The counterplan solves the case by sealing the border and drastically increasing internal immigration enforcement. Prefer our ev---all of theirs are describing status quo failures, but ours is predict

2nc o/v

The counterplan solves the case by sealing the border and drastically increasing internal immigration enforcement. Prefer our ev---all of theirs are describing status quo failures, but ours is predictive about policy changes.

FIRST---cartels---increased enforcement disrupts all cartel smuggling operations. This is comparatively a larger internal link because it includes drugs and human smuggling.

SECOND---wages---enforcement deters prospective immigrants. Solves long-term wages because it hollows out the dual labor market.

Solvency – drones

Empirically, drones solve revenue and provide key intelligence for ground disruption

Pena 14 - J.D. candidate at The George Washington University Law School and Senior Managing Editor of the Public Contract Law Journal

(Katharine, “ACCOUNTABILITY FOR PRIVATE SECURITY CONTRACTOR DRONE OPERATORS ON THE U.S.-MEXICO BORDER: APPLYING LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE MIDDLE EAST,” 44 Pub. Cont. L.J. 137)//BB

Those looking to expand the usage of drones cite several benefits. First, drones have the ability to eliminate targets and embark upon reconnaissance [139] missions without placing border patrol agents at risk. For example, last year at the U.S.-Mexico border, "nine border drones helped find 7,600 pounds of marijuana, valued at $ 19.3 million. The 14 manned P-3 Orions helped intercept 148,000 pounds of cocaine valued at $ 2.8 billion" without the loss of any human life. 10Link to the text of the note Second, the ability to maneuver around the world quickly and effectively allows drones seamless global reach and long-range capabilities. 11Link to the text of the note Third, drones can provide necessary support to border patrol agents working on the ground. 12Link to the text of the note Finally, drones are adaptable and can remain in the air for extended periods of time, while retaining the ability to strike rapidly. 13Link to the text of the note

Shift from fence to drones solves enforcement drawbacks

Licon 11 (Adriana, reporter for El Paso Times, “US drones help fight Mexico drug cartels” http://www.elpasotimes.com/ci_17631672 3/17/11 JM)

In this political season immigration is the issue that everyone's taking pains not to discuss. The presidential candidates are merely paying the same lip service to border security. Congress has all but abandoned comprehensive immigration reform, and the [George W.] Bush administration continues to pile all their immigration-policy eggs in the border-security basket. But that doesn't mean nothing is happening. Homeland Security [DHS] head Michael Chertoff, in an April [2008] trip to the U.S.-Mexico border, made clear his determination that 670 miles of border fence, already under construction in Arizona and California, be completed by the end of the year. The border fence project has faced embarrassments—illegal immigrants employed to build the wall, a "Virtual Fence" project that cannot distinguish humans and vehicles from livestock and bushes— but those setbacks pale in comparison to its fundamental flaws. Below [are] six simple reasons a fence spanning the U.S.-Mexico border is bad policy. The U.S. government has begun deploying drones into Mexico after Mexican officials requested U.S. aircraft to help them fight drug-trafficking organizations. Although U.S. agencies remained tight-lipped Wednesday on flying drones over Mexico, the chief of the Mexican National Security Council, Alejandro Poiré, admitted that his government asked for this type of support to gather intelligence. Poiré in a statement said the Mexican government defines the operations, most of which take place in border areas. "When these operations take place, they are authorized and supervised by national agencies, including the Mexican Air Force," Poiré said Wednesday. Furthermore, Poiré said, the governments were not breaking any national sovereignty laws because they were simply assisting in gathering intelligence. The drones are for surveillance only and are not armed. The announcement came the day The New York Times published a story revealing that U.S. agencies have been sending an undetermined number of Global Hawk drones to interior Mexico since last month. Homeland Security drones flew along the U.S.-Mexico border in past years to gather intelligence on organized crime. Global Hawks are military drones that have been used for surveillance missions in Afghanistan as well as for relief efforts in natural disaster zones. Global Hawks can look over areas as large as 40,000 square miles. The newspaper cited officials who spoke anonymously because the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense, who reportedly operate the drones, did not publicly comment. "All U.S. cooperation with Mexico is at the government of Mexico's invitation and is fully coordinated with the government of Mexico," said Matt Chandler, Homeland Security spokesman. Chandler declined to comment specifically on the use of unmanned aircraft in Mexico. Department of Defense officials did not return calls on Wednesday. U.S. Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, is the chairman of a Homeland Security subcommittee. McCaul said he did not know that drones flew over Mexico before Wednesday. "They are probably trying to do it under the radar," he said. But McCaul said it is a positive sign to increase the role of the United States in the Mexican drug war. Mexico, he said, has been reluctant to accept U.S. intervention, but he said times are changing. "It's a significant departure in the right direction," he said. "We are seeing the (Mexican President) Felipe Calderón administration welcoming our military presence." McCaul said he learned from agencies on Wednesday that a drone helped Mexican law enforcement capture gang members in connection to the murder of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Special Agent Jaime Zapata. He was killed on a highway in San Luis Potosí on Feb. 15. The drones may also set a precedent to devise a joint military operation with Mexico, McCaul said. When President Calderón visited the White House on March 3, he said, officials sought to be "very open-minded and search for more creative solutions." "It seems to me that we are experiencing extraordinary circumstances that call for extraordinary actions by our governments," Calderón said. Mexican army and embassy officials declined to comment on the U.S. drones flying over Mexico, and instead referred inquiries to the National Security Council. Earlier this week, Juárez Mayor Héctor Murguía hosted Carlos Pascual, the U.S. ambassador in Mexico, to discuss national security matters. Murguía appeared welcoming to ideas such as placing ICE agents on the ground in Juárez. He also said he is pleased to receive any support the neighboring country could give to the city of 1.3 million that has been ravaged by drug-cartel violence. Murguía refused to comment on whether he and Pascual spoke about the drones, calling it a matter of "national security." The fact that U.S. drones are flying inland by the request of the Mexican government shows the two countries' relations are deepening, said Eric Olsen, senior associate at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars' Mexico Institute in Washington, D.C. "Of course these kinds of operations are shrouded in secrecy," he said. "There is enormous sensitivity, but there is also a realization that the threat posed by drug cartels is severe." Olsen said the U.S. presence is still limited. There are no law enforcement operations on the ground, and American agents are not armed. While Mexican officials said on Wednesday that they will heighten their use of technology with the help of the United States, Olsen said a military intervention in Mexico is not likely. "I certainly believe that Mexico with the appropriate support and help from the United States has the ability to tackle its problems." The question of how secure the U.S.-Mexico border is was raised last week during a judiciary committee hearing with U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano. At the hearing, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, cited a Government Accountability Office report for fiscal 2010 on the U.S. border with Mexico. "The Government Accountability Office points out that of the 2,000 miles along the southern border that 1,120 of those miles were not yet under operational control by the federal government," Cornyn said. Cornyn also said that of 445,000 people detained on the Mexican border, 45,000 came from 140 countries, according to Border Patrol figures for fiscal 2009. At least four countries on this list of 140 have been designated by the U.S. Department of State as state sponsors of terrorism, Cornyn said. "With our porous border admitting people coming from 140 different countries other than Mexico, including four nations that are state sponsors of international terrorism -- this is a national security threat," Cornyn said. Napolitano during the hearing said the federal government was working to secure the border. "You have to understand first of all that operational control is a term of art by the Border Patrol. It doesn't include all of the assets that are being deployed to the border -- the technology and so forth," she said.

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: