Aff

Notes
This great work is brought to you by Jake Berry, Gabriel Burdeen, Dylan Chikko, Connor Doughty, Caden
Joseph, John Karteczka, Jimin Park, and Lynnea Zhang.

The aff work includes relevant cards from the starter packet, but some were left out. Feel free to
integrate as you like; many of the cards in the Refugee aff put out by HJPV could also be useful; for the
most part there was not too much overlap in what we cut.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact kurtfifelski@gmail.com.

1AC Materials
 1AC — Terror Advantage
Trump has brought the resettlement process to a halt
Frelick 2018 - Refugee Rights Program Director @ Human Rights Watch
Bill and Brian Root, "Trump's brutal refugee program reflects prejudice instead of compassion," Jun 7,
www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-frelick-root-refugee-slowdown-mortensen-20180607-story.html

It should be no surprise that the first year of the Trump presidency has been brutal for refugees. Not
only are resettlement numbers down to the lowest levels recorded in the nearly 40-year history of the
program, but the trends by nationality raise disturbing questions in light of the president’s hateful and
bigoted rhetoric about refugees and immigrants.

Reflecting his contempt for a program he has compared to a “great Trojan horse,” the State
Department’s refugee bureau has been leaderless since Donald Trump became president. But that could
change with the May 24 nomination of Ronald Mortensen, to serve as assistant secretary of State for
the Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration. Mortensen is a retired foreign service officer with
humanitarian-assistance experience, but he is also an outspoken critic of illegal immigration and a fellow
at the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates for restrictions on newcomers to the U.S.

Mortensen’s nomination has to be confirmed by the members of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee. The committee should take a close look at his writings. He has accused Sen. John McCain of
“dogged support for illegal aliens [that] has left the United States vulnerable to terrorists.” In an op-ed
for the Hill, he characterized the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program as rewarding Dreamers
“for destroying the futures of innocent American children.” The senators should also ask Mortensen
what he thinks about worrisome trends already in effect in the refugee program.

At the halfway point of this fiscal year, the United States had admitted only 10,548 refugees, a 74% drop
compared with the same period in 2017. This at a time when Middle Eastern nations are struggling to
maintain asylum for 5.6 million Syrian refugees, when more than 700,000 displaced Rohingya have
poured from Burma into Bangladesh, and when most of the world’s 20 million refugees are stuck in
protracted situations with little prospect of returning home anytime soon.

The Trump administration has slowed down refugee admissions by throwing sand into the gears of
resettlement processing. This has included “extreme vetting” and the redeployment of the Refugee
Corps officers, who usually interview potential resettlement candidates in overseas camps, to the
stepped-up efforts at the U.S. border to interview people making asylum claims.

The slowdown in resettlement and the falling overall numbers of refugee admissions tell only part of the
story.

We examined the latest fiscal year 2018 refugee data against averages from the previous five years and
found that the plunge in admissions has largely spared a handful of white-majority European countries.
The U.S. is currently admitting 110% of the European admissions it had typically resettled while
admitting only 22% of the usual numbers from the rest of the world. Admissions are down from the five-
year average by 67% from African countries, and about 80% from Middle Eastern/South Asian countries,
East Asian countries, and Latin America/Caribbean countries.
Admissions from countries covered by the president’s travel ban have virtually ceased — refugees from
Iran are at 2.2% of the five-year averages; from Syria, at 1.8%; from Somalia, 4.5%.

Admissions from Ukraine are up 109%, and Russia, 134%. This pattern is also reflected in regional
targets. Halfway through the fiscal year, the European regional ceiling is already 87% filled,
overwhelmingly by Ukrainian Christians, but the Middle East/South Asia ceiling is only 16% filled. And
72% of the refugees admitted from that region so far this year are non-Muslims, down from 54% in the
previous five years.

“The process works like the assembly line in a factory,” Barbara Strack, who retired in January as chief of
the Refugee Affairs Division at the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, told the New York Times.
“This fiscal year, the administration essentially ‘broke’ the assembly line in multiple places at the same
time.”

President Trump has scapegoated refugees, called for a total ban on the entry of Muslims, and
expressed an immigration preference for people from places like Norway. It’s now up to the Senate to
discover whether Mortensen will bend a truncated U.S. refugee resettlement program further toward
the president’s prejudices or consider restoring a system that has provided hope and rescue for some of
the world’s most persecuted and vulnerable people.

Refugee resettlement brings an end to the Syrian conflict and builds regional
cooperation
Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program 2018
“Fulfilling U.S. Commitment to Refugee Resettlement: Protecting Refugees, Preserving National Security,
& Building the U.S. Economy Through Refugee Admissions," 5 Tex. A&M L. Rev. 155

1. National Security

The refugee resettlement program advances U.S. national security objectives and increases U.S.
leverage and credibility internationally. Indeed, 130 Republican and Democratic national security
professionals affirmed the importance of the resettlement program in a March 2017 letter, stating that
nondiscriminatory refugee resettlement promotes "U.S. global leadership and national security
interests." n62 By [*174] attempting to suspend refugee admissions and reduce the number of
refugees resettled through the USRAP, the January 27 and March 6 Executive Orders undermine both
U.S. national security and global stability. n63

a. International Leverage and Credibility

The Syrian refugee resettlement program, in particular, increases the United States' leverage in the
Middle East and encourages regional actors to cooperate with U.S. policy and military action in the
region. n64 This cooperation is especially vital in Turkey, Jordan, and Iraq, which all host U.S. military
bases used for operations against ISIS and al Qaeda in Syria and Iraq. n65 Each of these countries also
[*175] hosts significant refugee populations: Turkey hosts at least 2.7 million refugees, more than any
other country worldwide; Jordan hosts at least 656,230 registered refugees (1.4 million in total,
according to King Abdullah II); n66 and Iraq hosts at least 228,894 refugees, in addition to its 3.1 million
internally displaced persons. n67 The January 27 and March 6 Executive Orders undercut these U.S.
alliances by implying to Muslim communities worldwide that "the U.S. government is at war with them
based on their religion," as former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, former Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, and dozens of other officials explained in a recent
public statement. n68

Resettling refugees also strengthens the United States' credibility internationally. Participating in
resettlement efforts increases the United States' political capital among European allies and
international organizations. n69 The Executive Orders may discourage partners from sharing critical
intelligence with implications for national security. n70 Alternately, the United States' withdrawal from
resettlement commitments in the midst of the greatest refugee crisis since World War II might
encourage other countries to abandon their own resettlement pledges, thereby exacerbating the Syrian
refugee crisis and further [*176] undermining stability in the region, which in turn has consequences
for U.S. security.

b. Regional Stability

The Syrian refugee resettlement program promotes Middle Eastern stability and accelerates resolution
of the Syrian conflict. Commentators have noted that "the United States aims to prevent the
proliferation of terrorist activity in Syria's ungoverned spaces and has sought a multisectarian solution to
the Syrian conflict." n71 Achieving these objectives requires stable and secure partners in the Middle
East. Unfortunately, the United States has remained reluctant to resettle refugees even as its partners
struggle to provide adequate security and aid to massive refugee populations. n72 A lack of adequate
assistance and protection for refugees in camps, urban areas, and other locations where refugees live
may sometimes provide recruitment opportunities for local armed groups. n73

[*177] The refugee crisis has also exacerbated sectarian tensions in countries such as Lebanon and
Turkey. n74 Thus, the United States' must facilitate refugee resettlement to prevent expansion of the
Syrian conflict - which would threaten the United States ability to conduct counterterrorism operations -
and to ensure regional stability and national security in the long term. n75

Escalation in Syria risks extinction

Stirling 2011 – Governor & Lord Lieutenant of Canada, Lord High Admiral of Nova Scotia, & B.Sc. in Pol.
Sc. & History; M.A. in European Studies (The Earl of Stirling, “General Middle East War Nears - Syrian
events more dangerous than even nuclear nightmare in Japan”,
http://europebusines.blogspot.com/2011/03/general-middle-east-war-nears-syrian.html)

Any Third Lebanon War/General Middle East War is apt to involve WMD on both side quickly as both sides know the
stakes and that the Israelis are determined to end, once and for all, any Iranian opposition to a 'Greater Israel'
domination of the entire Middle East. It will be a case of 'use your WMD or lose them' to enemy strikes. Any
massive WMD usage against Israel will result in the usage of Israeli thermonuclear warheads against Arab and
Persian populations centers in large parts of the Middle East, with the resulting spread of radioactive fallout
over large parts of the Northern Hemisphere. However, the first use of nukes is apt to be lower yield warheads directed against Iranian underground facilities including
both nuclear sites and governmental command and control and leadership bunkers, with some limited strikes also likely early-on in Syrian territory.¶ The Iranians are well prepared

to launch a global Advanced Biological Warfare terrorism based strike against not only Israel and American and allied forces
in the Middle East but also against the American, Canadian, British, French, German, Italian, etc., homelands.
This will utilize DNA recombination based genetically engineered 'super killer viruses' that are designed to spread themselves
throughout the world using humans as vectors. There are very few defenses against such warfare, other than total quarantine
of the population until all of the different man-made viruses (and there could be dozens or even over a hundred different viruses released at the same time) have 'burned themselves out'. This could

kill a third of the world's total population. ¶ Such a result from an Israeli triggered war would almost certainly
cause a Russian-Chinese response that would eventually finish off what is left of Israel and begin a truly global
war/WWIII with multiple war theaters around the world. It is highly unlikely that a Third World War, fought with
21st Century weaponry will be anything but the Biblical Armageddon.

This would wreck terror recruiting

Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program 2018
“Fulfilling U.S. Commitment to Refugee Resettlement: Protecting Refugees, Preserving National Security,
& Building the U.S. Economy Through Refugee Admissions," 5 Tex. A&M L. Rev. 155

c. Countering Terrorist Recruitment

Resettling refugees of all faiths also helps undermine the recruitment efforts of ISIS, al Qaeda, and
other armed terrorist groups, which claim that the United States is at war with Islam. n76 ISIS has
pursued an explicit strategy of polarization: it highlights anti-Muslim rhetoric in the United States and
Europe in order to position itself as a protector of Sunni Muslims, thereby motivating Sunnis in Syria and
[*178] abroad to join in its fight. n77 Al Qaeda's Syrian affiliate, Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, echoes this
message in its recruitment materials, claiming that the United States and Europe are unwilling to protect
Syrians harmed by the war. n78 Assisting Syrian refugees combats terrorist groups' narratives of
religious and cultural animosity. Accordingly, national security professionals in both political parties have
recognized that "welcoming Muslim refugees and travelers ... exposes the lies of terrorists and counters
their warped vision." n79 Resettling refugees thus serves "mutually reinforcing" strategic and
humanitarian objectives. n80

It's a no risk option – refugees simply aren’t terrorists, but preventing them from
entering the US ruins our counter-terrorism efforts
Randolph 2017 - Humanitarian Affairs Adjudications Officer for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services
Kaila C, "EXECUTIVE ORDER 13769 AND AMERICA'S LONGSTANDING PRACTICE OF INSTITUTIONALIZED
RACIAL DISCRIMINATION TOWARDS REFUGEES AND ASYLUM SEEKERS," 47 Stetson L. Rev. 1

The legislative purpose of the order is futile given the small probability that a refugee would effectuate a
terrorist attack in the United States. According to a study by Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration expert for
the CATO Institute, nationals of the seven [*42] countries of particular concern have killed zero people
in terrorist attacks in the United States over the last forty years. n267 Equally important, Nowrasteh
reports only 20 out of the 3.25 million refugees, admitted into the United States during that time period,
were convicted of attempting to engage in terroristic activities in the United States. n268 Only three U.S.
citizens have been killed in attacks committed by refugees--ironically by Cuban refugees in the 1970s.
n269 There have been zero terrorist attacks or deaths committed by Syrian refugees in the United
States. n270 Hence, Nowrasteh asserts the likelihood of an American being murdered by someone other
than a terrorist is 252.9 times greater than dying in a terrorist attack. n271 Finally, terrorists who
attacked on September 11, 2001 were foreign nationals from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates,
Lebanon, and Egypt, n272 yet they are not designated in the Executive Order. Between 1975 to 2015,
these four countries generated foreign nationals who committed terrorism on U.S. soil, killing a total of
3,004 U.S. citizens. n273

Legislation establishing discriminatory immigration policies will only embolden actual terrorists to
implement future attacks against the United States and consequentially recruit vulnerable individuals,
such as refugees. The executive order isolates the United States from our Middle Eastern and African
allies and undermines our intelligence agencies working with Muslim communities, when such
relationships are vital to domestic counterterrrorism. n274 Terrorist groups are known to target lone
American citizens suffering from mental illness, social isolation, discrimination, or other factors forging
vulnerability. n275 Discriminatory immigration policies will only galvanize ISIL and [*43] other foreign
terrorist organizations to exploit refugees and become radicalized. n276

Radicalization happens as a result of bad policy not because of allowing people in –

only the plan eliminate the motivation behind terror recruitment
Levitt 2018 - Fromer-Wexler Fellow and Director of the Stein Program on Counterterrorism &
Intelligence at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Matthew, "Trump's Travel Ban Might be Legal, but It's Bad Policy," Apr 25,
foreignpolicy.com/2018/04/25/trumps-travel-ban-might-be-legal-but-its-bad-policy/

Even if it were true, cataloging where terrorists were born is a meaningless statistic. The question is not
where terrorists came from but when and where they were radicalized. According to a March 2017
DHS report, “most foreign-born, US-based violent extremists likely radicalized several years after their
entry to the United States.” Another DHS report concluded that “citizenship is unlikely to be a reliable
indicator of potential terrorist activity.” DHS’s findings echo a December 2016 report by the House
Committee on Homeland Security, which concluded that the United States “faces its highest Islamist
terror threat environment since 9/11, and much of the threat now stems from individuals who have
been radicalized at home.”

Despite all of this evidence, the White House immigration statement released in February portrayed
“chain migration” and the visa lottery system as national security threats on the basis of 15 cherry-
picked cases of “terrorists and criminals” who entered the United States through these programs. A
close look at these cases reveals that most, if not all, were not at all radical or violent when they came to
the United States (meaning the immigration vetting systems through which they entered worked just
fine). Most of them, like Saipov, radicalized after arriving. Indeed, Saipov is one of the 15 cases listed,
but he’s not alone in having radicalized well after immigrating to the country.

Take Akayed Ullah, a Bangladeshi national who allegedly tried to set off pipe bombs in New York’s Port
Authority Bus Terminal in December 2017. Ullah reportedly became radicalized around 2014, three
years after entering the United States, according to court documents. Or consider Mahmoud Amin
Mohamed Elhassan, a Sudanese national who came to America in 2012, was radicalized around 2015,
and ultimately pleaded guilty to trying to provide material support to the Islamic State in early 2016.
Khaleel Ahmed, an Indian national, came to the United States in 1998 and at some point became
radicalized and plotted to target U.S. soldiers abroad in 2004. Mufid Elfgeeh, a Yemeni national who
came to the United States in 1997, appears to have radicalized around 2013 when he first discussed
shooting U.S. soldiers with an person who turned out to an FBI confidential source. Uzair Paracha, a
Pakistani national who was admitted by U.S. immigration officials in 1980, appears to have radicalized
more than 20 years later and ultimately was convicted in 2005 on charges related to providing material
support to al Qaeda. The list goes on.

Ironically, the list provided by the White House argues against Trump’s position. The already extreme
vetting systems in place work well. In nearly every case cited by the White House, the individuals were
radicalized on U.S. soil many years after they came to the country. At the time they entered the United
States, they were neither radical nor terrorists.

Today’s most immediate threats are mostly from homegrown violent extremists who act in small groups
or as lone offenders. Stopping people from certain countries from entering the United States does not
address this problem. Indeed, even the strictest immigration policies would fail to address this issue,
because radicalization happens after people arrive.

Whether the travel ban is legal or not, neither the ban nor the new National Vetting Center is necessary
as a matter of policy. To this day, the administration has failed to articulate a convincing rationale for
creating a new layer of federal bureaucracy beyond those that already exist, such as U.S. Customs and
Border Protection’s National Targeting Center, the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Center, and the National
Counterterrorism Center’s Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment.

Most experienced government officials know that the travel ban won’t help, as evidenced by the friend-
of-the-court briefs signed by dozens of senior national security experts in advance of Wednesday’s
Supreme Court hearing. The same week the White House published its report linking terrorist threats to
supposedly lax immigration controls, Nathan Sales, the State Department’s counterterrorism
coordinator, delivered an address on how consolidated watch lists, airline data, and biometrics enable
U.S. agencies to “secure our borders and help keep our people safe.”

It’s true: U.S. borders are secure, and the vetting systems work. Promoting travels bans in the wake of
terrorist attacks makes for easy politics, but it is poor counterterrorism policy. Because radicalization
most often occurs within the United States, the U.S. government should be focusing its energy on
countering violent extremism and promoting public safety in ways that complement the effective
immigration vetting systems already in place.

Terrorism causes an apocalypse, state lash-out, and economic decline

Bunn & Roth 17 — Matthew Bunn (professor at Harvard, former White House Office of Science and Technology Policy); Nickolas Roth
(research associate at the Belfer Center’s Project on Managing the Aton at Harvard University, published multiple reports on nuclear security,
nonproliferation, and arms control, research fellow at the Center for International and Security Studies), 9-28-17, "The effects of a single
terrorist nuclear bomb," Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, https://thebulletin.org/effects-single-terrorist-nuclear-bomb11150., [accessed:
6/27/18] — JPark

The escalating threats make it easy to forget the “nuclear nightmare,”

between North Korea and the United States as former US Secretary of Defense William J. Perry

that could result even from the use of just a single terrorist nuclear bomb
put it, in the heart of a major city. At the risk of repeating the vast literature on the

a single terrorist nuclear bomb

tragedies of Hiroshima and Nagasaki—and the substantial literature surrounding nuclear tests and simulations since then—we attempt to spell out here the likely consequences of the explosion of on a
major city, and its subsequent ripple effects on the rest of the planet. Depending on where and when it was detonated, the blast, fire, initial radiation, and long-term radioactive fallout from such a bomb could leave the heart of a

Vast areas would have to be evacuated and might be

major city a smoldering radioactive ruin, killing tens or hundreds of thousands of people and wounding hundreds of thousands more.

uninhabitable for years Economic, political, and social aftershocks would ripple throughout the world A
. .

single terrorist nuclear bomb would change history The idea of terrorists . The country attacked—and the world—would never be the same.

accomplishing not out of the question; it is far easier to make a crude, unsafe, unreliable
such a thing is, unfortunately,

nuclear explosive Numerous government studies

that might fit in the back of a truck than it is to make a safe, reliable weapon of known yield that can be delivered by missile or combat aircraft.

have concluded that it is plausible that a sophisticated terrorist group could make a crude bomb if they
got the needed nuclear material there have been some 20 seizures of stolen, weapons-
. And in the last quarter century,

usable nuclear material the immensity of the

, and at least two terrorist groups have made significant efforts to acquire nuclear bombs. Terrorist use of an actual nuclear bomb is a low-probability event—but

consequences means that even a small chance is enough to justify an intensive effort to reduce the
risk. Fortunately, since the early 1990s, countries around the world have significantly reduced the danger—but it remains very real, and there is more to do to ensure this nightmare never becomes reality.

Brighter than a thousand suns Imagine a crude terrorist nuclear bomb—containing a chunk of highly
.

enriched uranium suddenly detonating

just under the size of a regulation bowling ball, or a much smaller chunk of plutonium— inside a delivery van parked in the heart of a major city. Such a terrorist bomb

would release 10 kilotons of explosive energy

as much as , or the equivalent of 10,000 tons of conventional explosives, a volume of explosives large enough to fill all the cars of a mile-long train. In a millionth of
a second, all of that energy would be released inside that small ball of nuclear material, creating temperatures and pressures as high as those at the center of the sun. That furious energy would explode outward, releasing its energy in three main ways: a powerful blast wave; intense heat;
and deadly radiation. The ball would expand almost instantly into a fireball the width of four football fields, incinerating essentially everything and everyone within. The heated fireball would rise, sucking in air from below and expanding above, creating the mushroom cloud that has
become the symbol of the terror of the nuclear age. The ionized plasma in the fireball would create a localized electromagnetic pulse more powerful than lightning, shorting out communications and electronics nearby—though most would be destroyed by the bomb’s other effects in any
case. (Estimates of heat, blast, and radiation effects in this article are drawn primarily from Alex Wellerstein’s “Nukemap,” which itself comes from declassified US government data, such as the 660-page government textbook The Effects of Nuclear Weapons.) At the instant of its
detonation, the bomb would also release an intense burst of gamma and neutron radiation which would be lethal for nearly everyone directly exposed within about two-thirds of a mile from the center of the blast. (Those who happened to be shielded by being inside, or having buildings
between them and the bomb, would be partly protected—in some cases, reducing their doses by ten times or more.) The nuclear flash from the heat of the fireball would radiate in b oth visible light and the infrared; it would be “brighter than a thousand suns,” in the words of the title of
a book describing the development of nuclear weapons—adapting a phrase from the Hindu epic the Bhagavad-Gita. Anyone who looked directly at the blast would be blinded. The heat from the fireball would ignite fires and horribly burn everyone exposed outside at distances of nearly a
mile away. (In the Nagasaki Atomic Bomb Museum, visitors gaze in horror at the bones of a human hand embedded in glass melted by the bomb.) No one has burned a city on that scale in the decades since World War II, so it is difficult to predict the full extent of the fire damage that
would occur from the explosion of a nuclear bomb in one of today’s cities. Modern glass, steel, and concrete buildings would presumably be less flammable than the wood-and-rice-paper housing of Hiroshima or Nagasaki in the 1940s—but many questions remain, including exactly how

even a crude
thousands of broken gas lines might contribute to fire damage (as they did in Dresden during World War II). On 9/11, the buildings of the World Trade Center proved to be much more vulnerable to fire damage than had been expected. Ultimately,

terrorist nuclear bomb would carry the possibility that the countless fires touched off by the explosion
would coalesce into a devastating firestorm , as occurred at Hiroshima. In a firestorm, the rising column of hot air from the massive fire sucks in the air from all around, creating hurricane-force winds;

The explosion would create a

everything flammable and everything alive within the firestorm would be consumed. The fires and the dust from the blast would make it extremely difficult for either rescuers or survivors to see.

powerful blast wave rushing out in every direction . For more than a quarter-mile all around the blast, the pulse of pressure would be over 20 pounds per square inch above atmospheric pressure
(known as “overpressure”), destroying or severely damaging even sturdy buildings. The combination of blast, heat, and radiation would kill virtually everyone in this zone. The blast would be accompanied by winds of many hundreds of miles per hour. The damage from the explosion
would extend far beyond this inner zone of almost total death. Out to more than half a mile, the blast would be strong enough to collapse most residential buildings and create a serious danger that office buildings would topple over, killing those inside and those in the path of the rubble.
(On the other hand, the office towers of a modern city would tend to block the blast wave in some areas, providing partial protection from the blast, as well as from the heat and radiation.) In that zone, almost anything made of wood would be destroyed: Roofs would cave in, windows
would shatter, gas lines would rupture. Telephone poles, street lamps, and utility lines would be severely damaged. Many roads would be blocked by mountains of wreckage. In this zone, many people would be killed or injured in buildi ng collapses, or trapped under the rubble; many

more would be burned, blinded, or injured by flying debris. In many cases, their charred skin would become ragged and fall off in sheets. The effects of the detonation would act in deadly
synergy . The smashed materials of buildings broken by the blast would be far easier for the fires to ignite than intact structures. The effects of radiation would make it far more difficult for burned and injured people to recover. The combination of burns, radiation, and
physical injuries would cause far more death and suffering than any one of them would alone.

The silent killer The bomb’s immediate effects would be followed by a slow, lingering killer: radioactive
.

fallout . A bomb detonated at ground level would dig a huge crater, hurling tons of earth and debris thousands of feet into the sky. Sucked into the rising fireball, these particles would mix with the radioactive remainders of the bomb, and over the next few hours or days, the
debris would rain down for miles downwind. Depending on weather and wind patterns, the fallout could actually be deadlier and make a far larger area unusable than the blast itself. Acute radiation sickness from the initial radiation pulse and the fallout would likely affect tens of
thousands of people. Depending on the dose, they might suffer from vomiting, watery diarrhea, fever, sores, loss of hair, and bone marrow depletion. Some would survive; some would die within days; some would take months to die. Cancer rates among the survivors would rise. Women
would be more vulnerable than men—children and infants especially so. Much of the radiation from a nuclear blast is short-lived; radiation levels even a few days after the blast would be far below those in the first hours. For those not killed or terribly wounded by the initial explosion,
the best advice would be to take shelter in a basement for at least several days. But many would be too terrified to stay. Thousands of panic-stricken people might receive deadly doses of radiation as they fled from their homes. Some of the radiation will be longer-lived; areas most
severely affected would have to be abandoned for many years after the attack. The combination of radioactive fallout and the devastation of nearly all life-sustaining infrastructure over a vast area would mean that hundreds of thousands of people would have to evacuate.

Ambulances to nowhere. The explosion would destroy also much of the city’s ability to respond . Hospitals would be leveled, doctors and nurses
killed and wounded, ambulances destroyed. (In Hiroshima, 42 of 45 hospitals were destroyed or severely damaged, and 270 of 300 doctors were killed.) Resources that survived outside the zone of destruction would be utterly overwhelmed. Hospitals have no ability to cope with tens or

hundreds of thousands of terribly burned and injured people all at once; the United States, for example, has 1,760 burn beds in hospitals nationwide, of which a third are available on any given day. And the problem would not be limited to hospitals; firefighters , for

example, would have little ability to cope with thousands of fires raging out of control at once . Fire stations and equipment would be

destroyed in the affected area, and firemen killed, along with police and other emergency responders. Some of the first responders may become casualties themselves, from radioactive fallout, fire, and collapsing buildings. Over much of the affected area, communications would be

there is no way any city can genuinely be

destroyed, by both the physical effects and the electromagnetic pulse from the explosion. Better preparation for such a disaster could save thousands of lives—but ultimately,

prepared for a catastrophe on such a historic scale, occurring in a flash, with zero warning . Rescue and recovery attempts would
be impeded by the destruction of most of the needed personnel and equipment, and by fire, debris, radiation, fear, lack of communications, and the immense scale of the disaster. The US military and the national guard could provide critically important capabilities—but federal plans
assume that “no significant federal response” would be available for 24-to-72 hours. Many of those burned and injured would wait in vain for help, food, or water, perhaps for days.

The scale of death and suffering . How many would die in such an event, and how many would be terribly wounded, would depend on where and when the bomb was detonated, what the weather conditions were at the time, how
successful the response was in helping the wounded survivors, and more. Many estimates of casualties are based on census data, which reflect where people sleep at night; if the attack occurred in the middle of a workday, the numbers of people crowded into the office towers at the
heart of many modern cities would be far higher. The daytime population of Manhattan, for example, is roughly twice its nighttime population; in Midtown on a typical workday, there are an estimated 980,000 people per square mile. A 10-kiloton weapon detonated there might well kill
half a million people—not counting those who might die of radiation sickness from the fallout. (These effects were analyzed in great detail in the Rand Corporation’s Considering the Effects of a Catastrophic Terrorist Attack and the British Medical Journal’s “Nuclear terrorism.”) On a
typical day, the wind would blow the fallout north, seriously contaminating virtually all of Manhattan above Gramercy Park; people living as far away as Stamford, Connecticut would likely have to evacuate. Seriously injured survivors would greatly outnumber the dead, their suffering
magnified by the complete inadequacy of available help. The psychological and social effects—overwhelming sadness, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, myriad forms of anxiety—would be profound and long-lasting. The scenario we have been describing is a groundburst. An

airburst—such as might occur, for example, if terrorists put their bomb in a small aircraft they had purchased or rented—would extend the blast and fire effects over

a wider area , killing and injuring even larger numbers of people immediately. But an airburst would not have the same lingering effects from fallout as a groundburst, because the rock and dirt would not be sucked up into the fireball and contaminated. The 10-kiloton
blast we have been discussing is likely toward the high end of what terrorists could plausibly achieve with a crude, improvised bomb, but even a 1-kiloton blast would be a catastrophic event, having a deadly radius between one-third and one-half that of a 10-kiloton blast. These hundreds
of thousands of people would not be mere statistics, but countless individual stories of loss—parents, children, entire families; all religions; rich and poor alike—killed or horribly mutilated. Human suffering and tragedy on this scale does not have to be imagined; it can be remembered
through the stories of the survivors of the US atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the only times in history when nuclear weapons have been used intentionally against human beings. The pain and suffering caused by those bombings are almost beyond human comprehension;
the eloquent testimony of the Hibakusha—the survivors who passed through the atomic fire—should stand as an eternal reminder of the need to prevent nuclear weapons from ever being used in anger again.

Global economic disaster. The economic impact of such an attack would be enormous. The effects
would reverberate for so far and so long that they are difficult to estimate in all their complexity . Hundreds of
thousands of people would be too injured or sick to work for weeks or months. Hundreds of thousands more would evacuate to locations far from their jobs. Many places of employment would have to be abandoned because of the radioactive fallout. Insurance companies would reel
under the losses; but at the same time, many insurance policies exclude the effects of nuclear attacks—an item insurers considered beyond their ability to cover—so the owners of thousands of buildings would not have the insurance payments needed to cover the cost of fixing them,

Consumer and investor confidence would likely be

thousands of companies would go bankrupt, and banks would be left holding an immense number of mortgages that would never be repaid.

dramatically affected, as worried people slowed their spending. Enormous new homeland security and military investments would be
very likely . If the bomb had come in a shipping container, the targeted country—and possibly others—might stop all containers from entering until it could devise a system for ensuring they could never again be used for such a purpose, throwing a wrench into the gears
of global trade for an extended period. (And this might well occur even if a shipping container had not been the means of delivery.) Even the far smaller 9/11 attacks are estimated to have caused economic aftershocks costing almost $1 trillion even excluding the multi-trillion-dollar costs
of the wars that ensued. The cost of a terrorist nuclear attack in a major city would likely be many times higher. The most severe effects would be local, but the effects of trade disruptions, reduced economic activity, and more would reverberate around the world. Consequently, while
some countries may feel that nuclear terrorism is only a concern for the countries most likely to be targeted—such as the United States—in reality it is a threat to everyone, everywhere. In 2005, then-UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan warned that these global effects would push “tens of
millions of people into dire poverty,” creating “a second death toll throughout the developing world.” One recent estimate suggested that a nuclear attack in an urban area would cause a global recession, cutting global Gross Domestic Product by some two percent, and pushing an
additional 30 million people in the developing world into extreme poverty.

Desperate dilemmas. In short, an act of nuclear terrorism could rip the heart out of a major city, and cause ripple effects throughout the world. The government of the country attacked would face desperate decisions: How to help the city attacked? How to prevent further attacks? How
to respond or retaliate?

Terrorists—either those who committed the attack or others—would probably claim they had more bombs already hidden in other cities (whether they did or not), and threaten to detonate them unless their demands w ere met. The fear that this might be true could lead people to flee
major cities in a large-scale, uncontrolled evacuation. There is very little ability to support the population of major cities in the surrounding countryside. The potential for widespread havoc and economic chaos is very real. If the detonation took place in the capital of the nation attacked,
much of the government might be destroyed. A bomb in Washington, D.C., for example, might kill the President, the Vice President, and many of the members of Congress and the Supreme Court. (Having some plausible national leader survive is a key reason why one cabinet member is
always elsewhere on the night of the State of the Union address.) Elaborate, classified plans for “continuity of government” have already been drawn up in a number of countries, but the potential for chaos and confusion—if almost all of a country’s top leaders were killed—would still be
enormous. Who, for example, could address the public on what the government would do, and what the public should do, to respond? Could anyone honestly assure the public there would be no further attacks? If they did, who would believe them? In the United States, given the
practical impossibility of passing major legislation with Congress in ruins and most of its members dead or seriously injured, some have argued for passing legislation in advance giving the government emergency powers to act—and creating procedures, for example, for legitimately
replacing most of the House of Representatives. But to date, no such legislative preparations have been made. In what would i nevitably be a desperate effort to prevent further attacks, traditional standards of civil liberties might be jettisoned, at least for a time—particularly when people
realized that the fuel for the bomb that had done such damage would easily have fit in a suitcase. Old rules limiting search and surveillance could be among the first to go. The government might well impose martial law as it sought to control the situation, hunt for the perpetrators, and

what standards of international

find any additional weapons or nuclear materials they might have. Even the far smaller attacks of 9/11 saw the US g overnment authorizing torture of prisoners and mass electronic surveillance. And

order and law would still hold sway? The country attacked might lash out militarily well at whatever countries it thought might bear a portion

of responsibility. (A terrifying description of the kinds of discussions that might occur appeared in Brian Jenkins’ book, Will Terrorists Go Nuclear?) With the nuclear threshold already crossed in this scenario—at least by terrorists—it is conceivable that some of the resulting conflicts might
escalate to nuclear use. International politics could become more brutish and violent, with powerful states taking unilateral action, by force if necessary, in an effort to ensure their security. Center for International and Security Studiess brutal but necessary to preserve their security. For
this reason, foreign policy analyst Stephen Krasner has argued that “conventional rules of sovereignty would be abandoned overnight.” Confidence in both the national security institutions of the country attacked and international institutions such as the International Atomic Energy
Agency and the United Nations, which had so manifestly failed to prevent the devastation, might erode. The effect on nuclear weapons policies is hard to predict: One can imagine new nuclear terror driving a new push for nuclear disarmament, but one could also imagine states feeling
more certain than ever before that they needed nuclear weapons.
 1AC — Soft Power Advantage
The refusal to resettle Syrians puts the US in breach of international law and justifies
their exclusion by other countries
Randolph 2017 - Humanitarian Affairs Adjudications Officer for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services
Kaila C, "EXECUTIVE ORDER 13769 AND AMERICA'S LONGSTANDING PRACTICE OF INSTITUTIONALIZED
RACIAL DISCRIMINATION TOWARDS REFUGEES AND ASYLUM SEEKERS," 47 Stetson L. Rev. 1

As previously noted in Part I, the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and Protocol
forbids discrimination based on country of origin, race, or religion in Article 3 and prohibits differential
treatment between refugees and all other aliens. n256 The executive order consequentially violates the
Refugee Convention, as it does the Refugee Act originally implemented to become compliant with the
international agreement. The executive action, by excluding the processing of refugees, impels the
federal government to abnegate its State obligations to refugees under the Convention. Equally
important, ostracizing Syrian refugees indefinitely prompts government officials to exhibit distinctive
treatment between Syrian refugees and other foreign nationals, on account of nationality. The mere
discriminating treatment between refugees and others within the territorial bounds of the United States
is a violation of the Refugee Convention.

In addition, the immigration policy document violates the non-discrimination clause of Article 2 and the
equal protection clause of Article 26 of the ICCPR. n257 By guaranteeing lesser rights to refugees, the
United States violates its treaty obligations. Finally, the executive order breaches international
obligations under Article 1 of the ICERD by racially discriminating against ethnic Syrians, and failing to
nullify racially discriminatory laws under [*40] Article 2. n258 By excluding Syrian refugees based on
national and ethnic origin and hindering their fundamental human rights, the executive action endorses
institutionalized racial discrimination against Syrian nationals. The U.N. Committee on the Elimination of
Racial Discrimination, a final tribunal utilized when complainants have exhausted State remedies, held
that "the definition of racial discrimination in Article 1 expressly extends beyond measures which are
explicitly discriminatory, to encompass measures which are not discriminatory at face value but are
discriminatory in fact and effect, that is, if they amount to indirect discrimination." n259 Therefore, by
directly discriminating against Syrian refugees on its face and failing to rescind Section 5(c) of the
executive order, the federal government advocated and normalized racial discrimination against Syrian
nationals.

The progression of institutionalized discrimination towards refugees extends beyond the United States'
borders and permeates throughout Europe as well. While then-candidate Donald Trump campaigned for
the highest political office in the United States, the European Union contracted a bilateral agreement
between Turkey and Greece. n260 The agreement, reached in March 2016, authorizes Greece to return
"all new irregular migrants" to Turkey, arriving after March 20, 2016. n261 In response, European Union
memberstates would increase the resettlement of Syrian refugees residing in Turkey, increase financial
support for Turkey's refugee population, and advance visas for Turkish nationals. n262 By June, three
asylum seekers filed suit against the European Union, claiming repatriation of asylum seekers from the
Greek islands to the Turkish mainland is a violation of European and international laws protecting
refugees from refoulement. n263 Opponents of the treaty allege it breaches their right to asylum and
protection from expulsion to a State where they are at risk of inhumane or degrading treatment. n264
Germany is also under considerable [*41] scrutiny after backtracking on its "open door" policy for
refugees and instead offering "subsidiary protection." n265 The subsidiary protection withholds
immigrants from deportation; however, the individual does not receive status as a refugee. n266 The
differential treatment towards refugees in Europe preceded Executive Order 13,769; yet, it coincides
with the persisting theme that refugees are faced with deterrents infringing on their human right to
international protection, as a result of xenophobic attitudes and national calls for exclusion.

Resettlement of Syrians revitalizes US leadership

Newland 2017 - Co-Founder and Senior Fellow at the Migration Policy Institute
Kathleen and Alexander Aleinikoff, "The U.S. Refugee Resettlement Program Is an Unsuitable Target,"
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/news/refugee-resettlement-program-unsuitable-target

The indefinite ban on Syrian refugees is particularly inappropriate. The President offered no explanation
of his proclamation “that the entry of nationals of Syria as refugees is detrimental to the interests of the
United States.” The small Syrian-born community in the United States is well integrated, with household
income at about the same level as native-born Americans. They are more likely than natives to hold a
college degree. Today Syrians are the largest refugee population in the world, with some 5 million
displaced by war and persecution, most living in subsistence conditions in the surrounding countries: 2.8
million in Turkey, 1 million in tiny Lebanon, about 655,000 in Jordan, and hundreds of thousands
additionally in Iraq and Egypt. Nearly 900,000 entered Europe to seek asylum in 2015-16. By contrast,
the United States has admitted 19,344 Syrian refugees since 2011. Canada, with one-tenth the U.S.
population, has resettled about 40,000 Syrian refugees and, like the United States, has encountered no
security threats as a result.

The lives of Syrian refugees, like those of most other refugees, are precarious in the countries of first
asylum, which are themselves struggling to meet the needs of their own people. Most refugees struggle
to find ways to feed their families, live in crowded and substandard shelters, and have no path to
permanent residence. One million Syrian children are estimated to be out of school, often for many
years. They and their families have fled violence and extremism in Syria, given up homes and
possessions to save themselves, seen their communities destroyed, and have now been in limbo for up
to six years. The reason for refugee resettlement programs is to enable people whose lives have been on
hold for years—sometimes decades—to begin to return to normalcy.

The U.S. refugee resettlement program has long been the largest in the world and a pillar of U.S. global
leadership in humanitarian issues. It will be difficult for other, much smaller countries to fill the void if
the United States maintains its dramatic cuts in admissions or continues to refuse refugees. U.S.
leadership on refugee issues conveys a hard-to-measure soft-power advantage by painting the country
as a generous and welcoming home for law-abiding people of all faiths and origins. But it also has a
hard-power function, helping to relieve political pressure on countries of first asylum, including U.S.
allies such as Jordan, whose stability is vital to U.S. national interests. The United States’ willingness to
share the responsibility of providing solutions for refugees sends an important signal to allies and
adversaries alike that U.S. policy stands firmly against persecution on the grounds of race, religion,
national origin, or membership of a particular social group or political opinion—in the words of U. S. and
international refugee law.
The plan is sufficient to restore soft power
Sciubba 2017 - associate professor of international studies at Rhodes College
Jennifer Dabbs, "Trump's new refugee ceiling endangers the U.S.," Oct 4,
www.philly.com/philly/opinion/commentary/trump-refugees-extremists-soft-power-20171004.html

The Trump administration announced last week a maximum of 45,000 refugees to be allowed
resettlement in the United States in 2018. The justifications for this antagonism toward resettling
refugees are that they might be terrorists and that resettlement costs too much money. The
administration misses the mark on both counts.

The Refugee Act of 1980 gave the president, in consultation with Congress, the power to set an annual
cap, which in 1980 was 231,700, more than five times the current level of 45,000.

After 9/11, the trend has been toward a lower annual ceiling for refugees resettled in the United States.
Still, since the 1980 act gave them authority, no U.S. president has set a cap as low as Donald Trump has.

The world in 2017 is turbulent, but I believe this policy further endangers America.

Make no mistake, we are threatened by extremists bent on destroying democracies like ours. But
allowing an abnormally low number of refugees to enter the United States hurts far more than it helps
the cause in the fight against terrorism, because it will diminish America’s soft power in the world.

Hard power is the kind of power used to coerce others into doing what you want them to do: threats of
violence, economic sanctions, and so on. Hard power hasn’t helped us much in the fight against
extremism; the threats today from groups like ISIS are arguably greater than ever.

To effectively fight violent extremism we need soft power. Soft power helps us recruit allies and friends
who sign on to our international agenda — they want the kind of world we want. When we slam the
door on refugees, we legitimize fear of Muslims and nonwhites in America and foster hatred and
resentment toward America abroad. We feed the motivation of would-be terrorists.

When the United States welcomed refugees from communist countries during the Cold War, it did so to
shame communism. We sent an ideological message about how much more desirable life in the United
States was than in countries under the communist thumb.

After the 1979 Geneva Conference on refugees had drawn attention to thousands dying as they fled
Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam, we accepted nearly half of the 2.5 million refugees.

In the early 1990s, the United States again increased its refugee ceiling to accommodate those fleeing
the explosion of civil wars worldwide, from Yugoslavia to Republic of Congo.

Each time, we made friends and influenced people. We increased our soft power globally and
showcased American leadership.

During the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that displaced millions, we took too few refugees.

Now, amid the worst global refugee crisis since World War II, America is slamming the door on some of
the world’s most desperate victims.
Is this the wise response to a situation in which refugees flow by the thousands into countries that
neighbor the world’s worst conflicts? Syria, with a population of only 18 million, took in more than 1.2
million Iraqi refugees in the years before the current conflict erupted there, according to one estimate.
Do we really want to foist the burden of refugees on countries already teetering on the brink of failure?

As to the debate over whether or not refugees are a net economic drain or benefit, a recent report
commissioned by the administration — but later rejected by it — has persuasive evidence of refugees’
net contribution.

Ignored in the debate is our historic responsibility to meet our moral obligations, given our military
involvement abroad. It’s an obligation that needs to be discussed urgently. Yes, we are driven by an
understandable passion to root out terrorists, but I believe there is ample evidence that shows refugee
reductions have reduced our soft power and made America less safe.

During and after the Cold War, we accepted refugees from communist countries even though many
were afraid they would export that “subversive and dangerous” ideology and put the United States at
risk. Now, we are letting similar fears — this time about terrorism — get the best of us.

By disdaining refugees in the name of national security and economics, America comes across as less of
a global leader. A recent Pew Research Center poll showed G-20 countries to be more confident in
German Chancellor Angela Merkel than in President Trump.

Resettling just 110,000 refugees, the number set by Barack Obama before he left office, out of 21
million stateless people worldwide, would be a strong, symbolic gesture. Through our commitment to
freedom and our compassion, we would gain soft power, and ultimately help advance the American
agenda abroad.

With our large military footprint, we play a role in exacerbating dozens of the current conflicts that rage
around the globe and displace millions. Not only are we morally bound to welcome more refugees —
doing so is also good for American national security. Win-win.

Decline of US soft power guarantees instability and major power conflicts

Mazarr 2017 - Senior Political Scientist @ the Rand Corporation
Michael, "Preserving the Post-War Order," The Washington Quarterly, Vol 40 No 2, p. 29-49

This essay has argued that the post-war order's most important effect has been to formalize and give
institutional coherence to a dominant global coalition of state and non-state actors committed to a
handful of foundational norms. The emergence of a guiding coalition and its organizing structure, the
post-war order, have created a world far less threatening to the United States and far more amenable to
its values. A reversal of that trend, the breakdown of the guiding coalition into multiple competing
groupings, would threaten U.S. interests in dramatic ways. If a fairly coherent gravitational core group
linked by a shared order gives way to hostile regional coalitions—fired by nationalism and xenophobia,
collecting local friends and allies into opposing alliances, practicing mercantilist trade policies—the
international economy would sustain grievous blows, the gravitational pull of the guiding coalition
would dissipate, and the stage would be set for a return to major-power conflict. Combined with the
mounting availability of “gray zone” and non-attributable tools of statecraft—from cyber attacks to
political manipulation to more extreme measures like engineered biological agents—such a future
would promise persistent conflict and vulnerability.
This risk is very real, because as notable as the emergence of a guiding coalition has been, that trend is
not self-sustaining. It relies on the belief that a shared international community produces prosperity—
and so a series of economic crises could fatally undermine that perception. It demands an admission
among prideful states that they can best satisfy their national ambitions within such a community—but
China and Russia could wrench the coalition apart in order to open the way for their geopolitical
ambitions. Powerful reactions to the modernizing and globalizing elements of the process have
generated grievance-fueled nationalist movements that threaten the deeper assumptions of the guiding
coalition. Sustaining a coherent guiding coalition and its institutional framework will require powerful
effort.
The guiding coalition is not self-sustaining; it will require powerful effort.

The importance of a guiding coalition and its associated institutional order points to several policy directions. The first is that the priority for
U.S. diplomacy and military relationships is to sustain and where possible deepen the coherence of the guiding coalition. This means U.S.
reaffirmation of its commitment to core alliances as well as partnerships with the value-sharing democracies that represent the coalition's most
dynamic members. It means persistent training, exercising, developing operational planning capabilities, and other steps to affirm the health of
those alliances as well as a broader set of partnerships. This reinforces, for example, the value of the U.S. Army's new advise-and-assist brigade
units, but it also means bolder outreach campaigns to members of the coalition with growing regional and global importance—including but
not limited to Argentina, Brazil, Chile, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Mexico. These countries are not interested in being recruited as American
allies, and each values its policy independence, but the United States can still seek to build ever-stronger bilateral ties and to promote their role
as leaders of the coalition.

This can take a number of forms. The context for cooperation can be set by mutual statements of strategic intent that affirm key norms of the
order, a good example being the 2015 U.S.–India “Joint Strategic Vision for the Asia–Pacific and Indian Ocean Region.”34

Washington can also work to promote useful bilateral relations among these leading coalition members—between Japan and India, for
example, or Brazil and France or Indonesia and Australia. It can offer robust assistance to rising coalition members encountering economic or
political headwinds, as in the case of Brazil and South Africa today. It can invest in cooperative or consultative networks among members of the
coalition, whether non-state (as in conferences and dialogue processes between scholars) or state-based (such as parliamentary exchanges or
military-to-military exchanges—superb examples being the U.S. Army's Pacific Pathways and the U.S. Navy's ongoing maritime exercises). The
United States should also be willing to compromise with members of the coalition on particular issues. The next time members such as Brazil
and Turkey develop a diplomatic initiative on nonproliferation, for example, Washington should welcome the step rather than punish it.

