Border surveillance neg cartels k

Border surveillance is incredibly popular in Congress – specifically the Drone Caucus

This is the semi-covert cutting edge of homeland security, where federal law enforcement authorities are rapidly expanding a military-style unmanned aerial reconnaissance operation along the U.S.-Mexico border — a region that privacy watchdogs say includes a lot of American back yards. Fans of the Predators say the $20 million aircraft are a perfect platform to keep a watchful eye on America’s rugged borders, but critics say the drones are expensive, invasive and finicky toys that have done little — compared with what Border Patrol agents do on the ground — to stem the flow of illegal immigrants, drug smugglers or terrorists. Over Arizona, the Predator circled a ranch, as unseen and silent as a hunting owl. On a bank of computer screens, the monitoring team watched the truck, which appeared in ghostly infrared black and white, turn and pull up by a mobile home. In the yard, three sleeping dogs quickly woke up, their tails wagging. “Welcome home,” one of the agents said. A popular security solution Eight Predators fly for the Customs and Border Protection agency — five, and soon to be six, along the southwestern border. After a slow rollout that began in 2005, drones now patrol most of the southern boundary, from Yuma, Ariz., to Brownsville, Tex. For supporters, Predators are the new, sexy, futuristic fix for immigration control. They are irresistible to border hawks and the “Drone Caucus” in Congress, who consider the aircraft a must-have technology to meet the threat of spillover violence — yet unrealized — from Mexican drug cartels. Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-Calif.) has said that the drones are so popular that a Predator could be elected president. Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Tex.) pronounced domestic drones “invaluable.” Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) called them “ideal for border security and counter-drug missions.” Texas Gov. Rick Perry, a GOP presidential contender, argues that the solution to security along the frontier is not a border fence but more Predators. In his trips to testify on Capitol Hill, Michael Kostelnik, the retired Air Force general and former test pilot who runs the Office of Air and Marine for the CBP, said he has never been challenged in Congress about the appropriate use of domestic drones. “Instead, the question is: Why can’t we have more of them in my district?” Kostelnik said.

They’re key to the agenda – empirics

Lennard 12 (Natasha, Assistant News Editor at Salon, “The “drone caucus” sped up domestic drone use,” 11/28/2012, Salon, http://www.salon.com/2012/11/28/the_drone_caucus_sped_up_dometic_drone_use/)//JL

The proliferation of drones in domestic law enforcement and beyond has been boosted on Capitol Hill by a 60-representative strong, bipartisan “drone caucus,” according to an investigative report by the Center for Responsive Politics and Hearst newspapers. Pushing an agenda to hurry surveillance drones into the domestic market, even though many questions about the ethics and safety of their deployment remain unanswered, has earned members of the House Unmanned Systems Caucus $8 million in drone-related campaign contributions, the investigation revealed. The report detailed how legislative efforts have ensured a speedy timeline for putting drones in the hands of local police departments as well as private corporations: Domestic use of drones began with limited aerial patrols of the nation’s borders by Customs and Border Patrol authorities. But the industry and its allies pushed for more, leading to provisions in the FAA Modernization and Reform Act, signed into law on Feb. 14 of this year.

2nc immigration link

Any attempt at immigration legislation causes massive controversy

Gomez 10 (Alan, Staff Writer at USA Today, “In new Congress, detours ahead for immigration bills,” 12/23/2010, USA Today, http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-12-23-immigration23_ST_N.htm)//JL

