Wake HM NC Samford BL Liberty deaconsource by alicejenny

VIEWS: 2 PAGES: 16

									                                                         2NC – Uniqueness Wall
Comprehensive immigration reform will pass in the lame duck- they’ve reached a compromise
Law Firm Newswire ’10-20 (Houston, TX (Law Firm Newswire) October 20, 2010
Just before Congress ended its last session before the November elections, two senators introduced a bill that
could be the last best chance for the U.S. to enact comprehensive immigration reform. Houston, TX (Law Firm
Newswire) October 20, 2010 – Senators Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT) introduced S.B. 3932, The Comprehensive Immigration
Reform Act of 2010. By addressing proposals on border, interior and worksite enforcement, legalization, and future
flows of immigration, the bill offers a wide approach to filling the holes that the current immigration system
lacks. ―It is satisfying to see Congress making a solid effort at overhauling our broken system,‖ said Houston immigration lawyer Annie Banerjee. ―If
this act passes, it will strengthen border security and immigration enforcement, but also create a path to citizenship and integration for undocumented
workers.‖ The act would increase border security by providing more funding for Customs and Border Protection officers in the southwestern states, while
adding more judges and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement investigators. It would also improve training for Homeland Security officers. It also
includes tools that insure all employers use federal verification systems, and provides protections for workers who are unfairly categorized by those
systems. It creates a path to citizenship for people who meet qualifications, pass background checks, pay any back taxes owed and pass the usual
citizenship and language requirements. In addition to a bill introduced in the House last winter by Congressmen Luis
Gutierrez (D-IL), both parts of Congress now have a tool for creating serious discussions about reform.
Congress may make a last-ditch effort to pass comprehensive immigration reform after the elections in
November, but before the new senators and representatives take their seats in January. These bills come as a
response to the public‘s demand for solutions to the current system, which many view as weak or unfair.
―Republicans and Democrats have agreed that the system needs to be overhauled,‖ Banerjee said. ―They can agree
that immigration plays some role in all of the country‘s problems, whether it is national security health care or
the economy. The problem arises when they actually try to do something about it. Neither can agree on what is best course
of action. This bill helps to solve that issue by addressing many problems at once.‖ Annie Banerjee is a Houston immigration
attorney in Houston Texas specializing in helping people become United States citizens. The law offices assist in Visas and other legal immigration
requirements as well.


The bill has hammered out key compromises- this will get it passed
Giovagnoli ’10-4 (Sen. Menendez Aims for Lame Duck, Urges Advocates to Focus on Policy of CIR
2010 by ImmigrationPolicyCenter Mon Oct 04, 2010 at 12:25:36 PM PDT By Mary Giovagnoli

There can be advantages to going it alone. Despite two years of repeated attempts to get a bipartisan immigration reform bill in the Senate,
Senators Menendez (D-NJ) and Leahy (D-VT) finally said “enough” and introduced the Comprehensive
Immigration Reform Act of 2010 (CIR 2010) last week. Plenty of people have pointed out that the bill was introduced just as Congress left
Washington to go into full-time campaign mode, leaving Sens. Menendez and Leahy virtually alone in Washington to promote their new bill. On a conference call
Friday, however, Sen. Menendez said   he aims at moving the bill during lame duck session or next Congress, but urged
advocates and the media to focus on the merits of the bill, rather than the timing. ( Other immigration bills passed during lame duck
include the LIFE Act and NACARA.) CIR 2010 doesn’t stray too much from the general framework we have seen since 2006 and builds on
much of Sen. Menendez’s own work in the past two years. Analysts are digging away at the details of this massive bill (the official summary alone ran 73 pages) but the
outline should be familiar to everyone by now. The bill is broken into six parts—titles—addressing the major elements of reform: 1) Border security 2) Interior
Enforcement 3) Employment Verification 4) Reforming Legal Immigration 5) Legalization of the Undocumented and 6) Integration and Citizenship. It adheres to many
                                                                                                                           It
of the major principles outlined in the bipartisan REPAIR proposal released by Senators Schumer, Graham, Menendez and others earlier this spring.
incorporates many provisions of past and current legislative proposals that have had bipartisan support
in the past—AgJobs, DREAM Act, Strong STANDARDS Act. It also includes provisions long advocated by Senator
Grassley (R-IA) on routing out fraud in the immigration system. CIR 2010 pushes the envelope, too, most notably by including the Uniting
American Families Act (UAFA)—a bill which provides equal immigration protection and benefits for permanent partners of LGBTQ U.S. citizens. It includes the
creation of a Standing Commission on Immigration which would have the authority to dig deep into the impact of immigration on our economy, national security, and
labor markets. The bill also creates a new temporary worker program, but leaves the politically delicate question of how many new workers to the Commission to solve.
The Menendez-Leahy bill also offers an extremely generous legalization program, making anyone in the country as of September 30 eligible to apply. Like the
Gutierrez-Ortiz bill in the House, it offers a more streamlined approach to legalization than the complicated and bureaucratic approaches that emerged from bipartisan
bills in 2006 and 2007. In a nod to the continuing sluggishness of the economy, however, CIR 2010 abandons all pretense of requiring gainful employment during the
Lawful Prospective Immigrant phase (the six to 11 year period before someone could qualify to get a green card).


