known to authorities by registering with the government, reducing cover for terrorists who manage to enter the country and overstay their visas. Legalization would allow the government to devote more of its resources to keeping terrorism out of the country. Before Sept. 11, the U.S. government had stationed more than four times as many border enforcement agents on the Mexican border as along the Canadian one, even though the latter is more than twice as long and has been the preferred border of entry for Middle Easterners trying to enter the U.S. illegally. A system that allows Mexican workers to enter the U.S. legally would free up thousands of government personnel and save an estimated $3,000,000,000 a year--resources that would then be available to fight terrorism.
***Miscellaneous/Internal link***
No internal link
If immigration reform is not passed now it will languish for years
Janet Hook and Nicole Gaouette, Times Staff Writers ,June 9, 2007 "Immigration bill drew bipartisan fire; `We are not giving up,' says one of its creators. But the carefully crafted proposal has opposition from the left and right." Los Angeles Times lexis nexis accessed 7/26/07 (WR)
They will have very little time, as the Senate's slate is full with energy legislation and then a defense spending bill, which may not be finished before Congress takes its Fourth of July recess. Once lawmakers return, there are about seven workweeks in which they will have to pass a slew of spending bills before the government's fiscal year ends Sept. 30. And political conditions for compromise will deteriorate as the 2008 election approaches -- especially if Bush's standing with the public continues to slide. Some proponents of an immigration overhaul fear that if the issue is not addressed this year, it will languish for years -- to corrosive effect because the influx of illegal immigration will continue unchecked. "It could be hard to come back and revisit it," said Tamar Jacoby, a Manhattan Institute policy analyst who supports immigration reform. "But five more years of a broken system will threaten the American social fabric. Big chunks of America won't want to be a nation of immigrants any more."
Bush agenda
President Bush really supports current immigration reform
Maura Reynolds, Times Staff Writer, May 30 2007, "Bush assails critics of immigration bill; Opponents haven't read the legislation and are engaging in 'empty political rhetoric,' the president says." Los Angeles Times lexis nexis accessed 7/26/07 (WR)
President Bush cranked up his campaign for immigration reform Tuesday, accusing detractors of unfairly picking apart a compromise bill and of denouncing the legislation without reading it. The president used his most forceful language yet in support of the Senate bill, which would establish a point system for awarding green cards and offer legal status to many undocumented workers already in the country. "The first step to comprehensive reform must be to enforce immigration laws at the borders and at work sites across America. And this is what this bill does," Bush said at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center here. "For the skeptics who say that we're not concerned about border security or workplace enforcement, they need to read the bill."
LOL KIDZ KHARDS
We are a nation of Laws
Brian Donohue, Star-Ledger of Newark, N.J., July 25, 2007, “Illegal immigration has deep roots” Spokesman Review 7/26/07
So too, the argument holds, must today's immigrants. We're a nation of laws, we must be consistent, and we must not reward lawbreakers. It's a mighty handy argument that worked wonders for opponents of the legalization bill. It's logical and draws a clear moral distinction between previous generations of law-abiding immigrants and today's border-jumpers. It heads off allegations of xenophobia, allowing the speaker to say it's not immigrants he or she is against, just illegality.
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- wyoming game and fish walk in areas
- internal and external customers in healthcare
- macaroni and cheese bites in muffin pan
- find and replace formatting in word
- specifically in a sentence
- what trump has done right and wrong
- video games and violence study
- violence depiction in video games
- god created adam and eve
- jesus has all power and authority
- functionalism conflict and symbolic interactionism
- conflict and functionalist perspective