Immigration Politics – Cal 2013 – Starter Packet

Political Capital Theory’s True

Capital’s real and vital to legislative success

Schier ‘9

[Prof Poli Sci at Carleton. “Understanding the Obama Presidency” The Forum, Vol 7 N1. 2009. Ebsco]

In additional to formal powers, a president’s informal power is situationally derived and highly variable. Informal power is a function of the “political capital” presidents amass and deplete as they operate in office. Paul Light defines several components of political capital: party support of the president in Congress, public approval of the presidential conduct of his job, the President’s electoral margin and patronage appointments (Light 1983, 15). Richard Neustadt’s concept of a president’s “professional reputation” likewise figures into his political capital. Neustadt defines this as the “impressions in the Washington community about the skill and will with which he puts [his formal powers] to use” (Neustadt 1990, 185). In the wake of 9/11, George W. Bush’s political capital surged, and both the public and Washington elites granted him a broad ability to prosecute the war on terror. By the later stages of Bush’s troubled second term, beset by a lengthy and unpopular occupation of Iraq and an aggressive Democratic Congress, he found that his political capital had shrunk. Obama’s informal powers will prove variable, not stable, as is always the case for presidents. Nevertheless, he entered office with a formidable store of political capital. His solid electoral victory means he initially will receive high public support and strong backing from fellow Congressional partisans, a combination that will allow him much leeway in his presidential appointments and with his policy agenda. Obama probably enjoys the prospect of a happier honeymoon during his first year than did George W. Bush, who entered office amidst continuing controversy over the 2000 election outcome. Presidents usually employ power to disrupt the political order they inherit in order to reshape it according to their own agendas. Stephen Skowronek argues that “presidents disrupt systems, reshape political landscapes, and pass to successors leadership challenges that are different from the ones just faced” (Skowronek 1997, 6). Given their limited time in office and the hostile political alignments often present in Washington policymaking networks and among the electorate, presidents must force political change if they are to enact their agendas. In recent decades, Washington power structures have become more entrenched and elaborate (Drucker 1995) while presidential powers – through increased use of executive orders and legislative delegation (Howell 2003) –have also grown. The presidency has more powers in the early 21st century but also faces more entrenched coalitions of interests, lawmakers, and bureaucrats whose agendas often differ from that of the president. This is an invitation for an energetic president – and that seems to describe Barack Obama – to engage in major ongoing battles to impose his preferences.

Presidents think PC is real

Marshall et al 11

[Bryan W, Miami University BRANDON C. PRINS University of Tennessee & Howard H. Baker, Jr. Center for Public Policy Power or Posturing? Policy Availability and Congressional Influence on U.S. Presidential Decisions to Use Force Presidential Studies Quarterly 41, no. 3 (September)

We argue that the more important effect of Congress occurs because presidents anticipate how the use of force may affect the larger congressional environment in which they inevitably have to operate (Brulé, Marshall, and Prins 2010). It may be true that presidents consider the chances that Congress will react to a specific use of force with countervailing tools, but even more importantly they anticipate the likelihood that a foreign conflict may damage (or advantage) their political fortunes elsewhere—in essence, the presidential calculus to use force factors in how such actions might shape their ability to achieve legislative priorities. To be clear, presidents can and do choose to use force and press for legislative initiatives in Congress. Taking unilateral actions in foreign policy does not preclude the president from working the legislative process on Capitol Hill. However, political capital is finite so spending resources in one area lessens what the president can bring to bear in other areas. That is, presidents consider the congressional environment in their decision to use force because their success at promoting policy change in either foreign or domestic affairs is largely determined by their relationship with Congress. Presidents do not make such decisions devoid of calculations regarding congressional preferences and behavior or how such decisions may influence their ability to achieve legislative objectives. This is true in large part because presidential behavior is motivated by multiple goals that are intimately tied to Congress. Presidents place a premium on passing legislative initiatives. The passage of policy is integral to their goals of reelection and enhancing their place in history (Canes-Wrone 2001; Moe 1985). Therefore, presidents seek to build and protect their relationship with Congress.

