Download 1AC - deaconsource

1AC
Plan: The United States Congress should expand beneficiary eligibility for temporary agricultural visas
to unauthorized agricultural workers in the United States.
Contention One – Food
Massive uncertainties in the ag industry
Moira Herbst, Immigration raids hurting farmers, updated 10/26/2007 2:37:20 PM ET,
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21491778/
Maureen Torrey, an
11th-generation farmer in the rural town of Elba, N.Y., has been losing sleep. Just as rows of cabbage and winter squash stand
ready for harvest on her 11,000 acre farm, she can't find enough workers to bring in the crops. She needs about 350 workers and is 70 short of that number.
"I wake up at 3:30 in the morning and my mind doesn't shut off," she says. The problem, she says, is fear. Torrey Farms, a 14-crop vegetable farm
located an hour east of Buffalo, has been raided twice since last October, when she says immigration officials kicked in the doors of workers'
housing and apprehended 34. In August, officials arrested seven workers and 14 more fled the area. Amid continued talk of a federal crackdown
on undocumented immigrants, she's afraid still more of her workforce will flee to less hostile terrain. With a population of about 9,000,
the town of Elba, "Onion Capital of the World" to locals, may not have the manpower to replace them. "With all the raids, people get scared and leave, and I don't
blame them," says Torrey. She says now rumors are running rampant that another sweep is planned for Nov. 15. "It's terrible. This is the worst I've seen." A
climate of fear is spreading among undocumented immigrant workers, causing turmoil in industries dependent
on their labor. In August the Homeland Security Dept. announced that employers would be required to
terminate workers who fail to produce valid Social Security numbers. Implementation of the new rule is delayed pending the outcome
of a lawsuit brought against the government by the umbrella labor union group, the AFL-CIO. But while the new rule has yet to take effect, its
impact is already being felt by farmers like Torrey. An estimated three-quarters of agricultural workers in the U.S.
are undocumented, and growers are starting to feel the paralyzing effects of losing their workforce. They say
that unless the government implements workable reforms, the future of the U.S. as a food-producing nation is in
jeopardy.
This crackdown is causing a crisis among farmers, who are choosing to shift their production to Mexico
Julia Preston, Published: Tuesday, September 4, 2007, “U.S. farmers go where workers are: Mexico”, New
York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/04/world/americas/04iht-export.4.7380436.html
A sense of crisis prevails among American farmers who rely on immigrant laborers, more so since legislation in
the U.S. Senate failed in June and the authorities announced a crackdown on employers of illegal immigrants.
According to growers and lawmakers in the United States and Mexico, an increasing number of farmers have
been testing the alternative of raising crops across the border, where many of the workers are. Western Growers,
an association representing farmers in California and Arizona, conducted an informal telephone survey of its
members in the spring. Twelve large agricultural businesses that acknowledged having operations in Mexico
reported a total of 11,000 workers here. "It seems there is a bigger rush to Mexico and elsewhere," said Tom
Nassif, the Western Growers president, who said Americans were also farming in countries in Central America.
Precise statistics are not readily available on American farming in Mexico, because growers seek to maintain a
low profile for their operations abroad. But Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, displayed a map
on the Senate floor in July locating more than 46,000 acres, or about 18,500 hectares, that American growers
are cultivating in just two Mexican states, Guanajuato and Baja California. "Farmers are renting land in
Mexico," Feinstein said. "They don't want us to know that." She predicted that more American farmers would
move to Mexico for the ready work force and lower wages. Feinstein favored a measure in the failed
immigration bill that would have created a new guest worker program for agriculture and a special legal status
for illegal immigrant farm workers. In the past, some Americans have planted south of the border to escape
spiraling land prices and to ensure year-round deliveries of crops they can produce only seasonally in the United
States. But in the past three years, Nassif and other growers said, labor uncertainties have become a major
reason why more farmers have shifted to Mexico.
Lack of a temporary legal status for illegals is the primary cause
Associated Press, 10/1/2006, (Worker shortage hurting farmers, p. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15062039/)
And the labor shortage will only get worse until Congress tackles immigration reform, growers and worker advocate groups
say. The House and Senate are at an impasse over proposed legislation and whether it should include an eventual path to citizenship and guest-worker program in
addition to border enforcement. Like others who employ migrant workers, Carnes checks employees' paperwork, but said some illegal immigrants probably end up
working in his fields. According
to the Department of Labor's National Agricultural Workers Survey, 53 percent of the hired crop
labor force lacked authorization to work in the U.S. in 2001-02. Worker advocates and grower associations agree the actual figure is
probably closer to 80 percent. Three-quarters of the hired farm work force in the U.S. was born in Mexico. And
more than 40 percent of crop workers were migrants, meaning they had traveled at least 75 miles in the previous year to get a farm job, the
survey showed. Carnes said he couldn't lure workers away from other fields with incentives like higher pay for the late-spring onion harvest because there just weren't
enough workers to go around. "We're seeing the wolf at the door," said John McClung, president of the Texas Produce Association, referring to what he said is
worsening shortages reported by many of the 300 growers, shippers and importers his organization represents. But a spokesman for the United Farm Workers said
farmers need to raise salaries to get workers. Even if they start out in the fields, "the pay is so low, the benefits mostly nonexistent and the conditions so harsh that many
workers don't stay," spokesman Marc Grossman said. "It's essentially minimum-wage work." And that can be backbreaking, hot work, especially picking berries in the
early summer sun. Carnes said increased border security is keeping even legal day laborers from crossing the border because lines have lengthened. "There becomes a
point where the paperwork and time doesn't equal the money," Carnes said. "I think we just scared them off with all the talk about immigration and closing the borders."
The U.S. Border Patrol has caught well over 1 million people along the U.S.-Mexico border in the last three fiscal years, including the one set to end Sept. 30, according
to U.S. Customs and Border Protection. In 2003 alone, it caught just over 900,000 in the four border states. Howard Rosenberg, an agricultural labor economist at the
University of California, Berkeley, said while he's heard complaints about shortages for years, the concerns have worsened recently. "It varies in how intensely it's felt
and where it's felt and how much it's reported," Rosenberg said. "It is very difficult to tease out the realities from the perception." Rosenberg said a border crackdown
may not have as much to do with reductions as with the immigrant community spreading out geographically and to different industries. "If people think that a
crackdown on the border is keeping people away, how do they really know that?" Rosenberg asked. "There's still an awful lot of activity." Growers and farm worker
advocates say the
beginning of a solution is the Agricultural Job Opportunities, Benefits and Security Act of 2005, dubbed "AgJobs." The bill would
provide temporary legal status for farmworkers who can prove they worked at least 100 days during a certain period. The workers could apply
for a green card if they work an additional 360 days in agriculture over the subsequent six years. A slightly modified version of AgJobs passed in May in the Senate's
immigration reform bill, which the House has not yet voted on. Without
comprehensive immigration reform, growers will continue
to move their operations south of the border, said Tim Chelling, a vice president of the Western Growers Association, which represents
growers in California and Arizona. "It's more than anecdotal; we know that they're down there to the tune of thousands and thousands of acres," he said. Growers are
"half out the door already," said Tamar Jacoby, a senior fellow at the conservative New York-based Manhattan Institute think tank. "A
Mexican worker is
going to pick these crops one way or the other, and the only question is whether they pick them here or
across the border in Mexico," Jacoby said.
Offshoring results in food dependency
McCland, Spring 2008 (Stacy - J.D. candidate 2008 at Barry University School of Law, 10 Barry L. Rev. 63, p.
lexis)
While food may appear to be abundant in America, less and less of it is coming from American soil. In 2005, the
industry produced a net export value of zero for the country when compared to imports for the first time in almost a half of a century. 126 This is a drastic change from
just ten years ago when the net export value was approximately $ 27 billion. 127 This
shift makes the American population very dependent
on outside countries for food. Many of these imports of agricultural [*75] products into America are coming from Mexico. 128 Proponents of guest
worker and amnesty programs argue that American farms are moving to Mexico because of the difficulty in finding
employees locally, and that they will continue to do so in the absence of significant immigration reform. 129
There are countless reasons why America should not depend on other countries for their agricultural food supply. Jared
Diamond discusses the dependency of societies on their neighbors at length in his book Collapse, which describes in detail how past societies have failed for this
specific reason. 130 Diamond
discusses the failures of the following populations as a result of their dependence on their neighbors for
Pitcarin and Henderson Islands in Southeast Polynesia,
the Mayans of Mexico, and the Vikings in Norse Greenland. 131 There are complex theories as to why this dependence is alarming. In simple terms,
once your neighbor becomes weakened for one reason or another, your neighbor is no longer able to help you,
and you must either become independent very quickly or suffer the consequences. 132 The larger and more
complex the society, the harder it is to recover quickly enough . 133 It seems hard to imagine that America
could suffer a massive food shortage from a simple lack of forethought, but history often repeats itself. Americans may not
important necessities: the Anasazi of the Southwest United States, the inhabitants of the
appreciate agriculture now, but they will come to appreciate it in the unfortunate event of a substantial crisis, such as outrageous food prices, or even unprecedented
shortages of food leading to mass starvation.
