Deferred Action Negative - MSDI 2015

MSDI 2015
#debatelikeabear
Deferred Action Neg v1.0
About MSDI & Missouri State U..

For twenty years, the Missouri State Debate Institute has offered an excellent
educational experience in the middle of the high school topic. MSDI is distinct from
other camps in six ways. First, our skills focus assures that a typical 2-week debater
gets nearly 80 speeches, including over 20 debates. Second, we emphasize the
largest cases on topic, with students getting both aff and neg rounds on each. Third,
our senior faculty are comparable with top lab leaders in any camp. Fourth, MSDI
students can earn highly transferable college credit in public speaking for a minimal
cost. Fifth, we respect variance in home debate circuits our goal is to improve line
by line debating in ways that will help students no matter who judges in their home
circuit. Finally, our price is below any comparable camp and far below most camps.
Our 2016 information will be available shortly at:
http://debate.missouristate.edu/camp.htm.
Missouri State University is a large comprehensive university (enrollment over 24k),
with nearly any major you might want. The university has excellent academic
scholarship support most debaters combine academic entitlement scholarships
(guaranteed based on GPA/test scores) with debate scholarships. The Spicer Debate
Forum competes in two year-long policy debate formats: NDT and NFA-LD. Weve
national semis or finals in both in the last decade. Our debaters have an average
GPA over 3.5, a 97% graduation rate, and 70% complete law/grad school afterward.
Our program is a high-impact academic experience with an exceptional alumni
network. Please contact Dr. Eric Morris for more information
(EricMorris@MissouriState.edu).
http://debate.missouristate.edu/
http://www.missouristate.edu/FinancialAid/scholarships/
MSDI 2015
#debatelikeabear
2

Deferred Action Neg v1.0....................................................................................................................... 1
**Solvency**........................................................................................................................................ 2
No registration.................................................................................................................................. 3
CiR turn............................................................................................................................................. 4
Plan is illegal..................................................................................................................................... 5
**Economy**....................................................................................................................................... 6
DAPA cant solve............................................................................................................................... 7
Economy growing.............................................................................................................................. 8
Agriculture not key.......................................................................................................................... 10
A2 Unions........................................................................................................................................ 11
US not key to global........................................................................................................................ 12
Economy resilient............................................................................................................................ 13
1NC Economy no war................................................................................................................... 16
2NC Economy no war................................................................................................................... 18
1NC Econ not key to heg................................................................................................................. 21
1NC Hegemony defense.................................................................................................................. 22
2NC Hegemony defense.................................................................................................................. 23
**Agriculture**................................................................................................................................... 24
Agriculture turn............................................................................................................................... 25
Mechanization turn......................................................................................................................... 26
Labor shortage inevitable............................................................................................................... 28
US not key to global ag................................................................................................................... 29
Food shortage inevitable................................................................................................................. 30
1NC No resource wars..................................................................................................................... 31
2NC No resource wars..................................................................................................................... 32
**State Budgets**.............................................................................................................................. 33
A2 Bioterror..................................................................................................................................... 34
**DA**............................................................................................................................................... 36
Unpopular....................................................................................................................................... 37
Courts link to politics....................................................................................................................... 39
Terror DA......................................................................................................................................... 41
MSDI 2015
#debatelikeabear
**Solvency**
MSDI 2015
#debatelikeabear
No registration
No solvency people wont sign up
Wadhia
Shoba S.
, Samuel Weiss Faculty Scholar and Clinical Professor of Law at Penn State Law,
Prosecutorial Discretion in Immigration Law." American University Law Review 64
2015. "The History of
The political impetus to challenge the legality of the Presidents executive actions stems in part from the number of people who may
qualify for these actionsespecially from the creation of the DAPA program. Estimates from the White House suggest that more than
although the scale of President

Obamas executive actions is significant, they do not reflect something new as a legal
matter nor do they confirm that the actual number of eligible people who will apply or may
receive DAPA will even come close to 4 million . In the case of DACA, for example, just fifty-five percent of
4 million people will benefit from the Presidents executive actions.73 Notably,
the estimated 1.2 million eligible individuals applied for the program after it had been in place for two years.74 Some of the
an eligible person may choose not to apply for a program include the inability to pay the
application fee, fear of deportation for oneself or a family member(s), inability to obtain the
documents necessary to prove eligibility, or lack of access to an immigration attorney or nonprofit group because of a cultural, language, and/or geographic barrier .75 Possibly, the new
deferred action programs will undergo an even larger drop in applications because
of the confusion and fear surrounding the temporary injunction issued by Judge
Hanen and the ongoing removals of noncitizens identified as enforcement
priorities.76
reasons
Deferred action is perceived as vulnerable chills participation

even if the decision is reversed
Kalhan
2015
Anil
, Associate Law Prof @ Drexel University, February 21,
, Is Judge Hanen's Smackdown of Executive Action
on Immigration 'Narrowly Crafted'?. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2571079 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2571079
What exactly is at stake in whether or not Judge Hanens ruling is characterized as a narrow and
minimalist ruling? In instrumental terms, both critics and defenders of the Obama administrations initiatives have incentives to
characterize the decision as a narrow one. For defenders of the administrations initiatives, characterizing Judge Hanens decision as
narrow might help to forestall a potential chilling effect in immigrant communities that could result from any impression that Judge
if immigrant communities perceive DAPA

and expanded DACA as vulnerable, then individuals who are eligible for DAPA and expanded
DACA might be intimidated from applying if and when the programs are reinstated . That
chilling effect could also extend to applications to renew deferred action under the original
DACA program, even though that program is not affected by Judge Hanens ruling.
Hanen has dealt a fatal blow to those programs. From this perspective,
No signup perceived risk of rollback

Josh Gerstein and Adam B. Lerner, 5-26-2015, "Ruling puts Obama's
immigration legacy in jeopardy," POLITICO,
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/barack-obama-executive-action-immigrationsetback-appeals-court-118290.html, accessed 6-23-2015, jwh
One former top immigration official says that regardless of the eventual outcome of
the litigation, the delay is likely to undermine the willingness of immigrants to take
the much-vaunted step out of the shadows.
I think the longer the program languishes the more uncertainty is going to build.
Thats going to create a reluctance for people to come forward and participate,
4
MSDI 2015
#debatelikeabear
5
said Paul Virtue, a former immigration service chief counsel now with law firm Mayer
Brown.
MSDI 2015
#debatelikeabear
CiR turn
The plan prevents comprehensive immigration reform
Heeren
Geoffrey
, Associate Professor, Valparaiso University Law School,
University Law Review 64
2015 "The Status of Nonstatus." American
On the other hand, nonstatus could calcify. The ability of millions of undocumented
individuals to obtain nonstatus might reduce the pressure to pass actual
immigration reform. Business interests that have historically lobbied for reform
might be appeased by the existence of a large new lawful work force.322 The
tenuous nature of nonstatus might prevent its holders from pushing too hard for
something better for fear of losing what they have. Even if nonstatus becomes
status for the most politically popular groups, like those with DACA, less visible and
less politically connected groups will likely be left out. The dangers of this situation
need to be recognized. Those with nonstatus will contribute to the countrys tax
revenue without receiving their fair share of benefits, such as health care, and for
some, social security retirement. They will be more likely to suffer discrimination
and less likely to be protected by the courts. On the other hand, DHS will grow from
nonstatus, gaining more and more officers to process millions of work permit
renewal requests.323 DHS has even claimed that it might be able to shift some of
the fees from DAPA to fund ICEs and CBPs enforcement effortsgrowing those
agencies, too.324 Although the immigration enforcement agencies may be
nourished by nonstatus, nonstatus may guarantee that the United States will never
solve its problem of unauthorized immigration. The Executive Branch justifies most
of its nonstatus programs as an exercise of prosecutorial discretion in the face of an
unauthorized population that is larger than what the government is capable of
deporting. In order for it to keep granting nonstatus, therefore, the government
must always be faced with a massive undocumented population .325 Those
undocumented immigrants who do not qualify for nonstatus will likely be subject to
a new regime of hyperenforcement with ever-larger levels of resources directed
against them.
MSDI 2015
#debatelikeabear
Plan is illegal
DAPA/DACA is illegal contradicts Congress, no limiting
principle, INA doesnt justify
Smith 5-29
Ian
,
-2015, Obama Is Suspending the Law Designed to Deter Illegal Immigration, National Review Online,
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/419030/need-limiting-principle-amnesty-discretion
A key part of the Fifth Circuits decision to keep the freeze on President Obamas amnesty programs was the 25-page dissenting
opinion written by the panels lone Obama appointee. Not only does it point to how the bloc-voting liberal justices of the Supreme
Court will ultimately treat the case, it almost wholly focuses on the threshold issue of prosecutorial
discretion: an
would remove the last vestige of
authority that Congress and the courts have in preventing immigration anarchy at
our nations southern border. The essential point of disagreement that Judge Stephen Higginson had with Judge
executive-branch power that, if expanded to include mass grants of amnesty,
Hanens lower-court opinion has to do with the characterization of the presidents amnesty programs. How DAPA and DACA are
categorized is crucial for both sides. Obamas attorneys contend that the programs are mere exercises of prosecutorial discretion
on the part of the president. The core case that forecloses plaintiffs arguments against the administrations use of DAPA and
DACA, wrote Judge Higginson, is Heckler v. Chaney, where the Supreme Court held that an agencys decision not to prosecute or
enforce . . . is a decision generally committed to an agencys absolute discretion. Finding that these programs were something
Heckler ruling couldnt apply to

the presidents amnesty. Higginson quotes Hanens characterization of DACA and DAPA, emphasizing that he
called them announced programs of non-enforcement of the law that contradicts
Congresss statutory goals and an abdication of [the governments] statutory
responsibilities. The descriptor announced is essential here, and Higginson is right to focus on Hanens characterization
bigger than mere decisions not to prosecute, Judge Hanen determined that the
so intently. Prosecutorial discretion refers to the priorities prosecutors sometimes must adopt (almost always in the context of
criminal prosecutions) given the operational limits they face. The Department of Homeland Security has appropriated this concept,
asserting that by being able to prosecute illegal aliens according to its own discretion, rather than the guidelines set forth in our
immigration laws, it can save its limited resources and better prioritize cases that deserve the most attention e.g., convicted
felons, illegal aliens who are threats to national security, and so on. But such priorities are not usually announced by prosecutors.
the decision to exercise discretion in

dealing with wrongdoers necessarily must be done in the dark, not out in the open
(as in a nationwide memo). To announce such an intention is to create moral hazard, the
As liberal law professor (and immigration attorney) Peter Margulies writes,
concept most commonly used to describe the unintended consequences of insurance. As Margulies says, moral hazard arises
because individuals who know they will be held harmless for wrongdoing tend to do
more of it (emphasis added). Letting wrongdoers, such as illegal aliens, apply in advance for a fixed period of forbearance
(deferred action) would lead to more of the bad behavior in question, such as overstaying a visa or crossing the border without
appropriate documents. Take the case of burglary, says Margulies. If a person charged with burglary is young and his theft was
small, a judge may favor a plea bargain instead of sentencing him to prison. But it would be difficult to imagine, writes Margulies,
prosecutors would solicit applications from known burglars for a burglars holiday that would guarantee a specific period of
Any discretion that Congress allows for must have a limiting principle that
is a deterring statute. Since its
original enactment in 1952, it has been continually amended to better deter illegal immigration. By announcing an
illegal aliens holiday, the president created the moral hazard of giving a reprieve
to illegal aliens, which has the result of suspending the deterring power of the INA. In
a word, then, DAPA and DACA are an abdication, and Judge Hanen is absolutely right. Any discretion a president
may have had in prosecuting illegal aliens and deferring deportations was taken
away by the INAs IIRIRA (Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act) amendments of 1996. Even
immunity.
narrowly confines the transfer of authority. The Immigration Nationality Act ( INA)
open-borders pushers like the ACLU agree that the INA as written leads to mass deportations: That is the mandate given to DHS.
Even Noam Chomsky agrees with this characterization. President Clinton, he says, militarized the border in the mid-Nineties in
anticipation of the implementation of NAFTA. According to Chomsky, because independent Mexican farmers had no way to compete
with subsidized U.S. agribusiness, the likely consequence would be flight to the United States, joined by those fleeing the countries
of Central America. To say, as Higginson does, that the INA could possibly forgo its deterrence factor and authorize DAPA and DACA
Any discretion that Congress allows for must have a

limiting principle that narrowly confines the transfer of authority in question, lest
takes some serious mental gymnastics.
MSDI 2015
#debatelikeabear
8
it simply become a runaway power grab . There is no such limitation in DAPA and DACA. Oddly, Judge Higginson
inadvertently supports this argument when he claims throughout his dissent that the Family Fairness deferred-action program of 1990 provides legal
precedent for the presidents amnesty. That program makes DAPA and DACA neither new nor uncommon, he says. Higginson, however, fails to discuss
the limited applicability of that program. Family Fairness grew out of the legislative amnesty of 1986, when a small number of the beneficiaries
dependents (mostly children) were left out because of an oversight. Importantly, those children were able to be sponsored after the beneficiaries became
lawful permanent residents. Congress sought to correct this mistake by making provision for this class in the Immigration Act of 1990; in the interim
(which lasted several months), members of this class, despite being illegal aliens, had their deportation proceedings stayed. As law professor Josh
Blackman says, the program served as a temporary bridge from one status to another, with Congress granting the children legal status almost
immediately after it was put in place. Beneficiaries of DAPA and DACA, by contrast, have no prospect of obtaining proper legal status. When another
Obama-appointed judge, Beryl Howell of the D.C. District Court, raised Family Fairness as precedent in her dismissal of Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaios DACA
challenge, Margulies said she failed to acknowledge the distinction between discretion that acted as a bridge to legal status and discretion unmoored to
status (emphasis added). Deferring prosecution for a narrowly defined group of people whose change in status is all but inevitable is the kind of
deferring prosecution for large

groups of people is what makes Obamas amnesty completely unhinged and a
reviewable abdication of duty.
temporary and limited discretion that Congress arguably can give to the president. But
MSDI 2015
#debatelikeabear
**Economy**
MSDI 2015
10
#debatelikeabear
DAPA cant solve