Second, even as it seeks to strengthen the coalition, the United States should develop concepts for a more complex, multi-layered and shared
international order. If the guiding coalition is to be preserved, the shifting balance of real and perceived power among its members dictates a
gradual but inevitable shift toward a more multipolar future.35

It is not only China and Russia that resent the inequities built into the current order: Countries such as Brazil, South Africa, and India, as well as
many global intergovernmental organizations (INGOs) and NGOs, have called for greater sharing of the rule-making roles. The United States can
develop concepts for a variable geometry order and identify issues on which these countries can take the global lead. In the process, the United
States should also take positive steps to make clear that it is also willing to live by the rules of the order; one powerful example would be a new
effort to ratify the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

These first two principles highlight a clear message of this analysis: The role of a cohesive guiding coalition is more vital to long-term U.S.
interests than the rigid enforcement of any one norm or treaty. The most important geopolitical and ideological work is being done by the
alignment of the core states. If a U.S. ally or friend disrespects the margins of a trade deal, or chooses to express its identity in a more culturally
conservative way, or if China presses the boundaries of freedom of navigation rights—these variances can be weathered, as long as they remain
within certain bounds and as long as the members of the coalition continue to deepen their commitment to the lion's share of its indicators.
One rule of thumb for U.S. strategy is therefore that seeking perfection in the enforcement of rules at the risk of fracturing relations with key
members of the coalition is generally self-defeating. Deciding where that tipping point lies on each issue—just how much protectionism defeats
the purpose of a treaty, or how much Chinese belligerence against the fishing fleets of regional states is unacceptable—will be a persistent
challenge for the architects of U.S. national security strategy.

The coalition is more vital to U.S. long-term interests than any one norm or treaty.

Third, given its foundational role in justifying both the guiding coalition and the order, the United States should prioritize efforts to stabilize the
institutions of a globally integrated economy. Rushing into elaborate new trade agreements is not necessary to preserve the coalition, but
continued U.S. respect for existing trade treaties and processes is essential to a larger strategy of order. Yet, the economic foundations of the
coalition are under unprecedented post-war threat today, given rising skepticism about trade in many countries and the rise of populist parties
who broadly agree on more nationalistic, mercantilist approaches to trade. Sustaining some degree of consensus requires, more than anything,
new ideas—ways to deal with frustration over the costs of trade and globalization, innovations to fill the space between classic trade
liberalization and either stagnation or rising mercantilism and protectionism. What is needed now is U.S. leadership to hold the line on existing
trade accords, avoid backsliding, strengthen habits and rules designed to avoid financial crises—and begin a dialogue on the shape of a new
phase of global economic cooperation.

Fourth, sustaining the guiding coalition will demand backing off the most extreme manifestations of liberal value promotion. It is not only
Russia and China that are concerned with armed liberal interventionism, whether stabilization operations or slow-motion regime change. Card-
carrying liberal members of the coalition such as Brazil, India, and South Africa all take a more restrained view of the best way to promote the
values of democracy and human rights. Moreover, in a more multipolar era, the United States will have little choice but to be more patient
when dealing with some coalition states that are less than full democracies but otherwise supportive of its objectives and norms. In fact, the
skeptics have a point: While the United States can and should speak to the long-term prospects for liberal values, Washington cannot head a
sustainable, shared order built on the principle that some of its leading members are actively trying to subvert the governing systems of others.
A quite energetic agenda of liberal value promotion is available that would fulfill U.S. national values without creating unnecessary tensions
with others.

Fifth, the United States should recognize and invest in the role of non-state actors in strengthening the coalition and its associated order. It is
easy to dismiss the significance of U.S. support for international NGOs, conferences, dialogues among scholars and officials, corporate
exchanges, and other forms of non-state interactions. But given the growing role of non-state components of a multi-tier guiding coalition, their
importance should not be underestimated. The United States can support a wide range of such groups and processes through direct financial
means, by using its convening power, or as an active participant. Indeed, there is much room for innovation in this area—sponsoring powerful,
wide-ranging, new public-private endeavors to bring the growing muscle of non-state actors to bear in a more coordinated and urgent way on
key issues, such as a corporate/NGO/government alliance on renewable energy technology. Anne-Marie Slaughter has defined a number of
specific types of networks—resilience, task, and scale—and provided examples of how the United States might work to catalyze efforts in each
category. Such investments can play a critical role in strengthening the burgeoning non-state connective tissue of the coalition and wider order.

Sixth and finally, the United States should use the coalition and order as the foundation for its approach to two major potential outliers—Russia
and China. Both of these countries deserve a detailed treatment that will not be possible here. Yet, it is the relative unity of the guiding
coalition that provides the United States with essential leverage in dealing with both. In a more multi-speed, variable-geometry world, the
concept no longer has to be one in which China, for example, simply “joins” a U.S.-led order. But the fundamental U.S. strategy could be a by-
product of emphasizing the coalition and its accompanying institutional order. It would engage China productively in every possible shared
norm and effort of that group—indeed, the United States ought to hold out to China the prospect of co-leadership of the gravitational center of
world politics. But because of the uncertainties in China's future direction, it can also work closely with the core group members to signal the
boundaries China must respect to gain such a position.

Six basic elements of a U.S. grand strategy for the coming decade and beyond follow.

These six basic elements can reflect the fundamental components of a U.S. grand strategy for the
coming decade and beyond. It would seek to shore up the guiding coalition that has stabilized world
politics, continue investing in the international order that has helped formalize that community, be
willing to step back from the occasional liberal overreach of the last two decades, and work patiently to
shape China's role relative to the order's norms and values. Such an agenda ought to make clear the
continued importance of U.S. leadership: It is the motive force for many key policy directions, and it can
still serve as the “partner of choice” for most, if not all, members of the gravitational core group. Absent
U.S. leadership, the coherence of the guiding coalition is likely to ebb away. An America slashing support
for the United Nations, foreign aid, trade agreements, NGOs, environmental treaties, or other
institutions of the post-war order will have less ability to shape the direction of a world community
increasingly linked by such institutions and processes.

Indeed, the existence of something like a guiding coalition provides yet more evidence that U.S.
investments in the post-war order have been a tremendous geopolitical bargain. U.S. support for the
order has helped solidify the guiding coalition and enhanced its coercive power, and has legitimized U.S.
leadership in the eyes of others. The result is to gain incalculable global advantage through the
predominant influence of the coalition. Yet, this advantage cannot be taken for granted: If the
combination of U.S. power and leadership and the informal mechanisms of the guiding coalition were to
weaken, the result might easily be a fragmentation of the international system and resulting instability
and conflict that would cost the United States far more than its modest contributions to the
international order.

This, then, is the United States' fundamental choice today—whether, and in what form, to continue
paying a price on behalf of a stable and prosperous international order. Nothing less than the future
shape of world politics may be at stake.

This is particularly harmful to science diplomacy, causes disease spread and guts
competitiveness
Maxman 2017 – citing Former White House science adviser John Holdren
Amy, "Obama science adviser: Trump immigration ban ‘an abomination’," Jan 30,
www.nature.com/news/obama-science-adviser-trump-immigration-ban-an-abomination-1.21400
Former White House science adviser John Holdren has condemned US President Donald Trump’s decision to temporarily ban all refugees and
citizens of seven majority-Muslim countries from entering the United States. Holdren, who served nearly eight years under President Barack
Obama, told Nature on 30 January that the ban is “perverse”, “an abomination, and a terrible, terrible idea”. The executive order enacted on 27
January will not increase the country’s security, he adds, and may damage it by sending an offensive message to Muslims, who make up almost
one-quarter of the world’s population. “If the ban is maintained, it will damage a wide array of collaborations in
science and technology around the world,” says Holdren, who led the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy from 2009
until earlier this month. “A more prosperous world is a more stable world, and it’s clear that innovations in science and
technology drive economic growth.” The ban has inspired shock, fear and confusion among researchers in the United States and
around the world. It prevents refugees from entering the country for 120 days, and bars those from Syria indefinitely. Citizens from Iran, Iraq,
Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen are banned for 90 days. Uncertainty The US government has offered conflicting interpretations about
how the policy applies to people from the seven countries who hold visas allowing them to live, work or study in the United States. The White
House now says that people with the permanent-resident visas called green cards will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis if they seek to enter
the country. However, many researchers told Nature that airlines have erred on the side of caution, and have
decided not to allow anyone with passports from these countries to board connecting flights to the
United States because of uncertainty about the changing rules. Trump defended the ban in a statement issued on 29
January. “This is not about religion — this is about terror and keeping our country safe,” he said. But Holdren says that Trump’s
immigration stance could begin to undermine the international science ties that Obama sought to build during his
eight years in office — and, in doing so, could make the world less safe. Such relationships also aid the United
States, he argues, by helping other nations to improve their ability to respond to global emergencies such
as pandemics. “Our scientific collaborations with China mean we get notice on influenza outbreaks
immediately so that we can develop vaccines to target the right strain of the virus months ahead of time,” Holdren says. Holdren is also
shaken by reports that government science agencies have instructed their employees not to talk to Congress or to the press. In at least some
cases, those orders have reportedly come from high-ranking civil servants at the science agencies, rather than from the White House itself.
“During a transition, there is a tendency to want to get the new teams up to speed before they communicate to the press, but what has
happened so far is beyond what is normal for transitions,” Holdren says. “I suspect that the combination of swiftness and comprehensiveness
of the Trump team’s restrictions may well be unprecedented.”

Science diplomacy solves all global threats — empirics

Berkman 6/12 — Paul Arthur Berkman (Scientific American), 6-12-2018, "Could Science Diplomacy Be the Key to Stabilizing
International Relations?," Scientific American, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/could-science-diplomacy-be-the-key-to-stabilizing-
international-relations/, [accessed: 6/18/18] — JPark
It’s no secret that United States–Russia relations are currently rife with tension and mistrust. The news is full of reports of Russia meddling in U.S. elections, seeding U.S. media with fake news, supporting the Syrian regime and so on. The relationship between the two countries has

reached an all-time low since the fall of the Soviet Union, with some going so far as to call it a new “cold war.” Diplomats have been unable to mend the relationship, as national security interests on each side are too narrow to provide common ground. But there are
avenues of collaboration beyond the security realm that can help to balance strained relationships,
maintain open channels of communication and build trust, enabling a more positive diplomatic
process overall. One key avenue is science science brings allies and adversaries together . As a common and apolitical language,

with technology and innovation to address cross-border challenges that exist across the Earth think –

climate, disease pandemics and international trade which are out of reach for a single nation to –

address alone . Since the 1950s, the U.S. and Russia have been cooperating continuously in a four specific international spaces – the high seas, Antarctica, outer space and deep sea – and the mechanism for cooperation has consistently been science. For instance,

they cooperate on the 1959 Antarctic Treaty, which preserves the continent for peaceful purposes as the first nuclear arms agreement with scientific research as the basis for international cooperation. Similarly, in space, collaboration between the U.S. and the Soviet Union on the Apollo-
Soyuz Test Project in 1975 led to the design of an international docking system, creating a physical bridge for subsequent operations and joint experiments that we see with the International Space Station today. The term “science diplomacy” is recently coined, with the first book in this

science can help bridge

new field emerging from the 2009 Antarctic Treaty Summit. But this diplomatic approach has long existed in practice. As both an academic who studies science diplomacy and a practitioner who implements it, I suggest that

contemporary political differences between the superpowers as well as other actors, promoting
cooperation and preventing conflict across the world.

A different avenue for diplomacy

People usually think of diplomacy as how states represent themselves and negotiate to advance their own interests. These are the fraught high-level talks between nations that are featured on newspapers’ front pages. Diplomats on each side angle and negotiate to come out on top of a

particular issue with political expediency. Picture the sit-down in Singapore between President Trump and North Korea’s Kim Jong Un. Science diplomacy is different, operating across a c ontinuum of urgencies from political to sustainability time scales. Nations are
still coming together to discuss and resolve cross-border issues . But what’s on the table revolves around common interests revealed across generations by science – including

natural sciences and social sciences as well as indigenous knowledge – providing a foundation for negotiation that is far less politically charged and divisive to discuss and resolve the topics of the day. For example, countries came together to share resources and design a joint response to

Science diplomacy also

two recent pandemics: Zika in Latin America and Ebola in West Africa. Following the easing of U.S.-Cuba relations in December 2014, scientists from the two countries began to collaborate on cancer research.

supports economic prosperity, balancing environmental protection and societal well-being through
innovation. Countries are sharing and collaborating on technologies that will help transition resource-
based economies to knowledge-based economies This kind of cooperation can yield poverty-alleviating .

solutions with sustainable development goa

along progress across a suite of ls. Science diplomacy is also about contributing to informed decision-making by sharing evidence and options, without advocacy. This

a group of diplomats got together in a

kind of exchange helps ensure the diplomatic process is objective and inclusive, relying on our leaders to make decisions that have legacy value. Imagine if

negotiating room to assess and design a response to a pandemic without consulting and involving
medical and public health experts. It wouldn’t make sense . The recent Iran nuclear deal, for instance, relied on scientists’ expertise to build common interests among nations as the
prelude for an agreement, providing an ongoing basis for cooperation despite political variability. Collaboration between scientists from different countries can help create pathways for working together on controversial issues, more generally. For example, SESAME is the Middle East’s
first major international research center. It’s designed to host both Israeli and Palestinian scientists. Instead of career diplomats and statesmen focused on pushing national agendas, researchers a nd practitioners with particular scientific expertise are focusing on research to address
shared questions, divorced from politics. The CERN particle accelerators in Europe have demonstrated the value of this kind of scientific collaboration among nations since the 1950s. And with cooperation and trust among scientists from diverse nations, there can be a ripple effect of
goodwill between the nations involved, including agreements that would otherwise be difficult or impossible to negotiate at the time with any hope of continuity.

An Arctic environment example

My own involvement with U.S.-Russia relations started with chairing the first formal dialogue between NATO and Russia regarding environmental security in the Arctic Ocean. This 2010 dialogue at the University of Cambridge was funded by NATO along with other organizations and co-
directed with the Moscow State Institute of International Relations. It involved four Russian ministries with representative to the president of Russia as well as experts and senior diplomats from 16 other nations. As academics, my Russian colleagues and I were able to create an apolitical
platform for a conversation that had never taken place. Matters related to military security had otherwise prevented open consideration of strategies to promote cooperation and prevent conflict around the North Pole, which remains a region of significant strategic int erest with nuclear
submarines. Here, science diplomacy brought together two long-estranged actors to productively address a security issue of common interest to both. Since 2009, and despite ongoing diplomatic tensions, the U.S. and Russia have co-chaired three task forces under the auspices of the
Arctic Council, the region’s intergovernmental forum for sustainable development and environmental protection. And they’ve successfully led to three binding legal agreements among all eight Arctic states: Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, along with Russia and

The most recent agreement just came into force in May 2018 to enhance international Arctic
the U.S.

scientific cooperation International scientific collaboration is essential to pursue

. It reflects an understanding among these nations:

sustainable solutions, transcending national interests to maintain peace, stability and constructive
cooperation in the Arctic. Science diplomacy offers a route that works both politically and practically .

International agreements, without politics

Science is a neutral platform that allows for less politically charged dialogues which in turn create ,

bridges that help overall diplomatic efforts. science diplomacy has helped build common ground Over the years,

and peacefully manage international spaces, as well as achieve technological breakthroughs that have
global relevance, from health care to the digital revolution . There is every reason for science to continue helping to maintain important channels of communication in the face of current

For today’s globally interconnected and growing civilization, which is confronting rapid
tensions and all yet to come.

transformation on the back of advances in science, technology and innovation, science diplomacy offers
a unique process to build our common future.
 1AC — Health Advantage
Travel ban exacterbates the doctor shortages
Japsen 17 --- [Bruce is a contributor for Forbes who specializes in healthcare policy, Forbes, “How
Trump's Travel Ban Worsens Doctor Shortage”, 1/29/17,
https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2017/01/29/how-trumps-travel-ban-worsens-doctor-
shortage/#409133411c27] jk

President Donald Trump’s

executive order on immigration that temporarily bans people from seven largely Muslim countries
could exacerbate the U.S. doctor shortage and hurt patient care for thousands of Americans. As the story of
a Cleveland Clinic doctor forced to leave the U.S. thanks to the Trump White House’s move swept the nation, hospitals and academic medical
centers braced for potential damage to future staffing and recruiting of medical researchers, educators and clinicians. Healthcare providers said
the executive order lacked clarity and they struggled to understand what was to come after Trump’s call Sunday on Twitter for “extreme
vetting.” Adding to confusion were conflicting messages coming out of the White House on Sunday talk shows about whether green card
holders would be subject to the executive order. “There is a lack of clarity in all of this,” Dr. Atul Grover, the Association of American Medical
Colleges' executive vice president, said in an interview Sunday evening. AAMC’s membership includes all 147 accredited U.S. medical schools
and nearly 400 teaching hospitals, health systems and academic medical centers. The
executive order could impact patient
care of hundreds of thousands of patients because 260 people have applied for medical residency from
the seven countries impacted by Trump’s executive order, AAMC said. If they are all matched to U.S. residencies, these
260 doctors would “all be seeing 3,000 patients each if they were all to match,” Grover. The AAMC said one-quarter of
physicians practicing in the U.S. are international medical graduates . “We’re all trying to figure out what’s going on,”
Grover said. The AAMC has already warned that nation’s shortage of doctors will rise to between 61,700
and 94,700 by 2025 as the U.S. population ages, more people gain health coverage and policymakers promise greater access to medical
care. Those who help hospitals find doctors amid the physician shortage say their clients are concerned. “In
2016, 31% of the physicians placed by our clients were internationally trained,” the Medicus Firm's Andrea Clement
said Sunday. The staffing firm said that percentage means they completed medical school outside the U.S. and most of them were foreign-born.
"Of those internationally trained physicians placed, some were on visa status, some have green cards and some are U.S. citizens,” she added.
ProPublica reported that Dr. Suha Abushamma of the Cleveland Clinic, confronted by federal agents, had to decide whether to “leave the
country voluntarily and withdraw her visa” or be deported, so she chose to return to Saudi Arabia. ProPublica said she “held an H-1B visa for
workers in ‘specialty occupations’ and a passport from Sudan, one of the seven countries listed on the executive order. But even though a
federal judge blocked part of Trump’s executive order, confusion spread among hospitals and the academic medical community. " In the
midst of a physician shortage we can ill afford to bar qualified physicians who have adhered to both U.S. legal
requirements and medical licensing requirements from treating patients--particularly in underserved areas," said Phil Miller, vice president at
physician staffing firm MerrittHawkins. "Internationally
trained physicians now comprise 25% of all physicians in
patient care in the U.S. and are playing key roles in research and innovation," Miller added. "These doctors
are saving lives, not threatening them. Reducing the number of H and J physicians will only make it harder for hospitals and medical
groups to fill their staffs and harder for patients to obtain quality care." The Medicus Firm’s Clement said executives are closely monitoring the
situation for client hospitals that employ physicians on "H1-B or J-1 visas from certain countries.” “As the status of the situation is changing day
to day, it’s difficult to say what the impact of this ban may be on the physician workforce in the long term, or even the short term," Clement
said. Primary care doctors, in particular, are in short supply. Family physicians, pediatricians and internists are needed as
trends in insurance payment emphasize population health and value-based care, moving away from fee-for-service medicine that leads to
excess and unnecessary tests and procedures. Already, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has said it will increase value-based
payments while big insurers Aetna AET -0.8%, UnitedHealth Group UNH -1.82%, Anthem WLP +0%, Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans and others
are moving to do the same.

Specifically, the Travel Ban restricts doctors that are key to rural areas
- at: us doctors solve

Freyer 17 --- [Felice J. Freyer covers health policy and public health for the Boston Globe, Boston Globe,
“Doctors from banned countries serve millions of Americans, analysis finds”, 3/16/17,
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/03/06/doctors-from-banned-countries-serve-millions-
americans-analysis-finds/wqvN01IEORXh6ZduHydQrL/story.html] jk

Immigrant doctors from the six Muslim-majority countries included in President Trump’s revised travel ban
play a critical role in caring for Americans, especially in many of the Rust Belt and rural areas that voted
heavily for the Republican, according to an analysis by graduate students in economics at Harvard University and MIT. The
economists found that these doctors, who handle about 14 million patient visits a year, are unevenly
distributed across the country, often settling in areas where American doctors are reluctant to work.
The researchers — who are pursuing doctorates in economics or have recently earned that degree — found the US physician
workforce includes more than 7,000 doctors who attended medical school in Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan,
Syria, and Yemen. Those are the six countries whose citizens are banned from entering the United States
unless they already have a visa or green card, under Trump’s new order. But the travel ban will not immediately affect doctors already working
here. “There’s a lot of benefit that comes with having people like doctors immigrate to the US. These doctors are not concentrated in rich parts
of the country,” said Mitra Akhtari, one of the project’s leaders, who is pursuing a PhD at Harvard. One-quarter of America’s physicians are
foreign-born. Immigrant doctors are often the mainstays of medical care in rural areas , with hospitals providing
incentives, such as sponsoring visas or helping the doctors get status as permanent residents. The young economists’ analysis, released to
coincide with the president’s order, found
a high concentration of doctors from the banned countries working in
the Rust Belt and Appalachia. Those physicians handle 1.2 million patient visits per year in Michigan;
880,000 in Ohio; 700,000 in Pennsylvania; and 210,000 in West Virginia. The five American cities with the highest
share of doctors from targeted countries are Toledo and Dayton, Ohio; Detroit; Los Angeles; and Cleveland. The five specialties with the highest
percentages of doctors from the six countries are cardiology, pathology, neurology, gastroenterology, and internal medicine. The researchers
estimated that just over 150 doctors from the banned countries work in Greater Boston. Eastern Massachusetts has a relatively low
concentration of such doctors. A
recent study in the journal BMJ suggests foreign-born doctors may provide
better care than their American counterparts. The study found that older Medicare patients were less
likely to die when cared for by foreign-trained internists. But the travel ban has put teaching hospitals
under pressure to reject medical students from the six nations when selecting residents for post-graduate training, for fear
that Trump’s immigration policies will bar the residents from entering the country. Even as revised Monday, the
travel ban will disrupt medical education, according to the American College of Physicians, which represents internists. Fourth-
year medical students will learn March 17 which residency program has accepted them and will need to start July 1. Dr. Nitin S. Damle,
president of the internists’ group, said the 90-day ban will not leave enough time for students to obtain visas. “Each medical resident treats
thousands of patients over the course of a year,” Damle said, calling for an exception for medical residents. The economists drew their data
from Doximity, an online network with information about virtually every practicing physician in the United States. The students culled the
physicians who earned medical degrees in the six countries and looked up the ZIP codes for their workplaces. The researchers limited their
count to the 827,522 for whom they could obtain both medical school information and ZIP code. Four of the 10 people who worked on the
analysis are immigrants, Akhtari said. She moved to the United States from Iran when she was 13 and is a naturalized citizen. The students did
the analysis on their own, separate from their academic work, as a form of what Akhtari called “data activism.” “It’s not sustainable to continue
to go to protests week after week,” she said. “This is our way of trying to make a difference.”

Independently, lack of access to health care at the rural level puts 85 million lives at
risk
Harrison and Templeton 18 (Suzanne AND Kim; president and past president, respectively, of the
American Medical Women’s Association, “Rural America's Health Care Crisis,” 3/15,
https://www.realclearhealth.com/articles/2018/03/15/rural_americas_health_care_crisis.html)ww

Rural communities are facing a crisis that, while quiet, is threatening millions. As hospitals in these
communities close and services are cut, many Americans are losing access to quality health care. Since
2010, more than 80 rural hospitals have shuttered. The National Rural Health Association, a non-profit that advocates for
rural issues, estimates that there are as many as 700 more rural hospitals at risk of closing in the next 10 years.
Just last month, the county commissioners of Decatur County, Tennessee, voted to close the county hospital. And even in cases where these
hospitals stay afloat, critical services end up being axed. Often, obstetric services are atop the chopping block: between 2004 to 2014, 9 percent
of all rural counties lost access to hospital obstetric services. This is why emergency air medical services are now so essential: They ensure
Americans living in rural communities have access to critical care when accidents, strokes, and heart attacks occur. While
new
technologies such as telemedicine can connect patients and physicians in remote communities for
general health care needs, air ambulances have become the last — and sometimes only — link to immediate, critical care in many
parts of the country. When medical emergencies strike, it is imperative to access the right kind of care as
quickly and safely as possible. According to the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, fewer than half of women
living in rural areas are within a 30-minute drive of the nearest hospital, and only 88 percent are within a 60-minute drive. In Alabama, only 16
of the state’s 54 rural counties have hospitals providing obstetrical services. This means that many women must drive an hour or more just to
deliver their babies or get access to basic prenatal care. It wasn’t always this way. For instance, in 1980, 45 of Alabama’s 54 rural county
hospitals offered obstetrical care. As hospitals continue closing their doors, rural communities will be farther and farther away from quality
health care. If access to high-quality health care becomes more difficult for expectant mothers, they run the risk of unexpected labor, which can
put both the mother’s health and that of her newborn in jeopardy. Today,
one in four Americans — or 85 million people —
can only get to a hospital with a Level I or II trauma center in under an hour if flown by helicopter. That’s
pretty significant when you consider the immediate and sometimes life-threatening health care needs of
a stroke victim, or those suffering heart attacks or traumatic injuries. In these cases, timely and
definitive care is a must. But in places like Carson, North Dakota, ambulance services shut down in late 2014 and there is growing fear
among residents that the 1.6 thousand miles of Grant County, where Carson is located, will lose access to services altogether.

Travel ban decks ability to solve disease

Robeznieks 18 --- [Andis Robeznieks is a Senior Staff Writer for the AMA, AMA Wire, “Travel ban
threatens to worsen access to care”, 4/24/18, https://wire.ama-assn.org/ama-news/travel-ban-
threatens-worsen-access-care] jk

The Trump administration argues that its executive order severely limiting immigration or business and tourist
travel to and from eight countries is necessary to promote national security. The Association of American Medical Colleges, the
AMA and 33 other health care professional organizations argue that it will have the opposite effect. “From a
legal standpoint, it’s an issue of health security,” AAMC Executive Vice President Atul Grover, MD, PhD, told AMA Wire®. “The premise of the
executive order is that we have to keep people out to keep us safe. But you’re keeping people out who are going to take
care of us.” The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments April 25 in Trump v. Hawaii, a case involving a presidential executive
order officially known as proclamation No. 9645, prohibiting immigration or limiting business and tourist travel to and from North Korea,
Venezuela, and six Muslim-majority nations: Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen. The AAMC filed an amicus brief that was joined by the
AMA and 33 other professional associations in support of the state of Hawaii and other plaintiffs seeking to block implementation of the
president’s order. Workforce needed to meet new threats Hawaii argues that the proclamation, also known as the “travel ban,” hinders the
University of Hawaii’s retention and recruitment of students and faculty, harms the state’s tourism industry, and impairs the state’s ability to
enforce nondiscrimination laws. The AMA, AAMC and the others argue the ban exacerbates the growing
physician shortage, widens workforce gaps in underserved areas, disrupts U.S. physician-training
programs, and impedes the collaboration of scientists and health professionals seeking to prevent, prepare
for and manage public health threats. “Over the next several decades, the percentage of older Americans will
increase, with patients needing care for a variety of chronic health conditions such as heart disease, cancer, emphysema,
stroke, diabetes, and Alzheimer’s disease,” the brief states. “The risk of a pandemic is also growing, given that infectious
diseases can spread around the globe in a matter of days due to increased urbanization and
international travel. These conditions pose a threat to America’s health security—the nation’s preparedness and
resilience in the face of incidents with health consequences. To address these threats, highly qualified individuals from
other countries are needed in the health workforce to help care for patients and conduct biomedical
research, according to the brief. “That’s what makes us a leader: Our diversity and our ability to attract the best and the brightest
from all over the world,” Dr. Grover said. “Anything that would limit our ability to do that doesn’t sit quite right with
science and health care professionals.” He noted how Congress has developed specific programs to create pathways for highly
skilled and carefully screened professionals from other countries to immigrate to the U.S. These include the Conrad 30 program, which has
resulted in more than 15,000 physicians practicing in underserved areas. The brief tells how the president’s proclamation bars physicians from
Iran and Syria from obtaining the work visa needed to participate in the Conrad 30 program. Care
for veterans, rural areas at risk
Most are unaware of the coming doctor shortage and how the travel ban could speed its arrival and
worsen its impact, Dr. Grover said. “I don’t think most people understand the immigration system,” he said. “Or they don’t understand
the intricacies of the physician workforce. They just expect someone to be there when they need them.” The brief notes that, in addition to
providing care in underserved areas, physicians from other countries are a significant portion of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
workforce. Accordingto a study cited in the brief, there were an estimated 3,899 physicians in the U.S. in
2015 who had received training in Syria and 3,043 who had trained in Iran. Based on
national averages, those two groups of
physicians collectively provide care during 14 million patient visits annually. The brief cites AAMC’s figures that the
U.S. has a shortage of between 29,500 and 37,800 physicians and projects a shortage of between 42,600 and 121,300
physicians by 2030. “This would be hurting the most vulnerable people in our society,” Dr. Grover said of the travel ban. The proclamation
before the court is the third iteration of an executive order from the administration seeking to implement nationality-based immigration
restrictions. Dr. Grover said a central concern of his organization’s members is that they don’t want there to be anything that prevents the
arrival of “that next doctor or scientist who could be helping patients the most.”

Pandemics risk extinction – no burnout, human transportation is reaching the tipping

point for global contagion
Bar-Yam 16 (Yaneer, MIT PhD, Founding President of the New England Complex Systems Institute,
PhD in Physics, “Transition to extinction: Pandemics in a connected world,” NECSI, July 3, 2016,
http://necsi.edu/research/social/pandemics/transition)
Watch as one of the more aggressive—brighter red — strains rapidly expands. After a time it goes extinct leaving a black region. Why does it go
extinct? The answer is that it spreads so rapidly that it kills the hosts around it. Without new hosts to infect it then dies out itself. That the
rapidly spreading pathogens die out has important implications for evolutionary research which we have talked about elsewhere [1–7]. In the
research I want to discuss here, what we were interested in is the effect of adding long range transportation [8]. This includes natural means of
dispersal as well as unintentional dispersal by humans, like adding airplane routes, which is being done by real world airlines (Figure 2). [
FIGURE 2 OMITTED ] When we introduce long range transportation into the model, the success of more
aggressive strains changes. They can use the long range transportation to find new hosts and escape local
extinction. Figure 3 shows that the more transportation routes introduced into the model, the more higher
aggressive pathogens are able to survive and spread. [ FIGURE 3 OMITTED ] As we add more long range transportation,
there is a critical point at which pathogens become so aggressive that the entire host population dies.
The pathogens die at the same time, but that is not exactly a consolation to the hosts. We call this the phase transition to
extinction (Figure 4). With increasing levels of global transportation, human civilization may be
approaching such a critical threshold. Figure 4: The probability of survival makes a sharp transition (red line)
from one to zero as we add more long range transportaion (horizontal axis). The right line (black) holds for different
model parameters, so we need to study at what point the transition will take place for our world. In the paper we wrote in 2006 about the
dangers of global transportation for pathogen evolution and pandemics [8], we mentioned the risk from Ebola. Ebola is a horrendous disease
that was present only in isolated villages in Africa. It was far away from the rest of the world only because of that isolation. Since Africa was
developing, it was only a matter of time before it reached population centers and airports. While the model is about evolution, it is really about
which pathogens will be found in a system that is highly connected, and Ebola can spread in a highly connected world. The
traditional
approach to public health uses historical evidence analyzed statistically to assess the potential impacts
of a disease. As a result, many were surprised by the spread of Ebola through West Africa in 2014. As the
connectivity of the world increases, past experience is not a good guide to future events. A key point
about the phase transition to extinction is its suddenness. Even a system that seems stable, can be
destabilized by a few more long-range connections, and connectivity is continuing to increase. So how
close are we to the tipping point? We don’t know but it would be good to find out before it happens. While Ebola ravaged three
countries in West Africa, it only resulted in a handful of cases outside that region. One possible reason is that many of the airlines that fly to
west Africa stopped or reduced flights during the epidemic [9]. In the absence of a clear connection, public health authorities who downplayed
the dangers of the epidemic spreading to the West might seem to be vindicated. As with the choice of airlines to stop flying to west Africa, our
analysis didn’t take into consideration how people respond to epidemics. It does tell us what the outcome will be unless we respond
fast enough and well enough to stop the spread of future diseases, which may not be the same as the ones we saw in
the past. As the world becomes more connected, the dangers increase. Are people in western countries safe because of
higher quality health systems? Countries like the U.S. have highly skewed networks of social interactions with some
very highly connected individuals that can be “superspreaders.” The chances of such an individual
becoming infected may be low but events like a mass outbreak pose a much greater risk if they do
happen. If a sick food service worker in an airport infects 100 passengers, or a contagion event happens in mass
transportation, an outbreak could very well prove unstoppable.

The travel ban crushes the US biomedical industry

Hellmann 17 --- [Jessie Hellmann is a national health care reporter at the Hill, The Hill, 2/7/17, “Drug
researchers warn Trump's travel ban will hurt anti-disease work”,
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/318261-drug-researchers-urge-reversal-of-trumps-travel-ban-it-
will-slow-the-fight] jk

More than 100 leaders in the biotech community warned President Trump that his travel ban could deeply
damage U.S. leadership in the development of new medicines. In a letter published in Nature Biotech, a top scientific
journal, founders and leaders of biotechnology companies expressed "deep concern and opposition" to the
travel ban, which bars citizens from seven majority-Muslim countries from entering the United States. "If this misguided policy is
not reversed, America is at risk of losing its leadership position in one of its most important sectors, one
that will shape the world in the twenty-first century," the letter reads. "Indeed, it will harm an industry
dominated by smaller companies and startups, the very kind of industry the administration has said it
wants to support. It will slow the fight against the many diseases that afflict us, as well as carry negative
economic consequences for the United States." The letter notes that 52 percent of biomedical researchers in
the U.S. are foreign-born. Researchers who are in the U.S. on visas or traveling are "fearful" and "uncertain" of their status, the letter
reads. "Scientists based in other countries and employed by our companies are afraid to come to the
United States or are canceling trips. The parents and families of immigrants who live and work in the United States are reluctant to
attempt to travel to and from the US," the letter says. "Though the ban from the Trump administration is aimed at seven
countries, our global employees interpret the underlying message as, "America is no longer welcoming
of any immigrants, whatsoever." They fear similar orders could be issued for other countries at a moment’s notice. They fear
being stigmatized and discriminated against, simply because of their religion, irrespective of the nation they come from."
Other groups in the medical industry have also questioned the travel ban, noting that doctors and other
medical professionals often come to the U.S. from other countries. "We recognize the importance of national security,
but current entry and renewal pathways for foreign nationals — including student, temporary visitor, extraordinary ability and employment
visas — provide a balanced approach that attracts the best and brightest from around the world and advances U.S. interests through
educational and cultural exchange," reads a letter signed by dozens of medical groups, including the American Public Health Association and
the Association of American Medical Colleges. "Impeding
these pathways jeopardizes critical access to health care for
our nation's most vulnerable populations." A federal judge last week issued a temporary stop to the travel ban while it is
challenged in court. A federal appeals court on Sunday denied the Trump administration's request to immediately reinstate the ban.

Biotech innovation’s key to resolve a laundry list of societal threats

ICAF, 2010 (Industrial College of the Armed Forces, National Defense University, Authors include many US military colonels and faculty
of the National Defense University, “Biotechnology 2010”, Spring 2010, http://es.ndu.edu/Portals/75/Documents/industry-
study/reports/2010/icaf-is-report-biotechnology-2010.pdf)
Biotechnology has the potential to solve some of the most complex problems of the 21st century. As an
industry, biotechnology is unparalleled in its potential to impact global health, food and water security,
energy security, and the environment. This innovation-based industry is strategically significant because
it impacts both national security and the sustained growth of the domestic economy. For the United States
to maintain its current competitive advantage in the industry, it must focus on policy and investments which
strengthen the industry’s ability to rapidly innovate and to transform innovative ideas into products and
services for the global market. The purpose of this report is to conduct a strategic level examination of the
biotechnology industry – an industry vital to the nation’s security and economic welfare. The study
includes over fifty activities spanning lectures by leading biotechnology experts and field visits to important
government and corporate organizations. The industry study program includes travel to key domestic and international biotechnology centers
such as Boston, Chicago, San Francisco, Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia, and Japan. The
study methodology uses critical thinking
to analyze the structure, conduct and performance of the biotechnology industry and market sectors. This
includes using the five forces of competition (new entrants, supplier power, buyer power, substitutes and the degree of rivalry) to assess the
capacity and capability of U.S. biotechnology firms to deliver globally competitive products and services. Additionally, the
methodology
evaluates the biotechnology industry’s performance in meeting national security interest and promoting
economic growth.

__Econ collapse causes extinction

Mann 14 (Eric Mann is a special agent with a United States federal agency, with significant domestic
and international counterintelligence and counter-terrorism experience. Worked as a special assistant
for a U.S. Senator and served as a presidential appointee for the U.S. Congress. He is currently
responsible for an internal security and vulnerability assessment program. Bachelors @ University of
South Carolina, Graduate degree in Homeland Security @ Georgetown. “AUSTERITY, ECONOMIC
DECLINE, AND FINANCIAL WEAPONS OF WAR: A NEW PARADIGM FOR GLOBAL SECURITY,” May 2014,
https://jscholarship.library.jhu.edu/bitstream/handle/1774.2/37262/MANN-THESIS-2014.pdf)

The conclusions reached in this thesis demonstrate how economicconsiderations within states can figure prominently
into the calculus for future conflicts. The findings also suggest that security issues with economic or financial
underpinnings will transcend classical determinants of war and conflict, and change the manner by
which rival states engage in hostile acts toward one another. The research shows that security concerns
emanating from economic uncertainty and the inherent vulnerabilities within global financial markets
will present new challenges for national security, and provide developing states new asymmetric options
for balancing against stronger states.¶ The security areas, identified in the proceeding chapters, are likely to mature
into global security threats in the immediate future. As the case study on South Korea suggest, the overlapping
security issues associated with economic decline and reduced military spending by the United States will
affect allied confidence in America’s security guarantees. The study shows that this outcome could cause
regional instability or realignments of strategic partnerships in the Asia-pacific region with ramifications
for U.S. national security. Rival states and non-state groups may also become emboldened to challenge
America’s status in the unipolar international system.¶ The potential risks associated with stolen or loose WMD,
resulting from poor security, can also pose a threat to U.S. national security. The case study on Pakistan, Syria and
North Korea show how financial constraints affect weapons security making weapons vulnerable to theft, and
how financial factors can influence WMD proliferation by contributing to the motivating factors behind a trusted insider’s
decision to sell weapons technology. The inherent vulnerabilities within the global financial markets will provide
terrorists’ organizations and other non-state groups, who object to the current international system or distribution of
power, with opportunities to disrupt global finance and perhaps weaken America’s status. A more ominous
threat originates from states intent on increasing diversification of foreign currency holdings, establishing alternatives to the dollar for
international trade, or engaging financial warfare against the United States.

__Food insecurity causes nuclear war

FDI 12, --- (Future Directions International, a Research institute providing strategic analysis of
Australia’s global interests; citing Lindsay Falvery, PhD in Agricultural Science and former Professor at
the University of Melbourne’s Institute of Land and Environment, “Food and Water Insecurity:
International Conflict Triggers & Potential Conflict Points,”
http://www.futuredirections.org.au/workshop-papers/537-international-conflict-triggers-and-potential-
conflict-points-resulting-from-food-and-water-insecurity.html)

There is a growing appreciation that the conflicts in the next century will most likely be fought over a lack
of resources. Yet, in a sense, this is not new. Researchers point to the French and Russian revolutions as
conflicts induced by a lack of food. More recently, Germany’s World War Two efforts are said to have been
inspired, at least in part, by its perceived need to gain access to more food. Yet the general sense among those that
attended FDI’s recent workshops, was that the scale of the problem in the future could be significantly greater as a
result of population pressures, changing weather, urbanisation, migration, loss of arable land and other farm inputs, and increased affluence in
the developing world. In his book, Small Farmers Secure Food, Lindsay Falvey, a participant in FDI’s March 2012 workshop on the issue of
food and conflict, clearly expresses the problem and why countries across the globe are starting to take note. . He writes (p.36), “…if
people are hungry, especially in cities, the state is not stable – riots, violence, breakdown of law and order and migration
result.” “Hunger feeds anarchy.” This view is also shared by Julian Cribb, who in his book, The Coming Famine, writes that if “large
regions of the world run short of food, land or water in the decades that lie ahead, then wholesale, bloody wars are
liable to follow.” He continues: “An increasingly credible scenario for World War 3 is not so much a confrontation of
super powers and their allies, as a festering, self-perpetuating chain of resource conflicts.” He also says: “The wars of the
21st Century are less likely to be global conflicts with sharply defined sides and huge armies, than a scrappy mass of failed states, rebellions,
civil strife, insurgencies, terrorism and genocides, sparked by bloody competition over dwindling resources.” As another workshop participant
put it, people do not go to war to kill; they go to war over resources, either to protect or to gain the resources for themselves. Another
observed that hunger results in passivity not conflict. Conflict is over resources, not because people are going hungry. A
study by the
International Peace Research Institute indicates that where food security is an issue, it is more likely to
result in some form of conflict. Darfur, Rwanda, Eritrea and the Balkans experienced such wars.
Governments, especially in developed countries, are increasingly aware of this phenomenon. The UK Ministry of
Defence, the CIA, the US Center for Strategic and International Studies and the Oslo Peace Research Institute, all
identify famine as a potential trigger for conflicts and possibly even nuclear war.

__Environmental destruction decks biodiversity --- extinction

Science Daily 11 ("Biodiversity Key to Earth's Life-Support Functions in a Changing World," Cites
Albert-Ludwigs-Universitat Freiburg, August 11,
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110811084513.htm)

The biological diversity of organisms on Earth is not just something we enjoy when taking a walk through a blossoming meadow in spring; it is also the
basis for countless products and services provided by nature, including food, building materials, and
medicines as well as the self-purifying qualities of water and protection against erosion. These so-called
ecosystem services are what makes Earth inhabitable for humans. They are based on ecological
processes, such as photosynthesis, the production of biomass, or nutrient cycles. Since biodiversity is on the decline, both on a global and a local scale, researchers are asking the
question as to what role the diversity of organisms plays in maintaining these ecological processes and thus in providing the ecosystem's vital products and services. In an

international research group led by Prof. Dr. Michel Loreau from Canada, ecologists from ten different universities and
research institutes, including Prof. Dr. Michael Scherer-Lorenzen from the University of Freiburg, compiled findings from numerous
biodiversity experiments and reanalyzed them. These experiments simulated the loss of plant species and attempted to determine the consequences for
the functioning of ecosystems, most of them coming to the conclusion that a higher level of biodiversity is accompanied by an increase in ecosystem processes. However, the findings were
always only valid for a certain combination of environmental conditions present at the locations at which the experiments were conducted and for a limited range of ecosystem processes. In a
study published in the current issue of the journal Nature, the research group investigated the extent to which the positive effects of diversity still apply under changing environmental
conditions and when a multitude of processes are taken into account. They found that 84 percent of the 147 plant species included in the experiments promoted ecological processes in at

least one case.The more years, locations, ecosystem processes, and scenarios of global change -- such as global warming or
land use intensity -- the experiments took into account, the more plant species were necessary to guarantee the

functioning of the ecosystems. Moreover, other species were always necessary to keep the ecosystem
processes running under the different combinations of influencing factors. These findings indicate that
much more biodiversity is necessary to keep ecosystems functioning in a world that is changing ever
faster. The protection of diversity is thus a crucial factor in maintaining Earth's life-support functions.

__Water scarcity causes war

Owens 18 -- [Jasmine Owens writes for the Wisconsin International Review, “Water Wars: How Water
Scarcity Leads to Conflict”, Wisconsin International Review, 4/28/18,
https://thewire.wisc.edu/2018/04/22/water-wars-how-water-scarcity-leads-to-conflict/] jk

Although water makes up 70% of the Earth, only

3% of this water is freshwater. Of this 3%, about two-thirds is
trapped in glaciers and is therefore unusable. This leaves about 1% of the world’s water supply to
support a population of 7.7 billion people and counting, much of which is increasingly depleted by the effects of climate
change. In Cape Town, South Africa, for example, citizens were hit with severe water restrictions after a once-in-384-year drought that may
force the city to turn off its water taps within the next few months. According to the 2018 United Nations World Water Development Report,
more than 5 billion people could fall victim to water shortages by 2050 due to climate change, pollution, and
increasing demand from population growth. The projected population by this time is between 9.4 billion and 10.2
billion people, meaning that more than half of these individuals will experience water scarcity. With
diminishing freshwater resources, more conflicts are likely to break out as people fight for access to
water, especially in water-scarce regions like the Middle East and North Africa. These areas suffer from aridity,
drought, desiccation and are highly vulnerable to the effects of climate change. This delicate environment, as well as political instability, lends
this region to have an increased potential for conflict. The Six Day War in 1967 between Israel, Jordan, Egypt, and Syria, for example, was
started largely due to a water conflict. Beginning in 1953, Israel tried to divert the upper Jordan River to a pipeline that carried water from the
Sea of Galilee to the Negev desert in southern Israel. The disagreements that ensued, coupled with other contentious factors, eventually broke
out into a full-scale war between Israel and the Arab states. Inefficient
irrigation practices also aggravate the water issue,
as agriculture exhausts 85% of the region’s water. This was the case in Syria, whose government heavily encouraged farmers
to cultivate cotton, a very water-intensive crop that requires a lot of irrigation. Hardly anyone bothered to consider the environmental effects
as the popular crop took over, becoming Syria’s second largest export after oil. Poor agricultural practices and a severe
drought in the early 2000’s forced hoards of people in rural areas to migrate to already crowded urban centers
overflowing with two million Iraqi and Palestinian refugees. The United States State Department noted early on the dire
effects that this migration might have on the stability of the Syrian state. Sure enough, unbearable social and economic
pressures were placed on the state, and a civil conflict soon broke out that is still raging today. Lack of
access to water was also exploited by ISIS in their attempts to take over territory in Iraq and Syria. In
2014, when ISIS began fighting in Syria, they sought to capture the old Soviet Tabqa dam, which is a large electricity and water source for the
state. The group also tried repeatedly to gain control over the Mosul and Haditha dams, the two largest dams in Iraq. If
ISIS was to have
captured any of these dams, it would have had almost complete control over food production,
electricity generation, and the general populations of these two countries, allowing them to more easily
capture territory in those areas.
Biotech innovation’s key to minimize the risk of bioterror
ICAF, 2010 (Industrial College of the Armed Forces, National Defense University, Authors
include many US military colonels and faculty of the National Defense University,
“Biotechnology 2010”, Spring 2010, http://es.ndu.edu/Portals/75/Documents/industry-
study/reports/2010/icaf-is-report-biotechnology-2010.pdf)
Biodefense "Obama Gets 'F' on Stopping Spread of Weapons of Mass Destruction."74 This unflattering headline summarized a nineteen page
report card issued in January 2010 by the bipartisan Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and
Terrorism. The assessment was disconcerting, specifically in the area of biological threats. U.S.
public policy must address the
interrelated social, political and economic issuesaffecting our infant biodefense industries in order to meet the
desired long-term strategic goal of reducing the biothreat risk to America. The lexicon of terms associated with
biodefense is vast and often overlapping.75 Regardless of the current semantics in terminology, a natural, accidental or deliberate
release of a biologically infectious disease is the most likely threat to the public health security of the
U.S. Our lack of capabilities to recognize, respond and recover to biological events is our greatest
vulnerability.76 Addressing this shortcoming requires an industry with the capacity to meet both current
and future needs. The small industrial base of biodefense firms can work with our government to find detection
methods, preventative medicines and corrective remedies to counter biological threats in order to
improve national security. This partnership can assist in closing the gap in protecting the public from evolving and expanding
biothreats. Growing the domestic biodefense industry requires active policy measures to assist in overcoming existing social, political and
economic barriers. Mixed signals from public policies on federal research negatively impact the biodefense industry. In August 2009, the
Director, Office of Science & Technology Policy released the FY2011 Science and Technology priorities. The focus of scientific discovery and
technological innovation was articulated in the memorandum to focus on applied research strategies.77 The following month, the National
Economic Council released the Strategy for American Innovation. The
strategy for investing in the building blocks for
innovation listed the restoration of American leadership in fundamental research as a cornerstone for
sustainable growth and quality jobs.78 These mixed signals between fundamental and applied research priorities impair industry
from attaining the talent and building the infrastructure needed to support meeting these conflicting national objectives. Another area of
concern for the biodefense industy is policy gaps. Bioterrorism
is a national security issue, but it has been difficult to
translate national security policy into the domain of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The policy gap
is that traditional "guards, guns and gates" processes are unlikely to succeed in a rapidly expanding,
private-sector led global biotechnology industry. Adding national security to public health will be difficult, but these
regulations must be established to protect potentially hazardous biologies moving in global supply chains. These policies will support
biodefense projects like the Biowatch airborne biological agent warning program and the Project Bioshield initiative.79 A
natural,
accidental or deliberate biological attack against the U.S. is the most likely threat our nation will face
in the foreseeable future. Growing the capacity of the domestic biodefense industry is essential to
meeting our national goal of reducing the risk biothreats pose to our society. To attain this goal, changes to social,
political and economic policies and regulations are needed to provide incentives to the biodefense industry. Surviving biological
threats will require effective detection methods and the rapid development and commercialization of
preventative vaccines and corrective medicines by the biotechnology and biodefense industry to protect our
citizens. (CDR Jeff Hickox).

