Border surveillance neg cartels k
HIGH-SKILLED IMMIGRATION DA
Download 1.1 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Reducing immigration enforcement collapses support for raising legal migration ceilings
- High-skilled immigration reform is key to US economic leadership
- US economic leadership solves nuclear war
HIGH-SKILLED IMMIGRATION DA1ncHigh-skilled immigration reform will pass now---strong commitment to border security is a pre-requisite for passageLevy 6-3 – Capitol Hill analyst @ US News (Gabrielle, “Signs of Life For Immigration Reform,” US News, http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/06/03/signs-of-life-for-immigration-reform)//BB With comprehensive immigration reform essentially dead on Capitol Hill for the foreseeable future, Republicans appear poised to advance a series of incremental measures to address the hot-button issue amid political pressure to tackle the broken system. ∂ GOP lawmakers in recent weeks have proposed potential areas of compromise they hope can help the party handle the delicate balance between appeasing the demands of the base in beefing up border security while addressing the practical economic need for foreign labor.∂ The moves come amid almost no progress on immigration legislation since the then-Democratically controlled Senate passed a comprehensive reform bill in 2013 that never came up for a vote in the GOP-led House. The impasse led President Barack Obama to issue executive orders protecting some groups of immigrants living illegally in the U.S. from deportation – infuriating Republicans in the process.∂ With the unilateral moves halted by a federal judge, congressional leadership has been content to sidestep the thorny issue after losing a faceoff in March in which they unsuccessfully tried to tie funding for the Department of Homeland Security to a rollback of the Obama actions. But the looming presidential race has increased the sense of urgency among some of the rank and file eager to see the party raise its standing among Hispanic voters.∂ “If you’re a Republican [running for president], you at minimum want the immigration issue neutralized, and maybe gain votes where Mitt Romney was unable to get them” in 2012, says Stuart Anderson, executive director of the nonpartisan, nonprofit National Foundation for American Policy.∂ While any of the the piecemeal proposals faces long odds to passage and even less chance of cooperation with the White House, one area of focus appears to be on guest worker programs that would increase the number and accessibility of visas for both high- and low-skilled workers. The reform already has bipartisan support.∂ “When it comes to illegal immigration, what’s the No. 1 reason people come to this country illegally? The same reason our ancestors came here: to work,” Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., said Tuesday at a bipartisan event exploring pragmatic methods of reigniting the debate on reform. “From my standpoint, if you really want to secure our border, let’s eliminate or drastically reduce the incentives for illegal immigration, starting with a guest worker program.”∂ Some studies have suggested that, instead of taking away jobs from Americans, those workers help spur economic growth. It’s a position immigration advocates hope to use to sell the issue to a broader constituency.∂ “If you don’t have a restaurant worker working in the kitchen … you’re not going to have good jobs, waiter jobs, management jobs in restaurants for Americans,” says Alfonso Aguilar, director of the Latino Partnership program at the conservative American Principles in Action group and the former chief of the U.S. Office of Citizenship under President George W. Bush. “So we need to connect with the middle class and show that immigration is good for the middle class.”∂ NOGALES, AZ - JANUARY 21: The U.S.-Mexico border fence on January 21, 2014 in Nogales, Arizona. (Photograph by Charles Ommanney/Reportage by Getty Images)∂ RELATED∂ Tracing the 2016 Fault Lines∂ Aguilar’s organization has suggested setting up guest worker programs for low-skilled workers that would allow the number of visas to fluctuate based on the needs of businesses. The system, particularly suited to the needs of the agricultural industry, would allow workers to come into the U.S. for a few months of the year, then return to their home countries.∂ A more narrowly tailored bill from Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, has also gained some interest from advocates on both sides of the aisle. The measure, which has yet to move in committee, would increase the number of visas for high-skilled workers, particularly those in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, or STEM, fields, and make it easier for those workers to stay in the U.S.∂ "Just like in business, I don't want the smart people working in my competitor's business, I want them working in mine,” Johnson said. “The same thing should be true for a national economy: If we use American resources to educate the brightest people from around the world ... we should provide every incentive for the brightest minds to be working here to grow our economy." Reducing immigration enforcement collapses support for raising legal migration ceilingsMargin 7 - Warner-Booker Distinguished Professor of International Law and Class of 1963 Research Professor, University of Virginia. The author served as General Counsel of the Immigration and Naturalization Service from 1995 to 1998, and many of the opinions voiced here derive from that first-hand experience with immigration enforcement, as well as a quarter century of scholarly work in the field (David, “EIGHT MYTHS ABOUT IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT,” Legislation and Public Policy, 10)//BB MYTH 7: SERIOUS ENFORCEMENT IS AT ODDS WITH HUMANE∂ IMMIGRATION POLICY.