1

The United States federal government should:

- End all deportations of non-violent illegal immigrants and
publicly announce the policy change
- Enact comprehensive immigration reforms including a tough
but fair process to give existing illegal immigrants a path to
citizenship
- Strengthen smart border initiatives and enforcement of
border crossings in collaboration with local and international
actors
- Pass the Revitalize American Manufacturing and Innovation
Act
- Increase funding and public-private partnerships for port of
entry infrastructure and staffing along the US-Mexico border
Re-focusing efforts solve.
Garcia and Keyes 12, Angela Garcia is an assistant professor at Harvard
University and writes for Stanford journals and David Keyes is the executive director
of Advancing Human Rights and co-founder of CyberDissidents.org, (Angela and
David, 3/26/12, Life as an Undocumented Immigrant: How Restrictive Local
Immigration Policies Affect Daily Life, Center for American Progress,
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/report/2012/03/26/11210/lifeas-an-undocumented-immigrant/)
Congressional action can solve the problem . On the national level, Congress must
come together to pass comprehensive immigration reform that includes a
tough but fair process by which undocumented immigrants can gain legal status
while also strengthening border security and enforcemen t. Once all members of society are
on the path to full incorporation into the nation , the fear in everyday life is taken away. Instead of
being reticent to contact the police, take their children to school, or be seen in public places, a pathway to
citizenship would ensure that all members of American society are able to
participate fully and equally. Administrative reforms could offer significant
relief. The federal government must also provide clearer guidelines for the usage
and implementation of federal enforcement programs such as Secure Communities
program and must fully implement its stated policy of prosecutorial discretion . The

Department of Homeland Security Advisory Councils Task Force on Secure Communities urged DHS to make the
Secure Communities program more transparent and to focus on serious offenders rather than those charged with

The report also called upon DHS to fully implement its program of
prosecutorial discretion. We believeas Retired Sacramento Chief of Police and Task Force Member Arturo
minor offenses.

Venegas, Jr. wrote in his letter announcing his resignation from the task forcethat DHS can and should go even
further than the task force recommendations, ensuring that minor offenders are not put through the Secure
Communities system in the first place. In this way ,

DHS can focus its enforcement on the

worst of the worst, rather than on family members and members of the
community who have been in the United States for years without committing a
crime.85

RAMI Act solves innovation and competitiveness

Mervis 14 (Jeffrey, Technology Reporter @ ScienceInsider, "After Election 2014:
ADVANCED MANUFACTURING," http://news.sciencemag.org/policy/2014/10/afterelection-2014-advanced-manufacturing)
Conventional wisdom holds that todays hyperpartisan environment in Washington, D.C., has poisoned any chance of political
compromise. If so, then advanced manufacturing may be the antidote. Lawmakers from both parties have embraced the idea of a
national network of centers aimed at developing better manufacturing technologies, materials, and processes, an idea originally put

Last month, the

House of Representatives unanimously passed a bill (H.R. 2996) that would allow the government
to create such a manufacturing network. The legislation contains many elements found in Obamas 2012
forth by President Barack Obama. And Congress is well on the way toward turning that idea into reality.
U.S.

proposal for a $1 billion, 15-node National Network for Manufacturing Innovation (NNMI). Even before Congress authorizes such a
network, the White House has funneled money to an initial cluster of six centers. The centers cover a range of topics; the first is
focusing on 3D printing, for example, while the most recent will target integrated photonics. That kind of unilateral White House
action typically makes many congressional Republicans apoplectic. Not this time. Although much of the administrations legislative
agendain health care, energy, climate, and immigration, to cite just a few exampleshas been blocked by partisan fights,
advanced manufacturing has become an issue that everyone can rally around. Its promise of generating lots of well-paying jobs is
especially appealing to politicians anxious about a still-precarious economic recovery. This bill is an opportunity for the United
States to bring jobs back to our shores, so we can make it here and sell it there, proclaims Representative Tom Reed (RNY), the
House bills lead Republican sponsor. For such a bipartisan coalition to exist, Republicans like Reed have had to abandon what party
leaders a generation ago would have dismissed as unnecessary industrial policy and an inappropriate government intrusion into
the private sector. For their part, Democrats have had to dial back their preference for launching a program by growing the federal
budget. In this instance, that has meant acquiescing to fiscally conservative Republicans in putting more resources into advanced
manufacturing without an overall increase in spending. In the case of the House-passed bill, the money would come from an existing

The Senate
has so far failed to act on a companion bill (S. 1468) that is similar to the House bill. But
program within the Department of Energy that fosters energy-saving and green manufacturing technologies.

advocates say its still possible that Congress will return after the election and take the final steps needed to both authorize the
network and adopt related policies aimed at strengthening U.S. manufacturing. A national network What exactly is advanced

Advanced manufacturing is not simply having

requires training technically savvy
workers, revising tax and regulatory policies, and supporting fundamental research
manufacturing? And why has it become a front-burner issue?

companies find more efficient ways to make better widgets. It also

that will lead to the breakthrough technologies needed to keep U.S. companies ahead of their global competitors. All manner of
high-ranking advisory bodies have weighed in on the subject in recent years, and Obama has mentioned it in his last two State of
the Union addresses as well as on several other occasions. A January 2014 report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research
Service does an excellent job of summarizing the history of the idea, including the work of an interagency panel, and the challenges
that lie ahead. Last month, for example, the Presidents Council of Advisors on Science and Technology adopted an Advanced
Manufacturing Partnership Strategy 2.0 that builds upon a 2012 report describing what changes are needed. Some ascribe nearmythic powers to advanced manufacturing. The Republican floor manager for the recently passed House bill, Representative Larry
Bucshon (RIN), extolled the sectors ability to create good-paying, family-supporting, community-sustaining jobs. And sports
metaphors abound when politicians talk about the subject. This is the kind of approach that will keep America in the
manufacturing game, Obama said in March 2012 as he rolled out his vision during a visit to a Petersburg, Virginia, plant making
disks for jet engines. For researchers, the payoff is a bit more tangible. On 3 October, Obama flew to southern Indiana to announce
that the Department of Defense (DOD) has committed $100 million to the winner of an upcoming competition for a national center
on integrated photonics manufacturing. This is a major addition of funding for optics and photonics, says Eric Van Stryland of the
University of Central Florida, Orlando, about a technology to produce silicon-based integrated circuits and communications
equipment using light instead of electronics. Anytime you dump $200 million into a field, it had better have a big impact.
(Strylands $200 million figure refers to the fact that the winner of the competition must at least match DODs contribution with
funding from dozens of industrial, academic, and nonfederal public partners.) The photonics center would be the sixth node in the
emerging network. DOD has already pledged $70 million apiece to support two other existing Institutes for Manufacturing Innovation
(IMIs)one on digital manufacturing and design innovation led by the University of Illinois and based in Chicago, and the second on
lightweight and modern metals manufacturing innovation based in Detroit. The Department of Energy is investing $70 million in an
IMI on next-generation power electronics manufacturing based at North Carolina State University and will soon announce the winner
of a center on composite materials. The first IMI, a pilot focused on 3D printing and based in Youngstown, Ohio, was launched less
than 6 months after Obamas Virginia speech by several agencies, with the largest contribution$30 million over 3 yearscoming
from DOD. And DOD plans to follow up its choice of an integrated photonics center with a second center focused on another topic
chosen from a list of six candidate fields. In addition to assembling top talent in a particular field, each institute is expected to drive
regional economic development. The idea that hosting an IMI will help their state or district become a leading center of
manufacturing innovation in a particular field is a powerful lure for politicians. That promise is why Bucshon, normally a fierce critic
of the administrations social and economic policies, joined Mike Pence, the states Republican governor, on an airport tarmac in
southern Indiana to greet the president when he flew in to tout the new DOD-backed center on integrated photonics. Its also why
Representative Mike Honda (DCA), who represents part of Silicon Valley, felt free to mark last months positive House vote by
noting, Hopefully, once this bill is enacted, we can win one of these centers. Striking a compromise While the IMIs created by the
White House represent a real financial commitment, the pending legislation is at most an expression of congressional intent. It
would authorize the government to spend money on the centers, leaving the final decision to appropriators. That two-step process
makes passage of the bill a slightly lower priority for lobbyists like Tom Hausken, a senior adviser at the Optical Society in
Washington, D.C., which pushed hard for the creation of the integrated photonics IMI. We certainly support the RAMI legislation, he

says, using the acronym for the bills title, Revitalize American Manufacturing and Innovation Act. But the Pentagons recent
announcement means we have a bird in the hand, says Hausken, who praises Obama for doing [IMIs] within the existing

Both the House and

Senate bills would give the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) the
authority to spend $300 million over 10 years to stand up four or more centers for
manufacturing innovation. Both also would create a $10 million program to support
regional innovation clusters and require outside experts to conduct a
quadrennial assessment of the nations progress in meeting its goals to improve
U.S. manufacturing. Appropriators have signaled their support with language in the 2014 omnibus bill that funded NIST
budgetary authority. Still, the legislation could lead to additional centers in related fields.

and every other federal agency. The only reason the bill did not include money for NNMI, the lawmakers wrote earlier this year, was
because the proposal had not yet been considered or approved by the Congress. That language was an implicit acknowledgement
that House and Senate lawmakers must first reconcile their differences on how to fund the network. The House bill would shift $250
million from an existing program within the Department of Energys Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) that
supports advanced manufacturing technologies aimed at lowering energy costs and promoting renewables. (The remaining $50
million, to operate a program office and conduct relevant studies like the quadrennial review, would come from an existing NIST
account that provides technical support to industry.) In contrast, the Senate bill would create a $300 million fund for NIST, to be
offset by taking money from some unspecified federal account. The choice of moving money from EERE by House Republicans is
deliberate. Its programs are a perennial target for opponents of the administrations climate and energy policies. The shift would
potentially drain the EERE program: Its current budget includes $81 million for the type of facilities represented by the IMIs. (The
White Houses 2015 budget for the program asks for $190 million.) The shift in funds also allows Republicans to keep their pledge to
fund new activities only by tapping programs deemed a lower priority. The NMI [Network for Manufacturing Innovation] will not
increase spending, asserted Representative Lamar Smith (RTX), chair of the House science committee with oversight of both
agencies, during the 15 September House debate on Reeds bill. That requirement was a hard pill for House Democrats to swallow.
The shifting of funds was the price that had to be paid for winning GOP support, explains Ken Scudder, Hondas communications
director. Fortunately, the offset is spread out over 9 years, and the secretary of energy would have the discretion to decide how
much to transfer. The secretary is unlikely to act in a way that would decimate the departments programs. The provisions in the
bill on where the money would come from could create a problem down the line, warned Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson (D
TX), the science panels ranking Democrat. In general, appropriators view such language as an infringement on their ability to
allocate federal dollars. In the floor debate, Johnson called it an unnecessary obstacle that could make it difficult to stand up and
sustain this program. In the end, however, she and her fellow Democrats decided that the bill was too good an opportunity to pass
up. I strongly support this legislation, and I urge all of my colleagues to do the same, Johnson declared. Minutes later, on a voice

Three days after the House acted, participants in the four regional centers
already operating came to Washington to tout their accomplishments and build
momentum for NNMI and RAMI. In welcoming them to the Capitol Hill event, Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker
described the bipartisan legislation as an essential piece of the
administrations plans for advanced manufacturing. These institutes present a clear
reminder that making this bill the law of the land would spur more innovation,
continue the comeback of American manufacturers, and send an unmistakable
message to our competitors around the worldthat America is open for business ,
Pritzker told attendees. That is why [passing] the RAMI Act is so critical.
vote, they did.

Thats key to sustain growth and sustain primacy- prevents

massive great power crises and regional nuclear wars
Khalilzad 11 (Zalmay, the United States ambassador to Afghanistan, Iraq, and the United Nations during
the presidency of George W. Bush and the director of policy planning at the Defense Department from 1990 to
1992, The Economy and National Security , 2/8/11, http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/259024/economy-andnational-security-zalmay-khalilzad)

economic and fiscal trends pose the most severe long-term threat to the U nited
States position as global leader. While the United States suffers from fiscal imbalances and low
economic growth, the economies of rival powers are developing rapidly . The
continuation of these two trends could lead to a shift from American primacy toward
a multi-polar global system, leading in turn to increased geopolitical rivalry and even war among
the great powers. The current recession is the result of a deep financial crisis, not a mere fluctuation in the
business cycle. Recovery is likely to be protracted. The crisis was preceded by the buildup over
two decades of enormous amounts of debt throughout the U.S. economy ultimately
Today,

totaling almost 350 percent of GDP and the development of credit-fueled asset bubbles, particularly in the

housing sector. When the bubbles burst, huge amounts of wealth were destroyed, and unemployment rose to over
10 percent. The decline of tax revenues and massive countercyclical spending put the U.S. government on an
unsustainable fiscal path. Publicly held national debt rose from 38 to over 60 percent of GDP in three years.

Without faster economic growth and actions to reduce deficits, publicly held national debt is
projected to reach dangerous proportions . If interest rates were to rise significantly, annual interest
payments which already are larger than the defense budget would crowd out other spending or require

if unanticipated events
trigger what economists call a sudden stop in credit markets for U.S. debt, the
United States would be unable to roll over its outstanding obligations, precipitating
a sovereign-debt crisis that would almost certainly compel a radical retrenchment of
the United States internationally. Such scenarios would reshape the international
order. It was the economic devastation of Britain and France during World War II, as well as the rise of other
substantial tax increases that would undercut economic growth. Even worse,

powers, that led both countries to relinquish their empires. In the late 1960s, British leaders concluded that they

Soviet economic weakness, which

crystallized under Gorbachev, contributed to their decisions to withdraw from
Afghanistan, abandon Communist regimes in Eastern Europe, and allow the Soviet Union to fragment. If the
U.S. debt problem goes critical, the United States would be compelled to retrench,
reducing its military spending and shedding international commitments. We face this
domestic challenge while other major powers are experiencing rapid economic growth . Even
lacked the economic capacity to maintain a presence east of Suez.

though countries such as China, India, and Brazil have profound political, social, demographic, and economic

this could alter the global

distribution of power. These trends could in the long term produce a multi-polar
world. If U.S. policymakers fail to act and other powers continue to grow, it is not a
question of whether but when a new international order will emerge . The closing of
the gap between the United States and its rivals could intensify
geopolitical competition among major powers, increase incentives for local powers to play
major powers against one another, and undercut our will to preclude or respond to
international crises because of the higher risk of escalation. The stakes are high. In modern
history, the longest period of peace among the great powers has been the era of U.S.
leadership. By contrast, multi-polar systems have been unstable, with their competitive
dynamics resulting in frequent crises and major wars among the great powers.
Failures of multi-polar international systems produced both world wars. American retrenchment could have
devastating consequences. Without an American security blanket, regional powers could
rearm in an attempt to balance against emerging threats . Under this scenario, there would be
a heightened possibility of arms races, miscalculation, or other crises spiraling into
all-out conflict. Alternatively, in seeking to accommodate the stronger powers, weaker powers may
shift their geopolitical posture away from the United States . Either way, hostile states
would be emboldened to make aggressive moves in their regions. As rival
powers rise, Asia in particular is likely to emerge as a zone of great-power competition .
problems, their economies are growing faster than ours, and

Beijings economic rise has enabled a dramatic military buildup focused on acquisitions of naval, cruise, and
ballistic missiles, long-range stealth aircraft, and anti-satellite capabilities. Chinas strategic modernization is aimed,
ultimately, at denying the United States access to the seas around China. Even as cooperative economic ties in the

Chinas expansive territorial claims and provocative statements and actions

have roiled its relations with South Korea, Japan,
India, and Southeast Asian states. Still, the United States is the most significant
barrier facing Chinese hegemony and aggression. Given the risks, the United States
must focus on restoring its economic and fiscal condition while checking and
region have grown,

following crises in Korea and incidents at sea

managing the rise of potential adversarial regional powers such as China. While we face significant challenges, the
U.S. economy still accounts for over 20 percent of the worlds GDP. American institutions particularly those
providing enforceable rule of law set it apart from all the rising powers. Social cohesion underwrites political

stability. U.S. demographic trends are healthier than those of any other developed country. A culture of innovation,
excellent institutions of higher education, and a vital sector of small and medium-sized enterprises propel the U.S.
economy in ways difficult to quantify. Historically, Americans have responded pragmatically, and sometimes
through trial and error, to work our way through the kind of crisis that we face today.

2
TPP will pass now
Shaffer 4/21 [Shaffer, Leslie. "Ignore the Campaign Rhetoric: This Is Why TPP
Will Pass." CNBC. CNBC LLC, 21 Apr. 2016. Web. 22 Apr. 2016.
<http://www.cnbc.com/2016/04/21/john-negroponte-trans-pacific-partnership-dealwill-pass-despite-campaign-rhetoric.html>.] VM
U.S. presidential and congressional candidates may be falling over themselves to disavow the freshly negotiated
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), but the trade deal isn't dead, John Negroponte, a storied former U.S. diplomat
told the Credit Suisse Megatrends conference in Singapore Thursday. The TPP is a trade and investment agreement
among Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the U.S. and
Vietnam. The accord includes several policies that would make trade and investment run more smoothly between
Pacific countries key among them is lowering tariffs. "Trade is a politically tragic issue in our country and it has to
do with globalization and this sort of apprehension in the minds of people that somehow jobs are being lost as a
result of globalization. That is not a new preoccupation," Negroponte, who was ambassador to Mexico
from 1989-1993 and was involved in the negotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), said.
That deal was also a political hot potato, with then candidate Ross Perot famously claiming it would result in a
"giant sucking sound" as U.S. jobs were sent to Mexico. But Negroponte, who served multiple administrations over

Despite the
opposition, Negroponte still expects the deal to be ratified. "We have a window in the lame
duck after our elections and before the new congress takes office for getting the TPP ratified. I think we have
his more than 40-year career as a diplomat, said the rhetoric was more pronounced this time around.

a good chance of getting it done even though there's been a lot of political verbiage surrounding the issues," he

other trade
agreements that have been negotiated by American administrations, despite the controversy that's
swirled around them, have ultimately been approved ," he noted, adding that this has been the
case for the past nine administrations . He also said the candidate he views as the most likely
said. That period runs from early November through January 20. "Don't forget all these

Republican nominee, Donald Trump, doesn't appear particularly opposed to free trade deals, per se. Indeed, Trump's
free use of Chinese manufacturing for his branded products has become a frequent topic of social media scorn. "Mr.
Trump has made it very clear he doesn't think much of any of the free trade agreements we've reached. He seems
to be posing the question more in terms of how he thinks he's a better negotiator than anybody who might have
preceded him in government. And that he can negotiate much better deals," Negroponte said. "Whether that
reflects any understanding of what it's like to be government negotiator I have no idea."

REPUBLICANS REALLY HATE THE PLAN- THEY WANT TO BUILD A

WALL AND NOT ALLOW IMMIGRANTS IN WILLY-NILLY

TRUMP 15 [Trump, Donald J., buffoon running for president who wants to
blow up our country, "Immigration Reform." Donald J. Trump for President. Donald J.
Trump for President, Inc., 2015. Web. 26 Apr. 2016.
<https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/immigration-reform>.] VM
When politicians talk about immigration reform they mean: amnesty, cheap labor and open borders. The Schumer-Rubio immigration bill was nothing
more than a giveaway to the corporate patrons who run both parties. Real immigration reform puts the needs of working people first not wealthy
globetrotting donors. We are the only country in the world whose immigration system puts the needs of other nations ahead of our own. That must

A nation without borders is not a nation. There

must be a wall across the southern border. 2. A nation without laws is not a nation. Laws passed in accordance with our Constitutional
system of government must be enforced. 3. A nation that does not serve its own citizens is not a nation. Any immigration plan must
improve jobs, wages and security for all Americans. Make Mexico Pay For The Wall For many years, Mexicos leaders have been
change. Here are the three core principles of real immigration reform: 1.

taking advantage of the United States by using illegal immigration to export the crime and poverty in their own country (as well as in other Latin American
countries). They have even published pamphlets on how to illegally immigrate to the United States. The costs for the United States have been
extraordinary: U.S. taxpayers have been asked to pick up hundreds of billions in healthcare costs, housing costs, education costs, welfare costs, etc.
Indeed, the annual cost of free tax credits alone paid to illegal immigrants quadrupled to $4.2 billion in 2011. The effects on jobseekers have also been
disastrous, and black Americans have been particularly harmed. The impact in terms of crime has been tragic. In recent weeks, the headlines have been
covered with cases of criminals who crossed our border illegally only to go on to commit horrific crimes against Americans. Most recently, an illegal
immigrant from Mexico, with a long arrest record, is charged with breaking into a 64 year-old womans home, crushing her skull and eye sockets with a
hammer, raping her, and murdering her. The Police Chief in Santa Maria says the blood trail leads straight to Washington. In 2011, the Government

Accountability Office found that there were a shocking 3 million arrests attached to the incarcerated alien population, including tens of thousands of
violent beatings, rapes and murders. Meanwhile, Mexico continues to make billions on not only our bad trade deals but also relies heavily on the billions of
dollars in remittances sent from illegal immigrants in the United States back to Mexico ($22 billion in 2013 alone). In short, the Mexican government has
taken the United States to the cleaners. They are responsible for this problem, and they must help pay to clean it up. The cost of building a permanent
border wall pales mightily in comparison to what American taxpayers spend every single year on dealing with the fallout of illegal immigration on their
communities, schools and unemployment offices. Mexico must pay for the wall and, until they do, the United States will, among other things: impound all
remittance payments derived from illegal wages; increase fees on all temporary visas issued to Mexican CEOs and diplomats (and if necessary cancel
them); increase fees on all border crossing cards of which we issue about 1 million to Mexican nationals each year (a major source of visa overstays);
increase fees on all NAFTA worker visas from Mexico (another major source of overstays); and increase fees at ports of entry to the United States from
Mexico [Tariffs and foreign aid cuts are also options]. We will not be taken advantage of anymore. Defend The Laws And Constitution Of The United States
America will only be great as long as America remains a nation of laws that lives according to the Constitution. No one is above the law. The following

Triple the number of ICE

officers. As the President of the ICE Officers Council explained in Congressional testimony: Only approximately 5,000 officers and agents within ICE
steps will return to the American people the safety of their laws, which politicians have stolen from them:

perform the lions share of ICEs immigration missionCompare that to the Los Angeles Police Department at approximately 10,000 officers.
Approximately 5,000 officers in ICE cover 50 states, Puerto Rico and Guam, and are attempting to enforce immigration law against 11 million illegal aliens
already in the interior of the United States. Since 9-11, the U.S. Border Patrol has tripled in size, while ICEs immigration enforcement arm, Enforcement
and Removal Operations (ERO), has remained at relatively the same size. This will be funded by accepting the recommendation of the Inspector General

. Nationwide e-verify. This simple measure will protect

jobs for unemployed Americans. Mandatory return of all criminal aliens . The Obama Administration has released 76,000
aliens from its custody with criminal convictions since 2013 alone. All criminal aliens must be returned to their
home countries, a process which can be aided by canceling any visas to foreign countries which will not accept their own criminals, and
making it a separate and additional crime to commit an offense while here illegally. Detentionnot catch-and-release. Illegal
for Tax Administration and eliminating tax credit payments to illegal immigrants

aliens apprehended crossing the border must be detained until they are sent home, no more catch-and-release. Defund sanctuary cities. Cut-off federal
grants to any city which refuses to cooperate with federal law enforcement. Enhanced penalties for overstaying a visa. Millions of people come to the
United States on temporary visas but refuse to leave, without consequence. This is a threat to national security. Individuals who refuse to leave at the time
their visa expires should be subject to criminal penalties; this will also help give local jurisdictions the power to hold visa overstays until federal authorities
arrive. Completion of a visa tracking system required by law but blocked by lobbyists will be necessary as well. Cooperate with local gang task forces.
ICE officers should accompany local police departments conducting raids of violent street gangs like MS-13 and the 18th street gang, which have

apprehended and deported

terrorized the country. All illegal aliens in gangs should be

. Again, quoting Chris Crane: ICE Officers and
Agents are forced to apply the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) Directive, not to children in schools, but to adult inmates in jails. If an illegalalien inmate simply claims eligibility, ICE is forced to release the alien back into the community. This includes serious criminals who have committed
felonies, who have assaulted officers, and who prey on childrenICE officers should be required to place detainers on every illegal alien they encounter in
jails and prisons, since these aliens not only violated immigration laws, but then went on to engage in activities that led to their arrest by police; ICE
officers should be required to issue Notices to Appear to all illegal aliens with criminal convictions, DUI convictions, or a gang affiliation; ICE should be

End birthright citizenship

working with any state or local drug or gang task force that asks for such assistance.
. This remains the
biggest magnet for illegal immigration. By a 2:1 margin, voters say its the wrong policy, including Harry Reid who said no sane country would give
automatic citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants. Put American Workers First Decades of disastrous trade deals and immigration policies have
destroyed our middle class. Today, nearly 40% of black teenagers are unemployed. Nearly 30% of Hispanic teenagers are unemployed. For black
Americans without high school diplomas, the bottom has fallen out: more than 70% were employed in 1960, compared to less than 40% in 2000. Across
the economy, the percentage of adults in the labor force has collapsed to a level not experienced in generations. As CBS news wrote in a piece entitled
Americas incredible shrinking middle class: If the middle-class is the economic backbone of America, then the country is developing osteoporosis. The
influx of foreign workers holds down salaries, keeps unemployment high, and makes it difficult for poor and working class Americans including
immigrants themselves and their children to earn a middle class wage. Nearly half of all immigrants and their US-born children currently live in or near
poverty, including more than 60 percent of Hispanic immigrants. Every year, we voluntarily admit another 2 million new immigrants, guest workers,
refugees, and dependents, growing our existing all-time historic record population of 42 million immigrants. We need to control the admission of new lowearning workers in order to: help wages grow, get teenagers back to work, aid minorities rise into the middle class, help schools and communities falling
behind, and to ensure our immigrant members of the national family become part of the American dream. Additionally, we need to stop giving legal
immigrant visas to people bent on causing us harm. From the 9/11 hijackers, to the Boston Bombers, and many others, our immigration system is being
used to attack us. The President of the immigration caseworkers union declared in a statement on ISIS: We've become the visa clearinghouse for the
world. Here are some additional specific policy proposals for long-term reform: Increase prevailing wage for H-1Bs. We graduate two times more
Americans with STEM degrees each year than find STEM jobs, yet as much as two-thirds of entry-level hiring for IT jobs is accomplished through the H-1B
program. More than half of H-1B visas are issued for the program's lowest allowable wage level, and more than eighty percent for its bottom two. Raising
the prevailing wage paid to H-1Bs will force companies to give these coveted entry-level jobs to the existing domestic pool of unemployed native and
immigrant workers in the U.S., instead of flying in cheaper workers from overseas. This will improve the number of black, Hispanic and female workers in
Silicon Valley who have been passed over in favor of the H-1B program. Mark Zuckerbergs personal Senator, Marco Rubio, has a bill to triple H-1Bs that
would decimate women and minorities. Requirement to hire American workers first. Too many visas, like the H-1B, have no such requirement. In the year
2015, with 92 million Americans outside the workforce and incomes collapsing, we need companies to hire from the domestic pool of unemployed.
Petitions for workers should be mailed to the unemployment office, not USCIS. End welfare abuse. Applicants for entry to the United States should be

The
J-1 visa jobs program for foreign youth will be terminated and replaced with a resume bank for inner city
required to certify that they can pay for their own housing, healthcare and other needs before coming to the U.S. Jobs program for inner city youth.

youth provided to all corporate subscribers to the J-1 visa program. Refugee program for American children. Increase standards for the admission of
refugees and asylum-seekers to crack down on abuses. Use the monies saved on expensive refugee programs to help place American children without

Immigration
moderation. Before any new green cards are issued to foreign workers abroad, there will be a pause where employers
will have to hire from the domestic pool of unemployed immigrant and native workers. This will help reverse
parents in safer homes and communities, and to improve community safety in high crime neighborhoods in the United States.

women's plummeting workplace participation rate, grow wages, and allow record immigration levels to subside to more moderate historical averages.

That kills TPP which is key to global trade

Fergusson 13 Ian F. Fergusson, 4-15-13 (Specialist in International Trade and
Finance, CRS) //VM

A successfully concluded TPP agreement may shape the future course of

multilateral trade liberalization. After 10 years of negotiations, the Doha Round of multilateral trade
negotiations is at an impasse, and WTO members are developing new approaches to address global trade

TPP may offer an opportunity for a group of countries dedicated to

concluding a comprehensive, high-standards FTA to break new ground on issues
thus far not negotiated at the multilateral level . Past FTAs, such as NAFTA, incorporated new
issues.147

trade policy ideas, such as dispute settlement and intellectual property rights, that were concurrently being
negotiated in the Uruguay Round. NAFTA was approved first, and the approval of NAFTA among Canada, Mexico and

the approval of a
comprehensive, high-standard TPP agreement could signal to recalcitrant members
of the WTO that trade liberalization can proceed without them and might spur
action at the multilateral level.
the United States helped push the Uruguay Round to conclusion. Today,

Trade solves extinction

Miriam Sapiro 14, Visiting Fellow in the Global Economy and Development
program at Brookings, former Deputy US Trade Representative, former Director of
European Affairs at the National Security Council, Why Trade Matters, September
2014, http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2014/09/why
%20trade%20matters/trade%20global%20views_final.pdf
This policy brief explores the economic rationale and strategic imperative of an ambitious domestic and global trade agenda from the perspective of the
United States. International trade is often viewed through the relatively narrow prism of trade-offs that might be made among domestic sectors or
between trading partners, but it is important to consider also the impact that increased trade has on global growth, development and security.

With

implications of the Asia-Pacific and European trade

negotiations underway, including for countries that are not participating but aspire to join. It outlines some of the challenges that stand
that context in mind, this paper assesses the

in the way of completion and ways in which they can be addressed. It examines whether the focus on mega-regional trade agreements comes at the
expense of broader liberalization or acts as a catalyst to develop higher standards than might otherwise be possible. It concludes with policy
recommendations for action by governments, legislators and stakeholders to address concerns that have been raised and create greater domestic

dire developments
are threatening the security interests of the United States and its partners in the Middle East, Asia, Africa and Europe. In the
Middle East, significant areas of Iraq have been overrun by a toxic offshoot of Al-Qaeda, civil war in Syria
rages with no end in sight, and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process is in tatters. Nuclear
negotiations with Iran have run into trouble, while Libya and Egypt face continuing instability and domestic
challenges. In Asia, historic rivalries and disputes over territory have heightened tensions across the region,
most acutely by Chinas aggressive moves in the South China Sea towards Vietnam, Japan and the Philippines.
Nuclear-armed North Korea remains isolated, reckless and unpredictable. In Africa, countries are struggling
with rising terrorism, violence and corruption. In Europe, Russia continues to foment instability and destruction in eastern
Ukraine. And within the European Union, lagging economic recovery and the surge in support for extremist parties have left people fearful of
support. It is fair to ask whether we should be concerned about the future of international trade policy when

increasing violence against immigrants and minority groups and skeptical of further integration. It is tempting to focus solely on these pressing problems
and defer less urgent issuessuch as forging new disciplines for international tradeto another day, especially when such issues pose challenges of their
own. But that would be a mistake. A key motivation in building greater domestic and international consensus for

advancing trade

liberalization now is precisely the role that greater economic integration can play in opening up new avenues of opportunity for promoting
development and increasing economic prosperity. Such initiatives can help stabilize key regions and strengthen
the security of the United States and its partners. The last century provides a powerful example of how expanding trade
relations can help reduce global tensions and raise living standards. Following World War II, building
stronger economic cooperation was a centerpiece of allied efforts to erase battle scars and embrace former enemies. In defeat, the economies of
Germany, Italy and Japan faced ruin and people were on the verge of starvation. The United States led efforts to rebuild Europe and to repair Japans

A key element of the Marshall Plan, which established the foundation for unprecedented growth and the level of European
integration that exists today, was to revive trade by reducing tariffs.1 Russia, and the eastern part of Europe that it controlled, refused to
economy.

participate or receive such assistance. Decades later, as the Cold War ended, the United States and Western Europe sought to make up for lost time by
providing significant technical and financial assistance to help integrate central and eastern European countries with the rest of Europe and the global
economy. There have been subsequent calls for a Marshall Plan for other parts of the world,2 although the confluence of dedicated resources,
coordinated support and existing capacity has been difficult to replicate. Nonetheless, important lessons have been learned about the valuable role

economic development can play in defusing tensions, and how opening markets can hasten growth. There is

again a growing recognition that economic security and national security are two sides of the same coin. General Carter Ham, who stepped down as head
of U.S. Africa Command last year, observed the close connection between increasing prosperity and bolstering stability. During his time in Africa he had
seen that security and stability in many ways depends a lot more on economic growth and opportunity than it does on military strength.3 Where people
have opportunities for themselves and their children, he found, the result was better governance, increased respect for human rights and lower levels of
conflict. During his confirmation hearing last year, Secretary John Kerry stressed the link between economic and national security in the context of the
competitiveness of the United States but the point also has broader application. Our nation cannot be strong abroad, he argued, if it is not strong at home,
including by putting its own fiscal house in order. He assertedrightly sothat more than ever foreign policy is economic policy, particularly in light of

Every day, he said, that goes by where America is uncertain

about engaging in that arena, or unwilling to put our best foot forward and win, unwilling to demonstrate our
resolve to lead, is a day in which we weaken our nation itself.4 Strengthening Americas economic
security by cementing its economic alliances is not simply an option, but an imperative. A strong
increasing competition for global resources and markets.

nation needs a strong economy that can generate growth, spur innovation and create jobs. This is true, of course, not only for the United States but also
for its key partners and the rest of the global trading system. Much as the United States led the way in forging strong military alliances after World War II
to discourage a resurgence of militant nationalism in Europe or Asia, now is the time to place equal emphasis on shoring up our collective economic
security. A

failure.

3
The 1AC is grounded in the vengeful politics of identity as
characterized by painthis necessitates their identitys
exclusion, as injury becomes its defining characteristic.
Basing politics on exclusion produces a vengeful politics that
reaps pain through validation and pain while paradoxically
recreating the social symptoms is criticizes.
However, identity is not constructed through individuals but
sociopolitical structuresvote negative to endorse a
paradigmatic shift from I am to I want this for us
Bhambra and Margree 2010 U WarwickANDVictoria MargreeSchool
of Humanities, U Brighton (Gurminder K, Victoria, Identity politics and the Need for
a Tomorrow, academia,
http://www.academia.edu/471824/Identity_Politics_and_the_Need_for_a_Tomorrow_)
2 The Reification of Identity We wish to turn now to a related problem within identity politicsthat can be best described as the
problem of the reification of politicised identities. Brown (1995) positions herself within thedebate about identity politics by seeking
to elaborate on the wounded character of politicised identitys desire (ibid: 55); thatis, the problem of wounded attachments

identity becomes over-invested in its own historical suffering and

perpetuates its injury through its refusal to give up its identity claim . Browns argument is
that where politicised identity is founded upon an experience of exclusion, for example, exclusion itself becomes
perversely valorised in the continuance of that identity . In such cases, group activity
operates to maintain and reproduce the identity created by injury (exclusion) rather than and indeed, often in
opposition to resolving the injurious social relations that generated claims around
that identity in the first place. If things have to have a history in order to have af uture, then the problem becomes that of
whereby a claim to

how history is con-structed in order to make the future. To the extent that, for Brown, identity is associated primarily with (historical)
injury, the future for that identity is then already determined by the injury as both bound to the history that
produced it and as a reproach to the present which embodies that history (ibid 1995: 73). Browns sug-gestion that as it is not
possible to undo the past, the focus back- wards entraps the identity in reactionary practices, is, we believe,too stark and we will

Politicised identity, Brown maintains, emerges and obtains its unifying

coherence through the politicisation of exclusion from an ostensible universal, as a protest against
pursue this later in the article.

exclusion (ibid: 65). Its continuing existence requires both a belief in the legitimacy of the universal ideal (for example, ideals of
opportunity, and re- ward in proportion to effort) and enduring exclusion from those ideals. Brown draws upon Nietzsche in arguing

such identi-ties, produced in reaction to conditions of disempowerment andinequality, then become invested
in their own impotence through practices of , for example, reproach, complaint, and revenge. These
that

are reactions in the Nietzschean sense since they are substitutes for actions or can be seen as negative forms of action. Rather

suf-fering is instead ameliorated (to some extent) through

the estab-lishment of suffering as the measure of social virtue (ibid 1995:70), and is
compensated for by the vengeful pleasures of recrimi-nation . Such practices, she argues, stand in
than acting to remove the cause(s) of suffering, that

sharp distinction to in fact, provide obstacles to practices that would seek to dispel the conditions of exclusion. Brown casts the
dilemma discussed above in terms of a choicebetween past and future, and adapting Nietzsche, exhorts theadoption of a (collective)
will that would become the redeemer of history (ibid: 72) through its focus on the possibilities of creat-ing different futures. As
Brown reads Nietzsche, the one thingthat the will cannot exert its power over is the past, the it was.Confronted with its impotence
with respect to the events of thepast, the will is threatened with becoming simply an angry spec-tator mired in bitter recognition
of its own helplessness. The onehope for the will is that it may, instead, achieve a kind of mastery over that past such that, although
what has happened cannotbe altered, the past can be denied the power of continuing to de-termine the present and future. It is
only this focus on the future, Brown continues, and the capacity to make a future in the face of human frailties and injustices that
spares us from a rancorous decline into despair. Identity politics structured by ressentiment that is, by suffering caused by past
events can only break outof the cycle of slave morality by remaking the present againstthe terms of the past, a remaking that
requires a forgetting of that past. An act of liberation, of self-affirmation, this forgettingof the past requires an overcoming of
the past that offers iden-tity in relationship to suffering, in favour of a future in whichidentity is to be defined differently. In arguing
thus, Browns work becomes aligned with a posi-tion that sees the way forward for emancipatory politics as re-siding in a movement

away from a politics of memory (Kilby 2002: 203) that is committed to articulating past injustices andsuffering. While we agree
that investment in identities prem-ised upon suffering can function as an obstacle to alleviating the causes of that suffering, we
believe that Browns argument as outlined is problematic. First, following Kilby (2002), we share a concern about any turn to the
future that is figured as a complete abandonment of the past. This is because for those who have suffered oppression and exclusion,
the injunction to give up articulating a pain that is still felt may seem cruel and impossible to meet. We would argue instead that

the turn to the future that theorists such as Brown and Grosz callfor, to revitalise feminism and other emancipatory
politics, need not be conceived of as a brute rejection of the past. Indeed, Brown herself recognises
the problems involved here, stating that [since] erased histories and historical invisibility are themselves suchintegral elements of
the pain inscribed in most subjugated identities[then] the counsel of forgetting, at least in its unreconstructedNietzschean form,
seems inappropriate if not cruel (1995: 74). She implies, in fact, that the demand exerted by those in painmay be no more than the
demand to exorcise that pain throughrecognition: all that such pain may long for more than revenge is the chance to be heard
into a certain release, recognised intoself-overcoming, incited into possibilities for triumphing over, and hence, losing itself (1995:
74-75). Brown wishes to establish the political importance of remembering painful historical events but with a crucial caveat: that
the purpose of remembering pain is to enable its release . The challenge then, according to her,is to create a political culture in
which this project does not mutate into one of remembering pain for its own sake. Indeed, if Brown feels that this may be a pass
where we ought to part with Nietzsche (1995: 74), then Freud may be a more suit-able companion. Since his early work with
Breuer, Freuds writ-ings have suggested the (only apparent) paradox that remember-ing is often a condition of forgetting. The
hysterical patient, who is doomed to repeat in symptoms and compulsive actions a past she cannot adequately recall, is helped to
remember that trau-matic past in order then to move beyond it: she must remember inorder to forget and to forget in order to be
able to live in the present. 7 This model seems to us to be particularly helpful for thedilemma articulated by both Brown (1995) and
Kilby (2002),insisting as it does that forgetting (at least, loosening the holdof the past, in order to enable the future) cannot be
achieved without first remembering the traumatic past. Indeed, this wouldseem to be similar to the message of Beloved , whose
central motif of haunting (is the adult woman, Beloved, Sethes murderedchild returned in spectral form?) dramatises the
tendency of theunanalysed traumatic past to keep on returning, constraining, asit does so, the present to be like the past, and
thereby, disallow-ing the possibility of a future different from that past. As Sarah Ahmed argues in her response to Brown, in order

we must first bring them

into the realm of political action (2004: 33). We would add that the task of analys-ing the traumatic past, and
to break the seal of the past, in order to move away from attach-ments that are hurtful,

thus opening up the possibility of political action, is unlikely to be achievable by individuals on their own, but that this, instead,
requires a community of participants dedicated to the serious epistemic work of rememberingand interpreting the objective social

The pain of historical injury is not simply an

individual psychological issue, but stems from objective social conditions which
perpetuate, for the most part, forms of injustice and inequality into the present. In sum, Brown presents too stark a
conditions that made up thatpast and continue in the present.

choice between past andfuture. In the example of Beloved with which we began thisarticle, Paul Ds acceptance of Sethes
experiences of slavery asdistinct from his own, enable them both to arrive at new under-standings of their experience. Such
understanding is a way of partially undoing the (effects of) the past and coming to terms with the locatedness of ones being in
the world (Mohanty 1995). As this example shows, opening up a future, and attending to theongoing effects of a traumatic past, are
only incorrectly under-stood as alternatives. A second set of problems with Browns critique of identity poli-tics emerge from what we
regard as her tendency to individualise social problems as problems that are the possession and theresponsibility of the wounded

the problems associated with identity politics can be overcome

through a shift in the character of political expression and politi-cal claims common to much
politicised identity (1995: 75). She defines this shift as one in which identity would be expressed in terms of
desire rather than of ontology by supplanting the lan-guage of I am with the language of I want this for us
group. Brown suggests that

(1995:75). Such a reconfiguration, she argues, would create an opportu-nity to rehabilitate the memory of desire within

It would fur-ther refocus attention on the future

possibilities present in the identity as opposed to the identity being foreclosed through its
attention to past-based grievances .
identificatory processesprior to [their] wounding (1995: 75).

4
TEXT: DO THE AFF BUT ONLY AFTER DECONSTRUCTING BORDER
PEDAGOGY
SOLVES THE AFF- CREATES BETTER SPACES TO ALLOW THE
MARGINALIZED LIKE (X) TO SPEAK AND BE UNSUBORDINATED
BY AUTHORITARIANISM.
Ortiz 12 [Ortiz, Michael. holds an advanced degree in sociology. He works on
equitable diversity initiatives for college institutions and writes about issues that
focus on consciousness raising and empowerment. "Taking Henry Giroux's
Borderless Pedagogy to Our Institutions of Higher Learning."Truthout. N.p., 04 Aug.
2012. Web. 26 Apr. 2016. <http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/10549-continuingtoward-girouxs-borderless-pedagogy>.] VM
"A gated or border pedagogy is one that establishes boundaries to protect the rich;
isolates citizens from each other; excludes those populations considered disposable;
and renders invisible young people, especially poor youth of color, along with others
marginalized by class and race ... The gated intellectual works hard to make
thinking an act of stupidity, turn lies into truths, build a moat around oppositional
ideas so they cannot be accessed and destroy those institutions and social
protections that serve the common good." Essentially, many of our neoliberal
apparatuses and institutions are designed to limit and distribute knowledge only on
specific terms and in specific ways. For example, the media may overwhelmingly
represent women in very docile or sexualized ways, thus severely limiting and
controlling the concept of gender in the minds of everyone observing those images.
Or schools may implement a plethora of standardized tests, implying that only
specific sets of knowledge must be developed in young minds so as to prepare them
for the social and systemic circumstances that will ensure their passive acceptance
of subordination, and even worse, control their concept and definition of everything
relevant in their lives (with regard to race, class, gender, identity, sense of self etc.).
In other words, all of these apparatuses increasingly discourage "independent
thought, critical agency and civic courage."

THEY CONTINUE
We must move away from accepting the structural and ideological constraints that
maintain current systems of domination. We must come to understand exactly how
the gated pedagogical process works to limit our knowledge about ourselves and
the world. We must make a transition toward a critical pedagogy that aims to
always examine the environment in which we are being educated. As Giroux
describes, "There is a need to develop what I call a project of democratization and
borderless pedagogy that moves across different sites - from schools to the
alternative media - as part of a broader attempt to construct a critical formative
culture in the United States that enables Americans to reclaim their voices, speak
out, exhibit moral outrage and create the social movements, tactics and public
spheres that will reverse the growing tide of authoritarianism in the United States."
In particular, institutions of higher education can better serve their students if they

were to philosophically and institutionally adopt the idea of borderless pedagogy.

Instead of developing college students as "highly trained" wage laborers in different
specific fields (and by making billions of dollars of profit in the process), why don't
colleges take the same amount of time and energy to develop college students who
are highly educated in critical thinking and borderless thought? At all top
administrative levels, colleges and universities need to actually make a
commitment to student well-being (with "well-being" being defined by wellinformed, conscious and analytic student thinkers themselves) and set the
precedent for all staff and faculty members as well. Faculty members should be
taught and shown just how race, class and gender are indeed playing out in their
classrooms even if they don't know it. Gated universities and gated intellectuals
may need to take a step back and realize that a large period of time might need to
be dedicated to deconstructing the pedagogy of their field (since many of their
disciplines were created and developed through the influence of all sorts of social
conditions). Faculty members themselves may want to critique dominant structures
and ideologies in their classrooms, thus setting an example for their students. And
lastly, if college administrations and faculty members are not willing to
acknowledge their blatant failure in helping their students become self-thinking,
conscious agents of action who have the capacity to realize their own borderless
potential, then they must continue to be challenged on all fronts (through scholarly
critique by professors, through vocal displeasure by all community members and by
the continued attempt to raise the consciousness of everyone involved even without
administrative support).

CASE