Bioterror attacks cause extinction

Miller 16 --- [Drew Miller has a PhD from Harvard University and is the Former Intelligence Officer and
Senior Executive Service Member in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, “The Age of Designer
Plagues," 9/20/16, https://www.the-american-interest.com/v/drew-miller/ The Age of Designer
Plagues]
The world is likely entering the age of bioengineered viral pandemics and collapse—BVPC for short.
New technologies like bioengineering enable terrorist groups, or even one dedicated individual, to
modify and release new viruses that could cause both a pandemic and, as people react, a likely collapse
in economic activity and possibly even of law and order. Many experts say natural or bioengineered
viral pandemics (BVP) are inevitable as it becomes increasingly easier to modify an existing pathogen,
making it more lethal and transmissible. Should there be a deliberately loosed pandemic, revolutionary
changes will flood our economy, military, foreign policy; we will not live as before during the Age of
Bioengineered Viral Pandemics and Collapse. This bleak Age may be unavoidable, but we can prepare
ourselves to minimize its dangers. Yet the specter of biological attack, especially by hard-to-identity and
hold-to-account (let alone deter) non-state actors, is little addressed by the media or even inside the
U.S. government. Nuclear terrorism we fear and try to deal with, no doubt because we have mental images of nuclear weapons going off
to provide a sense of dark possibility. But we seem to suffer from a near total failure of imagination when it comes
to bioterrorism, even though for a host of technical and other reasons—simpler engineering, much
lower cost, quicker critical mass generation, smaller cadre of workers, smaller facilities for concealment
purposes and ordnance delivery—it would be vastly easier for bad non-state actors to master a bio-
attack than a nuclear one. We need to overcome that failure of imagination. In December 2011 national media reported that
scientists had created a deadly virus with 60 percent lethality. Since then, new “CRISPR” technology makes it much easier to manipulate DNA—
with kits as cheap as $130 available. Genetic engineering, or bioengineering, is the manipulation of an organism’s genetic material. Scientists
have been creating genetically modified organisms (GMO) since the 1970s, and in 2010 the first synthetic new life form was created. Genetic
modifications are common in nature—that’s why we continuously get new strains of flu and have had viral pandemics (like the 1918 Spanish
Flu) on account of some of them. Now it is possible to accelerate genetic change, creating viruses and bacteria
that never existed. With newer techniques, a simple, cheap lab (perhaps in a neighbor’s garage) can
generate millions of recombinants in minutes. Through bioengineering a lone terrorist or a
Revolutionary Guards lab in Iran can intentionally create a human-to-human transmissible version of
avian flu, or modify a lethal virus to have a longer latency period, which would facilitate its undetected
spread. While biotechnology promises great new treatments and advances in medicine, it will also likely
be used to design such deadly new viruses. It is too late to stop the spread of this technology and its
misuse. We have been so cavalier about this mounting problem that we have never bothered to assemble a national or a global data base so
that we have some sense of what kind of experimentation is going on for what purposes and under whose aegis. The only good news is
that well-prepared people and nations should be able to survive and adapt. As Tara O’Toole, former director of
Johns Hopkins University Center for Civilian Biodefense Strategies, warned in congressional testimony: “We are in the midst of a
bioscientific revolution that will make building and using biological weapons even more deadly and
increasingly easy.”1 The Director of National Intelligence has added bioengineering technology like CRISPR to the list of mass-destruction
threats. If a lone terrorist or lunatic launches the virus, it may not spread far before we detect it and limit
the devastation. But if an enemy nation spreads a bioengineered virus with high lethality and
transmissibility, plus a long period when carriers are contagious but not suffering from the illness or
symptoms, it might kill hundreds of millions. This scenario could leave survivors in a radically disrupted social, political,
economic, and security environment for years. A bioengineered virus, launched in our crowded, interconnected
world by an enemy working to spread it widely before it is detected, could yield a more devastating
pandemic than anything experienced in the past. Smallpox killed as many as 90 percent of the Aztecs, Mayans, and Incas
during the European conquest of the New World, and it killed 500 million people in the 20th century. A smallpox outbreak could be
even worse now, since our immunity has expired and our populations are far more vulnerable. For example,
Stanford Professor Dr. Nathan Wolfe warns that, “if terrorists ever got their hands on one of the few remaining vials
of smallpox, the results would be devastating.”2 Smallpox has been found in recent years in
laboratories, and its genetic code has been posted on the internet. Eckard Wimmer, who headed the team of
researchers at SUNY Stonybrook that made live polio virus from scratch as part of a Defense Department project to prove the threat of
synthetic bioweapons, said that any one of thousands of members of the American Society for Virology could figure out how to do the same.
Rob Carlson, a physicist-turned-biologist, like many others in the biotech field, warned that developing
lethal viruses is increasingly cheap and easy. There is no need for a national program, a big lab,
expensive equipment or specialized expertise. With a human-to-human transmissible virus there is no
need for difficult weaponization efforts—the malefactor could readily find a simple means of infecting
people in crowded public transportation centers and let them spread the virus. A virus released in
multiple airports would reach every city and probably most small towns in the United States within a
few days. Moreover, if the virus is genetically modified, the limited supply of vaccines we have for
smallpox may not even work. If smallpox is too difficult to obtain or synthetically create, someone can
use a deadly virus like Ebola or avian flu—viruses still active in areas of the world. Donald Henderson and other
scientists, writing in an article on biosecurity, warned that H5N1 avian influenza kills about 60 percent of its victims, compared to just 2 percent
for the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic, which killed about fifty million: Like all influenza strains, H5N1 is constantly evolving in nature. But
thankfully, this deadly virus does not now spread readily through the air from person to person. If it evolved to become as transmissible as
normal flu and results in a pandemic, it could cause billions of illnesses and deaths around the world.”3 In 2011, Ron Fouchier of the Erasmus
Medical Center in Rotterdam turned the H5N1 virus into a possible human-to-human flu by infecting ferrets repeatedly until a form of H5N1
that could spread through the air from one mammal to another resulted. This was not high-tech bioengineering, but simply swabbing the noses
of the infected ferrets and using the gathered viruses to infect another round. A team of scientists at China’s National Avian Influenza Reference
Laboratory combined H5N1 with genetic attributes found in dozens of other types of flu. Some of their “man-made super-flu strains” could
spread through the air between guinea pigs, killing them. This was condemned by scientists around the world as “appalling irresponsibility”
since the new viral strains created by mixing bird-flu virus with human influenza could escape from the laboratory and cause a global
pandemic—killing millions of people. With researchers tampering with H5N1 to make it human-to-human transmissible, we should not be
surprised if terrorists and some state regimes are doing so as well. The Soviet Union’s biological warfare program, with far less sophisticated
equipment and knowledge than we have today, produced a host of biowarfare agents. This effort included 65,000 researchers in a vast network
of secret laboratories, each focused on a different deadly agent. They produced traditional biological weapons and may have successfully
combined smallpox, Marburg, Ebola, and other viruses. If someone could combine the 90-percent-lethal Ebola virus with highly contagious
smallpox, one might indeed create an existential BVP. A former leader of the Soviet biowarfare program believes his colleagues still work in
Russia and many other nations, and predicts that bioweapons “in the coming years will become very much a part of our lives.”4 BVP will
come not only from accidents in professional labs, but also from do-it-yourself (DIY) biologists in their
garages or basements. In 2001 Australian researchers attempting to make a contraceptive vaccine for pest control inserted a “good”
gene into mousepox virus and accidentally created a lethal new virus that resisted vaccination. Other legitimate lab accidents
have likely occurred, but were not publicized. We shudder to imagine what do-it-yourself biologists and
biohackers are doing. There are more than 2,000 members of a website called DIY Bio. Some work alone
at home, others in small rent-a-lab spaces around the world Advances in DNA-manipulation technology,
cheap lab equipment, and information posted on the internet enable a single person to make artificial
smallpox or worse. With “professional” scientists in controlled labs accidentally making human-transmissible forms of highly lethal avian
flu and publishing the instructions, we must expect that DIY bio folks in their garage, biohackers, lunatics,
terrorists, or countries like Iran and North Korea will either accidentally or intentionally unleash a BVP.
If the first bioengineered virus comes from an accident or is unleashed by one madman it may fail to spread to pandemic status. A worse
threat is North Korea, Iran, or a terrorist group bioengineering a virus they release against us in multiple
locations, perhaps after they’ve developed a vaccine to protect themselves. For new, bioengineered viruses,
however, there likely will be no immunity or treatment available. So if a state were to task even a small lab to develop a
GMO with the “cubed” power of high lethality, high transmissibility, and long latency period, along with
a vaccine for the state’s use only, this state could have the capability to destroy many enemies.
Delivered “correctly,” the devastated population would not even know whom to blame for the attack.
It may seem irrational for a state to unleash a contagious agent. But it’s more understandable given the
ability to launch the attack secretly, without any identification of responsibility. One could foresee many
cases, none of which is as irrational, say, as the world going to war after a terrorist assassinated the
archduke of a declining state in August 1914. While we cannot forecast the odds of a BVP, a host of
experts believes it is inevitable. A National Defense University study of the GMO threat found that “the
tools and information required for genetic modification of microorganisms are readily available
worldwide.” They are also very cheap, and “the work can be successfully accomplished by a small
cadre [of three people].” This study estimated that the materials and facilities to weaponize a bioagent
would cost about $250,000. “Compared to other projects that might be undertaken by governments or private organizations, the
cost of equipping and staffing a laboratory scale bioprocessing facility is trivial.” They concluded that
“the potential for corruption of biotechnology to catastrophic malevolent use is considerable,” with
“tangible opportunities for many potential adversaries to acquire, modify, and then manufacture to
scale a potential GMO pathogen.”5 A BVP or other triggering disaster need not be all that effective in killing infected victims to
generate a collapse that kills additional people and destroys the nation’s strength. “Collapse” is defined here as a cessation of most economic
activity and the widespread lack of law and order, for a prolonged period of time, with very high fatalities (millions, more than 10 percent of the
population). Indeed, GMOs
pose an “existential threat,” meaning a risk not just of killing millions of people,
but potentially billions, wiping out civilization as we know it. An existential threat is defined here as one
that could kill most of the population (more than 90 percent), causing a collapse that lasts beyond a few
years, with the level of pre-collapse civilization not returning for generations. Despite a largely rural population
and relatively little international travel, the bubonic plague wiped out about a third of Europe’s population in the mid-14thcentury. Today,
over half of the world’s seven billion people live in cities visited daily by international travelers. We are
more urbanized and densely packed, sustained by food and water that arrives from distant locations,
relying on delivery systems and economic operations that may shut down if there is a lethal contagious
virus spreading and people understandably do not report to work. Even those with the courage to face the risk may
change their mind when they realize they could bring a fatal virus home to their families. Those that do keep working, medics and police in
particular, are likely to catch the virus. We
should expect that most economic activity, public services, production
of essential goods, and transportation may cease. To minimize inventory costs, businesses, even
hospitals, now have “just-in-time” delivery of supplies, sourced from lowest-cost providers on the other
side of the world. Even if your local trucker decides to continue working, with multiple long-distance suppliers and shippers involved in
moving foodstuffs, a contagious pandemic would certainly disrupt the flow of essential goods. Panic-buying and hoarding will add to the
problem of getting food to the population. How long will our public water supplies continue functioning when
maintenance personnel fail to report for work? Our highly interdependent, just-in-time delivery
economy is very vulnerable to disruptions. Our highly interdependent, just-in-time delivery economy is very vulnerable to
disruptions. Nassim Nicholas Taleb, an expert in risk and thinking about rare events, points this out: “Our connected world appears
to be more efficient. But when there is a disturbance, the setback is much harder to handle. Not only are
we building riskier systems, but also the risks involved in failure are a lot larger.”6 When the availability of food
and water is threatened, widespread marauding may occur. In 1977, New York City suffered a lightning strike that caused a power failure for
one night. Over 3,000 arrests were made for looting, 400 policemen were injured, 500 fires were started. In 2005, after Hurricane Katrina,
looting rapidly spread throughout New Orleans, often in broad daylight and in the presence of police officers. One third of New Orleans police
officers deserted their posts. Given the example of these and other, relatively small disasters, what should we expect in the event of the far
more serious scenario of a deadly viral pandemic? Pandemonium. There are many more reasons why we are far more
likely to suffer when a widespread disaster hits tomorrow. For example, despite rising population, we
have fewer hospital beds and emergency rooms in the United States today than even a few decades
ago. Between 1990 and 2009, emergency rooms in non-rural U.S. hospitals declined 27 percent from
2,446 to 1,779. Some may not wait to exploit a disaster, they may loot and maraud immediately. UK riots in 2011 showed that law
enforcement can break down and violence spread without a disaster to trigger them. Prime Minister Cameron called it “pure criminality.”
Others said it was inevitable violence from youth fed up with unemployment or family breakdown. The attacks on police and looting started in
London, but spread quickly to other cities across the United Kingdom. Looting and violence grew as more people took advantage of the
opportunity and “marauding gangs” formed. Police lost control of many areas. Innocent people were shot dead in cars and robbed on streets.
Thugs in Birmingham killed three men trying to protect their businesses. The riots continued the following night—and the next. Violence
continued in London for four nights until an extra 16,000 police officers moved in to restore order. Criminal syndicates and gangs can accelerate
the breakdown in law and order and magnify marauder threats. The number of gang members in the world is estimated at several million. The
United States has tens of thousands of gangs and perhaps a million gang members. The Salvadoran MS-13 gang alone, known for brutal
murders, has tens of thousands of members dispersed throughout most U.S. states. Many people, not just gang members, will use the disaster
and the distraction of police as an opportunity to loot. A major disaster could lead to economic and societal shutdown that escalates in ways we
cannot foresee, but we can assume they may be even worse than the losses from the trigger event. A Defense Science Board study warned that
even a relatively benign cyber attack could trigger collapse: “[F]ood and medicine distribution systems would be ineffective, transportation
would fail or become so chaotic as to be useless. Law enforcement, medical staff, and emergency personnel capabilities could be expected to
be barely functional in the short term and dysfunctional over sustained periods.”7 The nation’s leading agency for protecting
against WMD, the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, warns that we face the “inevitable emergency of a
new threat from biological and chemical agents.” The Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of
Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism, the international police agency INTERPOL, the former
president of the Royal Society of London all warn that bio-terror attacks could kill millions. When Dr.
Henderson, who led the World Health Organization’s global smallpox eradication campaign, predicts
that a human transmissible form of avian flu could injure and kill billions, that’s a credible warning of an
existential threat. But none of this generates as much public attention or political action as North Carolina’s transgender bathroom
dispute. As for why we are blind to this pending disaster, Nassim Taleb’s The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable
offers insights. A “Black Swan” is an extreme impact event that is outside the realm of regular
expectations; nothing in the past can convincingly point to its possibility. Concerning such events, Taleb
warns that “things have a bias to appear more stable and less risky in the past, leading us to surprises . .
. . The history of epidemics, narrowly studied, does not suggest the risks of the great plague to come
that will dominate the planet.”8 Taleb cites 27 widespread errors in human thinking processes and misapplications of statistics to
explain why we neglect Black Swan disasters like a coming BVP. People cling to current truths and past experiences that new technologies and
changing conditions may soon render wrong or irrelevant. We often fool ourselves with stories and anecdotes, and even invent memories that
calm us—but also demobilize us. What we don’t see regularly, we tend to ignore. We learn by repetition, react and decide by gut feeling,
thinking that we’ve thought it through and made a rational choice when we often have not. “We are made to be superficial, to heed what we
see and not heed what does not vividly come to mind.” Taleb cites as examples the diaries of people prior to World War II—few had any inkling
that something momentous was taking place, that large-scale war was coming. And indeed, while we hear much about Churchill’s warnings
(and less about Lord Vansittart’s even earlier and more consistent warnings), his was a rare voice and ignored. BVP
“disaster
blindness” may be stronger in the United States because we, with the mightiest military, feel immune
from attack .BVP “disaster blindness” may be stronger in the United States because we, with the
mightiest military, feel immune from attack. This is precisely why a BVP is a likely weapon of choice for
attacking the United States. It could kill more people than even a large nuclear attack, cause more
lasting devastation and economic collapse, and best of all for the attackers—they may get away with no retaliation
since we may never be able to determine or prove who released the virus. Our government spends tens of billions of dollars every year to
counter nuclear threats because it’s a long-standing, very obvious threat. The threat of
bio attack is much worse, both in
terms of likelihood and of the damage it will probably cause, yet relatively little is done to try and
counter or prepare. In 2012 a National Research Council committee on chemical and biological defense scolded, “The United
States probably has not yet adequately embraced the opacity of the threat. It will be much, much more
difficult to prepare for and defend against than prior threats.”9 Indeed, when I interview biologists and researchers who
should be troubled by the coming BVP, their more immediate worry is that their research will be curtailed or over-regulated. They believe that
biotechnology promises great advances in medicine and is a huge economic opportunity—a belief echoed by business executives. Scientists I’ve
interviewed fear that warnings about BVP will lead to more regulations, which would drive the research to other parts of the world where it’s
not regulated. They also argue that it is too late to stop misuse of this technology. The Federal government is certainly aware of the
bioterrorism risk, but it is not a top priority. The lead agencies dealing with biotechnology fund and promote the research. Until the first
instance of disaster, it is doubtful there will be strong action to prepare for the threat of a BVP-induced collapse. Nothing major happens in
Washington, DC, without laws to direct the action, budgeting, and the commitment of top elected officials. All are lacking now. There are no
special interests and lobbyists pushing for bioterrorism preparedness. The initial or “triggering” Black Swan disaster may not be the biggest
thing to worry about. The “cascading effects” of an economic shut down, the loss of law and order, looting and marauding, and the disruption
of health, sanitation, water, and transportation systems triggered by the initial disaster may deliver much worse, longer-lasting damage. What
cascading problems will result when the electrical grid goes down? Can nuclear reactors remain safely shut down when no one reports to work
because they don’t want to risk viral exposure, and local water and electric systems aren’t functioning? With the police force overwhelmed and
ravaged by casualties (first responders are more likely to get the virus), many officers will abandon their jobs to protect their families from
exposure. An explosion in violent crime could be worse even than the virus. The
real uncertainty is not whether a BVP or
other Black Swan disaster will occur, but how bad it will be and how deep of a collapse will result from it.
After the first pandemic and collapse, it will likely be impossible to prevent repeat bio attacks. It may be
the next epoch of warfare and terrorism that defines the next era of “civilization.” Most writers covering the
Biotech Age emphasize the great advances in medicine and new means of production. But in a time when individuals can wield the power to kill
millions and cause a collapse, the outlook for mankind may be more bleak than rosy. The destructive power of deliberately
malign GMOs and the uncontrollable ability of individuals to unleash a BVP may yield a reversal in
mankind’s fortunes: shorter life spans, crueler lifestyles, and perhaps a collapse of civilization entirely.
Whether the first bioengineered virus comes from an accidental release or is spread by some regime, the key point Taleb makes is that “Black
Swans being unpredictable, we need to adjust to their existence (rather than naively try to predict
them).” Estimating, assuming, hoping that accidents, lunatics, terrorists, or enemy states won’t release a GMO, or that we can always detect
and stop them, is a mistake. As a nation, we must adapt to the existence of the BVP threat now and change the protocols of our strategy,
military forces, economy, and preparedness to ensure the consequences do not cascade into societal collapse.
We need to be
prepared to deal with the consequences of a viral pandemic that produces horrific numbers of casualties
that cannot be stopped with a simple quarantine. This problem deserves far more attention and resources. While we likely
can’t stop the release of lethal new GMOs, we can survive if we are ready.
 1AC — Tech Advantage
Trump’s restrictive refugee policies hurt US tech company confidence, they perceive it
as being bad for business
Romm, 17 (Tony Romm-senior editor for policy and politics at Recode, where he covers the
intersection of Washington and Silicon Valley. He's chronicled the ways in which tech companies collide
with government — and the regulations that often result — since 2010, when he helped launch
technology policy coverage for Politico as well as its Beltway newsletter, Morning Tech. He later served
as Politico's senior technology reporter, “More than 160 tech companies asked a court to reject Trump’s
second travel ban,” April 19, 2017, https://www.recode.net/2017/4/19/15363806/trump-amazon-
google-facebook-travel-ban-rejection, dylchik)

Amazon, Facebook, Google, Snap and more than 150 other tech companies told a federal court in
Virginia today that it should toss U.S. President Donald Trump’s latest attempt to ban refugees and
travelers from many majority-Muslim countries. In a brief filed in the U.S. District Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit, a host of Silicon Valley heavyweights lambasted Trump’s new order — his second
attempt, after a judge blocked his first one — and stressed it would inflict “substantial harm on U.S.
companies, their employees, and the entire economy.” The order, they continued, “hinders the ability
of American companies to attract talented employees, increases costs imposed on business, makes it
more difficult for American firms to compete in the international marketplace and gives global
enterprises a new, significant incentive to build operations — and hire new employees — outside the
United States.” The brief — filed today by a total 162 tech firms, including Uber, SpaceX, Spotify and
Twitter — represents the Valley’s latest legal salvo against Trump’s immigration policies. When Trump issued
his initial ban in January, the leaders of Apple, Facebook and Google emerged as some of its earliest critics. They sounded off in public
statements while their employees protested, and they joined the likes of Amazon and Microsoft in a
legal brief challenging the president’s first attempt at a ban. A judge in Washington state ultimately halted
implementation of that executive order, leading to the second version that Trump unveiled in March. Meanwhile, many in the tech industry
have fought to ward off other major changes to U.S. immigration policy, including new restrictions on the country’s high-skilled visa program.
Trump, however, signed another executive order on Tuesday that begins a process to rethink how those visas, called H-1Bs, are awarded. And
his administration has promised greater scrutiny for companies that employ foreign workers instead of Americans.

Tech sector skepticism over restrictive immigration policies cause offshoring, collapses
US tech leadership
Waddell, 17 (Kaveh Waddell-former staff writer at The Atlantic, “How Trump’s Immigration Rules Will
Hurt the U.S. Tech Sector,” February 1, 2017,
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/02/how-trumps-immigration-rules-will-hurt-
the-us-tech-sector/515202/, dylchik)

When President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Friday issuing a temporary ban on
immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries, it went into effect immediately. Chaos erupted at
airports across the country, as hundreds of travelers—many of them legal permanent residents of the
U.S.—were detained and denied access to their lawyers. Opposition poured in, from demonstrators who rallied
at various airports and in public squares, from Democrats in Congress and dozens of their Republican colleagues, and from major U.S.
businesses, including most of the biggest technology companies. (The ban still has the support of more than 80
congressional Republicans, including House Speaker Paul Ryan.) The order had immediate consequences for thousands of people. But beyond
harming long-term U.S. residents, their families, their education, and their work, the
executive order could cause long-lasting
shockwaves in the business world—and especially in the technology sector. Computer-related jobs are
the top source of new wages in the U.S., according to analyses from Code.org, a nonprofit organization
that advocates for more access to computer-science education. But there aren’t enough skilled
American workers to fill open tech jobs in the U.S.: There are more than 500,000 open computing jobs,
but only about 43,000 Americans graduate from college with computer-science degrees every year. That’s
a problem that H-1B visas—non-immigrant visas that allow high-skilled foreign workers to be employed, temporarily, by American companies—
are designed to solve. A forthcoming executive order will likely change the rules to make it harder for companies to grant foreign workers H-1B
visas. But even without that change, which hasn’t yet been announced, the
immigration ban from last week will likely deal a
blow to the technology industry, which employs many workers without permanent-residency status in
the U.S. from the seven countries included in the ban. Of the seven countries, one in particular has
seeded the American tech industry with talent, much of which has risen to top spots in major tech
companies. Iranian-Americans founded or hold leadership positions at Twitter, Dropbox, Oracle, Expedia, eBay, and Tinder. Top venture
capitalists like Shervin Pishevar, Pejman Nozad, and brothers Ali and Hadi Partovi, all of whom invest millions of dollars in technology startups,
were born in Tehran. “Americans use products created by Iranians, or go to doctor’s offices and are treated by Iranians regularly,” said Hadi
Partovi, who co-founded Code.org with his brother Ali. “This is not a culture that threatens America, and for us to reject immigration from the
country for a false sense of security seems wrong to me.” Many of the Iranians working in Silicon Valley, Seattle, Austin, and other tech hubs
around the country are green-card holders, or naturalized citizens. That means they shouldn’t personally be prevented from entering the
United States under Trump’s immigration order. (After many green-card holders were initially denied entry to the U.S., the Department of
Homeland Security clarified that legal permanent residents from the seven designated countries should not be affected by the immigration
ban.) But those who are in the U.S. on work visas or student visas are currently unable to travel outside the country, for work or for pleasure,
because they may be unable to return. Plans to fly overseas for conferences have been put on hold, family visits canceled, and vacations
postponed. There are more than 12,000 Iranian students in the U.S., making Iran the 11th most common country of origin for foreign students
in the country. A 2014 Brookings study found that two-thirds of foreign students study science, technology, or business. But the
temporary immigration ban could dissuade those from countries beyond Iran and the six others included
in the ban from coming to the U.S. to work and study. Foreign nationals from countries not included in
the immigration ban might also stay away, fearing that their visa status could be thrown into jeopardy at
the president’s whim. “And if we can no longer attract the best and brightest to this country, it has a
chilling effect on business growth and innovation,” Partovi said. And even green-card holders in the U.S.,
who are exempt from the ban, are weighing the benefits of staying in the country. Over the weekend, I spoke
with Sara, a San Francisco-based tech entrepreneur who asked to be referred to only by first name, for fear of reprisal from the government.
Sara is an Iranian-born Canadian citizen who has held a green card since 2015. She co-founded a technology company in San Francisco, where
she also runs an art gallery, a restaurant, and a coffee shop. When we first spoke, the rules around green-card holders weren’t yet clear. Sara
thought she wouldn’t be able to travel to Canada, where some of her employees—and her parents and brother—are located. But even now,
after DHS clarified that she can travel freely, she’s debating whether she’ll go through with her plan to apply for U.S. citizenship. “If a
country doesn’t welcome me, why should I be a citizen of that country?” Sara said. She told me she’s seriously
considering moving to another country if Trump remains president for more than a year. (“And I am not just saying that because everyone
does,” she added.) Two years ago, Sara got an invitation to visit the White House for a celebration of outstanding female entrepreneurs. “I have
a letter from President Obama thanking me for my service to the country, for creating jobs,” Sara said. “And now I have this weird problem.
That’s my big irony.” Dave McClure, a San-Francisco based investor, said the
executive order could accelerate the rise of
technology hubs abroad, in countries that are more welcoming to immigrants. Vancouver, London,
and Singapore are attractive alternatives to existing hubs in the West Coast of the United States,
McClure said. What’s more, he said, companies that are already based abroad may put off opening
offices in the U.S. McClure’s venture-capital firm has made a lot of investments overseas, including more than 30 in the Arabic-speaking
world. He said he expects that push to continue, even if it becomes harder for the funds’ recipients to travel to the U.S. “I think we’ll end up
investing in other places,” McClure said. “It’s a loss for the U.S., but not necessarily a loss for us.” The
American technology sector
won’t wither up and die overnight without access to immigrants from the seven Muslim-majority
countries that were designated as foreign threats. But the ban could be keeping the next generation of
tech leaders from ever making it to the U.S. in the first place. “I was 11 when I came to America,” said Partovi. ”If I
were 11 right now and trying to come to America under the same circumstances, I would’ve been banned by this recent executive order. I
probably would’ve ended up in Canada.”

Scenario 1 is Leadership—

US tech leadership is key to prevent a laundry list of scenarios for great power war,
diplomacy alone isn’t enough
Economist, 18 (1/25/18, The Leaders, “The Next War; The growing danger of great-power conflict;
How shifts in technology and geopolitics are renewing the threat,”
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2018/01/25/the-growing-danger-of-great-power-conflict,
accessed on 6/11/18, JMP)

IN THE past 25 years war has claimed too many lives. Yet even as
civil and religious strife have raged in Syria, central
Africa, Afghanistan and Iraq, a devastating clash between the world’s great powers has remained
almost unimaginable. No longer. Last week the Pentagon issued a new national defence strategy that put
China and Russia above jihadism as the main threat to America. This week the chief of Britain’s general staff
warned of a Russian attack. Even now America and North Korea are perilously close to a conflict that
risks dragging in China or escalating into nuclear catastrophe. As our special report this week on the future of war
argues, powerful, long-term shifts in geopolitics and the proliferation of new technologies are eroding the
extraordinary military dominance that America and its allies have enjoyed. Conflict on a scale and
intensity not seen since the second world war is once again plausible. The world is not prepared. The pity of war
The pressing danger is of war on the Korean peninsula, perhaps this year. Donald Trump has vowed to prevent Kim Jong Un, North Korea’s
leader, from being able to strike America with nuclear-armed ballistic missiles, a capability that recent tests suggest he may have within
months, if not already. Among many contingency plans, the Pentagon is considering a disabling pre-emptive strike against the North’s nuclear
sites. Despite low confidence in the success of such a strike, it must be prepared to carry out the president’s order should he give it. Even a
limited attack could trigger all-out war. Analysts reckon that North Korean artillery can bombard Seoul, the South Korean capital, with 10,000
rounds a minute. Drones, midget submarines and tunnelling commandos could deploy biological, chemical and even nuclear weapons. Tens of
thousands of people would perish; many more if nukes were used. This newspaper has argued that the prospect of such horror means that, if
diplomacy fails, North Korea should be contained and deterred instead. Although we stand by our argument, war is a real possibility (see
article). Mr Trump and his advisers may conclude that a nuclear North would be so reckless, and so likely to cause nuclear proliferation, that it
is better to risk war on the Korean peninsula today than a nuclear strike on an American city tomorrow. Even
if China stays out of a
second Korean war, both it and Russia are entering into a renewal of great-power competition with
the West. Their ambitions will be even harder to deal with than North Korea’s. Three decades of unprecedented economic
growth have provided China with the wealth to transform its armed forces, and given its leaders the
sense that their moment has come. Russia, paradoxically, needs to assert itself now because it is in long-
term decline. Its leaders have spent heavily to restore Russia’s hard power, and they are willing to take
risks to prove they deserve respect and a seat at the table. Both countries have benefited from the international order
that America did most to establish and guarantee. But they see its pillars—universal human rights, democracy and the rule of law—as an
imposition that excuses foreign meddling and undermines their own legitimacy. They are now revisionist states that want to challenge the
status quo and look at their regions as spheres of influence to be dominated. For China, that means East Asia; for Russia, eastern Europe and
Central Asia. Neither
China nor Russia wants a direct military confrontation with America that they would
surely lose. But they are using their growing hard power in other ways, in particular by exploiting a “grey
zone” where aggression and coercion work just below the level that would risk military confrontation
with the West. In Ukraine Russia has blended force, misinformation, infiltration, cyberwar and economic blackmail in ways that
democratic societies cannot copy and find hard to rebuff. China is more cautious, but it has claimed, occupied and garrisoned reefs and shoals
in disputed waters. China
and Russia have harnessed military technologies invented by America, such as long-
range precision-strike and electromagnetic-spectrum warfare, to raise the cost of intervention against
them dramatically. Both have used asymmetric-warfare strategies to create “anti-access/area denial” networks. China aims to push
American naval forces far out into the Pacific where they can no longer safely project power into the East and South China Seas. Russia wants
the world to know that, from the Arctic to the Black Sea, it can call on greater firepower than its foes—and that it will not hesitate to do so. If
America allows China and Russia to establish regional hegemonies, either consciously or because its
politics are too dysfunctional to muster a response, it will have given them a green light to pursue their
interests by brute force. When that was last tried, the result was the first world war. Nuclear weapons,
largely a source of stability since 1945, may add to the danger. Their command-and-control systems are becoming
vulnerable to hacking by new cyber-weapons or “blinding” of the satellites they depend on. A country
under such an attack could find itself under pressure to choose between losing control of its nuclear
weapons or using them. Vain citadels What should America do? Almost 20 years of strategic drift has played into
the hands of Russia and China. George W. Bush’s unsuccessful wars were a distraction and sapped support at home for America’s
global role. Barack Obama pursued a foreign policy of retrenchment, and was openly sceptical about the value of hard power. Today, Mr Trump
says he wants to make America great again, but is going about it in exactly the wrong way. He shuns multilateral organisations, treats alliances
as unwanted baggage and openly admires the authoritarian leaders of America’s adversaries. It is as if Mr Trump wants America to give up
defending the system it created and to join Russia and China as just another truculent revisionist power instead. America needs to accept that it
is a prime beneficiary of the international system and that it is the only power with the ability and the resources to protect it from sustained
attack. The soft power of patient and consistent diplomacy is vital, but must be backed by the hard
power that China and Russia respect. America retains plenty of that hard power, but it is fast losing
the edge in military technology that inspired confidence in its allies and fear in its foes. To match its
diplomacy, America needs to invest in new systems based on robotics, artificial intelligence, big data
and directed-energy weapons. Belatedly, Mr Obama realised that America required a concerted effort
to regain its technological lead, yet there is no guarantee that it will be the first to innovate. Mr Trump
and his successors need to redouble the effort. The best guarantor of world peace is a strong America.
Fortunately, it still enjoys advantages. It has rich and capable allies, still by far the world’s most powerful
armed forces, unrivalled war-fighting experience, the best systems engineers and the world’s leading
tech firms. Yet those advantages could all too easily be squandered. Without America’s commitment
to the international order and the hard power to defend it against determined and able challengers,
the dangers will grow. If they do, the future of war could be closer than you think.

Scenario 2 is Growth—

Slow growth is coming --- aging populations are become less productive and labor
force growth and wages remain low
Yueh, 6/6/18 --- Adjunct Professor of Economics at London Business School (Linda, “Opinion: How the
U.S. can avoid a slow-growth future; It’s not just a matter of adding new technology but how well it gets
embedded into the job,” https://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-the-us-can-avoid-a-slow-growth-
future-2018-06-05, accessed on 6/9/18, JMP)

Recent productivity data have led to growing concerns over a slow-growth future. The technologies of
today don’t seem to be greatly raising economic growth, and productivity growth has markedly slowed.
Economic growth rates across major economies are weaker now than before the 2008 global financial
crisis, and not just as a result of the crash. If companies are more nuanced about how they invest in technology and how they
embed it into their operations, then a slow-growth future can be avoided. The United States, like the eurozone, Japan and the
U.K., has been experiencing a slowdown in productivity growth since the mid-2000s. This has led to
warnings that growth in these advanced economies has permanently slowed, in part because their
aging populations will be less productive. Could these economies be facing what former U.S. Treasury Secretary Larry
Summers describes as “secular stagnation”? This was a term first used by Alvin Hansen in the 1930s to describe slow growth due in part to
aging societies, among other issues. Some of Japan’s economic stagnation is thought to be related to its demographics since its population is
the oldest and fastest-aging in the world. Economic
growth occurs when workers and capital are added to the
economy, along with technology, a well-known result from growth models first developed by the Nobel
Prize-winning economist Robert Solow. But an aging population means fewer workers. Fewer workers
require fewer office buildings and machinery, which depresses investment and therefore the
economic outlook. Another wrinkle is that the U.S. has been suffering from stagnant median wage growth for
decades. Low pay means that some companies hire workers instead of installing more units of capital,
which further depresses investment. That means that two factors that drive growth are subdued. That
point of where demographics hits growth seems to be approaching: U.S. labor-force growth has slowed
to just 0.2% a year, down from 2.1% from the 1960s to 1980s. A slower growth rate is associated with lower interest
rates, and this is seen in the yields of Treasury bonds along the yield curve. In other words, the expectation in bond markets is that the new
neutral interest rate, or where the current rate rises will end up, will be lower than the previous average rate of 5%. The Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the think tank for rich countries, has looked at this issue and finds that weak output growth is
a drag on productivity. That brings us full circle in that output per worker or machine can’t increase strongly if overall economic growth remains
subdued. So how much is invested, including in raising the skills of existing workers, matters a great deal to boost growth. It also means that
the new path of economic growth, whether it is fast or slow, is within the control of the government and
firms as well as workers who can invest in their own human capital to be better equipped to use
technology. It is not just the inevitable outcome of an aging society. But one challenge is that recent
technological improvements, centered on information and communication technologies and the
internet, do not seem to have raised productivity across the economy as expected. Solow’s 1987
observation that “you can see the computer age everywhere but in the productivity statistics” is known
as the Solow paradox. He revisited this question decades later, but concluded that we still do not know whether computers have
boosted productivity as the role of computing is still evolving. Where there have been periods of faster productivity growth, such as in the late
1990s, it seemed to be due to technology being better embedded into business practices. Embedded technology improves the productivity of
workers, which increases capital accumulation by slowing down the diminishing returns to capital. Diminishing returns happen when a worker is
given more than, say, one computer; that worker won’t produce as much with the second computer as compared with the first one unless he
has the programming skills to run an algorithm that allows computing to be done without the worker using it all the time. If the digital age is to
increase productivity and lead to a stronger phase of economic growth, it will require investment in not just R&D, but also peoples’ skills and
firms’ practices to embed those technologies into how businesses operate. An example is law firms that are starting to use AI to conduct some
aspects of due diligence, which frees up the time of junior associates to undertake other legal work. Although
the Solow paradox is
still with us, there are signs that technology is becoming better embedded, such as artificial intelligence
that can do computing without a constant human presence. But to ensure that happens requires investment in more
nuanced ways — notably in how to embed tech into the workplace. This will vary from firm to firm, but investing in this area, as well as in the
well-understood areas of R&D/innovation, will likely generate returns. It could even lead to a virtuous circle of growth. Seeing higher output per
worker could induce more investment by firms as the returns to capital are higher. And more investment in turn raises economic growth rates,
and that could help us avoid a slow growth future. So, reassuringly, demography
is not destiny. It is within our control to
invest in ways that better embed technologies, which in turn would help us to avoid a slow growth
future.

The tech industry is key to US economic growth

CompTIA, 3/27 (“Technology Industry's Impact Felt in US Economic Growth, Workforce Gains,”
March 27, 2018, https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/technology-industrys-impact-felt-in-us-
economic-growth-workforce-gains-300620143.htmlm, dylchik)
WASHINGTON, March 27, 2018 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Tech employment in the United States expanded by
nearly 200,000 jobs in 2017, to an estimated 11.5 million workers; and at $1.6 trillion, the tech sector is
one of the largest components of the nation's economy, according to Cyberstates™ 2018, the definitive annual analysis
of the nation's industry published today by CompTIA, the world's leading technology industry association. The economic might of the
tech industry is felt in nearly every state. The industry is a top-five economic contributor in 22 states;
and in the top 10 of 42 states. "Tech's direct contribution to local, state and national economies is only
a part of the story," said Todd Thibodeaux, CompTIA president and CEO. "Technology is the generator that powers
innovation, growth and breakthroughs in virtually every other sector of the economy; from advanced
manufacturing techniques and innovations in transportation, to smarter, more livable communities, to
advances in education, energy and healthcare." The outlook for technology employment points to a
continuation of the growth trend, which has seen tech jobs increase by about 200,000 each year since
2010. Projections from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics indicate the base of tech occupations will
increase by 626,000 jobs by 2026. When factoring in the need to replace retiring or career-change
workers, the total potential tech workforce reaches 1.2 million through 2026. "Employer demand for
tech talent continues to outstrip supply in many markets," said Tim Herbert, senior vice president of research and market
intelligence for CompTIA. "Nationally, the number of job postings associated with emerging technologies
increased 27 percent year-over-year – further confirmation employers are ramping up hiring in areas
such as the Internet of Things, artificial intelligence, machine learning, autonomous vehicles, augmented
and virtual reality, and more." Beyond the raw numbers of new jobs, many of these positions have salaries well above those in other
industries. According to Cyberstates 2018, the average annual wage in the tech industry is $112,890; 107 percent higher than the average
annual wage for all jobs ($54,420). Among other key findings from Cyberstates 2018: 38 states saw positive tech employment growth in 2017,
slightly better than 2016, when 36 states experienced growth. The top five states for net job gains in 2017 were California (43,600), Texas
(13,400), Michigan (13,200), Florida (12,000), and New York (10,400). On a percentage change basis, the top five states for 2017 tech job
growth were Utah (+ 3.6 percent), Michigan (+ 3.4 percent), North Carolina (+3.1 percent), Washington (+ 2.9), and Idaho (+ 2.8 percent). At
10.6 percent, Massachusetts has the highest concentration of tech workers relative to its overall employment base. Following are Washington
(9.9 percent), Virginia (9.9 percent), the District of Columbia (9.7 percent), and Colorado (9.7 percent). Nationally, the composition of the tech
sector workforce is 66 percent men and 34 percent women, unchanged from 2016. The District of Columbia (39.8 percent) has the highest
concentration of women in its tech workforce, followed by South Dakota, North Carolina, Wisconsin, and Missouri. The number of tech
business establishments across the country grew for the sixth consecutive year, and now totals nearly 503,000 businesses.

Strong US growth key to solve global conflicts

Haass 13 – President of the Council on Foreign Relations (Richard, “The World Without America,”
http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/repairing-the-roots-of-american-power-by-richard-n--
haass)
Let me posit a radical idea: The most critical threat facing the United States now and for the foreseeable future is not a risingChina, a reckless North Korea, a nuclear
Iran, modern terrorism, or climate change. Although all of these constitute potential or actual threats, the
biggest challenges facing the US
are its burgeoning debt, crumbling infrastructure, second-rate primary and secondary schools, outdated immigration system, and slow economic
growth – in short, the domestic foundations of American power. Readers in other countries may be tempted to react to this judgment
with a dose of schadenfreude, finding more than a little satisfaction in America’s difficulties. Such a response should not be surprising. The US and those
representing it have been guilty of hubris (the US may often be the indispensable nation, but it would be better if others pointed this out), and examples of
inconsistency between America’s practices and its principles understandably provoke charges of hypocrisy. When America does not adhere to the principles that it
preaches to others, it breeds resentment. But, like most temptations, the urge to gloat at America’s imperfections and struggles ought to be resisted. People around
the globe should be careful what they wish for. America’s
failure to deal with its internal challenges would come at a
steep price. Indeed, the rest of the world’s stake in American success is nearly as large as that of the US
itself. Part of the reason is economic. The US economy still accounts for about one-quarter of global output. If US
growth accelerates, America’s capacity to consume other countries’ goods and services will increase,
thereby boosting growth around the world. At a time when Europe is drifting and Asia is slowing, only
the US (or, more broadly, North America) has the potential to drive global economic recovery. The US remains a
unique source of innovation. Most of the world’s citizens communicate with mobile devices based on technology developed in Silicon Valley;
likewise, the Internet was made in America. More recently, new technologies developed in the US greatly increase the ability to extract oil and natural gas from
underground formations. This technology is now making its way around the globe, allowing other societies to increase their energy production and decrease both
their reliance on costly imports and their carbon emissions. The US is also an invaluable source of ideas. Its world-class universities educate a significant percentage
of future world leaders. More fundamentally, the US has long been a leading example of what market economies anddemocratic politics can accomplish. People

and governments around the world are far more likely to become more open if the American model is
perceived to be succeeding. Finally, the world faces many serious challenges, ranging from the need to halt
the spread of weapons of mass destruction, fight climate change, and maintain a functioning world economic
order that promotes trade and investment to regulating practices incyberspace, improving global health, and preventing armed
conflicts. These problems will not simply go away or sort themselves out. While Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” may ensure
the success of free markets, it ispowerless in the world of geopolitics. Order requires the visible hand of leadership to formulate

and realize global responses to global challenges. Don’t get me wrong: None of this is meant to suggest that the US can deal effectively
with the world’s problems on its own. Unilateralism rarely works. It is not just that the US lacks the means; the very nature of contemporary global problems
suggests that only collective responses stand a good chance of succeeding. But multilateralism
is much easier to advocate than to
design and implement. Right now there is only one candidate for this role: the US. No other country has
the necessary combination of capability and outlook. This brings me back to the argument that the US must put its
house in order – economically, physically, socially, and politically – if it is to have the resources needed to promote
order in the world. Everyone should hope that it does: The alternative to a world led by the US is not a world led by China,
Europe, Russia, Japan, India, or any other country, but rather a world that is not led at all. Such a world would almost certainly

be characterized by chronic crisis and conflict. That would be bad not just for Americans, but for the vast majority
of the planet’s inhabitants.

Refugee intake is key to sustainable long term US economic growth

-workers

-entrepreneurs

-innovators

-taxpayers

-consumers

-investors

-creating jobs

-raising wages

-innovation

Legrain, 17 (Philippe Legrain-founder of OPEN, an international think tank on openness issues, and a
senior visiting fellow at the London School of Economics' European Institute. Previously economic
advisor to the president of the European Commission from 2011 to 2014, he is the author of four
critically acclaimed books, including Immigrants: Your Country Needs Them and European Spring: Why
Our Economies and Politics Are in a Mess — and How to Put Them Right, “Refugees Are a Great
Investment,” February 3, 2017, http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/02/03/refugees-are-a-great-investment/,
dylchik)
President Donald Trump’s executive order halting refugee resettlement from around the world and
barring visitors from seven mostly Muslim countries is wrong on many levels. It is cruel, xenophobic, and
arguably unconstitutional. And it wouldn’t have prevented 9/11 or saved the lives of the 94 people killed
on American soil by Islamist extremists since then, because none of the terrorists responsible for those
atrocities were refugees or, indeed, from those seven countries. But in addition to being morally wrong,
it’s economically harmful, because refugees make a big contribution to the United States, as do people
originating from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Sudan, and Somalia. Refugees are a tiny proportion of
the U.S. population — some 3.3 million have been admitted since 1975 — but they have had an outsized impact.
Google co-founder Sergey Brin was a child refugee from the Soviet Union; Google’s parent company,
Alphabet, is now America’s second-most valuable firm, with a market capitalization of $553 billion.
WhatsApp co-founder Jan Koum and PayPal co-founder Max Levchin were refugees from Ukraine. The
late Andy Grove, who helped start and was later CEO of Intel, fled from communist Hungary. So, too, did
hedge-fund manager and philanthropist George Soros; Thomas Peterffy, the founder of Interactive
Brokers Group; and Steven Udvar-Hazy, the founder of Air Lease Corp. Yet nobody could have guessed when they
arrived in the United States that those refugees would be so successful. Had they been denied entry, nobody would have
realized the opportunity that America had missed. So just imagine what some of the brave Syrians
fleeing the barbarism of the Islamic State, President Bashar al-Assad’s brutal regime, and the bombing
raids ordered by Russian President Vladimir Putin could go on to achieve in the United States. After all, the
biological father of the late Steve Jobs, the co-founder and legendary CEO of Apple, America’s most valuable company, was a Syrian who fled
his country for political reasons. People originating from the seven countries on Trump’s blacklist already have contributed a lot to America.
eBay was founded by an Iranian-American, Pierre Omidyar. Its market capitalization of $36.1 billion dwarfs the value of Trump’s unlisted
business holdings, while Omidyar’s self-made $8.2 billion fortune is more than twice as big as Trump’s partly inherited one. Oracle Corp., a
software giant worth $162.2 billion, was co-founded by the late Bob Miner, who was also Iranian-American. While the communities from the
other countries are much smaller and generally more recent, one notable Somali-American is author and activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an outspoken
critic of both Islamic extremism and Trump’s anti-Muslim policies. Of course, not all refugees and immigrants turn out to be exceptionally
successful. But prejudice is a poor predictor of how they will fare. When Vietnamese “boat people” fled their country in the late 1970s and
sought refuge elsewhere, they were seen as undesirable and often turned away. Eventually, many were allowed to settle in America. Most
arrived speaking little or no English, with few assets or relevant job skills. Yet Vietnamese refugees in the United States are now more likely to
be employed than people born in America and have higher average incomes.Vietnamese refugees in the United States are now more likely to
be employed than people born in America and have higher average incomes. They have also played a key role in building trade and investment
links with Vietnam. One notable entrepreneur is David Tran, who founded Huy Fong Foods. Its main product is Sriracha chili sauce, that big red
bottle you see in every Vietnamese restaurant. Most of what he makes is exported to Asia, something that Trump ought to approve of, given
his obsession with America’s trade balance. Refugees
contribute to the economy in many ways: as workers,
entrepreneurs, innovators, taxpayers, consumers, and investors. Their efforts can help create jobs; raise
the productivity and wages of American workers; increase capital returns; stimulate international trade
and investment; and boost innovation, enterprise, and growth. Some do low-skilled jobs that
Americans spurn, such as working on farms, cleaning offices, and caring for the elderly. Contrary to fears
that they steal jobs, studies show that refugees enable Americans to do better-paying jobs that they
prefer. Higher-skilled refugees — and their highly educated children — provide valuable talent and
boost the productivity and wages of Americans with complementary skills. For instance, Syrian nurses
can help American doctors provide better care to more patients. Some 28 percent of refugees have a
bachelor’s or advanced degree, the same proportion as people born in the United States. Among the
immigrants on Trump’s banned list, those from Iran, Libya, Syria, and Sudan are more likely to have a
degree than the U.S. average. Many work for leading U.S. businesses, notably in the technology sector,
that are now up in arms about the travel ban. Whatever their skill level, refugees tend to be highly motivated and work hard
to rebuild their lives. At Chobani, the company that makes America’s leading brand of Greek yogurt, three in 10 employees are refugees.
Chobani founder Hamdi Ulukaya doesn’t just employ them to do good; it also turns out to be good for the bottom line. Starbucks CEO Howard
Schultz’s admirable announcement that the company plans to hire 10,000 refugees worldwide in the next five years is likely to be financially
rewarding, too. Enterprising refugees start businesses that create wealth, employ locals, boost growth, and
stimulate trade and investment. Like migration itself, starting a business is a risky venture that takes
hard work to make it pay off. For those who arrive in America without contacts or a conventional career, it is a natural way to get
ahead. A study by the Kauffman Foundation found that in 2012, immigrants to the United States were almost twice
as likely to start businesses as people born in America. Last but not least, newcomers and their children
can help spark new ideas and technologies that make all Americans better off. People uprooted from one culture
and exposed to another tend to be more creative. Moreover, groups with diverse perspectives and experiences — such as refugees and people
born in the United States sparking off each other — tend to outperform like-minded experts at problem solving, which is what most work these
days consists of. Overall,
refugees have a higher employment rate than people born in America. While Iraqis
and Somalis have lower employment rates, they are mostly recent arrivals, and employment rates tend
to rise sharply over time. Refugees who have been in the United States for 20 or more years also have
higher median household incomes than people born in America. A study by Kalena Cortes of Texas A&M University
found that among immigrants who arrived in the United States between 1975 and 1980, refugees integrated faster than “economic migrants.”
Whereas refugees earned 6 percent less and worked 14 percent fewer hours than economic migrants in 1980, by 1990 they were earning 20
percent more and working 4 percent more hours, notably because in general they improved their English, skills, and education faster over that
period. Of course, welcoming refugees costs money upfront. But it’s a drop in the ocean: Out
of the $3.3 trillion federal budget
in fiscal year 2015, the budget for the refugee resettlement program was $609 million. That money
tends to be spent on local goods and services, benefiting businesses and creating jobs. And like providing public
education to American teenagers, it’s an investment that yields further dividends once refugees start working. In fact, investing one dollar in
helping refugees get started can yield nearly two dollars in economic benefits within five years.In fact, investing
one dollar in
helping refugees get started can yield nearly two dollars in economic benefits within five years. That’s
the key finding of my recent study for OPEN, an international think tank focused on refugee and other openness issues that I founded, and the
Tent Foundation, whose mission is to help forcibly displaced people. A
study of greater Cleveland found that while $4.8
million was spent on refugee services in 2012, spending by refugees, refugee-owned businesses, and
refugee service organizations boosted the local economy by $48 million, creating 650 jobs and providing
$2.7 million in tax revenues to local and state governments. Refugees’ reliance on public assistance
declines sharply over time, although it tends to remain higher than the general population. Even so,
refugees tend to be net contributors to public finances over their lifetimes: Two-thirds of new arrivals
are of working age (and thus schooled abroad), on average they are in their mid-20s (and thus have a
full working life ahead of them), and their taxes help service the huge public debt incurred by the
existing U.S. population. The United States was founded by refugees: The Pilgrims who came over on the Mayflower in 1620 were
fleeing persecution in England. Continuing to welcome refugees and immigrants of all faiths — and none — is not just morally right and in
keeping with America’s long humanitarian tradition. It is vital for the future economic success of all Americans.
 1AC – Plan + Solvency (Nation of Origin)
The United States federal government should substantially reduce restrictions on legal
immigration by removing the Nation of Origin standards in Executive Order 13780 and
by raising the annual cap on refugee admissions to at least 110,000.

The plan solves all of our internal links

Lee 2017 - Co-legal Director @ the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies @ UC Hastings School of Law
Eunice, "NON-DISCRIMINATION IN REFUGEE AND ASYLUM LAW (AGAINST TRAVEL BAN 1.0 AND 2.0)," 31
Geo. Immigr. L.J. 459

C. Refugee Admissions and Congress's Structural Role

The backdrop and genesis of the Refugee Act of 1980 reveal that Congress took extraordinary care in
delineating precisely how, and according to what [*519] standards, it meant to delegate its
immigration authority in the realm of refugee admissions. The legislative history, recounted above, lays
out in detail Congress's disavowal of the executive's previous ad hoc, unilateral, and discriminatory
refugee admissions process. n359

In unilaterally suspending refugee admissions and lowering the number of refugee admissions to 50,000,
the second Executive Order ignores the mandated role of Congress in the refugee resettlement system.
As explained previously, the Refugee Act requires the President to work with Congress in setting the
number via several steps, including high-level discussions between his cabinet and relevant
Congressional committee members, a lengthy report to Congress, and a public hearing. n360

President Obama followed these required steps for the FY 2017 refugee admissions numbers. In
September 2016, President Obama engaged with the statutorily mandated "appropriate consultation"
with Congress in determining that "[t]he admission of up to 110,000 refugees to the United States
during Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 is justified by humanitarian concerns or is otherwise in the national
interest." n361 This included high-level discussions between his cabinet and Congress and submission of
a detailed report. President Trump, in rushing to issue the first two Executive Orders, neglected to
consult with Congress on the number and allocation of refugee admissions as required.

Moreover, although 8 U.S.C. § 1157 provides a mechanism for the President to increase the number of
refugee admissions in response to an "unforeseen emergency refugee situation," the statute contains
no avenue for lowering admissions numbers within a fiscal year. Congress's decision to expressly allow
for increases of refugee admissions but not decreases suggests that lowering the number is not allowed.
Even the permitted increases must also undergo "appropriate consultations," underscoring again the
conflict posed by unilateral action by the President absent any discussion with Congress.

D. Refugee Admissions Numbers, Allocations, and Determinations: Statutory Standards and

Nondiscrimination

Finally, even if a blanket suspension of entry is a permissible end-run around the Congressionally-
mandated refugee resettlement system, the executive order fails to apply the statutory standard for
individual refugee admissions or for allocation of admissions. Both must be rooted in "special
humanitarian concern." As explored in detail in Section II(B), supra, Congress changed the language of
"special concern" to "special humanitarian [*520] concern" expressly to "emphasize that the plight of
the refugees themselves, as opposed to national origins or political considerations, should be
paramount in determining which refugees are to be admitted." n362

Congress specified the standard of "special humanitarian concern" with respect to three aspects of
refugee admissions decisions. The phrase first appears to mandate how the total number of slots for a
given fiscal year, once determined by the President in consultation with Congress, should be allocated
among refugees:

(3) Admissions under this subsection shall be allocated among refugees of special humanitarian concern
to the United States in accordance with a determination made by the President after appropriate
consultation. n363

Second, and similarly, the phrase directs how slots should be allocated if the President (in consultation
with Congress) invokes the § 1157(b) mechanism to increase the number of admissions in response to a
refugee emergency:

(b) . . . the President may fix a number of refugees to be admitted to the United States during the
succeeding period (not to exceed twelve months) in response to the emergency refugee situation and
such admissions shall be allocated among refugees of special humanitarian concern to the United States
in accordance with a determination made by the President after the appropriate consultation provided
under this subsection.

Finally, the phrase governs individual refugee admission decisions under either the normal fiscal year
numbers or an authorized increase under 8 U.S.C. § 1157(c)(1):

Subject to the numerical limitations established pursuant to subsections (a) and (b), the Attorney
General may, in the Attorney General's discretion and pursuant to such regulations as the Attorney
General may prescribe, admit any refugee who is not firmly resettled in any foreign country, is
determined to be of special humanitarian concern to the United States, and is admissible (except as
otherwise provided under paragraph (3)) as an immigrant under this chapter. n364

The Executive Order simply ignores the standard of "special humanitarian concern." Even putting aside
the unlawful nature of blanket suspension of refugee admissions, the "case-by-case" waiver provision of
the Executive [*521] Order conflicts with the statutory standard for admissions allocations and
individual admissions. Section 6(c) of the Order provides:

(c) Notwithstanding the temporary suspension imposed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, the
Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security may jointly determine to admit individuals to
the United States as refugees on a case-by-case basis, in their discretion, but only so long as they
determine that the entry of such individuals as refugees is in the national interest and does not pose a
threat to the security or welfare of the United States, including in circumstances such as the following:
the individual's entry would enable the United States to conform its conduct to a preexisting
international agreement or arrangement, or the denial of entry would cause undue hardship.

The importation here of a "national interest" standard into the case-by-case waiver exception does not
comport with the statute. Although 8 U.S.C. § 1157 does contain language requiring consideration of the
"national interest," it does so not for individual refugee admissions decisions but rather for refugee
admissions numbers in the aggregate. The phrase "national interest" appears at 8 U.S.C. § 1157(a)(2),
governing fiscal year totals; again at § 1157(b), as a factor for emergency-based increase in totals; and
finally in the "appropriate consultations" definition, when describing the requirement that the President
engage in high-level discussions with Congress on his proposed admissions levels. n365 Congress
expressly used the "national interest" terminology to guide setting of aggregate numbers, but chose not
to do so for provisions relating to individual refugee admission decisions n366 or admission allocations
within the same statutory section. Courts should infer [*522] that this was a deliberate choice,
reflecting Congress's desire that individual refugee decisions and the allocation of limited slots not be
subjected to a national interest inquiry. n367 The legislative history, decrying the previous era's policies,
amply demonstrates the underpinnings of this desire: Congress did not want individual refugee
decisions or the allocation of limited slots among refugees to be discriminatory or ideological in nature.

E. National Origin Distinctions In Refugee Context

A more nuanced critique might point out that refugee admissions policy post-1980 has historically been
national origin based. n368 Indeed, the President specifically allocates admissions in terms of
continental region, and within that, often sets country targets to meet. n369 Drawing then-candidate
Trump's ire during the election season, for example, President Barack Obama pledged 10,000 refugee
admissions for Syrian nationals. n370 Prior administrations have also set up special refugee admissions
programs to assist certain nationals in-country, most recently Obama's Central American Minors
Program for Honduran, Guatemalan, and Salvadoran children (which Trump unfortunately terminated).
n371

But these actions do not suggest that our domestic refugee laws permit policies rooted in discriminatory
animus on the basis of national origin--or rooted in religious animus that uses national origin as a proxy.
It is entirely within the scope of "special humanitarian concern"--the standard for refugee admission
allocations--to designate nationals of a particular country in order to assist and protect them from a
crisis taking place within their country. It is another thing altogether to target an entire country's
nationals for exclusion from refugee protection on the basis of national origin or religion. Such action
would fail any reasonable interpretation of the phrase "special humanitarian concern," both as a matter
of plain text and when considering the phrase in light of its non-discrimination purposes. Congress very
clearly instructed that interpretation of that phrase reflect "the plight of refugees themselves, as
opposed to national origins or political considerations, [*523] should be paramount" n372 National
origin considerations rooted in the plight of refugees may survive the standard, but national origin
standing alone (or reflecting religious animus) simply cannot.

***

The non-discrimination norm occupies a central space in the purpose and intent of our domestic laws,
the purpose and provisions of the Refugee Convention, and nearly every step of analysis of the refugee
definition itself. Indeed, the experience of discrimination has far-reaching and fundamental effects on an
individual's claim, transforming the scope and boundaries of refugee protection. It is at the very heart of
refugee and asylum law. Congress also wrote non-discrimination principles into the substantive
standards governing refugee admissions, and gave itself a key structural role to safeguard the overall
integrity of our refugee system.
Read in light of their well-documented purposes, Executive Orders 13,769 and 13,780 are deeply
inconsistent with the U.S. statutory framework for the admission of refugees and the international law
system of the same. Admittedly, no one statutory provision or treaty article expressly states that
overseas refugee admissions cannot be suspended or withdrawn on the basis of religion or national
origin. However, the clear picture that emerges from legislative history, international law obligations,
domestic law and jurisprudence on the meaning of a refugee, and the scope and structure of delegated
authority points in a single direction: the President cannot unilaterally enact a policy driven by animus
against refugees for reasons of protected ground. To do so would defeat the object and purposes of the
Refugee Convention as well as the Refugee Act of 1980. It would violate clear obligations under
international human rights law--which in turn inform the scope of our duties under the Refugee
Convention. It would inject a deep and unconscionable incongruity between our refugee system and the
very definition of a refugee. And it exceeds the scope of authority delegated to the President by
Congress, in part by conflicting with the standards for admissions set by law.

So, where do we go from here? It seems unlikely that calls to human rights principles, international
treaty obligations, or domestic refugee law will carry much weight for the Administration in this context.
The Supreme Court, for one, has never weighed in on the interplay between non-discrimination norms
and principles and our domestic and international refugee law, although its prior decisions have
unfortunately permitted discriminatory return of Haitian refugees in practice. n373 [*524]
Nevertheless, our domestic system does provide some avenues for negotiation.

Congress, in particular, should assume its rightful role in the process. It should take a stance, in the
strongest possible terms, rejecting unilateral executive action under the Order as unlawful. If and when
the President begins to engage in "appropriate consultation," Congress must use that channel to ensure
that the refugee admissions process remains open and non-discriminatory. In the coming months,
Congress should carefully scrutinize how the new Order, if allowed to take effect, affects refugee flows
of individuals from any particular region, country, or religious background. It should also express its
desire that the number of refugee admissions be set at its prior figure of 110,000 or higher in light of
ongoing global refugee crises around the world. In particular, Congress should push back against
attempts to drastically lower refugee admissions, as reflected by the Administration's egregiously low FY
2018 proposal for only 45,000 refugees. n374

Congressional action can end Nation of Origin Restrictions

PTI 2018 - Citing Neal Katyal
"'Congress must reverse Trump's atrocious travel ban on people from Muslim-majority countries,'" Jun
27, www.dnaindia.com/world/report-congress-must-reverse-trump-s-atrocious-travel-ban-on-people-
from-muslim-majority-countries-2630038

The Congress must reverse Donald Trump's "atrocious" travel ban on people from several Muslim-
majority countries, a top Indian-American attorney has demanded, after the US Supreme Court narrowly
upheld the President's immigration policy.

Neal Katyal, one of the principal litigators against Trump's controversial travel ban, said the policy was
"unconstitutional, unprecedented, unnecessary and un-American".
Katyal, former deputy solicitor general in the Obama administration and the primary architect of
arguments against President Trump's travel ban, called for hope and congressional action in the face of
the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling along party lines, yesterday.

Trump had announced his first travel ban aimed at seven countries, just a week after he took office in
January 2017, triggering a global uproar.

The travel ban had restricted the entry of people from Iran, North Korea, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia
and Venezuela. Chad was originally on the list but it was recently removed after having met baseline
security requirements.

President Trump today lauded the ruling "a tremendous victory for the American People and the
Constitution" and said he felt vindicated.

But Katyal said: "In this case, it was not the decision but the process that defines America and that gives
me hope." "Though I am disappointed in the outcome, I am heartened that our system of government
worked as the founders have intended," Katyal, who represented the state of Hawaii and other
challengers in the Supreme Court case involving Trump's travel ban, said.

Over the past year, a suit brought by ordinary Americans made its way through the federal courts and
the judiciary forced the White House to amend the travel bans to bring them more in line with the US
Constitution, he noted.

"We continue to believe, as do four dissenting justices, that the travel ban is unconstitutional,
unprecedented, unnecessary and un-American," the 48-year-old lawyer said.

He said the travel ban is an "atrocious policy, and makes us less safe and undermines our American
ideals. Now that the Court has upheld it, it is up to Congress to do its job and reverse [the] travel ban."
He said he was proud to have played a part in this case and look forward to continuing to advocate on
behalf of the rule of law.

Human rights organisation Amnesty International said the ban, and the anti-Muslim sentiment in which
it originated, has "no place in a country that claims to value human rights." Ryan Mace, Grassroots
Advocacy & Refugee Specialist at Amnesty International USA, called it a "hateful policy", CNN reported.

The American Civil Liberties Union also condemned the court's ruling, saying that "this is not the first
time the Court has been wrong, or has allowed official racism and xenophobia to continue rather than
standing up to it." Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project, said in a statement
that the court's "ruling will go down in history as one of the Supreme Court's great failures."

Democratic National Committee chair Tom Perez said, "Discrimination is not a national security strategy,
and prejudice is not patriotism. Let's call this ban for what it is: an outright attack on the Muslim
community that violates our nation's commitment to liberty and justice for all." But congressional
Republicans applauded the Supreme Court's decision, arguing that it was a win for national security and
dismissing the accusations that it is a ban on Muslims entering the US.
There is no guarantee that other countries will keep accepting refugees – we have an
ethical obligation to accept them here and hope other countries follow our lead
Carens 2018 - prof of political theory @ U of Toronto
Joseph being interviewed by Sean Illing, "The moral case against Trump's travel ban," Jun 26,
https://www.vox.com/2017/6/26/15875020/trump-travel-muslim-ban-supreme-court-ruling

Sean Illing

What do you see as the basis of our moral obligations to admit refugees?

Joseph Carens

I think there are at least three overlapping bases for these obligations. The first is that the US is
sometimes responsible for the fact that someone has become a refugee. For example, people in Iraq
and Afghanistan who have helped American forces by serving as translators or in other capacities have
sometimes been put at risk because of this service. There are already stories of such people being
excluded from admission (and hence, safety) as a result of Trump’s policy.

The second basis for the obligation to refugees is simply the humanitarian duty to help people in
desperate straits when one can do so. This duty has its roots in many different religious and secular
ethical traditions. The United States has traditionally admitted more refugees than any other country
(although Germany has clearly passed the US in this respect in the past few years). The complete ban on
refugee admissions for four months and the subsequent reduction (by half) of the number who will be
accepted is a failure to meet America’s humanitarian obligations.

The third basis for the obligation to refugees is that the United States and most other countries have
acknowledged that the international state system has a duty to protect refugees. In the wake of the
failure of democratic states to protect Jewish refugees from the Nazis, the United States led the effort to
create institutions that would prevent such a moral failure in the future. That regime already suffers
from severe limitations, and the new Trump policy will undermine it further.

Sean Illing

What are the moral limits on what states can do to individuals in a democratic society, and why is the
answer to that question relevant to thinking about immigration policy?

Joseph Carens

I'd say that we have principles that everyone recognizes. For example, people have a right to a fair trial,
to freedom of religion, to freedom of speech, to freedom of movement. Now, many of these things are
put into the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, but there are overlapping rights that are freestanding
norms that we have about how you can treat people or what it's reasonable for the government to do.
These are basic norms of fairness and reciprocity, principles that we hold to be transcendentally true.

Sean Illing

I’ll stop you there for just a second and ask an obvious question: What do these norms and rights have
to do with immigration in particular? I imagine many people will associate these rights with citizenship,
or membership in a defined polity.
Joseph Carens

Well, this includes norms about how you can treat noncitizens. People sometimes think that all rights
are due to citizenship, but that's just not correct in the empirical or legal or normative sense. So take the
right to a fair trial. If you're a noncitizen and you're accused of a crime, you're supposed to be treated
exactly the same way a citizen is. You have the same rights that a citizen does in this area. In fact,
permanent residents have virtually all the rights that a citizen has except for the right to vote.

Sean Illing

In your book, you say that contemporary reflection about refugees begins in the shadow of the
Holocaust. Countless Jewish people fled Hitler in search of protection, and most of them did not get it.
Do you see Trump’s travel ban on, say, people fleeing civil war in Syria as analogous in any way?

Joseph Carens

Absolutely. I think this is a point that's been made by a number of Jewish groups who are trying to
welcome Syrian refugees. It's an irony, as many have noted, that this policy was announced on
Holocaust Remembrance Day. At the time of the Holocaust, there were lots of Jews trying to flee Nazi
Germany, and many Western states, including America and Canada, refused to accept them.

President Trump's answer to the question of how many Syrian refugees are too many seems to be
"none." None is too many. In the wake of World War II, in the wake of seeing what happened, we vowed
never to let that happen again, and that's exactly what we're doing in the case of Syria.

These people's lives are at stake, and if the United States turns them away, why do we assume other
countries will take them in? And if no one else takes them in, what do we think will happen to them?

Sean Illing

There’s a lot of discussion about the legality of Trump’s travel ban, but here I’d like to dive into some of
the deeper ethical objections. I’ll start with this: Do you think this policy will produce more suffering
than it relieves?

Joseph Carens

The goal of the policy is to reduce the threat of terrorism, but many objectors (rightly) think that the
policy’s actual effect will be to increase the threat of terrorism because it will alienate Muslims
throughout the world and will confirm the claim of ISIS that the United States is fundamentally hostile to
Islam, but it won’t actually aid in preventing the entry of people who might pose a threat.

This is an important, and, in my view, persuasive argument about the likely consequences of the policy,
and so a good reason for rejecting it, but it is an ethical argument only in the very limited sense that any
policy that causes more harm than good with respect to a legitimate goal (like reducing the threat of
terrorism) can be said to be bad from a moral perspective.

Sean Illing

What about the claims that it runs counter to fundamental American values?

Joseph Carens
Openness to immigrants and refugees has played a key role in making the United States what it is today
and is a central element in the American ideal. This need not entail denying the reality of practices of
marginalization and exclusion of immigrants and refugees at many points in the American past. Rather,
it reflects a commitment to live up to the ideal and not to repeat those failures.

This sort of objection to Trump’s policy focuses on values and ideals, and, in that respect, it is clearly a
moral argument. On the other hand, within some limits, deciding what you want your country to be is
clearly the sort of thing that democratic politics is supposed to be about.

Sean Illing

Perhaps the most essential moral objection is that a policy like this violates basic principles that are
supposed to limit or constrain democratic politics — justice, fairness, equality, individual freedom.

Joseph Carens

I think this policy does that in two obvious ways.

First, in imposing restrictions on entry that take immediate effect, it violates norms of fairness. As
everyone knows, the policy has stranded people abroad who had already been living in the United
States as well as people who had been given permission to come and had made life plans on that basis.
To deprive people of a right to enter the United States that they had previously been granted and which
they have done nothing to forfeit is unfair.

The Trump administration has already implicitly acknowledged this moral failure in changing the policy
so that it no longer restricts the entry of green card holders (i.e., people entitled to live in the US as
permanent residents), but this still leaves a great many people who have done nothing wrong stranded
abroad with their lives disrupted. For example, students cannot get in to continue or start their studies,
workers with permits other than green cards cannot return, and so on. These exclusions are simply
arbitrary.

Second, the policy violates the moral principle that it is wrong to discriminate on the basis of religion.
The seven states whose citizens are not permitted entry are all overwhelmingly Muslim. Trump himself
has implicitly acknowledged that it is wrong to discriminate on the basis of religion by denying that he is
doing so. This recalls the old saying that hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue. In this case,
however, the hypocrisy is so blatant, given Trump’s past and present statements about Islam, that no
one who cares about reality can take his protestations seriously. This policy is clearly and deliberately
aimed at restricting the entry of Muslims.

Sean Illing

Why is the distinction between migrants and refugees so important, and why do refugees have a
stronger claim upon host societies for aid and sanctuary?

Joseph Carens

Migrants are people who want to move from one country to another. They may have good reasons for
moving or bad reasons for moving. Refugees are people who have a desperate need to move: They're
not safe in some fundamental way and they need to leave. So their claim to move is much stronger, and
we all recognize that. The United States has signed the Geneva Convention on refugees. Even Trump
doesn't deny that refugees have some kind of claim, he's just not willing to meet it. He's concerned
about those who are suffering and desperate, but he's not prepared to say what he will do to help them.

Sean Illing

What rights do states have to determine that accepting or admitting refugees imposes unsustainable
burdens or risks on their society?

Joseph Carens

Nobody thinks that states have to admit people who actually are terrorists, and so it's reasonable for a
state to do some vetting. Nobody thinks a state should admit so many refugees that it cannot function.
But in a lot of cases, this involves what one thinks is a reasonable assessment.

So the idea that because someone might be a terrorist, or there's a tiny chance that someone's a
terrorist, is not in itself a justification for shutting the doors. There has to be some kind of balance in
terms of the judgments we're making. Reasonable people can disagree about what that balance is, but
the extreme standard that Trump is using is well beyond the standards of reasonableness.

Sean Illing

There seems to be a problem of distributive justice here in which the burdens of accepting refugees are
not dispersed equally across the nations of the world. How do we deal with that given the limits on
interstate cooperation?

Joseph Carens

That's an important issue, and there isn't a structural solution to that, there's nothing that can make a
state accept refugees. So if the United States refuses to do, there is no one that can force us to do it. But
that's a question that every American should ask himself or herself: If we don't take in these refugees,
who is going to do it? And why do we think it's reasonable to expect them to do it if we won't? It seems
to me that nobody is asking that question.

Right now there are millions of Syrian refugees in countries like Jordan and Turkey and Lebanon, and
these are not countries that have caused this crisis in any way. They have no particular responsibility for
these refugees, except for the fact that they're next door. But there's no reason to expect these
countries to provide new homes for all of these refugees for the rest of their lives, and there's no sign
that this conflict will end anytime soon.

The plan spills over to broader cooperation on resettlement

Center for Global Development 2018
"Reflecting on World Refugee Day: The Trends and Consequences of US Refugee Policy," Jun 20,
https://reliefweb.int/report/united-states-america/reflecting-world-refugee-day-trends-and-
consequences-us-refugee-policy

Sitting here in Washington, DC, it’s hard to be optimistic this World Refugee Day. The Trump
administration has reduced refugee resettlement to record lows, nominated an individual to lead the
State Department’s population, refugees, and migration bureau who has spread prejudicial
misinformation about immigrants in the United States, and instituted a “zero tolerance” immigration
policy that translated to separating families—including those seeking asylum—at the US-Mexico border.
(Though under a new executive order signed today, families will be detained together.)

All of this is taking place at a particularly distressing time. UNHCR recently announced that the number
of people forcibly displaced from their homes increased by 2.9 million in 2017—bringing the total
number to 68.5 million: 25.4 million refugees, 40 million internally displaced people, and 3.1 million
asylum-seekers.

To better understand the trends and consequences of US policy against the backdrop of increasing need,
we convened a panel as part of the launch of CGD’s migration, displacement and humanitarian policy
program. One of us (Cindy Huang) moderated a discussion—with former White House Chief of Staff
Denis McDonough; Nazanin Ash, the Vice President of Global Policy and Advocacy at the International
Rescue Committee (IRC); and Michael Gerson, a Washington Post columnist and former speechwriter for
George W. Bush—on trends in US refugee policies and the humanitarian and strategic challenges these
policies pose. This blog highlights some of the key themes and facts from the discussion (you can view
the entire discussion here, at the 1:34:00 mark in the video), including a final note of optimism on
potential ways forward.

Discouraging trends in US refugee policy

2016 marked a landmark in new commitments to resettling refugees, with a record 37 countries
participating in resettlement. At the Leaders’ Summit on the Global Refugee Crisis, a group of developed
countries—including the United States—agreed to double their number of resettlement spots and
increase financing for refugee-hosting developing countries by 30 percent. Developing countries agreed
to increase refugees’ access to work and education.

Mr. McDonough highlighted that many of the commitments made by countries other than the United
States remain in place. But, as Ms. Ash described, the United States has taken a drastic turn away from
supporting refugee resettlement.

Figure 1 below shows how US policy towards refugee admissions has changed under the Trump
administration. Depicting the number of refugee admissions to the United States annually and total
numbers of refugees worldwide, it shows that, based on the first eight months of the 2018 fiscal year,
refugee admissions are projected to fall sharply, from a recent high of 84,994 in FY 2016 to a projected
21,292 for FY 2018—the lowest level since 1977.

Furthermore, the current ceiling for refugee admissions of 45,000, is the lowest for the history of the
current US resettlement program. Coming at a time when global numbers of displaced people are
reaching record highs, the ratio of refugees admitted to the United States to the number of refugees
worldwide has never been lower. For the first time, the trend in US admissions is moving decisively
against the trend of the total number of refugees worldwide.

Historically, refugee admissions have not been a partisan issue, as figure 1 shows. Rising and falling
levels of refugee admissions have been observed during both Democratic and Republican
administrations, and some of the largest admission numbers occurred during the presidencies of Ronald
Reagan and George H. W. Bush. Rather than being tied to a certain party, changes in admission numbers
have mostly been driven by major events, such as 9/11 and the end of the Cold War, and followed
trends in overall refugee numbers. As Mr. Gerson observed during the event, US support for refugees
has traditionally been “a nonpartisan issue.” In the past, the United States has had the world’s largest
resettlement program. Now, the United States is retreating from supporting refugees at a time when its
leadership is most needed.

The United States has retreated in particular from admitting Syrian refugees. In the first eight months of
the 2018 fiscal year, the United States accepted only 46 Syrian refugees—a 99 percent drop compared
to the same time period in FY 2017. This is illustrative of a broader trend on the acceptance of Muslim
refugees, which fell by over 82 percent over the same period. (For a breakdown of other trends in
refugee admissions, see this article from IRC.)

Figure 2 shows that, although the United States has never accepted very large numbers of Syrian
refugees, it had been accepting them at a growing rate throughout the duration of the Syrian Civil
War—until acceptance rates cratered in 2018, even as the number of Syrian refugees rose to over six
million.

Meanwhile, as Ms. Ash pointed out, low- and middle-income countries, with far fewer resources and
their own development challenges, hosted 85 percent of the world’s refugees at the end of 2016. In
Jordan, where refugees account for over 7 percent of the population, an estimated 25 percent of the
government’s annual revenues go to hosting refugees. Recently, Bangladesh received more refugees
over the course of three weeks than mainland Europe received from across the Mediterranean in all of
2016—and Bangladesh has less than 2 percent of the EU’s GDP. In Lebanon, one in six residents is a
refugee. (We calculated the refugee population proportions using the 2017 UNHCR Population Statistics
for refugee and refugee-like populations, which does not include Palestinian refugees, and the World
Bank’s World Development Indicators for total population.)

Figure 3 illustrates how relative responsibilities differ across income levels for major refugee hosting
countries. Among the 23 countries hosting at least 200,000 refugees, only four are high income—and
only one of the countries with the top 10 largest refugee populations is high income. Of the eleven
countries where refugees account for at least 1 percent of the population, only two are high income
(refugees account for 0.09 percent of the US population). And, of course, high-income countries have
more resources to host refugees and to implement policies and programs that help them become
positive economic contributors.

The consequences of US withdrawal

America’s retreat from support for refugee resettlement has far-reaching humanitarian, strategic, and
economic consequences.

By withdrawing from refugee resettlement, the United States is encouraging others to do so the same.
As Ms. Ash argued, the current practice of branding refugees as “undeserving, economically
burdensome, and unsafe” is contributing to a global “decline in commitments and obligations to refugee
protection.” And, by doing less than its fair share, the United States is forcing developing countries to
reconsider their outsized responsibilities, encouraging overall trends toward “closed borders, forced or
encouraged returns, and increasing restrictions on refugees in host countries.”

From a humanitarian perspective, this means that many of the 1.5 million refugees identified as in need
of resettlement—these refugees are the most vulnerable or have been separated from their families—
will be denied safe havens or their right to family reunification. Many will be forced to return to unsafe
conditions in their home countries, and even more will continue living in environments with restricted
rights and opportunities.

From a strategic perspective, Mr. Gerson argued that when the United States leads, it catalyzes positive
action from other countries. When it withdraws, it creates gaps that “get filled by chaos,” not by other
good actors. Currently, the US withdrawal from the refugee crisis is straining its allies and creating “food
insecurity, the risk of radicalization, [and] the destabilization of European politics.” And with rising levels
of displacement on the horizon, more problems will emerge if the United States remains inactive. With
the World Wars and 9/11 as examples, history shows that we cannot “ignore problems until they arrive
on our doorstep” because regional disorder can cause “massive chaos” around the world.

From an economic perspective, the United States is missing an opportunity by rejecting refugees. To
provide just one example of how refugees can contribute economically, after 20 years in the United
States, the average refugee has paid $21,000 more in taxes than they have received in benefits.

Moving forward: fighting the dehumanization of refugees

The current rhetoric and action against refugees is largely driven by tactics that involve dehumanizing
refugees. According to Mr. Gerson, it has been a consistent strategy of the Trump administration to
“feed fear of the other,” including refugees. And the best way to counter dehumanization is to use
arguments that humanize refugees.

So how does one humanize refugees in a way that resonates with Americans?

Mr. Gerson suggested telling stories that “reveal the nature of the people we are talking about.” This
could include pointing out that many refugees are women and children, facing challenges ranging from a
lack of access to education to struggling to avoid early marriage.

Mr. McDonough recommended pointing to the fact that “people that participate in the [refugee
resettlement] program overwhelmingly succeed,” and helping people to connect with a more accurate
depiction of refugees, who are typically successful and entrepreneurial individuals.

Ms. Ash noted that IRC has seen a 100 percent increase in volunteer applications since January of 2017
and that in communities that host refugees, there is a “tremendous amount of support” for refugees.
Tapping into these communities and mobilizing these supporters as advocates may be a powerful means
of mobilizing broader public support for refugees.

While the panel focused on trends in the United States, anti-refugee and immigrant forces are on the
rise elsewhere. These ideas, especially the combination of compelling human stories with facts and
evidence, are important for advancing any cause—but perhaps none so important today as fighting
dehumanization and standing up for our common humanity and dignity.
 1AC — Plan + Solvency (Tier III)
The United States federal government should substantially reduce its restrictions on
legal immigration to the United States by removing the Tier III designation for terrorist
organizations in the Immigration Naturalization Act and lifting the cap on the number
of refugees accepted into the US each year.
Tier III designation is the key restriction from Syrians getting into the US
Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program 2018
“Fulfilling U.S. Commitment to Refugee Resettlement: Protecting Refugees, Preserving National Security,
& Building the U.S. Economy Through Refugee Admissions," 5 Tex. A&M L. Rev. 155

D. To Congress

1. Amend the INA

As noted above, refugee applications often face delays due to security concerns. In order to ensure that
the bars to refugee protection are not applied indiscriminately and too broadly, Congress should
consider removing the Tier III designation for terrorist organizations in the INA, which defines terrorist
organizations as "a group of two or more individuals, whether organized or not, which engages in, or has
a subgroup which engages in, [a terrorist activity]." n356 Tier I and Tier II organizations are designated
by the Secretary of State in consultation with the attorney general and Department of Homeland
Security and are "subject to public scrutiny" when published in the Federal Register. Tier III
determinations, however, are not subject to these checks and balances. n357

As a result of improper application of the material support provision, many bona fide refugees who are
not security threats are excluded from protection; calls for the designation's removal from the INA
should therefore be heeded. n358 Reducing the breadth of the material support bar - in particular by
limiting the scope of "material support" and "terrorist activity" and allowing for a coercion or duress
defense - would also be a positive step to properly defining TRIG. n359

2. Amend ORR's Budget

To ensure that ORR can provide the services needed by the increasingly diverse population of refugees
and others in its care, Congress should stabilize ORR's financing by including funding for a contingency
account. n360 Notably, ORR's budget has not experienced an increase equal to that of PRM's budget for
the Reception and Placement Program, which doubled in FY 2010. n361

[*234]

3. Realign the Consultation and Presidential Determination Timeline

Information provided to resettlement agencies and local community stakeholders needs to be in tune
with the process for submitting annual placement plans and budget proposals to the State Department.
To achieve this, Congress should realign the timeline for consultation with the President, scheduling the
congressional consultation in February or March, concurrent with the budgetary proposal that the
President submits to Congress. n362 This modification to the timeline would allow for more accurate
budget projections and would afford states better data to plan for refugee arrivals during the upcoming
fiscal year.
Congress is necessary to divorce the country from Trump’s politics and to lift the cap
on refugees
Lee 2017 - Co-legal Director at the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies @ UC Hastings College of Law
Eunice, "Non-discrimination in Refugee and Asylum Law (Against Travel Ban 1.0 and 2.0)," 31 Geo.
Immigr. L.J. 459

The non-discrimination norm occupies a central space in the purpose and intent of our domestic laws,
the purpose and provisions of the Refugee Convention, and nearly every step of analysis of the refugee
definition itself. Indeed, the experience of discrimination has far-reaching and fundamental effects on an
individual's claim, transforming the scope and boundaries of refugee protection. It is at the very heart of
refugee and asylum law. Congress also wrote non-discrimination principles into the substantive
standards governing refugee admissions, and gave itself a key structural role to safeguard the overall
integrity of our refugee system.

Read in light of their well-documented purposes, Executive Orders 13,769 and 13,780 are deeply
inconsistent with the U.S. statutory framework for the admission of refugees and the international law
system of the same. Admittedly, no one statutory provision or treaty article expressly states that
overseas refugee admissions cannot be suspended or withdrawn on the basis of religion or national
origin. However, the clear picture that emerges from legislative history, international law obligations,
domestic law and jurisprudence on the meaning of a refugee, and the scope and structure of delegated
authority points in a single direction: the President cannot unilaterally enact a policy driven by animus
against refugees for reasons of protected ground. To do so would defeat the object and purposes of the
Refugee Convention as well as the Refugee Act of 1980. It would violate clear obligations under
international human rights law--which in turn inform the scope of our duties under the Refugee
Convention. It would inject a deep and unconscionable incongruity between our refugee system and the
very definition of a refugee. And it exceeds the scope of authority delegated to the President by
Congress, in part by conflicting with the standards for admissions set by law.

So, where do we go from here? It seems unlikely that calls to human rights principles, international
treaty obligations, or domestic refugee law will carry much weight for the Administration in this context.
The Supreme Court, for one, has never weighed in on the interplay between non-discrimination norms
and principles and our domestic and international refugee law, although its prior decisions have
unfortunately permitted discriminatory return of Haitian refugees in practice. n373 [*524]
Nevertheless, our domestic system does provide some avenues for negotiation.