Economic benefits overstated
Rosenfeld, 11-21-2014, "Obama's immigration plan risks backlash," CNBC, http://www.cnbc.com/id/102208015,
Everett
accessed 6-20-2015, jwh
As for the wider U.S. economy, experts said it is unlikely that Obama's executive
actions will have a significant impact on employment or wages. Citing the U.S. Immigration Reform and Control
Act of 1986 that offered amnesty to about 2.7 million undocumented immigrants, Evercore concluded that research is mixed on
economists agree ...

that new waves of immigration hurt previous immigrants." "The literature is generally
in agreement that the primary beneficiaries of legalization would be the eligible immigrants themselves, with the main
employment-level changes (since many were already participating in the workforce), but that "most
benefit being an increase in earnings as workers formerly in the shadow labor market move to better, higher-paying jobs and earn
greater returns on their educations," the Evercore note said.
And while the real economy may not change
much, investors should also not expect to see major moves in closely
followed statistics, according to research from JPMorgan.
"We believe it will be hard to discern any
large effects on the data," wrote Michael Feroli, the firm's chief U.S. economist, adding that "we think
the labor market
data are largely immune to changes in the legal status of workers." Even the
government's cofferswhich would presumably benefit from more than 4 million expected new taxpayersmay not
see a big bump from the president's actions. Many experts predict that about half of undocumented
immigrants with jobs have false papers, so they are already paying taxes,
said John
Skrentny, director of the Center for Comparative Immigration Studies at the University of California, San Diego.
10
MSDI 2015
11
#debatelikeabear
Economy growing
Economy growing small businesses, manufacturing, stable oil
prices prove
Reuters, 6-9-2015, "Job Openings and Small-Business Confidence Rise,

Signaling Stronger Economy," New York Times,
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/10/business/economy/job-openings-and-smallbusiness-confidence-rise-signaling-stronger-economy.html
WASHINGTON Job openings in the United States surged to a high in April and smallbusiness confidence perked up in May, suggesting that the economy was regaining speed
after stumbling at the start of 2015. The increasing strength of the economy was reinforced
by other data on Tuesday showing a solid rise in wholesale inventories in April, in part
as oil prices stabilized. This is more confirmation that the economy is indeed
emerging from that soft patch in the first quarter and can still pick up even faster in the
next few months, said Christopher Rupkey, chief financial economist at MUFG Union
Bank in New York. Job openings, a measure of labor demand, rose 5.2 percent to a
seasonally adjusted 5.4 million in April, the highest level since the survey began in
December 2000, the Labor Department said in its monthly Job Openings and Labor
Turnover Survey. Hiring slipped to five million from 5.1 million in March. Economists
said the decline suggested that employers could not find qualified workers for
openings. The number of unemployed job seekers per open job, a measure of labor
market slack, fell to 1.6 in April, the lowest level since 2007 and down from 1.7 in
March. Tightening labor market conditions were corroborated by a separate report
from the National Federation of Independent Business that showed confidence among
small businesses rising to a five-month high in May. The share of businesses saying they
could not fill openings also increased to 29 percent last month, matching Februarys
reading, which was the highest since April 2006. The economy contracted at a 0.7
percent annual pace in the first quarter and growth started slowly in the second
quarter, partly because of the lingering effects of a strong dollar and spending cuts
in the energy industry. But a surge in job growth and automobile sales and gains in May
factory activity suggest that the economy is strengthening.
Economy growing consumer spending

Lucia Mutikani, 6-25-2015, "The Latest Sign That The Economy Is Getting Back
on Track," MONEY, http://time.com/money/3935552/consumer-spending-may-2015/
Consumer spending accounts for two-thirds of US economic activity. U.S. consumer
spending recorded its largest increase in nearly six years in May on strong demand for
automobiles and other big-ticket items, further evidence that economic growth was
gathering momentum in the second quarter. The Commerce Department said on
Thursday consumer spending increased 0.9% last month, the biggest gain since
August 2009, after an upwardly revised 0.1% rise in April. The sturdy increases
suggested households were finally spending some of the windfall from lower gasoline
prices, and capped a month of solid economic reports. Consumer spending, which
11
MSDI 2015
#debatelikeabear
12
accounts for more than two-thirds of U.S. economic activity, was previously reported
to have been unchanged in April. Economists polled by Reuters had forecast a 0.7%
rise in May. It was the latest sign that growth was accelerating after gross domestic
product shrank at a 0.2 percent annual rate in the first quarter as the economy
battled bad weather, port disruptions, a strong dollar and spending cuts in the
energy sector. From employment to the housing market, the economic data in May has
been bullish. Even manufacturing, which is struggling with the lingering effects of
dollar strength and lower energy prices, also is starting to stabilize.
Economy stable
Chico Harlan, 5-29-2015, "U.S. economy shrinks in first quarter, raising
questions about underlying strength," Washington Post,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/05/29/analysts-expectdecline-in-u-s-gdp-in-first-quarter/
In a speech last week, Janet L. Yellen, chair of the Federal Reserve, said that growth
would likely be moderate over the rest of the year. But she also said that the worlds
largest economy remains on solid ground, largely because of strong hiring, gains in
disposable income and cheap borrowing costs. As momentum picks up, the central bank
is expected to raise interest rates, which have stayed near zero for 6 years. That
move could come in the second half of the year. Even as the economy has slowed,
the labor market has remained fairly strong, with companies hiring at a pace well above
what has been seen for much of the recovery. Eventually, economists say, either
hiring will slow to sync with GDP or the economy will catch up with job growth.
12
MSDI 2015
13
#debatelikeabear
Agriculture not key

Ag not key to the economy.
Fran Smith 2006 (May 6) Time to End Big Sugar's Sweet Deal (Board Member
and Adjunct Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute) < http://cei.org/newsletters-cei-planet/time-end-big-sugars-sweet-deal>
But the U.S. agricultural sector has changed radically since the 1930s. Today, very
large and highly mechanized farms predominate, employing substantially fewer
people. With the U.S. a highly diversified economy in the 21st century, farming
accounted for only 1.4 percent of total U.S. employment in 2001, and only 0.7
percent of U.S. GDP.
13
MSDI 2015
14
#debatelikeabear
A2 Unions
DAPA insufficient for unionization
E. Tammy Kim is a Features Staff Writer at Al Jazeera America, 11-21- 2014,
"Obama's executive action is about labor policy, not just immigration," Al Jazeera
America, http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/11/21/executive-orderaboutlaborpolicynotjustimmigration.html
One industry-specific provision the unions pushed for a process making it easier
for high skilled, entrepreneurial immigrants to stay made it into Obamas plan.
But other proposals did not: There will be no special consideration for farmworkers,
a peripatetic labor force considered particularly vulnerable by some. Nor will there
be deferred action for workers complaining of wage violations or other unlawful
employer conduct, despite the efforts of advocates like Josh Stehlik, a lawyer at the
National Immigration Law Center in Los Angeles. Attorneys familiar with White
House discussions believe the deferred-action program will roll out in stages,
beginning with a spring pilot, then a larger group over the summer. The application
could mimic that for DACA, which requires a fee of $465 and proof of continuous
presence. Stehlik worries that some low-wage undocumented workers will have
difficulty assembling such evidence, given their tendency to live and work in the
informal economy. Alina Das, a clinical law professor at New York University, has a
more basic concern: that thousands of otherwise eligible immigrants will be barred
from applying due to past criminal convictions. With two years of DACA applications
and renewals under their belt, DACAmented youth and immigration lawyers are
getting ready for this next round of deferred action. They will prioritize community
outreach and warn hopeful immigrants about immigration fraudsters. The thing
with [deferred action] that we need to make clear is that, while you get a work
permit and are low priority for deportation, its not a status. You cant travel. You
cant petition for people, said Natalia Lucak of New York Legal Assistance Group.
Even so, those who have benefited from DACA wish Obamas executive action would
go farther. What were concerned with is that our parents will be left out, said Jeff
Louie, a recent college graduate who works as a graphic designer with DACA work
authorization. My family is different because my brothers a citizen and my parents
are green-card holders, but what about the [undocumented] parents of people
with DACA? Louie and his friends, many from mixed-status families, are realistic. I
think we have zero expectations. Its a dont get our hopes up kind of thing.
14
MSDI 2015
15
#debatelikeabear
US not key to global

US not key to global economy
NYT (New York Times) July 2009 In Asia, a Derided Theory Returns
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?
res=9C0CEFDE163EF932A35754C0A96F9C8B63&pagewanted=1
For a while, when the global economic crisis was at its worst, it was a dirty word that only the most provocative of
decoupling -- is making a comeback, and nowhere more so than in

refers to the theory that emerging countries -- whether China or Chile -will become more independent of the ups and downs in the United States as their
economies become stronger and more sophisticated . For much of last year, the theory
held up. Many emerging economies had steered clear of investments that dragged down a string of banking
analysts dared to use. Now, the D-word -Asia. Put simply, the term
behemoths in the West, and saw nothing like the turmoil that began to engulf the United States and Europe in 2007.
But then, last autumn, when the collapse of Lehman Brothers caused the global financial system to convulse and
consumer demand to shrivel, emerging economies around the world got caught in the downdraft, and the D-word
the tables are turning again, especially in Asia, where many emerging
economies are showing signs of a stronger recovery than in the West . And economists
here have begun to use the D-word in public once again. ''Decoupling is happening for real ,'' the chief
became mud. Now,
Asia-Pacific economist at Goldman Sachs in Hong Kong, Michael Buchanan, said in a recent interview. Or as the
senior Asia economist at HSBC, Frederic Neumann, said, ''Decoupling is not a dirty word.'' To be sure, the once
sizzling pace of Asian economic growth has slowed sharply as exports to and investments from outside the region
slumped. Across Asia, millions of people have lost their jobs as business drops off and companies cut costs and
output. Asia is heavily dependent upon selling its products to consumers in the United States and Europe, and many
executives still say a strong U.S. economy is a prerequisite for a return to the boom of years past. Nevertheless, the
data from around the world

have revealed a growing divergence between Western economies and those in
much of Asia, notably China and India . The World Bank last week forecast that the economies of the
theory of decoupling is back on the table. For the past couple of months,
euro zone and the United States would contract 4.5 percent and 3 percent, respectively, this year -- in sharp
contrast to the 7.2 percent and 5.1 percent economic growth it forecasts for China and India. Forecasts from the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development that were also published last week backed up this general
trend. Major statistics for June, due Wednesday, are expected to show manufacturing activity in China and India are
on the mend. By contrast, purchasing managers' indexes for Europe and the United States are forecast to be merely
less grim than before but still show contractions. Why this diverging picture? The crisis hit Asia much later. While
the U.S. economy began languishing in 2007, Asian economies were still doing well right up until the collapse of
Lehman Brothers last September. What followed was a rush of stimulus measures -- rate cuts and government
spending programs. In Asia's case, these came soon after things soured for the region; in the United States, they
developing Asian economies were in pretty

good shape when the crisis struck. The last major crisis to hit the region - - the financial
turmoil of 1997-98 -- forced governments in Asia to introduce overhauls that ultimately
left them with lower debt levels, more resilient banking and regulatory systems and
often large foreign exchange reserves . Another crucial difference is that Asia, unlike the United States
came much later in the country's crisis. Moreover,
and Europe, has not had a banking crisis. Bank profits in Asia have plunged and some have had to raise extra
capital but there have been no major collapses and no bailouts. ''The single most important thing to have happened
in Asia is that there has not been a banking crisis,'' said Andrew Freris, a regional strategist at BNP Paribas in Hong
Kong. ''Asia is coming though this crisis with its banking system intact. Yes, some banks may not be making profits
-- but it is cyclical and not systemic.''
15
MSDI 2015
16
#debatelikeabear
Economy resilient
Econ resilient
Fareed Zakaria (editor of Newsweek International) December 2009 The Secrets
of Stability, http://www.newsweek.com/id/226425/page/2]
One year ago, the world seemed as if it might be coming apart. The global financial
system, which had fueled a great expansion of capitalism and trade across the world, was crumbling. All
the certainties of the age of globalizationabout the virtues of free markets, trade, and technologywere being
called into question. Faith in the American model had collapsed. The financial industry had crumbled. Once-roaring
emerging markets like China, India, and Brazil were sinking. Worldwide trade was shrinking to a degree not seen
Pundits whose bearishness had been vindicated predicted we were doomed to a

long, painful bust, with cascading failures in sector after sector, country after
country. In a widely cited essay that appeared in The Atlantic n this May, Simon Johnson, former chief economist
since the 1930s.
of the International Monetary Fund, wrote: "The conventional wisdom among the elite is still that the current slump
'cannot be as bad as the Great Depression.' This view is wrong. What we face now could, in fact, be worse than the
Great Depression."
Others predicted that these economic shocks would lead to political

instability and violence in the worst-hit countries. At his confirmation hearing in February, the new U.S.
director of national intelligence, Adm. Dennis Blair, cautioned the Senate that "the financial crisis and global
recession are likely to produce a wave of economic crises in emerging-market nations over the next year." Hillary
Clinton endorsed this grim view. And she was hardly alone. Foreign Policy ran a cover story predicting serious unrest
in several emerging markets. Of one thing everyone was sure: nothing would ever be the same again. Not the
One year later, how much has the world really

changed? Well, Wall Street is home to two fewer investment banks (three, if you count Merrill Lynch). Some
financial industry, not capitalism, not globalization.
regional banks have gone bust. There was some turmoil in Moldova and (entirely unrelated to the financial crisis) in
Iran. Severe problems remain, like high unemployment in the West, and we face new problems caused by responses
overall, things look nothing like they did in

the 1930s. The predictions of economic and political collapse have not materialized
at all. A key measure of fear and fragility is the ability of poor and unstable countries to borrow money on the
to the crisissoaring debt and fears of inflation. But
debt markets. So consider this: the sovereign bonds of tottering Pakistan have returned 168 percent so far this year.
All this doesn't add up to a recovery yet, but it does reflect a return to some level of normalcy. And that rebound has
been so rapid that even the shrewdest observers remain puzzled. "The question I have at the back of my head is 'Is
that it?' " says Charles Kaye, the co-head of Warburg Pincus. "We had this huge crisis, and now we're back to
markets managed to stabilize themselves

on their own. Rather, governments, having learned the lessons of the Great Depression, were determined not
to repeat the same mistakes once this crisis hit. By massively expanding state support for the
economythrough central banks and national treasuriesthey buffered the worst of the damage.
business as usual?"This revival did not happen because
(Whether they made new mistakes in the process remains to be seen.) The extensive social safety nets that have
been established across the industrialized world also cushioned the pain felt by many. Times are still tough, but
things are nowhere near as bad as in the 1930s, when governments played a tiny role in national economies. It's
true that the massive state interventions of the past year may be fueling some new bubbles: the cheap cash and
government guarantees provided to banks, companies, and consumers have fueled some irrational exuberance in
stock and bond markets. Yet these rallies also demonstrate the return of confidence, and confidence is a very
powerful economic force. When John Maynard Keynes described his own prescriptions for economic growth, he
believed government action could provide only a temporary fix until the real motor of the economy started cranking
againthe animal spirits of investors, consumers, and companies seeking risk and profit. Beyond all this, though, I
there's a fundamental reason why we have not faced global collapse in the last
year. It is the same reason that we weathered the stock-market crash of 1987, the
recession of 1992, the Asian crisis of 1997, the Russian default of 1998, and the
tech-bubble collapse of 2000. The current global economic system is inherently
more resilient than we think. The world today is characterized by three major forces
for stability, each reinforcing the other and each historical in nature.
believe
16
MSDI 2015
#debatelikeabear
17
17
MSDI 2015
18
#debatelikeabear
Econ resilient
Daniel W. Drezner 12, Professor, The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts
University, October 2012, The Irony of Global Economic Governance: The System
Worked, http://www.globaleconomicgovernance.org/wp-content/uploads/IRColloquium-MT12-Week-5_The-Irony-of-Global-Economic-Governance.pdf
It is equally possible, however, that a renewed crisis would trigger a renewed
surge in policy coordination . As John Ikenberry has observed, the complex
interdependence that is unleashed in an open and loosely rule-based order
generates some expanding realms of exchange and investment that result in a
growing array of firms, interest groups and other sorts of political stakeholders who
seek to preserve the stability and openness of the system.103 The post-2008
economic order has remained open , entrenching these interests even
more across the globe. Despite uncertain times, the open economic system that
has been in operation since 1945 does not appear to be closing anytime soon.
Its resilient
Globe and Mail 10

(5/31/10, BRIAN MILNER, "While gloom says bear, TIGER points to bull", lexis, WEA)
Even at the height of the remarkable rebound of 2009 that brought stocks back from the dead
zone, the bears never retreated to their lairs. Negative sentiment among investors
remained stubbornly high, no matter how promising the economic
indicators looked. And then along came the Greeks and their little sovereign debt problem,
the Chinese and their public hand-wringing over asset bubbles and the North Koreans
and their latest idiotic sabre-ratting to remind nervous markets just how fragile the nascent global recovery could
turn out to be. The latest survey of American investors last week showed bearish sentiment hovering close to 30 per cent, with
plenty of room for an uptick in the months ahead, as the optimists come to realize that a V-shaped recovery was never in the cards
after the worst global financial and economic crisis since the Great Depression. The world's most overexposed permabear, Nouriel
Roubini, is still grabbing headlines with his dire Greece-is-just-the-tip-of-the-iceberg warnings. (Well, he does have a new book to
sell.) And such high-profile Canadian bruins as gold-loving money manager Eric Sprott and eminent strategist and data miner David
Rosenberg have never veered from their sombre outlooks. The fact that May turned into a particularly brutal month for just about
everything but U.S. Treasuries - even after last week's modest rebound, the Dow posted its worst performance for the month in 70
years - only added fuel to arguments that worse, much worse, is yet to come. I mention all this to Eswar Prasad, when I reach the
Cornell University economics professor at his hotel in Beijing. Prof. Prasad is a noted China watcher who once headed the IMF's China
division and still keeps in close touch with top government finance officials. But on this call, I'm more interested in one of his other
hats as a shrewd analyst of global economic and market trends. "My
affable academic says. "But
inclination also is to be a bear," the
the data don't support
my
bearishness
as much as I would like.
One has to be a little cautious, because these are based on a variety of indicators. Some of them
certainly show more strength than I had realized." The data he's talking about come out of his work on a
new composite index derived from a broad set of economic, market and confidence measures in the G20 countries and designed to
provide a quarterly snapshot of the global recovery. "All signs are that the recovery has some momentum," says Prof. Prasad, who
developed the index at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank where he is also a senior fellow. "But I wouldn't call it solid
The new index, cutely named TIGER (Tracking Indices for the
Global Economic Recovery), is a joint effort by Brookings and the Financial Times. And TIGER shows that since the
world began climbing out of the deep trough about the middle of last year, big emerging
economies have roared ahead, while the developed world has experienced much more uneven results.
18
enough momentum that we can consider it 'in the bag.'"
MSDI 2015
#debatelikeabear
19
Industrial production and trade have bounced back handsomely - total exports from the big
emerging countries now exceed pre-crisis levels - but the employment picture remains cloudy and consumption has yet to develop a
new head of steam. "It's much
easier at this stage to list all the things that could derail the
recovery," Prof. Prasad says. "But all of those things are still conjectural. The reality, and the data, is that
things are looking better."
Fungibility guarantees economic flexibility no collapse

Eugene Gholz (an associate professor of public affairs at the University of Texas at
Austin) Daryl G. Press (an associate professor of government at Dartmouth
College) Harvey M. Sapolsky (a professor of public policy and organization at MIT)
and Benjamin H. Friedman (research fellow in defense and homeland security
studies at Cato Institute) Fall 2009 Restraining Order: For Strategic Modesty
http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/articles/2009-Fall/full-Sapolsky-etal-Fall-2009.html
Under a policy of restraint, the United States would remain deeply enmeshed in the
global economy. U.S. firms will continue to sell their products abroad as eagerly as
they do now, and consumers around the world will still buy American products. Nor
would the adoption of restraint affect the movement of global capital. American
investors will still seek high returns abroad, and foreigners will still invest in the United
States. Some policy analysts suggest that political instability abroad would
disrupt the global economy, interfering with trade and investment .
They presume that growing economic interdependence means that the United
States has an economic interest in policing the globe. Although globalization
heightens economic ties between countries, those ties mitigate U.S. vulnerability to
overseas shocks. Globalization has multiplied the alternatives for almost every economic
relationship. There are now alternative suppliers for the goods we consume, alternative
consumers for the products we manufacture, alternative locations in which we can invest, and
alternative sources of capital for our firms. A common metaphor for the
global economya complex webis on the mark. The structure of

that web can survive even if a few strands are severed. Profitseeking actors respond quickly to disruptions by searching for the
next-best alternative. If there is trouble in the Strait of Malacca, ships will
quickly reroute through the nearly-as-convenient Straits of Lombok or Makassar. If
disruptions abroad make it harder to sell U.S. bicycles in Korea, manufacturers will
sell them in Portugal. Because of globalization, the United States depends
more on access to the global economy as a whole but depends less

on any specific economic relationship. The oil market seems to stand out as
an exception. Disruptions to oil supply routinely cause huge price spikes and painful
adjustments. But the danger of oil disruptions does not require that Washington
police the Middle East; rather, the United States ought to retain large stockpiles of
oil and other critical materials. The U.S. government has already amassed
approximately 700 million barrels of oil. If you add the stockpiles in the European
Union, Japan, South Korea, and China, the total for the industrialized world is
19
MSDI 2015
#debatelikeabear
20
approximately 1.5 billion barrels of oil. And those are only government-controlled
stocks; most analysts believe private holdings exceed official stockpiles. When one
compares these massive reserves against plausible disruptions, governmentcontrolled stockpiles alone count as more than sufficient to maintain global supply.
The extreme flexibility of the global economy adds to restraints appeal as a strategy for the United
States. The global economy is not a rigid chain with links that must be protected. It is a flexible,
constantly changing web that needs no global policeman to direct its traffic
20
MSDI 2015
#debatelikeabear
21
1NC Economy no war

Econ collapse doesnt cause war prefer our studies
Samuel Bazzi (Department of Economics at University of California San Diego)
and Christopher Blattman (assistant professor of political science and
economics at Yale University) November 2011 Economic Shocks and Conflict: The
(Absence of?) Evidence from Commodity Prices
http://www.chrisblattman.com/documents/research/2011.EconomicShocksAndConfli
ct.pdf?9d7bd4
VI. Discussion and conclusions A. Implications for our theories of political instability
and conflict The state is not a prize?Warlord politics and the state prize logic lie at
the center of the most influential models of conflict, state development, and
political transitions in economics and political science. Yet we see no evidence for
this idea in economic shocks, even when looking at the friendliest cases : fragile and
unconstrained states dominated by extractive commodity revenues. Indeed, we see
the opposite correlation: if anything, higher rents from commodity prices weakly 22
lower the risk and length of conflict . Perhaps shocks are the wrong test. Stocks of
resources could matter more than price shocks (especially if shocks are transitory).
But combined with emerging evidence that war onset is no more likely even with
rapid increases in known oil reserves (Humphreys 2005; Cotet and Tsui 2010) we
regard the state prize logic of war with skepticism.17 Our main political economy
models may need a new engine. Naturally, an absence of evidence cannot be taken
for evidence of absence. Many of our conflict onset and ending results include
sizeable positive and negative effects.18 Even so, commodity price shocks are
highly influential in income and should provide a rich source of identifiable variation
in instability. It is difficult to find a better-measured, more abundant, and plausibly
exogenous independent variable than price volatility. Moreover, other time-varying
variables, like rainfall and foreign aid, exhibit robust correlations with conflict in
spite of suffering similar empirical drawbacks and generally smaller sample sizes
(Miguel et al. 2004; Nielsen et al. 2011). Thus we take the absence of evidence
seriously. Do resource revenues drive state capacity?State prize models assume
that rising revenues raise the value of the capturing the state, but have ignored or
downplayed the effect of revenues on self-defense. We saw that a growing empirical
political science literature takes just such a revenue-centered approach, illustrating
that resource boom times permit both payoffs and repression, and that stocks of
lootable or extractive resources can bring political order and stability. This
countervailing effect is most likely with transitory shocks, as current revenues are
affected while long term value is not. Our findings are partly consistent with this
state capacity effect. For example, conflict intensity is most sensitive to changes in
the extractive commodities rather than the annual agricultural crops that affect
household incomes more directly. The relationship only holds for conflict intensity,
however, and is somewhat fragile. We do not see a large, consistent or robust
decline in conflict or coup risk when prices fall. A reasonable interpretation is that
the state prize and state capacity effects are either small or tend to cancel one
21
MSDI 2015
#debatelikeabear
22
another out. Opportunity cost: Victory by default?Finally, the inverse relationship

