Border surveillance neg cartels k

Recent congressional documents prove the threat is at an all time high

(CNSNews.com) -- Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told Congress last week that terrorists intending to harm the American people enter the U.S. from Mexico “from time to time." At a July 25 hearing of the House Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Ron Barber (D-Ariz.) asked Napolitano: “As you know, Madam Secretary, there have been anecdotal reports about material evidence of the presence of terrorists along our southern border. My question is, is there any credible evidence that these reports are accurate and that terrorists are, in fact, crossing our southern border with the intent to do harm to the American people?” Napolitano answered: “With respect, there have been--and the Ababziar matter would be one I would refer to that's currently being adjudicated in the criminal courts--from time to time, and we are constantly working against different and evolving threats involving various terrorist groups and various ways they may seek to enter the country.” “What I can tell you, however, is that that southern border--the U.S.-Mexico border--is heavily, heavily staffed at record amounts of manpower, materiel, infrastructure and the like, and we are constantly making sure we're doing all we can to make that border as safe as possible,” she said. An August 2009 audit by the Government Accountability Office that focused on Customs and Border Protection (CBP) checkpoints said that in fiscal 2008 CBP reported “there were three individuals encountered by the Border Patrol at southwest border checkpoints who were identified as persons linked to terrorism.” In April 2010, CNSNews.com reported that FBI Director Robert Mueller told the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, “In Detroit, Mahmoud Youssef Kourani was indicted in the Eastern District of Michigan on one count of conspiracy to provide material support to Hezbollah. … Kourani was already in custody for entering the country illegally through Mexico and was involved in fundraising activities on behalf of Hezbollah.” Five years ago, in an August 2007 interview with the El Paso Times, then-Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell echoed what Napolitano told Congress last week about terrorist coming into the U.S. across the Mexican border. “So, are terrorists coming across the Southwest border?” McConnell said in that interview. “Not in great numbers.” “There are some cases?” asked the El Paso Times. “There are some. And would they use it as a path, given it was available to them? In time they will,” said McConnell. “If they're successful at it, then they'll probably repeat it,” asked the reporter. “Sure,” said McConnell. “There were a significant number of Iraqis who came across last year. Smuggled across illegally.” “Where was that?” asked the reporter. “Across the Southwest border,” said McConnell.

Terrorists are using the southwest border – specifically rural areas

Theobald 15 (Bill, Staff Writer at USA Today, “Southwest border not secure, locals tell committee,” 3/17/2015, ProQuest)//JL

WASHINGTON -- People living and working in Arizona and other border states told Senate lawmakers Tuesday the U.S.-Mexico boundary isn't secure. Witnesses at the hearing before the the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee said that must change before Congress considers immigration reform. Mark Daniels, the sheriff in Cochise County, Ariz., told committee members violence along the border continues to escalate. "The rural parts of the border are not secure," he said. He said previous federal efforts have focused on populated areas, pushing more of the illegal activity -- border crossings and drug-smuggling -- to rural areas like his county. "We are a product of the federal government's plan," Daniels said. Mexican traffickers have become more sophisticated and innovative in getting drugs across the border, Daniels said in written testimony. They use ultra-light aircraft that aren't detected by radar, vehicles that look like they belong to law enforcement, and even catapults that launch bundles of marijuana across the border. Citing the discovery of a tunnel underneath the border, Daniels said he fears terrorists could cross into the U.S. "If you can bring drugs through, you can bring terrorists through," he said. Daniels said he has implemented several local programs to improve border security, including buying additional communication equipment and creating a ranch patrol. Chris Cabrera, a Border Patrol agent testifying on behalf of the 16,500 agents represented by the National Border Patrol Council, said he estimates only 35-40 percent of illegal immigrants are caught crossing the border, despite estimates of 75 percent from Customs and Border Protection officials. "I want to be crystal clear -- the border is not secure," he said. He said agents who report more than 20 illegal border-crossers at a given spot, based on counting footprints, are punished and learn to keep their counts artificially lower. "I raise this issue with you because before we can start to address our problems, we have to acknowledge the extent of them," Cabrera said. Committee Chairman Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., said lack of reliable information is a top problem in dealing with border security. "There is no solid way to track illegal flow at our border," he said. Cabrera recommended hiring 5,000 more border agents, thinning out the layers of management within the Border Patrol, and improving the training of agents. Also testifying was Howard Buffett, son of billionaire investor Warren Buffett, who owns 2,375 acres of ranchland along the border in Cochise County. Congress should strengthen border security separately from reforming immigration, Buffett said. "Our insecure border creates a serious humanitarian crisis" by encouraging people to try illegal crossings and allowing drug cartels to operate, he told lawmakers. In a related development Tuesday, Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain and Arizona Republican Rep. Matt Salmon introduced companion bills that would give Customs and Border Protection agents full access to federal lands on Arizona's southwest border. Currently, agents must receive permission from federal agencies to conduct routine patrols. The Arizona Borderlands Protection and Preservation Act was co-sponsored in the Senate by GOP Sen. Jeff Flake and in the House by Arizona Republican Reps. Trent Franks, Paul Gosar, Martha McSally, and David Schweikert.