This would cause a quick food crisis
John Lantigua The Palm Beach post, Posted May 25, 2010 at 2:53 p.m. “Opponents, proponents of legalizing
farmworkers tussle over AgJobs bill” http://www.tcpalm.com/news/2010/may/25/opponents-proponents-oflegalizing-farmworkers/
Craig Regelbrugge, co-chairman of the Agricultural Coalition for Immigration Reform in Washington, believes
opponents don’t
recognize the main security question associated with farm labor. “There would be shortages. Prices would go
up” if the U.S. expelled farmworkers, he said. “But we would also make ourselves reliant for our food on other
countries.” The U.S. Department of Agriculture says at least half of the people who pick U.S. crops are undocumented. Others in the industry say it is closer to 70
percent. With U.S. production crippled, Brazil would enthusiastically supply citrus and Mexico would gladly sell vegetables, Regelbrugge said. But relations
could sour between the U.S. and those countries and leave the nation at the mercy of foreign governments, he said.
Importing fresh milk would be difficult from the outset, said Ray Hodge, director of governmental affairs for Southeast Milk in Marion County, which markets milk
produced by more than 100 Florida dairies. “We supply all the milk to Publix,” Hodge said. “ If
all those workers were kicked out, in about a
week there would be a crisis. Foreign-born workers are the agricultural workforce in this country. Nobody else wants to
do it.”
Food dependency will inevitably cause World War 3
Calvin ’98 (William, Theoretical Neurophysiologist – U Washington, Atlantic Monthly, January, Vol 281, No.
1, p. 47-64)
The population-crash scenario is surely the most appalling. Plummeting
crop yields would cause some powerful countries to try to take over
their neighbors or distant lands -- if only because their armies, unpaid and lacking food, would go marauding, both at home and across
the borders. The better-organized countries would attempt to use their armies, before they fell apart entirely, to take over countries with
significant remaining resources, driving out or starving their inhabitants if not using modern weapons to accomplish the same end: eliminating competitors
for the remaining food. This would be a worldwide problem -- and could lead to a Third World War -- but Europe's vulnerability is particularly
easy to analyze. The last abrupt cooling, the Younger Dryas, drastically altered Europe's climate as far east as Ukraine. Present-day Europe has more than 650 million
people. It has excellent soils, and largely grows its own food. It could no longer do so if it lost the extra warming from the North Atlantic.
Farm labor shortage results in consolidation of small farms
Gual, 10/17/2010 (Frank, Farm job, anyone?, Associated Content, p. http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/5877166/farm_job_anyone.html)
Those calling for tougher immigration laws and the UFW claim that farmers have become accustomed to hiring undocumented workers who are willing to work
for little, and now make up half the farm labor force. Legal immigrants make up a quarter of the farm labor. Those Americans who do
get hired to do farm work often disappear quickly. Farm work is often offered in remote locations which city dwellers find difficult to get to, and one solution
would be to provide transportation from central cities with high unemployment to outlying farms. Another possibility would be to use prisoners incarcerated for
minor offenses. A shortage of farm labor will cause food prices to rise at a time when many people are out of work and may be
receiving government assistance. It will also increase our dependence on imported food, which may not be up to FDA standards and could cause health problems,
as has already happened. Another
effect of the farm labor shortage will be the continued disappearance of small
family farms, which will either be abandoned or bought by large conglomerates whose management is far removed from the
local community.
Extinction
James Boyce, Pol. Econ. Research Institute at UMass, 2004, A Future for Small Farms, p. 25-26
There is a future for small farms. Or more precisely, there can be and should be a future for them. Given the dependence of ‘modern’ low-diversity agriculture on
‘traditional’ high-diversity agriculture, the long-term food security of humankind will depend on small farms and their continued provision
of the environmental service of in situ conservation of crop genetic diversity. Policies to support small farms can be advocated, therefore, not merely
as a matter of sympathy, or nostalgia, or equity. Such policies are also a matter of human survival . The diversity that underpins the sustainability of
world agriculture did not fall from the sky. It was bequeathed to us by the 400 generations of farmers who have carried on the process of artificial selection since
plants were first domesticated. Until recently, we took this diversity for granted. The ancient reservoirs of crop genetic diversity, plant geneticist Jack Harlan (1975,
p. 619) wrote three decades ago, ‘seemed to most people as inexhaustible as oil in Arabia.’ Yet, Harlan warned, ‘the speed which enormous crop
diversity can be essentially wiped out is astonishing.' The central thesis of this essay is that efforts to conserve in situ diversity must go
hand- in-hand with efforts to support the small farmers around the world who sustain this diversity. Economists and environmentalists alike by and
large have neglected this issue. In thrall to a myopic notion of efficiency, many economists fail to appreciate that diversity is the sine qua non of resilience and
sustainability. In thrall to a romantic notion of ‘wilderness,’ many environmentalists fail to appreciate that agricultural biodiversity is just as
valuable – indeed, arguably more valuable from the standpoint of human well- being – as the diversity found in tropical rainforests or
the spotted owls found in the ancient forests of the northwestern United States.
Contention Two – Re-Write the Topic
GOP will win now – voter turnout.
Oliver Knox, AP, “One week from US vote, Republicans fired up,” 10/26/2010, http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101026/ts_alt_afp/usvote
One week before US elections, President Barack Obama's
fired-up Republican foes seemed on track Tuesday to ride a wave of
voter anger at the sour economy to big gains in Congress.
Analysts predicted Republicans would retake the House of Representatives and cut deeply into the Democrats' Senate majority, winning a solid base from which to
assail Obama's agenda two years before his 2012 reelection bid.
Democrats hoped their get-out-the-vote efforts would make the difference in scores of nail-biter races and help
contain a Republican tide that was also expected to give the president's opponents control of key governorships.
Obama, who warned supporters in Rhode Island late Monday to "run scared" of losing their congressional majorities, was scheduled to mount an 11th-hour coast-tocoast blitz through crucial battlegrounds.
"I've got to have you come out in droves and vote in this election. You've got to come out and vote. And, look, if everybody who voted in 2008 votes in 2010, we are
confident we will win this election," he said.
But a new poll released by the USA Today newspaper Monday gave Republicans an unprecedented 63 percent37 percent edge over Democrats in supporters who said they were more excited than usual about casting a ballot
on November 2.
In 1994, Republicans held a nine-point advantage in the same poll and went on to swamp Democrats in a historic
rout -- something they hope to do again in the November 2 election that will shape the fate of the president's agenda.
The survey, carried out by the respected Gallup organization, had an error margin of plus or minus four
percentage points. It seemed to buttress repeated US media reports of a potentially devastating "enthusiasm
gap" for Democrats.
Immigration is the number one issue that will affect Latino turnout
American Society/Council of the Americas, 10/7/2010 (Levi Jordan, David Schreiner, and Carin Zissis, Taking
stock of the hispanic vote in u.s. midterms, American Society - Council of the Americas, p. http://www.ascoa.org/articles/2734/Taking_Stock_of_the_Hispanic_Vote_in_U.S._Midterms/)
On November 2, Americans
head to the polls for mid-term elections that will likely have a profound impact on the ability of
to advance his legislative agenda. Among those who could play an integral part in
deciding the balance of power are Hispanics, who account for more than 15.8 percent of the overall U.S. population and close to 8 percent of
registered voters. But even if Latinos are far more likely to vote for Democrats than the electorate at large, the question remains
as to whether they’ll turn out to vote in large numbers. Though the outcome of this year’s midterm election revolves around myriad issues, the
immigration debate will likely affect which way many Hispanic voters lean. The N ational Association of Latino E lected
and A ppointed O fficials conducted a June 2010 poll in California, Colorado, Florida, and Texas—states holding competitive gubernatorial and senatorial races—
that showed immigration ranking as the top issue affecting how registered Latinos will vote in those states. Arizona’s
U.S. President Barack Obama
passage of controversial immigration law SB1070 was seen as a slight by many Latino voters, including registered Republicans. But whether they express their
frustration at the voting booth depends on if they show up. A
new Pew Hispanic Center survey shows that Latinos support Democratic candidates at a rate of 65
that Latino voter intention rates run at almost 20 percent
less than the electorate as a whole. Moreover, the poll shows that Hispanic Republicans are more likely to vote than their Democrat counterparts. The
Democratic Party appears to be disenchanting voters due to the U.S. Congress’ seeming inability to move forward
on immigration reform and the fact that Latinos suffer a higher unemployment rate than the national average. Still, Republicans may not want to count
percent compared to 22 percent for Republicans. But the same survey finds
their chickens before they’re hatched. Recent data by Latino Decisions shows Hispanics overwhelmingly blame former President George W. Bush over Obama for the
country’s economic woes and feel the Democrats are more likely to make correct economic decisions.