between prices and war intensity is consistent with opportunity cost accounts, but
not exclusively so. As we noted above, the relationship between intensity and
extractive commodity prices is more consistent with the state capacity view.
Moreover, we shouldnt mistake an inverse relation between individual aggression
and incomes as evidence for the opportunity cost mechanism. The same correlation
is consistent with psychological theories of stress and aggression (Berkowitz 1993)
and sociological and political theories of relative deprivation and anomie (Merton
1938; Gurr 1971). Microempirical work will be needed to distinguish between these
mechanisms. Other reasons for a null result.Ultimately, however, the fact that
commodity price shocks have no discernible effect on new conflict onsets, but some
effect on ongoing conflict, suggests that political stability might be less sensitive to
income or temporary shocks than generally believed. One possibility is that
successfully mounting an insurgency is no easy task. It comes with considerable
risk, costs, and coordination challenges. Another possibility is that the
counterfactual is still conflict onset. In poor and fragile nations, income shocks of
one type or another are ubiquitous. If a nation is so fragile that a change in prices
could lead to war, then other shocks may trigger war even in the absence of a price
shock. The same argument has been made in debunking the myth that price shocks
led to fiscal collapse and low growth in developing nations in the 1980s.19 B. A
general problem of publication bias? More generally, these findings should heighten
our concern with publication bias in the conflict literature. Our results run against a
number of published results on commodity shocks and conflict, mainly because of
select samples, misspecification, and sensitivity to model assumptions, and , most
importantly, alternative measures of instability. Across the social and hard sciences,
there is a concern that the majority of published research findings are false (e.g.
Gerber et al. 2001). Ioannidis (2005) demonstrates that a published finding is less
likely to be true when there is a greater number and lesser pre-selection of tested
relationships; there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and
models; and when more teams are involved in the chase of statistical significance.
The cross-national study of conflict is an extreme case of all these. Most worryingly,
almost no paper looks at alternative dependent variables or publishes systematic
robustness checks. Hegre and Sambanis (2006) have shown that the majority of
published conflict results are fragile, though they focus on timeinvariant regressors
and not the time-varying shocks that have grown in popularity. We are also
concerned there is a file drawer problem (Rosenthal 1979). Consider this decision
rule: scholars that discover robust results that fit a theoretical intuition pursue the
results; but if results are not robust the scholar (or referees) worry about problems
with the data or empirical strategy, and identify additional work to be done. If
further analysis produces a robust result, it is published. If not, back to the file
drawer. In the aggregate, the consequences are dire: a lower threshold of evidence
for initially significant results than ambiguous ones.20
22
MSDI 2015
#debatelikeabear
23
2NC Economy no war

Economic collapse doesnt cause war no causal connection
Thomas P.M. Barnett (senior managing director of Enterra Solutions LLC and a
contributing editor/online columnist for Esquire magazine) August 2009 The New Rules:
Security Remains Stable Amid Financial Crisis http://www.aprodex.com/the-new-rules-security-remains-stable-amid-financial-crisis-398-bl.aspx
When the global financial crisis struck roughly a year ago, the blogosphere was
ablaze with all sorts of scary predictions of, and commentary regarding, ensuing
conflict and wars -- a rerun of the Great Depression leading to world war, as it were.
Now, as global economic news brightens and recovery -- surprisingly led by China
and emerging markets -- is the talk of the day, it's interesting to look back over the
past year and realize how globalization's first truly worldwide recession has had
virtually no impact whatsoever on the international security landscape. None of the
more than three-dozen ongoing conflicts listed by GlobalSecurity.org can be clearly
attributed to the global recession. Indeed, the last new entry (civil conflict between
Hamas and Fatah in the Palestine) predates the economic crisis by a year, and three
quarters of the chronic struggles began in the last century. Ditto for the 15 lowintensity conflicts listed by Wikipedia (where the latest entry is the Mexican "drug
war" begun in 2006). Certainly, the Russia-Georgia conflict last August was
specifically timed, but by most accounts the opening ceremony of the Beijing
Olympics was the most important external trigger (followed by the U.S. presidential
campaign) for that sudden spike in an almost two-decade long struggle between
Georgia and its two breakaway regions. Looking over the various databases, then,
we see a most familiar picture: the usual mix of civil conflicts, insurgencies, and
liberation-themed terrorist movements. Besides the recent Russia-Georgia dust-up,
the only two potential state-on-state wars (North v. South Korea, Israel v. Iran) are
both tied to one side acquiring a nuclear weapon capacity -- a process wholly
unrelated to global economic trends. And with the United States effectively tied
down by its two ongoing major interventions (Iraq and Afghanistan-bleeding-intoPakistan), our involvement elsewhere around the planet has been quite modest,
both leading up to and following the onset of the economic crisis: e.g., the usual
counter-drug efforts in Latin America, the usual military exercises with allies across
Asia, mixing it up with pirates off Somalia's coast). Everywhere else we find serious
instability we pretty much let it burn, occasionally pressing the Chinese -unsuccessfully -- to do something. Our new Africa Command, for example, hasn't led
us to anything beyond advising and training local forces. So, to sum up: * No
significant uptick in mass violence or unrest (remember the smattering of urban
riots last year in places like Greece, Moldova and Latvia?); * The usual frequency
maintained in civil conflicts (in all the usual places); * Not a single state-on-state
war directly caused (and no great-power-on-great-power crises even triggered); * No
great improvement or disruption in great-power cooperation regarding the
emergence of new nuclear powers (despite all that diplomacy); * A modest scaling
back of international policing efforts by the system's acknowledged Leviathan power
23
MSDI 2015
#debatelikeabear
24
(inevitable given the strain); and * No serious efforts by any rising great power to
challenge that Leviathan or supplant its role. (The worst things we can cite are
Moscow's occasional deployments of strategic assets to the Western hemisphere
and its weak efforts to outbid the United States on basing rights in Kyrgyzstan; but
the best include China and India stepping up their aid and investments in
Afghanistan and Iraq.) Sure, we've finally seen global defense spending surpass the
previous world record set in the late 1980s, but even that's likely to wane given the
stress on public budgets created by all this unprecedented "stimulus" spending. If
anything, the friendly cooperation on such stimulus packaging was the most notable
great-power dynamic caused by the crisis. Can we say that the world has suffered a
distinct shift to political radicalism as a result of the economic crisis? Indeed, no.
The world's major economies remain governed by center-left or center-right political
factions that remain decidedly friendly to both markets and trade. In the short run,
there were attempts across the board to insulate economies from immediate
damage (in effect, as much protectionism as allowed under current trade rules), but
there was no great slide into "trade wars." Instead, the World Trade Organization is
functioning as it was designed to function, and regional efforts toward free-trade
agreements have not slowed. Can we say Islamic radicalism was inflamed by the
economic crisis? If it was, that shift was clearly overwhelmed by the Islamic world's
growing disenchantment with the brutality displayed by violent extremist groups
such as al-Qaida. And looking forward, austere economic times are just as likely to
breed connecting evangelicalism as disconnecting fundamentalism. At the end of
the day, the economic crisis did not prove to be sufficiently frightening to provoke
major economies into establishing global regulatory schemes, even as it has
sparked a spirited -- and much needed, as I argued last week -- discussion of the
continuing viability of the U.S. dollar as the world's primary reserve currency.
Naturally, plenty of experts and pundits have attached great significance to this
debate, seeing in it the beginning of "economic warfare" and the like between
"fading" America and "rising" China. And yet, in a world of globally integrated
production chains and interconnected financial markets, such "diverging interests"
hardly constitute signposts for wars up ahead. Frankly, I don't welcome a world in
which America's fiscal profligacy goes undisciplined, so bring it on -- please! Add it
all up and it's fair to say that this global financial crisis has proven the great
resilience of America's post-World War II international liberal trade order. Do I expect
to read any analyses along those lines in the blogosphere any time soon? Absolutely
not. I expect the fantastic fear-mongering to proceed apace. That's what the
Internet is for.
24
MSDI 2015
#debatelikeabear
25
Economic collapse doesnt cause war

Jervis, professor of political science Columbia University, 11
(Robert, Force in Our Times, Survival, Vol. 25, No. 4, p. 403-425)
Even if war is still seen as evil, the security community could be dissolved if severe conflicts of
interest were to arise. Could the more peaceful world generate new interests that would bring the
members of the community into sharp disputes? 45 A zero-sum sense of status would be one example,
perhaps linked to a steep rise in nationalism. More likely would be a worsening of the current
economic difficulties, which could itself produce greater nationalism, undermine democracy and bring
back old-fashioned beggar-my-neighbor economic policies. While these dangers are real, it is hard
to believe that the conflicts could be great enough to lead the members of the community to
contemplate fighting each other. It is not so much that economic interdependence has proceeded to the
point where it could not be reversed states that were more internally interdependent than anything
seen internationally have fought bloody civil wars. Rather it is that even if the more extreme
versions of free trade and economic liberalism become discredited , it is hard to see how without
building on a preexisting high level of political conflict leaders and mass opinion would come to
believe that their countries could prosper by impoverishing or even attacking others. Is it possible that
problems will not only become severe, but that people will entertain the thought that they have to be
solved by war? While a pessimist could note that this argument does not appear as outlandish as it did
before the financial crisis, an optimist could reply (correctly, in my view) that the very fact that we
have seen such a sharp economic down-turn without anyone suggesting that force of arms is the
solution shows that even if bad times bring about greater economic conflict , it will not make war
thinkable .
No impact to economic decline empirically proven

Ferguson, 2006 (Niall, MA, D.Phil., is the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History
at Harvard University. He is a resident faculty member of the Minda de Gunzburg
Center for European Studies. He is also a Senior Reseach Fellow of Jesus College,
Oxford University, and a Senior Fellow of the Hoover Institution, Stanford University,
Foreign Affairs, Sept/Oct)
Nor can economic crises explain the bloodshed. What may be the most familiar causal chain in
modern historiography links the Great Depression to the rise of fascism and the outbreak of
World War II. But that simple story leaves too much out. Nazi Germany started the war in
Europe only after its economy had recovered. Not all the countries affected by the Great
Depression were taken over by fascist regimes, nor did all such regimes start wars of aggression.
In fact, no general relationship between economics and conflict is discernible for the century
as a whole. Some wars came after periods of growth, others were the causes rather than the
consequences of economic catastrophe, and some severe economic crises were not followed by wars .
25
MSDI 2015
26
#debatelikeabear
1NC Econ not key to heg

Economic power not key to hegemony
Kapila 2010 (Dr. Subhash Kapila is an International Relations and Strategic
Affairs analyst and the Consultant for Strategic Affairs with South Asia Analysis
Group and a graduate of the Royal British Army Staff College with a Masters in
Defence Science and a PhD in Strategic Studies, June 26, 2010, 21st Century:
Strategically A Second American Century With Caveats,
http://www.eurasiareview.com/201006263919/21st-century-strategically-a-secondamerican-century-with-caveats.html)
Strategically, the 20th Century was decidedly an American Century. United States
strategic, military, political and economic predominance was global and undisputed .
In the bi-polar global power structure comprising the United States and the Former Soviet Union it was the United States which globally prevailed. The
which
20th Century's dawn was marked by the First World War

marked the decline of the old European colonial powers, noticeably Great Britain. The
Second World War marked the total eclipse of Great Britain and other colonial powers. The United States replaced Great Britain as the new global
superpower. The 20th Century's end witnessed the end of the Cold War, with the disintegration of the Former Soviet Union as the United States strategic
On the verge of the new millennium the United States strode

the globe like a colossus as the sole global super power . With a decade of the 21st
Century having gone past, many strategic and political analysts the world over have
toyed with projections that United States global predominance is on the decline , and
challenger and counter-vailing power.
that the 21st Century will not be a second American Century. Having toyed, with such projections, these analysts however shy away from predicting
The trouble with such projections is that they are

based predominantly on analyses of economic trends and financial strengths and
less on detailed analyses of strategic and military strengths, and more significantly
strategic cultures. Presumably, it is easier for such analysts to base trends on much
quoted statistical data. Strategic analysis of global predominance trends is a more
complex task in the opinion of the Author, as it cannot be based on statistical data analysis. Global predominance
trends need unravelling of strategic cultures of contending powers , the reading of national
intentions and resolve and the inherent national strengths and willpower demonstrated over a considerable
time span of half-centuries and centuries. Crisply put, one needs to remember that
in the 1980's, Japan and Germany as "economic superpowers" could not emerge as
global superpowers. Hence global predominance calls for more than economic
strengths. The United States getting strategically bogged down in Iraq and
Afghanistan in the first decade of the 21st Century has not led to any noticeable
decline in American global predominance. Despite Iraq and Afghanistan, the United
States reigns supreme globally even in East Asia where China could have logically
challenged it. More significantly, and normally forgotten, is the fact that the off-quoted shift of global and
economic power from the West to East was facilitated by United States massive financial
direct investments in China, Japan, South Korea and India. China quoted as the next
superpower to rival the United States would be economically prostate, should the United States
surgically disconnect China's economic and financial linkages to the United States.
whose century the 21st Century will strategically be?
More significantly, while examining the prospects of the 21st Century as a "Second American Century" it must be remembered that besides other factors,
out of the six multipolar contenders for global power, none except China have
shown any indications to whittle down US global predominance. Even China seems
to be comfortable with US power as long as it keeps Japan in check. This Paper makes bold to
assert that the 21st Century would be a Second American Century despite China's
challenge and the strategic distractions arising from the global Islamic flash-points .
26
that
MSDI 2015
#debatelikeabear
27
1NC Hegemony defense

Heg doesnt solve war
Barbara Conry (former associate policy analyst, was a public relations consultant
at Hensley Segal Rentschler and an expert on security issues in the Middle East,
Western Europe, and Central Asia at the CATO Institute) and Charles V. Pena
(Senior Fellow at the Independent Institute as well as a senior fellow with the
Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy, and an adviser on the Straus Military Reform
Project at the CATO Institute) 2003 47. US Security Strategy CATO Handbook for
Congress, http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb108/hb108-47.pdf
Another rationale for attempting to manage global security is that a world without
U.S. hegemony would soon degenerate into a tangle of chaos and instability, in
which weapons proliferation, genocide, terrorism, and other offensive activities
would be rampant. Prophets of such a development hint that if the United States
fails to exercise robust political and military leadership today, the world is
condemned to repeat the biggest mistakes of the 20th centuryor perhaps do
something even worse. Such thinking is seriously flawed. First, instability in the
international system is nothing new, and most episodes do not affect U.S. vital
interests. Furthermore, to assert that U.S. global leadership can stave off otherwise
inevitable global chaos vastly overstates the power of any single country to
influence world events. Indeed, many of the problems that plague the world today,
such as civil wars and ethnic strife, are largely impervious to external solutions.
There is little to back up an assertion that only Washingtons management of
international security can save the world from political, economic, or military
conflagration.
27
MSDI 2015
28
#debatelikeabear
2NC Hegemony defense

No war empirically proven
Christopher J. Fettweis (Professor of national security affairs @ U.S. Naval War
College) 2010 Threat and Anxiety in US Foreign Policy, Survival, Volume 52,
Issue 2 April 2010 , pages 59 82
One potential explanation for the growth of global peace can be dismissed fairly
quickly: US actions do not seem to have contributed much. The limited evidence
suggests that there is little reason to believe in the stabilising power of the US
hegemon, and that there is no relation between the relative level of American
activism and international stability. During the 1990s, the United States cut back on
its defence spending fairly substantially. By 1998, the United States was spending
$100 billion less on defence in real terms than it had in 1990, a 25% reduction.29
To internationalists, defence hawks and other believers in hegemonic stability, this
irresponsible 'peace dividend' endangered both national and global security. 'No
serious analyst of American military capabilities', argued neo-conservatives William
Kristol and Robert Kagan in 1996, 'doubts that the defense budget has been cut
much too far to meet America's responsibilities to itself and to world peace'.30 And
yet the verdict from the 1990s is fairly plain: the world grew more peaceful while
the United States cut its forces. No state seemed to believe that its security was
endangered by a less-capable US military, or at least none took any action that
would suggest such a belief. No militaries were enhanced to address power
vacuums; no security dilemmas drove insecurity or arms races; no regional
balancing occurred once the stabilis-ing presence of the US military was diminished.
The rest of the world acted as if the threat of international war was not a pressing
concern, despite the reduction in US military capabilities. Most of all, the United
States was no less safe. The incidence and magnitude of global conflict declined
while the United States cut its military spending under President Bill Clinton, and
kept declining as the George W. Bush administration ramped the spending back up.
Complex statistical analysis is unnecessary to reach the conclusion that world peace
and US military expenditure are unrelated.
28
MSDI 2015
29
#debatelikeabear
**Agriculture**
29
MSDI 2015
30
#debatelikeabear
Agriculture turn
DAPA decreases migrant farm labor they will take other jobs
Jeff Daniels, 1-8-2015, "Immigrant rule to mean fewernot morefarm
workers," CNBC, http://www.cnbc.com/id/102321742
A recent executive action by President Barack Obama to protect some 5 million
illegal immigrants from deportation may have the paradoxical effect of making it
harder for farmers to find workers as they leave agriculture for better work
elsewhere. "The people who are here that are subject to the executive order may
choose to go to another industry and work in a field where it's not such intensive
labor outdoors. It's not seasonal; it's 12 months of the year where they get
benefits," said Tom Nassif, president and CEO of Western Growers, the California
and Arizona trade group representing producers for about half the fruits and
vegetables in the country.
DAPA backfires increases labor shortages

Costa
2015
Daniel
, Director of Immigration Law and Policy Research @ Economic Policy Institute, 1-7, "Agribusiness
Reveals its Dislike of Deferred Action for Unauthorized Immigrants," Economic Policy Institute, http://www.epi.org/blog/agribusinessreveals-dislike-deferred-action-unauthorized-immigrants/
I always suspected that the agricultural industry would not support deferred action or any DAPAlike program, but until now the industry had been relatively quiet about their position. My assumption was thatbecause
unauthorized immigrants comprise such a large share of the workforce employed in agricultural occupations, and because ag
employers directly benefit from having unauthorized immigrant employees who cant complain about dangerous workplaces where
pesticides are in the air and extreme, triple-digit temperatures are the norm they
would find objectionable

anything that increased farmworkers bargaining power or that allowed them to
move to better-paying jobs in other industries . Because unauthorized immigrants dont have a lot of
bargaining power and are mostly employed by bosses willing to violate the law, they cant easily get a job anywhere else, which
means they have to put up with the low wages that are on offer in ag. So I was pleasantly surprised to see some truth seep out onto
the airwaves, thanks to a three-minute interview conducted by Tucker Carlson the other day on Fox and Friends, which sheds some
light on what the ag industry really thinks about DAPA. In the clip above, Carlson speaks with Ken Barbic, Senior Director of Federal
Government Affairs (translation: corporate lobbyist) for the Western Growers Association, a powerful industry trade association that
lobbies on behalf of ag employers. The heading for the segment reads, Who is hurt by Presidents immigration deal? and Barbic is
mainly on the show to relay the industrys complaint that the ag industry faces a shortage of farmworkers in the neighborhood of
will [DAPA] make it harder for

you all to find workers? BARBIC: its going to result in a number of workers that are
currently working [in agriculture] potentially leaving the industry . Barbic is concerned that
workers employed in agriculture who are issued employment authorization
documents from the federal government via DAPA will suddenly be empowered to
leave and find jobs in other industries. Why? Because the wages and working
conditions on offer for farmworkers are pitiful. Barbic wont say this out loud, but its the truth. Instead he
15 to 20 percent. Heres the relevant part of the exchange: CARLSON: why
alludes to the bogus argument that Americans refuse to work as farmworkers (even though almost 30 percent of farmworkers are
U.S.-born citizens).
Doesnt solve agriculture theyll leave farm work

Rosenfeld, 11-21-2014, "Obama's immigration plan risks backlash," CNBC, http://www.cnbc.com/id/102208015,
Everett
accessed 6-20-2015, jwh
Obama's new immigration plan may end up doing the most damage to
the very sectors that begged for reform. The White House boasted Thursday the president's historic
executive actions on immigration will help the U.S. economy, but some predicted it will actually harm
President Barack
30
MSDI 2015
#debatelikeabear
31
Americans' wages. More surprisingly, however, is the possibility that a new legal status for
undocumented workers may actually increase low-skill labor shortages across the
country, said J. Edward Taylor, professor of agricultural and resource economics at the University of California, Davis. " When
agricultural workers become legalized their mobility increases, and their likelihood
of leaving farm work goes up," he said. Taylor's research demonstrates that the pool of low-skill
agricultural workers is on a steady decline , with no sign the trend is ending soon. This is largely due not to
flawed immigration policy, as many industries complain, but to economic and educational strides in Mexico. Increasingly few
Mexicans, he explained, have reason to come to America to work low-skill jobsand no amount of reform can help this in the long
run.
31
MSDI 2015
32
#debatelikeabear
Mechanization turn
Dependence on foreign labor for agriculture prevents
innovation and guarantees collapse
Krikorian
2001
Mark
, Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies, June
, "Guestworker Programs: A Threat
to American Agriculture," Center for Immigration Studies, http://cis.org/GuestworkerPrograms-AmericanAgriculture, accessed 6-162015, jwh
guestworker program, as is now

being considered or tacitly, through toleration of illegal immigration, the result for American agriculture is the same: an
artificially low price of labor, resulting in slowed mechanization and stagnating
But whether the agricultural workforce is inflated through affirmative means by a formal
harvest productivity. This sows the seeds of a competitive meltdown in the

future , as it becomes increasingly untenable for American fruit and vegetable
farmers to compete
on the basis of labor costs with low-wage countries. Such competitive difficulties are sure to be
followed by successful demands that Congress enact direct subsidies for farmers grown accustomed to relying on cheap labor. This
would seem contrary to Congress's recent moves to phase out many other agricultural subsidies. The period from 1960 to 1975
roughly from the end of the Bracero program to the beginning of the mass illegal immigration we are still experiencing today was
a period of considerable mechanization, with the average labor-hours per acre used in harvesting horticultural crops dropping 20
percent. But a continuing increase in the acreage and number of crops harvested mechanically did not materialize as expected, in
large part because the supply of workers remained artificially large due to the growing illegal immigration we were politically
unwilling to stop. This is not to say there has been no growth in agricultural labor productivity. In fact, between 1960 and 1994, the
quantity of farm output doubled, while farm employment shrank by 57 percent. But such a broad indicator means little, since it
includes not only the production of lettuce in California, but also corn in Iowa, cotton in Alabama, and cranberries in Massachusetts.
In states with labor-intensive fruit and vegetable sectors, there was a smaller decrease in overall farm employment, and even that
shrinkage masked what was really happening a sharp decrease in the numbers of actual farmers and their families working the
soil, offset by an actual increase in the number of hired (usually foreign) laborers. Mass access to foreign labor is thus recreating the
plantation style of agriculture once prevalent in the South and now dominant in states like California and Florida. Even with a large
pool of cheap foreign labor, there will always be some increases in harvest labor productivity. Capital or machines are normally
substituted for workers when wages rise, but there may be reasons to substitute capital for labor that aren't related to wages. For
example, as water became scarcer and more costly in the 1980s and 1990s in California, more farmers turned to drip irrigation it
uses less water and, almost as an afterthought, also saves millions of hours of labor. Similarly, picking wine grapes by machine can
improve the quality of the wine in hotter areas because the machines can harvest at night, so most of California's wine grapes are
foreign farm labor keeps wages low and serves

as a disincentive to mechanization. In fact, the wages of farmworkers have been decreasing
now picked by machine. But the basic truth still holds
over the past decade. A March 2000 report from the Labor Department found that the real wages of farmworkers have fallen from
continued official
encouragement of illegal immigration, is likely to continue this downward trend in
farmworker wages. This may seem superficially appealing to farmers, but from a competitive point of view, vying with
$6.89 per hour in 1989 to $6.18 per hour in 1998. A new guestworker program, or
low-wage countries on the basis of labor costs is a dead end no modern society, will ever be willing to reduce farmworkers' wages
enough to match those paid in third world countries. The
importation of foreign farmworkers also leads

to very inefficient use of labor, further hampering productivity growt h. The same March 2000
Labor Department report found widespread under-employment the average number of weeks a farmworker works in agriculture
has dropped from 26 weeks in 1990-92 to 24 weeks in 1996-98. The average farmworker spent only about 47 percent of his time in
U.S. farm work, compared with 19 percent of his time unemployed in the U.S., 8 percent of his time in U.S. non-farm employment,
and 24 percent of his time living abroad. This inefficient utilization of farm labor is also reflected in the fact that the unemployment
rate for farmworkers between 1994 and 1998 was routinely more than double the rate for all occupations, according to a December
artificial expansion of the agricultural

labor market not only dissuades our farmers from exploiting America's comparative
advantage in technology and capital, but using cheap foreign labor to produce fruit
and vegetables for export actually subsidizes foreign consumers , since about one-fifth of our
1999 report from the Congressional Research Service. Ironically, the
country's fruit, vegetable, and horticultural production is exported. Subsidies for Americans are problematic enough, but subsidies
for foreigners are difficult to justify in any conception of the national interest.
32
MSDI 2015
#debatelikeabear
33
Immigration enforcement leads to innovation meatpacking

industry proves
Martin
Phillip
, Professor of Agricultural and Resource Economics at the University of California,
agricultural competitiveness." Migration Letters 10.2 (2013): 159-179.
2013, "Migration and US
flexibility in production agriculture is likely to

lie on the demand rather than the supply side of the labour market. This means that, if
wages were to rise 20 or 30 per cent, it is more likely that farmers would respond by
reducing the demand for farm workers via labour-saving innovations rather than induce more
US workers into the fields. Some commodities that defy mechanization would likely be imported,
as with fresh asparagus and green onions. US agriculture is a case of migrant workers improving competitiveness in the
short run by holding down wages and reducing competitiveness in the long run as lower labour
costs discourage productivity improvements . In a globalizing world, what many farmers feel
is necessary in the short term could be harmful to US agriculture in the long run. In
contrast to production agriculture, the availability of migrant workers may have hastened
productivity improvements in meatpacking as it shifted from smaller urban to larger rural plants. Newer
If farm labour costs were to rise, history suggests that the
facilities nearer to animals were often in places with few people, so that the availability of migrants arguably helped to spur
Meatpacking wages dropped as the industry moved from

urban to rural areas, and were stagnant despite the fact that workers were represented by unions in many plants.
However, enforcement in 2005-06 reversed the share of Hispanics in meatpacking and
productivity growth and competitiveness.
encouraged many meatpackers to enrol in EVerify, the federal internet-based system that allows employers to check the legal status
enforcement, recession, and higher wages reversed the rising share of

migrants in the more modern meatpacking industry .
of new hires. A combination of
Mechanization solves better than migrant labor