Avoids politics

Border surveillance has massive support in Congress – the plan ensures massive controversy

Preston 10 (Julia, Staff Writer at NYT, “Obama Signs Border Bill to Increase Surveillance,” 8/13/2010, New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/14/us/politics/14immig.html?_r=0)//JL

President Obama signed into law a $600 million bill on Friday to pay for 1,500 new border agents, additional unmanned surveillance drones and new Border Patrol stations along the southwest border. The measure sailed through Congress in little more than a week with broad bipartisan support, demonstrating the pressure on politicians to look strong on border enforcement. Introduced on Aug. 5, the bill was approved the same day by the Senate by unanimous consent, and passed again by the Senate on Thursday in a special session during the Congressional recess. The House had passed the bill in a special session on Tuesday. Mr. Obama requested the funds in June, after he announced he would send 1,200 National Guard troops to support agents along the border. The administration has been under pressure to strengthen border enforcement since Arizona adopted a tough law in April to crack down on illegal immigration, saying the federal government was failing to do its job. After the administration sued Arizona, a federal court stayed important parts of that law. The two senators from Arizona, John McCain and Jon Kyl, both Republicans who have criticized the administration’s border measures as weak, surprised Democrats by signing on as sponsors of the spending bill.

There’s bipartisan support for increasing border surveillance

TeleSur 14 (“Republicans Expect to Pass Obama's Border Bill,” 7/27/2014, http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Republicans-Expect-to-Pass-Obamas-Border-Bill---20140727-0032.html)//JL

Texas Republican John Cornyn said Sunday that he expects the House of Representatives to pass a “skinnied-down” emergency funding bill this week that President Barack Obama had proposed to deal with the surge of migrants being detained at the U.S.-Mexico border. Earlier this month, U.S. President Barrack Obama asked Congress for US$3.7 billion to address the issue of mass migration of minors from Central America trying to enter the U.S, and the resulting humanitarian crisis along the Mexico-U.S. border. The money, he said, is needed to set up new detention facilities, conduct more aerial surveillance and hire more immigration judges and Border Patrol agents. The figure stirred controversy because it nearly doubled the initial US$2 billion estimate the president said would be necessary. The House of Representatives, which is largely Republican-controlled, is now debating how much to cut down from Obama´s request. However, their proposed amount is expected to face opposition in the Democratic-controlled Senate. Senate Democrats are prepared to vote on a bill to give Obama US$2.7 billion. However, House Republicans are considering only US$1 billion or less. Cornyn, the number two Republican in the U.S. Senate, said on ABC´s “This Week”, "Fortunately it sounds like the House of Representatives is going to move a piece of legislation this week, which would actually offer a solution." "I think the House will come with a skinnied-down bill in terms of money," he said. Republicans have repeatedly criticized Obama's approach to immigration reform saying it does not do enough to deter migrants from wanting to come to the U.S. They also call for more security on the border and faster deportations of migrants without proper papers.