Immigration is the litmus test for voters
Thompson, 2/8/2010 (Krissah, Latino voters will be a force in midterm elections, report argues, The
Washington Post, p. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/02/latino-voters-will-be-a-force.html)
How potent will the immigration issue be for Latino voters in 2010? Advocacy groups representing the community predict it
will remain a "litmus test" in key mid-term races. In a report out Monday, the immigration reform advocacy group America's Voice
outlined 40 mid-term races where Hispanic voters could have a significant impact on the outcome. "Most politicians
understand the importance of the Latino vote in presidential years, but what we're saying is that Latino voters will have a huge impact in the mid-term elections," Frank
Sharry, executive director of America's Voice, said on a conference call with reporters Monday. "The number of voters coming of age and registering continues to
grow. You have seen growth even when a presidential race isn't at the top of the ticket." Nearly
one in five Congressional Districts has a
Latino population that is at least a quarter of the district. The nation's fastest growing population is also one of the fastest growing parts of
the American electorate, according to Census figures. Between 2000 and 2008, Latino voter registration grew 54 percent and turnout grew 64 percent. In the 2004
presidential race, 7.5 million Hispanics voted. In the 2006 midterm election, 8 million voted. And in the 2008 presidential race, 10 million cast ballots. In its analysis,
America's Voice argued that "immigration
reform -- and the way the two parties' handled the congressional debates in 2006 and 2007 and in their campaigns -
- was a key factor in influencing these voters' choices for political office in 2008." The majority of Latino voters supported Obama.
Sharry said polling of Latino voters shows that the Republican Party's image has been damaged by GOP lawmakers' approach to the immigration issue over the last few
years, and that the vast majority of Latinos will not vote for a candidate who advocates mass deportation. But Democrats
could also run the risk of
alienating Latinos if immigration reform does not advance, he said.
Outweighs the economy
Foley, 7/20/2010 (Elise, Immigration is the top issue for latino voters in key states, The Washington
Independent, p. http://washingtonindependent.com/92093/immigration-is-the-top-issue-for-latino-voters-in-keystates)
Latinos are the fastest-growing minority group in the U.S., and their votes could hinge on how the government addresses immigration: A poll
released today by the N ational A ssociation of Latino E lected and A ppointed O fficials E ducational F und finds that immigration has
overtaken economic issues, education and health care as the top policy issue for Latino voters in four states. In 2006,
a poll released by NALEO found education, the economy and jobs, and the war in Iraq were the top concerns for Latino voters.
Expanding H-2A visas cements Latino support
Martin, 12/29/2009 (Gary, Immigration reform in for a tough fight, Express-News, p.
http://www.geygan.net/2009/12/)
Leahy wants to expand the H-2A visa program to provide more foreign workers for temporary and seasonal agricultural
work. The bill also must include guest-worker programs for agricultural producers who compete with growers in countries with lower labor rates, said Sen. Dianne
Feinstein, D-Calif. “I think a country that’s strong really should be able to produce its own food, but you can’t do it with domestic labor, and that’s just a fact,” she said.
Business groups and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce also want temporary workers. But some labor unions oppose temporaryworker programs and want immigrants to be given permanent status and the same protections U.S. workers get. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who sponsored the ill-fated
2007 bill, said reform that doesn’t include guest-worker plans would alienate any possible GOP support. Obama promised Hispanic groups during last year’s election
that immigration reform would be addressed in his first term. He has called on Congress to act next year. He received 67 percent of the Hispanic vote in 2008, according
expectations for a reform bill are high. “There are states that turned blue in his favor,
and Latino voters have a lot of influence in those states,” said Angela Kelley of the Center for American Progress, a liberal-leaning
think tank. Failure on the issue could pose problems for Democrats in the midterm elections and for Obama’s re-election
to exit polls, and Hispanic
efforts later. “It’s not that a Latina is going to flip and vote Republican, it’s that she is just not going to vote,” Kelley said. “That would cause Democrats heartburn in
2010, and obviously it’s the same for the president in 2012.” A Latino Decisions poll this month suggested Hispanics would not significantly punish Democrats running
for Congress in 2010 if reform efforts fail, but only 55 percent would cast a vote for a Democrat if nothing is done by 2012. “They’re
really at a crucial
point with Latinos, and passing that bill could cement support among Latinos,” Matt Barreto, a University of Washington
political science professor.
Immigration reform swings 40 races
America’s Voice, 10/8/2010 (Latino voters poised to impact elections, p.
http://americasvoiceonline.org/research/entry/memo_latino_voters_poised_to_impact_the_elections)
Latino voters have the power to change the outcome of a number of crucial races in 2010. Whether they make the choice
to vote or the choice to stay home will be decisive. Recent polls attempt to answer the all-important question of turnout. While it is too soon to
tell whether Latino turnout will be up or down, the polls illuminate a number of factors that will determine the outcome. Turnout Predictions Vary; Final Answer
After Election Day: According to a recent Pew Hispanic Center poll, “half (51%) of Latino registered voters say they are absolutely certain they will vote in this
year’s midterm election, while seven-in-ten (70%) of all registered voters say the same.” The latest Latino Decisions research, however, identifies 73% of Latino
voters as “almost certain” they will go to the polls. What’s going on here? Well, it’s notoriously difficult to predict Election Day turnout by asking people whether
they plan to vote weeks or months before an election. Massive voter mobilization efforts targeting Latinos and naturalized citizens are just now kicking into high
gear. And the Pew Hispanic Center poll was conducted from mid-August to mid-September, while the Latino Decisions research is much more recent—and shows
an uptick in voter interest following the September congressional session. We will wait until November 3rd to answer the question about Latino turnout in 2010.
For now, here are the factors that will influence this result: Like Other Americans, Latino
Voters Are Frustrated and Angry with Lack
of Progress on Key Issues: The lack of progress on many issues is frustrating Latino voters, and has a potential dampening
effect on Latino voter turnout. As Matt Barreto, a political science professor and pollster for Latino Decisions said, “Latinos feel that on many of
their key issues, promises were made and not delivered on.” In addition to feeling down about the economy and jobs, many Latino voters are also
disappointed that promises to advance immigration reform were not realized. Still, Latino Voters Who Care the Most
about Immigration Are Getting Motivated to Vote: According to the recent Pew Hispanic Center poll, 66% of Latino registered voters say they have
discussed the immigration debate with someone in the past year. This group is more likely to say they will vote in
November (58%), compared to the group that has not followed the immigration debate as closely (39%). Similarly, polling released this summer by Dr. Ricardo
Ramirez of the University of Southern California for the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials Education Fund (NALEO) found that
57% of Latinos in California, Colorado, Florida, and Texas said that “the current immigration debate” made them more likely to vote this November. Clearly, the
national attention to Arizona’s anti-immigration law is having an effect on Latino political behavior heading into November—one that will help the Democratic
Latino Decisions’ weekly
tracking polls show real results for the Democratic Party following the short DREAM Act debate in September, making it clear that when
Party and hurt the GOP. Congressional Action on DREAM Increased Voter Interest, Support for Democratic Party:
politicians lean into the issue, they galvanize support . According to polling released October 4, 72% of Latino voters said the Senate
“should have passed” the DREAM Act as an amendment to the Defense authorization bill, while only 17% thought the Republican Party’s successful efforts to
block it were “the right thing to do.” The poll also showed an increase in voters expressing an intention to vote, from 67% to 73%; more support for Democratic
candidates seen as advancing the issue; and less support for Republicans seen as blocking it. Just imagine what would have happened if Congress had had a full-on
immigration debate this year. Immigration is a Defining, Personal Issue for Latino Voters: According to Latino Decisions, immigration
is the second-most important issue voters look at when deciding who to vote for, behind the economy. Pew Hispanic Center asked the question a little differently,
wondering which issues were “personally important” to voters, and immigration was lower on the list. However, in that survey, naturalized citizen voters were ten
points more likely to support Democrats and eight points less likely to support Republicans than native-born Latinos. Immigrant
closest to the immigration debate—are
Latino voters—those
the crucial swing voting group that nearly broke even for Bush in 2004, and swung wildly for
Obama in 2008 after the GOP’s full conversion to an anti-immigrant platform. Other polls have asked about the importance of immigration to Latino voters in
different ways. In 2009, Bendixen & Amandi showed that 62% of Latino voters know someone who is undocumented, and 72% refuse to even consider voting for
a candidate who advocates mass deportation. And, millions of Latino citizens today are former undocumented immigrants who legalized their status under the
Immigration Reform and Control Act and other laws, as Latino Decisions points out. Clearly, immigration
is not just an issue Latinos hear about on the
nightly news; it’s a deeply personal issue, one that impacts their political behavior at a visceral level. Voter
Mobilization Efforts Are Gearing Up Now: Numerous national and local organizations that work with immigrants and Latinos have been conducting voter
registration drives across the nation, and are now shifting to "Get Out the Vote." For example, the Campaign for Community Change is engaged in a robust voter
engagement effort in ten swing states. The program features integrated deployment of direct mail, canvassing, phones, and online and paid media and will make
over 2.5 million voter contacts this cycle. NCLR, NALEO, and other Latino organizations just announced their Vote for Respect campaign on October 6, and the
re-launch of the historic Ya es Hora ¡Ve y Vota! Campaign, which includes the bilingual www.yaeshora.info website and (888) VE-Y-VOTA voter hotline. The
NALEO Educational Fund is also contacting 250,000 low-propensity Latino voters in five states for its GOTV campaign. Democracia USA has registered almost
100,000 voters nationwide and the organization estimates that it will turn out 70,000 voters on Election Day. The We Are America Alliance is conducting a voter
mobilization and education campaign in nearly 20 states, reaching out to over 700,000 current and potential voters, and looking to turnout nearly 200,000 voters
on Election Day. Mi Familia Vota Civic Participation Campaign signed up 21,000 Latino voters in Arizona to the Permanent Early Voter List--a 20% increase
over the last cycle--and they as well as Promise Arizona's Faith, Hope, Vote campaign and others are now carrying out GOTV operations in state. The Illinois
Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights surpassed its voter registration goal of 10,000 and has shifted into mobilization mode, working to turn out over
133,000 immigrant voters in November. The NC Equals project of the Latin American Coalition is shifting to GOTV operations in state, and there are coordinated
state GOTV tables in Colorado, Nevada, and other locations. Additional operations will be announced in the coming days. In 2010, Latino
voters are
poised to influence over forty competitive races whether they make the choice to show up or the choice to stay home, and they will have
an even bigger impact in 2012. As the results of the 2008 elections and these new Latino polls show, when candidates demonize
Latino families they lose crucial support, and when they lean into the issue they are rewarded. The next
four weeks will be crucial in determining whether Latino voters turn out to vote, and what impact they will have
on the make-up of Congress and statehouses nationwide. Do Latinos see candidates who are fighting for them, or fighting each other?