Krikorian
2001
Mark
, Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies, June
, "Guestworker Programs: A Threat
to American Agriculture," Center for Immigration Studies, http://cis.org/GuestworkerPrograms-AmericanAgriculture, accessed 6-162015, jwh
dependence of our horticultural sector on foreign labor is a genuine problem but the
solutions so far proposed would only spawn new difficulties. The national interest demands that
we reject the false choice of either illegal immigrants or guestworkers. A modest, transitional program to promote
mechanization would better serve the long-term interests of agriculture and be far
more cost-effective and have fewer unintended consequences than importing a vast
new poverty class. Helping agriculture disentangle itself from foreign labor would
strengthen the competitive position of America's farmers, avoid burdening
taxpayers with huge new liabilities, and lighten the load of those who continue to
toil in the fields. Seldom does such a small measure have the potential for so much good.
The
33
MSDI 2015
34
#debatelikeabear
Labor shortage inevitable

Labor shortage inevitable
Brad Plumer, 1-29-2013, "Were running out of farm workers. Immigration
reform wont help.," Washington Post,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/29/the-u-s-is-runningout-of-farm-workers-immigration-reform-may-not-help/
For years, one of the groups pushing hardest for immigration reform has been the U.S. food industry. Farmers have
long grumbled about a shortage of labor, and they've asked for policies that make it easier to hire foreign workers
looser immigration laws may not be able to keep our food

cheap forever. A recent study suggests that U.S. farms could well face a shortage of
low-cost labor in the years ahead no matter what Congress does on immigration .
That's because Mexico is getting richer and can no longer supply as many rural farm
workers to the United States. And it won't be nearly as easy to import low-wage agricultural workers from
from places like Mexico. But
elsewhere. For decades, farms in the United States have relied heavily on low-wage foreign workers mainly from
Mexico to work their fields. In 2006, 77 percent of all agricultural workers in the United States were foreign-born.
cheap labor has helped keep

down U.S. food prices, particularly for labor-intensive fruits and vegetables. But that
labor pool is now drying up. In recent years, we've seen a spate of headlines like this from CNBC:
(And half of those foreign workers were undocumented immigrants.) All that
"California Farm Labor Shortage 'Worst It's Been, Ever'." Typically, these stories blame drug-related violence on the
Mexican border or tougher border enforcement for the decline. Hence the call for new guest-worker programs. But a
Mexico is getting richer.

And, when a country gets richer, its pool of rural agricultural labor shrinks. Not only are
Mexican workers shifting into other sectors like construction, but Mexico's own farms are increasing
wages. That means U.S. farms will have to pay higher and higher wages to attract a
dwindling pool of available Mexican farm workers. "It's a simple story," says Edward Taylor, an
new paper from U.C. Davis offers up a simpler explanation for the labor shortage.
agricultural economist at U.C. Davis and one of the study's authors. "By the mid-twentieth century, Americans
stopped doing farm work. And we were only able to avoid a farm-labor crisis by bringing in workers from a nearby
country that was at an earlier stage of development. Now that era is coming to an end." Taylor and his co-authors
argue that the United States could face a sharp adjustment period as a result. Americans appear unwilling to do the
sort of low-wage farm work that we have long relied on immigrants to do. And, the paper notes, it may be difficult
to find an abundance of cheap farm labor anywhere else potential targets such as Guatemala and El Salvador are
either too small or are urbanizing too rapidly. So the labor shortages will keep getting worse. And that leaves
several choices. American farmers could simply stop growing crops that need a lot of workers to harvest, such as
fruits and vegetables. Given the demand for fresh produce, that seems unlikely. Alternatively, U.S. farms could
continue to invest in new labor-saving technologies, such as "shake-and-catch" machines to harvest fruits and nuts.
"Under this option," the authors write, "capital improvements in farm production would increase the marginal
product of farm labor; U.S. farms would hire fewer workers and pay higher wages." That could be a boon to
domestic workers studies have found that 23 percent of U.S. farm worker families are below the poverty line. In
the meantime, however, farm groups are hoping they can fend off that day of reckoning by revamping the nation's
immigration laws. The bipartisan immigration-reform proposal unveiled in the Senate on Monday contained several
provisions aimed at boosting the supply of farm workers, including the promise of an easier path to citizenship.
Taylor, however, is not convinced that this is a viable long-term strategy. " The
idea that you can design

a guest-worker program or any other immigration policy to solve this farm labor
problem isnt realistic," he says. "It assumes that there's a willingness to keep doing
farm work on the other side of the border. And that's already dropping off ."
34
MSDI 2015
35
#debatelikeabear
US not key to global ag

No food price increase other countries fill in
Herbst
2007
Moira
, 10-25, "Immigration Raids Hurt Farmers," Businessweek, http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/stories/200710-25/immigration-raids-hurt-farmersbusinessweek-business-news-stock-market-and-financial-advice, accessed 6-16-2015, jwh
U.S. consumers may see little or no effect from the crackdown, but farmers like Torrey certainly will.
Losing farm labor in the U.S. is likely to result in a shift of market share to foreign producers
from domestic ones, rather than much change in food prices. "Farmers all over the world are
salivating at the prospect that we won't be able to produce here ," says James Holt, an
agricultural labor economist. "They are more than happy to produce for us."
35
MSDI 2015
36
#debatelikeabear
Food shortage inevitable

Crop failures will cause huge price spikes in the future
Mark Edwards. (Holds PhDs in Mechanical Engineering , oceanography and meteorology AND
Marketing and Consumer behavior. Proftessor of food marketing and world entrepreneurship at Arizona
State. Consulted for 400 Food industry and Energy Inudstriy Firms and Served as a director for a fortune
50 transportation and foods company. Worked with Monsanto, Dupont, Pioneer Seeds, Nabisco, Quaker
Oats, General Mills, Borden and several other agribusiness companies. Worked with senior executives at
15 large US oil and gas firms as well as BP and Saudi Aramco. Worked with several pipeline and energy
distribution firms). Biowar I: Why Battles over Food and Fuel Lead to World Hunger. 2008. P. 132-3.
U.S. agricultural land has experienced severe or
extreme drought each year. Over half the total agricultural land experienced severe or extreme drought in 1934, and over 40% in
1954 and 1956. More recently, in 1988 and 2002, about 20% of acreage was affected. In 2006, about 12% of the agricultural land
experienced severe, extreme or exceptional drought.325 In these years, corn production may be cut to a fraction in the areas
affected. Few Americans know, because it did not make U.S. history textbooks, about the three years starting in 1816 when crop
failures led to food riots and mass starvation across Europe. During the year without a summer, 1816, volcanic ash
occluded the sun so it snowed in July and created 100% crop loss. Even French grapes froze and failed. Food riots
challenged the social order. Crime, arson, suicides and infanticides became widespread and governments imposed martial law because
According to the U.S. Weather Service, over the past 112 years, an average of 7% of
they feared revolution. The cause, the Trambora volcano eruption in Indonesia, finally dissipated, but the ash took several years to fall to
Earth.326 Fortunately, the Earth had far fewer mouths to feed in the early 1800s. Weather varies every year, even in good corn country. For
example, the corn condition report across the state of Iowa in June 2007 was 1% very poor, 3% poor, 17% fair, 58% good and 21%
excellent.327 Too much local rain or drought can shift those numbers dramatically over the five-month growing
season. The national corn condition report shows less than 60% of corn planted received good or excellent condition ratings for three of the
last four years.328 The weather has been good for corn production over the past decade, creating bumper crops.
However, one bad season could devastate the crop, create chaos in the food industry and skyrocket food prices. The
weather has severe local and regional implications because the cost of transporting corn is huge, except for fields close
to Mississippi river barges.
36
MSDI 2015
37
#debatelikeabear
1NC No resource wars

No resource wars
Idean Salehyan (Professor of Political Science at the University of North Texas)
May 2008 From Climate Change to Conflict? No Consensus Yet* Journal of Peace
Research, vol. 45, no. 3 http://emergingsustainability.org/files/resolver%20climate
%20change%20and%20conflict.pdf
For every
potential example of an environmental catastrophe or resource shortfall that leads to violence,
there are many more counter-examples in which conflict never occurs . But popular accounts
typically do not look at the dogs that do not bark. Darfur is frequently cited as a case where
First, the deterministic view has poor predictive power as to where and when conflicts will break out.
desertification led to food scarcity, water scarcity, and famine, in turn leading to civil war and ethnic cleansing.5
food scarcity and hunger are problems endemic to many countries particularly in sub-Saharan Africa
have not led to large-scale violence. According to the Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations, food shortages and malnutrition affect more than a third of the
population in Malawi, Zambia, the Comoros, North Korea, and Tanzania ,6 although none of these
countries have experienced fullblown civil war and state failure. Hurricanes, coastal flooding, and
Yet,
but similar problems elsewhere
droughts which are all likely to intensify as the climate warms are frequent occurrences which rarely lead to
violence. The Asian Tsunami of 2004, although caused by an oceanic earthquake, led to severe loss of life and
property, flooding, population displacement, and resource scarcity, but it did not trigger new wars in Southeast Asia.
Large-scale migration has the potential to provoke conflict in receiving areas (see Reuveny, 2007; Salehyan &
Gleditsch, 2006), yet most migration flows do not lead to conflict, and , in this regard, social
integration and citizenship policies are particularly important (Gleditsch, Nords & Salehyan, 2007). In short,
resource scarcity, natural disasters, and long-term climatic shifts are ubiquitous, while armed conflict is rare;
environmental conditions, by themselves, cannot predict violent outbreaks. Second, even if local
skirmishes over access to resources arise, these do not always escalate to open warfare and state
collapse. While interpersonal violence is more or less common and may intensify under resource pressures,
therefore,
sustained armed conflict on a massive scale is difficult to conduct. Meier, Bond & Bond (2007) show that, under
certain circumstances, environmental conditions have led to cattle raiding among pastoralists in East Africa, but
these conflicts rarely escalate to sustained violence. Martin (2005) presents evidence from
Ethiopia that, while a large refugee influx and population pressures led to localized conflict over natural resources,
studies emphasize
the role of local dispute-resolution regimes and institutions not just the response of central governments in
preventing resource conflicts from spinning out of control . Martins analysis also points to the importance of
effective resource management regimes were able to ameliorate these tensions. Both of these
international organizations, notably the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, in implementing effective policies
governing refugee camps. Therefore, local hostilities need not escalate to serious armed conflict and can be
managed if there is the political will to do so. Third, states often bear responsibility for environmental degradation
and resource shortfalls, either through their own projects and initiatives or through neglect of the environment.
Clearly, climate change itself is an exogenous stressor beyond the control of individual governments. However,
government policies and neglect can compound the effects of climate change. Nobel Prizewinning economist
Amartya Sen finds that, even in the face of acute environmental scarcities, countries with democratic institutions
and press freedoms work to prevent famine because such states are accountable to their citizens (Sen, 1999).
Others have similarly shown a strong relationship between democracy and protection of the environment (Li &
Reuveny, 2006). Faced with global warming, some states will take the necessary steps to conserve water and land,
redistribute resources to those who need them most, and develop disaster-warning and -response systems. Others
will do little to respond to this threat. While a states level of income and technological capacity are certainly
important, democracy or, more precisely, the accountability of political leaders to their publics is likely to be a
violent conflict is an inefficient and

sub-optimal reaction to changes in the environment and resource scarcities. As environmental
conditions change, several possible responses are available, although many
critical determinant of how states respond to the challenge. Fourth,
37
MSDI 2015
#debatelikeabear
38
journalists and policymakers have focused on the potential for warfare. Individuals can migrate internally
or across borders, or they can invest in technological improvements, develop conservation strategies , and
shift to less climate-sensitive livelihoods, among other adaptation mechanisms. Engaging in armed rebellion
is quite costly and risky and requires large-scale collective action. Individuals and households are more likely
to engage in simpler, personal, or smallscale coping strategies.
38
MSDI 2015
39
#debatelikeabear
2NC No resource wars

No resource wars data proves cooperation is more likely
Simon Dalby (Dept. Of Geography, Carleton University) 2006 "Security and
environment linkages revisited" in Globalisation and Environmental Challenges:
Reconceptualising Security in the 21st Century,
www.ntu.edu.sg/idss/publications/SSIS/SSIS001.pdf)
In parallel with the focus on human security as a necessity in the face of both
natural and artificial forms of vulnerability, recent literature has emphasised the
opportunities that environmental management presents for political cooperation
between states and other political actors, on both largescale infrastructure projects
as well as more traditional matters of wildlife and new concerns with biodiversity
preservation (Matthew/Halle/Switzer 2002). Simultaneously, the discussion on water
wars, and in particular the key finding the shared resources frequently stimulate
cooperation rather than conflict, shifted focus from conflict to the possibilities of
environmental action as a mode of peacemaking. Both at the international level in
terms of environmental diplomacy and institution building, there is considerable
evidence of cooperative action on the part of many states (Conca/Dabelko 2002).
Case studies from many parts of the world suggest that cooperation and diplomatic
arrangements can facilitate peaceful responses to the environmental difficulties in
contrast to the pessimism of the 1990s where the focus was on the potential for
conflicts. One recent example of the attempts to resolve difficulties in the case of
Lake Victoria suggests a dramatic alternative to the resource war scenarios. The
need to curtail over-fishing in the lake and the importance of remediation has
encouraged cooperation; scarcities leading to conflict arguments have not been
common in the region, and they have not influenced policy prescriptions
(Canter/Ndegwa 2002). Many conflicts over the allocations of water use rights
continue around the world but most of them are within states and international
disputes simply do not have a history of leading to wars.
Resource wars dont escalate