Electronic Surveillance popular with Dems

Barry, Senior Policy Analyst, ’10 [Tom, 4/14, senior policy analyst at the Center for International Policy and director of its TransBorder Project, “Fallacies of High Tech Fixes for Border Security”, Center for International Policy: International Policy Report, pg. 2]

Even the leading liberal immigration reformers have joined the border security bandwagon. They generally regard increased border controls as a necessary foundation to gain bipartisan support for comprehensive immigration reform. High-tech solutions for border security are the highly preferred border security solution. Unlike the border fence, electronic surveillance and drones aren’t unsightly, don’t have much of an environmental impact and are commonly regarded as the only way to monitor the vast stretches of northern and southern borderlands.

During their campaigns, Democratic Party presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton—backing away from earlier support for the border fence (both voted for the Secure Border Fence Act of 2006)—asserted that technological surveillance is the preferable border security solution. As candidate Obama said during the February 21, 2009 presidential debate: “There may be areas where it makes sense to have some fencing. But for the most part, having Border Patrol, surveillance, [and] deploying effective technology—that’s going to be the better approach.”

Electronic security is bipartisan- sometimes even seen as left of center

Barry, Senior Policy Analyst, ’10 [Tom, 4/14, senior policy analyst at the Center for International Policy and director of its TransBorder Project, “Fallacies of High Tech Fixes for Border Security”, Center for International Policy: International Policy Report, pg. 5]

The massive outlays of DHS dollars for high-tech fixes, like the so-called virtual fence and the deployment of UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles), have sparked little or no public opposition—in marked contrast, for example, to the surge of opposition to the border fence from community groups, environmentalists, and immigrant-rights organizations.

Environmental organizations like the Sierra Club have positioned themselves on the side of aerial and electronic surveillance while opposing the border wall and the setting aside of environmental impact statements in the name of border security. The organization’s Borderlands Campaign, for example, urged those who opposed the border wall to support the “Border Security and Responsibility Act of 2009.”

The “Border Security and Responsibility Act of 2009,” a bill introduced by Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), “provides guidance to move toward a more sane and just border policy.” The bill calls for the end of the construction of the border fence (authorized by the Security Border Fence Act of 2006) while advocating “giving priority to the use of remote cameras, sensors… additional manpower, unmanned aerial vehicles, or other low impact border enforcement techniques.”

The “Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America’s Security and Prosperity” (CIR ASAP), introduced by Rep. Luis Guitierrez (D-Ill.), is widely deemed, even by its advocates, as too left-of-center to be seriously considered by Congress. Yet even this progressive bill, which counts on the strong support of the Hispanic Caucus and the Progressive Caucus, attempts to bolster the security credentials of CIR advocacy with its backing of high-tech, immensely expensive and unproven border-security strategies.

A summary of the bill provided by Gutierrez’s office states that CIR ASAP “minimizes wasteful spending by developing and studying comprehensive uses of advanced technologies, such as aerial and automated surveillance.” The Gutierrez CIR bill proposes that DHS should develop “a comprehensive plan for the systematic surveillance of the international land and maritime borders of the United States.”

According to this CIR bill, which is the only one that has been introduced, DHS should take acts “to gain operational control of the international land borders of the United States.” To do this, the DHS secretary should “give first priority to the use of remote cameras, sensors, removal of nonnative vegetation, incorporation of natural barriers, additional manpower, unmanned aerial vehicles, or other low impact border enforcement techniques.”