Dems correctly calculated the compromise to get passage
Giovagnoli ’10-4 (Sen. Menendez Aims for Lame Duck, Urges Advocates to Focus on Policy of CIR
2010 by ImmigrationPolicyCenter Mon Oct 04, 2010 at 12:25:36 PM PDT By Mary Giovagnoli
That’s not to say that people won’t work—but by eliminating that provision and focusing on the basics—paying taxes, learning English and civics, passing all criminal
and background checks—    CIR 2010 offers a clear-headed process                                  for getting people registered and moving the country beyond the rhetoric of
amnesty. The generosity at the front end is tempered, however, by some extremely tough requirements regarding challenging denials of LPI status or the validity of the
law itself. The bill, for instance, keeps the registration program open for only one year—a source of concern to service providers who know how difficult it is to ramp
up a program and move ten million people through it. It continues the trend of denying access to the program if the applicant ever committed a crime subject to a
sentence of one year or more (there are more generous waivers and exceptions than in the past, however). The ability to challenge denials in administrative and judicial
settings is available, but strictly limited. Similarly, the inclusion of triggers relating to operational control of the border—no matter how achievable—is disturbing.
                                                  the decision to link border security to legalization is
While the program to give people LPI status will be able to go forward unimpeded,
a significant reminder that Sens. Menendez and Leahy aren’t exactly going it alone. The political baggage of our
enforcement driven culture has become a seemingly unavoidable part of immigration reform. People will find far more to critique and argue about before too long—
                                                                                                               An actual
that’s the nature of a massive bill like CIR 2010. But that’s also the beauty of it. Theories, proposals, and principles advance the debate only so far.
piece of legislation, real text that people can debate and analyze, gives advocates something to rally around and policy
folks something to build on. In going it alone, Sens. Menendez and Leahy aren’t truly alone, of course. CIR
2010 is a snapshot of where the Senate is today—a calculation about what makes sense to the sponsors
but also about what is most likely to bring more people to the bill. Sometimes you just have to take the
plunge, knowing and believing that others will follow.

Growing momentum will get CIR passed
Keen ’10-4 (LGBT inclusions in immigration: posturing or real? By Lisa Keen on October 4, 2010

                                  Menendez, by introducing the bill now, “is ensuring that, when Congress
Steve Ralls of Immigration Equality said that
reconvenes, he will have already clearly identified the priorities for reform.” “There is a growing
consensus, on both sides of the political aisle, that Congress should tackle immigration reform early in
the next session,” said Ralls. “Senator Menendez’s bill will now be positioned to be the starting point for
that debate.”

Latinos massively turned out in the elections
Traywick ’11-4 (Weekly Diaspora: Immigration reform falls to the GOP BY CATHERINE
TRAYWICK | NOVEMBER 4, 2010
                                                                                                  election results were
The fight for comprehensive immigration reform has clearly taken a big hit on all fronts -- not least of which, electorally. But while
disappointing for reform advocates, they also clearly demonstrated the undeniable electoral might of Latinos -- who, in
spite of low expectations, came out in strong numbers and disproportionately supported pro-
immigration candidates. It’s not over till it’s over.

Latino turnout and moderate republicans will get CIR passed in the lame duck
Altschuler ’11-1 (The GOP's immigration problem By Daniel Altschuler, Special to CNN November
1, 2010 -- Updated 1343 GMT (2143 HKT) Editor's note: Daniel Altschuler is a Copeland Fellow at
Amherst College in Massachusetts and doctoral candidate in Politics at the University of Oxford. He
has written recent pieces on the politics of immigration reform for Americas Quarterly.
Latino voters are like other voters. They generally care more about the economy more than anything else. In fact, Republican have an ideological advantage with many
Protestant Latinos because of the party's close ties to Christian conservatives. President George W. Bush won a majority among Latino Protestants in 2004. But the
party has squandered this advantage by turning immigration into a top issue in Latinos' consciousness. A recent LatinoMetrics poll shows that immigration is now of at
least equal concern to Latino voters as the economy, and concern over discrimination and racism has surged. Republicans should be concerned not only about Latino
                                                                                       If Latinos come
voting patterns in this election, but also about how their current position affects their chances of competing in future presidential elections.
out as strongly for the Democrats in November as they did in 2008, cooler heads in the GOP may
prevail and press for compromise in the lame-duck session and the next Congress. Presidential
aspirants, too, may push for an immigration solution in 2011 so that the issue fades away before the
next primary season pushes candidates back toward the right. Finally, business leaders could play a key
role in pushing the Republicans to their senses. Right-wing groups such as the Chamber of Commerce
are already on the right side of this issue. Even Rupert Murdoch, whose Fox News continues to spew
bile on immigration issues, has come out publicly for immigration reform.

Key senators will support CIR after the election
Altschuler ’10-27 (THE POLITICS OF IMMIGRATION REFORM This article is part of a two-part
series on the politics of immigration reform. by Daniel Altschuler October 27, 2010 : A two-part article
on the movement for reforming the immigration system and post-election prospects for its success.

The post-election scenario largely depends on Republican strategy. One potential upside for CIR
advocates would be Senator Graham returning to the negotiating table to hammer out a draft CIR bill.
According to a Senate source, Graham (whose office did not respond to an interview request) has already indicated interest
in resuming negotiations. Senator Schumer’s office has also begun preparations for business-labor
talks. Another potential boon for CIR advocates could occur if the election results increase concern
among Republican presidential front-runners and GOP party leaders about alienating Latino voters
before another presidential election. As Tamar Jacoby, President and CEO of ImmigrationWorks USA, explained, “I think Republicans
want to get this off their list of demerits with Latino voters.” If candidates and GOP leaders want
immigration off-the-table for the next campaign, they could press Republicans in Congress to
compromise.


