Tournament: Pre-Barkley Forum Disclosure | Round: 1 | Opponent: All Opponents | Judge:
See Woodward Burgess/Kailar for cites.

Tournament: Barkley Forum | Round: 1 | Opponent: Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart RG | Judge: Rob Mulholand

1AC

1AC — Plan

As part of the U.S.-Mexico High Level Economic Dialogue, the United States federal government should offer to facilitate improved efficiency and reduced congestion at Land Ports of Entry along the U.S.-Mexico border.

1AC — Manufacturing Advantage

Advantage One: Manufacturing

First, congestion at the U.S.-Mexico border hamstrings bilateral trade — infrastructure is antiquated.

Farnsworth 1/15 — Eric Farnsworth, Vice President of the Council of the Americas and Americas Society, formerly served in the White House Office of the Special Envoy for the Americas and the U.S. Department of State, holds an M.P.A. from the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University, 2014 ("NAFTA at Twenty: Accomplishments, Challenges, and the Way Forward," Testimony Before The Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere of the Committee on Foreign Affairs in the U.S. House of Representatives, January 15^th, Available Online at http://docs.house.gov/meetings/FA/FA07/20140115/101650/HHRG-113-FA07-Wstate-FarnsworthE-20140115.pdf, Accessed 01-16-2014, p. 3-4)
But the World has Changed in the Past 20 Years, and NAFTA has Become Dated
Since then, however, the world has changed dramatically, and NAFTA is now showing its age. It should therefore be modernized as a means to promote a joint vision of true North American competitiveness. Otherwise, NAFTA could potentially become an agreement that actually sets a virtual limit on North American trade relations rather than a powerful tool to unlock them to their fullest potential.
Three trends must be highlighted.
First, production models have changed. Canada, Mexico, and the United States
AND
in time to compete more effectively with China, India, and others.
Second, consider that in 1994, there was barely an internet, much less
AND
the agreement is a 20th century trade platform undergirding our 21st century economies.
Third, there is a noticeable change in trade patterns within North America demarcated by
AND
undergirded by a 20th century trade framework, are utilizing 19th century infrastructure.
As trade increases, this picture will continue to get worse. 

Second, the plan effectively creates a 21^st century U.S.-Mexico border. The framework already exists but bilateral engagement is key to economic health and the manufacturing sector.

Wilson 12/9 — Christopher E. Wilson, Associate at the Mexico Institute of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, previously served as a Mexico Analyst for the U.S. Military and as a researcher at American University’s Center for North American Studies, holds an M.A. in International Affairs from American University, 2013 ("Improving Security and Facilitating Commerce With Mexico At America’s Southern Border," Testimony Before The Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere of the Committee on Foreign Affairs in the U.S. House of Representatives, December 9^th, Available Online at http://docs.house.gov/meetings/FA/FA07/20131209/101563/HHRG-113-FA07-Wstate-WilsonC-20131209.pdf, Accessed 01-16-2014, p. 2-4)
In my judgement, the framework for border management currently in place is strong.
AND
environmental sustainability and the quality of life of residents of the border region.
It is within this framework, then, that there exists the opportunity to realize the full potential of a U.S.-Mexico partnership for a secure and competitive border.
While significant progress has been made towards this goal, I will outline a few important remaining challenges that the Subcommittee may wish to consider.
• Setting goals: Over the past year, Congress has devoted significant attention to
AND
the design of any wait-time goals must take this into consideration.
• Measuring progress: Data on wait times needs to be made more reliable in order to better diagnose the costs of border inefficiency and to benchmark progress on making border wait times shorter and more predictable. New methodologies, mainly based on RFID chips and Bluetooth devices, can

Tournament: Barkley Forum | Round: 5 | Opponent: Johns Creek DB | Judge: Ryan Conn

1AC

1AC — Plan

As part of the U.S.-Mexico High Level Economic Dialogue, the United States federal government should offer to facilitate improved efficiency and reduced congestion at Land Ports of Entry along the U.S.-Mexico border.

1AC — Manufacturing Advantage

Advantage One: Manufacturing

First, congestion at the U.S.-Mexico border hamstrings bilateral trade — infrastructure is antiquated.

Farnsworth 1/15 — Eric Farnsworth, Vice President of the Council of the Americas and Americas Society, formerly served in the White House Office of the Special Envoy for the Americas and the U.S. Department of State, holds an M.P.A. from the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University, 2014 ("NAFTA at Twenty: Accomplishments, Challenges, and the Way Forward," Testimony Before The Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere of the Committee on Foreign Affairs in the U.S. House of Representatives, January 15^th, Available Online at http://docs.house.gov/meetings/FA/FA07/20140115/101650/HHRG-113-FA07-Wstate-FarnsworthE-20140115.pdf, Accessed 01-16-2014, p. 3-4)
But the World has Changed in the Past 20 Years, and NAFTA has Become Dated
Since then, however, the world has changed dramatically, and NAFTA is now showing its age. It should therefore be modernized as a means to promote a joint vision of true North American competitiveness. Otherwise, NAFTA could potentially become an agreement that actually sets a virtual limit on North American trade relations rather than a powerful tool to unlock them to their fullest potential.
Three trends must be highlighted.
First, production models have changed. Canada, Mexico, and the United States
AND
in time to compete more effectively with China, India, and others.
Second, consider that in 1994, there was barely an internet, much less
AND
the agreement is a 20th century trade platform undergirding our 21st century economies.
Third, there is a noticeable change in trade patterns within North America demarcated by
AND
undergirded by a 20th century trade framework, are utilizing 19th century infrastructure.
As trade increases, this picture will continue to get worse. 

Second, the plan effectively creates a 21^st century U.S.-Mexico border. The framework already exists but bilateral engagement is key to economic health and the manufacturing sector.

Wilson 12/9 — Christopher E. Wilson, Associate at the Mexico Institute of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, previously served as a Mexico Analyst for the U.S. Military and as a researcher at American University’s Center for North American Studies, holds an M.A. in International Affairs from American University, 2013 ("Improving Security and Facilitating Commerce With Mexico At America’s Southern Border," Testimony Before The Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere of the Committee on Foreign Affairs in the U.S. House of Representatives, December 9^th, Available Online at http://docs.house.gov/meetings/FA/FA07/20131209/101563/HHRG-113-FA07-Wstate-WilsonC-20131209.pdf, Accessed 01-16-2014, p. 2-4)
In my judgement, the framework for border management currently in place is strong.
AND
environmental sustainability and the quality of life of residents of the border region.
It is within this framework, then, that there exists the opportunity to realize the full potential of a U.S.-Mexico partnership for a secure and competitive border.
While significant progress has been made towards this goal, I will outline a few important remaining challenges that the Subcommittee may wish to consider.
• Setting goals: Over the past year, Congress has devoted significant attention to
AND
the design of any wait-time goals must take this into consideration.
• Measuring progress: Data on wait times needs to be made more reliable in order to better diagnose the costs of border inefficiency and to benchmark progress on making border wait times shorter and more predictable. New methodologies, mainly based on RFID chips and Bluetooth devices, can resolve current issues in measuring wait times, and progress is being made toward this end.
• Infrastructure: Most cross-border infrastructure was built years before NAFTA fundamentally altered the nature of the US-Mexico economic relationship, increasing the volume of traffic and magnifying the importance of connectedness. Investments are needed to update and expand port-of-entry infrastructure.
• Staffing: Infrastructure can only be fully utilized if the ports-of-
AND
would create thirty-three American jobs.2 ~end page 3~
• Trusted traveler programs: Trusted traveler programs—Global Entry, SENTRI, FAST
AND
effective way to reduce congestion and boost U.S.-Mexico trade.
• Public Private Partnerships: Public Private Partnerships and other non-traditional funding mechanisms to build and staff cross-border infrastructure can complement and leverage government investments. Some example of such projects exist along the southern border and new pilot projects are underway. At some point, though, additional legislative action will likely be needed to create a clear and permanent legal framework defining and regulating the role of private (and subnational government) investment in border infrastructure and management.
• Cooperation with Mexico: Last, and extremely importantly, border crossings are,
AND
, confidence-building, and capacity-building efforts are all needed.
In conclusion, there is a strong opportunity to create jobs, economic growth, and increase the competitiveness of North American manufacturers through improved border management. Moderate investments in border infrastructure and staffing are needed, but much can also be done by improving efficiency and U.S.-Mexico cooperation at the border. The payoffs for each of these actions would be considerable. 

Third, strong American manufacturing is vital to economic growth, competitiveness, and innovation.

Ezell 12 — Stephen Ezell, Senior Analyst with the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation
AND
Online to Subscribing Institutions via Project MUSE, p. 179-183)
Why Manufacturing Matters to the U.S. Economy
A robust manufacturing sector is indispensable to the health of the U.S. economy for at least four critical reasons:4 ~End Page 179~
•    Manufacturing produces economies of scale and productivity gains that spill over to other industries, in part because manufacturing is the principal source of research and development (R26D) and innovation activity in the U.S. economy.
•    Manufacturing is a key source of high-paying jobs and a driver of employment growth.
•    The contributions made by the manufacturing sector are essential to enabling the United States to balance its terms of trade.
•    Most importantly, manufacturing is the key source of an economy’s traded sector strength. The macro economy will face stiff headwinds in its efforts to grow if it lacks a healthy manufacturing sector.
Those who argue that manufacturing is no more important to the economy than any other
AND
largest multiplier of any sector of the U.S. economy.7
One reason manufacturing produces such high spillover effects is that it is the principal source
AND
States can’t have a robust service sector without complementary, healthy manufacturing industries.
Manufacturing is also vitally important to the U.S. economy because it not
AND
tech manufacturing industries, like semiconductor manufacturing, have even higher employment multipliers.
Manufacturing’s contributions will also be indispensable if the United States is to balance its trade
AND
goods will be necessary, but not sufficient to close the trade deficit.
The central reason why manufacturing matters, however, is that it is the key
AND
or personal services do not, their success is by no means assured.
For example, while we may not know whether Safeway, Giant, or Walmart
AND
if the auto plant closes, the Walmart likely will close as well.
Therefore, every time a country loses traded sector industries or enterprises, those losses
AND
figure that is very close to the number of unemployed Americans today.22
While conventional wisdom has held that U.S. manufacturing job loss is simply
AND
others supported by better national competitiveness strategies than our own—declined significantly.
Thus, the international competitiveness of U.S. traded sector enterprises, particularly
AND
has introduced similar legislation (S. 751) in the Senate.25

Fourth, economic growth is crucial to address all global challenges — the impact is linear. ?

Silk 93 — Leonard Silk, Distinguished Professor of Economics at Pace University, Senior Research Fellow at the Ralph Bunche Institute on the United Nations at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York, and former Economics Columnist with the New York Times, 1993 ("Dangers of Slow Growth," Foreign Affairs, Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via Lexis-Nexis)
Like the Great Depression, the current economic slump has fanned the firs of nationalist, ethnic and religious hatred around the world.  Economic hardship is not the only cause of these social and political pathologies, but it aggravates all of them, and in turn they feed back on economic development.  They also undermine efforts to deal with such global problems as environmental pollution, the production and trafficking of drugs, crime, sickness, famine, AIDS and other plagues.
Growth will not solve all those problems by itself.  But economic growth – and growth alone – creates the additional resources that make it possible to achieve such fundamental goals as higher living standards, national and collective security, a healthier environment, and more liberal and open economies and societies.

Fifth, innovation is vital to maintain the defense industrial base and U.S. technological leadership.

Yudken 10 — Joel S. Yudken, Principal and Founder of High Road Strategies, LLC—a nationally known expert on industrial, energy, economic development, and technology policy issues, Sectoral Economist and Technology Policy Analyst in the Public Policy Department of the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, former member of the National Research Council’s Board on Manufacturing and Engineering Design, holds an M.S. in Engineering-Economic Systems and a Ph.D. in Technology and Society from Stanford University, 2010 ("Conclusion," Manufacturing Insecurity: America’s Manufacturing Crisis and the Erosion of the U.S. Defense Industrial Base, Report Prepared for the Industrial Union Council of the AFL-CIO, September, Available Online at http://www.aflcio.org/content/download/3665/38375/manuffull_092010.pdf, Accessed 09-01-2013)
The erosion and overseas migration of domestic manufacturing is also weakening America’s R26D
AND
, and embodied in those displaced workers, is being lost as well.

Sixth, a strong defense industrial base is necessary to deter global conflict.

Eaglen and Sayers 9 — Mackenzie Eaglen, Research Fellow for National Security Studies at The Heritage Foundation, served as the Principal Defense Adviser to Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), former Presidential Management Fellow at the United States Department of Defense, holds an M.A. from the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, and Eric Sayers, Research Assistant for National Security Policy at the Heritage Foundation, holds a M.Sc. in Strategic Studies from the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies and an M.A. in Political Science from The University of Western Ontario, 2009 ("Maintaining the Superiority of America’s Defense Industrial Base," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder ~232276, May 22^nd, Available Online at http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/05/maintaining-the-superiority-of-americas-defense-industrial-base, Accessed 09-01-2013)
America’s military strength remains vital to preserving the nation’s interests and sustaining international stability. While much of this strength is derived from the professionalism and skills of America’s armed forces, the technologically superior military platforms that the U.S. has developed and fielded since World War II are also vital to ensuring a superior fighting force.
In both peace and war, America’s defense manufacturing industrial base has allowed the United States to design and build an advanced array of weapons systems and platforms to meet the full spectrum of potential missions the military may be called upon to fulfill. Securing America’s military dominance for the decades ahead will require:

• An industrial base that can retain a highly skilled workforce with critical skill sets and
• Sustained investment in platforms that offer future commanders and civilian leaders a vital set of core military capabilities and equipment to respond to any threat.
  America’s military may also benefit from a more open international defense market. A 2005
  AND
  support increased foreign military sales to help complement America’s domestic defense industrial base.
  Following the sweeping procurement changes proposed by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates in President Barack Obama’s fiscal year (FY) 2010 defense budget, the decisions awaiting congressional review will directly affect America’s defense industrial base for years to come. These funding decisions about what the military will and will not buy are a primary factor in determining whether America will retain its military primacy a decade from now.
  The critical workforce ingredients in sustaining an industrial base capable of building next-generation systems are specialized design, engineering, and manufacturing skills. The consolidation of the defense industry during the 1990s has placed an increased burden on a small collection of defense companies, and the consolidation of major defense contractors has led to a general reduction in the number of available workers.
  Already at a turning point, the potential closure of major defense manufacturing lines in
  AND
  difficult to recruit back and more expensive to retrain with significant project gaps.
  Given the inherently unpredictable nature of the international security system, Congress must take a long-term perspective for defense planning. More specifically, Congress should closely examine the national security implications of the pending closure of several major production lines, including the F-22 Raptor, C-17 Globemaster III, F/A-18E/F, F-15E Strike Eagle, High Mobility Artillery Rocket System, Airborne Laser, and various rotary-wing programs when crafting the annual defense bills for FY 2010.
  The Foundation of American Military Strength
  Since World War II, the United States has benefited from the skills of a
  AND
  conflict and to reduce risk and the loss of life on the battlefield.
  The ability to maintain America’s military technological edge reflects the superior efficiency of America’s defense
  AND
  -shooter targeting connectivity, and all-weather guided munitions.~2~
  While technology alone has not assured American military superiority, the defense industry has nevertheless
  AND
  and Marine to remain adequately prepared for a full spectrum of potential operations.

Seventh, technological leadership is key to sustain overall U.S. leadership—theoretical models and 500 years of history.

Drezner 1 — Daniel Drezner, Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of
AND
to Subscribing Institutions via Cambridge Journals Online, p. 3-5)
The importance of economic growth to state power is undisputed by international relations scholars.
AND
on the state’s role in fostering technological leadership. ~end page 3~
The relationship between innovation and the nation-state has been discussed in international relations
AND
from the study of economic issues, focusing more on security policies.5
In this decade, proponents of globalization argue that because information and capital are mobile
AND
from one country to another.8 The location of innovation still matters.
Long-cycle theorists have paid the most attention to the link between technological innovation
AND
stability, it cannot explain why technological hegemons lose their lead over time. 

Eighth, U.S. leadership is the lynchpin of global stability — withdrawal opens a power vacuum that spurs conflict.

Goure 13 — Daniel Goure, President of The Lexington Institute—a nonprofit public-policy research organization, Adjunct Professor in Graduate Programs at the Center for Peace and Security Studies at Georgetown University, Adjunct Professor at the National Defense University, former Deputy Director of the International Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, has consulted for the Departments of State, Defense and Energy, has taught or lectured at the Johns Hopkins University, the Foreign Service Institute, the National War College, the Naval War College, the Air War College, and the Inter-American Defense College, holds Masters and Ph.D. degrees in International Relations and Russian Studies from Johns Hopkins University, 2013 ("How U.S. Military Power Holds the World Together," inFocus Quarterly—the Jewish Policy Center’s journal, Volume VII, Number 2, Summer, Available Online at http://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/4397/us-military-power, Accessed 08-17-2013)
The Centrality of U.S. Power
There are three fundamental problems with the argument in favor of abandoning America’s security role
AND
world order has "Made in the USA" written all over it.
The international system is not a game of Jenga where the worst thing that can happen is that one’s tower collapses. Start taking away the fundamental building blocks of the international order, particularly American military power, and the results are all but certain to be major instability, increased conflict rates, rapid proliferation of nuclear weapons, economic dislocation and, ultimately, serious and growing threats to security at home.

Finally, U.S. hegemony ensures global peace — there’s no replacement.

Thayer 13 — Bradley A. Thayer, Tenured Professor and Head of the Department
AND
3, September, Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via Wiley Online Library)
The Importance of the System and the Distribution of Power
Pinker adopts a unit level approach to his study, and so the influence of
AND
the system in promoting and, after World War II, suppressing violence.
Accordingly, while Pinker is sensitive to the importance of power in a domestic context
AND
Leviathan and has four major positive consequences for international politics (Thayer 2006).
In addition to ensuring the security of the United States and its allies, American
AND
does reduce war’s likelihood—particularly the worst form—great power wars.
Second, American power gives the United States the ability to spread democracy and many
AND
more likely to want to resolve things amicably in concurrence with US leadership.
Third, along with the growth of the number of democratic states around the world has been the growth of the global economy. With its allies, the United States has labored to create an economically liberal worldwide network characterized by free trade and commerce, respect for international property rights, mobility of capital, and labor markets. The economic stability and prosperity that stems from this economic order is a global public good.
Fourth, and finally, the United States has been willing to use its power
AND
the world’s police, the global paramedic, and the planet’s fire department.
There is no other state, group of states, or international organizations that can
AND
of relative power changes and not to the benefit of the United States.

1AC — Politics Contention

Contention Two: Politics

First, there are no prior questions — policy action is needed in specific situations despite uncertainty.

Kratochwil 9 — Friedrich Kratochwil, Chair of International Relations at the European University Institute, holds an M.A. in International Relations from Georgetown University and a Ph.D. in Politics from Princeton University, 2009 ("Ten points to ponder about pragmatism: some critical reflections on knowledge generation in the social sciences," Pragmatism in International Relations, Edited by Harry Bauer and Elisabetta Brighi, Published by Routledge, ISBN 9780203885093, p. 20-21)
First, a pragmatic approach does not begin with objects or ’things’ (ontology
AND
an ’observer’–or relying on optimal strategies – is somewhat heroic.
These points have been made vividly by ’realists’ such as Clausewitz in his controversy
AND
knowledge. A pragmatist orientation would most certainly not endorse such a position.
Second, since acting in the social world often involves acting ’for’ someone,
AND
. Besides, ’timing’ seems to be quite recalcitrant to analytical treatment. 

Second, debating about foreign policy is vital to student engagement — policy analysis is key.