WASHINGTON — President Obama said Wednesday that he will persist in pushing a bill to legalize some illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children. But passing the DREAM Act, and any other immigration legislation, will become much harder when the new Congress convenes in January, advocates on both sides predict. When Republicans take over the House of Representatives and Democrats lose six seats in the Senate, bills that crack down on illegal immigration will find new life, and those that help legalize any of the country's 11 million illegal immigrants will struggle. THE OVAL: DREAM Act vote 'incredibly disappointing,' Obama says "Nothing is going to happen. The House will kill everything," said Roy Beck, executive director of NumbersUSA, which advocates lower levels of immigration. Jim Kessler of the Third Way, a moderate think tank, agreed "the prospects for the next two years are modest." Rep. Lamar Smith, a Texas Republican who will chair the House Judiciary Committee that oversees most immigration legislation, said he will not consider any bills in the first few months of the new Congress. Instead, his immigration subcommittee will focus on oversight hearings. 'Two touchstones' Leading off will be a review of the Obama administration's decision to cut down on work-site raids targeting illegal immigrants — a tactic used under President George W. Bush. Obama has focused on removing illegal immigrants with criminal records and penalizing employers who hire illegal immigrants. Next up: a review of the E-Verify program, a system that allows employers to electronically verify the immigration status of job applicants, which Smith wants to expand. "The two touchstones for me are going to be job creation and oversight," Smith said. "I'm hoping that the Democrats and the Senate want to be on the side of the American worker." On Wednesday, Obama said his administration has improved security along the Southwest border with Mexico. He said he would continue pushing for a comprehensive overhaul of the nation's immigration system and the DREAM Act. "I am determined and this administration is determined to get immigration reform done," Obama said. "If I believe in something strongly, I stay on it. And I believe strongly in this." Immigration experts aren't sure how the two sides will find common ground. Ali Noorani, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, which supports a process for some illegal immigrants to become citizens, worries that Republicans will pursue legislation that fires up their conservative base ahead of the 2012 elections, but has little chance of clearing the Senate or surviving a presidential veto. He cited the debate over the 14th Amendment. Republicans such as Rep. Steve King of Iowa say the amendment should no longer be used to grant citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants born in the U.S. "In the House, yes, we will be playing defense," Noorani said. "But when you look at the grownups within the Republican Party, they should know they cannot continue to demagogue immigrants." King, the highest-ranking Republican on the Judiciary panel's immigration subcommittee, noted passing anti-immigration legislation will be tough while Democrats control the Senate and the White House. "What we can do now is lay down some arguments, establish the parameters and be able to ... go on offense in an effective fashion, perhaps in the 113th Congress," King said, referring to the legislators who would take power after the 2012 election. Neither side has voters' full trust Some immigration observers, such as Kessler, believe surprise acts of bipartisanship are possible, such as the deal Obama struck with Republicans this month on tax cuts. Kessler said Obama should enlist Republicans who are moderate on immigration, including Bush, to try to bring the two sides together. "Voters in the middle don't fully trust Democrats on reform because they think they're giving away the store. And they don't fully trust Republicans because they think they're mean-spirited," Kessler said. "Both parties need to lean on each other to mitigate their weaknesses." Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates tighter immigration controls, said many legislators don't want to upset Hispanic voters heading into the 2012 elections. Krikorian said others, including some of the Tea Party legislators who swept into Congress in the November elections, will see the Republican majority in the House as an opportunity to go on the offensive. Krikorian said Republicans have spent years fighting off bills such as the DREAM Act, which would have given legal status to illegal immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children and planned to go to college or join the military. The measure died Saturday when the Senate failed to move it to a floor vote. Now, Krikorian said those Republicans may fight back, pushing for a reduction of the 50,000 visas granted to foreigners through a lottery process and other anti-immigration measures. "There's no question that the Tea Party enthusiasm very much overlaps with hawkishness on immigration," Krikorian said. "I hope you're going to see more of that."

Reject their turns – even if Republicans like the plan they’ll vote against it to maintain party lines

Endelman 11 (Gary, Immigration Lawyer, “Civil War Within The GOP,” 3/4/2011, ILW, http://blogs.ilw.com/entry.php?811-Civil-War-Within-The-GOP)//JL