Latinos massively turned out in the elections
Traywick ’11-4 (Weekly Diaspora: Immigration reform falls to the GOP BY CATHERINE
TRAYWICK | NOVEMBER 4, 2010
                                                                                 election results were
The fight for comprehensive immigration reform has clearly taken a big hit on all fronts -- not least of which, electorally. But while
                             clearly demonstrated the undeniable electoral might of Latinos -- who, in
disappointing for reform advocates, they also
spite of low expectations, came out in strong numbers and disproportionately supported pro-
immigration candidates. It’s not over till it’s over.

Latino turnout and moderate republicans will get CIR passed in the lame duck
Altschuler ’11-1 (The GOP's immigration problem By Daniel Altschuler, Special to CNN November
1, 2010 -- Updated 1343 GMT (2143 HKT) Editor's note: Daniel Altschuler is a Copeland Fellow at
Amherst College in Massachusetts and doctoral candidate in Politics at the University of Oxford. He
has written recent pieces on the politics of immigration reform for Americas Quarterly.
Latino voters are like other voters. They generally care more about the economy more than anything else. In fact, Republican have an ideological advantage with many
Protestant Latinos because of the party's close ties to Christian conservatives. President George W. Bush won a majority among Latino Protestants in 2004. But the
party has squandered this advantage by turning immigration into a top issue in Latinos' consciousness. A recent LatinoMetrics poll shows that immigration is now of at
least equal concern to Latino voters as the economy, and concern over discrimination and racism has surged. Republicans should be concerned not only about Latino
                                                                                       If Latinos come
voting patterns in this election, but also about how their current position affects their chances of competing in future presidential elections.
out as strongly for the Democrats in November as they did in 2008, cooler heads in the GOP may
prevail and press for compromise in the lame-duck session and the next Congress. Presidential
aspirants, too, may push for an immigration solution in 2011 so that the issue fades away before the
next primary season pushes candidates back toward the right. Finally, business leaders could play a key
role in pushing the Republicans to their senses. Right-wing groups such as the Chamber of Commerce
are already on the right side of this issue. Even Rupert Murdoch, whose Fox News continues to spew
bile on immigration issues, has come out publicly for immigration reform.
                                                                      Terror
Terrorists are trying to get nuclear weapons now – letting them in the country causes a nuclear
attack
Allison ‘7        (Graham Allison, Director – Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Professor of
Government, and Faculty Chair of the Dubai Initiative – Harvard University‘s Kennedy School of Government,
―Symposium: Apocalypse When?‖, The National Interest, November / December 2007, Lexis)
MUELLER IS entitled to his opinion that the threat of nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism is "exaggerated" and
"overwrought." But analysts of various political persuasions, in and out of government, are virtually unanimous in their
judgment to the contrary. As the national-security community learned during the Cold War, risk = likelihood x consequences. Thus, even when
the likelihood of nuclear Armageddon was small, the consequences were so catastrophic that prudent policymakers felt a categorical imperative to do
everything that feasibly could be done to prevent that war. Today, a single nuclear bomb exploding in just one city would change our world. Given such
consequences, differences between a 1 percent and a 20 percent likelihood of such an attack are relatively insignificant when considering how we should
respond to the threat. Richard Garwin, a designer of the hydrogen bomb who Enrico Fermi once called "the only true genius I had ever met", told
Congress in March that he estimated a "20 percent per year probability [of a nuclear explosion-not just a contaminated, dirty bomb-a nuclear explosion]
with American cities and European cities included." My Harvard colleague Matthew Bunn has created a model in the Annals of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science that estimates the probability of a nuclear terrorist attack over a ten-year period to be 29 percent-identical to the average
estimate from a poll of security experts commissioned by Senator Richard Lugar in 2005. My book, Nuclear Terrorism, states my own best judgment
that, on the current trend line, the chances of a nuclear terrorist attack in the next decade are greater than 50 percent. Former Secretary of Defense
William Perry has expressed his own view that my work may even underestimate the risk. Warren Buffet, the world's most successful
investor and legendary odds-maker in pricing insurance policies for unlikely but catastrophic events, concluded that
nuclear terrorism is "inevitable." He stated, "I don't see any way that it won't happen." To assess the threat one must answer
five core questions: who, what, where, when and how? Who could be planning a nuclear terrorist attack? Al-Qaeda remains the leading candidate.
According to the most recent National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), Al-Qaeda has been substantially reconstituted-but with its leadership
having moved from a medieval Afghanistan to     Pakistan-a nation that actually has nuclear weapons. As former CIA Director George J.
Tenet's memoir reports, Al-Qaeda's       leadership has remained "singularly focused on acquiring WMDs" and that "the
main threat is the nuclear one." Tenet concluded, "I am convinced that this is where [Osama bin Laden] and his operatives want to go." What
nuclear weapons could terrorists use? A ready-made weapon from the arsenal of one of the nuclear-weapons states or an elementary nuclear
bomb constructed from highly enriched uranium made by a state remain most likely. As John Foster, a leading U.S. bomb-maker and former
director of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, wrote a quarter of a century ago, "If the essential nuclear materials are at hand, it is
possible to make an atomic bomb using information that is available in the open literature." Where could terrorists acquire a nuclear
bomb? If a nuclear attack occurs, Russia will be the most likely source of the weapon or material. A close second, however, is
North Korea, which now has ten bombs worth of plutonium, or Pakistan with sixty nuclear bombs. Finally, research reactors in forty
developing and transitional countries still hold the essential ingredient for nuclear weapons. When could terrorists launch the first nuclear attack?
If terrorists bought or stole a nuclear weapon in good working condition, they could explode it today. If terrorists acquired one hundred pounds of highly
enriched uranium, they could make a working elementary nuclear bomb in less than a year. How could terrorists deliver a nuclear weapon to its target?
In the same way that illegal items come to our cities every day. As one of my former colleagues has quipped, if you have any doubt about the ability of
terrorists to deliver a weapon to an American target, remember: They could hide it in a bale of marijuana.
                                                       Impact- Food Security