Van de Velde 13 — Jacqueline Van de Velde, senior International Affairs and English major at the University of Georgia, Campus Network Senior Fellow for Defense and Diplomacy at the Roosevelt Institute, 2013 ("Obama Can’t Avoid Foreign Policy Focus, and Neither Should Young People," Next New Deal—the Roosevelt Institute’s blog, September 9^th, Available Online at http://www.nextnewdeal.net/millennial-pulse/obama-cant-avoid-foreign-policy-focus-and-neither-should-young-people-http://www.nextnewdeal.net/millennial-pulse/obama-cant-avoid-foreign-policy-focus-and-neither-should-young-people, Accessed 09-20-2013)
But if my work this summer was any indication, our most pressing job over
AND
in: one genuinely interested in bettering the world for all global citizens.
Foreign policy is a complicated field with policy issues that are immense and difficult,
AND
of behemoth problems, then eventually, that problem won’t be so immense.
On foreign policy, perhaps more than any other policy area, young Americans must
AND
we are about producing quality policy analysis. So, let’s get started.

Third, policy analysis is valuable even though policymakers aren’t listening — debating about policy ideas is good.

Shulock 99 — Nancy Shulock, Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs and Assistant Professor of Public Policy and Administration at California State University-Sacramento, holds a Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of California-Davis, 1999 ("The Paradox of Policy Analysis: If It Is Not Used, Why Do We Produce So Much of It?," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Volume 18, Number 2, Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via Wiley InterScience, p. 240-241)
The critiques and accompanying prescriptions for a reinvented policy analysis place heavy new demands on
AND
Perhaps it is more likely that attitudes valuing traditional analysis will simply resurface.
In my view, none of these radical changes is necessary. As interesting as
AND
order for ideas from policy analysis to resonate through the policy environment.10
Certainly there is room to make our politics more inclusive. But those critics who
AND
their clients, we would not worry that clients get only one perspective.
Policy analysis is used, far more extensively than is commonly believed. Its use
AND
, can reshape the policy landscape. Policy analysis can supply the ideas.

Fourth, reject arguments founded on suspicion about politics. Radical critiques make efforts to create a better future impossible — the impact is anti-politics.

Berman 1 — Paul Schiff Berman, Associate Professor at the University of Connecticut School of Law, 2001 ("Approaches To The Cultural Study Of Law: Telling A Less Suspicious Story: Notes Toward A Non-Skeptical Approach To Legal/Cultural Analysis," Yale Journal of Law 26 the Humanities (13 Yale J.L. 26 Human. 95), Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via Lexis-Nexis)
The second drawback of the hermeneutics of suspicion is perhaps even more important. As
AND
not mean to imply that any actual scholars necessarily display such paranoid logic.
Critics of the hermeneutics of suspicion describe the "paranoid style of functioning" 104 as "an intense, sharply perceptive but narrowly focused mode of attention" that results in an attitude of "elaborate suspiciousness." 105 Paranoid individuals constantly strive to demystify appearances; they take nothing at face value because "they regard reality as an obscure dimension hidden from casual observation or participation." 106 On this vision,
The obvious is regarded as misleading and as something to be seen through. So, the paranoid style sees the world as constructed of a web of hints to hidden meaning... . The way in which the paranoid protects fragile autonomy is by insuring, or at least insisting, that the paranoid’s interpretation of events is the interpretation. 107
Such a paranoid style may, over time, have a potentially corrosive effect on
AND
individuals are shown to be responses to psychological neurosis, or social pathology.
All of these are exaggerations, but they increasingly represent the rhetoric that is used to describe human interaction both in contemporary society and in the past. As Richard Rorty describes,
In this vision, the two-hundred-year history of the United States
AND
be replaced, as soon as possible, by something utterly different. 110
If that is one’s viewpoint, it will inevitably be difficult to muster one’s energy
AND
law, a treaty, a candidate, or a political strategy." 111
Of course, one might view this as a positive development. One might think people should stop being lulled into a false sense of believing that the rhetoric of public life really matters. If people began to view such rhetoric as a construction of entrenched power, so the argument might go, they would form the nucleus of a truly revolutionary political movement.
I doubt that such an eventuality is likely to occur. Moreover, I am not sure that a culture of suspiciousness is the most effective way to seek political (or personal) change anyway. Suspicious analysis seeks to expose the dangers of our enchantment with reason or truth or collectivity, but there are dangers that arise from relentless disenchantment as well. As  ~*123~  Richard K. Sherwin has observed,
Without the means of experiencing more profound enchantments, without communal rituals and social dramas
AND
, social, and legal realities they help to construct and maintain. 112
If all we have is relentless suspicion, we are unlikely to be inspired to
AND
agents who need to act in the world cannot afford to maintain. 113

Finally, anti-politics prevents effective resolution of all national and global challenges and opens the door to authoritarianism. Debate should be oriented toward political problem-solving, not radical critique.

Boggs 97 — Carl Boggs, 1997 ("The great retreat: Decline of the public sphere in late twentieth-century America," Theory 26 Society, Volume 26, Issue 6, December, Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via SpingerLink, p. 773-775)
Political malaise and global challenge
The decline of the public sphere in late twentieth-century America poses a series
AND
expression of struggles to combat and overcome alienation. ~end page 773~
The false sense of empowerment that comes with such mesmerizing impulses is accompanied by a
AND
of political power that will continue to decide the fate of human societies.
This last point demands further elaboration. The shrinkage of politics hardly means that corporate
AND
interests that had vanished from civil society.75 ~end page 774~
The historic goal of recovering politics in the Aristotelian sense, therefore, suggests nothing
AND
it precisely devalues those very types of information, skills, and attitudes.

Tournament: St Marks Sophomore Hoedown | Round: 2 | Opponent: Westminster CH | Judge: Sawyer Varney

1AC — Plan

As part of the U.S.-Mexico High Level Economic Dialogue, the United States federal government should offer to facilitate improved efficiency and reduced congestion at ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexico border.

1AC — U.S. Global Leadership Advantage

Advantage One: U.S. Global Leadership

First, inefficiency and congestion at U.S.-Mexico ports of entry cost are decimating regional competitiveness — the status quo hamstrings trade.

Wilson 9/13 — Christopher E. Wilson, Associate at the Mexico Institute of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, previously served as a Mexico Analyst for the U.S. Military and as a researcher at American University’s Center for North American Studies, holds an M.A. in International Affairs from American University, 2013 ("Ad-Hoc Hearing: Redefining Border Security: Border Communities Demand to be Heard in the Comprehensive Immigration Debate," Congressional Testimony, September 13^th, Available Online at http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/Border20Trade20Testimony_0.pdf, Accessed 09-23-2013)
Creating a Secure and Competitive Border
The infrastructure and capacity of the ports of entry to process goods and individuals entering
AND
of the region and of the United States and Mexico in their entirety.
Several studies have attempted to quantify the costs of border area congestion to the economies
AND
.S. GDP and would create thirty-three American jobs.1
Given the importance of our nation’s security and economic needs, solutions are needed that
AND
maximize existing resources, improving throughput and reducing congestion, are also needed.
For the past two decades, border security efforts along the U.S.-
AND
and efficiency needs of the official ports of entry could exacerbate this issue.

Second, an efficient border is vital to sustain millions of jobs — each minute of added wait time costs 24166 million.

O’Rourke 9/18 — Beto O’Rourke, Member of the United States House of Representatives (D-TX), 2013 ("Interview: Rep. Beto O’Rourke on How to Build Jobs at the U.S.-Mexico Border," Americas Society / Council of the Americas, September 18^th, Available Online at http://www.as-coa.org/articles/interview-rep-beto-orourke-how-build-jobs-us-mexico-border, Accessed 09-23-2013)
AS/COA: At our conference last month, you expressed concern with perceptions that identify the U.S.-Mexico border as a security threat rather than as an economic opportunity.  Why should your colleagues from non-border districts care about facilitating cross-border trade?
Representative Beto O’Rourke: Members of Congress who don’t live close to the U.S.-Mexico border have a vested interest in the success of the border and helping to facilitate a healthy border because it will mean more jobs in their districts. Even more importantly, it will also mean that they won’t lose the jobs that they have now that are dependent on U.S.-Mexico trade and commerce.
The estimate is that there are about 6 million U.S. jobs that
AND
of entry, but I don’t expect them to act in our interests.
So the appeal to that member from Illinois is that there are more than 250
AND
people, goods, and commerce through our ports of entry with Mexico. 

Third, shortfalls disincentivize production sharing — devastating overall regional competitiveness.

Wilson 11 — Christopher E. Wilson, Associate at the Mexico Institute of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, previously served as a Mexico Analyst for the U.S. Military and as a researcher at American University’s Center for North American Studies, holds an M.A. in International Affairs from American University, 2011 ("Introduction," Working Together: Economic Ties Between The United States and Mexico, Published by the Mexico Institute of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, ISBN 1933549742, Available Online at http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/Working20Together20Full20Document.pdf, Accessed 09-01-2013, p. 5-8)
U.S.-Mexico economic integration boomed in the 1980s and 1990s as Mexico
AND
investment among the three North American countries, making the economies profoundly interdependent.
Outside of North America, the largest challenge to U.S.-Mexico integration
AND
and materials used to make products that are sold to the United States.
In order to protect the U.S. jobs that depend on supplying Mexican manufacturers, it is important that businesses and policymakers work to improve the competitiveness of U.S.-Mexico supply chains. Businesses might also look for ways to take advantage of Mexico’s 12 free trade agreements with 44 countries to increase jointly produced exports to the rest of the world.
Within the region, another set of challenges has emerged in the new millennium.
AND
vis other economic regions such as Europe or East and Southeast Asia.21
Many argue the border has become more difficult and costly to cross as a result
AND
new border crossings in 2010, two in Texas and one in Arizona.
There is no doubt that the economies of the United States and Mexico are facing
AND
a vision of the United States and Mexico as partners rather than competitors.

Fourth, the plan solves by improving efficiency and reducing congestion.

Lee and Wilson 12 — Erik Lee, Associate Director at the North American Center for Transborder Studies at Arizona State University, former assistant director at the Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies at the University of California-San Diego, holds an M.A. in Latin American Studies from the University of California-San Diego, and Christopher E. Wilson, Associate at the Mexico Institute of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, previously served as a Mexico Analyst for the U.S. Military and as a researcher at American University’s Center for North American Studies, holds an M.A. in International Affairs from American University, 2012 ("The State of Trade, Competitiveness and Economic Wellbeing in the U.S.-Mexico Border Region," Working Paper of the Border Research Partnership—comprised of Arizona State University’s North American Center for Transborder Studies, the Colegio de la Frontera Norte, and the Woodrow Wilson Center’s Mexico Institute, June, Available Online at http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/State_of_Border_Trade_Economy_0.pdf, Accessed 05-14-2013, p. 2-3)
Commerce between the United States and Mexico is one of the great—yet underappreciated
AND
Michoacán, all have a major stake in efficient and secure border management.
Unfortunately, the infrastructure and capacity of the ports of entry to process goods and
AND
, but the efforts need to be redoubled. ~end page 2~
Moderate investments to update infrastructure and to fully staff the ports of entry are certainly
AND
officials more time to focus on unknown and potentially dangerous individuals and shipments.

Fifth, U.S.-Mexico trade is the lynchpin of American manufacturing — it’s key to prevent outsourcing of production and jobs.

Wilson 11 — Christopher E. Wilson, Associate at the Mexico Institute of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, previously served as a Mexico Analyst for the U.S. Military and as a researcher at American University’s Center for North American Studies, holds an M.A. in International Affairs from American University, 2011 ("Working Together: An Overview of Economic Integration," Working Together: Economic Ties Between The United States and Mexico, Published by the Mexico Institute of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, ISBN 1933549742, Available Online at http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/Working20Together20Full20Document.pdf, Accessed 09-01-2013, p. 21-24)
Trade with Mexico is vitally important to the U.S. economy and the livelihood of millions of Americans. A full 6 million jobs are supported by U.S.-Mexico trade.51 This means one in every twenty-four American workers depend on trade with Mexico to maintain their employment. 52
Jobs related to trade with Mexico are geographically spread throughout the nation. The border
AND
-related employment than do manufacturing jobs.53 ~end page 21~
As valuable as Mexico related employment currently is to the United States, its importance
AND
producing goods for Mexican consumers and factories should also be expected to increase.
A quick, back-of-the-envelope style calculation shows how Mexican GDP growth creates new U.S. jobs: 

• Mexico’s 5.4 GDP growth in 2010 was accompanied by a 2434 billion dollar increase in U.S. exports to Mexico.
• President Obama said, "every 241 billion increase in exports supports more than 6,000 additional jobs."54
• The IMF forecasts Mexico’s GDP to grow 3.8 in 2011.55 This suggests that roughly 144,000 new U.S. jobs could be created due to Mexico’s economic growth in 2011.56
  Despite the large and growing number of U.S. jobs dependent on trade
  AND
  However, the importance of production sharing takes us largely beyond these debates.
  The interwoven supply chains and synchronized business cycles of the United States and Mexico imply
  AND
  and therefore jobs, in the United States. ~end page 23~
  With the vast majority of growth occurring outside of the United States, international trade
  AND
  trade agreements signed by both nations to gain preferential access to world markets.

Sixth, strong American manufacturing is vital to economic growth, competitiveness, and innovation.

Ezell 12 — Stephen Ezell, Senior Analyst with the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation
AND
Online to Subscribing Institutions via Project MUSE, p. 179-183)
Why Manufacturing Matters to the U.S. Economy
A robust manufacturing sector is indispensable to the health of the U.S. economy for at least four critical reasons:4 ~End Page 179~
•    Manufacturing produces economies of scale and productivity gains that spill over to other industries, in part because manufacturing is the principal source of research and development (R26D) and innovation activity in the U.S. economy.
•    Manufacturing is a key source of high-paying jobs and a driver of employment growth.
•    The contributions made by the manufacturing sector are essential to enabling the United States to balance its terms of trade.
•    Most importantly, manufacturing is the key source of an economy’s traded sector strength. The macro economy will face stiff headwinds in its efforts to grow if it lacks a healthy manufacturing sector.
Those who argue that manufacturing is no more important to the economy than any other
AND
largest multiplier of any sector of the U.S. economy.7
One reason manufacturing produces such high spillover effects is that it is the principal source
AND
States can’t have a robust service sector without complementary, healthy manufacturing industries.
Manufacturing is also vitally important to the U.S. economy because it not
AND
tech manufacturing industries, like semiconductor manufacturing, have even higher employment multipliers.
Manufacturing’s contributions will also be indispensable if the United States is to balance its trade
AND
goods will be necessary, but not sufficient to close the trade deficit.
The central reason why manufacturing matters, however, is that it is the key
AND
or personal services do not, their success is by no means assured.
For example, while we may not know whether Safeway, Giant, or Walmart
AND
if the auto plant closes, the Walmart likely will close as well.
Therefore, every time a country loses traded sector industries or enterprises, those losses
AND
figure that is very close to the number of unemployed Americans today.22
While conventional wisdom has held that U.S. manufacturing job loss is simply
AND
others supported by better national competitiveness strategies than our own—declined significantly.
Thus, the international competitiveness of U.S. traded sector enterprises, particularly
AND
has introduced similar legislation (S. 751) in the Senate.25

Seventh, economic growth is crucial to address all global challenges — the impact is linear.

Silk 93 — Leonard Silk, Distinguished Professor of Economics at Pace University, Senior Research Fellow at the Ralph Bunche Institute on the United Nations at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York, and former Economics Columnist with the New York Times, 1993 ("Dangers of Slow Growth," Foreign Affairs, Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via Lexis-Nexis)
Like the Great Depression, the current economic slump has fanned the firs of nationalist, ethnic and religious hatred around the world.  Economic hardship is not the only cause of these social and political pathologies, but it aggravates all of them, and in turn they feed back on economic development.  They also undermine efforts to deal with such global problems as environmental pollution, the production and trafficking of drugs, crime, sickness, famine, AIDS and other plagues.
Growth will not solve all those problems by itself.  But economic growth – and growth alone – creates the additional resources that make it possible to achieve such fundamental goals as higher living standards, national and collective security, a healthier environment, and more liberal and open economies and societies.

Eighth, innovation is vital to maintain the defense industrial base and U.S. technological leadership.

Yudken 10 — Joel S. Yudken, Principal and Founder of High Road Strategies, LLC—a nationally known expert on industrial, energy, economic development, and technology policy issues, Sectoral Economist and Technology Policy Analyst in the Public Policy Department of the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, former member of the National Research Council’s Board on Manufacturing and Engineering Design, holds an M.S. in Engineering-Economic Systems and a Ph.D. in Technology and Society from Stanford University, 2010 ("Conclusion," Manufacturing Insecurity: America’s Manufacturing Crisis and the Erosion of the U.S. Defense Industrial Base, Report Prepared for the Industrial Union Council of the AFL-CIO, September, Available Online at http://www.aflcio.org/content/download/3665/38375/manuffull_092010.pdf, Accessed 09-01-2013)
The erosion and overseas migration of domestic manufacturing is also weakening America’s R26D
AND
, and embodied in those displaced workers, is being lost as well.

Ninth, a strong defense industrial base is necessary to deter global conflict and maintains US global leadership.

Eaglen and Sayers 9 — Mackenzie Eaglen and Eric Sayers, 2009 ("Maintaining the Superiority of America’s Defense Industrial Base," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder ~232276, May 22^nd, Available Online at http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/05/maintaining-the-superiority-of-americas-defense-industrial-base, Accessed 09-01-2013)
America’s military strength remains vital to preserving the nation’s interests and sustaining international stability. While much of this strength is derived from the professionalism and skills of America’s armed forces, the technologically superior military platforms that the U.S. has developed and fielded since World War II are also vital to ensuring a superior fighting force.
In both peace and war, America’s defense manufacturing industrial base has allowed the United States to design and build an advanced array of weapons systems and platforms to meet the full spectrum of potential missions the military may be called upon to fulfill. Securing America’s military dominance for the decades ahead will require:

• An industrial base that can retain a highly skilled workforce with critical skill sets and
• Sustained investment in platforms that offer future commanders and civilian leaders a vital set of core military capabilities and equipment to respond to any threat.
  America’s military may also benefit from a more open international defense market. A 2005
  AND
  support increased foreign military sales to help complement America’s domestic defense industrial base.
  Following the sweeping procurement changes proposed by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates in President Barack Obama’s fiscal year (FY) 2010 defense budget, the decisions awaiting congressional review will directly affect America’s defense industrial base for years to come. These funding decisions about what the military will and will not buy are a primary factor in determining whether America will retain its military primacy a decade from now.
  The critical workforce ingredients in sustaining an industrial base capable of building next-generation systems are specialized design, engineering, and manufacturing skills. The consolidation of the defense industry during the 1990s has placed an increased burden on a small collection of defense companies, and the consolidation of major defense contractors has led to a general reduction in the number of available workers.
  Already at a turning point, the potential closure of major defense manufacturing lines in
  AND
  difficult to recruit back and more expensive to retrain with significant project gaps.
  Given the inherently unpredictable nature of the international security system, Congress must take a long-term perspective for defense planning. More specifically, Congress should closely examine the national security implications of the pending closure of several major production lines, including the F-22 Raptor, C-17 Globemaster III, F/A-18E/F, F-15E Strike Eagle, High Mobility Artillery Rocket System, Airborne Laser, and various rotary-wing programs when crafting the annual defense bills for FY 2010.
  The Foundation of American Military Strength
  Since World War II, the United States has benefited from the skills of a
  AND
  conflict and to reduce risk and the loss of life on the battlefield.
  The ability to maintain America’s military technological edge reflects the superior efficiency of America’s defense
  AND
  -shooter targeting connectivity, and all-weather guided munitions.~2~
  While technology alone has not assured American military superiority, the defense industry has nevertheless
  AND
  and Marine to remain adequately prepared for a full spectrum of potential operations.

Tenth, technological leadership is key to sustain overall U.S. leadership—theoretical models and 500 years of history.

Drezner 1 — Daniel Drezner, Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of
AND
to Subscribing Institutions via Cambridge Journals Online, p. 3-5)
The importance of economic growth to state power is undisputed by international relations scholars.
AND
on the state’s role in fostering technological leadership. ~end page 3~
The relationship between innovation and the nation-state has been discussed in international relations
AND
from the study of economic issues, focusing more on security policies.5
In this decade, proponents of globalization argue that because information and capital are mobile
AND
from one country to another.8 The location of innovation still matters.
Long-cycle theorists have paid the most attention to the link between technological innovation
AND
stability, it cannot explain why technological hegemons lose their lead over time. 

Finally, U.S. leadership structurally decreases the risk of every proximate cause of conflict — best data.

Owen 11 — John Owen, Associate Professor in the Department of Politics at the University of Virginia, Faculty Fellow at the University of Virginia’s Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture, holds a Ph.D. in international relations from Harvard University, 2011 ("Don’t Discount Hegemony," Cato Unbound, February 11^th, Available Online at http://www.cato-unbound.org/2011/02/11/john-owen/dont-discount-hegemony/, Accessed 04-14-2013)
Andrew Mack and his colleagues at the Human Security Report Project are to be congratulated
AND
if all is going to be well, what need then for us?
Our colleagues at Simon Fraser University are brave indeed. That may sound like a
AND
academic debates, this might get mildly theoretical and even more mildly methodological.
Concerning international wars, one version of the "nuclear-peace" theory is not in fact laid to rest by the data. It is certainly true that nuclear-armed states have been involved in many wars. They have even been attacked (think of Israel), which falsifies the simple claim of "assured destruction"—that any nuclear country A will deter any kind of attack by any country B because B fears a retaliatory nuclear strike from A.
But the most important "nuclear-peace" claim has been about mutually assured
AND
that states with a second-strike capability will not fight one another.
Their colossal atomic arsenals neither kept the United States at peace with North Vietnam during
AND
War III, and little about the wisdom of banning the Bomb now.
Regarding the downward trend in international war, Professor Mack is friendlier to more palatable
AND
superpower support for rival rebel factions in so many Third-World countries).
These are all plausible mechanisms for peace. What is more, none of them
AND
and whether both might support international cooperation, including to end civil wars.
We would still need to explain how this charmed circle of causes got started, however. And here let me raise another factor, perhaps even less appealing than the "nuclear peace" thesis, at least outside of the United States. That factor is what international relations scholars call hegemony—specifically American hegemony.
A theory that many regard as discredited, but that refuses to go away,
AND
been good for the world that the United States has been so predominant.
There is no obvious reason why hegemonic stability theory could not apply to other areas of international cooperation, including in security affairs, human rights, international law, peacekeeping (UN or otherwise), and so on. What I want to suggest here—suggest, not test—is that American hegemony might just be a deep cause of the steady decline of political deaths in the world.
How could that be? After all, the report states that United States is the third most war-prone country since 1945. Many of the deaths depicted in Figure 10.4 were in wars that involved the United States (the Vietnam War being the leading one). Notwithstanding politicians’ claims to the contrary, a candid look at U.S. foreign policy reveals that the country is as ruthlessly self-interested as any other great power in history.
The answer is that U.S. hegemony might just be a deeper cause
AND
War most of its allies accepted some degree of market-driven growth.
Second, the U.S.-led western victory in the Cold War damaged
AND
in part by the emergence of the United States as the global hegemon.
The same case can be made, with somewhat more difficulty, concerning the spread
AND
U.S. material and moral support for liberal democracy remains strong.
The trouble with hegemonic stability theory is that it is difficult to test. The
AND
are now seeing is about much more than the humbling of a superpower.

1AC — Energy Reforms

Advantage Two: Energy Reforms

First, the U.S.-Mexico High Level Economic Dialogue has established a framework for economic engagement, but further investment in border infrastructure is needed. President Nieto’s reform agenda hangs in the balance.

Wood and Wilson 13 — Duncan Wood, Director of the Mexico Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, former Professor and Director of the International Relations Program at the Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México, former Senior Associate with the Simon Chair and the Americas Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, holds a Ph.D. in Political Studies from Queen’s University (Canada), and Christopher E. Wilson, Associate at the Mexico Institute of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, previously served as a Mexico Analyst for the U.S. Military and as a researcher at American University’s Center for North American Studies, holds an M.A. in International Affairs from American University, 2013 ("For Biden, Mexico’s endless allure," The Great Debate—a Reuters blog, September 20^th, Available Online at http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/09/20/for-biden-mexicos-endless-allure/, Accessed 09-23-2013)
Vice President Joe Biden recently canceled the Panama leg of his trip to Latin America, citing the need to be in Washington, focusing on Syria. He did not, however, cancel his visit to Mexico.
Biden arrived in Mexico late Thursday night and is due to meet with President Enrique Peña Nieto, and kick off the U.S.-Mexico High Level Economic Dialogue (HLED). There were plenty of reasons for the vice president to stay home — including the brewing budget battle, and the shootings in Washington’s Navy Yard — in addition to Syria. So it is worth asking why he didn’t.
Biden had both political and economic reasons to visit Mexico. On the political front
AND
Bush did this in 2004; Mitt Romney got 27 percent last year.
The corollary, of course, is that a Democrat needs around 60 percent of
AND
to Mexico, and third trip to Latin America, in a year.
On the economic front, Mexico’s new president has generated significant momentum with a flurry
AND
fire. Its provisions are also expected to improve productivity and worker protections.
Once in office, Peña Nieto tackled the thorny issue of education. He managed
AND
so much has happened within the new administration’s first year is almost stunning.
Of course, none of this means that Mexico’s many economic and social problems have been solved and it is on the fast track to join the first world. Teachers, upset with their loss of control over education policy, and opponents of the proposed energy reform have taken to the streets in Mexico City. Organized crime continues to present serious challenges, especially in states like Michoacán and Tamaulipas.
The strength of the Pact for Mexico, an agreement among the three main political parties, is now being seriously tested due to disagreements on the fiscal and energy reforms.  The latest release of economic data shows a slowdown, because of weak global demand and a lull in government infrastructure spending.
Yet even as these forces that have long held Mexico back again rear up, there are at least two reasons to be optimistic. First, Peña Nieto and his administration have proven politically astute. They have already achieved victories in areas where the two previous PAN governments could not. The energy and fiscal reforms will still require complicated political negotiations, but if anyone can forge a deal, it looks like the PRI can.
But not only the ruling party has changed — so has Mexico. The country’s growing middle class is a strong force for progress and reform. The public is investing in its children’s education and health, and is seeking good government practices and a stronger economy. They are looking not for a handout from the old paternalistic system but a stable and level playing field to build a better life for their families.
The goal is to boost Mexico’s domestic economy. But because of deep inter-industry ties across the border, growth in Mexico can also stimulate manufacturing in the United States and create opportunities for U.S. companies operating in Mexico. With the proper policy attention, the United States stands to gain a good deal from Mexico’s reforms.
Since the North American Free Trade Agreement was passed, the pace of progress on U.S.-Mexico economic relations has generally slowed, and, in a few sectors, even regressed. The strengthened border security after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, for example, has led to long lines at the border for legitimate commerce and travelers.
Initiatives and forums do exist to address border and other issues, but U.S.-Mexico relations are notoriously difficult because of the mix of domestic and foreign policy issues in play. In addition, a wide array of federal agencies, and even state and local governments, are involved.
The High Level Economic Dialogue will be focused on three main pillars: competitiveness and connectivity; productivity and innovation, and cooperation on regional and global issues. Initiatives are being developed in each category and are likely to be discussed on the trip. But just as important as the specific projects is the role of the vice president.
The vice president’s office is not often credited with major policy initiatives. But in this case, a great deal could depend on Biden. Solutions to many issues will require coordinating responses from various federal agencies and probably Congress — a big task. A job of this magnitude requires a champion — preferably from the White House — and U.S.-Mexico relations may have just found one.

Second, U.S. economic policy is key to the success of Nieto’s reform agenda — the plan gives Nieto a crucial policy victory to build momentum.

Farnsworth and Werz 12 — Eric Farnsworth, Vice President of the Council of the Americas and Americas Society, formerly served in the White House Office of the Special Envoy for the Americas and the U.S. Department of State, holds an M.P.A. from the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University, and Michael Werz, Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress, Adjunct Professor at the BMW Center for German and European Studies at the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, former Senior Transatlantic Fellow at the German Marshall Fund, holds a Ph. D. in Philosophy from Goethe-University Frankfurt/Main and an M. A. in Philosophy, Political Science, and Latin American Studies from Goethe-University Frankfurt/Main, 2012 ("The United States and Mexico: The Path Forward," Center for American Progress, November 30^th, Available Online at http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/security/news/2012/11/30/46430/the-united-states-and-mexico-the-path-forward/, Accessed 09-23-2013)
With labor reform out of the way, attention turns to the three policy fields that Peña Nieto has promised to address, perhaps all at once: energy reform, tax reform, and Social Security reform. Should he succeed in addressing these issues effectively, he will have restructured a significant part of Mexico’s economy, preparing Mexico for an economic takeoff that could rival Asian economies.
This effort brings risk as well as promise, since failing with these fundamental reforms
AND
Mexico’s economy in the 1930s. Clearly, the political stakes are huge.
A major obstacle to reform could be the Institutional Revolutionary Party itself. Party discipline
AND
for cooperation with President-Elect Peña Nieto should he push this agenda.
The fate of the reform agenda will arguably be the new president’s greatest and most
AND
Mexico relations, which will play out on both sides of the border.
The path forward
Given this backdrop, the new Mexican president needs major political and policy successes in
AND
extensive, but it is largely focused on economic policy and immigration reform.

Third, successful reforms are key to Mexico’s economy and North American energy security — reforming PEMEX is vital.

Hill 9/12 — Patrice Hill, Chief Economic Correspondent for The Washington Times, 2013 ("Mexico could make North America the world leader in oil production," The Washington Times, September 12^th, Available Online at http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/12/mexico-could-make-north-america-the-world-leader-i/print/, Accessed 09-23-2013)
Mexico is poised to join the North American oil revolution as a new government is moving to significantly modify 75-year-old constitutional restrictions against foreign involvement in the oil sector, allowing U.S. firms to go in for the first time and help develop the country’s sizable untapped reserves.
Energy analysts are increasingly optimistic that Mexico will make changes it has resisted for decades
AND
on the map as a potential new "Persian Gulf" for oil.
"This has the potential to be a game-changer," said Marc Chandler
AND
oil wealth has the potential to transform the entire region, he said.
"It is part of the North American energy and manufacturing story," which has
AND
oil producer worldwide and the most important region for influencing global oil prices.
Despite having some of the largest unexploited oil reserves in the world, Mexican production
AND
needs, but they have long been prohibited by law from operating there.
Trading partners
What Mexico does with its oil is important to the U.S., which
AND
the Gulf, once the second-largest oil field on the planet.
Although Mexico has the sixth-largest shale gas reserves in the world, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, a lack of the technology needed to retrieve it has forced Mexico to become a big importer of gas from the U.S. to satisfy fast-growing domestic demand for the relatively clean fuel.
All that could change under Mr. Pena Nieto’s legislation. Although the proposed reforms
AND
65 percent of Mexicans prefer to keep foreign developers out of their country.

Fourth, Mexican stability is key to the success of global democracy promotion — Mexico is the crucial test case.

O’Neil 13 — Shannon K. O’Neil, Senior Fellow for Latin America Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, holds a B.A. from Yale University, an M.A. in International Relations from Yale University, and a Ph.D. in Government from Harvard University, 2013 ("Mexico at the Crossroad," Two Nations Indivisible: Mexico, the United States, and the Road Ahead, Published by Oxford University Press, ISBN 0199898332, p. Kindle 7-11)
Working with Mexico—for the good of both countries—will require not just
AND
do so only through active efforts based not on conflict but on cooperation.
A new partnership should start by creating an environment that understands how highly interconnected the two nations are and supports rather than shuns the binational people, families, and communities already existing in and between us. This means rethinking immigration and border policies to encourage, not hinder, the legal movement of Mexican workers and their families.
Upending the current thinking, Americans may soon come to see immigration as the answer
AND
next decade we may be urging Mexicans to come to the United States.
Diplomatically, we also need to rethink the United States’ approach in light of Mexico’s
AND
all benefit from the strong links that already exist between our two nations.
Mexico, not the Middle East, should be the test case for solidifying market
AND
positive example of a newly consolidated democracy, offering lessons for others worldwide.
Nevertheless, it still faces considerable challenges. Many in fact worry that Mexico’s democratic
AND
the game-changing importance of political choices being made just next door.
A better partnership also requires rethinking U.S.-Mexico economic relations—in
AND
broadening middle class. It also encouraged (albeit unintentionally) Mexico’s democratization. 

Fifth, effective democracy promotion is crucial to global stability — it solves the root cause of major impacts.

Miller 12 — Paul D. Miller, Assistant Professor in the Department of Regional
AND
Issue 2, Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via Taylor 26 Francis Online)
A grand strategy that includes promoting the democratic peace has much to recommend it.
AND
, and are more likely to become centres of innovation and productivity.27
Scholars have offered a range of reasons why democracies rarely fight one another, which
AND
democracy’s military threats and hence decreases opponents’ willingness to gamble on war.28
Promoting democracy also fits naturally with other long-standing components of US grand strategy
AND
of democracy abroad alters the balance of power in the United States’ favour.
Finally, promoting democracy is well suited to one of the major challenges of the
AND
longer-term efforts to address the underlying challenges to stability and democracy.