2AC---StMarksRound2---

StFrancisNS
Advantage
 A2: Victim

Reps don’t come first and don’t cause violence

Rodwell, Manchester Metropolitan University PhD candidate, 2005
(Jonathan, “Trendy But Empty: A Response to Richard Jackson”,
http://www.49thparallel.bham.ac.uk/back/issue15/rodwell1.htm)
In this response I wish to argue that the Post-Structural analysis put forward by Richard Jackson is inadequate when trying to understand
American Politics and Foreign Policy. The key point is that this is an issue of methodology and theory. I do not wish to argue that language is not
important, in the current political scene (or indeed any political era) that would be unrealistic. One cannot help but be convinced that the
creation of identity, of defining ones self (or one nation, or societies self) in opposition to an ‘other’ does indeed take place. Masses of written
and aural evidence collated by Jackson clearly demonstrates that there is a discursive pattern surrounding post 9/11 U.S. politics and society. [i]
Moreover as expressed at the start of this paper it is a political pattern and logic that this language is useful for politicians, especially when
able to marginalise other perspectives. Nothing illustrates this clearer than the fact George W. Bush won re-election, for whatever the reasons
he did win, it is undeniable that at the very least the war in Iraq, though arguable far from a success, at the absolute minimum did not damage
his campaign. Additionally it is surely not stretching credibility to argue Bush performance and rhetoric during the immediate aftermath of the
9/11 attacks also strengthened his position. However, having said that, the
problem is Jackson’s own theoretical underpinning, his
own justification for the importance of language. If he was merely proposing that the understanding of
language as one of many causal factors is important that would be fine. But he is not. The
epistemological and theoretical framework of his argument means the ONLY thing we should look at
is language and this is the problem.[ii] Rather than being a fairly simple, but nonetheless valid, argument, because of the
theoretical justification it actually becomes an almost nonsensical. My response is roughly laid out in four parts. Firstly I
will argue that such methodology, in isolation, is fundamentally reductionist with a theoretical underpinning
that does not conceal this simplicity. Secondly, that a strict use of post-structural discourse analysis
results in an epistemological cul-de-sac in which the writer cannot actually say anything. Moreover the
reader has no reason to accept anything that has been written. The result is at best an explanation that remains as
equally valid as any other possible interpretation and at worse a work that retains no critical force
whatsoever. Thirdly, possible arguments in response to this charge; that such approaches provide a more acceptable
explanation than others are, in effect, both a tacit acceptance of the poverty of force within the approach and of
the complete lack of understanding of the identifiable effects of the real world around us; thus
highlighting the contradictions within post-structural claims to be moving beyond traditional causality,
re-affirming that rather than pursuing a post-structural approach we should continue to employ the
traditional methodologies within History, Politics and International Relations. Finally as a consequence of these
limitations I will argue that the post-structural call for ‘intertextuals’ must be practiced rather than merely preached and that an understanding
and utilisation
of all possible theoretical approaches must be maintained if academic writing is to remain
useful rather than self-contained and narrative. Ultimately I conclude that whilst undeniably of some value post-
structural approaches are at best a footnote in our understanding . The first major problem then is that
historiographically discourse analysis is so capacious as to be largely of little use. The process of inscription identity, of discourse development is
not given any political or historical context, it is argued that it just works, is simply a universal phenomenon. It is history that explains everything
and therefore actually explains nothing. To
be specific if the U.S. and every other nation is continually reproducing
identities through ‘othering’ it is a constant and universal phenomenon that fails to help us
understand at all why one result of the othering turned out one way and differently at another time.
For example, how could one explain how the process resulted in the 2003 invasion of Iraq but didn’t
produce a similar invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 when that country (and by the logic of the Regan administrations
discourse) the West was threatened by the ‘Evil Empire’. By the logical of discourse analysis in both cases
these policies were the result of politicians being able to discipline and control the political agenda to
produce the outcomes. So why were the outcomes not the same? To reiterate the point how do we explain that the
language of the War on Terror actually managed to result in the eventual Afghan invasion in 2002? Surely it is impossible to explain
how George W. Bush was able to convince his people (and incidentally the U.N and Nato) to support a war in
Afghanistan without referring to a simple fact outside of the discourse; the fact that a known terrorist
in Afghanistan actually admitted to the murder of thousands of people on the 11h of Sepetember 2001. The
point is that if the discursive ‘othering’ of an ‘alien’ people or group is what really gave the U.S. the
opportunity to persue the war in Afghanistan one must surly wonder why Afghanistan. Why not North
Korea? Or Scotland? If the discourse is so powerfully useful in it’s own right why could it not have
happened anywhere at any time and more often? Why could the British government not have been
able to justify an armed invasion and regime change in Northern Ireland throughout the terrorist
violence of the 1980’s? Surely they could have just employed the same discursive trickery as George W. Bush? Jackson is absolutely
right when he points out that the actuall threat posed by Afghanistan or Iraq today may have been thoroughly misguided and conflated and
that there must be more to explain why those wars were enacted at that time. Unfortunately that explanation cannot simply come from the
result of inscripting identity and discourse. On top of this there is the clear problem that the consequences of the discursive othering are not
necessarily what Jackson would seem to identify. This is a problem consistent through David Campbell’s original work on which Jackson’s
approach is based[iii]. David Campbell
argued for a linguistic process that ‘always results in an other being
marginalized’ or has the potential for ‘demonisation’[iv]. At the same time Jackson, building upon this, maintains without
qualification that the systematic and institutionalised abuse of Iraqi prisoners first exposed in April 2004 “is a direct consequence of the
language used by senior administration officials: conceiving of terrorist suspects as ‘evil’, ‘inhuman’ and ‘faceless enemies of freedom creates
an atmosphere where abuses become normalised and tolerated”[v]. The only problem is that the process of differentiation does not actually
necessarily produce dislike or antagonism. In the 1940’s and 50’s even subjected to the language of the ‘Red Scare’ it’s obvious not all
Americans came to see the Soviets as an ‘other’ of their nightmares. And in Iraq the abuses of Iraqi prisoners are isolated cases, it is not the
case that the U.S. militarily summarily abuses prisoners as a result of language. Surely the massive protest against the war, even in the U.S.
itself, is also a self evident example that the language of ‘evil’ and ‘inhumanity’ does not necessarily produce an outcome that marginalises or
demonises an ‘other’. Indeed one of the points of discourse is that we are continually differentiating ourselves
from all others around us without this necessarily leading us to hate fear or abuse anyone.[vi]
Consequently, the clear fear of the Soviet Union during the height of the Cold War, and the abuses at Abu Ghirab are unusual cases. To
understand what is going on we must ask how far can the process of inscripting identity really go
towards explaining them? As a result at best all discourse analysis provides us with is a set of
universals and a heuristic model.

U visa eligibility covers so many disparate crimes that ‘victim’ is the

broadest possible term ever & doesn’t link to their turn.
Hipolito, 2010 (Joey – Assistant General Counsel for the United Food & Commercial
Workers International Union, “Illegal Aliens or Deserving Victims: The Ambivalent
Implementation of the U Visa Program”, Asian American Law Journal 17.1, shae)
1. An Absent Preexisting Prototypical Victim Unlike with the T visa, legislators did not debate the U visa
program based on a clear preexisting stereotype. In fact, Congress did not debate the U visa legislation on the
floor, but merely adopted it as part of the VTVPA, resulting in sparse legislative history. 18 4 The U visa's stated purpose
is broad, making it difficult to discern a prototypical victim . As provided in the statute, the U visa
is intended to "encourage law enforcement officials to better serve immigrant crime victims and to prosecute crimes committed
against aliens" by strengthening the ability of law enforcement to investigate and prosecute cases of the enumerated crimes, "while
offering protection to victims of such offenses in keeping with the humanitarian interests of the United States.""' This purpose serves
both humanitarian and investigative purpose and does not identify a target population.186 No
clear iconic figure emerges
from the language of the statute itself. Although the T visa statute covered both labor and sex trafficking, the
regulations and implementation narrowed the visa primarily to sex trafficking.'"' The U visa's language appears to straddle both the
VTVPA's concerns about trafficking and VAWA's anxieties about domestic abuse, resulting in an expansive list of crimes that lack a
focused target. In the realm of trafficking, the U visa covers: prostitution, sexual exploitation, being held hostage, peonage,
involuntary servitude, slave trade, kidnapping, abduction, unlawful criminal restraint, and false imprisonment.189 However, the
statute also covers a number of domestic abuse crimes: rape, torture, incest, domestic violence, sexual assault, abusive sexual
contact, and female genital mutilation.' 90 Ultimately, advocates for both domestic abuse and trafficking victims claim the U visa as
a remedy precisely because it embraces a wide range of crimes that other visa programs do not. The
U visa embraces even
additional crimes beyond the areas of trafficking and domestic abuse, making it further difficult
to determine a specific victim. Victims of felonious assault may also seek U visas,191 as may
family members of victims of murder or manslaughter.' 92 In addition, the U visa covers attempts
to commit crimes such as blackmail, extortion, witness tampering, obstruction of justice,
perjury, or attempt, conspiracy, or solicitation to commit any of the aforementioned crimes.19'
Most importantly, the statute is open-ended, permitting victims of "any similar activity" to also
apply for the U visa.194 Ultimately, the U visa is relevant to a wide swath of the undocumented immigrant population
because they are oftentimes victims of the enumerated crimes against which the program protects. This broad applicability stands in
contrast not just to the T visa, but also to the other visa programs that target very specific populations.
Off
 2AC---T Tassoff

2---Counter-interpretation---we can reduce restrictions on processes

that grant legal permanent residency.
Deardoff 1 – US Census Bureau staff (Kevin, “Evaluating Components of International
Migration: Estimates of the Foreign-Born Population by Migrant Status in 2000”
https://census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/working-papers/2001/demo/POP-
twps0058.pdf

The Immigration and Nationality Act defines legal immigration as the process by which
a non-citizen of the United States is granted legal permanent residence . A non-citizen with legal
permanent residence status may remain in the country, be employed, travel freely, and seek naturalization to become a U.S. citizen.
Legal immigrants, as categorized by the Census Bureau, include new arrivals to the United States, people
adjusting their migrant status to legal permanent resident (including Special Agricultural Workers (SAWs)
and pre-1982 entrants (LAWs)), asylees, and refugees (Perry et al., 2001).

4---Tassoff is unpredictable---there’s really about 5 definitions of legal

immigration
Tasoff 16 - Certified Specialist in Immigration Law (State Bar of California Board of Legal
Specialization) since 1985 and has exclusively practiced immigration law for over 40 years. He was a
past chair of the S. Calif. Chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) and is a
partner in the Law Firm of Tasoff and Tasoff ("Immigration Law After
Trump" https://www.tasoff.com/Immigration-Information/Immigration-Law-After-Trump.pdf

A Short Overview of Immigration Law. The Immigration and Nationality Act1 (the “Act”) has four primary
goals: family unification, allowing skilled individuals to work in the U.S. while protecting the jobs of American workers,
refugee/asylee relief and diversity2 . With apparent simplicity, it divides all of humanity into U.S. citizens and noncitizens. Under
the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction
thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”3 Congress has additionally provided citizenship for
certain children of U.S. citizens born abroad. The Act then subdivides the class of noncitizens into immigrants and nonimmigrants.
Immigrants are people who are allowed to live and work in the United States permanently although there are a myriad of ways to
lose that status. Referred to in the Act as lawful permanent residents (LPR’s) they receive a noncitizen registration card also known
Nonimmigrants Nonimmigrants are individuals who are allowed to legally
as a “green card”4 .
enter the United States for a temporary period of time to pursue specific goals or activities. Nonimmigrant categories
include visitors for pleasure or business, professional workers, treaty investors, intracompany transferees and crime victims (and
family members) who have suffered substantial mental or physical injury who are willing to assist law enforcement (ex.: domestic
violence victims). Please refer to the accompanying chart for a list of common visas – including several that allow for employment
authorization. Trump has nominated Senator Sessions to be Attorney General. He has long been a legal immigration restrictionist
and there is a possibility that several categories of nonimmigrant working visas will be reduced or eliminated. In particular, the H-1B
visa which is utilized by many high tech professionals to work in the U.S. Deferred Action and Temporary Protected Status In the last
few years a third category of noncitizens has become prominent: those legally allowed to temporarily stay in the United States for
humanitarian reasons. This category includes “temporary protected status ” (TPS) and “deferred
action for childhood arrivals” (DACA) status. Deferred action status – a form of prosecutorial discretion – has long been part of
immigration law and has been used by Presidents from Eisenhower to Obama for various groups of noncitizens. Programs have
included people who escaped from Cuba and El Salvadorians and Guatemalans in the U.S. after Hurricane Mitch hit those countries
in 1998. However the number of DACA recipients – also known as “dreamers” - is now over 750,000. By definition, these are
noncitizens that were brought to the U.S. before they turned 16 years old and have lived here since June 15, 2010 and have no
serious criminal record. Recipients are given employment authorization documents and the status can be renewed every 2 years.
Since this program was created by an Executive Order from President Obama it can just as easily be canceled by one from President
Trump. Quantitative and Qualitative Restrictions on Legal Immigration There are two barriers stopping the
masses from legally immigrating to the U.S. First there are quantitative restrictions, quotas, which limit the number of people who
can come to the U.S. in any one cat some grounds, most require a showing of extreme hardship to a close U.S. citizen or LPR relative.
The various categories of noncitizens that Congress has given a path to LPR status can be basically broken down into five groups:
family based immigration, employment based immigration, refugees/asylees, investors and successful applicants to a “diversity”
lottery selection process. See the accompanying Chart for more details regarding the family and employment based categories. There
is a multitude of ways that a noncitizen, including a LPR, can become subject to removal or barred from reentering the U.S. after a
trip abroad. The most common reason is a criminal conviction. However, some of the grounds of removal found in section 237 of the
Act apply to activities that are not so serious, especially for crimes involving controlled substances (including marijuana), firearms
and domestic violence. For instance, the violation of a civil protective order is considered a removable offense. Even the act of
remaining abroad for over one year continuously may result in “abandonment” of LPR status and confiscation of a noncitizen’s green
card. For LPR’s, the discovery of a removable offense might occur when the person is arrested and booked for any offense and a
fingerprint check reveals a criminal record. Others, after traveling abroad without incident for many years, find out upon being
routinely inspected at an airport that CBP official have access to new data bases. And others are caught upon applying for

naturalization or renewal of their green cards which like passports expire every 10 years. The 3 and 10 Year Bars In
addition to the quantitative and qualitative limitations stated in the Act,
regulatory policy and procedures can also create obstacles in the path of legalization. A classic example is the dilemma discovered by
undocumented immigrants who marry U.S. citizens. Many of these individuals came to the U.S. as children. Not allowed to adjust
their status in the U.S. because of their illegal entry, they must apply abroad at an American Consulate for an immigrant visa7 .
However, upon their departure they immediately become subject to the 3 or 10 year bar of section 212(a)(9)(B) of the Act8 .
Although eligible for a waiver, prior to the Obama administration’s policy to allow applicants to receive their waivers before they
attend their interviews abroad, many applicants had to spend weeks to months waiting for their waivers to be processed while living
abroad. Under Trump this burdensome procedure may be reinstated. Naturalization Thus, being a lawful permanent
resident is not all that permanent. Only one thing can halt the possibility of the loss of legal immigration status:
naturalization . Once a person has help LPR status for 5 years, 3 if married to U.S. citizen, he or she is eligible to apply. The
applicant must also show that during that period he or she has been a person of “good moral character”, and has spent at least half
the period physically in the U.S. The applicant must also pass citizenship and American history test and be able to speak and read
basic English although exceptions exist for the physical and mentally disabled and long term LPR’s who reach a certain age.
 2AC---Court CP

Perm: Do The Counterplan---it’s an example of how the plan could be

enacted because action by one branch of the USFG is action by the
USFG.
Words & Phrases 4 — Words and Phrases, 2004 (Cumulative Supplementary Pamphlet,
v. 16A, p. 42)

Action against the Postal Service, although an independent establishment of the

N.D.Ga. 1986.
executive branch of the federal government, is an action against the "Federal Government"
for purposes of rule that plaintiff in action against government has right to jury trial only where right is one of terms of government's
consent to be sued; declining to follow Algernon Blair Industrial Contractors, Inc. v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 552 F.Supp. 872
(M.D.Ala.). 39 U.S.C.A. 201; U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 7.--Griffin v. U.S. Postal Service, 635 F.Supp. 190.--Jury 12(1.2).

3--- Best data concludes no impact to heg

Benjamin H. Friedman et al 13, research fellow in defense and homeland security studies;
Brendan Rittenhouse Green, the Stanley Kaplan Postdoctoral Fellow in Political Science and
Leadership Studies at Williams College; Justin Logan, Director of Foreign Policy Studies at the
Cato Institute Fall 2013, “Correspondence: Debating American Engagement: The Future of U.S.
Grand Strategy,” International Security, Vol. 38, No. 2, p. 181-199
Brooks et al. argue that the specter of U.S. power eliminates some of the most baleful consequences of anarchy, producing a
more peaceful world. U.S. security guarantees deter aggressors, reassure allies, and dampen security dilemmas (p. 34). “By supplying
reassurance, deterrence, and active management,” Brooks et al. write, primacy “reduces security competition and does so in a way that slows the
diffusion of power away from the United States” (pp. 39–40). There are three reasons to reject this logic : security
competition is declining anyway; if competition increases, primacy will have difficulty stopping
it; and even if competition occurred, it would pose little threat to the United States.¶ an increasingly peaceful
world. An array of research , some of which Brooks et al. cite, indicates that factors other than U.S. power are

diminishing interstate war and security competition .2 These factors combine to make the costs of military aggression
very high, and its benefits low.3¶ A major reason for peace is that conquest has grown more costly. Nuclear weapons
make it nearly suicidal in some cases.4 Asia, the region where future great power competition is most likely, has a “geography
of peace”: its maritime and mountainous regions are formidable barriers to conflict.5¶ Conquest also yields lower economic
returns than in the past. Post-industrial economies that rely heavily on human capital and information are more difficult to exploit.6
Communications and transport technologies aid nationalism and other identity politics that make foreigners harder to manage. The lowering
of trade barriers limits the returns from their forcible opening.7¶ Although states are slow learners, they
increasingly appreciate these trends . That should not surprise structural realists. Through two world wars, the
international system "selected against" hyperaggressive states and demonstrated even to victors
the costs of major war. Others adapt to the changed calculus of military aggression through
socialization.8¶ managing revisionist states. Brooks et al. caution against betting on these positive trends. They worry that if states
behave the way offensive realism predicts, then security competition will be fierce even if its costs are high . Or, if
nonsecurity preferences such as prestige, status, or glory motivate states, even secure states may become aggressive (pp. 36-37).9¶ These
scenarios, however, are a bigger problem for primacy than for restraint . Offensive realist security
paranoia stems from states' uncertainty about intentions; such states see alliances as temporary expedients of last
resort, and U.S. military commitments are unlikely to comfort or deter them .10 Nonsecurity
preferences are, by definition, resistant to the security blandishments that the United States can offer
under primacy Brooks et al.'s revisionist actors are unlikely to find additional costs sufficient reason to hold back, or the threat of those costs to
be particularly credible.¶ The literature that Brooks et al. cite in arguing that the United States restrains allies actually suggests that
offensive realist and prestige-oriented states will be the most resistant to the restraining effects
of U.S. power. These studies suggest that it is most difficult for strong states to prevent conflict between weaker allies and their rivals when the
restraining state is defending nonvital interests; when potential adversaries and allies have other alignment options;11 when the stronger state struggles
to mobilize power domestically12; when the stronger state perceives reputational costs for non-involvement;13 and when allies have hawkish interests
and the stronger state has only moderately dovish interests.14 ¶ In other words, the
cases where it would be most important to
restrain U.S. allies are those in which Washington's efforts at restraint would be least effective.
Highly motivated actors, by definition, have strong hawkish interests. Primacy puts limits on U.S. dovishness, lest its commitments lack the credibility
to deter or reassure. Such credibility concerns create perceived reputational costs for restraining or not bailing out allies. The United States will be
defending secondary interests, which will create domestic obstacles to mobilizing power. U.S. allies have other alliance options, especially in Asia. In
short, if
states are insensitive to the factors incentivizing peace, then the United States' ability to
manage global security will be doubtful. Third-party security competition will likely ensue
anyway. ¶ costs for whom? Fortunately, foreign security competition poses little risk to the United States. Its wealth
and geography create natural security. Historically, the only threats to U.S. sovereignty, territorial integrity, safety, or power position have been
potential regional hegemons that could mobilize their resources to project political and military power into the Western Hemisphere. Nazi Germany
and the Soviet Union arguably posed such threats. None exist today.¶ Brooks
et al. argue that "China's rise puts the
possibility of its attaining regional hegemony on the table, at least in the medium to long term" (p. 38). That
possibility is remote , even assuming that China sustains its rapid wealth creation. Regional hegemony requires China
to develop the capacity to conquer Asia's other regional powers. India lies across the Himalayas and has
nuclear weapons. Japan is across a sea and has the wealth to quickly build up its military and develop nuclear
weapons. A disengaged United States would have ample warning and time to form alliances or regenerate
forces before China realizes such vast ambitions.
 2AC---Parole CP [1:20]

(B)---Rights aren’t secure, and the process takes too long.

Endelman and Mehta 09 – Endelman is the immigration counsel for BP America Inc.
handling all US immigration law for the BP Group of Companies throughout the world since
March 1995 until the present. Dr. Endelman is Board Certified in Immigration and Nationality
Law. He served as a senior editor of the national conference handbook published by the
American Immigration Lawyers Association for a decade. Mehta is a former Chairman of the
Board of Trustees of the American Immigration Law Foundation (2004-2006). He was also the
Secretary and member of the Executive Committee (2003-2007) and the Chair of the Committee
on Immigration and Nationality Law (2000-2003) of the New York City Bar. (Gary and Cyrus,
“The Path Less Taken: Is There An Alternative To Waiting For Comprehensive Immigration
Reform?” Immigration Daily, 2009, http://www.ilw.com/articles/2009,0225-
endelman.shtm#bio)b

USCIS does not have to define "immediate availability" strictly on the cut-off dates listed
in the Visa Bulletin. Rather, both State and CIS could post estimated "qualifying dates" on their
websites so that, precisely as now happens in a consular case, USCIS would now allow pre-filing of
adjustment applications so that applicants could begin to assemble the necessary
documentation and send in their I-485 packages so that USCIS could conduct necessary checks
and get the case ready for formal submission when the priority date is reached. Only at that
point would CIS formally request an immigrant visa number from the State Department . Not
until then would the adjustment of status be considered "filed". The beauty of this is that
Congress need not lift a finger; all that need be done is for USCIS to modify the definition of filing contained in 8 CFR Sections 103.2
(a)(7) and 245.2(a)(2). If Congress wanted to ratify what the USCIS had done, it could certainly do so after the fact. Everything that
we now consider to be the adjustment of status process could take place before the I-485 is "filed". Nothing could be simpler. The
reason to seek Congressional modification of INA 245(a) is not because it is only way
forward but because, by enshrining such a procedural benefit in the INA itself, it will be a much
more secure right, one not subject to administrative whim or unilateral repeal. This process
would not only afford the Visa Office a more accurate picture of adjustment demand but it holds
out the potential of drastically slashing processing times . Far from granting adjustment applicants any
special or unfair advantage, the use of qualifying dates as a way to define immediate visa availability would serve to harmonize the
green card process in and out of the United States. Clearly, close and constant coordination between the Visa Office and USCIS
would be required and integration of this procedural innovation with the Child Status Protection Act is transparently necessary.
Given the obvious and not insignificant benefits, any transitional angst is surely worth the effort.

5---Drivers License DA---Parole prevents people from obtaining a

driver’s license.
Heeren 15 — Geoffrey Heeren, Associate Professor at Valparaiso University Law School,
holds an LL.M. from Georgetown University Law Center and a J.D. from New York University,
2015 (“The Status of Nonstatus,” American University Law Review (64 Am. U.L. Rev. 1115),
June, Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via Lexis-Nexis)
For many years, there was no question that those with nonstatus could apply for driver's licenses. However, the
REAL ID Act
of 2005 requiresstates to deny driver's licenses to individuals who do not meet certain
immigration requirements. n285 Most individuals with deferred action and TPS can obtain
driver's licenses because the federal REAL ID Act specifically lists deferred action and TPS as
lawful immigration statuses. However, the Act does not authorize states to provide a driver's
license to individuals with any other type of nonstatus, and several states have even tried to
deny driver's licenses to individuals with deferred action. n286
Footnotes in this card:

n285. REAL ID Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-13, § 202(c)(2), 119 Stat. 302, 312-13; see 6 C.F.R. § 37.3 (2014) (defining a REAL ID
driver's license to be an identification card certified to be in compliance with the requirements of the REAL ID Act).

n286. See Ariz. Dream Act Coal. v. Brewer, 945 F. Supp. 2d 1049, 1052, 1079 (D. Ariz. 2013), rev'd, 757 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2014)
(finding that Arizona's efforts to deny driver's licenses to persons with DACA violated equal protection); Saldana v. Lahm, No.
4:13CV3108, 2013 WL 5658233, at 1, 7 (D. Neb. Oct. 11, 2013) (granting in part the defendant's motion to dismiss a challenge to
Nebraska's refusal to grant a driver's license to a DACA grantee); 6 C.F.R. § 37.3 (defining "lawful status" for the purpose of the
REAL ID Act).

That significantly constrains immigrants’ opportunities and

perpetuates a harmful climate of fear.
Hendricks 14 — Sarah E. Hendricks, Adjunct Professor and Lecturer in Sociology at Drake
University, holds a Ph.D. in Sociology from the University of Tennessee, 2014 (“Living in Car
Culture Without a License: The Ripple Effects of Withholding Driver’s Licenses from
Unauthorized Immigrants,” American Immigration Council, April 24th, Available Online at
https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/living-car-culture-without-license,
Accessed 09-16-2018)
Conclusion

The adaptation to life dependent on private vehicle ownership, dubbed transportation assimilation by
transportation scholar Evelyn Blumenberg, is rendered virtually impossible for the millions of immigrants
who are not able to obtain a driver’s license. State-level limitations on driver’s licenses threaten to
endanger public safety, undermine opportunities that immigrant populations offer
their communities, and contribute to a climate of fear that impedes the adaptation of
immigrants. Restrictive driver’s license policies thus produce a ripple effect, limiting the lives
of individual immigrants and their families, which then affects the social and economic well-
being of localities and, cumulatively, the wider U.S. society. Allowing unauthorized immigrants access to
driver’s licenses would remove a major transportation barrier for many of the 11 million individuals living in
the United States without legal authorization. This pragmatic step would contribute to the well-being of
communities, as well as of immigrants, by improving public safety and by helping to facilitate,
rather than hinder, the long-term social and economic adjustment process of immigrants and
their children.
2AC---VAWA CP
 2AC---Midterms DA (Dems Good)

Take off your snorkels and read new polls, there’s no “blue wave”
Parker 9/26 2018 Star Parker is an author and president of CURE, Center for Urban
Renewal and Education. Contact her at www.urbancure.org. To find out more about Star Parker
and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators
Syndicate website at www.creators.com. Kavanaugh Show Will Help Republicans in November
By Star Parker September 26, 2018 5 Min Read https://www.creators.com/read/star-
parker/09/18/kavanaugh-show-will-help-republicans-in-november
A new report from Gallup should sober up those expecting a "blue wave" in the November
elections.
According to this recently released report, the percent of Americans saying they have a
"favorable" view of Republicans now stands at 45 percent, up from 36 percent. Favorability for
Democrats stands at 44 percent, exactly where it was last September.
This is the highest favorability for Republicans since January 2011, when it stood at 47 percent
just after Republicans gained control of Congress in the 2010 midterm elections.
Of particular interest are large gains for Republican favorability among men — now at 50
percent, up from 37 percent a year ago — and middle-income households ($30,000 to $74,999),
now at 49 percent, up from 36 percent a year ago.
Republican favorability has even increased among women — 40 percent now compared to 35
percent last September.
It makes complete sense that Republican favorability among voters should be surging and that
Democrat favorability should be languishing.

Kavanaugh makes GOP loss inevitable.

Ella Nilsen 10/6, columnist at Vox, 10/6/18 (“8 takeaways from the knock-down, drag-out
fight over Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation,”
https://www.vox.com/2018/10/6/17941524/kavanaugh-confirmation-takeaways, AIvackovic)

House Republicans in Clinton-friendly districts might be goners

Now that Kavanaugh appears to be getting confirmed, it could bode poorly for House
Republicans running for reelection in 2018 .

When Kavanaugh’s nomination appeared to be in real trouble last week, it had the effect of revving
up the Republican base in a way pollsters haven’t seen all election cycle. An NPR/Marist poll released on Wednesday
showed that 80 percent of Republican voters polled said the midterms were “very important,” essentially on par with Democratic
voters, who were at 82 percent.

Compare that to July, when Republican voters lagged 10 percentage points behind Democrats when asked how important the
midterms were. The sudden jump in enthusiasm signaled that Republicans were fired up about Kavanaugh in a way nothing else had
been able to achieve.
“The result of hearings, at least in the short run, is the Republican base was awakened,” said Lee Miringoff, director of the Marist
Institute for Public Opinion.

Now that it appears Kavanaugh will be confirmed after all, the effect could indeed be short-term .
(It’s important to note it’s still too early for enough polling data to tell us if this was a short-term spike or a larger trend among
Republican voters.) But Kavanaugh’s
drawn-out, embattled confirmation hearing, ending with him
being confirmed, could now have the effect of spurring more Democrats to the polls on
November 6 .

No policy can save the GOP.

Carney 18 — Tim Carney, Commentary Editor at The Washington Examiner, 2018 (“How
the GOP can keep control of Congress after the 2018 midterms,” The Washington Examiner,
January 23rd, Available Online at http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/how-the-gop-can-
keep-control-of-congress-after-the-2018-midterms/article/2646483, Accessed 01-23-2018)

There is not much legislatively that Republicans can do to improve their image or
electability between now and November. Congress is deeply unpopular, and the ruling
party of the same party as the president in his first midterms are historically weak. The
situation is exacerbated by a historically unpopular first-term president. No bill or deal or
law is very likely to do that. Most of the work will need to be done on the campaign trail.

Premium hikes in October make healthcare a slam dunk

Evan Siegfried 8-7-2018- Evan Siegfried is a Republican strategist and commentator,
"Opinion," NBC News, https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/health-care-how-democrats-
will-win-midterms-if-republicans-aren-ncna898436, accessed 9-14-2018

What is currently a murmur of discontent within the electorate will become a a roar before
we know it: Roughly two weeks before Election Day, the 2019 premiums for Obamacare plans
will be released to the public. All indicators show that, following the pattern of the last few years,
consumers can expect to see double-digit rate increases in most states. But it could be even
worse because the previous premium hikes came before Trump and Republicans did away with
health care subsidies that helped low income Americans (in October 2017), as well as eliminated
the individual mandate (in the tax reform bill passed in December 2017), which are both
expected to push Obamacare premiums even higher. And, though Obamacare premiums are not
necessarily related to private insurers' plan costs, many Americans will either conflate the
Obamacare premium hikes with what their own private insurance premiums will be in 2019, or
worry that their private plans will experience similar, if not greater, increases. Meanwhile, in a
number of states with Republican governors (some of whom are up for reelection) who passed
on expanding Medicaid under the Affordable Care act, will face voters who can't qualify for
Medicaid, lost their Obamacare affordability subsidies and face premium hikes. But in late July,
President Trump decided to prolong making a decision on whether to allow them to expand
access to Medicaid in their states, but less broadly than is required under under Obamacare.
Trump reportedly opposes any type of Medicaid expansion because he believes that it would be
an expansion of the Affordable Care Act. Nonetheless, voters in Utah, Nebraska and Idaho — all
of which are solidly Republican states — will be voting on fairly popular statewide ballot
initiatives on Medicaid expansion. That's unlikely to benefit incumbent Republicans like
Rep. Mia Love of Utah’s 4th congressional district, who is facing a tough reelection fight against
Democrat Ben McAdams (who has accused her of not assisting the state in obtaining a Medicaid
expansion waiver from the Trump administration).One would think that the booming economy
would be a boon for Republican candidates and help stem the tide of the enthusiasm among the
Democratic base. However, though polls are showing that the economy is important to the
electorate, voters have already demonstrated how health care is an even more
important issue to them. Republicans (if not former Trump campaign strategist Steve
Bannon, who recently shrugged off these concerns) are already concerned about how they are
faring with suburban, especially the suburban women who helped the GOP take the majority in
the House of Representatives in 2010 and Senate in 2014. Since Trump’s election, a large
enough percentage of them have moved away from the Republican Party and have voted for
Democratic candidates, which helped Democrats win across the country. Last month, the
University of Delaware’s Center for Political Communication released a study that found two
thirds of women in the United States are angry at the state of politics today and only 15 percent
of those women say that their anger makes them less likely to vote in November. This conforms
with other polls over the past year that have shown women to be incredibly angry at the way the
nation is being governed and the state of politics. Anger is the most abundant renewable energy
source on the planet and Democrats are seeking to weaponize it in the midterm elections.
Barring the unforeseen, health care will be the dominant issue for voters in
November, just as the Obamacare premium rate hikes are released just before
Election Day. This will cause voters' anger to reach new heights. Democrats may have
passed Obamacare and been blamed for its myriad problems through 2017 but, with the
Republican failure to change it for anything but the worse since grabbing the reins of both the
White House and Congress, Democratic candidates seeking to repeal and replace Republicans
are likely to benefit.

U-Visas are only popular with the entire public because of the LEC
requirements---the AFF flips that.
HRW 18 – Human Rights Watch, a nonprofit, nongovernmental human rights organization
made up of roughly 400 staff members around the globe. Its staff consists of human rights
professionals including country experts, lawyers, journalists, and academics of diverse
backgrounds and nationalities. Established in 1978, Human Rights Watch is known for its
accurate fact-finding, impartial reporting, effective use of media, and targeted advocacy, often in
partnership with local human rights groups, 2018, (“Immigrant Crime Fighters”, Human Rights
Watch, Available online at https://www.hrw.org/report/2018/07/03/immigrant-crime-
fighters/how-u-visa-program-makes-us-communities-safern, Accessed 7-26-18, LLorenz)
The U Visa Program

In researching this report, Human Rights Watch

spoke not only to immigrant victims of crime,
lawyers, and experts, but to more than a dozen law enforcement officials from
Arizona, California, Colorado, North Carolina, and Texas, all of whom told us the U
visa has been an essential tool in strengthening relationships with immigrant
communities and ensuring public safety . They emphasized that effective crime-fighting requires that all
members of the community are comfortable reporting crimes to the police.

If an immigrant victim fears coming forward, police officers and prosecutors noted, perpetrators remain free to commit crimes
against others in the community. Even if the perpetrator cannot immediately be apprehended, reports of criminal activity help police
understand exactly where crime is occurring, allowing for informed decisions about where to deploy resources. Several
emphasized that information provided by undocumented victims or witnesses on dangerous
criminal activities has a ripple effect that makes the whole community safer.

Denver City Attorney Kristin Bronson said, “U

visas are a very important tool to keep people involved in
the system and it enhances the trust of the community in law enforcement.”[1] Other
prosecutors and police officers described the visas as “crucial” and “essential” to their work,
and lamented the fact that they are not more widely available. Several emphasized that the
program strengthens communities by embracing those who are willing to make
sacrifices to benefit others.

Either the plan is after the midterm or it kills the GOP by cutting into
campaigning time
Ben Jacobs, 9-28-2018, "The politics minute: more Democrats to vote no on Brett
Kavanaugh," Yahoo News, https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics-minute-more-democrats-
vote-220820568.html
The house is out
If you are a member of Congress, you now have 39 days that you can devote entirely to
campaigning. The House adjourned on Friday until after the midterms election.
What does this mean for the midterms? It means incumbents facing tough races (i.e. a few
dozen Republicans) now have more time to meet voters, raise money and not be stuck in
Washington casting votes.
So this helps Republicans? Yes, more time on the campaign trail gives them a better chance of
winning

The AFF happens after the midterm---we’ll insert this tweet:

Last minute events don’t shift the election – history and Kavanaugh
prove – McConnell tricks lock in the end-game GOP narrative
Hunt 9-9, [Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering politics and policy. He was the executive
editor of Bloomberg News, before which he was a reporter, bureau chief and executive
Washington editor at the Wall Street Journal, It’s Too Late to Stop a Blue Wave, But Not for
Trump to Try, https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-09-06/how-china-went-from-
a-business-opportunity-to-enemy-no-1]

But the momentum building toward a Democratic wave, small or sizable, is unlikely to fade. “I’ve never
seen a wave reverse or dissipate between midsummer and Election Day,” said Charlie Cook, editor
and publisher of the Cook Political Report and a sage of U.S. elections. “They have just remained constant
or gotten bigger , like 1994 and 2006.”

Over more than half a century, there

have only been two midterm elections where a post-Labor Day
event changed the dynamics of the overall race. In both cases, these involved weighty historical
events and Republicans were marginally hurt. One was in 1974, when President Gerald Ford
pardoned Richard Nixon for crimes related to the Watergate scandal. The other was the Cuban missile
crisis of 1962.
An international crisis is possible, especially if Trump seeks to create a distraction from his own scandals. Whether real or
manufactured, Trump would be called upon to handle it with the same skill President John F. Kennedy displayed during the Cuban
nuclear confrontation in the Cold War. That’s far-fetched.

The 2018 do-nothing Congress still has a month to go. House Republican leaders want to pass a few spending bills and get out by
early October so endangered incumbents can campaign. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell
will probably keep
the Senate in session for most of October to inhibit Democratic incumbents from spending
more time on the campaign trail and to force votes on federal judicial nominations.

For all the fury over the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, he’s expected to be
confirmed on a mostly party-line vote, perhaps by Oct. 1, when the Supreme Court convenes. Politically, the fight
probably is a wash or a slight energizer for Democrats.
 2AC---A2: Impeachment Scenario

No impeachment and it doesn’t solve their impact.

Heer 12/5 — Jeet Heer, Senior Editor at The New Republic, 2017 (“The Democrats’
Dangerous Obsession With Impeachment,” The New Republic, December 5th, Available Online
at https://newrepublic.com/article/146098/democrats-dangerous-obsession-impeachment,
Accessed 01-05-2018)

The impeachment enthusiasts should pull back. For both practical and political reasons, this is the wrong
remedy for the Trump presidency, even if we stipulate that he has been “extremely bad” and has committed “high crimes
and misdemeanors.”

The practical problem is that for

impeachment to be meaningful, Trump would not just have to be
impeached by the House of Representatives (which requires a simple majority) but also removed by the
Senate ( requiring a two-thirds vote ). It’s easy to imagine a scenario where the Democrats
win the House of Representatives in 2018 and have the necessary votes for impeachment. But even in
that best-case scenario, in which Democrats win every toss-up race for the Senate, they
would still be well short of the votes they need in the Senate. Which means that
kicking Trump out of the White House by necessity has to be a bipartisan effort with significant
Republican buy-in.

As Peter Beinart pointed out Sunday in The Atlantic, the possibility of Republicans co-operating in removing
Trump is dropping even as there’s more evidence emerges that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians. Beinart
correctly noted that “mass Republican defection” from Trump “has grown harder, not easier, to
imagine. It’s grown harder because the last six months have demonstrated that GOP voters will stick
with Trump despite his lunacy, and punish those Republican politicians who do not .”
Republican support for Trump has never fallen below 79 percent since he became president.
Republicans who dare criticize Trump, such as senators Jeff Flake and Bob Corker, have crashed in
popularity among the GOP base.
The Republican Party has proven that they will tolerate just about anything from Trump. They
continue to stand with him despite his demented tweeting, the political support he’s given to
Roy Moore, his repeated expressions of contempt for the justice system, and his cavalier
threats to launch a nuclear war. Unless Robert Mueller finds the possibly apocryphal “pee tape,” Republicans are likely
to remain loyal to Trump. In fact, there’s a real possibility that even if the “pee tape” is real and widely
viewed, Trump would still remain politically sacrosanct among his own party.
The most promising route for stopping Trump, then, is through the ballot box. Democrats need a convincing platform and effective
organization to win elections at every level. If the party can win back Congress in 2018, it can immediately start hamstringing
Trump’s presidency without resorting to the unlikely path of impeachment. Democrats can launch investigations into Trump’s many
improper acts. They can stall his nominees, especially in the courts. They can also start laying down rules for reining in the imperial
presidency, including the thermonuclear monarchy, so that no future commander-in-chief has the dangerous power Trump
possesses.

Impeachment fetishists seem to think that the overriding problem of American politics is that
Trump is president. By this analysis, the president is a dangerous outlier whose removal would
restore America to normality. But the problem isn’t just Trump; it’s also the Republican
Party. Trump is only dangerous because he’s the standard-bearer of a party that has unified
control of the government and is willing to stand by Trump no matter what. A Democratic agenda of
reining in presidential power will give more lasting victories than mere impeachment, which is unlikely to succeed
and would only address a symptom, not the cause, of the cancer that’s ravaging
American politics.
 2AC---Muller DA

Pence is a hawk- re-starts the F-22

Wright, 16 – Politico senior defense reporter
[Austin, "Pence could undermine key Trump war argument," Politico, 7-14-16,
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/mike-pence-donald-trump-war-argument-225565,
accessed 1-23-18]

Pence’s disagreements with Trump on defense issues go beyond the Iraq War. In a speech last year to the
Conservative Political Action Conference, Pence laid out a hawkish foreign policy vision that offers a stark

contrast to Trump ’s more isolationist views. Pence then decried Russia’s increasingly aggressive behavior, saying a “new Iron
Curtain is descending down the spine of Europe.” And he said
the Pentagon budget should be "dramatically"
increased. The governor also called for reviving two weapons programs that have become
emblems for the kind of military waste Trump has said should be cut. The Army’s Future Combat Systems
and the Air Force’s F-22 fighter jet were both scuttled early in the Obama administration. The F-22 was
canceled after just 195 jets had rolled off the assembly line, far below the 750 the Air Force had originally planned to buy. Then-Defense Secretary
Robert Gates’ decision to scrap the F-22 was in
part the result of major cost overruns. Restarting the
production line, according to a Congressional Research Service report, could cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

F-22 trades off with the F-X- that kills airpower- wrecks our interim
strategy, industrial base, and A2/AD response
Jouppi, 16 -- Military Aircraft Program Analyst at Aviation Week Network
[Matt, "Don't Restart F-22 Production, Accelerate the F-X Program," 3-22-16,
https://manglermuldoon.blogspot.com/2016/03/op-ed-dont-restart-f-22-production.html,
accessed 1-23-18]

In recent weeks, a renewed interest in restarting F-22 production has emerged from both Capitol Hill and the defense policy community. In 2009, Defense Secretary Robert
Gates lobbied Congress to terminate F-22 production at just 187 airframes; his decision to limit the F-22 production line was the culmination of his long running feud with the
Air Force. Gates was adamant that the armed services should prioritize the development of practical capabilities relevant to the ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. In his
testimony before Congress, Gates argued the F-22 was “a silver bullet” solution to the non-existent problem of foreign fifth generation aircraft which could deny U.S. air
the
superiority in a hypothetical conflict with a near-peer competitor. As the Administration, lawmakers, and the Department of Defense begin to accept the reality that

United States will once again contend with the threat of great power competition and high-end conflicts, the acute
deficiency of dedicated air superiority platforms within the USAF fleet hobbles the ability of U.S. forces to both achieve
aerial superiority and assure all domain access against near-peer competitors. A small but highly capable fleet of F-22s serves
the nation as not only a highly credible deterrence force with recent rotational deployments to Japan, the Korean Peninsula, and Poland, but also as a provider of robust
the USAF should not
warfighting capabilities over the skies in Syria. Despite the unique and unmatched capabilities of the F-22 in the air superiority mission,

pursue restarting the F-22 production line. Restarting production would delay the sixth gen eration F-X
program which must be accelerated to keep pace with both emerging threats and to preserve
the skills and technical base of the three remaining combat aircraft manufactures ; waiting 10 years
to start the F-X program will reduce the viability of Boeing to compete against Lockheed Martin and Northrup Grumman who have active
long-term combat aircraft contracts. The USAF must leverage the lessons learned from both the F-35 and L-RSB programs, such as the importance of stable requirements and
use of mature technologies, to rapidly develop and procure a sixth generation air superiority aircraft. In parallel with the accelerated development of the F-X, the USAF should
fieldinterim solutions to rapidlyenhance the effectiveness of the F-15, F-35 , and planned arsenal plane in the air superiority mission.
The Air Force originally planned to procure 700 F-22s to fully replace its fleet of F-15C/D aircraft during the 1990s. As a result of cost overruns and program delays, the Air
Force subsequently revised its planned force structure to 300 F-22s during the 2000s. No credible analysis of future operational needs
against a near-peer competitor has concluded the USAF’s current Raptor fleet is sufficient to wholly provide
sufficient air superiority capabilities. Of the 187 aircraft delivered to the USAF, only 123 are combat coded with the remaining F-22s
serving in test and evaluation, attrition reserve, and training roles. Factoring in the reduced sortie generation rate of US aircraft in the Pacific given the extended transit periods
between distant Western Pacific bases such as Guam and Kadena from expected deployment areas such as the South and East China Seas, the limited number of F-22s becomes
especially acute. To mitigate the Raptor shortfall, the USAF has sought to upgrade its venerable F-15C/D fleet and has debated assigning additional air superiority
The means
responsibilities to the F-35. These short term solutions are not sufficient to meet USAF operational needs prior to the introduction of the F-X in the 2030s.

in which the USAF seeks to bolster its F-15 and F-35 force in the interim period will serve as an
instructive experience in formulating sixth generation requirements and testing relevant technologies. The early termination
of the Raptor production in concert with extended F-35 program delays will force the USAF to field a mixed fourth-
fifth generation fighter force well into the 2030s. A total of 414 F-15C/Ds and F-15Es will receive a service life extension program
(SLEP) to keep them airworthy into the 2030s in tandem with adding a new actively scanned electronic array radars, upgraded cockpit displays, an

improved electronic warfare suite, an infrared search and track (IRST) pod, and a fourth-to-fifth generation communication pod such as the
Talon Hate. Given its extended service life and robust upgrade package, the F-15 force should not be disregarded as a

depreciating asset. The lack of a low observable airframe is somewhat offset by the F-15’s 1,000+ nautical mile (nm) combat radius (compared to roughly 500 nm for
the F-35 and 470 nm for the F-22), comparatively low per-flight hour maintenance costs, high operational readiness rate, powerful 1,500 element AESA radar, and the aircraft's
proposed solutions have the potential to both bolster the air-to-air capabilities of the F-
large growth potential. Two

15 and inform USAF decisions to draft requirements for the sixth generation F-X. The USAF Research Laboratory is
working to field a 100 kilowatt (kW) center-line laser pod demonstrator on an F-15E in the early 2020s. A 100 kW laser pod would provide substantial anti-missile defense
capabilities as well as a nascent anti-unmanned aerial vehicle and anti-aircraft capability. The technology for a 100 kW laser pod is relatively mature and would better inform
USAF deliberations to field a more powerful 150 kW+ directed energy weapon on the F-X. The USAF Research Laboratory has stated among the many proposed features of the
F-X would be a “deep magazine”. Both the F-22 and F-35 Block IV can only accommodate six AIM-120D missiles (the F-22 also has two shorter range AIM-9X sidewinders in
the side weapon bays). Against a numerically superior force equipped with highly capable digital radio frequency jammers (DRFM), the probability kill (pk) of each missile is
expected to fall to approximately 50%. While the F-22 and F-35 cannot externally carry weapons without compromising their low observable profiles, the F-15 can expand upon
its comparative advantages of high payload capability to add additional weapon pylons as demonstrated in Boeing's “2040C” upgrade which would expand the F-15’s AIM-120D
upgraded F-15s would offset the limited internal weapons storage
load from 8 to 16 missiles. When networked with F-35s and F-22s,

capacity of US fifth generation fighters. Proposals to “deepen the magazine” of the F-35 include small kinetic hit- to-kill interceptors such as CUDA and
small advanced capability missile technologies (SACM-T) concepts. The concurrent development of the miniature self-defense munition (MSDM) follows a similar concept in
which a kinetic interceptor is launched to defeat an adversary missile. The relative utility of a micro interceptor such as MSDM against a numerically superior adversary’s
missiles is dubious from both a cost exchange and a finite payload capacity perspective in a similar manner as Navy deliberations to field high-end kinetic interceptors on large
surface combatants against Russian and Chinese anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCMs). The ideal solution is to “shoot the archer before he shoots his arrows” in a similar manner as
the F-14 was armed with long range Phoenix missiles against Soviet Backfire bombers carrying multiple ASCMs. This solution is achievable within the current fighter fleet either
through a deep magazine on a low observable airframe, which thus has first shot first kill capability, or a fourth generation fighter or arsenal plane equipped with an extended
range air-to-air missile well beyond the 100 nm range of the AIM-120D. The expansive weapon bays of both the B-1B and B-52, the two leading arsenal plane candidates, makes
In conclusion, the opportunity cost of restarting F-22
the fielding of a long range beyond visual range missile especially appealing.

production is too high as it would delay the F-X which will be better suited to counter emerging anti-access/area denial
( A2/AD ) threats such as integrated air defenses networked with VHF radars. The USAF can leverage its

interim solutions to expand the air superiority capabilities of its fighter force to reducing the risk of technologies associated
with the sixth generation F-X such as the deep magazine capability and directed energy weapons. The USAF must emphasize mature technologies and extensive prototyping
within the F-X program, in a similar manner as the LRS-B program, if it seeks to avoid the extensive program delays of the F-35. The combination of a longer range
beyond visual range missile for the arsenal plane, 2040C F-15 upgrade, and a kinetic interceptor optimized against enemy fighter aircraft to expand the magazines for the F-22
will enable the USAF to meet its air superiority requirements and contribute to broader inter-service
and F-35

efforts to attain all domain access against near-peer competitors.

Air power key to deter China war- air superiority key to prevent
miscalc
Eaglen, 9 -- American Enterprise Institute national security analyst
[Mackenzie, and Lajos Szaszdi, PhD in world politics from Catholic University of America, "The
Growing Air Power Fighter Gap: Implications for U.S. National Security," 7-7-9,
https://www.heritage.org/defense/report/the-growing-air-power-fighter-gap-implications-us-
national-security, accessed 1-23-18]

states that may potentially challenge U.S.

To assess fully the implications of the widening U.S. fighter gap, Congress needs to consider the future capabilities of

fighter aircraft in the coming decades as fifth-generation fighters become the mainstay of the future force and legacy aircraft retire.
These capabilities include foreign advanced attack aircraft, jammers, infrared search and tracking
sensors, ultra long-range missiles, surface-to-air missiles, radar detection, anti-stealth technologies, and
electronic warfare. Twenty years after the Cold War, new regional military powers and former peer competitors are
expanding their military capabilities. Regional powers, such as China and possibly Iran,[11] are acquiring Russian air
superiority and multirole fighters based on the Sukhoi Su-30 Flanker family. Closer to home, Venezuela is aggressively expanding its air force.[12] The
Russian Federation. Russia is expanding its fighter forces more than at any other time since the end of the Cold War. Russia is fielding the Su-34 Fullback strike aircraft, which is
based on the Su-27 Flanker and can carry supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles and short-range air-to-air missiles for self-defense.[13] The Russian Air Force plans to field 58 by
2015 and 300 by 2022.[14] The Russian Air Force also has a requirement of about 300 Sukhoi PAK FA fifth-generation fighters.[15] However, Russia appears to be planning for
a production run of 500 to 600,[16] which most likely includes planned exports. In addition, several countries have multirole Russian-made fighters capable of firing supersonic
anti-ship cruise missiles and high performance air-to-air missiles.[17] The main Russian export is several versions of the Su-30MK, a fourth-generation fighter that is the
Russian equivalent of the F-14 and F-15. Russia also appears to be in the early stages of developing a sixth-generation fighter.[18] A fourth-generation fighter would be no match
against this type of capability. While President Obama is proposing to permanently close the F-22 production line, Russia plans to keep open the Sukhoi PAK-FA production
line. Russia will likely fund production of two Sukhoi fifth-generation fighters, the PAK FA and a light multirole stealth fighter,[19] for both the Russian Air Force and the export
market. China . China has ordered an estimated 76 Su-30MKK Flanker-Gs and can produce an additional 250 under license, including at least 100 "knock-down kits" to be
assembled in China.[20] It has also received at least 24 Su-30MK2 naval strike fighters. If China modernizes its 171 Su-27SK/UBs to the Su-27SKM standard and assembles
it will have roughly 626 multirole fighters available for air superiority missions. This would place
another 105 Su-27SKMs under license,

China in the same league as the U.S., which has 522 F-15A/B/C/Ds, 217 F-15Es, and a planned endstrength of 186 F-22s.[21] China is also
developing a stealth fifth-generation fighter, variously identified in the West as the J-X.[22] It may also benefit from information
allegedly stolen on the "design and electronics systems" of the F-35 Lightning II.[23] As militaries expand and

modernize, especially the Chinese P eople's L iberation A rmy, the probability of miscalculation grows. The 2009 DOD
China's growing power could lead to a miscalc ulation and possibly
report on China's military power discusses two ways that

conflict. First, Chinese leaders may overestimate the proficiency of the Chinese military, leading them to
overestimate its capability to achieve greater operational goals. Second, they could fail to appreciate how their
decisions affect the perceptions and responses of other regional actors, inadvertently provoking a military
confrontation.[24] The increased potential for both competition and miscalculation between the United States and other countries raises
the importance of America's conventional deterrence . Preventing war by convincing a would-be
adversary that its goals are not achievable is a primary goal of the military. Thus, even though the wars in
Iraq and Afghanistan are America's central focus and the U.S. may not currently face a potential great-power adversary, maintaining a strong fighter force
is critical to sustaining a credible conventional deterrent in the coming decades.