Comprehensive reform is key to prevent food insecurity
Gaskill ’10 (Ron Gaskill is director of congressional relations for the American Farm Bureau Federation.
Worker shortage urges immigration reform efforts April 9, 2010 Season Right for Meaningful Immigration
Reform By Ron Gaskill

                                                                                              to find all the workers they need
Even in these times of higher-than-usual unemployment, most farmers and ranchers still struggle
for a successful season. Serious concerns that not enough domestic workers will choose to work in agriculture
has become a harsh reality across the countryside. About 15 million people in the United States choose non-farm jobs at wages that are actually
lower than what they could earn by working alongside farmers and ranchers. The on-farm jobs and opportunities are there, but many workers choose not
to take advantage of them. The issue is rapidly moving from one centered on a lack of resources, to one with food
insecurity at its heart. Farmers and ranchers are the ones being squeezed; caught between a domestic labor force that doesn‘t want agricultural
work, government policy that fails to recognize the seriousness of the problem and an administration that consistently makes it harder to hire workers.
U.S. consumers will continue to eat fresh fruits and vegetables regardless of how the labor scenario ultimately plays out. But, whether or not those fruits
and vegetables are grown in the U.S. or imported from other countries where labor is more plentiful greatly concerns Farm Bureau. It‘s past time for our
nation‘s policymakers to translate grassroots concern into meaningful action. As much as we believe in a farmer‘s right to farm, Farm Bureau fully
respects the right of U.S. workers to choose other lines of work. But, on the flip side, as employers, we must be able to legally employ those who do want
to work, even if they‘re from other countries. Comprehensive Immigration Reform is needed, so that America‘s farmers and
ranchers can continue to produce an abundant supply of safe, healthy food, as well as renewable fuels and fiber
for our nation.

Food insecurity kills billions
Brown ‘5 (Lester Brown, President of the Earth Policy Institute, February 7, 2005, People and the Planet,
―Falling water tables 'could hit food supply',‖ http://www.peopleandplanet.net/doc.php?id=2424

Many Americans see terrorism as the principal threat to security, but for much of humanity, the effect of water shortages and rising temperatures on
food security are far more important issues. For the 3 billion people who live on 2 dollars a day or less and who spend up to 70 per
                           a modest rise in food prices can quickly become life-threatening. For them, it is the next
cent of their income on food, even
meal that is the overriding concern."

Food insecurity sparks World War 3
Calvin ’98 (William, Theoretical Neurophysiologist – U Washington, Atlantic Monthly, January, Vol 281,
No. 1, p. 47-64)

The population-crash scenario is surely the most appalling. Plummeting  crop yields would cause some powerful countries to try to take over
their neighbors or distant lands -- if only because their armies, unpaid and lacking food, would go marauding, both at home and across the
borders. The better-organized countries would attempt to use their armies, before they fell apart entirely, to take over countries with
significant remaining resources, driving out or starving their inhabitants if not using modern weapons to accomplish the same end: eliminating
competitors for the remaining food. This would be a worldwide problem -- and could lead to a Third World War -- but Europe's vulnerability
is particularly easy to analyze. The last abrupt cooling, the Younger Dryas, drastically altered Europe's climate as far east as Ukraine. Present-day Europe
has more than 650 million people. It has excellent soils, and largely grows its own food. It could no longer do so if it lost the extra warming from the
North Atlantic.
                                                            Solves Case- H1-B

Comprehensive reform would raise the H1-B cap
Thibodeau ’9 (Patrick Thibodeau D.C. April 15, 2009 - 10:41 A.M. Five reasons why the H-1B cap will be
increased, revised

