Immigration Surveillance Negative
Summary.............................................................................................................................................. 2
Glossary ..................................................................................................................................... 3-4
Inherency
Deportations Decreasing Now ..................................................................................................... 5-6
Economic Hardship Advantage
Illegal Immigration Hurts the Economy ........................................................................................ 7-9
Solvency
ICE improving now .................................................................................................................... 10-1
Ending surveillance fails – State laws deter immigration ........................................................... 12-4
Ending surveillance fails – leads to an inefficient system .......................................................... 14-5
Ending surveillance fails – fuels the smuggling crisis ................................................................ 16-8
Human Rights Advantage
ICE reducing rights violations .................................................................................................. 18-20
State governments can deport immigrants .............................................................................. 21-23
Security should be prioritized over human rights ...................................................................... 24-6
Immigration Courts backlog ....................................................................................................... 27-8
Curtailing surveillance leads to violent militias ......................................................................... 29-31
Immigration Surveillance Negative
Inherency Answers
MDL and NAUDL 2015-16
Summary
Inherency
The Obama Administration has made it a priority to improve the deportation process so that it is fair
and efficient. New guidelines issued by the federal government call for immigration enforcement
agencies to target individuals who have been convicted of violent crimes and to reduce the amount of
non-criminal individuals being deported. In particular, the administration has indicated it hopes to
keep families together and reduce the amount of parents being taken away from their children.
Economic Hardship
Unlawful immigration can be detrimental to the economy. First, undocumented immigrants can
burden our social service system by using public goods like healthcare or food supplements. Second,
corporations take advantage of undocumented immigrants by exploiting them for cheap wages. Not
only are they exploited but individuals who are citizens can no longer to afford to work in those
industries because companies will just choose to hire workers who they can pay less.
Solvency
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has made a lot of progress in improving the deportation
process to make it more humane and fair. Moreover, ending surveillance alone won’t address antiimmigrant policies that states have adopted and will make ICE more inefficient by forcing them to do
their job without surveillance technology. Some have also argued that lenient immigration policies fuel
the immigration crisis because they give smugglers an incentive to send people across the border
illegally.
Human Rights
Much of the criticism of U.S deportation policy has been that the detention centers we use to hold
immigrants violate human rights. ICE has been working to solve these concerns by providing proper
medical care and establishing more stringent federal oversight. Moreover, states have a right to
deport immigrants and curtailing surveillance could make the immigration court system worse and
fuel the rise of violent anti-immigrant militias.
Immigration Surveillance Negative
Inherency Answers
MDL and NAUDL 2015-16
Glossary (1/2)
Department of Homeland Security (DHS): Is an agency of the United States federal government
that was formed in 2002 from the combination of 22 departments and agencies. The agency is charge
of various task related to making the United States homeland safe including customs, border, and
immigration enforcement; emergency response to natural and manmade disasters;
antiterrorism work; and cybersecurity.
U.S Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE): is an agency within the Department of
Homeland security that enforces federal laws governing border control, customs, trade and
immigration to promote homeland security and public safety.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (U.S.C.I.S.): The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services is responsible for processing immigration and naturalization applications and
establishing policies regarding immigration services.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (C.B.P.): Customs and Border Protection prevents people
from entering the country illegally, or bringing anything harmful or illegal into the United
States.
Secure Communities Program: is a program of the U.S Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE) that uses information shared between the ICE, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and
local law enforcement agencies to find whether individuals who have a criminal record have also
violated immigration law by entering the United States illegally.
Non-governmental organizations (NGO): an organization that is not a part of the government. For
example, Doctors Without Borders is an NGO.
Undocumented Immigrant: refers to a foreign nationals residing in the U.S. without legal
immigration status. It includes persons who entered the U.S. without inspection and proper
permission from the U.S. government, and those who entered with a legal visa that is no longer valid.
Undocumented immigrants are also known as unauthorized or illegal immigrants.
Border Patrol: is the agency in charge of watching and monitoring the border in order to prevent
people from entering the United States illegally.
Immigration Surveillance Negative
Inherency Answers
MDL and NAUDL 2015-16
Glossary (2/2)
Immigrants Detention Center: is a facility used by the federal government to house undocumented
immigrants who have been detained and subject to deportation.
Consular Consolidated Database (CCD): is a database used by U.S consular officials that records
data from visa applications such as photographs and democratic information of applicants.
Arizona v. United States: a legal case brought to the Supreme Court of the United States that dealt
with whether the State of Arizona could make its own immigration law independent of the federal
government. On a 5-3 decision the court found that Arizona could not make it a crime to be in
Arizona without legal papers, making it a crime to apply for or get a job in the state, or
allowing police to arrest individuals who had committed crimes that could lead to their
deportation because those laws infringed upon the federal government’s authority in
immigration law.
Federal expenditures: spending by the federal government.
Attendant: occurring with or as a result of; accompanying.
Dataveillance: Surveillance of someone’s personal data.
Duress: describes a range of symptoms and experiences of a person's internal life that are
commonly held to be troubling, confusing or out of the ordinary.
Alterity: the state of being other or different; otherness.
Yielded: produce or provide.
Human Rights: a right that is believed to belong justifiably to every person.
Civil Rights: the rights of citizens to political and social freedom and equality.
Nonjusticiable: If a case is "nonjusticiable." a federal court cannot hear it. The justice of the court of
does not have the ability to make a decision on the matter at hand.
Immigration Surveillance Negative
Inherency Answers
MDL and NAUDL 2015-16
Deportations Decreasing Now
(__)The federal government is decreasing deportations now by only focusing on deporting
individuals convicted of a crime.
Washington Post, 2014
[Obama announces immigration overhaul shielding 4 million from deportation,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-immigration-plan-will-shield-37-million-fromdeportation/2014/11/20/3345d672-70dd-11e4-893f-86bd390a3340_story.html]
President Obama sought to convince the American public Thursday that his plans to unilaterally
change immigration laws were well within the precedent set by previous administrations and did not
amount to an amnesty program for illegal immigrants. In a prime-time address from the White House,
Obama argued that a mass deportation of the nation’s more than 11 million undocumented
immigrants “would be both impossible and contrary to our character.” Rather, the president said,
the measures he is enacting to defer the deportations of 4 million immigrants while
simultaneously refocusing federal border control agents on the highest-priority cases, such as
felons, gang members and recent border-crossers, are aimed at “actual threats to our
security.” “Felons, not families,” Obama said of who would be in line for deportations. “Criminals,
not children. Gang members, not a mom who’s working hard to provide for her kids.” Under Obama’s
plan, the undocumented parents of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents who have lived
in the country for at least five years can apply, starting this spring, for relief from deportations
for a period of three years. About 3.7 million immigrants are expected to qualify under the new
guidelines. The president also is expanding a 2012 program that has provided administrative
relief to nearly 600,000 young people brought to the country illegally as children. Officials said
that expansion, which will remove an age cap, could reach another 287,000 people.
Immigration Surveillance Negative
Inherency Answers
MDL and NAUDL 2015-16
Deportations Decreasing Now- Extension
(___)
(__) Immigration officials are choosing to not deport children and their families.
Oleaga, reporter at Latin Post, 2014
[Michale, Obama Executive Action on Immigration Expands DACA, Defers Deportation for
Undocumented Parents, Latin Post http://www.latinpost.com/articles/26598/20141126/obamaexecutive-action-immigration-expands-daca-defers-deportation-undocumented-parents.htm]
A memorandum by U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson detailed the
changes that will occur with DACA following Obama's Nov. 20 executive order. Johnson noted
deferred action does not equate to having legal status in the country, but rather "deprioritizes" an
individual's case based on humanitarian reason, administrative convenience or in the DHS'
interests. The DACA program, however, will expand. The original DACA rules set eligibility for
undocumented immigrants under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012, and had been in the U.S. before
June 15, 2007, to apply for deferment on renewable two-year cycles. The new rules will remove the
age cap and apply for individuals in the U.S. as of Jan. 1, 2010. Instead of the renewable two-year
period, DACA recipients will have a renewable three-year period. The three-year extension will only
be applicable for first-time applicants and renewal recipients as of Nov. 24. Beginning on that date
(Nov. 24), USCIS should issue all work authorization documents valid for three years, including to
those individuals who have applied and are awaiting two-year work authorization documents based
on the renewal of their DACA grants," wrote Johnson. "USCIS should also consider means to extend
those two-year renewals already issued to three years." The expansion of DACA will also impact
the parents of a recipient. As a result of Obama's executive order, the undocumented immigrant
parents may be deferred from deportation if their child is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent
resident as of Nov. 20. The undocumented immigrant parent must have lived in the U.S. since
Jan. 1, 2010, and must be physically present in the U.S. at the time of the USCIS' deferred
action consideration. The undocumented immigrants parent must pass criminal background checks
similar to the concept for DACA applicants and for a renewable three-year stay period.
Immigration Surveillance Negative
Economic Hardship Answers
NAUDL 2015-16
Illegal Immigration Hurts the Economy
(__) Unlawful immigration overstretches the government’s resources and harms the economy
Camarota, Researcher at the Center for Immigration Studies, 2004
[Steven A. Camarota, The High Cost of Cheap Labor Illegal Immigration and the Federal Budget,
http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html]
Households headed by illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs on the federal
government in 2002 and paid only $16 billion in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of almost
$10.4 billion, or $2,700 per illegal household. Among the largest costs are Medicaid ($2.5 billion);
treatment for the uninsured ($2.2 billion); food assistance programs such as food stamps,
WIC, and free school lunches ($1.9 billion); the federal prison and court systems ($1.6 billion);
and federal aid to schools ($1.4 billion). With nearly two-thirds of illegal aliens lacking a high
school degree, the primary reason they create a fiscal deficit is their low education levels and
resulting low incomes and tax payments, not their legal status or heavy use of most social
services.
(__) Illegal immigration leads to lower paying and worse job prospects for African Americans.
Borjas, Grogger, and Hanson, Economica (Academic Journal), 2009
[GEORGE J. BORJAS, JEFFREY GROGGER and GORDON H. HANSON, Professors at Harvard
University, University of Chicago and University of California, San Diego respectively, Economica
(2010) 77, 255–282]
This paper extends the literature by examining the relation between immigration and black wages,
employment and incarceration. We use data drawn from the 1960–2000 US censuses. The data
reveal a strong correlation between immigration and black wages, black employ- ment rates and
black incarceration rates. As immigrants disproportionately increased the supply of workers in a
particular skill group, we find a reduction in the wage of black workers in that group, a
reduction in the employment rate, and a corresponding increase in the incarceration rate. Our
study suggests that a 10% immigrant-induced increase in the supply of a particular skill group
is associated with a reduction in the black wage of 2.5%, a reduction in the black employment
rate of 5.9 percentage points, and an increase in the black institutionalization rate of 1.3
percentage points. Among white men, the same 10% increase in supply reduces the wage by
3.2%, but has much weaker employment and incarceration effects: a 2.1-percentage-point reduction
in the employment rate and a 0.2- percentage-point increase in the incarceration rate. It seems,
therefore, that black employment and incarceration rates are more sensitive to immigration
than those of whites.
7
Immigration Surveillance Negative
Inherency Answers
MDL and NAUDL 2015-16
Illegal Immigration Hurts the Economy - Extensions
(___)
(__) The government must enforce immigration law because the cost of illegal immigration
harms the U.S budget.
Camarota, Researcher at the Center for Immigration Studies, 2004
[Steven A. Camarota, The High Cost of Cheap Labor Illegal Immigration and the Federal Budget,
http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html]
When defense spending is not considered, illegal households are estimated to impose costs on
the federal treasury of $6,949 a year or 58 percent of what other households received. When
defense spending is included, their costs are only 46 percent those of other households. However,
they pay only 28 percent as much in taxes as non-illegal households. As a result, the estimated
net cost per illegal household was $2,736. Whether one sees this fiscal deficit as resulting from low
tax payments or heavy use of services is a matter of perspective. As already discussed, illegal
households comprise 3.6 percent of the total population, but as Table 2 shows they account for an
estimated 0.9 percent of taxes paid and 1.4 percent of costs. Thus, both their payments and costs are
significantly less than their share of the total population. Since they use so much less in federal
services than other households, it probably makes the most sense to see the fiscal deficit as resulting
from low tax payments rather than heavy use of public services. Total Deficit Created by Illegals. If
the estimated net fiscal drain of $2,736 a year that each illegal household imposes on the
federal treasury is multiplied by the nearly three million illegal households, the total cost
comes to $10.4 billion a year. Whether one considers this to be a large sum or not is, of course, a
matter of perspective. But, this figure is unambiguously negative and certainly not trivial. It is
also worth remembering that these figures are only for the federal government and do not include
any costs at the state or local level, where the impact is likely to be significant.
Immigration Surveillance Negative
Inherency Answers
MDL and NAUDL 2015-16
Illegal Immigration Hurts the Economy - Extensions
(___)
(__) Immigration hurts the economy by increasing competition amongst workers, leading to
lower wages.
Lowenstein, report for the NY Times, 2006 [ROGER LOWENSTEIN, The Immigration Equation,
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/magazine/09IMM.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0]
Using a computer, Borjas measured the slope: it suggested that wages fell by 3 to 4 percent
for each 10 percent increase in the share of immigrants. With this graph, Borjas could calculate
that, during the 80's and 90's, for instance, immigrants caused dropouts to suffer a 5 percent
decline relative to college graduates. In a paper published in 2003, "The Labor Demand Curve
Is Downward Sloping," Borjas termed the results "negative and significant." But what about the
absolute effect? Assuming businesses did not hire any of the new immigrants, Borjas's finding
would translate to a hefty 9 percent wage loss for the unskilled over those two decades, and
lesser declines for other groups (which also received some immigrants). As we know, however, as
the population grows, demand rises and business do hire more workers. When Borjas adjusted for
this hiring, high-school dropouts were still left with a wage loss of 5 percent over those two
decades, some $1,200 a year. Other groups, however, showed a very slight gain. To many
economists as well as lay folk, Borjas's findings confirmed what seemed intuitive all along: add to the
supply of labor, and the price goes down.
Immigration Surveillance Negative
Solvency Answers
MDL and NAUDL 2015-16
ICE improving now
(__) ICE has undergone major changes to prioritizes the deportation of criminals.
Rosenblum and Kandel, Congressional Research Service, 2012 [Interior Immigration
Enforcement: Programs Targeting Criminal Aliens, fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R42057.pdf]
ICE also announced three major changes to the §287(g) program (in July 2009) and Secure
Communities (in June 2011) designed to address each of the specific concerns raised above.146
First, ICE has taken steps to impose agency-wide enforcement priorities on the §287(g) program and
Secure Communities. The 2009 MOAs established a uniform three-level enforcement priority system
for the §287(g) program, which was then superseded by the 2011 agency- and department- wide
memos and letter (see “DHS Enforcement Priorities and Discretion”). The 2011 guidance memos
clarify ICE agents’ ability to exercise discretion throughout the immigration enforcement
process, and ICE specifically linked the memos to Secure Communities by releasing them in the
context of the other June 2011 reforms to that program.147 The reforms also included the creation
of a Homeland Security Advisory Council Task Force on Secure Communities composed of law
enforcement professionals, ICE agents, and community and immigrant advocates. The task force’s
goal was to recommend how to focus the program on high-priority offenders and ensure
discretion in Secure Communities jurisdictions, among other issues.148 The task force issued a
report with findings and recommendations in September 2011, and ICE published a formal response
to the task force in April 2012.149 Second, ICE has developed new record-keeping requirements
and other tools to attempt to guard against pretextural arrests and racial profiling. ICE’s
ENFORCE tracking system has been modified to track data on the circumstances leading to
aliens’ arrests, information which may improve oversight of ICE’s partnership programs. ICE
and CRCL have reportedly developed new statistical data to be collected on a quarterly basis
to evaluate whether Secure Communities is being implemented in a biased way or otherwise
resulting in racial profiling.150 The new §287(g) MOA also seeks to prevent pretextural arrests by
requiring agencies to pursue all charges for which aliens are initially arrested. Nonetheless, media
reports indicate that statistical monitoring of the Secure Communities program had been delayed as
of November 2012, and that ICE may not be able to implement the statistical monitoring that had
been announced in response to the Secure Communities task force recommendation.151 Third, ICE
and CRCL also have developed new materials and procedures to further reduce the risk of
racial profiling and misuse of these enforcement programs.152 New training materials target ICE
agents as well as local law enforcement agents involved in these programs. ICE and CRCL have
also developed new immigration detainer forms clarifying that individuals should not be
detained for more than 48 hours and that law enforcement agencies must provide detainees
with information about how to file a complaint if they believe their civil rights have been
violated.
Immigration Surveillance Negative
Solvency Answers
MDL and NAUDL 2015-16
ICE improving now – extensions
(__)
(__) Immigration surveillance is improving in the status quo - more humane and public safety
oriented
Saldaña, ICE Director, 2015 [Sarah Saldaña, Written testimony of ICE Director Sarah Saldaña for a
House Committee on the Judiciary hearing titled “Oversight of the U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement”, http://www.dhs.gov/news/2015/04/14/written-testimony-ice-director-sarah-saldañahouse-committee-judiciary-hearing#]
We are working hard to ensure that we provide appropriate care and protections for those in
our facilities and have made progress on our standards to that end. ICE is currently compliant
with all DHS Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) requirements applicable to the agency. This
includes the ICE Directive on “Sexual Abuse and Assault Prevention and Intervention” (SAAPI), which
was updated in May 2014 to incorporate all DHS PREA requirements. The directive established a
zero-tolerance policy for sexual abuse and assault, and outlined the duties of agency employees
for reporting, response, investigation, and monitoring for all allegations; established
responsibilities for staff training, timely reporting, protection of victims, provision of medical
and mental health care, and investigation protocols; and includes safeguards to prevent
retaliation against those who report sexual abuse or who participate in a subsequent
investigation, and it defines procedures for facilitating the provision of victim services to detainee
victims. ICE also promulgated a new ERO Policy 11087.1 “Operations of ERO Holding Facilities” in
September 2014, integrating PREA requirements specifically applicable to ICE holding facilities.
While PREA’s agency requirements are primarily addressed in these two policies, ICE has also made
revisions to other policies and protocols as needed (such as medical policies and investigative
protocols) in order to incorporate all applicable PREA mandates. The requirements of ICE’s SAAPI
Directive apply to ICE employees responding to any incident or allegation of sexual abuse or assault
at the facility. This ensures that the agency provides timely and effective response and followup with respect to medical and mental health care, victim services, investigation, protection
from retaliation, and other issues, consistent with the requirements of the PREA regulation.
Immigration Surveillance Negative
Solvency Answers
MDL and NAUDL 2015-16
Ending surveillance fails – State laws deter immigration
(__) Ending surveillance fails because states will seek other ways to exclude immigrants
Vaughan, Director of Policy Studies at the Center for Immigration Studies, 2006 [Attrition
Through Enforcement, http://cis.org/Enforcement-IllegalPopulation]
Frustrated with the federal government’s failure to make progress in reducing illegal immigration, and
under pressure from impatient voters, many state and local jurisdictions are taking matters into
their own hands by enacting laws and ordinances to discourage illegal settlement and by
taking advantage of federal services, such as the database used for Basic Pilot, to verify
immigration status. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, lawmakers in 42
states are considering 380 bills related to immigration; 70 of these bills deal with
employment.58 Many of these measures, such as laws to restrict access to driver’s licenses,
are intended primarily to enhance security and minimize identity fraud; nevertheless they have
provided a powerful incentive for illegal immigrants to voluntarily return home. In other cases,
legislatures have considered more direct approaches, such as mandatory work authorization
verification. Because these laws can have such a positive effect on compliance, and require little in
the way or federal resources, they must be more actively supported by federal immigration
authorities.
(__) There are hundreds of others immigration enforcement laws that are still in the books
Munoz and Barberena,Professors at Loyola University Chicago and University of Illinois
Chicago, 2014 [Everyday Enforcement: Heightened Immigration Enforcement and Community
Responses in the United State, City & Society, Vol. 26, Issue 1, pp. 3–9]
Immigration policy-making has also broken the confines of federal and state legislative bodies and
proliferated at the local level. Between 2006 and March of 2011, ordinances targeting
undocumented immigrants had been passed and/or considered in over 130 U.S. cities (Varsanyi
2011). These policies range from English-only laws, to limits on the number of adults who can
reside in a household, to bans on sitting in public spaces; they seek to regulate and persecute
everyday behaviors associated with undocumented immigrants. As states and localities implement
their own brands of immigration-related policies, some friendly and others hostile, they have created
a “patch quilt” land- scape of policy and practice (Quesada this volume) and intensified the
significance of city, county, and state borders in the lives of unauthorized people and their family
members.
As immigration enforcement measures creep unevenly over the U.S., the threat of enforcement seeps
into a myriad of mundane activities and transforms people’s everyday lives. Papers that grant legal
status not only guard against deportation, they confer eligibility to work and drive law- fully
and to access public services. Social security numbers are increas- ingly compulsory on
financial aid applications, health insurance forms, credit applications, and rental agreements.
Government ID’s are required for such routine activities as conducting a bank transaction or
buying beer at the local grocery store. For people without the right papers, immigration
enforcement in the current period penetrates all aspects of life, from the public to the
personal, from the economic to the intimate.
Immigration Surveillance Negative
Solvency Answers
MDL and NAUDL 2015-16
Ending surveillance fails – State laws deter immigration – extensions
(__)
(__) States will continue to push anti-immigrant legislation
Hoy, writer at Immigration Impact, 2012[Seth Hoy,More and More States Introduce Costly AntiImmigration Bills,
http://www.alternet.org/story/154072/more_and_more_states_introduce_costly_anti-immigration_bills
Legislators in Mississippi, Missouri, Tennessee and Virginia introduced an array of costly
immigration enforcement bills in their 2012 legislative sessions—some which are modeled on
Arizona’s SB 1070. While study after study continues to document how these extreme state laws are
costing state economies, disrupting entire industries and driving communities further underground,
state legislators clearly aren’t getting the message. Last month, legislators in Mississippi
introduced a slew of anti-immigrant bills. State Senator Joey Fillingane, for example, introduced
SB 2090, a bill which requires police to check the immigration status of anyone they
reasonably suspect is undocumented, makes it a crime to fail to carry proper immigration
documents and a crime to harbor or transport an undocumented immigrant, and a
misdemeanor for an undocumented immigrant to apply for or solicit work. Both the Mississippi
House and Senate passed different versions of this bill, but are expected to hammer out one bill to
send to Governor Haley Barbour’s desk for a signature soon. In Missouri, state Senator Will Kraus
recently introduced SB 590, a bill which requires police to determine the immigration status of
individuals they reasonably suspect are unauthorized and makes it a crime not to carry immigration
documents. Missouri’s bill, like Alabama, however takes the law a step further by requiring schools to
verify the immigration status of enrolling students and their parents. Remember that the U.S.
Department of Justice blocked a similar provision in Alabama’s immigration law, HB 56, last October.
Missouri’s legislature passed the bill out of committee last week—a bill likely to cost Missouri millions.
The House Judiciary Committee in Tennessee advanced an immigration bill this month, HB
2191, a bill which makes it a felony for anyone in the state to knowingly conceal, harbor or
transport an undocumented immigrant. Tennessee’s copycat bill, HB 1380—which requires police
to question the immigration status of those they suspect of being undocumented—was put on hold
this month due to budgetary concerns, despite Governor Bill Haslam’s public support of the bill days
earlier. HB 1380 was also shelved last year due to $3 million price tag, but the bill’s sponsor, Rep.
Joe Carr, doesn’t seem like he’s giving up. “Putting it behind the budget doesn’t kill it. It basically
parks it,” Carr said. “We are prioritizing the state’s stance on illegal immigration based on the financial
resources we have. We’ve got a very targeted approach to tackle illegal immigration here in the
state.” In Virginia, where control of the Governorship, House of Delegates and Senate recently
changed hands to those with an enforcement heavy agenda, legislators recently introduced
two Arizona copycat bills—SB 460and its companion bill HB 1060—which allow police to
determine the immigration status of those they suspect are in the country without
documentation.
Immigration Surveillance Negative
Solvency Answers
MDL and NAUDL 2015-16
Ending surveillance fails – leads to an inefficient system
(__) Dismantling surveillance programs causes ICE to revert to enforcement policies that are
extremely inefficient.
Cadman, researcher at Center for Immigration Studies, 2015 [Dan Cadman February 2015
Interior Immigration Enforcement Legislation, http://cis.org/Testimony/Cadman-House-JudiciaryCommittee-Hearing-021115]
But it is not just in the area of worksite enforcement that interior immigration enforcement has
suffered. In her testimony a week ago, Ms. Vaughan spoke eloquently and in detail to the dangers
to public safety that have been engendered by misuse of prosecutorial discretion, which has
been turned on its head from an occasional act of ministerial grace accorded to those few with
significant mitigating circumstances, to one of requiring officers to justify, at length and in detail to
their superiors, taking enforcement action in lieu of said "discretion". What is more, a key public
safety program that takes advantage of modern electronic technologies and connectivity —
the same kind of technologies routinely used by citizens today in their multiplicity of
computers, smart phones, tablets, and other devices — to quickly and effectively identify alien
criminals in a cost-efficient and work-saving way, has been dismantled. I am speaking of course
of the Secure Communities program. This dismantling pushes the efforts of ICE agents back to
pre-electronics days, in which they have to rely on paper and faxes to obtain and exchange
information in a laborious and time consuming manner.
Immigration Surveillance Negative
Solvency Answers
MDL and NAUDL 2015-16
Ending surveillance fails – leads to an inefficient system - extensions
(__)
(__) Limiting ICE’s surveillance capacity overloads the system and increases public safety
risks.
Cadman and Metcalf, researchers at the Center for Immigration Studies, 2015 [Mark Metcalf,
Dan Cadman January 2015, How the Obama administration has trashed a key immigration
enforcement tool, http://cis.org/disabling-detainers]
The combination of local obstruction of ICE and ICE's self-imposed limits on enforcement
priorities had already begun before Johnson's decision to terminate their use. According to a recent
report from the Syracuse University Transactional Action Clearinghouse (TRAC), ICE detainers have
dropped 39 percent since 2012. Interestingly, the report tells us that, "TRAC shared its findings with
ICE and asked the agency for insights into what was driving this downward trend. However, ICE
declined to comment on why its agents were issuing fewer detainers."42 Ironically, in a recent media
article published by NJ.com — published prior to the president's executive action speech and
promulgation of the Johnson memorandum — ICE was much less reticent about its dissatisfaction
with state and local jurisdictions ignoring their detainers. An ICE spokesman is quoted in the article as
saying, "When serious criminal offenders are released to the streets in a community, rather than to
ICE custody, it undermines ICE's ability to protect public safety and impedes us from enforcing
the nation's immigration laws. ... Jurisdictions that ignore detainers bear the risk of possible
public safety risks."43 But the problem of ignoring detainers is not just about statistics, and it is far
more than a matter of workload completion for ICE agents and officers in pursuing their mission,
however significant those matters are. Fundamental governmental interests are involved,
including community safety, officer safety, efficient use of taxpayer funds, and maintenance of
an effective regimen of due process within the immigration system established by Congress:
When sheriffs or police turn a suspect loose rather than hold him on the detainer filed, lawabiding members of the community are at risk should he re-offend (and there are many, often
egregious, instances of such alien recidivists victimizing additional members of the public).44 If ICE
officers are obliged to go out and seek the individual once he has been released, they, too, are
at greater risk of injury than if receiving him directly from local law enforcement officers in the
secure constraints of a jail setting — especially since the alien offender at the point of release,
notwithstanding the detainer, is likely to know that they are aware of and looking for him.
Furthermore, the time and energy wasted trying to track down and re-apprehend that alien after
local police have released him equates to limited officer resources and public monies not
available to do equally important immigration enforcement work elsewhere in an already
overburdened system.
Immigration Surveillance Negative
Solvency Answers
MDL and NAUDL 2015-16
Ending surveillance fails – fuels the smuggling crisis
(__) Ending surveillance fuels smuggling
Cadman, researcher at Center for Immigration Studies, 2015 [Dan Cadman February 2015
Interior Immigration Enforcement Legislation, http://cis.org/Testimony/Cadman-House-JudiciaryCommittee-Hearing-021115]
This bill confronts the reprehensible fact that, through its policies and practices, the federal
government has become a major facilitator in the business of smuggling minors. In a scenario
repeated thousands of times, it goes something like this: Central American parents living and
working illegally in the United States send remittances back to their home country for the
express purpose of having their children smuggled northward. Smugglers move them through
the perilous journey and, if nothing untoward happens, deliver them on the U.S. side to be united with
relatives. If the children are apprehended, then the government itself moves the children onward to be
united with relatives, no questions asked. This has become so well known that, for their part,
smugglers are just as likely to deposit their loads of minors or families at crossroads
proximate to the border so that they can be found by Border Patrol agents, thus conveniently
relieving the smugglers from the burden of transporting the children on American highways, with the
concomitant chance of exposure and arrest such ventures carry. And, because the illegal parents
face no consequence for their part in having initiated the enterprise, word spreads and others
do the same, at great risk to the children.5 How many perish in the jungle lowlands and
highlands in Central America, or in the heat of the Mexican desert because they can't keep up?
We don't know. How many die from illness, dehydration, hypothermia, accidents, or murder? We
don't know. In the shadowy world of commerce in human beings, there is a thin line between
smuggling and trafficking: how many children whose smuggling is arranged by parents end up
being diverted into lives of abuse in the sex or drug trades? We don't know. On this side of the
border, we don't always even know with certainty who the children are being tendered to. The
bill requires an inquiry into the status of those persons, and initiation of proceedings if they are
unlawfully in the United States. Critics will say this will deter parents from coming forward. Perhaps.
But the alternative is for the United States to continue facilitating the movement of human
beings as cargo, even while we lecture the rest of the world as to their obligations to halt
human smuggling and trafficking. The moral imperative is clear: Our government should
undertake no policy or practice that puts more children at risk.
Immigration Surveillance Negative
Solvency Answers
MDL and NAUDL 2015-16
Ending surveillance fails – fuels the smuggling crisis – extensions
(__)
(__) Removing surveillance and enforcement will lead to a U.S-Mexico border crisis as
individuals take advantage and move north
Judicial Watch, an education foundation, 2014 [Weekly Update: Obama Causes Border Crisis,
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/weekly-updates/weekly-update-obama-causes-border-crisis/]
The barrage of illegal immigrant minors entering the U.S. through Mexico in recent weeks has
created an out-of-control disaster with jam-packed holding centers, rampant diseases and sexually
active teenagers at a Nogales (Arizona) facility, according to information obtained by Judicial Watch
from a Homeland Security source… The minors are coming mostly from Honduras, Guatemala and El
Salvador and some may have criminal backgrounds. “They’re not all little kids,” said Art Del Cueto,
the Tucson Border Patrol Union president. “Some are 17 years old and they have possible ties to
gang members yet they will be relocated in the U.S. with family.” Now the Obama administration has
a story to tell you about what is happening on the border and why: These “young kids” are merely
fleeing violence in their own countries. The crisis is under control. These children will be “processed”
and subjected to “removal proceedings.” None qualify for the president’s Deferred Action for
Childhood Arrivals (DACA). These are flagrant lies as anyone who is on the ground dealing with this
illegal immigration mess will tell you… Under control? One local sheriff, who estimates 1,000
illegals a day are coming across the border into Texas, characterized the influx of illegals and
the chaos on the border to “Hurricane Katrina.” Merely fleeing violence in Central America? Not
according to Art Del Cueto, who says rumors of amnesty are responsible for the unforeseen
bombardment. When agents ask the illegal border crossers what drove them, “we are hearing
a lot of amnistía (amnesty),” he said. The Washington Times reported in an editorial this week that
according to an internal Border Patrol intelligence memo, “The surge in illegal immigrants jumping
the U.S. border in recent weeks is almost entirely due to U.S. policy,” as these “immigrants
are taking advantage of the catch-and-release system of enforcement.” [Emphasis added.] “The
immigrants come seeking “permisos,” which apparently are the “Notices to appear” or NTAs,
the legal documents given to non-Mexicans caught at the border that officially put them in
deportation proceedings — but that also grant them at least a temporary entry to the interior
of the U.S,” the Times notes.
Immigration Surveillance Negative
Human Rights Advantage Answers
MDL and NAUDL 2015-16
ICE reducing rights violations
(__) ICE is now subject to federal oversight, resolving any human rights concerns
Kelly, reporter at the Arizona Republic, 2010 [Erin Kelly, ICE strives to improve migrant-detainee
care, azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2010/01/26/20100126az-ice.html]
The head of U.S. immigration enforcement on Monday announced plans for an overhaul of the
government's controversial detention system for people who face deportation. The moves
described by John T. Morton, assistant secretary of Homeland Security for U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement, address oversight, medical care and tracking of detainees at facilities in
Arizona and across the country. Plans include: Hiring 50 federal employees to oversee the
largest detention facilities, which now are largely run by contractors without much government
oversight, Morton said. Assigning regional case managers to keep tabs on detainees with
significant medical problems to ensure they are getting proper care. Detainees with major
problems will be housed in facilities near hospitals and medical centers, Morton said. In June,
launching an online immigrant-detainee locator so family members can easily find their
relatives when they are in custody awaiting possible deportation.
(__) ICE is reforming now by providing proper medical care
American Civil Liberties Union, 2010 [Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Lawsuit
Charged Lack Of Medical And Mental Health Care Led To Unnecessary Suffering And Death,
https://www.aclu.org/news/ice-agrees-improve-health-care-provided-immigration-detainees-partsettlement-aclu-lawsuit
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials have agreed to provide immigration
detainees with constitutionally adequate levels of medical and mental health care as part of an
agreement to settle an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit charging that deficient care at the San
Diego Correctional Facility (SDCF) caused unnecessary suffering and death. As part of the
settlement, ICE has also agreed to change its policy on medical care that had led to the denial
of what ICE deemed to be "non-emergency" care, including heart surgeries and cancer
biopsies. "For the first time, ICE has committed to providing all necessary health care to
immigration detainees beyond just emergency care," said Elizabeth Alexander, former Director of
the ACLU National Prison Project and lead counsel on the case. "For too long, ICE's own policies
allowed it to provide detainees with nothing beyond a narrow definition of emergency. This settlement
is recognition that it is unconstitutional not to provide people in government custody with all necessary
health care." Among the settlement agreement's provisions are requirements that detainees at SDCF
receive health care that meets or exceeds National Commission on Correctional Health Care
standards and that an additional full-time psychiatrist and four full-time psychiatric nurses be hired to
ensure that detainees receive adequate mental health care. The settlement also requires
immigration officials to remove from existing policies all statements suggesting that detainees
will receive only emergency medical services and to include in the same policies explicit
statements mandating that detainees shall be provided medical care whenever it is necessary
to address a serious medical need.
Immigration Surveillance Negative
Human Rights Advantage Answers
MDL and NAUDL 2015-16
ICE reducing rights violations - extensions
(__)
(__) ICE is reforming to provide quality physical and mental care for any individual detained.
ICE 2014 [ICE provides quality medical care to detainees, http://www.ice.gov/news/releases/topstory-ice-provides-quality-medical-care-detainees]
Providing quality health care to detainees in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE)
custody is an important and challenging task — one that Assistant Director for ICE Health Service
Corps (IHSC) Dr. Jon Krohmer takes very seriously. The ICE Office of Enforcement and Removal
Operations (ERO) ensures the safe and humane conditions of confinement for aliens detained
in ICE custody. This includes the provision of reliable, consistent and appropriate health
services. IHSC, which falls under ERO, is comprised of more than 900 Public Health Servicecommissioned officers, federal civil servants and contract support staff. Their mission is
straightforward: to serve as the medical authority for ICE on a wide range of medical issues, including
the agency's comprehensive detainee health care program. IHSC provides direct care to
approximately 15,000 detainees housed at 21 IHSC-designated facilities throughout the nation.
In addition, IHSC oversees the medical care provided to an additional 17,000 detainees at non-IHSC
staffed detention facilities across the country. Whenever necessary, it authorizes and pays for off-site
specialty and emergency care, consultations and case management. "A detainee's health care
begins the moment they walk through the facility's doors," said Dr. Krohmer. "Within the first 12
hours of their admission, all detainees undergo a preliminary health screening, which includes
an evaluation of the individual's medical, dental and mental health status and within the next
14 days, a more detailed physical examination takes place." Because so many of these
detainees are either new arrivals in the country or haven't had access to health care in the
past, Dr. Krohmer said it is not unusual for serious health problems to be diagnosed at these
screenings. "We're finding out about health issues that even they didn't even know about and
in most cases are able to begin treatment," he said. This continuity of care not only lasts
during the individual's period of detention, but also throughout their removal to their country
of origin.
Immigration Surveillance Negative
Human Rights Advantage Answers
MDL and NAUDL 2015-16
ICE reducing rights violations - extensions
(__)
(__) ICE has reduced the rate of violence towards immigrants and improved standards of care.
Myers, assistant secretary of homeland security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
2008[Julie L. Myers, Caring for Immigration Detainees, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2008/05/19/AR2008051902296.html]
ICE spent nearly $100 million last year for detainee health care, double the funding of just five
years ago. Our efforts are producing results. While the number of people in ICE detention has
increased more than 30 percent since 2004, the first full year for which statistics under the agency are
available, the mortality rate has declined every year. In 2004, the mortality rate for ICE
detainees was 10.8 per 100,000. In 2007, it was 3.5 per 100,000. The number of deaths in
detention has decreased, from 29 in 2004 to seven in 2007. ICE detainees have access to
mental health care provided by qualified professionals, and staff working with detainees receive
ongoing training in suicide risk and prevention techniques. Psychologists and social workers have
managed a daily population of more than 1,350 seriously mentally ill detainees without a
single suicide being committed in the past 15 months. ICE has increased oversight and
accountability at all its detention facilities. Progress includes establishing an independent body to
review detention inspections; implementing national detention standards that are comparable
to or surpass industry standards in their commitment to detainee health and comfort;
retaining full-time quality assurance professionals to assess compliance with those
standards; and contracting independent corrections and detention experts to audit ICE
facilities. Moreover, ICE detention facilities are open to those outside the agency: We routinely
conduct tours for members of Congress, representatives from nongovernmental organizations and
the media.
Immigration Surveillance Negative
Human Rights Advantage Answers
MDL and NAUDL 2015-16
State governments can deport immigrants
(__) States have an obligation to deport individuals that are imposing obligations upon their
political communities by immigrating illegally.
Kates and Pevnick, Journal of Philosophy & Public Affairs, 2014 [Immigration, Jurisdiction, and
History, Philosophy and Public Affairs, Volume 42, Issue 2, pages 179–194, Spring 2014]
It is important to recognize, however, that from the fact that all inhabitants within a particular territorial
jurisdiction are entitled to the equal protection of their human rights, it does not follow that these rights
“are equally pressed against all human institutions at all times” (p. 110). In a world divided between
states, human rights impose distinct obligations on distinct political communities. Whereas the
obligation to respect human rights is global in scope and application, the obligation to protect and
fulfill them is fundamentally local. Thus, although all states are forbidden, on Blake’s view, from
violating the human rights of any individual no matter where such a violation may occur, they are only
required to establish institutional mechanisms for securing and defending the human rights of those
individuals who happen to reside within their own political community. Accordingly, one justification
for state B excluding a potential immigrant from its jurisdiction is that, while she was residing in state
A, her human rights were already protected and fulfilled. But if that is the case, then by entering state
B she imposes a “new set of obligations” (p. 114) on its current inhabitants to extend equal protection
of the law to her. This new set of obligations, however, limits the freedom of those inhabitants, and in
Blake’s view, we “have a presumptive right to be free from others imposing obligations on us without
our consent” (p. 115). Thus, the alleged reason why states have a right to exclude potential
immigrants from their jurisdiction is that immigrants impose obligations on those who are already
present within that jurisdiction and the latter have a presumptive right to refuse to take on new
obligations of that sort
Immigration Surveillance Negative
Human Rights Advantage Answers
MDL and NAUDL 2015-16
State governments can deport immigrants - extensions
(___)
(__) States have a primary obligation to ensure the security of their citizens
Jenks, Centennial Institute Debate, 2011 [Rosemary Jenks, A Less Restrictive Immigration Policy
is NOT Morally and Civically Best for America,
https://www.numbersusa.com/content/learn/issues/american-workers/less-restrictive-immigrationpolicy-not-morally-and-civically-best-ame]
In other words, noncitizens do NOT have a right to immigrate; rather, immigration is a privilege
granted by a nation to those individuals it chooses. So, how should nations choose to whom they
grant that privilege? In America, the U.S. Constitution specifically empowers Congress to set
immigration policy, and the preamble of the Constitution provides the framework in which that should
be done. The preamble reads, “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect
union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the
general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and
establish this constitution for the United States of America.” So, under the Constitution, we the people
empower our elected officials to establish policies that serve the interests of Americans. Today in the
United States, 22 million Americans want, but cannot find, full-time jobs. Among Americans with only
a high school education, one in five (20%) cannot find full-time work. Among Hispanic Americans with
only a high school education, 36 percent cannot find full-time work. Among Black Americans with only
a high school education, 40 percent cannot find full-time work. Among American teens—16 and 17
year olds—40 percent cannot find full-time jobs. And yet, today in the United States, because our
government has abdicated its duty to enforce immigration laws, an estimated 7 million nonagricultural jobs are held by illegal aliens. The vast majority of these illegal aliens have no more than
a high school education. In addition, our government currently grants permanent work permits to an
average of 75,000 working-age legal immigrants every single month, under the most generous legal
immigration policy in the world. About half of these immigrants have no more than a high school
education. How is it morally or civically acceptable for the U.S. government to not just ignore the
plight of 22 million Americans who desperately need jobs, but to actively pursue a policy that actually
imports more workers to compete with them for scarce jobs, and that drives down wages?
Immigration Surveillance Negative
Human Rights Advantage Answers
MDL and NAUDL 2015-16
State governments can deport immigrants - extensions
(__)
(__) The damage done by curtailing immigration enforcement is a primary national security
concern and extending human rights to all immigrants makes everyone worse off.
Weiner, International Migration Review, 1996 [Myron Weiner Ethics, National Sovereignty and the
Control of Immigration, International Migration Review. Vol. 30, No. 1, Special Issue: Ethics,
Migration, and Global Stewardship (Spring, 1996), pp. 171-197]
To most citizens, however, the argument in favor of national sovereignty with respect to control over
migration appears to be commonsensical. Let us consider what the consequences might be if a
country had completely open borders to anyone who wished to enter. While this approach seems to
take the moral high ground by avoiding coercion, it clearly jeopardizes the well-being of the host
population and threatens politicide. A safe and prosperous country that declares its borders open
risks being overwhelmed by a massive influx of
immigrants from poor and/or violent countries. If the country then provides these immigrants with the
same benefits it offers its own citizens (education for children, healthcare, unemployment benefits,
etc.), its social services and welfare services may be stretched to the limit. The country's own poor
may find themselves pushed aside by migrants prepared to work at lower wages. If the number of
migrants is large enough, the local population may find itself outnumbered by people who speak
another language, belong to another culture, and perhaps seek to change the political system. As the
number of migrants grows, the local population may become xenophobic, resulting in the growth of
antimigrant political organizations, violence, and social disorder. Poor countries might also be at risk if
their borders are open. Peasants from densely populated neighboring countries might freely enter in
search of land and employment, thereby putting pressure on the local population. Refugees from civil
conflict might cross the border and damage the local ecology by cutting firewood, consuming water,
generating waste, and destroying grasslands. The indigenous population might become acutely afraid
of domination by the intruding ethnic group, especially if the community is one with which it has a
history of enmity. Any country, rich or poor,that opened its borders might soon find other states taking
advantage of its beneficent policy. A neighboring country whose elite wanted a more homogeneous
society could now readily expel its minorities. A government that wanted a more egalitarian society
could dump its unemployed and its poor. An authoritarian regime could rid itself of its opponents; a
country could empty its jails, mental institutions, and homes for the aged. In an extreme case, an
overcrowded populous country could take over a hypothetically generous country simply by
"transferring" a large part of its population, and an aggressive country would no longer need tanks
and missiles for an invasion.
Immigration Surveillance Negative
Human Rights Advantage Answers
MDL and NAUDL 2015-16
Security should be prioritized over human rights (1/3)
(__) Survival is a prerequisite to values and we should prioritize security over human rights
Nye, Dean of the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, 86 [Joseph S.
1986; Phd Political Science Harvard. University; Served as Assistant Secretary of Defense for
International Security Affairs; “Nuclear Ethics” pg. 45-46]
Some people argue that "we are required to undergo gross injustice that will break many souls sooner
than ourselves be the authors of mass murder."73 Still others say that "when a person makes survival
the highest value, he has declared that there is nothing he will not betray. But for a civilization to
sacrifice itself makes no sense since there are not survivors to give meaning to the sacrifical [sic] act.
In that case, survival may be worth betrayal." Is it possible to avoid the "moral calamity of a policy like
unilateral disarmament that forces us to choose between being dead or red (while increasing the
chances of both)"?74 How one judges the issue of ends can be affected by how one poses the
questions. If one asks "what is worth a billion lives (or the survival of the species)," it is natural to
resist contemplating a positive answer. But suppose one asks, "is it possible to imagine any threat to
our civilization and values that would justify raising the threat to a billion lives from one in ten
thousand to one in a thousand for a specific period?" Then there are several plausible answers,
including a democratic way of life and cherished freedoms that give meaning to life beyond mere
survival. When we pursue several values simultaneously, we face the fact that they often conflict and
that we face difficult tradeoffs. If we make one value absolute in priority, we are likely to get that value
and little else. Survival is a necessary condition for the enjoyment of other values, but that does not
make it sufficient. Logical priority does not make it an absolute value. Few people act as though
survival were an absolute value in their personal lives, or they would never enter an automobile. We
can give survival of the species a very high priority without giving it the paralyzing status of an
absolute value. Some degree of risk is unavoidable if individuals or societies are to avoid paralysis
and enhance the quality of life beyond mere survival. The degree of that risk is a justifiable topic of
both prudential and moral reasoning.
Immigration Surveillance Negative
Human Rights Advantage Answers
MDL and NAUDL 2015-16
Security should be prioritized over human rights (2/3)
(__)
(__) Absolute commitments to values like human rights fail when confronted with violence in
the real world –prioritize security first
Isaac, Professor of Political Science at Indiana-Bloomington, 2002 [Director of the Center for the
Study of Democracy and Public Life, PhD from Yale, Jeffery C., Dissent Magazine, Vol. 49, Iss. 2,
“Ends, Means, and Politics,” p. Proquest]
What should be done to respond to the violence of a Saddam Hussein, or a Milosevic, or a
Taliban regime? What means are likely to stop violence and bring criminals to justice? Calls for
diplomacy and international law are well intended and important; they implicate a decent and
civilized ethic of global order. But they are also vague and empty, because they are not
accompanied by any account of how diplomacy or international law can work effectively to
address the problem at hand. The campus left offers no such account. To do so would require it
to contemplate tragic choices in which moral goodness is of limited utility. Here what matters is
not purity of intention but the intelligent exercise of power. Power is not a dirty word or an unfortunate
feature of the world. It is the core of politics. Power is the ability to effect outcomes in the world.
Politics, in large part, involves contests over the distribution and use of power. To accomplish
anything in the political world, one must attend to the means that are necessary to bring it
about. And to develop such means is to develop, and to exercise, power. To say this is not to say
that power is beyond morality. It is to say that power is not reducible to morality. As writers
such as Niccolo Machiavelli, Max Weber, Reinhold Niebuhr, and Hannah Arendt have taught, an
unyielding concern with moral goodness undercuts political responsibility. The concern may
be morally laudable, reflecting a kind of personal integrity, but it suffers from three fatal flaws: (1) It
fails to see that the purity of one's intention does not ensure the achievement of what one intends.
Abjuring violence or refusing to make common cause with morally compromised parties may
seem like the right thing; but if such tactics entail impotence, then it is hard to view them as
serving any moral good beyond the clean conscience of their supporters; (2) it fails to see that
in a world of real violence and injustice, moral purity is not simply a form of powerlessness; it
is often a form of complicity in injustice. This is why, from the standpoint of politics--as
opposed to religion--pacifism is always a potentially immoral stand. In categorically
repudiating violence, it refuses in principle to oppose certain violent injustices with any effect;
and (3) it fails to see that politics is as much about unintended consequences as it is about
intentions; it is the effects of action, rather than the motives of action, that is most significant.
Just as the alignment with "good" may engender impotence, it is often the pursuit of "good" that
generates evil. This is the lesson of communism in the twentieth century: it is not enough that one's
goals be sincere or idealistic; it is equally important, always, to ask about the effects of pursuing
these goals and to judge these effects in pragmatic and historically contextualized ways.
Moral absolutism inhibits this judgment. It alienates those who are not true believers. It
promotes arrogance. And it undermines political effectiveness.
Immigration Surveillance Negative
Human Rights Advantage Answers
MDL and NAUDL 2015-16
Security should be prioritized over human rights (3/3)
(__)
(__) Instead of asserting human rights, policy makers must prioritize the cost and benefits of
actions because that is the only way to maximize security and the well-being of everyone
Shaw Philosophy Professor 1999 (William H. Shaw, 1999, Philosophy and Chair of the Philosophy
at SJSU, “contemporary ethics: taking account of utilitarianism” p 171-2)
In the public realm utilitarianism is especially compelling. Because of its consequentialist
character, a utilitarian approach to public policy requires officials to base their actions,
procedures, and programs on the most accurate and detailed understanding they can obtain
of the circum- stances in which they are operating and the likely results of the alternatives
open to them. Realism and empiricism are the hallmarks of a utilitarian orientation, not customary
practice, unverified abstractions, or wishful Promotion of the wellbeing of all seems to be the
appropriate, indeed the only sensible, touchstone for assessing public policies and institutions, and
the standard objections to utilitarianism as a personal morality carry little or no weight against
it when viewed as a public philosophy. Consider, for instance, the criticisms that utilitarianism is
too impersonal and ignores one's individual attachments and personal commitments, that it is coldly
calculating and concerned only with maximizing, that it demands too much of moral agents and that it
permits one to violate certain basic moral restraints on the treatment of others. The previous two
chapters addressed sorne of these criticisms; others will be dealt with in Chapter 8. The point here,
though, is that far from undermining utilitarianism as a public philosophy, these criticisms
highlight its strengths. We want public officials to be neutral, impersonal. and detached and to
proceed with their eyes firmly on the effects of the policies they pursue and the institutions
that their decisions shape. Policy making requires public officials to address general issues,
typical conditions. and common circum- stances. Inevitably, they must do this through general
rules, not on a case by case basis. As explained later in this chapter, this fact precludes public
officials from violating the rights of individuals as a matter of policy. Moreover, by organizing
the efforts of countless individuals and compelling each of us to play our part in collective endeavors
to enhance welfare, public officials can make it less likely that utilitarianism will demand too much of
any one individual because others are doing too little. Utilitarians — will seek to direct and
coordinate people's actions through effective public policy and to reshape, in utilityenhancing ways, the institutions that structure the choices people face. By doing so,
utilitarians can usually accomplish more good than they can through isolated individual
action, however dedicated and well intentioned. For this reason, they will strive to Easter
institutions that false over from individuals much of the task of promoting the general welfare of
society. General welfare is a broad goal, of course, and sensible policies and institutions will
typically focus on more specific desiderata - such as promoting productivity, increasing
individual freedom and opportunity, improving people’s physical health, guaranteeing their
personal security, and so on — that contribute significantly to people's well-being.
Immigration Surveillance Negative
Human Rights Advantage Answers
MDL and NAUDL 2015-16
Immigration Courts backlog
(__) Immigration courts suffer when immigration law is not enforced because it adds to the
backlog of unexecuted deportations.
Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal
and Judicial Studies, 2013 [No Fix For Our Immigration Courts,
http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2013/6/no-fix-for-our-immigration-courts
This is a crucial difference because immigration judges, who are Justice Department employees, do
not have the power to enforce their own orders. So even if an alien’s case goes through the entire
immigration court system (including the appeals process), and ends, finally, with an official
deportation order, nothing automatically happens. That final order will simply sit in a file drawer unless
and until DHS decides to enforce it. Immigration judges have no ability to tell federal marshals or any
other law enforcement official to enforce their orders. They can’t tell ICE (Immigration and Customs
Enforcement) agents to take a deportable alien and put him on a plane headed back to his country of
origin. The immigration court system is broken. Badly. It suffers from a huge backlog of cases: more
than 330,000. But even worse is the huge backlog of unenforced deportation orders. According to
Mark Metcalf, a former Justice Department immigration judge, the number of unexecuted deportation
orders now stands at 1.2 million. This means that there are 1.2 million aliens who have exhausted
their legal rights and have been declared by an immigration judge to have no valid reason to remain
in the United States. Many of those aliens are individuals who had been detained by DHS, but were
released upon their “promise” to appear in court for a hearing on their immigration claims. According
to Metcalf, 900,000 aliens skipped court and disappeared during the last 16 years. Skipping out is
exactly what you would expect from someone who knows he has no legal right to be here to begin
with. Why show up in court and risk being deported when you can just disappear and show up
somewhere else in the country under a new name?
Immigration Surveillance Negative
Human Rights Advantage Answers
MDL and NAUDL 2015-16
Immigration Courts backlog- extensions
(__) Curtailing immigration enforcement creates a magnet for undocumented immigrants that
worsens the immigration court system
Ward, a reporter for Watchdog.org, 2014 [Kenric Ward, U.S. Immigration Courts Have Huge
Backlogs, Leading to Long Waits for Trials, http://dailysignal.com/2014/09/12/u-s-immigration-courtshave-huge-backlogs-leading-to-long-waits-for-trials/]
U.S. immigration courts are backlogged with nearly 400,000 cases, and experts say the Obama
administration is to blame. The 396,552 cases awaiting adjudication represent a 22 percent increase
over last year, according to Syracuse University researchers. Not surprisingly, wait times are up, too.
The average case in Imperial, Calif., currently lingers 857 days before resolution. Richard Kelsey,
assistant dean at the George Mason University School of Law and a longtime observer of immigration
issues, said the problem starts at the White House. “The president has telegraphed that he is going to
take some kind of action (on immigration), so neither the courts nor the prosecutors are killing
themselves to get things done,” Kelsey said in an interview. “Anyone who thinks there’s no
correlation has their head buried so deep in sand they’re not getting enough air.” Bob Dane,
spokesman for the enforcement-oriented Federation for American Immigration Reform, sees other
bad actors, as well: One reason the backlogs are building is that while illegal aliens who are caught
crossing the border can accept a swift, no-fuss voluntary departure, most don’t opt for it. And why
would they? They’re egged on to buy time by their immigration attorneys, local amnesty groups, the
ACLU, the Mexican-American Legal Defense Fund and La Raza. Making the backlogged system
even more dysfunctional, defendants often fail to appear for their court hearings. “Unlike normal court
proceedings where a notice of the hearing must be served … there is no legal requirement that these
individuals actually receive notification — only that a notice be sent out to the address they have,”
said Susan Long, associate professor of managerial studies at Syracuse.
Immigration Surveillance Negative
Human Rights Advantage Answers
MDL and NAUDL 2015-16
Curtailing surveillance leads to violent militias
(__) Refusing to enforce immigration law leads to a rise in violent militias
Bever, reporter at Washington Post, 2014 [Lindsey Bever, Texas ‘militia’ says it’s heading out to
help ‘secure’ border, http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/07/08/locallawmakers-law-enforcement-and-residents-take-on-the-immigration-crisis/]
The group, called Operation Secure Our Border-Laredo, was identified to the San Antonio ExpressNews as “Patriots,” “Oathkeepers” and “Three Percenters,” a reference to the 3 percent of colonists
who took up arms against England during the Revolutionary War. Organizers are using social media
and a 24-hour hotline to recruit and mobilize armed volunteers to send to Laredo, Tex., within the
coming weeks.
It’s uncertain how many people belong to the group or how many might actually show up.
“We’re here to supplement and be where law enforcement is not and help them support the border,”
Chris Davis, the 37-year-old listed leader, told the Los Angeles Times. “There’s nothing malicious,
there’s no malicious intent — every person is vetted. We’re just here to serve freedom, liberty and
national sovereignty.” Davis said once the group has enough manpower, it will do its duty in a “legal
and lawful manner.”
It’s quite a different tactic than the one Davis announced via a YouTube video in which he allegedly
said: “You see an illegal. You point your gun dead at him, right between his eyes, and you say, ‘Get
back across the border or you will be shot,'” the McAllen Monitor reported last week. Davis told the
Express-News he removed the video after it was taken out of context “by a newspaper that supports
amnesty.”
Immigration Surveillance Negative
Human Rights Advantage Answers
MDL and NAUDL 2015-16
Curtailing surveillance leads to violent militias- Extensions
(__)
(__) A rise in militia groups leads to the violent murder of undocumented immigrants and
Latinos
Lenz, Southern Poverty Law Center, 2012 [Investigating Deaths of Undocumented Immigrants on
the Border, Intelligence Report, Fall 2012, Issue Number: 147, http://www.splcenter.org/getinformed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2012/fall/death-in-the-desert]
For years, the area has been crisscrossed by “civilian border patrols” — the “Minutemen” groups that
President George W. Bush characterized as “vigilantes” and that were enraged by what they saw as
a purposeful invasion. A neo-Nazi leader who led fellow armed radicals to the border spoke of laying
mines to prevent non-whites from entering — and later reportedly asked a witness to help him surveill
homes where he hoped to murder Latinos. Law enforcement has found at least one pipe bomb
planted on a smuggling trail, and last year a neo-Nazi was arrested with other bombs he was taking
to the border. Still other neo-Nazis told the Intelligence Report several years earlier that they were
scouting sniper positions at the border. The recent shootings near Eloy, coupled with the murders in
January and February of 2007, have raised these worries again. An internal Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) report from the earlier period, obtained by the Report, said the 2007 shootings were
likely connected to each other. And in the second incident that year, police found two men with nonHispanic names “concealed in the brush” nearby watching the police response — a “curious” fact, the
DHS report said. Through it all, most Arizona authorities have dismissed virtually all the non-weatherrelated deaths as the result of attacks by drug and human smugglers — and there is little doubt that
that is behind some of the mayhem. But many activists and at least some in law enforcement fear that
a small but committed cadre of hard-core extremists on the border may actually be engaging in
murder. Matt Browning, a retired Mesa police detective who spent years undercover infiltrating racist
border and neo-Nazi skinhead groups, is one of them. “In Arizona, we might not have Hammerskins
or Volksfront or the Klan,” Browning said, referencing some of the more prominent contemporary
white supremacist groups. “What we do have is a lot of angry, militant white men on the border sitting
like hunters waiting for these people to come across.”
Immigration Surveillance Negative
Human Rights Advantage Answers
MDL and NAUDL 2015-16
Curtailing surveillance leads to violent militias- extensions
(___)
(__) Violent militias are the most dangerous types of terrorist
Bergen and Sterman, contributors to CNN, 2014 [Peter Bergen and David Sterman, U.S. right
wing extremists more deadly than jihadists, http://us.cnn.com/2014/04/14/opinion/bergen-stermankansas-shooting/]
In fact, since 9/11 extremists affiliated with a variety of far-right wing ideologies, including white
supremacists, anti-abortion extremists and anti-government militants, have killed more people in the
United States than have extremists motivated by al Qaeda's ideology. According to a count by the
New America Foundation, right wing extremists have killed 34 people in the United States for political
reasons since 9/11. (The total includes the latest shootings in Kansas, which are being classified as a
hate crime). By contrast, terrorists motivated by al Qaeda's ideology have killed 21 people in the
United States since 9/11. (Although a variety of left wing militants and environmental extremists have
carried out violent attacks for political reasons against property and individuals since 9/11, none have
been linked to a lethal attack, according to research by the New America Foundation.) Moreover,
since 9/11 none of the more than 200 individuals indicted or convicted in the United States of some
act of jihadist terrorism have acquired or used chemical or biological weapons or their precursor
materials, while 13 individuals motivated by right wing extremist ideology, one individual motivated by
left-wing extremist ideology, and two with idiosyncratic beliefs, used or acquired such weapons or
their precursors.
(__) Anti-immigrant militias increase when the federal government ceases to enforce
immigration laws.
Nasser, reporter at Al Jazeera, 2014 [Haya El Nasser, Immigration protest movement gains new
impetus, http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/7/31/immigration-protestsus.html]
“Many of the anti-immigration groups are trying to use the issue to put pressure on the Obama
administration, which is now considering executive action [on immigration reform],” she said. “We see
really troubling things from groups that have either been dormant or shuttered. The extent to which
they’ve come back, we don’t know yet.” Marine Corps veteran Jim Gilchrist, who founded the
Minuteman Project in 2004 to get the government to enforce immigration laws, has resurfaced and
launched Operation Normandy a week after protesters in Murrieta forced a bus bringing immigrants to
a detention facility to turn around.
The Minuteman website said it expects to recruit and organize 3,500 nonmilitia volunteers and
“uncounted groups of militia” to participate on D-Day. The plan is to blanket the 2,000-mile border
from San Diego to Brownsville, Texas. “This event will dwarf the Minuteman Project of 2005,” the site
proclaims. In that year the organization stationed scores of men and women along the Mexican
border in a controversial effort to track down undocumented immigrants. This current border crisis
has galvanized groups that care less about immigration than they do about protesting government,
said Jill Garvey, executive director of the Center for New Community, a Chicago-based national civil
rights organization that provides support to advocacy groups.
32