∂ A common vignette in media coverage of immigration issues is∂ the detention and deportation of a person, perhaps based on a yearsold∂ deportation order and in spite of relationships to citizen or lawful∂ resident family members—relationships which may have come into∂ existence only after the person’s illegal migration, for example∂ through the birth of a child on U.S. soil. The coverage is usually sympathetic∂ to the individual, for understandable reasons, and it often conveys∂ a message that enforcement—that is, assuring the person’s∂ deportation instead of allowing him or her to remain—is the antithesis∂ of a humane immigration policy.110∂ We cannot realistically build American immigration policy on∂ the notion that long residence, even if illegal, must always generate an∂ equitable claim to remain. As the recent backlash against amnesty∂ demonstrates, such a notion flies against a strong popular headwind∂ derived from a widely held (and publicly valuable) aversion to lawbreaking.∂ It will be a sufficient achievement if this round of immigration∂ reform can incorporate a one-time amnesty for a finite population∂ already present. In my view, that can only happen if a wide enough∂ segment of the public is convinced that such an amnesty would truly∂ be a single event—primarily because of the simultaneous deployment∂ of the resources and systems necessary to sustain resolute enforcement∂ thereafter.∂ Viewed in a wider compass, the only politically durable foundation∂ for generous legal immigration policy in the future is the assurance∂ that immigration is under control. Without reliable enforcement,∂ the political field is open to those who blow the negative effects of∂ immigration out of all proportion and who seek to ride fears of widespread∂ lawbreaking to political success. At times, such efforts even∂ threaten to cut back on legal migration—the easiest part of our overall∂ immigration patterns for a frustrated Congress to affect. After all, we∂ only narrowly avoided a serious reduction in legal immigration ceilings∂ in 1996 as part of that year’s illegal migration control legislation.111∂ Without reliable enforcement that dries up the job magnet,∂ frustration with visible lawbreaking leads state and local governments∂ to experiment with harsh measures meant to discourage illegal∂ migration.∂ Frustration also sometimes leads Congress to lash out, as it did in∂ 1996, to impose ever harsher measures on the unfortunate few who do∂ fall within the toils of the enforcement system—visiting upon them∂ new mandates for detention, exaggerated reactions to minor infractions,∂ or new restrictions on forms of relief that once allowed immigration∂ judges to take account of humanitarian reality and forgive∂ deportation on a case-by-case basis.112 Reliable enforcement would∂ arm the opponents of such harsh measures with better arguments and∂ bring into the fold wider constituencies for resisting such harshness—∂ perhaps someday even for rolling back some of the severity of the∂ 1996 amendments. Reliable enforcement, in short, empowers generous∂ legal immigration policy in the long run. This insight suggests∂ one final myth deserving examination here: MYTH 8: IMMIGRATION REFORM IS REALLY ONLY∂ ABOUT ENFORCEMENT. High-skilled immigration reform is key to US economic leadershipGhadar 15 – founding director of The Center for Global Business Studies at Penn State's Smeal College of Business and a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (Fariborz, “Here's one way to attract the best and brightest to the U.S. - and keep them here: Fariborz Ghadar,” Penn Live, http://www.pennlive.com/opinion/2015/03/post_40.html)//BB Reflected in the development of the Immigration Innovation Act and the Startup Act, 2015 has already proven to be an important year for immigration policy. But until these bills are passed into law, they mean little to the future of the United States. ∂ Less than one month into the new year, Senate introduced the Immigration Innovation Act with the intention of increasing the presence of highly skilled immigrants in the U.S..∂ Visas available for foreign graduates of U.S. universities in the science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields who hold employment in their areas of expertise after graduation will increase by over 75 percent to an attractive 115,000. The Innovation Act also discontinues any sort of cap on visas for masters and doctorate students with employment after graduation, regardless of the field. ∂ In order for the U.S. to compete in the increasingly technical world, we must change our policies to accept contributions from the brightest minds regardless of birthplace. The Immigration Innovation Act aims to adapt our country's workforce to the forecasted environment. ∂ According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, "STEM occupations are projected to grow by 17.0 percent from 2008 to 2018, compared to 9.8 percent growth for non-STEM occupations." ∂ While the Startup Act will create a world-class workforce to fill the jobs we already have, the Startup Act will facilitate foreign entrepreneurs in their creation of more enterprises.∂ A 2012 study released by the Partnership For A New American Economy found that immigrants file 76 percent of patents at top U.S. universities. Upon graduation, these striving entrepreneurs seek to start businesses around their new discoveries.∂ Of the patents awarded to immigrants, over half are granted to the groups who face the most difficulty in acquiring visas: students, postdoctoral fellows, and staff researchers. ∂ Without green cards, the mere prospect of raising capital is nearly impossible. Our current policies literally force intelligent professionals and their innovations out of the U.S. economy. ∂ The Kauffman Foundation, the largest American foundation to focus on the promotion of entrepreneurship, completed a study in 2013 highlighting the economic effects of the Startup Act.∂ If the Startup Act were to be put into law, the Kauffman Foundation predicts the creation of between 500,000 and 1.5 million jobs in the technology and engineering fields over the next 10 years. ∂ The Foundation's predictions are based upon data from the U.S. Census Bureau Business Dynamics Statistics.∂ One quarter of technology and engineering companies developed between 1995 and 2012 were founded or co-founded by foreign-born immigrants. Those developed between 2006 and 2012 employed an average of 21.37 people each.∂ Foreign-born immigrants creating employment opportunities in the U.S. is not a novel concept.∂ Between 1995 and 2006, the technology companies started by immigrants accounted for an impressive 10 percent of total job creation.∂ This number is made even more remarkable by the fact that these immigrant-owned firms made up only 1 percent of all firms developed between 1995 and 2006.