Do politicians embrace anti-Latino rhetoric and anti-immigration policies, or do they stand up for common sense immigration solutions? What
impact will the struggling economy have on Latino turnout? Only time will tell, but candidates in both parties need to understand the factors that drive Latino
political engagement.
Even a modest turnout prompts swings
Jacobson, 10/17/2010 (Louis, Democrats struggle to generate hispanic participation, Sac Bee, p.
http://www.sacbee.com/2010/10/17/3110541/democrats-struggle-to-generate.html)
Modest changes in turnout among Latinos, and the relative support such voters give to the two parties, can prompt decisive
swings where the Latino population is large. In an ordinary election, "the Republicans will get at least 25 percent of the Latino vote," says Rodolfo de la
Garza, a Columbia University political scientist. "If they get more than 35 percent of the vote, the
Republicans can carry a state. If Latinos aren't voting 65 percent for the Democrats, then the Democrats are
dead."
A GOP takeover weakens Obama. This undermines Obama’s diplomacy and forces foreign policy to take
a conservative turn
Spetalnick, 10/18/2010 (Matt, Midterm election weighs on obama’s foreign policy, Reuters, p.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69H3YP20101018)
Signs of vulnerability at home could weaken Obama's hand with foreign leaders as he grapples with an array of
challenges: a troubled war in Afghanistan, withdrawal from Iraq, nuclear standoffs with Iran and North Korea, strains with
China and stumbling Middle East peace efforts. A Republican takeover of one or both chambers of Congress could
also make it harder, if not impossible, for Obama to tackle unfinished business like ratification of a new nuclear arms control treaty with Russia,
closing the military prison at Guantanamo and passing a bill to combat global climate change. Obama's next big diplomatic test will be an Asia tour, including
back-to-back summits with the Group of 20 and Pacific Rim countries, that starts just days after the congressional elections. U.S. presidents have embraced
foreign policy before when faced with legislative gridlock, allowing them to act internationally with fewer congressional constraints as they sought to forge
legacies as global statesmen. After losing Democratic control of Congress in 1994 in the middle of his first term, President Bill Clinton ended up helping to broker
a peace deal in Northern Ireland, working to quell the Balkans conflict and guiding NATO's expansion. "WE ARE THE WORLD" NO MORE? Obama is in a
different situation. Whereas Clinton had a robust economy, Obama is presiding over an anemic recovery from the worst recession in decades. Polls show voter
disenchantment over the economy is likely to translate into big losses for Obama's Democrats on November 2. With his own re-election expected to hinge on his
economic record, Obama will want to avoid the perception he is focusing on foreign policy at the expense of domestic concerns. "The question is whether it's
worth spending political capital on foreign initiatives important to him but maybe not so much to the bulk of the American people," said Christopher Preble, a
foreign policy analyst with the Cato Institute. The White House has insisted Obama can juggle competing priorities and will not skimp on his international agenda.
Despite that, he scrapped overseas trips twice this year to stay home to deal with domestic matters, fueling the impression that foreign policy was taking a back
seat. The Asia tour is his first extensive international travel of 2010. Obama, who won the Nobel Peace Prize last year more for his lofty diplomatic vision than
any concrete accomplishments, laid
out an ambitious to-do list in his address to the U.N. General Assembly last month and pledged U.S.
global leadership. But gains by Republicans could complicate his efforts, especially if they press for a more
conservative course . Many have backed Obama's plan to raise troop levels in Afghanistan to confront a resurgent Taliban but criticize his plan to start
drawing down in July 2011. That could make it a source of bitter debate in the 2012 presidential campaign. Though Afghanistan has barely figured in the run-up
to November's election, polls show growing public opposition to the war. Liberal Democrats crucial to Obama's re-election would be incensed by any delay in the
withdrawal timetable. Republicans who have
accused Obama of being naive in his dealings with China and Russia -- as
push for a tougher line. As the presidential campaign nears, Obama is also less likely to push
Israel too hard in peace efforts to avoid angering its base of support with U.S. voters and lawmakers. And a congressional power shift could
weigh on Obama's approach toward Iran and North Korea, where the administration has spearheaded
new international sanctions while keeping the door open to diplomatic engagement.
well as in his outreach to the Muslim world -- could
Korean war results in extinction
Africa News, 10-25-1999, p. lexis
Lusaka - If there is one place today where the much-dreaded Third World War could easily erupt and probably reduce earth to a
huge smouldering cinder it is the Korean Peninsula in Far East Asia. Ever since the end of the savage three-year Korean war in the early 1950s, military
tension between the hard-line communist north and the American backed South Korea has remained dangerously high. In fact the Koreas are technically still at war. A foreign
visitor to either Pyongyong in the North or Seoul in South Korea will quickly notice that the divided country is always on maximum alert for any eventuality. North Korea or the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) has never forgiven the US for
coming to the aid of South Korea during the Korean war. She still regards the US as an occupation force in South Korea and wholly to blame for the non-reunification of the country. North Korean media constantly churns out a tirade of attacks on "imperialist"
America and its "running dog" South Korea. The DPRK is one of the most secretive countries in the world where a visitor is given the impression that the people's hatred for the US is absolute while the love for their government is total. Whether this is really so,
it is extremely difficult to conclude. In the DPRK, a visitor is never given a chance to speak to ordinary Koreans about the politics of their country. No visitor moves around alone without government escort. The American government argues that its presence in
South Korea was because of the constant danger of an invasion from the north. America has vast economic interests in South Korea. She points out that the north has dug numerous tunnels along the demilitarised zone as part of the invasion plans. She also
accuses the north of violating South Korean territorial waters. Early this year, a small North Korean submarine was caught in South Korean waters after getting entangled in fishing nets. Both the Americans and South Koreans claim the submarine was on a
military spying mission. However, the intension of the alleged intrusion will probably never be known because the craft's crew were all found with fatal gunshot wounds to their heads in what has been described as suicide pact to hide the truth of the mission. The
US mistrust of the north's intentions is so deep that it is no secret that today Washington has the largest concentration of soldiers and weaponry of all descriptions in south Korea than anywhere else in the World, apart from America itself. Some of the armada that
was deployed in the recent bombing of Iraq and in Operation Desert Storm against the same country following its invasion of Kuwait was from the fleet permanently stationed on the Korean Peninsula. It is true too that at the moment the North/South Korean
border is the most fortified in the world. The border line is littered with anti-tank and anti-personnel landmines, surface-to-surface and surface-to-air missiles and is constantly patrolled by warplanes from both sides. It is common knowledge that America also
keeps an eye on any military movement or build-up in the north through spy satellites. The DPRK is said to have an estimated one million soldiers and a huge arsenal of various weapons. Although the DPRK regards herself as a developing country, she can
however be classified as a super-power in terms of military might. The DPRK is capable of producing medium and long-range missiles. Last year, for example, she test-fired a medium range missile over Japan, an action that greatly shook and alarmed the US,
Japan and South Korea. The DPRK says the projectile was a satellite. There have also been fears that she was planning to test another ballistic missile capable of reaching North America. Naturally, the world is anxious that
military tension
on the Korean Peninsula must be defused to avoid an apocalypse on earth . It is therefore significant that the American government
announced a few days ago that it was moving towards normalising relations with North Korea.