Congress, in particular, should assume its rightful role in the process. It should take a stance, in the
strongest possible terms, rejecting unilateral executive action under the Order as unlawful. If and when
the President begins to engage in "appropriate consultation," Congress must use that channel to ensure
that the refugee admissions process remains open and non-discriminatory. In the coming months,
Congress should carefully scrutinize how the new Order, if allowed to take effect, affects refugee flows
of individuals from any particular region, country, or religious background. It should also express its
desire that the number of refugee admissions be set at its prior figure of 110,000 or higher in light of
ongoing global refugee crises around the world. In particular, Congress should push back against
attempts to drastically lower refugee admissions, as reflected by the Administration's egregiously low FY
2018 proposal for only 45,000 refugees. n374
Terrorism Advantage
 Trade-Off
Empirics prove, strict policies on refugees trade off with government ability to fight
terrorism
Daniels, 15 (Owen Daniels-program assistant and researcher for the Middle East Peace and Security
Initiative at the Atlantic Council’s Brent Scowcroft Center on International Security. He graduated with
honors from Princeton University, where he majored in international relations and minored in Arabic
Language and Culture and Near Eastern Studies. He previously worked as a research assistant at Aviation
Week magazine, where he conducted US defense budget analysis, and has also worked at the
International Institute for Strategic Studies, the Middle East Scientific Institute for Security in Amman,
Jordan, and the European Roma Rights Center in Budapest, Hungary. His work on Gulf security, US
Middle East policy, and regional defense has appeared in Politico, The Diplomat, and the Huffington
Post, among other outlets, “4 Reasons the US Should Support the Resettlement of Syrian Refugees,”
November 23, 2015, https://www.huffingtonpost.com/owen-daniels/four-reasons-the-us-
shoul_b_8630704.html, dylchik)

Focusing extensively on the potential threats posed by refugees distracts from other pressing security
challenges highlighted by the Paris attacks. Paris raised concerns that ISIS might use refugees as sheep’s
clothing to infiltrate Western states. However, none of the attackers have been confirmed as refugees,
and the majority were actually citizens of France or Belgium. The attackers’ ability to coordinate and
execute their plan should sound more alarms about the intelligence failures involved. French
intelligence knew of at least three of the attackers, and received warnings about their movements from
foreign intelligence services in the leadup to the attack. Several of the attackers even traveled to Syria to
fight before returning to France and Belgium. While intelligence agencies in these countries were aware
of their presence back home, they were unable to connect the suspects to each other or the chatter
ahead of the attacks. Radicals at home, rather than new arrivals, were the perpetrators in France. The
US should learn from the failures that contributed to ISIS’s awful success with the Paris attacks. French
staffing constraints for terror threats and weak intelligence sharing between European states, combined
with higher numbers of ISIS supporters among Europe’s Muslims, are problems that the US does not
currently share. However, visa waivers that permit European travelers to enter the US without interviews and background checks could
pose a direct challenge to national security. Officials speculated that at least one of the Paris attackers could have slipped through the watchlist
system, giving gaps in European intelligence added significance. The US will likely take steps to reform the waiver process for European states in
the coming days, with proposed legislation due in early December that would prevent travelers who had visited Iraq or Syria in the last five
years from receiving a waiver. These
and other challenges, like how best to track returning foreign terrorist
fighters (FTF) and the difficulties of working around personal encryption technologies, are worthy of
greater deliberation and constructive debate than the threat from refugees.
 Travel Ban Bad
The travel ban is ineffective and only reinforces the anti-immigrant narrative that fuels
recruitment – It destroys alliances and cooperation to successful counterterrorist
efforts
Scott Shane, 1-28-2017, ("Immigration Ban Is Unlikely to Reduce Terrorist Threat, Experts Say," No
Publication, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/28/us/politics/a-sweeping-order-unlikely-to-reduce-
terrorist-threat.html //KDS Caden Joseph)

Rarely does an executive order announce a more straightforward and laudable purpose than the one
President Trump signed on Friday: “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United
States.” But the president’s directive is unlikely to significantly reduce the terrorist threat in the
United States, which has been a minuscule part of the overall toll of violence since 2001. Many experts
believe the order’s unintended consequences will make the threat worse. While the order requires the
Department of Homeland Security to issue a report within 180 days providing detailed statistics on
foreign nationals who commit acts of violence, terrorism researchers have already produced rich and
revealing data. For instance, since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, no one has been killed in the
United States in a terrorist attack by anyone who emigrated from or whose parents emigrated from
Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen, the seven countries targeted in the order’s 90-day
visa ban, according to Charles Kurzman, a sociology professor at the University of North Carolina. Of
Muslim Americans involved in violent extremism of any kind — for instance, charged with plotting
terrorism or supporting a terrorist group — only 23 percent had family backgrounds in those countries,
said Mr. Kurzman, who just published the latest of his annual studies of Muslim Americans and
terrorism. The larger point of experts is that jihadist attacks garner news attention that far outstrips
their prevalence in the United States, and the president’s order appears to address not a rational
calculation of risks but the visceral fears that terrorists set out to inflame. There was a random quality to
the list of countries: It excluded Saudi Arabia and Egypt, where the founders of Al Qaeda and many
other jihadist groups have originated. Also excluded are Pakistan and Afghanistan, where persistent
extremism and decades of war have produced militants who have occasionally reached the United
States. Notably, perhaps, the list avoided Muslim countries where Mr. Trump has major business
ventures. Nor did the list include the European countries where disenfranchised Muslim communities
have become hotbeds of militancy, leading to major attacks in Paris and Brussels in the name of the
Islamic State. Because no visas are required for travel by most European citizens to the United States,
and because of the volume of tourism and business, restricting travel from Europe would have been far
more difficult and consequential than banning it from only the seven countries named. By Mr.
Kurzman’s count, 123 people have been killed in the United States by Muslim terrorists since the 2001
attacks — out of a total of more than 230,000 killings, by gang members, drug dealers, angry spouses,
white supremacists, psychopaths, drunks and people of every description. So the order addresses, at
most, one-1,870th of the problem of lethal violence in America. If the toll of Sept. 11 is included,
jihadists still account for just over 1 percent of killings. “My advice to the new administration would be
to declare victory,” Mr. Kurzman said. For the average American, he added, “your odds of being
victimized by a terrorist attack are infinitesimal.” But terrorists — the root of the word means “to cause
to tremble” — do not operate in the realm of dry facts and statistics. Their purpose is to terrify, and they
use random and spectacular violence to do it, with an invaluable assist from the saturation coverage on
cable television and news websites that such outrages inevitably draw. To the rational calculations of
Mr. Kurzman, one might simply reply with the list of American cities where horrific jihadist attacks have
occurred in recent years: Boston; San Bernardino, Calif.; and Orlando, Fla. — place names that conjure
up images of ghastly wounds, bullet-ridden bodies and frightened people running for cover. In Gallup
polls, the number of Americans “very worried” or “somewhat worried” about such attacks generally
hovers between 30 and 50 percent, with understandable spikes after new attacks. In the political realm,
where emotions and symbols hold sway, Mr. Trump’s order may reassure some Americans that they are
safer from terrorism, and more generally, from concerns that Muslim immigrants may bring an alien
culture. (While ostensibly addressing terrorism, it also says that the United States should be protected
against those with “hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles” or those “who do not support
the Constitution.”) The trouble with such reassurance, even if it is effective, is that it comes at a high
cost, in the view of many experts on terrorism. That cost will be counted not just domestically but also
abroad, where the United States relies on allies, including Muslim countries, for intelligence and other
help against terrorism. “In my opinion, this is just a huge mistake in terms of counterterrorism
cooperation,” said Daniel Benjamin, formerly the State Department’s top counterterrorism official and
now a scholar at Dartmouth. “For the life of me, I don’t see why we would want to alienate the Iraqis
when they are the ground force against ISIS.” At home as well, Mr. Benjamin said, the president’s order
is likely to prove counterproductive. The jihadist threat in the United States has turned out to be largely
homegrown, he said, and the order will encourage precisely the resentments and anxieties on the part
of Muslims that fuel, in rare cases, support for the ideology of the Islamic State or Al Qaeda. “It sends an
unmistakable message to the American Muslim community that they are facing discrimination and
isolation,” Mr. Benjamin said. That, he said, will “feed the jihadist narrative” that the United States is at
war with Islam, potentially encouraging a few more Muslims to plot violence. For an action aimed at
terrorism, the order appeared to garner little or no support among experts and former officials of every
political stripe with experience in the field. Jonathan Schanzer, the vice president for research at the
conservative Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, said that if the temporary visa ban was used
to review and improve immigration vetting procedures, it might be justified. But he added that he knew
of no obvious problems with those procedures, and no specific plans to address such issues during the
temporary restrictions on visitors and refugees. “The order appears to be based mainly on a campaign
promise,” he said. Mr. Schanzer said he was frustrated that during the Obama administration, there had
been inadequate attention to the ultimate driver of refugee flows and jihadist terrorism in the United
States and elsewhere. “We have several bloody, complex and interlocking conflicts in the Middle East,”
he said. “It’s the job of the new administration to come up with policies that address those conflicts.
Admittedly, that is not easy.” Much easier, clearly, is issuing an executive order with political appeal and
a title that seems to smack of common sense. But as the Trump administration is finding out, such
pronouncements from an American president have many consequences, not all of them intended,
anticipated or desired.
The costs of the travel ban outweigh the benefits – It sends the international signal
that the U.S. is anti-muslim – Refugees contribute to economic growth and aren’t
terrorists
Qasim Rashid, 6/27/18, (Qasim Rashid is an attorney, author, and national spokesman for the
Ahmadiyya Muslim Community USA and a Truman National Security Fellow.,"The Supreme Court just
made a historic mistake — again," Washington Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-
opinions/wp/2018/06/27/the-supreme-court-just-made-a-historic-mistake-
again/?utm_term=.78152043fc1c //KDS Caden Joseph)

In a 5-to-4 decision on Tuesday, the Supreme Court exercised its power to uphold President Trump’s
travel ban — now often referred to as a “Muslim ban.” And it’s called that for good reason. Then-
candidate Trump issued a formal declaration in December 2015 calling for “a complete and total
shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.” He followed up this news release with repeated
statements calling for a ban on Muslims, that “Islam hates us,” and by fabricating stories of American
generals mass executing Muslims. The Trump campaign maintained that a Muslim ban is necessary to
maintain national security. The fact is, this was never about national security. The travel ban was
always about anti-Muslim religious animus — animus that has resulted in record highs in the number of
anti-Muslim hate crimes. As if it wasn’t already obvious enough to anyone who has read the First
Amendment, once it became clear that religious discrimination was not a viable reason to ban
immigrants or refugees, the narrative shifted to banning people based on country of citizenship. But
even this claim, on its face, fell flat. A Department of Homeland Security memo concluded that,
“citizenship is an unlikely indicator for terror threats within the [United States].” Additionally, the
White House conducted a study to demonstrate that refugees have a negative economic impact on
America. However, when the study backfired and concluded that refugees contribute $63 billion more
to America than they receive, the White House buried the study and focused only on the costs
associated with refugee resettlement. The Trump administration is on pace to admit the fewest
refugees since 1980 — only about 21,000, which is far below the cap of 110,000 established by the
Obama administration. Historically, refugees have never posed a threat to national security in America.
The conservative-leaning Cato Institute warned from the beginning, “a rational evaluation of national
security threats is not the basis for Trump’s orders, as the risk is fairly small but the cost is great. The
measures taken here will have virtually no effect on improving U.S. national security.” The institute’s
analysis is based in fact — for instance, no refugee over the past 45 years has killed an American
citizen. Not one. In another prominent analysis, Americans have only a 1-in-3.64 billion chance of being
killed by a refugee. That’s 5,200 times more unlikely than the chance of being struck by lightning.
 AT: Presidential Powers DA
The travel ban is an illegitimate expansion of authority
Margulies 2018 - Prof @ Roger Williams U School of Law
Peter, "The Travel Ban and Presidential Power," Apr 23, https://www.lawfareblog.com/travel-ban-and-
presidential-power

As our amicus brief demonstrates, the “context” of the INA today demonstrates even more firmly than
the War Brides Act in Knauff that deference to the executive branch must have limits. That context
includes the 1965 immigration amendments’ elevation of family unity to the “foremost” priority of
immigration law. It also includes Congress’s 1965 abolition of national-origin quotas and enactment of 8
USC § 1152(a)(1)(A), which bars discrimination in the issuance of immigrant visas. As our brief describes,
one factor that drove Congress to abolish national-origin quotas was the constant need for what
President Dwight Eisenhower had called an “avalanche” of private bills tempering the quota system’s
harshness. Having resorted to that tactic to assist Ellen Knauff and thousands of others, Congress
understood well the wastefulness of this piecemeal approach to immigration legislation and the need
for a more streamlined way forward. Relegating those subject to Trump’s travel ban to the episodic
arcana of private bills would have struck Congress in 1965 as exactly the sort of situation that it wished
to remedy.

The “context” of Trump’s travel ban also includes the past practice of U.S. presidents, who limited
efforts to exclude foreign nationals to identifiable individuals accused of specific conduct—such as
Knauff’s alleged spying or, more recently, human rights violations in Kosovo or Burma—or to responses
to exigent national security matters, such as the Iran hostage crisis or the aftermath of the Cuban Mariel
boatlift. Even the broadest of such orders contained exemptions for the close relatives of U.S. citizens or
legal permanent residents far in excess of the most recent travel ban’s meager provision for waivers.
Viewed against that backdrop, the ban rests on claims of uncabined executive authority that do not
match Congress’s plan. Finding such boundless authority in the modern Immigration and Nationality Act
would require a clearer statement than the language that Congress has provided.

In sum, the government’s claims of Article II authority do not survive an encounter with case law or with
past practice. Even assuming that Congress recognized in the president some ability to exclude
particular individuals such as Ellen Knauff, precedent does not support a sweeping power to summarily
exclude entire countries’ immigrants. The logic of Knauff, the backdrop of the INA, and past practice cast
decisive doubt on those justifications for the travel ban.

Trump will only use presidential powers for self-preservation, not protecting national
security
Graham 2018 - staff writer at The Atlantic
David A, "The Strangest Thing About Trump’s Approach to Presidential Power," Jun 7,
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/06/the-strangest-thing-about-trumps-approach-to-
presidential-power/562271/

Donald Trump’s take on executive power is peculiar, but not merely because he’s reaching for more of
it.
Expanding presidential prerogatives is practically part of the job description in the modern era. So when
Trump’s all-caps flirtation with a self-pardon this week launched a new round of concerns about the
president’s use of executive power, many of those concerns were, in part, misdirected.

That’s not to say that Trump’s behavior is normal. In suggesting that he might pardon himself—even as
he insisted that he had done nothing to necessitate it—Trump implied that he was not so much above
the law as beyond it entirely. And Trump’s unprecedented assertion to self-pardon comes at a time
when his legal team is busy making other questionable claims—like the idea that the president can
reasonably resist a subpoena, and the assertion, made by Rudy Giuliani, that Trump couldn’t be indicted
even if he were to shoot former FBI Director James Comey.

Critics see this, rightly, as part of a broad rhetorical effort to undermine rule of law. “We overthrew
control by a monarchy, and the Constitution signals in multiple places that the president is subject to
law,” Peter Shane, a law professor at Ohio State University, told Charlie Savage.

But what’s most interesting is the way the president is choosing to flex his muscle compared with his
predecessors. Past presidents have frequently tested the limits of their powers—and of the
Constitution—on national security, war powers, and push-pull interactions with the legislature. But
Trump seems to be pushing against the limits of his presidential power almost entirely to protect
himself. “He certainly uses presidential power for personal purposes,” says Julian Zelizer, a professor of
history at Princeton. “That’s the place he uses it more aggressively—to protect himself, to protect his
inner circle. That’s clearly where he’s most assertive.”

By even publicly discussing a self-pardon, Trump is breaking new ground. Richard Nixon apparently
considered the idea late in the Watergate scandal, but the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) concluded he
could not do so, and he did not try. Instead, he resigned, and his successor, Gerald Ford, pardoned him.
Yet unless and until Trump actually tries to pardon himself, or refuses a subpoena, or shoots a former
official and tries to resist arrest, the actual limits of executive power will remain unknown.

“Most recently he’s at least openly talking about things beyond the boundaries of where other
presidents were willing to go,” says George Edwards III, a professor of political science and presidential
studies at Texas A&M. Other presidents have tried to shield the West Wing from scrutiny, he notes, “but
most presidents step way back from that when it comes to something in the realm of criminality, and of
course most presidents are not seriously under examination.”

Presidential privileges, once established, tend to persist. Opinions diverge about where to date the
beginning of the expansion of the president’s power. Abraham Lincoln claimed vast powers during the
Civil War, including allowing detaining prisoners without appearing before a judge. Teddy Roosevelt
consolidated federal power. A common conservative argument pins the most dangerous expansion on
Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, and World War II only expanded the president’s ambit. Several years
ago, the historian Robert Dallek suggested that John F. Kennedy had begun a new era. Liberals point to
George W. Bush’s vast assertions of power after 9/11; conservatives point to a variety of moves by
Barack Obama, often focusing on his own military moves overseas. Libertarians, civil and otherwise,
shake their heads in despair and say both groups are right.

It’s worth considering where these expansions took place. Franklin Roosevelt seized new powers over
the economy, first to fight the Great Depression, and then for the war effort. This gave the executive
branch new sway over regulating business and agriculture, under the cover of interstate commerce. He
also infamously tried to pack the Supreme Court in order to bless some of his expansive assertions of
power, and while that failed, the justices became more amenable to Roosevelt’s expansions afterward.
Some of these powers slowly abated, while others remained. Harry Truman attempted to seize control
of the steel industry in 1952. Price controls generally disappeared, though Richard Nixon briefly froze
wages and prices to combat inflation.

Kennedy’s great expansion was in the area of foreign policy, from soft programs like the Peace Corps to
more aggressive options, like the Bay of Pigs and the Vietnam War. The latter, which his successor
Lyndon Johnson expanded, is an infamous example of executive power: The war killed more than 58,000
Americans over more than a decade. Though the war was a cataclysm that soured the U.S. on foreign
wars for some time, presidents haven’t surrendered the power to deploy the military overseas. At the
moment, U.S. forces are involved in wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria and have extensive presence in
parts of Africa, in Yemen, and elsewhere, even though Congress hasn’t declared a war since 1942.

Following 9/11, Congress passed two Authorizations for Use of Military Force, against al-Qaeda in 2001
and for the full-scale invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2002. Obama later launched bombing raids
against Libya, saying the effort did not require congressional authorization. He also used the original
2001 AUMF to justify attacks on isis, a group that, as critics noted, didn’t even exist when Congress
passed the AUMF.* But Obama blinked when it came to Syria, deciding that he couldn’t launch airstrikes
on the Assad regime without Congress’s say-so.

Bush and Obama both pushed the limits of presidential authority and the Constitution on civil liberties
on national-security grounds. The Bush administration was repeatedly scolded by courts for its handling
of detainees from the war on terror. The government asserted the authority to torture prisoners, in part
by refusing to characterize its interrogation techniques that way. Bush also established sweeping new
surveillance powers.

Obama took office promising to curtail Bush’s overreach, but his record is a mixed bag. Obama banned
and investigated torture but declined to punish anyone for it. He continued massive surveillance, as
revealed by Edward Snowden. Obama also asserted the right to kill American citizens overseas without a
trial, a sweeping power, though used rarely.

What’s surprising is how limited, so far, Trump has been in expanding executive power where other
presidents have. Despite his promise to not engage in foreign wars, Trump ordered two separate missile
attacks on Syria. The OLC told Trump that such strikes were not a war but were in the national interest,
but this justification follows what Obama’s OLC told him.

When the government undertakes increased surveillance, it tends not to say so, so it’s possible that
Trump is expanding presidential power in that area. There are reasons to doubt that, though. Trump has
had the rockiest relationship with the intelligence community of any president, perhaps ever, and has
clashed with these agencies in particular over the Russia investigation. Because of his many, and so far
all debunked, claims of having been improperly surveilled during the campaign, he has evinced a
personal skepticism of intelligence collection and even briefly came out strongly against an intelligence
bill his administration backed, before apparently being talked down by aides.
Trump has sought to use executive actions where he cannot get Congress to act, but this follows directly
in the model Obama set, and in some cases Trump has used Obama’s tactics to dismantle Obama’s own
policies. Last week, the White House rolled out a plan to compel electric-grid operators to purchase
power from coal plants, using the same national-defense rationale Truman did to seize steel, but it’s
always difficult to tell how seriously the White House is pushing a policy like this. Trump has not been
especially aggressive with Congress, resulting in one of the skimpiest lists of legislative achievements in
recent years. In some cases, in fact, he seems to have empowered Congress rather than himself. As
James Hohmann wrote last August, the Senate’s decision to force sanctions on Russia over Trump’s
objection showed Congress reclaiming some powers. Nor, despite his often thunderous and shocking
language about the federal judiciary, has he tried to defy or alter courts in the manner of Nixon or
Roosevelt or Andrew Jackson.

Rather than take concrete actions, Trump has deployed unusually strong rhetoric. He has attacked
judges in unprecedented terms. He has repeatedly demanded that the Justice Department investigate
various political opponents. And, of course, he has made sweeping claims about pardons. So far,
however, there’s been little follow-through.

The Justice Department hasn’t launched the probes Trump requested, and the president has abided by
court rulings. His assertion about self-pardons is eye-popping, but the pardon is already, as Lawfare
notes, “among the broadest of presidential powers.” This doesn’t mean that rhetoric doesn’t matter,
but it’s much harder to measure its impact on executive power than when a president actually does
something to test whether he can get away with it.

“It’s less an exercise of power as an appeal to the public,” says Edwards, the Texas A&M professor.
“Many people think that’s crossing a boundary in that regard. He’d love for [DOJ] to be responsive, but I
don’t know if he actually expects them to be responsive.”

Past presidents have expanded their power in part because the public demands it, and because the
public allows it. Tracking expansions of executive power is important because it’s so rarely reversible.
The cases of shrinking power tend to come after crises. Presidential power was drastically drawn back
after the Civil War; Congress tried to prevent Andrew Johnson from even choosing his Cabinet, and
impeached him when he tried to fire a secretary. Presidents gradually yielded powers after World War
II. After Watergate, a mixture of new laws and new norms restricted the president—but many of those
laws have since been superseded. The Trump presidency has demonstrated how flimsy norms are when
a president is determined to ignore them.

Those presidents who have scaled back their power have not fared well with voters. “Both Ford and
Carter had more modest approaches to the presidency, but then they got criticized for that,” Edwards
says. “Americans are always of two minds. They want a strong and effective president, but they want it
checked. They want a Congress of the other party, but they want it to get things done.”

This is why Trump’s approach to executive powers is so strange. Most of the new powers he is claiming
are about self-preservation. They arise not out of any public demand, nor out of any desire to accrue
powers to the presidency itself. They are almost entirely motivated by personal, seemingly narcissistic
reasons. This is in keeping, however, with this view of the presidency less as a vehicle for any specific
policy agenda and more as a vehicle for self-glorification. Trump ran for the presidency for personal
reasons, and he is expanding its power for personal reasons too. Policy “is just not of as much interest”
to Trump, Zelizer says.

There’s another essential element in constraining presidential power, one that is fundamental to the
Constitution, but strangely absent from the current debate: Congress has the power to summarily
remove the president, as Charles C.W. Cooke writes.

There’s little evidence to suggest the current Republican-led Congress is interested in curbing Trump’s
power. But everything about Trump’s assertions of his authority is unusual. How can anyone forecast
the reaction to a provocation as unprecedented as a rejected subpoena or a presidential self-pardon?

This prevents Trump from launching a global war

Healy 2018 - vice president of the Cato Institute
Gene, "Donald Trump Flaunts the Dangers of Presidential Power," Jan 11,
https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/donald-trump-flaunts-dangers-presidential-power

At this juncture, the prospect that Trump’s erratic behavior might irreparably weaken the presidency
seems like an odd thing to worry about, yet some people do. “If Congress and the courts diminish the
power of the office to constrain him,” Eric Posner and Emily Bazelon wonder in the New York Times,
“could they leave the office too weak for future presidents to be able to govern effectively?”

It’s early days yet, but I’ll hazard a guess: no. Nearly every modern president has left the office
stronger—and more dangerous—than he found it. So far, Trump appears unlikely to depart from that
pattern.

Barack Obama left office as the first two-termer in American history to have been at war every single
day of his presidency. In his last year alone, U.S. forces dropped over 26,000 bombs on seven different
countries. Trump blew past that tally nine months into his tenure. Indeed, this putatively “isolationist”
president has deepened entanglements on every battlefield Obama left him, ramping up airstrikes, kill-
or-capture missions, and civilian casualties.

The legal justification for all this is the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Force Congress passed three
days after 9/11, and which Trump’s two predecessors transformed into an enabling act for globe-
spanning war. Far from resisting mission creep, the Trump administration has employed that authority
for everything from boots on the ground in Tongo Tongo to a “Make Afghanistan Great Again” troop
surge.

Outside of the ever-expanding purview of the AUMF, the Trump administration believes it has enormous
inherent powers over war and peace. And as a practical matter, they may be right: “don’t expect the law
or lawyers to provide avenues to constrain the President from using force in North Korea,” warns Jack
Goldsmith, who served in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel during the Bush
administration.

Last summer, shortly after Trump’s off-the-cuff threat to nuke North Korea, the New Yorker’s Evan
Osnos flew to Pyongyang for a series of interviews with top regime officials. He recounted an unsettling
exchange over dinner and drinks with Ri Yong Pil, a Foreign Ministry apparatchik. Ri asked: “In your
system, what is the power of the President to launch a war [or] does the Congress have the power to
decide?” The president “can do a lot without Congress,” Osnos answered, including launch nuclear
weapons; “what about in your country?” Ri’s answer “was similar”: “Our Supreme Leader has absolute
power to launch a war.”

On the home front, thankfully, Trump’s unilateral powers are less than supreme. The candidate who
proclaimed “I alone can fix it” has learned that the presidency doesn’t run like a business or a reality
show—you can’t just say “you’re fired” to Congress or the courts.

It’s necessary to restrain Trump’s authority

Pearlstein 2017 - associate professor at Cardozo Law School
Deborah, "The Test Case for Presidential War Power: North Korea and Trump," Aug 15,
https://www.justsecurity.org/44115/test-case-presidential-war-power-north-korea-trump/

This President is an object lesson in the fragility of these assumptions. This President was elected by just
25% of eligible voters, less than a majority of actual voters, and today finds a substantially greater
percentage of the population approving of his impeachment than approving of his performance in
office. This President disdains bedrock checks on accountability, challenging the legitimacy of the
federal courts and the value of a free press. This President has proven equally resistant to executive
branch expertise, rejecting the findings of the entire national security community on Russia, leaving
hundreds of key executive branch posts unfilled (not least the position of U.S. Ambassador to South
Korea), and earning the opposition of dozens of senior national security officials of his own party. This
President is the reason why the framers thought even war should be limited by constitutional law.

In short, the theory of presidential power that was born in Korea 60 years ago has now come home to
roost. The authors of intervening OLC opinions authorizing successive departures from the separation
of powers rule may well have, in their own minds, imagined that a case on the facts of North Korea and
Trump would exceed all bounds. But on OLC’s actual terms, as they have evolved in the decades since
Truman first split the constitutional atom of military force and “war,” this President, in this situation,
now has non-frivolous grounds to claim a frightening amount of power all his own.
 AT: Terror DA
Terror attacks are inevitable – the plan helps shift resources to confront homegrown
terror
Levitt 2018 - Fromer-Wexler Fellow and Director of the Stein Program on Counterterrorism &
Intelligence at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Matthew, "Trump's Travel Ban Might Be Legal, but It's Bad Policy," Apr 25,
foreignpolicy.com/2018/04/25/trumps-travel-ban-might-be-legal-but-its-bad-policy/

Ironically, the list provided by the White House argues against Trump’s position. The already extreme
vetting systems in place work well. In nearly every case cited by the White House, the individuals were
radicalized on U.S. soil many years after they came to the country.

At the time they entered the United States, they were neither radical nor terrorists.

Today’s most immediate threats are mostly from homegrown violent extremists who act in small groups
or as lone offenders. Stopping people from certain countries from entering the United States does not
address this problem. Indeed, even the strictest immigration policies would fail to address this issue,
because radicalization happens after people arrive.

Whether the travel ban is legal or not, neither the ban nor the new National Vetting Center is necessary
as a matter of policy. To this day, the administration has failed to articulate a convincing rationale for
creating a new layer of federal bureaucracy beyond those that already exist, such as U.S. Customs and
Border Protection’s National Targeting Center, the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Center, and the National
Counterterrorism Center’s Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment.

Most experienced government officials know that the travel ban won’t help, as evidenced by the friend-
of-the-court briefs signed by dozens of senior national security experts in advance of Wednesday’s
Supreme Court hearing. The same week the White House published its report linking terrorist threats to
supposedly lax immigration controls, Nathan Sales, the State Department’s counterterrorism
coordinator, delivered an address on how consolidated watch lists, airline data, and biometrics enable
U.S. agencies to “secure our borders and help keep our people safe.”

It’s true: U.S. borders are secure, and the vetting systems work. Promoting travels bans in the wake of
terrorist attacks makes for easy politics, but it is poor counterterrorism policy. Because radicalization
most often occurs within the United States, the U.S. government should be focusing its energy on
countering violent extremism and promoting public safety in ways that complement the effective
immigration vetting systems already in place.
 AT: Terrorism – No Link
The screening process is intense, no way a terrorist gets in
Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program 2018
“Fulfilling U.S. Commitment to Refugee Resettlement: Protecting Refugees, Preserving National Security,
& Building the U.S. Economy Through Refugee Admissions," 5 Tex. A&M L. Rev. 155

d. Security Screening Process for Refugees

Refugees resettled to the United States are "subject to the highest degree of security screening and
background checks for any category of traveler to the United States." n81 Indeed, prominent former
government [*179] officials, including former Secretaries of State Kissinger and Albright, have
repeatedly emphasized this high degree of scrutiny, as discussed in the next Section of the Report. n82
The same experts have also noted that the threat posed by refugees to the United States is "minuscule."
n83 Refugees are "interviewed several times over the course of the vetting process, which takes 18-24
months and often longer," and national and international intelligence agencies check refugees'
fingerprints and other biometric data against terrorist and criminal databases. n84

Multiple international intelligence and law enforcement agencies, including the National
Counterterrorism Center, the Department of Defense, and Interpol, participate in the overseas refugee
screening process. n85 Those agencies review applicants' information against at [*180] least three
separate databases with information on "foreign fighters, suspected terrorists, and stolen, false, and
blank passports from Syria, Iraq, and elsewhere." n86 The Department of State uses biometric
information to check whether refugees have any criminal or prior immigration history and to check for
any national security concerns by comparing refugees' data with biometric data collected by the
Department of Defense in conflict zones. n87 Refugees who hail from Syria are subjected to a more
enhanced review process compared to refugees from other nations. n88

Furthermore, refugees are checked against watch-list information throughout the overseas screening
and admissions process. The Department of State seeks Security Advisory Opinions from law
enforcement and intelligence agencies for refugees who meet certain criteria, including members of a
group or nationality that the U.S. government has designated as requiring this higher level check. n89
The National [*181] Counterterrorism Center conducts interagency checks for all refugees who fall
within a certain age range, irrespective of nationality, and additional "recurrent vetting" checks,
conducted before the applicant travels to the United States, determine whether any information has
changed since the initial check. n90 Moreover, applications may be subject to the Controlled Application
Review and Resolution Process (CARRP) if USCIS has any national security concerns, "either based on
security and background checks or personal interviews or testimony." n91 Prior to admission to the
United States, refugees are subjected to further screenings by Customs and Border Protection officials.
n92

Only after undergoing all of the aforementioned processes and checks can a refugee enter the United
States. Accordingly, government officials have repeatedly characterized the security-focused refugee
screening process as "extensive," "redundant," and "careful," and have affirmed the importance of the
U.S. refugee resettlement program in promoting - not undermining - U.S. security interests. n93
 AT: Terror DA – Counter-Terrorism L/T
The plan is key to coalition building and counter-terror initiatives
Monaco 2017 - Senior Fellow at Harvard Kennedy School's Belfer Center for Science and International
Affairs
Lisa, "Preventing the Next Attack: A Strategy for the War on Terrorism," Foreign Affairs, 96.6
(November-December 2017): p23+

OUT OF ORDER

What may most influence the future terrorist threat, however, is not the flourishing of physical and
virtual safe havens per se but the breakdown in order that is sure to spawn more of both. Today, old and
new powers are seeking to redraw the map. Across the Gulf and the Levant, and even in Afghanistan,
Iran and its proxies are promoting and taking advantage of instability. Russia is doing the same in
eastern Europe, and it has worked hard to protect its client in Syria and create a new one in Libya. The
future threat will be defined by these areas of chaos--the safe havens presented by them, the foreign
fighters drawn to them, and the violence inspired by them.

So there is a dangerous irony in Trump's invocation of "America first," a message that has caused U.S.
allies to wonder whether they can still count on Washington to continue as a partner in--if not the
guarantor of--their security. If the United States pulls up the drawbridge in the name of protection, it
may deny itself counterterrorism tools that are essential to the country's safety. By banning the travel of
all citizens from certain countries, rather than tailoring screening to specific threats, the United States
risks alienating the very partners it needs to fight today's terrorists and fueling the "clash of civilizations"
narrative that ISIS uses to recruit future ones.

As the campaign against ISIS has laid bare, partnerships with local allies are the key to successfully taking
back territory from terrorists. The same is true when it comes to interdicting foreign fighters. In the past,
the United States has taken the lead on working with foreign governments to share watch lists, improve
border security, and impose new criminal penalties on foreign fighters. Experts have warned that as ISIS'
territory in Iraq and Syria shrinks, some 40,000 fighters who came from more than 120 countries to fight
for ISIS could start to return home. But given that some of these fighters have spent years perfecting
their violent craft on the battlefield, the greater concern may now be "not so much one of quantity as
one of quality," as Nicholas Rasmussen, the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, put it
earlier this year.

Europe will continue to face an immediate threat from skilled returnees of the type that participated in
the 2015 Paris attacks and the 2016 Brussels bombings. Unfortunately, however, the continent has yet
to experience the kind of sea change that occurred in the United States, which radically rethought its
practices for sharing information among law enforcement and intelligence agencies. In many European
capitals, the wall impeding such sharing is far too high. And since the Atlantic Ocean is not a perfect
buffer, what happens in Europe matters for the security of the United States. So rather than confusing
U.S. allies with travel bans and mixed messages about the value of NATO, the United States should
expand its counter-terrorism cooperation with its European partners. For example, it should press its
partners to more rapidly share airline passenger data and intelligence gleaned from investigations. And
it should resume the dialogue begun by James Clapper, the former director of national intelligence, on
promoting intelligence sharing with and among European countries.
It would be a mistake, however, to look only outward, ignoring the growing terrorist threat at home. The
hit-and-run murder of a peaceful protester in Charlottesville, Virginia, by an avowed white supremacist
is only the most recent reminder that the United States has a terrorism problem unrelated to violent
jihadism. The challenge that bedeviled both the Bush and the Obama administrations--building trust
between communities and their government to address extremism in all its forms--seems harder than
ever. And lately, this important work has suffered from neglect. The Trump administration has proposed
a budget that zeroes out funding for a Department of Homeland Security program aimed at countering
violent extremism and has already withdrawn a grant for a group dedicated to combating domestic hate
groups such as the Ku Klux Klan.

Sixteen years after 9/11, many Americans are weary of the war on terrorism. Having built up its
defenses, the United States should no longer go abroad in search of monsters to destroy, some contend.
Instead, they say, it should stick to keeping the bad guys out and adjust to a new normal in which some
attacks are inevitable. But it would be a grave mistake to confuse a mitigated threat with a weak one.
Rather than resignation, Americans will have to demonstrate resilience--just as New York, Fort Hood,
Boston, Charleston, San Bernardino, Orlando, Portland, and Charlottesville have done in the face of hate
and violence. To date, the United States'strategy has succeeded in preventing another 9/11-type attack,
largely because it built a net designed to do just that. But for the next phase in the war on terrorism, the
country will need a new net. It cannot afford to operate without one.
 AT: Safe Havens
Cracking down on safe havens does nothing
Monaco 2017 - Senior Fellow at Harvard Kennedy School's Belfer Center for Science and International
Affairs
Lisa, "Preventing the Next Attack: A Strategy for the War on Terrorism," Foreign Affairs, 96.6
(November-December 2017): p23+

Pressure on safe havens will merely keep a lid on a threat from terrorists who are growing more creative
by the day. As technology advances, so do terrorists' capabilities to exploit it. Consider the next
generation of aviation threats. From AQAP's 2010 plan to stow printer cartridges filled with explosives in
airplane cargo holds to ISIS' recent plot in Australia, terrorists have shown a determination to overcome
the post-9/11 security obstacles to bringing down airliners. The Trump administration has wisely put an
emphasis on aviation security. In March, for example, it issued a temporary ban on the use of laptops in
the passenger cabin on flights originating from certain airports. The administration threatened to extend
the ban to all U.S.-bound flights, prompting some international carriers to improve their security
measures. The government should continue to focus on aviation security, but it should go further and
partner with the private sector to generate innovative methods of detecting new explosive materials.

Terrorists, of course, are doing their own innovation, and some of them have even experimented with
drones. In 2013, for instance, Iraqi officials announced that they had thwarted a plot in which al Qaeda
operatives intended to use toy planes to deliver sarin and mustard gas. Adding to the danger, more and
more devices are going online as part of "the Internet of things," creating new vulnerabilities that ISIS
and others could exploit. That's why the Trump administration should heed the call from the 2016
report of the Commission on Enhancing National Cybersecurity to work with the private sector to build
security features into new technology at the design stage, rather than play catch up with terrorists'
attempts to commandeer such devices. The United States' future safety demands that it, and not its
adversaries, dominate the technological domain.

The innovation that has benefited terrorists the most, however, is social media. Lone wolves are never
truly alone; they deliberately search for and find communities online. To draw in vulnerable youth, ISIS
has created a sophisticated media machine that pumps out professionally produced videos, multilingual
tweets, a glossy magazine, and Instagram posts, all serving up an intoxicating narrative that followers
can belong to a cause greater than themselves. Other groups, including al Qaeda, are now mimicking
ISIS' tactics. Gone are the amateur videos of al Qaeda's leader Ayman al-Zawahiri sitting cross-legged
before a drab backdrop; those rare releases are now dwarfed by al Qaeda's Syrian branch's steady
stream of slick videos and magazines.

The U.S. government has struggled to beat terrorists at the social media game, but Silicon Valley is
taking promising steps. In June, a group of technology companies created the Global Internet Forum to
Counter Terrorism, a consortium devoted to making their platforms less hospitable to extremists.
Facebook, which boasts more than two billion active monthly users, is employing artificial intelligence
and image-matching technology to stop known terrorist content from proliferating. Twitter, for its part,
has suspended more than 375,000 accounts promoting terrorism. Deleting by hand after the fact will
not suffice, however, and so social media platforms will need to train their algorithms to detect
extremist content--international and domestic--and banish it immediately.
Soft Power Advantage
 AT: Alt Causes to Science Diplomacy
Trump’s unwillingness to accept Syrians is the key driver in the decline of science
diplomacy
Whyte 2017
Chelsea, "Trump’s travel ban is already stopping scientific collaboration," Jan 31,
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2119910-trumps-travel-ban-is-already-stopping-scientific-
collaboration/

On Friday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order that denies Syrian refugees entry to the
US, suspends all refugee admissions for 120 days, and blocks citizens of seven countries from entering
the US for at least 90 days. Those affected by the travel ban include scientists, some of whom are
speaking out about how the order will affect their work and the broader scientific community.

“While one can understand security imperatives, a broad ban that restricts movement of widely defined
groups can hold back important scientific progress; progress that can solve some of our most urgent
problems,” says one professor at a leading US university. A dual citizen of one of the countries on the
list, he says he will probably have to cancel academic and research trips scheduled for the next few
months, as well as a planned visit to see his mother.

The countries targeted by the ban are Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen, all of which
have majority Muslim populations.

A professor at a university in the New York area says his department includes some Iranian PhD
students. “Luckily, they were in the US when the executive order hit, so they’re ok for now,” he says.
“They’re worried, though, that they can’t leave the country to visit family, friends, loved ones, partners,
etc. As I understand it, they would not be able to get back in to the US since they are visa holders, and
not permanent residents.”

Freedom of communication

Scientists outside of the US, meanwhile, are cancelling plans to attend conferences in the country. “I am
a Muslim, a Syrian, and a Scientist who wants to present his work in the top conference in Artificial
Intelligence (AAAI). Thanks to the #TrumpBan, I just cancelled my trip,” wrote Talal Rahwan at the
Masdar Institute of Science and Technology in Abu Dhabi in a Facebook post.

The effects of the ban on the scientific community may be more far reaching than disrupting travel plans
for individuals. “You’ve got people who’ve been working for years on topics or collaborations, or exciting
new ones getting off the ground and there’s suddenly this inappropriate interruption in their work,” says
Andrew Rosenberg, the director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned
Scientists. “That does enormous damage to what is a collaborative process.”

“Freedom of communication is absolutely essential for science to function,” says Rush Holt, CEO of the
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). “It’s not just nice for people to attend
conferences and communicate in person, it’s part of the practice of science. And being able to have
scientists from diverse backgrounds and viewpoints, that’s essential to the practice of good science.”
An open letter from academics opposing the executive order has received more than 12,000 signatures
so far, including those of 44 Nobel Laureates. Scientists are also planning a protest march in Washington
DC.

Ultimately, the US may lose its scientific standing in the world if it closes its borders to scientists from
certain countries, says Marga Soler, project director for the AAAS Center for Science Diplomacy.

“In terms of scientific diplomacy, this is obviously a big hit on US soft power – the capacity to attract the
best and the brightest,” she says. “Brain drain is a real possibility because other countries, like Canada,
are offering to take in the people affected by this policy. It’s a loss for the US.”
 AT: Science Diplomacy Ineffective
Empirically, science diplomacy is effective
Berkman 2018 - Director of the Science Diplomacy Center and Prof of Practice in Science Diplomacy
@ Tufts Paul
Arthur, "Could science diplomacy be the key to stabilizing international relations?," Jun 12,
https://theconversation.com/could-science-diplomacy-be-the-key-to-stabilizing-international-relations-
87836

Science diplomacy is different, operating across a continuum of urgencies from political to sustainability
time scales. Nations are still coming together to discuss and resolve cross-border issues. But what’s on
the table revolves around common interests revealed across generations by science – including natural
sciences and social sciences as well as indigenous knowledge – providing a foundation for negotiation
that is far less politically charged and divisive to discuss and resolve the topics of the day.

For example, countries came together to share resources and design a joint response to two recent
pandemics: Zika in Latin America and Ebola in West Africa. Following the easing of U.S.-Cuba relations in
December 2014, scientists from the two countries began to collaborate on cancer research.

Science diplomacy also supports economic prosperity, balancing environmental protection and societal
well-being through innovation. Countries are sharing and collaborating on technologies that will help
transition resource-based economies to knowledge-based economies. This kind of cooperation can yield
poverty-alleviating solutions along with progress across a suite of sustainable development goals.
 Soft Power I/L
Immigration k2 American soft power and deterrence of China
Joseph S. Nye, 12-16-2012, ("Immigration and American Power," Belfer Center for Science and
International Affairs, https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/immigration-and-american-power //KDS
CJ)

Equally important are immigration's benefits for America's soft power. The fact that people want to
come to the U.S. enhances its appeal, and immigrants' upward mobility is attractive to people in other
countries. The U.S. is a magnet, and many people can envisage themselves as Americans, in part
because so many successful Americans look like them. Moreover, connections between immigrants and
their families and friends back home help to convey accurate and positive information about the U.S.
Likewise, because the presence of many cultures creates avenues of connection with other countries, it
helps to broaden Americans' attitudes and views of the world in an era of globalization. Rather than
diluting hard and soft power, immigration enhances both. Singapore's former leader, Lee Kwan Yew, an
astute observer of both the U.S. and China, argues that China will not surpass the U.S. as the leading
power of the 21st century, precisely because the U.S. attracts the best and brightest from the rest of
the world and melds them into a diverse culture of creativity. China has a larger population to recruit
from domestically, but, in Lee's view, its Sino-centric culture will make it less creative than the U.S. That
is a view that Americans should take to heart. If Obama succeeds in enacting immigration reform in his
second term, he will have gone a long way toward fulfilling his promise to maintain the strength of the
U.S.
Health Advantage
 Military Capabilities A/O
Biotech key to military strength
Marshall 10 (Andrew, Director of the Department of Defense’s Office of Net Assessment, “Introduction”, Bio-inspired Innovation and
National Security, Center for Technology and National Security Policy, National Defense University Press, pp. XXVI-XIX)

Particularly outside national security circles, much biotechnology research focuses on medical or health issues, agriculture, and industrial processes. Yet while these
are very important topics, they are a narrow and limited way of viewing biology and its potential applications to national security. This volume is about
applications of the biological sciences, which we call “biologically inspired innovations,” to the military. Rather than treating
biology as a series of threats to be dealt with, such innovations generally approach the biological sciences as a set of

opportunities for the military to gain strategic advantage over adversaries. These opportunities range from
looking at tiny genes to large brains, from enhancing human performance to creating renewable energy, from sensing the

environment around us to harnessing its power. Many developments in the biological sciences have increasingly made an opportunities-based
approach to biology and the military possible. During the past 20 years, advances ranging from DNA sequencing to various biotechnology

manipulations to the intersection of biology with engineering, mathematics, and even aeronautical engineering have empowered the field to
grow far more influential than it once was. Bioengineering, bio-inspired research, and biological metaphors have all become quite
useful to the military and, indeed, society at large. This trend shows no signs of abating and in fact is
spreading globally and becoming less expensive. There are commercial DNA synthesis facilities in numerous countries, including Australia, Canada, China,
Denmark, France, Germany, Iran, Japan, India, Russia, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States. One can buy high-quality DNA
synthesizing machines on the auction site eBay and other places online for a few thousand dollars, not to mention less sophisticated yet incredibly useful biotech
equipment such as PCR machines and centrifuges. Technology is increasingly powerful, reagents often can be readily acquired by trading, and data are freely
available in repositories such as GenBank. It is an open market for innovative people who want to get in on
biotechnology and all it has to offer. In response, a field known as synthetic biology—the goal of which is to engineer biology like so many building blocks of
nature—is burgeoning. In 1864, William Sellers introduced a standardized system of screw threads and nuts—connectors that were crucial for building things in the
physical world. What will be the equivalent standard set of connectors in the biological engineering world? Perhaps the “BioBricks” project from the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology (MIT), which seeks to create “Lego” block–like biological parts with standard ends that plug into each other simply and easily. These “bricks”
are freely available from the MIT Web site, which keeps track of a Registry of Standard Biological Parts.2 In association with this, the annual International
Genetically Engineered Machine (iGEM) competition challenges high school students from around the world to develop new parts and products. U.S. students have
competed against teams from Africa, Canada, India, Japan, Scotland, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. It is difficult to bridge the
gap between what is happening in the world of iGEM and the research and operations inside the Department of Defense (DOD). There are very few “bio types” in
the military, the DOD, or in national security jobs more generally. Getting an advanced degree in biology is not a typical route to becoming a senior military officer, a
Foreign Service Officer, or even a DOD scientist. Biology is not emphasized at military academies, where students are much more likely to be trained in traditional
engineering, computer science, or military history. Conversely, there are very few “military types” in biology jobs in academia, biotech companies, and the like.
Despite many genuine advances in medicine inspired by war3 that have helped humanity, the stigma attached to the intersection of biology and the military for the
aforementioned reasons widens the gap still further. Yet there
are many revolutionary opportunities for the military
stemming from biologically inspired innovations (BII) beyond traditional “threat-based” medicine and
weapons applications of the technology. Biotechnologies can: • impact logistics by reducing the size and weight of objects carried
by warfighters • provide novel portable power sources • potentially influence manufacturing via rapid prototyping

or other engineering advances • provide opportunities for new kinds of battlefield sensors, soldier monitoring and therapeutics,

human performance enhancement, health monitoring, foods that can provide vaccines and nutrients and other chemicals in novel ways,

data analysis, combat identification involving biology, and various forms of camouflage and concealment inspired by the natural world.
Biological systems—from flocks of geese to complete ecosystems—are complex adaptive systems that affect human existence in fundamental ways. From the food
supply to global climate change, humans are part of a global ecosystem, and biology impacts us at the core. Biological science, combined with engineering
principles, can bridge
the gap between today’s standards and systems and desired long-term capabilities
important for national security. In the flat, global economy that is the backdrop of the military-industrial complex, this is not just about America.
Many other countries have invested heavily in biology, realizing that it is the future. As one example, Singapore has
set up a plan called Intelligent National 2015 to help the country meet the demands of its national security and economic growth structures and the population. The
plan will use sensors, biocomputing, and nanotechnology.4 Does the United States have such a roadmap—a national strategy for biology?’
 Doctor Shortages
Doctor shortages now because of the travel ban
Cosgrove 18 --- [Jaclyn Cosgrove is a reporter at the Los Angeles Times and previously worked as the
health reporter at the Oklahoman, “Fewer foreign doctors are coming to study in the United States,
report shows”, Los Angeles Times, 3/26/18, http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-trump-immigration-
20180314-story.html] jk

Fearing he would die if he stayed, Mohamed fled the civil war in his home country of Syria, heading to Saudi Arabia where he spent six
years working as a physician. While there, Mohamed worked toward his goal of coming to the United States to
train. He aced the U.S. exams required of all physicians and scored an interview with a New York hospital. Officials there were so impressed
that they offered Mohamed a spot in their residency program that day. But when President Trump
instituted an executive order barring Syrians from coming to the United States, Mohamed's chances of
working in New York diminished. "I did everything required to get the license in a formal way, and in a legal way, so I can start my training
like any international physician who wants to complete his certification in the United States," said Mohamed, who asked not to use his last
name for fear of affecting his visa application. For
the second consecutive year, the number of noncitizen
international medical graduates who applied to study in U.S. residency programs has declined. A total of
7,067 foreign physicians submitted their choices for U.S. residency programs for 2018, down 217 from last year and 393 from 2016, according
to data released Friday. That's almost 20% of the 37,103 total active applicants. The
number of foreign physicians seeking
graduate medical education in the United States has fluctuated in years past. But the timing of the most recent
decline raises concerns among medical professionals, who say the U.S. healthcare system is increasingly reliant on skilled
immigrants. The share of U.S. doctors and surgeons who are immigrants grew from 20% in 1990 to 28% in
2016, according to the Migration Policy Institute think tank in Washington. The number of immigrants in those positions more than doubled
in that time. "It's obviously concerning to us that this decline started at the same time that the administration
began discussing implementing a travel ban or restrictions on foreign nationals entering this country," said Mona Signer,
president and chief executive of the National Resident Matching Program, a private, nonprofit organization that uses an algorithm to match
medical students to residency programs. "Can I tell you for certain that's the cause? No, I can't tell you it's cause and effect, but it's certainly
concerning to us." Mohamed is among those who applied for a residency, hoping to start July 1. But for physicians from the travel ban-affected
countries — currently Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela and Yemen — the process remains convoluted. Students from
each country face different requirements, and for Mohamed, his only hope is receiving a rare special exception. Los Angeles has more than 500
physicians from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen — the countries included in the second version of the
travel ban — providing more than 1 million appointments to patients each year, according to the Immigrant
Doctors Project, an analysis of online physician data by Harvard and MIT doctoral students. Los Angeles is one of five cities with the largest
share of physicians from those countries. (The other cities are Detroit and Toledo, Cleveland and Dayton, Ohio.) Southern California in
particular has benefited from a large number of immigrating Iranian physicians, said Dr. Bahman Bandari, president of the SoCal Persian
American Medical Assn. But as immigrant physicians feel less welcome by the Trump administration's policies,
they might seek out education elsewhere, he said. "They will go to other countries because of the fear of the way they
will be treated here, and that could deteriorate the quality of the professionals who come to the United States compared to the past,"
Bandari said. Trump's policies are exacerbating a problem that existed before he took office, some immigration
researchers say. "The U.S. — which used to be the primary and preferred destination for highly skilled
immigrants more broadly, and healthcare professionals in particular — is losing its competitive edge
because others have done much more to attract highly skilled immigrants in healthcare," said Jeanne Batalova,
a senior policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute. That's a problem for a healthcare system heavily dependent on
immigrants. Nationwide, an estimated 260,600 physicians and surgeons are immigrants, according to an analysis by
the Migration Policy Institute. Of those, 5% are from travel ban-affected countries. Other countries — including Canada, Australia and some
European nations — are streamlining the immigration process to ensure that foreign physicians can more easily train and stay there, Batalova
said. Meanwhile, it remains costly and time-consuming for foreign physicians to train in the United States. In Southeast Asia, an effort is
underway to pass laws that allow physicians to easily train in one country — such as Vietnam — and work in another, like the Philippines.
Leaders want to keep doctors closer to home — in a region from which an estimated 26,500 foreign physicians in the United States hail.
Immigrants help address some of the imbalance in the U.S. healthcare system, Batalova said, because they
are often more willing to work as primary care physicians — family medicine doctors and pediatricians
— than doctors born in the U.S. That's partly because of how the U.S. visa system for international medical graduates works. Most
foreign physicians who do their residency in the U.S. come through the J-1 visa program, which generally requires them to return to their home
country for two years once they've completed their training before they can apply to stay in the United States for longer or permanently.
Foreign physicians on a J-1 visa can avoid going home, though, by receiving a waiver after agreeing to work in a medically underserved area,
either in rural America or an urban area with a high need for physicians, for at least three years. In Los Angeles County, qualifying areas include
parts of Compton, Chinatown, El Monte, Long Beach and Westlake. Dr. Clarence Braddock, vice dean for education at the UCLA David Geffen
School of Medicine, said in a statement that although the Trump administration's immigration policies have not yet had a significant, direct
impact on UCLA's residency programs, he and other faculty are concerned about the long-term implications for the broader healthcare
community and for patients. "We need more physicians to meet the country's growing healthcare needs, and the anxiety and confusion caused
by the proposed travel ban and end of DACA present a barrier for foreign-born or undocumented physicians seeking to practice medicine in the
United States," Braddock said, referring to the imperiled Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program that shields from deportation young
immigrants brought to the U.S. illegally as children. "The medical community and patients benefit from a diversity of practicing physicians," he
said. "Medical students navigate a long and difficult road to become physicians" — it takes an average of three years for a foreign physician
pursuing a residency in the U.S. to be vetted, take the required tests and be approved — "and the challenges are undeniably magnified for
those who are foreign-born or undocumented. It's a disservice to patients to discourage qualified doctors from practicing medicine in this
country." Some maintain, though, that the reliance on imported medical professionals is not good for the U.S. — or other countries.
 Travel Ban Stops Doctors
Immigrants from travel ban countries are key to the medical field
Guo 17- [Jeff Guo is a reporter covering economics and domestic policy for the
Washington Post, “How Trump's travel ban would hurt the people who voted for him:
One risk of the travel ban: barring immigrants who save American lives that nobody else
will.”, 3/20/17,
https://search.proquest.com/docview/1878962938/4E1F10767946409CPQ/16?accountid=36312,
March 20, 2017]

