1AC - Alappatt, Chettiar (AutoRecovered)

BCP 18-19
PAGE 1 OF 19
Intro: The United States of America has always been considered a nation of immigrants. As Americans, it is our moral
obligation to reach out to our brothers and sisters across the world with open arms. In fact, a great portion of these people
are Syrian refugees who suffer at the hands of their own country.
Syrian refugees are being sexually assaulted on the streets and are being thrown into poverty. Many Syrian children are
physically abused, and their mortality rates are steadily increasing. Sad as it is, this is the life of an average Syrian. These
refugees have left their violence-stricken home for a better life in America, and yet, they don’t ever get to live the American
dream. Our government and current presidential administration have misconceptions of these refugees and others, and
they believe they will do more harm than good. But that is simply not the case, and while we deliberate, there are those
who need a home. We must allow these Syrian refugees into our borders. Thus, my partner and I stand –
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially reduce restrictions on legal immigration to the United
_____________________________________________________________________________PAGE 1 OF 19
BCP 18-19
PAGE 2 OF 19
Now we will move on to the stock issue of Harms. Under Harms, we will explain the suffering with which Syrians
face in their own country.
The humanitarian crisis in Syria is quickly escalating, with thousands of people dying every day. Current restrictions
on refugee admissions prevent Syrians from escaping their home country.
Yvette Clark & Mona Haydar, congressional representative from Brooklyn and refugee activist, on April 10, 2017 (Yvette
& Mona; Clarke represents Brooklyn in the U.S. House of Representatives. Haydar is a Syrian-American activist.; New York Daily News; 4/10/17;
“America’s moral responsibility to Syrian refugees”; http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/america-moral-responsibility-syrian-refugees-article1.3040935#; Accessed: 8/29/18; RY)
The images were
horrifying. Families choking, struggling to breathe. The bodies of children, motionless. Dead, from chemical gas
dropped in northern Syria under orders from Bashar Assad . These were more than 70 people killed in Khan Sheikhun in among the worst
chemical attacks in the six-year Syrian Civil War. And yet, even as President Trump authorized military attacks and seems to be increasingly
open to leading the world in a push to remove Assad, he refuses to admit Syrian refugees who are victims of violence just like this.
The situation has become increasing desperate as the Syrian civil war threatens families with violence from their own government, the Islamic
State of Iraq and the Levant and other groups trying to gain control. An estimated 400,000 people have been killed in the struggle, with
millions displaced both within Syria and to other nations, searching for safety from the violence at home. We cannot simply turn the page
of the newspaper or change the channel on our televisions. We have to open our eyes to the humanitarian crisis in Syria and demand that
our elected officials increase the number of Syrian refugees accepted into the United States immediately. Most Syrian refugees are now still in
close proximity to the war, in nations such as Turkey, Lebanon, Iraq, Egypt, and Jordan. Under President Obama, the United States established a
goal of accepting 10,000 Syrian refugees annually. Trump has attempted to prevent any Syrian refugees from entering the United
States, under the false and painfully ironic assumption that people who are fleeing terrorism are at risk of becoming terrorists themselves. Thankfully,
the federal courts have delayed implementation of Trump's executive orders on refugees. But the issue will remain unresolved
until the Supreme Court reaches a decision. In addition, the goal of accepting 10,000 refugees annually remains woefully insufficient. Turkey
holds more than 2 million refugees. Another million refugees are now in Lebanon. For an example closer to home, Canada, with a much smaller economy
and a lower population, accepts nearly 40,000 Syrian refugees each year. As
a leader in the community of nations, the United States has
a moral responsibility to assume the mantle of leadership. Many of our fellow Americans — in fact, a small majority — believe that the United
States should not accept refugees from Syria. The risks are just too great, they suggest. We need to change hearts and minds on this issue by
changing the narrative about these refugees. Refugees simply are not a threat to our nation. In other nations that have accepted higher
numbers of refugees, these families have quickly become an integral part of the civil society. We need to offer that same opportunity here. Will we open
our nation — and our homes — to families who are fleeing violence and want to prosper in safety ? Or will we ignore the call upon our
conscience, and refuse to provide assistance? Our grandchildren, the next generation of Americans, will know of our decision and its consequences. I am
hopeful that people of good faith will join in the effort extend our hands to families who want only to know peace.
_____________________________________________________________________________PAGE 2 OF 19
BCP 18-19
PAGE 3 OF 19
1AC – Harms – Syrian War
The Syrian refugee crises has only increased in number by the Syrian war. More than half of the people affected are
children hoping for a better life.
Diana Al Rifai, journalist covering the Middle East, on May 25, 2017(Diana; Al Rifai is a journalist covering the Middle East, mainly
covering politics, human rights, the refugee crisis and the humanitarian crisis in Syria. Prior to working at Al Jazeera, she was an assistant producer
at Deutsche Welle in Berlin. She has previously worked at the American Academy in Berlin and worked with several NGO's helping Syrian refugees in
Lebanon, Turkey and internally displaced people inside Syria.; Al Jazeera; 5/25/17; “Syrian refugee crisis: All your questions answered”;
https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/interactive/2015/07/syria-refugee-crisis-150709120935092.html; Accessed: 10/29/18; Alappatt-Chettiar)
largest humanitarian crises since the end of World War II. The number of refugees who have fled
exceeds five million, including more than 2.4 million children, and millions more have been displaced internally,
according to the United Nations. Syrians have poured across their borders since anti-government protests in 2011 spiraled into a full-blown war
The Syrian refugee crisis remains one of the
the country now
between rebels, government troops and foreign backers. The first three months of 2017 saw more than 250,000 additional Syrians register as refugees,
bringing the total to 5.1 million, according to the UN's refugee agency, UNHCR. "It's not about the number, it's about the people," UNHCR spokesman
Babar Baloch said, noting that the conflict has now lasted longer than World War II. "We're trying
to look for understanding, solidarity and
humanity.” Turkey continues to host the highest number of displaced Syrians, at nearly three million, with an increase of 47,000 since
February, Baloch said.
_____________________________________________________________________________PAGE 3 OF 19
BCP 18-19
PAGE 4 OF 19
1AC – Harms – Syrian Health Affected
The Syrian refugee crises has affected the health terms in Syria lowering minimal hospital requirements and
increasing subjects such as infant mortality and declining medical events like population.
Rahma Aburas, Amina Najeeb, Laila Baageel, and Tim K. Mackey, writers for BMC medicine, on May 11,2017(Rahma
Aburas is part of the Joint Master’s Program in Health Policy and Law, University of California - California Western School of Law, San Diego, CA,
USA; Amina Najeeb attended the Brotherhood Medical Center for Women and Children, Atimah, Syria; Laila Baageel attended the Department of
Anesthesiology, University of California, San Diego School of Medicine, San Diego, CA, USA; Tim K. Mackey is affiliated with the Department of
Anesthesiology, University of California, San Diego School of Medicine, San Diego, CA, USA, Department of Medicine, Division of Global Public
Health, University of California, San Diego School of Medicine, San Diego, CA, USA, Global Health Policy Institute, San Diego, CA, USA; BMC
Medicine; 5/11/2017; “The Syrian Conflict: A case study of the challenges and acute need for medical humanitarian operations for women and children
internally displaced persons”; https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-018-1041-7; Accessed: 10/29/18; Alappatt-Chettiar)
The Syrian civil war is the epitome of a health and humanitarian crisis , as highlighted by recent chemical attacks in a Damascus suburb,
impacting millions of people across Syria and leading to a mass migration of refugees seeking to escape this protracted and devastating conflict. After 7
long years of war, more than 6 million people are internally displaced within Syria — the
largest displacement crisis in the world — and more
than 5 million registered Syrian refugees have been relocated to neighboring countries [1, 2]. In total, this equates to an estimated six in ten Syrians
who are now displaced from their homes [3]. Syrian internally displaced persons (IDPs) are individuals who continue to reside in a fractured Syrian
state now comprising a patchwork of government- and opposition-held areas suffering from a breakdown in governance [4]. As the Syrian conflict
continues, the number of IDPs and Syrian refugees continues to grow according to data from the United Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees (UNHCR). This growth is continuing despite some borders surrounding Syria being closed and in part due to a rising birth rate in refugee camps
[5, 6]. This creates acute challenges for neighboring/receiving countries in terms of ensuring adequate capacity to offer essential services such as food,
water, housing, security, and specifically healthcare [4, 7, 8]. Critically, women and children represent the majority of all Syrian IDPs and refugees, which
directly impacts their need for essential MCH services [18]. Refugee and internally displaced women and children face similar health challenges in conflict
high risk for poor
health outcomes that can have significant short-term, long-term, and inter-generational health consequences [10]. Shared challenges
situations, as they are often more vulnerable than other patient populations, with pregnant women and children at particularly
include a lack of access to healthcare and MCH services, inadequate vaccination coverage, risk of malnutrition and starvation, increased burden of mental
health issues due to exposure to trauma, and other forms of
exploitation and violence such as early marriage, abuse, discrimination,
and gender-based violence [4, 10, 19, 20]. Further, scarce medical resources are often focused on patients suffering from acute and severe injury and
trauma, leading to de-prioritization of other critical services like MCH [4]. A 2016 United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) report estimated that 360,000
adequate international funding, 70,000 pregnant Syrian women faced the risk of giving birth in unsafe conditions if access to
Syrian IDPs are pregnant, yet many do not receive any antenatal or postnatal care [21, 22]. According to estimates by the UNFPA in 2015,
maternal health services was not improved [23]. For example, many women cannot access a safe place with an expert attendant for delivery and also may
lack access to emergency obstetric care, family planning services, and birth control[4, 19, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28]. By contrast, during pre-conflict
Syrian women enjoyed access to standard antenatal care, and 96% of deliveries (whether at home or in hospitals) were assisted by a skilled
birth attendant [13]. This coverage equated to improving population health outcomes, including data from the Syrian Ministry of Health reporting
significant gains in life expectancy at birth (from 56 to 73.1 years), reductions in infant mortality (decrease from 132 per 1000 to 17.9 per 1000 live births),
reductions in under-five mortality (from 164 to 21.4 per 1000 live births), and declines in maternal mortality (from 482 to 52 per 100,000 live births) between
1970 and 2009, respectively [13].
