Off Case

Topicality
Neoliberalism
Politics
T
A. Interpretation POEs funded by US are exclusively US
Word net(http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=port%20of%20entry)
S: (n) port of entry, point of entry (a port in the United States where customs officials are stationed to
oversee the entry and exit of people and merchandise)
B. Toward indicates the object of action
OED 13 Oxford English Dictonary online
http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/204005?rskey=JVzAhI&result=2#eid

Toward, prep Of motion (or action figured as motion): In the direction of; so as to approach (but not necessarily reach: thus differing from
to prep. 1). b. pred. after to be: On the way to. Obs. c. With implication of reaching; to. Obs. 2. a. Of position: In the direction of; on the side
next to; turned or directed to, facing. b. Beside, near; about, in attendance upon; in the possession of; with. Obs. 3. In the direction of (in fig.
senses). a. gen.: esp. with words expressing tendency or aim, and followed by an abstract noun expressing state, condition, etc. b. With a
noun or pronoun denoting the object of action or feeling: To; against. c. With regard to, in reference to, respecting,
concerning, about. Also as toward (cf. as to at as adv. and conj. Phrases 3a). Obs. d. In comparison with: = to prep. 18. Now dial. 4. Of time: So
as to approach; at the approach of, nearly as late or as far on as, shortly before, near. a. Of condition or quality: Verging upon, near;
somewhat like, nearly, as if; toward blackness, somewhat or nearly black. Obs. b. Of quantity: Nearly as much as, nearly. 6.a. In prospect of; in
the imminence of; (as predicate) in preparation for. Obs. or arch. b. Coming upon, in store for; usually of evil: ready to fall upon,
threatening. Obs. 7. In the way of contribution to; as a help to; for the purpose of making up, promoting, assisting, or the like; for. 8. For to-
ward, separated by the n. or pron., as in to us-ward, to God-ward, see -ward suffix, and cf. to prep. 2e.

C. B. Violation improving border efficiency does not increase economic
engagement with Mexico because they only fund US investment
D. Topicality is a voter for
1. limits- if we explode the topic to much then anything becomes topical which means
we dont actually get to understand the topic, their aff justifies things like port
efficiency since Mexican goods enter at the port- completely explodes the topic and
makes it harder to be neg because the aff can read things like port security and make
them topical

Neolib K
Movements in Latin America are successfully producing alternatives to global
neoliberalism the plans economic imposition crushes these spaces of resistance,
reducing the globe to a single, monocultural economic model
Vattimo & Zabala 11
(Gianni, Prof. of Theoretical Philosophy @ U of Turin, Santiago, Prof. of Philosophy @ U of Barcelona,
Hermeneutic Communism, pgs. 124-131)

The Bolivarian Revolution is Chavezs commitment to twenty first- century socialism. Named after
Simon Bolivar, the early eighteenth-century Latin American revolutionary leader in the South American
wars of independence, the Bolivarian Revolution names the desire to bring about Bolivars dream of
a united Latin America. While for Bolivar the union of Latin America was against the Spanish oppressors,
for Chavez the unification is against the U.S. neoliberal and military impositions that , together with
the dictatorship of the Monetary Fund, have reduced the region to a great slum, that is, the
discharge of capitalism. As we can predict, it is just from these slums that Chavez receives most of his
electoral support, as his political initiatives are all directed toward the weakest population. When
Chavez finally managed to secure control over the oil resources after the coup against him in 2002, he
obliged Venezuelas largest oil company PdVSA, to distribute oil wealth throughout the country This
weak communist plan is called the Oil Sowing Plan,3 and it invites communities to design their own
development projects, for which PdVSA provides the funding. In 2005, social programs such as Barrio Adentro (for community health),
Sucre (for university scholarships), and others received more than 6.9 billion dollars from PdVSA. Perhaps the most famous social program is Mision Milagro, which performed free eye surgery
on thousands of Venezuelans. This program is part of the greater Cuban-Venezuelan agreement where, in exchange for subsidized petroleum, 14,000 Cuban doctors were sent to help the
country transform the situation of the poor districts, where 11,000 neighborhood clinics have been established and the health budget has tripled. As a consequence of
this weak communist political program, extreme poverty has been reduced by 72 percent since 2003,
infant mortality has dropped by more than one-third, and Venezuela has now become a territory free
of illiteracy" This cooperation with Cuba is also a defense against common enemies: the United States
and the IMF. As we have said, Chavezs Bolivarian Revolution is not limited to his country" but takes
interest in the whole region . Together with Castro (who quickly also became his mentor), Chavez
began to support other politicians who shared these common enemies and were also interested in
favoring the weakest citizens of their countries. Inspired by Chavezs democratic election and social
revolt against neoliberalism in 2002, Lula was (democratically) elected president of Brazil, Kirchner in
Argentina in zoo3, Bachelet in Chile in 2005, Morales in Bolivia in 2005, Correa in Ecuador in zoo6,
Ortega in Nicaragua in 2006, Lugo in Paraguay in 2008, Funes in El Salvador in 2009, and Mujica in
Uruguay in 2009.43 While most of these politicians enacted, in different ways, weak communist
programs, the most representative politician and closest ally of Chavez is Evo Morales,* who only three months after taking office withdrew from the IMF and World Bank because of
their tendencies to settle disputes in favor of international corporations and against governments.*5 As Forest Hylton and Sinclair Thomson point out, although Latin America has been the
site of the most radical opposition to neoliberal restructuring over the past five years, Bolivia has been its insurrectionary frontline.* Morales not only has become the first president of
Bolivia from the countrys ethnic majority (Aymaras) but also is among the first in the region to undertake a radical nationalization of his countrys resources (oil, natural gas, and almost half of
the worlds reserves of lithium), against exploitation by foreign corporations (BR General Motors, Bechtel) and in favor of control by native Indians." But in order to recover control over
Bolivias natural resources, Morales was obliged (through a referendum held on January 25, 2009) to change the constitution, which had been written by the descendants of the Spanish
colonizers. These colonizers, who today as then, represent the ethnic minority live in the eastern provinces of Bolivia, which contain most of the countrys resources. As we can predict,
Moraless greatest obstacle came from these white minorities, who, as Richard Gott of the Guardian explains, still have a racist and fascist mentality and, after centuries in control, dislike the
prospect of their future being dominated by the formerly suppressed indigenous majority Nevertheless, the referendum passed with 61.43 percent of the vote, enabling a reform of the land
and judiciary systems for the benefit of the people. Yet more important- and at the heart of the new constitutional charter-are the clauses that strengthen the rights of the countrys
indigenous peoples.*9 Unfortunately to win approval, the new constitution needed more than popular democratic support, because the eastern provinces of Santa Cruz, Tarija, Beni, and
Pando not only tried to boycott it but also violently threatened to declare their independence from Bolivia. Although the European Union deployed a group of observers during the election, 5
it was UNASUR (Union of South American Nations) that managed, after an emergency summit held in the Chilean capital, to obtain respect from the eastern provinces for their democratically
elected president and receive assurances of their peaceful participation in the referendum. After the summit, which allowed the referendum to
take place, Morales declared that this was the first time in the history of the region that the countries
have decided to resolve the problems of South America themselves. In the past, even to deal with
some internal or bilateral . . . Latin American issues , they were discussed in the U nited S tates." In
sum, both Chavezs initiatives and Moraless nationalizations are paradigmatic examples of weak
communism. They decentralize the state bureaucratic system, which was so counterproductive in the
Soviet Union: while the independent counsels increase community involvement, nationalization
returned land, dignity and rights to the weakest segments of the population. But if Chavez and
Morales managed to enact these progressive policies in their own countries, it is also because the
whole region has been able to resist some of capitalisms most extreme characteristics and even set
up innovative arrangements outside of formal market structures. Most of these arrangements are
monitored by organizations such as ALBA (Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas), Mercosur (Southern
Common Market), Banco del Sur (Bank of the South), and UNASUR, among others. With these
organizations, South America is providing an alternative not only for the weak among its population
but also for other continents searching for a different political, economical, and ecological system.
This is why Banco del Sur was recently endorsed by Stiglitz against the IMF impositions and why UNASUR
was praised by Chomsky as an alternative to U.S. dominance in the region. Weak communism is the
political alternative to the neoliberal impositions of framed democracies. After years of submission to
capitalist market policies that obliged South American countries, among other entities, to remove
obstacles to foreign investments, weak communism has began to take control. This is why in 2009 Lula
preferred to skip the Davos meeting in order to participate again, together with Chavez, Morales, and
other South American leaders, in the World Social Forum in Belem. Over the past ten years, this forum
has become both an effective alternative to the Swiss meeting and the driving engine of those social
movements without which Lula, Chavez, and other politicians would not have been elected. Although
these social movements differ in many respects from country to country they all share antipathy
towards US political, economic , and military control ," an opposition that is at the essence of weak
communisms economic programs. 'This is why Lula, discussing the recent economic 2008 crisis at the social forum, felt compelled to emphasize how it was not
caused by the socialism of Chavez or by the struggles of Morales but by the bankrupt policies and lack of financial control of wealthy states outside the continent.5 Given that
neoliberal methods created the third world,5 South American citizens will probably continue to
vote for these communist leaders. As Mark Weisbrot has pointed out, they have succeeded where
their neoliberal predecessors failed and changed their economic policies in ways that increased
economic growth. Argentinas economy grew more than 60% in six years and Venezuelas by 95%.
These are enormous growth rates even taking into account these countries prior recessions, and
allowed for large reductions in poverty. Left governments have also taken greater control over their
natural resources (Ecuador, Bolivia, Venezuela) and delivered on their promises to share the income
from these resources with the poor. This is the way democracy is supposed to work: people voted for
change and got quite a bit of what they voted for, with reasonable expectations of more to come. We
should not be surprised if most Latin American voters stick with the left through hard times. Who else is
going to defend their interests ? South American governments manage to defend their citizens
economic interests because they have been detaching themselves not only from neoliberal
impositions but also from the attendant military presence, that is, armed capitalism. UNASUR, which
was modeled after the European Union (prior to the creation of a common parliament, currency and
passport for all of its member states), has tried, through its member states, to evict the remaining U.S.
military bases present in the region. While there are U.S. military bases throughout Europe, in South America only Peru, Paraguay Honduras, and Colombia,
which has the sole remaining conservative government in the region, recently agreed to an increase in U.S. military presence, in exchange for billions of dollars and privileged access to military
supplies. Regardless of Colombias poor human-rights record, the United States continues to sponsor President Uribe not only in exchange for these bases (which also house nuclear weapons)
but also for general political support, given the prevailing antipathy toward the United States in the region. But this is not the only indication that the United States is trying to regain control
over South America. ln zoo8, the Fourth Fleet was reestablished in the regions waters, and in zoo9 a military coup against the democratically elected president of Honduras was allowed.
While this coup could have been easily avoided, considering that the United States still has a base in the country; the United States instead supported the newly imposed president, because
the constitutional reform process that Zelaya hoped to set in motion could easily lead to voters rejection of foreign troops on their soil.4 All these are examples of U.S. interest
in the region, an interest that goes far beyond its natural resources, even considering that the US gets
half its oil from Latin America.5 Nevertheless, instead of a military response to these provocations, UNASUR instructed its Defense Council to investigate the
danger that these bases in Colombia pose for the region and declared (after the summit held in Bariloche, Argentina, on August 29, 2009) that South America must be kept as a land of
peace, and that foreign military forces must not threaten the sovereignty or integrity of any nation of the region. If the regions prevailing communist
governments lose electoral support one day it will not be because of the impositions of armed
capitalism but rather because its own social movements have ceased to support them. After all, weak
communism was chosen because of the overwhelming poverty that dominates the region after
decades of neoliberal impositions-the same poverty that now is also starting to appear in Western
states. In sum, the United States feels the need to regain control over South America not only because
of its vital natural resources but also, and most of all, because its social, economic, and democratic
model is again summoning the specter of communism throughout the world ."
The impact is extinction neoliberalism reduces existence itself to property to be
exchanged, producing a drive to a single way of knowing and being that causes
massive structural violence and environmental destruction
Lander 2,
(Edgardo, Prof. of Sociology and Latin American studies at the Venezuelan Central University in Caracas,
Eurocentrism, Modern Knowledges, and the Natural Order of Global Capital, Nepantla: Views from
South, 3.2, muse)

Just as resources formerly considered to be commons, or of communal use, were privately
appropriated through the enclosure and private appropriation of fields, rivers, lakes, and forests,
leading to the expulsion of European peasants from their land and their forced conversion into factory
workers during the Industrial Revolution, through biopiracy, legalized by the agreements protecting
intellectual property, the ancestral collective knowledge of peoples in all parts of the world is being
expropriated and converted into private property, for whose use its own creators must pay. This
represents the dispossession or private appropriation of intellectual commons (Shiva 1997, 10). The
potentialbut also realimpact of these ways of defining and imposing the defense of so-called
intellectual property are multiple, yet another expression of the tendency, in the current process of
globalization, to concentrate power in Northern businesses and countries, to the detriment of the
poor majorities in the South. At stake are matters as critical as the survival of life-forms and choices
that do not completely fit within the universal logic of the market , as well as rural nutritional self-
sufficiency and access to food and health services for the planets underprivileged majorities. As a
consequence of the establishment of patents on varieties of life-forms, and the
appropriation/expropriation of rural/communal knowledge, by transnational seed and agrochemical
companies, the patterns of rural production are changing ever more quickly, on a global scale.
Peasants become less and less autonomous, and they depend more and more on expensive
consumables they must purchase from transnational companies (Gaia Foundation and GRAIN 1998).
These companies have also developed a terminator technology deliberately designed so that
harvested seeds cannot germinate, forcing peasants to buy new seeds for each planting cycle (Ho and
Traavik n.d.; Raghavan n.d.). All of this has had a profound impact, as much on the living conditions of
millions of people as on genetic diversity on the planet Earth. The freedom of commerce that the
interests of these transnational companies increasingly impose on peasants throughout the world is
leading to a reduction in the genetic variety of many staple food crops. This reduction in genetic
diversity , associated with a engineering view of agriculture and based on an extreme, industrial type of
control over each phase of the productive processwith genetically modified seeds and the intensive
use of agrochemicalsdrastically reduces the auto-adaptive and regenerative ability of ecological
systems . And nevertheless, the conservation of biodiversity requires the existence of diverse
communities with diverse agricultural and medical systems that utilize diverse species in situ.
Economic decentralization and diversification are necessary conditions for biodiversity conservation .
(Shiva 1997, 88) Agricultural biodiversity has been conserved only when farmers have total control over
their seeds. Monopoly rights regimens for seeds, either in the form of breeders rights or patents, will
have the same impact on in situ conservation of plant genetic resources as the alienation of rights of
local communities has had on the erosion of tree cover and grasslands in Ethiopia, India and other
biodiversity-rich regions. (99)12 As much as for preserving genetic diversityan indispensable
condition of life as for the survival of rural and indigenous peoples and cultures all over the
planeta plurality of ways of knowing must coexist, democratically . Current colonial trends toward
an intensified, totalitarian monoculture of Eurocentric knowledge only lead to destruction and death.
The alternative the judge should vote negative to reject neoliberal knowledge
production and endorse globalization from below
Refusing neoliberalisms hegemonic control over knowledge production is essential
within the space of this debate the alternative aligns the ballot with Latin American
resistance movements
Choi, Murphy, and Caro 4
Jung Min, John W, Manuel J, Professor of Sociology SDSU, Professor of Sociology University of Miami,
Professor of Sociology Barry University, Globalization with a Human Face, pg. 6-9

Many critics have begun to wonder why hamburgers and jeans can be globalized, but the spread of
themes such as peace or justice is thought by many politicians to be impossible to generalize. What
many persons are calling for, especially in the Third World, is an alternative approach to globalization.
Along with justice, they want to globalize resistance to current historical trends. They want to call a halt,
for example, to the economic hardships and rape of the environment that have accompanied the rise of
neoliberalism. This new strategy is referred to in many circles as "globalization from below." The point
is that current policies have been driven from above from the capitalist centers around the worldand
reflect the economic and cultural interests of these powerful classes. Most other persons, accordingly,
are viewed as simply a cheap source of labor or a possible market for cheap goods. And because of this
role in the world capitalist system, their opportunities are severely restricted. Even if they conform to
the cultural mandates of the market, the likelihood of economic advancement is not very great. This
sort of mobility is simply not a part of the role persons play on the economic periphery. What actually
occurs, indeed, is that the system of controls, which are found in the economic centers, are
reproduced on the periphery, but with more immediate devastation. The imposition of consumerism
and materialism, for example, undermine the local economy and community supports, thereby
increasing strife and reinforcing local elites and their ties to foreign investors. The old oligarchies are
thus strengthened, while local institutions become more dependent on outside intervention. The
resulting hierarchy, accordingly, is more powerful than ever before. As might be imagined, globalization
from below has a very different agenda. Different values guide economic development, in short, while
new ways of organizing society are sought. Instead of profit, for example, the general improvement of a
community may be of prime importance. Likewise, emphasis may be placed on strengthening civil
society, and thus ,advancing democracy, rather than identifying markets and potential investors. In
general, globalization from below is driven by local concerns and the masses of persons who have little
influence in corporate boardrooms. These are the people--the majority of the world's inhabitants--who
are ignored unless their labor is suddenly profitable. At the core of this new globalization is often the
call for a postcapitalist logic. Novel ways of looking at, for example, production and consumption are
regularly a part of this project, in addition to new definitions of work and personal and group identity.
Central to this scenario is that persons can remake themselves entirely, and nothing is exempt from
revision. What proponents of globalization from below have done, in effect, is to seize control of their
history and invent a new future. They have decided that history can be made, rather than merely
experienced, and that there is no inherent telos to this process. The past is nothing, therefore, other
than a point of departure of a new course of action. In the truest sense of the term, these activists are
utopian thinkers. They are not enamored by reality and are convinced that new social arrangements,
which have never existed and may be very difficult to create, are possible. As many students chanted
during the 1960s, they are demanding the impossible and do not want to settle for more pragmatic
substitutes. They are simply asking that persons strive to fulfill their dreams. But these demands are not
based on fantasy. Instead, proponents of globalization from below are trying to emphasize an idea
advanced by Marx: that is, nothing that humans imagine is foreign to them. Consequently, utopian
ideals or practices are simply inventions that have not , yet been realized. Through effort and
determination, and the absence foreign subversion, an economic system that is founded on justice
might eventually be enacted. Merely because this vision has not been actualized, does not necessarily
signal that such an aim contravenes human nature or is hopelessly flawed. The problem may simply
be that persons have been unwilling or unable to purge themselves of certain biases or
predispositions, and thus have never embarked on the creation of a new reality. Those who champion
globalization from below, however, are not politically naive. They understand that powerful interests
that benefit from injustice and inequality have intervened in the past to undermine various utopian
projects. The proper dream is important, but so is the ability to implement this vision. These new
utopians are thus trying to convince the public to restrain those who want to destroy these projects.
What they are saying, in short, is that justice should be given the opportunity to thrive. THE
RESTORATION OF COMMUNITY Various critics are saying that only the restoration of a strong sense of
community can guarantee the success of globalization. What is meant by community, however, is in
dispute. After all, even neoliberals lament the current loss of community that has ensued in the world
economy. From their perspective, a community of effective traders would strengthen everyone's
position at the marketplace. Advocates of globalization from below, as might be expected, have
something very different in mind. They are not calling for the general assimilation of persons to a
cosmopolitan ideal, which is thought to instill civility and enforce rationality. Persons who want to
join the world market, as was noted earlier, are thought to need a good dose of these traits.
Nonetheless, there is a high price for entry into this communitycultural or personal uniqueness
must be sacrificed to promote effective economic discourse. Such reductionism, however, is simply
unacceptable in a large part of the globe that is beginning to appreciate local customs and the
resulting diversity. What these new activists want, therefore, is a community predicated on human
solidarity. This sort of community, as Emmanuel Levinas describes, is focused on ethics rather than
metaphysics." His point is that establishing order does not require the internalization of a single ideal
by all persons, but simply their mutual recognition. The recognition of others as different, but
connected to a common fate, is a powerful and unifying principle. Persons are basically united
through the recognition and appreciation of their uniqueness. As should be noted, this image is
encompassing but not abstract. Uniformity, in other words, is replaced by the juxtaposition of diversity
as the cement that binds a community together. Like a montage, a community based on human
solidarity is engendered at the boundaries of its various and diverse elements. The genius of this
rendition of community is that no one is by nature an outsider, and thus deserving of special treatment.
Many of the problems that exist today, in fact, result from persons sitting idly while their neighbors are
singled out as different and discriminated against or exploited. When persons view themselves to be
fundamentally united, on the other hand, such mistreatment is unlikely, because community members
protect and encourage one another. Indeed, this sort of obligation is neither selective nor optional
among those who belong to a true community. Basically the idea is that if no one is an outsider, there
are no persons or groups to exploit. Such a community, moreover, does not require extraordinary
actions on the part of its members to end racism, sexism, or economic exploitation. All that is
required is persons refuse to turn away and say nothing when such discrimination is witnessed. By
refusing to go along with these practices, any system that survives because of discrimination or
exploitation will eventually grind to a halt. Clearly, there is an implicit threat behind current trends of
globalization. Because globalization as it is currently defined is inevitable, anyone who expects to be
treated as rational and civilized must accept some temporary pain. Old cultural ways will simply have
to be abandoned, and a transition to the new economic realities. Those who cannot tolerate the
mistreatment of fellow community members any longer appear to be a part of this change, however,
they are obligated to bare witness to these abuses. And by refusing to be complicit these actions,
business as usual cannot continue. A globalization of can be mounted, therefore, that might be able to
create a more humane world. In the face of mounting darknessincreasing economic hardship and
degradationwhy not seriously entertain the possibility that social life can be organized in less
alienating ways? With little left to why not pursue alternative visions?

Politics

CIR will pass now
Rosenberg, 7/18/13 President and Founder of NDN, a leading progressive think tank and advocacy
organization (Simon, Immigration Reform Is Very Much Alive. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/simon-
rosenberg/immigration-reform-is-ver_b_3617406.html)

Contrary to recent news accounts, we are closer to passing a meaningful immigration reform bill than
at any point since John McCain and Ted Kennedy introduced their bill in 2005. Consider: The Senate
passed a bill with 68 votes, the most any immigrant reform bill has received since this process began.
The last time an immigration bill passed the Senate it was in 2006, and it received just 62 votes. The
House, whose last major vote on immigration reform was in 2005 and called for the deportation of the
11 million unauthorized migrants in the U.S., has already passed five immigration and border related
bills out of committee. Last week Speaker John Boehner said he believed the House needed to do
something on immigration reform this Congress, and next week Republicans are having a public
hearing on the DREAM Act. While much has been written about the need Republicans have to support
immigration reform to get back in the game with Latino voters, I think an equally compelling reason why
the House is already taking significant strides towards passing an immigration reform bill is the
pressure they feel to meet the very high bar set by the Senate "Gang of Eight" framework. Their
framework will give the country a better legal immigration system, one more based on bringing growth
producing skilled labor. It will close some of the holes in our interior enforcement system, build on the
significant gains made in border security in recent years and make the border region even safer. It will
make needed investments in 47 ports of entry with Mexico, facilitating more trade and tourism, creating
more jobs on both sides of the border. It creates an arduous but achievable path to citizenship for the
11 million unauthorized immigrants already in the country. And remarkably, it will grow the economy,
create jobs and lower the deficit by a $1 trillion over 20 years. In a time where Americans have so little
faith in their government to meet the emerging challenges of our time, the Gang of Eight framework is
a bit of a political miracle: incredibly thoughtful public policy, broad bi-partisan support, a deep and
diverse political coalition backing it. It just is very hard for the House Republicans to walk away from
all that too.
Obamas political capital is key
Pace 5/1
Julie Pace, 5/1/13, Obama Eyes Higher Profile Role on Immigration,
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/05/01/obama_eyes_higher_profile_role_on_immigratio
n_118204.html, MKB

Many immigration advocates say they support Obama getting more involved in the debate as the draft bill weaves
its way through the Senate Judiciary Committee, and likely to the Senate floor. "He needs to be an advocate and push for the bill in
the Senate to make sure this gets done," Eliseo Medina of the Service Employees International Union said of the president. "We
need continued sustained pressure from all facets." McCain also welcomed the prospect of a more proactive
Obama, saying the president is committed to being heavily engaged. But the Arizona Republican, who has spoken
with Obama about the immigration negotiations several times in recent weeks, added that the president "doesn't want to harm
the passage of the bill either. And I believe him." But some Republicans remain suspicious of the president's efforts and say he's
trying to sink the bill in order to use the legislative failure for political gain. "I think the president wants to campaign on immigration reform in
2014 and 2016," Texas Sen. Ted Cruz said in an interview with CBS News. "I think the reason the White House is insisting on a path to citizenship
for those who are here illegally is because the White House knows that insisting on that is very likely to scuttle the bill." Obama advisers
insist he would rather be able to claim victory on the immigration overhaul that has eluded him than use a failure
as leverage in the midterm elections - a proposition that has no guarantee of working in his favor.

Prioritizing economic ties with Mexico over drugs and security derails immigration
reform key players hate it
NYT, 5/15 (The New York Times, Michael Shear, 5/15. In Latin America, US Shifts Focus from Drug
War to Economy. Lexis.)

Last week, Mr. Obama returned to capitals in Latin America with a vastly different message.
Relationships with countries racked by drug violence and organized crime should focus more on
economic development and less on the endless battles against drug traffickers and organized crime
capos that have left few clear victors. The countries, Mexico in particular, need to set their own course
on security, with the United States playing more of a backing role. That approach runs the risk of being
seen as kowtowing to governments more concerned about their public image than the underlying
problems tarnishing it. Mexico, which is eager to play up its economic growth, has mounted an
aggressive effort to play down its crime problems, going as far as to encourage the news media to avoid
certain slang words in reports. The problem will not just go away, said Michael Shifter, president of
the Inter-American Dialogue. It needs to be tackled head-on, with a comprehensive strategy that
includes but goes beyond stimulating economic growth and alleviating poverty. Obama becomes
vulnerable to the charge of downplaying the regions overriding issue, and the chief obstacle to
economic progress, he added. It is fine to change the narrative from security to economics as long as
the reality on the ground reflects and fits with the new story line. Administration officials insist that Mr.
Obama remains cleareyed about the security challenges, but the new emphasis corresponds with a
change in focus by the Mexican government. The new Mexican president, Enrique Pea Nieto, took
office in December vowing to reduce the violence that exploded under the militarized approach to the
drug war adopted by his predecessor, Felipe Caldern. That effort left about 60,000 Mexicans dead and
appears not to have significantly damaged the drug-trafficking industry. In addition to a focus on
reducing violence, which some critics have interpreted as taking a softer line on the drug gangs, Mr.
Pea Nieto has also moved to reduce American involvement in law enforcement south of the border.
With friction and mistrust between American and Mexican law enforcement agencies growing, Mr.
Obama suggested that the United States would no longer seek to dominate the security agenda. It is
obviously up to the Mexican people to determine their security structures and how it engages with
other nations, including the United States, he said, standing next to Mr. Pea Nieto on Thursday in
Mexico City. But the main point I made to the president is that we support the Mexican governments
focus on reducing violence, and we look forward to continuing our good cooperation in any way that the
Mexican government deems appropriate. In some ways, conceding leadership of the drug fight to
Mexico hews to a guiding principle of Mr. Obamas foreign policy, in which American supremacy is
played down, at least publicly, in favor of a multilateral approach. But that philosophy could collide with
the concerns of lawmakers in Washington, who have expressed frustration with what they see as a
lack of clarity in Mexicos security plans. And security analysts say the entrenched corruption in
Mexican law enforcement has long clouded the partnership with their American counterparts. Putting
Mexico in the drivers seat on security marks a shift in a balance of power that has always tipped to the
United States and, analysts said, will carry political risk as Congress negotiates an immigration bill that
is expected to include provisions for tighter border security. If there is a perception in the U.S.
Congress that security cooperation is weakening, that could play into the hands of those who oppose
immigration reform, said Vanda Felbab-Brown, a counternarcotics expert at the Brookings Institution
in Washington. Realistically, the border is as tight as could be and there have been few spillovers of the
violence from Mexico into the U.S., she added, but perceptions count in Washington and can be
easily distorted. Drugs today are not very important to the U.S. public over all, she added, but they
are important to committed drug warriors who are politically powerful. Representative Michael T.
McCaul, a Texas Republican who is chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, has warned against
the danger of drug cartels forming alliances with terrorist groups. While these threats exist, you would
be surprised to find that the administration thinks its work here is done, he wrote in an opinion article
for Roll Call last month, pressing for more border controls in the bill. The Obama administration has said
any evidence of such cooperation is very thin, but even without terrorist connections, drug gangs pose
threats to peace and security. Human rights advocates said they feared the United States would ease
pressure on Mexico to investigate disappearances and other abuses at the hands of the police and
military, who have received substantial American support. The shift in approach suggests that the
Obama administration either doesnt object to these abusive practices or is only willing to raise such
concerns when its politically convenient, said Jos Miguel Vivanco, director of Human Rights Watchs
Americas division. Still, administration officials have said there may have been an overemphasis on the
bellicose language and high-profile hunts for cartel leaders while the real problem of lawlessness
worsens. American antidrug aid is shifting more toward training police and shoring up judicial systems
that have allowed criminals to kill with impunity in Mexico and Central America. United States officials
said Mr. Obama remains well aware of the regions problems with security, even as he is determined
that they not overshadow the economic opportunities. It is clear Mr. Obama, whatever his words four
years ago, now believes there has been too much security talk. In a speech to Mexican students on
Friday, Mr. Obama urged people in the two countries to look beyond a one-dimensional focus on what
he called real security concerns, saying it is time for us to put the old mind-sets aside. And he repeated
the theme later in the day in Costa Rica, lamenting that when it comes to the United States and Central
America, so much of the focus ends up being on security. We also have to recognize that problems
like narco-trafficking arise in part when a country is vulnerable because of poverty, because of
institutions that are not working for the people, because young people dont see a brighter future
ahead, Mr. Obama said in a news conference with Laura Chinchilla, the president of Costa Rica.

Comprehensive reform key to US economic recovery

Garcia and Fitz 12/10 (Ann Garcia is a Research and Policy Associate for the Center for
American Progress. Marshall Fitz is the Director of Immigration Policy at the Center,
Progressive Immigration Policies Will Strengthen the American Economy, 2012,
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2012/12/10/47406/progressive-
immigration-policies-will-strengthen-the-american-economy/,
immigrants have been a critical part of the American economy since the founding
of our nation, but they are even more important today as we look to the future of
our economic recovery and our economy. While Congress debates the economic strategy to restore our
nations fiscal health, an opportunity is on the horizon that would maximize the human capital and talent of the nearly 40 million
immigrants who call America home. In order to reap the rewards of this talented and diverse labor pool, we must develop
a legislative solution to fix our nations broken immigration system. Immigration
reform that creates a pathway to earned legal statusand eventually to citizenshipfor the undocumented immigrants living in
our country while at the same time updating our legal immigration system will unleash the potential of immigrant workers and
students to work, innovate, and add hundreds of billions of dollars to the U.S. economy. Lets
review how progressive immigration policies can help make this happen. Legalizing our nations undocumented immigrants
Legalizing the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States would add a cumulative $1.5 trillion to the U.S. gross
domestic productthe largest measure of economic growthover 10 years. Thats because immigration reform that puts all workers
on a level playing field would create a virtuous cycle in which legal status and labor rights exert upward pressure on the wages of
both American and immigrant workers. Higher wages and even better jobs would translate into increased consumer purchasing
power, which would benefit the U.S. economy as a whole. The federal government would accrue $4.5 billion to $5.4 billion in
additional net tax revenue over just three years if the 11 million undocumented immigrants were legalized. The national advantage
of legalizing the undocumented immigrants is obvious in the previous figures, but gains are also evident at the state level. The state
of Texas, for example, would see a $4.1 billion gain in tax revenue and the creation of 193,000 new jobs if its approximately 1.6
million undocumented immigrants were legalized. States that have passed stringent immigration measures in an effort to curb the
number of undocumented immigrants living in the state have hurt some of their key industries, which are held back due to
inadequate access to qualified workers. A farmer in Alabama, where the state legislature passed the anti-immigration law H.B. 56 in
2011, for example, estimated that he lost up to $300,000 in produce in 2011 because the undocumented farmworkers who had
skillfully picked tomatoes from his vines in years prior had been forced to flee the state. With nearly half of agricultural workers, 17
percent of construction workers, and 12 percent of food preparation workers nationwide lacking legal immigration status, it isnt
hard to see why a legalization program would benefit a wide range of industries. Business ownersfrom farmers to hotel chain
ownersbenefit from reliable and skilled laborers. A legalization program would ensure that they have them. Passing the DREAM
Act Passing the DREAM Actlegislation that proposes to create a roadmap to citizenship for immigrants who came to the United
States as childrenwould put 2.1 million young people on a pathway to legal status, adding $329 billion to the American economy
over the next two decades. Legal status and the pursuit of higher education would create an aggregate 19 percent increase in
earnings for DREAMersyoung people who would benefit from passage of the DREAM Actby 2030. The ripple effects of these
increased wages would create $181 billion in induced economic impact, 1.4 million new jobs, and $10 billion in increased federal
revenue. Reforming the high-skilled immigration system Creating a 21st century high-skilled immigration systema system that
accepts highly qualified immigrant workers when there is a demand that cannot be filled by American workerswould stimulate
innovation, enhance competitiveness, and help cultivate a flexible, highly skilled U.S. workforce, while protecting American workers
from globalizations destabilizing effects. The United States has always been and continues to be the nation where creative and
talented individuals from around the world can come to realize their dreams, and our economy has significantly benefited from their
innovation. In 2011 immigrant entrepreneurs were responsible for more than one in four new U.S. businesses, and immigrant
businesses employ 1 in every 10 people working for private companies. Immigrants and their children founded forty percent of
Fortune 500 companies. These Fortune 500 companies collectively generated $4.2 trillion in revenue in 2010more than the GDP
of every country in the world except the United States, China, and Japan. Reforms that enhance legal immigration channels for high-
skilled immigrants and entrepreneurs while protecting American workers and placing all high-skilled workers on a level playing field
will promote economic growth, innovation, and workforce stability in the United States. Our economy has benefited enormously
from the talented immigrants who come here to study. Upon graduation, however, immigrant students face the tough choice
between returning home and finding an employer to sponsor their entry into a visa lottery that may allow them to stay and work.
Reforming the high-skilled immigration system would allow us to reap the benefits of having subsidized the education and training
of these future job creators as immigrant students graduate and go on to work at our nations companies, contributing directly and
immediately to our nations competitiveness in the global market. Significant reform of the high-skilled immigration system would
benefit certain industries that require high-skilled workers, such as the high-tech manufacturing and information technology
industries. Immigrants make up 23 percent of the labor force in both of these industries and are more highly educated, on average,
than the native-born Americans working in these industries. Still, immigrants working in science, technology, engineering, and math
fields in the United States complement, rather than compete with, American workers. For every immigrant who earns an advanced
degree in one of these fields at a U.S. university, 2.62 American jobs are created. By focusing on drawing human capital to our
country and retaining it, Congress can help ensure that key sectors of our economy have an adequate labor pool to draw from and
can boost our collective economic potential. Our economy has much to gain from reforming our broken immigration system. But
the biggest rewards will only be realized if Congress approaches immigration
reform as an economic opportunity to be seized rather than an enforcement problem to be solved.
Legislation that deals comprehensively with the issue by putting the nations undocumented
immigrants, including DREAMers, on a path to citizenship while also reforming the high-skilled immigration system will
strengthen the nations economy while increasing prosperity for all Americans.

US economic collapse emboldens adversaries ensures global warfare
\
Lieberthal and O'Hanlon, Director of the China center and Director of research at
Brookings, 12 (7/10, The Real National Security Threat: America's Debt,
www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2012/07/10-economy-foreign-policy-lieberthal-
ohanlon) Lastly, American economic weakness undercuts U.S. leadership abroad.
Other countries sense our weakness and wonder about our purported decline. If
this perception becomes more widespread, and the case that we are in decline becomes more persuasive, countries
will begin to take actions that reflect their skepticism about America's future.
Allies and friends will doubt our commitment and may pursue nuclear weapons for their own security, for example;
adversaries will sense opportunity and be less restrained in throwing around their
weight in their own neighborhoods. The crucial Persian Gulf and Western Pacific regions will likely become
less stable. Major war will become more likely. When running for president last time, Obama eloquently
articulated big foreign policy visions: healing America's breach with the Muslim world, controlling global climate change, dramatically
curbing global poverty through development aid, moving toward a world free of nuclear weapons. These were, and remain, worthy if elusive goals. However, for
Obama or his successor, there is now a much more urgent big-picture issue: restoring U.S.
economic strength. Nothing else is really possible if that fundamental prerequisite
to effective foreign policy is not reestablished.
Case
Relations
Relations high structural issues and immigration reform solves
Andrs Rozental, former deputy foreign minister of Mexico, Nonresident Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy,
Latin America Initiative, Brookings Institution, February 1, 2013, Have Prospects for U.S.-Mexican
Relations Improved? http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2013/02/01-us-mexico-rozental
//BW
The Mexico-U.S. relationship won't substantially change; there are too many ongoing issues to
expect any major shift in what has become a very close and cooperative bilateral partnership in
economic, security and social aspects. There will be a change of emphasis from the Mexican side as far
as the security relationship goes, with Pea Nieto's declared intention to focus much more on the
economy and public safety. He has already moved away from the constant statements made by his
predecessor extolling the number of criminals apprehended and 'successes' in the fight against
organized crime. The change of message comes as a relief to many Mexicans tired of hearing about
violence and crime on a daily basis. There are two issues on the bilateral agenda, however, that
portend significant changes if President Obama is able to fulfill his latest commitments: gun control
and immigration reform. The latter seems to be headed toward a bipartisan agreement that might
fundamentally change the situation for the thousands of Mexicans who are in the United States
without proper documents. If Congress passes a comprehensive reform that allows them to normalize
their situation and have a path to legal residency and eventual citizenship, it would have a huge
positive impact on the relationship. As for gun control, Mexico would obviously favor a total ban on
the sale and possession of assault weapons as the best way to prevent them from crossing the border,
but even universal background checks and limits on the number and type of weapons an individual can
purchase would be a welcome development. On trade ties, Mexico reached a quarter trillion dollars of
total exports and imports in 2012 a hefty portion of that unprecedented amount was with the United
States. As Mexico becomes an increasingly important part of the global supply chain and U.S. companies
continue to invest heavily south of the border, the economic relationship has nowhere to go but up. And
if Pea Nieto is able to fundamentally reform the country's energy sector, there promises to be even
more investment.
Relations high meetings proves past tensions erased by new economic focus
Adam Thomson, Financial Times, May 2, 2013, A new dawn for US-Mexico relations?
http://blogs.ft.com/beyond-brics/2013/05/02/a-new-dawn-for-us-mexico-relations/ //BW
On Thursday, as he greeted the press in the company of US President Barack Obama, Enrique Pea
Nieto of Mexico characterised the bilateral relationship as having reached a new level of
understanding. That is probably an exaggeration. But several important things may have come from
Obamas visit to Mexico City, the first to Mexico since his re-election. The first is winning apparent
acceptance for his change of tack on the drugs war. With Felipe Caldern, Pea Nietos predecessor,
the two countries worked closely on the pursuit of drug lords. US authorities shared information with
their Mexican counterparts, in many cases leading to the arrest of high-profile drug lords. Pea Nieto,
who took power in December, has made no secret of his desire to get the drugs war off the front pages.
He has also said that he wants to prioritise Mexicans safety over the capture of cartel leaders, making
Mexico a safer place to live for its 112m inhabitants. In that sense, he got what he wanted on Thursday
when Obama said, though unresoundingly, that he supported Mexicos efforts to reduce the homicide
rate. That was an important vote of confidence for Pea Nieto, and should go a long way to
downplaying analysts speculation that the change in strategy would go down badly in the White House.
The second, and arguably more important victory, was packing more issues into the bilateral agenda
other than security . Pea Nieto, who has wowed international investors thanks to his apparent
determination to push through an ambitious economic reform agenda, wants to promote trade and
investment as the two guiding missions of his countrys relationship with its northern neighbour.
Mexico-US trade is already about $1.4bn a day almost US$1m a minute for the nerds out there but
there is little doubt that it could grow significantly in the coming years. Thursdays announcement of a
joint working group to be populated by Mexican cabinet secretaries and their US counterparts was a
clear step in the direction of refocusing the agenda. The idea, apparently, is to make it easier for
private companies to invest and grow on both sides of the border, creating jobs in both countries and
making North America a more competitive region vis--vis the rest of the world. Its early days, and
therefore hard to know just how effective and active this working group, to convene for the first time in
the autumn, will be. But by its mere announcement, the bilateral relationship has taken on an
additional dimension.
Turn further trade increases inequality, which leads to Mexican instability
Tom Barry, director of the TransBorder Project at CIP, May 2, 2013, Changing Perspectives on U.S.-
Mexico Relations, https://nacla.org/news/2013/5/2/changing-perspectives-us-mexico-relations //BW
Both governments will surely point to fundamental importance of the two nations as trading partners.
Yet the trade and investment numbers fall far short in defining the identity, advantages, and challenges
of the U.S.-Mexico relationship. More than economic partners, the United States and Mexico are next-
door neighbors and all that this proximity implies for the future welfare of both nations. Governance
measures on such issues as energy, environmental standards, immigration flows, weapons, illegal
drugs, and labor standards need to follow and shape economic integration. If there is to be a
sustainable North American community, the framework of economic integration must necessarily
address the stark regional imbalances in Mexicos economic growth and developmentwith
Mexicos southern states left further and further behind . Similarly, cheaper consumer goods made
possible by liberalized trade and investment do not compensate for stagnation of Mexican wages
averaging just over $2 an hour. Not to be missed is the growing militancy of teachers, students, and
agricultural workers in southern Mexico, which was the defining theme of the May 1 marches in
Mexico City and elsewhere. Casting a long shadow over the summit will be the intensifying teacher-led
protests over the federal reforms of labor and education policy. Centered in Mexicos poorest
southern states, especially Guerrero, the anti-government opposition is protesting the labor, energy,
and education reforms of the Pea Nieto government and the Pact for Mexico, which has brought
together Mexicos leading political parties over a package of long-overdue reforms.
Alt causethe War on Drugs is responsible for bad US-Mexico relations
Gautreau, School of International Development and Global Studies, University of
Ottawa, 2012 (Ginette La, To Rid the World of the Drug Scourge: A Human Security Perspective on the War on
Drugs in Colombia and Mexico, Paterson Review of International Affairs (2012) 12: 6183,
http://diplomatonline.com/mag/pdf/Gautreau_-Human_Security_and_War_on_Drugs.pdf)
Like corruption, drug trafficking permeates national borders and impacts Colombia and Mexicos
relations with other countries. As Seccombe (1997, 29293) argues, in addition to the harm done by
conflict, U.S. anti-drug policies can have international ramifications through impacts on economic,
political, and strategic affairs. For instance, Roderic Ai Camp (2010) and Carpenter (2003) discuss the
formidable challenge of reconciling U.S. demands with Mexican interests in the War on Drugs due to
the complex and tense history between the two countries. The authors note that this history,
distinguished by the supremacy of U.S. interests over Mexican interests, results in mistrust and
animosity between the Mexican and U.S. militaries, and that many Mexicans perceive the War on
Drugs to be an American war against drug consumption being fought in Mexico with Mexican
resources and against the Mexican people. The same can be argued about Colombians (ibid., 22). In
effect, the War on Drugs also has severe domestic policy implications by eroding state funds and
shifting focus away from social services and programs, including rural development policies, toward
increased militarization of the country. This constitutes one of the main paradoxes of current anti-drug
policies: they demand sacrifices to the human component, including human rights, when these
problems are at the root of the drug war. The human security approach, on the other hand,
complements national security policies with social policies by taking into account the human
component of the drug war. The War on Drugs is compromising economic security through its crop
eradication campaigns, high security costs, and underfunded alternative development programs. In
addition, corruption, national and international political tensions, and the neglect of larger social and
political conditions are eroding political security in both Colombia and Mexico. It is crucial for the
governments of both countries to collaborate with the United States to address their weaknesses by
strengthening institutions and re-evaluating the alternative development component of their drug
policies. In doing so, they could better target deeper issues that allow the drug trade to succeed
within their borders.

Alt causeMexico hates NAFTA
Faux 04 Founder of the Economic Policy Institute, worked as an economist in the Departments of State Queens College, George
Washington University, and Harvard University Honorary Degree, University of New England (Faux, Jeff. "The Economic Policy Institute."
Economic Policy Institute. N.p., 9 Feb. 2004. Web. 22 July 2013.
<http://www.epi.org/publication/webfeatures_viewpoints_nafta_legacy_at10/>.) JO
But as soon as the ink was dry on NAFTA, US factories began to shift production to maquiladora
factories along the border, where the Mexican government assures a docile labor force and virtually no
environmental restrictions. The US trade surplus with Mexico quickly turned into a deficit, and since
then at least a half-million jobs have been lost, many of them in small towns and rural areas where
there are no job alternatives. Meanwhile, Mexicos overall growth rate has been half of what it needs to
be just to generate enough jobs for its growing labor force. The NAFTA-inspired strategy of export-led
growth undermined Mexican industries that sold to the domestic market as well as the sixty-year-old
social bargain in which workers and peasant farmers shared the benefits of growth in exchange for
their support for a privileged oligarchy. NAFTA provided the oligarchs with new partners the
multinational corporations allowing them to abandon their obligations to their fellow Mexicans.
Average real wages in Mexican manufacturing are actually lower than they were ten years ago. Two
and a half million farmers and their families have been driven out of their local markets and off their
land by heavily subsidized US and Canadian agribusiness. For most Mexicans, half of whom live in
poverty, basic food has gotten even more expensive: Today the Mexican minimum wage buys less than
half the tortillas it bought in 1994. As a result, hundreds of thousands of Mexicans continue to risk their
lives crossing the border to get lowwage jobs in the United States.


Manufacturing
Manufacturing decline is from outsourcingtheir author concludes this
Nash-Hoff 12 (1AC author) [Michele Nash-Hoff, Founder and President at ElectroFab Sales, author of Can American
Manufacturing be Saved? Why we should and how we can; American Manufacturing Has Declined More Than Most Experts Have Thought
03/28/2012, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michele-nashhoff/manufacturing-jobs_b_1382704.html]//DLi
I can substantiate this conclusion from my experience as a manufacturers' representative for American companies who perform fabrication
services, such as plastic and rubber molding, metal stamping and casting, machining, and sheet metal fabrication for other American
manufacturers. While many of the manufacturers in my sales territory of southern California may still be
assembling their products in the U.S., many of the components and subassemblies they are using have
been produced offshore . Obviously, it takes fewer American workers to produce the end product
because part of the work was actually done by foreign workers. The problem is that there is no way for the
government to track the value of the components and subassemblies that have been produced elsewhere from
the value of the product that is sold by the American company. Therefore, the value of the whole product is counted
as American productivity without deducting the value of the parts produced outside of the U.S. You can see how American productivity
becomes inflated. I hope this report will convince the majority of economists, experts, and government officials recognize that
manufacturing is truly in serious decline so that they will look at what are the main reasons:
outsourcing manufacturing offshore and the economic warfare being waged by China against the U.S.
Delays and congestion inevitable long distance to border, Mexico internal
inspections, and lack of drivers with US visas
Juan Carlos Villa, Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M and Jorge Lus Leyva Vzquez, Ph. D.,
Servicio Nacional de Inocuidad y Calidad Agroalimentaria, SAGARPA, 5/2008, OPTIONS FOR REDUCING
CONGESTION AT THE MEXICAN BORDER, http://naamic.tamu.edu/austin/villa.pdf //BW
Adding to the complexity of the typical northbound truck movement from Mexico into the U.S.,
agricultural products undergo additional inspections from the origin to the border. As mentioned
earlier, close to 50 percent of Mexican exports into the U.S. cross the border through the Nogales port
of entry. Most of these produce originate in the Mexican states of Sinaloa and Sonora. The journey
between the origin in Sinaloa and Sonora and Nogales is approximately 12 hours and trucks are
subject to inspections by military personnel searching for drugs and arms . There are at least in 3
inspection points before reaching Nogales that produce delays that could double the transit time .
These inspections are performed by military personnel that are not trained to inspect produce and
they can contaminate the cargo. Inspections also break the cold chain (temperature- controlled supply
chain) damaging the product. In order to open the containers, the military personnel break seals that
have been placed at origin and are required by CBP to be able to be considered a FAST shipment. 11
Once a produce shipment reaches the border region, it can cross using the typical drayage system.
However, some products are required to go through a mandatory quality inspection by USDA officials.
This process could be done either in Mexico or once products are in the U.S. Commodities that require
USDA inspections include tomatoes, grapes, onions, and oranges. At the Nogales crossing, this
transaction could be carried out at the Mexican growers' organization for the state of Sinaloa
(Confederaci6n de Asociaciones Agricolas del Estado de Sinaloa - CAADES), or other similar facilities that
provide space for Agricultural Marketing Inspections These facilities are used to perform the inspection
as well as cross-dock some products to make sure that trucks crossing into the U.S. comply with
vehicle weight requirements. Mexican truck weight and size regulations allow for heavier trucks and
most of the shipments take advantage of this to load trucks to the maximum capacity. However, trucks
in the U.S. are limited to a maximum of 80,000 pounds of gross vehicle weight. Truck drivers that
cross into the U.S are required to have U.S. issued visas and most of the long-haul drivers coming from
the interior of Mexico do not have these valid visas. Trucks drivers with visas are in high demand
during the peak season and sometimes there is a shortage of drivers. This creates additional delays
for truck movements that have been graded and reloaded to comply with truck weight and size. As
mentioned earlier, for a shipment to qualify as FAST shipment, the driver needs to be certified and
the load has to be sealed from origin. The process described in this section, in which seals are broken
by military inspections, shipments are cross-docked and 12 inspected y agricultural officials before
reaching the CBP inspection makes almost impossible for an agricultural Mexican export to qualify
for a FAST shipment . The process for an agricultural export from southern Mexico into the U.S. is
even more complicated, as shown in the following diagram. Adding to the 3 inspection steps at the
border crossing itself, trucks with Mexican exports of fruits and vegetables are subject to two
additional inspection processes-several military roadside inspections and the quality inspection.
New border infrastructure now three new crossings
Christopher E. Wilson, Mexico institute, Woodrow Wilson international Center for Scholars, 11/2011,
Working Together: Economic Ties between the United States and Mexico,
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/Working%20Together%20Full%20Document.pdf //BW
Many argue the border has become more difficult and costly to cross as a result 21 of inadequate
infrastructure investment and the increased security measures put in place after September 11, 2001.
Extended and unpredictable wait times at the border create a disincentive to bilateral trade and
production sharing, disrupting production chains and disproportionately hurting small and medium sized
businesses. Nearly 80% of trade with Mexico is land trade, meaning it enters or exits the U.S. through
one of the ports of entry along the Southwest border. The enhanced use of techniques, such as pre-
inspection clearance, that facilitate the secure flow of goods across the border can help lower the costs
of trade and encourage production sharing. Recognizing the need to prioritize both security and the
economy, the U.S. and Mexican governments developed the 21 Century Border Initiative to expedite
secure, legal traffic by trusted parties and thereby free up capacity for border security personnel to
investigate potentially dangerous goods and individuals. Strong cooperation at the border allowed the
United States and Mexico to open three new border crossings in 2010 , two in Texas and one in
Arizona.
l.
Root cause of delays and congestion is post 9/11 security measures
Christopher E. Wilson, Mexico institute, Woodrow Wilson international Center for Scholars, 11/2011,
Working Together: Economic Ties between the United States and Mexico,
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/Working%20Together%20Full%20Document.pdf //BW
Unfortunately, in the past decade increased attention to border security appears to have come at a
cost. Analysts have identified what they describe as a thickening of the border since the terrorist
attacks of September 11, 2001. After experiencing a significant increase in the 1990s, the number of
individuals crossing the Southwest Border has plummeted. Legal crossings reached a record-setting
295 million entries from Mexico in 2000, but since then they have steadily declined to only 190 million
entries in 2009. While the complete causes and effects of this change are unclear, it seems that
Mexicans living in border cities, who make up the vast majority of the daily cross-border traffic, have
reduced the number of trips they make into the U.S. for shopping, education, business and recreation.
Thankfully, the number of trucks crossing the border to deliver goods has not experienced the same
level of decline, although many of the same pressures that deter and disrupt the crossing of individuals
also apply to commercial flows. Cross-border production sharing operations have come to depend on
what is known as just-in-time delivery, a technique that allows nimble production and minimizes the
amount of capital invested in inventory. If the delivery of a part from a Mexican subsidiary or partner is
unexpectedly delayed, a U.S. manufacturer may be forced to temporarily shut down production to wait
for parts. Or, if such delays are common, manufacturers may simply be forced to maintain more
inventory than would otherwise be necessary. The benefits of just-in-time supply chain management,
production sharing, and even U.S. Mexico trade more generally, are therefore put at risk by
unpredictable and long wait times at the border.