                     has signaled interest in taking up comprehensive immigration reform. And any push for
President Barack Obama
immigration reform is almost certain to include an increase in the H-1B cap. One year ago, I outlined five
reasons why the cap will be increased; this is a revised assessment. One: H-1B opponents have no friends in the
White House. President Barack Obama has appointed an all-star cast of H-1B and offshore outsourcing supporters, and
this administration sees the visa as critical to avoiding a "competitive disadvantage." But let's step back just a little. Is the
White House really a mirror of the Bush administration on the H-1B issue? During the campaign, Obama made it clear that he had problems with the
offshoring of U.S. jobs, although it was mostly in the context of manufacturing. Obama is now trying to get some of those manufacturing jobs back. The
massive federal stimulus includes $2 billion to underwrite the building of lithium-ion battery manufacturing plants to keep Taiwan and China from
dominating this market. The tech industry isn't as vulnerable as the battery manufacturing industry, but it's still vulnerable. IBM's U.S. workforce is
shrinking and expanding overseas. IT services firm Affiliated Computer Services Inc. said last fall it is moving "more complex and higher paying" jobs
offshore. But the Obama administration has put in place appointees who believe the high-tech industry will grow
fast enough to offset a shift of tech jobs overseas. The tech industry says that's achievable if it has unfettered
access to H-1B visas. Two: H-1B opponents have no money. In 2008, the high-tech industry spent nearly $117
million on lobbying Congress and the White House, according to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics. That includes Microsoft,
which spent $8.9 million on lobbying last year and Oracle Corp., $5 million. Let's put those figures in perspective. There are 3.9 to 5.9 million technology
workers in the U.S., depending on whose figures you want to use (The National Association of Computer Consultant Businesses and the AeA, now
TechAmerica, respectively). It amounts to about $20 to $30 spent on each and every tech worker. Three: H-1B opponents still have no clout.
The only lobbying group big enough to counter the high-tech industry, thanks to the election, is Big Labor. The
unions -- with the exception of the lone tech union outpost Alliance@IBM -- could care less about tech workers.
India's industry groups have more clout with the White House than tech workers. An India industry group
recently met with Obama's economic chief Larry Summers to discuss a variety of issues, including the H-1B
visa. The opponents will not be offered a meeting. Four: Congress will increase the cap. The deadlock on broader
immigration reform is the only thing preventing Congress from increasing the H-1B cap. U.S. Senators Chuck Grassley
(R-Iowa) and Dick Durbin (D-Ill), the leaders in the reform effort, are again introducing legislation to set restrictions on H-1B use and cut down on the
fraud. The centerpiece of this measure requires employers to make a "good faith" effort to hire U.S. workers before hiring someone on a visa. But the
effort by Grassley and Durbin is premised on the idea that the cap will be increased. They are seeking compromise.
(Here's the wild card: Will the Obama administration support reforms? Will it consider a new approach to high-skilled immigration?) Five: The H-1B
opponents have lost the public relations war. They really have. The New York Times, for instance, ran this story recently, Tech
Recruiting Clashes with Immigration Rules. It was pure Walt Disney material that can be summarize this way: Student comes from overseas, studies in
the U.S. at a prestigious university and then must fight for a visa in pursuit of the American Dream. This is the prevailing theme in most H-1B stories. It's
very, very easy for a publication to get a tech firm on the phone with a hardship story about their H-1B workers. The story that isn't reported as often is
the use of the visa by offshore firms that apply for these visas in volume. An H-1B visa worker employed by an offshore firm often works as a liaison to
the India-based development center. What makes the offshore model successful is the ratio of low-paid overseas workers to U.S. workers. One visa
holder is, in effect, replacing many U.S. workers. Opponents see this as the anti-American Dream at work.
                                      Turns Case- High Skilled


Targeting only high skilled workers leaves out crucial innovaters
Stangler ’10 (Brain Gain: Why We Should Grant Visas to Immigrant Entrepreneurs April 13, 2010 by Dane
Stangler

Further, many of those who promote immigration as a way to boost economic growth narrowly focus on ―high-
skilled‖ entrepreneurs, those who might start technology companies. Clearly, as Wadhwa‘s research indicates,
such companies are important to American innovation. But we exclude non-technology entrepreneurs at our
peril — every new company, including those founded by immigrants, represents pursuit of the American
dream. By closing our borders to immigrants in general or welcoming only those with certain skills, we leave
out many who will start new firms in other industries. If not in the United States, they will go elsewhere to start
their companies and create jobs.
                                              Turns Case- Backlogs/Delays

Aff can’t solve backlogs and delays in the system- takes out solvency
Williams et al. ‘7 (Copyright (c) 2007 Nexus, A Journal of Opinion Nexus, A Journal of Opinion 2007 /
2008 13 Nexus J. Op. 59 LENGTH: 6518 words A NEW YEAR AND THE OLD DEBATE: HAS IMMIGRATION
REFORM REFORMED ANYTHING? ARTICLE: Comprehensive Immigration Reform-- Inevitable Solution or
Unlikely Possibility? NAME: Herbert A. Igbanugo and Dyan Williams* BIO: * Herbert A. Igbanugo is a
founding shareholder of Igbanugo Partners Int'l Law Firm, PLLC, a Minneapolis-based law firm devoted
exclusively to the practice of U.S. Immigration & Nationality Law and International Trade Law (with a narrow
focus on Sub-Saharan Africa). Dyan Williams is an attorney at Igbanugo Partners Int'l Law Firm, PLLC,
specializing in the practice of U.S. Immigration & Nationality Law.
The results of the November 2006 midterm election signaled that comprehensive immigration reform is a top national issue for the American public. n1
Backlogs in the immigration system and delays in visa processing have separated family members for years,
and caused U.S. businesses to lose highly skilled immigrant professionals who tire of waiting in line for
employment-based visas and thus seek opportunities elsewhere. n2 Coupled with family separation and labor shortage is an underground
economy riddled with threats to national security, smuggling violations, immigration and customs fraud, human trafficking, identity and benefit fraud,
and an estimated twelve million undocumented workers n3 who are subject to abuse and blamed for lowering U.S. wages. In short, our nation's
broken immigration system demands comprehensive and humane reform. Piecemeal, state policies, and local ordinances
on immigration are biased or simply ineffective. In addition, "enforcement only" or "enforcement first" approaches in the form of
enhanced border patrol, worksite raids, and tougher enforcement [*60] of current laws are also inadequate. Our dysfunctional immigration system
requires action from Congress, but the politicization of this issue makes comprehensive immigration reform an unlikely possibility rather than the
inevitable solution it ought to be.
                                              1NC – Hege Impact
The overwhelming consensus indicates immigration reform is key to heg and the economy—
economically and perceptually.
Council on Foreign Relations ‘9 (CFR's immigration policy task force - 19 independent experts co-
researching domestic immigration policy in the US, "Broken Immigration System Risks Serious Damage to
U.S. National Interests, Warns CFR Task Force", 7/8/2009,
http://www.cfr.org/publication/19743/broken_immigration_system_risks_serious_damage_to_uswea_natio
nal_interests_warns_cfr_task_force.html?breadcrumb=%2Fissue%2F27%2F)

"The continued failure to devise and implement a sound and sustainable immigration policy threatens to
weaken America‘s economy, to jeopardize its diplomacy, and to imperil its national security," concludes a new
Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) Independent Task Force co-chaired by former Florida governor Jeb Bush and former
White House chief of staff Thomas "Mack" McLarty. " The stakes are too high to fail," says the report. "If the United
States continues to mishandle its immigration policy, it will damage one of the vital underpinnings of American
prosperity and security, and could condemn the country to a long, slow decline in its status in the world." For this
reason, the report urges: "The United States needs a fundamental overhaul of its immigration laws." U.S. Immigration
Policy contends that America has reaped tremendous benefits from opening its doors to immigrants, as well as to
students, skilled employees and others who may only live in the country for shorter periods of time. But it warns that ―the
continued inability of the United States to develop and enforce a workable system of immigration laws
threatens to undermine these achievements." Directed by CFR Senior Fellow Edward Alden, the CFR-sponsored
Independent Task Force on U.S. Immigration Policy reflects the consensus of a bipartisan group of
eminent leaders in the fields of immigration policy, homeland security, education, labor,
business, academia and human rights. The group urges Congress and the Obama administration to move ahead
with immigration reform legislation that achieves three critical goals: Reforms the legal immigration system so that
it operates more efficiently, responds more accurately to labor market needs, and enhances U.S.
competitiveness; Restores the integrity of immigration laws through an enforcement regime that strongly discourages
employers and employees from operating outside that legal system, secures America‘s borders, and levies significant
penalties against those who violate the rules; Offers a fair, humane, and orderly way to allow many of the roughly
twelve million migrants currently living illegally in the United States to earn the right to remain legally.
According to the report, the high level of illegal immigration in the country is increasingly damaging to U.S. national
interests—"[it] diminishes respect for the law, creates potential security risks, weakens labor rights, strains U.S.
relations with its Mexican neighbor, and unfairly burdens public education and social services in many states."
But it contends that "no enforcement effort will succeed properly unless the legal channels for coming to the United States
can be made to work better." Therefore, "the U.S. government must invest in creating a working immigration system
that alleviates long and counterproductive backlogs and delays, and ensures that whatever laws are enacted by
Congress are enforced thoroughly and effectively." The Task Force lays out a series of concrete, realistic recommendations
for legislation and administrative reforms that would be part of an immigration policy that better serves America‘s
national interests: -Comprehensive immigration reform: A new effort to pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill
should be a first-tier priority for the Obama administration and Congress, and should be started without delay. -
Attracting skilled immigrants: The United States must tackle head-on the growing competition for skilled immigrants
from other countries, and make the goal of attracting such immigrants a central component of its immigration policy. The
report urges an end to the hard caps on employment-based immigrant visas and skilled work visas in favor of a more
flexible system, the elimination of strict nationality quotas, and new opportunities for foreign students earning advanced
degrees to remain in the United States after they graduate. -National security: The Task Force calls for minimizing visa
restrictions that impede scientific collaboration, noting that America‘s long-term security depends on maintaining its
place as a world leader in science and technology. The administration should also permit a broader effort by the
U.S. military to recruit recent immigrants who are not yet citizens or green card holders, so as to bolster U.S.
military capabilities. -Employer enforcement: The Task Force supports a mandatory system for verifying those who are
authorized to work in the United States, including a workable and reliable biometric verification system with secure
documents. Tougher penalties should be levied against those who refuse to comply. It calls employer enforcement "the
single most effective and humane enforcement tool available to discourage illegal migration." -Simplifying, streamlining,
and investing in the immigration system: Congress and the Obama administration should establish a high-level
independent commission to make recommendations for simplifying the administration and improving the transparency of
U.S. immigration laws. The government must redouble its efforts to reduce backlogs and other unnecessary delays by
investing in the personnel and technology necessary for handling visa and immigration applications efficiently. -
Improving America‘s image abroad: The administration and Congress should launch a comprehensive review of the
current security-related restrictions on travel to the United States, with an eye toward lifting restrictions that do not
significantly reduce the risk of terrorists or criminals entering the country.
                                                  Shortages Tiebreaker 2NC
Their ev is tech industry propaganda – the numbers all point to stable labor levels now.
Norman Matloff, prof. of computer science at UC Davis, ―H-1Bs: Still Not the Best and the Brightest,‖ May 2008,
http://www.cis.org/articles/2008/back508.html

The lobbyists for the tech industry and the American Immigration Lawyers Association know that crying
educational doom-and-gloom sells. Even though it was people born and educated in the United States who were primarily responsible for
developing the computer industry, and even though all major East Asian governments have lamented their educational systems' stifling of creativity,
the lobbyists have convinced Congress that the industry needs foreign workers from Asia in order to innovate.
The data show otherwise. Most foreign tech workers, particularly those from Asia, are in fact of only average
talent. Moreover, they are hired for low-level jobs of limited responsibility, not positions that generate innovation.
This is true both overall and in the key tech occupations, and most importantly, in the firms most stridently
demanding that Congress admit more foreign workers.
Note again that the analyses presented here confirm and provide much sharper quantitative insight into previous work showing that the H-1Bs are of just
average talent. It has been shown for instance that foreign students in the U.S. tend to be concentrated in the less-selective
universities, and that they receive a lower percentage of research awards relative to their numbers in the
student population. In the workforce, the foreign nationals in the U.S. participate in teams applying for patents
at the same percentage as do the U.S. citizens, and so on.
To be sure, the author is a strong supporter of facilitating the immigration of the world's best and brightest. He has acted on that belief, by championing
the hiring of extraordinarily talented researchers, mostly from India and China, into his department faculty. But as seen here, very few of the foreign
workers are of that caliber.
Expansion of the guest worker programs - both H-1B visas and green cards - is unwarranted.
                                           EXT – No Worker Shortage
No skilled worker shortage – data goes our way.
Titus Galama and James Hosek, RAND Corporation, ―U.S. Competitiveness in Science and Technology,‖ 2008,
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2008/RAND_MG674.sum.pdf