_____________________________________________________________________________PAGE 4 OF 19
BCP 18-19
PAGE 5 OF 19
1AC – Inherency – Refugee Cuts
Next, let’s move onto the stock issue of INHERENCY. Under INHERENCY, we will explain why politicians refuse to
admit more Syrian refugees, and what the same government and politicians have done to attack the resolution.
Trump’s approach to refugee admissions is backwards. He’s cutting refugees to pressure Syria, which increases
violence. Immigration has dropped from thousands to just eleven immigrants.
Devorah Amos, Shorenstein Fellow at the Kennedy School of Harvard University, on April 12, 2018(Devorah; Amos won the
Edward Weintal Prize for Diplomatic Reporting from Georgetown University and in 2010 was awarded the Edward R. Murrow Life Time Achievement
Award by Washington State University. Amos was part of a team of reporters who won a 2004 Alfred I. duPont-Columbia Award for coverage of Iraq. A
Nieman Fellow at Harvard University in 1991-1992, Amos was returned to Harvard in 2010 as a Shorenstein Fellow at the Kennedy School.; National
Public Radio; 4/12/18; “The U.S. Has Accepted Only 11 Syrian Refugees This Year”;
https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2018/04/12/602022877/the-u-s-has-welcomed-only-11-syrian-refugees-this-year; Accessed: 8/29/18; RY)
The Trump administration retaliated Saturday against Syria's suspected chemical weapons attack, launching missiles with France
and the U.K. targeting Syrian regime facilities. "This is about humanity, and it cannot be allowed to happen," President Trump said earlier last week,
pledging a forceful response to Syrian President Bashar Assad's aggressions. But humanitarian organizations are challenging the president's
commitment to humanity when it comes to Syrian civilians — particularly those seeking refuge in the United States. In 2016, near the end of Barack
Obama's presidency, the U.S. resettled 15,479 Syrian refugees, according to State Department figures. In 2017, the country let in 3,024 . So far this
year, that number is just 11. By comparison, over the same 3 1/2-month period in 2016, the U.S. accepted 790. "We are seeing the impact of the
Trump administration's words and policy and actions," says Noah Gottschalk, senior policy adviser at Oxfam America. "That slams the door on refugees,
and Syrian refugees in particular." Gottschalk says that refugee resettlement has slowed to a trickle, with only 44 Syrians admitted since October
2017. He charges that administration policies aim to dismantle a refugee program mandated by Congress. "What about the humanity of the people who
are fleeing those attacks? These are the very people who need our support," Gottschalk insists. Last September, President Trump dramatically reduced
Arrivals have also slowed because of additional vetting measures, as
well as a series of executive orders temporarily barring travel from several Muslim-majority countries and suspending refugee admissions from
the annual cap for refugees from anywhere in the world to 45,000.
around the world. Trump administration officials have said that tougher vetting of visitors and refugees was needed because of national security concerns.
U.S. federal courts have struck down parts of the bans, but much of the restrictive effects persist, says Becca Heller with the New York-based
International Refugee Assistance Project. "I think you can call it a backdoor ban, except that I think it's so blatant and in our faces that I would call it a
frontdoor ban. I think they closed the front door to America," Heller says. Yet some officials, including the Trump administration's defense secretary, have
spoken out about Syrian refugees. "I've seen refugees from Asia to Europe, Kosovo to Africa. I've never seen refugees as traumatized as coming out of
Syria. It's got to end," Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said at a House Armed Services Committee hearing last Thursday. He said the administration is
committed to internationally negotiated efforts to end Syria's 7-year-old war but claimed "we are not going to engage in the civil war itself."
_____________________________________________________________________________PAGE 5 OF 19
BCP 18-19
PAGE 6 OF 19
1AC – Inherency – US withdrawn from global community
The Trump administration has continuously restricted immigration and has reduced the refugee limit to a very
diminished number respective to the Obama administration. President Trump takes for granted that he doesn’t have to
help the people of other nations though he should.
Dara Lind, Vox reporter since 2014, on December 4, 2017(Dara; Lind was a 2014 fellow with John Jay College's Center for Media, Crime
and Justice, and a 2017 reporting fellow with the University of Southern California Center for Health Journalism. She worked in immigration policy at the
advocacy organization America's Voice in Washington, DC; Vox; 12/4/17; "The Trump administration doesn’t believe in the global refugee crisis”;
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/3/16379016/trump-refugees; Accessed: 10/29/18; Alappatt-Chettiar)
Since World War II, the United States has been the world’s leader in resettling refugees. Most refugees never got the chance to come to a new
country and start a new life, but if they did, there was a substantial chance — even a 50 percent chance — that the country that welcomed them was the
United States. After less than a year in office, Donald Trump has not only officially drawn the era of global refugee leadership to a close. He’s withdrawn
the US from the global community for refugee protection. Domestically, the Trump administration has declared that it will allow no more
than 45,000 refugees into the US during the current fiscal year (which began on October 1 and continues through September 30, 2018). That
number is less than half the total of the last years of the Obama administration, when the government set its refugee “ceiling”
to at least 100,000 refugees in the last two years. The Trump administration’s newly announced levels are, in fact, the most restrictive limit
the United States has set in the 70-year history of refugee resettlement. And internationally, the US announced over the weekend that
it’s officially pulling out from the United Nations’ Global Compact on Migration — which is meeting for three days in Mexico this week, as countries keep
trying to hammer out a framework for settling the 60 million-plus displaced people around the world. Nikki Haley, the US ambassador to the UN, claimed
Trump administration has
been trying to slash refugee levels since it arrived in office and is now implementing a refugee policy that is grounded in suspicion that the
US really needs refugees, or that refugees need the US. The rationale that Trump and company use is that the United States no longer believes it
has an obligation to open the doors to the world’s most vulnerable . The US is rejecting the very idea of a “global refugee crisis” — instead
taking it for granted that countries have a responsibility for the lives of their citizens, and that if those countries have failed, people
a “global approach” to the crisis is “simply not compatible with U.S. sovereignty.” This should come as no surprise. The
who are similar to the displaced citizens ought to step up to help.
_____________________________________________________________________________PAGE 6 OF 19
BCP 18-19
PAGE 7 OF 19
Other countries are also not accepting refugees. The model set by Trump is negatively affecting immigration
restrictions across the globe, particularly Eastern Europe.
Neli Esipova, director of research for global migration for Gallup’s world poll, on May 5, 2017 (Neli; Director of Research for
Global Migration and Regional Director for Gallup’s World Poll for 29 Eastern European and former Soviet Union countries. She has led Gallup’s
groundbreaking research on global migration patterns while also managing more than 200 studies on various topics in Europe and Asia.; 5/5/17; Gallup
Polls; “Syrian Refugees Not Welcome in Eastern Europe”; https://news.gallup.com/poll/209828/syrian-refugees-not-welcome-eastern-europe.aspx;
Accessed: 8/20/18; RY)
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Though
the flow of Syrian refugees into Europe has slowed since 2015, hundreds of thousands of
Syrians were still seeking asylum there last year. If many in Eastern Europe had their way, however, the number would be zero. In nine
out of 15 Eastern European countries and areas surveyed in 2016, at least half the population believed their country should not
accept any Syrian refugees. Many of the countries with the strongest opposition to allowing Syrian refugees are located along the
Balkan route that once channeled asylum seekers from Greece to Germany. European leaders effectively closed the route last March and
signed a deal with Turkey to send migrants back if they did not apply for asylum or if their claim was rejected. All of Gallup's surveys in Eastern Europe
took place after the agreement with Turkey. Per the agreement, for every Syrian migrant sent back to Turkey, one already in Turkey needs to relocate to
the European Union. Anti-refugee
sentiment is highest in EU member states such as Hungary, which has erected border fences
to keep migrants out and, just last month, passed new controversial laws that would confine asylum seekers to camps constructed from shipping
containers. Seven in 10 Hungarians in 2016 said their country should not accept any Syrian refugees. Sentiment was similarly high
(66%) in non-EU member state Macedonia, which was on the front lines of the migrant wave in 2015 and sealed its border with Greece to keep them out.
No more than 8% of residents in any country or area surveyed in 2016 said their country should accept all Syrian refugees.
Residents of countries
or areas with larger Muslim populations -- such as Bosnia and Herzegovina, Albania, and Kosovo -- tended to be the most open to
allowing refugees from majority-Muslim Syria. Kosovo was the most open to accepting a limited number of Syrian refugees (49%). Greeks,
however, closely trailed behind Kosovo residents in believing that a limited number of Syrian refugees should be accepted (47%). This is notable because
even if it is not the final destination for migrants, Greece has been an entry point to Europe for hundreds of thousands in the recent crisis. Overall,
Greeks are divided on the matter, leaning slightly toward accepting all Syrian refugees (4%) or a limited number of refugees (47%), than not
wanting to accept any (47%).
_____________________________________________________________________________PAGE 7 OF 19
BCP 18-19
PAGE 8 OF 19
1AC – Plan
The Syrian refugee crises has taken too many lives and destroyed too many families, and it is time the American
government take a larger stand. Thus, my partner and I advocate the following planFirst, the United States federal government should increase the cap on these immigrants to 100,000 and revert any
legislation regarding Syrian immigration to the Obama era, including giving LPR status.
The Government Treasury and Bureau of Fiscal Services should launch a White House fundraiser to finance
organizations like UNHCR and Save the Children. The U.S. federal government should also create new platforms for
wealthy philanthropists and foundations to get more involved in refugee issues.
Use the UNHCR backlog plan to prevent a surge of immigrants into the United States.
This way, immigrants like the Syrian Refugees are free to live happily in the United States.
We’ll be happy to clarify in cross-examination.
_____________________________________________________________________________PAGE 8 OF 19
BCP 18-19
PAGE 9 OF 19
1AC – Solvency – Greater Infrastructure
Finally, we move onto the stock issue of SOLVENCY – here, we will see how these regulations substantially create
better lives for Syrian refugees coming to the United States.
These regulations are easily permissible and constitutional as well as create a greater infrastructure for the American
economy as well. We can see a great future with Syrian immigrants in America.
Matthew La Corte, Immigration Policy Analyst for Niskanen Center, on April 12, 2017(La Corte; Matthew is the immigration
policy analyst at the Niskanen Center. He leads the immigration department’s legislative outreach efforts, focusing on DACA, work visas, and refugee
resettlement. His writing has been published in many outlets, including the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, the Financial Times, and many others. His
research and commentary has been featured in the New York Times, the Washington Post, Bloomberg, McClatchy, and others. Matthew graduated from
Hofstra University in New York with degrees in Political Science and Economics; Huffpost; 4/12/17; “How the United States can help the Syrian People”;
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/how-the-united-states-can-help-the-syrian-people_us_58ee540fe4b071388b4d6c08; Accessed: 10/29/18; AlappattChettiar)
Finally, the U.S. should explore innovative ways to further engage the private sector in regard to refugee resettlement and protection. In its last report to
Congress, the State Department wrote, “National
and local resettlement agencies in the United States have reported receiving a
remarkable number of offers of assistance, including donations of household and personal goods, housing, and willingness to “sponsor’ or
befriend refugees.” We should capitalize on this interest, and can with these potential reforms and ideas:
and individuals
Allow for private groups, foundations,
to fund refugees in addition to the government cap; Launch a program to match Syrian orphans with empty nest parents in
the U.S.; Offer a special visa to Syrians that want to study at U.S. high schools and universities; Study the impacts of innovative private sector refugee
programs, like those in Connecticut, and scale up programs accordingly; Launch
a White House kickstarter to fund organizations like
UNHCR, Save the Children, and Oxfam; Allow Syrian-Americans to bring their family members to the U.S. in an expedited process; Create new
platforms for wealthy philanthropists and foundations to get more involved in refugee issues; Continue expanding the Partnership for Refugees that
empowers companies to get directly involved in helping refugees either through financial contributions, the hiring of refugees, or the commitment of inkind resources, materials, and expertise to improve our refugee system; Convene
further the global dialogue about expanding
another high-level meeting at the United Nations to
refugee protection worldwide—and focus on strategies to further leverage private sector interest
in resettlement. Conclusion: It’s entirely possible that President Trump did not choose to strike Syria out of mainly humanitarian concerns. In fact, the
National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster said that refugee policy was not discussed “as any part of the deliberations” regarding Syria. But for the sake
of a lost generation of Syrian children, let’s
hope the president’s stark change in Syria policy is met with a sharp change in his
perspective on refugees and budget priorities. In an excellent piece for the New York Times, Becca Heller and Jon Finer of the International
Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP) correctly conclude that if President Trump’s “newfound outrage is genuine, he should also reverse course on his
unconscionable refugee policy.” Helping displaced people on the run from war and terror—those trying to escape from foes like Assad and ISIS—is not
a Republican or Democrat idea or a liberal or conservative issue; it is an American moral imperative. We can safely resettle Syrian refugees while
maintaining a laser focus on keeping Americans safe. If we are striking the Assad regime to protect civilians from genocide and chemical warfare,
then we can work harder to offer Syrian civilians a lifeline as refugees somewhere safer than their home.
_____________________________________________________________________________PAGE 9 OF 19
BCP 18-19
PAGE 10 OF 19
1AC – Solvency –Syrian benefits
Providing the Syrian refugees, a safe haven in America creates potential benefits to the Syrians in which Syrian
benefits would be highly increased as well.
Dylan Matthews, American journalist on Vox, on April 6, 2017(Matthews; Dylan is an American journalist. He is currently a
correspondent for Vox, an online media venture. Matthews graduated from Hanover High School in Hanover, New Hampshire, in 2008. He went on
to Harvard University, where he studied social and political philosophy, and also wrote for The Harvard Crimson.;Vox;4/6/2017; “The best way US
could help Syrians: open the borders”; https://www.vox.com/2015/9/4/9258149/syria-refugee-humanitarian-intervention; Accessed: 10/29/18; AlappattChettiar)
Let's take immigration to start. The potential benefits to Syrians are enormous. For one thing, we would avoid the huge humanitarian toll associated with
existing refugee migration. Many fewer boats would capsize. Many
fewer children would drown. Many fewer people would suffocate
in the back of trucks. The economic benefits are massive, as well. According to research from economists Michael Clemens, Claudio E.
Montenegro, and Lant Pritchett, a worker born in Egypt but living in the United States makes 12 times as much as an identical worker still in Egypt. A
worker born in Yemen makes more than 15 times as much as his counterpart who stayed behind. Even in Jordan, Syria's substantially richer neighbor,
migrants make almost six times as much. Finally, there's the basic fact that millions
their lives to make it to a rich Western country. President Donald Trump knows this.
of Syrians want to leave Syria. They're willing to risk
_____________________________________________________________________________PAGE 10 OF 19
BCP 18-19
PAGE 11 OF 19
_____________________________________________________________________________PAGE 11 OF 19
BCP 18-19
PAGE 12 OF 19
Returning to previous refugee commitments ensures that Syrian citizens are safe within the United States. It also
strengthens the image of the United States as a global leader of human rights.
Jessica Brandt, graduate from Harvard University in foreign policy, in 2017 (Jessica; Middle East scholar at the Brookings Institute;
2017; The Brookings Institute; “Addressing the Syrian Refugee Crisis”;
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/10.7864/j.ctt1kk66tr.39.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3Abd920bcbbb663455169276b7c79a13ee; Accessed: 8/30/18; RY)
The chances
of being murdered by a refugee-related terrorist attack in the United States has been 1 in 3.4 billion a year.8 This is
a fact that the incoming administration needs to convey to the American public. Just as the threat of Syrian refugees has been overstated in
public discourse, so too has the number of Syrian refugees being resettled in the United States. This past presidential cycle, candidates
routinely and incorrectly suggested that America risked being “flooded by Syrian refugees.” Yet since the Syrian uprising
began in 2011, the United States has resettled a fraction of the nearly 5 million Syrians in need—only 10,000 to date.9 The overwhelming
majority will not have the opportunity for resettlement in Western countries. Less than 1 percent of the world’s 21 million refugees will be resettled.
However, the resettlement
of even this small number of refugees is important. First, it provides a pathway out of frontline
states for those who are particularly vulnerable and cannot safely be accommodated there. Second, resettling refugees has a symbolic
importance. It demonstrates solidarity within the transatlantic relationship and makes it clear that the United States
supports rights and refuge for all. Third, the United States will not be able to encourage other countries to step up their efforts if it does not
shoulder its share of responsibility. For these reasons, the United States should neither pause nor discontinue its refugee
resettlement program but instead reaffirm its commitment to it. The next administration should maintain course on America’s
commitment to resettle 110,000 refugees in fiscal year 2017 (a 30 percent increase from 2016).
_____________________________________________________________________________PAGE 12 OF 19
BCP 18-19
PAGE 13 OF 19
Increasing Syrian refugee counts to 100,000 would set an example for other countries to follow.
Robert Rosenkranz, J.D. from Harvard Law School, on July 25, 2016 (Robert; philanthropist and the CEO of Delphi Financial Group;
Personal Website; “The U.S. Should Let in 100,000 Syrian Refugees”; 7/25/16; http://robertrosenkranz.com/u-s-let-100000-syrian-refugees/; Accessed:
8/30/18; RY)
With millions
of Syrians seeking humanitarian assistance since the 2011 onset of a civil war with no end in sight, some are calling for
the United States to admit refugees in far greater numbers. They point to the Statue of Liberty and say that America has a moral obligation
to provide refuge to the tired and the poor. Others point to a spate of sexual assaults in Germany perpetrated by migrants, and they
caution that the U.S. must be selective in admitting people into its borders. Must America choose between upholding its values and protecting its
citizens? On January 13, 2016, Intelligence Squared US brought in two teams of expert panelists to debate the motion, “ The
U.S. Should Let In
100,000 Syrian Refugees.” The Debaters Arguing for the motion were former U.S. Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford, now a senior fellow at the
Middle East Institute, and former U.K. Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs David Miliband, now president and CEO of the International Rescue
Committee. Arguing against were David Frum, a senior editor at The Atlantic, and Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies for the Center for
Immigration Studies. The Research The
team in favor of the motion argued that resettlement of Syrian refugees into richer
nations was necessary because neighboring Middle East countries lacked the resources to cope with the refugees’ needs and
numbers. As a nation built on its humanistic values, the U.S. should let in more refugees, setting an example to lead European and
Asian countries to also take more. The panelists maintained that the federal cost would be minimal and that the systems for resettlement were secure
and effective. Unlike in Europe, where refugees were flowing in by boatloads, no one could get into the U.S. without passing a thorough
screening process involving multiple intelligence agencies. Finally, they said that a refusal to accept refugees would strengthen
terrorists’ propaganda-driven recruitment efforts by playing into the radicalist narrative of the Muslim world being
victimized by Western prejudice.
_____________________________________________________________________________PAGE 13 OF 19
BCP 18-19
PAGE 14 OF 19
_____________________________________________________________________________PAGE 14 OF 19
BCP 18-19
PAGE 15 OF 19
The UNHCR has created a fool proof plan to minimize and prevent a backlog and a huge surge of immigrants. The
UNHCR has provided 13 steps I which I will list a few in this speech that help reduce and prevent a backlog.
Brian Barbour, in collaboration with the UNHCR, on January 2018 (Brian Barbour; personal consultant in collaboration with the
UNHCR; “Refugee Status Determination Backlog Prevention and Reduction”; January 2018; https://www.unhcr.org/enus/protection/globalconsult/5b19392b7/37-refugee-status-determination-backlog-prevention-reduction.html; AC)
3.1 Backlog Prevention and Reduction Tools The below tools have been identified by various UNHCR Offices and States
as strategies for the prevention or reduction of backlogs. A categorization of such tools is attempted below, with some
detail provided to each, but the categorization should not be thought of as exhaustive. As new and creative solutions are
found to increase efficiency, it is hoped that these can be shared and consolidated. Tools that may contribute to
prevention and reduction should be combined and adapted in accordance with what might be most effective in the
relevant context. A non-exhaustive list of tools that can be utilized to prevent or reduce backlogs can be found in the
following categories: 1. Backlog analysis and data management 2. Infrastructure and tools 3. Staffing benchmarks 4.
Segregation of staff functions and responsibilities 5. Effective Management 6. Training 7. Performance Targets, outputs
and benchmarks 8. Staff care 9. Contingency Planning 10. Screening and prioritization 11. Case Processing Modalities 12.
Referrals, Collaboration and Outsourcing 13. Amnesty / regularization 3.1.1 Backlog Analysis and Data Management
Over time, deficient statistical analysis of RSD processes, as well as deficient filing systems and incomplete files
compound problems associated with backlogs and make resolution more difficult. Inadequate data management
contributes to a lack of understanding of the backlog and its causes, or how best to resolve it. Without reliable statistics on
the size and stage of the backlog, it will be difficult to plan how to efficiently address and reduce the backlog. When the
asylum processing authority has no way of demonstrating the number of cases finalized each year next to the number of
claims made in a way that maps performance with processing capacity, it will be hard to organize the planning and
budget proposals into a consistent story to present before the Parliament with the result that the asylum processing
authority do not get the resources they need for more staff, improved infrastructure, or other increases. Statistical
information and analysis constitute one form of evidence of performance and can support the identification of risk
indicators.26 Statistics serve as a baseline for efficient planning and measurable intervention. As set out below in the
section on backlog reduction projects, an initial comprehensive preparatory phase would begin with file inventory,
reconstruction, and review; verification of registration data, filtering out abandoned cases, naturalized persons and those
with other status if this is not done on a regular basis; and setting up an efficient and sustainable monitoring system to
know the weekly/monthly numbers and trends. In sum, compulsory and regular collection, analysis and reporting of
detailed registration and RSD data is an important tool in preventing backlogs as it can diagnose trends and inefficiencies,
and where a backlog already exists, it is the first step towards resolution.
_____________________________________________________________________________PAGE 15 OF 19
BCP 18-19
PAGE 16 OF 19
_____________________________________________________________________________PAGE 16 OF 19
BCP 18-19
PAGE 17 OF 19
Refugee resettlement decreases the risk of terror attacks. ISIS and extremist organization use refugee rejection as a
way of developing anti-Western propaganda.
David Bier, immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute’s Center for Global Liberty, on January 27, 2017 (David;
immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute’s Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity. He is an expert on visa reform, border security, and interior
enforcement, and his work has been cited in the Washington Post, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, USA Today, Politico, and many other print and
online publications.; 1/27/17; Cato Institute; “Five Reasons Congress Should Repeal Trump’s Immigrant & Refugee Ban”;
https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/trumps-immigration-ban-illegal; Accessed: 8/30/18; RY)
President Trump signed an executive order yesterday that would ban all Syrian refugees and almost all refugees from all
countries from entering the United States for six months, while cutting the overall annual limit for refugees in half and banning for at least 90
days all immigration from seven majority Muslim countries. It implies that this ban could continue indefinitely for certain countries.
These policies will not improve national security and will undermine America’s efforts to combat Islamic extremism and terrorism around
the world. 1) The order violates the law. Under the Immigration Act of 1965, the president may not refuse to give visas to immigrants coming to
live in the United States permanently due to their nationality. The provision is unequivocal in stating that no person may “be discriminated against in
the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.” While this does not apply to
temporary visitors or refugees, I have previously explained in detail why the
president cannot legally enforce this order against
immigrants who are sponsored by employers or family members in the United States. 2) Refugees and immigrants from Muslimmajority countries are not a serious threat to Americans. The order would ban all people entering the United States from Iraq, Iran, Syria,
Somalia, Sudan, Libya, and Yemen, and yet no terrorist from these places has carried out a lethal attack in the United States. Indeed, no Libyans or
Syrians have even been convicted for planning such an attack. Moreover, the
likelihood of being killed by any refugee from any country is
just 1 in 3.64 billion a year. This discrimination is arbitrary and cannot be rationally justified based on a assessment of the risk. It is worth
remembering that German Jews were turned away on a similar pretense that they could be Nazi spies—only to be killed in death
camps. 3) The order aids the Islamic State. ISIS has said that it wishes to “compel the Crusaders to actively destroy the gray zone themselves,” forcing
Western Muslims to “either apostatize… or [emigrate] to the Islamic State and thereby escape persecution from the crusader governments and citizens.”
They want this overreaction. The only
thing keeping ISIS from imploding are its new recruits which makes winning the
propaganda war critical. Accepting refugees deprives ISIS of human resources. The Caliphate’s main source of income is the people it extorts. One
refugee told the Times. “ISIS would not let us leave. They said, ‘You are going to the infidels.’” What could be more important than
making the “infidels” more popular than ISIS? 4) Muslim immigrants to the U.S. are reforming Islam. American Muslims are 81 percent first or
second generation Americans who came from among the most socially illiberal countries in the world. Yet, they comprise the most socially
liberal and tolerant Muslim in the world. In fact, during the most recent seven years when Muslim immigration was at its highest level, America’s
Muslims grew increasingly socially tolerant of other religions and homosexuality. U.S. Muslim immigrants are spreading goodwill about
America’s freedoms around the world. “When I talk to my family they ask, ‘How is the treatment of Americans,’ and I say ‘it’s wonderful,’” one
Syrian refugee explained. U.S. immigration is creating a cohort of liberal Muslims who can confront radicalism worldwide. 5) America’s tradition
of accepting refugees should be defended. Since World War II, the United States has accepted millions of refugees fleeing
communism and totalitarianism around the world. The Roosevelt administration’s rejection of Jews fleeing the Holocaust was one of the more
shameful acts of any American president. Rather than return to such a policy targeted at a new group of persecuted people, the United States should
continue to accept humanitarian immigration, not because refugees can improve local economies—though they can—and not because they can provide
tangible intelligence against ISIS—though they do—but because getting out of the way and allowing people to escape violence is the bare minimum of
moral decency.
America may have no moral duty to put out fires around the world, but it does have a moral duty not to
block the fire exits.
_____________________________________________________________________________PAGE 17 OF 19
BCP 18-19
PAGE 18 OF 19
Refugees use far less benefits the native-born Americans, and contribute more to the economy. Their studies are also
incorrect and use a false methodology.
Alex Nowrasteh, senior immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute’s Center for Global Liberty, on May 5, 2018
(Alex; analyst of immigration policy currently working at the Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank
located in Washington D.C. Nowrasteh is an advocate of freer migration to the United States.[1] He previously worked as the immigration policy
analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, another libertarian think tank.; “Immigration and the Welfare State: Immigrant and Native Use Rates and
Benefit Levels for Means-Tested Welfare and Entitlement Programs”; https://www.cato.org/publications/immigration-research-policybrief/immigration-welfare-state-immigrant-native-use-rates; Accessed: 8/31/18; RY)
Comparing Studies Previous
analyses by the Center for Immigration (CIS) come to contrary conclusions regarding the relative use
reason for our differing findings is that CIS analyzes welfare use by entire
households based on whether the head is an immigrant, whereas we examine individuals by immigration status. Focusing on persons is more
accurate because households headed by immigrants often contain multiple native-born Americans, including spouses and
of public benefits by immigrants and natives.18 The main
children. Furthermore, the unit of assistance for the largest welfare programs of Medicaid, CHIP, SSI, Social Security retirement benefits, and Medicare
is the individual, not the household. CIS’s focus on the household unit of assistance for all welfare programs — regardless of the actual unit of assistance
used in apportioning benefits — inflates immigrant welfare use. Focusing
on individuals, rather than on households, allows this brief to
identify which particular subgroups, such as naturalized immigrants or noncitizens, are receiving public benefits, whereas CIS’s
methods preclude that type of granular analysis. Conclusion Immigrant consumption of welfare benefits through means-tested or
entitlement programs is a complex issue as myriad programs have different eligibility requirements that vary by state. All
immigrants consume 39 percent fewer welfare benefits relative to all natives, largely because they are less likely to receive Social
Security retirement benefits and Medicare. Immigrants consume 27 percent fewer benefits relative to natives with similar incomes
and ages. Although this brief does not count some smaller, noncash antipoverty programs, they are unlikely to alter our results even if the data were
available for their inclusion. This brief provides the most recent estimates of immigrant and native welfare use.
_____________________________________________________________________________PAGE 18 OF 19
BCP 18-19
PAGE 19 OF 19
1AC – Conclusion
Conclusion: It’s time we open our doors to those who need help. The United States of America is a nation of immigrants,
and if we take the step to turn our backs to any more, our country is simply not following the morals with which we built
this nation from. Not only will our economy, our infrastructure, and our nation become stronger, but as Americans we will
have only more to be proud of. Our country will not obtain a second chance, unless we open our doors and give these
immigrants one. Simply put, we shouldn’t put a cost to life.
_____________________________________________________________________________PAGE 19 OF 19