We tend to forget it now, and so do they, but the Republican Party was born in protest. The political expression of the Northern revulsion against the Dred Scott decision, the GOP embodied an aggressive nationalism that helped to usher America into the modern era. For some time now, there has been a civil war within the GOP over immigration between those who viewed immigrants as an asset to be maximized versus those who saw it as a problem to be controlled. There are historical antecents for both camps. The pro-side can look back to Theodore Roosevelt, the first modern Republican president who was an outspoken advocate for the immigrant masses of the early 20th century while the nativist wing finds their ancestral justification in 1924 Immigration Act whose purpose and effect was to go back to the America of 1890 before the tsunami of Jewish and Catholic migration. More recently, it seemed as if the "compassionate conservative" advocates would win. President Ronald Reagan signed the IRCA amnesty into law; President George H.W.Bush signed the Immigration Act of 1990 that tripled the number of employment-based immigrant visas; President George W. Bush was the first President to speak in favor of immigration reform in a nationally televised address from the Oval Office. Wait, there is more. Remember Senator Orrin Hatch who introduced an earlier version of the Dream Act or Senator John McCain who crossed the aisle to work with the late Senator Edward Kennedy to bring about comprehensive immigration change ? No longer. As the economy deteriorated, the housing market collapsed, unemployment soared, banks stopped lending, and Wall Street stood on the precipice of ruin, the vision, compassion and courage necessary to embrace an enlightened immigration policy vanished. In its place came cries to "take our country back!" . Now that is an odd phrase- back from whom? Fear and loathing stalked the halls of Congress- defund the USCIS; safeguard the border; resist any attempt to bring the undocumented in from the shadows. These are the rallying cries of America in the age of the Tea Party uprising. Only those who go hard right can survive. The same McCain who once proudly claimed pride of authorship for CIR made television commercials in his desperate and successful effort to turn back the primary challenge of radio talk show host J.D.Hayworth that featured the repentant reformer telling his law enforcement buddies that Uncle Sam had to hurry up and "build the dang fence!" Robert Bennett who had been known for decades as one of Utah's most celebrated conservatives did not go hard right enough and he paid for his moderation by losing a primary challenge to the insurgent Mike Lee who coasted to a general election win. How about Orrin Hatch?The passionate avatar of the Dream Act now votes against his own creation. Whatever the merits of any immigration proposal might be, the political realities now in the ascendancy are such that few, if any, Republican legislators in Congress will be foolhardy enough to vote for it, knowing that, if they do, a Tea Party primary challenge will most certainly await them at the next election cycle. Senator Lindsey Graham who sought to cobble together a bipartisan Senate consensus in favor of CIR faces precisely this uncertain fate in 2012; conscience on Capitol Hill may be precusor to a long winter in South Carolina.

Political gridlock means any attempt at overhaul fails

Hale 11—PhD Candidate in the Department of Politics at Princeton University and a Visiting Fellow at LSE Global Governance, London School of Economics (Thomas, © 2011 Center for Strategic and International Studies, The Washington Quarterly, 34:1 pp. 89-101, “A Climate Coalition of the Willing,” http://www.twq.com/11winter/docs/11winter_Hale.pdf,)//JL

Second, on top of this structural bias, the U.S. political system has recently showed little capacity for far-reaching change. A culture of partisan obstructionism has brought public business to a standstill. Because the Obama administration needs to spend vast amounts of political capital to get anything through Congress, it has prioritized health care and job creation over climate change. The locus of this dysfunction is, again, the Senate, where a de facto super-majoritarian rule and a 59—41 partisan divide have made it impossible to pass ambitious legislation. With Republicans taking control of the House, climate legislation is unlikely to surface for at least two years.

There’s not enough support for comprehensive reform and internal fighting ensures backlash

Ali, 10 – reports for Congress.org covered the White House for Bloomberg, and holds graduate degree from the Medill School of Journalism (5/26/10, Ambreen, “Why activists prefer coalitions; Immigrant rights groups strengthen numbers by working together,” http://www.congress.org/news/2010/05/26/why_activists_prefer_coalitions)//JL

The immigration debate has become primarily about the 12 million illegal immigrants living in the U.S., overshadowing less contentious parts of the bill. Aman Kapoor and his colleagues at Immigration Voice want to change the nation's immigration laws, but they are not concerned with the illegal immigration issue. What they want is less politically charged: an easier path to permanent residency for well-educated foreigners who come to the U.S. on work visas. So why doesn't Kapoor go it alone, rather than tying his cause to the larger call for a comprehensive immigration overhaul? "Nobody has the political capital to push their political agenda by themselves. And if they do that, everybody else pushes them down," he said. Kapoor's group is part of a coalition called Reform Immigration for America that wants Congress to pass a bill that changes immigration laws comprehensively — tying together issues from visas for same-sex couples to the handling of illegal immigrants by police. Hundreds of groups make up this pro-overhaul flank of the immigration movement. By working together, they can pool resources to outnumber opponents, bring out large numbers at protest rallies, and be effective in lobbying campaigns. There's an extra advantage for Kapoor, an Indian citizen, and his fellow H1-B visa holders. As non-citizens, they don't have a vote like others in the coalition do. Congress is structured so that lawmakers are most interested in the concerns of their constituents, which is where allies and coalitions come into play. "I think the system works for those who are willing to speak up. What we are doing is in the best of American traditions. We are speaking up in a peaceful manner," the 38-year-old database administrator said. Kapoor, a green-card holder, doesn't have a dog in the fight over illegal immigration. His fellow activists are H1-B visa holders who want Congress to do something about the 25-year backlog on their green cards. They have the backing of major corporations who also lobby on the issue, though the companies are more interested in increasing the number of H1-B visas issued than in easing the path to green cards. Immigration Voice has tried standalone bills before, without success. "Frankly none of us has the majority that is required to get something done," he said. "If you look at the bigger picture, things would not happen in a vacuum. We would be debating and arguing against our own agenda." That doesn't mean all is rosy in the coalition. Kapoor said most groups are looking out for themselves. "Everybody is clinging on to their set of provisions that they would rather see through in the bigger deal. But if any two categories don't compete with each other, then no group has any issues with what the other group is proposing," he said, adding that there haven't been any points of conflict yet.

2nc link – labor

Labor opposes the plan

Harman 1 – JD @ SMU

(Jennifer, “Mexican President Vicente Fox's Proposal for Expanding NAFTA into a European Union-Style Common Market--Obstacles and Outlook,” 7 Law & Bus. Rev. Am. 207)

c. Response from Labor Groups and Other Organizations

There is also a belief that popular opinion is not in favor of NAFTA for reasons that include harming U.S. employment, while in turn benefiting employment in Mexico. 156 Much of this concern comes from citizens, corporations, and especially labor unions. 157 For example, labor unions are concerned that the open border policy in particular would result in pitting Mexican workers against U.S. workers in an already tight labor market. 158 Despite economists claiming that the "robust" economy has created fifteen million jobs, opponents of NAFTA say that NAFTA alone has cost over 200,000 U.S. jobs. 159

Labor unions are key to the agenda

McGinty and Mullins 12 (Tom, Investigative Reporter for the Wall Street Journal; Brody, Staff Writer at the Wall Street Journal, “Political Spending by Unions Far Exceeds Direct Donations,” 7/10/2012, Wall Street Journal, http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304782404577488584031850026)//JL

Organized labor spends about four times as much on politics and lobbying as generally thought, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis, a finding that shines a light on an aspect of labor's political activity that has often been overlooked. Previous estimates have focused on labor unions' filings with federal election officials, which chronicle contributions made directly to federal candidates and union spending in support of candidates for Congress and the White House. POLITICAL SPENDING BY UNIONS See information on the 200 unions that spent the most on politics and lobbying from 2005 to 2011. ENLARGE More photos and interactive graphics But unions spend far more money on a wider range of political activities, including supporting state and local candidates and deploying what has long been seen as the unions' most potent political weapon: persuading members to vote as unions want them to. The new figures come from a little-known set of annual reports to the Labor Department in which local unions, their national parents and labor federations have been required to detail their spending on politics and lobbying since 2005. This kind of spending, which is on the rise, has enabled the largest unions to maintain and in some cases increase their clout in Washington and state capitals, even though unionized workers make up a declining share of the workforce. The result is that labor could be a stronger counterweight than commonly realized to "super PACs" that today raise millions from wealthy donors, in many cases to support Republican candidates and causes. The hours spent by union employees working on political matters were equivalent in 2010 to a shadow army much larger than President Barack Obama's current re-election staff, data analyzed by the Journal show. ENLARGE The usual measure of unions' clout encompasses chiefly what they spend supporting federal candidates through their political-action committees, which are funded with voluntary contributions, and lobbying Washington, which is a cost borne by the unions' own coffers. These kinds of spending, which unions report to the Federal Election Commission and to Congress, totaled $1.1 billion from 2005 through 2011, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. The unions' reports to the Labor Department capture an additional $3.3 billion that unions spent over the same period on political activity. The costs reported to the Labor Department range from polling fees, to money spent persuading union members to vote a certain way, to bratwursts to feed Wisconsin workers protesting at the state capitol last year. Much of this kind of spending comes not from members' contributions to a PAC but directly from unions' dues-funded coffers. There is no requirement that unions report all of this kind of spending to the Federal Election Commission, or FEC. "We have always known that much of [unions'] influence comes from their political mobilization, but we have never been able to put a number on it," said Bob Biersack, a longtime FEC official who is now with the Center for Responsive Politics. "They are a human force in the political process, but a lot of that falls outside the kind of spending that needs to be disclosed to the FEC." Laurence E. Gold, counsel to the AFL-CIO, said the Labor Department reports show that "unions by law are the most transparent institutions about their electoral spending." ENLARGE Comparisons with corporate political spending aren't easy to make. Some corporate political spending, such as donations to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's political wing, doesn't need to be disclosed. What does have to be disclosed can't be found in a single database or two, as is the case with unions. Another difference is that companies use their political money differently than unions do, spending a far larger share of it on lobbying, while not undertaking anything equivalent to unions' drives to persuade members to vote as the leadership dictates. Corporations and their employees also tend to spread their donations fairly evenly between the two major parties, unlike unions, which overwhelmingly assist Democrats. In 2008, Democrats received 55% of the $2 billion contributed by corporate PACs and company employees, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Labor unions were responsible for $75 million in political donations, with 92% going to Democrats.

Labor controls the agenda – campaign spending ensures massive influence

Greenhouse 6 (Steven, New York Times, “Labor Movement Dusts Off Agenda as Power Shifts in Congress,” 11/11/2006, NYT, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/11/us/politics/11labor.html?pagewanted=all)//JL

After the Republicans took control of the House in 1994, perhaps no group was on the outs as much as organized labor. But now that the Democrats have swept both houses of Congress, the nation’s labor unions feel as if they are back — and then some. Eager to be treated as an important force, union leaders have worked overtime since Election Day reminding Democrats about all that organized labor did to help put them over the top, including spending more than $100 million and dispatching more than 100,000 volunteers to help get out the vote. After years of being sidelined by the Republican majority, the nation’s unions are now pushing Congress to act on a long list of issues: improving mine safety, putting a brake on outsourcing, making it easier to unionize workers and extending health coverage to millions of uninsured Americans. “There’s a lot of pent-up demand on organized labor’s part,” said Randel Johnson, vice president for labor, immigration and employee benefits of the United States Chamber of Commerce. “Money talks, and they dumped a lot of money into the campaign.” For now at least, organized labor sounds fully in tune with the presumed House speaker, Nancy Pelosi of California, because they both want to raise the minimum wage, rein in drug prices and help students with high college tuitions.

AT link turn

Even if the plan is popular it gets attached to other bills that make it unpopular

WYLIE ’09 (Kirk; Software Engineer in the Banking sector, “Startup Visa: The Sausage is Half Stuffed,” Kirk’s Rants, 9/30, http://kirkwylie.blogspot.com/2009/09/startup-visa-sausage-is-half-stuffed.html)//JL