Massive lobby in congress pushing for drones- 33 members, working with multiple branches of gv’t

Barry, Senior Policy Analyst, ’10 [Tom, 4/14, senior policy analyst at the Center for International Policy and director of its TransBorder Project, “Fallacies of High Tech Fixes for Border Security”, Center for International Policy: International Policy Report, pg. 8]

Since the start of DHS’s drone program, it has counted on the strong support of the Congressional UAV Caucus, whose mission is to “educate members of Congress and the public on the strategic, tactical, and scientific value of UAVs, actively support further development and acquisition of more capable UAVs, and to more effectively engage the civilian aviation community on UAV use and safety.” Congressional representatives in this 33-member caucus include Howard “Buck” McKeon, Duncan Hunter, Silvestre Reyes, Alan Mollohan, Jerry Lewis, and Brian Bilbray. Representative McKeon, the Republican congressman who represents the San Diego-area district that is home to Predator manufacturer General Atomics, is the leading voice of the new congressional caucus and a regular beneficiary of company-sponsored international trips to promote UAVs.

Caucus members say they are working with “the military, industry, NASA, DHS, and FAA to seek fair and equitable solutions to the challenges created by UAV operations in the U.S. national air space,” as well as supporting “policies and budgets that promote a larger, more robust national security UAV capability.”

History of bipartisan legislation passing on drones specifically

Barry, Senior Policy Analyst, ’10 [Tom, 4/14, senior policy analyst at the Center for International Policy and director of its TransBorder Project, “Fallacies of High Tech Fixes for Border Security”, Center for International Policy: International Policy Report, pg. 8]

Congress has passed a flurry of laws and budget authorizations to foster UAVs. In 2003, Congress directed DHS to study the feasibility of using UAVs, and has repeated this directive in numerous instances since then. The 2003 DoD Authorization Act (P.L. 108-136) required the president to issue a report “on the use of unmanned aerial vehicles for support of homeland security missions.” As part of the 2007 appropriations bill, Congress urged DHS to work with the FAA to implement a pilot program that would use UAVs for surveillance on the northern border.

Along the southern border, politicians such as Texas Governor Rick Perry and congressional members such as Henry Cuellar (D-Tex.) and Silvestre Reyes (D-Tex.) are increasingly vocal about the need for UAV surveillance, mirrored on the northern border by North Dakota’s Democratic senators Byron Dorgan and Kent Conrad.

The drone caucus hates the plan and loves the cp

Barry 11 (Tom, Director of the TransBorder Project of the Americas Program at the Center for Immigration Policy, “How the Drone Warfare Industry Took Over Our Congress,” 11/30/2011, Alternet, http://www.alternet.org/story/153278/how_the_drone_warfare_industry_took_over_our_congress)//JL