In defending an order to restrict immigration from certain majority-Muslim nations, President Trump and his administration have
emphasized the alleged risks of letting in people that they fear intend to do Americans harm. But the
administration has made little effort to address the consequences of keeping such visitors out, and new
data suggest that by choking off the flow of immigration from the six blacklisted countries -- Iran, Libya
Somalia, Syria, Sudan and Yemen -- the Trump administration risks dwindling the supply of doctors in parts of
rural America that need them most. The United States has long relied on immigrants to practice medicine in
areas where doctors are otherwise hard to come by, including many rural areas. Lack of access to medical care is one reason
rural Americans tend to live shorter lives than their urban counterparts. Where doctors are scarce, deaths from chronic, treatable diseases are
more common. Federal programs provide incentives to talented foreigners to practice medicine in rural
areas, including states such as West Virginia, a state where only 1.2 percent of residents are immigrants,
but where 28 percent of the doctors received their training overseas, according to data from the
Association of American Medical Colleges. (Some fraction of these may be U.S.-born citizens -- the data do not distinguish -- but
it's safe to assume that the majority of these doctors are immigrants.) If Trump succeeds in implementing his
travel ban from these six countries, he risks cutting off that supply of doctors and exacerbating
shortages in rural areas. A recent report from researchers at Harvard and MIT shows that doctors trained in the countries targeted by
the travel ban are an important part of this effort. It's not as if the travel ban would leave rural America doctor-free overnight. Of the nation's
800,000 active physicians, only about 7,000 -- or about 0.85 percent -- come from the six targeted countries, according to medical license data
collected by the physician-networking site Doximity. And the order wouldn't remove the immigrant doctors who are already here, only prevent
new ones from entering in the next three months. Immigrant
doctors from those six countries are often recruited to
practice medicine in rural places. In West Virginia, for example, immigrants from the six blacklisted countries alone account for 2.7
percent of physicians, according to a Washington Post analysis of census data. In Michigan, it's 2.3 percent of physicians. In Ohio, 1.5 percent.
That's a small slice, but it's a slice that areas with doctor shortages can ill-afford to lose. Many of the most
affected states would be ones that supported Trump in the 2016 election, as this scatter plot shows. Unlike typical immigrants, who
concentrate in blue states, the doctors from the targeted countries live all across the nation. Another way to
see how these doctors are spread out is to compare the counties that were most and least enthusiastic about Trump. The following chart shows
the nation's 3,000-plus counties divided into 10 groups. At the top are the counties where Trump received the highest share of the vote. On
bottom are the counties where Trump received the smallest share of the vote. Immigrants
are rare in places that showed the
highest support for Trump, making up only 3.3 percent of residents. In anti-Trump counties, on the other
hand, the foreign-born were over 20 percent of the population. In contrast, doctors trained in the six targeted counties
are evenly distributed in red and blue parts of the country, according to an analysis of the Doximity data by Anupam Jena, an associate
professor at Harvard Medical School. If anything, the immigrant doctors are slightly more prevalent in both particularly pro-Trump and pro-
Clinton areas. Thisis because medically underserved areas tend to be located either in rural America, which
largely votes Republican, or in the inner city, which largely votes Democrat. The above trend is a small piece of a
bigger picture: Immigrants increase the pool of high-skill workers ready to do the most in-demand jobs --
including those from the six countries the Trump administration wants to blacklist. Compared with native-born
Americans, immigrants from the six blacklisted countries are 2.8 times more likely to have a law or medical
degree, and 4.3 times as likely to have a PhD, according to a Washington Post analysis of census data.
Although the president continues to claim that people from the targeted countries are terrorist risks, many of those ensnared by his
earlier travel ban in January turned out to be scientists and doctors. If his new restrictions eventually go forward,
they will not only prevent hospitals from recruiting new physicians, but also universities, for instance,
from bringing in new professors and tech companies from hiring new programmers. Trump has
continually understated -- or outright rejected -- the potential benefits of immigration to the United
States. He announced his presidential run by claiming that immigrants from Mexico aren't that country's "best" but rather its "rapists" and
"murderers." And since then, he has made the alleged danger of immigrants -- and particularly of Muslim
immigrants -- a central theme of both his White House run and the opening months of his presidency. At times in the past,
however, the president has shown support for highly skilled immigrants. On a Breitbart radio show in November 2015,
Trump suggested that foreign Ivy League students should be encouraged to stay in the United States. "You know, we have to keep
our talented people in this country," he said. Powerful members of his administration disagree, seeing
immigrants as a threat to society simply because they are immigrants. Trump was being interviewed by Stephen K. Bannon, a former Breitbart
News executive who is now chief strategist of Trump's White House -- and among the principal architects of the proposed ban. And whatever
their economic benefits, Bannon disagreed with Trump's sentiments about working to retain talented foreigners. "A country is more than an
economy," Bannon replied. "We're a civic society."
 Travel Ban Hurts Bio-Tech
Counterplan can’t solve --- travel ban o/w
Aquino 17 --- [John Aquino writes for Bloomberg BNA's Life Sciences Law and Industry and Medical
Research Law and Policy Report, Bloomberg, “Trump Travel Ban Leaves Biomed Community Struggling
for Clarity”, https://www.bna.com/trump-travel-ban-n57982083220/] jk

The biomedical industry is struggling with the collateral impact of the White House travel ban for people from seven countries, biomed experts told
Bloomberg BNA Feb. 1. On Jan. 27, President Donald Trump signed an executive order that banned travel into the U.S. for citizens from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for at least 90 days as a temporary

The President’s travel ban will have a meaningful impact on the biomedical
safeguard against terrorists entering the country. “

community,” Jennifer S. Geetter, an attorney with McDermott Will & Emery LLP, Washington, who advises global life sciences and health-care clients, told Bloomberg BNA in a Feb. 1 phone interview. “The
ban is likely to have even longer-range negative effects by chilling the attraction of the best minds to
come to the U.S. to work for biopharmas or for grad school or faculty positions,” Carol Pratt, an FDA regulatory attorney with Lee &
Hayes LLC, Portland, Ore., told Bloomberg BNA in a Feb. 1 e-mail. “The U.S. depends on non-U.S. talent especially in the sciences. Chilling

interest by that talent in coming to the U.S. for education or employment will impede the pace of innovation in the U.S.” Bloomberg BNA’s
inquiries at the National Institutes of Health, the White House and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services went unanswered. Ban’s Collateral Impact “There are many, many lawyers working to provide advice to a
diverse array of clients and develop strategies for their clients, and their employees, students, patients and others, as a result of the ban,” Geetter said. “The legal community is responding as lawyers always do—assisting clients
with answers and options and responding to the human beings impacted by a government decision. But this is an unprecedented event. The situation has evolved over the last few days, but I think it is an understatement to say

that we are living through a period of uncertainty. It continues to be a struggle to provide clarity or reassurance, and the human toll is real.” Clarity is important, Geetter said, because “ international
collaboration has always been the hallmark of biomedical research and health care. But the executive order is having a collateral
impact, and it’s important to understand how it affects day-to-day activities, such as patients who have sought or were about to seek medical care in the U.S.; physicians, researchers and scientists who wished to attend scientific
conferences or otherwise collaborate in person; residency and student programs; and physicians and researchers working in the U.S. We continue to assess the impact to determine how we can best help the health-care
community during this period of uncertainty.” Ernest D. Prentice, associate vice chancellor for academic affairs at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, told Bloomberg BNA in a Feb. 1 phone interview: “Everybody wants to
keep America safe and will accept a thorough vetting process. But the roll-out of this has had a scatter-gun-from-the-hip effect: scientists are stranded, students at my institution and others are afraid to go home in the event of an

it’s sending a bad signal. We depend on foreign scientists. If they

emergency. These individuals are not a threat to the U.S.” Prentice added, “I think

are reluctant to come here because they don’t know what to expect, it will affect drug discovery and
innovation.” Impact Uneven Geetter said the executive order may have different impacts on medical researchers, life science company employees and physicians, students, patients from these countries. Effects will
differ for those who were in the U.S. before the executive order but happened to be abroad when the order came down and may be unable to return to the U.S. versus people who are still in the U.S. but afraid to leave for
upcoming business or social travel, she said. Also affected will be those who were scheduled to come to the U.S. but have not yet departed. “This is still largely a case-by-case analysis. Each situation may be a bit different and
warrant a different response and strategy,” she said. “And then there are patients from those countries who have scheduled medical treatments. It’s unclear at this time what the executive order means to them,” Geetter added.

Academic medical centers engaged in federally funded medical research will be particularly
Pratt said, “

affected. NIH and National Science Foundation-funded medical research involves many foreign students. The ban will be very disruptive to the smooth
continuation of research that is already funded and ongoing.” The Association of American Medical Colleges issued a statement expressing concern about the impact of the travel ban on U.S. medical education and research, as did
the Cleveland Clinic and the Mayo Clinic. Creates Uncertainty The Trump administration has somewhat clarified how and to whom the order will apply, Geetter said. “But in a lot of cases, we just don’t know, and it is very difficult to
have to tell people who are trying to seek medical care or go about their professional or academic work that clear, compassionate answers may take a while, or may not be forthcoming. People are trying to catch up, and it’s going
to take a bit of time.” Pratt noted: “The current ban could easily be expanded in the future to a larger number of countries. That creates tremendous uncertainty. Continued opposition to discriminatory bans from both academia
and our tech and entertainment industries can be expected.” Mark Barnes, an attorney with Ropes & Gray LLP, Boston, told Bloomberg BNA in a Feb. 1 e-mail: “Leaving aside the policy merits or demerits of the order, the fact is
that the order allows exceptions to be made in compelling circumstances, and therefore we ought to expect that for researchers affected whose work is demonstrably valuable, attorneys representing them and their employers will
be able to make convincing arguments for their entry into the U.S. Time and experience will tell the extent to which exceptions will be granted.”
 Biotech Solves Econ
Biomedical industry key to the economy
DeVol et al 11 --- [Ross DeVol is a Walton fellow and former chief research at the Millikin foundation,
Armen Bedroussian is an adjunct fellow at the Milken Institute, where he previously served as a senior
economist, Kevin Klowden is the executive director of the Milken Institute’s Center for Regional
Economics and California Center, Milken Institute, “The Global Biomedical Industry: Preserving U.S.
Leadership”, September 2011,
https://assets1c.milkeninstitute.org/assets/Publication/ResearchReport/PDF/CASMIFullReport.pdf] jk
Current Industry Parameters According the most recent data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, private-sector

employment in the biomedical industry in 2009 was approximately 1,219,200. Breaking this total down into its three major
components, there were more than 283,700 jobs in the biopharmaceutical industry; 409,200 in medical devices (including diagnostics); and 526,300 in related R&D,
testing, and labs.1 Wages and output stemming directly from the industry comprised nearly $96 billion and
$213.2 billion, respectively.2 Thus, the average job in the U.S. biomedical industry paid $78,600, more than 70
percent higher than the national average. When accounting for the multiplicative dynamics (that is, all other jobs
impacted indirectly through the biomedical supply chain), th e industry accounted for almost 5.3 million jobs, or 4 percent of U.S. non-

farm employment in 2009.3 In other words, on top of its direct employment, the industry is responsible for generating an

additional 4,042,600 jobs due to indirect and induced impacts. Furthermore, every job in the biomedical
industry created another 3.3 jobs outside of the immediate sector. The following table summarizes the total impacts on
employment, wages, and output. The sheer size of the U.S. consumer market is a powerful lure for major firms. The North American market

accounts for almost 40 percent of global sales, while the European market represents 31 percent.5 As of
2010, seven of the top 20 global pharmaceutical companies were located in the United States .6 U.S. dominance

extends beyond pharmaceutical products and into the realm of medical device manufacturing. In 2008, s ales of medical devices worldwide

were estimated at about $210 billion, with four-fifths of revenue originating from the U.S. and Europe. The U.S. accounts for 41 percent,
followed by Japan (10 percent), Germany (8 percent), and France (4 percent).7 Since the U.S. market is so large, it is not surprising

that U.S. firms dominate the list of the top medical device makers. Innovation is the driver of ultimate
market success, and the U.S. originated more than half of the leading 75 global medicines (new active substances
as measured by worldwide sales) in 2009.8 Clinical trials are a critical step in the process of developing these treatments as well as a benchmark that reflects the
degree of innovation taking place in a given location. As of early 2011, 50.9 percent of all clinical trials in the world were being held in the U.S.9 Despite this
formidable share, the number of trials being conducted in emerging nations—especially China and India— has been growing by leaps and bounds in recent years.
(See Part 2 for further discussion of this issue.) As the birthplace of biotech, the U.S. remains on the cutting edge of new developments in this field. In 2007, the U.S.
accounted for 33 percent of world’s total biotech patents. This far eclipsed Germany (13 percent), Japan (11 percent), and Switzerland (2.8 percent).10 The
Advanced Medical Technology Association (AdvaMed) reported an 80 percent increase in U.S. patents for breakthrough medical devices over the past decade.11
innovation has profound implications that extend beyond the marketplace; it also has a direct bearing
But

on patient outcomes. Both medical device makers and pharmaceutical firms have recently increased their focus on cutting-edge diagnostics for early
detection and evaluation of disease. The development of more sophisticated electromedical (imaging) and irradiation (X-rays) technology has contributed to life
expectancy gains and lower disability rates. Death rates for the most common cancers have declined, and the length of cancer survival has also increased . Some
68.3 percent of cancer patients survived after being diagnosed in 2001 (the most recent year with five-year follow-up data available), compared to 60 percent only a
decade prior.12 Additional diagnostic advances include the first fully automated test for detecting congestive heart failure and monitoring treatment response, as
well as the first oral specimen rapid HIV test.13 The last decade alone has seen the first molecularly targeted cancer drug for leukemia, the first drug for severe
Alzheimer’s, a new monoclonal antibody treatment for colorectal cancer, a vaccine for the prevention of cervical cancer, and two new first-in-class HIV drugs.14
New devices introduced in recent years—including stents, heart valves, defibrillators, gastric bands, glucose monitors, and artificial joints—continue to expand the
treatment options available to patients.15

Biopharma produces tons of high-paying jobs with a huge multiplier effect –

innovation’s key
TEConomy Partners, 2017 (TEConomy Partners is a management consulting firm focused on innovation-led economic
development, public policy, and advanced analytics with expertise in pharmaceuticals and advanced manufacturing, “DRIVING INNOVATION
AND ECONOMIC GROWTH FOR THE 21ST CENTURY”, Report prepared for PhRMA, June 2017, http://phrma-
docs.phrma.org/files/dmfile/PhRMA-Driving-Innovation_06_01.2017.pdf)//JBS
Advancing biopharmaceutical industry development has emerged as a leading area of state economic
development efforts to advance innovation clusters. What particularly makes the biopharmaceutical industry such an important state economic
development target is its large-scale and geographically dispersed presence across the United States: • At the national level, the full economic impact

of the biopharmaceutical sector is pronounced. For every one direct biopharmaceutical job created,
another 4.21 jobs are generated, reflecting the extensive base of suppliers and substantial contributions
to personal spending from the wages and salaries the biopharmaceutical industry pays workers. So, the nearly 854,000 direct
biopharmaceutical jobs in the United States in 2014 supported another 3.6 million additional U.S. jobs for a total of 4.4
million jobs in 2014. • These employment impacts of the biopharmaceutical industry have a broad geographic footprint
across states. The biopharmaceutical sector supports more than 250,000 jobs in six states (California, New Jersey, Illinois, Massachusetts, North Carolina, and
Pennsylvania), more than 50,000 jobs in 22 states, and more than 20,000 jobs in a total of 31 states. • The directjobs being created by the
biopharmaceutical industry also comprise the high-quality, high-wage jobs that are priorities for state economic

development efforts. The average wages in the biopharmaceutical industry well outpace average private-sector industry
levels across nearly all states. For 43 states, the biopharmaceutical industry wage premium exceeds 50 percent (i.e., biopharmaceutical wages are more than 50
percent greater than the average private-sector wage) and, for 24 states, this premium exceeds 75 percent.7 These jobs within the biopharmaceutical industry run
the full spectrum of occupations from scientific and engineering to production to business services, and so offer diverse career paths for workers. Scientists

account for at least 15 percent of the biopharmaceutical workforce in 33 states, production workers account for at least 15 percent of the
biopharmaceutical workforce in 19 states, and management (administrative and production) accounts for 10 percent or more in 49 states.8 • At the same time ,

the capacity to innovate through biopharmaceutical research and development (R&D) is widely
present across states. University biomedical research is the largest area of university research in 45 states plus Puerto Rico, and in 28 states it
accounted for more than 50 percent of university-based research. Similarly, research and innovation activities of established and emerging

biopharmaceutical companies are geographically dispersed, with a high share of patent activity found across the

United States. In 2014 alone, 21 states had more than 500 biopharmaceutical-related patents issued, and 13 of these had more than 1,000 patents issued.
These activities reflect the substantial R&D activity taking place in these states.9 • There is also a strong

footprint across states of clinical trials to advance new drug development funded by industry. In 2013
the biopharmaceutical industry sponsored 6,199 clinical trials of medicines in the United States, reaching 1.1 million patients and

involving direct spending of nearly $10 billion to conduct these clinical trials at the site level with a total economic impact,
after considering the ripple effects of spending by clinical trial vendors and their employees, of $25 billion in economic activity in communities

throughout the United States. This enormous effort in industry-sponsored clinical trials occurred in all 50 states and
the District of Columbia with sizable spending in some states not typically associated with a large biopharmaceutical industry presence, e.g., Ohio and Tennessee.
The five states with the highest number of active clinical trial sites were California (3,111), Texas (2,799), Florida (2,571), New York (2,476), and Pennsylvania
(1,972). Only 7 states plus the District of Columbia had fewer than 200 clinical trial sites.10 Given the significant
economic benefits and broad
geographic footprint of economic activity and innovation related to the biopharmaceutical industry, it is not surprising
that a detailed examination of the rise of state practices to advance the biopharmaceutical industry commissioned in 2010 by the Pharmaceutical Research and
Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) found the following11: “During the last decade, state governments have increasingly begun to
target the biopharmaceutical industry and the larger biosciences because they are economic engines
providing high-wage, highskilled jobs across a range of occupations.” The 2010 study documented that, as states have pursued
biopharmaceutical development, they have put in place a wide array of development initiatives to support their existing and emerging

biopharmaceutical firms—and to attract new ones—by creating competitive R&D incentives and infrastructure, supporting technology

commercialization and entrepreneurial development, and focusing on other programs and policies to foster industry growth.
 AT: No Pandemics
Multiple disease’s circulating now --- anyone could spiral out of control and cause
extinction
Stone 17 --- [Judy Stone is an Infectious Disease specialist @ Forbes experienced in conducting clinical
research and the author of Conducting Clinical Research, Forbes, “How Does Trump's Plan To Gut Health
And Medical Research Make America Great?”, 3/17/17,
https://www.forbes.com/sites/judystone/2017/03/17/trump-and-congressional-budgets-a-recipe-for-
destroying-health-and-medical-research/#2065e2c66ba2] jk

The pace at which decades of slowly gained health protections are being destroyed by this administration is breathtaking. This post focuses on
infectious disease implications. Tom Price—a physician, albeit a retired orthopedist—said this week that states should decide whether to require
immunization. He apparently missed the part in medical school about how viruses are transmitted. So did much of Congress. We are already having

worrisome outbreaks of mumps⁠ across the country, and episodic clusters of measles. As a physician having
practiced infectious diseases for more than 30 years, I have never seen a case of either in this country. That is what strong public health does. While mumps

is transmitted by direct contact with infected secretions, measles can be transmitted through the air
before someone is obviously ill and can linger in the environment for hours, making it more dangerous.
Widespread vaccination is needed to provide herd immunity and protect some of the most vulnerable patients—babies too young, or children too
immunocompromised to be immunized—from other parents killing them with their “choice.” In case they missed it, there
are at least three other
imminent viral threats to the U.S. Zika, the most recent devastating infection, is leaving a wake of
seriously disabled babies and families destroyed by the burden of care. Additionally, there is a growing yellow
fever outbreak in South America (Brazil). Think that infection can’t happen here? Yellow fever used to be endemic in the
southern U.S., and is transmitted by Aedes aegypti, the same mosquito that transmits Zika, Chikungunya, and dengue. With
growing heat and moisture in the Gulf Coast states, conditions are ripe for a recurrence of this virus
here. We are ill-prepared for this deadly virus, and there is a shortage of the vaccine—which can have
serious side effects in older adults. The latest strain of “bird flu,” H7N9, is circulating in China and carries a 40%
rate of death. While not yet causing illness in the U.S., there are growing concerns that mutations might

cause a pandemic⁠ and signs that our current vaccines and the antiviral Tamiflu are losing effectiveness.
 AT: Domestic Doctors Solve
Domestic doctors can’t fill in
ALAHDAB and MURAD ’17 (Fares; AND M. Hassan; Division of Preventive, Occupational and
Aerospace Medicine, Department of Medicine and Mayo Evidence-based Practice Center, Mayo Clinic,
“The US immigration ban: implications for medical education and the physician workforce,” The Lancet,
v. 389, i. 10073, March 11, ProQuest)ww

On Jan 27, 2017, a presidential executive order, which was later suspended, halted entry to the USA for
90 days for immigrant and non-immigrant persons from seven Muslim-majority countries (Iraq, Syria,
Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen). New replacement orders seem to be in the making to, more or
less, achieve the same goals. Although the media has covered the legal, political, and humanitarian
impact of the order, we would like to describe the effect on medical education and the physician
workforce in the USA.

International medical graduates (IMGs) comprised 25% of all active residents and fellows in in the
USA, with approximately 1200 currently training in internal medicine residencies or fellowships from
the seven banned countries.1,2 Approximately 23% of US physicians with active licences are IMGs.3
Syria in particular, one of the seven countries with a 90-day visa ban and an indefinite refugee ban, is
home to the University of Damascus, which trained a high number of physicians with an active licence
in the USA in 2014 (2632).3 A notion that foreigners are taking positions from Americans has been used
in defense of the executive order. We argue that, for the physician workforce, this is certainly not true.
IMGs have been filling an abundant number of residency positions that cannot be filled by US
graduates. In 2014-15, there were 21·7% more open residency positions than there were US
graduates.4 Moreover for IMGs to secure residency positions in the USA, they have always had to
meet higher standards than US graduates. For instance, 2013-16 residency match data show that IMGs
had higher examination scores, more research experience and peer-reviewed publications, and were
more likely to have graduate degrees or completed residency training than their US graduate
counterparts.5 Such hurdles ensure that those who successfully make it into the USA are usually highly
selected people with extraordinary capabilities who provide high quality of care.6

Physicians who are legally admitted to the USA under immigrant and non-immigrant visas have been
through comprehensive vetting (including primary source verification for birth, civil status, biometrics,
and educational background) and are highly unlikely to pose a threat to national security.7 A large
number of IMGs practise in rural and underserved areas (as a part of the "J-1 waiver" programme) and
provide care to patients in areas where there are critical shortages of physicians. Abrupt reduction of
IMG physicians will reduce access to care in such areas, particularly in specialties with high
proportions of IMGs such as internists (38·6%), cardiologists (43·6%), nephrologists (47·2%), and
geriatricians (50·7%).1 We urge the US Government to consider the impact of this order, and any future
immigration restrictions, on the health-care workforce.
 I/L – Vaccine Deployment
Ban prevents effective crisis response and vaccine development
BELLUZ ’17 (Julia; Vox, “Trump has set the US up to botch a global health crisis,” 4/3,
https://www.vox.com/2017/3/4/14803596/trump-pandemic-response-global-health-cdc)ww

The fallout from Trump’s travel ban could hamper research collaboration that could save lives

Developing vaccines or researching deadly diseases requires international collaboration, particularly in

the context of an outbreak.

Consider the first successful Ebola vaccine, which, if approved, could help prevent another Ebola
outbreak from ever happening: The vaccine candidate was first developed by Canadians, and during the
2013 to 2016 Ebola epidemic, West African, European, and US governments and universities worked
together with the WHO and other international partners to design the clinical trials and recruit patients
to find out whether the vaccine worked.

With the current H7N9 outbreak in China, we’re already seeing that the virus may be resistant to
treatment. And according to Stat’s Helen Branswell, it evolved in a way that “undermines the usefulness
of a 12 million-dose emergency stockpile of H7N9 vaccine made for the United States several years ago.”

In other words, the H7N9 vaccines we have for the deadly flu virus are unlikely to work, and countries
are going to need to work together to develop new ones. Immigration bans shouldn’t get in the way of
that life-saving work.

That’s the hope for public health. But it’s also true that in a globalizing world, an approach focused on
closing borders and building walls is unlikely to be effective.

We’ll eventually learn whether Trump will put public health above politics — and hopefully the White
House’s pandemic test doesn’t roll around too soon. Trump’s Ebola tweets and perpetuation of myths
about vaccines certainly aren’t very encouraging. But perhaps the gravity of the Oval Office will change
the stakes.
 I/L – Chilling Effect
The plan reverses a massive chilling effect that blocks doctors from coming to the US
KHAZAN ’17 (Olga; The Atlantic, “Trump's Immigration Order Might Cost Thousands of Americans
Access to a Doctor,” 1/30, https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/01/trumps-immigration-
order-will-cost-thousands-of-americans-access-to-a-doctor/515016/)ww

After future doctors finish medical school, they go on to residency programs to wrap up their training in
hospitals. Both American and foreign medical-school graduates can apply to American residency slots,
and among this year’s foreign applicants, there are currently 260 people from the seven nations—Iraq,
Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen—banned from coming to the U.S. for 90 days under
President Trump’s executive order, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges.

Because the total number of residency slots are limited, many of these individuals might not become
American doctors. The typical primary-care doctor sees 3,000 patients, so the AAMC is estimating those
260 future doctors would have been able to take care of more than three-quarters of a million American
patients.

Foreign medical students typically come to the U.S. under J1 or H1 visitors’ visas, which are subject to
Trump’s 90-day ban. Residency matching typically happens in March, and residents start in June. That’s
more than 90 days away, but “the uncertainty is throwing people off,” said Atul Grover, the director of
the AAMC, which oversees the residency matching program.

“The program directors are like, ‘what do I do?’” Grover told me. “If there’s someone who I think is
going to make a fantastic doctor from Sudan, are we going to be able to take them?”

Only foreign medical graduates whose colleges are recognized by the U.S. and who pass U.S. qualifying
exams are eligible to apply for American residencies. Typically, only half of all foreign medical students
secure an American residency spot, so the true number of potential future doctors who would be
excluded from the program is around 130. Still, those people would have been able to take care of
nearly 400,000 Americans upon graduation.

As a twist, it’s the most needy Americans who will lose out if the doctors are barred from entry. There’s
a major shortage of doctors, even though nearly a quarter of all practicing American physicians are
foreign-educated, Grover said. One way foreign medical graduates can negotiate to stay in the U.S. after
their residency is through a visa waiver under which they agree to practice in underserved areas for
several years. That’s why some studies estimate that foreign medical graduates are more likely than
Americans to work in these doctor deserts.

Grover said residency program directors are still frantically trying to sort out the rules, but in some ways,
the chilling effect has already begun. As ProPublica reported over the weekend, one Cleveland-Clinic
medical resident who had a Sudanese passport was forced to return to Saudi Arabia hours after her
plane landed in New York.

“I’m only in this country to be a doctor, to work and to help people — that’s it,” the woman, Suha
Abushamma, told ProPublica. “There’s no other reason.”
Tech Advantage
 UQ—Companies Hate Ban
The tech industry opposed to travel ban
Meyer, 6/27 (Robinson Meyer is a staff writer at The Atlantic, where he covers climate change and
technology, “The Tech Industry Is Fighting Trump—and Mostly Losing,” June 27, 2018,
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/06/tech-companies-travel-ban-
muslim/563786/, dylchik)
In the days after the presidential election, a liberal friend quoted the 1976 movie Network to me. It’s a film about how extensively corporations
control politics and media in the United States, but in the context of Trump, it suddenly struck him as perversely reassuring. “There is no
America. There is no democracy,” goes the quote. (It is delivered, fittingly, by a network executive.) “There is only IBM and ITT and AT&T and
DuPont, Dow, Union Carbide, and Exxon. Those are the nations of the world today. … We no longer live in a world of nations and ideologies, Mr.
Beale. The world is a collage of corporations, inexorably determined by the immutable by-laws of business.” Will tech save or ruin us? The
implication: Whatever President Trump did with the government, the country was actually governed by powerful corporations. These
corporations have an interest in a mostly peaceful world, with mostly free trade and some patina of civil rights. It is corporate America that
would block the president’s worst excesses. And as Trump has taken office, and his administration has worn on, I’ve seen versions of this idea
floating around the conversational ether. If things get really bad, we are assured, the richest companies will save us. The past few months have
shown how incorrect this view is. Some
of America’s most powerful companies have faced off the Trump
administration—and they have lost. Consider the fate of the so-called travel ban. Just a week into his
presidency, President Donald Trump announced a sudden, sweeping change to the country’s
immigration system, prohibiting citizens and refugees and from seven Muslim-majority countries from
entering the United States for at least 90 days. He also ordered the government to give preferential
treatment to Christian refugees and “persecuted religious minorities” coming from those countries.
More than 700 travelers, some of whom were in the air when the order was announced, arrived in the
United States and were immediately detained. Thousands of Americans swarmed to airports around the
country to protest the policy. Within a day, the technology industry placed itself on the rhetorical side of
the protesters. “It is not a policy we support,” said Tim Cook in an email to Apple employees. “Apple
would not exist without immigration.” Jeff Bezos agreed. “This executive order is one we do not
support,” he said in an email to his employees, promising to marshal “the full extent of Amazon’s
resources” to support employees affected by the policy. Marc Benioff, chief executive of Salesforce,
posted a tweet quoting the Gospel of Mark and the hashtag #NoBan. Travis Kalanick, then the chief
executive of Uber, labeled the policy “unjust.” They were not alone: Dozens of technology CEOs spoke
up in the first days of the ban. Few tech employees were ultimately affected by that particular version of the policy—because,
within a few days, federal courts had frozen it. As the months passed, the Trump administration issued
two more versions of its travel ban. Yet the industry continued to make its preferences clear. “If we
stand and say nothing, we become a part of it,” said Tim Cook, after the incident over the first ban
passed. As the case reached the Supreme Court, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft, Google, and more
than 175 other tech companies filed an amicus brief in this case arguing that the policy marked “a
fundamental shift in the rules governing entry into the United States” and that it was already “inflicting
substantial harm on U.S. companies, their employees, and the entire economy.” “The Order will have the
immediate, adverse consequence of making it far more difficult and expensive for U.S. companies to hire some of the world’s best talent and
impeding them from competing in the global marketplace,” the brief said. The companies lost. On Tuesday morning, the
Supreme Court announced it would let a modified version of the travel ban stand. Fewer technology executives
spoke out this time. Google, Apple, Facebook, and Uber all declined or did not respond to a request for comment. “While disappointed
with today’s SCOTUS travel ban decision, we will continue to support the legal rights of our employees
and their families,” said Brad Smith, the president of Microsoft, in a tweet. “We are profoundly disappointed by the
Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the travel ban—a policy that goes against our mission and values,” said Brian Chesky, the chief executive of
Airbnb, in a statement issued with the company’s two other co-founders. “To restrict travel based on a person’s nationality or religion is
wrong,” he continued. “We believe that travel is a transformative and powerful experience, and we will continue to open doors and build
bridges between cultures around the world.” Technology companies have historically taken an outsize interest in immigration policy, including
with their lobbying dollars. Many tech companies rely on H1-B visas in order to bring programmers and other specialist workers into this
country. But Stu Loeser, a consultant who advised technology companies on this issue, told me such interest didn’t drive opposition to the
travel ban. “Tech
companies didn’t oppose this ban because they recruit a significant number of employees
from Iran, Libya, Yemen or the other countries directly affected,” he said in an email. “They opposed it
because anything designed to be a Muslim ban is inherently prejudiced—and anything that says to the
world we don’t want self-starters to come here will hurt America in the short and long term.”
Technology executives may also take a personal interest in immigration policy because they themselves
are immigrants. The CEOs of Alphabet (Google), Microsoft, Tesla, and Uber are immigrants. And more
than half of all U.S.-based startups worth more than $1 billion were founded or co-founded by
immigrants, according to a 2016 report from the National Foundation for American Policy. These statistics
have not swayed the Trump administration. And the White House is attacking programs that the technology industry does have a financial
interest in. Over the past year, it has increased scrutiny of H1-B visas and moved to end an Obama-era program that allowed foreign
entrepreneurs to start their company in the United States. The entire episode should suggest to companies that a certain kind of rhetorical
opposition to the president’s policies—filing an amicus brief here, issuing a strongly worded comment there—does not work. In fact, this
approach seems to be failing across the board. Nearly all of corporate America opposes President Trump’s tariffs, but this has not dissuaded the
president from planning a trade war with China. Nor were appeals from American corporations—including Exxon, Walmart, and the
carmakers—enough to keep the United States in the Paris Agreement on climate change. The
usual tactics of corporate dissent
don’t seem to be working. Now the question is: Will corporations go any further to get their way? Or will
they keep issuing strong comments and amicus briefs, and otherwise stay out of President Trump’s way?

Tech companies hate the ban, it’s bad for business

Reisinger, 17 (Don Reisinger-writer for Fortune, “Major Tech Companies Line Up Against Trump's
Revised Travel Ban,” April 20, 2017, http://fortune.com/2017/04/20/tech-company-travel-ban/, dylchik)

Some of the biggest technology companies are standing firm against President Donald Trump’s latest
travel ban. More than 160 technology companies, including Amazon (AMZN, -1.84%), Facebook (FB, -
1.59%), and Google (GOOGL, -1.36%), filed a brief in a federal appeals court in Richmond, Va. on
Wednesday, criticizing Trump’s revised order aimed at banning travelers from several mostly Muslim
countries. The companies argued in the brief, which was earlier reported on by tech news site Recode,
that the ban would ultimately hurt “U.S. companies, their employees, and the entire economy.” The
companies are especially concerned that they wouldn’t be able to attract overseas talent, and believe
the ban could let overseas competitors gain an advantage. Citing national security, President Trump’s
second travel ban attempts to limit the number of people who can come to the U.S. from many
majority-Muslim countries. The ban, called “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the
United States,” was issued by the President on March 6. A federal judge halted the order, dealing the
President and his supporters a political blow on top of the one they suffered when his first travel ban in
January was similarly blocked by a federal court. President Trump has vowed to keep fighting for the ban is court. Supporters
of the President’s order argue that he’s working in the country’s best interests and trying to stop terrorists from entering the country.
Opponents, however, say that the bill discriminates against Muslims and Muslim countries and will
ultimately hurt the U.S. The technology industry has been steadfast against any travel ban since the
President signed his first executive order. At that time, Apple (AAPL, -0.04%), Facebook, and several
other companies similarly joined forces to criticize the order and call for its dismissal. In an interview in
February at University of Glasgow in Scotland where he was received an honorary doctorate, Apple CEO Tim Cook spoke out about the
ban, saying that not saying something is tantamount to “agreeing” to it. He added that he believes it’s “important to speak out.”
The brief filed by the technology companies this week doesn’t mean that they are now part of the case or will help litigate it. Instead, the
companies filed a “friends of the court” brief in support of the litigation against the ban. Sometimes, such briefs will be considered by when
making a ruling. In other cases, they’re ignored.
 Refugees Help Growth
Lack of refugee intake is tanking the job market – removing current restrictions is key
to solve
Cohen, 4/1 (Patricia Cohen-covers the national economy for The New York Times and is the author of
"In Our Prime: The Fascinating History and Promising Future of Middle Age" (Scribner), joined The Times
in 1997 as Ideas Editor to create and launch the Arts & Ideas section, and later oversaw the paper's
theater coverage. An award-winning reporter, she has written extensively about ideas, books and the
arts, and worked as an investigative reporter in the Culture department, “Where Companies Welcome
Refugees, the More, the Better,” April 1, 2018,
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/01/business/economy/labor-recruit.html, dylchik)

SILVER SPRING, Md. — With forecasters expecting the unemployment rate to sink further this week, the
chorus of complaints about worker shortages — from custodians to computer prodigies — has
swelled. Yet companies that turn to labor recruiters like Ray Wiley tend to have an especially tough time: The jobs they offer are in out-of-
way places; the work is low-paid and disagreeable; and native-born Americans, particularly white men, are generally not interested. “We
have employers call us all the time,” said Mr. Wiley, who primarily works with meat-processing plants
and lumber mills that have trouble retaining workers even when the jobless rate is well above its
historically low level of 4.1 percent. The economy is on solid footing in the ninth year of the recovery,
and even entry-level workers have more options. So in Atlanta, San Diego and other cities, Mr. Wiley’s
company, East Coast Labor Solutions, finds workers, primarily refugees from war-ravaged countries
who don’t speak English. Other candidates include Puerto Ricans discouraged by the island’s lack of jobs, as well as immigrants — here
legally, he emphasizes — who have no problem passing a drug test. “If you told me there’s 1,000 refugees who need work
and want work, I could find them work this month,” said Mr. Wiley, whose distinctive drawl pays tribute to his Georgia
roots. Employers like refugees, he said. There is no question about their legal status, he noted, and they
are generally more motivated and work harder, if only because their situation is more dire. “I’m ready to
go right now,” said Ronald Johnson, 37, who showed up one afternoon with two friends at Labor Solutions’ bare, second-floor office in Silver
Spring, Md. He had heard from others in his community of Sierra Leone refugees that this agency could immediately place anyone willing to
move to a nearby state. “I want to go where they pay the most money and charge the least for rent.” Within an hour, all three men agreed to
move to a rural town they had never heard of, to take a job they had never done before. Citing
the need to protect national
security and jobs, however, President Trump has moved to sharply limit legal immigrants and
refugees, capping the number of refugees at 45,000, the lowest yearly total since the program began
in 1975. The actual pace of admittance has so far fallen below that level, which could make it even
harder for meat processors and similarly situated industries to fill their ranks. “I appreciate what Trump is doing
in trying to create more jobs for Americans,” Mr. Wiley said, in response to the president’s argument that immigrants are taking work from
native-born Americans. “But for some lower-paid jobs that are undesirable, a lot of Americans don’t want to do those jobs.” Of course they
might, if the pay were good enough. When meatpackers were unionized and located in cities like Chicago, hourly wages averaged $20 an hour
in today’s dollars, plus generous benefits. In the 1960s, though, packers began moving to rural areas, bringing workers to where the animals
lived instead of the other way around. The shift enabled companies to cut wages drastically, escape the pressures of collective bargaining and
speed output. The move from high-wage locations to low-wage ones has become commonplace as the economy globalized, upending stable
middle-class communities. In
the international arena, companies like Carrier and Rexnord recently closed
factories in the United States and moved operations to places like China, Vietnam and Mexico where
labor could be found at cut-rate prices. But long before complaints about the North American Free Trade Agreement or steel
imports from China commanded headlines, a domestic version of this pattern was already playing out in some industries. And as the pay
changed, so did the face of the work force, once dominated by white males. Women, immigrants and people of color now hang chickens on
hooks or hack them into parts on an assembly line. They are paid about half of what their counterparts earned four decades ago (after taking
inflation into account), and have fewer benefits and protections. Such conditions don’t foster long-term stability. In some plants, employers
have to replace up to 70 percent of their staffs every year. Reducing that churn has become harder as the unemployment rate has dropped and
several cities have raised the minimum wage. That’s where Mr. Wiley comes in. His recruits come from parts of the globe like Africa and Mexico
that President Trump has repeatedly disparaged. Some are new arrivals sleeping on a relative’s couch; others are longtime residents struggling
with low pay, high rents, long commutes or just a stretch of hard luck. He typically finds work for a few dozen a month. “I’ll take any job,” said
Suleiman Kabba, 42, who came to the Labor Solutions office in Silver Spring, a Washington suburb, with Mr. Johnson. He had recently moved to
Maryland and was down to his last few dollars. He needed to save up to replace stolen identity documents and buy airline tickets to bring over
his two children, still in Sierra Leone. He removed a pair of tinted glasses and pulled at the collar of his U.S.A. T-shirt to show the scars from a
bullet that had traveled through his eye and out the left side of his neck when his family was attacked during the civil war there. Haimonet
Demcasso, the recruiter, explained, in two languages, the broad outlines of the jobs. The poultry-plant work pays roughly $11 to $13 an hour in
small towns in Virginia and West Virginia. Labor Solutions would transport the recruits, find apartments for them to share, help fill out
paperwork, and advance them the money to cover their travel, the first month’s rent, the security deposit, heavy work boots and home
essentials. They could pay it back out of their paychecks with no interest at a rate of $60 a week. They
are paid the same as other
plant workers, but they are employees of Labor Solutions for up to a year, until they’ve repaid their
loans.

Refugees help growth

Nowrasteh, 15 (Alex Nowrasteh-immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute’s Center for Global
Liberty and Prosperity, “Syrian refugees could help America. We should welcome them,”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/09/09/syrian-refugees-could-help-america-
we-should-welcome-them/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.a7ee5bddbf76, dylchik)
Thousands of Syrians are fleeing their war-torn country in the hopes of securing safety and asylum in Europe or the United States. All too often,
their desperate journey results in more suffering and struggle. At least 2,000 Syrians have drowned in their attempt to reach Europe since the
civil war began in 2011; at least 3,000 including many Libyans, Afghans, and other Africans are in one Greek refugee camp on the island of
Lesbos with other camps popping up. The
United States and European governments need to do a lot less to
alleviate these problems. Yes, you read that right. The problem isn’t that the United States and
European governments aren’t doing enough to help Syrians – they’re doing much too much to block
them from coming here. We should stop. Unless there is a legitimate security, criminal or health
concern, we should let the Syrians in. When refugees trying to save themselves are stopped by
governments using their own resources, those governments bear part of the blame for the often tragic
and heart-rending results. If you try to flee from a murderer and a third person breaks your legs so you
can’t run away, that third person bears some of the responsibility for your fate. And Europeans aren’t the only
ones bearing some of the responsibility for the fate of refugees. The United States has accepted a measly 1000 Syrian refugees – fewer than
Brazil – and has committed to accepting 8,000 eventually. Why aren’t we accepting more? The
most common worry is that
refugees will consume welfare and be a burden on American taxpayers. Fine, cancel welfare for them
and admit more. Their children will attend American public school and those born here will be citizens
and able to receive benefits. In 1990, the Council of Jewish Federations and the Hebrew Immigrant Aid
Society ran a pilot program to privately finance the admission and resettlement of 8,000 Jews fleeing the
Soviet Union. Those refugees could not receive welfare and the program received no taxpayer support.
Many Soviet Jews settled in different parts of the country – some where welfare payments were high and others where it was limited. Their
incomes grew everywhere over time but resettled Soviet Jews who ended up in high-welfare New York were less likely to work and learn
English than those who settled in lower-welfare Maryland. Working and learning English were the key to refugee self-sufficiency – it can work
for Syrians too. Let’s try that again. Refugees want safety, not handouts. As a first step, we should let individual Americans and charities
sponsor refugees without any quota. When Iceland’s government only wanted to admit 50 Syrian refugees, 11,000 Icelandic citizens offered to
share their homes in response the government is reconsidering its quota. Americans gave over $350 billion to private charities in 2014 – $1,100
per American and the most generous in the world. It’s hard to imagine that they wouldn’t be willing to aid refugees in their new life here. If only
the government would let them. There
are over 150,000 Americans of Syrian descent, with a median household
income of over $65,000, compared to about $53,000 for native-born Americans. They can help ease
Syrian refugees into life in the United States either through charity or job opportunities. But how will the
refugees and asylum seekers support themselves once they are here, many conservatives demand to know? By
working. The U.S. government restricts work permits. Allow the refugees to come here and work,
immediately and without complicating regulations, to support themselves and their families. A 2013
International Labor Organization survey of Syrian refugees in Lebanon found they had a wide range of
skills. Half of the workers were skilled or semi-skilled while the other half were low-skilled workers in
agricultural or personal services such as cleaning. Few spoke English but lower-skilled jobs in the United
States require more manual strength than English ability. Many of them will earn low pay in America’s labor market – at
least initially – but an influx of lower-skilled workers could actually help Americans with less skill. The United States does not have a fixed supply
of jobs. By working in the United States and consuming goods and services, more jobs will be created to supply them. Also, because
these workers will have different skills than most Americans, they won’t compete much with Americans
for jobs but may actually complement us. Via a phenomenon called complementary task specialization,
an increase in the number of non-English speaking immigrants who specialize in manual labor jobs
pushes Americans who speak English but have few other skills into higher paid jobs that require
communication. For instance, low-skilled English-speaking Americans used to be dishwashers and now
they are waiters, but this is only possible because of lower skilled immigrants. By fitting into our labor
market, complementing existing American workers, and not consuming welfare benefits, Syrian
refugees will help the economy grow. Citizens in Western governments don’t have a duty to help
refugees but we have a duty to stop hurting them. Our immigration restrictions are making a
humanitarian catastrophe even worse by preventing them from saving their own lives. Let’s get out of
the way and let them do that while empowering those among us to voluntarily lend a helping hand.
 Tech Industry K2 Econ
The tech industry is key to US economic stability
Roberts & Terrell, 18 (Brian Roberts & Michael Wolf-economists in the Office of Employment and
Unemployment Statistics, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “High-tech industries: an analysis of
employment, wages, and output,” May 2018, https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-7/high-tech-
industries-an-analysis-of-employment-wages-and-output.htm?view_full, dylchik)

High-tech industries are an essential part of the U.S. economy, providing almost 10 percent of all jobs,
but producing over 18 percent of output in 2016. This higher output per worker is reflected in wages,
which are higher in high-tech industries for nearly every type of occupation. High-tech industries are
projected to increase their share of total output through 2026, while maintaining their share of
employment. Employment in the high-tech sector is projected to continue to shift towards service-
providing industries over the next decade, from 82.8 percent of high-tech employment in 2016 to 85.0
percent in 2026.

U.S. tech industry key to economy

Grisham 15: Senior Manager Public Policy Communications – CompTIA, Stonewall Strategies; served as the Manager of U.S. Public Affairs
at the Public Affairs Council and Communications Director for Congressman Mike Turner of Ohio; BA in Public Relations at University of South
Carolina-Columbia: (“UNITED STATES TECH INDUSTRY EMPLOYS 6.5 MILLION IN 2014”, Preston Grisham, CompTIA, February 10, 2015,
https://www.comptia.org/about-us/newsroom/press-releases/2015/02/10/united-states-tech-industry-employs-6.5-million-in-2014)//chiragjain

Washington, D.C., February 10, 2015 – The

U.S. tech industry added 129,600 net jobs between 2013 and 2014, for
a total of nearly 6.5 million jobs in the U.S., according to Cyberstates 2015: The Definitive State-by-State Analysis of the U.S.
Tech Industry published by CompTIA. The report represents a comprehensive look at tech employment, wages, and other key economic factors
nationally and state-by-state, covering all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. This year’s edition shows that tech
industry
jobs account for 5.7 percent of the entire private sector workforce. Tech industry employment grew at
the same rate as the overall private sector, 2 percent, between 2013-2014. Growth was led by the IT services sector
which added 63,300 jobs between 2013 and 2014 and the R&D, testing, and engineering services sector
that added 50,700 jobs. “The U.S. tech industry continues to make significant contributions to our
economy,” said Todd Thibodeaux, president and CEO, CompTIA. “The tech industry accounts for 7.1 percent of the
overall U.S. GDP and 11.4 percent of the total U.S. private sector payroll. With annual average wages that are more
than double that of the private sector, we should be doing all we can to encourage the growth and vitality of our
nation’s tech industry.” An examination of tech job postings for the nation shows a year-over-year jump of more than 11
percent for technology occupations, with over 650,000 job openings in fourth quarter of 2014. At the state
level, Cyberstates shows that 38 states had an overall net increase of tech industry employment in 2014. The largest gains
were in California (+32,900), Texas (+20,100), Florida (+12,500), Massachusetts (+8,700), and Michigan (+8,100). The states with the highest
concentration of workers were Massachusetts (9.8% of private sector employment), Virginia (9.4%), Colorado (9.2%), Maryland (8.6%), and
Washington (8.4%). The largest states by tech industry employment continues to be California, Texas, and New York.

Tech Industry Specifically key to the economy

Kvochko 13 [Elena, Manager in Information Technology Industry at World Economic Forum, “Five ways
technology can help the economy”, World Economic Forum, Publisher of stories about the world economy, April
11, 2013, https://agenda.weforum.org/2013/04/five-ways-technology-can-help-the-economy/, July 18,
2015] KL
At a time of slowed growth and continued volatility, many countries are looking for policies that will stimulate growth and create new jobs.
Information communications technology (ICT) is not only one of the fastest growing industries – directly
creating millions of jobs – but it is also an important enabler of innovation and development. The number of mobile subscriptions (6.8
billion) is approaching global population figures, with 40% of people in the world already online. In this new environment, the competitiveness
of economies depends on their ability to leverage new technologies. Here are the five
common economic effects of ICT. 1.
Direct job creation The ICT sector is, and is expected to remain, one of the largest employers. In the US alone, computer and
information technology jobs are expected to grow by 22% up to 2020, creating 758,800 new jobs. In
Australia, building and running the new super-fast National Broadband Network will support 25,000 jobs annually. Naturally, the growth in
different segments is uneven. In the US, for each job in the high-tech industry, five additional jobs, on average, are created in other sectors. In
2013, the global tech market will grow by 8%, creating jobs, salaries and a widening range of services and products. 2. Contribution
to
GDP growth Findings from various countries confirm the positive effect of ICT on growth. For example, a
10% increase in broadband penetration is associated with a 1.4% increase in GDP growth in emerging
markets. In China, this number can reach 2.5%. The doubling of mobile data use caused by the increase in 3G connections boosts GDP per
capita growth rate by 0.5% globally. The Internet accounts for 3.4% of overall GDP in some economies. Most of this effect is driven by e-
commerce – people advertising and selling goods online. 3. Emergence of new services and industries Numerous public
services have become available online and through mobile phones. The transition to cloud computing is one of the key trends for
modernization. The government of Moldova is one of the first countries in Eastern Europe and Central Asia to shift its government IT
infrastructure into the cloud and launch mobile and e-services for citizens and businesses. ICT has enabled the emergence of a completely new
sector: the app industry. Research
shows that Facebook apps alone created over 182,000 jobs in 2011, and that
the aggregate value of the Facebook app economy exceeds $$12 billion. 4. Workforce transformation
New “microwork” platforms, developed by companies like oDesk, Amazon and Samasource, help to
divide tasks into small components that can then be outsourced to contract workers. The contractors are often
based in emerging economies. Microwork platforms allow entrepreneurs to significantly cut costs and get access to qualified workers. In 2012,
oDesk alone had over 3 million registered contractors who performed 1.5 million tasks. This trend had spillover effects on other industries, such
as online payment systems. ICT has also contributed to the rise of entrepreneurship, making it much easier for self-starters to access best
practices, legal and regulatory information, marketing and investment resources. 5.
Business innovation In OECD countries,
more than 95% of businesses have an online presence. The Internet provides them with new ways of
reaching out to customers and competing for market share. Over the past few years, social media has established itself as
a powerful marketing tool. ICT tools employed within companies help to streamline business processes and improve efficiency. The
unprecedented explosion of connected devices throughout the world has created new ways for businesses to serve their customers.

Tech industry development is key to the economy

MHTA 13 (Minnesota High tech Association, “Tech sector employs 6.5M nationwide”, Article presents
no date except the year, 2013, https://www.mhta.org/tech-sector-employs-6-5m-nationwide/)RR

The U.S. tech industry added 129,600 net jobs between 2013 and 2014, for a total of nearly 6.5 million
jobs in the U.S., according to Cyberstates 2015: The Definitive State-by-State Analysis of the U.S. Tech Industry published by CompTIA. The
report represents a comprehensive look at tech employment, wages, and other key economic factors nationally and state-by-state, covering all
50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. This
year’s edition shows that tech industry jobs account for 5.7
percent of the entire private sector workforce. Tech industry employment grew at the same rate as the
overall private sector, 2 percent, between 2013-2014. Growth was led by the IT services sector which
added 63,300 jobs between 2013 and 2014 and the R&D, testing, and engineering services sector that
added 50,700 jobs. “The U.S. tech industry continues to make significant contributions to our economy,”
said Todd Thibodeaux, president and CEO, CompTIA. “The tech industry accounts for 7.1 percent of the
overall U.S. GDP and 11.4 percent of the total U.S. private sector payroll. With annual average wages
that are more than double that of the private sector, we should be doing all we can to encourage the
growth and vitality of our nation’s tech industry.” An examination of tech job postings for the nation shows a year-
over-year jump of more than 11 percent for technology occupations, with over 650,000 job openings in
fourth quarter of 2014. At the state level, Cyberstates shows that 38 states had an overall net increase of tech
industry employment in 2014. The largest gains were in California (+32,900), Texas (+20,100), Florida (+12,500), Massachusetts
(+8,700), and Michigan (+8,100). The states with the highest concentration of workers were Massachusetts (9.8% of private sector
employment), Virginia (9.4%), Colorado (9.2%), Maryland (8.6%), and Washington (8.4%). The largest states by tech industry employment
continue to be California, Texas, and New York. “While California was a leading state for 12 of the 16 technology industry clusters, Cyberstates
also shows clusters throughout the United States,” said Skip Newberry, president, Technology Association of Oregon and vice chairman,
Technology Councils of North America TECNA). “The state of Washington leads the nation in software publishers employment and Texas leads
in tech wholesalers and repair services. Oregon and Arizona have strong clusters in semiconductors. Virginia has one in computer systems
design, a major component of IT services. Massachusetts is a serious powerhouse in R&D and testing labs. The U.S. tech industry spans the
country from coast to coast.” “The
strength of the technology industry is built on the hard work, intellectual
capital, high-value skills, and innovation of our nation’s technology workers,” said Newberry. “Tech workers
are the life blood of our industry and as such we need to continue to do all that we can to ensure access
to the best and the brightest workers in the world. This means focusing on STEM education, training and improving access to
high-skilled immigrants. They are going to be the future drivers of our industry.” Cyberstates 2015, in its 16th edition, relies primarily on data
from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The report provides 2014 national and state-by-state data on tech employment, wages,
establishments, payroll, wage differential, employment concentration, economic output, and job openings. All data are the most recent
available at the time of production. 2014 data are preliminary and subject to revisions.
Solvency
 Congress has the authority
Congressional action will override the travel ban
Edwards 2018 - former Republican representative from Oklahoma, is vice president and program
director of The Aspen Institute
Mickey, "What is the responsibility of Congress on the travel ban and immigration?,"
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2018/04/25/what-responsibility-congress-travel-ban-and-
immigration/b0rRPRQXvz5o3fpsl5FD1K/story.html

In one sense, this case is a test of presidential authority. The challengers, including the state of Hawaii,
argue that Trump overstepped what a president is allowed to do under federal immigration law and
under the First Amendment, which forbids the government from disfavoring any religion. But because
the Constitution also assigns to the legislative branch the responsibility to “establish a uniform rule of
naturalization,” this is also a case about congressional responsibility and one of the central principles of
constitutional law: the nondelegation doctrine, established by the Supreme Court nearly a century ago,
that the legislature cannot pass on to a president a duty the Constitution clearly places on members of
Congress. Simply put, it is up to Congress to set our country’s fundamental immigration policy.

And Congress has done exactly that, in the form of the Immigration and Nationality Act, passed by
overwhelming majorities in both the House and Senate, that contains detailed “dos and don’ts” telling
the president how to implement the fundamental policy. That law states clearly that the president may
not stop individuals from immigrating to the United States on the basis of nationality alone. This is a
problem for Trump’s travel ban, because it does precisely that for six of the seven countries it covers.

From imposing nationality-based blocks to demanding “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims
entering the United States,” Trump’s attempted overhaul of our nation’s approach to immigration raises
this question for the Supreme Court: Can a detailed law crafted by Congress to fulfill its constitutional
responsibility allow fundamental changes to be made in immigration policy with a single stroke of a
president’s pen?

The text of the statute says no: The president’s proposed ban collides with the statute itself. But the
president’s lawyers say yes, and if they’re right, the attempted travel ban violates the Constitution.

Congress often leaves the details for implementing its fundamental policy choices to the president. But
Congress cannot give up its constitutional responsibilities to set those policies to the president without
providing a clear (or “intelligible”) principle to guide the implementation of those policies. What
intelligible principle would the law have if it prevented nationality-based immigration restrictions but
allowed Trump to impose nationality-based immigration restrictions? What intelligible principle would
the law have if it required that emergency immigration restrictions be only temporary but allowed
Trump to impose emergency immigration restrictions that are permanent? If the law is to be understood
as Trump’s lawyers argue, then it stands for nothing at all and is an unconstitutional abdication of
responsibility by the Congress — and the Supreme Court should say so. Whichever path the Court
follows — the inability of Congress to surrender its constitutional obligations or the unconstitutional
attempt to impose a nation-centered exclusion, Trump’s travel ban simply cannot survive.
Congress should overturn the travel ban
Riga 6/26 – Kate Riga is a news writer for Talking Points Memo based in New York City. Before joining
TPM, Kate was the political reporter for The Southampton Press. She is a graduate of Georgetown
University and a native of Philadelphia. (Kate, "Lawyer Who Argued Against Travel Ban: Up To Congress
To Reverse Decision," TPM, 2018, https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/neal-katyal-up-to-congress-
to-reverse-travel-ban-decision)

Neal Katyal, former deputy solicitor general in the Obama administration and the primary architect of
arguments against President Trump’s travel ban, called for hope and congressional action in the face of
the Supreme Court’s ruling Tuesday.

“Over the past year, a suit brought by ordinary Americans has made its way through the federal courts,
and at every step the judiciary forced the White House to amend their travel bans to bring them more in
line with our Constitution,” he wrote in a statement on Twitter. “While we continue to believe that this
third version fails that test, there is no question that by striking down the first two travel bans, the
judiciary forced a recalcitrant administration to at least give its order the veil of constitutionality.”

“The final chapter has not yet been written, and the President would be mistaken to interpret today’s
decision as a greenlight to continue his unwise and un-American policies,” he continued. “The travel ban
is atrocious policy and makes us less safe and undermines our American ideals.”

“Now that the Court has upheld it, it is up to Congress to do its job and reverse President Trump’s
unilateral and unwise travel ban,” he said.

Congress solves
Rubin 6/26 – University of California at Berkeley, BA in history; University of California at Berkeley,
JDJennifer Rubin writes the Right Turn blog for The Washington Post, offering reported opinion from a
center-right perspective. She covers a range of domestic and foreign policy issues and provides insight
into the conservative movement, the Republican Party and threats to Western democracies. Rubin, who
is also an MSNBC contributor, came to The Post after three years with Commentary magazine. Prior to
her career in journalism, Rubin practiced labor law for two decades, an experience that informs and
enriches her work. She is a mother of two sons and lives in Northern Virginia. (Jennifer, “The anti-
Muslim travel ban is constitutional, say Supreme Court conservatives,” The Washington Post, 2018,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2018/06/26/the-anti-muslim-travel-ban-is-
constitutional-say-supreme-court-conservatives/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.6c2565a9cb4c)

Second, the case can be cured by Congress and/or future presidents. Sen. Christopher A. Coons (D-Del.)
said in a written statement: “The Supreme Court may have ruled that the President’s travel ban was
technically constitutional, but that doesn’t mean that it’s right, that it’s justified, or that it reflects
America’s values. In the coming weeks, I plan to introduce legislation to make clear that in the United
States, we will not tolerate discrimination based on religion or nationality, and I invite everyone who
treasures our American values to join me in defending them.” He added, “The President’s travel ban is
not only discriminatory and counterproductive; it stands in direct contrast to the principles embedded in
our Constitution and our founders’ vision of a nation where all people are free to worship as they
choose. With time, we have made our union more perfect by fighting discrimination in all of its forms,
but the Court’s decision today demonstrates that we have a long way to go before we live up to our
highest ideals.”
 Congress = Best
Congress should take the lead on refugee policy – it revitalizes democracy and
constrains Trump
Heesch 2016 - Teaching Fellow, Center for New Americans
Meghan, "Navigating the Doctrinal Tension in U.S. Asylum Law," 25 Minn. J. Int'l L. 421

B. CONGRESS IS IN THE BEST POSITION TO NAVIGATE DOCTRINAL TENSION

Separation of powers drives the framework for asylum-seekers attempting to meet the refugee
definition, and acts as an inherent structural tension. Congress used its plenary power over immigration
n231 to define "refugee" in the Refugee Act and to authorize the Attorney General to take actions to
process asylum claims that were subject to judicial review. n232 Specifically, the Attorney General and
the Secretary of Homeland Security now work in conjunction to determine whether an asylum-seeker
meets the definition of refugee. n233 Congress also delegated significant decision-making authority in
the asylum realm to the executive branch to administer these laws. Its regulatory delegation,
particularly in the 1980 Refugee Act's definition of "refugee," was more analogous to a criminal statute
because of the way elements were laid out. In this manner, Congress had more control over the shape
of asylum law than it did over other more discretionary elements of immigration law. Additionally, it still
maintained its oversight through the appropriations power n234 and legislative oversight, as well as its
ability to ultimately amend the authorizing statute using its plenary power.

Besides the constitutional power to act, there are other administrative law values that support Congress
taking a role to navigate the doctrinal tension in asylum law. First, as a matter of political accountability,
individual members and the chamber as a whole are accountable to an electorate, and they respond to
constituents' concerns when the doctrinal tension denies asylum protection. Their constituents do not
include asylum-seekers directly since asylum-seekers cannot vote. Political accountability instead
depends on an informed and vocal electorate to raise the issue when the doctrinal tension denies
important claims. Political accountability began in this arena when Congress enacted the 1980 Refugee
Act. The Act is [*465] generally consistent with the international treaties' definition of "refugee" that
attempted to remain flexible while drawing lines to exclude unworthy claims irrespective of the myriad
of possible harms. n235 Moreover, since the refugee definition implicates international treaty
obligations and broader foreign policy concerns, Congress is in the best position to consider any
amendments to it, due to Congress's constitutionally-based powers in these areas. n236 While Congress
is accountable to voters for changes in asylum law, it institutionally lacks the asylum expertise of a
specialized administrative agency. This trade-off was evident in Congress's drafting of section 601(a),
where Congress expressly decided to grant asylum to claimants fleeing forced abortion or sterilization
once they have made a credible claim of persecution. However, by invalidating Matter of Chang and
redefining refugee, Congress stepped into the role of executive agencies to craft the contours of the law.
Unfortunately, since it did not have the same immigration expertise as the agencies, section 601(a)
failed to specify regulations for implementing the 1,000-person cap. On the whole, however, Congress's
political accountability prevented any over-stepping or unfeasible actions, and minimized its lack of
expertise.

As a second administrative law value, congressional action brings predictability and certainty in
outcomes. Unlike relying on courts and interim administrative solutions, enacting a change in law in one
fell swoop is efficient, cost-effective, and drives consistent outcomes. As seen with asylum claims based
on coercive population control policies after 1996, the vast majority of cases making this claim in
immigration court were granted asylum. n237 The subsequent uncertainties for adjudicators in applying
the statute occurred on the margins. For example, many claims based on section 601(a) were male
partners claiming asylum by "standing in the shoes" of their female partner in China who faced forced
abortion or sterilization. n238 Although not ideal, some uncertainty was debatably preferable to a
blanket prescription from Congress [*466] that could undermine the flexibility and responsiveness of
agency actions. When Congress amended the refugee definition, it recognized that a political opinion is
found when a population control policy mandates a forced abortion and sterilization on a person. n239
The subsequent scope of these asylum claims resultantly remained anchored solely to political opinions.
Applicants fearing forced abortion and sterilization did not file for asylum based on religion or their
membership in a particular social group, perhaps because it was known that courts granted a high
percentage of claims under the statutory rule. n240 While claims based on section 601(a) are more
certain to get granted asylum, n241 applicants and agencies have less flexibility to incorporate different
lenses through which to view a coercive family planning case besides through the narrow telescope
dictated by Congress. It is also unclear if the statutory rule could apply to another context beyond
China's one-child policy given that only two reproductive harms--forced abortion and sterilization--are
expressly listed. Until the outer boundaries are tested in adjudications before the agency, the
predictability for the political opinion-based claim outlined by Congress will be presented and likely
granted to the detriment of greater flexibility.

Third, the legislative process to resolve a doctrinal tension reinforces democratic norms, especially when
an agency remedy denies legitimate claims. Congress, made up of publicly elected officials, invoked a
transparent democratic process to correct the agency and judicial interpretation of the refugee
definition. The corresponding legislative debate, testimony, and public votes now provide transparency
and legitimacy to the outcomes, even if it took two prior attempts to get through Congress due to the
President's veto. Conversely, when Congress acted to allow legitimate asylum claims despite the
agency's continued application of precedent and policy that denied them, the Board's [*467] decision-
making authority was mitigated. Congressional action actually effectuated the normal agency
rulemaking power.

The democratic process can easily be hijacked by side issues, fear-mongering, and appeals to emotion
instead of sound legal bases for change. For example, the congressional debates to enact 601(a) used
extreme examples, such as late-term forced abortions, n242 to legislate a broad rule for all forced
abortion and sterilization-based claims, even though some human rights reports relied on claims by
Chinese officials that they were uncommon. n243 Moreover, several legislative debates focused on a
fear of the deluge of asylum claims, both fraudulent and real, from China based on a relaxed standard,
n244 yet proof that the deluge does not manifest takes time to develop and requires the agency to
adjudicate cases under the standard for many years. n245 Therefore, while the legislative process
reinforces key aspects of democracy such as transparency, fairness, and rule of law, Congress may be
distracted by corollary side issues when navigating the doctrinal tension, which can delay, detract, and
dilute the ultimate goal of increasing protection.

Besides accountability, consistency, and enhanced democratic norms, Congress is also in the best
position to resolve the tension in asylum law because the Senate ratified the 1967 Protocol and was
aware of the underlying humanitarian purpose of the treaty. n246 It was aware of the international
consensus surrounding the definition of refugee when it adopted it into U.S. [*468] law. n247 Congress
also framed the purpose of the 1980 Refugee Act by citing "the historic policy of the United States to
respond to the urgent needs of persons subject to persecution in their homelands." n248 In this
manner, Congress was able to consider factors beyond the individual facts of a case, such as historic,
humanitarian, and foreign policy interests, n249 whereas the courts and the agency are structurally
limited from doing so. While the limiting principles in the refugee definition separate worthy claims from
unworthy, Congress's amendment of the definition created a safety valve to agency interpretations by
including "other resistance." This open-ended reproductive harm allowed agencies to have flexibility in
the statutory rule. n250 Congressional delegation through statutory flexibility for asylum claims left the
agency room to grant cases beyond forced abortion and sterilization--a broadening that is consistent
with the international humanitarian prerogative that the agency lacked authority on its own to
efficiently incorporate. This delegation is an example of Adam Cox and Cristina Rodriguez's suggestion
that Congress is increasingly delegating immigration authority to executive officials because of perceived
political benefits. n251 However, the congressional prerogative to expand the humanitarian aims of
asylum law may unnecessarily constrain the executive branch's foreign policy agenda and risk a
presidential veto. n252 Therefore, congressional action to amend the refugee definition most likely
exists when executive and congressional interests align.

A counterargument to Congress resolving the doctrinal tension definitionally is that the law-making
process is time-consuming and requires a great deal of effort. Cox and Rodriguez [*469] describe the
horizontal separation of powers scheme and the relative monopoly of Congress over immigration law
generally. n253 The deliberative law-making process often renders congressional action not immediately
responsive to the structural failures driving agencies to deny key immigration protections. n254 Nor is
this necessarily desirable as a matter of democratic governance between the political branches, as
congressional delegation principles presume that independent agencies act efficiently to fulfill their
delegated missions based on intelligible principles. n255 Once Congress gains momentum to remedy the
protections initially denied by the agency through a change in law, the new rule may be applied
retroactively through agency and judicial interpretations. For instance, when Matter of Chang denied
asylum for applicants claiming a fear of persecution based on violating China's one-child policy,
Congress's solution amended the refugee definition after the agency failed to act. Subsequently, the
Board applied 601(a) as retroactively superseding Matter of Chang and authorized reopening prior cases
in which asylum protection had been denied. n256 Thus, the onus is able to shift back to the agency to
interpret policies consistent with congressional intent. n257

There is an important caveat to keep in mind, however. Any congressional amendment to the refugee
definition may not necessarily make a pro-humanitarian adjustment. It is possible that Congress could
act inversely to its approach under section 601(a), ratcheting up the limiting principles if the Board is
seen as granting asylum with too much emphasis on the rights violation. For example, if the immigration
courts granted certain claims for asylum broadly through emphasizing the humanitarian aspects (either
in actuality or as perceived) and the agency failed to rein them in through policy or rule making,
Congress could conceivably tighten the nexus requirement and [*470] cognizable grounds by amending
the refugee definition. An amendment to the refugee definition could also be hijacked by fear-
mongering and anti-immigrant sentiments as legal basis for resolving the doctrinal tension. n258 Despite
this risk, the political accountability of individual members of Congress and Congress's duty under
international law to abide in good faith by treaty obligations n259 serve as important checks on
attempts to significantly narrow asylum law's humanitarian agenda through legislation. n260
 AT: Prez Powers
Inaction by Congress lets Trump get away with murder, the plan is necessary to
restore checks and balances
Callan 2017 - attorney working in private practice in Arlington, Virginia
Emily C, "A FUNNY THING HAPPENED ON MY WAY TO THE BORDER ... HOW THE RECENT IMMIGRATION
EXECUTIVE ORDERS AND SUBSEQUENT LAWSUITS DEMONSTRATE THE IMMEDIATE NEED FOR
COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM," 47 U. Balt. L. Rev. 1

VI. BUILDING BRIDGES INSTEAD OF WALLS: HOW CONGRESS, THE PRESIDENT, AND ATTORNEYS CAN
WORK TOGETHER TO PREVENT FURTHER CHAOS IN IMMIGRATION PRACTICE

Immigration lawyers around the country will agree that the past six months have been some of the
most trying times in their careers. n121 The media frequently interviews immigration attorneys about
their new workload and stress level in the "Trump era," and there are anecdotes abound describing
practitioners who go days without shaving or sleeping, or who have taken up smoking to cope with the
stress and frustration of not knowing what the President will do - for what the media will speculate the
President will do - on any given day. n122 The solution to this problem is two-fold: quick congressional
action and long-term presidential inaction. n123

First, because the Constitution grants Congress the power to pass immigration laws, Congress must use
this power to enact reform legislation in order to update the current system that is so terribly in [*19]
need of modernization. n124 It is completely unacceptable for any sort of reform legislation to stall for
years due to political threats and holdouts because it hamstrings the entire country. n125 In fact, the
argument could be made that, because Congress is granted the sole power to create immigration law
and refuses to effectively use it, this branch of government is actually abusing its power and should be
disciplined by the judicial or executive branch. This necessary reform legislation must tackle the hot
button issues of undocumented immigration and employment-based immigration quotas, at the very
least. The representatives and senators may not like it, but it is their job. They are obligated, by both the
law and the oaths they take to uphold it, to pass legislation which affects the entire country. n126

Second, the President and his federal agencies must restrain themselves with regards to implementing
policies that have the effect of law. n127 To be fair, this advice was also applicable to the former
administration, as it was President Obama's liberal use of executive orders that set the stage for his
successor to similarly change entire aspects of the immigration landscape with the stroke of his pen.
n128 This advice may seem unfair to the current President and his supporters, because, after all, the
previous administration utilized executive orders to get what it wanted. n129 Now that it is arguably
"their turn" to respond in kind, it is of the utmost importance that, moving forward, all branches of the
government acknowledge and respect their individual boundaries. n130

[*20] Former President Obama made use of executive orders because Congress would not pass
comprehensive immigration reform, but by doing so, he set the stage for subsequent administrations to
similarly circumvent Congress by implementing sweeping changes to the law under the guise of
instituting policies via these orders. n131 However, even proponents of the Obama administration's
actions must acknowledge that by making use of executive orders, the former President may have
adversely affected the people he was trying to help. n132 By instituting DACA through executive order
instead of working with Congress to ensconce it in law, President Obama provided mere temporary
relief and effectively created a database of foreign nationals who are eligible for deportation. n133 Now
that President Trump is in the White House, those hundreds of thousands of foreign nationals who
received DACA protection may soon find their lives thrown into chaos if the protection is removed. n134

Realistically, former President Obama's executive order may have simply worked to delay the inevitable
for many of these individuals, possibly doing them more harm than good. n135 To prevent further
uncertainty in immigration practice, it is imperative that the Trump administration restrain itself and
work with Congress - not presidential pens - in order to pass immigration reform legislation. n136

VII. CONCLUSION

It is certainly true that the reality of being an immigration attorney in the "Trump era" was wholly
unexpected. However, the new challenges and uncertainties that have resulted from changes in the
White House present unique opportunities for practitioners. Practitioners should take a more holistic
approach with advocacy efforts. They should focus on bringing about the needed permanent relief
through legislation, rather than encouraging temporary measures that offer immediate gratification, but
depend upon the way the wind blows in Washington D.C. every four or eight years.

[*21] The foregoing explanation of the President's executive orders, n137 and the resulting litigation,
n138 has clearly illustrated the overwhelming need for immediate immigration reform. n139 Congress
must pass legislation that addresses the numerous problems with our nation's needlessly complex and
outdated immigration system. n140 As the nation continues to wait for Congress to act, it is ardently
hoped that the administration and the media will begin to exercise restraint so that the practice of
immigration law will no longer require a stiff upper lip - and an even stiffer drink.
AT: Econ DAs
 2AC – AT: Wages
Best statistical evidence proves no link
Clemens 2017 - Senior Fellow, Center for Global Development and Research Fellow, IZA Institute of
Labor Economics
Michael and Jennifer Hunt, "Research on the wage and employment impact of refugees shows modest
or no harmful effects on native workers," Jul 21, https://voxeu.org/article/refugees-have-little-effect-
native-worker-wages

*Graphs omitted

The recent surge in migration to Europe has brought new attention to economic research on sudden
refugee inflows of the past. Previously, Card (1990) found that a large inflow of Cubans to Miami in 1980
did not affect native wages or unemployment. Hunt (1992) found that a large inflow from Algeria to
France after independence in 1962 caused a small increase in native unemployment. Friedberg (2001)
found that a large inflow of post-Soviet Jews to Israel between 1990 and 1994 did not reduce native
wages. Angrist and Kugler (2003) found that a surge of Balkan refugees during the 1990s was associated
with higher native unemployment in 18 European countries, but do not interpret the association as
causal because it was unstable and statistically insignificant.

Recent studies have challenged these results by re-analysing all four of these refugee waves. This new
wave of research claims that earlier work obscured uniformly large, detrimental effects, either by
aggregating the affected workers with unaffected workers (Borjas 2017) or through inadequate causal
identification (Borjas and Monras 2017), or both.

In a recent paper, we reconsider the published research on refugee inflows to reconcile the new results
with the old ones (Clemens and Hunt 2017). We find that, for all four refugee waves, the methods used
in the recent re-analyses were subject to substantial bias. Correcting these biases largely eliminates the
disagreement between the new and old findings – that is, corrected methods offer strong evidence of
small detrimental effects in 1962 France, weak evidence of detrimental effects in 1990s Europe, and no
clear evidence of detrimental effects in 1980s Miami or 1990s Israel.

Blunt instruments

The new research on these refugee waves uses instrumental variables to separate correlation from
causation, and this is its biggest problem. The simple association between natives’ labour market
outcomes and migrant inflows across regions or occupations could arise not from migrants’ effects, but
from their choice of where to go. Migrants are likely to choose high-wage areas or occupations, which
could mask any negative causal effect they have on native wages. The new research tries to account for
this by using prior migration flows as an instrumental variable. This tests the effects of migration that
was determined by prior immigration patterns – the instrumental variable – rather than recent
economic changes.

But there's a problem when the instrumental variable (in this case, past migration per population) and
the variable affected by migrants’ choice of location or occupation (current migration per population)
both have the same denominator (Bazzi and Clemens 2013). Of course, the instrumental variable
strategy works only when the two variables are strongly correlated, but any two variables will be
strongly correlated if they share the same divisor. Indeed, even random noise will be correlated with a
variable of economic interest if both are divided by the same quantity. If a random, ‘placebo’ instrument
gives similar results in any instrumental variables study, it implies that the original instrument was doing
little work to separate correlation from causation. We show that repeating Borjas and Monras’ (2017)
re-analysis of refugee waves with a placebo instrument – random noise divided by population – gives
similar results to the original studies. In most cases, the results are actually stronger using this
meaningless placebo: the estimates of detrimental effects on natives are a bit larger and more
statistically significant.

Kronmal (1993) suggested a simple specification correction to address this problem: rather than divide
past migrant flows and current migration flows by population, use past migrant flows alone as an
instrument for current migrant flows alone – while controlling for population. When we make this
specification correction, none of the results in Borjas and Monras (2017) differs substantially from the
original studies of migration in Miami, France, Israel, and Europe.

Shifting composition of survey data subgroups

In re-analysis of one of the four episodes, the 1980 wave of Cubans into Miami known as the 'Mariel
boatlift', there is a special problem. Though Borjas and Monras (2017) agreed with Card (1990) that the
Mariel boatlift did not affect unemployment for native workers, Borjas (2017) has argued that Card’s
analysis missed large detrimental effects on wages. Card’s analysis aggregated all workers with a high
school education or less, and found no wage effects. Borjas separated out male non-Hispanic workers
with less than a high school education, and found a very large and robust fall in average wages for that
group in Miami relative to comparison cities after 1980.

Our re-analysis points out a previously unreported problem with the method used by Borjas (2017). The
result is highly sensitive to selecting different subsets of workers to study (see Figure 8 in Peri and
Yasenov 2017), but why this is so has been unclear. Among the subsamples of non-Hispanic men with
less than a high school education that Borjas studied, the fraction that were black is much higher after
the boatlift than before it in Miami, but not in the comparison cities. This could not have been caused by
Cubans arriving in Miami, because the sample excluded Hispanics. It is likely that it reflected the large
and simultaneous arrival of low-income Haitians with less than a high school education (who could not
be separated from US workers in the data), and contemporaneous efforts of the Census Bureau to
improve its coverage of low-income black men.

Because Haitian blacks earned much less than US blacks, and US black men earned much less than non-
black men at this education level, this compositional change would mechanically cause a large, spurious
fall in the average wage in the sample. It is enough to explain the entire post-boatlift fall in wages that
Borjas (2017) found. Figure 1 shows the jump in the share of blacks at the time of the boatlift (seen by
comparing years plotted in red with those plotted in blue) and the strong correlation in Miami between
the share of blacks and the average wage.

Figure 1 Miami: Workers with less than a high school education

The fraction of blacks in the sample and wages are also strongly negatively correlated in the comparison
cities that Borjas selected (Figure 2), and in an otherwise comparable sample of Miami workers with a
high school education (Figure 3). But because the fraction of blacks did not rise at the time of the
boatlift for men with less than a high school education in control cities, nor for men in Miami with a high
school education only, there was no decline in wages at this time.

Figure 2 Control: Less than a high school education

Figure 3 Miami: High school education only

This is prima facie evidence that a substantial portion of the post-1980 fall in Miami wages was
spuriously attributed to the Cuban refugee inflow in Borjas (2017). But it does not establish what portion
of the effect that Borjas measured was spurious. When estimates of the impact of the boatlift are
adjusted to account for the change in racial composition in the sample, and when the effect of race on
wages is allowed to differ by city, the effect found by Borjas is attenuated by more than 50%, and its
statistical significance becomes fragile to the choice of dataset and choice of control cities.

A further adjustment recognising that the effect of race on wages differs by education level means the
effect is statistically insignificant. The corrected regressions cannot rule out a wage effect of -2% to -8%
relative to the Borjas control cities – much smaller than the -45% effect measured by Borjas in the
corresponding regressions – but they cannot rule out a zero effect either.

No support for large detrimental effects

The evidence from refugee waves shows detrimental short-term effects on labour market outcomes for
native workers in some times and places, but no effect in others. It supports the consensus that the
impact of immigration on average native-born workers has been small (Blau and Mackie 2016). It does
not support claims of large detrimental impacts on workers with less than high school education.
 --xt No Impact
No statistical impact on wages
Economist 2016
"The Economic Impact of Refugees: For good or ill," Jan 23, https://www.economist.com/finance-and-
economics/2016/01/23/for-good-or-ill

When it comes to their pay packets, Germans need not fret. Evidence suggests that immigration has
only a small impact on employment or wages. Unskilled workers and existing migrants are most
vulnerable, as they are the closest substitutes for the new arrivals. But the effects are still measly. For
example, a recent paper by Stephen Nickell of Oxford University and Jumana Saleheen of the Bank of
England found that a ten-percentage-point rise in the share of migrants working in menial jobs, such as
cleaning, depressed wages for such positions by just 2%.

This wage-dampening can even have positive side-effects. Mette Foged and Giovanni Peri studied
refugees arriving in Denmark between 1991 and 2008, and found that they did nudge low-educated
natives out of lowly jobs. But rather than sulking on the dole, the displaced natives switched to jobs that
involved less manual labour, sometimes with higher salaries.

The evidence on the likely fiscal impact of refugees is murkier, as adding up the tax paid and benefits
received by any individual or group is tricky. Those who try tend to find only small differences between
immigrants and natives. The OECD, a club of mostly rich countries, assessed the effect of immigrants on
its members’ finances in 2007-09. It found they made a net fiscal contribution of around 0.35% of GDP
on average, with relatively little variation from country to country.

But the experience of past immigrants may not be much use in assessing the impact of the new lot.
Immigrants were a fiscal burden in Germany in part because lots of them are pensioners, who tend to
drain the public finances. The new arrivals, in contrast, are young, with a long working life ahead of
them.

There are also differences between refugees and other legal migrants. A new paper from the IMF uses
existing immigrants to Europe from Afghanistan, Eritrea, Iran, Iraq, Somalia, Syria and the former
Yugoslavia as proxies for the latest wave of refugees, since most of them come from those countries.
Relative to other immigrants, people from those countries who have been in Europe for less than six
years are 17 percentage points more likely to rely on benefits as their main source of income and 15
percentage points less likely to be employed, even after controlling for things like age, education and
gender. This gap does shrink the longer the migrants have been in Europe, but it is still there for
refugees who have been in residence for more than 20 years.

These barriers suggest that it will be a while before refugees pay more in tax than they receive in state
support. A study of Australian refugees found that they paid less tax than they received in benefits for
their first 15-20 years of residency. Of course, the newest arrivals in Europe could be very different.
Information on their education is scarce, but there are some glimmers of evidence that they are
relatively skilled. Still, given that most European countries redistribute income from rich to poor, as long
as they are poorer than the average native, they will probably receive net transfers.
The influx will not be bank-breaking, however. In the very short run, the IMF estimates that refugees will
add around 0.19% of GDP to public expenditure in the European Union (0.35% in Germany) in 2016. This
will add to public debt, and given higher joblessness among refugees, unemployment will rise. But
looking only at their fiscal impact is too narrow a focus. Later on, as the new arrivals integrate into the
workforce, they are expected to boost annual output by 0.1% for the EU as a whole, and 0.3% in
Germany. They should also help (a little bit) to reverse the upward creep of the cost of state pensions as
a share of GDP, given their relative youth.

Of course, these figures are highly uncertain, and depend on how many more refugees arrive, how
quickly their asylum applications are processed and how soon they find jobs. Governments can make
their impact more benign by accelerating all those steps.
 UQ – Trade War Thumps
The trade war thumps
Bloomberg 6/19 - Editorial Board
"Trump's Misguided Trade War," https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-06-19/get-ready-
america-china-trade-war-s-coming-for-your-hip-pocket

U.S. President Donald Trump may sincerely think he’s battling to win Americans a better deal on trade
with China. In fact, he’s making a better deal harder to achieve — and threatening to inflict grave
economic damage on the U.S. economy in the process.

In the past few days, Trump has dramatically cut the chances of a negotiated solution to the two
countries’ various trade disputes. He announced a first set of tariffs on $50 billion worth of Chinese
goods, prompting an entirely predictable Chinese vow to retaliate. Now he’s followed up with a new
threat to impose tariffs on an additional $200 billion in Chinese imports (and possibly another $200
billion after that).

Even as he escalates the fight over tariffs, the president is trying to persuade Congress to go along with
his decision to lighten penalties on Chinese telecommunications company ZTE Corp. That decision was
questionable in its own right (because it harmed U.S. credibility in sanctions enforcement), but one
possible justification is that it might have encouraged China to offer concessions on trade. The tariff
fight has most likely canceled that opportunity, such as it was: No Chinese leader, least of all President Xi
Jinping, could be seen to placate Trump under these circumstances.

Meanwhile, the president’s actions are increasingly hazardous to the U.S. economy’s health. If
implemented, the tariffs — taxes paid in the end by U.S. consumers — would hurt American firms and
households more than they’d hurt the Chinese. The latest ones would be applied in part to finished
goods such as electronics and sneakers, directly raising prices for U.S. consumers (even before China’s
government chose to retaliate, as it probably would).

Perhaps the administration thinks China’s ability to punch back is limited, since the country doesn’t
import enough from the U.S. to penalize an equivalent $200 billion in goods. But China can retaliate in
other ways — for example by obstructing U.S. companies operating on the mainland, promoting
boycotts of U.S. goods, or throttling the flow of students and tourists to the U.S. And China’s ability to
thwart the Trump administration’s geopolitical goals remains as potent as ever — witness North Korean
dictator Kim Jong Un’s surprise visit to Beijing this week.

There’s no need for this reckless unilateralism. The Trump administration’s theory of trade is
fundamentally wrong. It sees bilateral trade imbalances as evidence of unfair practices. In fact, in a
world without tariffs or trade barriers of any kind, a roughly similar pattern of surpluses and deficits
would still arise, as a result of macroeconomic imbalances and other factors. There’s no polite way to
say this: Trump’s goal of smaller deficits through better deals is simply delusional.
 Link Turn
Syrian refugees boost the economy – Turkey proves
Erin Rubin, 5-12-2017, ("Statistics Show Syrian Refugees Help Host Country Economies," Non Profit
News | Nonprofit Quarterly, https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2017/05/12/statistics-show-syrian-refugees-
help-host-country-economies/ KDS Caden Joseph)

As the civil war in Syria rages on, the conversation in other countries often turns to the nearly five
million refugees who have fled the conflict. Though other nations have been hesitant to accept large
refugee populations, it turns out they can actually be a boon to the economy. Recent studies done on
Syrian refugees in Turkey show that 78 percent of Turkey’s Syrian immigrant population, or 2.34 million
people, would opt to stay in Turkey if they were allowed to do so. Turkey is classified by the World Bank
as an upper-middle-income country with a population of about 78.6 million people, or about one-fourth
that of the U.S. Though nationalist and isolationist movements, such as have been sprouting in the U.S.
and Europe in recent years, might bristle at the thought of 2 million permanently resettled Syrians,
studies show that it would actually help the local economy. For every 10 percent increase in diversity,
Al-Monitor calculations based on 50 years of population data showed a 2.1 percent rise in Turkish GDP
per capita. Because of laws that limit the proportion of Syrians that Turkish companies can hire,
immigrants often start their own companies, and this benefits the population at large; every one
percent increase in Syrian companies’ capital brought a 0.2 percent increase to the average daily
earnings of all registered laborers. One of the popular arguments made by anti-immigrant activists is
that they take jobs away from workers who are citizens of that country, but even where regulations like
Turkey’s don’t exist, statistics often show that’s not true. For example, in the early 20th century, the U.S.
allowed Mexican nationals into the country on temporary visas to do agricultural and other manual
labor, through an agreement known as the Bracero Program. In 1963, the program was ended in the
hopes that fewer available laborers would push agricultural wages up. Instead, farms invested in
technology and there was no impact on farm labor wages. In fact, immigrants often create jobs. Syrian
immigrants hold advanced degrees at more than twice the rate that native-born American citizens do,
according to the Center for American Progress, and they start or own businesses nearly four times as
often. The Washington Post quoted David Dyssegaard Kallick, senior fellow at the Fiscal Policy Institute,
as saying, “The United States accepts refugees on humanitarian grounds, not to improve the American
economy. But, the striking success of Syrian immigrants in this country should give us some confidence
that Syrian refugees can become integrated and successful here.” So what does this mean for
nonprofits? Some have already caught on to the idea that in addition to very important humanitarian
reasons, there is an economic benefit to accepting refugees. Still, the conversation about refugees too
often focuses on safety, even though statistics show—and as NPQ has previously reported—that
Americans are more likely to drown in a bathtub than be killed by a terrorist, and crime rates in cities
that protect refugees are lower than in ones that don’t. Maybe it’s time for the conversation to focus
not on how to minimize the damage, but how to maximize the benefits. Maybe nonprofits focused on
economic growth and those focused on refugee advocacy and integration have more in common than
we previously thought. When we say that we’re stronger as a country when we’re inclusive and open, it
has real meaning, and there’s data to back it up.—Erin Rubin
 Link Turn – Refugee Resettlement
Refugee resettlement is a boon for the economy
Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program 2018
“Fulfilling U.S. Commitment to Refugee Resettlement: Protecting Refugees, Preserving National Security,
& Building the U.S. Economy Through Refugee Admissions," 5 Tex. A&M L. Rev. 155

2. Economic Policy

In addition to furthering the nation's foreign policy and national security objectives, refugee
resettlement also helps the United States economically. Studies have shown that refugees in the United
States typically "integrate well into their new communities" with "similar rates of labor force
participation and business ownership." n94 According to the International Rescue Committee, eighty-
five percent of the refugees the organization resettles are employed within six months. n95

The positive economic effects of refugees on receiving communities are well established. n96 One study,
for example, found a tenfold return on investment: $ 4.8 million spent on refugee services in Cleveland,
[*183] Ohio, in 2012 yielded nearly $ 50 million for the local economy from refugee-owned business
and household spending. This investment, in turn, generated approximately $ 1.8 million in tax revenue
for the state and nearly $ 900,000 for the local government. n97 This high economic impact is explained
in part by entrepreneurship, because refugees are more likely to be entrepreneurial and enjoy higher
rates of successful business ventures compared to native-born residents. n98 For example, a study of
refugees in nearby Columbus, Ohio, found that refugees were more than twice as likely than the general
population to start a business. n99

Refugee-owned businesses not only create jobs, but also bolster the economy through household
spending and other employment. For example, a study of Somali, Burmese, Hmong, and Bosnian
refugee men found that they have similar rates of labor-force participation as U.S.-born men. n100
Refugee communities in the United States may also bring additional benefits by drawing international
investment, as observed by the Government Accountability Office (GAO). n101

These types of economic effects are illustrated through the experiences of a community like Utica, New
York - a Rust Belt town where one in four residents is a refugee. n102 The resettlement of refugees to
Utica reversed the city's population and economic declines in what Mayor Robert Palmieri described as
"the rebound for our great [*184] city." n103 The GAO has found that these benefits have accrued to
other areas of the country and noted that "city officials and business leaders ... in several communities
said that refugees help stimulate economic development by filling critical labor shortages as well as by
starting small businesses and creating jobs." n104 For example, an official in Washington State
interviewed by the GAO described how "diverse resettlement communities with international
populations attract investment from overseas businesses." n105 The GAO also found that refugee-
owned businesses had revitalized a neighborhood in Chicago that had previously been in decline. n106

Outside of entrepreneurship and labor-force participation, refugees support local economies through
high rates of home ownership. Though few refugees purchase homes soon after arrival, Bosnian and
Burmese refugees exceed the U.S.-born rate of homeownership within ten years of arrival. n107
Another stabilizing long-term investment is education: data suggests that refugees attend college at
roughly the same rate as that of the general population. n108 Taken together, these data reflect
refugees' sustained contributions to the U.S. economy and investments in local communities.

Indeed, refugees have enjoyed high rates of successful resettlement and economic self-sufficiency in the
United States. Through the implementation of the Refugee Act of 1980, Congress affirmed the goal of
"helping refugees in this country become self-sufficient and contributing members of society." n109
ORR's employment-services program works toward this goal through its Matching Grant initiative,
discussed in further detail later in this Report. The Matching Grant Program [*185] helps refugee
populations "achieve economic self-sufficiency in four to six months after arrival in the United States ...
by providing intensive case management and employment services." n110 These services include
housing and utilities, transportation, English-language training, and other support services. Historically,
the Matching Grant Program has achieved high outcomes. In 2015, for example, the program served
29,765 refugees, with sixty-seven percent of them achieving economic self-sufficiency within 120 days of
arrival in the United States. At the six-month mark, eighty-two percent of refugees served in FY 2015
were reported as self-sufficient. n111
 Link Turn – Travel Restrictions
Travel restrictions wreck the economy
Alden 2016 - Senior Fellow @ Council on Foreign Relations
Edward, Heidi Crebo-Rediker, and Robert Kahn, "A Muslim Travel Ban and the US Economy,"
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/muslim-travel-ban-us-economy-edward-alden/?trk=prof-post

The proposal to restrict travel to the United States by Muslims raises a host of foreign policy and
counter-terrorism concerns. But it would also be immediately damaging to the U.S. economy, and those
effects would linger for many years even if the restrictions proved to be temporary. During the “lost
decade” following the 9/11 attacks, the U.S. share of total overseas travel fell by nearly one third, a loss
of some 68 million visitors that the travel industry estimates cost the U.S. economy more than $500
billion over that period.

Our research suggests that the direct and indirect cost to the U.S. economy of the proposed travel ban
would be substantial. We present two scenarios where the cost to the U.S. economy is at least $35.6
billion annually (including travel, tourism and education), and potentially as high as $71 billion.
Depending on the response by other countries and by foreign travelers not directly targeted by the ban,
the losses could approach or exceed those in the post-9/11 period.
 Link Turn – Syrian Resettlement
Syrians are educated and entrepreneurial – massive benefits to the economy
Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program 2018
“Fulfilling U.S. Commitment to Refugee Resettlement: Protecting Refugees, Preserving National Security,
& Building the U.S. Economy Through Refugee Admissions," 5 Tex. A&M L. Rev. 155

Syrians, in particular, have settled and integrated into U.S. communities successfully. Although data
regarding the integration of Syrian refugees in the United States is limited given that significant numbers
have been resettled to the United States only since 2015, the experience of Syrian immigrants in the
United States generally is informative. Many studies have found that Syrian immigrants "are learning
English, getting good jobs, owning homes, and starting businesses at impressive rates." n112 One study
found that Syrian immigrants have higher incomes than other immigrants in the United States: in 2014,
the median annual wage for Syrian immigrants in the United States was $ 52,000, compared to the $
36,000 median wage for immigrants overall and the $ 45,000 median wage for U.S.-born workers. n113

Another report found that Syrian men (refugees and non-refugees) participate in the labor force at a
slightly higher rate than U.S.-born men. n114 Additionally, Syrians are a highly educated group of
immigrants: in 2014, thirty-eight percent of Syrian immigrants aged twenty five and older had a
bachelor's degree or higher, compared to twenty-nine percent of the analogous U.S.-born population.
n115 Moreover, [*186] forty-nine percent of Syrian men in the United States work in high-skilled
occupations, such as management, business, and science. n116 There are approximately 4,000 Syrian
doctors in the United States. n117

Syrian immigrants also have extremely high rates of business ownership, and "these businesses provide
employment, create jobs, and help spur growth in the local economy." n118 One study found that in
2014, eleven percent of Syrian immigrants in the labor force were business owners, compared to four
percent of immigrants generally and only three percent of the U.S.-born population. n119

Overall, Syrian immigrants are succeeding in the United States, both socially and economically, as
measured by a wide range of metrics. While these statistics refer to all Syrian immigrants, rather than
Syrian refugees specifically, they illustrate the economic strength of the communities into which Syrian
refugees would likely be received n120 and demonstrate that Syrians in the United States are net job
makers, not job takers. n121

In addition to acknowledging refugees' economic contributions, reports have noted the "untold ways [in
which society benefits] from the natural increase in cultural and ethnic diversity that accompany
accepting new residents from around the world." n122 Drastically reducing the number of refugee
admissions wreaks havoc on the lives of countless refugees, including those already present in the
United States who are awaiting reunification with family members stranded overseas. These actions also
prevent local communities in the United States from reaping the economic and social benefits that
refugees bring to their communities.
 No Impact — Updated
No econ collapse
Amadeo 5/28 — Kimberly Amadeo, 5-28-2018, "Top 10 Reasons Why the U.S. Economy Won't Collapse," Balance,
https://www.thebalance.com/us-economy-wont-collapse-3980688, [accessed: 6/27/18] — JPark
Have you come across those websites that urge you to prepare for the coming U.S. economic collapse? They start by saying the debt is unsustainable, the dollar is in a bubble, or the Federal Reserve is printing dollars. Those three assertions are all true, but they’re nothing new and

nothing to panic over. The fallacy in these arguments occurs afterward. You'll notice the doomsayers say "if" a specific event occurs, then the economy will
collapse they don’t tell you that these events are not at all likely
. For example, "if China sells its dollar holdings" or "if the U.S. defaults on its debt." But, . They suggest that you
buy guns, gold coins, or their survival book to prepare for the event "just in case." In fact, the U.S. economy is doing fine. Here are the top 10 reasons why it won't collapse. Included are rebuttals to the negativists' claims.

1. The U.S. debt is $21 trillion the debt-to-GDP ratio is not enough to cause a
, more than the economy produces in a year. Though in the danger zone, it's

collapse the U S That means it is in control of its currency. Lenders feel safe
. First, nited tates prints its money. that the U.S. government will pay them back. In

fact, the United States could run a much higher debt-to-GDP ratio than it does now and still not face economic collapse. Japan is another strong economy that controls its currency. It has had a debt-to-GDP ratio above 200 percent for years. Its economy is sluggish but in no danger of
collapse.

2. Obama added to the debt to get us out of recession , not send us into collapse. Many of these doomsters accuse Obama of deliberately increasing the debt to destroy the United States.

3. The U S won't default on its debt.

nited tates Most members of Congress realize a debt default would destroy America's credibility in the financial markets. The tea party R epublicans in Congress were a minority that threatened
to default during the 2011 debt ceiling crisis and in 2013.

4. China and Japan are the biggest owners of the U.S. debt But they have no incentive to create a .

collapse . The United States is their largest market. If it fails, so do their economies. Furthermore, China is not selling all of its dollar holdings. It has remained above $1 trillion since 2013. For more, see U.S. Debt to China.

5. If anything, the dollar would slowly decline instead of collapse. It fell 40 percent between 2002 and 2008. It has gotten stronger since then because of the financial crisis. Investors flock to ultra-

safe U.S. Treasurys and the U.S. dollar as a safe haven.

6. The dollar won't be replaced as the world's global currency. The doomsayers point to gold, the euro, or Bitcoin as a replacement for the dollar. China has said it would like the
yuan to replace the dollar. It's true that the dollar's value is supported by its role. But none of these other alternatives have enough circulation to replace the dollar.

7. The Fed's quantitative easing program and low fed funds rate won't cause hyperinflation . If anything, these programs have

created a liquidity trap. That's when people, businesses, and banks hoard the extra cash instead of spending or lending it. T he real cause of hyperinflation has been debt repayments to fund wars.

8. The stock market hit new highs in 2015 and 2016. Stock prices are based on corporate earnings, so that’s a sign of business
prosperity.

9. Consumer confidence hit a nine-year high in 2016. Consumer spending drives almost 70 percent of the economy.

10. Economic growth is slow but stable . Since the Great Recession, the economy has grown between 1.5 - 2.7 percent per year. According to business cycle theory, a bust only occurs
after a boom . That's when GDP is more than 3 percent. It hasn't been that high since 2005 according to a review of GDP by year.
AT: Brain Drain DA
 Link Turn
Refugees improve US econ & trade with home countries
Bahar, 6/19 (Dany Bahar-Fellow in the Global Economy and Development program at the Brookings
Institution, also an associate at the Harvard Center for International Development, “Why accepting
refugees is a win-win-win formula,” June 19, 2018, https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-
front/2018/06/19/refugees-are-a-win-win-win-formula-for-economic-development/, dylchik)

This World Refugees Day, I want to challenge what seems to be the conventional wisdom regarding refugees. Not only are refugees
not a burden, rather they are welfare-enhancing assets. Indeed, accepting, protecting, and empowering
refugees is a win-win-win formula: for the refugees themselves, for the country of destination, and for
the country of origin. It is a win for the refugees for obvious reasons: The earlier a state commits to protecting refugees, the earlier they
can move forward with their lives, without uncertainty blocking the way. Most importantly, accepting them protects the most precious right of
all: The right to live. Turning our backs to refugees in many cases could be fatal for them. Thus, accepting refugees—providing the most basic
protection—is, in many cases, lifesaving. Accepting refugees is also a win for the receiving country and the communities that host them. By
providing them with the right to work, to health, and to education, refugees can start productive lives in their host countries. The faster they
can integrate into the labor force, the faster they can become productive members of society. Are you worried about all the job opportunities
natives could lose to a refugee? Don’t be. Most
migration economists agree that the presence of more foreigners in
the labor force doesn’t hurt natives, mainly because natives and foreigners typically have a different set
of skills and compete for different types of jobs—a fact recently corroborated using data on refugees
resettled in the U.S. Moreover, native workers often do better in the presence of more migrants in the
labor force because in response to more competition, natives usually specialize in better-paid jobs that
migrants cannot always compete in (for instance, jobs that require perfect domain of the local
language). Finally, we know that migrants engage in entrepreneurship at much higher rates than natives.
In the U.S., for example, while migrants are 15 percent of the population, they represent 25 percent of
entrepreneurs. If you think about it, this should not really come as a surprise. The act of migrating (and
even fleeing to further away countries, in the case of refugees) is associated with risk-taking behavior.
Thus, migrants are more likely to take risks also in the business sphere, such as creating a new venture.
By creating new businesses, migrants also create new jobs for everyone. Small firms, in turn, are the
engines of job growth. In the U.S., they create about 1.5 million jobs every year. Receiving countries can benefit in
more ways, too. Refugees could play a fundamental role in fostering international trade and investment.
Since they know the business environment quite well, they can mediate between business people in
both countries who are willing to invest in the local community and trade with local businesses.
Therefore, these refugees can move the needle when it comes to integrating their communities in global
markets in robust ways. Trainee Mohammad Alhalabi, a 22-year-old refugee from Syria works with a miller at the training workshop of
Ford Motor Co in Cologne, Germany, November 3, 2016. Alhalabi is one of 24 trainees of Ford Germany's so-called EQ qualification program to
integrate new employees in a booming labour market. REUTERS/Wolfgang Rattay - S1BEUKUWDAAA What about
origin countries?
They can also benefit immensely in the medium- to long-term from the resettlement of their citizens as
refugees in foreign countries. First, the countries of origin also benefit from the creation of business
networks between them and the countries where the refugees were resettled. For developing countries
overcoming conflict, the flow of investment could be crucial for recovery. In addition to these business
networks, the refugees can play a significant role in transferring technologies and knowledge back
home, which translates into more competitive and diversified economies. In ongoing research with
several co-authors, we show how, for instance, the nations that emerged from the former Yugoslavia
hugely benefited from the knowledge and experience gained by Bosnian, Croat, and Serb refugees who
temporarily resettled in Germany during the war of the early 1990s. More generally, even if a refugee is
not a regular migrant (refugees are forced to flee, as opposed to many migrants who choose to do so),
the studies have shown that the economic benefits of migration also apply when focusing on refugees.
This is because, similarly to migrants—and regardless of the reason that originated their move—they
still bring a different set of skills than natives, which can be key to creating business networks and
knowledge diffusion. Naturally, as in any other change that affects the economy (regulation, reforms, external shocks, etc.) integrating
refugees into the labor force might result in some people being worse-off in the short term, even when the aggregate gains are positive. But
that speaks to the need for having proper safety nets in place, and not to rejecting refugees. Overall, if given the right protections and support,
refugees can be an asset—not a burden—for all countries involved. Therefore, accepting and protecting refugees is not only morally right, but
also the smart thing to do.
AT: Canada CP
 Canada Fails
Canada can’t take in more refugees --- if they do it creates islamophobia which decks
solvency
Molnar 17 --- [Petra Molnar is a is a researcher in Toronto and writes for Historica Canada, Historica
Canada, “Canadian Response to the Syrian Refugee Crisis”, 3/23/17,
https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/canadian-response-to-the-syrian-refugee-crisis/] jk

Critiques of Canada’s Syrian Resettlement Program While the public and media discourse has been largely welcoming to the Syrian
resettled refugees, there have also been troubling instances of violence and Islamophobia in response to

Canada’s resettlement policies. In November 2015, a Muslim mother in Toronto was randomly attacked while picking up her children from a
Toronto primary school and was told to “go back to your country.” A mosque was torched in Peterborough and the Cold Lake mosque in Alberta was defaced twice.
A group of Syrian refugees was also pepper sprayed at a welcoming ceremony in Vancouver. Most recently, the Québec City Islamic Cultural Centre attack, which
resulted in the death of six men, underlined that Islamophobia needs more urgent attention. The
government response to the
resettlement of such a large number of people has also been criticized. While the Liberal government met its
promise to resettle 25,000 Syrian refugees, many of them could not be housed, and waited in cramped
Toronto hotels for months until more permanent housing options were found. There are also ongoing delays in processing
privately sponsored Syrian cases from Turkey, Jordan, and Lebanon, even as refugee sponsorship groups assembled the requisite funds and
resources, and, in many cases, have a matching family waiting to be resettled. While resettling such a large number of refugees in the span of a few short months is
a laudable goal, the
logistics of providing settlement services, education, and employment for this population
in the months and years to come may prove difficult; more resources for resettlement are needed. The
Syrian response has also been criticized for setting up a two-tier system, where Syrian refugees are fast-
tracked for resettlement, while refugees from other countries continue to wait for years, even if they already
have a private sponsor group ready to receive them. Organizations such as the Canadian Council for Refugees are continuing to push the government to ensure that
all refugees, regardless of national origin, have access to transparent and timely resettlement. As a humanitarian leader, Canada has the opportunity to support
sustainable refugee resettlement policies and to ensure that adequate resources and support are allocated to the settlement of refugees once they arrive.

Canada is already clogged --- can’t take in any more immigrants

GERAMI 18 --- [GERAMI is a group of Canadian Immigration Lawyers, “Thousands of Syrian Refugees Are
Still Waiting to Come to Canada”, 1/29/18, https://www.geramilaw.com/blog/thousands-syrian-
refugees-still-waiting-come-canada.html] jk

DESPITE GOVERNMENT PROMISES AND INITIATIVES, DELAYS IN PROCESSING TIME HAVE LEFT MANY
SYRIAN REFUGEES WAITING TO RESETTLE IN CANADA When the Canadian Government promised to resettle thousands of
Syrian refugees during the wake of the Syrian refugee crisis, many Canadians got together, raised money, and worked to help make that a
reality. Groups of Canadians have privately sponsored Syrian families, raising enough money to secure housing and ensure a comfortable
resettlement in Canada. But delays in application processing have left many refugees stuck overseas even
though they have homes, families, and sponsors waiting for them in Canada. For help with refugee sponsorship and
navigating the immigration system, contact refugee lawyers. INCREASED PROCESSING TIMES In 2015, the Canadian Government
announced it would welcome 50,000 Syrian refugees through both government and private sponsorships. But as of
December 2017, 20,000 sponsorship applications were still in the Immigration Department’s processing
backlog. And according to private sponsors, the processing time for these applications has increased, going from 13
months to 19 months. Many sponsored refugees wind up stuck living in poor conditions in camps, unable to
work legally, and at risk of local governments sending them back to Syria. Processing times vary by country and are
affected by several factors, including security concerns, establishing identity, and logistical challenges. Canada’s Immigration Department aims
to clear the privately sponsored backlog by the end of 2019. And for new applications submitted after 2019, the department plans to reduce
the wait time to around 12 months. GOALS MISSED? But refugee advocates have accused the government of missing its previous goal to
process applications received before March 31, 2016, by early 2017. Advocates also argue there are ongoing problems with a lack of
transparency regarding files and trouble getting feedback on applications. So sponsors are unable to find out how long it will be until their
sponsored families can arrive in Canada. Until these applications are processed, many sponsored refugees are stuck waiting, some living in
unpleasant conditions while their Canadian sponsors keep their new homes waiting for them. In addition, families who have already settled in
Canada keep waiting and worrying about when they will see their loved ones again. Although local governments overseas are
partly to blame for lengthy wait times, the current backlog in Canada’s immigration system doesn’t help
either. Until the government is willing to allocate more resources to process applications, more refugees will be stuck waiting for longer, not
knowing if or when they will make it to Canada to live a safer, better life in their new homes with their loved ones nearby.
AT: Consult States CP
 Refugee Federalism Fails
CP can’t solve cooperation internal links
Johnson 17 – Kit, Associate Professor, University of North Dakota School of Law; J.D., University of
California, Berkeley School of Law., (10-1-2017, "Can We Act Globally While Thinking Locally?
Responding To Stella Burch Elias, The Perils And Possibilities Of Refugee Federalism, "67 Am. U.L. Rev.
217, American University Law Review 101, Lexis) //pleb

As Professor Elias notes, one of the principal justifications underlying preemption in the immigration
context focuses on foreign [*222] affairs. 25 The Supreme Court has explained that because "a
country's treatment of non-citizens within its borders can gravely affect foreign relations," 26 the
federal government must be able to speak "with one voice" in dealing with other nations. 27 If a foreign
government perceives--rightly or wrongly--that a host government has wronged its citizens, the
consequences can be grave, "sometimes even leading to war." 28 Therefore, local interference is not
legally tolerated.

These are exactly the issues at stake with states' exclusionary lawmaking. States cannot be allowed to
deride nations by declaring their citizens unwelcome and characterizing such individuals as potential
security threats. 29 Declarations of this sort threaten our relations around the globe.

Devolving refugee resettlement to the states would slow the resettlement process
further and lead to a larger backlog
McHugh, 18 - Director of the Migration Policy Institute’s National Center on Immigrant Integration
Policy (Margie, “In the Age of Trump: Populist Backlash and Progressive Resistance Create Divergent
State Immigrant Integration Contexts”, Transatlantic Counsel on Migration, January,
file:///Users/alexkalams/Downloads/TCM-StateLocalResponses_Final%20(1).pdf) //AK

White House Domestic Policy Advisor Stephen Miller is the President’s lead advisor on immigration and
refugee matters. Long described as a hard-liner, Miller led the drafting of the immigration-focused
executive orders and wrested control of the process for setting the annual refugee admission numbers
from the State Department and other agencies,40 ultimately succeeding in having the process result in
the lowest refugee ceiling—45,000—set since the program’s inception in 1980.

Less widely reported upon is that in an October 2017 executive order lifting the original 120-day ban on
refugee resettlement, Trump imposed an additional level of review for refugees from 11 countries—
Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Mali, North Korea, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.41 Individuals
from these countries accounted for 43 percent of all refugees resettled in the United States in fiscal year
2017.42 Criticized by refugee advocates as a de facto ban and a “cynical and tragic manipulation of
administrative process,”43 the new rule will place refugees from these countries into a special screening
process that is already significantly backlogged, likely putting their cases on an extended hold.

Coupled with extensive new data-collection requirements on potential refugees, their family members,
and contacts, along with application processing having been shut down for part of 2017, many expect
that refugee admissions in 2018 will fall well below the 45,000 ceiling. Resettlement would be thrown
into further disarray if governors are given more of a say as to whether and where refugees are
resettled in their states—a position espoused by Trump during the campaign and referenced in his initial
refugee executive order. Entering the second year in which national refugee resettlement networks will
be in deep crisis, local affiliates will likely continue to reduce staff, leaving earlier refugee families and
local governments without intermediaries to provide the tailored support needed to ensure the
successful integration of these families. At the same time, should Tennessee prevail in its lawsuit
challenging the federal government’s right to resettle refugees in a state without its consent, the very
foundation of the resettlement system could crumble.

Sharp differences in policy and budget cuts means unequal enforcement by the states
is inevitable
McHugh, 18 - Director of the Migration Policy Institute’s National Center on Immigrant Integration
Policy (Margie, “In the Age of Trump: Populist Backlash and Progressive Resistance Create Divergent
State Immigrant Integration Contexts”, Transatlantic Counsel on Migration, January,
file:///Users/alexkalams/Downloads/TCM-StateLocalResponses_Final%20(1).pdf) //AK

With a unified government led by Donald Trump in the White House and Republican majorities in
Congress (albeit with a razor-thin margin in the Senate), it is reasonable to expect that significant budget
measures or legislation on immigration and other matters could break through the gridlock of past years
and lead to some of the potential impacts discussed throughout this report. However, the populist
backlash that carried Trump to victory in the 2016 election has provoked similarly powerful progressive
resistance and caused many states to take bold new steps on immigration and integration policy
matters. Now, with legal challenges to federal supremacy on immigration and refugee policy being
mounted from both the right and left, states and the courts are the new major actors in the immigration
and integration policy spheres. And states in particular are likely to remain so, irrespective of new
federal actions, given their lead role in managing a range of critical public safety, education, health, and
social services that provide the everyday context within which immigrants build their lives, families, and
futures in local communities.

With many states recovering from the effects of the draconian budget cuts they were forced to make
during and after the Great Recession, new shortfalls resulting from future cuts to federal domestic
programs or the knock-on effects of the tax overhaul could result in severe cuts to integration-support
programs and economic retrenchment more broadly.

And while state engagement in immigration and integration policy issues is increasing, the paths they
have been taking in responding to federal immigration enforcement and other pressing issues involving
immigrants and refugees are diverging ever more. Sharp differences in state contexts of reception and
integration will remain the norm and likely deepen, particularly if Congress does not find a way to
resolve the parties’ long-running dispute over how to address the treatment of unauthorized immigrants
who have resided in the country for many years.
 Right To Refuse Violates the 14th Amendment
The right to refuse violates the 14th amendment and kills executive powers
Elias 16 -- Associate Professor of Law, University of Iowa College of Law. J.D., Yale Law School, 2009;
M.A., Oxford University, 2006; B.A., Oxford University, 1998., (12-1-2016, "The Perils And Possibilities Of
Refugee Federalism, "66 Am. U.L. Rev. 353, Lexis) //pleb

As this Article has discussed, refugee-and asylee-exclusionary lawmaking is perilous both because of the
ugly social and moral [*413] implications of such an approach and because it is unlawful. Banning
refugees and asylees admitted to the United States from settling in a particular state on the basis of
their national origin or religious beliefs would violate the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution. 353 Further, the INA, as amended by the Refugee Act,
expressly gives the executive branch broad discretion to resettle refugees anywhere in the nation,
without reference to state governments. 354 More generally, the Supreme Court's immigration
federalism doctrine firmly establishes that the federal government enjoys unassailable primacy in all
areas of law pertaining to exclusionary actions against immigrants, a group that naturally includes both
refugees and asylees.
 AT: Disease Internal NB
Federalism fails — decks pandemic response
Price 14 — Polly J. Price (J.D. from Harvard, M.A. from Emory, Professor of Law and Associated Faculty, Department of History, Emory
University), 2014, Legislation and Public Policy ,Vol. 17:919, “Sovereignty, Citizenship, and Public Health in the United States,”
http://www.nyujlpp.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Price-Sovereignty-Citizenship-and-the-Public-Health-in-the-United-States-
17nyujlpp920.pdf

Whatever one’s view of the desirability of immigration, governmental distinctions between citizens and non-citizens undermine public health in
the United States in a number of ways. The federal and state governments confront a stark division of authority with respect to non-citizens:
The federal government decides which non-citizens to admit into the country and the terms under which they may stay, while states
must
cover the cost of foreign nationals who present a public health threat within the United States. Local
governments pay for U.S. diplomatic and humanitarian goals. Our system of federalism and a fragmented public health
infrastructure result in the cost of health control measures falling on state and local governments, with
uneven effectiveness and greatly disproportionate impact in some communities. The main impediment is thus
systemic: the fragmented structure of public health agencies in the United States can prevent an effective
response to even wholly local epidemics. Nonetheless, because immigration laws affect public health in many complicated
ways, I suggest that we can make progress by addressing these externalities through creative approaches to immigration law.

No spillover
Friedrichs 17 — Terry Friedrichs (Ph. D., Ed. D, has worked for 40 years as a researcher, K-12 and university educator, school and
legislative advocate for gifted LGBTQ and twice-exceptional students; he is the author and editor of approximately 20 articles, chapters, and
books on the needs of these two populations, including Characteristics of Gifted Students with Disabilities, an NAGC Select Series volume on
meeting the needs of gifted sexual-minority youth; he currently serves as the inaugural chair of NAGC's LGBTQ Network and as a member of the
NAGC Legislative Committee; he serves as a board member of various policy and legislative-advocacy organizations concerned with progress for
both sexual-minority individuals and people with disabilities in Minnesota), 9-25-17, “Interview with Terry Friedrichs”, Wayzata Debate
Interviews — JPark
Anish: Hello Mr. Friedrichs. My name is Anish Kulkarni and I am a junior at Wayzata High School here in Minnesota. This year, I am in policy debate and the annual topic is about education - specifically how the United States Federal Government can regulate and/or fund K-12 education. For this activity, I do a lot of research. I became aware of your reputation as an educator after reading an article on the Internet and learning that you have several bills in passage in the State legislature. Since you have a lot of experience in state education legislation, I was wondering if I
could ask you a question about the relationship between the federal government and state government, specifically in the context of education.

There’s a lot of controversy about the role of the federal government when it is involved in
Anish: civil rights in

schools If the federal government were to get further involved in the state’s rights on education here,
.

would the states react by cutting commitments in other areas, like climate change or the grid ?

We want to have incentives from the federal government, either laws or policies from the federal
Friedrichs:

government for states to be active. Specifically, in the area of civil rights, the federal government is key .

Anish: Do you think it’s possible?

States won’t go asleep at the wheel.

Friedrichs: I don’t know if that’s ever been proven. That is like saying if a parent did all their kid’s homework, the kid would stop doing their homework. That’s not the case.

States would be driven to work harder Areas of education are folded in “race to the top grants” – i.e. .

Title 1 – you either get funded or not funded Economic incentives to do the right thing . – such as English language learners getting
funded if they have a really good program – that was solution of George W Bush administration, but it got abandoned in Obama administration in support of ESSA, which was controversial. There are many negative byproducts of federalism, such as when you create state focus on testing,

I don’t think if you federalize one area, states would stop caring about
then everyone spends their time on testing, and the teachers stop caring about those kids.

another area – like climate change they won’t see it as a decreased amount of advocacy for –

bureaucracy of education if federal role in education increased – you would just have more people better equipped for federal goals, they would be depended on creativity to

. The expanse of federalism doesn’t change the state, or how good they do in other areas I
find implementation –

certainly don’t believe states will stop caring .

No single area is key — resiliency
Young 3 — Ernest Young (Professor of Law), University of Texas, Texas Law Review, May
One of the privileges of being a junior faculty member is that senior colleagues often feel obligated to read one's rough drafts. On many
occasions when I have written about federalism - from a stance considerably more sympathetic to the States than Judge Noonan's - my
colleagues have responded with the following comment: "Relax.
The States retain vast reserves of autonomy and
authority over any number of important areas. It will be a long time, if ever, before the national
government can expand its authority far enough to really endanger the federal balance. Don't make it
sound like you think the sky is falling."
 AT: Ryan
Federalism’s not zero-sum
— we don’t endorse ableist language
Ryan 12 — Erin Ryan (Fulbright Scholar in China; professor of law at Lewis and Clark Law School), 7-3-2012, "Spending power bargaining
after Obamacare, "OUPblog, https://blog.oup.com/2012/07/spending-power-bargaining-after-obamacare/

Federalism champions often mistakenly assume a

It’s important to get these things right because an awful lot of American governance really is negotiated between state and federal actors this way.

“zero-sum” model of American federalism that emphasizes winner-takes-all competition between state
and federal actors for power. But countless real-world examples show that the boundary between state
and federal authority is really a project of ongoing negotiation, one that effectively harnesses the
regulatory innovation and interjurisdictional synergy that is the hallmark of our federal system .

Understanding state-federal relations as negotiation American federalism heavily mediated by betrays the growing gap between the rhetoric and reality of —and

offers hope for moving beyond the paralyzing features of the zero-sum discourse
it . Still, a core feature making the overall system work is that
intergovernmental bargaining must be fairly secured by genuine consent.
AT: Critiques
 Link Turn
The travel ban is a lightning rod for white supremacists – the plan is a key blow against
them
Margon 2018 - Washington Director of Human Rights Watch
Sarah, "Giving up the High Ground," Feb 13, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-
states/2018-02-13/giving-high-ground

The first year of Trump’s presidency was marked by a frenzy of activity on domestic issues. His
administration instituted harsh new immigration rules that are ripping apart families and communities.
Between late January and early September 2017, the total number of immigrants arrested inside the
country (versus at the border) increased by 43 percent compared with the number arrested during the
equivalent time period under President Barack Obama in 2016. These are people who have been
uprooted from communities where they have families and deep ties. The president has also issued a
series of travel bans, all of which use classic scapegoating tactics and bigotry to incite fears about
Muslims and refugee-resettlement programs. Although the courts blocked the original and most
draconian versions of this ban, in late 2017, they did allow a revised version to proceed.

The president has empowered bigots by making racially charged statements, including referring to white
supremacists marching in Charlottesville, Virginia, as “very fine people.” He has sought to end what he
calls the “very dangerous anti-police atmosphere in America,” which is a direct rebuke to activists calling
for racial justice in policing. He has also gravely harmed women’s rights by attacking reproductive
choice, halting an equal-pay measure, and weakening protections against gender-based violence on
college campuses.
 Movements Fail
Movements against the travel ban fail – don’t affect the government
Nature 17 – Nature was ranked the world's most cited scientific journal by the Science Edition of the
2010 Journal Citation Reports and is ascribed an impact factor of 40.137, making it one of the world's
top academic journals.[2][3] ("Academics must protest against Trump's travel ban - but they should do
so productively." Nature, vol. 542, no. 7640, 2017. Academic
OneFile, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A480487640/AONE?u=lom_umichanna&sid=AONE&xid=b
e8e3f11. Accessed 1 July 2018.)

The organizers hope that enough boycotts will send a message of solidarity, whether that comes in the
form of poorly attended US conferences, meetings moving overseas or international societies choosing
to convene in a country that will allow people from any nation to attend.

The clear trade-off, however, is that such a boycott penalizes people from Muslim-majority countries
already in the United States, who are now effectively stuck there, and so can attend only domestic
meetings.

Nadine El-Enany, who co-organized the larger petition, says the intention is not to harm US-based
scientists, but to demonstrate against a ban that hurts everyone - not just scientists - and to prevent the
Trump administration from adding more countries to its blacklist. "If our initiative can help its abolition,
the benefits outweigh the regrettable side effects of international scientists not attending US
conferences," says Till Sawala, who co-founded Science Undivided.

It's unclear who will hear this message, and any impact will mostly hit people who oppose the ban
anyway. Making a statement is all well and good, but a protest movement that harms only its allies
shoots itself in the foot. The boycotts could be much more fiscally devastating to meeting organizers -
mainly scientific societies that actively oppose the ban - than to the US government or economy. And a
sparsely attended conference is not useful to scientists from any country.

Research also shows that, with few exceptions, such boycotts have mixed success. For example, the
academic boycott of South Africa during the 1980s, intended to oppose apartheid, does not seem to
have hurt South African businesses or government at all. Instead, it created rifts between South African
academics and those in the rest of the world ( S. H. Teoh et al. J. Bus.72, 35-89; 1999 ).

That may be unwelcome news for scientists around the world who are chafing at their political
powerlessness and want to make a difference. But there are plenty of positive ways to react. Dennis
Hoffman, an economist at Arizona State University in Tempe who studies boycotts, suggests that
scientific societies could cover the cost of adding virtual technologies to the conferences remotely,
sending a message of inclusion by allowing banned scientists to attend.

Scientists can also lobby the government to grant researchers from the banned countries waivers to
allow them entry to the United States in the national interest; these are explicitly allowed by the
immigration ban. A unified front of scientists could also follow the example of a group of about 100 tech
companies and others, including Microsoft and Google, which has filed a legal brief to back the
numerous lawsuits against the administration's actions.
However researchers fight the unfair policies of the Trump administration, they must avoid knee-jerk
reactions. Despite what critics may say, carefully evaluating different courses of action before acting is
not being passive, it is being effective.

Boycotts fail and hurt those affected by the ban – can’t solve the aff
Stanbrook 17 – MD (University of Toronto) PhD (University of Toronto). (Matthew, “Trump travel ban
means academics must strengthen, not sever, US ties.” Canadian Medical Association.Journal, 189(11),
E420-E421. doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.umich.edu/10.1503/cmaj.170247)

In the face of a political action widely condemned as unjust and unconstitutional, and seemingly fuelled
by racism and Islamophobia, a moral stand is necessary and entirely justified. But the shape that such a
stand ought to take, its effectiveness and its possible unintended consequences bear careful scrutiny.

US professional societies and academic institutions - including the journals they publish - are the wrong
target for protest, especially as hundreds of them, including leading medical organizations, have
condemned the executive order. Political solutions will never arise from scientists and scholars - on
whom the world depends critically for solutions to its urgent problems - breaking ties with one another.
Science, especially medical science, knows no borders and cannot advance effectively without the free
international exchange of knowledge, ideas and skills among all its participants. For academics to
suspend interactions with US colleagues or refuse to peer review and validate the work of US
researchers risks weakening US science at the worst possible time, abandoning colleagues to face a
political administration that already manifests a desire to muzzle federal scientists,4 escape
accountability by the media and wage war on facts incompatible with its preferred narrative.

Breaking ties would also hurt the very people the protest is supposed to help. Hundreds of physicians,
researchers and trainees from the countries proscribed by the executive order, and thousands more
who may worry that their countries will be added to the list, are already living and working in the US.
Understandably, they now fear to travel outside the US in case they may not be allowed to re-enter.5
Boycotting meetings in the US, or alternatively, moving US conferences to another country, would
compromise the ability of these talented individuals to exchange knowledge with their colleagues,
thereby further marginalizing many of those directly affected by the ban.

Travel ban protests rile up Trump’s supporters

Green 17 – Joshua Green is an American journalist who writes primarily on United States politics. He is
currently the senior national correspondent at Bloomberg Businessweek. (Joshua, “Bannon’s Path From
Trusted Attack Dog to Toxic Liability,” Bloomberg, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-
08-18/bannon-s-path-from-trusted-attack-dog-to-toxic-liability)

The latter order, sprung with little notice late in the afternoon of Friday, Jan. 27, sparked nationwide
protests at airports in most major U.S. cities. A federal judge quickly blocked the order, though a
rewritten version was later permitted to take partial effect. Bannon told associates that the timing of
the order was intentional — and that he expected opponents, freed from work on the weekend, to
stage angry protests that would draw attention to Trump’s action and galvanize his supporters as he
followed through on a campaign promise.
 Perm
Their impact is contingent on social factors and policy outcomes – the perm is the best
method to resolve both
Beydoun 2017 - Associate Prof of Law @ U of Detroit Mercy School of Law
Khaled A, ""MUSLIM BANS" AND THE (RE)MAKING OF POLITICAL ISLAMOPHOBIA," 2017 U. Ill. L. Rev.
1733

Neither new in form nor novel in substance, the fearmongering mobilized by Donald Trump and the
collective suspicion of Muslims driving CVE Policing are extensions of old and embedded tropes, which
root the American Islamophobia on display today. n275 They are modern emanations of an ideological
campaign that prohibited Muslims from becoming naturalized citizens from 1790 through 1944, and
political pronouncements that flatly viewed Islam as a "warmongering faith" bent on decimating
American democracy. n276 These are views that have withstood the test of time and that are
incessantly deployed to reestablish the trope that Islam is inherently antithetical to American
democracy, and Muslims presumptively subversive and suspicious.

Islamophobia is neither political rhetoric nor law alone. Rather, it is a cogent system and dialectic
whereby the popular and political bigotry espoused by reactionary figures is informed, endorsed, and
emboldened by judicial rulings and state policy. It is comprised of a coherent set of tropes about Islam
and Muslims, which framed and still frame how the [*1774] state perceives the faith, polices Muslims
beyond and within state bounds, and responds to the threat - either real or imagined - with the violent
rhetoric of politicians jockeying for the highest seat in the land and the might of the state's national-
security arms.

While the hateful campaigning of politicians often trumps the less detectable suspicion of Islam and
Muslims displayed on the left in terms of media coverage, both are forms of American Islamophobia
that extend from legal and political roots planted centuries ago. Thus, unfolding American Islamophobia
should not be framed as a break from American values and tradition. n277 Instead, it is a natural
outgrowth of the fear and animus deeply rooted in a formative legal and political campaign, which
seeded the pronounced Islamophobic imagination and religious profiling measures that prevail today.

Therefore, while the 2016 presidential race is broadly viewed as a moment marking the emergence of
blatant and political Islamophobia, a more precise view is that it witnessed its full-fledged revelation and
capitalization as an effective political tool. Islamlophobia is a legacy that pervades American history, and
as the 2016 presidential race becomes part of that history, it will surely continue within the American
political arena.
 Market Integration Good
Integration into market systems catalyzes a reform of refugee policy that provides
autonomy and opportunity to refugees
Betts and Collier 15 (Alexander Betts is the Leopold Muller Professor of Forced Migration and International Affairs, Director of the
Refugee Studies Centre, and a senior research fellow at Green-Templeton College at the University of Oxford, Paul Collier is professor of
economics and public policy in the Blavatnik School of Government at the University of Oxford. Nov/Dec 2015, Vol 94, Iss. 6, 84-92 "Help
Refugees Help Themselves: Let Displaced Syrians Join the Labor Market," Foreign Affairs; New York, https://search-proquest
com.libproxy.temple.edu/artshumanities/docview/1727450199/66C3D54BB378492BPQ/6?accountid=14270) lz

The current international approach to refugees dates from the early 1950s, when European nations attempted to
shelter and relocate millions of people who had been displaced by the Holocaust and World War II. Now, as then, host states are
expected to welcome the displaced so long as they receive funding and symbolic commitment from
wealthy nations. This system is based on the idea that when the traditional relationship between a state
and its citizens breaks down, either an alternative state or the international community is expected to
act as a temporary surrogate. But in the face of a massive volume of displaced people, the international
cooperation on which this system is premised has broken down. The Middle East is hardly the only place where the
system has failed. Elsewhere around the world, the collapse is also visible: from Myanmar (or Burma) and Bangladesh, where hundreds of
thousands of displaced Rohingya refugees languish, to Nauru and Papua New Guinea, which house some 1,600 refugees from Afghanistan,
Eritrea, Iraq, and other fragile states whom Australia has refused to accept, to Hungary, which this past summer built a razor-wire fence to keep
out refugees on their way to western Europe. The collapse of the traditional relationship between states and
refugees calls for a new policy, one that is financially sustainable and that reconciles the interests of host
states with the needs of the displaced. That, in turn, will require the integration of refugees into labor markets. To be sure,
economic integration is not a substitute for state protection. But governmental attention, on its own, is insufficient.
Refugees need autonomy and opportunity, which only integration into the global economy can provide.
Development zones can provide this autonomy, because they can be purpose-built for refugees, and
because the jobs they provide can be relocated to postconflict societies in peacetime. Some 54 percent of the
world's refugees have lived in exile for more than five years, often without freedom of movement or the right to work. For such refugees, the
average length of exile is around 17 years. These long-term displaced are expected to wait for a so-called durable solution, by which some state,
whether their own or another, can reintegrate them into peaceful society. As a result, their lives are put on hold. This need not be the case. By
understanding refugees as not only a humanitarian challenge but also a development opportunity,
states could do much to sustainably improve the lives of the dispossessed. To suggest that the displaced
could contribute to the cost of their own care is not harsh: refugees are already voting with their feet for
self-reliance. Today's refugee policy is a failed vestige of the postwar international system. If the refugee problem had dwindled, this
anachronism would not matter. But instead it has exploded, so that states and refugees are under greater
pressure than ever before. Allowing Syrian refugees to participate in the market could catalyze the
reform of global refugee policy and improve the lives of millions.∂
 Alt Fails
The alt fails – top down discourse affects immigration opinion more
Leruth and Taylor-Gooby 3/7 – Benjamin Leruth, Institute for Governance and Policy Analysis,
University of Canberra. Peter Frederick Taylor-Gooby, OBE, FBA, FAcSS, FRSA has been Professor of
Social Policy at the University of Kent since 1990 (“Does political discourse matter? Comparing party
positions and public attitudes on immigration in England,” Sage Journals)

Top-down approach As far as the issue of immigration issue is concerned, many studies established that
political parties are the agenda-setters and influence public opinion. In an article examining the role of
the ‘organised public’ in the United Kingdom using newspaper sources, Statham and Geddes (2006: 266)
argued that domestic immigration policy is determined top-down by elites: ‘it is their dominance over
the political environment and the opportunities and incentives it produces which decisively shapes the
level and contents of pro-migrant and anti-migrant collective action’. Their findings thus contradict
Freeman’s work on the influence of the organised public over elites in the United Kingdom. In an
excellent quantitative analysis of radical right-wing parties and voters in six West European
countries, Rydgren (2008) focused on ‘anti-immigration’ and ‘anti-immigrant’ frames which dominate
the ideological programme of such parties and discovered that frames linking immigration to social
tension and criminality are very effective for mobilising voter support, unlike other frames such as
welfare chauvinism or those which link immigration to job losses.
 “Refugees” Good
The term “refugee” promotes action and provides protection under HR treaties
Taylor 15 — Charlotte Taylor (Lecturer in English Language and Linguistics, University of Sussex), 9-14-2015, "Migrant or refugee? Why it
matters which word you choose," Conversation, https://theconversation.com/migrant-or-refugee-why-it-matters-which-word-you-choose-
47227, [accessed: 6/25/18] — JPark

a debate is raging about how to describe

Across Europe, people Are they the thousands of escaping war and turmoil in their own countries and making the journey to safer places.

refugees or migrants? leaders have been justifying inaction over dismissing many of
The question is important: since European their plight by

them as migrants “economic By

” who are less deserving of help. Al-Jazeera has made a firm decision on this issue, announcing that it will stop using the umbrella term “migrants” when referring to the refugee crisis in the Mediterranean.

choosing the term “migrant” over “refugee” the choice denies the person their (where the latter would be accurate),

internationally recognised human rights, under the UN Refugee Convention . But Al-Jazeera also noted that the very meaning of the word “migrant” was

This kind of semantic degrading is common for words relating to

changing. What was once a basic description has come to carry negative connotations.

controversial topics. We need only think of the endless cycle of terms used to describe people with disabilities, which often develop into insults and are eventually replaced. In the early stages of a meaning change there is a tendency for people to
resist the new interpretation, by claiming that they are using the dictionary definition. But dictionaries do not merely define words – they also describe how they are used. If a negative meaning develops this will be listed. For example, the definition of “villain” has shifted from meaning
someone of low-born status “villein”, to the current understanding of evil.

Calling them refugees is legally precise – blurring terminology takes away special
protections
UNHCR 16 – United Nations High Commissioner For Refugees (7-11-2016, "UNHCR viewpoint:
'Refugee' or 'migrant' – Which is right?," UNHCR, http://www.unhcr.org/en-
us/news/latest/2016/7/55df0e556/unhcr-viewpoint-refugee-migrant-right.html)

GENEVA, July 11 (UNHCR) – With more than 65 million people forcibly displaced globally and boat
crossings of the Mediterranean still regularly in the headlines, the terms ‘refugee’ and ‘migrant’ are
frequently used interchangeably in media and public discourse. But is there a difference between the
two, and does it matter?

Yes, there is a difference, and it does matter. The two terms have distinct and different meanings, and
confusing them leads to problems for both populations. Here’s why:

Refugees are persons fleeing armed conflict or persecution. There were 21.3 million of them worldwide
at the end of 2015. Their situation is often so perilous and intolerable that they cross national borders to
seek safety in nearby countries, and thus become internationally recognized as "refugees" with access to
assistance from States, UNHCR, and other organizations. They are so recognized precisely because it is
too dangerous for them to return home, and they need sanctuary elsewhere. These are people for
whom denial of asylum has potentially deadly consequences.

Refugees are defined and protected in international law. The 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967
Protocol as well as other legal texts, such as the 1969 OAU Refugee Convention, remain the cornerstone
of modern refugee protection. The legal principles they enshrine have permeated into countless other
international, regional, and national laws and practices. The 1951 Convention defines who is a refugee
and outlines the basic rights which States should afford to refugees. One of the most fundamental
principles laid down in international law is that refugees should not be expelled or returned to situations
where their life and freedom would be under threat.
The protection of refugees has many aspects. These include safety from being returned to the dangers
they have fled; access to asylum procedures that are fair and efficient; and measures to ensure that
their basic human rights are respected to allow them to live in dignity and safety while helping them to
find a longer-term solution. States bear the primary responsibility for this protection. UNHCR therefore
works closely with governments, advising and supporting them as needed to implement their
responsibilities.

Migrants choose to move not because of a direct threat of persecution or death, but mainly to improve
their lives by finding work, or in some cases for education, family reunion, or other reasons. Unlike
refugees who cannot safely return home, migrants face no such impediment to return. If they choose to
return home, they will continue to receive the protection of their government.

For individual governments, this distinction is important. Countries deal with migrants under their own
immigration laws and processes. Countries deal with refugees through norms of refugee protection and
asylum that are defined in both national legislation and international law. Countries have specific
responsibilities towards anyone seeking asylum on their territories or at their borders. UNHCR helps
countries deal with their asylum and refugee protection responsibilities.

Politics has a way of intervening in such debates. Conflating refugees and migrants can have serious
consequences for the lives and safety of refugees. Blurring the two terms takes attention away from the
specific legal protections refugees require. It can undermine public support for refugees and the
institution of asylum at a time when more refugees need such protection than ever before. We need to
treat all human beings with respect and dignity. We need to ensure that the human rights of migrants
are respected. At the same time, we also need to provide an appropriate legal response for refugees,
because of their particular predicament.

ter.
 State Influences Discourse
They’ve got it backwards – political parties influence public discourse
Careja 15 – University of Southern Denmark Department of Political Science and Public Management
Welfare Studies and Public Policy (Romana, “Party Discourse and Prejudiced Attitudes toward Migrants
in Western Europe at the Beginning of the 2000s,” 4 May, 2015, Wiley Online Library, International
Migration Review: Volume 50, Issue 3)

This article argues that another factor likely to influence prejudice is the discourse of relevant political
actors, in particular parties. Parties do not only inform the public about facts such as the number of
foreigners or the state of the economy, but also explain and contextualize this information. In doing so,
politicians react to public opinion and, importantly, also attempt to influence it. Through discourse, they
“actively participate in values’ formation and perpetuation” (Ingram and Schneider 1993,70). Exposure
to such contextualizing discourses contributes to individuals’ sense‐making of reality and consequently,
to the formation of their attitudes toward out‐groups.

Previous research has shown that parties do influence opinions. For example, the electorate takes cues
from party positions and policy information and the effect varies with levels of disagreement among
parties, party unity, issue salience, and party attachment (Ray 2003; Hooghe and Marks 2005; Bullock
2011). As to the relationship between parties and anti‐immigrant attitudes, most researchers focused
on the effects of anti‐immigrant attitudes on support for right‐wing parties (e.g., Lubbers and Scheepers
2000, 2002; Lubbers, Gijsberts, and Scheepers 2002). However, not surprisingly, evidence that parties
stir anti‐immigrant attitudes has been found in the case of openly anti‐immigrant parties (Billiet and De
Witte 2008) or when these parties gained political visibility (Semyonov, Raijman, and Gorodzeisky 2006,
2007, 2008; Wilkes, Guppy, and Farris 2007).