High growth in R&D expenditures, patents, and S&E employment, combined with continuing low
unemployment of S&E workers, suggest that U.S. S&E has remained vibrant. These signs do not support
the notion that jobs are being lost at substantial rates as a result of the outsourcing and
offshoring of S&T. U.S. gains in S&T occur against a backdrop in which R&D expenditures, S&E employment, and patents are also increasing
in the EU-15, Japan, China, Korea, and many other nations/regions. Studies of the offshoring of high-skill work suggest that it
does not result in job losses in the originating country, as it is increasingly driven by the need to access scarce
talent, but rather that the overall number of jobs is increasing.
                                                       EXT – No Double Dip
Warren Buffet agrees – no double-dip recession.
Bloomberg, ―Buffett Rules Out Double-Dip Recession Amid Growth,‖ 9/13/2010, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-13/buffett-rules-
out-double-dip-u-s-recession-says-berkshire-units-growing.html


Warren Buffett ruled out a second recession in the U.S. and said businesses owned by his Berkshire Hathaway Inc. are
growing.
―I am a huge bull on this country,‖ Buffett, Berkshire‘s chief executive officer, said today in remarks to the Montana Economic Development Summit.
―We will not have a double-dip recession at all. I see our businesses coming back almost across the board.‖
Berkshire bought railroad Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. for $27 billion in February in a deal that Buffett, 80, called a bet on the U.S. economy. The
billionaire‘s outlook contrasts with the views of economists such as New York University Professor Nouriel Roubini and Harvard University Professor
Martin Feldstein, who have said the odds of another recession may be one in three or higher.
―I‘ve seen sentiment turn sour in the last three months or so, generally in the media,‖ Buffett said. ―I don‘t see that
in our businesses. I see we‘re employing more people than a month ago, two months ago .‖
The world‘s largest economy grew at a 1.6 percent annual pace in the second quarter, exceeding the median
forecast of economists surveyed by Bloomberg News, revised figures from the Commerce Department showed on Aug. 27. U.S. economic growth
will slow to 2.5 percent next year from a projected 2.7 percent this year as unemployment above 9 percent tempers consumer spending, according to the
median forecast of economists surveyed by Bloomberg News this month.
‗Signs of Life‘
Buffett built Omaha, Nebraska-based Berkshire into a $200 billion provider of insurance, energy and luxury goods and services over four decades. The
company cut about 20,000 jobs last year as demand for its products declined.
The economy is still recovering and isn‘t likely to slip back into recession as ―signs of life‖ appear in the U.S .,
Bank of America Corp. CEO Brian Moynihan said today at an investor conference.
Buffett, who spoke via video connection to an assembly in Butte, Montana, said U.S. banks were ready to boost lending and
encouraged entrepreneurs to seek financing for their business ideas. Berkshire is the biggest shareholder of Wells Fargo & Co.,
the top U.S. home lender.
                                                            ---- 2NC – No War

Econ collapse saps resources from military aggression
Bennett 2k – PolSci Prof, Penn State (Scott and Timothy Nordstrom, Foreign Policy Substitutability and Internal Economic Problems in Enduring
Rivalries, Journal of Conflict Resolution, Ebsco)

Conflict settlement is also a distinct route to dealing with internal problems that leaders in rivalries may pursue when faced with internal problems.
Military competition between states requires large amounts of resources, and rivals require even more attention. Leaders may choose to negotiate
a settlement that ends a rivalry to free up important resources that may be reallocated to the domestic economy. In a ―guns versus
butter‖ world of economic trade-offs, when a state can no longer afford to pay the expenses associated with competition in a rivalry, it is quite rational for
leaders to reduce costs by ending a rivalry. This gain (a peace dividend) could be achieved at any time by ending a rivalry. However, such a gain is likely
to be most important and attractive to leaders when internal conditions are bad and the leader is seeking ways to alleviate active problems. Support
for policy change away from continued rivalry is more likely to develop when the economic situation sours and
elites and masses are looking for ways to improve a worsening situation. It is at these times that the pressure to cut
military investment will be greatest and that state leaders will be forced to recognize the difficulty of continuing to pay for a rivalry. Among
other things, this argument also encompasses the view that the cold war ended because the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics could no
longer compete economically with the United States.