Nils Petter Gleditsch (International Peace Research Institute, Oslo (PRIO) &
Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim) 1998 Armed Conflict
and the Environment: A Critique of the Literature JSTOR
A similar point holds for economic variables. Much of the environmental literature
lacks explicit recognition of the fact that material deprivation is one of the strongest
predictors of civil war. Moreover, economically highly developed countries rarely
fight one another (Mueller, 1989), although this regularity is less absolute than the
democratic peace. Finally, while economic development does tend to exacerbate
certain environmental problems (such as pollution and excessive resource
extraction) up to a point, the most advanced industrial economies also tend to be
relatively more resource-friendly. Hence, resource competition is likely to be less
fierce domestically as well as externally among the most highly developed
countries. Going back to the example of shared water resources, highly developed
39
MSDI 2015
#debatelikeabear
40
countries have very strong economic motives for not fighting over scarce water
resources; instead, they use technology to expand the resources or find cooperative
solutions in exploiting them. Poor countries generate more local environmental
problems, which in turn may exacerbate their poverty and which is also conducive
to conflict. Certain types of environmental degradation - like deforestation, lack of
water and sanitation, and soil erosion - are part and parcel of underdevelopment.
40
MSDI 2015
#debatelikeabear
41
**State Budgets**
41
MSDI 2015
42
#debatelikeabear
A2 Bioterror
Consensus of scientists in the field say more research is
unnecessary and the threat is nil
Hynes 2011 (H. Patricia Hynes, retired professor of environmental health from
Boston University and chairs the board of the Traprock Center for Peace and Justice,
August 18, 2011, Biological Weapons: Bargaining With the Devil, Truthout,
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/2693:biological-weapons-bargaining-with-thedevil)
No Realistic Assessment of Need for Growth in Biodefense/Bioweapons Labs
Between 1900 and 2000, one person died in the U nited S tates from the
deliberate use of a biological weapon (altogether six died by 2011, given the five
anthrax deaths in 2001). This contrasts with more than 100,000 deaths per year
from three public health causes, namely firearms, air pollution and food-borne
disease. The other documented deliberate use of a pathogen involved the
contamination of salad bar food with salmonella in 1984, which sickened 751
people. This contrasts with the annual incidence of comparable intestinal infections
suffered by American tourists in Mexico, Africa, the Middle East and South Asia,
which must reach hundreds of thousands, if not millions of cases. Most historical
threats of bioweapon use were hoaxes and most intended uses were personal,
according to Milton Leitenberg of the Center for International Studies at the
University of Maryland. Contrary to popular and public official statements,
weaponizing biological agents is extremely difficult, requiring immense research
money, effort and expertise. Thus, the threat of biological terrorism with mass
casualties - a threat that government has elevated without a basis in fact and
without any rational threat assessment - confounds public awareness and
siphons resources from true public health needs, such as gun control, reducing air
pollution and research on TB resistance. In March 2005, 750 top
microbiologists , comprising the majority of US scientists studying
bacterial and fungal diseases , wrote their major funding agency, the NIH, to
claim that the agency's emphasis on biodefense research had diverted research
away from germs that cause much more significant disease and death. Between
1998 and 2005, grants for researching potential bioweapons such as the bacteria
that cause anthrax, plague and tularemia and viruses such as Ebola, Marburg and
smallpox increased by 1,500 percent. During the same period, grants to support
non-biodefense germs that cause major sickness and death (such as TB-resistant
microbes and influenza) dropped 27 percent.
42
MSDI 2015
43
#debatelikeabear
Existing public health system is enough- bioterror has killed

105 people total
Dove 2012 (Alan Dove, Ph.D. in microbiology from Columbia University, science
journalist, podcaster, blogger, and editor, January 24, 2012, Whos Afraid of the
Big, Bad Bioterrorist?, http://alandove.com/content/2012/01/whos-afraid-of-the-bigbad-bioterrorist/)
Of the four modern biowarfare incidents, two have been fatal. The first was the
1979 Sverdlovsk anthrax incident, which killed an estimated 100 people. In that case, a
Soviet-built biological weapons lab accidentally released a large plume of weaponized Bacillus anthracis (anthrax)
over a major city. Soviet authorities tried to blame the resulting fatalities on bad meat, but in the 1990s Western
The second fatal incident also involved

anthrax from a government-run lab: the 2001 Amerithrax attacks. That time, a rogue
investigators were finally able to piece together the real story.
employee (or perhaps employees) of the governments main bioweapons lab sent weaponized, powdered anthrax
through the US postal service.
Five people died. That gives us a grand total of around 105
deaths , entirely from agents that were grown and weaponized in officially-sanctioned
and funded bioweapons research labs. Remember that. Terrorist groups have also
deployed biological weapons twice, and these cases are very instructive. The first was the
1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack, in which members of a cult in Oregon inoculated
restaurant salad bars with Salmonella bacteria (an agent thats not on the select list). 751
people got sick, but
nobody died.
Public health authorities handled it as a conventional foodborne
Nobody even would have known it

was a deliberate attack if a member of the cult hadnt come forward afterward with
Salmonella outbreak, identified the sources and contained them.
a confession. Lesson: our existing public health infrastructure was entirely

adequate
to respond to a major bioterrorist attack.
The second genuine bioterrorist attack
took place in 1993. Members of the Aum Shinrikyo cult successfully isolated and
grew a large stock of anthrax bacteria, then sprayed it as an aerosol from the roof of
a building in downtown Tokyo. The cult was well-financed, and had many highly educated members, so
this release over the worlds largest city really represented a worst-case scenario.
died.
Nobody got sick or
From the cults perspective, it was a complete and utter failure. Again, the only reason we even found out
about it was a post-hoc confession. Aum members later demonstrated their lab skills by producing Sarin nerve gas,
with far deadlier results. Lesson: one of the top select agents is extremely hard to grow and deploy even for
relatively skilled non-state groups. Its a really crappy bioterrorist weapon. Taken together, these events point to an
uncomfortable but inevitable conclusion: our biodefense industry is a far greater threat to us than any actual
bioterrorists. For comparison, Timothy McVeigh pulled a Ryder rental truck full of ammonium nitrate and fuel oil
(both very easily obtained) in front of a Federal building, and killed 168 people. The 9/11 hijackers killed almost
3,000 people and blew up the headquarters of the United States military, using box cutters and basic flight training.
In 2000, a couple of guys in an inflatable boat full of explosives totaled an American battleship. I could go on, but
hopefully you get the point: conventional weapons are orders of magnitude more effective for terrorism than
biological ones. Astute readers may have noticed that I mentioned a single exception on the select agent list. Im
talking about smallpox, and the reason its an exception is interesting: its a good weapon only because we
successfully eradicated it. Had the World Health Organization focused on controlling smallpox instead of
eradicating it, there would have been continued pressure to develop improved vaccines, and likely continued
vaccination. Thats the pattern now with poliovirus, which has been incorporated into one of the standard
combination vaccines that kids receive. But because the WHO focused on eradicating smallpox instead, they stuck
with the primitive vaccine originally developed in the 18th century by Edward Jenner. Once the world was certified
smallpox-free, vaccination stopped. Now, nearly everyone born in the past forty years or so is susceptible to this
43
MSDI 2015
#debatelikeabear
44
Smallpox would still be a very poor choice for

bioterrorism, but for a different reason than the rest of the select agents. A terrorist group that
actually got ahold of it could probably culture it and deploy it without much trouble
in many ways it would be easier to work with than anthrax. However, there is no question
who would be hit hardest by a new global pandemic of smallpox: the poor countries. The US already
stockpiles hundreds of millions of doses of smallpox vaccine and antivirals. Once an
outbreak was identified, it would be straightforward to track and stop , at least in the developed
highly contagious, highly lethal virus.
world. The people who would suffer and die would be precisely the ones most terrorist groups are trying to
So what should we do? First,

stop panicking. Terrorist groups have repeatedly said they want biological weapons,
but thats either propaganda or fantasy. The groups that have actually pursued such
weapons have found that theyre a complete waste of resources . However, the fear of
represent. Military types call that blowback, and its a very bad thing.
bioweapons has caused governments around the world particularly in the US to spend billions of dollars on
Spending the same money on our ailing public health

system would have been a much better investment.
technologies they will never need.
44
MSDI 2015
45
#debatelikeabear
**DA**
45
MSDI 2015
46
#debatelikeabear
Unpopular
The plan sparks Congressional backlash
Wadhia
Shoba S.
, Samuel Weiss Faculty Scholar and Clinical Professor of Law at Penn State Law,
Prosecutorial Discretion in Immigration Law." American University Law Review 64
2015. "The History of
Beyond the courtroom , the Presidents executive actions have been the subject of
congressional hearings and emotion. Within a month of President Obamas announcement and, interestingly,
before the application period for DAPA and expanded DACA (the two more controversial programs) even began, the House
Judiciary Committee held a hearing on December 2, 2014 challenging the legality of
these programs.63 On December 3, 2014, the House of Representatives held a vote on a bill,
known as the Yoho bill, that would make the Presidents November 20, 2014 actions null and void.64
The politics of this vote is well captured by this exchange in a Politico story the day following the vote: Even the bills
biggest supporters admit the vote is more about symbolism than substance. When
asked by a reporter whether Republicans were taking the Yoho bill seriously, Rep. Matt Salmon (R-Ariz.) replied: I dont even know if
The House continued to attack the Presidents executive actions by

holding a vote on a spending bill that would have defunded the executive action
programs.66 On January 14, 2015, the House voted 236 to 191 to block the Presidents immigration actions.67 Interestingly,
Ted [Yoho] is.65
the vote exposed more than one layer within the Republican Party, as ten Republicans voted against the bill68 and 26 Republicans
voted against an amendment to end the DACA program created in 2012.69 On the heels of this vote, Representative Luis Gutirrez
remarked: Wow. Time flies when youre playing politics with peoples lives . . . . What are the headlines today? Behold the
The politics that emerged after President

Obama announced his executive actions on immigration resemble the politics that
followed the creation of DACA. For example, a lawsuit was brought in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas alleging that DACA was unconstitutional.71 Similarly, select members of the House of
Representatives introduced a piece of legislation and held a hearing on a bill titled
Hinder the Administrations Legalization Temptation Act ( HALT), which, among other things, would have nullified a
variety of discretionary remedies in the immigration statute and the Presidents
authority to grant select forms of prosecutorial discretion.72
Republican immigration strategy, mass deportation.70
Plan causes a massive fight perceived as unconstitutional

amnesty
Emma Dumain, 8-21-2014, "Republicans Vote to End DACA After Tense Floor
Debate," Roll Call, http://blogs.rollcall.com/218/republicans-vote-to-end-daca/?dcz=
House Republicans voted to prohibit President Barack Obama from granting what
they consider to be an unconstitutional amnesty to illegal immigrants Friday. The bill
would effectively end Deferred Actions for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA a program
that has allowed hundreds of thousands of Dreamers brought to the United States
illegally by their parents to get work permits and avoid deportation. And it would
prohibit the president from expanding the program, as he has been reportedly
considering doing for as many as five million additional immigrants. The 216-192
vote included four Democrats voting yes Collin C. Peterson of Minnesota, Mike
McIntyre of North Carolina, John Barrow of Georgia, and Nick J. Rahall II of West
Virginia. Eleven Republicans broke ranks to oppose it Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida,
Jeff Denham of California, Cory Gardner of Colorado, Mike Coffman of Colorado,
David Valadao of California, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, David Reichert of
46
MSDI 2015
#debatelikeabear
47
Washington, Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, Joe Heck of Nevada, Mark Amodei of Nevada,
and Fred Upton of Michigan. The bill wont get taken up any time soon by the
Democrat-controlled Senate, which already left for August recess. And its unlikely
to be signed into law by Obama, who started DACA through an executive action in
2012 and vowed to veto the bill earlier Friday. Still, the measure, brought to the
House floor as a reward for conservative members who agreed to help pass a $694
million appropriations bill to address the child migrant border surge just an hour
earlier, will be an important messaging vote for both parties heading into the
November midterm elections. Republicans who voted yes will be able to tell their
base they voted against Obamas executive overreach, which they argue helped
spur the record influx of unaccompanied minors at the U.S.-Mexico border that has
overwhelmed enforcement agencies. It sends a vitally important message that
minors wanting to come here in the future will have absolutely no opportunity to
receive DACA benefits, said Judiciary Chairman Robert W. Goodlatte, R-Va., during
floor debate Friday evening. It also fits into the recent vote allowing House
Republicans to file a lawsuit against Obama for acting without the consent of
Congress. The measure sparked one of the most vitriolic debates in recent
memory. Democrats hurled accusations of xenophobia, cowardice and racism
against Republicans. At times, they sat back in their seats on their side of the aisle
in the House chamber and smirked, sarcastically applauding some of their biggest
foes like Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa. During other moments, they booed.
Strong opposition to deferred action in the House