Best studies support our scholarship

Relyea ‘11

[Harold C. Relyea 11, Specialist in American National Government with the Congressional. Research Service, “Pushing the Agenda: Presidential Leadership in U.S. Lawmaking, 1953-2004 – By Matthew N. Beckmann”, Presidential Studies Quarterly, Volume 41, Issue 4, pages 844–845]

Matthew Beckmann of the University of California at Irvine provides an interesting empirical analysis of presidential leadership in lawmaking for the period from the Eisenhower through the Bush II administrations. He notes that the key to a president's legislative leadership is strategy, not resolve (p. 2), and concludes that the greatest source of influence for postwar presidents comes “in the legislative early game, not the legislative endgame” (p. 2). Presidents who are strategically adept work to get specific issues on the congressional calendar and, then, maneuver to insure that certain proposals rise up as alternatives. Beckmann suggests that the best route for constructing winning coalitions consists of “mobilizing leading allies, determining opponents, and circumventing endgame floor fights altogether,” rather than the typical path of gathering support from “centrist” lawmakers (p. 2). In the end, he finds “that presidents' legislative influence is real, often substantial, and, to date, greatly underestimated” (p. 3). The author's assessment is organized into six chapters. Chapter 1 consists of his introductory overview, as briefly summarized above. Chapter 2 presents a theory of positive presidential power, focusing on the Bush II administration's 2001 tax cut efforts in the Senate. Here, Beckmann attributes the White House's success to its targeted strategy of lobbying and bargaining with allies, key opponents, and swing voters. He cautions that although this is only one example, it represents what a president's aides can achieve when they maximize lobbying techniques for the purpose of advancing agenda-centered and vote-centered strategies (p. 104). Reviewing the 1953-2004 record of what he considers to be key votes for presidential legislative success in Chapter 4, the author proposes a new method for evaluating the potential impact of presidents on these votes. The two most significant elements are (1) personal involvement of the president and (2) the extent of his influence at the earliest stages in the legislative process, at the point of fashioning legislation (p. 126). In Chapter 5, after testing “whether presidents' influence held up even after accounting for a myriad of rival explanations, including congressional composition, political context, and issue specifics, as well as simple random chance” (p. 148), Beckmann asserts that the evidence showed presidents to be powerful, but not all powerful, players in federal policymaking. When the president decides that some particular policy initiative deserves his administration's backing, it is a great boon to the chances that a new law will supplant the old one. Yet also as predicted, this potential is constrained by Congress' pivotal voters, limited by political environment, and variable by issue. Furthermore, although the president's involvement greatly increases the likelihood that a winning congressional coalition will be assembled, it is no guarantee. Indeed, the nature of presidential leadership in lawmaking is that, while it generally helps win key votes and pass preferred laws, it may not in any particular case. (p. 149) In closing, the author observes that “integral to appraising any president's legacy is examining how effectively he recognizes and capitalizes on his office's potential” but that equally as important as any policy outcome is the value of healthy, substantive debate in Congress, as well as the related one of pressuring members to clearly explain their positions on issues (p.161).

2NC Rubio Link

Rubio hates the plan

The Hill ‘12

[“Cuban-American senators hit brick wall with Obama administration on Cuba policy”, June 7th, 2012, http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/americas/231487-cuban-american-senators-hit-a-brick-wall-with-obama-administration-on-cuba-policy]

The Senate's two Cuban-Americans spent Thursday morning talking past the Obama administration's top official for the Americas on the issue of U.S. policy toward Cuba. Sens. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) were the only two senators who showed up for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee subpanel hearing on freedom in Cuba. They called the administration's relaxing of travel restrictions to Cuba “naive” and bashed the State Department's decision to grant visas to high-profile Cuban officials, including President Raul Castro's daughter Mariela. “The Cuban people are no less deserving of America's support than the millions who were imprisoned and forgotten in Soviet gulags,” Menendez said. “I am compelled to ask again today — as I have before — why is there such an obvious double standard when it comes to Cuba?” Rubio said Castro government officials are master manipulators of U.S. policy and public opinion. The two senators favor a hard-line stance against Cuba until regime change takes place. Critics of that policy argue that more than 50 years of U.S. sanctions have only enabled Castro brothers Fidel and Raul to consolidate their power while impoverishing the Cuban people.

Doing the plan anyway sends the signal Obama just wants to play politics – angers Rubio and kills the deal

National Journal ‘13

("Obama Legacy on Immigration Reform Tied to Rubio, His Frenemy," 2013, www.nationaljournal.com/thenextamerica/immigration/obama-legacy-on-immigration-reform-tied-to-rubio-his-frenemy-20130220)

At a time when one of Washington’s most common laments is that big deals never get made anymore, the tension between Obama and Rubio is an obvious symptom of an increasingly polarized political environment. Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill, they are not. The Republican president and Democratic House speaker famously put aside their partisan backbiting for an occasional lunch or after-hours drink and reached a historic compromise on Social Security.¶ Obama and Rubio have never socialized one-on-one, but it’s possible they are building a new framework for the elusive “grand bargain,” in which bright lines are drawn long before consensus is reached. “I think the tension between these two important players shows this is a serious negotiation,” Noorani added. “At some point, they have to move behind closed doors and sit across the table from each other, and this is the precursor to that.”¶ Rubio and Obama have clashed over immigration policy since last year, when the senator began promoting a proposal that would allow illegal immigrants in college or the military to obtain legal status. The president pre-empted Rubio by issuing an executive order granting temporary visas to children brought to this country illegally. Rubio accused the president of enacting a shortsighted policy that would derail any efforts at comprehensive immigration reform.¶ Since then, Rubio has repeatedly questioned the president’s commitment to real reform. When the president gave a major speech on immigration in Last Vegas last month, Rubio accused him of overlooking border security at the risk of increasing the number of illegal immigrants in the U.S. And when the White House plan was leaked over the weekend, Rubio immediately issued a scathing statement.¶ “This legislation is half-baked and seriously flawed,” he said. “If actually proposed, the president’s bill would be dead on arrival in Congress, leaving us with unsecured borders and a broken legal immigration system for years to come.”¶ One of Rubio’s complaints was that the president would allow illegal immigrants to jump in front of people who have applied legally, even though the president has repeatedly said they should go to the “back of the line.” Rubio also said the White House plan fails to tighten border security, even though it calls for more patrols.¶ “Rubio is so worried about coming off his conservative perch that there is a knee-jerk reaction to anything the president does, and sometimes it’s hyperbolic and factually inaccurate,” said Marshall Fitz, director of immigration policy at the liberal Center for American Progress. “There is a risk of creating artificial schisms just because of the right’s distaste for anything Obama does. It would be tremendously disappointing if that meant they couldn’t get it over the finish line.”¶ The common line of attack from Republicans that Obama doesn’t want a deal because then his party can’t use immigration as a wedge issue flies in the face of the president’s obvious interest in legacy-building during his second term.¶ Still, Rubio’s allies insist that if the president was truly interested in an immigration overhaul, he would have called the senator long before Tuesday. They frequently point to an amendment Obama sponsored as a senator as a “poison pill” that killed an immigration bill in 2007.¶ “This president has played politics before on immigration, and there’s a lot of suspicion within the Republican ranks,” said Republican consultant Ana Navarro. “I think it’s incumbent upon him, after campaigning on immigration, speaking on it at his inauguration and in the state of the Union, to issue the invitation to Rubio.”¶ On Tuesday, the president did just that, placing phone calls to Rubio and other Republican senators working on an immigration plan and depriving them of one of their chief complaints -- at least for one day.

Rubio’s key to the deal

**Also says Rubio’s vote isn’t a sure thing and he’s willing to horse-trade with his support of CIR

Trygstad and Drucker ‘13

[David and Kyle. “Rubio Must Sell Immigration Changes to GOP, Grass Roots” Roll Call, 1/30/13 ln //GBS-JV]

The fate of an immigration overhaul rests almost exclusively with Sen. Marco Rubio, the Florida Republican whose star power with conservatives is crucial to moving a bill through Congress. President Barack Obama retains veto power, and Democrats hold the Senate floor. But no comprehensive immigration changes are likely to pass Congress without the healthy support ofHouse Republicans. And Florida’s junior senator, perhaps more than any other Republican serving in Washington today, has the political credibility and communication skills to sell such complicated, sensitive legislation to skeptical conservative members, grass-roots voters and influential media commentators. Rubio’s position is all the more unique because congressional Democrats and Obama need him, too, and appear to realize his importance to the legislative endgame. Republicans warn that Obama and congressional Democrats could sink Washington’s immigration policy rewrite by attaching controversial social provisions or watering down the border enforcement and security measures included in the bipartisan Senate framework that Rubio helped negotiate. The Florida lawmaker has said he’ll pull his support from any bill if that occurs, and Republicans say comprehensive policy changes will fail to garner meaningful GOP support without Rubio’s backing. “If Rubio signals any mistrust or misgivings, the whole thing collapses,” GOP pollster Brock McCleary said.

Ext. Rubio Key

Careful compromise now - plan triggers a massive fight with the GOP, and lets the hard right claim Obama wants to kill immigration – causes 2005 all over again – that’s National Journal

That kills Rubio’s credibility and any chance of a deal

National Journal 4-16,

("Immigration Reform Isn't Hurting Marco Rubio's Bottom Line," 2013, www.nationaljournal.com/politics/immigration-reform-isn-t-hurting-marco-rubio-s-bottom-line-20130416)

Rubio has been performing a remarkable balancing act in recent months, embarking on a one-man media blitz to tout immigration reform (he did seven talk shows on Sunday) without letting the issue totally define him. His response to President Obama’s State of the Union speech will be remembered more for his thirst— he reached off camera for a water bottle in the middle of his remarks—than it will be for his brief reference to the immigration system. His leadership PAC leveraged publicity over his thirst-quenching maneuver to sell Rubio-branded water bottles and raised $250,000.¶ Rubio has also drawn attention this year for supporting Sen. Rand Paul’s filibuster of the president’s CIA appointment, voting against budget deals with President Obama and opposing his gun-control proposals across the board. His speech last month at the Conservative Political Action Conference didn’t even mention immigration and was notable for its defense of the party’s platform. “We don’t need a new idea. There is an idea, the idea is called America, and it still works,” he declared.¶ The senator has worked diligently to maintain his credibility with conservatives by pressing for tighter border security in the immigration bill, going out of his way to emphasize disagreements with liberals and demanding a series of public hearings. “It puts in place effective enforcement mechanisms unlike anything we’ve ever had in the history of this country before,” he said Sunday on NBC’s Meet the Press. When other senators were crowing that they were close to a deal two weeks ago, Rubio said declarations of success were “premature” and emphasized he would not support any agreement that didn’t meet his conservative standards.¶ “He was playing hard to get before, but he definitely wanted to be got,” said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Reform, which opposes allowing illegal immigrants to earn citizenship. “A lot of his maneuvering over the past few months has been theater so he could preserve his ability to sell amnesty to conservatives.”¶ Rubio dismissed the idea that he was playing politics on Meet the Press, saying, “I quite frankly have avoided making the political calculus on this issue.”¶ Not only has Rubio yet to pay a steep political price among conservatives, his changed position on immigration has drawn few complaints from liberals who see the charismatic Cuban-American senator as crucial to passing legislation through a gridlocked Congress. During a nationally televised debate in his 2010 campaign, Rubio said, “Earned path to citizenship is basically code for amnesty.” Asked about that remark on Meet the Press, Rubio responded: “What I said throughout my campaign was that I was against a blanket amnesty, and this is not blanket amnesty.”¶ While Rubio has carefully navigated the issue, it’s too soon to declare that he has avoided any major political repercussions. Once the bill is unveiled and people and interest groups get hold of the details, he is likely to face criticism from all sides of the issue. He is also likely to get the most credit.

Rubio’s influence is key to keep the GOP on board

Dickerson 4-18

[John. Politics for TalkingPointsMemo. “Rubio Rising: Will immigration reform make Marco Rubio look presidential?” 4/18/13 http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/04/marco_rubio_helping_to_pass_immigration_reform_if_the_florida_senator_helps.html//GBS-JV]

On Sunday, Rubio appeared on seven news shows, setting a new standard, but the most important pitch will be on CCTV in the conservative club house. Rubio's main task has been as an envoy to the Republican conservative wing. The Florida senator is a trusted voice on this issue because of his heritage, but also because of his conservative voting record and relationship with Tea Party activists. Rubio has a chance to sell Senate conservatives in a way that Sen. Lindsey Graham never could. That’s because members know that Rubio can help give them cover in the wider conservative world in a way Graham can't. ¶ In this role, Rubio talks to conservatives but it also means speaking for them in negotiations with Democrats and Republican squishes. In the coming days, we'll see if Rubio is able to maintain that balance. He has already had to knock down false reports about free cellphones being given to illegal immigrants. In his debates with conservative luminaries, even if he hasn't emerged victorious, he's kept the relationship steady. "I disagree with major parts of this bill," said talk show host Mark Levin, " but you can't deny [Rubio] has integrity.”¶ ¶ Rubio doesn’t need to convince everyone; he simply needs to convince enough people to hold a deal together. Can he sell a new definition of amnesty, one of the most potent words in politics? Rubio argues that the bill is not amnesty because the pathway to citizenship is more onerous than it is under current law. Perhaps equally difficult will be convincing conservatives that the broader security requirements and enforcement mechanisms in the bill will stick when they are in the hands of bureaucrats who they don't trust and who have let them down before. "He has been great at selling the summary [of the bill]," says one veteran Senate staffer, "now he's got to sell the [legislative] language."

Rubio’s capital is key

Grant 4-18

[David. Staffer for the MN Post. “Marco Rubio crafts conservative argument for immigration reform. Will it sell?” Minneapolis Post, 4/18/13 ln//GBS-JV]

As the bill makes its way through the committee and floor debate that Rubio has sworn to protect, “you’re going to see more senators piling on" to oppose the bill, Mr. Krikorian says.¶ Rubio will need to sway not only some of those senators, but also powerful outside groups such as Numbers USA, a low-immigration advocacy organization that views the bill as inflicting pain on American workers.

2NC Delay Link

Time is key to passage – introducing the plan clogs the agenda and derails compromise

Bolton 3-4

[Alex. Politics for the Hill. “Pressure builds on Senate group to unveil immigration reform specifics” The Hill, 3/4/13 ln//GBS-JV]

A bipartisan Senate group working on immigration reform plans to set a timeline for unveiling legislation, as it feels subtle pressure from the chairman of the Judiciary Committee to act.¶ Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a lead negotiator of the ad hoc group on immigration reform, says he and his colleagues realize the clock is ticking. They hope to soon have a timeline for unveiling legislation.¶ “We know time is of the essence. Sometime in the next few weeks we will have a definite timeline. We got a couple of very big issues to resolve,” McCain told The Hill.¶ A Democratic source familiar with the talks said the group may unveil the bill itself before the end of the month.¶ Either way, time is running short. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), McCain’s negotiating partner, said he expected to have a bipartisan bill sometime in March. There are only three weeks left until Congress leaves for a two-week Easter recess on March 22.¶ Lawmakers and groups advocating for reform say McCain, Schumer and their partners, Sens. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), need to show substantial progress before the end of the month.¶ Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) has turned over authorship of immigration reform to the group but his patience is limited. He is eager to move shortly after the committee marks up a series of gun-violence bills this month.¶ Leahy put pressure on Schumer and Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) to speed up their talks over expanding background checks for private gun sales when he scheduled a legislative markup this past week. The chairman delayed the session to give Schumer more time but the message was clear: time is in short supply.¶ The same is true of immigration reform.¶ “I think April is probably the markup month they’re looking at and then to the floor in either May or June,” said Angela Kelley, vice president for immigration policy at the Center for American Progress.¶ Kelley said Leahy wants to see real progress from Schumer, McCain and Rubio before the recess.¶ “Leahy’s really committed to getting this done and he’s going to watch it carefully and he’s going to want to keep measuring progress. You may not get the final grade but you’ll get an interim report before the recess. I would expect they’re going to want to see real progress,” she said.¶ “I don’t think his patience will be endless,” a Democratic aide said of Leahy.¶ One of the biggest challenges in the immigration negotiations is how to handle future flows of immigrant workers. Controversy over a guest-worker program derailed comprehensive reform when the Senate last debated it in 2007.¶ “I think the problem for immigration reform will be about future flow, access to future labor,” said Graham. “The reason you have 11 million illegal workers is that lot of employers can’t find labor, so we got to address that.”

More evidence – speed’s key

Bolton 3-4

[Alex. Politics for the Hill. “Pressure builds on Senate group to unveil immigration reform specifics” The Hill, 3/4/13 ln//GBS-JV]

A bipartisan Senate group working on immigration reform plans to set a timeline for unveiling legislation, as it feels subtle pressure from the chairman of the Judiciary Committee to act.¶ Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a lead negotiator of the ad hoc group on immigration reform, says he and his colleagues realize the clock is ticking. They hope to soon have a timeline for unveiling legislation.¶ “We know time is of the essence. Sometime in the next few weeks we will have a definite timeline. We got a couple of very big issues to resolve,” McCain told The Hill.¶ A Democratic source familiar with the talks said the group may unveil the bill itself before the end of the month.¶ Either way, time is running short. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), McCain’s negotiating partner, said he expected to have a bipartisan bill sometime in March. There are only three weeks left until Congress leaves for a two-week Easter recess on March 22.¶ Lawmakers and groups advocating for reform say McCain, Schumer and their partners, Sens. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), need to show substantial progress before the end of the month.¶ Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) has turned over authorship of immigration reform to the group but his patience is limited. He is eager to move shortly after the committee marks up a series of gun-violence bills this month.¶ Leahy put pressure on Schumer and Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) to speed up their talks over expanding background checks for private gun sales when he scheduled a legislative markup this past week. The chairman delayed the session to give Schumer more time but the message was clear: time is in short supply.¶ The same is true of immigration reform.¶ “I think April is probably the markup month they’re looking at and then to the floor in either May or June,” said Angela Kelley, vice president for immigration policy at the Center for American Progress.¶ Kelley said Leahy wants to see real progress from Schumer, McCain and Rubio before the recess.¶ “Leahy’s really committed to getting this done and he’s going to watch it carefully and he’s going to want to keep measuring progress. You may not get the final grade but you’ll get an interim report before the recess. I would expect they’re going to want to see real progress,” she said.¶ “I don’t think his patience will be endless,” a Democratic aide said of Leahy.¶ One of the biggest challenges in the immigration negotiations is how to handle future flows of immigrant workers. Controversy over a guest-worker program derailed comprehensive reform when the Senate last debated it in 2007.¶ “I think the problem for immigration reform will be about future flow, access to future labor,” said Graham. “The reason you have 11 million illegal workers is that lot of employers can’t find labor, so we got to address that.”

2NC Focus Link

Even if capital eventually bounces back, Obama’s got a small window to pass immigration

O’Brien 4-8

[Michael. Politics for NBC. “Budget, immigration, gun control: Congress returns to debate cornerstones of Obama agenda” NBC, 4/8/13 ln//GBS-JV]

Presidents typically have a short window of opportunity in their second terms to ink major accomplishments, and the next few weeks will offer President Barack Obama a key test of his ability to do just that.¶ Congress returns from its recess Monday to begin work on central components of Obama’s second-term agenda. Their work over the next two months could begin to cement, just four months into Obama’s second term, the president’s political legacy.¶ A grand fiscal deal, immigration reform and tougher gun laws topped Obama’s second term agenda when he outlined them during a Dec. 30 appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”¶ All three of those priorities have, so far, eluded Obama over the past few months; whether the president can manage a victory on any of these issues could be decided in coming weeks.

Obama’s set his agenda to get immigration through – new fights derail it

Zeleny 1-24.

[Jeff, NYT political correspondent, “For Obama, am ambitious agenda faces ticking clock” IHT -- lexis]

The State of the Union address that Mr. Obama will deliver to Congress on Feb. 12 will offer the most definitive road map yet for how the White House will set priorities in his second term as well as how it intends to avoid becoming mired in a heated debate over one contentious topic to the detriment of the full agenda. ''There's no doubt you want to get off to a strong start, and we've got a pretty big dance card,'' said David Plouffe, a senior adviser to Mr. Obama who is leaving the White House this week. He ticked through a list of agenda items that included guns, immigration and fiscal issues, but he disputed the suggestion that one item would overtake the others. ''We clearly have this moment where we can get immigration done,'' Mr. Plouffe added. ''If we don't get it done, then shame on us. We've got to seize this opportunity.''

More evidence – prioritizing the plan above immigration is a brick wall – kills the deal

Harder 2-6

Amy Harder, National Journal, 2/6/13, In Washington, Energy and Climate Issues Get Shoved in the Closet, www.nationaljournal.com/columns/power-play/in-washington-energy-and-climate-issues-get-shoved-in-the-closet-20130206¶

At a news conference where TV cameras in the back were nearly stacked on top of each other, an influential bipartisan group of five senators introduced legislation late last month to overhaul the nation’s immigration system. The room was so crowded that no open seats or standing room could be found. A week later, one senator, Republican Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, was standing at the podium in the same room to unveil her energy-policy blueprint. There were several open seats and just a few cameras. At least one reporter was there to ask the senator about her position on President Obama’s choice for Defense secretary, former Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel. “I’m doing energy right now,” Murkowski responded. “I’m focused on that.” Almost everyone else on Capitol Hill is focused on something else. Aside from the broad fiscal issues, Congress and the president are galvanizing around immigration reform. Four years ago, the White House prioritized health care reform above comprehensive climate-change legislation. The former will go down in history as one of Obama’s most significant accomplishments. The latter is in the perpetual position of second fiddle. “To everything,” Murkowski interjected fervently when asked by National Journal Daily whether energy and climate policy was second to other policies in Washington’s pecking order. Murkowski, ranking member of the Senate's Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said she hoped the Super Bowl blackout would help the public understand the importance of energy policy. “This issue of immigration: Why are we all focused on that? Well, it’s because the Republicans lost the election because in part we did not have the Hispanic community behind us,” Murkowski said this week. “What is it that brings about that motivation? Maybe it could be something like a gap in the Super Bowl causes the focus on energy that we need to have. I can only hope.” It will take more than hope. Elections have consequences, but so far the only kind of electoral consequence climate and energy policy has instigated is one that helped some lawmakers who supported cap-and-trade legislation to lose their seats in the 2010 midterm elections. For the pendulum to swing the other way—for lawmakers to lose their seats over not acting on climate and energy policy—seems almost unfathomable right now. Billions of dollars are invested in the fossil-fuel power plants, refineries, and pipelines that the country depends on today. The companies that own this infrastructure have a business interest in keeping things the way they are. Immigration reform doesn’t face such formidable interests invested in the status quo. “They [businesses] have employees—real, visible people—who they value and who they want to make legal as soon as possible,” said Chris Miller, who until earlier this year was the top energy and environment adviser to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. On energy and climate-change policy, Miller added, “You’re probably never going to have anything like the fence in the Southwest or the border-control issue that pushes action and debate on immigration, because climate-change impacts will likely continue to be more abstract in the public's mind until those impacts are so crystal-clear it’s too late for us to do anything.” Another, tactical reason helps build momentum on immigration and not on other issues. Obama can capitalize on immigration as it becomes more of a wedge issue within the GOP. On energy and climate policy, Obama faces a unified Republican Party. “The president has cracked the code on how to push his agenda items through. He learned from his victories on the payroll tax and the fiscal cliff that the key is to stake out the political high ground on issues that poll in his favor while exploiting the divisions within the GOP,” said a former Republican leadership aide who would speak only on the condition of anonymity. “With this in mind, the next logical place for him to go is immigration. Unlike issues like energy or tax reform where the GOP is united, he can claim a big win on immigration reform while striking a political blow to Republicans.”

2NC Democrats Link

Democrats hate the plan – they think economic engagement steals America jobs

Perez-Rocha 12

[Manuel Pérez Rocha is an associate fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington D.C, “Don't Expand NAFTA”, July 26th, 2012, http://www.fpif.org/articles/dont_expand_nafta]

With Canada and Mexico joining the TPP, the agreement is looking more and more like a substitute for the FTAA. So it is not surprising that opposition to the TPP is growing as quickly as it did against that former attempt to expand the neoliberal model throughout the Western hemisphere. The intense secrecy of the TPP negotiations is not helping the Obama administration make its case. In their statement, North American unions “call on our governments to work with us to include in the TPP provisions to ensure strong worker protections, a healthy environment, safe food and products, and the ability to regulate financial and other markets to avoid future global economic crises.” But the truth is that only big business is partaking in consultations, with 600 lobbyists having exclusive passwords to online versions of the negotiating text. A majority of Democratic representatives (132 out of 191) have expressed that they are “troubled that important policy decisions are being made without full input from Congress.” They have written to U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk to urge him and his staff to “engage in broader and deeper consultations with members of the full range of committees of Congress whose jurisdiction touches on the wide-ranging issues involved, and to ensure there is ample opportunity for Congress to have input on critical policies that will have broad ramifications for years to come." In their letter, the representatives also challenge “the lack of transparency of the treaty negotiation process, and the failure of negotiators to meaningfully consult with states on the far-reaching impact of trade agreements on state and local laws, even when binding on our states, is of grave concern to us.” U.S. Senators, for their part, have also sent a letter complaining of the lack of congressional access to the negotiations. What openness and transparency can we in Canada and Mexico expect when the decision to join the TPP, under humiliating conditions, was made without any public consultation? NAFTA turns 20 years old in 2014. Instead of expanding it through the TPP we must learn from NAFTA’s shortcomings, starting with the historic lack of consultation with unions and producers in the three member countries. It is necessary to correct the imbalances in NAFTA, which as the North American union statement explains enhanced corporate power at the expense of workers and the environment. In particular, we need to categorically reject the investor-state dispute settlement process that has proven so costly, in real terms and with respect to our democratic options in Canada and Mexico. The unions’ statement of solidarity provides a strong foundation for the growing trinational opposition to the TPP in Leesburg, Virginia, and beyond.

Democrat dissent kills the deal

Mooney 2-6

Alex Mooney, CNN White House Producer, 2/6/13, Unions could again be key to immigration reform, www.cnn.com/2013/02/05/politics/immigration-reform-unions

It should come as no surprise that prominent union leaders are among the first group President Barack Obama courts as he seeks support for overhauling immigration policy. It was organized labor that helped ensure defeat of a bipartisan effort to reform the nation's immigration laws five years ago. At that time, the AFL-CIO and other prominent union groups came out against the initiative, fearing a proposal for a temporary guest worker program for seasonal workers would weaken union membership and bargaining clout. That led to a handful of liberal-leaning Democrats to vote against the bill, including Sens. Sherrod Brown, Tom Harkin and Debbie Stabenow. Mindful that a potential split in the Democratic coalition this time around could again prove fatal to the passage of an immigration bill, Obama met on Tuesday with more than a dozen labor leaders.

Ext. Democrats Key

Democrats are key – their retreat is the only scenario for failure

Hirschfeld 3-22

[Julie. Politics for Bloomberg Business Week. “Guest Worker Visas a Sticking Point on Immigration Rewrite.” Bloomberg, 3/22/13 ln//GBS-JV]

With Senate Republicans and Democrats moving closer to an agreement to grant a chance at U.S. citizenship to 11 million undocumented immigrants, a long- simmering dispute between organized labor and the business lobby risks sapping the measure’s momentum. The two constituencies are at odds over a new program to provide U.S. work visas to low-skilled foreign workers, placing pressure on lawmakers poised for a compromise. Unions are pressing for a limited visa system that guarantees better wages for future immigrant workers, while businesses seek a broader program more responsive to their hiring needs. It’s the thornier side of what is otherwise a broadening consensus in both parties around an immigration plan, whose centerpiece is a path to U.S. citizenship for undocumented immigrants. A bipartisan group of eight senators is nearing a deal to bolster border security and workplace verification while revamping the legal immigration system. Republican Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, a member of the group, called the guest-worker issue “one of the more difficult parts” of the negotiations. “I’m not going to be part of a bill that doesn’t create a process whereby people can come to this country temporarily in the future if we need them,” Rubio said yesterday. “There’s no secret that the broader labor movement, with some exceptions, would rather not even have an immigration bill.” Political Consequences The disagreement carries significant political consequences for Republicans and Democrats alike, essentially making them choose between their strongest constituencies -- organized labor for Democrats and big business for Republicans -- and achievement of an overriding policy goal that both parties increasingly see as an electoral imperative. Hispanics accounted for 10 percent of voters in the 2012 presidential election. President Barack Obama won 71 percent of their votes, and just 27 percent backed Republican nominee Mitt Romney, who had proposed “self-deportation” for undocumented immigrants. Since then, a growing chorus of Republicans has publicly backed legal status for undocumented immigrants. Meanwhile, a group of Republican officials who unveiled a top-to-bottom review this week called for the party to back “comprehensive immigration reform” or see its appeal shrink. “It is in neither party’s interest for one group within a party to stop this, because it is bad for the economy if we don’t have immigration reform,” former Mississippi Governor and Republican National Committee Chairman Haley Barbour said this week, referring to labor unions’ objections to a guest-worker program. Worker Program Former Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, a Democrat co- chairing an immigration task force with Barbour at the Bipartisan Policy Center in Washington, said it is ultimately up to Obama to persuade Democrats not to abandon the bill if the immigrant-worker program doesn’t match the unions’ agenda. “If we don’t get guest-worker provisions that are exactly in line with what labor wants, we can’t hold up the bill because of that,” Rendell said. “We’ve got to do the best we can to preserve and protect the interests of organized labor, but in the end you can’t always get what you want.” Obama, he added, has “his work cut out for him.”

Even if some passage is inevitable, democrats are key to a compromise on visas – that’s key

Palmer 3-21

[Anna. Politics for Politico. “GOP: Unions to Blame if Immigration Reform Fails” Politico, 3/21/13 ln//GBS-JV]

An immigration reform bill hasn’t even been unveiled, but key Republican lawmakers are already singling out unions as the reason why a deal could fail. The GOP offensive taps into long-simmering disagreement between the business community and unions over how to handle visas for low-skilled workers, which was one key reason why comprehensive immigration reform failed in 2007, the last time the issue was debated seriously in Washington. Sen. Marco Rubio told POLITICO the guest worker program is key to his supporting immigration reform. “I don’t think it’s any secret that in the past, unions killed immigration reform,” Sen. Marco Rubio said. “I think because of pressure from some of their members, they’ve at least publicly changed their stance on this. But I don’t think they are doing cartwheels over this.” Republicans are walking a fine line on immigration reform, trying not to alienate their base while hoping to attract millions of Latino voters that supported Democrats in the 2012 election. An immigration package without a guest worker program is almost guaranteed to fail. “I’m not going to be a part of a bill that doesn’t create a process so people can come temporarily to work if we need them,” Rubio said. “They can’t undercut American workers, but if we don’t have a system for foreign workers to come temporarily when we need them, we’re going to have an illegal immigration problem again.” Unions take issue with Rubio’s position that they aren’t working in good faith to find a compromise for how visas for low-skilled workers should be regulated. AFL-CIO’s Ana Avendaño said that Republicans trying to cast unions as the reason for immigration reform to fail “reek of desperation.” “It is their last gasp of trying to rewrite the rules of future flow to undermine the wages of local workers,” Avendaño said, arguing that constituents and the Latino population wouldn’t be swayed by Rubio’s argument that a plan for low-wage workers held up citizenship for 11 million people. But Rubio is hardly alone. Other Republican leaders on immigration reform like Rep. Raul Labrador are also sounding the alarm against unions. An amendment that President Barack Obama backed in 2007 would have stripped out the guest worker provision and was one of the issues that thwarted immigration reform happening last time. Republican opposition to immigration reform at the time was well-documented. “It’s the labor unions who do not want a guest worker program that’s viable, that’s functional,” the Idaho Republican said. “They’re fighting right now in the Senate to make the guest worker program so unwieldy, so expensive that no one will use it.” He added: “There’s no way that a Republican would vote for immigration without a workable guest worker program. I think the unions know that, and if you see any break apart in this immigration reform thing that we’re doing, it’s going to be because the unions and the Democratic senators are unwilling to do what the American people want because they are willing to put the labor unions ahead of the American people.”