At the Unmanned Systems Fair on September 21, the latest drone technology was on display. The drone fair, which took place in the lobby of the Rayburn House Office Building, also displayed the easy mix of government and business. Also on exhibit was the kind of bipartisan unity often seen when Democrats and Republicans rally around security and federal pork. Howard “Buck” McKeon, R-Calif., and Henry Cuellar, D-Tex., co-chairs of the Unmanned Systems Caucus, welcomed the drone industry and its supporters to Capitol Hill. The drone caucus, which has more than 50 members, cosponsored the drone fete with the Association of Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, an industry group that brings together the leading drone manufacturers. Drone orders from the federal government are rolling in to AUVSI corporate members, including such top military contractors as General Atomics, Lockheed Martin and Northrup Grumman. Buck McKeon, who also sits on the House Armed Services Committee, thanked the industry for its support of “our warfighters.” In his opening remarks, Cuellar stressed the fundamental role of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) in ensuring homeland security and border security. The Obama administration’s enthusiasm for drone attacks and surveillance in Afghanistan and elsewhere has helped consolidate the Pentagon’s commitment to drone warfare. Paralleling the increased use of drones in foreign wars is the rising commitment of the Department of Homeland Security to deploy drones for border security. The drone business is projected to double over the next decade despite stagnant military budgets. The annual global market is expected to rise from $5.9 billion to nearly $11.3 billion by 2020 – with the United States accounting for about three-quarters of the total research, development and procurement markets. U.S. government drone purchases -- not counting contracts for an array of related UAV services and “payloads” -- rose from $588 million to $1.3 billion over the past five years. In the search of a high-tech fix for its much-criticized border security operations. DHS is becoming increasingly committed to drone deployment. The administration’s enthusiasm for drone surveillance mirrors its continuing commitment to ground-based electronic surveillance projects, which have quietly proceeded despite the department’s repeated inability to demonstrate the benefits of the “virtual fence.” The Air and Maritime Office of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) currently has a fleet of eight UAVs, with another two drones expected by early next year. CBP’s strategic plan calls for the eventual deployment of 24 drones. CBP continues to add drones even though agency officials acknowledge that they have neither the skilled teams nor the technical infrastructure necessary to deploy the drones it already has. The agency says that drones function as a “force multiplier,” but it has never offered any evidence to document this claim that drones increase the efficiency of the Border Patrol and are more effective that piloted aircraft or ground patrols. Nonetheless, border security hawks, especially in Texas, continue to escalate their demands for more drones to patrol the border and Mexican airspace. Besides drone caucus co-chair Cuellar, who represents the South Texas border district that includes Laredo, other Texan drone proponents include Governor Rick Perry, Cong. Michael McCaul, the Republican congressman who chairs the House Homeland Security Committee, and Silvestre Reyes, who represents the El Paso district and ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee. As part of the U.S. global drug war and as an extension of border security, unarmed drones are also crossing the border into Mexico. The U.S. Northern Command has acknowledged that the U.S. military does fly Global Hawk drones into Mexico to assist President Felipe Calderón’s government drug war. Drone caucus members McCaul and Reyes, among others, have called for increased drone surveillance in Mexico. Caucus and Campaigns Formed in 2009 by McKeon, the Unmanned Systems Caucus (formerly called the UAV Caucus), aims to “educate members of Congress and the public on the strategic, tactical, and scientific value of unmanned systems; actively support further development and acquisition of more systems, and to more effectively engage the civilian aviation community on unmanned system use and safety.” The caucus states that it “works with the military, industry, the Department of Homeland Security, NASA, the Federal Aviation Administration, and other stakeholders to seek fair and equitable solutions to challenges created by UAV operations in the U.S. National Air Space.” Members include a collection of border hawks, immigration hardliners and leading congressional voices for the military contracting industry. These include Brian Bilbray (R-Calif.), who heads the House Immigration Reform Caucus; Candice Miller (R-Minn.), who heads the Homeland Security subcommittee that reviews the air and marine operations of DHS; Joe Wilson (R-SC); Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.); Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.); Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.); and Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.). The drone caucus works closely with the industry association AUVSI, which, in addition to the drone fair, sponsored a UAV Action Day on Capitol Hill last year. AUVSI has its own congressional advocacy committee that is closely linked to the caucus. The keynote speaker at the drone association’s recent annual conference was McKeon, who is also slated to be the featured speaker at AUVSI’s AIR Day 2011 – in recognition, says AUVSI”s president that Congressman McKeon “has been one of the biggest supporters of the unmanned systems community.” While the relationship between increasing drone contracts and the increasing campaign contributions received by drone caucus members can only be speculated, caucus members are favored recipients of contributions by members of the unmanned systems association AUVSI. In the 2010 election cycle, political action committees associated with companies that produce drones donated more than $1.7 million to the 42 congressional members who were members of the congressional drone caucus. The leading recipient was McKeon, who currently chairs the powerful House Armed Services Committee, with Cong. Reyes coming in a close second.