Studies go neg
Miller 2k – Professor of Management, Ottawa (Morris, Poverty As A Cause Of Wars?,
http://www.pugwash.org/reports/pac/pac256/WG4draft1.htm, AG)

Thus, these armed conflicts can hardly be said to be caused by poverty as a principal factor when the greed and envy of leaders and their hegemonic
ambitions provide sufficient cause. The poor would appear to be more the victims than the perpetrators of armed conflict. It might be alleged that some
dramatic event or rapid sequence of those types of events that lead to the exacerbation of poverty might be the catalyst for a violent reaction on the part
of the people or on the part of the political leadership who might be tempted to seek a diversion by finding/fabricating an enemy and going to war.
According to a study undertaken by Minxin Pei and Ariel Adesnik of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, there would not appear
                                        studying 93 episodes of economic crisis in 22 countries in Latin America and Asia in the
to be any merit in this hypothesis. After
years since World War II they concluded    that Much of the conventional wisdom about the political impact of economic crises
may be wrong... The severity of economic crisis - as measured in terms of inflation and negative growth - bore no relationship to
the collapse of regimes. A more direct role was played by political variables such as ideological polarization, labor radicalism, guerilla insurgencies
and an anti-Communist military... (In democratic states) such changes seldom lead to an outbreak of violence (while) in the
cases of dictatorships and semi-democracies, the ruling elites responded to crises by increasing repression (thereby using one form of
violence to abort another.
                                              EXT – Cooperation Inevitable
Relations are resilient – cooperation is inevitable from self-interest.
Zee News, ―Clinton, Krishna pledge to deepen Indo-US relationship,‖ 6/4/2010, http://www.zeenews.com/news631398.html
India and the US concluded their first Cabinet-level Strategic Dialogue on Thursday, pledging to deepen ties
between the world's oldest and largest democracies for mutual benefit and global stability while committing to work to strengthen global legal regimes
against terrorism.
"Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and External Affairs Minister SM Krishna pledged to deepen people-to-people, business-to-business, and
government-to-government linkages between the world's oldest and largest democracies, for the mutual benefit of both countries and for the promotion
of global peace, stability, economic growth and prosperity.
Both recalled that the Indo-US partnership rests on the firm foundation of common ideals as well as security
and economic interests", a joint statement issued after the conclusion of the talks said.
"The guiding principles upon which both nations were founded - democracy, mutual respect, individual liberty, rule of law, and an appreciation for the
strength we derive from being pluralistic societies - make the Indo-US bond strong, resilient, and uniquely important for building a peaceful, prosperous,
inclusive, and sustainable world," it said.
"They pledged that as strategic partners, India and US would continue to consult each other closely on regional
and global developments, and remain sensitive to each other's interests.
They confirmed that global institutions of governance should reflect contemporary realities and enhance
effectiveness, in order to meet the challenges of the new century," the statement said.
"In addition to advancing global security and stability, both recognised that the two countries had enormous opportunities to deepen their cooperation in
trade and investment, science and technology, infrastructure investment, environmental sustainability, climate change mitigation, energy security,
education, agriculture, food security, healthcare and empowerment of people," it said.
The two leaders emphasised that the Strategic Dialogue and its detailed architecture is a vital instrument to
pursue these goals, the statement said.
The Strategic Dialogue was co-chaired by Clinton and Krishna.
                                                   shared goal of advancing security and stability across Asia,
"Minister Krishna and Secretary Clinton reiterated their
in particular, through the emergence of an open, balanced and inclusive architecture of cooperation in the
region," the statement said.
Reiterating their shared interest and commitment to a stable, sovereign, democratic and pluralistic
Afghanistan, Krishna and Clinton emphasised the importance of a sustained international commitment to
Afghanistan that builds local capacities through Afghan-led initiatives.
                                           AT: Can’t be given to people here
Wrong: EAD & Parole work for people in the US.
Endelman and Mehta ‘10 (Gary Endelman, practices immigration law at BP America Inc, serves on the Editorial
Advisory Board of Immigration Daily, and Cyrus D. Mehta, nationally recognized in the field of immigration law. He
represents corporations and individuals from around the world in business and employment immigration, family
immigration, consular matters, naturalization, federal court litigation and asylum. He also advises lawyers on ethical
issues. Based on 18 years of experience in immigration law, He is also an Adjunct Professor of Law at Brooklyn Law
School where he teaches a course, Immigration and Work, Chair of the American Immigration Lawyers Association‘s
(AILA) National Pro Bono Committee and Co-Chair of the AILA-NY Chapter Pro Bono Committe COMPREHENSIVE
IMMIGRATION REFORM THROUGH EXECUTIVE FIAT, April 25, 2010,
http://cyrusmehta.blogspot.com/2010/04/comprehensive-immigration-reform.html)

While parole does not constitute an admission,one conceptual difficulty is whether parole can be granted to an individual
who is already admitted on a nonimmigrant visa but has overstayed. Since parole is not considered admission, it can be
granted more readily to one who entered without inspection. On the other hand, it is possible for the Executive to rescind the grant of
admission under INA §212(d)(5), and instead, replace it with the grant parole. As an example, an individual who was admitted in B-2
status and is the beneficiary of an I-130 petition but whose B-2 status has expired can be required to report to the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS). who can retroactively rescind the grant of admission in B-2 status and instead be granted parole retroactively. Historic Role Of Executive In
Granting Immigration Benefits While the authors have proposed the use of parole and EAD benefits to those who are beneficiaries of approved
immigrant petitions and are on the path to permanent residency, but for the crushing backlogs in the employment and family quotas, parole and
EAD can also be potentially granted to other non-citizens such as DREAM children or those who have paid
taxes and are otherwise admissible. The Executive‘s use of parole, sua sponte, in such an expansive and
aggressive fashion is hardly unique in post-World War II American history. The rescue of Hungarian refugees after the abortive 1956
uprising or the Vietnamese refugees at various points of that conflict comes readily to mind. While these were dramatic examples of international crises,
the immigration situation in America today, though more mundane, is no less of a humanitarian emergency with human costs that are every bit as high
and damage to the national interest no less long lasting. Even those who are in removal proceedings or have already been
ordered removed, and are beneficiaries of approved petitions, will need not wait an eternity for Congress to come to the rescue

								
To top