Amanda Sakuma, 1-14-2015, "House votes to gut immigration actions," MSNBC,
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/house-gop-vote-gut-immigration-actions
A GOP plan to gut President Obamas unilateral actions on immigration passed
through the Republican-led House Wednesday in a largely symbolic vote tied to
crucial funding for the Department of Homeland Security.
In a final 236-191 vote, lawmakers agreed to keep the department running through
September in legislation that includes a set of amendments designed to unravel and
block funding to the presidents executive measures. Far-right elements of the party
tacked the toxic amendments to dismantle not just the latest immigration actions
brought by President Obama, but also a similar initiative from 2012. In sum, the
amendments work to prevent millions of undocumented immigrants the right to
apply for work permits and seek temporary relief from deportation. In a nod to to
ultra conservatives who led the charge against the executive actions, House
Speaker John Boehner threw his full weight behind the GOP strategy to attack the
measures through DHS funding. Speaking on the House floor Wednesday morning,
Boehner read out loud the 22 times President Obama has said publicly since 2008
that he is unable to change immigration law by executive action. We do not take
this action lightly, but there is simply no alternative, Boehner said. This is not a
dispute between parties, or even branches of government. This executive overreach
is an affront to the rule of law and to the Constitution itself. This is just the latest
47
MSDI 2015
#debatelikeabear
48
Republican-led effort to kill the Obama administrations DACA program, short for
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. Nearly 600,000 young undocumented
immigrants have already benefited from the measure. And starting in the late
spring, millions more will be able to join once a new initiative opens up to the
undocumented parents of U.S.-born children.
48
MSDI 2015
49
#debatelikeabear
Courts link to politics

Implementation of court decisions ensures political
involvement and influence.
Charles A. Johnson and Bradley C. Canon (professors political science @ Texas
A&M and Univ. Kentucky) 1999 Judicial Policies: Implementation and Impact, p. 24
President Andrew Jackson, unhappy with a Supreme Court decision, is said to have
retorted: "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it." His remark reminds
us of a central fact of American democracy: judicial policies do not implement
themselves. In virtually all instances, courts that formulate policies must

rely on other courts or on nonjudicial actors to translate those policies
into action. Inevitably, just as making judicial policies is a political
process, so too is the implementation of the policies - the issues are
essentially politics, and the actors are subject to political pressures.
Court decisions derail the agenda

Klein 2013 (Phillip Klein, senior editorial writer, January 25, 2013, Philip Klein:
Recess appointment decision could hamper Obama's 2nd-term agenda,
http://washingtonexaminer.com/philip-klein-recess-appointment-decision-couldhamper-obamas-2nd-term-agenda/article/2519737)
Fridays ruling by the U.S. Appeals Court for the D.C. circuit invalidating three of
President Obamas appointments to the National Labor Relations Board technically
dealt with a routine labor matter. But the decision, if upheld by the Supreme Court,
could have important ramifications for Obamas second term agenda and for the future of the
presidential appointment process. By way of background, the U.S. Constitution grants the president the power, to fill up all Vacancies that may happen
during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session. This power has been the subject of an
ongoing cat and mouse game between Republicans and Democrats over the years, especially as presidential appointments have become increasingly
contentious in the Senate, which is granted the general power to advise and consent on presidential nominations. In his first year in office, 2009,
Obama didnt need to exercise his recess appointment power because Democrats had a 60-seat filibuster-proof majority for part of the year. By January
2010, with Scott Brown taking office, Republicans regained the ability to block nominees and Obama made 28 recess appointments in just that year
alone. Though Democrats maintained control of the Senate after the 2010 midterm elections, the Republican takeover of the House of Representatives
introduced a new wrinkle. According to the U.S. Constitution, Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other,
adjourn for more than three days That meant that the GOP-led House had the power to simply deny the Senate the ability to adjourn. Republicans used
this as leverage to force Reid to revive the practice of holding pro forma Senate workdays every three days. This effectively prevented Obama from
making any recess appointments throughout 2011. Then, on January 4, 2012, Obama made three appointments to the NLRB and also appointed Richard
Cordray to head up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a new agency created by the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial regulatory law. Obama did this
even though the Senate was still technically in a pro forma session. When the newly stacked NLRB ruled against Yakima, Washington-based bottler Noel
Canning in a union dispute, the company filed suit arguing that the board lacked the necessary quorum to make a decision, because three of its members
were unconstitutionally appointed by Obama. Most Republican Senators as well as House Speaker John Boehner joined the suit. In its Friday decision
(read it in full here, key excerpts here), the D.C. Circuit threw out the NLRBs ruling against Noel, agreeing the Obamas appointments were
The ruling has several immediate ramifications.
unconstitutional.
To start, since its reasoning can be applied by
litigants to any other NLRB decision, it effectively brings into question the validity of all NLRB rulings since last January and any decisions the current
board may make going forward. In addition, the reasoning could also mean that Cordrays regulatory work at the new CFPB is invalid given that he was
Beyond that, theres the question of Obamas second term

agenda. Though Obama made an unapologetic case for liberalism in his second
inaugural address, the reality is that as long as Republicans are in charge of the
House and can sustain filibusters in the Senate, he wont be able to enact major
legislation. This means that any real progress hes going to make on liberal agenda
items is going to have to come on the regulatory front, which relies heavily on
getting his appointees in place. As he put it in 2011, (W)here Congress wont act, I
recess appointed at the same time.
49
MSDI 2015
#debatelikeabear
50
will. This decision, if it withstands further appeals, would make matters more
difficult for him, thus hampering his second term agenda .
50
MSDI 2015
#debatelikeabear
51
Controversial court decisions spark congressional backlash

Citizens proves.
ZELENY 10 JEFF, Political fallout from the Supreme Court ruling New York Times
-- Jan 21 -- http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/21/political-fallout-from-thesupreme-court-ruling/
Todays ruling upends the nations campaign finance laws, allowing corporations
and labor unions to spend freely on behalf of political candidates. With less than 11
months before the fall elections, the floodgates for political contributions will open
wide, adding another element of intrigue to the fight for control of Congress. At first
blush, Republican candidates would seem to benefit from this change in how
political campaigns are conducted in America. The political environment an angry,
frustrated electorate seeking change in Washington was already favoring
Republicans. Now corporations, labor unions and a host of other organizations can
weigh in like never before. But the populist showdown that was already brewing
President Obama on Thursday sought to limit the size of the nations banks will
surely only intensify by the Supreme Courts ruling. The development means that
both sides will have even louder megaphones to make their voices and viewpoints
heard. Mr. Obama issued a statement a rare instance of a president immediately
weighing in on a ruling from the high court and said his administration would work
with Congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision. With
its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of
special interest money in our politics, Mr. Obama said. It is a major victory for big
oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests
that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of
everyday Americans. Republicans, of course, hailed the ruling as a victory for the
First Amendment. I am pleased that the Supreme Court has acted to protect the
Constitutions First Amendment rights of free speech and association, said Senator
John Cornyn of Texas, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee.
These are the bedrock principles that underpin our system of governance and
strengthen our democracy. Democrats, not surprisingly, said the ruling would be
bad for democracy. Giving corporate interests an outsized role in our process will
only mean citizens get heard less, said Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey,
chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. We must look at
legislative ways to make sure the ledger is not tipped so far for corporate interests
that citizens voices are drowned out.
51
MSDI 2015
52
#debatelikeabear
Terror DA
DAPA explodes illegal immigration DACA proves
John Cornyn, 7-1-2014, "Obama's deferred-action policy, not Congress, led to
illegal crossings," No Publication, http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/latestcolumns/20140701-obamas-deferred-action-policy-not-congress-led-to-illegalcrossings.ece
Earlier this week, shortly after it was reported that President Barack Obama would request $2 billion to deal with the
humanitarian crisis along the U.S.-Mexico border, the president threatened to double down on the policies that
caused the crisis in the first place. More specifically, he made clear in a Rose Garden statement that he is
considering yet another unilateral suspension of immigration enforcement on his own. It is exactly this type of
administrative action that caused the current crisis and , if he is not careful, could cause
another one, costing taxpayers an additional $2 billion or more. To understand why, just ask the
presidents Department of Homeland Security. According to an internal Homeland Security memo analyzing the
recent surge of child and female migrants flooding the U.S.-Mexican border, The
main reason the

subjects chose this particular time to migrate to the United States was to take
advantage of the new U.S. law that grants a free pass or permit. Meanwhile, a Homeland
Security study concluded that the unaccompanied minors are aware of the relative lack of
consequences they will receive when apprehended at the U.S. border. Homeland Security Secretary
Jeh Johnson implicitly acknowledged that the presidents policies have become a
magnet for illegal border crossings. Referring to the deferred-action program that the president
announced in June 2012, Johnson felt compelled to inform the world that The U.S. governments Deferred Action
for Childhood Arrivals program ... does not apply to a child who crosses the U.S. border illegally today, tomorrow or
yesterday. Its become simply undeniable, even to those in his own administration, that the presidents
deferred-action program to his overall lack of serious immigration

played a huge role in encouraging tens of thousands of children to
risk their lives by traveling across Mexico . Drug- and gang-related violence in Central America has
been a major problem for many years. But the massive spike in illegal immigration by Central
American children didnt start until 2012 the same year Obama announced his deferredaction program. The president insists on blaming Congress, specifically Republicans, for doing nothing. If he
administrative policies from his
enforcement have
wants to know why Congress hasnt been able to pass immigration reform, all he has to do is look at his own
that the consequences

of the presidents previous executive actions include tens of thousands of children
navigating some of the most dangerous migration corridors in the world. As Ive said
many times, there is nothing humane about encouraging mothers, daughters, fathers and sons to
put their lives in the hands of criminal smuggling networks controlled by brutal drug
cartels.
policies, which have created a massive amount of distrust. Its now painfully clear
DAPA increases illegal immigration attracts criminal

organizations
Okie, 10-30-2014, "Bridenstine Visits Southern Border,"
http://www.theokie.com/bridenstine-visits-southern-border/
4.
Article 1, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution makes clear that Congress has the authority to create an uniform
rule of naturalization, not the President. The Presidents unconstitutional deferred action policies incentivized
mass waves of illegal immigration. Simply put,
the law.
deferred action is a euphemism for not enforcing
Now, the President wants to drastically expand deferred action to cover 34 million illegal immigrants
over 5 years.
According to CBP, even talking about further deferred action executive orders
52
MSDI 2015
#debatelikeabear
53
will spur massive illegal immigration. According to CBP officials, every

communication from elected officials, including President Obama, regarding amnesty or border
security is monitored by transnational criminal organizations that smuggle humans .
These communications are used to encourage or discourage more illegal immigration.
53

Deferred Action Negative - MSDI 2015

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Deferred Action Negative - MSDI 2015

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MSDI 2015

Deferred Action Neg v1.0

About MSDI & Missouri State U..

Deferred Action Neg v1.0

Deferred Action Neg v1.0

Deferred Action Neg v1.0

2015. "The History of

although the scale of President

Deferred action is perceived as vulnerable chills participation

if immigrant communities perceive DAPA

No signup perceived risk of rollback

Deferred Action Neg v1.0

2015 "The Status of Nonstatus." American

Deferred Action Neg v1.0

Heckler ruling couldnt apply to

the decision to exercise discretion in

Any discretion that Congress allows for must have a

deferring prosecution for large

Deferred Action Neg v1.0

Deferred Action Neg v1.0

DAPA cant solve

economists agree ...

And while the real economy may not change

"We believe it will be hard to discern any

the labor market

Deferred Action Neg v1.0

Reuters, 6-9-2015, "Job Openings and Small-Business Confidence Rise,

Economy growing consumer spending

Deferred Action Neg v1.0

Agriculture not key

Deferred Action Neg v1.0

Deferred Action Neg v1.0

US not key to global

decoupling -- is making a comeback, and nowhere more so than in

data from around the world

developing Asian economies were in pretty

Deferred Action Neg v1.0

Pundits whose bearishness had been vindicated predicted we were doomed to a

Others predicted that these economic shocks would lead to political

One year later, how much has the world really

overall, things look nothing like they did in

markets managed to stabilize themselves

Deferred Action Neg v1.0

Globe and Mail 10

inclination also is to be a bear," the

the data don't support

as much as I would like.

Fungibility guarantees economic flexibility no collapse

global economya complex webis on the mark. The structure of

more on access to the global economy as a whole but depends less

1NC Economy no war

another out. Opportunity cost: Victory by default?Finally, the inverse relationship

2NC Economy no war

Economic collapse doesnt cause war

No impact to economic decline empirically proven

Deferred Action Neg v1.0

1NC Econ not key to heg

20th Century's dawn was marked by the First World War

On the verge of the new millennium the United States strode

The trouble with such projections is that they are

1NC Hegemony defense

Deferred Action Neg v1.0

2NC Hegemony defense

Deferred Action Neg v1.0