Iranian adventurism sparks nuclear war
Ben-Meir, 2/6/2007 (Alon – professor of international relations at the Center for Global Affairs, Ending iranian
defiance, United Press International, p. lexis)
That Iran stands today able to challenge or even defy the United States in every sphere of American influence in the Middle East attests to the dismal failure of the
Bush administration's policy toward it during the last six years. Feeling
emboldened and unrestrained, Tehran may, however,
miscalculate the consequences of its own actions, which could precipitate a catastrophic regional war. The
Bush administration has less than a year to rein in Iran's reckless behavior if it hopes to prevent such an ominous outcome and achieve, at least, a modicum of regional stability. By all
assessments, Iran has reaped the greatest benefits from the Iraq war. The war's consequences and the American preoccupation with it have provided Iran with an historic opportunity to
establish Shiite dominance in the region while aggressively pursuing a nuclear weapon program to deter any challenge to its strategy. Tehran is fully cognizant that the successful pursuit
of its regional hegemony has now become intertwined with the clout that a nuclear program bestows. Therefore, it is most unlikely that Iran will give up its nuclear ambitions at this
juncture, unless it concludes that the price will be too high to bear. That is, whereas before the Iraq war Washington could deal with Iran's nuclear program by itself, now the Bush
administration must also disabuse Iran of the belief that it can achieve its regional objectives with impunity. Thus, while the administration attempts to stem the Sunni-Shiite violence in
Iraq to prevent it from engulfing other states in the region, Washington must also take a clear stand in Lebanon. Under no circumstances should Iranian-backed Hezbollah be allowed to
topple the secular Lebanese government. If this were to occur, it would trigger not only a devastating civil war in Lebanon but a wider Sunni-Shiite bloody conflict. The Arab Sunni states,
especially, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan, are terrified of this possible outcome. For them Lebanon may well provide the litmus test of the administration's resolve to inhibit Tehran's
adventurism but they must be prepared to directly support U.S. efforts. In this regard, the Bush administration must wean Syria from Iran. This move is of paramount importance because
not only could Syria end its political and logistical support for Hezbollah, but it could return Syria, which is predominantly Sunni, to the Arab-Sunni fold. President Bush must realize that
Damascus' strategic interests are not compatible with Tehran's and the Assad regime knows only too well its future political stability and economic prosperity depends on peace with Israel
and normal relations with the United States. President Bashar Assad may talk tough and embrace militancy as a policy tool; he is, however, the same president who called, more than once,
for unconditional resumption of peace negotiation with Israel and was rebuffed. The stakes for the United States and its allies in the region are too high to preclude testing Syria's real
intentions which can be ascertained only through direct talks. It is high time for the administration to reassess its policy toward Syria and begin by abandoning its schemes of regime
change in Damascus. Syria simply matters; the administration must end its efforts to marginalize a country that can play such a pivotal role in changing the political dynamic for the better
throughout the region. Although ideally direct negotiations between the United States and Iran should be the first resort to resolve the nuclear issue, as long as Tehran does not feel
seriously threatened, it seems unlikely that the clergy will at this stage end the nuclear program. In possession of nuclear weapons Iran will intimidate the larger Sunni Arab states in the
region, bully smaller states into submission, threaten Israel's very existence, use oil as a political weapon to blackmail the West and instigate regional proliferation of nuclear weapons'
, if unchecked, Iran could plunge the Middle East into a deliberate or inadvertent nuclear conflagration .
If we take the administration at its word that it would not tolerate a nuclear Iran and considering these regional implications, Washington is left with no choice but
to warn Iran of the severe consequences of not halting its nuclear program.
programs. In short
Weakened resolve invites global aggression
Silverberg, 5/31/2006 (Mark – Ariel Center for Policy Research, Only resolve is respected, p.
http://www.jfednepa.org/mark%20silverberg/onlyresolve.html)
In the Arab world, only resolve is respected. Outrage can be generated against America by portraying America to the Arab masses as a bully. But to
physically attack America (as happened on 9/11), or American interests abroad (as in the cases of the embassy bombings and the USS Cole), requires that America
also be depicted as weak and vulnerable. It is this perception of America, in the eyes of the Arab world, that represents the greatest threat to Western civilization
Acts of terrorism are encouraged by the belief that America is
essentially weak, vulnerable, and capable of being brought to its knees by a high body-bag count before it has achieved its strategic objectives. It has been
this perceived “softness” that has encouraged terrorists like al Qaeda and rogue nations like Iraq, Iran and
Syria to act against America and American interests abroad. In the Middle Eastern mindset, it is fatal for any nation to be perceived as
because Arab misperceptions about America have led to wars.
weak and vulnerable. And, in many ways, our actions and reactions have led to their perceptions. The explosion of Islamic terror and the threats of mass destruction from an Iraqi tyrant
armed with nuclear or biological weapons could have been prevented. For example, in the 90’s, the decade of denial, hesitation and prevarication, U.S. foreign policy consisted of Bill
Clinton desperately seeking a legacy, running America by opinion polls, sending cruise missiles to blow up empty tents in the Afghan desert, signing agreements with dictators based on
the belief that America would be "safe," and seeing attacks and provocations as nothing more than a series of separate and unrelated criminal acts rather than as a sustain organized
military assault on America. The assumption in those days, according to Claudia Rosett writing in the Wall Street Journal recently, was that “what we didn’t acknowledge, really couldn’t
hurt us. As long as we got dictators to sign on the dotted line, we’d be safe......protected by the paperwork that said so.” Decisions to use force were avoided to prevent a confrontation
with the Arab and Islamic world, and also in the naive hope that these threats would simply disappear. As a consequence, America focused on the arrest and trial of “the criminals,”
protecting buildings rather than tracking down the terrorists and neutralizing their funders, planners, organizers and commanders. Worse, America relied on metal detectors, security
guards, electronic surveillance and trials rather than ships, aircraft, soldiers and human intelligence. America studied the acts of terror as distinct from the ideology of the terrorist. It failed
our enemies
perceived this as American vulnerability. The result was inevitable. This policy of "self-deception" led to the
monstrous growth of al Qaeda, the naive Oil-for-Food shell-game with Iraq, the Oslo Accords, and the
1994 "Agreed Framework" with North Korea whereby America proclaimed “peace on the Korean peninsula” in return for allowing North
to recognize that the cumulative effect of these acts against America and American interests abroad were part of a sustained assault on this country. And
Korea (a soon-to-be-member of the Axis of Evil) food, oil and the wiggle-room necessary to continue making (and marketing) missiles, chemical and biological
weapons, and ultimately, its own nuclear weapon. The North Korean fiasco was not the only attempt during the Clinton era at what Charles Krauthammer refers to
as "paper diplomacy." The bloodiest farce was the Oslo "peace" Accords between Israel and the Palestinians. President Clinton insisted that it be signed on the
White House lawn under his upraised arms. He then spent the next seven years brokering one new agreement after another while declaring the peace "irreversible."
He knew it was so because Yasser Arafat had promised - in writing - an end to violence and terrorism. Then Arafat decided to start up the violence and terrorism in
September 2000, bringing on the worst Israeli-Palestinian bloodshed in decades and leaving the Clinton "paper-pushers" surprised. The absurd UN-run Oil-forFood program with Iraq was another piece of paper based on the false assumption that Saddam Hussein would respect the written rules crafted by the world’s most
hapless bureaucracy - the UN. Needless to say, he didn’t respect the rules, used Syria and Iran to bypass them, and now, he too is on the verge of acquiring nuclear
weapons. For too long, America has deluded itself into a false sense of security based upon the written word of dictators, and this delusion has lead to the Arab
perception of American weakness. Written agreements didn't work well with Hitler or Mussolini and they still don't. Unfortunately, the Oil-for-Food program, the
Oslo Accords and the Korean Agreed Framework were not isolated incidents. The Arab states and al Qaeda took cognizance of the fact that the U.S., in the past,
also failed to respond aggressively to many terrorist attacks against its own citizens in Beirut, in Tanzania, in Kenya and in Somalia; stood by while Americans
were seized as hostages in Iran and Lebanon; let Saddam Hussein remain in power after the Gulf War (while letting the Shah fall in Iran); and pressured Israel, its
ally, to make dangerous strategic concessions while simultaneously courting Israel’s enemies and allowing its prized Arab-Israeli peace process to be destroyed.
This policy also led the Chinese to conclude that “the United States is a superpower in decline, losing economic, political and military influence around the world,”
according to the congressionally-mandated U.S.-China Security Review Commission. The Commission also noted that “Chinese analysts believe that the United
States cannot and will not sustain casualties in pursuit of its vital interests.” That is, America is "soft." And China is far from alone in holding this opinion.
America’s perceived decline into weakness and its questionable “staying power” in pursuit of its strategic
objectives has served as a call to arms to the monsters of the world. Astute Middle Eastern observers have made much of the United
States' post-Vietnam loathing for foreign adventures, and America's enemies have listened. In the 1970s, when many Iranians worried that American power would
destroy their revolution if it went too far, Khomeini told them not to worry, saying America "won't do a damn thing." And as recently as 1998, Ayatollah Ali
Khamenei, Khomeini's successor, insisted there was no need to negotiate with the U nited S tates since Tehran had
shown that Washington was “too weak to be feared or heeded.”