AT drones fail

Drones fail now because they just cover half of the border---the counterplan provides complete coverage

Spagat 14 – Staff @ AP

(Elliott, “US border security: Let the drones do it?,” CSM, http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2014/1113/US-border-security-Let-the-drones-do-it)

The U.S. government now patrols nearly half the Mexican border by drones alone in a largely unheralded shift to control desolate stretches where there are no agents, camera towers, ground sensors or fences, and it plans to expand the strategy to the Canadian border.∂ It represents a significant departure from a decades-old approach that emphasizes boots on the ground and fences. Since 2000, the number of Border Patrol agents on the 1,954-mile border more than doubled to surpass 18,000 and fencing multiplied nine times to 700 miles.∂ Under the new approach, Predator Bs sweep remote mountains, canyons and rivers with a high-resolution video camera and return within three days for another video in the same spot, according to two officials with direct knowledge of the effort on condition of anonymity because details have not been made public.∂ Recommended: INFOGRAPHIC The future of drones in the US∂ The two videos are then overlaid for analysts who use sophisticated software to identify tiny changes — perhaps the tracks of a farmer or cows, perhaps those of immigrants who entered the country illegally or a drug-laden Hummer, they said.∂ About 92 percent of drone missions have shown no change in terrain, but the others raised enough questions to dispatch agents to determine if someone got away, sometimes by helicopter because the area is so remote. The agents look for any sign of human activity — footprints, broken twigs, trash.∂ About 4 percent of missions have been false alarms, like tracks of livestock or farmers, and about 2 percent are inconclusive. The remaining 2 percent offer evidence of illegal crossings from Mexico, which typically results in ground sensors being planted for closer monitoring.∂ The government has operated about 10,000 drone flights under the strategy, known internally as "change detection," since it began in March 2013. The flights currently cover about 900 miles, much of it in Texas, and are expected to expand to the Canadian border by the end of 2015.∂ The purpose is to assign agents where illegal activity is highest, said R. Gil Kerlikowske, commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, the Border Patrol's parent agency, which operates nine unmanned aircraft across the country.∂ "You have finite resources," he said in an interview. "If you can look at some very rugged terrain (and) you can see there's not traffic, whether it's tire tracks or clothing being abandoned or anything else, you want to deploy your resources to where you have a greater risk, a greater threat."∂ If the video shows the terrain unchanged, Border Patrol Chief Michael Fisher calls it "proving the negative" — showing there isn't anything illegal happening there and therefore no need for agents and fences.∂ The strategy was launched without fanfare and expanded at a time when President Barack Obama prepares to issue an executive order by the end of this year to reduce deportations and enhance border security.∂ Rep. Michael McCaul, a Texas Republican who chairs the House Homeland Security Committee, applauded the approach while saying that surveillance gaps still remain. "We can no longer focus only on static defenses such as fences and fixed (camera) towers," he said.

This shapes how you should read all of their solvency deficits---the only problem with drones is commitment not capability

Dyer 15 - retired Naval Intelligence officer

(JE, “Drones that work great everywhere else are somehow ‘ineffective’ on U.S. border,” http://libertyunyielding.com/2015/01/07/drones-work-great-everywhere-else-somehow-ineffective-u-s-border/)