∂ One can only imagine how much these numbers would increase if the U.S. were to actually facilitate highly skilled immigrants' efforts to form businesses and create jobs.∂ The Kauffman Foundation's predictions for the future are, of course, dependent upon the reformation of U.S. immigration policy. Relative to other countries, such as Canada, New Zealand, and the UK, our current policies are unreceptive to foreigners seeking to employ their valuable skills.∂ Lack of foreign interest in working in the U.S. is not to blame; U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services reached their cap on H-1B visas within five days of the application opening in 2014.∂ Our strict limit on H-1B visas is the reason why 46 percent of immigrants in Canada report a high level of education, while only 35 percent of immigrants in the U.S. can report the same.∂ And the disparity will continue to grow so long as we choose to reject the Immigration Innovation and Startup Acts.∂ At present, the United States is a leading world power. But in order to maintain this status, we must supply our labor force with the best minds from around the world. If our policies continue to reject the contributions of highly skilled immigrants, our economy will continue to lose potential.∂ We must realize the vital role highly skilled immigrants play in keeping our country on the frontier of this technologically advanced and ever-evolving world and pass the Immigration Innovation Act and Startup Act immediately. US economic leadership solves nuclear warHaass 13 - President of the Council on Foreign Relations (Richard, “The World Without America,” http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/repairing-the-roots-of-american-power-by-richard-n--haass) Let me posit a radical idea: The most critical threat facing the United States now and for the foreseeable future is not a rising China, a reckless North Korea, a nuclear Iran, modern terrorism, or climate change. Although all of these constitute potential or actual threats, the biggest challenges facing the US are its burgeoning debt, crumbling infrastructure, second-rate primary and secondary schools, outdated immigration system, and slow economic growth – in short, the domestic foundations of American power. Readers in other countries may be tempted to react to this judgment with a dose of schadenfreude, finding more than a little satisfaction in America’s difficulties. Such a response should not be surprising. The US and those representing it have been guilty of hubris (the US may often be the indispensable nation, but it would be better if others pointed this out), and examples of inconsistency between America’s practices and its principles understandably provoke charges of hypocrisy. When America does not adhere to the principles that it preaches to others, it breeds resentment. But, like most temptations, the urge to gloat at America’s imperfections and struggles ought to be resisted. People around the globe should be careful what they wish for. America’s failure to deal with its internal challenges would come at a steep price. Indeed, the rest of the world’s stake in American success is nearly as large as that of the US itself. Part of the reason is economic. The US economy still accounts for about one-quarter of global output. If US growth accelerates, America’s capacity to consume other countries’ goods and services will increase, thereby boosting growth around the world. At a time when Europe is drifting and Asia is slowing, only the US (or, more broadly, North America) has the potential to drive global economic recovery. The US remains a unique source of innovation. Most of the world’s citizens communicate with mobile devices based on technology developed in Silicon Valley; likewise, the Internet was made in America. More recently, new technologies developed in the US greatly increase the ability to extract oil and natural gas from underground formations. This technology is now making its way around the globe, allowing other societies to increase their energy production and decrease both their reliance on costly imports and their carbon emissions. The US is also an invaluable source of ideas. Its world-class universities educate a significant percentage of future world leaders. More fundamentally, the US has long been a leading example of what market economies and democratic politics can accomplish. People and governments around the world are far more likely to become more open if the American model is perceived to be succeeding. Finally, the world faces many serious challenges, ranging from the need to halt the spread of weapons of mass destruction, fight climate change, and maintain a functioning world economic order that promotes trade and investment to regulating practices in cyberspace, improving global health, and preventing armed conflicts. These problems will not simply go away or sort themselves out. While Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” may ensure the success of free markets, it is powerless in the world of geopolitics. Order requires the visible hand of leadership to formulate and realize global responses to global challenges. Don’t get me wrong: None of this is meant to suggest that the US can deal effectively with the world’s problems on its own. Unilateralism rarely works. It is not just that the US lacks the means; the very nature of contemporary global problems suggests that only collective responses stand a good chance of succeeding. But multilateralism is much easier to advocate than to design and implement. Right now there is only one candidate for this role: the US. No other country has the necessary combination of capability and outlook. This brings me back to the argument that the US must put its house in order – economically, physically, socially, and politically – if it is to have the resources needed to promote order in the world. Everyone should hope that it does: The alternative to a world led by the US is not a world led by China, Europe, Russia, Japan, India, or any other country, but rather a world that is not led at all. Such a world would almost certainly be characterized by chronic crisis and conflict. That would be bad not just for Americans, but for the vast majority of the planet’s inhabitants. 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:
|