The perception of weak resolve results in terrorism and the collapse of alliances
Gaffney, 1/1/2000 (Frank – president of the Center for Security Policy, American power – for what,
Commentary, p. lexis)
Fundamentally, we agree that the main threat arises not from the U nited S tates' being too powerful but from its being perceived
abroad as weak and irresolute. That perception, alas, is generally the result of our acting that way at home--a phenomenon
all too much in evidence during the Clinton years. It is no coincidence that during this period we have witnessed serious
erosion in America's alliances, escalating proliferation, an ominous "strategic partnership" being forged
between the Russians and Chinese, and the growing power of rogue states and terrorist organizations. These are
tectonic shifts in the geopolitical plate structure with which we will have to contend for years to come.
Alliances prevent nuclear war
Ross, Winter 1998/1999 (Douglas – professor of political science at Simon Fraser University, Canada’s
functional isolationism and the future of weapons of mass destruction, International Journal, p. lexis)
Thus, an easily accessible tax base has long been available for spending much more on international security than recent governments have been willing to
contemplate. Negotiating the landmines ban, discouraging trade in small arms, promoting the United Nations arms register are all worthwhile, popular activities
that polish the national self-image. But they should all be supplements to, not substitutes for, a proportionately equitable commitment of resources to
the management and prevention of international conflict – and thus the containment of the WMD threat. Future American governments will
not ‘police the world’ alone. For almost fifty years the Soviet threat compelled disproportionate military expenditures and sacrifice by the United States.
That world is gone.
Only by enmeshing the capabilities of the U nited S tates and other leading powers in a co-operative security
management regime where the burdens are widely shared does the world community have any plausible hope of avoiding warfare
involving nuclear or other WMD.
Terrorism causes global nuclear war
Patrick Speice, JD, 2006, William & Mary Law Review, February, p. 1437-8
The potential consequences of the unchecked spread of nuclear knowledge and material to terrorist groups that seek to cause mass destruction in the United States
are truly horrifying. A terrorist attack with a nuclear weapon would be devastating in terms of immediate human and economic losses. Moreover,
there would be immense political pressure in the United States to discover the perpetrators and retaliate with nuclear weapons,
massively increasing the number of casualties and potentially triggering a full-scale nuclear conflict . In addition to the threat posed by terrorists,
leakage of nuclear knowledge and material from Russia will reduce the barriers that states with nuclear ambitions face and may trigger widespread proliferation of
nuclear weapons. This proliferation will increase the risk of nuclear attacks against the United States or its allies by hostile states, as well as increase the likelihood
that regional conflicts will draw in the United States and escalate to the use of nuclear weapons.
Obama power is critical to prevent global instability and nuclear war
Zakaria, 11/29/2008 (Fareed - editor of Newsweek International, Wanted: A New Grand Strategy, Newsweek,
p. lexis)
The "Global Trends" report identifies several worrying aspects of the new international order—competition for resources like oil, food, commodities and water;
climate change; continued terrorist threats; and demographic shifts. But the most significant point it makes is that these changes are taking place at every level and
at great speed in the global system. Nations
with differing political and economic systems are flourishing. Subnational
groups, with varied and contradictory agendas, are on the rise. Technology is increasing the pace of change. Such ferment is
usually a recipe for instability. Sudden shifts can trigger sudden actions—terrorist attacks, secessionist
outbreaks, nuclear brinksmanship. The likelihood of instability might increase because of the economic crisis. Despite some booms and
busts—as well as 9/11 and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq—the world has been living through an economic golden age. Global growth has been stronger for the
past five years than in any comparable period for almost five decades. Average per capita income has risen faster than in any such period in recorded history. But
that era is over. The next five years are likely to be marked by slow growth, perhaps even stagnation and retreat, in certain important areas. What will be the
political effects of this slowdown? Historically, economic turmoil has been accompanied by social unrest, nationalism and protectionism. We might avoid these
dangers, but it is worth being acutely aware of them. At the broadest level, the objective of the
U nited S tates should be to stabilize the
current global order and to create mechanisms through which change—the rise of new powers, economic turmoil, the
challenge of subnational groups like Al Qaeda—can be accommodated without overturning the international order. Why?
The world as it is organized today powerfully serves America's interests and ideals. The greater the openness of the global system, the better the prospects for trade,
commerce, contact, pluralism and liberty. Any strategy that is likely to succeed in today's world will be one that has the active support and participation of many
countries. Consider the financial crisis, which several Western governments initially tried to handle on their own. They seemed to forget about globalization—and
nothing is more globalized than capital. Belatedly recognizing this, leaders held the G20 meeting in Washington. This was a good first step (though just a first
step). Without
a coordinated approach, efforts to patch up the system will fail
. The same applies not just to "soft" problems of the
future—pandemics, climate change—but to current security challenges as well. The problem of multilateralism in Afghanistan—a place where everyone claims to be united in the
struggle—is a sad test case for the future. Thirty-seven nations, operating with the blessing of the United Nations and attacking an organization that has brutally killed civilians in dozens
of countries, are still unable to succeed. Why? There are many reasons, but it does not help that few countries involved—from our European allies to Pakistan—are genuinely willing to
put aside their narrow parochial interests for a broader common one. Terrorism in South Asia generally requires effective multinational cooperation. Business as usual will produce
. Without better and more
sustained cooperation, it is difficult to see how we will solve most of the major problems of the 21st century. The real
terrorism that will become usual. National rivalries, some will say, are in the nature of international politics. But that's no longer good enough
crisis we face is not one of capitalism or American decline, but of globalization itself. As the problems spill over borders, the demand for common action has gone
up. But the institutions and mechanisms to make it happen are in decline. The United Nations, NATO and the European Union are
all functioning less effectively than they should be. I hold no brief for any specific institution. The United Nations, especially the Security Council, is flawed and
dysfunctional. But we need some institutions for global problem-solving, some mechanisms to coordinate policy. Unless
we can find ways to
achieve this, we should expect more crises and less success at solving them. In a world characterized by change, more and
more countries—especially great powers like Russia and China and India—will begin to chart their own course. That in turn
will produce greater instability. America cannot forever protect every sea lane, broker every deal and fight every terrorist group. Without some mechanisms to
solve common problems, the world as we have come to know it, with an open economy and all the social and political benefits of this openness, will flounder and perhaps reverse. Now,
these gloomy forecasts are not inevitable. Worst-case scenarios are developed so that they can be prevented. And there are many good signs in the world today. The most significant rising
power—China—does not seem to seek to overturn the established order (as have many newly rising powers in the past) but rather to succeed within it. Considerable cooperation takes
place every day at the ground level, among a large number of countries, on issues from nuclear nonproliferation to trade policy. Sometimes a crisis provides an opportunity. The
Washington G20 meeting, for instance, was an interesting portent of a future "post-American" world. Every previous financial crisis had been handled by the IMF, the World Bank or the
G7 (or G8). This time, the emerging nations were fully represented. At the same time, the meeting was held in Washington, and George W. Bush presided. The United States retains a
unique role in the emerging world order. It remains the single global power. It has enormous convening, agenda-setting and leadership powers, although they must be properly managed
and shared with all the world's major players, old and new, in order to be effective. President-elect Obama has powers of his own, too. I will not exaggerate the importance of a single
Obama has become a global symbol like none I can recall in my lifetime. Were he to go to Tehran, for example, he would
probably draw a crowd of millions, far larger than any mullah could dream of. Were his administration to demonstrate in its day-to-day
conduct a genuine understanding of other countries' perspectives and an empathy for the aspirations of
people around the world, it could change America's reputation in lasting ways. This is a rare moment in history. A more
responsive America, better attuned to the rest of the world, could help create a new set of ideas and
institutions—an architecture of peace for the 21st century that would bring stability, prosperity and dignity to the lives of billions of people. Ten
personality, but
years from now, the world will have moved on; the rising powers will have become unwilling to accept an agenda conceived in Washington or London or Brussels.
But at this time and for this man, there
moment. He should seize it.
is a unique opportunity to use American power to reshape the world. This is his
Contention 3 – Don’t Mess With Texas
Rick Perry is on track to maintain governorship of Texas
The Washington Times, 10/27/2010 (Texas Democrats' hopes: All hat, no cattle?, p.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/25/texas-democrats-hopes-all-hat-no-cattle/)
With a well-funded, centrist Houston mayor running for governor at the top of the ballot, Texas Democrats were hopeful that the party
would defy expectations in the 2010 midterm elections and knock off the nation's second-longest-serving governor in one of the
nation's reddest states. But one week before Election Day, Texas Democrats are bracing for the same voter backlash the party is facing in other parts of the
country. Polls
suggest that former Houston mayor Bill White has not been able to close the gap with Republican incumbent Gov.
Rick Perry, and it is Republicans who are now hoping to score more gains in the Lone Star State. Veteran Democratic incumbent Rep. Chet Edwards is trailing
in his 17th Congressional District race, and even longtime lawmakers like Reps. Lloyd Doggett and Solomon P. Ortiz are looking at closer-than-expected battles.
Mr. White, 56, a well-known Houston businessman who served in the Clinton administration as a deputy secretary of energy,
came into the race
with a resume and political profile that many observers thought gave him a chance in a state that hasn't elected a
Democratic governor since 1990. But after polling evenly with two-plus-term incumbent Mr. Perry in the spring, Mr. White has struggled this
fall, with the latest University of Texas/Texas Tribune poll released Monday giving the governor a healthy 50 percent to 40 percent lead
among registered voters, with two third-party candidates splitting the rest of the vote.
White still has a chance – a game changing event will be key
Marshall, 10/21/2010 (Christa, Coal looms large for democrat in texas governor’s race, New York Times, p.
http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/10/21/21climatewire-coal-looms-large-for-democrat-in-texas-gover54145.html)
Yet White may not get that chance, if recent polling holds through Election Day. Two October surveys from Rasmussen Reports and
WFAA/Belo show Perry gaining strength with a double-digit lead, after September polls showed a much tighter race. At the same time, White
is the most competitive Democratic candidate in years and has a "chance," said Jones of Rice University.
There is a lot of "Perry fatigue" in the state, and that, combined with White's well-funded campaign, is making it the most competitive gubernatorial race in a
decade, he said.
A game-changing event could turn the polls around in White's favor, he said.
Latinos can swing the election in White’s favor with a huge turnout
Stiles and Torres, 7/26/2010 (Matt and Zahira, Texas still waiting for latinos to show power at polls, The
Texas Tribune, p. http://www.texastribune.org/texas-politics/2010-texas-governors-race/texas-still-waiting-forlatinos-to-vote/)
Latinos are the "sleeping giant" of Texas politics — a phrase repeated so often that it has become a cliché. Nearly 37 percent
of the state's population of about 24.8 million people is Latino, but almost any political expert will tell you that the group does not fully exercise
its strength in elections. Pinpointing if and when Latinos will begin wielding their voting power is a challenge. “It's the $64,000 question,” says Bob Stein, a
political science professor at Rice University. “If you're biblical, it's like the [coming of the] messiah.” Politicians often speak of the Latino population as a
mystical group that must be captured before it awakens. The prize is a massive number of votes for the person who can figure out how to move the group to the
polls. Scores of candidates, political parties and interest groups spend millions of dollars each year trying to determine what would happen if the group decided to
exercise its strength in the next election. In
the current gubernatorial race between Republican Gov. Rick Perry and Democrat Bill White,
analysts and others wonder what might happen if more of the state's registered Latino voters turned out at the polls.
Latinos in Texas tend to vote for Democrats. Republicans get a smaller share of the Latino vote, yet they continue to win statewide elections.
The general consensus is that Democrats in Texas would have an edge over their Republican counterparts if more Latinos voted. But wondering about the
possibilities has not proved fruitful for Democrats in past election cycles. One reason Latinos are not flexing their muscle at the polls is that some may be too
young to vote. Steve Murdock, a sociology professor at Rice University who is a former state demographer and a former U.S. Census Bureau director, says nearly
36 percent of the state's 6.7 million Latinos were not of voting age a decade ago. Latinos will be the largest ethnic group in Texas in five years. In 2029, they will
be a majority of the state's population, but they will not dominate the voting-age population until 2033, Murdock says. In 2015, about 30 percent of the state's
expected 11.8 million Latinos will still not be old enough to vote, he says. But age is not the only issue. Registered Latino voters lagged behind other ethnic
groups in voter turnout during the last presidential election. A little more than 40 percent of nearly 2.9 million Latino voters registered in 2008 actually cast
ballots. By contrast, about 60 percent of about 10 million registered non-Latino voters turned out at the polls. Experts say various circumstances contribute to the
lower turnout. Latinos, for example, may meet the age qualifications but still be too young to fully engage in politics. A 30-year-old registered voter is more likely
to cast a ballot than a 20-year-old. Other factors include higher rates of poverty among Latinos and lower levels of educational attainment. Activists have cited low
Latino voter turnout as one reason why immigration reform is not at the top of the to-do list for lawmakers. A lack of Latino voter participation is often considered
a culprit when Democratic candidates in Texas cannot topple their Republican counterparts. Leaders from counties with large Latino populations and low voter
turnout also say that if the group turned out in higher numbers, the communities would get more money from the state and neighborhoods would see more
investment from city government. James Aldrete, a Democratic consultant, says it is unfair to place the blame on Latinos. Aldrete says Latino voters face
obstacles to voting that include working long hours or multiple jobs to provide for their families. He says it is up to the candidates and communities to drive those
voters who feel disenfranchised to the polls. “The real annoying thing is when they call it a sleeping giant or when they make any insinuation that it's lazy
Mexicans,” Aldrete says. “What they need to understand is if you want that vote, you have to make it front and center to providing for their families, because that's
what people are doing.” Wooing Latinos Since Texas does not require residents to declare their ethnicity when they register to vote, the best way to measure the
tally of Latino voters is by surname. An El Paso Times/Texas Tribune study of the 2008 voting rolls shows that about 17 percent, or nearly 1.3 million, of the
state's 7.6 million voters had Latino surnames. Nearly 1.6 million of the state's about 2.9 million registered Latino voters did not cast ballots in 2008, according to
an analysis based on the statewide voter file maintained by the Texas secretary of state. The list does not contain some overseas voters or voters who have been
removed for various reasons. (No similar list of voters was available for the 2006 gubernatorial election.) Political analysts warn that 2008 was an anomaly. They
say the average turnout for Latinos in the state ranges from 11 to 15 percent. Still, though Latinos are not voting in numbers equal to their population, the group
remains too large to ignore. Perry
and White each say they have their eye on Latino voters. Perry says he plans go after 50 percent
will be
looking to increase Latino turnout and trying to maintain the larger voting margins typically afforded to Democratic candidates. “If Bill
White loses the Hispanic vote to Rick Perry, then it's all over ,” Stein says. “He needs to get 65 to 70 percent of a
good turnout of the Hispanic vote. If he doesn't hold his margins, it won't matter what the turnout is.”
of the Latino vote this election. The governor has picked up about a third of the Latino vote in past elections, according to his campaign. White
Federal immigration reform is the litmus test for Latino voters
Stiles and Torres, 7/26/2010 (Matt and Zahira, Texas still waiting for latinos to show power at polls, The
Texas Tribune, p. http://www.texastribune.org/texas-politics/2010-texas-governors-race/texas-still-waiting-forlatinos-to-vote/)
Lydia Camarillo, vice president of the Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, says that day is coming. In the
meantime, she says, Latinos must be reminded what is at stake in each election. “Go to our neighborhoods. We are not seeing any
progress,” she says. Many candidates still have a hard time pushing issues that drive the group to the polls. Eight years ago, Democratic gubernatorial candidate
Tony Sanchez relied too heavily on the idea that he could increase Latino turnout and that the group would vote for him because of his surname, political analysts
say. Sanchez lost to Perry by more than 800,000 votes. Those analysts say current candidates who travel to the border to discuss security or complain that Latinos
are not represented in history books are also not doing enough to engage the population in a meaningful way. Camarillo
says underestimating
Latino voting power is a mistake. She says candidates have missed the mark when tackling important concerns for Latinos. “The questions
should be, what are we going to do to make sure that the Latino community has better resources, better jobs and better opportunities?” she says. But,
Camarillo says, Latinos also continue to pay attention to how candidates respond to immigration issues. “Even though it is a
federal issue, the immigration issue has become increasingly a litmus test for how we will be treated,” she
says.
White would make Texas the energy capital of the world
Baltimore, 10/11/2010 (Chris, In big oil texas, democrats looks to sun and wind, Reuters, p.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20101011/pl_nm/us_usa_elections_texas)
But if the Democrat wins the state governor's race next month, he will be spending lots of time working with two other
resources in abundance in Texas -- sun and wind -- and trying to make the whole state much more energy efficient. If successful,
White could help turn oil-happy Texas into the de facto U.S. leader in alternative energy while Washington's push toward
a low-carbon economy drags on in Congress. As Houston's mayor for three terms, White burnished his clean energy credentials by championing efficiency and
making the "Petro Metro" the biggest municipal clean energy purchaser in the state. He also proved his mettle as a cool-headed, straight-talking administrator who
focused on the bottom line and proved a steely crisis manager after Hurricane Ike barreled through Houston in 2008. But White, 56, has yet to prove he can win
this tough election. Most polls have him trailing Republican Rick Perry, the longest-serving governor in the history of the second most populous U.S. state. "The
guy is darn near a deity in the Houston area," said Jason Stanford, a political consultant with Stanford Research in Austin, the state capital. "The challenge for him
is to make his case to the rest of the state in the time that's left." To his credit, White is already the best Democratic bet in 15 years. "Being a conservative, fiscally
careful Democrat puts White in pretty good stead," said Cal Jillson, a political scientist at Southern Methodist University in Dallas. "He's making as good a run as
any Democrat has made since Ann Richards," the last Democrat to hold the office in 1991-1995. JUMP START SOLAR The clean energy credentials help
distinguish White, but he can't call Perry a slouch on the matter. Under Perry's watch, Texas wind energy bloomed, and the state leads the nation in producing
carbon-free electricity from windmills. Surging
interest in renewable energy supplies like wind and solar has made Texas
a hotbed for clean-energy technology. As governor, observers say White could take the state's success as the No. 1 U.S.
wind energy producer and apply it to the solar industry, harnessing thousands of carbon-free megawatts and boosting the state's high-tech
credentials. "That would jump-start our solar industry here and get a lot of private investment," said Jim Marston, director of
the Environmental Defense Fund's Texas office. "It would change the solar industry in this country like we did for wind." White says he
would defend Texas' place as "energy capital of the world " as governor by focusing on energy efficiency and renewable energy
sources like wind and solar. "We have all the natural ingredients to be the clean energy leader for the nation's
future, including the largest concentration of engineers in the Western Hemisphere," White told Reuters in a recent interview.
Texas is the single largest CO2 emitter in the United States. White would reign in emissions
Marshall, 10/21/2010 (Christa, Coal looms large for democrat in texas governor’s race, New York Times, p.
http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/10/21/21climatewire-coal-looms-large-for-democrat-in-texas-gover54145.html)
But the energy ramifications of the race are huge, considering that Texas is by far the nation's biggest
greenhouse gas emitter and one of its main energy producers. The state's carbon dioxide emissions are
roughly double the combined output of the No. 2 and 3 CO2 spewers, California and Pennsylvania. Texas
also leads the nation in the wind-powered generation capacity and consumes more electricity than any other state, according to the U.S. Department of Energy.
The state's current electricity mix, in which natural gas fires roughly 42 percent, coal fires 37 percent and renewables produce 7 percent, could change
significantly depending on the election's outcome because of the governor's influence over the state permitting process for energy projects, analysts say. An end to
the fight between Texas and EPA? Texas also is
at the forefront of disagreements between U.S. EPA and a handful of states
over pending greenhouse gas regulations. Perry sued the federal agency this year over what he called "overreach" and "flawed science." For
White supporters, the Democrat offers hope that EPA and Texas will reach a compromise, or that the state will at least engage in less public brawling with federal
regulators. White also would
work behind the scenes to bring more renewables online and wean the state off of
its most-polluting power plants, they say. "Rick Perry has been an obstructionist; he has been grandstanding on
the EPA," said David Weinberg of the Texas League of Conservation Voters, which endorsed White. "White will be a facilitator." His
organization placed Perry on its "dirty dozen" list for what it said was a too-close relationship with polluters. Other environmentalists point to White's
frequent mention of science guiding his decisions as evidence he would place climate-friendly policies
front and center. That means putting in mandates for solar power that will match Texas' wind power boom. When asked about the cause of climate
change, White said, "I do tend to defer to the scientific consensus of the National Academy of Sciences. My interpretation is what those scientists have said is,
'There is significant risk that it is man-made, and the consequences are significant.'"
That is key to international climate negotiations
Becker, 9/9/2010 (William - executive director of the Presidential Climate Action Project, The coming climate
election, The Huffington Post, p. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-s-becker/the-coming-climateelecti_b_710239.html)
On November 2, America's attention will focus on the mid-term elections for Congress. But those of us who believe government must act
against global climate change had better pay attention to another set of races: the election of 37 governors and scores
of state legislators. In the years ahead, the people we elect to our 50 statehouses may be more important than the people we elect to
Congress. Consider the impact on international climate treaty negotiations. At the end of November, negotiators from more than 190 nations will gather for
the 16th Conference of the Parties in Cancun to continue working on a global climate pact. Few experts expect that a treaty will be signed in Cancun, but
there's hope the meeting will narrow the gaps nations have failed to bridge in the negotiations so far. One positive
development would be a concrete, credible, verifiable plan by the United States to cut its greenhouse emissions.
The chief U.S. negotiator, Todd Stern, has just reaffirmed Obama's goal to cut the nation's greenhouse gas emissions 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. But
with no climate bill from Congress again this year, U.S. negotiators reportedly are pondering how to show the United
States will achieve the goal with "other available tools". There's the Clean Air Act, of course, but it's a path with lots of litigation
ahead. Many other tools belong to states and cities and already are in place - for example, utility regulation, energy codes for buildings, public
benefit funds, renewable energy and energy efficiency portfolio standards, and zoning that influences how much energy people need for mobility. The World
Resources Institute (WRI) issued a report in July that put a number on what states are doing with their tools. WRI counted the climate actions announced or put
into effect so far by 25 states and the federal government. Fully implemented, the combined policies would cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions 14 percent by 2020,
most of the way to Obama's goal. Other policies in the pipeline could result in deeper reductions. For example, WRI's calculations did not include: • Federal
policies to reduce vehicle miles traveled; • Measures to decrease net emissions by increasing carbon sequestration in forests and farmlands; • Actions cities are
taking beyond the requirements of state or federal law. Of special interest are the more than 1,000 U.S. cities that have signed the Mayors' Climate Protection
Agreement. Armed with WRI's documentation, U.S. negotiators can go to Cancun with more than aspirations. They
won't have one big national
climate bill, but they will have an inventory of national and sub-national commitments that show the United
States is moving in the right direction . WRI's calculations must be considered qualified evidence of progress, however, because the states'
contribution to emission reductions depends on whether they fully implement the policies they've announced. That's where the November 2
election comes in. The danger is that voters will elect governors, legislators, mayors and city council members who are
opposed to, agnostic about, or frightened to implement the climate and energy policies their predecessors embraced. Although
global climate change is not an inherently partisan topic - some Republican governors have been vocal supporters of climate action,
while some coal-state Democrats have been opposed -- conservative Republicans are trying hard to make it a wedge issue.
Politico reports that Republican candidates for Congress and governorships are becoming more vocal in denying climate science and
opposing climate action.
Climate leadership is critical to solve warming – prevents extinction
Ban Ki-Moon, Secretary General of the United Nations, 10-25. NY Times, “We Can Do It,”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/26/opinion/26iht-edban.html
Every day, the critical December summit in Copenhagen grows closer. All agree that climate change is an existential threat to humankind. Yet
agreement on what to do still eludes us. How can this be? The issues are complex, affecting everything from national economies to individual lifestyles. They
involve political trade-offs and commitments of resources no leader can undertake lightly. We could see all that at recent climate
negotiations in Bangkok. Where we needed progress, we saw gridlock. Yet the elements of a deal are on the table. All we require to
put them in place is political will. We need to step back from narrow national interest and engage in frank and constructive discussion in a spirit of global
common cause. In this, we can be optimistic. Meeting in London earlier this week, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown told the leaders of 17 major economies
(responsible for some 80 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions) that success in Copenhagen is
within reach—if they themselves engage, and
especially if they themselves go to Copenhagen to push an agenda for change. U.S. leadership is crucial. That is why I am encouraged by
the spirit of compromise shown in the bipartisan initiative announced last week by John Kerry and Lindsey Graham. Here was a pair of U.S. senators — one
Republican, the other Democratic — coming together to bridge their parties’ differences to address climate change in a spirit of genuine give-and-take. We cannot
afford another period where the United States stands on the sidelines. An
engaged U nited S tates can lead the world to seal a deal to combat
climate change in Copenhagen. An indecisive or insufficiently engaged U nited S tates will cause unnecessary — and ultimately
unaffordable — delay in concrete strategies and policies to beat this looming challenge. Leaders across the globe are increasingly
showing the engagement and leadership we need. Last month, President Barack Obama joined more than 100 others at a climate change summit at
U.N. headquarters in New York — sending a clear message of solidarity and commitment. So did the leaders of China, Japan and South Korea, all of whom
pledged to promote the development of clean energy technologies and ensure that Copenhagen is a success. Japan’s prime minister promised a 25 percent cut in
greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels by 2020, laying down a marker for other industrialized nations. The European Union, too, has pledged to make a 30
percent reduction as part of a global agreement. Norway has announced its readiness for a 40 percent cut in emissions. Brazil has unveiled plans to substantially cut
emissions from deforestation. India and China are implanting programs to curb emissions as well. Looking forward to Copenhagen, I have four benchmarks for
success: Every country must do its utmost to reduce emissions from all major sources, including from deforestation and emissions from shipping and aviation.
Developed countries must strengthen their mid-term mitigation targets, which are currently nowhere close to the cuts that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change says are needed. Developing countries must slow the rise in their emissions and accelerate green growth as part of their strategies to reduce poverty. A
successful deal must strengthen the world’s ability to cope with an already changing climate. In particular, it must provide comprehensive support to those who
bear the heaviest climate impacts. Support for adaptation is not only an ethical imperative; it is a smart investment in a more stable, secure world. A deal needs to
be backed by money and the means to deliver it. Developing countries need funding and technology so they can move more quickly toward green growth. The
solutions we discuss cannot be realized without substantial additional financing, including through carbon markets and private investment. A deal must include an
Can we
seal a comprehensive, equitable and ambitious deal in Copenhagen that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and
limit global temperature rise to a scientifically safe level? Can we catalyze clean energy growth? Can we help to protect the most
equitable global governance structure. All countries must have a voice in how resources are deployed and managed. That is how trust will be built.
vulnerable nations from the effects of climate change? Can we expect the United States to play a leading role? The best answer to all these questions was given last
week by Senators Kerry and Graham: “Yes,
we can.”