Here you go. A Sudden Meme has popped up: the drone surveillance program at the U.S. border has been “ineffective” and isn’t worth the money we’re spending on it.∂ The meme has spread like wildfire. Everyone’s got the story. See here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. I’m tired of typing “here” so I’ll move on.∂ Sudden Memes have become a frequent feature of news in the Obama era. This latest one has media outlets from all points of the political spectrum reporting in lockstep that drones on the border have been expensive and basically useless. $12,000 per hour! Way fewer hours of coverage than planned! Almost no significant contribution to border apprehensions! Covering only 170 miles of the border anyway!∂ It’s like no one engages in any abstract, analytical thought before running with these stories. (Although someone at Slate clearly paused for political thought. The Slate article decrying the ineffectiveness of the border-drone program is accompanied by an image of George W. Bush and then-Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff inspecting a border drone back in 2007. If drones are ineffective, then they have to be depicted as Bush’s Drones.)∂ A pause for objective reflection would at least prompt some research. Drones have been extremely effective, after all, at surveillance in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Somalia, and Libya.∂ When Obama wanted to support African nations like Uganda, Ethiopia, and Nigeria in fighting terrorists and insurgencies, he sent drones (see here as well).∂ The Obama administration has used drones to fight drug trafficking and bolster local security in the Caribbean (also here) and Mexico. Central American countries have increased their own use of drones significantly in recent years, presumably because drones have been effective for them.∂ The U.S. Air Force’s drone fleet is overextended to the “breaking point” due to the popularity of the drone surveillance product with military commanders.∂ And in July 2014, the Obama administration requested a “drone surge” on the border with Mexico as part of its effort to interdict drug smuggling and human trafficking.∂ The administration is clearly a fan of drones, having deployed them to so many places where it considers the U.S. to have a national interest. But suddenly, six months after Obama proposed a drone surge at the U.S. border, an IG report reveals that the drones that have set the world on fire in other venues have been so ineffective on the U.S. border that someone ought surely to lose his pension for gross mismanagement.∂ It has to be a management problem, after all. Drones don’t task or fly themselves. If flying them over a mere 170 miles of border is limiting their effectiveness, well, expand their operating area. The coverage area is not a limitation of drones; it’s an artifact of tasking, logistics, and regulation, all of which the U.S. government has virtually absolute discretion over. The same goes for the altitudes drones fly at (depending on their type), and how they are used in flight.

AT US-Mexico relations DA

Relations are resilient – issues are insulated – this evidence is predictive

Selee and Diaz-Cayeros 13 – PhD, Director of the Wilson Center’s Mexico Institute

(Andrew and Alberto, “Mexico and the United States: the politics of partnership,” ISBN-13: 978-1588268938)

Yet positive factors favor prospects for more effective partnership and are likely to drive cooperation over time. First among these is the genuine interdependence of interests that underlies integration between the two countries. Everyday issues that need to be resolved – from the GM bailout to drug trafficking to natural disasters and water shortages at the border – create a dynamic of constant engagement around highly concrete topics that policymakers on the two sides of the border need to address. Moreover, the growing complexity of the relationship means that even when disputes arise among the two countries’ political leaders, progress continues along a number of other areas, driven by federal agencies, state, and local governments, and nongovernmental actors. Increasingly, interactions between the two countries take place simultaneously along a wide number of different points of engagement, which are largely independent of each other and have their own particular dynamics. Progress on one does not necessarily augur progress on another; nor does failure in one area lead to failure in another. Nonetheless, progress in deepending engagement between the two countries will constantly be challenged by the persistent asymmetries that condition the relationship. The different in geopolitical realities of the two countries, the continuing intequality in average income between them and the dissimilar capacities of the two states are likely to continue to limit some efforts at greater cooperation. Recent tendencies have softened the impact of some of these asymmetries. Democraticization in Mexico has made the political systems of the two countries more similar. Increased economic and social exchanges have built ties that mitigate some of the most visible asymmetries and forced the two countries to seek solutions to shared problems. Public opinion studies show how far the two countries have gone in recognizing their mutual interest in working together despite their differences, with ordinary citizens generally far ahead of political elites. Over the long term, interdependence will force the two countries closer and complexity will allow the relationship to lay down even deeper roots along multiple points of engagement. However, asymmetry will continue to create frictions and provide a brake on progress in cooperation. The relationship between the United States and Mexico will continuously deepen, but wil be a process fraught with tension. The countries have ceased to be distant neighbors but as yet they remain far away from being strategic partners whose relationship is guided by a common vision of mutually beneficial shared outcomes.