In my first, very personal post about what's now become the Startup Visa movement, I referred to the sausageworks nature of modern USAmerican Immigration policy. Brad Feld has come out with a straw-man policy, and asked for ways the system can be "gamed". Check the comments for my took-me-10-seconds way to game it. More than that, though, I think the simplistic nature of the argument is ignoring the types of detailed policy issues that come out whenever you attempt to meddle in immigration policy. Let me try to come up with a few that came to my mind right off the bat. Families So let's say your founders aren't 23-year-old Ramen-eating YCombinator founders. Let's say they've got a family of any kind. How do you deal with the family members? First of all, how do you even define family member? Child? Adopted child? Step-child without adoption? Spouse? Parent? Brother/Sister? There are clauses in immigration law in the US to handle all those types of situations. [1] Can they move to the US? While you might at first guess "of course," this isn't always guaranteed. Can the spouse work? What about the children [2]? Do they have any restrictions on what types of employment they can take? What about benefits for the family? Can the children go to school? Are they eligible for school lunches and after-school programs? What about someone who wants to get married after they move here? Can they bring their fiance in from their original country? Families are messy, and you can't just wave your hands and say "well, just do whatever it is you do for Class X," because all visas have a different way of dealing with family members. Exit and Employment Okay, so you've managed to get a startup going, and it's been successful, and now it looks like some big, rich company is going to buy it. Great! What happens to the founder? At that point, the founder will, no doubt, have a big set of golden handcuffs keeping him or her with the purchasing company. That will require that the founder convert from being a founder to an employee. What does that do to the immigration status under a Startup Visa? Does it auto-convert? Under what terms? After the acquisition can the employee then leave to another firm? If not, can they go back to VCs and found another company, or has their Startup Visa status altered irrevocably? Because if it auto converts, here's a very easy loophole in the system: Borrow $500k Give it to a trusted source Trusted source #1 invests the $500k in your firm, and takes 100% ownership. Firm now has $500k. You get your visa and move to the states Trusted source #1 sells the firm for $1 to a shell company run by Trusted source #2 (who now has the $500k) Trusted source #2 gives the $500k back to the founder as a sign-on bonus, who now has a work permit and the original $500k. Founder now takes work permit and moves somewhere else (possibly by selling the shell corporation to the ultimate employer). Sure, there would be transaction costs along the way, but it's another way to game the system. And I'm pretty sure that you can't come up with ways to stop this gaming of the system without stopping the type of constant acquisition flow that happens in the real world. If you don't give the founders conversion rights to an employee, their startups are effectively defunct before they get started, because they're essentially acquisition-proof. If you do, the system can be gamed. [3] Long-Term Conversion So let's say that you've got your two-year renewable visa. What does that eventually translate into? Because at some point you're going to want to actually settle down, and you might not have had a successful exit yet. Do you have to keep being a founder of a company until you hit the jackpot? You can never join an existing startup? You're going to need some means of long-term visa normalization. Does the visa translate directly to a Green Card? Would be difficult given the number of years it takes to live in the US before you can apply for a Green Card under other statuses. What about converting to an H1-B? Oh, wait, that's full of issues at the best of times, and now, you have to factor in the annual lottery (how would an H1-B conversion affect the numbers in the lottery?). So you're going to have to come up with some means of normalizing the long-term immigration status of the founder, and his family, and I don't think there's an existing mechanism for that that works for this type of visa. "My Turn For Reform." So you've got a bill that's sensible, and covers all the various bits and pieces and makes sense from a legislative perspective. Here's the problem: there are people who have vested interests in immigration reform that have been waiting for longer than you have, and they're not going to be happy if you skip to the head of the immigration reform queue. For example, let's consider gays and lesbians, who have UAFA to correct the circumstances that led to my leaving the USA, which has been pending in the house since 2000. That's a long time. And as you can tell, I don't like some upstarts coming in and trying to jump to the head of the queue. Yep, I'm bitter, and biased, and ranty. I'm also the exact type of person likely to go ballistic and get my representative to try to attach UAFA to your bill, which will then tank it [4]. And if you don't think there are at least 5 other aggrieved groups in America who will do the same, you're wrong. Because immigration policy affects people so intimately, it really REALLY touches people's buttons, and they will fight tooth and nail for their own pet reform, at the expense of anything and everything else, which is one reason why this is such a morass.

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: