H-1B Cap Aff - Frappier Russell

ADI 2010 1
Frap/Russell H-1B Aff
H-1B Aff
***1AC***..............................................................3
1AC – Plan...........................................................................4
1AC – Economy (1/)............................................................5
1AC – Economy (2/)............................................................6
1AC – Economy (3/)............................................................7
1AC – Science Diplomacy (1/).............................................8
1AC – Science Diplomacy (2/).............................................9
1AC – Science Diplomacy (3/)...........................................10
1AC – Science Diplomacy (4/)...........................................11
1AC – Heg (1/)...................................................................12
1AC – Heg (2/)...................................................................13
1AC – Heg (3/)...................................................................14
1AC – Heg (4/)...................................................................15
1AC – Heg (5/)...................................................................16
***ECONOMY***..............................................17
Economy Adv – U – On the Brink (1/)..............................18
Economy Adv – U – On the Brink (2/)..............................19
Economy Adv – U – Double Dip (1/)................................20
Economy Adv – Growth – Link.........................................24
Economy Adv – Growth – Key to International Business. 25
Economy Adv – Small Business – Key to Economy.........26
Economy Adv – Wages – Link (1/)....................................27
Economy Adv – Wages – Link (2/)....................................28
Economy Adv – AT: Depress Wages.................................29
Economy Adv – Competitiveness – Link...........................30
Economy Adv – Labor Shortages – Link (1/)....................31
Economy Adv – Labor Shortages – Link (2/)....................32
Economy Adv – Labor Shortages – Key to Economy.......33
Economy Adv – Labor Shortages – AT: Job Loss (1/)......34
Economy Adv – Labor Shortages – AT: Job Loss (2/)......35
Economy Adv – Labor Shortages – AT: Temporary Job Loss 36
Economy Adv – Outsourcing – Link (1/)...........................38
Economy Adv – Outsourcing – Link (2/)...........................39
Economy Adv – Financial Sector – Link (1/)....................40
Economy Adv – Financial Sector – Link (2/)....................41
Economy Adv – Financial Sector – Key to Economy (1/). 42
Economy Adv – Financial Sector – Key to Economy (2/). 43
Economy Adv – Outsourcing – Kills Economy.................45
Economy Adv – Market Investment – Link.......................47
Economy Adv – Market Investment – Key to Economy. . .48
Economy Adv – IT Sector – Shortages Now.....................49
Economy Adv – IT Sector – Link......................................50
Economy Adv – Innovation – Link (1/).............................51
Economy Adv – Innovation – Link (2/).............................52
Economy Adv – Innovation – Key to Economy................53
Economy Adv – Small Business – Link.............................55
Economy Adv – Tax Revenue – Link................................56
ADI 2010 2
Heg Adv – AT: Unsustainable

(2/)
ADI 2010 3
***1AC***
ADI 2010 4
1AC – Plan
The United States Federal Government should raise the cap on H-1B visa allocations to
195,000.
ADI 2010 5
1AC – Economy (1/)

The current cap on H-1B visas is too low, causing outsourcing and long term damage to the
US economy. Raising to 195,000 solves.
Sherk and Nell, 08 (James and Guinevere, Heritage Foundation, April 30, “More H-1B Visas, More American Jobs, A Better
Economy,” http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2008/04/More-H-1B-Visas-More-American-Jobs-A-Better-Economy, CW, accessed on
7/28/10)
American employers cannot find enough highly skilled workers to fill essential positions. There are not
enough American workers with advanced skills in computer, engineering, and mathematical
occupations to perform the work that many high-tech companies need. This shortage of skilled labor has forced
many companies to outsource operations abroad. Raising the cap on H-1B visas for skilled workers would allow
American businesses to expand operations here in the United States, creating more jobs and higher wages
for American workers. Increasing the H-1B cap would also raise significant tax revenue from highly
skilled and highly paid workers. Heritage Foundation calculations show that raising the cap to 195,000 visas
would increase revenues by a total of nearly $69 billion over eight years. Unlike tax increases, this would be an
economically beneficial source of revenue for PAYGO offsets. (The pay-as-you-go rule mandates that any new
congressional spending or tax changes must not add to the federal deficit; any new costs must be offset with money from existing funds.)
Congress should therefore act now to raise the cap on visas for highly skilled workers.
Increasing skilled workers is key to economic success

Cromwell 9 (Courtney L.JD candidate at Brooklyn Law School, The Brooklyn Journal of Corporate, Financial, and Commercial
Law, 3(2) p. 457-458) JJN
Meanwhile, supporters of the H-1B program and a cap increase argue that the program enables the United States to
remain competitive in the global economy, and prevents the off-shoring of U.S. jobs to other countries.
These advocates argue three main points on the state of the labor market. First, that there is truly a shortage of highly
skilled workers as evidenced by the annual demand for H-1B visas. Second, that there is no fixed number
of jobs available in the U.S. labor market, and both compensation and the availability of jobs are based
on other factors within the labor market, thus making the shortage debate moot. Finally, that preventing
foreigners, especially foreign students enrolled in colleges and universities in the United States, from entering the U.S.
workforce, is “detrimental to our economic success in the future because we will lose valuable
intellectual capital.”
The H-1B visa is key to increasing skilled labor at no expense to US jobs

Sherk and Nguyen, 08 (James and Diem, Heritage Foundation, March 31, “Increasing the Cap for H-1B Visas Would Help the
Economy,” http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/13613.pdf, CW, accessed on 7/27/10)
Insourcing Jobs. Increasing the cap on H-1B visas creates new jobs for American workers, not just H-1B
immigrants. Employees do not compete for a fixed number of jobs so that when more H-1B workers
come to the United States, an equal number of Americans lose their jobs. Instead, businesses create jobs
when they grow and shed jobs. Currently, the economy has a severe shortage of workers for many high-
skilled positions. The unemployment rate in computer and mathematical occupations, like computer programming, was 2.1 percent
in 2007—essentially full employment after accounting for workers between jobs.2 There are not enough high-tech workers
in America to fill the jobs that employers want them to do. By increasing the H-1B cap,
Congress would allow companies to fill vital positions and enable them to expand
within the United States, which avoids the problem of companies outsourcing work or moving overseas.
Take the example of an engineering software company that hires an engineer and a software developer on H-1B visas. Without
those key workers, the company could not expand. Because it hired those key workers, however, the
company grows and creates many new domestic jobs: software programmers, software salesmen, and
technical support staff. A study by the National Foundation for American Policy found that
the average S&P 500 company creates five new domestic jobs for each highly skilled
H-1B visa employee it hires.3 By raising the H-1B cap, Congress “insources” jobs, allowing
companies to fill vital positions and expand their operations in America instead of moving overseas.
This benefits both American workers and the U.S. economy.
ADI 2010 6

Absent a strong H-1B program the US economy will collapse
Immigration Policy Center 9 (2/19/09, http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/us-economy-still-needs-highly-skilled-
foreign-workers , accessed 7/27/10) GEC
The U.S. economy needs high-skilled workers in a wide range of occupations. According to the
National Science Board (NSB), the science and engineering (S&E) “labor force does not include just
those in S&E occupations.” In Science and Engineering Indicators 2008, the NSB reports that “about 12.9 million
workers said in 2003 that they needed at least a bachelor’s degree level of knowledge” in a science and
engineering field to do their jobs. However, only 4.9 million of these workers were in occupations
formally defined as belonging to a “science and engineering” (S&E) field. Moreover, 66 percent of “S&E
degree holders in non-S&E occupations say their job is related to their degree, including many in
management and marketing occupations.” The economic value of high-skilled workers cannot be easily quantified. The
NSB emphasizes that the value of highly skilled S&E workers from different parts of the world cannot
be measured in simple, numerical terms given that science is, by its very nature, “a global enterprise”
dependent upon the exchange of ideas from a diverse range of perspectives. According to the NSB, “new
ways of doing business and performing R&D [research and development] take advantage of gains
from new knowledge discovered anywhere, from increases in foreign economic development, and from
expanding international migration of highly trained scientists and engineers.” Even today, the
demand for high-skilled workers remains high. In another study released in March 2008, Talent Search: Job Openings
and the Need for Skilled Labor in the U.S. Economy, the NFAP found that technology companies in the S&P 500
each posted an average of 470 skilled, U.S.-based job openings in January 2008, while defense
companies each posted an average of 1,265 such openings. The average number of skilled, U.S.-based
job openings posted for all S&P companies was 288 each. This represents only a fraction of the
demand for skilled workers in the United States since only about 14 percent of workers are employed
by S&P 500 companies. Moreover, many large companies recruit on college campuses and thereby fill jobs that are not publicly
posted. Among the companies with the greatest number of skilled job openings were Microsoft, Northrup Grumman, Lockheed Martin,
General Electric, Countrywide Financial, JPMorganChase, Tenet Healthcare, United Health Group, Raytheon, IBM, Computer Sciences
Corp., Cintas, L-3 Communications, Bank of America, U.S. Bancorp, and Cisco Systems. 3 The continued high level of
demand for skilled workers at many companies is “a reminder that even when one sector of the diverse
U.S. economy suffers a downturn other sectors may perform well or at least not experience declines.”
Moreover, “even a company experiencing economic difficulty may be filling jobs in one section even as it
sheds positions in another, since problems may be due to isolated underperformance in a division,
particularly due to competition or a general slowdown in one segment in the economy.” The high demand for
skilled labor is evident in the persistent shortage of H-1B temporary visas for highly skilled foreign professionals. H-1Bs are capped at only 65,000 per year
—the same number as in 1990, when the U.S. economy has about 40 percent smaller than it is today, and before the internet revolution and many other
high-tech advances. An additional 20,000 H-1Bs are reserved for foreign graduates of advanced-degree programs at U.S. universities. The supply of H-1B
visas has been exhausted by the first day of each fiscal year since 2004. In FY 2007, visas were awarded by lottery because twice as many eligible
applications were received than there were visa slots available. As our population ages and shrinks, highly skilled foreign professionals will become
increasingly important to the U.S. economy. According to a 2007 study by Jacob Funk Kirkegaard of the Peterson Institute of International Economics,
the skill levels of U.S. workers are stagnating relative to the rest of the world. As a result, “when
American baby boomers retire, they will take as many skills with them as their children will bring into
the U.S. workforce.” According to Kirkegaard, these demographic trends—combined with the growing
international competition for skilled workers—suggest that “in the coming decade, America could face
broad and substantial skill shortages.” Kirkegaard says that to overcome these challenges, the United
States will not only have to implement new educational policies to produce more high-skilled
Americans, but also “reform its high-skilled immigration policies and procedures not only to welcome
the best and the brightest but also to make it easier for them to stay.” He finds that the need for reform
is particularly urgent in “the H-1B temporary work visa and legal permanent resident (green card)
programs.” Similarly, the National Science Board concludes that, “barring large reductions in retirement rates, the
total number of retirements among workers with S&E degrees will dramatically increase over the next
20 years.” This suggests “a slower-growing and older S&E labor force”—a situation that would
worsen “if either new degree production were to drop or immigration to slow.” American companies support
American students and workers through fees, taxes, and charitable contributions. As the NFAP points out in a May 2007 study, the American
Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of 1998 created a training-and-scholarship fee of $500 that U.S. companies hiring H-1B workers must
pay for every new H-1B application and every first-time renewal of a worker’s H-1B status. This fee was raised by Congress to $1,000 in 2000. The fee was
raised again, to $1,500, by the L-1 Visa and H-1B Visa Reform Act of 2004, which also mandated that 4 5 50 percent of the revenue from the fee go to
National Science Foundation scholarships for U.S. undergraduate and graduate students in science and math, 30 percent to Department of Labor training
programs for U.S. workers, and 10 percent to the National Science Foundation for K-12 math and science programs (plus 5 percent each to the Departments
of Labor and Homeland Security for processing costs).
ADI 2010 7

US technology gains from H-1B visa holders are key to long term growth
Masters and Ruthizer, 00 (Suzette and Ted, CATO Institute, March 3, “The H-1B Straitjacket Why Congress Should Repeal the
Cap on Foreign-Born Highly Skilled Workers,” http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbp/tbp-007.pdf, CW, accessed on 7/28/10)\
Information technology companies depend on H-1B professionals to compete in a rapidly changing
marketplace. In 1995 about one-quarter of H-1B professionals were in IT-related fields. Not surprisingly, by 1997
approximately half of the H-1Bs were in IT related fields.16 Several aspects of the way the IT industry
functions account for its particular need for H-1B professionals. First, quick turnaround time
inevitably drives employers to hire professionals who already possess the needed
technical skills and experience and can work productively at once. Second, product
proliferation creates demand, which changes suddenly and often, for specialized
knowledge and skills. Combined, those pressures produce the need for “the right worker, with the right skills, at the right
time.”17 Because of those constraints, if there is no readily available U.S. worker, the H-1B professional
becomes critical to continued economic growth. Yet, despite the demonstrated contributions of those
workers to America’s welfare, the Clinton administration and some members of Congress have gone out of their
way to make it difficult, and sometimes impossible, to hire H-1B professionals.
Economic collapse causes nuclear war

Mead 9 (Walter Russell, Henry A. Kissinger Senior Fellow in U.S. Foreign Policy – Council on Foreign Relations, “Only Makes You
Stronger”, The New Republic, 2-4, http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=571cbbb9-2887-4d81-8542-92e83915f5f8&p=2)
If current market turmoil seriously damaged the performance and prospects of India and China, the current crisis could join the Great Depression in the list of economic events that
changed history, even if the recessions in the West are relatively short and mild. The United States should stand ready to assist Chinese and Indian financial authorities on an
emergency basis--and work very hard to help both countries escape or at least weather any economic downturn. It may test the political will of the Obama administration, but the
United States must avoid a protectionist response to the economic slowdown. U.S. moves to limit market access for Chinese and Indian producers could poison relations for years .
For billions of people in nuclear-armed countries to emerge from this crisis believing either that the United States was indifferent to
their well-being or that it had profited from their distress could damage U.S. foreign policy far more severely than any mistake made by
George W. Bush. It's not just the great powers whose trajectories have been affected by the crash. Lesser powers like Saudi Arabia and Iran also face new constraints. The crisis has
strengthened the U.S. position in the Middle East as falling oil prices reduce Iranian influence and increase the dependence of the oil sheikdoms on U.S. protection. Success in Iraq--
however late, however undeserved, however limited--had already improved the Obama administration's prospects for addressing regional crises. Now, the collapse in oil prices has
put the Iranian regime on the defensive. The annual inflation rate rose above 29 percent last September, up from about 17 percent in 2007, according to Iran's Bank Markazi.
Economists forecast that Iran's real GDP growth will drop markedly in the coming months as stagnating oil revenues and the continued global economic downturn force the
government to rein in its expansionary fiscal policy. All this has weakened Ahmadinejad at home and Iran abroad. Iranian officials must balance the relative merits of support for
allies like Hamas, Hezbollah, and Syria against domestic needs, while international sanctions and other diplomatic sticks have been made more painful and Western carrots (like trade
opportunities) have become more attractive. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia and other oil states have become more dependent on the United States for protection against Iran, and they have
fewer resources to fund religious extremism as they use diminished oil revenues to support basic domestic spending and development goals. None of this makes the Middle East an
easy target for U.S. diplomacy, but thanks in part to the economic crisis, the incoming administration has the chance to try some new ideas and to enter negotiations with Iran (and
Syria) from a position of enhanced strength. Every crisis is different, but there seem to be reasons why, over time, financial crises on balance reinforce rather than undermine the
world position of the leading capitalist countries. Since capitalism first emerged in early modern Europe, the ability to exploit the advantages of rapid economic development has been
a key factor in international competition. Countries that can encourage--or at least allow and sustain--the change, dislocation, upheaval, and pain that capitalism often involves, while
providing their tumultuous market societies with appropriate regulatory and legal frameworks, grow swiftly. They produce cutting-edge technologies that translate into military and
economic power. They are able to invest in education, making their workforces ever more productive. They typically develop liberal political institutions and cultural norms that
value, or at least tolerate, dissent and that allow people of different political and religious viewpoints to collaborate on a vast social project of modernization--and to maintain political
stability in the face of accelerating social and economic change. The vast productive capacity of leading capitalist powers gives them the ability to project influence around the world
and, to some degree, to remake the world to suit their own interests and preferences. This is what the United Kingdom and the United States have done in past centuries, and what
other capitalist powers like France, Germany, and Japan have done to a lesser extent. In these countries, the social forces that support the idea of a competitive market economy within
an appropriately liberal legal and political framework are relatively strong. But, in many other countries where capitalism rubs people the wrong way, this is not the case. On either
side of the Atlantic, for example, the Latin world is often drawn to anti-capitalist movements and rulers on both the right and the left. Russia, too, has never really taken to capitalism
and liberal society--whether during the time of the czars, the commissars, or the post-cold war leaders who so signally failed to build a stable, open system of liberal democratic
capitalism even as many former Warsaw Pact nations were making rapid transitions. Partly as a result of these internal cultural pressures, and partly because, in much of the world,
capitalism has appeared as an unwelcome interloper, imposed by foreign forces and shaped to fit foreign rather than domestic interests and preferences, many countries are only half-
heartedly capitalist. When crisis strikes, they are quick to decide that capitalism is a failure and look for alternatives. So far, such half-hearted experiments not only have failed to
work; they have left the societies that have tried them in a progressively worse position, farther behind the front-runners as time goes by. Argentina has lost ground to Chile; Russian
development has fallen farther behind that of the Baltic states and Central Europe. Frequently, the crisis has weakened the power of the merchants, industrialists, financiers, and
professionals who want to develop a liberal capitalist society integrated into the world. Crisis can also strengthen the hand of religious extremists, populist radicals, or authoritarian
traditionalists who are determined to resist liberal capitalist society for a variety of reasons. Meanwhile, the companies and banks based in these societies are often less established
and more vulnerable to the consequences of a financial crisis than more established firms in wealthier societies. As a result, developing countries and countries where capitalism has
relatively recent and shallow roots tend to suffer greater economic and political damage when crisis strikes--as, inevitably, it does. And, consequently, financial crises often reinforce
rather than challenge the global distribution of power and wealth. This may be happening yet again. None of which means that we can just sit back and enjoy the recession. History
may suggest that financial crises actually help capitalist great powers maintain their leads--but it has other, less reassuring messages as well. If financial crises have been a normal part
of life during the 300-year rise of the liberal capitalist system under the Anglophone powers, so has war. The wars of the League of Augsburg and the Spanish Succession; the Seven
Bad
Years War; the American Revolution; the Napoleonic Wars; the two World Wars; the cold war: The list of wars is almost as long as the list of financial crises.
economic times can breed wars. Europe was a pretty peaceful place in 1928, but the Depression poisoned German public
opinion and helped bring Adolf Hitler to power. If the current crisis turns into a depression, what rough
beasts might start slouching toward Moscow, Karachi, Beijing, or New Delhi to be born? The United States may
not, yet, decline, but, if we can't get the world economy back on track, we may still have to fight.
ADI 2010 8
1AC – Science Diplomacy (1/)

Expanding the cap on H-1B visas is the vital factor for maintaining science diplomacy -
solves disease and global conflict
Pickering et al, 10 (T H O MA S R . - o v president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, undersecretary of
state from 1997-2000 and chairs the advisory council of the Civilian Research and Development Foundation. Agre, a Nobel laureate, is a
physician and director of the Malaria Research Institute at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, P E T E R A G RE , “Science
diplomacy aids conflict reduction” http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/feb/20/science-diplomacy-aids-conflict-reduction/, 7/27/10, atl)
Over two foggy days in April, a group of high-ranking Chinese science and education leaders and some American counterparts met at a
University of California San Diego faculty club to discuss an issue crucial to both nations: educating future generations in the ethical
standards surrounding the conduct of research. The meeting was low-key – no TV cameras, no headlines – but from the start, its potential
for high impact was clear. Not so many years ago, during the Cold War, the two nations were locked in conflict. Now they
were collaborating to strengthen science for the 21st century. The talks were emblematic of a promising global trend that
features researchers, diplomats and others collaborating on science and, in the process, building closer ties between nations.
Even countries with tense government-to-government relations share common challenges in infectious
diseases, earthquake engineering, energy production and environmental protection. The White House and
Congress have made welcome moves to embrace the potential of science diplomacy, but in the months and years ahead,
they will need to exert still more leadership and make sure the effort has the resources needed to succeed. Science diplomacy
is hardly a new idea. A 1979 agreement between the United States and China paved the way for bilateral scientific cooperation
that has generated vast benefits for both nations, including reduced tensions and billions of dollars in economic activity.
U.S. and Soviet nongovernmental organizations contributed to a Cold War thaw through scientific exchanges, with little government
Now, science diplomacy may help America open a door toward improved
support other than travel visas.
relations with Pyongyang, too. Last December, six Americans representing leading scientific organizations sat down with their
North Korean counterparts. High-level science delegations from the United States in recent months also have visited Syria, Cuba and
Rwanda, not to mention Asian and European nations. America’s scientific and technological accomplishments are admired
worldwide, suggesting a valuable way to promote dialogue. A June 2004 Zogby International poll commissioned by the
Arab American Institute found that a deeply unfavorable view of the U.S. in many Muslim nations, but a profoundly
favorable view of U.S. science and technology. Similarly, Pew polling data from 43 countries shows that favorable views of
U.S. science and technology exceed overall views of the United States by an average of 23 points. Within the scientific
community, journals routinely publish articles cowritten by scientists from different nations, and scholars convene frequent conferences to
extend those ties. Science demands an intellectually honest atmosphere, peer review and a common language for the
professional exchange of ideas. Basic values of transparency, vigorous inquiry and respectful debate are all
essential. The North Korea visit, organized by the U.S.-Democratic People’s Republic of Korea Science Engagement Consortium,
exemplifies the vast potential of science for diplomacy. The U.S. government already has 43 bilateral umbrella science and
technology agreements with nations worldwide, and the administration of President Barack Obama is elevating the profile of science
engagement. In June, in Cairo, he promised a range of joint science and technology initiatives with Muslim-majority countries. In
November, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appointed three science envoys to foster new partnerships and address common challenges,
especially within Muslim-majority countries. In addition to providing resources, the government should quickly and
significantly increase the number of H1-B visas being approved for foreign doctors, scientists and
engineers. Foreign scientists working or studying in U.S. universities make critical contributions to human welfare and to
our economy, and they often become informal goodwill ambassadors for America overseas. Science is a wide-ranging
effort that naturally crosses borders, and so scientist-to-scientist collaboration can promote goodwill at
the grass roots. San Diego boasts a remarkable initiative at High Tech High charter school. Twice in recent years, biology teacher
Jay Vavra has led student teams to Africa to study the illegal trade in meat from wild and endangered animals. Working with
game wardens and tribal leaders, they use sophisticated DNA bar coding techniques to analyze the meat and track down
poachers. Such efforts advance science while supporting peace and the health of the planet. In an era of
complex global challenges, science diplomacy can be crucial to finding solutions both to global problems
and to global conflict.
ADI 2010 9

Unchecked disease spread will cause extinction
Yu 09 [Victoria, “Human Extinction: The Uncertainty of Our Fate,” Dartmouth Journal of Undergraduate
Science, May 22, http://dujs.dartmouth.edu/spring-2009/human-extinction-the-uncertainty-of-our-fate]
In the past, humans have indeed fallen victim to viruses. Perhaps the best-known case was the bubonic
plague that killed up to one third of the European population in the mid-14th century (7). While vaccines
have been developed for the plague and some other infectious diseases, new viral strains are constantly
emerging — a process that maintains the possibility of a pandemic-facilitated human extinction. Some
surveyed students mentioned AIDS as a potential pandemic-causing virus. It is true that scientists have been
unable thus far to find a sustainable cure for AIDS, mainly due to HIV’s rapid and constant evolution.
Specifically, two factors account for the virus’s abnormally high mutation rate: 1. HIV’s use of reverse
transcriptase, which does not have a proof-reading mechanism, and 2. the lack of an error-correction
mechanism in HIV DNA polymerase (8). Luckily, though, there are certain characteristics of HIV that make
it a poor candidate for a large-scale global infection: HIV can lie dormant in the human body for years
without manifesting itself, and AIDS itself does not kill directly, but rather through the weakening of the
immune system. However, for more easily transmitted viruses such as influenza, the evolution of new
strains could prove far more consequential. The simultaneous occurrence of antigenic drift (point
mutations that lead to new strains) and antigenic shift (the inter-species transfer of disease) in the
influenza virus could produce a new version of influenza for which scientists may not immediately find
a cure. Since influenza can spread quickly, this lag time could potentially lead to a “global influenza
pandemic,” according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (9). The most recent scare of
this variety came in 1918 when bird flu managed to kill over 50 million people around the world in what is
sometimes referred to as the Spanish flu pandemic. Perhaps even more frightening is the fact that only 25
mutations were required to convert the original viral strain — which could only infect birds — into a
human-viable strain (10).
ADI 2010 10

Increasing science diplomacy is key to international non-proliferation efforts – solves
escalating nuclear wars
Dickson, 10 (David, Director, SciDev.Net, 7 May 2010, “Nuclear disarmament is top priority for science diplomacy”,
http://www.scidev.net/en/editorials/nuclear-disarmament-is-top-priority-for-science-diplomacy.html, 7/28/10, atl)
The political climate is ripe for a new push to eliminate nuclear weapons; scientists can boost its chance of
success. Earlier this year, US satellites detected the first plume of steam from a nuclear reactor in Pakistan that
has been built to produce fuel for nuclear bombs, confirming the country's desire to strengthen its status as
a nuclear power. The observation — coming shortly before this month's review conference in New York of the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty (NPT) — is further evidence that the unregulated spread of nuclear technology remains closely
linked to the dangers of nuclear conflict. The good news is that US President Barack Obama seems determined to make
eliminating nuclear weapons a top priority. Indeed, last month he invited 47 heads of state to an unprecedented summit in Washington to
promote disarmament and agree strategies to prevent nuclear terrorism and safeguard nuclear material. But the news from Pakistan,
together with continued disagreement on how best to tackle other emerging nuclear states such as Iran and North Korea,
illustrates how far there is to go — and the political hurdles that must still be scaled — before this goal is achieved. New hope
Still, there is a sense of optimism for this year's review conference that was missing from the last meeting in 2005. Then, the aggressive stance
taken by the Bush administration — describing North Korea as part of an "axis of evil", for example — doomed the discussions to stalemate.
This time round, the prospects for agreement are significantly higher. Not only has Obama adopted a more moderate attitude towards
international affairs in general, but he has already made significant achievements on the nuclear front. Last month, for example, Russia
and the United States announced an arms control agreement under which both will significantly reduce their nuclear arsenals.
And since then, Obama has revised his nuclear policy to state, for the first time, that non-nuclear states that have signed the
NPT will never be targets of US nuclear weapons. Both agreements could have gone further. Some in Obama's administration wanted
him to take the further step of banning the use of nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear threat or attack. And despite the new cuts, both
Russia and the United States will still own enough nuclear weapons to destroy human life many times over. But the recent moves have
nonetheless created a political climate in which significant agreement, at least between nuclear weapons states, looks more realistic than it did
five years ago. There are even signs that the United States could eventually ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, the next major
step towards global nuclear disarmament. Need for vigilance The reasons for optimism are not restricted to the shift in the US
position. Equally influential has been a growing awareness within the developed and developing worlds of the threats of
nuclear terrorism and the need to improve protection of nuclear materials. Eighteen months ago, for example, an armed group
was caught breaking into a nuclear facility in South Africa in an apparent attempt to steal weapons-grade uranium that has
been stored at the site since the early 1990s, under international supervision. The incident provides a stark reminder of the
need for continued and effective vigilance. This need will increase as more developing countries turn towards nuclear power
as a source of affordable energy — a trend that will be reinforced by international efforts to promote renewable energy as a
strategy for tackling climate change. But the danger is that US-led initiatives will, with some justification, be seen as little
more than attempts to defend American interests, influenced as much by political relationships as by a genuine desire for
nuclear disarmament. For example, the nuclear cooperation deal between the United States and India that entered force in 2008 has been
cited by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace as an example of putting diplomatic and commercial interests ahead of non-
proliferation responsibilities and was criticised for exacerbating nuclear tensions in South Asia. Scientists, diplomats or both? The only
solution is for the developing world to accept that international nuclear non-proliferation is in its own
interests — the only way to prevent regional conflicts escalating into nuclear exchanges. The scientific
community has an important role to play in this process by explaining the threat posed by even relatively small nuclear
weapons, and advising on how to develop safeguards without overly restricting the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Scientists
have already shown their worth when they kept communication channels open between the United States and the Soviet Union
during the Cold War. The Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs were instrumental to such 'science diplomacy' and it can
be no coincidence that the approach is rapidly gaining favour in Washington, where John Holdren, who once headed Pugwash,
is Obama's science and technology advisor. If such diplomacy, on the control of nuclear weapons or other scientific issues, is
driven by the political and commercial interests of the developed world, it will remain suspect and doomed to fail. But if it can
be truly international, the chances of success are much higher. Reaching a global agreement on the steps needed to eliminate
nuclear weapons from the world would be a good place to start.
ADI 2010 11

Ignore their alt cause arguments – cap on H-1B visas triggers negative perceptions of US
science credibility – all of their alt causes are based on others still wanting to work with us
AAAS 4 (American Association for the Advancement of Science. Physics Today, 00319228, Feb2005, Vol. 58,
Issue 2. EBSCO) JM
In particular, there is increasing evidence that visa-related
problems are discouraging and preventing the best and
brightest international students, scholars, and scientists from studying and working in the United
States, as well as attending academic and scientific conferences here and abroad. If action is not taken
soon to improve the visa system, the misperception that the United States does not welcome
international students, scholars, and scientists will grow, and they may not make our nation their
destination of choice now and in the future. The damage to our nation's higher-education and scientific
enterprises, economy, and national security would be irreparable. The United States cannot hope to maintain its
present scientific and economic leadership position if it becomes isolated from the rest of the world.
ADI 2010 12
1AC – Heg (1/)

H-1B visas fill the critical gap left by a weak educational system needed to maintain US
hegemony
Paarlberg 4
(Robert, Prof. Poli Sci Wellesley College; International Security, Vol. 29, No. 1 (Summer, 2004), pp. 122-151; pp.
25) BHB
U.S. science has found a way to overcome this domestic educational handi-cap by importing trained
science talent from abroad. In this sense, globaliza-tion can be counted as a support for U.S. science
hegemony, not a threat to that hegemony. U.S. universities make up for K-12 educational deficits in science and math by attracting
well-trained STEM students from abroad, and then by persuading the best of these foreign students to stay. In all the natural sciences and
engineering, 35 percent of U.S. Ph.D.'s are now awarded to foreign stu-dents. In the physical sciences and engineering specifically,
roughly 50 percent of U.S. Ph.D.'s now go to foreign students.68 In addition to universities, high-technology U.S. manufacturing
firms have also come to rely heavily on foreign-born graduates for a substantial portion of their
growing workforce.69 Between 1990 and 2000, the foreign-born share of science and engineering doc-torates in the U.S.
workforce increased from 24 percent to 28 percent. When it comes to science, the United States remains the
preeminent land of immi-grants. In 1999 all four of the U.S. Nobel Prize winners in physics, chemistry,
physiology/medicine, and economics were born outside of the United States. Roughly one-third of the foreign
scientists now working in the United States arrived already fully trained.70 When the United States
allows graduates from India's elite institutes of technology to enter with temporary visas, the nation
gains access at no charge to a human capital resource that costs the govern-ment of India roughly
$15,000-$20,000 per student to train. By implication, when Congress in 1998 eased the annual quota on H-1B
visas, thus facilitating movement into the country for roughly 100,000 of these well-trained Indian professionals, the training cost
savings for the United States equaled $2 billion per year.7" As long as the United States can continue to
attract this trained foreign talent, the weakness of its own K-12 science preparation system will not
have to undermine U.S. science hegemony overall.
Specialized workers are key to dominant military innovations

Paarlberg 4 (“Knowledge as Power: Science, Military Dominance, and U. S. Security”
Robert L., International Security, Vol. 29, No. 1, Summer 2004 Pg 142)
Dominant military innovations will also be more difficult for rival states to copy because they are no
longer stand-alone pieces of hardware. The RMA de-pends on entire systems of both hardware and
software-sensors, satellites, program codes, and command systems, not just weapons platforms.
Moreover, only teams of technically skilled, highly trained, and continuously practiced personnel can
operate these networked RMA weapons systems. The superb U.S. all-volunteer military force, built
specifically to provide such operating personnel, is a unique human and institutional asset that less
capable foreign rivals can neither copy nor steal. Potential rivals such as China cannot hope to develop an
RMA capability through simple transfer, whether by purchase or theft. Through espionage China may have
been able to gain information on the W-88 warhead used on U.S. Trident missiles, and China was nearly
successful in purchasing from Is-rael the Phalcon system (which contained modern phased-array technology)
before the U.S. government halted this sale in 2000.64Y et even with access to such imported or stolen
technology, the Chinese military system will not be able to advance to an RMA capability, given the
notorious weakness of the PLA in areas such as command, control, communications, and intelligence
ADI 2010 13
1AC – Heg (2/)

Heg solves every scenario for nuclear war
Kagan 7 (Robert, Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, “End of Dreams, Return
of History” Policy Review http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/8552512.html#n10)
Finally, there is the United States itself. As a matter of national policy stretching back across numerous
administrations, Democratic and Republican, liberal and conservative, Americans have insisted on
preserving regional predominance in East Asia; the Middle East; the Western Hemisphere; until
recently, Europe; and now, increasingly, Central Asia. This was its goal after the Second World War, and
since the end of the Cold War, beginning with the first Bush administration and continuing through the
Clinton years, the United States did not retract but expanded its influence eastward across Europe and into
the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Caucasus. Even as it maintains its position as the predominant
global power, it is also engaged in hegemonic competitions in these regions with China in East and
Central Asia, with Iran in the Middle East and Central Asia, and with Russia in Eastern Europe,
Central Asia, and the Caucasus. The United States, too, is more of a traditional than a postmodern power,
and though Americans are loath to acknowledge it, they generally prefer their global place as “No. 1” and are
equally loath to relinquish it. Once having entered a region, whether for practical or idealistic reasons, they
are remarkably slow to withdraw from it until they believe they have substantially transformed it in their own
image. They profess indifference to the world and claim they just want to be left alone even as they seek
daily to shape the behavior of billions of people around the globe. The jostling for status and influence
among these ambitious nations and would-be nations is a second defining feature of the new post-Cold War
international system. Nationalism in all its forms is back, if it ever went away, and so is international
competition for power, influence, honor, and status. American predominance prevents these rivalries
from intensifying — its regional as well as its global predominance. Were the United States to diminish
its influence in the regions where it is currently the strongest power, the other nations would settle
disputes as great and lesser powers have done in the past: sometimes through diplomacy and
accommodation but often through confrontation and wars of varying scope, intensity, and
destructiveness. One novel aspect of such a multipolar world is that most of these powers would
possess nuclear weapons. That could make wars between them less likely, or it could simply make
them more catastrophic. It is easy but also dangerous to underestimate the role the United States plays
in providing a measure of stability in the world even as it also disrupts stability. For instance, the
United States is the dominant naval power everywhere, such that other nations cannot compete with it
even in their home waters. They either happily or grudgingly allow the United States Navy to be the
guarantor of international waterways and trade routes, of international access to markets and raw
materials such as oil. Even when the United States engages in a war, it is able to play its role as
guardian of the waterways. In a more genuinely multipolar world, however, it would not. Nations
would compete for naval dominance at least in their own regions and possibly beyond. Conflict
between nations would involve struggles on the oceans as well as on land. Armed embargos, of the kind
used in World War i and other major conflicts, would disrupt trade flows in a way that is now
impossible. Such order as exists in the world rests not only on the goodwill of peoples but also on American
power. Such order as exists in the world rests not merely on the goodwill of peoples but on a foundation
provided by American power. Even the European Union, that great geopolitical miracle, owes its founding to
American power, for without it the European nations after World War ii would never have felt secure enough
to reintegrate Germany. Most Europeans recoil at the thought, but even today Europe’s stability depends on
the guarantee, however distant and one hopes unnecessary, that the United States could step in to check any
dangerous development on the continent. In a genuinely multipolar world, that would not be possible without
renewing the danger of world war. People who believe greater equality among nations would be preferable to
the present American predominance often succumb to a basic logical fallacy. They believe the order the
world enjoys today exists independently of American power. They imagine that in a world where American
power was diminished, the aspects of international order that they like would remain in place. But that’s not
the way it works. International order does not rest on ideas and institutions. It is shaped by configurations of
power. The international order we know today reflects the distribution of power in the world since World
War ii, and especially since the end of the Cold War. A different configuration of power, a multipolar world
in which the poles were Russia, China, the United States, India, and Europe, would produce its own kind of
order, with different rules and norms reflecting the interests of the powerful states that would have a hand in
shaping it. Would that international order be an improvement? Perhaps for Beijing and Moscow it would. But
it is doubtful that it would suit the tastes of enlightenment liberals in the United States and Europe. The
ADI 2010 14
1AC – Heg (3/)

current order, of course, is not only far from perfect but also offers no guarantee against major conflict
among the world’s great powers. Even under the umbrella of unipolarity, regional conflicts involving the
large powers may erupt. War could erupt between China and Taiwan and draw in both the United States and
Japan. War could erupt between Russia and Georgia, forcing the United States and its European allies to
decide whether to intervene or suffer the consequences of a Russian victory. Conflict between India and
Pakistan remains possible, as does conflict between Iran and Israel or other Middle Eastern states. These, too,
could draw in other great powers, including the United States. Such conflicts may be unavoidable no
matter what policies the United States pursues. But they are more likely to erupt if the United States
weakens or withdraws from its positions of regional dominance. This is especially true in East Asia,
where most nations agree that a reliable American power has a stabilizing and pacific effect on the
region. That is certainly the view of most of China’s neighbors. But even China, which seeks gradually to
supplant the United States as the dominant power in the region, faces the dilemma that an American
withdrawal could unleash an ambitious, independent, nationalist Japan. In Europe, too, the departure
of the United States from the scene — even if it remained the world’s most powerful nation — could be
destabilizing. It could tempt Russia to an even more overbearing and potentially forceful approach to
unruly nations on its periphery. Although some realist theorists seem to imagine that the disappearance of
the Soviet Union put an end to the possibility of confrontation between Russia and the West, and therefore to
the need for a permanent American role in Europe, history suggests that conflicts in Europe involving
Russia are possible even without Soviet communism. If the United States withdrew from Europe — if
it adopted what some call a strategy of “offshore balancing” — this could in time increase the
likelihood of conflict involving Russia and its near neighbors, which could in turn draw the United
States back in under unfavorable circumstances. It is also optimistic to imagine that a retrenchment of
the American position in the Middle East and the assumption of a more passive, “offshore” role would
lead to greater stability there. The vital interest the United States has in access to oil and the role it plays in
keeping access open to other nations in Europe and Asia make it unlikely that American leaders could or
would stand back and hope for the best while the powers in the region battle it out. Nor would a more “even-
handed” policy toward Israel, which some see as the magic key to unlocking peace, stability, and comity in
the Middle East, obviate the need to come to Israel ’s aid if its security became threatened. That commitment,
paired with the American commitment to protect strategic oil supplies for most of the world, practically
ensures a heavy American military presence in the region, both on the seas and on the ground. The
subtraction of American power from any region would not end conflict but would simply change the
equation. In the Middle East, competition for influence among powers both inside and outside the region has
raged for at least two centuries. The rise of Islamic fundamentalism doesn’t change this. It only adds a new
and more threatening dimension to the competition, which neither a sudden end to the conflict between Israel
and the Palestinians nor an immediate American withdrawal from Iraq would change. The alternative to
American predominance in the region is not balance and peace. It is further competition. The region
and the states within it remain relatively weak. A diminution of American influence would not be followed
by a diminution of other external influences. One could expect deeper involvement by both China and
Russia, if only to secure their interests. 18 And one could also expect the more powerful states of the region,
particularly Iran, to expand and fill the vacuum. It is doubtful that any American administration would
voluntarily take actions that could shift the balance of power in the Middle East further toward Russia, China,
or Iran. The world hasn’t changed that much. An American withdrawal from Iraq will not return things to
“normal” or to a new kind of stability in the region. It will produce a new instability, one likely to draw the
United States back in again. The alternative to American regional predominance in the Middle East and
elsewhere is not a new regional stability. In an era of burgeoning nationalism, the future is likely to be
one of intensified competition among nations and nationalist movements. Difficult as it may be to
extend American predominance into the future, no one should imagine that a reduction of American
power or a retraction of American influence and global involvement will provide an easier path.
ADI 2010 15
1AC – Heg (4/)

China’s is using is consolidating economic strength through outsourcing
Lei 7
(David; Assoc Prof SMU; Winter 07 Orbis; Outsourcing and China’s Rising Economic Power; p. 27-8) BHB
Taking a calculative approach to analyzing the role of outsourcing in Chinese strategy formulation rests on a key
assumption: that many long-time Chinese strategic axioms, some dating back to ancient times, still shape or influence the
thinking of Chinese policymakers. One of the most important tenets of Chinese strategic thought is the idea of managing
one’s own strengths and weaknesses according to those of an opponent. If the opponent is stronger,
then it is preferable to accommodate rather than to directly confront it. Weakness requires the state to
adopt a more flexible posture in which it avoids conflict and slowly builds up strength. On the other hand,
when the opponent is weaker, it is preferable to establish dominance over it, usually in the form of a hierarchical, tributary relationship.
For nearly two millennia— throughout the Han, Tang, Song, Ming and Qing dynasties—Chinese military expeditions sought to establish
tributary relationships around China’s periphery, including Central Asia, Korea, Vietnam, Southeast Asia along the South China Sea
coast, and the northern desert steppe. This preferred foreign policy imperative of establishing and maintaining a
tributary relationship with peripheral countries has remained a central part of Chinese strategic
thinking.3 For example, during the Ming dynasty (1368–1644), vast fleets under the naval leadership of ChengHo ruled theWestern
Pacific and Indian Oceans for well over a century. By eliminating naval pirates and supporting local kingdoms that offered tribute and
gifts to the emperor, Cheng Ho’s fleet initiated and cultivated a complex web of political relationships with foreign states that amounted
to a benevolent hegemony which projected Chinese influence over a vast region. This same fleet provided vital security to shipping and
commerce that passed through the Straits of Malacca linking Southeast Asia with the Indian Ocean. Later, the Qing dynasty (1644–
1911) combined military force with the establishment of tributary relationships to solidify its position in once hard-to-control regions
such as Outer Mongolia, Tibet, Korea, and current day Xinjiang Province. Although the Qing created strong cavalry forces to protect
these same regions, a reliance on diplomatic initiatives to disrupt the nomadic peoples from forming a single state predominated, a
strategic policy practiced as early as the Han dynasty. From an economic policy perspective, one can imagine that
the contemporary Chinese government likely views its economic relationships with foreign firms from
a tributary perspective. In order for foreign firms to gain the privilege of selling in the Chinese market,
theymust pay a ‘‘tribute’’ in the form of technology transfer.
Chinese economic growth leads to war over Taiwan

Lei 7
(David; Assoc Prof SMU; Winter 07 Orbis; Outsourcing and China’s Rising Economic Power; p. 38) BHB
Chinese economic growth will complicate the strategic balance in East Asia. The ongoing war of words with
Taiwan represents an enduring dilemma for U.S. policymakers, especially as Chinese missile strength expands
each year on its side of the Taiwan strait. From the prism of U.S. containment, Chinese military
planners tend to view U.S.-based Pacific forces as a threat.13 Conversely, Pentagon war-fighting scenarios
acknowledge mounting Chinese force-projection capabilities beyond the Taiwan strait into the western
Pacific. Some military planners feel that U.S. carrier battle groups face a rising danger of saturated
Chinese missile and air attacks from newly developed air-to-ship missiles.14
ADI 2010 16
1AC – Heg (5/)

Taiwan war causes extinction
Strait Times 2k (The Straits Times (Singapore), “No one gains in war over Taiwan”, June 25, 2000, L/N)
The doomsday scenario THE high-intensity scenario postulates a cross-strait war escalating into a full-
scale war between the US and China. If Washington were to conclude that splitting China would better
serve its national interests, then a full-scale war becomes unavoidable. Conflict on such a scale would
embroil other countries far and near and -- horror of horrors -- raise the possibility of a nuclear war.
Beijing has already told the US and Japan privately that it considers any country providing bases and
logistics support to any US forces attacking China as belligerent parties open to its retaliation. In the region,
this means South Korea, Japan, the Philippines and, to a lesser extent, Singapore. If China were to retaliate,
east Asia will be set on fire. And the conflagration may not end there as opportunistic powers
elsewhere may try to overturn the existing world order. With the US distracted, Russia may seek to
redefine Europe's political landscape. The balance of power in the Middle East may be similarly upset
by the likes of Iraq. In south Asia, hostilities between India and Pakistan, each armed with its own
nuclear arsenal, could enter a new and dangerous phase. Will a full-scale Sino-US war lead to a nuclear
war? According to General Matthew Ridgeway, commander of the US Eighth Army which fought against the
Chinese in the Korean War, the US had at the time thought of using nuclear weapons against China to save
the US from military defeat. In his book The Korean War, a personal account of the military and political
aspects of the conflict and its implications on future US foreign policy, Gen Ridgeway said that US was
confronted with two choices in Korea -- truce or a broadened war, which could have led to the use of nuclear
weapons. If the US had to resort to nuclear weaponry to defeat China long before the latter acquired a similar
capability, there is little hope of winning a war against China 50 years later, short of using nuclear weapons.
The US estimates that China possesses about 20 nuclear warheads that can destroy major American cities.
Beijing also seems prepared to go for the nuclear option. A Chinese military officer disclosed recently that
Beijing was considering a review of its "non first use" principle regarding nuclear weapons. Major-General
Pan Zhangqiang, president of the military-funded Institute for Strategic Studies, told a gathering at the
Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars in Washington that although the government still abided
by that principle, there were strong pressures from the military to drop it. He said military leaders considered
the use of nuclear weapons mandatory if the country risked dismemberment as a result of foreign
intervention. Gen Ridgeway said that should that come to pass, we would see the destruction of civilisation.
There would be no victors in such a war. While the prospect of a nuclear Armaggedon over Taiwan
might seem inconceivable, it cannot be ruled out entirely, for China puts sovereignty above everything
else.
ADI 2010 17
***ECONOMY***
ADI 2010 18
Economy Adv – U – On the Brink (1/)

Economy is on Brink
Fritze 10 (John, 6/30/10 http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2010/06/national-debt-soars-to-highest-level-since-wwii/1?
POE=click-refer, USA Today, accessed 7/27/10) GEC
The federal debt will represent 62% of the nation's economy by the end of this year, the highest
percentage since just after World War II, according to a long-term budget outlook released today by the non-
partisan Congressional Budget Office. Republicans, who have been talking a lot about the debt in recent
months, pounced on the report. "The driver of this debt is spending," said New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg,
the top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee. "Our existing debt will be worsened by the
president's new health care entitlement programs…as well as an explosion in existing health care and
retirement entitlement spending as the Baby Boomers retire." At the end of 2008, the debt equaled about
40 % of the nation's annual economic output, according to the CBO. The report comes as the National
Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform meets today. The group, created by President Obama, is
expected to issue recommendations in December to curb the debt – a point Democrats raised today. The CBO
report "reinforces the importance of the work being done right now by the president's fiscal commission,"
said Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., who chairs the Senate Budget Committee. "We simply cannot allow the
federal debt to explode as envisioned under CBO's projections. The economic security of the country
and the quality of life for our children and grandchildren are at stake."
Risks to global economy have 'risen significantly'

The Telegraph 10
(6/9/2010, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/7812903/Risks-to-global-economy-have-risen-significantly-top-IMF-official-
warns.html, accessed 7/27/10) GEC
The risks to a robust global recovery have 'risen significantly' as many governments struggle with
debt, a leading official from the International Monetary Fund has warned. The G20 summit in April. 2009,
was the high watermark for international co-operation in tackling the financial and economic crisis.“After
nearly two years of global economic and financial upheaval, shockwaves are still being felt, as we have
seen with recent developments in Europe and the resulting financial market volatility,” Naoyuki
Shinohara, the IMF's deputy managing director, said in Singapore on Wednesday. “The global outlook
remains unusually uncertain and downside risks have risen significantly.” Countries across Europe are
under pressure to tackle their deficits that were deepened by the financial crisis and governments own
response to it. Some economists fear that moves by countries ranging from Britain to Spain to rein in
public spending at the same time will set back a global recovery. Stock markets have declined in the
past couple of months as Europe's debt crisis and the prospect of higher interest rates in the faster-
growing Asian economies cast a shadow over the recovery. “Adverse developments in Europe could disrupt global
trade, with implications for Asia given the still important role of external demand,” Mr Shinohara said. “In the event of spillovers from
Europe, there is ample room in most Asian economies to pause the withdrawal of fiscal stimulus.” Mr Shinohara, the former top
currency official in Japan, added that "a key concern is that the room for continued policy support has become much more limited and
has, in some cases, been exhausted.”
ADI 2010 19
Economy Adv – U – On the Brink (2/)

The U.S. economy is grinding to a halt – Fed Beige Book
Beatty 10 (Andrew, U.S. economics correspondent, AFP, 7/28, http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hHNXCe_0-
U64q1EmOMy0N7Z69xLA) JAS
The "modest" US economic recovery is slowing in some parts of the country, the Federal Reserve warned in its latest
Beige Book report published Wednesday. "Economic activity has continued to increase, on balance, since the previous survey" in early June, the
Fed said, while noting significant headwinds. "Among those districts reporting improvements in economic activity, a
number of them noted that the increases were modest, and two districts, Atlanta and Chicago, said that the pace of
economic activity had slowed recently." The Fed's survey is likely to fuel concerns -- already fanned by high
unemployment and weak business confidence -- that the world's biggest economy is slipping toward the
second part of a double-dip recession. "The picture is more pessimistic than in the last survey, when all 12 Fed
districts reported growth," said Nigel Gault chief US economist with IHS Global Insight. "The report underlines that the economy
has lost momentum at the mid-point of the year, but doesn't yet suggest a tip back into recession." The Fed also reported
bad news from sectors that have been key pillars of the US economy, including the all-important jobs market.
Noting the "labor market conditions improved gradually in several districts," the Fed said five regions saw an increase in demand for temporary
labor. In five other regions "labor markets improved, albeit modestly in some cases." The report "falls in line with
other economic data on the labor market, manufacturing and housing, which indicates some softening in
recent months," said economists at Moody's Economist.com. There was also little sign of respite in the struggling housing market as
government stimulus measures evaporated. "Activity in residential real estate markets was sluggish in most districts
after the expiration of the April 30 deadline for the homebuyer tax credit," the Beige Book said "Some sectors like
the real estate activity are still subject to serious concerns," said Thomas Julien, an economist with the investment firm
Natixis. And Americans do not appear to be flooding back to the shops or buying online. "Reports on retail
sales during the early summer months were generally positive, although in most districts the increases were modest," the Fed
report said.
ADI 2010 20
Economy Adv – U – Double Dip (1/)

U.S. economy down, with risk of a double-dip recession
Aquila 10 (Frank, Businessweek.com columnist, Bloomberg Businessweek, 7/28, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38448157/ns/business-
bloomberg_businessweek/0) JAS
Whether or not the second leg of a so-called double-dip recession is imminent, it is clear that the U.S.
economy will struggle for some time to come. A recession is a period of negative growth, or contraction, of
the economy. Although there is no official definition for a double-dip recession, the term is used to describe
two recessions with a short recovery in between. Double-dip recessions are rare, and the U.S. has not
experienced one since 1981. Given the weak economy and lack of meaningful job creation -- the private
sector added only 83,000 jobs in June, below economists' estimates -- it is not surprising that many
wonder whether we have ever actually come out of the recession in the first place. True, we have had
modest economic growth so far this year, but much of that has been fueled by historically low interest
rates, the massive U.S. stimulus program, and the hiring of temporary Census workers. Despite a long
and deep recession, the worst since the Great Depression, the recovery has been rather tepid. The
sputtering economy and talk of a possible second recession have certainly rattled an already fragile
American consumer. Consumer confidence is now at its lowest level in a year, and consumer spending
tumbled in May and June. Since consumer spending accounts for more than two-thirds of U.S.
economic growth, a nervous consumer is not a good omen for a robust recovery. Job creation is a key
factor in increasing consumer confidence. While economists estimate that we need economic growth of 4
percent or more to stimulate significant job creation, the economy has grown at only about 2 percent
to 3 percent, with a slowdown expected in the second half. Whether or not another recession is likely, a
difficult economic environment will essentially be our "new normal" for some time. [The phrase "new normal"
was coined by Pimco in May 2009 to describe a world characterized by high unemployment rates, more regulation, and a shrinking role for the U.S. in the
global economy.) Despite a rather steep drop in home prices since the bursting of the housing bubble in 2007, and a temporary uptick in home sales induced
by the first-time home buyer's tax credit, the residential real estate market now appears to be headed for a further
downturn. Home sales plunged to a record low in May, the month following the expiration of the home
buyers' tax credit, despite record low mortgage rates. The foreclosure rate has continued to rise, and
the mortgage delinquency rate has risen from 9.5 percent to 10.1 percent. It is estimated that up to 7.8
million homes have either been foreclosed or have delinquent mortgages, in addition to the 3.9 million
homes already on the market. Given these levels, home prices are unlikely to increase for some time in
most parts of the country. Anemic home values could be a marker for a broader economic malady: deflation. Not since
the Great Depression has the U.S. experienced deflation, a sustained dropping of prices and asset values. Since the Federal Reserve has cut interest rates to
near zero and the government has boosted spending significantly to address the current weakness, one would expect a resultant resurgence in inflation.
Instead, inflation has remained extremely low, with the headline consumer price index up 1.1 percent from a year earlier [a 0.9 percent rise if you exclude
food and energy prices]. Economists and central bankers are now worried about deflation. The notes from the June meeting of the Federal Reserve's Open
Market Committee indicate that policymakers are clearly concerned about deflation. Boston Federal Reserve Bank President Eric Rosengren, an FOMC
member, has acknowledged that deflation is "more of a risk than I would like to see at this point." Former Federal Reserve Board member Larry Lindsey
went even further, proclaiming that the U.S. has entered a "deflationary trap." While falling prices might seem to be a good thing for consumers, the reality
is much more complex and in fact rather painful. Deflation makes money more valuable and everything else less valuable. Why buy a car or a new home or
a flat-panel television today if they are going to be cheaper next month and possibly even cheaper next year. If consumers are not buying
and the value of inventory is dropping, where is the incentive for business investment? There is none,
which is why deflation leads to economic contraction rather than expansion. While U.S. public companies
have accumulated nearly $2 trillion in cash reserves, state and local governments have not been as lucky in
the wake of the economic downturn. Tax revenues have been down while spending continues to grow.
Almost all U.S. states are struggling to close massive budget deficits. Most local governments are in
similar dire straits. Unlike the federal government, state and local governments have few options when
faced with significant budget shortfalls. Whether they cut services, raise taxes, or both, the effect on the
broader economy will surely be negative. New and smaller businesses, the primary engine of job creation in
the U.S., are not likely to lead the way this time around. Small business owners, already struggling after
the past two years, are finding it difficult to access the credit needed to grow and expand. Even if
entrepreneurs can obtain credit, most are not in the mood to expand at the moment. Uncertainty dampens
business confidence, and business is facing plenty of uncertainty at the moment. With health-care reform,
financial regulatory reform, and the scheduled expiration of the tax cuts enacted by President George W.
Bush all about to take effect, business owners are more inclined to take a "wait and see" attitude when it
comes to expansion. With governments struggling under the weight of ballooning budget deficits and
businesses waiting for the return of sustained growth, it is the American consumer who will have to lift the
global economy out of the mire. Given the recent news and current consumer sentiment, that appears to be
an unlikely prospect in the near term.
ADI 2010 21

Every sector of the economy is in terrible shape – we’re headed toward a double-dip
recession
Adler 10 (Lynn, journalist, Reuters, 7/28, http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2726037520100727) JAS
Job worries drove July U.S. consumer confidence to its lowest since February, with one in six people expecting
lower income in the next six months, underscoring the precarious state of economic recovery. Home prices rose in
May but display no signs of a sustained rebound as long as unemployment flirts with 10 percent and a
record stockpile of foreclosed houses looms over the market, a separate report showed on Tuesday. Single-family
house prices remain 29.1 percent below peaks four years ago, according to a Standard & Poor's/Case-Shiller index. The
deepest housing crash since the Great Depression dragged the U.S. economy into recession, and is doing
little to stimulate broader growth as many economists fret about a possible double-dip recession. The
Conference Board, a New York-based business and economics research group, reported that consumer attitudes worsened this
month as did expectations about jobs being hard to get. For more see [ID:nN27219358] [ID:nNLLRIE6A9].
"Concerns about business conditions and the labor market are casting a dark cloud over consumers that is
not likely to lift until the job market improves," said Lynn Franco, Director of The Conference Board Consumer Research
Center. The group's index of consumer attitudes fell to 50.4 in July from an upwardly revised 54.3 in June, below the median forecast of 51
in a Reuters poll. The "jobs hard to get" reading, meanwhile, rose to 45.8 percent from 43.5 percent. The tepid consumer data
tempered stock market gains. U.S. Treasuries fell in the face of new supply. "There have been quite a few
headwinds -- the fiscal stimulus is fading, the European situation certainly did have an impact on consumer confidence and inventories are
being brought more into line," said David Sloan, economist at 4Cast Ltd in New York. "But clearly the big problem for
consumers is jobs." U.S. unemployment stood at 9.5 percent in June, the lowest in nearly a year, but
reflected people leaving the workforce rather than a trend toward greater hiring. New jobless benefits claims,
to be reported by the Labor Department on Thursday, are seen are seen dipping to 459,000 in the week ended July 24 from a surprisingly
high 464,000 the prior week "Without consumers on board, the economic recovery is looking dangerously
vulnerable," Paul Dales, U.S. economist at Capital Economics in Toronto, wrote in a report. "Falling consumer confidence
and the growing likelihood of a double-dip in house prices have put a further dent in the already
deteriorating outlook for consumption growth." Consumer sentiment fell to a nearly one-year low in July on renewed fears
about economic stability, according to the Thomson Reuters/University of Michigan's Surveys of Consumers earlier this month. The final
data will be reported on Friday.[nN16126985] U.S. single-family home prices rose more than expected in May, but still reflected robust
spring sales spurred by now-expired homebuyer tax credits, the S&P/Case-Shiller home price indexes showed. [ID:nNLLRIE6A8] May is a
strong seasonal period for home sales, and buyers who rushed to sign contracts by the April 30 deadline for up to $8,000 in tax credits have
until Sept. 30 to close loans. Seven of the 20 largest metro areas still reported lower prices than a year ago and most economists predict
further single-digit declines before any sustained upturn. A record inventory of foreclosed properties further threatens prices. "For me, a
double-dip is another recession before we've healed from this recession ... The probability of that kind of double-dip is more
than 50 percent," Robert Shiller, professor of economics at Yale University and co-developer of the price index told Reuters Insider.
[ID:nN27264398] The 20-city composite price index in May rose 0.5 percent, seasonally adjusted, after an upwardly revised 0.6 percent
April gain, topping the 0.2 percent rise seen in a Reuters poll. The index was 4.6 percent above last May, S&P said. Prices jumped 1.3
percent on an unadjusted basis after a 0.9 percent April gain and falls in the six prior months. "While May's report on its own looks somewhat
positive, a broader look at home price levels over the past year still does not indicate that the housing market is in
any form of sustained recovery," David M. Blitzer, chairman of the Index Committee at Standard & Poor's, said in a statement.
Sales of new homes in June, reported on Monday, surged 23.6 percent but remained at the second-lowest level since the Commerce
Department started keeping records in 1963. [ID:nN26129525] The government is expected to report on Friday that gross domestic
product growth slowed to a 2.5 percent annual rate in the second quarter from a 2.7 percent pace in the first.
ADI 2010 22

Double-dip recession coming now – 8 reasons
Montgomery 10 (Daryl, New York investing meetup organizer, ETFGuide, 7/28, http://www.etfguide.com/research/396/23/8-More-
Reasons-for-a-Double-Dip-Recession/) JAS
As earnings season continues and one company after another beats expectations, the economic numbers are
continuing to come in below estimates. The data and indicators are increasingly painting a picture of an
economy that is falling apart. Here are a few of the reasons why another recession is imminent: 1. U.S.
orders for durable goods fell 1.0% in June. Economists expected them to rise 1.0%. Excluding the
volatile transportation sector, orders fell 0.6% and shipments were down 1.3%. Inventories rose for the
sixth month in a row, indicating goods are being produced, but they're not moving out the door. 2.
Industrial output in China fell 2.8% in June. A "potential weakening of the global economy" was cited
as the cause. 3. The ECRI (Economic Cycle Research Institute) weekly leading indicators have fallen as
low as minus 10.5. There has never been a case when they have gotten this low and there hasn't been a
recession. 4. The Consumer Metrics Institute's Growth Index has been negative since January and is
now around minus 3.0 (it fell to around minus 6.0 in August 2008). It leads U.S. GDP by approximately
two quarters. 5. The U.S. trade deficit widened in May and was the largest in 18 months. This
happened even though oil imports fell over 9%. Rising oil imports are usually the factor that makes
the trade deficit go up. The trade deficit subtracts from GDP. 6. After a sharp drop in June, U.S.
consumer confidence fell even more in July. The Conference Board's latest reading was 50.4. As usual,
economist's estimates were on the high side. A reading of 90 or above indicates a robust economy. Before the
most recent recession, consumer spending was 72% of GDP. 7. U.S. weekly unemployment claims refuse
to drop below 400,000, the approximate dividing line between recession and non-recession. At no point
during the current 'recovery' have they gotten that low. The unadjusted number of claims for the week of July
17th was 498,000. Even though companies are reporting huge earnings increases and raising estimates
for next quarter, more and more workers continue to lose their jobs. 8. The economic cheerleader-in-
chief, Fed Chair Ben Bernanke, gave a gloomy report on the U.S. economy last week in his bi-annual
testimony before congress. Bernanke didn't see the subprime crisis coming, nor did he realize the U.S.
was in a recession in the spring of 2008, months after the recession had begun. So if even he admits the
economy is weak, it must really be in bad shape. Bank of England Governor Mervyn King, has also
recently stated, "Britain can't be confident that a sustained recovery is under way".
ADI 2010 23

The economy’s at a crucial crossroads, at which consumers must ensure the recovery
continues – low consumer confidence (that’s Montgomery 10) ensures a double-dip
recession
Irwin 10 (Neil, Washington Post financial staff writer, 7/29, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2010/07/28/AR2010072806049.html?hpid=topnews) JAS
The recovery faces a crucial test over the next couple of months: Either it will pick up vital momentum
from increased consumer spending and investment or stall out, dipping into a period of anemic growth -- or perhaps
even another recession.
Forecasters knew this inflection point would arrive, a moment when consumers and businesses must
take over for government stimulus spending and the rebuilding of inventories.
On Friday, the government will offer crucial evidence when it reports on second-quarter economic growth. This will be the first in a
series of indicators in the coming weeks that could help answer whether the economy has achieved cruising speed, in particular whether
the private sector is growing fast enough to put unemployed Americans back to work. Forecasters are expecting that gross domestic
product rose at a rate of 2 to 2.5 percent rate in the April-through-June quarter, which would be too slow to drive down the jobless rate.
Just Wednesday, the government announced a surprising 1 percent drop in June orders for durable goods and a compilation of
anecdotal reports from around the country by the Federal Reserve showed a recovery that is increasingly
uneven. This fit into the pattern of recent economic indicators showing that the transition to a self-
sustaining recovery has been rocky.
Fits and starts are common during early stages of economic expansion. Before long, it should be clear whether the summer of 2010 has
indeed been a mere soft patch as recovery took hold.
"We're right on the cusp between simply decelerating and actually falling into a double dip," said Robert A.
Johnson, executive director of the Institute for New Economic Thinking. "We have households still trying to be cautious and
improve their savings, and if they cut back further, it will create a feedback loop that drives us back
down."
It was barely a year ago that the economy made the transition from steep contraction toward expansion. Simultaneously, a gush of
federal stimulus money started spreading through the economy. Government backstops for the financial system helped instill confidence
that the system wouldn't collapse. An aggressive series of interest rate cuts and other actions by the Federal Reserve took effect. All
those factors helped ease the fear of economic collapse that earlier weighed on businesses considering investment decisions and
consumers thinking of purchases.
Now, though the impact of the fiscal stimulus continues to be felt, it is tapering off, no longer adding to growth.
At the same time, a one-time boost to growth from business inventories is also ending. During the depths of the recession, companies
reduced their production even more than consumers pulled back, depleting their inventories. The need to replenish those inventories
contributed to growth in late 2009 and early 2010.
Economists and policymakers have been counting on the inventory bounce and stimulus priming the pump, helping create a self-
sustaining momentum. Those temporary factors, goes the logic, should make consumers more confident about
making major purchases, which in turn increases demand for products, leading businesses to ramp up
production and hire more employees. That should result in higher incomes and even more consumer
confidence, fueling a virtuous cycle.
But that cycle could sputter if Americans, groaning under the weight of household debt run up during the
past decade, decide they would rather pay it down instead of increasing their spending.
Americans remain deeply uncertain about the economic future. A Conference Board survey showed they are
actually less confident about the economy now than they were last August, when the expansion had just
begun.
True double-dip recessions -- a second extended contraction in economic activity -- are rare, historically. But economic activity
wouldn't need to contract for joblessness to remain high.
The economy's natural growth rate, due to population growth and technological improvements, is 2.5 to 3 percent a year. So any
extended period of growth much below that, say 1 to 2 percent, would drive unemployment up.
ADI 2010 24
Economy Adv – Growth – Link

Raising the H-1B cap increases employment - spurs growth
Kumar, 09 (Arun, Editor of The Indian Times, “US think tank wants H1B cap raised to 195,000”,
http://www.theindianstar.com/index.php?udn=2010-06-04&uan=11197, 7/27/10, atl)
Debunking the myth that H-1B visas steal American jobs, a US think tank has asked the Congress to instead raise the cap
on them to promote economic growth and generate much needed tax revenue. Congress must raise the cap on H-1B
visas coveted by Indian techies back to 195,000 visas per year - the maximum allowed as recently as 2001 - from the
current 65,000, The Heritage Foundation analysts Jena Baker McNeill and Diem Nguyen said Tuesday. "Raising the cap for H-1B
visas will not steal American jobs but will help promote economic growth and generate much needed tax
revenue," they said, calling the notion a "popular myth". "There is a popular myth that H-1B workers displace
Americans because foreigners will work for less than Americans even if they have greater qualifications." This notion is so
widespread that Congress recently passed an amendment barring companies receiving bailout money from hiring H-1B employees "but
this notion is entirely false", McNeill and Diem said. The researchers cited a survey by the National Foundation for American
Policy to show that 65 percent of high-tech companies employed people outside the US due to their inability to obtain H-
1B visas. In reality, H-1B visas spur economic growth, they said. As shown by the survey on average, for
every H-1B employee hired, an additional five American employees were also hired. If Congress were to
increase the H-1B cap to 195,000 visas, the US government would receive an additional $2 billion of tax
revenue each year, the two researchers said. Noting that as the US economy fluctuates through its business cycles, the demand for H-
1B visas will rise and fall, McNeill and Diem suggested making the cap flexible. Congress should establish a quota that, if met,
automatically increases for the next year. In addition, unused visas should be recaptured for the next fiscal year. "Allowing the
appropriate levels of high skilled workers into the United States helps the American worker, the economy, and America's
federal budget," they said. "There is no good reason not to act." Congress has failed to raise H-1B caps for several years despite the
wide range of support to do so, they said. "Raising H-1B caps will provide businesses the professionals and skills they need to
develop their business when ready."
ADI 2010 25
Economy Adv – Growth – Key to International Business

H-1B provides the foundation for companies to go global.
Masters and Ruthizer, 00
(Suzette and Ted, CATO Institute, March 3, “The H-1B Straitjacket Why Congress Should Repeal the Cap on Foreign-Born Highly Skilled
Workers,” http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbp/tbp-007.pdf, CW, accessed on 7/28/10)
With unemployment at a peacetime, postwar low of 4.1 percent, the resulting tight labor market has made the
H-1B status even more important to U.S. companies of all stripes and sizes. In recent years, H-1B usage by
financial and professional service firms has risen sharply, reflecting the increased globalization of
those industries. Multinational companies often must draw on the skills and talents of professionals
from their operations abroad. In information technology, management consulting, law, accounting,
engineering, and telecommunications, companies are increasingly using international teams to work on
transnational projects to meet the needs of their global clients.9 Across the board, in virtually all the
professions, skilled and talented foreign nationals bring fresh perspectives and special expertise to American
companies. For example, in the important field of advertising, British nationals have led the way in
introducing the important new discipline of account planning. In the 15 years since British account
planners “exported” that new way of looking at advertising from the consumers’ point of view,
virtually all major U.S. advertising agencies have established account planning departments, which
follow the precepts taught by the British account planners who first came here with the H-1B status.
When French or German H-1B corporate lawyers use their knowledge of European civil law or EU law
to analyze complex legal issues, they not only benefit their U.S. law firm employers but also enrich our
economy in ways beyond simply filling a job for which competent professionals are in short supply.
Similar examples abound in countless other fields, in which H-1Bs bring to their U.S. employers new ways
of thinking about technology, processes, and problem solving.
ADI 2010 26
Economy Adv – Small Business – Key to Economy

Small business are going to lead American into economic recovery.
PACE, 10
(Julie, AP Press, July 28, “Obama pushes business bill as an all-American goal,”
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5juui7didNwh_vzBmJyrbjxkeF-IgD9H8BO280, CW,
7/28/10)
"Surely, Democrats and Republicans ought to be able to agree on this bill," Obama said despite the consistent
lack of any such consensus on Capitol Hill. Obama said he told Republican leaders at the White House a day
earlier that key elements of the bill are ones that the GOP has supported for years. "Helping small businesses,
cutting taxes, making credit available," Obama said from a presidential lectern that had been brought into
the restaurant. "This is as American as apple pie. Small businesses are the backbone of our
economy. They are central to our identity as a nation. They are going to lead this
recovery." The bill in question is designed to help small businesses get the capital they need to buy
equipment, hire workers and expand their operations. Obama took the opportunity to recite the stories of
local business owners and tout his efforts to help them before acknowledging that more government help is
needed.
Small businesses are key to the economy and barriers keeping out entrepreneurs must be
removed.
UPI.com, 10
(July 28, “Obama, small-business owners meet,” http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/07/28/Obama-small-
business-owners-meet/UPI-62661280316553/, CW, accessed on 7/28/10)
WASHINGTON, July 28 (UPI) -- President Obama met with small-business owners in New Jersey
Wednesday and then called for tax cuts and loans legislation he called "as American as apple pie." After
meeting with the business owners at the Tastee Sub Shop in Edison, Obama said the U.S. economic
recovery depends on small businesses, and that means the federal government needs to help them.
"Government can't guarantee success, but it can knock down barriers that keep entrepreneurs from
opening or expanding," Obama said. "For example, the lack of affordable credit -- that's something the
government can do something about.
In order for the economy to recover we need stronger small businesses.

PR Newswire, 10
(July 22, “LeMieux, Landrieu, Senate Democrats Fight to Include Credit Relief for Small Businesses,”
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/lemieux-landrieu-senate-democrats-fight-to-include-credit-relief-for-
small-businesses-99064599.html, CW, accessed on 7/29/10)
"Small businesses are the heart and soul of so many of our communities, and our economy is strongest
when they have the capital they need to keep their doors open and add jobs," said Senator Patty Murray.
"This economic downturn has hit small businesses hard, and we owe it to Main Streets across America
to make sure they have access to the capital they need to not only survive, but thrive."
"In an increasingly competitive global economy, it is important to ensure that small- and medium-sized
businesses have access to information and tools to capitalize on potential opportunities in foreign
markets," Klobuchar said. "Small businesses are the engine of job creation in this country and by
increasing exports, they can lead the way to economic recovery."
ADI 2010 27
Economy Adv – Wages – Link (1/)

Raising the cap is key to stabilizing wages
Wilkinson, 10 (Will, research fellow at the CATO institute, “U.S. Should Import More Skilled Workers”
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9547 7/27/10, atl)
If you're a highly-skilled worker, America needs you. But if you've got a foreign passport, we probably won't let you in.
The U.S. issues only 65,000 H-1B visas for skilled workers each year and that's not very many. Senators McCain and Obama have
both said they would support raising the cap. They acknowledge we need more skilled workers, and they're right. Yes, it
would be good for innovation and growth and it would bring down the prices of goods created by skilled
workers, but here's another reason you might not have thought of: Wage inequality. Increases in wage
inequality over the past few decades is primarily a story of the supply and demand of skilled labor together with the effects
of technological innovation. Wage increases tend to track improvements in the productivity of labor and gains
in productivity tend to be driven by innovations that help workers do more in less time. But in recent decades,
technical innovation has increased the productivity of more highly-educated workers faster than it has
for less-educated workers. These growing inequalities in productivity have helped create growing inequalities in
wages. But that's not the whole story. The American system of higher education produces skilled workers too slowly to keep up with the
demand. This scarcity in the supply bids up the wages of the well-educated even more, further widening the wage gap. If we
raised visa quotas on skilled labor, that would help bring supply in line with demand and reduce the wage gap between
more and less skilled workers. These days, almost everybody but their beneficiaries think agricultural subsidies are a lousy idea. They
benefit a few already relatively wealthy American farmers and agribusiness firms to the detriment of poor farmers around the world. But
H-1B visa restrictions are subsidies that benefit relatively rich domestic workers over their poorer foreign peers, and so it
turns out many of us liberal-minded college grads are enjoying our own protectionist boost. In this case, it seems the moral
outrage is... well, we seem to be keeping it to ourselves.
Immigrants increase American workers wages.

One of the most widely respected of those studies, a 1997 report by the National Research Council of the National Academy of
Sciences, found that immigrants raise the incomes of U.S.-born workers by at least $10 billion per year.5
And some people believe that those estimates are understated because they do not account for the
domestic economic impact of immigrant-owned businesses or of highly skilled foreign national workers
on overall U.S. productivity.6 Over time, the benefits of immigration are even greater. James P. Smith,
chairman of the National Research Council’s Panel on Immigration and an economist at the RAND Corporation, testified
in 1997 before the Immigration Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee that if the $10 billion annual gain from
immigrants were discounted by a real interest rate of 3 percent, the net present value of the gains from
immigrants who have arrived in the United States since 1980 would be $333 billion.7
ADI 2010 28
Economy Adv – Wages – Link (2/)

H-1B increases wages of Americans and provides better wage equality.
Sherk and Nell, 08
(James and Guinevere, Heritage Foundation, April 30, “More H-1B Visas, More American Jobs, A Better Economy,”
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2008/04/More-H-1B-Visas-More-American-Jobs-A-Better-Economy, CW, accessed on 7/28/10)
Many American high-tech workers oppose raising the H-1B cap, fearing that increasing the supply of
skilled workers could reduce their wages. When companies cannot hire as many highly skilled workers as
they need, competition drives wages up, so raising the visa cap may indeed cause the wages of some
Americans to fall or stagnate. Why, then, should Americans favor higher numbers of H-1B employees?
Because raising the visa cap would increase wages for many more Americans than would see their
wages fall. Since each H-1B worker creates four new American jobs, the demand for such somewhat less-
skilled but necessary workers would raise their wages. The number of workers in the economy whose
skills complement the advanced skills of H-1B workers is far greater than the number of those who
compete with them for jobs. Raising the H-1B cap would increase the demand for the labor of, and thus
raise wages for, hundreds of thousands of Americans who are less readily identifiable but no less real than
the software engineers who compete with H-1B workers. Some policymakers are concerned about income inequality.
The major cause of growing inequality over the past generation has been the market response to the
shortage of skilled workers.[8] Skill levels have not increased as quickly as new technologies have
increased the demand for workers with advanced skills. Businesses competing for the limited supply of
these skilled workers have driven their wages up sharply. Consequently, the wages of highly skilled workers have
risen much faster than wages overall, resulting in greater inequality. Policymakers should be aware that increasing the H-1B cap
would increase the supply of highly skilled workers as well as the demand for less-skilled workers--
thereby reducing the wage differential. The greater supply of highly skilled workers would mean that
fewer business resources would go toward bidding up wages, slowing wage growth at the top. The
greater demand for workers with complementary skills would raise wages for employees whose skills
are less advanced than those of H-1B workers.
ADI 2010 29
Economy Adv – AT: Depress Wages

H-1B is paid the same amount of their native counter part.
Despite the absence of evidence that H-1B workers are paid less than the market wage, critics persist
in arguing that H-1B workers are paid less than their U.S. counterparts, which exerts downward
pressure on wages. Yet the facts are that wage growth is strong in the United States and that H-1B
professionals’ pay is on a par with that of their domestic counterparts. We know that H-
1B workers are paid well because the law mandates that they be paid at least the prevailing wage or the
actual wage paid to those who are similarly situated. And we also know from reviewing the enforcement
evidence that an overwhelming majority of employers of H-1B workers are complying with the law.
Those few cases in which the law is violated are relatively easy detect and report to the relevant authorities. Given the desperate
need employers have for skilled workers to meet their skills gaps, the high costs associated with H-1B
hiring, and the extremely low incidence of violations detected by DOL, there is no basis for speculating
that H-1B workers are being paid less than the going rate.
Not enough H-1B visa recipients to decrease national wages.

Compound that with the fact that H-1B professionals are only a tiny fraction of the U.S. labor force, and
claims of wage erosion become increasingly fanciful. The stock of H-1B professionals in the United States
(six years’ worth of annual flows) accounts for only about onethird of 1 percent of the domestic workforce. To
illustrate the point, assume conservatively that 15 percent of the U.S. labor force, or 21 million people based on a civilian labor force of
140 million,41 turns over every year. If we assume also that there are 240 working days per year, that means 88,000 workers are leaving
their jobs every day. The influx of an entire year’s worth of H-1B professionals would be equivalent to less
than two days’ worth of labor turnover, or 1 new H-1B worker for every 184 native workers leaving
their jobs. With this much labor market activity, the effect of the annual influx of H-1B professionals
on the overall labor market is insignificant.
ADI 2010 30
Economy Adv – Competitiveness – Link

H1B cap hurts US competitiveness
Anderson & Platzer 6 (National Foundation for American Policy, Content First LLC,
http://www.nvca.org/index.php?Itemid=93&gid=331&option=com_docman&task=doc_download) SEW
More than two-thirds of immigrant entrepreneurs agreed that U.S. immigration policy has made it
more difficult than in the past to start a business in America. • One-third of the privately held venture-backed
companies responding to the NVCA survey said the lack of H-1B visas had influenced their firm’s decision to
place more personnel in facilities abroad. This may understate the phenomenon, since smaller companies with no overseas operations
may not possess the option of placing personnel abroad. • Nearly two-thirds of respondents (66 percent) who use H-1B visas said,
“current U.S. Immigration laws affecting skilled professionals harm American
competitiveness.” • Among companies who use H-1B visas, nearly 40 percent said the
lack of H-1B visas – caused by Congress’ not raising the H-1B cap – has “negatively
impacted [their] company when competing against other firms globally.” • The type of H-1B
personnel hired by survey respondents is primarily technology related, with 76 percent hiring in engineering, 35 percent in IT
development and programming, 17 percent for executive positions, and 13 percent in marketing and sales. Others cited scientific
positions. This differs from the use of H-1B visas by all U.S. employers.
H-1B cap keeps excludes skilled foreign workers which destroys the US’s competiveness.
Barrett, 06
(Craig, Chairman of Intel, January 30, “America should open its doors wide to foreign talent,” https://docs.google.com/viewer?
url=http://www.businessfordiplomaticaction.org/news/articles/america_should_open_its_doors_wide_to_foreign_talent_barrettft_jan06.doc, CW,
accessed on 7/27/10)
The current situation can only be described as a classic example of the law of unintended consequences. We
need experienced and talented workers if our economy is to thrive. We have an immigration problem that
remains intractable and, in an attempt to appear tough on illegal immigration, we over-control the
employment-based legal immigration system. As a consequence, we keep many of the potentially most
productive immigrants out of the country. If we had purposefully set out to design a system
that would hobble our ability to be competitive, we could hardly do better than what we have
today. Certainly in the post 9/11 world, security must always be a foremost concern. But that concern should
not prevent us from having access to the highly skilled workers we need.
ADI 2010 31
Economy Adv – Labor Shortages – Link (1/)

The H-1B cap is forcing businesses into labor shortages
Law, 3(2) p. 455-456) JJN
Because the number of applications exceeded the congressionally mandated cap of 65,000, the USCIS was forced to create a
lottery, 6 leading to the rejection of thousands of timely submitted applications. As a result of the immediate fulfillment of
the cap, many U.S. employers were unable to hire employees with sufficient training and experience to
meet their needs. Furthermore, many aliens, residing in the United States and attending U.S. educational institutions in
anticipation of being placed in U.S. jobs, have been and will be forced to leave the country when their F and J
educational visas expire. Finally, companies that experience labor shortages later in the year will not be able
to obtain sufficiently skilled workers until the next fiscal year, even if they are diligent enough to submit their
applications on time.
The H-1B visa is key to U.S. labor markets

Law, 3(2) p. 459) JJN
The H-1B visa category is important to the U.S. labor market because of the long regulatory delays for
green cards. Such delays “make it virtually impossible to hire an individual directly on a green card,”
and without availability of the H-1B visa, “skilled foreign nationals, particularly graduates of U.S. universities,
could not work or remain in the United States.” The H-1B category also permits dual intent, meaning
that, contrary to various other nonimmigrant visa categories, H-1B workers coming to work in the United States
are not required to avow their intent to leave the United States once their visa has expired. Rather,
dual intent permits H-1B workers to pursue avenues for permanent residence.
H-1B visa fills US employment gap by providing skilled immigrant workers that would
benefit the US economy.
The Financial Express, 07
(November 2, “H1B Visa: 'Allow world's best and brightest to US,” http://www.financialexpress.com/news/h1b-visa-allow-worlds-best-and-
brightest-to-us/235181/, CW, accessed on 7/27/10)
Washington, November 2:: A leading Republican Presidential hopeful has thrown his weight behind the H1B
visa programme stressing that bringing high skilled workers on a permanent basis to the US will be
beneficial to the economy. Former Massachusetts Gover Mitt Romney has said that while he is for increasing the quota for H1B
visa, a majority of whose aspirants are Indians, the exact figures would depend on a number of things including the strength of the US
economy and the implications for the local workforce. "I like H1B visas. I like the idea of the best and brightest in
the world coming here. I'd rather have them come here permanently rather than come and go, but I
believe our visa programme is designed to help us solve gaps in our employment pool," he said in an
interview to TechCrunch,a weblog dedicated to profiling and reviewing new internet products and companies. "Where there are
individuals who have skills that we do not have in abundance here, I'd like to bring them here and
contribute to our economy," he added.
Companies that hire H-1B visas layoff less people and do not revert to “cheap” immigrant
labor in rough economic times.
National Foundation for American Policy, 2008
(March, “H - 1 B V I S A S A N D J O B C R E A T I O N,” http://www.nfap.com/pdf/080311H1b.pdf, CW, accessed on 7/27/10)
Employers that reduced employment reduced it less if they had filed for H-1Bs visas, according to the
analysis. Examining companies in the sample that had layoffs, the regression results found a positive
association between H-1B positions requested and employment. For every H-1B position requested on a labor
condition application, total employment is estimated to be 2 workers more than it otherwise would
have been. - If the proposition was true that companies hire H-1B professionals because they’re
cheaper, then when businesses hit hard times they should hire more H-1Bs to save money. However, the
analysis shows that, overall, H-1B filings at U.S. technologies declined when companies hit hard times,
undermining the perennial assertion that H-1Bs are hired as “cheap labor.”
ADI 2010 32
Economy Adv – Labor Shortages – Link (2/)

H-1B visa increase is key to increasing employment and inaction harms American jobs.
Sherk and Nell, 08
(James and Guinevere, Heritage Foundation, April 30, “More H-1B Visas, More American Jobs, A Better Economy,”
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2008/04/More-H-1B-Visas-More-American-Jobs-A-Better-Economy, CW, accessed on 7/28/10)
Welcoming more foreigners with advanced skills into the U.S. would create more jobs for Americans. H-1B visa
holders are often key employees whose skills are necessary for companies to grow.
Consider a software firm that needs an additional software engineer in order to expand its product line. If the company cannot hire a
software engineer, not only will it be unable to use that person's highly specialized skills to expand its product
line, but the shortage of skilled workers will prevent the company from hiring the computer programmers,
sales associates, and technical support staff that also would have been needed in that division.
This is not just a theoretical problem. Research shows that technology companies hire five new workers for
each H-1B visa for which they apply.[7] On average, the skills of each highly skilled H-1B worker support the
jobs four Americans. Keeping the H-1B cap at 65,000 comes at the expense of hundreds of thousands of
American jobs.
Each visa creates 5 jobs

Barrios 8 (Maria, journalist. New Orleans City Business, May 23 2008.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4200/is_20080523/ai_n25463113/) JM
One misconception is the idea that hiring a foreign employee takes a job away from an American, experts say. On March 12, Microsoft
founder Bill Gates told the House of Representatives' Committee on Science and Technology that more jobs for Americans are
created with the employment of highly skilled professionals from other nations. "If we increase the
number of H-1B visas that are available to U.S. companies, employment of U.S. nationals would likely
grow as well," Gates said. "A recent study of technology companies in the S&P 500 found that, for every
H-1B visa requested, these leading U.S. technology companies increased their overall employment by
five workers."
ADI 2010 33
Economy Adv – Labor Shortages – Key to Economy

Economy is slowly improving, but long term stability is depend on job creation.
Newkirk, 10
(Margaret, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, July 28, “Southern Company reports higher Q2 earnings,”
http://www.ajc.com/business/southern-company-reports-higher-580131.html , CW, accessed on 7/28/10)
Commercial power sales rose only slightly -- and dropped, if the weather's impact is removed. The
company said retail businesses typically recover last. Both Bowers and David Ratcliffe, the company's
president, chief executive and chairman, said the company is still eying the economy with caution. "The
thing we're going to need to get a better handle on, even with the good news, is how much is being driven by
domestic demand, as versus exports," Ratcliffe said. "The economy is still fragile. The key will be long-
term job creation."
Slow job creation is preventing consumer recovery.

ConsumerReports.org, 2010
(March 9, “CR Index: Slow job creation stalls economic recovery,”
http://blogs.consumerreports.org/money/2010/03/march-consumer-reports-index-cr-index-slow-job-creation-stalls-
economic-recovery-employment-unchange.html, CW, accessed on 7/28/10)
The findings in this month’s Consumer Reports Index show that although the tide of job losses has been
stemmed, the level of job creation needed to fuel a consumer recovery has not developed. Consumer
Reports Employment Index stands at 48.7 for March, unchanged from February. Over the past several
months the proportion of Americans who reported losing their job in the past 30-days has been on a decline,
and is now stabilized at 6.0 percent, versus 5.7 percent in February.
Consumer spending key to economy recovery

Dykewicz, 10
(Paul, Human Events, July 17, “Federal Policies Thwart Economic Recovery,”
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=38119, CW, accessed on 7/28/10)
Fessler pointed out that profligate government spending has been taking place well beyond the U.S.
borders and is reflected by the debt crises in Greece and other free-spending countries. “Governments
have been spending like drunken sailors with the false expectation that it will stimulate the economy,”
Fessler said. Without increased consumer spending, economic recovery will “flat-line” for
some time, he added.
ADI 2010 34
Economy Adv – Labor Shortages – AT: Job Loss (1/)

H-1B visa positions are tailored positions not ones already in place.
The research found that even if increased hiring of both H-1Bs and other workers are both influenced
primarily by business opportunities specific to the firm it would still mean new H-1B professionals are
complementing other U.S. hires, rather than displacing them, as critics allege. - There are empirical
reasons to believe these findings demonstrate new opportunities being created for U.S. workers by the
availability of foreign high-skilled labor, rather than a substitution. After falling in 2002, technology company
employment increased at a faster rate in 2003, 2004 and 2005. Thus it is not surprising that statistical controls for the
year of the data had a large effect upon our estimates of the percentage change in employment at
individual companies. But these same statistical controls had little effect on the relationship we found
between H-1Bs and total employment, which stayed steady at a ratio of approximately 5 new workers
for every H-1B position requested (and 7 to 1 for employers with 5,000 or fewer employees). The average percentage change
in employment varies a great deal over the years examined (from -1.7% in 2002 to 9.3% in 2005), which suggests that changes in
overall business conditions for technology companies has little effect on the relationship between H-1B
applications and total hiring.
H-1B visa does not cause American layoffs instead it allows flexibility for productivity, and
limiting H-1B causes offshoring.
In an intensely competitive global environment, with constant pressure placed on employers to cut
expenses and increase productivity, the H-1B visa category has become a convenient target for critics
who try to draw a connection between immigration and domestic layoffs. Although it is true that large U.S.
corporations have been laying off workers in record numbers,26 many employers are firing one type of worker and hiring other workers
with different skills. H-1B professionals are not the cause of those layoffs and hiring practices but an
important source of flexibility in the labor market. The need for H-1B professionals is another
manifestation of the inexorable pressure on companies to adapt quickly to changing market conditions.
Constraining H-1B hiring won’t end corporate downsizing. It will simply force employers to shift more
and more of their operations abroad, where they can get the resources they need, including all-
important human capital, to maintain production.27
Easily enforce regulations prevent H-1B visa from displacing American workers.
The most common argument against H-1Bs is that they allegedly displace U.S. workers and depress wages.
In response, Congress has spun an elaborate web of laws resulting in complex regulations supposedly to
protect native workers from any such impact. But nothing in theory, wage and job trends, or law
enforcement data indicates that the H-1B status has a negative impact on the U.S. labor market. The
U.S. Department of Labor, one of the major critics of the H-1B status, has carefully tracked the program’s so-
called abuses. We obtained and reviewed H-1B enforcement data from the Wage and Hour Division of
DOL and were surprised by what we found.33 From 1991, at the inception of the H-1B caps and labor condition
attestations, through September 30, 1999, DOL received a total of 448 complaints alleging underpayment of
H-1B professionals, and other employer violations (an average of fewer than 60 complaints nationwide each year). Of
those 448 complaints, only 304 resulted in a DOL investigation. During that period, nearly 525,000 H-
1B nonimmigrant petitions were granted.34 As can be seen clearly from Figure 1, the complaint rate for a
program supposedly rife with abuse is minuscule.
ADI 2010 35
Economy Adv – Labor Shortages – AT: Job Loss (2/)

Laws are in place to prevent native job displacement, immigrant dependence, and
loopholes
Murthy Law Firm, 98 (Immigration Law, Dec 14, 1998, “Highlights : H1B Increase in Quota”,
http://www.murthy.com/arc_news/a_h1inc.html, 7/28/10, atl)
The American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of 1998 (ACWIA) provides for 115,000 H1B numbers for fiscal year
(FY) 1999 and similarly for FY 2000 and an additional 107,500 H1B visas in FY 2001. The H1B cap returns to 65,000 in FY 2002
which starts on October 1, 2001. INS believes that in November 1998, approximately 40,000 H1B petitions have already been approved
against the current fiscal year's cap. An employer must attest that it did not displace and will not displace any
U.S. worker employed by it within the 90 day period before or after the filing of an H1B petition based
on the LCA and that it will not place the H1B worker with another employer who has displaced or
intends to displace an U.S. worker. The new attestation provisions do not go into effect until after the
Department of Labor, and the INS, have issued final regulations. There are additional obligations on an H1B dependent
employer. Employers must calculate whether they are "H1B dependent" each time they file an LCA. The
calculation is based on the total number of full-time equivalent (FTE) employees of the employer, and
the number of H1B non-immigrants employed by the employer at that time. A company will be
considered to be dependent if it falls into one of these categories: Companies with 1-25 FTE employees
and more than 7 H1B non immigrants. Companies with 26-50 FTE employees and more than 15 H1B
non immigrants. Companies with more than 50 FTE employees where the number of H1B non
immigrants is equal to 15% or more of the total number of employees. "Displace" means laying off a
U.S. worker from a job that is "essentially the equivalent" of the job for which the H1B worker is being
hired. To be considered "essentially equivalent," the job must have had essentially the same job
responsibilities, and the U.S. worker holding it must have had substantially equivalent qualifications and
experience to the H1B worker. Also, the job must be within the same area of employment. An H1B dependent
employer who places an H1B worker at a third-party work site "where there are indicia of an employment
relationship" (which includes employment contractors) must inquire of the owner of the work site whether it has
displaced (as that term is defined above) a U.S. worker during the 90 days before the date the H1B is placed there and whether it
intends to displace a U.S. worker within 90 days after the date of placement. The law provides for strict liability on the
part of the petitioning employer if the operator of the work site proceeds to displace a U.S. worker or
has actually displaced a worker. In such a circumstance, the petitioning employer could still be fined for a
violation, even though it has made the required inquiries. However, the INS cannot assess a debarment penalty
unless the petitioning employer had actual knowledge of or had reason to know of the displacement. The
petitioning employer also could be subject to debarment if it had been previously sanctioned for a violation of this provision by placing
H1B workers at the same work site. If the H1B non immigrant would otherwise qualify for EB1 preference either as a multinational
manager or executive, outstanding professor or researcher, or as a person of extraordinary ability, the employer is not required to make
the recruitment attestation. Also, as stated above, individuals with at least a masters degrees or who earn $60,000 are exempt from all of
the new attestations. The $500 filing fee was effective from December 1, 1998 and sunsets on October 1, 2001. The majority of the
funds will be used by the Department of Labor for training programs for U.S. workers and the National Science Foundation for
scholarships for low-income students in math, engineering and computer science. The fee must accompany H1B petitions for
"new employment", and the first extension petition filed by an employer for a particular H1B employee.
Under the law, the employer is required to pay this fee. The employer cannot require or accept
reimbursement for the fee from the employee, because it risks a $1000 fine. Institutions of higher education and their
related or affiliated nonprofit entities, other nonprofit research institutions and government research institutions are not required to pay
the fee. This law also prohibits the practice of benching by requiring an employer who designates an
H1B worker as "full-time" in the H1B petition to pay that worker full-time wages, regardless of any
nonproductive time and for part time workers, the employer must pay the H1B employee for the
number of hours designated on the H1B petition. The employer is required to begin paying the H1B non
immigrant the required wage no later than 30 days after the worker enters the United States pursuant to an
approved petition filed by that employer, or no later than 60 days after the date the employee becomes
eligible to work for that employer, if the worker is already in the United States. The Department of Labor will
investigate complaints regarding failure to meet this requirement, in the same manner it investigates other
violations of the H1B requirements. The statute prohibits an employer from requiring an H1B worker to pay
a "penalty" for resigning before a date agreed upon between the H1B worker and the employer. The
determination of whether a particular type of payment constitutes a "penalty" is made in accordance with relevant state employment and
contract law. The statute specifically provides that liquidated damages are not to be considered a "penalty." The Law Office of Sheela
Murthy has previously summarized the major provisions of the law for the benefit of its subscribers and clients. Once the final
regulations are promulgated by the Department of Labor, the attestations on employers will come into effect. However, the new fee, "no
benching" rule and "no departure penalty" provisions are in effect now.
ADI 2010 36
Economy Adv – Labor Shortages – AT: Temporary Job Loss

Benefits don’t outweigh, jobs lost forever
Olian 4 (Judy, Columnist for Seattle PI Business, http://www.seattlepi.com/business/205207_outsourcedebate27.html)
Data from Forrester Research, a leading IT consulting organization, lends support to Bhagwati's findings with estimates
that
400,000 U.S. jobs had moved abroad by 2003 and that the total would hit 3.3 million by 2015. That's just
over 200,000 jobs lost each year to global outsourcing, a trivial problem in the context of the normal churn of the U.S.
economy, where about 7 million jobs were gained and lost in each of the last four quarters. So who benefits from outsourcing? Certainly
U.S. shareholders, investors and American consumers derive benefits, although sometimes at the expense of
American wage earners. A report from the McKinsey Global Institute estimates that global
outsourcing returns 45 to 55 percent in net savings to corporations, with added profits from the sale of
American products (especially IT) to run the offshore operations. Outsourcing also results in cheaper
imports. Catherine Mann of the Institute of International Economics concludes that the price of personal computers dropped in the
early '90s because U.S. chip manufacturers moved offshore and reduced chip prices by about 10 to 30 percent. However, these data are
incomplete and provide too narrow a view of outsourcing. There is other evidence in line with Samuelson's findings
to suggest that jobs are lost, and lost forever, especially at the low end of the food chain. Lori Kletzer of the
University of California-Santa Cruz examined manufacturing job losses between 1979 and 1999 in labor-intensive industries such as
clothing, footwear, leather and textiles. About one-third of displaced workers failed to find reemployment within
a three-year period, and among those who did, about half experienced a substantial wage cut of at least
15 percent. A recent BusinessWeek report adds that it's not just manufacturing workers who are at
risk, but a substantial portion of the 57 million U.S. white-collar and professional employees who face
real global competition as a portion of these jobs can be readily outsourced.
ADI 2010 37
ADI 2010 38
Economy Adv – Outsourcing – Link (1/)
H-1B cap causes companies to export jobs, while an increase in H1-B visas would create
more jobs.
Preventing companies from hiring foreign nationals by maintaining an artificially low limit on H-1B
visas is likely to produce the unintended consequence of pushing more work to other countries. Sixty-
five percent of technology companies responding to an NFAP survey said in response
to the lack of H-1B visas they had "hired more people (or outsourced work) outside the United
States." This is significant in that even if those companies responding to the survey are heavier users of H-1B visas it
means that these are the companies most likely to hire outside the United States in response to an
insufficient supply of skilled visas for foreign nationals. “As a global company, Google is fortunate to be able to have
employees work for us in other countries if they are not allowed to stay in the U.S.,” noted a Google executive in Congressional
testimony. Fifty-two percent of companies responding to the survey believed that for every H-1B
professional they hired it created one or more complementary jobs at their firms or in the U.S. economy.
Twenty-two percent thought the hiring of an H-1B visa holder created 10 or more jobs. Seventy-four
percent of company respondents said an inability to fill positions because of the lack of H-1B visas has
potentially affected their “company’s competitiveness against foreign competitors or in international markets.”
H-1B limits causes companies to offshore which damages the economy.

When the demand for workers cannot be met domestically, which is the case today, U.S. companies
must look elsewhere. Ideally, they would hire foreign workers and integrate them into their existing U.S.
operations. But if U.S. companies are unable to gain access to the workers they need because of limits on
H-1B hiring, then some are left with only one choice: hire the workers they need abroad with a
corresponding offshore shift in domestic operations. Asked how Motorola Inc. would respond to the
hiring crisis caused by inadequate numbers of H-1B visas, Motorola’s head of global immigration
services recently stated: “If we have to do that [shift work overseas], we will, but that’s not a very practical
business approach to the problem. . . . And it’s not very good for American workers.”28 This
phenomenon, known as offshore outsourcing, can be harmful to the U.S. economy and U.S. workers,
especially in the more knowledge-intensive industries. The hiring of foreignborn highly skilled workers
can have a positive ripple effect not only on the companies that hire the workers but on the economy as
a whole. Highly skilled workers are able to create new products and, in some cases, whole new sectors
of an industry, creating opportunities for other workers. T. J. Rodgers, president and CEO of Cypress
Semiconductors, testified before Congress that for every foreign-born engineer he is allowed to hire, he
can hire five other workers in marketing, manufacturing, and other related areas.29 At Sun Microsystems,
both the Java computer language and the innovative SPARC microprocessor were created by engineers first
hired through the H-1B program; their work then opened opportunities for thousands of other workers.30
ADI 2010 39
Economy Adv – Outsourcing – Link (2/)

Caps Cause Outsourcing
Sherk and Nell 8
(4/30/08, James and Guinevere, CENTER FOR DATA ANALYSIS REPORT #08-01, http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2008/04/More-
H-1B-Visas-More-American-Jobs-A-Better-Economy, accessed 7/27/10) GEC
Skill Shortage Causes Companies to Expand Overseas Without enough skilled workers at home, many American
companies must either expand outside the U.S. or not expand at all. Microsoft, for example, recently opened
an office in Vancouver, British Columbia, so that it could employ 150 foreign engineers that the United States
would not admit.[5] The shortage of skilled workers here at home prevented those jobs from even being
created in the U.S.-- along with the additional jobs that accompany those of the skilled workers. A recent
survey of high-tech companies found that 65 percent had expanded their hiring outside the United States
because of the shortage of H-1B workers.[6] Restricting H-1B visas reduces economic growth. Lifting the Cap
Creates American Jobs Welcoming more foreigners with advanced skills into the U.S. would create more jobs
for Americans. H-1B visa holders are often key employees whose skills are necessary for companies to grow.
Consider a software firm that needs an additional software engineer in order to expand its product line. If the company cannot hire a software
engineer, not only will it be unable to use that person's highly specialized skills to expand its product line, but the shortage of skilled workers will
prevent the company from hiring the computer programmers, sales associates, and technical support staff that also would have been needed in
that division. This is not just a theoretical problem. Research shows that technology companies hire five new workers for
each H-1B visa for which they apply.[7] On average, the skills of each highly skilled H-1B worker support the
jobs four Americans. Keeping the H-1B cap at 65,000 comes at the expense of hundreds of thousands of
American jobs. Higher Wages and
H-1B limits specifically causes the IT industry to offshore.

In the critical IT sector, companies that can’t hire the professionals they need are going abroad in increasing
numbers. In recent testimony before the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration investigating this problem, witness after witness spoke to this
growing phenomenon. Susan Williams DeFife, CEO of womenCONNECT.com, a leading Internet site for women in business,
asked: “What happens when companies like mine can’t hire the workers we need? We have to delay projects
and in the Internet industry where change occurs daily and competitors are springing up all around you,
waiting to execute on a project can be lethal.”31 DeFife told the subcommittee that denying companies the
ability to hire H- 1B professionals would leave companies with three less-than-satisfactory options: limit the
company’s growth, “steal” employees from competitors, or move operations offshore. In a similar vein, Sen.
Spencer Abraham (RMich.), chairman of the Senate Immigration Subcommittee and main sponsor of the 1998 bill raising the H-1B cap,
echoed the concern about forcing American industry to export jobs abroad: [F]oreign countries are stepping
up their own recruitment efforts, including a pitch by the Canadian government for U.S. high-tech companies to move to Canada so as
to avoid the problem of hitting the H-1B cap year after year here in America. The CEO of Lucent Technologies stated this summer
at a Capitol Hill technology forum that it has placed hundreds of engineers and other technical people in the United
Kingdom in response to an insufficient supply of U.S.-based workers—keeping many related jobs from being
created in America.32 Shall we close our eyes to globalization and take the myopic view that a job that cannot be filled with an American
is not a job worth saving? Such a policy would be harmful not only to the individual businesses affected but to
America’s general economic well-being.
ADI 2010 40
Economy Adv – Financial Sector – Link (1/)

Current H-1B policies undermine the financial sector
Sidel 9 (Robin – WSJ journalist, April 15, “Wall Street Still Finds Ways to Hire Foreigners” http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/wall-
street-still-finds-ways-hire-foreigners) JJN
Some big U.S. banks that have received billions of dollars from the government are shipping some of their newest
recruits overseas in order to comply with a federal law that restricts their ability to hire foreign workers
for U.S. jobs. Although some financial firms have rescinded job offers entirely to such prospective employees, JPMorgan
Inc.GS-N and Morgan Stanley MS-N are quietly offering international jobs to foreign students whom they have
recruited from U.S. colleges and graduate schools. The overall numbers affected by the restrictions are small, but the moves
represent the banking industry's latest effort to deal with what they consider to be untenable
consequences of the Troubled Asset Relief Program. "There are no U.S. immigration restrictions on
people working outside the U.S., so anyone who wants to can have folks work in London versus New York," says Allen
Erenbaum, a lawyer who specializes in immigration issues at Mayer Brown LLP Under the federal economic-stimulus package
signed by President Barack Obama in February, companies that receive TARP funds face additional hurdles
before they can hire skilled foreign workers who need temporary work permits known as H-1B visas. Firms that
have received government money must prove they have tried to recruit American workers for those jobs and that the foreigners
aren't replacing U.S. citizens. Bank executives have privately lambasted some of TARP's restrictions, particularly
those that seek to limit compensation. Some firms already are exploring loopholes that would allow them to raise
base salaries in order to offset potential restrictions in bonus packages. The restrictions on foreign
workers have frustrated bank executives who compete to recruit students fresh out of college or graduate school.
They say it is in the nation's interest for them to hire highly skilled foreigners who are educated in the U.S.
rather than have non-U.S. companies benefit from their American training. Such recruitment efforts are a
Wall Street tradition, with most firms establishing formal relationships with the U.S.'s top universities. Wall Street firms also use
these programs to hire minority students from the U.S. and abroad. Lloyd Blankfein, Goldman chief executive officer, described
the visa restrictions as "protectionist and self-defeating" in a speech this month to the Council of Institutional Investors.
"Especially at this time in our economy, do we really want to tell individuals who will help companies to grow and innovate -
ultimately creating more jobs - that they should go work elsewhere?" Mr. Blankfein said. About 50 of JPMorgan's 225,000
employees, or 3 per cent of its graduating hires, are affected by the new restrictions, according to a person familiar with the
matter. Most of them work in the firm's investment bank. Rather than rescind offers, JPMorgan is sending those new hires to
London, Sao Paulo and Hong Kong, say people familiar with the bank's strategy. JPMorgan CEO James Dimon has said the
firm, which received $25-billion (U.S.) under TARP, took the money after the government requested it to do so and would like
to pay it back. Less than 1 per cent of Citigroup's roughly 300,000 U.S. employees hold H-1B visas, according to a person
familiar with the situation. The firm, which has received $50-billion in TARP funds, is sending affected employees to assorted
foreign locations based on factors such as the worker's specific skills and native language. The firm "is exploring potential
opportunities in our non-U.S. global operations for those who may be affected by the law," a Citigroup spokesman said. A
Goldman spokesman said the firm will ask recruits to work in other offices if they can't get a U.S. visa. "We will honour the
offers we have made," he said. Other companies are leaving it up to the prospective employee to pursue overseas jobs. A
spokeswoman for Bank of America Corp. says the firm rescinded a small number of job offers to prospective employees who
need H-1B visas, but "like anyone, these individuals are welcome to pursue opportunities with the company based outside of the
U.S." The visa restrictions are also proving to be nettlesome to hedge funds and other investors who
may seek to participate in a government-backed program designed to stimulate credit markets. Those
firms, too, may be subject to the limitations on H-1B visas under certain circumstances.
ADI 2010 41
Economy Adv – Financial Sector – Link (2/)

H-1B workers provide key new perspectives and skills to the financial sector
Masters and Ruthizer 2k (Suzette Brooks-NIF board member and Ted –head of the Immigration Law Group , March 3,
Trade Briefing Paper No. 3, p 3) JJN
With unemployment at a peacetime, postwar low of 4.1 percent, the resulting tight labor market has made the H-1B
status even more important to U.S. companies of all stripes and sizes. In recent years, H-1B usage by financial
and professional service firms has risen sharply, reflecting the increased globalization of those
industries. Multinational companies often must draw on the skills and talents of professionals from
their operations abroad. In information technology, management consulting, law, accounting, engineering, and
telecommunications, companies are increasingly using international teams to work on transnational
projects to meet the needs of their global clients. Across the board, in virtually all the professions,
skilled and talented foreign nationals bring fresh perspectives and special expertise to American
companies. For example, in the important field of advertising, British nationals have led the way in introducing the important
new discipline of account planning. In the 15 years since British account planners “exported” that new way of looking at
advertising from the consumers’ point of view, virtually all major U.S. advertising agencies have established account planning
departments, which follow the precepts taught by the British account planners who first came here with the H-1B status. When
French or German H-1B corporate lawyers use their knowledge of European civil law or EU law to analyze complex legal
issues, they not only benefit their U.S. law firm employers but also enrich our economy in ways beyond simply filling a job for
which competent professionals are in short supply. Similar examples abound in countless other fields, in which H-1Bs bring
to their U.S. employers new ways of thinking about technology, processes, and problem solving.
ADI 2010 42
Economy Adv – Financial Sector – Key to Economy (1/)
The financial sector is key to economic growth

De Rato 6 (Rodrigo – Managing director of the International Monetary Fund, Nov. 23, “The Growing Integration of the Financial
Sector and the Broader Economy: Challenges for Policy Makers,” http://www.imf.org/external/np/speeches/2006/112306.htm) JJN
The subject of my talk today is the growing integration of the financial and real sectors of the economy. While perhaps not as
popular a subject for public discussion as globalization, integration between the financial sector and the broader macroeconomy
is no less important. Financial and macroeconomic developments are closely intertwined at both the
national and international levels, although the degree of integration varies across countries and regions according to the
levels of financial and economic development. Understanding the complex relationship between the financial and real
sectors of the economy is essential for the design and implementation of policies to promote macroeconomic
stability and growth. It is also important for the financial sector to assess appropriately, and incorporate into its analyses
and decision-making processes, the profound changes and transformations under way in the global economy, with their
paradoxes, which are sometimes difficult to explain. Examples of such transformations are the rapid increase in productivity
worldwide over the past few years; the shock in the real terms of trade implied by the increases seen in raw material prices,
partly related to the integration and growth of emerging countries in the global economy; and the rapid institutionalization and
innovation taking place on financial markets, with the proliferation of derivatives markets and their spectacular ability to transfer
risks. However, the financial markets appear to be demonstrating the difficulty of assessing these developments and are sending
seemingly mixed messages: trends in interest rates on bonds, compared with developments on the equity markets and changes in
monetary policy; the low volatility of the markets in the context of such significant changes; and the structure of the capital
flows in which the emerging countries receive investments, with record low risk premiums, together with income generated by
their current account surpluses, which they then recycle to the developed markets through investment of their accumulated
reserves. These are three thought-provoking examples, to which I shall return. But first, a few figures help to highlight the
magnitude of these developments. Globally, financial development has taken place much more rapidly than the development of
the real economy. Between 1990 and 2005, the estimated sum of equity market capitalization, outstanding total bond issues
(sovereign plus corporate), and bank assets in the world economy rose from 81 percent of GDP to 137 percent of GDP. The
growth of the derivatives markets has been much more rapid. The notional amount of derivatives outstanding in over-the-counter
markets tripled over the past five years to $285 trillion, that is, more than six times global output and almost 50 times the size of
the U.S. public debt market. Although these notional figures grossly overstate the underlying risk, they are indicative of the
accelerated process of innovation currently occurring in the financial sector. Financial crises, such as the Asian crisis, have
been wake-up calls on the need to understand better the two-way relationships between the financial
sector and the wider economy. These crises brought home the idea that failure to develop and
strengthen the financial sector can put an enormous brake on macroeconomic stability and economic
growth. They demonstrated that in a world where capital markets are growing quickly, financial system weaknesses
may trigger not only a run on deposits in the banking system but also a flight from the currency,
sudden changes in private capital flows, and a situation in which financial, currency, and fiscal crises
may reinforce each other. These crises spurred interest among researchers and policymakers alike in financial stability
and its relationship to overall macroeconomic stability. However, while much progress has been made in recent years in
understanding the links between the financial and the macroeconomic, there is still much work to be done in this regard. Today I
would like to explore the subject further, and also encourage you to do more research on it.
ADI 2010 43
Economy Adv – Financial Sector – Key to Economy (2/)

A functional financial sector is a prerequisite for economic recovery
Yellen 8 (Janet L. – President of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, Oct. 14, “The Financial System and the Economy,”
http://www.frbsf.org/news/speeches/2008/1014.html) JJN
So far, my comments should have made it clear that domestic spending has weakened substantially. Until recently, we have
received a major boost from exporting goods and services to our trading partners. Unfortunately, the news on foreign demand
has also turned weaker. Economic growth in the rest of the world, particularly in Europe and Japan, has slowed for a
number of reasons, including spillovers from the U.S. slowdown, and most importantly, the financial
meltdown that now has intensified substantially in Europe and elsewhere. In addition, the dollar has recently
appreciated against the euro and British pound, offsetting a portion of the depreciation that was boosting U.S. exports. As a
result, exports will not provide as much of an impetus to growth as they did earlier in the year. As I noted at the outset, inflation
has been a source of significant concern over the past year or so. However, economic developments in this country and abroad
can be expected to ease inflationary pressures. In the first place, prospects for weaker economic activity around the world have
led to a drop in food, energy, and other commodity prices, and this has relieved a good deal of the pressure on inflation from the
earlier run-up in their prices. Secondly, slow growth here seems likely to boost both unemployment and unused industrial
capacity. This additional slack in labor and product markets will put downward pressure on inflation, moving it toward rates that
I consider consistent with price stability. In fact, some prominent forecasters at this stage are concerned that inflation in future
years could decline to levels below what is consistent with price stability. I have highlighted a number of ways in which
stresses in the financial sector are impinging on economic activity through their effects on the spending
decisions of consumers, businesses, and governments. A precondition, in my view, for the economy to
recover is that the financial system must get back on its feet. Last week, plunging stock markets in the U.S. and
around the world received front page attention. But stocks were not the only market that had a bad week. Indeed, the declines in
stock prices were symptomatic of deeper, fundamental problems. Term funding in the money markets became virtually
unavailable to financial institutions: spreads on interbank term loans spiked. Financial firms found it necessary to fund
themselves disproportionately overnight. In addition, both financial and nonfinancial corporations had difficulty issuing
commercial paper as purchases by money market mutual funds declined. Borrowing rates have also risen dramatically for lower-
grade bond issuers. This freezing up of credit flows reflects a breakdown of the trust and confidence needed for potential lenders
to extend credit beyond overnight to counterparties and widespread flight to the very safest assets, to the point where Treasury
bill yields have fallen to close to zero at various times in recent weeks. With near or outright failure afflicting firms like Lehman,
Washington Mutual, AIG, and Wachovia, investors have become exceptionally wary of a host of financial institutions, and
aversion to counterparty risk is extremely high.
The financial sector and competent workers are key to the U.S. economy
Dawson 4 (Michael A.-Deputy assistant secretary for Critical Infrastructure Protection and Compliance Policy, Jan 8, “Protecting
the Financial Sector from Terrorism and other Threats,” http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/js1091.htm) JJN
The resiliency of the financial infrastructure is an issue that is very important to the Department of the Treasury.
At the Treasury, we are responsible for developing and promoting policies that create jobs and improve the economy. We are
also concerned with developing and promoting policies that enhance the resilience of the economy, policies that minimize the
economic damage and speed economic recovery from a terrorist attack. Indeed, the President named Treasury as the lead agency
to enhance the resilience of the critical financial infrastructure. These two responsibilities are closely related. As Secretary Snow
has said, the financial system is the engine of our economy. In a very real sense, therefore, the resilience
of the American economy depends on the resilience of the American financial system. Fortunately, we are
starting from a very strong base. The American economy is resilient. Over the past few years, we have seen that resilience first hand, as the American
economy withstood a significant fall in equity prices, an economic recession, the terrorist attacks of September 11, corporate governance scandals, and the
power outage of August 14-15. There are many reasons for the resilience of the American economy. Good policies - like the President’s Jobs and Growth
Initiative - played an important part. So has the resilience of the American people. One of the reasons are economy is so resilient is that our people are so
tough, so determined to protect our way of life. Like the economy as a whole, the American financial system is resilient. For example, the financial system
performed extraordinarily well during the power outage last August. With one exception, the bond and major equities and futures markets were open the
next day at their regular trading hours. Major market participants were also well prepared, having invested in contingency plans, procedures, and equipment
such as backup power generators. The U.S. financial sector withstood this historic power outage without any reported loss or corruption of any customer
data. This resilience mitigates the economic risks of terrorist attacks and other disruptions, both to the financial system itself and to the American economy
as a whole. Although we are starting from a strong base, the fact remains that terrorists continue to target the U.S. economy and U.S. financial institutions.
Therefore, we must continue our vigilant efforts to protect our critical financial infrastructure. Four principles guide our efforts to enhance the resilience of
our financial infrastructure. These principles guided our actions as the financial system recovered from the attacks of September 11th. They guided our
actions during the power outage of August 14-15. They guide our day to day actions as we prepare for the next disruption. The first principle is to
remember that the financial system is really about people. People, not buildings or computers, produce
financial services. And it is people who benefit from financial services. We depend on people to run
the financial system. We need these people - tellers, technicians, loan officers, technologists - to see the
system through times of stress. Indeed, it was the commitment of these professionals to their
institutions, customers, and colleagues that helped the financial system recover from the attacks of
September 11th and weather the power outage of August 14-15.
ADI 2010 44
ADI 2010 45
Economy Adv – Outsourcing – Kills Economy

Outsourcing will collapse the economy
Partridge 95 (Ernest, P.h.D in Environmental Ethics and Public Policy, The Gadfly Bytes, http://gadfly.igc.org/eds/econ/outsourcing.htm)
But outsourcing, and the consequent loss of millions of American manufacturing and service jobs, is not
the plain and simple result of corporate greed. It is, instead, an inevitable result of a combination of factors, including:
the successful enactment of the right-wing dogmas of “the invisible hand” and “trickle down,” namely the conviction
that individual entrepreneurs and corporations will, by seeking only their own economic gain, obtain
the best results for society at large. These are "dogmas" because they are "proven," not by historical
evidence or practical experience, but rather through repetition. The corollary libertarian dogma that government
has no justification whatever in interfering with the economic activities of private individuals and corporations. In the words of Milton
Friedman, “There is nothing wrong with the United States that a dose of smaller and less intrusive government would not cure.”
fiduciary responsibility: the legal requirement that the primary responsibility of the corporation is to its stockholders, not the public.
Thus the necessity of outsourcing is beyond the control of any single corporation’s executives or board
of directors. It is a thus a tragedy, in the sense defined by the philosopher Alfred North Whitehead: a
consequence of “the remorseless working of things.” (See Garrett Hardin’s “The Tragedy of the Commons.”).
As long as these conditions obtain, jobs will gravitate toward the individuals accepting the lowest
wages, i.e., those abroad, and the middle class will wither as wealth flows from those who create the
nation’s wealth to those who own and control the wealth. These are conditions that are destined to ruin
the economy of the United States.
ADI 2010 46
ADI 2010 47
Economy Adv – Market Investment – Link

Raising the cap on H1-B visas would increase capital investment
Shapiro 9 (President & CEO of Consumer Electronics Association, The Huffington Post, 5-4-2009, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-
shapiro/american-brain-drain-why_b_195627.html)
The H1B visa debate should not be guided by the number of applications received in any one year. Given to
the changes in the economy, some years will see huge spikes and other years will see valleys. We instead
need to be focused on long-range policy decisions to attract the best and the brightest to work and
create wealth in America over a period of their entire careers. President Obama has signaled he wants
America to be a destination for businesses, capital investment and workers, and updating the H1B visa
plan is an important step in fulfilling that vision. I am hopeful that his administration, and Congress,
reverses course with the current H1B visa laws to allow more talented immigrants, and their families, into the
United States to work for American companies rather than forcing them to locate their businesses elsewhere
in the world.
Skilled immigrants create new businesses and encourage capital business investment
Nwokocha 8 (Paschal O., Chair of Minnesota/Dakotas Chapter of American Immigration Lawyers Association, William Mitchell
Law Review, p 63-64) JJN
Many indicators suggest that receiving countries, and in this case the United States, benefit currently from employment-based
immigration and will continue to do so in the future.199 In 2006, immigrants made up 12.5 percent of the population, or 37.4
million people in the United States.200 In economic terms alone, the United States has measurably profited from
employment-based immigration; a recent report produced by Goldman Sachs states that overall economic output slows
as the American labor force grows more slowly, and that new migrants have added approximately 0.5 percent to
American gross domestic product every year in the past decade. Skilled immigrants supplement an
aging and shrinking American workforce; they are entrepreneurs who create jobs and wealth,
consumers of goods and services, and skilled workers whose large numbers encourage capital business
investment. Employment-based immigrants also pay taxes in the United States.203 A study by the National
Research Council points out that migrants with more than a high school education generate a net fiscal benefit of $198,000 over
their lifetime.204 Immigrant labor also helps keep the American economy stable because, during strong
growth periods, immigrants lower “the risk of wage pressures and rising inflation.”205 If growth slows,
migrants often choose to move home, to migrate to another country, or not to migrate initially.
Skilled immigrants are key to progressive U.S. business labor forces

Nwokocha 8 (Paschal O., Chair of Minnesota/Dakotas Chapter of American Immigration Lawyers Association, William Mitchell
Law Review, p 64-65) JJN
Immigrants to the United States have assisted the drive for innovation and entrepreneurship and have helped
keep the United States at the forefront of industry.212 Greater numbers of skilled workers provide
greater intellectual wealth, an immeasurably valuable resource for companies, universities, and research
institutions to incite future developments in their fields.213 As a recent article in The Economist points out:
America has always thrived by attracting talent from the world. Some 70 or so of the 300 Americans who have won Nobel
prizes since 1901 were immigrants. Great American companies such as Sun Microsystems, Intel and Google had immigrants
among their founders. Immigrants continue to make an outsized contribution to the American economy. About a quarter of
information technology (IT) firms in Silicon Valley were founded by Chinese and Indian immigrants. Some 40 % of American
PhDs in science and engineering go to immigrants. A similar proportion of all the patents filed in America are filed by
foreigners.214 Employment-based immigrants to the United States can also alleviate specific labor
shortages.215 The U.S. Labor Department projects that by 2014 there will be more than two million
job openings in science, technology, and engineering, while the number of Americans graduating with
degrees in those areas are plummeting.216 Supplementing this deficiency with skilled, educated,
foreign-born employees will maintain American industry leadership in these fields.
ADI 2010 48
Economy Adv – Market Investment – Key to Economy

Immigrants create wealth via entrepreneurship
Anderson & Platzer 6 (National Foundation for American Policy, Content First LLC) SEW
Over the past 15 years, immigrants have started 25 percent of U.S. public companies that were venture-backed, a high percentage of the
most innovative companies in America. • The
current market capitalization of publicly traded
immigrant-founded venture-backed companies in the United States exceeds $500
billion, adding significant value to the American economy. This is an example of the
enormous wealth-creating abilities of immigrant entrepreneurs. • Immigrant-founded venture-
backed companies are concentrated in cutting edge sectors: high-technology manufacturing; information technology (IT); and life
sciences. • As evidence of how important immigrant entrepreneurs are the study found 40 percent of U.S. Publicly traded venture-backed
companies operating in high-technology manufacturing today were started by immigrants. Moreover, more than half of the employment
generated by U.S. public venture-backed high-tech manufacturers has come from immigrant-founded companies. • The largest
U.S. venture-backed public companies started by immigrants include Intel, Solectron,
Sanmina-SCI, Sun Microsystems, eBay, Yahoo!, and Google. • The data show immigrants possess
great entrepreneurial capacity, particularly in technical fields. The proportion of immigrant
entrepreneurs among publicly traded venturebacked companies is particularly impressive when compared to the relatively small share of
legal immigrants in the U.S. population. Today, legal immigrants encompass approximately 8.7 percent of the U.S. population and
represented only 6.7 percent of the population in 1990.
ADI 2010 49
Economy Adv – IT Sector – Shortages Now

The flux of the labor market requires more skilled workers in the IT sector
Cromwell 9 (Courtney L.JD candidate at Brooklyn Law School, The Brooklyn Journal of Corporate, Financial, and Commercial Law, 3(2)
p. 466) JJN
In order to refute the IT industry’s “labor shortage” claims as unreliable, critics refer to various other studies conducted around the time
the ITAA reports were released. However, the studies cited by critics point mainly to methodological problems in the data and analysis
of the ITAA reports, rather than actually providing data counter-indicative of the ITAA conclusions. Critics also claim that the apparent
labor shortage is actually a result of U.S. employers’ “pickiness.”In addition, proponents of the H-1B visa contend that the
debate regarding the labor shortage is irrelevant because “the number of jobs available in America is not a
static number . . . .” Rather, the labor market grows “based on several factors, including labor force
growth, technology, education, entrepreneurship, and research and development.” Thus, prohibiting
an increase in the entrance of highly skilled workers in the IT sector stifles the growth of that industry
for both foreign and native workers.
A shortage of skilled workers is causing the labor shortage in the IT sector, not employer
selectivity
Cromwell 9 (Courtney L.JD candidate at Brooklyn Law School, The Brooklyn Journal of Corporate, Financial, and Commercial Law, 3(2)
p. 466) JJN
Critics also claim that the apparent labor shortage is actually a result of U.S. employers’ “pickiness.” They
assert that IT employers “have no shortage of incoming resumes,” that only approximately 2% of applicants actually are hired, and that
most employers reject a majority “of the applicants they invite for in-house interviews.” While IT companies admittedly are
selective, certain IT positions require particular skill sets. Without certain training or skills required
by the position, an applicant will not be considered for it. Critics argue that, “good generic programming ability, not
skills in particular programming languages, is what counts,” and that “workers are available, but not always at a price employers are
willing to pay.” On the other hand, it seems unfair to place the burden and expense on employers to train under-
qualified employees in the specific skill sets required for the position when there are workers available
who are already trained. The issue is an ongoing circular debate.
ADI 2010 50
Economy Adv – IT Sector – Link

Increasing H1-B applications causes an overall increase in IT sector job creation
Examining H-1B filings and year-by-year job totals for the technology companies in the S&P 500, the
National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP) used a regression model that controls for both general
market conditions and firm size and found that there is a positive and statistically significant association
between the number of positions requested in H-1B labor condition applications and the percentage
change in total employment. The data show that for every H-1B position requested, U.S.
technology
companies increase their employment by 5 workers.
- For technology firms with fewer than 5,000 employees, each H-1B position requested in labor condition
applications was associated with an increase of employment of 7.5 workers. This is particularly
remarkable since the actual number of individuals hired on H-1B visas is likely to be much lower than the
total number of applications filed with the Department of Labor.
H-1B workers are crucial to overcome job instability and to bolster the IT industry
Luthra 9 (R. Reichl, Professor of Sociology, UCLA, Journal of Ethnic and Migration
Studies, 35(2), pg. 227-228) JDL
High-skilled occupations are generally considered part of the core positions in the labour market,
affording high wages and stability (Tilly 1996). Yet many H-1B occupations, particularly within the IT industries,
are becoming less stable. The demand for highly flexible and contract-driven software and service-
related work is growing at a much faster rate than the more ‘fixed’ jobs of hardware and
manufacturing sectors; hence the unstable jobs in the IT industries are becoming a larger proportion of total workers employed
(Labour Market Information Division 2000). The problem of ‘job churning’ in IT professions, where jobs are
created and destroyed according to short-term projects, has been cited as the source of demand for
temporary contractual work that is highly volatile (Aneesh 2001; Watts 2001).
Furthermore, increasing standardization of the IT sector makes H-1B workers uniquely

key
Luthra 9 (R. Reichl, Professor of Sociology, UCLA, Journal of Ethnic and Migration
Studies, 35(2), pg. 227-228) JDL
In addition to the increasing flexibility of the IT labour market, software and service-sector work has
also grown more standardised in recent years. The ‘invisible deskilling’ of IT labour, including the mandatory
standardisation of software programming and the introduction of quality control in the IT workplace,
has resulted in the greater interchangeability and expendability of lower-level IT workers (Iredale 2001).
Scholars note that these changes create a growing need for workers to fill lower-status, less-desirable work,
increasing the possibility of outsourcing (Aneesh 2001; Prasad 1998). Firms no longer need long-term
employees with developed, firm- specific knowledge; increased standardisation drives training costs
down and renders workers largely indistinguishable.
ADI 2010 51
Economy Adv – Innovation – Link (1/)
H1-B key to innovation

Immigration Policy Center 9 (2/19/09, http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/us-economy-still-needs-highly-skilled-
foreign-workers , accessed 7/27/10) GEC
It might seem that the recent souring of the U.S. economy and rise in unemployment has rendered moot the debate over whether or not
the United States really “needs” the highly skilled foreign workers who come here on H-1B temporary visas. But the demand for H-
1B workers still far outstrips the current cap of only 65,000 new H-1B visas that can be issued each
year. In fact, this quota has been filled within one day in each of the last five fiscal years. As studies from the
Harvard Business School, National Foundation for American Policy, Peterson Institute of International Economics, and National Science
Board make clear, the presence in a company of highly skilled foreign workers whose abilities and talents
complement those of native-born workers actually creates new employment opportunities for
American workers. Moreover, the arbitrary numerical limits currently placed on H-1Bs are not only
incapable of responding to the changing demand for H-1B workers, but the international
competitiveness of the U.S. economy will continue to depend heavily on the contributions of H-1B
professionals and other of high-skilled workers from abroad for many decades to come. Foreign-born scientists
and engineers fuel U.S. innovation and job creation. A December 2008 study released by the Harvard Business School
found that immigrants comprise nearly half of all scientists and engineers in the United States who have a
doctorate, and accounted for 67 percent of the increase in the U.S. science and engineering workforce
between 1995 and 2006. According to the study, the H-1B visa program for highly skilled foreign professionals “has played
an important role in U.S. innovation patterns” over the past 15 years. This is evidenced by the fact that
the number of inventions, as measured by patents, has increased when H-1B caps are higher due to
“the direct contributions of immigrant inventors.” As New York Times op-ed columnist Thomas L. Friedman asked in
a column on February 10, 2009, “in an age when attracting the first-round intellectual draft choices from
around the world is the most important competitive advantage a knowledge economy can have, why
would we add barriers against such brainpower—anywhere?” H-1B workers are associated with job creation. In a
study released in March 2008, H-1B Visas and Job Creation, the National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP) found that, among
technology companies in the Standard & Poor’s (S&P) 500, there is “a positive and statistically significant association” between the
number of H-1B positions requested by employers between 2001 and 2005, and the percentage change in total employment of those
employers one year later. According to the NFAP, “for every H-1B position requested, U.S. technology companies
increase their employment by 5 workers,” on average, the following year. For technology companies
with fewer than 5,000 employees, “each H-1B position requested in labor condition applications was
associated with an increase of employment of 7.5 workers.” This suggests that: The U.S. labor market’s demand
for H-1B workers expands and contracts with the demand for highly skilled workers in general, and The presence in a company of
highly skilled foreign workers—whose abilities and talents complement, rather than substitute for, those of native-born workers—
creates new employment opportunities American workers. In a survey of 120 technology companies, the NFAP also found that 65
percent had reacted to the arbitrarily low limits on the hiring of foreign nationals through the H-1B program by moving more of their
work out of the United States—to countries where the workers they need are available.
Lifting the H-1B cap is key to tech innovation in the US

Cromwell 9 (Courtney L., J.D. candidate, Brooklyn Law School. 3 Brook. J. Corp. Fin. & Com. L. 455. Ln) JM
The impact of the low visa cap has been felt by large and small companies alike. Companies argue that the current cap
"considerably hampers . . . hiring practices." n205 Google, whose co-founder Sergey Brin came from the Soviet Union as
a young boy, n206 reported that in 2007 the low H-1B cap "prevented more than 70 candidates from receiving
H-1B visas. n207 Further, Google's Executive Vice President of People Operations, Lazlo Bock, testified before the House Judiciary
Subcommittee on Immigration in June 2007 that failing to increase the visa cap could be disastrous for the U.S.
economy because, "unfortunately, many . . . valued employees become frustrated with the inefficiencies
in the immigration system, give up because of the up to five-year waits, and either move home or seek
employment in more welcoming countries, countries that are direct economic competitors to the
United States." n208 Even Bill Gates reported that "the visa pinch is hurting [Microsoft's] ability to complete new projects." n209
Smaller institutions are also affected by the cap. For example, Oklahoma State University reported in 2007 that 223 of
its faculty and staff (more than 10% of the school's total) were in the United States on H-1B visas and that "if
[they] are going to do the best research and development, [they] need to have the best and brightest
minds." n210 Thus, if Congress refuses to increase or eliminate the cap, the frustration of U.S. IT
companies will continue, leading to higher American job losses due to off-shoring, and the IT sector of
the economy will continue to be stifled. Therefore, Congress should take action towards rectifying these issues.
ADI 2010 52
Economy Adv – Innovation – Link (2/)

H-1B visa increases the rate of invention across the globe and doesn’t “crowd out” natives.
Kerr and Lincoln, 08
(William and William, “The Supply Side of Innovation: H-1B Visa Reforms and US Ethnic Invention,”
http://www.people.hbs.edu/wkerr/HBSWP09-005_Appendix.pdf, CW, accessed on 7/27/10)
The city-level analysis divides 281 US cities into five quintiles based upon their dependency on the H-
1B program. Our empirical specifications then compare how patenting growth in the top three
quintiles of the distribution responded to shifts in H-1B admissions relative to patenting growth in the
bottom two quintiles. This framework allows for non-linear effects across dependency levels due to policy reforms. In addition to
providing a richer account of treatment effects, this flexibility is important given that political economy forces may increase the cap on
admissions set by the federal government. We argue below that admission levels are plausibly exogenous for the
second and third quintiles of the dependency distribution, even if the results from the upper quintile of
57 cities may contain some bias. Our first understanding is that increases in H-1B admissions
substantially increased rates of Indian and Chinese invention in dependent cities
relative to their peers. In the base specifications, a 10% growth in the H-1B population increased
Indian and Chinese invention by 6%-12% in the most dependent quintile of cities relative to the
bottom two quintiles. Just as importantly, the relative rates of Indian and Chinese invention grew by 2%-7% in the second and
third quintiles. These differences are economically important and statistically different from responses in
the reference category. Responses are also weaker for other non-English inventor groups, which is to
be expected given the H-1B programs primary pull from India and China for SE workers. Turning to
crowding-in versus crowding-out effects, positive elasticities typically exist for inventors with English
names in these estimations as well. This suggests positive effects for natives, as English
inventors account for 72% of all inventors in our sample. These elasticities, however, are much smaller
than those for other ethnicities and are often not statistically different from zero. In the baseline specification, a 10% growth in
the H-1B population increases English invention by 0%-1% in the most dependent quintile relative to
the least. This suggests that natives are not likely being crowded-out in large numbers by higher H-1B
admissions. The elasticities also indicate that crowding-in effects are small to the extent that they exist.
Com- bining elasticities with inventor group sizes, crowding-in contributions would be about half of immigrants direct contributions in
the 1% scenario, whereas all technology growth would come from ethnic inventors themselves in the 0% scenario. Total invention
is estimated to increase by 0%-2% in the short-run.
The status quo cap on H-1B visas is destroying US innovation and tech leadership – our
link is reverse causal
Proponents of raising the cap argue that preventing foreign students who attend U.S. universities from accepting
positions in the United States "will be detrimental to our economic success because the United States will [*474]
lose valuable intellectual capital." n176 Some allege that U.S. visa policies, specifically Congress's refusal to raise
the H-1B cap, "are primarily to blame for the decline in international student enrollment in U.S.
academic institutions." n177 Thousands of foreign students enter the United States each year on F, M and J visas to attend
U.S. universities. n178 Not only is their attendance at these universities beneficial to the economy by injecting capital through tuition
and living expenses, n179 but their creative ideas are also crucial to our modern economy, which focuses on innovation.
n180 The cap prevents many of these graduating students from being placed in jobs in the United States,
forcing them to return to their home countries. n181 Thus, "instead of maximally retaining foreign talent. . . U.S.
immigration policies have expelled such individuals back to their home countries, where they have contributed to local workforces'
ability to compete on a national basis with the [United States]." n182 In addition to the loss of a well-educated workforce, the H-1B
cap prevents the United States from being credited for the innovation of valuable intellectual property.
In 2006, foreign nationals residing in the United States filed 25.6% of the international patent applications. n183 "Foreign nationals and
foreign residents contributed to more than half of the international patents" filed by multi-national companies such as Qualcomm, Merck
& Co., General Electric, Siemens and Cisco in 2006. n184 Furthermore, "41% of the patents filed by the U.S.
government had foreign nationals or foreign residents as inventors or co-inventors." n185 In addition,
16.8% and 13.7% of international patent applications from the United States had an inventor or co-inventor with a Chinese or Indian-
heritage name, respectively. n186 Finally, one study shows that "for every 100 international students who receive science or engineering
Ph.D.'s from American universities, the nation gains 62 future patent applications." n187 It is clear [*475] from these statistics that the
U.S. economy is dependent on the innovative ideas of foreigners. '"Economists worry about another place owning the very next big
thing' -- the next ground breaking technology . . . . 'If the heart and mind of the next great thing emerges
somewhere else because the talent is there, then we will be hurt.'" n188 If the H-1B cap remains at this
current unsatisfactory level, it will prevent the admission of foreign workers with new ideas. n189
ADI 2010 53
Economy Adv – Innovation – Key to Economy

Innovation is a key ingredient to economic recovery.
Business Wire, 2010
(July 26, “CEOs of Small and Medium Enterprises Are More Optimistic about Growth Prospects Than Heads of
Larger Companies, According to the Annual NYSE Euronext CEO Report,”
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/ceos-of-small-and-medium-enterprises-are-more-optimistic-about-growth-
prospects-than-heads-of-larger-companies-according-to-the-annual-nyse-euronext-ceo-report-2010-07-26?
reflink=MW_news_stmp, CW, accessed on 7/29/10)
"Innovation and entrepreneurship have always been the key ingredients for the success of emerging
business," added Jeff Resnick, Global Managing Director, Opinion Research Corporation, which
conducted the study on behalf of NYSE Euronext. "The optimism expressed by these CEOs continues this
tradition. The confidence of these business leaders is a key ingredient to the economic recovery we are
beginning to see."
Innovation is the best way to cause economic growth.

Business Report, 2010
(July 20, “Innovation is Key to Growth,” http://www.busrep.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=552&fArticleId=5562927,
CW, accessed on 7/29/10)
Innovation is one of the most efficient ways to stimulate growth after the recent global economic
meltdown, Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) secretary general Angel
Gurría said on Tuesday. "Innovation can be a strong economic energiser... a remarkable social
equaliser," he said at the University of Witwatersrand in Johannesburg. While recovery was underway after
the global economic crisis, new problems were emerging. "We are not looking at the scars, we are still
looking at the open wounds caused by the crisis."
Innovation causes economic recovery and can solve major global challenges.
ICTSD, 2010
(International Center for Trade and Sustainable Development, July 14, “Innovation is Critical to Economic
Recovery: OECD,” http://ictsd.org/i/news/bridgesweekly/80623/, CW, accessed on 7/29/10)
Innovation and coherence in policy interventions can spur economic recovery and address global
challenges such as climate change, according to the recently released “OECD Innovation Strategy”
report. The main findings of the report were presented in Geneva on Tuesday by Andrew Wyckoff, the
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s Director of Science, in a panel discussion.
ADI 2010 54
ADI 2010 55
Economy Adv – Small Business – Link

H1B Visas boost small business sector
Bhattacharyya 10
(Anirudh, Writer for Hindustan Times, Hindustan Times, 7-3-2010, http://www.hindustantimes.com/US-needs-best-and-brightest-
migrants/Article1-566689.aspx)
While the focus of the US president’s speech was on illegal immigrants, he also dwelled on legal immigrants,
especially those with higher education, who had contributed to American growth. Obama said, “We should
make it easier for the best and the brightest to come to start businesses and develop products and
create jobs.” He spoke of the need to make it easier for students to become citizens. “While we provide
students from around the world visas to get engineering and computer science degrees at our top
universities, our laws discourage them from using those skills to start a business or power a new
industry right here in the United States.” Indians constitute the largest foreign student population in the
US. But while Obama may laud highly-skilled immigrants, a populist backlash against H1B workers led by
US Congressmen and the continuing troubled state of the US economy, have led to a sharp drop in
applications for that work visa. While the H1B has a cap of 65,000 internationally in the general category and
20,000 in the Master’s exemption category, with half the year over, only 23,500 and 10,000 petitions have
been received by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services till June 25 this year. H1Bs is main
pipeline by which technology workers get green cards, many of whom in turn become entrepreneurs.
According to research by Vivek Wadhwa, a former tech entrepreneur himself, and AnnaLee Saxenian,
a Professor at the University of California — Berkeley, in 2005 start-ups founded by immigrants
produced $52 billion in sales and employed nearly 450,000 workers. Of these, 26 per cent of the key
founders of engineering and technology startups were born in India. That translates to Indian
immigrants creating more than 100,000 jobs within one decade.
H-1B visas uniquely increases the employment growth of small companies.

Smaller companies: While no technology company in the 2005 S&P 500 can properly be called small, not all
were large in 2001, and even in 2005 total employment ranged from less than 1,000 to 366,000 workers.
Over this sample, H-1B certifications are most strongly associated with employment increases for
smaller companies(see figure on next page). For firms with fewer than 5,000 employees, each H-1B
position requested in labor condition applications was associated with an increase of employment of 7.5
workers compared to 4.7 additional workers at firms employing between 5,000 and 10,000 workers.5
Looking just at the most recent year in the data, 2005, an H-1B certification was associated with 10.7
more workers for firms with less than 10,000 employees, with 5.4 additional workers for firms with
between 5,000 and 10,000 workers, and 4.0 additional workers for firms with greater than 10,000 workers. If
smaller firms are more likely to be involved in job-creating innovation, then that may explain why H-
1Bs are more important to employment growth in such firms. This study looked only at S&P 500
companies, so it is not possible to say whether H-1Bs have an even stronger association with growth at
startups and smaller technology companies.
ADI 2010 56
Economy Adv – Tax Revenue – Link

H1-B visas prevent outsourcing and increases tax revenue
Sherk and Nell 8
American employers cannot find enough highly skilled workers to fill essential positions. There are not
enough American workers with advanced skills in computer, engineering, and mathematical
occupations to perform the work that many high-tech companies need. This shortage of skilled labor
has forced many companies to outsource operations abroad. Raising the cap on H-1B visas for skilled workers
would allow American businesses to expand operations here in the United States, creating more jobs and higher wages for American
workers. Increasing the H-1B cap would also raise significant tax revenue from highly skilled and highly
paid workers. Heritage Foundation calculations show that raising the cap to 195,000 visas would
increase revenues by a total of nearly $69 billion over eight years. Unlike tax increases, this would be
an economically beneficial source of revenue for PAYGO offsets. (The pay-as-you-go rule mandates that any new
congressional spending or tax changes must not add to the federal deficit; any new costs must be offset with money from existing funds.)
Congress should therefore act now to raise the cap on visas for highly skilled workers. H-1B Visas for Skilled Workers Congress created
temporary H-1B visas for non-immigrant workers to prevent a shortage of skilled workers from hurting the economy. This visa allows
foreigners with advanced skills to work in the United States for three years, and it can be renewed for another three years. After that,
these workers must leave the country. Congress permits U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), an agency within the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security, to issue 65,000 H-1B visas a year to workers with at least a bachelor's degree and an additional
20,000 to workers with at least a master's degree.[1] This represents far fewer people than American high-tech employers need. USCIS
received 163,000 applications for these limited visas within a week of accepting applications for FY 2009[2] and reached the cap
withinhours of accepting applications for FY 2008.[3] Skilled-Worker Shortage The job market remains tight in highly
skilled occupations despite the weakening economy. There are simply not enough Americans with the
advanced mathematical, computer, and engineering skills that employers in these fields need. Table 1
shows the occupations of employees sponsored for H-1B visas and the national unemployment rate for those occupations. Over half of
all companies seeking H-1B workers need them for computer and mathematical occupations, a job sector with unemployment just above
2 percent--less than half the national average. The next-largest occupations for which employers need skilled H-1B workers are
architecture and engineering, which have an unemployment rate of 1.8 percent.Economists estimate that the structural rate of
unemployment in the United States is between 4 percent and 6 percent.[4] The unemployment that exists at this rate is the natural
unemployment that occurs as workers move between jobs and industries. In occupations with only 2 percent unemployment, there is
virtually no one who is unemployed involuntarily-- which means that raising the H-1B cap will not cost Americans any jobs. Virtually
every American who wants a job in the high-tech sector has one.
H1-B Key to PAYGO and economy

Sherk and Nell 8
Congress must now comply with PAYGO rules, so finding sources of revenue to cover any program
expansion is critical. New taxes from H-1B workers provide a better source of revenue for PAYGO
purposes or for reducing the deficit than is provided by tax hikes. Raising taxes in a time of economic
weakness would be counterproductive because higher taxes harm the economy. All taxes, by definition,
cause economic inefficiencies, but bringing in taxpayers from other countries avoids the economic costs
of raising tax rates. The $69 billion in additional revenue essentially comes from the home countries of
these workers, as they now pay American taxes instead of paying taxes to their own governments. New
workers are a boon to the economy, not a cost. Their skills are desired by American companies, and
these companies cannot grow without workers to fill these positions. These workers increase the
productivity of the company, allowing it to expand, and they pay taxes on the income they earn. Unlike
revenues from tax hikes, this additional tax revenue comes at no cost to American workers. Rather
than depress productivity and economic growth by keeping the H-1B cap low, Congress should accept
these willing workers and the taxes they pay.
ADI 2010 57
Economy Adv – AT: No Demand

There is a high demand for skilled foreign workers that is not able to be met because of
Visa caps
National Foundation for American Policy 10’(non-partisan public policy research organization,
March 2010, http://www.nfap.com/pdf/1003h1b.pdf) AJR
The demand for skilled foreign nationals has generally been so high and the quota so low that it has
created problems for employers. During a one-week filing window in April 2008, U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services (USCIS) received 163,000 H-1B applications, nearly twice as many petitions as
slots available under the FY 2009 quota of 65,000, plus 20,000 for advanced degree holders from U.S.
universities. The petitions were awarded to employers by lottery and no new H-1B petitions could be
issued the remainder of the fiscal year. Even when the economy is uncertain, employers still seek
talented people on an ongoing basis. Moreover, even firms that downsize in one part of a company may
be hiring in another part.
Despite the slump companies are still pushing for reform

Sewell 10
(Abby; Staff Writer WaPo; 5/11/10; Immigration policy critical for tech firms; Coalition supports provision to ease
hiring of skilled foreigners; Lexis) BHB
Peter Muller is the director of government relations for Intel, one of the largest sponsors of H-1B temporary visas for skilled workers.
The company was approved for 723 new H-1B visas in 2009. Muller said Intel had been hindered in hiring and keeping
the most qualified people by the annual caps on H-1B visas and the sometimes decade-long delay in
processing applications for green card. "To not be able to hire the people who really drive innovation in our company is a
frustration," he said. In past years, the allotment of H-1B visas often was gone within days after the application period opened in April.
Last year, it took until December to hit the cap. Even with a slower economy reducing demand for workers,
however, tech companies say they want the system overhauled. "Companies are still hiring, so fixing
the problems and fixing the system is important," said Jessica Herrera-Flanigan, the co-executive director of Compete
America, a coalition of companies that is lobbying for more high-skilled immigration. "It's an issue today for some companies, and it's
going to continue to be an issue that needs to be addressed."
H-1B visa demand will return with the economy

Herbst 9
(Moira; Staff Writer Business Week;
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/nov2009/db2009112_270880.htm) BHB
Outsourcing companies that have been among the top users of the H-1B visa program for highly skilled workers say a
dip in demand for the program won't last. As of Oct. 25, employers had filed about 72,800 H-1B visa petitions for 2009, leaving
more than 12,000 still available some six months after the U.S. government started accepting applications. That's a marked contrast from
recent years, when companies snapped up the 85,000 available visas within days of their Apr. 1 offer date. But the rush for H-1B
visas will return as the economy recovers, especially among outsourcing firms that are now the program's
heaviest users, say tech industry experts. "Unless we are heading into a Great Depression, pressure on the H-1B visa program will
increase as the economy rebounds," says Peter Bendor-Samuel, founder of the Everest Group, an outsourcing consulting firm in Dallas.
"It's almost impossible for me to believe demand [for H-1Bs] will lessen long term. I find it mildly surprising there are some extras left
now."
ADI 2010 58
Economy Adv – AT: No Short Term Gains

H-1B visas provide an immediate benefit to the economy.
Of all the foreign workers coming to the United States, no category provides such an instant boost to the
economy as do H-1B professionals. Although they are here no longer than six years, H-1B professionals, like their
permanent counterparts, satisfy unmet labor needs and provide a diverse, skilled, and motivated labor supply
to complement our domestic workforce and spur job creation. But unlike their permanent counterparts, H-1B
professionals offer the very important advantage of enabling employers to meet immediate labor
needs. Employers can hire H-1Bs in months or even weeks. In contrast, it can take four years or more to qualify a
worker for permanent “green card” status.8
ADI 2010 59
Economy Adv – AT: Security Breaches DA

Security breaches are inevitable
Cavusoglu, Mishra, and Raghunathan 4 (Huseyin, Birendra, and Srinivasan, “The Effect of Internet
Security Breach Announcements on Market Value: Capital Market Reactions for Breached Firms and Internet
Security Developers,” International Journal of Electronic Commerce / Fall 2004, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 69–104.)
The transitory costs of security breaches include lost business and decreased productivity resulting
from the unavailability of the breached resources; labor and material costs required to detect, contain,
repair, and reconstitute breached resources; costs associated with evidence collection and prosecution
of the attacker; costs related to providing information to customers and the public; and other media-
related costs [26]. Permanent, or long-term, costs have more far-reaching effects on the breached
firm’s future cash flow. These costs are related to the loss of customers who switch to competitors,
inability to attract new customers due to perceived poor security, loss of trust of customers and
business partners, legal liabilities arising from the breach, and the cost of attackers’ access to
confidential or proprietary information. Perceptions of increased business risk may also translate into
increased insurance costs for the firm and higher capital costs in debt and equity markets. The costs
incurred as a result of breaches can be further classified as tangible or intangible. It is possible to
estimate the cost of lost sales, material and labor, and insurance, but costs related to trust are difficult
to calculate. Nonetheless, these intangibles are extremely important in the measurement of the overall
cost of security for business. Table 1 blocks out the four types of costs and the degree of uncertainty associated
with dollar estimates of each type
ADI 2010 60
Economy Adv – AT: Body Shopping

Raising or eliminating the H-1B cap will solve body shopping
Instead, however, the H-1B cap may be the cause of body shopping in the United States, and if the cap is
abolished, the practice of body shopping will likely decline or disappear altogether. In 2003, once the
cap reverted to 65,000 from 195,000, n145 employment placement agencies and consulting firms such
as MindTree and Wipro, two of the largest body shoppers, began "scrambling to build teams of visa-ready
people." n146 They were forced to anticipate what skills their clients would need in the next few years and
thus make efforts to mobilize enough H-1B visas to "manage a supply imbalance that was expected to
emerge . . . ." n147 Thus, the 65,000 cap created a high demand for H-1B visas, which led employment
and recruiting agencies to obtain as many H-1B workers as possible for themselves and their clients.
n148 In turn, as a result of these agencies hoarding H-1B visas, it is likely that the abusive body
shopping practices developed because the [*471] agencies could not afford to pay H-1B workers who
were not assigned to jobs. Therefore, raising or abolishing the cap will reduce the pressure to mobilize a
supply of H-1B visas, thus eliminating the practice of body shopping altogether.
ADI 2010 61
Economy Adv – AT: Fraud

H-1B does not offset American jobs and those that claim H-1B leads to fraud are
empirically wrong.
Fears that H-1B workers cause unemployment and depress wages are unfounded. H-1B workers create jobs for Americans by
enabling the creation of new products and spurring innovation. High-tech industry executives estimate that a
new H-1B engineer will typically create demand for an additional 3–5 American workers. Reports of
systematic underpayment and fraud in the program are false. From 1991 through September 1999, only 134
violations were found by the U.S. Department of Labor, and only 7, or fewer than 1 per year, were found to
be intentional. The lack of widespread violations confirms that the vast majority of H-1B workers is being paid the legally required
prevailing wage or more, undercutting charges that they are driving down wages for native workers. Wages are rising fastest and
unemployment rates are lowest in industries in which H-1B workers are most prevalent.
Fraud claims have little evidence to back them up-prefer empirical evidence and no impact
to fraud either.
The tame enforcement picture contrasts sharply with the widespread but unproven accusations of pervasive fraud in the H–1B visa process.
According to some opponents of the H-1B status, the alleged fraud is occasioned by employers who knowingly file
visa petitions for persons who fail to meet the statutory criteria, prospective H-1B applicants who falsify their
academic credentials, and government employees on the take who further those criminal acts. But the
evidence of H-1B visa fraud is exclusively anecdotal. Given the small number of those visas available every year and
the overwhelming need for such visas by legitimate employers complying with the law, vague, largely
unsubstantiated allegations of abuse should not be accepted without hard evidence, and they must not
obscure the very real benefits provided by this important category of visa holders. In House Immigration
Subcommittee hearings held on the topic of nonimmigrant visa fraud in May of 1999, senior Immigration and Naturalization Service official
William Yates testified that “anecdotal reports by INS Service Centers indicate that INS has seen an increase in fraudulent attempts to obtain
benefits in this category [H-1B]. These fraud schemes appear to be the result of those wishing to take advantage of the economic opportunities in
the U.S.”39 Given the small base number of proven frauds, the alleged increase hardly seems a vigorous call to action. In a similar vein, the
inspector general of the U.S. Department of Justice, Michael R. Bromwich, testified that “there is very little
hard data available to gauge the magnitude of visa fraud, a point noted by [the General Accounting Office] in its
reports on this subject. . . . This lack of comprehensive statistics hinders the ability of the State Department and
the INS to appropriately respond to visa fraud.”40 Moreover, the three cases cited in the inspector general’s
testimony as ongoing fraud investigations all involved criminal activity by INS employees. No reasonable person
condones immigration fraud of any type, but the allegation of significant H1B fraud is simply unsupported by the facts.
ADI 2010 62
Economy Adv – AT: Brain Drain

US Experience motivates H1B workers return to and prosper in home countries
All 9 (Ann All, Reporter for IT Business Edge, http://www.itbusinessedge.com/cm/blogs/all/layoffs-send-h-1b-holders-back-to-india/?
cs=37515) SEW
The article mentions several of the same factors I cited in my post, including restrictions that make it tough for financial companies
receiving money from the Troubled Asset Relief Program to hire H-1B workers, the cost and hassle of filing H-1B applications and
growing unease over hiring H-1B workers when domestic unemployment rates are so high. Yet the economy seems to be the biggest
issue. Les French, president of WashTech, a Seattle-based union for tech professionals that is critical of the visa program, tells the
Mercury News that application levels will rise as the economy returns to health. He said: Once the economy picks up, you'll
see a pickup in the applications. I think it will be lock-step with the economy. The article also quotes Samta
Kapoor, who is finishing up a master's degree in engineering management at Duke University and has been told by prospective
employers that they are not hiring international students this year. The economy is also affecting H-1B holders who had already found
employment in the United States. According to The Wall Street Journal, some 16,000 to 20,000 Indian H-1B holders have
returned home after losing their jobs. H-1B holders who lose their jobs must quickly find another job, leave the country or
convert to a B1/B2 tourist visa, which doesn't allow them to work, but gives them some time to get their affairs in order before moving
back to their home country. For many H-1B holders, it can be tough readjusting to their native culture, and is even tougher if they have
children who have never lived in India. Some Indians are bitter about losing their jobs, while others are more pragmatic. Niraj
Sharma, a New York City consultant who had a month to prepare for a return to India, told the Journal that H-1B holders
"knew [their] its limitations." He said: But the work experience in the U.S. was tremendously valuable
and it provides us with leverage in Asia to prosper. ... If the next opportunity is in the UK or Africa, we will go there. …
People have always moved to places of opportunity. While the U.S. will always be a beacon of opportunity, other countries have also
started competing with it.
H1B’s are a win-win for economies

Saxenien 2.( “Brain Circulation: How High-Skill Immigration Makes Everyone Better Off” Brookings Institution.
http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2002/winter_immigration_saxenian.aspx) SEW
The Silicon Valley experience underscores far-reaching transformations of the relationship between
immigration, trade, and economic development in the 21st century. Where once the main economic ties
between immigrants and their home countries were remittances sent to families left behind, today
more and more skilled U.S. immigrants eventually return home. Those who remain in America often
become part of transnational communities that link the United States to the economies of distant
regions. These new immigrant entrepreneurs thus foster economic development directly, by creating
new jobs and wealth, as well as indirectly, by coordinating the information flows and providing the
linguistic and cultural know-how that promote trade and investment with their home countries.
Analysts and policymakers must recognize this new reality. In the recent U.S. debate over making
more H1-B visas available for highly skilled immigrants, discussion began—and ended—with the
extent to which immigrants displace native workers. But these high-tech immigrants affect more than
labor supply and wages. They also create new jobs here and new ties abroad. Some of their economic
contributions, such as enhanced trade and investment flows, are difficult to quantify, but they must
figure into our debates. Economic openness has its costs, to be sure, but the strength of the U.S. economy
has historically derived from its openness and diversity—and this will be increasingly true as the
economy becomes more global. As Silicon Valley's new immigrant entrepreneurs suggest, Americans
should resist viewing immigration and trade as zero-sum processes. We need to encourage the
immigration of skilled workers—while simultaneously improving the education of workers here at
home.
ADI 2010 63
Economy Adv – AT: BRIC (1/)

Increasing HB1 visas key to both US and Indian economy
Pradhan 7 (“The H1-b visa program needs a revamp”, Pradhan, Basab, CEO Gridstone Research, http://6ampacific.com/2007/04/21/the-
h1-b-visa-program-needs-a-revamp/) SEW
For the Indian companies, H1-B visas are their lifeblood. 60 to 70% of their revenues are out of the US. H1-B
visas are like “raw material” for them. If they don’t have them they can’t start projects and this impacts
revenue immediately. For the US tech companies, the same visas affect R&D, which eventually affects new product innovation and
so affects the company, but the effect is felt in the long-term, not next quarter. Understandably then, the Indian companies are
more organized in their efforts to secure the maximum number of visas possible. But the US tech companies
also have one major disadvantage. They can’t plan for the visa applications as far in advance as an IT Services company can. The US
tech company needs the visa to hire someone who is not yet in the company. The Indian services company already has thousands of
employees who need the visas in order for them to go to the US to start projects. Planning for their visas can be done well in advance. In
my opinion, the US tech companies can never win this battle for visas. Yet, there is no doubt in my mind (and
theirs) that the H1-B employees are essential for their own competitiveness. In the words of Bill Gates, America
should “welcome as many of those people as we can get.” So, what can they do to not get “crowded out”? One way, is of
course to just take the cap on visas off or at least take it up substantially. This seems to be the general thrust of the lobbying by the tech
companies. This is a temporary solution. Plus, I doubt that Congress will ever let the cap get too high. A better solution would
be to realize that the offshore IT services industry and the domestic tech industries use the same visas
very differently and therefore to create different visas for them. Making the two industries compete for scarce visas
is unfair to the domestic tech industry. And in the long-term, a cap on visas will hurt both industries. The only
problem with this solution is a practical, political reality – the visa for the services industry can become the lighting rod for the anti-
outsourcing zealots.
Visas key to Indian economy and US

Aiyar 9 (“Hidden Benefits of Brain Drain” Times of India research fellow, CATO Institute) SEW
Indian migration to the US was once castigated as a brain drain. More recently, it has been
rechristened brain circulation, with many migrants returning to India. Economist Deena Khatkhate (see
his book Money, Finance, Political Economy) was among the earliest to contest the brain drain thesis. He
saw the exodus as a safety valve for educated Indians unable to find enough jobs in India's licence-
permit raj. He also highlighted the way the Indian Diaspora catalysed changes in social, political and
economic attitudes in India, paving the way for economic reform. It now seems that the Diaspora played
an even bigger role: It changed US attitudes. The brain drain steadily increased the number of influential
Indians in the US. Indo-US economic relations and the size and clout of the Diaspora grew fast together,
most prominently in Silicon Valley. The trend now encompasses all walks of US life, including the
media. It is not quite true that the brain drain is becoming the gradual takeover of the US by Indians.
But it has helped transform US attitudes.
ADI 2010 64

The Indian and U.S. economies are dependent on each other for growth, and this mutual
expansion is key to the global economy
Iwata 6 (Edward, business and technology writer, USA Today, 6/20/2006) JAS
If India's economy grows 10% a year for several years, Chugh says, it will strengthen trade and investments
between India and the USA while lifting millions of Indians out of poverty. Chugh also is a trustee of the American India
Foundation, which donates millions of dollars a year to charities in India. "India is booming with cross-cultural development,"
says Chugh, who lives in the Los Angeles suburb of Cerritos with his wife and two kids. "Indians and white business people are
bringing their cultures and creativity together." The stronger U.S.-India business connection is also evident in venture capital.
When high-tech banker Ash Lilani took U.S. investors on their first trip to Bangalore in 2003, barely a handful of U.S. venture firms were
funding Indian start-ups. Many investors held stereotypes of India as a home for cheap labor, outsourcing and call centers. Once on the ground,
though, the U.S. investors realized that India was a business gold mine. The country boasted top engineering and managerial
talent, an English-speaking workforce and a British-style legal and regulatory system. Few differences The investors found that doing business in
a Bangalore office was no different than in the USA, says Lilani, the head of SVB Global, the international consulting arm of SVB Financial
Group in Santa Clara, Calif. Today, nearly every venture firm in Silicon Valley is funding young companies in India.
"The floodgates have opened," Lilani says. Corporate India has been a sleeping economic giant for decades, but the pace of U.S.-India business
has especially quickened the past two or three years. Trade, hotels, construction, transportation and financial and business services saw 10% to
13% growth in the year ended March 31, India's Finance Ministry reports. Trailing only China, India is the No. 2 most preferred
country for foreign investment, according to consulting firm A.T. Kearney,which surveys executives. Last year, companies worldwide
invested $5 billioninto the former British colony. India's economic climate is heating up in: •High-tech investments. Venture capital firms and
private investors last year poured $2.2 billion into 146 start-ups in India — compared with $1.7 billion invested in 71 deals in 2004, reports TSJ
Media's Venture Intelligence India Roundup. Not to be outdone, U.S. tech giants — Texas Instruments, IBM, Intel, Dell, Cisco Systems and
others — are investing billions of dollars in start-ups, research and development centers and manufacturing
sites across India. The most ambitious project may be "Nano City," a $10 billion, environmentally sustainable development unveiled in
April by entrepreneur Bhatia and the Haryana state government in northern India. Modeled after Silicon Valley, Nano City will feature R&D and
educational centers and corporate offices for technology, biosciences and other "knowledge industries." "My goal is to build a model city of the
future for the whole world," says Bhatia, who hopes Nano City will be completed in 10 years. •Mergers and acquisitions. India-based companies
signed off on $15 billionin mergers in 2005, according to consulting firm Grant Thornton, which predicts an M&A boom in the next three years.
More midsize and small deals are being struck between U.S. and Indian firms. At least a dozen mergers, mostly private, were signed the past
year, says Chugh, whose law firm worked on several of the deals. In a public deal last April, Helios & Matheson Information Technology, a
health care software firm in India, bought a $9 million controlling stake in TACT, a business outsourcing firm in New York that's traded on
Nasdaq. "Thousands of Indians have gone back to India armed with the ways of capitalism and the stock
market," Chugh says, "and they're finding fertile ground to make deals." •Manufacturing. As labor costs rise in China,
more global corporations based in the USA, Asia and Europe — General Motors, Dell, Nokia, Hyundai, Limited Brands and
others — are also turning to India as a manufacturing base. India's manufacturing sector is growing at a 9% annual clip, says
India's Finance Ministry. Industry in India is getting government help from 70 "special economic zones" that give tax breaks to manufacturers.
The economic zones are similar to some used successfully in China to boost business and trade two decades ago. "Over the long term, India has a
strong opportunity to overtake China on many economic fronts," says Ng Buck-Seng, an analyst at IDC's Manufacturing Insights. What's feeding
the business and investment boom in India? Since the early 1990s, economic reform and the lowering of trade barriers has gradually led to more
foreign investment and trade. India also is becoming a society of middle-class consumers with more spending power than ever before. Each year,
the country's engineering and business schools — including the elite Indian Institute of Technology, known as the "MIT of India" — churn out
several hundred thousand graduates who help lift India's economy. Plus, the global network of Indian engineers and
entrepreneurs here and in India keeps getting stronger. A business group called The Indus Entrepreneurs
(TIE) claims some 8,000 members, among them people who have launched 300 U.S. and India-based firms that
do business in both countries. "India's economy is a launching pad for the U.S. and global markets," says
Ganesh, former CEO of BhartiBritish Telecom, a joint venture between British Telecom and computer maker HCL."It is possible now for
many success stories to be spawned in India. Business entrepreneurship is here to stay."
ADI 2010 65

Restricting H1B permits is effectively “brain blocking” which damages US, Indian and
Chinese economies.
Gower 10. (“As Dumb As We Wanna Be: U.S. H1-B Visa Policy and the “Brain Blocking” of Asian High-Tech Professionals ”
University at Buffalo – SUNY http://works.bepress.com/jeffrey_gower/2/) SEW
The reverse of brain gain, then, is brain drain, and can be considered to be an unintended effect from
brain blocking. Many foreign countries that were developing a software industry, especially India, lost many
of its best and brightest engineers and software developers to the U.S. in the 1990s.72 The Chinese software
industry, however, exhibited fewer losses of human capital to the U.S., as the country developed its own
indigenous Internet industry. Chinese workers that had entered the U.S. on the H-1B visa program often
preferred to return to China, citing their preference for lower cost-of-living areas and a return to the
traditional extended family.73 The brain circulation of workers that move back and forth between
countries in a free flow of information only adds to the knowledge base of the country that person is at
work.74 The U.S., under this theory, loses a substantial amount of knowledge capital through the loss
of workers and U.S.-educated foreign students by refusing to address the brain blocking collateral
damage from fewer H-1B visas as fewer Chinese technology professionals will have the opportunity to
engage in brain circulation.Brain blocking may also have unintended consequences for potential
“brain donor” countries, as U.S. immigration policy restrictions will reduce potential knowledge gains
that can be returned to a home country after the H1-B visa expires, or the technology worker chooses
to return. Work experience under the H-1B visa program benefits the home country of a skilled
technology worker once they return from the U.S. A survey by Commander, Chanda, and Winters found
that between 30 and 40% of higher-level employees in Indian software companies had once worked in a
developed country, and returned with greater skills than they had left. H-1B visa workers that
eventually become U.S. citizens often found technology companies on their own, and further contribute
to the U.S. economy with additional gains in innovation and job creation. Saxenian found that 30% of
Silicon Valley companies in the 1990s were headed by ethnic Indian or Chinese engineers. Her research
also estimated that these companies added an estimated $20 billion yearly to the U.S. economy and
accounted for 70,000 jobs.
Indian and Chinese H1B workers contribute to brain circulation, creating linkages that
boost every economy involved.
Saxenien 2. (“Brain Circulation: How High-Skill Immigration Makes Everyone Better Off” Brookings Institution.
http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2002/winter_immigration_saxenian.aspx) SEW
Understandably, the rapid growth of the foreign-born workforce has evoked intense debates over U.S.
immigration policy, both here and in the developing world. In the United States, discussions of the
immigration of scientists and engineers have focused primarily on the extent to which foreign-born
professionals displace native workers. The view from sending countries, by contrast, has been that the
emigration of highly skilled personnel to the United States represents a big economic loss, a "brain
drain." Neither view is adequate in today's global economy. Far from simply replacing native workers,
foreign-born engineers are starting new businesses and generating jobs and wealth at least as fast as
their U.S. counterparts. And the dynamism of emerging regions in Asia and elsewhere now draws
skilled immigrants homeward. Even when they choose not to return home, they are serving as
middlemen linking businesses in the United States with those in distant regions. In some parts of the
world, the old dynamic of "brain drain" is giving way to one I call "brain circulation." Most people
instinctively assume that the movement of skill and talent must benefit one country at the expense of
another. But thanks to brain circulation, high-skilled immigration increasingly benefits both sides.
Economically speaking, it is blessed to give and to receive. "New" Immigrant Entrepreneurs Unlike
traditional ethnic entrepreneurs who remain isolated in marginal, low-wage industries, Silicon Valley's new
foreign-born entrepreneurs are highly educated professionals in dynamic and technologically sophisticated
industries. And they have been extremely successful. By the end of the 1990s, Chinese and Indian
engineers were running 29 percent of Silicon Valley's technology businesses. By 2000, these companies
collectively accounted for more than $19.5 billion in sales and 72,839 jobs. And the pace of immigrant
entrepreneurship has accelerated dramatically in the past decade.
ADI 2010 66
Economy Adv – US Key to the Global Economy (1/)

Absent a reformed and recovered U.S. economy, the global economy will plunge into
instability
Stiglitz 6 (Joseph E., 2001 recipient of Nobel Prize in economic science, the New York Times, 10/3,
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/03/opinion/03stiglitz.html) JAS
THE International Monetary Fund meeting in Singapore last month came at a time of increasing worry about
the sustainability of global financial imbalances: For how long can the global economy endure America’s
enormous trade deficits — the United States borrows close to $3 billion a day — or China’s growing trade
surplus of almost $500 million a day? These imbalances simply can’t go on forever. The good news is that there is a
growing consensus to this effect. The bad news is that no country believes its policies are to blame. The United States points its finger at China’s
undervalued currency, while the rest of the world singles out the huge American fiscal and trade deficits. To its credit, the International Monetary Fund has
started to focus on this issue after 15 years of preoccupation with development and transition. Regrettably, however, the fund’s approach has been to
monitor every country’s economic policies, a strategy that risks addressing symptoms without confronting the larger systemic problem. Treating the
symptoms could actually make matters worse, at least in the short run. Take, for instance, the question of China’s undervalued exchange rate and the
country’s resulting surplus, which the United States Treasury suggests is at the core of the problem. Even if China strengthened its yuan relative to the dollar
and eliminated its $114 billion a year trade surplus with the United States, and even if that immediately translated into a reduction in the American
multilateral trade deficit, the United States would still be borrowing more than $2 billion a day: an improvement, but hardly a solution. Of course, it is even
more likely that there would be no significant change in America’s multilateral trade deficit at all. The United States would simply buy fewer textiles from
China and more from Bangladesh, Cambodia and other developing countries. Meanwhile, because a stronger yuan would make imported American food
cheaper in China, the poorest Chinese — the farmers — would see their incomes fall as domestic prices for agriculture dipped. China might choose to
counter the depressing effect of America’s huge agricultural subsidies by diverting money badly needed for industrial development into subsidies for its
farmers. China’s growth might accordingly be slowed, which would slow growth globally. As it is, however, China knows well the terms of
its hidden “deal” with the United States: China helps finance the American deficits by buying treasury
bonds with the money it gets from its exports. If it doesn’t, the dollar will weaken further, which will
lower the value of China’s dollar reserves (by the end of the year, these will exceed $1 trillion). Any country
that might benefit from China’s loss of export market share would put its money into a strong
currency, like the euro, rather than the unstable and weakening dollar — or it might choose to invest
the money at home, rather than holding more reserves. In short, the United States would find it
increasingly difficult to finance its deficits, and the world as a whole might face greater, not less,
instability. Nothing significant can be done about these global imbalances unless the United States
attacks its own problems. No one seriously proposes that businesses save money instead of investing in
expanding production simply to correct the problem of the trade deficit; and while there may be sermons
aplenty about why Americans should save more — certainly more than the negative amount households
saved last year — no one in either political party has devised a fail-proof way of ensuring that they do so.
The Bush tax cuts didn’t do it. Expanded incentives for saving didn’t do it. Indeed, most calculations show
that these actually reduce national savings, since the cost to the government in lost revenue is greater than the
increased household savings. The common wisdom is that there is but one alternative: reducing the
government’s deficit. Imagine that the Bush administration suddenly got religion (at least, the religion of
fiscal responsibility) and cut expenditures. Assume that raising taxes is unlikely for an administration that
has been arguing for further tax cuts. The expenditure cuts by themselves would lead to a weakening of
the American and global economy. The Federal Reserve might try to offset this by lowering interest rates, and this might protect the
American economy — by encouraging debt-ridden American households to try to take even more money out of their home-equity loans to pay for spending.
But that would make America’s future even more precarious. There is one way out of this seeming impasse: expenditure cuts combined with an increase in
taxes on upper-income Americans and a reduction in taxes on lower-income Americans. The expenditure cuts would, of course, by themselves reduce
spending, but because poor individuals consume a larger fraction of their income than the rich, the “switch” in taxes would, by itself, increase spending. If
appropriately designed, such a combination could simultaneously sustain the American economy and reduce the deficit. Not surprisingly, these
recommendations did not emerge from the International Monetary Fund meetings in Singapore. The United States retains a veto there, making it unlikely
that the fund will recommend policies that aren’t to the liking of the American administration. Underlying the current imbalances are fundamental structural
problems with the global reserve system. John Maynard Keynes called attention to these problems three-quarters of a century ago. His ideas on how to
reform the global monetary system, including creating a new reserve system based on a new international currency, can, with a little work, be adapted to
today’s economy. Until we attack the structural problems, the world is likely to continue to be plagued by
imbalances that threaten the financial stability and economic well-being of us all.
ADI 2010 67
Economy Adv – US Key to the Global Economy (2/)

The successes of the U.S. and global economies are inextricably linked
Fleckenstein 8 (Bill, president of Fleckenstein Capital, MSN, 7/7,
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/ContrarianChronicles/GlobalEconomyWontBailOutTheUS.aspx) JAS
Global economic and financial problems have been the subject of many newspaper articles lately, and rightly
so. Take "Falling prices grip major stock markets around the world," which appeared in a recent edition of
The New York Times. That synchrony to the downside shouldn't seem shocking, given how intertwined
world markets (and economies) were on the way up. But the folks here who believe in Goldilocks have
tried to convince themselves that while the U.S. may suffer some sort of drive-by recession, the rest of
the world will somehow be immune, helping offset the effects of our downturn. I think that's quite
unlikely, as we are the consumer for the world, and the whole world is in the late stages of an economic
up-cycle. Thus, it should come as no shock that the United States economy is hardly alone in
experiencing a slowdown.
ADI 2010 68
***SCIENCE DIPLOMACY***
ADI 2010 69
Science Diplomacy Adv – Uniqueness – Sci Dip Low Now
Scientific Diplomacy needs a wider scope

Choudhury 10, Naiyyum. "Science diplomacy must be more ambitious." (): n. pag. Web. 30 Jul 2010.
<http://www.scidev.net/en/opinions/science-diplomacy-must-be-more-ambitious.html>.
But if science diplomacy is to make an impact where it matters most — in the poorest countries — then
current efforts, led by the United States, will have to broaden their scope beyond a select group of
predominantly Islamic countries that are either rich in oil or pose a potential nuclear threat. There are
many countries that are in neither camp and lack resources and infrastructure to tackle their own
development problems. As a tool for development, science diplomacy should not make distinctions
between Islamic and non-Islamic nations — rather, it should address the gap between all developed
and developing countries. Of course, diplomacy is ultimately driven by national interests, and rightly so. But it is ethically
unacceptable to ignore the millions of people who badly need to improve their living conditions. If the United States and others do not
take this view for the new science diplomacy, high hopes will end in frustration and mistrust. The United States should see
that taking a broader perspective to championing scientific efforts for the developing world is in its
own interests. Poor countries merit equal attention and support whatever their religion, culture and
natural resources.
Despite Necessity The United States Falls Short in Scientific Diplomacy

Steir 8 , Ken. "Using Scientists as Diplomats." TIME 07 March: n. pag. Web. 31 Jul 2010.
<http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1720538,00
Scientific cooperation has long had a critical, if unsung, supporting role in international diplomacy, helping
to rebuild economies from the ashes of World War II and eventually winding down the Cold War. But
despite these successes, critics say Washington's record of integrating science and technology into foreign
policy in recent years has been decidedly mixed. That was one of the themes raised at the recent annual
meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), where scientists
lamented that Washington continues to short-shrift international scientific cooperation, which is
increasingly regarded as a crucial tool of soft power for spreading prosperity and enhancing American
competitiveness. Critics say this is particularly unfortunate at a time when science is more than ever a
truly global enterprise, especially for solving challenges such as energy and climate change. The latest
example of this, they claim, is Congress' recent failure to appropriate any funds this year to the $20
billion multi-national fusion power project (ITER) being constructed in southern France. The landmark
R&D project is aimed at demonstrating the scientific and technical feasibility of fusion power, and the U.S.
has pledged to cover 10% of the cost over 10 years.
ADI 2010 70
Science Diplomacy Adv – Link – H-1B Key (1/)
Visas currently restrict scientific Diplomacy and development

Redden 8
[Elizabeth, Columbia University in the City of New York for editing “Science Knows No Borders. But Funders
Do”. July 16, 2008 http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/07/16/science]
What scientists have, Calvin explained, are “the international conferences to make the introductions.
What they don’t have is the mechanism to take the next step.” When pressed by the committee chairman,
Rep. Brian Baird (D-Wash.), to offer an example of what such a mechanism would look like, Calvin
suggested that, in this context, a granting entity jointly funded by the Chinese and U.S. governments could
promote scholarly collaboration (he cautioned, however, that he wouldn’t want to dilute existing research
funds available through the National Science Foundation). Calvin's suggestion got to the heart of two of
the challenges to international scholarly cooperation highlighted during Tuesday’s hearing: the
difficulty of coordinating research when partners have different governmental agencies to ask of and
answer to, and, at least in the U.S. government’s case, the legal limitations on funding foreign
collaborators. (“Although we do agree with the view that U.S. taxpayer funds should be used primarily to
support American science, there are instances, such as in international science development activities, where
we believe this limitation can impede the ability of the programs to achieve their goals,” said Alan I.
Leshner, chief executive officer of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which
publishes Science.) Among the other barriers brought up were continuing challenges with
visas, although, as Representative Baird pointed out, witnesses at a February subcommittee hearing reported
progress on that front.
Visa restrictions are a constraint on current scientific diplomacy

Hinz 10
[Franziska Hinz, Royal Society, London January 2010 http://diplomacy.aaas.org/files/New_Frontiers.pdf]
Regulatory barriers, such as visa restrictions and security controls, can also be a
practical constraint to science diplomacy. Immediately after September 11 2001, the imposition
of stringent travel and visa regimes in countries like the US and the UK severely limited opportunities
for visiting scientists and scholars, particularly from Islamic countries. Whilst the strictest controls
have since been lifted, the value of scientific I January 2010 I New Frontiers in Science Diplomacy.
The Royal Society partnerships means that further Reforms may be needed.
H-1B visa is key to solving science competitiveness – we’re falling behind the rest of the
world
Schwartz 8 (Peter, Chairman of the Global Business Network. GBN, “Daring to Dream”
www.gbn.com/articles/pdfs/GBN.SFC_VFT_Dare2dream.pdf) JM
Around the world, we are seeing a boom in scientific interest and investment—from established and growing centers
in East Asia to emerging research clusters in Africa. Yet in the U.S., only 15 percent of all American
undergraduates receive their degrees in natural science or engineering, compared to 47 percent in France, 50
percent in China, and 67 percent in Singapore (National Science Board). Michio Kaku observes that “America’s students are
comparable to a third-world country in many of our [pre-university] science exams.” Dean Kamen reminds us that “society
as a whole is always in a race between catastrophe and education, and I hate to see this be the first generation where catastrophe wins
that race. If we don’t get a substantially higher number of kids, particularly women and minorities, interested in
mathematics and science as the world gets much more complex, it’s a double-whammy: then not only are we
going to see more difficult technology problems than we have ever seen, coming faster, but this will be the
first generation that will grow up less capable of dealing with them.” Yet these are surmountable
problems that the U.S. is capable of addressing, through enlightened educational policies. Michio also proposes
increasing the opportunity for foreign-trained scientists to study in the U.S. through the H1B visa
program, to enable cross-cultural exchange of knowledge. Numerous board members also commented on the ability
for science fiction to capture the imagination and inspire a new generation of scientists. Indeed, many mentioned how influential Star
Trek had been in their own lives. So interestingly, the creative arts and media can act as critical communication vehicles to engage more
of America’s youth to participate in the global Renaissance taking place in science and engineering.
ADI 2010 71
Science Diplomacy Adv – Link – H-1B Key (2/)

Employment visa restrictions are preventing the US from engaging in effective science
cooperation
Froelich 4 (Adrienne, director of public affairs, American Society of Limnology and Oceanography. Bioscience;
Apr2004, Vol. 54 Issue 4, p296-296,) JM
Regardless of their cause, visa delays are affecting science on many levels. While much of the discussion has focused on
scientists from abroad being unable to attend scientific conferences, US government initiatives are also being impaired. US embassy
officials in Moscow told GAO that the visa process is hindering congressionally mandated
nonproliferation goals, primarily because of the difficulty in getting former Soviet Union scientists to critical US government-
sponsored exchanges. The enhanced security is also frustrating those in the United States who are
responsible for facilitating international cooperation. NASA officials at foreign posts told GAO that up to
20 percent of their time is spent dealing with visa issues when they should be focusing on program issues. In response
to the GAO report, State acknowledged its problems: "We were slow. We have taken strong measures to improve--and we will continue
to do so." Congress would prefer to see those changes implemented sooner rather than later. Rep. Boehlert warned State, DHS, and the
FBI to be prepared to report back to the House Science Committee in six months, saying, "We can't have a visa system that
needlessly discourages and alienates scientists from around the world who could be a boon to this
country."
ADI 2010 72
Science Diplomacy Adv – Link – AT: Alt Causes

Lifting the cap on H-1B visas is key to attracting foreign workers – this is the vital internal
to science diplomacy because of tech leadership and perception of foreign nationals
AFP 6 (Agence France Presse, “US tech industry urges Congress to boost special visas” 13 June. Ln) JM
A group representing US high-tech industries urged Congress Tuesday to raise the limit on visas for
skilled foreign workers, calling it critical to maintaining US leadership in science and technology.
AeA, formerly known as the American Electronics Association, said its study found an urgent need to reform the system for the H-1B
visa system that allows highly skilled immigrants to work in the US for up to seven years. The AeA noted that the current limit of
65,000 visas has already been reached for the 2007 fiscal year beginning October 1. The group urged Congress to raise the limit to a
minimum of 115,000 with annual adjustments upward depending on market conditions. The proposal is in line with those from President
George W. Bush and others who say the US needs more highly educated foreigners. But the issue remains contentious and is being
debated in Congress in the context of broader immigration reform. Some argue the H-1B visa has depressed wages for US technology
workers. The AeA report said a number of "myths" have been used to dissuade lawmakers from raising the limit, while arguing that
expanding the program is needed to attract the "best and brightest" to the United States. "For the past
60 years America has benefitted from attracting many of the most talented minds on the planet," said
William Archey, president and chief executive of AeA. "That period could grind to a halt given restrictive visa
policy, tremendous opportunities abroad, and the perception by many foreign nationals that they are
not wanted here. This is tragic because these talented people make the United States a more
competitive nation. They do not steal American jobs, they create them." The report noted that one of every four scientists
and engineers in the US is foreign born, and that half of doctoral computer science and math degrees
and 60 percent of doctoral engineering degrees awarded go to foreign nationals.
ADI 2010 73
Science Diplomacy Adv – Prolif

Science diplomacy is key to non-prolif
Royal Society 10, The "New frontiers in science diplomacy." (: n. pag. Web. 30 Jul 2010. <http://royalsociety.org/New-frontiers-
in-science-diplomacy/>.
The scientific community often works beyond national boundaries on problems of common interest, so
is well placed to support emerging forms of diplomacy that require non-traditional alliances of nations,
sectors and non-governmental organizations. If aligned with wider foreign policy goals, these channels
of scientific exchange can contribute to coalition building and conflict resolution. Cooperation on the
scientific aspects of sensitive issues—such as nuclear nonproliferation—can sometimes provide an
effective route to other forms of political dialogue. Similarly the potential of science as an arena for
building trust and understanding between countries is gaining traction, particularly in the Middle East and wider
Islamic world.
Science diplomacy key to non-prolif – cooperation catalyzes the necessary political

conditions
Davison et al. 10 (Niel, PhD, Senior Policy Adviser in the Science Policy Centre at the Royal Society;
Koppelman Ben, Senior Policy Adviser in the Science Policy Centre at the Royal Society; Tannenbaum, Benn, PhD,
Program Director, Center for Science, Technology and Security Policy. Royal Society, March 2010.
royalsociety.org/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=4294970228) JM
Despite political challenges, progress can still be made through international cooperation on the scientific
aspects of disarmament. Investing in such research has diplomatic benefits by providing concrete evidence
of Nuclear Weapon States taking seriously their obligations to pursue disarmament under the NPT.
This cooperation could catalyse the political conditions necessary for multilateral
disarmament by helping to build much needed trust between states. Since all states will be stakeholders in any
future disarmament process, international cooperation must also include Non-Nuclear Weapon States from the outset to ensure the
transparency of this process. The scientific community often works beyond national boundaries on problems of
common interest and so is well-placed to help prepare the foundations for future multilateral negotiations.1
The timescale for complete nuclear disarmament will be long, and so focusing now on the detailed challenges of the final stages of the
process may be premature. A more practical approach might be to establish the scientific requirements of a monitoring and verification
system to support future negotiations, especially when this can produce tangible and immediate improvements to international security.
Scientific cooperation is also essential in related nonproliferation and arms control areas to ensure that
new instabilities are not introduced that could undermine nuclear disarmament. This includes research into:
managing the civilian nuclear fuel cycle; improving the physical security of nuclear material and facilities; verifying a Fissile Material
Cut-Off Treaty; and strengthening the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Given the growing political momentum for nuclear arms control
and disarmament, the scientific community has an opportunity to advise the international community about
this research and the cooperation needed to carry it out. Disarmament laboratories have the potential to develop a
truly international approach. They could help facilitate exchange not just between states; but also between
government, industry and academia so that the latest scientific advances can be integrated into the
development of solutions to the challenges that lie ahead.
ADI 2010 74
Science Diplomacy Adv – Russia

Science diplomacy is key to relations with Russia – solves conflict escalation
Turekian and Wang 9
[Vaughan, Chief International Officer at the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the
Director of the Center for Science Diplomacy, Tom, Director of International Cooperation at the AAAS and Deputy
Director at the CSD, “Building an International Network of Knowledge,” International Science and Technology
Center, http://www.istc.ru/ISTC/ISTC.nsf/va_webpages/ScienceDiplomacyEng]
since the depths of the Cold War, scientists and engineers in the United
In the decades
States and Russia have built a special bond. As relations between their governments
have shifted from acute tension to the thaw of détente to friendship and back to
mutual wariness, our researchers have worked side-by-side on a range of successful projects.
This cooperation has been critical in building and enhancing relationships that, while
outside of the political realm, have helped to promote understanding and trust among
the our people. And the relationships produced important science in fields ranging
from physics, health, and space exploration to the development of Internet-based
information-sharing networks and the control of nuclear proliferation. Today, the world is a
vastly different place than it was 40 years ago, or even 10 years ago. Though tensions remain among countries, we no longer struggle
with the strong polarization of national philosophies that characterized the Cold War. At the same time, common issues confront us on a
The current financial crisis, international terrorism, the changing climate,
global scale.
and competition over energy supplies all show how interrelated we are. National leaders are
ever more aware of the reality that solving these and other challenges will require the innovative power of science, engineering and
technology. Russia’s leaders understand that, and U.S. President Barack Obama does, too. These developments suggest that science
diplomacy is entering an important new era, and that, if it is employed to help nations
share knowledge and seek common solutions, it can be a powerful force of prosperity
and peace.
Science diplomacy is key to successful relations with Russia - only way to solve global economic crisis
Turekian et al 08 (Vaughan -, chief international officer of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and director
of its new Center for Science Diplomacy, Tom Wang is AAAS’s director for international cooperation and deputy director of the Center,
“Building an International Network of Knowledge”, http://www.istc.ru/istc/istc.nsf/va_WebPages/ScienceDiplomacyEng, 7/28/10, atl)
In the decades since the depths of the Cold War, scientists and engineers in the United States and Russia have built a special bond. As relations
between their governments have shifted from acute tension to the thaw of détente to friendship and back to mutual wariness, our researchers have
worked side-by-side on a range of successful projects. This cooperation has been critical in building and enhancing relationships that, while
outside of the political realm, have helped to promote understanding and trust among the our people. And the relationships produced important
science in fields ranging from physics, health, and space exploration to the development of Internet-based information-sharing networks and the
control of nuclear proliferation. Today, the world is a vastly different place than it was 40 years ago, or even 10 years ago. Though tensions
remain among countries, we no longer struggle with the strong polarization of national philosophies that characterized the Cold War. At the same
time, common issues confront us on a global scale. The current financial crisis, international terrorism, the changing climate, and competition
over energy supplies all show how interrelated we are. National leaders are ever more aware of the reality that solving these and other challenges
will require the innovative power of science, engineering and technology. Russia’s leaders understand that, and U.S. President Barack Obama
does, too. These developments suggest that science diplomacy is entering an important new era, and that, if it is
employed to help nations share knowledge and seek common solutions, it can be a powerful force of
prosperity and peace. Science diplomacy is not a new concept between Russia and the United States. During the Cold War, despite the
geopolitical deadlock between the Soviet Union and the United States, the two powers used scientific exchanges to initiate a thaw. The
relationships that grew from those first tentative agreements have since produced vast knowledge, billions of dollars in economic activity and real
improvement in human well-being. At a time of financial crisis and renewed geopolitical tension, there is an
inclination to pull back from such cooperation. Indeed, there is an unspoken sense among some U.S. policymakers that science
cooperation is a one-way street, a form of aid dispensed or withheld to achieve our own national ends. But this view is short-sighted. Two years
ago, the United States and Russia renewed an ambitious science-cooperation agreement; the U.S. Department of State cited a range of valuable
accomplishments by the nations’ researchers. A 2002 RAND report prepared for the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy
concluded that the joint efforts provided great benefits to the United States. U.S. scientists cite many cases in which Russian colleagues have
shared valuable knowledge: Treating radioactive coolants; Using soil and climate data to understand climate change; Developing new treatments
for bone cancer. These past examples show the potential of continuing cooperation. We have broad areas of common interest: Fundamental
research in nuclear physics; fusion energy research; counter-terrorism; nanotechnology; the control of infectious disease; arctic science; and
development of clean energy sources. The Russia-U.S. relationship has tended to be bilateral, but as the world grows more interconnected, this
will have to evolve. Nations on every continent are investing in science and research capacity: South Korea and China have been transformed,
seemingly overnight, by investing in innovation. Cuba has become a world leader in biomedical research. Rwanda is wiring itself for the Internet,
and has begun to distribute thousands of computers to its young students. Argentina, as it develops its capacity in biotechnology and
nanotechnology, is building cooperative science relationships not just in Latin America, but with Europe, Africa and the Arab world. However
different these nations are, each recognizes that science and technology will be the currency of the future; investments today will pay off in
ADI 2010 75
economic growth and societal development tomorrow. It is in this context that international science cooperation provides
the opportunity to build bridges between countries, both through governments and through civil society
relationships. To be most effective, such an approach needs commitment from all interested parties—not just scientists and engineers, but
policy-makers, the foreign policy community, educators and the public. This emerging reality inspired the American Association for the
Advancement of Science to establish a Center for Science Diplomacy earlier this year. In October, the Center convened intensive meetings with
top U.S. leaders from foreign policy, business, education and science to discuss the best ways to pursue international partnerships, even with
nations such as North Korea and Cuba, where governmental relationships have been profoundly strained. Still, an overarching challenge
confronts us now: At a time of financial crisis, we must work together to address world problems in a way that contributes to sustainable, long-
term economic growth. Governments play an important role in such partnerships, but they cannot succeed without the commitment of individual
researchers in Russia, the United States, and many other countries. If scientists and engineers take leadership, we can pursue
new discoveries and solutions to shared problems even as we build understanding and trust between our
nations.
ADI 2010 76
Science Diplomacy Adv – Pakistan Scenario (1/)

Relations with Pakistan are maintained through scientific diplomacy
Williams 08 [James G., Director of International Networking Indiana University, “Extending Research and
Education Connectivity to Pakistan”, US-Pakistan International Research and Education Network,
http://pakistan.indiana.edu/documents/Pakistan%20Article.pdf]
Science diplomacy is a key strategy in bridging deep political and religious divides
and in aiding oft-troubled US-Pakistan diplomatic relations. The activities involved in the planning and
implementation of high-performance network infrastructure between the Pakistan Education and Research Network (PERN) and the US research and
education networks (e.g. Internet2, NLR, ESnet and others) and in using this network to enhance research and education collaborations between the US and
Pakistan support new science diplomacy activities between the US, the European Commission (EC), and Pakistan. Background: Science Diplomacy
Science diplomacy can loosely be defined as cross-border cooperation and exchange of information to encourage and enhance scientific interaction and
collaboration. In this case, the initial cooperation and exchange of information was infrastructure—a high-performance network connection between the US
and Pakistan. The scientific interaction and collaboration are enhanced by the network infrastructure. On April 2, 2008, the House Science Subcommittee
of Research and Science Education held hearings on Science Diplomacy. Nina V. Fedoroff, Science and Technology advisor to the Secretary of State and
Scientists
the Administrator of USAID said “Science is also a common global language, able to bridge deep political and religious divides.
share a common language. Scientific interactions serve to keep open lines of communication and cultural
understanding.” In additional testimony, Arden L. Bement, Director of the National Science
Foundation said, “Scientists have played an important role on the front-lines of US
diplomacy since the end of World War II. They have been the enablers of larger
international diplomacy efforts, from the robust scientific exchange with China to
renewed and strengthened relations with Egypt, India, and Pakistan—all started with
the peaceful beachhead of scientific diplomacy.”
Relations are key to preventing Indo-Pak war

Nature 98 [Nature Publishing Group, “A time for scientific diplomacy”, 393 (499),
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v393/n6685/full/393499a0.html]
The decisions by India and Pakistan to detonate nuclear devices will have few — if
any — direct consequences for the relations between ordinary citizens of both
countries. They won't, for example, diminish the passion Pakistanis have for Indian cinema, nor the fondness that Indians hold for Pakistani
television soap operas. India won't stop Muslims from Pakistan flocking to the shrines of revered Sufi saints. And Pakistan won't stop Sikhs from India
But the tests will almost certainly hamper
crossing the border to visit their second-holiest temple.
communication between one group of Indians and Pakistanis who would like the
chance to talk more: the scientists of both countries. The irony for those who gave
their countries nuclear weapons status is that they face increased isolation, not only
from the West, but also from each other. Science is perhaps one of the few vehicles
that could help raise both the quality of life and levels of trust between these two
quarrelsome neighbours. But at present, official, bilateral scientific cooperation does not exist. Scientists from both countries are not
totally isolated from one another. They meet at international venues, such as the Abdus Salam Centre for Theoretical Physics in Trieste, Italy, and at United
Nations environment conventions, where both countries form part of the Group of 77 developing states. Pakistan's scientists can, in theory, travel to New
Delhi to visit the International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology. Indian scientists, similarly, can travel to Islamabad to visit the
headquarters of the intergovernmental Commission on Science for Sustainable Development for the South. Some maintain good personal relations with
Scientific collaboration may have helped thaw the
cross-border colleagues. But in practice, contact is rare.
Cold War in the West, but it has become one of the casualties of the continued tense
relations between India and Pakistan. Politicians from both sides view science as a key element of each country's defense
and security, and consider scientific cooperation — no matter how innocuous — as close to giving away state secrets. If pressed, they tend to take the view
This is unfortunate, as
that enhanced scientific collaboration will follow progress on outstanding political issues, not vice versa.
scientific collaboration can — as the West has shown — help to ease political tensions.
It is also wrong, as such collaboration could bring urgent, practical benefits to both countries.
Indeed, science could be harnessed to help India and Pakistan tackle a range of
common problems. These include diseases such as malaria and tuberculosis;
agricultural issues such as developing salt tolerance in crops; and environmental
issues such as air pollution, as India and Pakistan have similar types of road
transport.
ADI 2010 77
Science Diplomacy Adv – Pakistan Scenario (2/)

Indo-Pak nuclear war will cause extinction
Robock and Toon 09 [Alan and Owen Brian, “Local Nuclear War, Global Suffering”, Scientific American,
http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/RobockToonSciAmJan2010.pdf]
Twenty five years ago international teams of scientists showed that a
nuclear war between the U.S.
and the Soviet Union could produce a “nuclear winter.” The smoke from vast fires
started by bombs dropped on cities and industrial areas would envelop the planet and
absorb so much sunlight that the earth’s surface would get cold, dark and dry, killing
plants worldwide and eliminating our food supply. Surface temperatures would reach
winter values in the summer. International discussion about this prediction, fueled largely by
astronomer Carl Sagan, forced the leaders of the two superpowers to confront the possibility that their arms
race endangered not just themselves but the entire human race. Countries large and small demanded
disarmament. Nuclear winter became an important factor in ending the nuclear arms race. Looking back
later, in 2000, former Soviet Union leader Mikhail S. Gorbachev observed, “Models made by Russian and
American scientists showed that a nuclear war would result in a nuclear winter that would be extremely
destructive to all life on earth; the knowledge of that was a great stimulus to us, to people of honor and
morality, to act.” Why discuss this topic now that the cold war has ended? Because as other nations
continue to acquire nuclear weapons, smaller, regional nuclear wars could create a
similar global catastrophe. New analyses reveal that a conflict between India and
Pakistan, for example, in which 100 nuclear bombs were dropped on cities and
industrial areas—only 0.4 percent of the world’s more than 25,000 warheads—would
produce enough smoke to cripple global agriculture. A regional war could cause
widespread loss of life even in countries far away from the conflict.
ADI 2010 78
Science Diplomacy Adv – Disease – Link

Scientific diplomacy is key to controlling infectious diseases
Stine 09 [Deborah, Director of the National Academies Christine Mirzayan Science and Technology Policy
Fellowship Program, PhD in Public Administration from the American University, “Science, Technology, and
American Diplomacy: Background and Issues for Congress,” Congressional Research Service, February 3,
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34503.pdf]
For the United States to be competitive, according to Bush Administration witnesses, it needs to know
where the frontier of science is occurring. As other countries increase their investment in higher education
and R&D, the top science and engineering research and facilities may not be in the United States, but in
other countries. This increases the importance of U.S. investment in international S&T diplomatic activities, said Bush
Administration witnesses, including federal programs that support U.S. scientists’ collaborations with foreign scientists, and access to
the best research facilities in the world, as well as enhancing the international connections of U.S. science and engineering students and
In addition, U.S. science and engineering higher education and research helps developing
leaders.
countries by enhancing their human resource capacity, and as a result, their ability to achieve long-
term development. These international connections can be important, said Bush Administration witnesses, not
just for those countries, but in helping the U.S. respond to global challenges such as infectious diseases
such as avian flu. Further, according to a Bush Administration witness, international cooperative activities at their agency in
almost all instances are conducted on a “no exchange of funds” basis with U.S. funding supporting U.S. scientists and engineers, not
those in the cooperating country.28 The degree to which the Obama Administration agrees with this position is not known at this time.
ADI 2010 79
Science Diplomacy Adv – Climate Change Scenario

Solving climate change depends on increasing scientific diplomacy
Hulme and Mahony 10 [Mike and Martin, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia,
“Climate change: what do we know about the IPCC?”, http://mikehulme.org/wp-
content/uploads/2010/01/Hulme-Mahony-PiPG.pdf]
The consequences of this ‘geography of IPCC expertise’ are significant, affecting the construction of IPCC
emissions scenarios (Parikh, 1992), the framing and shaping of climate change knowledge (Shackley, 1997; Lahsen,
2007; O’Neill et al., 2010) and the legitimacy of the knowledge assessments themselves (Elzinga, 1996; Weingart,
1999; Lahsen, 2004; Grundmann, 2007; Mayer & Arndt, 2009; Beck, 2010). As Bert Bolin, the then chairmen of the IPCC
remarked back in 1991: “Right now, many countries, especially developing countries, simply do not trust
assessments in which their scientists and policymakers have not participated. Don’t you think
credibility demands global representation?” (cited in Schneider, 1991). Subsequent evidence for such suspicions has
come from many quarters (e.g. Karlsson et al., 2007) and Kandlikar and Sagar concluded their 1999 study of the
North-South knowledge divide by arguing, “... it must be recognised that a fair and effective climate
protection regime that requires cooperation with developing countries, will also require their
participation in the underlying research, analysis and assessment” (p.137). This critique is also voiced more
recently by Myanna Lahsen (2004) in her study of Brazil and the climate change regime: “Brazilian climate scientists reflect some
distrust of ... the IPCC, which they describe as dominated by Northern framings of the problems and therefore biased against
interpretations and interest of the South” (p.161).
Climate change will cause mass extinction

Brook 08 [Barry, Director of the Research Institute for Climate Change and Sustainability at the University of
Adelaide, “Can animals and plants adapt to global warming?”, http://www.skepticalscience.com/Can-animals-and-
plants-adapt-to-global-warming.html ]
However, although the geological record is essential for understanding how species respond to natural
climate change, there are a number of reasons why future impacts on biodiversity will be particularly severe:
A) Human-induced warming is already rapid and is expected to further accelerate. The IPCC storyline
scenarios such as A1FI and A2 imply a rate of warming of 0.2 to 0.6°C per decade. By comparison, the average
change from 15 to 7 thousand years ago was ~0.005°C per decade, although this was occasionally
punctuated by short-lived (and possibly regional-scale) abrupt climatic jolts, such as the Younger Dryas,
Dansgaard-Oeschger and Heinrich events. B) A low-range optimistic estimate of 2°C of 21st century warming
will shift the Earth’s global mean surface temperature into conditions which have not existed since the
middle Pliocene, 3 million years ago. More than 4°C of atmospheric heating will take the planet’s
climate back, within a century, to the largely ice-free world that existed prior to about 35 million years
ago. The average ‘species’ lifetime’ is only 1 to 3 million years. So it is quite possible that in the
comparative geological instant of a century, planetary conditions will be transformed to a state unlike
anything that most of the world’s modern species have encountered. C) As noted above, it is critical to
understand that ecosystems in the 21st century start from an already massively ‘shifted baseline’ and so
have lost resilience. Most habitats are already degraded and their populations depleted, to a lesser or
greater extent, by past human activities. For millennia our impacts have been localised although often
severe, but during the last few centuries we have unleashed physical and biological transformations on
a global scale. In this context, synergies (positive or self-reinforcing feedbacks) from global warming,
ocean acidification, habitat loss, habitat fragmentation, invasive species, chemical pollution (Figure 2)
are likely lead to cascading extinctions. For instance, over-harvest, habitat loss and changed fire
regimes will likely enhance the direct impacts of climate change and make it difficult for species to
move to undamaged areas or to maintain a ‘buffer’ population size. One threat reinforces the other, or
multiple impacts play off on each other, which makes the overall impact far greater than if each
individual threats occurred in isolation (Brook et al 2008).
ADI 2010 80
Science Diplomacy Adv – Climate Change – Data Sharing

Tech sharing with China is key to solving global warming
Lu, 09 (An writer for China View, Xinhua news, “China calls for technology sharing mechanism for anti-global warming efforts”,
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-03/15/content_7795062.htm, 7/27/10, atl)
CHIBA, Japan, March 15 (Xinhua) -- The world does not lack innovative environmental technologies which help cut
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, but is short of an effective mechanism supporting distribution and
common sharing of such beneficial technologies, Xie Zhenhua, vice chairman of China National Development and Reform
Commission, reiterated here on Saturday at an international meeting. Developing countries are in need of and want to use new
technologies in their GHG reduction efforts, but do not have enough capital to purchase latest technologies for their
contribution to the anti-global warming campaign, Xie said in his speech at the fourth ministerial meeting of the Gleneagles
Dialogue on Climate Change, Clean Energy and Sustainable Development which is being held in Chiba city, east of
Tokyo. China supports the proposal of establishing the Multilateral Technology Access Fund which could bring more
climate-friendly technologies into the box of "public goods," he said. "Only by doing so, could the cost of technology
transfer be cut down so that developing countries could afford and apply advanced technologies," Xie said.
"Large-scale infrastructure construction is underway in developing countries during their industrialization process. Heavy
GHG emissions due to backward technology may persist for quite a long time if they were not within access to advanced
environmental technology," Xie underlined the necessity of building a related mechanism as early as possible. Xie welcomed
developed nations' willingness to provide capital to facilitate developing nations' participation in environment-related
global cooperation, and called on developed nations to allocate at least 0.5 percent of their respective annual GDP to help
distributing key technologies beyond commercial interests. The meeting, which is a forum to talk about a post-Kyoto framework for
better tackling with global climate change, is the first in a series of ministerial meetings in the run-up to the Group of Eight summit slated
for July in northern Japan's Hokkaido Prefecture.
ADI 2010 81
Science Diplomacy Adv – Soft Power – Link (1/)

Science Diplomacy is critical for the execution of US interests around the globe
Agre, 10 (Peter, Nobel Prize, Chemistry, 2003; AAAS President 2009-10 “Science Diplomacy is Crucial to U.S. Foreign Policy”,
http://psaonline.org/article.php?id=620, 7/28/10, atl)
The United States is and must remain the global leader in science, technology, higher education and innovation. Respect for
American science and technology is evident even in regions where there are strong negative views of U.S. foreign policies - students from around the world
still flock to attend our colleges and universities. As we seek to promote our national security interests overseas, we
should turn this strength into an effective tool for U.S. diplomacy. Many of our most pressing foreign
policy challenges – energy, climate change, disease, desperate poverty and underdevelopment, and
WMD proliferation – demand both technological and policy solutions. In these and other areas, U.S. national
security depends on our willingness to share the costs and benefits of scientific progress with other
nations. Enhanced international scientific cooperation can also lead to greater economic prosperity at home. The U.S.
needs new technologies and markets to create jobs, grow new industries and rebuild consumer and investor confidence.
Sustainable international partnerships allow us to leverage limited resources and give American companies access to
cutting edge research and expertise around the world. We, the undersigned Democrats and Republicans, believe President Obama, the
Administration, and Congress should elevate the role of Science Diplomacy in U.S. national security and foreign policy, and
should work to: Strengthen links between U.S. and foreign scientific communities as a key part of U.S. diplomacy; Offer
scientific cooperation and technological assistance as a bridge to opening broader dialogue with former adversaries and
as an incentive to prevent conflict; Bring the world’s top scientists and engineers together to tackle pressing global
challenges like energy security, climate change, poverty, disease, and WMD proliferation; and Provide funding for
exchange programs, collaborative research, technical assistance and capacity building to fully qualified U.S.
governmental and non-governmental organizations. Now is the time to draw upon every tool of U.S. power to promote our interests in the
world. We should make maximum use of a core strength of this country - Science Diplomacy.
Science diplomacy is key to positive perceptions of the US

Lord & Turekian 7 (Kristin M., Elliott School of International Affairs, The George Washington University, &
Vaughan C., Chief international officer, AAAS, Washington, DC. Science, Vol 315, “Time for a New Era of
Science Diplomacy” 9 Feb 2007. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/315/5813/769.pdf) JM
It is time to adopt science diplomacy for a new era. Old-fashioned diplomacy between governments, while necessary, is
no longer sufficient. In this age of the Internet, rapid and relatively low-cost travel, and 24-hour global news, the power of nongovernmental
organizations (NGOs), private companies, and social networks is rising. To protect and advance U.S. interests, the U.S.
government needs to accelerate its engagement with these new actors and to build positive relationships with
foreign publics, as well as their diplomats. Science and technology (S&T) offer a promising entry point for
engaging citizens and civil society organizations worldwide. An opinion piece on the op-ed page of the Washington
Times called on the U.S. government to recognize the opportunities afforded by widespread respect for American S&T (4). We concur.
But without the engagement and commitment of the U.S. scientific community, the government cannot
succeed. Why Diplomacy Through Science? Nearly 4 years ago, the United States entered a complex and difficult
war with Iraq. Since then, global public opinion regarding the United States has reached all-time lows. Polls in
33 countries indicate that only 40% of those surveyed view America’s influence in the world as mainly
positive. In contrast, 45% view China positively and 58% hold favorable views of Europe. Dislike of America extends to long-time friends and allies.
Only 30% of Canadians, 21% of Germans, and 15% of Turks hold favorable opinions of the United States (5). Readers may ask why this matters if the U.S.
government is charged with protecting U.S. interests, not winning popularity contests overseas. The answer is that, increasingly, our interests
depend on the support (or at least acquiescence) of foreign populations. Negative images of the United States translate
directly into constraints on American influence and ability to implement policy. Engaging foreign citizens is the goal of
public diplomacy. As the 9/11 Commission report (6) underscored, engaging foreign public opinion is vital to
winning the global struggle of ideas. President Bush clearly agrees, having appointed one of his closest advisers, Karen Hughes, to the
position of Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs in 2005. Despite this high-level attention, however, promoting America’s
image overseas continues to be a daunting task, particularly in predominantly Muslim countries. In our view, public
diplomacy is most
effective when exercised through deeds rather than words. The U.S. government should
focus on doing things that positively affect foreign societies and speak to what we stand for as a nation.
We should foster tangible initiatives that promote education, economic growth, human wellbeing, and hope. If we
understand public diplomacy in these terms, the role of S&T is pivotal. Scientific education creates citizens with
the critical thinking skills necessary for successful participatory governance and competition in the
global economy. S&T are linked strongly with economic development (7). Zogby public opinion polls in several Middle
Eastern nations, where the United States is particularly unpopular, indicate that S&T are the single most
respected elements of American society (8). Social science research indicates that collaboration
to solve common problems is one of the best ways to foster positive relations between groups (9).
ADI 2010 82

Science diplomacy is key to effective hegemony – solves counterbalancing
Lijesevic, 10
Jasmina, PhD Candidate in Politics at Swansea University conducting her doctoral research on the political rationale for US-Russian
cooperation on the Shuttle-Mir programme, April 1, 2010, “Science Diplomacy at the heart of international relations”, http://www.e-ir.info/?
p=3704, 7/28/10, atl
Science diplomacy is a move away from the development of hard power capabilities of technological development in the
military, and on to soft power[1], using science as an asset to further mediation and cooperation between nations. According to US
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, “Science
diplomacy and science and technology cooperation between the
United States and other countries is one of our most effective ways of influencing and assisting other
nations and creating real bridges between the United States and counterparts.”[2] In a recent report, The Royal
Society concluded that the still fluid concept of science diplomacy could be applied in three ways: Informing foreign policy
objectives with scientific advice (science in diplomacy), Facilitating international science cooperation (diplomacy for
science), Using science cooperation to improve international relations between countries (science for diplomacy.)[3]
There has been a surge in recent years of an interest in science and its potential uses in foreign policy. There are two primary groups that
currently have a stake in the development of science as a tool in international relations: foreign policy advocates and the scientific
community itself. For the foreign policy advocates, science policy is used to further wider goals, whilst for scientists the
primary aims are the desire to collaborate with the best people in their field, to work in the best research facilities, and to
secure further sources of funding. Scientific organisations are currently pushing science cooperation and diplomacy
higher up the political agenda. With the aim of making science policy a key element of foreign policy, the American Association for
the Advancement of Science (AAAS) now has a dedicated Centre for Science Diplomacy[4], and the organisation already cooperates
closely with its EU counterparts on issues such as nuclear arms monitoring.[5] Possibly the most high profile example of
scientific cooperation across Europe is the European Organisation for Nuclear Research (CERN), which was one of
Europe’s first joint ventures and it now includes 20 Member States. Key to the discovery and development of the internet,
CERN’s business is fundamental physics, finding out what the universe is made of and how it works.[6] A major, international
flagship project, the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN, is funded by various organisations from a number of
different countries. In terms of diplomacy, the organisation can list some of the first post-Second World War contracts
between German and Israeli scientists, and cooperation between the USSR and other Iron Curtain countries in among its
historical achievements. While still in the discussion stage, the EU intends to create the position of Chief Scientific Advisor, although
it is presently unclear whether the structure of the body will be similar to that of the US President’s Council of Advisors on Science and
Technology (PCAST).[7] However, it does point to the fact that EU leaders firmly acknowledge the important of science at
the heart of their organisation, although there is no escaping the fact that great difficulty still arises as a result of 90% of
R&D funding coming from national budgets. With many issues, including environment policy and security, being transnational in
nature, surely it is imperative to effectively tackle these issues on a transnational basis? [8] In a recent Huffington Post article, Jared
Cohen discusses the U.S. government led delegation of high-technology CEOs to Russia to engage with Russian
government stakeholders, civil society, students, academic leaders, and private sector entities from a cross-section of
Russian society with the aims of forging partnerships on education, health, anti-trafficking, anti-corruption, and e-
governance. He argues that during the Cold War, such dialogue would not have been possible as both the Russians and the US viewed
innovation as a zero-sum game, and that whereas now innovation is perhaps the most important shared resource between the two
nations. “Much more than government-to-government meetings on START and Iran; it also entails
government officials engaging non-governmental actors, including NGOs, entrepreneurs, students, and
professors. At the core of this policy is the creation of linkages between non-governmental Americans
and their Russian counterparts, and with Russian government interlocutors to find areas of mutual
interest and seek out new opportunities for collaboration”.[9] Via “U.S. Innovation Dialogue” Cohen identifies six major
areas where the actors seek to deliver: Education, Entrepreneurship Training, and Mentorship Anti-trafficking and child protection Combating
Cyber-crime Health E-governance and Collaboration Promoting Cultural Collaboration Although certainly involving another dimension –
collaboration on international issues and involving new technologies and communication tools not previously available – and a transparency that did
not exist during the Cold War years, Cohen nevertheless does touch on an area in diplomacy that is worth exploring within the context of science.
In addition to philanthropic assistance, the West responded to the crisis in Russian science at the end of the Cold War not only by trying to prevent nuclear
proliferation but also by pursuing profitable ventures. The US and Germany, afraid that top Soviet nuclear scientists would be courted by nations trying to
develop their own nuclear arsenal, developed the Baker-Genscher initiative. Part of this initiative was agreed in 1992,
whereby the US would provide $35m and Europe $25m to create “clearing houses” for the top 2000 nuclear scientists
from the former-USSR to focus on research fields unrelated to weapons development.[10] By the late 1990s, the U.S.
Department of Energy and the Russian Ministry of Atomic Energy had entered into a dozen agreements involving nuclear
science and technology.[11] Often maligned as being merely an expensive exercise in national prestige, space policy –
and the competitive/cooperative relationship between the US and USSR/Russia – has also often proved to be a good case
study for science diplomacy. NASA, an organisation originally set up during the Cold War, which competed with the USSR in the Space Race to
the moon and for dominance in orbit, had its roots directly linked to enhancing national security. Since the early 1990s, the agency was placed at the
forefront of cooperation with Russia on space programmes with the continual aim of aiding US national security interests. Via cooperation with the Russian
space agency, and in a similar vein to the Baker-Genscher initiative, the US helped provide continued employment to former Soviet scientists who might
otherwise have plied their trade in Iran or North Korea, and aided the ailing Russian economy. When Russia sought to sell cryogenic rocket engines to
India, the US was concerned the dual-use technology could be applied to ballistic missile development despite the two parties insistence that technology
transfers were purely intended to aid India’s indigenous satellite launching program; investment by the US and cooperation with Russia eventually ended
ADI 2010 83

cooperation between the two nations during the height of the
the sale. However, this was another stepping stone to what had come before:
Cold War under the auspices of scientific bodies and national academies when formal political relations were strained, or
even directly between the two governments on the high profile Apollo-Soyuz Test Project (ASTP) during the 1970s when
the political climate of détente allowed for increased collaboration. It can certainly be argued that by examining the
pattern of previous scientific cooperation between the two nations, there is evidence to suggest that what Cohen describes
is a logical and expedient continuation and expansion in policy and development between the US and Russia, and that
this will no doubt continue while it still serves both their mutual interests. Although referring specifically to space policy, the
broader aspects of the geopolitics of science that Nicholas Peter discusses in his 2006 paper certainly apply. [12] During the Cold War
“intrabloc” cooperation was the norm; however, “interbloc” cooperation also took place on a more limited set of occasions. This
pattern has evolved since the end of the Cold War, leading to science and technology increasingly shaping foreign policy
and diplomacy. Therefore, it can be expected that activities will also influence the future geopolitical context as
governments initiate or participate in collaborative projects for a number of scientific reasons, but also for broader
domestic and foreign policy reasons. Science should ideally provide the basis of non-ideological environments for the
participation and free exchange of ideas. However, science has been, and will no doubt at times continue to be, used for political
gain with the express aim of furthering a particular ideology and proving its superiority. Despite the negatives surrounding it as a policy
tool, science diplomacy has been effective for many years and led to coalition building and conflict
resolution, and as the expansion of new technology continues it seems that politicians are seeing even
further value to exploring science as a method of foreign policy.
ADI 2010 84

Science diplomacy is the only way to retain global influence in the modern world
Federoff 8 (Nina, prof @ Penn State, Science and Tech adviser to sec of state in the Obama Admin.
“TESTIMONY BEFORE THE HOUSE SCIENCE SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND SCIENCE
EDUCATION” April 2. http://gop.science.house.gov/Media/Hearings/research08/April2/fedoroff.pdf) JM
Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Ehlers, and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to discuss
science diplomacy at the U.S. Department of State. The U.S. is recognized globally for its leadership in science and technology. Our
scientific strength is both a tool of “soft power” – part of our strategic diplomatic arsenal – and a basis for creating
partnerships with countries as they move beyond basic economic and social development. Science
diplomacy is a central element of the Secretary’s transformational diplomacy initiative, because science and
technology are essential to achieving stability and strengthening failed and fragile states. S&T
advances have immediate and enormous influence on national and global economies, and thus on the international
relations between societies. Nation states, nongovernmental organizations, and multinational corporations are largely shaped by
their expertise in and access to intellectual and physical capital in science, technology, and engineering. Even as S&T advances
of our modern era provide opportunities for economic prosperity, some also challenge the relative
position of countries in the world order, and influence our social institutions and principles. America must remain
at the forefront of this new world by maintaining its technological edge, and leading the way
internationally through science diplomacy and engagement. Science by its nature facilitates
diplomacy because it strengthens political relationships, embodies powerful ideals, and
creates opportunities for all. The global scientific community embraces principles Americans cherish: transparency,
meritocracy, accountability, the objective evaluation of evidence, and broad and frequently democratic participation. Science is
inherently democratic, respecting evidence and truth above all. Science is also a common global language, able to
bridge deep political and religious divides. Scientists share a common language. Scientific interactions serve to keep open
lines of communication and cultural understanding. As scientists everywhere have a common evidentiary external reference system,
members of ideologically divergent societies can use the common language of science to cooperatively address both domestic and the
increasingly transnational and global problems confronting humanity in the 21st century. There is a growing recognition that science
and technology will increasingly drive the successful economies of the 21st century. Science and technology provide an
immeasurable benefit to the U.S. by bringing scientists and students here, especially from developing countries,
where they see democracy in action, make friends in the international scientific community, become
familiar with American technology, and contribute to the U.S. and global economy. For example, in 2005, over 50% of
physical science and engineering graduate students and postdoctoral researchers trained in the U.S. have been foreign nationals.
Moreover, many foreign-born scientists who were educated and have worked in the U.S. eventually progress in their careers to hold
influential positions in ministries and institutions both in this country and in their home countries. They also contribute to U.S. scientific
and technologic development: According to the National Science Board’s 2008 Science and Engineering Indicators, 47% of full-time
doctoral science and engineering faculty in U.S. research institutions were foreign-born. Finally, some types of science – particularly
those that address the grand challenges in science and technology – are inherently international in scope and collaborative by necessity.
The ITER Project, an international fusion research and development collaboration, is a product of the thaw in superpower relations
between Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev and U.S. President Ronald Reagan. This reactor will harness the power of nuclear fusion
as a possible new and viable energy source by bringing a star to earth. ITER serves as a symbol of international scientific cooperation
among key scientific leaders in the developed and developing world – Japan, Korea, China, E.U., India, Russia, and United States –
representing 70% of the world’s current population.. The recent elimination of funding for FY08 U.S. contributions to the ITER project
comes at an inopportune time as the Agreement on the Establishment of the ITER International Fusion Energy Organization for the Joint
Implementation of the ITER Project had entered into force only on October 2007. The elimination of the promised U.S. contribution
drew our allies to question our commitment and credibility in international cooperative ventures. More problematically, it jeopardizes a
platform for reaffirming U.S. relations with key states. It should be noted that even at the height of the cold war, the
United States used science diplomacy as a means to maintain communications and avoid
misunderstanding between the world’s two nuclear powers – the Soviet Union and the United States. In a
complex multi-polar world, relations are more challenging, the threats perhaps greater, and the need
for engagement more paramount.
ADI 2010 85

Restoring relations is key to US heg, stopping nuclear proliferation, terrorism, and foreign
dominance of resources
Leverett et al, 10 (Flynt, director of the New America Foundation’s Iran Initiative, Hillary Mann Leverett, CEO of Strategic Energy
and Global Analysis (STRATEGA), a political risk consultancy.“The United States, Iran and the Middle East’s New ‘‘Cold War’’”, The
International Spectator, Vol. 45, No. 1, March 2010, 75–87, 7/27/10, atl)
From an interest-based perspective, the imperatives for comprehensive realignment of US–Iranian relations are as
compelling for Washington as they are for Tehran. Certainly, the costs accrued from the dysfunctional Iran policy are
substantial. As we have noted, nearly three decades of US policy toward Iran emphasizing diplomatic isolation, escalating
economic pressure, and thinly veiled support for regime change have damaged the interests of the United States and its
allies in the Middle East. US–Iranian tensions have been a constant source of regional instability and are an
increasingly dangerous risk factor for global energy security. As a result of a dysfunctional Iran policy, among other
foreign policy blunders, the American position in the region is currently under greater strain than at any point since the end
of the Cold War.19 Looking ahead, how Washington deals with the Islamic Republic has become, in the context of the Middle
East’s new Cold War, the primary litmus test for the future of America’s regional position. At this point in the evolution of
the Middle East’s balance of power and geopolitical influence, the United States cannot achieve any of its high-priority
objectives in the region – reaching negotiated settlements to the unresolved tracks of the Arab–Israeli
conflict, stabilising Iraq and Afghanistan, containing terrorist threats from violent jihadi extremists,
curbing nuclear proliferation, putting Lebanon on a more stable trajectory and ensuring an adequate
long-term flow of oil and natural gas to international energy markets – absent a productive strategic
relationship with Iran. There is a powerful analogy here to the reorientation of American policy toward the People’s Republic of China
undertaken by President Nixon during the early 1970s. Recognising that a quarter century of efforts to isolate, weaken and press China had
not served US interests, in Asia or globally, Nixon recast America’s China policy so that it would serve those interests. Some observers
question the parallel between the policy challenges confronting Nixon regarding China and those confronting decision-makers today
regarding Iran, arguing that there was an immediate Cold War rationale for US–China rapprochement (to ‘‘triangulate’’ against the Soviet
Union) that is absent in the Iranian case. From this perspective, the best that America can do vis-a` -vis the Islamic Republic is incremental
de´tente. But, as discussed above, this is not a workable approach from an Iranian perspective.20 Moreover, such a recommendation
defines both Nixon’s accomplishment vis-a` -vis China and the contemporary challenge of Iran too narrowly. The primary impetus for
US–China rapprochement was not a common enemy, but the need to align US and Chinese interests to deal with an array of strategic
challenges; that is why the relationship established by Nixon and his Chinese counterparts has become even more important in the post-
the United States today cannot address some of its most important
Cold War era. And, as with China in the 1970s,
foreign policy problems without a strategic opening to Iran.
ADI 2010 86
Science Diplomacy Adv – Soft Power – Impact

Science diplomacy solves the internal link to every major impact – resolves issues related to
warming, resource shortages, economic opportunity and public health, ensuring global
stability
The welfare and stability of countries and regions in many parts of the globe require a concerted effort by the
developed world to address the causal factors that render countries fragile and cause states to fail.
Countries that are unable to defend their people against starvation, or fail to provide economic
opportunity, are susceptible to extremist ideologies, autocratic rule, and abuses of human rights. As well,
the world faces common threats, among them climate change, energy and water shortages, public health
emergencies, environmental degradation, poverty, food insecurity, and religious extremism. These threats
can undermine the national security of the United States, both directly and indirectly. Many are blind to political
boundaries, becoming regional or global threats. The United States has no monopoly on knowledge in a globalizing
world and the scientific challenges facing humankind are enormous. Addressing these common
challenges demands common solutions and necessitates scientific cooperation, common standards, and common goals. We
must increasingly harness the power of American ingenuity in science and technology through strong
partnerships with the science community in both academia and the private sector, in the U.S. and abroad
among our allies, to advance U.S. interests in foreign policy. There are also important challenges to the ability of states to
supply their populations with sufficient food. The still-growing human population, rising affluence in emerging economies, and other
factors have combined to create unprecedented pressures on global prices of staples such as edible oils and grains. Encouraging and
promoting the use of contemporary molecular techniques in crop improvement is an essential goal for US science diplomacy.
ADI 2010 87
Science Diplomacy Adv – Middle East Scenario

Science diplomacy is key to solve relations with the Middle East
Dickson, 10 (David, Director of SciDev.Net, “Can science diplomacy help strengthen the Muslim world?”,
http://scidevnet.wordpress.com/2010/06/26/can-science-diplomacy-unite-the-muslim-world/, 7/27/10, atl)
A key element of the new interest in science diplomacy has been the effort, particularly by the US administration, to improve
relations with the countries of the Middle East and the Muslim world. These efforts to use scientific agreements as a central
strategy in so-called “soft diplomacy” were highlighted in a speech delivered in Cairo last year by newly elected President Barack
Obama who promised a new era of cooperation with the region. The
optimism of that speech has since faded, partly
because follow-up is still awaited. But many remain sympathetic to the idea that building a strong scientific and
technological base in the region would not only increase the economic strength of Muslim countries, but also have broader
cultural and political implications. One of the strongest protagonists of this view is Pakistani-born Princess Sumaya of Jordan, who
plays an highly active role as president of the country’s Royal Scientific Society based in Amman. In an address to the Wilton Park
meeting on science diplomacy that was both thoughtful and passionate, she presented a vision of how promoting science and
technology — a task that she admitted benefitted from external support — could bring both peace and prosperity to the
region. Princess Sumaya used her speech to make vigorous criticism of the way, too often in the Muslim world, scientific
leaders had a tendency to focus their efforts on building and controlling their own power bases, rather than seeing their role
as part of a global scientific community. “We Arabs have a demon within us who calls for the biggest and the brightest, a demon that
appeals to us to build an edifice that will put the neighbours in the shade,” she said. “Unfortunately, we do little to work
together.” Multilateralism was not a great strength in the Arab world; indeed it was hardly a reality. But it was important for
countries in the region to learn to collaborate on science and technology, just as European countries had done to boost their
technological innovation. “Our
resource-rich countries must work with talent-rich, but resource-poor,
economies for the benefit of all,” Princess Sumaya said. “Spreading opportunities across the Arab world will stem our
debilitating brain-drain and help to create a sustainable and productive environment for all our populations.” A similar plea
had come on the previous day from Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, secretary general of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC),
who described how the members of his organisation were committed to promoting science and technology to enhance the
well-being of the Muslim world. Keen to challenge the idea that the transfer of scientific knowledge was primarily a West-
to-East affair, he pointed out that, in the seventeenth century, the English scientist and philosopher Francis Bacon had acknowledged that
many key inventions – such as printing, gunpowder and the compass – had come from the Muslim world.
Increase in Middle East relations are crucial for to stop Iran Strikes
Leverett et al, 10 (Flynt, director of the New America Foundation’s Iran Initiative, Hillary Mann Leverett, CEO of Strategic Energy and
Global Analysis (STRATEGA), a pol itical risk consultancy.“The United States, Iran and the Middle East’s New ‘‘Cold War’’”, The
Thus, American political realities strongly suggest the need for a comprehensive approach to US–Iranian diplomacy, just as
Iranian strategic concerns do. So why has the United States – even under the Obama administration – not moved more purposefully to
embrace comprehensive engagement with Tehran, aimed at a fundamental realignment of relations? Part of the answer lies in domestic
While US domestic political dynamics necessitate a comprehensive approach to rapprochement
politics.
with Iran, they also make this difficult to do. Certainly, American foreign policy since the end of the US–Soviet
Cold War remains heavily influenced by domestic constituencies mobilised in ways that raise the political risks to an
American administration of pursuing strategic realignment with Iran.29 But a larger part of the explanation, in our view, lies in
ongoing confusion among American foreign policy elites about two critical questions: The first of these questions is the relative
stability/fragility of the Islamic Republic’s political order. This question has become even more controversial following
Iran’s June 2009 presidential election. We have argued elsewhere that the Islamic Republic is not imploding – the Islamic Republic
has withstood numerous internal and external political challenges during its 30-year history, and there is no evidence that the
‘‘Green’’ movement which emerged out of the 2009 election could displace the current political order.30 On this basis, we
argue that Washington should engage the Islamic Republic as it is presently constituted, not as some in the United States
and elsewhere might wish it to be. Of course, other analysts take a different view; within this camp, even some who oppose the
imposition of sanctions or US military action against Iran argue that the United States should pull back from diplomatic engagement with
The second of these questions is whether Tehran’s national
Tehran until the political situation becomes clearer.
security and foreign policy strategies are designed to resist aspects of US hegemony that threaten
Iranian interests and regional prerogatives or to replace American hegemony in the Middle East with Iranian
hegemony. We have argued elsewhere that, since the death of Ayatollah Khomeni in 1989, the Islamic Republic’s national
security and foreign policy strategies have been primarily defensive in nature, designed to resist and
undermine various aspects of American hegemony.31 On the basis of that analysis we argue for strategically
grounded rapprochement with Tehran as the optimal policy choice for the United States. For those who believe that the
Islamic Republic aspires to replace the United States as the Middle East’s regional hegemon, real rapprochement seems
impossible; from this perspective, Washington’s strategic options toward Iran boil down to some mix of
ADI 2010 88
containment and deterrence, on the one hand, or the explicit embrace of regime change in Tehran as the
ultimate objective of America’s Iran policy.
Strikes would cause Iran to develop the bomb and draw Russia and China into the fight ending in inevitable extinction
Jan 06 (Abid Ullah, “Why American will Reap in Iran What it Doesn’t expect”, posted February 20th http://mathaba.net/0_index.shtml?
x=528456)
If Iran has no nuclear weapons, as concludes Mohammed el-Baradei the respected chief of the IAEA, the war on Iran, in itself, will not lead to the
speculated World War 3. It will only worsen the situation worldwide. Instead of directly ending up in a World War, the war on Iran will only
become a next phase in spreading the World War that is already on without our realizing that we are passing through its initial phases. [1] On the
other hand, a false assumption that Iran has no nuclear weapons will, in fact, quickly engulf many more countries and take the World War that is
already on to a quick climax.[2] Under-estimating Iran’s nuclear capacity is pushing the extremists in Washington into launching a war that the
US administration has been planning since a long time. The IAEA’s inspections and confirmation that Iran has no nuclear weapons and there is
no nuclear program in operation are no different than the confirmation by the United Nations weapons inspectors in Iraq that Saddam had no
weapons of mass destruction. Confirmation of the absence of weapons actually led to the United States' final decision
to launch a war of aggression on Iraq. This time around, the United States is in for a big trouble. It is
attacking Iran, not for the reason that it has, or it is planning to have nuclear weapons, but only because it
has assumed that Iran is years away from producing nuclear weapons. Many analysts believe that an attack on Iran
will turn into a World War because the Iranian government has a long-range strategy for "asymmetrical"
warfare that will disrupt the flow of oil and challenge American interests around the world. Certainly, if one is
facing an implacable enemy that is committed to "regime change" there is no reason to hold back on doing what is necessary to defeat that
adversary. However, the main reason for escalation of the conflict will be exactly the assumption on the part of the United States, Israel and
Britain that Iran cannot respond with nuclear weapons. At a time when nuclear material—including red mercury and different forms of Uranium
—were flowing in the streets of Pakistan, a high ranking Pakistani official, working in the Iranian consulate, told this writer that Iran is
obtaining smuggled nuclear material from its field commanders in Afghanistan. It was well before the
nuclear testing by India and Pakistan took place. Keeping this fact in mind, it is simply naïve to assume that
the United States or Israel will launch an un-provoked war of aggression on Iran, and Iran will remain a
sitting duck and not retaliate with what it must have refined and retooled since mid-nineties.[3] Even if we assume
that the Iranian government purchased nuclear material without any intention of putting it to use, it is highly unlikely that it will still let this
material gather dust while it is being openly and seriously threatened by the United States and Israel. If scientists in Germany and the United
States could work to develop nuclear weapons from scratch during the World War II, how long will it take a nation pushed against the wall and
with all the ingredients available to put something workable together and retaliate with a bang? So, the practical chances of Iran’s retaliation with
a nuclear weapon in the face of a war of aggression imposed on it are far more than the theoretical assumptions that Iranian Intelligence will plan
covert operations which will be carried out in the event of an unprovoked attack on their facilities. It is true that a nuclear response from Iran
would mean a definite suicide when looked in perspective of the nuclear power of the United States and Iran. But it also doesn’t make any sense
that the United States would keep bombing Iran, the way it has planned, into the Stone Age, yet despite being able to respond, Iran will simply
turn the other cheek. This chain of inevitable reactions will in fact lead a wider conflagration that the warlords in Washington and Tel Aviv have
not even imagined. Emboldened by their adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq, and deluded by the IAEA conclusion that Iraq has no nuclear
weapons, the warlords are set to go into a war that will definitely lead to massive bloodshed in the Middle East and the downfall of the United
States as we see it. Despite Bush and company’s claims that the world is not the same after 9/11, the world remained more or less the same after
9/11. However, their world will surely turn upside down with their miscalculation of going into a third war of aggression in five years. The
Russian and Chinese stakes in this issue cannot be ignored altogether. Attacking Iran would prove too much for Russia and China. Russia has
snubbed Washington by announcing it would go ahead and honor a $700 million contract to arm Iran with surface-to-air missiles, slated to guard
Iran's nuclear facilities. And after being burned when the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority invalidated Hussein-era oil deals, China has
snapped up strategic energy contracts across the world, including in Latin America, Canada and Iran. It can be assumed that both China and
Russia will not sit idly by and watch Iran being annihilated by the United States. If Iran is attacked with lethal force, it will retaliate with the
utmost force available at its disposal; that much is certain. Remembering my discussion 9 year ago with a well informed source who was working
for the Iranian government, I am pretty sure that the utmost force in the hands of Iran definitely includes nuclear weapons. One of the signs for
that is the confidence with which the Iranian government responds to US threats. Iranian leaders have acted responsibly and reasonably so far. It
is always the mistake of extremists to misjudge the behavior of reasonable men. The Iranians tried to avoid purchasing nuclear material from the
Pakistani black market to avoid arousing unnecessary suspicion. They kept their nuclear program limited to energy production. It is the United
States and its allies which are provoking it into reaction. As a result, it has been a mistake of reasonable men in Iran to mistake the behavior of
extremists in Washington and not getting out of NPT or testing a few nuclear devices to balance its power against its enemies. Many analysts are
predicting that attack on Iran will be provoked because a majority of Americans are not in favor of a new war. Although setting up a pre-text for
domestic support cannot be ruled out, one can say with certainty from the track record of Bush and company that they will hardly bother to
engineer another terrorist attack.[4] In the fits of madness, they have already made themselves believe that they have enough justification to wage
a war or aggression on Iran. The Washington Times has already started beating war drums and promoting "policy experts" who believe the US
must go alone if needed (Feb 6, 2006).[5] Irrespective of any pretext and going alone or in a coalition of barbarians, the signs tell us that the
warlords are not going to relinquish their totalitarian dreams. It is very unfortunate on their part that they are putting their hands in hornet nest
where they may get stung with nuclear weapons. Their retaliation, for sure, will lead to total disaster. A disaster, far
worse than what the title "World War 3" can convey.
ADI 2010 89
Science Diplomacy Adv – Middle East – Relats Low (1/)
US relations with the Middle East is close to collapse - Gaza raid

Karon, 10 (Tony, Editor for TIME Magazine, June 2, 2010, “The Gaza Raid: No Help to U.S. Mideast Diplomacy”,
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1993403,00.html, 7/27/10, atl)
Suggesting that "Israel is gradually turning from an asset to ... a burden" for the U.S. would bring swift
and ferocious denunciation on Capitol Hill. But that statement passed with barely a shrug in Jerusalem on Tuesday when it
was made before the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee by Meir Dagan, head of Israel's Mossad intelligence agency. And
his point may well be illustrated in the weeks ahead, amid the diplomatic fallout from Israel's deadly Monday raid on an aid
convoy sailing to Gaza. With a new aid vessel already en route to challenge the four-year economic siege of the Hamas-
controlled territory — and activists promising a new flotilla — the U.S. faces a growing challenge in balancing its
support for Israel with other important diplomatic relationships in the region. The Obama Administration
has absented itself from the near universal condemnation of Israel's handling of the Gaza flotilla, confining itself to statements
of regret for the loss of life and calling for an Israeli-led investigation into the events that left at least nine pro-Palestinian activists dead.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did allow on Tuesday that "the situation in Gaza is unsustainable and unacceptable,"
although she stopped short of demanding an end to the four-year siege. "Israel's legitimate security needs must be met, just
as the Palestinians' legitimate needs for sustained humanitarian assistance and regular access to reconstruction materials
must also be assured," Clinton said. Behind the scenes, however, U.S. officials were reportedly urging Israel to avoid repeating
Monday's debacle with future ships and ensure that humanitarian aid is able to reach the territory. Although President Obama
made a similar call in his Cairo speech to the Muslim world last year, that had little practical effect on the status quo. This time,
however, a wider set of U.S. interests may hinge in part on defusing tensions over Gaza. The U.S. certainly pays a political
price in the Middle East for the perception that it is avoiding criticizing or pressuring the Israelis. From its failure to get the
Netanyahu government to impose a settlement freeze to the likelihood that Israel will ignore Washington's call for the
Jewish state to sign on to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Obama Administration has seen the Arab world rapidly
lose hope in the U.S. after the optimism prompted by the new President's early statements. The most glaring diplomatic
damage to the U.S. and Israel caused by Monday's raid, however, was the widening of the breach with Turkey, the most
important ally in the Muslim world to both. Ankara branded the raid, in which at least four of its nationals were killed, an act of
"state terrorism" and warned that it had irreparably damaged relations between Turkey and Israel. It also
demanded support from its fellow NATO members. Even before the raid, Turkey had been irked by the Obama
Administration's dismissal of its efforts to broker a nuclear compromise with Iran. Turkey's Foreign Minister, Ahmet Davutoglu,
on Tuesday bluntly expressed his government's disappointment at the Obama Administration's response to the flotilla shootings. Davutoglu
did, however, salute the Europeans for their more forthright response, and promised to restore normal ties with Israel if the Gaza blockade
were lifted. Britain's new Conservative Foreign Secretary, William Hague, condemned Israel's action, calling for a lifting of the siege and a
"durable resolution to the Gaza crisis" — a goal that could only be realized through engagement with Hamas, in contrast to the current
U.S.-led boycott of the organization. Public outrage across the Arab world prompted two silent partners in the Gaza siege — Egypt and the
Fatah movement of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas — to distance themselves from the Hamas boycott and the Gaza
blockade. Egypt's President, Hosni Mubarak, ordered the opening of the Rafah border crossing into Gaza, while the Fatah leadership spoke
The status quo deemed "unsustainable" by
of isolating Israel in international forums and sending a delegation to Gaza.
Clinton is rooted in a failed policy on Hamas shared by the U.S. and Israel. When the Islamists were elected to
govern the Palestinian Authority in January 2006, Israel, encouraged by the Bush Administration, imposed an economic siege whose goal,
according to a key Israeli government official at the time, was to "put the Palestinians on a diet" but avoid starving them to death, hoping
that imposing misery would spur a revolt against Hamas. The policy of keeping Palestinians there on life support in a kind of
twilight existence while the West Bank would be allowed to flourish under Fatah was endorsed by the U.S. through a peace
process that simply ignored Gaza. But four years later, Hamas remains very much in charge of Gaza, even though the quality of life
has deteriorated precipitously. "The incident [at sea] is an indictment of a much broader policy toward Gaza for which Israel
does not bear sole responsibility," the International Crisis Group (ICG), a respected mediation organization of former diplomats, wrote
in a statement on Tuesday. "For years, many in the international community have been complicit in a policy that aimed at
isolating Gaza in the hope of weakening Hamas. The policy is morally appalling and politically self-defeating. It has
harmed the people of Gaza without loosening Hamas' control. Yet it has persisted regardless of evident failure." The ICG's
comment is a none-too-subtle indictment of the Obama Administration's failure to offer a viable strategy for dealing with
Gaza's "unacceptable" reality. Washington's partners in the "Quartet" responsible for the Mideast peace process — including the
European Union, Russia and the U.N. — had somewhat skeptically followed the Bush Administration's boycott of Hamas, but the flotilla
bloodshed will likely accelerate the unraveling of that policy as Western and Arab public opinion presses governments to do more. Israel,
however, has made clear that, while it may be persuaded to be more flexible on what it allows into Gaza, it has no intention of ending the
blockade. And to the extent that the Obama Administration is perceived to accept the continuation of the siege, it could
find its influence in the Middle East begin to wane, scuppering the President's hopes of resetting U.S.
relations with the Muslim world.
ADI 2010 90
Science Diplomacy Adv – Middle East – Relats Low (2/)
The US is currently in a “New Cold War” with the Middle East

Relations between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran need to be analysed and understood not only in terms
of their bilateral dynamics, but also in their strategic context. Broadly speaking, the Middle East today is deeply
divided between two camps – a reality that some commentators describe as a new regional ‘‘Cold
War’’.1 On one side of this divide are those states willing to work in various forms of strategic partnership with the United
States, with an implied acceptance of American hegemony over the region. This camp includes Israel, those Arab states that
have made peace with Israel (Egypt and Jordan), and other so-called moderate Arab states (for example, Saudi Arabia and
the rest of the Gulf Cooperation Council). On the other side of this divide are those Middle Eastern states and non-
state actors that are unwilling to legitimise American (and, some in this camp would say, Israeli)
hegemony over the region. The Islamic Republic of Iran has emerged in recent years as the de facto leader of this
camp, which also includes Syria and prominent non-state actors such as Hamas and Hezbollah. Notwithstanding its close
security ties to the United States, Qatar has also aligned itself with the ‘‘resistance’’ camp on some issues in recent years. And, the rise of
the Justice and Development Party and declining military involvement in Turkish politics have prompted an intensification
of Turkey’s diplomatic engagement in the Middle East, in ways that give additional strategic options to various actors in
the ‘‘resistance’’ camp. Thus, the relationship between the United States and the Islamic Republic both
shapes and is shaped by the new Middle Eastern Cold War. As the new regional Cold War plays out, analysts suggest
different scenarios for how the ongoing strategic competition between the United States and Iran will evolve. Some, like former German
Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, see this competition as a struggle for regional hegemony in the Middle East comparable to
that in late nineteenth century Europe following German unification; from this perspective, Fischer warns that, without
careful handling, tensions between the United States and the Islamic Republic could ultimately erupt in
a large-scale military confrontation.2 Others, like Fareed Zakaria, believe that the United States and its regional and
international partners will move inexorably toward a posture of containing and deterring the Islamic Republic and its allies,
in a manner reminiscent of the West’s Cold War posture toward the Soviet Union.3 Against the backdrop of these scenarios, we
argue that the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran should transcend the prospects for hegemonial war or strategic
standoff and seek a fundamental realignment of their relations, in a manner similar to the realignment in relations between the
United States and the People’s Republic of China during Richard Nixon’s tenure in the White House. We further argue that such a
fundamental realignment of US–Iranian relations can only be achieved through a comprehensive rapprochement between
Washington and Tehran.
This is causing a perceptive decrease in US leadership

Like the emergence of the Middle East’s new Cold War, the Islamic Republic’s rise has occurred during a still ongoing
period of tectonic shifts in the region’s strategic environment. These shifts include the effective collapse of the traditional
Arab- Israeli peace process, the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the US invasion and occupation of Iraq, the rise of Hezbollah and
Hamas as political actors in their national and regional contexts, the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq
al-Hariri, the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and subsequent Israeli military campaigns in Lebanon and Gaza, structural
changes in global energy markets and a tremendous transfer of wealth to major Middle Eastern energy producers. All of
these shifts are playing out against what is increasingly perceived, in the Middle East and elsewhere, as a
decline in America’s relative power and influence. After President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s initial election in 2005, the
Islamic Republic was able to take advantage of these developments to effect a significant boost in its own regional standing.4 But
notwithstanding these strategic gains, Iran continues to face serious national security and foreign policy challenges, both regionally and
internationally.5
ADI 2010 91
Science Diplomacy Adv – Middle East – Link

Science diplomacy is the key internal link to soft power and Middle East relations
Zewail 10 (Ahmed, Obama’s science envoy to the Middle East and prof of physics @ Cal Institute of Technology.
Christian Science Monitor, “Science, not Hollywood or Starbucks, is America's best soft power” Jun 28 2010.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Global-Viewpoint/2010/0628/Science-not-Hollywood-or-Starbucks-is-
America-s-best-soft-power) JM
In a recent poll involving 43 countries, 79 percent of those surveyed said that what they most admire
about the United States is its leadership in science and technology. The artifacts of the American entertainment
industry came in a distant second. What I, as a young foreign student in the 1970s, found most dynamic, exciting, and impressive about
the US is what much of the world continues to value most about America today: its open intellectual culture, its great universities, its
capacity for discovery and innovation. By harnessing the soft power of science in the service of diplomacy,
America can demonstrate its desire to bring the best of its culture and heritage to bear on building
better and broader relations with the Muslim world and beyond. I felt the full force of this soft power when I
came to the US in 1969 to begin graduate studies at the University of Pennsylvania. I discovered how science is truly a universal
language, one that forges new connections among individuals and opens the mind to ideas that go far beyond the classroom. My
education in America instilled in me greater appreciation for the value of scholarly discourse and the use of the scientific method in
dealing with complex issues. It sowed, then nurtured, new seeds of political and cultural tolerance. But perhaps most significant was that
I came to appreciate the extent to which science embodies the core values of what the American Founders called “the rights of man” as
set forth in the US Constitution: freedom of thought and speech, which are essential to creative advancement in the sciences; and the
commitment to equality of opportunity, because scientific achievement is blind to ethnicity, race, or cultural background. In January,
appointed by President Obama as America’s first science envoy to the Middle East, I embarked on a diplomatic tour that took me to
Egypt, Turkey, and Qatar. I met with officials from all levels of government and the educational system in these countries, as well as
with economists, industrialists, writers, publishers, and media representatives. What I learned during these visits was cause for some
alarm, but also for considerable optimism. The alarming aspect comes from the fact that education in many Muslim-
majority countries now seriously lags behind international standards. Deficiencies in education,
together with widespread economic hardship and the lack of job opportunities for young people, are
sources of frustration and despair in many Muslim societies. They are rooted largely in poor governance and
growing corruption, compounded by overpopulation and by movement away from the enlightened education I was fortunate enough to
enjoy in Egypt in the 1960s. Yet there are many positive signs as well. Muslim-majority countries such as Malaysia, Turkey, and Qatar
are making significant strides in education and in technical and economic development. Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Morocco, and
Indonesia are examples of countries still rich with youthful talents. Nor is this transfer of wealth and learning flowing exclusively from
the West to the East. Today there are many Muslims in the West who have excelled in all fields of endeavor, from science, technology,
and business to arts and the media. These accomplishments and the values they represent can help the Muslim world recover its
venerable heritage as a leader in science by complementing local efforts and aspirations. It is certainly in the best interests
of the US to foster relations with moderate majorities who today often find themselves locked in
struggle with minorities of fanatics. Most people I met in the Middle East believe in Mr. Obama’s intentions,
as laid out in his Cairo speech last year, and welcome the prospect of enhanced scientific and
educational partnerships with the US. Yet some expressed skepticism. “Mr. Obama made a fine speech in Cairo,” one high-
ranking official said to me. “But will the political climate in the United States, and particularly the US Congress, allow him to follow
through on his promises?”
ADI 2010 92
Science Diplomacy Adv – Middle East – Hormuz (1/)

US strikes leads to an Iranian assault against the Strait of Hormuz
Timmerman 06 (Kennith R., March 1, 2006, Nobel Peace Prize Nominee for his writing on Iran, 2006 Kenneth, “Iran Readies Plan to
Close Strait of Hormuz” http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/2/28/181730.shtml)
Iran's Revolutionary Guards are making preparations for a massive assault on U.S. naval forces and
international shipping in the Persian Gulf, according to a former Iranian intelligence officer who defected to the West in
2001. The plans, which include the use of bottom-tethered mines potentially capable of destroying U.S. aircraft carriers, were
designed to counter a U.S. land invasion and to close the Strait of Hormuz, the defector said in a phone
interview from his home in Europe. They would also be triggered if the United States or Israel
launched a pre-emptive strike on Iran to knock out nuclear and missile facilities. "The plan is to stop
trade," the source said. Between 15 and 16.5 million barrels of oil transit the Strait of Hormuz each
day, roughly 20 percent of the world's daily oil production, according to the U.S. government's Energy Information
Administration. The source provided NewsMax parts of a more than 30-page contingency plan, which
bears the stamp of the Strategic Studies Center of the Iranian Navy, NDAJA. The document appears to have
been drafted in September or October of 2005. The NDAJA document was just one part of a larger strike plan to
be coordinated by a single operational headquarters that would integrate Revolutionary Guards missile units,
strike aircraft, surface and underwater naval vessels, Chinese-supplied C-801 and C-802 anti-shipping missiles, mines, coastal artillery,
as well as chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. The overall plans are being coordinated by the intelligence office of
the Ministry of Defense, known as HFADA. Revolutionary Guards missile units have identified "more than 100 targets, including Saudi
oil production and oil export centers," the defector said. "They have more than 45 to 50 Shahab-3 and Shahab-4 missiles ready for
shooting" against those targets and against Israel, he added. US strikes leads to an Iranian assault against the Strait of Hormuz
Timmerman 06 (Kennith R., March 1, 2006, Nobel Peace Prize Nominee for his writing on Iran, 2006 Kenneth, “Iran Readies Plan to
Close Strait of Hormuz” http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/2/28/181730.shtml)
ADI 2010 93

And after strikes Iran inevitably will cause oil shocks all over the world
KRAUTHAMER 06 (CHARLES, PULITZER PRIZE RECIPIENT AND WASHINGTON POST COLUMNIST, JANUARY 18,
THE IRAN CHARADE PART II, WASHINGTON POST, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2006/01/17/AR2006011700893.html)
Makes you want to weep. One day earlier, Britain, France and Germany admitted that their two years of talks to stop Iran's nuclear weapons
program had collapsed. The Iranians had broken the seals on their nuclear facilities and were resuming activity in defiance of their pledges to
the "E.U. Three." This negotiating exercise, designed as an alternative to the U.S. approach of imposing sanctions on Iran for its violations of
the Non-Proliferation Treaty, had proved entirely futile. If anything, the two-year hiatus gave Iran time to harden its nuclear
facilities against bombardment, acquire new antiaircraft capacities and clandestinely advance its program. With all this, the
chancellor of Germany declared the exercise a success because the allies stuck together! The last such success was Dunkirk. Lots of solidarity
there, too. Most dismaying was that this assessment came from a genuinely good friend, the new German chancellor, who, unlike her
predecessor, Gerhard Schroeder (now a wholly owned Putin flunky working for Russia's state-run oil monopoly), actually wants to do
something about terrorism and nuclear proliferation. Ah, success. Instead of being years away from the point of no return for an
Iranian bomb, as we were before we allowed Europe to divert anti-proliferation efforts into transparently useless talks, Iran is
probably just months away. And now, of course, Iran is run by an even more radical government, led by a president who fervently believes
in the imminence of the apocalypse. Ah, success. Having delayed two years, we now have to deal with a set of fanatical Islamists
who we know will not be deterred from pursuing nuclear weapons by any sanctions. Even if we could get real sanctions. Which we
will not. The remaining months before Iran goes nuclear are about to be frittered away in pursuit of this newest placebo. First, because
Russia and China will threaten to veto any serious sanctions. The Chinese in particular have secured in Iran a source of oil and
gas outside the American sphere to feed their growing economy and are quite happy geopolitically to support a rogue power
that -- like North Korea -- threatens, distracts and diminishes the power of China's chief global rival, the United States. Second,
because the Europeans have no appetite for real sanctions either. A travel ban on Iranian leaders would be a joke; they don't
travel anyway. A cutoff of investment and high-tech trade from Europe would be a minor irritant to a country of 70 million
people with the second-largest oil reserves in the world and with oil at $60 a barrel. North Korea tolerated 2 million dead from
starvation to get its nuclear weapons. Iran will tolerate a shortage of flat-screen TVs. The only sanctions that might
conceivably have any effect would be a boycott of Iranian oil. No one is even talking about that, because no one can bear
the thought of the oil shock that would follow, taking 4.2 million barrels a day off the market, from a total output of about 84 million barrels.
The threat works in reverse. It is the Iranians who have the world over a barrel. On Jan. 15, Iran's economy
minister warned that Iran would retaliate for any sanctions by cutting its exports to "raise oil prices
beyond levels the West expects." A full cutoff could bring $100 oil and plunge the world into economic
crisis. Which is one of the reasons the Europeans are so mortified by the very thought of a military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. The
problem is not just that they are spread out and hardened, making them difficult to find and to damage sufficiently to seriously set back Iran's
program. The problem that mortifies the Europeans is what Iran might do after such an attack -- not just cut off its oil exports
but shut down the Strait of Hormuz by firing missiles at tankers or scuttling its vessels to make the strait impassable. It would
require an international armada led by the United States to break such a blockade. Such consequences -- serious economic
disruption and possible naval action -- are something a cocooned, aging, post-historic Europe cannot even contemplate. Which
is why the Europeans have had their heads in the sand for two years. And why they will spend the little time remaining -- before a group of
apocalyptic madmen go nuclear -- putting their heads back in the sand. And congratulating themselves on allied solidarity as they do so in
unison.
ADI 2010 94

And, these oil shocks would throw the world into a global recession
Douthwaite 03 (Richard, “Oil and the Irish Economy”, http://www.constructireland.ie/articles/0210douthwaite.php)
The bank referred to a ‘spike’ because prices could not stay at the $100 level for more than a few months without causing the
collapse of the world economy. This would happen because we would all be spending so much more to buy our oil that we
would be unable to carry on buying other things at the rate we do at present, particularly as the prices of other fuels would rise in
step with that of oil. As a result of the diversion of our spending, factories around the world would find they had spare capacity. They would
lay off staff and cancel expansion projects and, as construction work is so energy intensive, its cessation would cause oil
demand to fall rapidly. This is exactly what happened the last time its price went significantly above the $20 level in 1972
money. Millions of people would become unemployed and cut their spending to the bare minimum, causing other people to
lose their jobs too. A global depression could develop in which the lack of activity in the world economy could cause the price
of oil in today’s money to plummet from $100 back to around $15 a barrel again. The cheap oil price would suit no-one because oil
would be more expensive than ever for someone who had lost his or her job. Those people who still had the money to build or improve
their houses or to run cars would see no reason to make them energy efficient and there would be no commercial incentive to
explore for more oil or to develop renewable energy sources. The oil producers would, of course, find the low prices ruinous. In the
past the Saudis used to pump more oil whenever it was necessary to do so to keep prices from becoming excessive. This was to avoid a
price spike developing and causing a global collapse. Unfortunately for the stability of the global economy, however, they
don’t have the production capacity to do that any longer. They are already pumping as much oil as they can and their output is
falling month by month because their oil fields are becoming exhausted. No other country has enough unused capacity to pump much
more oil than it is doing at present either so, if global demand continues to increase, prices can be expected to rise very sharply. A
crisis could develop at the end of this year when world oil production of between 86 and 87 million barrels a day is expected
to be some 2-4 million barrels less than the expected demand .How quickly a world recession will set in after prices
rise to the projected $100 is impossible to say. One unknown factor is how the world’s central banks would
react to the widespread inflation that costly oil would undoubtedly bring. If central bankers try to cure the rising
prices by pushing up interest rates to deter people from borrowing to spend, they would be removing money from the economies for which
they were responsible at exactly the same time as those economies were hemorrhaging money to pay for their costly oil imports. In other
words, if the central banks adopted their standard anti-inflationary strategy, they would give their
economies a hefty shove into a global recession. The consequences for the construction sector would be
dire.
ADI 2010 95
Science Diplomacy Adv – Middle East – AT: Prolif Bad

Finally, Iran has no intentions of making nuclear weapons now. Only strikes would cause
them to produce the bomb
Salama et al 06 (Sammy, and Elizabeth Salch, Middle East Research Associate for the WMDTRP at CNS and adjunct faculty at the
Monterey Institute of International Studies, “Iran’s Nuclear Impasse: Give Negotiations A Chance”, CNS Research Story, 6-2-06
http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/060602.htm )
Europe, Russia, and China still support a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear crisis. Despite recent
reports concerning American planning for a preemptive strike against Iran, the U.S. administration
maintains it is still committed to diplomacy.[20] Then British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has
emphatically and repeatedly stated Britain is opposed to military action against Iran. Russia has maintained
its offer to continue negotiations on uranium enrichment. Furthermore Russian officials publicly are
committed to a path of diplomacy rather than military action,[21] while China has taken a similar
stance. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao has stated that "China expresses its
concern over the current development of the Iran nuclear issues" and urges Iran to continue uranium
enrichment talks with Russia as scheduled in hope of achieving "positive results."[22] The IAEA
finding that Iran is in noncompliance with the NPT and its subsequent referral of Iran to the UN
Security Council are in line with the U.S. desire for Iran's nuclear program to be halted. While the
effort to discourage Iran from enriching uranium on Iranian soil faces many impediments, the fact
that Iran's file is at the Security Council gives the United States and its allies the opportunity to
persuade the council to impose meaningful diplomatic and economic penalties if Iran continues to
insist on flouting international will.
Any US strike will lead to Iranian retaliation

RTEnews 07 (14 May 2007, “Iran will retaliate against any US attack”, Monday, 14 May 2007,
http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0514/iran.html)
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has warned that Iran would retaliate strongly to any possible attack by the
United States over his country's controversial nuclear program. Speaking at a news conference in the United Arab
Emirates, President Ahmadinejad said any action by the US would be a mistake and that they would be made to repent. 'They
realise that if they make such a mistake the retaliation of Iran would be severe and they will repent,' Mr Ahmadinejad
told reporters. President Ahmadinejad said Gulf countries should 'get rid of' foreign forces, which he blamed for regional
insecurity. He was speaking during a visit to the US-allied United Arab Emirates. The United States, which has a strong military
presence in the Gulf, accuses Iran of seeking to make nuclear weapons and has sought tougher sanctions against Iran. Iran says
it only wants to generate power to allow more oil exports.
ADI 2010 96
Science Diplomacy Adv – Iran – Link

Science diplomacy is key to solve US - Iran relations
Badger, 09 (Emily, contributor to The New York Times, International Herald Tribune and The Christian Science Monitor.“Science
Diplomacy: Trading Frock Coats for Lab Coats”, http://www.miller-mccune.com/politics/science-diplomacy-trading-frock-coats-for-lab-coats-
3953/, 7/27/10, atl)
Vaughan Turekian is pushing an unusual suggestion for how to engage Iran, a country America has had
no formal relations with since 1980. His idea is suddenly one of many on the topic, as foreign policy wonks, historians and
politicians debate the merits of starting a new dialogue with some of America’s longest-running antagonists. Should we send a low-
level diplomat, the new secretary of state or the president himself? Turekian’s suggestion — one that
applies equally to isolated locations throughout the world — is this: Send a scientist. Deep-rooted
suspicion (and a slew of fictional spy thrillers) says our scientists are the last people we want wandering into a
country with nuclear ambitions and “non-friendly” status. But this idea doesn’t call for sending nuclear
physicists; rather, cancer researchers, climate change experts, water, agriculture and earthquake
specialists. Even social scientists. The American Association for the Advancement of Science is trying to
revive an old — but, Turekian says, dormant — idea that “science diplomacy” could make major inroads in countries
where traditional American diplomacy is nonexistent, or where existing relationships could be
strengthened outside the embassy. The AAAS last summer launched a new Center for Science Diplomacy, which Turekian
directs, and it’s hoping to take advantage of a new attitude in Washington and a brow-raising trend abroad. While foreign views of
America have tumbled since Sept. 11, opinions about American science and technology have consistently
been the exception. That pattern, particularly strong in the Middle East, could help the AAAS build on a
model that has worked before. “From a scientific standpoint,” Turekian jokes of the whole enterprise,
“there is some proof of principal.” John F. Kennedy established a science and technology cooperation agreement with Japan in
1961 following appeals to repair the “broken dialogue” between the two countries’ intellectual communities after World War II. That
agreement helped round out a tenuous relationship at the time rooted only in security concerns — and it led two generations later, Turekian
December, the
would argue, to a Nobel Prize in physics last fall shared by two Japanese scientists and a Japanese American. In
United States and China marked the 30th anniversary of normalized relations, which in the very early
stages, at the prodding of then-Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, led to a similar science and
technology cooperation agreement. And in the most well-known example, civilian scientific exchanges
with the Soviet Union throughout the Cold War (blessed, indirectly, by both governments with visa approval) linked
the two countries when official diplomatic connections were stalled. Today, the U.S. and Russia share a
space station. Since the end of the Cold War, though, scientific exchanges like the kind that jump-started
deeper relationships with Japan, China and Russia have been less prevalent, replaced in some cases even
by a fear of technology transfer. “People continued to talk about science and technology cooperation,” Turekian said, “but
oftentimes, honestly, the heart hasn’t been in it.” Neither has the immigration policy, which, for the last eight years,
has dramatically complicated one crucial half of any science exchange program — the import of foreign
students to America. Now, at the beginning of a new administration, and with several unresolved
international conflicts mired in military threats, politicians of all stripes have begun to talk about the
limits of “hard power.” “
ADI 2010 97
Science Diplomacy Adv – Water Wars Scenario (1/)

Water insecurity along the Tigris-Euphrates will lead to widespread instability in the
region
Whitaker 10 (Joel, senior adviser to the Center of Innovation for Science, Technology, and Peacebuilding at the
United States Institute of Peace Brief, “The Tigris-Euphrates River Basin: A Science Diplomacy Opportunity” April
22 2010. http://www.usip.org/files/resources/PB%2020%20Tigris-Euphrates_River_Basin.pdf) JM
Iraq faces one of the world’s most challenging water management situations, and its effects are far reaching.
These challenges are numerous and interlinked, having significant impact on: • Regional politics: Iraq’s vulnerability as the
downstream nation has complicated relations with its neighbors, as Turkey and Syria balance their
national interests with the need for sustainable stewardship of the two rivers. The lack of regional agreements and
institutions for transboundary water management makes it even more difficult to pursue long-term solutions to these challenges. The
second year of drought in the summer of 2009 caused severe hardships, raising tensions between Iraq and
its neighbors over the declining Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Iraqi ministers and legislators criticized Turkey and
Syria for using hydroelectric dams to limit flows from the rivers’ headwaters, while Iraq was faulted by its neighbors for inefficient
water management. • The economy: Left without sufficient water for irrigation, southern Iraq’s fragile
agricultural sector has produced a record low wheat crop, and thousands of Marsh Arabs have
abandoned their farms. Water quality is so poor that Basra and other southern cities import
desalinated water from the United Arab Emirates. Three thousand people were evacuated from two
villages due to water scarcity and sanitation problems. Nasiriyah lost 50 percent of its hydroelectric power during the
summer of 2009 due to low water levels. • The ecology: The ecosystems that rely on the Euphrates and Tigris rivers are quite fragile,
especially the marshes of southern Iraq. Two years of drought have caused severe salination, displacing many farmers and villagers, and
have caused serious water quality challenges in Iraqi cities.
And, science diplomacy is key to solve – moves regional politics from zero-sum to
interdependency
Whitaker 10 (Joel, senior adviser to the Center of Innovation for Science, Technology, and Peacebuilding at the
United States Institute of Peace, “The Tigris-Euphrates River Basin: A Science Diplomacy Opportunity” April 22
2010. http://www.usip.org/files/resources/PB%2020%20Tigris-Euphrates_River_Basin.pdf) JM
Invest in Scientific Cooperation for Regional Water Management and Conflict Resolution To deal with the interrelated
political, economic, and ecological issues that arise for Iraq from poor water management in the Tigris-Euphrates
basin across various time horizons, we recommend an approach that has regional scientific cooperation as its
foundation. Scientific cooperation initiatives in river basins ranging from the Nile to the Mekong have
demonstrated that enhanced management of transboundary water resources provides a strong basis
for economic growth and political stability. Our fundamental assumption is that the scientific elements of such a
strategy make trust and cooperation possible since stakeholders have a common understanding of the
problem based on accepted scientific standards, thus bringing political rhetoric more in line with
reality. International scientific collaboration can break a diplomatic logjam. Furthermore, President Barack Obama’s recent
pledge to invest in scientific collaboration during his Cairo address to the Arab world has triggered the U.S.
government’s renewed interest in building domestic technical capacity in Iraq and in supporting
regional scientific collaboration initiatives. The time is ripe for such an approach. Specifically, we argue for a
two-pronged programmatic approach to water management in post-conflict Iraq: • Support for regional technical cooperation • Support
for regional policymaking and diplomatic initiatives 2. Support Regional Technical Cooperation Regional cooperation between
scientists, academics and technical experts on water management can help tackle various parts of the political challenges
outlined in earlier parts of this Peace Brief. Firstly, they serve to create more open forums for information and
technical data sharing. Most data about water usage, flow and quality have been guarded as a national security secret to conceal violations of
pledged water management practices, making it difficult to depoliticize the issue with trusted information . Regional cooperation breaks
collective action problems underlying the resistance to sharing sensitive data. It also enhances the development
of technical expertise, leveling the playing field between counterparts over time. Secondly, scientific cooperation serves to
realign states’ interests from a zero-sum perspective to a more comprehensive approach based on
interdependence. Turkey has resisted the establishment of a joint regulatory body, but the door is opening to technical
collaboration, which had been dormant since the 1991 Gulf War. A multidisciplinary, cooperative approach is
appropriate, given that the interconnected scientific and engineering problems of the basin go well
beyond legal wrangling over water rights. For example, outdated technology for agriculture (90 percent of Iraq’s water usage)
exacerbates water shortages in the entire region and has caused severe downstream salination. But the 2007-2010 Iraqi National Security Strategy states that
decreasing water flow “directly threatens environmental and nutritional security [and] stems from…large dams in Turkey and Syria…that do not take into
consideration the rights of Iraq.” Thus, the improvement of water management capacity in Iraq is in the interest of both Turkey and Syria, promoting
efficient water usage throughout the region and warding against possible conflicts.
ADI 2010 98
Science Diplomacy Adv – Water Wars Scenario (2/)

Water wars on the Tigris leads to global nuclear war – Syria would seek alliances with Iran
against Israel
Langer 9 (Andrew, BA in IR from College of William and Mary, President of the Institute for Liberty. Journal of
Politics and Society, p A16. http://www.helvidius.org/files/2009/2009_Langer.pdf) JM
Though the tension stemming from Syria’s indirect support of the PKK has cooled since 1998, war between Syria and Turkey
still looms, as the region’s population grows and water resources dwindle. Should diplomatic proceedings between both
nations fail, Syria might consider war with Turkey as a means of securing water for its
citizens. Turkey would defend both its people and its resources from a potential Syrian offensive. As mentioned earlier, Turkey
improved its military drastically throughout the 1990s, more than doubling its expenditure on military equipment between 1985 and
1996. It acquired about 200 fighter jets and nearly 1,000 M-60 tanks through US support. Furthermore, the Turkish economy grew in the
1990s with Turkey’s GDP tripled from 1980 to 1999 (Makovsky 4). Syria, on the other hand, has weakened since the end of the Cold
War. The West and Israel believe Syria has plans for the production of nuclear weapons, and Israel
destroyed a building in Syria in September 2007 believed to be a nuclear weapons facility. The
slightest conflict between Turkey and Syria could potentially lead to massive
destruction, especially if Syria were to seek a nuclear Iran as an ally. Furthermore, other nations may be
dragged into war in order to defend their allies. Though Turkey has delivered its promise to provide 500 cubic meters/s
of water annually to Syria, there is still a demand for more water. According to an article in the Turkish Daily News on January 3, 2008,
Syria asked Turkey for more water to help it “combat the country’s drought problem” (Turkish Daily News, “Syria Asks for More
Euphrates Water”).
ADI 2010 99
Science Diplomacy Adv – Water Wars – Link

Conflict over water along the Tigris-Euphrates escalates to full-scale regional war – science
diplomacy key to solve
Alagraa 9 (Bedour, BA in IR and political science. Toronto Globalist, 15 sep.
http://www.torontoglobalist.org/2009/09/15/nothing-lasts-forever-a-look-at-the-water-crisis-in-the-middle-east/) JM
At the moment, the Israeli government is mostly concerned with the political implications of this crisis. Since a water agreement has
already been signed with Jordan, Israel’s main problem is the sensitive political and geographic situation that it shares with Palestine.
Israel is concerned that the water crisis will spill over in to the existing conflict over the West Bank
region, and that this conflict could be a serious blow to the already delicate ceasefire agreement signed in
2005. Having signed the Indus Water treaty, Israel believes that it is legally within its bounds to extract water from the Jordan River and
Mountain Aquifers, in direct proportions with what it sees as increasing demand in its cities. Palestinian officials believe that its
long-standing conflict with Israel will indefinitely intensify; Israel uses approximately 80 percent of water contained in
shared aquifers, in addition to water obtained from the illegally occupied West Bank region. Palestinian officials accuse the
Israeli government of a gross misdistribution of water. They argue that water is being taken from villages and refugee
camps in order to further satiate the greed and hegemony of Israel, which is effectively perpetuating the relationship of super and
subordination between the two sparring states. Palestine believes that consuming water from illegally obtained territories (i.e. the West
Bank region) is contrary to established international law and, thus, should be barred from treaties that allow Israel a disproportionate
access to water. The implications of this multilateral dispute are huge. Many see this conflict
escalating into a full regional or even multiregional war. Israel’s Water Commissioner, As Meir Ben
Meir, stated in a BBC interview that “At the moment, I project the scarcity of water within 5 years…I can promise that if there is not
sufficient water in our region, if there is scarcity of water, if people remain thirsty for water, then we shall doubtless
face war.” If not war, then this conflict will undoubtedly delay already postponed peace talks in the region. In addition, this conflict
will see the rise of new superpowers such as Canada, Sudan, Turkey, Russia, and India; all of which are rich in fresh water supplies.
Several solutions have been presented in response to this grim geopolitical situation. The first step in any solution would be the
ratification of a multilateral deal that would directly address the rights and/or constitutionality disputes when determining access to water
in the region. Clear boundaries should be drawn as to how much water can be used and when it can be extracted according to each
country’s population stresses and agricultural dependencies. These boundaries should be ratified and regulated by a neutral third party
such as Oman, a fresh-water rich country with a Middle Eastern perspective on the issue. This would rid the world of at least one
tension-causing problem, which in turn would free up valuable time to deal with other issues such as the occupation of West Bank, the
conflict in Gaza, and the Hezbollah agenda in Lebanon. The Gulf and interior states of the Middle East are surrounded by salt water.
Desalination (the use of purified sea water as a last resort when the supply of natural fresh water runs out) is another solution to this
problem. Unfortunately, desalination is costly – it requires the building and upkeep of desalination plants, hiring employees, engineers,
and regulating waste minerals produced by desalination. Despite these challenges, there is a way for the Middle East to have its water
and drink it too. The price of desalination is steadily decreasing, and by the time local aquifers dry up (15 years), the price of
desalination will be much more affordable. The Gulf States have more than enough money and clout to fund the building of desalination
plants; poorer countries like Jordan can take loans from Gulf States and, seeing as many of these countries are made up of Muslim
majorities, these loans will come at little or no interest as it would be contrary to Islamic doctrine to charge interest on loans. These
countries would be able to pay these Gulf States back with the revenue created from the operation of the plants. As for disposing of
waste minerals, this would put thousands of engineers and “green collar” workers to good use – the green movement is rapidly growing
in the Middle East. With a combination of science, common sense and, most importantly, humanity, the Middle
East, will be able to avoid conflicts over water if action is taken immediately. Only then can we achieve
the peace and prosperity that the Middle East so desperately craves.
ADI 2010 100
Science Diplomacy Adv – Water Wars – Escalation

Water wars in the region are inevitable absent a solution to water shortages
Hamad 9 (Qassim, journalist, BA from Salahadin U. Niqash, 5 May. http://www.niqash.org/content.php?
contentTypeID=28&id=2439&lang=0) JM
Dr. Azad Aslan, a lecturer at Salahadin University in Erbil warns that a solution to the issue is required to prevent
tensions escalating to the point of war. “Water shortages, as the World Bank forecasts, indicate the
inevitability of future water conflicts and possible water wars in the region,” he told Niqash. According to
Aslan, Iraq urgently needs to devise a long-term plan for the more efficient use of its water resources. In
particular he said that the population must be better educated to prevent unnecessary water wastage. As an example of the country’s
misuse of water, Iraq’s Kurdish Region, which is the gateway for many of the rivers coming from Turkey and Iran and therefore a rich
source of water for the country as a whole, has itself witnessed water shortages in recent years. According to Fars the region accesses
45.8 billion cubic meters of water every year and only required 8.8 billion cubic meters for its own needs. But because of the lack
of modern water management systems and poor public awareness, “we sometimes face a water crisis.”
NATO war games prove – Iraq, Syria and Turkey will all go to war over water shortages
on the Tigris-Euphrates
Jongerden 10 (Joost, assistant prof of social sciences @ Wageningen University in the Netherlands. middle east
Policy, Vol. XVii, no. 1, Spring 2010. http://www.joostjongerden.info/dams%20and%20conflict.pdf) JM
According to a NATO conflict scenario, Syria and Iraq execute a joint invasion of Turkey in 2010. This
invasion occurs against the background of a severe three- year drought in Iraq and Syria, ascribed to
Turkey’s water policies, and an unstable political situation in the region.1 According to an Uppsala Model UN
scenario, meanwhile, Turkey and Iraq come to the brink of war after a failed attempt by an illegal organization from Iraq to explode
one of Turkey’s dams. Iraq condemns the assault but accuses Turkey of denying the country access to the water. Turkey blames the Iraqi
government for the attack, demands the arrest of those responsible and threatens to cut water supplies completely if Iraq does not
comply with its demands. Forces are mobilized and war looms.2 These scenarios are based on the potential for
armed conflict over water in this part of the Middle East, born of past experience. Clearly, there is an
inherent risk of hostilities, with the Tigris and Euphrates rising in Turkish territory (in the Anti- Taurus mountain region) before
descending southwards through Syria and Iraq (to the Persian Gulf).3 This gives Turkey effective control over the water resources of
its southern neighbors, with whom political relations have long been problematic in an area of varied and ongoing tensions. A conflict
did suddenly become a very real possibility in 1990, when Iraq and Syria thought Turkey had
deliberately cut off their water supplies, as they simultaneously faced a serious decrease in water flow (the brewing
conflict, however, was offset by another: Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait). Today, the situation is heating up again.
Iraq is suffering from serious water-supply shortages and locked in the deadly embrace of several armed organizations vying for
power. If this were not enough, Turkey commenced another round of dam construction in the area this year.
Primarily conceived as part of its counter insurgency strategy against the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) (to which the project contrib-
utes in various ways, outlined below), this involves turning dams into military means, and thus into potential
objects of conten- tion. The politicization of dam construction is well-known. The World Bank and IMF have supported such
large-budget projects, which are criticized as relatively low-return and environmentally destructive. However, the targeted usage of such
schemes for overtly political purposes, resulting in their objectification as instruments in a political struggle, represents a rather
different and less common spatial intervention. This article will discuss dams as contentious constructions with the potential to catalyze
violent conflict in the region.
ADI 2010 101
Science Diplomacy Adv – Water Wars – NW Impacts

Mideast war escalates and goes nuclear
Steinbach 2 (John, Hiroshima/Nagasaki Peace Committee, March 2002,
http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/02.03/0331steinbachisraeli.htm)
Meanwhile, the existence of an arsenal of mass destruction in such an unstable region in turn has serious implications for future arms
control and disarmament negotiations, and even the threat of nuclear war. Seymour Hersh warns, "Should war break out in the
Middle East again,... or should any Arab nation fire missiles against Israel, as the Iraqis did, a nuclear
escalation, once unthinkable except as a last resort, would now be a strong probability."(41) and Ezar Weissman, Israel's
current President said "The nuclear issue is gaining momentum (and the) next war will not be
conventional."(42) Russia and before it the Soviet Union has long been a major (if not the major) target of Israeli nukes. It is widely
reported that the principal purpose of Jonathan Pollard's spying for Israel was to furnish satellite images of Soviet targets and other super
sensitive data relating to U.S. nuclear targeting strategy. (43) (Since launching its own satellite in 1988, Israel no longer needs U.S. spy
secrets.) Israeli nukes aimed at the Russian heartland seriously complicate disarmament and arms control negotiations and, at the very
least, the unilateral possession of nuclear weapons by Israel is enormously destabilizing, and dramatically lowers the threshold for their
actual use, if not for all out nuclear war. In the words of Mark Gaffney, "... if the familar pattern(Israel refining its weapons of mass
destruction with U.S. complicity) is not reversed soon - for whatever reason - the deepening Middle East conflict could
trigger a world conflagration." (44).
Even without escalation, Middle East nuclear war guarantees extinction

Hoffman 6 (Ian, Staff Writer, December 12, 2006, “Nuclear Winter Looms, experts say”, MediaNews Group, Inc.
and ANG Newspapers)
SAN FRANCISCO -- With superpower nuclear arsenals plummeting to a third of 1980s levels and slated to drop by another third, the
nightmarish visions of nuclear winter offered by scientists during the Cold War have receded. But they haven't gone
away. Researchers at the American Geophysical Union's annual meeting warned Monday that even a small regional nuclear
war could burn enough cities to shroud the globe in black smoky shadow and usher in the manmade
equivalent of the Little Ice Age. "Nuclear weapons represent the greatest single human threat to the planet,
much more so than global warming," said Rutgers University atmospheric scientist Alan Robock. By dropping imaginary
Hiroshima-sized bombs into some of the world's biggest cities, now swelled to tens of millions in population, University of
Colorado researcher O. Brian Toon and colleagues found they could generate 100 times the fatalities and 100 times the
climate-chilling smoke per kiloton of explosive power as all-out nuclear war between the United States and
former Soviet Union. For most modern nuclear-war scenarios, the global impact isn't nuclear winter, the
notion of smoke from incinerated cities blotting out the sun for years and starving most of the Earth's people. It's not even nuclear
autumn, but rather an instant nuclear chill over most of the planet, accompanied by massive ozone loss and
warming at the poles. That's what scientists' computer simulations suggest would happen if nuclear war
broke out in a hot spot such as the Middle East, the North Korean peninsula or, the most modeled case, in Southeast Asia.
Unlike in the Cold War, when the United States and Russia mostly targeted each other's nuclear, military and strategic industrial sites,
young nuclear-armed nations have fewer weapons and might go for maximum effect by using them on cities,
as the United States did in 1945. "We're at a perilous crossroads," Toon said. The spread of nuclear weapons worldwide
combined with global migration into dense megacities form what he called "perhaps the greatest danger to the
stability of society since the dawn of humanity." More than 20 years ago, researchers imagined a U.S.-Soviet nuclear
holocaust would wreak havoc on the planet's climate. They showed the problem was potentially worse than feared: Massive urban fires
would flush hundreds of millions of tons of black soot skyward, where -- heated by sunlight -- it would soar higher into the stratosphere
and begin cooking off the protective ozone layer around the Earth. Huge losses of ozone would open the planet and its inhabitants to
damaging radiation, while the warm soot would spread a pall sufficient to plunge the Earth into freezing year-round. The hundreds of
millions who would starve exceeded those who would die in the initial blasts and radiation. Popularized by astronomer Carl Sagan and
Nobel prize winners, the idea of nuclear winter captured the public imagination, though nuclear-weapons scientists found nuclear winter
was virtually impossible to achieve in their own computer models without dropping H-bombs on nearly every major city. Scientists on
Monday say nuclear winter still is possible, by detonating every nation's entire nuclear arsenals. The effects are striking
and last five times or longer than the cooling effects of the biggest volcanic eruptions in recent history, according
to Rutgers' Robock.
ADI 2010 102
Science Diplomacy Adv – Terrorism Scenario

Science diplomacy is key to the war on terror – fosters understanding and leads to
crackdowns on WMD’s and other dangerous technologies
An essential part of the war on terrorism is a war of ideas. The creation of economic opportunity can do much more
to combat the rise of fanaticism than can any weapon. The war of ideas is a war about rationalism as opposed to
irrationalism. Science and technology put us firmly on the side of rationalism by providing ideas and
opportunities that improve people’s lives. We may use the recognition and the goodwill that science still
generates for the United States to achieve our diplomatic and developmental goals. Additionally, the Department
continues to use science as a means to reduce the proliferation of the weapons’ of mass destruction and prevent what has been dubbed
‘brain drain’. Through cooperative threat reduction activities, former weapons scientists redirect their
skills to participate in peaceful, collaborative international research in a large variety of scientific fields. In
addition, new global efforts focus on improving biological, chemical, and nuclear security by promoting
and implementing best scientific practices as a means to enhance security, increase global
partnerships, and create sustainability.
Terrorism risks extinction

Kirkus Reviews, 99 (Book Review on “The New Terrorism: Fanatiscism and the Arms of Mass Destruction”,
http://www.amazon.com/New-Terrorism-Fanaticism-Arms-Destruction/dp/product-description/0195118162)
Today two things have changed that together transform terrorism from a ``nuisance'' to ``one of the gravest
dangers facing mankind.'' First terroristsbe they Islamic extremists in the Middle East, ultranationalists in
the US, or any number of other possible permutationsseem to have changed from organized groups with clear
ideological motives to small clusters of the paranoid and hateful bent on vengeance and destruction for their
own sake. There are no longer any moral limitations on what terrorists are willing to do, who and how
many they are willing to kill. Second, these unhinged collectivities now have ready access to weapons of
mass destruction. The technological skills are not that complex and the resources needed not too rare for
terrorists to employ nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons where and when they wish. The consequences
of such weapons in the hands of ruthless, rootless fanatics are not difficult to imagine. In addition to the
destruction of countless lives, panic can grip any targeted society, unleashing retaliatory action which in
turn can lead to conflagrations perhaps on a world scale. To combat such terrorist activities, states may
come to rely more and more on dictatorial and authoritarian measures. In short, terrorism in the future may
threaten the very foundations of modern civilizations.
ADI 2010 103
Science Diplomacy Adv – Terrorism – Link

Science diplomacy is key to fight terrorism
Lin 2 (Herbert S., chief scientist at the Computer Science and Telecommunications Board, National Research
Council of the National Academies. National Academies Press, “Making the Nation Safer : The Role of Science and
Technology in Countering Terrorism” pg 19) JM
While the advance of science and technology is one reason why terrorism has the potential to be catastrophic in the 21st century,
science and technology are also critical tools for guarding the United States against that threat. Beyond its
inherent strengths of immense size and wealth, high level of education, and political cohesion and values, another great comparative
advantage of this nation is its scientific and technological prowess. The highly developed, diverse, and productive U.S.
science-and-technology enterprise has proved its ability to serve the needs of the nation in a variety of ways: It supplied
key military technology for conventional wars and the long Cold War, produced enormous improvements in the health
and prosperity of its people, and addressed pressing societal needs such as protection of the environment. Historically, the science
and engineering communities have enthusiastically contributed to these national goals, and the same
level of energy and commitment will surely be devoted to meeting the vast array of challenges raised
by terrorism. Experts from many fields, including physical, biological, and mathematical sciences, engineering, and the social and
behavioral sciences, stand ready to create new knowledge that, in turn, creates new capabilities. Scientists and engineers can
put a powerful set of counterterrorism tools at our disposal. But whether, when, where, and how we use these tools
will be far from obvious and will require careful thought and analysis. Technologies that protect us may well impose economic, social,
and cultural costs that we might not be willing to bear. Sensors, monitors, and intelligence gathering may be intrusive in ways that clash
with our values of individual rights and privacy. Protective technologies may be incompatible with the freedom of movement and open
access to information that we cherish. In addition, the protection afforded by technology can be overestimated. For these reasons, a
careful and realistic evaluation of the performance characteristics of any technology, coupled with systems and risk analyses to
determine our level of need for it, is recommended throughout this report.
ADI 2010 104
Science Diplomacy Adv – China Scenario

Science diplomacy is key to US-Sino relations – disputes are inevitable and only scientific
collaboration can stabilize relations
Rock 5 (Anthony, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE. U.S. - CHINA ECONOMIC
AND SECURITY REVIEW COMMISSION, April 2005.
http://www.uscc.gov/hearings/2005hearings/written_testimonies/05_21_22wrts/rock_anthony_wrts.htm) JM
The Administration also believes that U.S.-China S&T cooperation has played a consistent stabilizing role in
U.S.-China relations. While the overall U.S.-China relationship may swing up or down as a result of
political and economic developments, changes in leadership and other factors, the U.S.-China S&T
relationship has remained a largely stable pillar of the bilateral relationship, allowing a continuance of
cooperative activities in science and technology at levels determined more by scientific
accomplishment, interest and available budget than by geopolitical interest.
US-Sino cooperation in science is key to sustained relations and solves all impacts
Suttmeier 10 (Richard P., IR prof @ U of O. Journal of Science and Technology Policy in China. Vol 1 No. 1
2010. http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?issn=1758-
552X&volume=1&issue=1&articleid=1846301&show=html&PHPSESSID=6rl7emml1gklt5katfmnmsehf4) JM
Few would have imagined what the Agreement would have wrought 30 years later. The web of relationships that has been created in
S&T is now characterized by multiple institutional strands, with multiple stakeholders having multiple objectives. Although the
reforms and investments China has made in research institutes and universities over the past-30 years have not
entirely erased the asymmetries of the past, they have certainly made China an especially important
partner in research and innovation for many constituencies in the USA. In a number of fields of research and on
a number of pressing global problems, the S&T partnership between the USA and China will play a critical role
in determining the twenty-first century future. Revolutions in science-based technologies hold the
potential for significant enhancements in national wealth and power in both countries, while shared interests in the management
of such collective good and bad as climate change, pollution, water and energy availability, food supplies, and
a broad range of issues involving risk and safety, are forcing increased attention to knowledge-based approaches to these
challenges. The scope of the relationship can be seen in three realms – government programs, industrial cooperation, and academic
science[1]. The existence of these different channels represents significant institutional resources for the
kinds of strategic partnering on twenty-first century scientific and technological development and
global problems alluded to above. Since these challenges have basic research, commercial, and public goods components they
require a repertoire of organizational approaches, many of which now exist.
ADI 2010 105
Science Diplomacy Adv – EU – Link

Science diplomacy solves EU relations – its’ the vital internal link to durability
Potocnik 6 (Jamez, European Commissioner for Science and Research. “Between cooperation and Competition -
Science and Research as a Transatlantic Bridge Builder” 7 March. http://www.iterfan.org/index.php?
option=com_content&task=view&id=139&Itemid=2) JM
The specific weight of Science and Research within the Transatlantic Agenda has been growing steadily and has acquired greater
visibility lately, notably with the latest EU-US summit in December last year. Basic research, nano, space, information technology,
innovation and other areas now figure prominently on that agenda. This is certainly the fruit of a converging political
determination on both sides of the Atlantic. But it is also the consequence of the fact that both sides increasingly
perceive science and research as a critical component of the respective policies for economic
competitiveness, growth and jobs. The new American Competitiveness Initiative announced by President Bush in his recent State-
of-the-Union address – and substantiated in the budget proposal that the US government just put forward – clearly points in this
direction. And it is interesting to read how, in its goals as well as in some of its ingredients, it clearly echoes our own Lisbon objectives
and measures! Science and research are perceived both here and in the US as more “useful” than before. And indeed, research is taken
more seriously politically than ever before. Think about the scientific dimension of issues like environmental protection or climate
change, that have seen Europe and the US on opposite sides in economic progress and consumer protection. Think about access to space
and the development of global positioning systems. These are cases where science and politics go hand in hand. But they are also
examples of the fact that sometimes when the politics brings us apart, then science can help us find the necessary common ground. We
have seen this clearly happen during the last few years. Now the relations between Europe and the US are again
marked by positive cooperative tones and promising perspectives. But we have gone through a period,
up to recently, during which the list of differences looked longer than the list of agreements. From steel to
agricultural subsidies, from GMOs to Kyoto, from the International Criminal Court to the war in Iraq, some
people on both sides almost lost sight of the solidity and durability of the transatlantic partnership.
But, interestingly, even during those more difficult times, science and research have always stood out as
areas where cooperation could continue to grow, unaffected by political tensions elsewhere. Or better: science and
research benefited from a sort of "compensatory" status. They came to be perceived as fields where - precisely while we were
"quarreling" on several other matters - we could still prove to ourselves, to one another and to the world, that we remained each other's
best partners and allies. Now that we have moved on to a smoother phase in our transatlantic dialogue, science and research
must continue to exert their bridging function. The commitments made by our top political leaders in June last year must
be taken seriously and delivered upon. I intend to start from there, build on past achievements, to make further substantial progress in
transatlantic cooperation in S&T.
ADI 2010 106
***HEGEMONY***
ADI 2010 107
Heg Adv – U – Foreign Scientists Low Now

Status Quo immigration policies scare off would be foreign scientists
Paarlberg 4
29) BHB
Having previously erred on the side of being too lax, U.S. visa authorities are now erring on the side of being too
strict. Traditionally, foreign nationals ac-cepted to study science at American universities could expect to receive visas at U.S.
embassies by providing only a passport, a university letter of endorse- ment, and records showing they could afford to live in the United
States. Fol-lowing the September 11 attacks, U.S. consular officers have become subject to criminal
penalties if they grant a visa to someone who subsequently commits a terrorist act in the United States, so as
a consequence larger numbers of visa re-quests are either denied or delayed. Foreign scientists were among
the first to be squeezed out by such new policies.79I n 2002 comparedw ith the year before, the United States gave 8,000
fewer visas to visiting scholars,r esearchers,t each-ers, and speakers. Some individuals caught in this squeeze were prominent foreign
scholars invited to speak at scientific meetings or teach at American universities. In December 2002 the three presidents of the U.S.
National Acad-emies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine issued a statement warning that ongoing research collaborations had
already been hampered, outstanding for-eign scientists had already been prevented from entering the country, and im-portant
international conferences were already being canceled or disrupted because of visa delays.so In 2003 a new rule required most visa
applicants to undergo in-person interviews with U.S. consular officials overseas, causing still more delays.81 Valuable science students
are being kept out of the United States by these new procedures. According to a spring 2003 report by the American Institute of Physics,
numbers of international students entering graduate physics pro-grams dropped by roughly 15 percent after September 11, and a survey
of physics department chairs revealed that at the beginning of the 2002 academic year, about 20 percent of international students
admitted into graduate physics programs had been unable to start specifically because of visa problems.82A ll three of the top students
(from an applicant pool of 224) accepted by the Biostatistics Department at Johns Hopkins University in 2003 could not start because of
visa problems.83I n one case, several hundred outstanding young Pakistani students who had been
carefully selected by their government as po-tential future university leaders, and who had been
accepted for graduate training in the United States, experienced a 90 percent visa denial rate in the
United States post-September 11. These denials are now discouraging new ap-plicants. At 90 percent of American
colleges and universities in 2004, applica-tions from international students had fallen, with applications from Chinese and Indian
students dropping by 76 percent and 58 percent respectively. Mean-while in Australia, France, and the United
Kingdom enrollments are rising rapidly.84
ADI 2010 108
ADI 2010 109
Heg Adv – U – On the Brink

Heg loss coming fast from loss of tech supremacy
Woods 2010
(David, Politics Daily, http://theredhunter.com/2010/03/the_decline_of_american_military_hegemony.php)
The United States, Pentagon strategists say, is quickly losing its ability to barge in without
permission. Potential target countries and even some lukewarm allies are figuring out
ingenious ways to blunt American power without trying to meet it head-on, usinga combination
of high-techand low-tech jujitsu....At the same time, U.S. naval and air forces have been shrinking under
the weight of ever more expensive hardware. It's no longer the case that the United States
can overwhelm clever defenses with sheer numbers.As Defense Secretary Robert Gates summed up the
problem this month, countries in places where the United States has strategic interests --
including the Persian Gulf and the Pacific -- are building "sophisticated, new technologies
to deny our forces access to the global commons of sea, air, space and cyberspace.''Those
innocuous words spell trouble. While the U.S. military and strategy community is focused on
Afghanistan and the fight in Marja, others - Iran and China, to name two - are chipping away at America's
access to the Taiwan Strait, the South China Sea, the Persian Gulf and the increasingly
critical extraterrestrial realms."This era of U.S. military dominance is waning at an
increasing and alarming rate,'' Andrew Krepinevich, a West Point-educated officer and former senior Pentagon strategist,
writes in a new report. "With the spread of advanced military technologies and their exploitation
by other militaries,especially China's People's Liberation Army and to a far lesser extent Iran's military and Islamic Revolutionary
Guards Corps, the U.S. military's ability to preserve military access to two key areas of vital
interest, the western Pacific and the Persian Gulf, is being increasingly challenged.''
Tech Heg. On the brink
IEEE-USA, 2007.(IEEE-USA, http://www.ieeeusa.org/policy/issues/innovation/index.html)
At the dawn of the 21st Century, America desperately needs a new national competitiveness strategy
that reflects the realities of the post-Cold War world. Today we face a new, more rough
and tumble form of global economic competition, especially in the science, engineering and
technology based sectors that have fueled U.S. prosperity since World War II. Competing
successfully in this new global environment is essential for our national and economic
security and to ensure that the U.S. is able to create high-value jobs and maintain a vital national engineering capability.
ADI 2010 110
Heg Adv – Science Dominance – Link

Foreign workers make up for failures in the U.S. education system – ensures continued
dominance
Paarlberg 4
2) BHB
The key to this revolution in military affairs (RMA) has been the application of modern science and engineering-particularly in fields
such as physics, chemistry, and information technology (IT)-to weapons design and use. It is the international dominance of the United
States in these fields of science and technology that has made possible U.S. military dominance on the conven-tional battlefield."1It thus
becomes importantt o judge the magnitude and du-rability of U.S. scientific hegemony. In the sections that follow, I first measure the
U.S. lead in S&T relative to the capabilities of potential rival states by using a variety of science output and resource input indicators. By
every indicator, the current lead of the United States is formidable. Then I judge the durability of the U.S. lead by examining two
possible weaknesses within its foundation. The first is the greater speed with which scientific knowledge can diffuse (per-haps away
from the United States) in the modern age of globalization. The sec-ond is the poor science preparation still provided by
so many U.S. public schools in grades K-12. Upon examination, these two factors need not present a
significant threat to the U.S. global lead in science and technology, assuming the United States can
remain a large net importer of scientific talent and knowledge from abroad. Preserving this vital net
inflow of scientific assets has been made more difficult, however, by the homeland security imperatives
arising from the ter-rorist attacks of September 11, 2001. It should be the policy of the United States to devise a homeland
security strategy that does not impair the nation's access to foreign science talent. One part of this strategy should be to contain the
further growth of terrorist threats by avoiding conventional military campaigns that create determined new political adversaries abroad.
Victories that bring resentment will breed resistance, most easily expressed in the form of asym-metric threats against soft targets,
including homeland targets. Another part of this strategy should be a more effective mobilization of the nation's massive S&T capacity
when responding to the asymmetric threats that do arise. The United States is uniquely capable of innovating new "smart" technologies
to protect soft homeland targets against unconventional threats. The current For-tress America approach risks
undercutting the nation's lead in science by keep-ing too many talented foreigners out.
The excessive tightening of US visa policies post September 11th are making more
difficult for foreign scientists to enter the country
More science will be good for security, but an overzealous pursuit of homeland security now risks a
weakening of U.S. science. An excessive tightening of U.S. visa policies post-September 11 is reducing the
vital flow of foreign scientists into the United States. Between FY 2001 and FY 2003, successful U.S.
visa ap-plications in all categories fell from 10 million down to 6.5 million. The number of temporary
worker visas issued specifically for jobs in science and technol ogy in the United States dropped more
sharply, falling by 55 percent in 2002 alone.75T he weaker post-September 11 U.S. economy can be blamed
for some of this decline, but not all. Tightened visa procedures are making entry into the United States by
foreign scientists significantly more difficult.
Scientists say that the biggest hurdle to great scientific achievement is the lack of funding
and difficulties with H-1B visas
Kolakowski 9 (Nicholas, “US Scientists See H1B Visas as Major Issue Against Progress, Says Survey” 7-12-09
www.ewee.com)
A new survey by the Pew Research Center has found that, while the American public holds a high
opinion of scientists, a minority feel that U.S. scientific achievements are best in the world. At the same
time, scientists felt the biggest impediments to their research were lack of funding and difficulties in
the H1-B visa process for foreign scientists and students. The nation's scientists see H1-B visa issues as
a major barrier to scientific achievement, according to a new survey by the Pew Research Center. Some
56 percent surveyed felt that issues with the visa process for foreign students and scientists represented
a massive impediment, second only to the 87 percent who saw lack of funding as a “very serious” or
“serious” problem.
ADI 2010 111
Heg Adv – IT Sector – Link

Declining US tech sector threatens military security- only domestic tech can be trusted
Industrial College of Armed Forces 8 [“Final Report Electronics Industry”
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?
AD=ADA487610&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf ]ADS
Given the recent trend of migration of many phases of the semiconductor value chain (most notably foundry
production) to Asia, there is concern about continued access to trusted ICs. Trustworthiness is the confidence
that classified or key mission information, ”…contained in chip designs is not compromised, reliability is not
degraded, or unintended design elements inserted in chips as a result of design or fabrication in conditions open to
adversary agents.”39 Acutely linked with IC trustworthiness is the ability to provide assured sources of
microelectronic components as necessary. Where and when foreign sources of supply are used, greater risks arise
from counterfeit ICs, geo-political forces, and natural disasters.40 Numerous military systems and programs
ultimately require military-specific ICs that cannot be obtained from the commercial market. Given the
environment of a declining US microelectronics manufacturing base and a severely diminished
capability to persuade IC suppliers to manufacture chips for the U.S. government, there is a valid
concern within the US defense community regarding the issue of access and trust with respect to
semiconductors and the impact on national security.
Lack of domestic high skilled workers ensures we have to offshore for advanced tech- this
hurts military readiness
There are several strategic security considerations associated with the offshore manufacturing of
semiconductors. Businesses will naturally seek to maximize profits and take advantage of overseas
environments with lower production costs, more lax environmental regulations, fewer employee benefits and
lower salaries for skilled foreign workers.59 On the national level, outsourcing can create fewer U.S. professional
and technical opportunities and fewer tax revenues to support essential government services. In the long term, the
U.S. risks losing high-end research and design talent and semiconductor specialty design jobs,
because higher-skilled workers tend to locate with the semiconductor industry value chain
as it moves to Asia.60 As fabs move to advanced levels of technology, the ability of the U.S. to recreate its
semiconductor manufacturing capability becomes exponentially more costly. Strategically for policy makers,
this means an increased dependence on other nations to supply critical manufactured defense parts and
equipment. U.S. national leadership of semiconductor technology appears to be threatened by
offshore fabrication trends that can pose long-term national security vulnerabilities. This
dramatic change is not in the best interests of the Department of Defense (DoD) and Department of Homeland
Security. Semiconductors are the standard building blocks for the global information grid to support
computers, communications and military information and data exchange. The semiconductor industry
provides much of the technology for U.S. military communications that are critical for command and control
and effective leadership. Research notes that military and intelligence reliance on semiconductor ICs built
offshore are not an acceptable national security option.61 The massive shift from U.S. to foreign IC
manufacturers endangers the security of sensitive and classified IP information embedded in chip design. It greatly
expands the possibility that harmful software code, embedded Trojan horse attacks, or other unauthorized design
inclusions could appear in unclassified integrated circuits used in military and security applications. If offshore IC
fabrication migration continues, the DoD and U.S. Intelligence Community potentially could be
denied access to ICs and the security-assured functionality of advanced semiconductors, via
foreign export restrictions, when these components are essential for U.S. national defense
advantage.
ADI 2010 112
Heg Adv – Tech Innovation – Link

Lifting the restrictions of H1B visa’s are key to getting and retaining skilled workers
needed for technological innovation
Examining the 2009 H-1B numbers and recent research on high skill immigration shows many of the
arguments made to restrict H-1B visas are weak. H-1Bs are used by a large variety of businesses and
organizations in the United States. Given the long waits for green cards, H-1B visas remain often the
only way an employer can hire an outstanding international student or bring a talented foreign
national to America to work. Research shows H-1B visa holders are important to innovation,
entrepreneurship and job creation in America. With the annual flow of H-1Bs representing only 0.06
percent of the U.S. labor force in 2009, arguments that H-1B professionals overwhelm the American
workforce are not supported by logic or the facts. Surveys of Indian and Chinese professionals who have
left America show that visa constraints play a role in their leaving the country, an exodus that will
continue absent reform of our immigration laws. Liberalizing H-1B and green card quotas would help
American companies innovate and create more jobs in the United States. While critics of H-1B visas
often frame their arguments as helping Americans, the current restrictions inflict real harm on the
country – and new restrictions will only increase the damage.
When job creators hire talented individuals it increases growth and innovation
The findings were consistent with information from tech companies on the dynamic process of job
creation and the results held up in estimates with different controls and subsets of firms. One reason
the study has been widely cited is it reflects the real world experiences of tech companies in hiring
highly skilled foreign-born professionals and international graduate students from U.S. universities. In
addition to citing the research, Bill Gates noted Microsoft’s own internal findings that H-1Bs lead to
increased complementary employment: “Microsoft has found that for every H-1B hire we make, we
add on average four additional employees to support them in various capacities.”14 That is similar to
the finding in the National Foundation for American Policy research. Discussions with executives at
eBay and other tech companies revealed the same experiences. It’s common sense to job creators that
hiring talented individuals leads to growth and innovation.
ADI 2010 113
Heg Adv – Cyber Security – Link

H-1B key to solve cyber security threats- they’re the most innovative entrepreneurs
Piper 9 [Greg, Washington Internet Daily Staff Writer, October 21, “Ex-Officials Tell Entrepreneurs How to
Pitch Cybersecurity to Feds,” WASHINGTON INTERNET DAILY Vol. 10 No. 202] ADS
China's suspected role in much industrial espionage shouldn't drive U.S. decision making on cybersecurity,
Wade said. "I wouldn't get too hung up on where the threat comes from," he told a questioner. Much of the
same technology to guard against cyberattacks is useful to prevent "self- inflicted wounds" by
employees and software bugs. Minihan told another questioner that foreign adversaries already have a
"persistent presence" in government systems, but that adversaries are limited by their ability to process all the
information held by the government in exposed systems. The "'gotcha' tip of the iceberg" -- embarrassing
breaches -- must not be the focus of agencies and cybersecurity providers, because the rest of the iceberg can
be addressed with "building codes and standards," Minihan said. Asked about an open letter to the White
House from several security CEOs that called for more federal cybersecurity R&D, Security Innovation
Network founder Robert Rodriguez blamed the R&D shortage partly on immigration rules.
Some of the most innovative entrepreneurs in security have left the U.S. because of
an H-1B visa shortage, he said. Wade said the National Science Foundation is promoting "leap- ahead
technology" through sponsored conferences on both coasts to bring together academic researchers,
and Defense is sponsoring similar gatherings. "There's a substantial amount of money that's going to be
thrown at this problem," but entrepreneurs must be ready to pitch a "quantum leap" in cybersecurity,
not a marginally better product, Russell said. Any system can be hacked, so the U.S. needs a competitive
advantage in advanced technology to stay ahead of threats, he said. -- Greg Piper
ADI 2010 114
Heg Adv – Semiconductors – Link (1/)

H-1B visas key to semiconductor industry- empirics prove
Inter-year comparisons. If we compare the H-1B visas granted by year, we see that H-1B visas granted to
the top-20 companies, especially to Intel and Motorola/Freescale, jumped in 2004 and remained high in
2005,even as the national H-1B limitation and fee dropped dramatically. The semiconductor
companies seemed to be benefiting from the additional 20,000 H-1Bs available for
workers with a graduate degree from U.S. universities. Over the five year period, 61% of the H-1B visas
were awarded to the top-20 companies during the last two years, and 53% of the H-1B visas awarded to the
top-20 companies were granted to Intel and Motorola/Freescale during that time.
H-1B visa holders key to bolster semiconductor industry- major companies have used them
in the past
Industrial College of Armed Forces 8
[“Final Report Electronics Industry” http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?
Let us look at how these H-1B visa applications compare to company employment. In 2005, Intel employed
approximately 99,900 people worldwide, with more than 50% locate in the U.S., and Motorola employed
69,000 employees (number of domestic employees not given)22. This indicates that approximately 2.6% of
Intel’s workers were newly-hired H-1B visa holders. If H-1B visa holders work for Intel for at least five
years, then approximately 5.4% of their domestic workers were H-1B visa holders, which translate to a
larger percentage of their engineers. H-1B visa holders were probably an even larger proportion of the
workforce at Motorola, since they accounted for 3.7% of all employees worldwide. The percentage
of domestic engineers that are H-1B visa holders could easily be twice that. These data
indicate that semiconductor companies use H-1B visas strategically in hiring and
managing their engineering talent. Below we see that part of the reason for the importance of H-1B
visas is that major U.S. universities are providing graduate training to many foreign students, and upon
graduation these students are in great demand by U.S. companies.
ADI 2010 115
Heg Adv – Semiconductors – Link (1/)

Plan is key to semiconductor industry- there aren’t enough domestic engineers
The Industrial College of the Armed Forces 6 [“The Final Report Electronics Industry,” http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-
bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA475296&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf]ADS
One of five scientists and engineers in the United States was born in another country (AEA, 2005).
Following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the U.S. put significantly tighter controls on immigration
policies, and as a result, fewer foreign students were able to attend U.S. universities, and fewer foreign
graduates with advanced technical degrees were able to immigrate here. It thus became even more difficult
for U.S. firms to hire the needed technical talent to sustain growth and innovation. One analyst stated, “Our
immigration policy took a giant step backward because of fears associated with September 11. Making it
hard for graduate students to come here does not make America safer. It makes us weaker…” (Business
Week, 2004, ¶4). Industry representatives interviewed by the group consistently advocated loosening 12
restrictions on H-1B visas and Employment-Based (EB) Green Cards for technically trained foreigners in
order to help alleviate the shortage of domestic high tech graduates by widening the pool of foreign-
born talent available to U.S. firms (Anonymous Interviews, April 2006). The H-1B visa provides
temporary entry under a nonimmigrant classification for a foreign citizen sponsored by an employer in a
specialty occupation such as the semiconductor industry (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 2006).
The H-1B visa ceiling is currently set at 65,000 visas per year, with an additional 20,000 exemptions for
foreign workers with U.S.- earned advanced degrees. Congress temporarily increased the limitation to
195,000 between 2001 and 2003 and a similar, permanent expansion would greatly assist the
semiconductor industry to hire the best technically trained talent in adequate
numbers. Further, such an expansion could also help to boost domestic job creation. For example, one
semiconductor firm the group interviewed stated that one person working for the company under the
H-1B visa program developed a new process that is now responsible for the creation of 400 new jobs
(Anonymous industry interviews, May 2006).
H-1B visa holders key to bolster semiconductor industry- major companies have used them
in the past
Industrial College of Armed Forces 8
[“Final Report Electronics Industry” http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?
Let us look at how these H-1B visa applications compare to company employment. In 2005, Intel employed
approximately 99,900 people worldwide, with more than 50% locate in the U.S., and Motorola employed
69,000 employees (number of domestic employees not given)22. This indicates that approximately 2.6% of
Intel’s workers were newly-hired H-1B visa holders. If H-1B visa holders work for Intel for at least five
years, then approximately 5.4% of their domestic workers were H-1B visa holders, which translate to a
larger percentage of their engineers. H-1B visa holders were probably an even larger proportion of the
workforce at Motorola, since they accounted for 3.7% of all employees worldwide. The percentage
of domestic engineers that are H-1B visa holders could easily be twice that. These data
indicate that semiconductor companies use H-1B visas strategically in hiring and
managing their engineering talent. Below we see that part of the reason for the importance of H-1B
visas is that major U.S. universities are providing graduate training to many foreign students, and upon
graduation these students are in great demand by U.S. companies.
ADI 2010 116
Heg Adv – Semiconductors – Impact (1/)

Semiconductors solve national security, economic disruption and military instability
Industrial College of Armed Forces 8 [“Final Report Electronics Industry” http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?
Beyond economics, semiconductors are vital to America’s national defense. The U.S. has long
relied on technology to maintain a military advantage over its enemies and has generally adopted
forces founded on technological vice numerical superiority. The importance of cuttingedge electronics
cannot be overstated given America’s Warfighting doctrine that relies heavily on high-quality, high-
technology weapon systems such as AEGIS cruisers, F-22 Fighters, and the “digitized” M1E3 tank.
The critical role of microchips in U.S. weapons, communications, and intelligence platforms make
maintaining a strong domestic semiconductor industry of strategic value. Given the reliance of the U.S.
military on semiconductors, the U.S. must maintain control over development along with
life-cycle maintenance and repair of its high technology systems. A robust domestic
semiconductor industry insulates the U.S. from the effects of economic shock and
disruption, while at the same time enhancing the ability to respond to surge and mobilization requirements.
Laser guided weapons and stealth technology reduce a typical first strike package from 132 crewmembers
onboard 91 aircraft including tankers, air defense, suppression, escort, and strike aircraft down to two
aircraft, a tanker and stealth bomber, with six crewmen.68 This type of dramatic reduction in aircraft and
personnel translated into huge cost savings with fewer lives placed at risk. Collateral damage is also
greatly reduced or eliminated, which translates into increased political capital. U.S.
military dominance is only possible through the technological superiority driven by
semiconductors.
ADI 2010 117
Heg Adv – Semiconductors – Impact (2/)

Semiconducter industry key to military tech
The semiconductor industry has driven United States growth and productivity since its birth in Silicon Valley,
California fifty years ago. It is currently the second largest U.S. export industry, with 2007 total exports of over
$52 billion.1 It employs over 232,000 Americans, providing wellpaying jobs that generate over $118 billion in
annual revenue.2 The industry is a key enabler for other industries, providing breathtaking and
monumental advances across the global economy. Today, knowledge workers in industries as
diverse as finance, biotechnology, and agriculture are vastly more productive and effective due to ever more
powerful semiconductors. Electronics have historically provided the United States’ military with a
decisive technological edge, and they continue to play a critical part in facilitating the U.S.
military’s mission to safeguard America.
Semiconductors key to military tech productivity

The semiconductor industry is the driving force behind the overall electronics industry.
It began with the invention of the integrated circuit (IC) or “chip” by Jack Kilby of Texas Instruments (TI) in
19583. Originally fostered by the demand from government and military applications, today the electronics
industry is driven by the worldwide consumer electronics market, especially the games industry. Growth in
today’s nearly $280B annual industry is mostly attributable to the explosive growth in demand for personal
computers, communications devices, MP3 players and digital televisions. Additionally, the global
production of semiconductors continues to be a critical driving force of innovation in world economies,
integral to quantum advances in productivity in nearly every business sector, from computing to
healthcare, through the ubiquitous employment of electronic devices. Semiconductors are used in many
industries to enhance productivity and they remain important in the functioning of most modern
military systems used in a network-centric environment.
Semiconductors key to DOD vitality

The Industrial College of the Armed Forces 6 [“Final Report Electronics Industry” http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-
bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA487610&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf ]ADS
DoD must maintain its strategic capability through access to trusted semiconductor design and
fabrication processes. Due to its miniscule market share, DoD can no longer influence manufacturers
and either must purchase commercial products or must maintain a dedicated capability for building
custom-made devices. Government intervention to preserve strategic access to semiconductor components is
clearly needed to ensure DoD unique devices can be built without compromising their technology, though
every effort should be made to minimize the cost by using COTS devices whenever possible. Collaborating
with industry is the best way to address any immediate concerns. The Trusted Foundry Program will help
address the short-term needs; however, DoD should consider expanding its relations with industry over the
long term. Defense electronics acquisition will be discussed in more detail later in the paper.
ADI 2010 118
Heg Adv – China – UQ – Outsourcing

The lack of skilled, cheap workers in the US forces outsourcing and risks gutting
technological competitiveness
Brown 9. (Alan S., associate editor of Mechanical Engineering and former co-chair of the Science Writers in New
York. http://www.tbp.org/pages/publications/Bent/Features/Su09Brown.pdf)
America often worries about technology worker shortages, especially during crises. When the Soviet Union
launched Sputnik in 1957, the United States responded with a greater investment in science education and an
ambitious space program of its own. In the mid-1980s when the Japanese threatened to overwhelm American
producers, the National Science Foundation began warning of a shortage of scientists and engineers. Starting
in 1997, the information technology (IT) industry claimed that it could not find enough workers to meet
demand and successfully lobbied for more temporary H-1B visas for temporary technology workers. Today,
the technology threat comes from China, India, and other emerging nations. While these countries rely on
cheap labor, China and India also have large, sophisticated engineering work forces. They may have started
by doing low-level computer programming and 3D CAD conversions, but many now do systems integration
and engineering design. Their success has put pressure on the U.S. economy. During the past decade, the
nation has offshored an increasing percentage of production, shed 3 million manufacturing jobs, and opened
a $60 billion trade gap in advanced technology products. It is now watching IT and engineering positions
move offshore as well. In 2006, the National Academy of Engineering released the report, Rising Above the
Gathering Storm, which crystallized national fears. It stated that America’s standard of living is based on
science and technology innovations and that the nation is in peril of losing its lead in these key areas.
ADI 2010 119
Heg Adv – China – Link – Outsourcing Bad

Outsourcing has killed the ability for US companies to gain tech leads
Lei 7
Thus, outsourcing can lead to compounded dependence. Once a firm’s personnel fall behind in learning
new technologies, the firm finds it harder to stay abreast of technological developments. Competitive
advantage declines as investment in new core skills and knowledge dissipates. The key ingredient of sustaining
industry initiative is continually learning and developing new sources of knowledge and skills needed to develop next-generation
products and technologies. Cooperation with an alliance partner or outsourcing supplier involves a simultaneous competition to learn
new skills from one another. In many cases, U.S. firms have essentially ceded their leadership positions across
dozens of industries to eager suppliers that have used the outsourcing arrangement as a vehicle for
their own long-term learning and technology accumulation.
Outsourcing has increased China’s power now they have infrastructure to accept the
outsourcing of high skill jobs
Garrett 6
(Banning; Dir. of the Asia Program at the Atlantic Council; Journal of Contemporary China, Volume 15, Issue 48 August 2006 , pages 389 – 415) BHB
'Rising China'—which has been the result of and contributed to globalization—has become perhaps the single most
important factor shaping the rapidly-changing geopolitical landscape of the twenty-first century.22
China has become the largest 'delta' or change factor in the world economy. Higher world energy and commodity prices are attributed
largely to China's rapidly increasing demand, spurred in turn by China's seemingly perpetual economic growth of around 8-9% per year.
China's emergence as the world's manufacturing platform is compelling a restructuring of global manufacturing networks and even
national economies. China is now a magnet for low-skill jobs 'outsourced' by the US and other advanced
countries; it is also increasingly 'moving up the food chain', producing highly-educated workers to
entice multinational companies to set up research and development centers in China, thus raising a
new round of fears about outsourcing innovation and high-paying jobs from the United States. China is
also the largest recipient of foreign direct investment (FDI) in the world, with more than $60 billion received in 2004 and nearly $570
billion received since 1982. China has become the world's third largest trading country behind the US and Germany and ahead of Japan,
with $1.15 trillion in trade in 2004. Inexpensive goods from China have maintained downward pressure on prices of manufactured
consumer goods in the United States and throughout the world, helping to stave off inflation and benefiting consumers but also
extracting a 'China price' for other manufacturers globally to compete with China's low-cost goods. Critically, China holds $200 billion
in US treasury bonds and over $600 billion in foreign exchange, helping to finance the US trade and budget deficits as well as US
imports of Chinese goods. In short, China has a huge impact on the world economy, on the US economy, and on
US global, regional and bilateral economic interests.
ADI 2010 120
Heg Adv – China – Link – Tech Solves Balancing

Specialized workers are key to hard power over China
Dominant military innovations will also be more difficult for rival states to copy because they are no
longer stand-alone pieces of hardware. The RMA de-pends on entire systems of both hardware
and software-sensors, satellites, program codes, and command systems, not just weapons
platforms. Moreover, only teams of technically skilled, highly trained, and continuously
practiced personnel can operate these networked RMA weapons systems. The superb U.S.
all-volunteer military force, built specifically to provide such operating personnel, is a
unique human and institutional asset that less capable foreign rivals can neither copy nor steal.
Potential rivals such as China cannot hope to develop an RMA capability through simple transfer,
whether by purchase or theft. Through espionage China may have been able to gain
information on the W-88 warhead used on U.S. Trident missiles, and China was
nearly successful in purchasing from Is-rael the Phalcon system (which contained
modern phased-array technology) before the U.S. government halted this sale in
2000.64Y et even with access to such imported or stolen technology, the Chinese military system will
not be able to advance to an RMA capability, given the notorious weakness of the PLA in areas such as
command, control, communications, and intelligence.
ADI 2010 121
Heg Adv – China – Link – Outsourcing => China Hegemony

Chinese economic growth means that they can project power beyond their borders using
foreign technology
Lei 7
Froma security perspective, amore sophisticated Chinese economywill inevitably translate into a more
modernized military. Already, the Chinese military-industrial complex (composed entirely of SOEs) is becoming a potent
competitor in the arms export business for certain weapon categories (largely in second- and third-generation technology),while
China’s armedforces gradually acquire the capability for force projection beyond the defensive needs
of its immediate borders. Much of the new technology behind upgraded Chinese arms comes from the
transfer of dual-use technologies (e.g., aerospace, semiconductors, radars, metallurgy, fiber optics).
Chinese military R&D, however, is gaining intensified skill in such cutting-edge areas as information
warfare and laser technologies—again a significant effort that probably entails fusing internal
development efforts with technology learned from foreign firms.12
ADI 2010 122
Heg Adv – China – Impact – Taiwan Conflict

Taiwan conflicts causes a US blockade of China killing key US industries this collapses the
economy
Lei 7
Perhaps the most important quandary regarding any potential China-Taiwan conflict is the extreme overextension
of many U.S. industries’ supply chains from factories located in China. The number of U.S. industrial sectors that
rely on China as a low-cost manufacturing platform has mushroomed over the last decade, with many high-technology products now
coming from Chinese factories. Ironically, a China-Taiwan conflict may force the U.S. to deploy the Seventh
Fleet to blockade the Chinese coast—a strategic move that would sever the lifeline for many U.S.
industries that now depend on lean production and just-in-time inventory management systems. A
supply breach of such magnitude would disrupt the entire U.S. economy, with inflationary pressures
and resource scarcity across many sectors.
Taiwan conflicts causes a US blockade of China killing key US industries this collapses the
economy
Lei 7
Perhaps the most important quandary regarding any potential China-Taiwan conflict is the extreme overextension
of many U.S. industries’ supply chains from factories located in China. The number of U.S. industrial sectors that
rely on China as a low-cost manufacturing platform has mushroomed over the last decade, with many high-technology products now
coming from Chinese factories. Ironically, a China-Taiwan conflict may force the U.S. to deploy the Seventh
Fleet to blockade the Chinese coast—a strategic move that would sever the lifeline for many U.S.
industries that now depend on lean production and just-in-time inventory management systems. A
supply breach of such magnitude would disrupt the entire U.S. economy, with inflationary pressures
and resource scarcity across many sectors.
ADI 2010 123
Heg Adv – NASA – UQ – NASA Low

The Space Sector is on the brink of a mass worker shortage-
Holmes AND Bates 10 [Mark, Associate Editor of Via Satellite magazine Jason, editor of Via Satellite magazine
July 1, “Space Workforce: Attracting the Next Generation,” Vol. 25 No. 7]ADS
One of the main issues facing the space sector is an aging workforce, and attracting the young people
that will build, launch and operate the rockets, satellites and communications networks of the future has
proven difficult. The sector has lost the appeal it once had and now faces increased competition in convincing
future engineers that space is more relevant than ever. Concerns over the aging workforce is the number two
issue for members of the Aerospace Industries Association (AIA), whose members includes U.S. manufacturers and
suppliers of aircraft, space systems, equipment, services and information technology, says Daphne Dador, AIA's
manager, workforce. "A lot of our leaders and companies are really focused on developing a qualified workforce for
the future. As it stands now, there are certainly challenges for our workforce." Among them is that 38 percent of the
U.S. aerospace workforce is 50 or older, with 20 percent of the workforce forecasted to reach retirement age
in the next three to five years. "When it comes to pending retirements and the supply side, getting young
people to work in this industry is a concern," she says. Before the House Science and Technology
Subcommittee on Research and Science Education in February, Rick Stephens, senior vice president of human
resources and administration at Boeing and chair of the AIA Workforce Steering Committee, said the United
States is "falling further behind" in science and engineering education. "These are becoming difficult jobs to
fill, not because there is a labor shortage but because there is a skills shortage. Our industry needs more
innovative young scientists, technologists, engineers and mathematicians to replace baby
boomers as they retire.
US space power is low due to a lack of domestic workers- intelligence programs prove
Launchspace Staff 9 [January 20, “The Ongoing Erosion Of The US Space Industrial Base,”
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/The_Ongoing_Erosion_Of_The_US_Space_Industrial_Base_999.html]ADS
The preeminent space power has severely declined. Performance has eroded, support is lacking and
expectations have diminished. Why? The success of the Global Positioning System (GPS) and other U.S.
technological innovations highlighted the strategic importance of Space as an enabler for communications,
navigation and remote sensing, thus attracting the attention of the international defense and intelligence
communities. Twenty years ago only the U.S., the former Soviet Union and Europe were aware of the importance of
Space applications. Today, every developing nation is a customer for Space applications. The world now
recognizes that the marketplace for Space-related goods and services has greatly expanded. More providers
have entered the competition and are winning customers away from the U.S. Furthermore, the licensing processes
under U.S. International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) have restricted the ability of U.S. Space contractors to
compete in foreign markets. Some European manufacturers even advertise "ITAR-free" spacecraft products. The
actual impact of ITAR is exactly the opposite of its original intent, i.e., to slow the development of certain
technologies outside the U.S. In today's environment, it is simply arrogant and immature to think other
countries lack the intellectual capital and will to create technologies for strategic applications. International
competition, disarray in U.S. leadership and a shortage of native Space technologists have crippled
the country's capability to compete. Economics' driven industry consolidations and an aging
workforce of older space professionals further weaken the Space industry's capacity to
deliver cutting-edge systems. Evidence supporting this analysis is clearly on display with the
most recent military and intelligence spacecraft programs. U.S. Space leaders have been fully
informed of this dire situation, but little has been done. Strong leadership across the government, in industry and in
academia is mandatory to reverse this trend in U.S. Space decline. ITAR restrictions and licensing processes need
urgent reform to allow Space contractors to market and compete more effectively. Presidential leadership is
mandatory to reorganize the government Space enterprise and to create a centralized Space Architecture.
Universities need improved incentives to produce more qualified scientists and engineers who can contribute to U.S.
Space capabilities. If action isn't taken immediately, the U.S. will become a follower, instead of a leader. And
National Security will be almost irreparably damaged-in Space and therefore on the ground.
ADI 2010 124
Heg Adv – NASA – UQ – NASA Low

US is losing its competitive edge- We can’t replace the aging workforce
Blakey 9 [Marion, December 10, “House Science and Technology Committee Hearing; Decisions on the Future
Direction and Funding for NASA: What Will They Mean for the U.S. Aerospace Workforce and Industrial Base?”
http://science.house.gov/publications/hearings_markups_details.aspx?NewsID=2696]ADS
Another crucial relationship NASA has with the aerospace workforce is its ability to attract and educate future
workers. In fact, the demographics of our industry reflect an influx of young workers who entered our industry
during exciting times in our space program. Developing the aerospace workforce of the future is a top issue for
our industry. As the leader of the largest U.S. aerospace trade association, the most significant concerns
and trends facing the U.S. aerospace workforce and industrial base at the present time
include the impending retirements within the next decade. Today, 13 percent of our workforce is
eligible to retire. By 2013, retirement eligibility for some job functions like RandD and program managers will
be around 20 percent. n6 The state of education for our young people is also in peril, including poor preparation
for Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics, also known as STEM fields; low graduation rates of
students in those fields, especially when compared to other nations, and a lack of interest in STEM fields overall.
Currently, the U.S. annually graduates just 74,000 engineers - covering all fields in the discipline. Further, many
of these students are foreign nationals who return home shortly after graduating - which lowers the number of new
domestically employable engineers under 60,000. n7 By comparison, India and China respectively graduate six
and ten times more engineering students each year. n8 If this continues, the U.S. runs a real risk of losing
its skilled engineering edge over other nations. The latest national test scores show that, in math, fourth
graders are 62 percent below proficient and eighth graders are 69 percent below proficient. In science, fourth graders
are 68 percent below proficient, while eighth graders are 73 percent below proficient. n9 In a study done by
Raytheon, most middle school students said they would rather do one of the following instead of their math
homework: clean their room, eat their vegetables, go to the dentist or take out the garbage. This lack of interest seeps
into interest in aerospace. For example, in a recent survey 60 percent of students majoring in STEM found the
aerospace and defense industry an unattractive place to work. n10
NASA is on the verge of a mass high skilled worker shortage- it will gut key operation
Axtman 3 [Kris, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor, Staff writer of The
Christian Science Monitor February 18, “NASA faces looming engineer shortage,”
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0218/p17s02-lehl.html]ADS
Theis is now a software engineer in the private sector, and his departure from NASA represents a looming
crisis for the space agency. A General Accounting Office report last year found that NASA has three times
as many engineers aged 60 and over as it has 30 and under - and a quarter of its nearly 19,000
employees will be eligible for retirement in five years. Last month, the GAO again reported
the agency is having difficulty hiring people with the science, engineering, and
information-technology skills that are critical to its operations. Experts warn that when
retirees walk out the door, decades of knowledge and experience will walk out with
them - slowing NASA's progress and raising additional safety concerns. "It's one of the
most serious problems at NASA right now," says Wei Shyy, chairman of the mechanical and
aerospace engineering department at the University of Florida. "They need to beef up their efforts to recruit
young people and increase their pay. Then they need to find a way to retain the experience of those who are
leaving," he says.
ADI 2010 125
Heg Adv – NASA – Link – H1B

H-1B solve high skilled worker crisis
Sherk and Nguyen, 08 (James and Diem, Heritage Foundation, March 31, “Increasing the Cap for H-1B Visas
Would Help the Economy,” http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/13613.pdf, CW, accessed on
7/27/10)
Insourcing Jobs. Increasing the cap on H-1B visas creates new jobs for American workers, not just H-1B
immigrants. Employees do not compete for a fixed number of jobs so that when more H-1B workers come to
the United States, an equal number of Americans lose their jobs. Instead, businesses create jobs when they
grow and shed jobs. Currently, the economy has a severe shortage of workers for many high-skilled positions.
The unemployment rate in computer and mathematical occupations, like computer programming, was 2.1 percent in
2007—essentially full employment after accounting for workers between jobs.2 There are not enough high-tech
workers in America to fill the jobs that employers want them to do. By increasing the H-1B cap,
Congress would allow companies to fill vital positions and enable them to expand within the
United States, which avoids the problem of companies outsourcing work or moving overseas. Take the example
of an engineering software company that hires an engineer and a software developer on H-1B visas. Without those
key workers, the company could not expand. Because it hired those key workers, however, the company
grows and creates many new domestic jobs: software programmers, software salesmen, and technical support
staff. A study by the National Foundation for American Policy found that the average S&P 500
company creates five new domestic jobs for each highly skilled H-1B visa employee it hires.3
By raising the H-1B cap, Congress “insources” jobs, allowing companies to fill vital positions and expand
their operations in America instead of moving overseas. This benefits both American workers and the U.S.
economy.
H-1B cap is preventing high skilled worker influx

The Financial Express, 07
(November 2, “H1B Visa: 'Allow world's best and brightest to US,” http://www.financialexpress.com/news/h1b-
visa-allow-worlds-best-and-brightest-to-us/235181/, CW, accessed on 7/27/10)
Washington, November 2:: A leading Republican Presidential hopeful has thrown his weight behind the H1B
visa programme stressing that bringing high skilled workers on a permanent basis to the US will be beneficial
to the economy. Former Massachusetts Gover Mitt Romney has said that while he is for increasing the quota for
H1B visa, a majority of whose aspirants are Indians, the exact figures would depend on a number of things including
the strength of the US economy and the implications for the local workforce. "I like H1B visas. I like the idea of
the best and brightest in the world coming here. I'd rather have them come here permanently rather than
come and go, but I believe our visa programme is designed to help us solve gaps in our employment pool," he
said in an interview to TechCrunch,a weblog dedicated to profiling and reviewing new internet products and
companies. "Where there are individuals who have skills that we do not have in abundance here, I'd like to
bring them here and contribute to our economy," he added.
ADI 2010 126
Heg Adv – NASA – Impact – Climate Change

NASA tech is key to climate observation-
Menemenlis 5 [Dimitris, Research Scientist, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology,
Pasadena, March, “NASA Supercomputer Improves Prospects for Ocean Climate Research,” Eos,Vol. 86, No. 9,
1]ADS
Estimates of ocean circulation constrained by in situ and remotely sensed observations have become routinely
available during the past five years, and they are being applied to myriad scientific and operational problems
[Stammer et al.,2002].Under the Global Ocean Data Assimilation Experiment (GODAE),several regional and
global estimates have evolved for applications in climate research, seasonal forecasting,naval
operations,marine safety, fisheries,the offshore oil industry, coastal management, and other areas. This article
reports on recent progress by one effort, the consortium for Estimating the Circulation and Climate of the Ocean
(ECCO), toward a next-generation synthesis of ocean and sea-ice data that is global, that covers the full ocean depth,
and that permits eddies. ECCO is funded by the U.S.National Oceanographic Partnership Program (NOPP) and is a
collaboration between the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), and
the Scripps Institution of Oceanography (SIO).A distinguishing feature of ECCO estimates is their physical
consistency. Estimates are obtained by least squares fit (or regression) of the MIT general circulation model
(MITgcm [Marshall et al., 1997]) to the available observations; they satisfy the model’s time-evolution
equations; property budgets are closed and there are no discontinuities when new data are inserted; and the
error covariance is propagated through the same physical model as the state vector (the model’s prognostic
variables: salinity, temperature, velocity, and sea-surface height on a predefined grid), hence more fully utilizing
the available data.
NASA tech is key to climate observation- they contribute more data than anyone else
Dale No date given [Shana, NASA Deputy Administrator, “NASA Technology Contributes to Sustainability of
the Earth,” http://www.nasa.gov/offices/ipp/products/product_innovation_15_1_text.html]ADS
Perhaps NASA's biggest contribution to sustainability is the development and operation of Earth-observing
satellites. With today's constellation of NASA satellites covering the spectrum of Earth science measurements of
our land, sea, air, and space, NASA supplies more global climate-change data than any other
organization in the world, and it is the largest contributor to the federal government's interagency
Climate Change Science Program, providing the most research grant funding of any organization. A new
satellite was added recently to this constellation with the launch of the Ocean Surface Topography Mission, or
Jason-2, on June 20 from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. Like most NASA missions, Jason-2 is a
partnership with other countries of the world, because NASA recognizes that the forces at work affecting global
climate change know no boundaries. Built by the engineers at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif.,
Jason-2 will join a comprehensive suite of missions and instruments such as ICES at and GRACE in orbit today to
monitor how sea level is rising around the world, mostly due to expansion from ocean heat absorbed from the
atmosphere and melting mountain glaciers and ice sheets (e.g., Greenland, Antarctica). In September 2007, NASA
scientists observed the smallest Arctic sea ice coverage ever recorded. The sea ice coverage in September 2007 was
smaller than in September 2006 by an area that exceeded the combined geographical areas of California and Texas.
After decades of monitoring our Earth from NASA satellites, this was the largest ice-free area of the Arctic that our
NASA researchers have witnessed since monitoring started.
ADI 2010 127

NASA tech key to obtain general consensus on climate change issues
Dale 8 [Shana, NASA Deputy Administrator, May 14, “Remarks as delivered by The Honorable Shana Dale,”
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/227280main_San_Jose_Future_Forum_5-14.pdf]ADS
NASA satellites supply more global climate change data than those of any other
organization in the world. It is only through NASA’s investments in measuring the forces and
effects of climate change that we have such insights and understand its implications to our home
planet. Based on NASA satellite data, we have not only seen the receding ice sheets of Greenland and
Antarctica, but have quantitatively measured how fast these ice sheets are melting. NASA scientists have
observed the smallest Arctic sea ice coverage ever recorded in 2007, and when comparing that ice coverage
for the months of September over the past two years, the loss of sea ice exceeds the combined geographical
areas of California and Texas. In regards to nitrogen oxide emissions, one of the greenhouse gases that form
smog, NASA sensors helped researchers document their doubling in Asia from 2000 to 2006. NASA has
fourteen Earth-observing satellites in orbit today. Another seven Earth science missions are under
development, three of which will launch over the next 13 months; and earlier this year, we initiated
formulation activities for five Decadal Survey missions, expected to lead to five new launches before
2020. All in all, NASA invests approximately $1.3 billion every year in Earth science. As we continue to
explore, we’re making new discoveries along the way that are helping our planet.
NASA tech will inform climate related decisions- key to global change
Thompson 10 [Andrea, Livescience staff writer, 2/2, “The ‘new’ NASA will look back at Earth Plans allow
agency to re-fly carbon observatory that crashed last year,” http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35206524
NASA's new proposed budget will in part shift the space agency's focus from landing people on the moon
back to Earth, with more money slated to go to projects that will help us understand our planet's climate and
even plans to re-launch the carbon observatory that failed to launch last year. The 2011 proposed budget for
NASA, announced on Monday, cancels the Constellation program to build new rockets and spacecraft
optimized for the moon, but increases NASA's overall budget by $6 billion over the next five years. Of that
$6 billion, about $2 billion will be funneled into new and existing science missions, particularly those
aimed at investigating the Earth sciences, particularly climate. "That's about 27 percent of the overall
budget over the next five years of the agency [that] will be dedicated to science," said Edward Weiler,
head of NASA's Science Mission Directorate at the agency's headquarters in Washington, D.C. The Earth
and climate science division will get the bulk of the money allocated to science, and
that money will bolster Earth science missions that are either already in the works or
proposed, "NASA will be able to turn its considerable expertise to advancing climate-change
research and observations," Weiler said today in a press briefing. In particular, NASA's budget will allow
the agency to re-fly the Orbiting Carbon Observatory(OCO), whichcrashed into the oceannear
Antarctica just after launch almost a year ago. NASA has decided to give the mission a second chance,
because it "is critical to our understanding of the Earth's carbon cycle and its effect on climate change,"
Weiler said. OCO was the first satellite built exclusively to map carbon dioxidelevels on Earth and help
scientists understand how humanity's contribution of the greenhouse gas is affecting global climate change.
Climate scientist Ken Caldeira of Stanford University welcomed the news. "The Orbiting Carbon
Observatory is a key piece [of] the monitoring system that we need to keep track of our changing
Earth, so that we might better understand the complex interplay of Earth's climate system and carbon
cycle, and therefore help to better inform the difficult climate-related decisions that we will
need to make over the coming years and decades," he said.
ADI 2010 128

NASA conclusions on climate change are the most credible
Hansen 10 [James, head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, February19, “HEMENWAY:
Turning NASA into a Global Alarmism and Scares Administration,”
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/19/turning-nasa-into-a-global-alarmism-and-scares-adm/]ADS
They have long been ascendant inside the agency. When the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded in Oslo to
Al Gore and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, NASA's hand in the IPCC's
work was revealed. Hundreds of NASA scientists contributed to the U.N. effort, the
culmination of two decades of work. NASA satellite measurements enabled the IPCC's
"strongest conclusions thus far," according to the chief scientist at the Joint Propulsion
Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., who was further quoted: "NASA's role extends far beyond space-based
measurements into the research to build our understanding of climate change, enabling the critical
work of the IPCC. ... By collecting together the current scientific thinking on climate change, the IPCC
showed the world the value of the type of science we are doing at NASA." NASA scientist James E.
Hansen, one of Mr. Gore's closest allies in promoting fears of man-made global warming, was deemed
by the London Telegraph as "more responsible than any other for the alarm over global
warming" - setting "the whole scare in train back in 1988 with testimony to a U.S. Senate committee
chaired by Al Gore."
ADI 2010 129
Heg Adv – NASA – Impact – Dominance

Space dominance is key to military security- navigation and targeting are bolstered
Malenic 10 [Marina, July 6, “New Space Policy Promotes International Cooperation, Private Industry,” Space &
Missile Defense Report Vol. 33 No. 14]ADS
Defense Secretary Robert Gates welcomed the release of the policy. "Space-based capabilities are
critical to our military's ability to navigate accurately, strike precisely, and gather
battle space awareness efficiently," he said in a press statement. "However, changes in the space
environment over the last decade challenge our operations. Today, space is increasingly contested as our
systems face threats of disruption and attack, increasingly competitive as more states, private firms,
and others develop space-based capabilities, and increasingly congested with orbital debris." Gates
pledged to work closely with his counterparts in other U.S. government agencies to mitigate such risks.
The policy also calls for a "robust and competitive" industrial base. "In support of its critical domestic
aerospace industry, the U.S. government will use commercial space products and services in fulfilling
governmental needs, invest in new and advanced technologies and concepts, and use a broad array of
partnerships with industry to promote innovation," it states. "The U.S. government will actively promote
the purchase and use of U.S. commercial space goods and services within international cooperative
agreements."
Space power projection is awesome- multiple reasons

Malenic 10 [Marina, July 6, “New Space Policy Promotes International Cooperation, Private Industry,” Space &
Missile Defense Report Vol. 33 No. 14]ADS
The Obama administration emphasizes international cooperation and support for a robust space
industrial base. In a written statement issued June 28 by the White House, President Barrack Obama said
the new plan would "rapidly increase our capabilities in space while bolstering
America's competitive edge in the global economy." "The United States will engage in
expanded international cooperation in space activities," the policy document states. "The
United States will pursue cooperative activities to the greatest extent practicable in areas including:
space science and exploration; earth observations, climate change research and the sharing of
environmental data; disaster mitigation and relief; and space surveillance for debris monitoring and
awareness. " However, Washington remains committed to the use of space systems "in support of its
national and homeland security," according to the document. "The United States will invest in space
situational awareness capabilities and launch vehicle technologies; develop the means to assure mission
essential functions enabled by space; enhance our ability to identify and characterize threats; and
deter, defend, and if necessary, defeat efforts to interfere with or attack U.S. or allied space systems,"
it states. The document also addresses arms control in space. The policy expresses the administration's
willingness to "consider" arms control agreements for the space domain.
ADI 2010 130
Heg Adv – NASA – AT: Domestic Workers Solve

Domestic engineers are insufficient- they can’t replace retired NASA talent
What can drive more engineering-minded students into the discipline of aerospace and aeronautics? I believe the
opportunity to expand human spaceflight is the ideal type of project. An industry that can inspire them must remain
vibrant and active. Over decades, our space programs and workforce have helped fuel our economy
and advance our technologies. The United States has enjoyed preeminence in aerospace in great part
due to our space program. That leadership is now in danger. The primary threat comes not from
competitors' actions but from our own aging demographics and potential failure to act, both of which could be
detrimental to our future aerospace and space programs. The generation of aerospace talent that won the Moon
Race and the Cold War is reaching retirement age, while our Shuttle workforce is also aging. Unfortunately,
America is not producing the volume and quality of engineers, designers and technicians
needed to even begin replacing those who have served so well for so long. While Congress
considers the future of NASA's funding and direction we must also continue as the world leader in space exploration
by investing in our young people and providing cutting-edge programs for them work on. The vitality of our nation
depends on a vital workforce.
Capable workers would take years to train

Some regions will be hit hard by the transition. In Brevard County alone, Shuttle-related activity in Florida supports
a workforce level of approximately 9,235 contract employees, (not including Federal workers). The total estimated
shuttle-related annual payroll for this workforce is estimated at $600 million. Additionally, the shuttle program
provides an estimated secondary economic contribution to the state, above salaries, of approximately $2 billion. n5 I
bring these points up to highlight the impact NASA's human space flight program has on the lives of so many
Americans. Brevard County is but one example. As Congress and policymakers deliberate over the future of NASA,
we should reflect on the unique skills of these men and women and the regions that benefit directly from these
programs. NASA is linked to the health of our industrial base. While the loss of a person's job is no
small matter, especially in light of today's economic environment, we must also view these jobs as a
national resource critical to our nation's technological capability and our national security.
Aerospace talent lost to other industries may be unrecoverable; new workers may take years to train.
Additionally, if we lose certain facilities that manufacture high-tech technologies, it may take years and
additional resources to bring them back. Among the issues affecting the health of our industrial base that need to
be considered by the White House and Congress are: How to maintain required skills for the duration of the shuttle's
operation, how to maintain the workforce skills required for utilization of the ISS and how to transition the
workforce to other current and new NASA programs.
ADI 2010 131
Heg Adv – Aerospace – UQ – Aerospace Low

Aging workforce and lack of student interest doom US aerospace
Muellner 9[George, AIAA President, April, “TOMORROW'S AEROSPACE WORKFORCE,” AIAA BULLETIN;
AIAA News; Pg. B5]ADS
"Crisis in Aerospace"--that was how Aviation Week and Space Technology first described the impending
shortfall of scientists and engineers. This description recognized that the tremendous strides made in the
aerospace profession were the result of having an innovative and highly professional workforce of
scientists and engineers. You, the members of AIAA, connected the world and enhanced our national
security with advances in aviation and allowed us to walk on the moon, explore the universe with our deep-
space probes, and commercialize space. The shortfall in future scientists and engineers is
caused by several factors: an aging workforce comprised heavily of "Baby Boomers" (those born
between 1946 and 1964), a decline in both government and industry research and development investments,
and an inadequate number of students pursuing undergraduate and graduate degrees in Science,
Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) and retention challenges with our young
professionals in the aerospace industry. Over the past several years, the U.S. National Science Foundation
and U.S. National Academy of Engineering and Science chartered studies to identify the causes and
recommend mitigating actions for the shortfall. These studies have prompted the U.S. Congress to create the
Interagency Aerospace Revitalization Task Force. Despite all of these actions, metrics to date indicate little
progress. While the current downturn in the economy has delayed retirements, the workforce crisis, or
"silver tsunami," is still approaching!
US aerospace industry will face high skilled worker shortages-

Flightglobal.com 8 [14/04, “Aerospace faces a looming shortage of engineers,”
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/04/14/222942/aerospace-faces-a-looming-shortage-of-
engineers.html]ADS
The assembly lines may not be on the verge of grinding to a halt, or the launch pads about to be put into
mothballs. But major problems in the supply of engineers in the aerospace industry are
undoubtedly looming on the horizon. For an industry whose self-image is one of thrusting
achievement and pushing the technological envelope, the realities of company demographics make
sobering reading. The workforce is ageing and the point is approaching at which the
number of retirees will no longer be matched by the arrival of new entrants from
universities and colleges. Industry bodies and individual companies, particularly in the USA, are
having to go to extraordinary lengths to ensure that future generations of engineers will emerge from
the educational system. Despite these efforts, however, the next few years are likely to see the
industry facing real problems in finding sufficient high-quality personnel to fill the gaps
in its ranks. This skills shortage will be one of the topics explored at the Aerospace Testing, Design &
Manufacturing exhibition at Germany's New Munich Trade Fair Centre this week. Organised by Flight's
sister company Reed Exhibitions, the seventh iteration of the annual event will see students being bussed in
from nearby universities to talk to companies such as EADS, Ruag Aerospace and MTU, which will have
human resources personnel on hand to scan the CVs of potential recruits.
ADI 2010 132
Heg Adv – Aerospace – UQ – Aerospace Low

Demand for engineers coming soon- Experts say the need will be exponential
VITTACHI 8 [IMRAN, The Press-Enterprise Staff Writer, May 9, “Lockheed Martin, fears shortage, seeks
future scientists in Riverside schools,”
http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_D_space10.42349ca.html]ADS
Experts say that the demand for aerospace, electrical, mechanical and computer
engineers is growing exponentially but those specializing in those disciplines in college
and graduate schools isn't keeping pace. "We really do believe that science literacy is the key to
the 21st century," Rita Karl, director of education at the Challenger Center for Space Science Education in
Alexandria, Va., said in a phone interview. Heib, an engineer who now works for defense and aerospace
contractor Lockheed Martin Corp., said two of the nation's growing foreign rivals, China and India,
have 10 times as many people studying to become engineers. The students he spoke to were taking part in
the Riverside Unified School District's 10th annual Space Day, organized by Lockheed Martin. Among other
activities, students rode a space shuttle simulator, a "UFO" capsule, and a lunar terrain vehicle. They also got
to see their own faces lit up in a rainbow of colors, as a thermal-imaging camera took pictures of them. The
camera was on exhibit from the Naval Surface Warfare Center Corona Division in Norco. The camera
showed the variations of temperatures on each child's face, with the nose being the coldest spot. With ice
cubes they drew mustaches and smiley faces on their thermal reflections, as the cubes sent cold streaks across
their faces. "It's fun because we get to see all the cool stuff," said Itzel Crusoe, 9, a fourth-grade student at
Longfellow. But Space Day wasn't all about fun and games, as far as the event's main organizer was
concerned. The idea behind it is to encourage children to learn math and science so that they can start
thinking about future careers in the sciences, math, engineering and technology, said Gail Rymer, a
spokeswoman for Bethesda, Md.-based Lockheed Martin. In a 2006 ranking of science literacy
among 15-year-olds by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development,
the United States placed 21st out of the organization's 30 countries. Space Day is part of a long-term
strategy by Lockheed Martin's to recruit technically or scientifically skilled workers in the future. The
company has won a contract to build the Orion rockets and vehicles, which will return humans to the moon
and possibly take them to Mars. However, Lockheed Martin faces a new challenge through the imminent
retirement of tens of thousands of baby boomers on its payroll. The bulk of the 90,000 employees who will
retire soon are engineers, scientists and other highly skilled workers, Rymer noted. "There are not enough
students today preparing for those kinds of jobs," Rymer said. "We've got to do something to inspire kids to
excel at math and science."
ADI 2010 133
Heg Adv – Aerospace – Impact – Hegemony

Aerospace industry key to military tech advancements
LOCKHEED MARTIN 8 [July 16th, “LOCKHEED MARTIN PARTNERSHIPS ARE KEY TO
ENHANCING MILITARY READINESS,”
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/press_releases/2008/071608ae_gs_farnborough.html]ADS
A senior Lockheed Martin [NYSE: LMT] official told reporters attending the Farnborough Air Show
today that Lockheed Martin partnerships around the world are providing military
customers with enterprise support solutions to challenges brought on by increasing
operational deployments, tightening budgets and aging weapons systems. “As a global
enterprise with alliances in more than 75 countries, Lockheed Martin supports its customers with technically
advanced sustainment concepts leveraged by its engineering know-how and expertise,” said Marillyn
Hewson, executive vice president, Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Global Sustainment. “Our customers can
depend on us to provide the kind of tailored sustainment and logistics solutions they need to keep their
airplanes flying.” With more than 39,000 military aviation assets deployed worldwide and an increasing
desire for contractor support to enhance platform readiness, Lockheed Martin’s global support enterprise
provides best value and reliable total system capability for the wide range of products manufactured
by the corporation. Lockheed Martin embraces the performance-based logistics (PBL) concept and has a
number of award winning examples of successful partnerships. The corporation also develops training
programs integrated with its support packages for its customers to improve operational availability
and ensure that mission-critical equipment and programs remain relevant for future requirements.
Some of the corporation’s successful PBL partnerships are: C-130 – Lockheed Martin, Marshall Aerospace
and Rolls-Royce are working as a successful team to support the multiyear sustainment contract for the
United Kingdom’s C-130 aircraft. This partnership with the Royal Air Force, called Hercules Integrated
Operational Support (HIOS), will ensure the Royal Air Force C-130s remain at a high level of readiness, and
is expected to save the British taxpayers millions of pounds over the next 20 years. F-117 - Lockheed
Martin’s Total System Sustainment Partnership (TSSP) with the U.S. Air Force for the F-117 Night Hawk
provided complete sustaining engineering and total logistics support including delivery of technical
publications and incorporation of lean manufacturing and repair processes. This successful program saved
the U.S. Air Force millions of dollars over an eight-year period, reduced manpower as well as the
logistics footprint, and slashed impaired capability response time by more than 40 percent. H-60 - The
H-60 Tip-to-Tail support arrangement, a long-term fixed price per flight hour agreement, has provided the
U.S. Air Force with an 88 percent reduction in logistics response time and more than 71 percent reduction in
backorders. This partnering concept integrates the supply support of 16 OEMs and 2 depots that keep this
vital asset of the U.S. Air Force mission ready for years to come. F-35 - The experiences and innovations in
support of programs like F-117 (TSSP) are being integrated into new air platforms and combat systems such
as the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The F-35 sustainment model begins with an aircraft built to new standards
of reliability, with state-of-the-art prognostics/diagnostic systems that will reduce support costs by over 20
percent. “What our customers demand is increased system performance and availability, and
decreased cost for the life of their platforms. They want to spend the limited funds they have on new
equipment with increased capability, and they want a lower cost to maintain these new combat systems
over their life-cycle. We find ways to help them do both,” Hewson said. Lockheed Martin is a
major supplier of logistics systems and services to military and civil government
customers. The corporation provides solutions for platform maintenance, modifications and repair,
material readiness and distribution, and global supply chain command and control. Headquartered in
Bethesda, Md., Lockheed Martin employs about 140,000 people worldwide and is principally engaged in
the research, design, development, manufacture, integration and sustainment of advanced technology
systems, products and services. The corporation reported 2007 sales of $42.billion.
ADI 2010 134
Heg Adv – Aerospace – Impact – Hegemony

Aerospace advancements key to heg- empirics prove
Blakey 8 [Marion, AIA President and CEO, October 01, “Investing in Readiness,” http://www.aia-
aerospace.org/newsroom/opinion_articles/investing_in_readiness/]ADS
At the same time, there is a need to reset equipment now in use and recapitalize for future needs. The
increasing age and overuse of equipment affects all of our military services and represents a
real threat to future U.S. military readiness. Aerospace weapons have been particularly
affected. The need to modernize our defense assets is most obvious to anyone who has
scanned the list of aircraft lately. We have been flying some version of the B-52 since 1952 and KC-135
since 1956. They are wearing out and costing more and more to fix - when they are fixable at all. These are
two well-known examples, but there are others up and down the inventory. This isn't a question of future
conflicts vs. the present war. No matter what one believes the next war will look like, capabilities such as
air mobility, space-based communications systems and rotorcraft will be relevant and needed.
Modernizing these systems isn't a "nice-to-have" - not when missions are already being affected by
forced system retirements and some platforms are being run to exhaustion. For many years, the
ability to demonstrate military superiority has been a cornerstone of America's global
strategy. Through the Cold War and the fall of communism; conflicts in Panama, the Middle East and the
Balkans; and the current struggle against terrorists all over the world, our strength has been largely a
product of our sustained military and technological advantage. That has come not only
from the superiority of our people in uniform but because we have had the world's most
advanced aerospace systems.
ADI 2010 135
Heg Adv – Aerospace – Solvency - Aerospace

Plan solves-restrictive immigration policies are at fault for high skilled worker shortage
Hamm 9 [Steve, senior writer in BusinessWeek's information technology section, November, “US software talent
shortage looming?,”
http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/blog/globespotting/archives/2006/11/us_software_tal.html ]ADS
So says Wipro Chairman Azim Premji, who repeated the warning during press interviews on a recent swing
through the United States. He says restrictive immigration policies and failings in the US higher
education system are at fault. My sense from talking to US tech companies and corporate IT masters
is that he’s right. In high skill areas, there are talent shortages. And it could get worse.
There’s an irony here. Back in 2003, pundits warned that the global offshoring trend would suck
millions of software and back office jobs out of the US. One effect of those warnings was that many of the
best and brightest US students promptly decided to seek alternative career tracks to software. The number
of computer science degree students dropped off precipitously. US software employment
declined sharply in 2001, in the wake of the dot-com bust, and was still depressed in 2003. But by late in that
year it had begun a strong month over month climb that has continued until today. In fact, software
employment is back up near peak levels. So demand is fairly strong, and supply is weak. No sooner does
one bogeyman go away when another one shows up.
ADI 2010 136
Heg Adv – AT: Spies (1/)

Even if there is a slight risk of espionage and leaks the countries who receive the sensitive
material wont have the ability to bring the weapons systems about, because they don’t have
the key specialized workers necessary to produce these systems
In the modern age of more collaborative science, even U.S. weapons laboratories have to some extent
become globally networked. Roughly 70-75 percent of the research needed to make progress in weapons-
related work is still unclassified, and it is often best developed in part through international collaboration. In
1998 America's Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore, and Sandia Lab-oratories received 6,398 foreign visitors,
including 1,824 visitors from sensitive countries, and the U.S. employees of these labs traveled frequently to
scientific conferences and laboratories abroad.61Is there a danger in such collaborations that U.S.
military R&D discoveries will diffuse internationally? Security pre-cautions notwithstanding,
knowledge of U.S. advancements in military R&D will almost surely spread internationally through
such linkages, but copying and imitation through espionage will not be enough to bring laggard states
all the way up to a full RMA capability.
Copying was at one time a viable option for those trying to catch up with technology leaders. When
Britain developed its new super battleship HMS Dreadnoughtin 1906, it took only three years for Germany to
build its own Nassau-class copy. A scientifically lagging Soviet Union was able (together with the United
States) to borrow and build on German rocketry innovations after World War II, and the initial U.S.
lead in atomic weapons that emerged from that same war proved fleeting as well. The first U.S. fission
weapon deto-nation in 1945 was followed by a Soviet detonation only four years later, and the first U.S.
fusion weapon detonation in 1952 was followed by a Soviet deto-nation just ten months later. Currently, the
risk that U.S. rivals will be able to copy and match leading-edge military technology innovations is
greatly reduced. First, the very few states that might be able to copy and match U.S. IT-based military
innova-tions are not rivals. In the IT sector, one indicator of absorption capacity is den-sity of internet use,
and among the twenty-nine states in the world in 2000 with more than twenty internet hosts per 1,000 people
(the United States had nine times that number), all but four were democracies within the OECD, for-mally or
informally aligned with the United States.62 The only four states above this threshold level of IT density
outside the OECD were Hong Kong, Israel, Singapore, and the United Arab Emirates. Or consider those
states that have demonstrated some scientific prowess by patenting inventions in the United States. About 70
percent of these foreign origin patents were granted to inventors from just four countries-France, Germany,
Japan, and the United Kingdom, all formal U.S. allies. The two most rapidly growing foreign patent applicant
countries are Taiwan and South Korea, two more allied states. Tai-wan and South Korea surpassed Canada in
1998 to become the fifth and sixth most-active sources of foreign inventors patenting in the United States.63
The Cap is increasing fraud in the H-1B system-

Nguyen AND Carafano 8 [Diem, Research Assistant, James, Deputy Director, October 30, “Tackling Fraud in H-
1B: Work Visas Need Sensible Oversight,” http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2008/10/Tackling-Fraud-in-
H-1B-Work-Visas-Need-Sensible-Oversight]ADS
The H-1B visa for highly skilled temporary workers is a very popular program for non-immigrant workers. Workers
participating in the program can work only for a specific sponsoring employer. Terms of employment are limited to
six years. For the past several years, the cap for H-1B visas has been 65,000 a year, and each year USCIS reaches
the cap within days. This low cap is the biggest concern for the H-1B program. Businesses are finding
it difficult to find enough Americans to fill certain jobs and have been leaning on H-1B visas for help. However,
with the low number of available visas, some companies have decided to open their doors in other countries.
Microsoft, for example, has established facilities in Canada and Mexico, finding it easier to bring skilled workers
there than to the United States. Additionally, the low caps may actually be driving an increase in
fraud as more employers and workers compete for the limited number of legitimate visas
available. Though necessary, simply raising the cap will not eliminate fraud.
ADI 2010 137
Heg Adv – AT: Spies (2/)

H-1B visa holders don’t pose a security threat-
Lane 2 [Terry, Staff Writer, FEBRUARY 15, “No Antitrust Exemption Needed for Information Sharing, Clarke
Says,” WASHINGTON INTERNET DAILY Vol.3, No.32]ADS
There are some concerns in industry that participation in information sharing and analysis centers (ISACs) or other
similar programs would be viewed as anticompetitive behavior. However, Clarke said the "narrowly crafted" FOIA
exemptions were the most important policy change that Congress could make to aid cybersecurity. He also said
Microsoft was working on a "highly secure product" as part of its recent focus on software security while the
National Security Agency had developed a secure Linux operating system. He sounded many of the same themes he
did a day earlier in Capitol Hill testimony (WID Feb 14 p1). Clarke said industry would realize it needed to develop
secure systems or people wouldn't adopt new technologies, such as wireless applications. There also is a "major
labor force problem" for cybersecurity, Clarke said. Bruce Schneier, Counterpane Internet Security chief
technology officer, said many cybersecurity issues could be addressed with outsourced personnel. Such outsourced
aid often comes from H-1B visas, which caused one audience member to question possible security risks associated
with foreign citizens' handling U.S. cybersecurity needs. But Clarke said H-1B visa holders didn't
represent a higher security concern than anyone else and cited the recent Robert Hanssen spy case
as an example of the security risks that could be posed by U.S. citizens. A federal govt. scholarship program that
encourages students to study cybersecurity in exchange for govt. service is growing, he said. The program is being
expanded to 16 colleges from the 8 that now participate. Better pay is needed for cybersecurity personnel, Clarke
said, and the govt. needs to have a pay scale that's different from the standard civil service scale. He argued against
the term "cyberterrorism" and said major terrorist organizations hadn't been developing cyberattack capabilities.
"It's not important what the threat is," Clarke said, emphasizing the importance of eliminating vulnerabilities.
Schneier said liability standards for software security should be created and enforced and the involvement of
the insurance industry would help spur software manufacturers to create better software. WorldCom Senior
Vp Vint Cerf said the recently announced vulnerability in Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) wasn't a
problem with the protocol, but with the way it was implemented (WID Feb 13 p7). -- Terry Lane
Fraud claims are false- violations are far and few between AND almost none are intentional
Masters AND Ruthizer [Suzette Brooks, oversees immigration grantmaking at the J. M. Kaplan Fund, Ted, past
president and general counsel of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, March 3, “The H-1B Straitjacket
Why Congress Should Repeal the Cap on Foreign-Born Highly Skilled Workers,” http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbp/tbp-
007.pdf]ADS
Reports of systematic underpayment and fraud in the program are false. From 1991 through
September 1999, only 134 violations were found by the U.S. Department of Labor, and only 7, or fewer than
1 per year, were found to be intentional. The lack of widespread violations confirms that the vast
majority of H-1B workers is being paid the legally required prevailing wage or more,
undercutting charges that they are driving down wages for native workers. Wages are rising fastest and
unemployment rates are lowest in industries in which H-1B workers are most prevalent.
H-1B key to high skilled labor market

Masters AND Ruthizer [Suzette Brooks, oversees immigration grantmaking at the J. M. Kaplan Fund, Ted, past
president and general counsel of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, March 3, “The H-1B Straitjacket
Why Congress Should Repeal the Cap on Foreign-Born Highly Skilled Workers,” http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbp/tbp-
007.pdf]ADS
For almost 50 years the U.S. economy has benefited from the contributions of people admitted with the H-1B
status, which permits qualified foreign national professionals to work for U.S. employers on a temporary basis.1 By
using the H-1B visa, employers have been able to quickly plug holes in their domestic workforce with capable
and often exceptional professionals from abroad in a wide range of fields, including information technology,
finance, medicine, science, education, law, and accounting. Yet, as U.S. employers, large and small alike,
struggle to find enough skilled professionals, particularly in the high-tech sector,2 the H-1B status
is being strangled. Unnecessary and inadequate H-1B quotas have put this vital immigration status in jeopardy and
threaten to undermine the competitiveness of U.S. companies in the global marketplace.
ADI 2010 138
Heg Adv – AT: Unsustainable (1/)

A world without United States unipolairty would create a power vacuum, this is the biggest
impact
Niall Ferguson, July/August 2004. professor of history at Harvard University, senior fellow at the Hoover
Institution at Stanford University. “A World Without Power” Foreign Policy
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/afp/vac.htm
So what is left? Waning empires. Religious revivals. Incipient anarchy. A coming retreat into fortified cities.
These are the Dark Age experiences that a world without a hyperpower might quickly find itself
reliving. The trouble is, of course, that this Dark Age would be an altogether more dangerous one than the
Dark Age of the ninth century. For the world is much more populous—roughly 20 times more—so friction
between the world's disparate “tribes” is bound to be more frequent. Technology has transformed production;
now human societies depend not merely on freshwater and the harvest but also on supplies of fossil fuels that
are known to be finite. Technology has upgraded destruction, too, so it is now possible not just to sack a
city but to obliterate it. For more than two decades, globalization—the integration of world markets for
commodities, labor, and capital—has raised living standards throughout the world, except where countries
have shut themselves off from the process through tyranny or civil war. The reversal of globalization—
which a new Dark Age would produce—would certainly lead to economic stagnation and even
depression. As the United States sought to protect itself after a second September 11 devastates, say,
Houston or Chicago, it would inevitably become a less open society, less hospitable for foreigners seeking to
work, visit, or do business. Meanwhile, as Europe's Muslim enclaves grew, Islamist extremists' infiltration of
the EU would become irreversible, increasing trans-Atlantic tensions over the Middle East to the breaking
point. An economic meltdown in China would plunge the Communist system into crisis, unleashing the
centrifugal forces that undermined previous Chinese empires. Western investors would lose out and conclude
that lower returns at home are preferable to the risks of default abroad. The worst effects of the new Dark
Age would be felt on the edges of the waning great powers. The wealthiest ports of the global economy—
from New York to Rotterdam to Shanghai—would become the targets of plunderers and pirates. With ease,
terrorists could disrupt the freedom of the seas, targeting oil tankers, aircraft carriers, and cruise liners, while
Western nations frantically concentrated on making their airports secure. Meanwhile, limited nuclear wars
could devastate numerous regions, beginning in the Korean peninsula and Kashmir, perhaps ending
catastrophically in the Middle East. In Latin America, wretchedly poor citizens would seek solace in
Evangelical Christianity imported by U.S. religious orders. In Africa, the great plagues of AIDS and
malaria would continue their deadly work. The few remaining solvent airlines would simply suspend
services to many cities in these continents; who would wish to leave their privately guarded safe havens to go
there? For all these reasons, the prospect of an apolar world should frighten us today a great deal more
than it frightened the heirs of Charlemagne. If the United States retreats from global hegemony—its
fragile self-image dented by minor setbacks on the imperial frontier—its critics at home and abroad
must not pretend that they are ushering in a new era of multipolar harmony, or even a return to the
good old balance of power. Be careful what you wish for. The alternative to unipolarity would not be
multipolarity at all. It would be apolarity—a global vacuum of power. And far more dangerous forces
than rival great powers would benefit from such a not-so-new world disorder.
ADI 2010 139
Heg Adv – AT: Unsustainable (2/)

US heg sustainable – multiple reasons
Slaughter 9 (Anne-Marie, of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton, Foreign
Affairs, January- February 2009, “America's Edge Subtitle: Power in the Networked Century,” p. 94)
Almost 30 years ago, the psychologist Carol Gilligan wrote about differences between the genders in their
modes of thinking. She observed that men tend to see the world as made up of hierarchies of power and seek
to get to the top, whereas women tend to see the world as containing webs of relationships and seek to move
to the center. Gilligan's observations may be a function of nurture rather than nature; regardless, the two
lenses she identified capture the differences between the twentieth-century and the twenty-first-century
worlds. The twentieth-century world was, at least in terms of geopolitics, a billiard-ball world, described by
the political scientist Arnold Wolfers as a system of self-contained states colliding with one another. The
results of these collisions were determined by military and economic power. This world still exists today:
Russia invades Georgia, Iran seeks nuclear weapons, the United States strengthens its ties with India as a
hedge against a rising China. This is what Fareed Zakaria, the editor of Newsweek International, has dubbed
"the post-American world," in which the rise of new global powers inevitably means the relative decline of
U.S. influence. The emerging networked world of the twenty-first century, however, exists above the state,
below the state, and through the state. In this world, the state with the most connections will be the central
player, able to set the global agenda and unlock innovation and sustainable growth. Here, the United States
has a clear and sustainable edge. THE HORIZON OF HOPE The United States' advantage is rooted in
demography, geography, and culture. The United States has a relatively small population, only 20-30
percent of the size of China's or India's. Having fewer people will make it much easier for the United
States to develop and profit from new energy technologies. At the same time, the heterogeneity of the
U.S. population will allow Washington to extend its global reach. To this end, the United States should
see its immigrants as living links back to their home countries and encourage a two-way flow of people,
products, and ideas. The United States is the anchor of the Atlantic hemisphere, a broadly defined area
that includes Africa, the Americas, and Europe. The leading countries in the Atlantic hemisphere are
more peaceful, stable, and economically diversified than those in the Asian hemisphere. At the same
time, however, the United States is a pivotal power, able to profit simultaneously from its position in the
Atlantic hemisphere and from its deep ties to the Asian hemisphere. The Atlantic and Pacific Oceans
have long protected the United States from invasion and political interference. Soon, they will shield it from
conflicts brought about by climate change, just as they are already reducing the amount of pollutants that
head its way. The United States has a relatively horizontal social structure -- albeit one that has become
more hierarchical with the growth of income inequality -- as well as a culture of entrepreneurship and
innovation. These traits are great advantages in a global economy increasingly driven by networked
clusters of the world's most creative people. On January 20, 2009, Barack Obama will set about restoring
the moral authority of the United States. The networked world provides a hopeful horizon. In this
world, with the right policies, immigrants can be a source of jobs rather than a drain on resources, able to link
their new home with markets and suppliers in their old homes. Businesses in the United States can
orchestrate global networks of producers and suppliers. Consumers can buy locally, from revived local
agricultural and customized small-business economies, and at the same time globally, from anywhere that
can advertise online. The United States has the potential to be the most innovative and dynamic society
anywhere in the world.

H-1B Cap Aff - Frappier Russell

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

H-1B Cap Aff - Frappier Russell

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

ADI 2010 1

Frap/Russell H-1B Aff

Heg Adv – AT: Unsustainable

1AC – Economy (1/)

Increasing skilled workers is key to economic success

The H-1B visa is key to increasing skilled labor at no expense to US jobs

1AC – Economy (2/)

1AC – Economy (3/)

Economic collapse causes nuclear war

1AC – Science Diplomacy (1/)

1AC – Science Diplomacy (2/)

1AC – Science Diplomacy (3/)

1AC – Science Diplomacy (4/)

1AC – Heg (1/)

Specialized workers are key to dominant military innovations

1AC – Heg (2/)

1AC – Heg (3/)

1AC – Heg (4/)

Chinese economic growth leads to war over Taiwan

1AC – Heg (5/)

Economy Adv – U – On the Brink (1/)

Risks to global economy have 'risen significantly'

Economy Adv – U – On the Brink (2/)

Economy Adv – U – Double Dip (1/)

Economy Adv – U – Double Dip (2/)

Economy Adv – U – Double Dip (3/)

Economy Adv – U – Double Dip (4/)

Economy Adv – Growth – Link

Economy Adv – Growth – Key to International Business

Economy Adv – Small Business – Key to Economy

In order for the economy to recover we need stronger small businesses.

Economy Adv – Wages – Link (1/)

Immigrants increase American workers wages.

Economy Adv – Wages – Link (2/)

Economy Adv – AT: Depress Wages

Not enough H-1B visa recipients to decrease national wages.

Economy Adv – Competitiveness – Link

Economy Adv – Labor Shortages – Link (1/)

The H-1B visa is key to U.S. labor markets

Economy Adv – Labor Shortages – Link (2/)

Each visa creates 5 jobs

Economy Adv – Labor Shortages – Key to Economy

Slow job creation is preventing consumer recovery.

Consumer spending key to economy recovery

Economy Adv – Labor Shortages – AT: Job Loss (1/)

Economy Adv – Labor Shortages – AT: Job Loss (2/)

Economy Adv – Labor Shortages – AT: Temporary Job Loss

Economy Adv – Outsourcing – Link (1/)

H-1B limits causes companies to offshore which damages the economy.

Economy Adv – Outsourcing – Link (2/)

H-1B limits specifically causes the IT industry to offshore.

Economy Adv – Financial Sector – Link (1/)

Economy Adv – Financial Sector – Link (2/)

Economy Adv – Financial Sector – Key to Economy (1/)

The financial sector is key to economic growth

Economy Adv – Financial Sector – Key to Economy (2/)

Economy Adv – Outsourcing – Kills Economy

Economy Adv – Market Investment – Link

Skilled immigrants are key to progressive U.S. business labor forces

Economy Adv – Market Investment – Key to Economy

Economy Adv – IT Sector – Shortages Now

Economy Adv – IT Sector – Link

Furthermore, increasing standardization of the IT sector makes H-1B workers uniquely