Momentum – it’s a decade-long rise

Shirk 13 - Associate professor of political science

(Jason, MAY, “US-Mexico Relations Complicated, Conditioned by Drug War,” a statement from Shirk in an interview with host Scott Simon, NPR, http://www.npr.org/2013/05/04/181053775/u-s-mexico-relations-complicated-conditioned-by-drug-war)

In the last 12 years, and especially the last six years, have really been a high-water mark in U.S.-Mexico collaboration, particularly on security issues. Levels of trust are so high that we have had the opportunity to fly drones in Mexico, we have agents operating in direct collaboration with their Mexican counterparts, we've seen record levels of extradition. So, the collaboration is at a much higher level of intensity than we've ever seen before - or has been, at least over the last six years or so.

Prefer our evidence – theirs is media speculation that hyperbolizes bumps in the road

O'Neil 13 - senior fellow for Latin America Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, a nonpartisan foreign-policy think tank and membership organization

Shannon, “Mexico Makes It,” http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/138818/shannon-k-oneil/mexico-makes-it)

Hidden behind the troubling headlines, however, is another, more hopeful Mexico -- one undergoing rapid and widespread social, political, and economic transformation. Yes, Mexico continues to struggle with grave security threats, but it is also fostering a globally competitive marketplace, a growing middle class, and an increasingly influential pro-democracy voter base. In addition, Mexico's ties with the United States are changing. Common interests in energy, manufacturing, and security, as well as an overlapping community formed by millions of binational families, have made Mexico's path forward increasingly important to its northern neighbor.¶ For most of the past century, U.S.-Mexican relations were conducted at arm's length. That began to change, however, in the 1980s and, even more, after the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) spurred greater bilateral economic engagement and cooperation. Mexico's democratic transition has further eased the wariness of some skeptics in Washington. Still, the U.S.-Mexican relationship is far from perfect. New bilateral policies are required, especially to facilitate the movement of people and goods across the U.S.-Mexican border. More important, the United States needs to start seeing Mexico as a partner instead of a problem.

Student exchanges guarantee generational resiliency

Guilamo-Ramos 13

(Vincent, Director, Doctoral Program at the Silver School of Social Work. Co-authored by José Alfredo Miranda López) “The U.S. and Mexico Have Much to Learn from Each Other” HuffPost Blog. May 28, 2013. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/vincent-guilamoramos/us-mexico-relations_b_3347068.html

Barack Obama's recent visit to Mexico, the fourth of his presidency, represented an important, deliberate attempt to shift the focus of Mexico-U.S. relations from security to economic improvement.¶ But it also represented much more -- a chance to allay the public's profoundly negative conceptions of Mexico by shifting the conversation to education, labor, environment, and other human-scale issues that are truly vital to the future of both countries. ¶ While much media coverage focuses on Mexican immigration battles, drug wars and narco-trafficking, the relationship between the U.S. and Mexico has been evolving in complex and positive ways.¶ That is really not so surprising when one considers that the Latino population in the U.S. surpassed 50 million not too long ago, and people of Mexican ancestry account for more than 60 percent of this total. Mexico's economy and middle class are growing.¶ And there is Obama's pivotal "100,000 Strong in the Americas" initiative, launched in 2011 to expand study-abroad exchange opportunities between the U.S. and Latin America. Increasing student exchange, and building understanding through higher education, offers at least the potential to help offset the tarnished public perception of bilateral relations. Not incidentally, this cross-border tradition contributes heavily to both countries' economies.

Directory: file -> view
view -> Western Europe after wwii
view -> Author study: paul fleischman
view -> Qpa1 7ela study Guide
view -> Arctic Oil/Gas Neg
view -> November 1970 Approximately 150,000-500,000 deaths Bhola Cyclone Bangladesh
view -> Grade Level: 6 Unit of Study: Caribbean glce
view -> Citation: Duffield, Katy
view -> Table of Contents Lesson #
view -> Chinese Wind Energy Disad

Download 1.1 Mb.

Share with your friends: