Contents
T Violations ............................................................................................................................................... 2
T—Surveillance isn’t supervision .......................................................................................................... 3
T--Surveillance Means People Violation ............................................................................................... 4
T--Curtail Means Congress or Courts .................................................................................................... 5
T--Curtail Doesn’t Mean to Abolish ...................................................................................................... 6
Its means USFG surveillance ................................................................................................................. 7
T--Domestic Means in the US................................................................................................................ 8
T--Substantially Means 20% .................................................................................................................. 9
T--Substantially Means Without Qualification.................................................................................... 10
Federal Government Means Central Government in DC .................................................................... 11
Framework .......................................................................................................................................... 12
AFF Answers ............................................................................................................................................ 14
T Answers—Surveillance ..................................................................................................................... 15
T Answers--Curtail Means Congress or Courts AFF Answers .............................................................. 17
T Answers--Curtail Doesn’t Mean Abolish AFF Answers..................................................................... 18
T--Its AFF Answers ............................................................................................................................... 19
T--Domestic AFF Answers ................................................................................................................... 20
Substantially AFF Answers .................................................................................................................. 21
Federal Government AFF Answers ..................................................................................................... 22
T Violations
T—Surveillance isn’t supervision
A. SURVEILLANCE MEANS MONITORING PEOPLE TO REGULATE BEHAVIOR.
John Gilliom, 2013 (Prof., Political Science, Ohio U.), SUPERVISION: AN INTRODUCTION TO THE
SURVEILLANCE SOCIETY, 2013, 2.
Why do we call this a surveillance society? Because virtually all significant social, institutional, or
business activities in our society now involve the systematic monitoring, gathering, and analysis of
information in order to make decisions, minimize risk, sort populations, and exercise power. We define
surveillance as monitoring people in order to regulate or govern their behavior.
B) Violation: Plan isn’t monitoring to regulate behavior.
C) Standards:
1) Fair Limits: Allowing for the affirmative to merely decrease supervision allows
them to decrease supervision over anything the federal government supervises,
from Native American lands, to federal parks, to welfare policy, to education,
etc. Only requiring the affirmative to decrease the monitoring of people
preserves a fair limit on the topic.
2) Disad and counterplan ground: They make the terrorism disadvantage obsolete
by making surveillance meaningless.
D) Voting Issue: Fairness, Education & Ground
T--Surveillance Means People Violation
A) Surveillance requires the monitoring of people.
William Staples, 2014 (Prof., Sociology, U. Kansas), EVERYDAY SURVEILLANCE: VIGILANCE AND
VISIBILITY IN POSTMODERN LIFE, 2014, xiii.
The word surveillance, in the most general sense, refers to the act of keeping a close watch on people.
B) Violation: Plan doesn’t curtail monitoring of people.
C) Standards:
1) Fair limits: Millions of cases deal with monitoring of natural resources, the
environment, arms control, or species. The negative interpretation fairly limits
the topic by focusing on people.
2) Disad and counterplan ground: They avoid the core controversies of the topic
like terrorism disadvantages and political disadvantages.
D) Voting Issue: Fairness, Education, & Ground
T--Curtail Means Congress or Courts
A) Curtail means to impose a restriction upon.
Angus Stevenson, 2010 (Editor), NEW OXFORD AMERICAN DICTIONARY, 3rd Ed., 2010, 425.
Curtail: Impose a restriction on.
B) Violation: The plan is self-restraint, not a curtailment.
C) Standards:
1) Fair Limits: They explode the topic by allowing for any variety of executive
actions like executive orders, presidential memorandums, or even executive
self-restraint. The topic should be limited to the Congress or the Supreme
Court putting a limit on the president’s powers.
2) Fair Ground: They ignore the presidential powers disadvantage and the
executive self-restraint counterplan, gutting the negative options on the topic.
D) Voting Issue: Fairness & Ground.
T--Curtail Doesn’t Mean to Abolish
A) Curtail means to shorten or lessen, but not abolish.
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY, 1990. Retrieved May 28, 2015 from
http://archive.org/stream/BlacksLaw6th/Blacks%20Law%206th_djvu.txt
Curtail. To cut off the end or any part of; hence to shorten, abridge, diminish, lessen, or reduce; and term has no such
meaning as abolish. State v. Edwards, 207 La. 506, 21 So.2d 624, 625.
B) Violation: Plan abolishes domestic surveillance.
C) Standards
1) Fair limits: They explode the topic by allowing for cases that place any limit on
domestic surveillance AND cases that abolish domestic surveillance, doubling
the size of the topic.
2) Resolutional context: They ignore the unique meaning of the term curtail in the
resolution. If the resolution were meant to allow cases that abolished, a phrase
like ban would have been included in the resolution.
Its means USFG surveillance
A) “Its” is the possessive form—“its surveillance” is referring to surveillance by the
federal government of the United States.
Carol-June Cassidy, 2008 (Managing Editor), CAMBRIDGE DICTIONARY OF AMERICAN ENGLISH, 2nd
Ed., 2008, 464.
Its: Belonging to or connected with the thing or animal mentioned; the possessive form of it.
B) Violation: Plan deals with states or localities, not the federal government.
C) Standards:
1) Limits: Thousands of cases deal with state or local governments or even private
corporations that spy on people, but the resolution limits the affirmative to
domestic surveillance by the federal government.
2) Fair ground: The affirmative team explodes the topic to include states and
localities that negative disadvantages and counterplans will not refute.
D) Voting Issue: Fairness, Education, and Ground.
T--Domestic Means in the US
A) DOMESTIC IS LIMITED TO ONE’S OWN COUNTRY.
MERRIAM WEBSTER DESK DICTIONARY, 1995, 164. Domestic: Relating or limited to one’s own
country or the country under consideration.
B) Violation: The plan deals with foreign countries.
C) Standards:
1) Fair Limits: The affirmative interpretation allow surveillance on any other
nation on the planet, which would explode the topic.
2) Disad and counterplan ground: The affirmative case avoids disadvantages
premised off of domestic surveillance such as terrorism and presidential
powers.
D) Voting issue: Fairness, education & ground.
T--Substantially Means 20%
A) The federal government spies on everyone in America.
Jason Reed, 2012 (staff writer) REUTERS. July 24, 2012. Retrieved May 28, 2015 from
http://rt.com/usa/nsa-whistleblower-binney-drake-978/
The TSA, DHS and countless other security agencies have been established to keep America safe from
terrorist attacks in post-9/11 America. How far beyond that does the feds’ reach really go, though? The
attacks September 11, 2001, were instrumental in enabling the US government to establish
counterterrorism agencies to prevent future tragedies. Some officials say that they haven’t stopped
there, though, and are spying on everyone in America — all in the name of national security.
2. “Substantially” means at least twenty percent.
Words & Phrases, 67, 758. “‘Substantial’ number of tenants engaged in production of goods for
commerce means that at least 20 per cent of the building be occupied by tenants so engaged. Ullo vs.
Smith, D.C.N.Y., 62 F. Supp. 757, 760.”
B) Violation: AFF does less than 20%.
C) Standards:
1) Fair limits: Potentially thousands of cases could curtail domestic surveillance for
a small group or category of Americans, from immigrants to environmental
groups, to even members of the Tea Party. The negative interpretation
requires that the affirmative case curtail domestic surveillance 20% while
creating a fair limit and eliminating “squirrel cases.”
2. The Negative interpretation draws a bright line:
It is easy to determine which cases this interpretation makes topical and which
cases are non-topical. As long as the affirmative plan can show a curtailment of
domestic surveillance by at least 20% of the population, the plan is topical. If
the affirmative curtails by less than that amount, the plan is not topical.
D) Fairness, Education & Ground.
T--Substantially Means Without Qualification
A) Substantially means “without qualification”
DON BLEWETT, 1976 (Chairperson California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, Young v. Laura
Scudder’s Pet, Inc. January 29, 1976. www.cuiab.ca.gov/precedent/pb181.doc.)
"Substantially. Essentially; without material qualification; in the main; in substance; materially; in a
substantial manner. Kirkpatrick v. Journal Pub. Co., 210 Ala. 10, 97 So. 58, 59; Gibson v. Glos, 271 I11.
368, I11 N.E. 123, 124; McEwen v. New York Life Ins. Co., 23 Cal. App. 694, 139 P. 242, 243. About,
actually, competently, and essentially. Gilmore v. Red Top Cab Co. of Washington, 171 Wash. 346, 17 P.
2d 886, 887."
B) Violation: the plan places a condition on the decrease in surveillance.
C) Standards:
1) The Negative Interpretation provides a clear meaning to the word substantially:
The affirmative quantitative interpretation makes substantially meaningless, as
percentage based definitions exist for almost any amount with the word
substantially. The negative interpretation draws a clear meaning to the word
substantially, by making the affirmative unconditionally curtail domestic
surveillance.
2) Fair Ground: Potentially thousands of cases exist to curtail domestic
surveillance. However, by requiring that such curtailments be unconditional,
the negative team can be prepared to debate the unconditional nature of such
actions.
D) Topicality is a voting issue: Fairness, Education & Ground.
Federal Government Means Central Government in DC
A) The federal government is the central government of the United States.
Elizabeth Jewell, 2001 (Editor), OXFORD AMERICAN DICTIONARY, 01, 620.
Federal: Of, relating to, or denoting the central government of the United States.
2) The federal government is not referring to the states.
Henry Black, 1990 (Ed.), Black’s Law Dictionary, 90, 695.
“Federal government. The government of the United States of America, as distinguished from the
governments of the several states.”
A) Violation: the plan isn’t done through the federal government.
C) Standards:
1. The negative interpretation preserves predictability: By requiring the affirmative
team to defend action from the central government, the negative is not forced
to research disadvantages against every state in the United States, but rather
action by the federal government.
2. The negative interpretation is more precise than the affirmative interpretation:
The affirmative interpretation blurs the meaning of a federal form of
government (one that has divided powers) with the federal government—
referring to the central government in Washington, D.C. The negative
interpretation best preserves precision of the term’s meaning.
3. The negative interpretation allows for the best division of ground between the
affirmative and negative teams: This interpretation allows the affirmative to
defend the relative advantages of federal action, while the negative can defend
the relative advantages of state action. This creates a clear division of ground
between the two sides.
D) Voting Issue: Fairness, Education, Ground.
Framework
A) The Negative Interpretation of the Resolution
1. The federal government is the central government in Washington D.C.
Elizabeth Jewell. 2007 (Editor), OXFORD AMERICAN DICTIONARY, 2007, 620.
Federal: Of. relating to. or denoting the central government as distinguished from the separate units
constituting a federation.
2. Should is an obligation to act.
American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 1992_(4ed); pg. 1612
Usage Note Like the rules governing the use of shall and will on which they are based, the traditional rules governing the use of should and
would are largely ignored in modern American practice. Either should or would can now be used in the first person to express conditional
futurity: If I had known that, I would (or somewhat more formally, should) have answered differently. But in the second and third persons only
would is used: If he had known that, he would (not should) have answered differently. Would cannot always be substituted for should,
however. Should is used in all three persons in a conditional clause if I (or you or he) should decide to go. Should
is also used in all
three persons to express duty or obligation (the equivalent of ought to): I (or you or he) should go. On
the other hand, would is used to express volition or promise: I agreed that I would do it. Either would or should is
possible as an auxiliary with like, be inclined, be glad, prefer, and related verbs: I would (or should) like to call your attention to an oversight.
Here would was acceptable on all levels to a large majority of the Usage Panel in an earlier survey and is more common in American usage than
should. Should have is sometimes incorrectly written should of by writers who have mistaken the source of the spoken contraction should 've.
See Usage Notes at if, rather, shall.
3. Resolved means fixed in purpose or intention.
Collins English Dictionary, 2009. Retrieved May 20, 2013 from
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/resolved?s=t
— n resolved (rɪˈzɒlvd) — adj fixed in purpose or intention; determined B. The Affirmative plan violates
the Negative Interpretation of the Resolution
B. Violation: The affirmative does not defend topical action by the United States
federal government.
C) Standards:
1. There must be meaningful agreement to basic terms in order for debate to take
place—this is critical to create protest and resistance movements.
Ruth Lessl Shively, 2000 (Assistant Prof Political Science – Texas A&M), POLITICAL THEORY AND
PARTISAN POLITICS, 2000, 181-182.
The requirements given thus far are primarily negative. The ambiguists must say “no” to—they must
reject and limit—some ideas and actions. In what follows, we will also find that they must say “yes” to
some things. In particular, they must say “yes” to the idea of rational persuasion. This means, first that
they must recognize the role of agreement in political contest, or the basic accord that is necessary to
discord. The mistake the abmiguists make here is a common one. The mistake is in thinking that
agreement marks the end of contest—that consensus kills debate. But this is true only if the agreement
is perfect—if there is nothing at all left to question or contest. In most cases, however, our agreements
are highly imperfect. We agree on some matters but not on others, on generalities but not on specifics,
on principles but not on their applications, and so on. And this kind of limited agreement is the starting
condition of contest and debate. As John Courtney Murray writes: We hold certain truths; therefore we
can argue about them. It seems to have been one of the corruptions of intelligence by positivism to
assume that argument ends when agreement is reached. In a basic sense, the reverse is true. There can
be no argument except on the premise, and within a context, of agreement. (Murray 1960, 10) In other
words, we cannot argue about something if we are not communicating: if we cannot agree on the topic
and terms of argument or if we have utterly different ideas about what counts as evidence or good
argument. At the very least, we must agree about what it is that is being debated before we can debate
it. For instance, one cannot have an argument about euthanasia with someone who thinks euthanasia is
a musical group. One cannot successfully stage a sit-in if one’s target audience simply thinks everyone is
resting or if those doing the sitting have no complaints. Nor can one demonstrate resistance to a policy
if no one knows that it is a policy. In other words, contest is meaningless if there is a lack of agreement
or communication about what is being contested. Resisters, demonstrators, and debaters must have
some shared ideas about the subject and/or the terms of their disagreements. The participants and the
target of a sit-in must share an understanding of the complaint at hand. And a demonstrator’s audience
must know what is being resisted. In short, the contesting of an idea presumes some agreement about
what that idea is and how one might go about intelligibly contesting it. In other words, contestation
rests on some basic agreement or harmony.
2. Predictable ground is different than some ground. Predictable ground comes
from the resolution—the fact that there may be arguments against the
affirmative does not mean we have adequately researched all those ideas to
compete fairly.
3. They put the cart before the horse. Fairness must precede education because
without fairness you cannot determine whether or not their advocacy is
productive. The only way to know that is if the negative has the ability to
predictably research answers to their advocacy.
D) Voting Issue: Fairness, Education, and Ground.
AFF Answers
T Answers—Surveillance
1) We meet: Kalhan evidence at top of the 1ac says surveillance is used at every
step of the migration process.
2) We meet: immigrants are domestically surveilled:
Shahid Buttar, 12/26/2013 (staff writer, “Beyond the Panopticon: The NSA Isn’t Alone,”
http://www.bordc.org/blog/beyond-panopticon-nsa-isn%E2%80%99t-alone, Accessed 6/21/2015, rwg)
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is a sprawling behemoth, with nearly a quarter million employees scattered across nearly two
dozen component agencies. While purporting to protect the “homeland” (a term with loaded connotations worth noting, but setting aside for
now) from various threats, DHS
spies on Americans in several disturbing ways . Some of the most dystopian
piggyback on programs presented to the public as supporting immigration enforcement. Border security
agencies, like Customs & Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE), have facilitated a record
number of deportations under the Obama administration, creating a domestic humanitarian crisis.
Critics of the administration’s immigration crackdown have vocally challenged its failures. According to the
New York Times, “the department’s continually shifting strategies against illegal immigration had two things in common. They were ineffective
and cruel.”
3) Counter-interpretation: surveillance means to watch over:
John Gilliom, (Prof., Political Science, Ohio U.), SUPERVISION: AN INTRODUCTION TO THE
SURVEILLANCE SOCIETY, 2013, 18.
In the introduction, we wrote that surveillance could be thought of as monitoring people in order to
regulate or govern their behavior. Surveillance, in other words, is an exercise of power through
watching. In the social sciences, “power” has been classically (and too simply) defined as the ability to get people to do something they
would not otherwise do. We’ve all had the experience of changing our behavior when we realize someone is watching us; if observation can
make people do (or not do) something, then it can be understood as a form of power. When we note that the term surveillance comes from the
French word meaning “to watch from above,” the emphasis on “above” implies that power relationship.
4) Negative interpretation is over-limiting: limits out cases where specific groups
are being watched over via drone surveillance, border security, etc.
5) Reasonability: good is good enough on Topicality.
6) Literature checks abuse: literature defines
T Answers--Curtail Means Congress or Courts AFF Answers
1) We meet: plan text specifies US Federal Government and curtail—means that if
only Congress or the Courts are topical then the plan uses one of those agents.
2) Counter-interpretation--Curtail allows self-restriction:
RIVKA WEILL, 2014 (Associate (tenured) Professor, Radzyner School of Law, IDC (Herzliya)), The
American Journal of Comparative Law, Lexis/Nexis, Accessed 6/21/2015, rwg)
So far, we have examined the possibility that legislative self-entrenchment is ineffective in the face of a breaching legislature. But if it is
effective, then this theory leads to additional challenges. While legislative self-entrenchment theory assumes that legislative sovereignty and
valid entrenchment are not mutually exclusive, if we take this theory to its logical conclusion, then a
legislature that successfully
establishes a constitution through self-entrenchment by definition curtails its own powers. The theory thus
illustrates how parliamentary sovereignty destroys itself without defining what new sovereign then replaces the legislature. Ultimately, how do
we change the constitution when there is broad agreement in the legislature or among the people that it should be changed, while the
constitution is unalterable according to existing rules? The legislative self-entrenchment theory does not provide answers to these penetrating
questions.
3) Their interpretation justifies agent counterplans—turns every debate into an
executive order debate—you should reject this interpretation:
A) Agent counterplans steal the whole AFF: they take 9 minutes of the 1ac with a
10 second counterplan text.
B) Prevents topic specific education: don’t learn about the specifics of
surveillance, just the same executive counterplan debate.
C) Crushes fairness for the affirmative: can’t generate offense vs. the counterplan
because it steals the whole AFF.
4) Reasonability: good is good enough on topicality.
5) Lit checks: already have to justify a decrease in surveillance.
T Answers--Curtail Doesn’t Mean Abolish AFF Answers
We meet: we don’t abolish all domestic surveillance, we only eliminate it for the
immigrant population.
Curtail can mean to stop entirely:
Vocabulary.com, 2015 (http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/curtail)
Curtail is an official-sounding word for stopping or slowing things down. The police try to curtail crime — they want
there to be less crime in the world. A company may want to curtail their employees' computer time, so they spend more time working and less
time goofing around. Teachers try to curtail whispering and note-passing in class. When
something is curtailed, it's either
stopped entirely or stopped quite a bit — it's cut short.
Prefer the counter-interpretation: their interpretation forces the AFF into
contrived plan texts that don’t match the literature base.
Reasonability: good is good enough on topicality.
Literature checks abuse.
Plan text in a vacuum is topical—plan text says curtail so whatever that means we
do.
T--Its AFF Answers
1) We meet “its” we only curtail US federal government enforcement—they
can win state and local circumvention arguments against the AFF.
2) Immigration surveillance is done by the federal government:
Anil Kalhan, 2013 (Associate Professor of Law, Drexel University, Ohio State Law Journal,
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/students/groups/oslj/files/2013/12/14-Kalhan.pdf, Accessed 6/21/2015, rwg)
15 Anil Kalhan, Immigration Surveillance (unpublished manuscript) (on file with author); see also J ENNIFER L YNCH , I MMIGRATION P OLICY C
TR . & E LEC . F RONTIER F OUND ., F ROM F INGERPRINTS TO DNA: B IOMETRIC D ATA C OLLECTION IN U.S. I MMIGRANT C OMMUNITIES AND B
EYOND (2012) (discussing implications of
expanded collection of biometrics and use of interoperable biometrics
databases in immigration enforcement); M EISSNER ET AL ., supra note 9, at 66 (“Database screening now
accompanies virtually all key interactions between noncitizens and the federal government. ”); Kalhan, supra
note 1, at 1165–68 (discussing manner in which expansion of interior immigration enforcement has increased the salience and visibility of
immigration status in society)
3) Reasonability: Good is good enough on topicality.
4) Literature checks abuse: we need federal government warrants for the
plan.
T--Domestic AFF Answers
1) We meet: we only curtail surveillance of immigrants on the US side of the
border.
2) We meet: US uses domestic surveillance to spy on immigrants:
Todd Miller, 2013 (“Creating a Military-Industrial-Immigration Complex ,”
http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175723/tomgram%3A_todd_miller,_surveillance_surge_on_the_bo
rder, Accessed 6/21/2015, rwg)
Until you visit the yearly Expo, it’s easy enough to forget that the
U.S. borderlands are today ground zero for the rise,
growth, and spread of a domestic surveillance state. On June 27th, the Senate passed the Border Security,
Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act. Along with the claim that it offers a path to citizenship to
millions of the undocumented living in the United States (with many stringent requirements), in its more than 1,000 pages it
promises to build the largest border-policing and surveillance apparatus ever seen in the United States .
The result, Senator John McCain proudly said, will be the “most militarized border since the fall of the Berlin Wall.”
3) Counter-interpretation: domestic means in the US:
Andrew Sparks, (Editor), WEBSTER’S NEW WORLD COLLEGE DICTIONARY, 5TH Ed., 2014, 433.
Domestic: Of one’s own country or the country referred to.
4) Reasonability: good is good enough on T.
5) Literature checks abuse: Need literature on domestic surveillance.
Substantially AFF Answers
1) Counter-interpretation: substantially means without material qualification:
DON BLEWETT, 1976 (Chairperson California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board,
Young v. Laura Scudder’s Pet, Inc. January 29, 1976.
www.cuiab.ca.gov/precedent/pb181.doc.)
"Substantially. Essentially; without material qualification; in the main; in substance;
materially; in a substantial manner. Kirkpatrick v. Journal Pub. Co., 210 Ala. 10, 97 So. 58, 59;
Gibson v. Glos, 271 I11. 368, I11 N.E. 123, 124; McEwen v. New York Life Ins. Co., 23 Cal.
App. 694, 139 P. 242, 243. About, actually, competently, and essentially. Gilmore v. Red Top
Cab Co. of Washington, 171 Wash. 346, 17 P. 2d 886, 887."
2) We meet the counter-interpretation: we curtail domestic surveillance of
immigrants without qualification.
3) Prefer the counter-interpretation: multiple percentage based definitions of
substantially exist, they’ll always draw the line right before us.
4) Domestic surveillance of immigrants is a gigantic enterprise:
Todd Miller, 2013 (“Creating a Military-Industrial-Immigration Complex ,”
http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175723/tomgram%3A_todd_miller,_surveillance_surge
_on_the_border, Accessed 6/21/2015, rwg)
Until you visit the yearly Expo, it’s easy enough to forget that the U.S. borderlands are today ground zero for
the rise, growth, and spread of a domestic surveillance state. On June 27th, the Senate passed
the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act. Along with the
claim that it offers a path to citizenship to millions of the undocumented living in the United States (with many stringent
requirements), in
its more than 1,000 pages it promises to build the largest border-policing and
surveillance apparatus ever seen in the United States . The result, Senator John McCain proudly said, will
be the “most militarized border since the fall of the Berlin Wall.”
5) Reasonability: good is good enough on T.
6) Literature checks abuse: need specific lit to defend why to decrease
surveillance.
Federal Government AFF Answers
1) We meet: we only curtail US federal government enforcement—they can
win state and local circumvention arguments against the AFF.
2) Immigration surveillance is done by the federal government:
Anil Kalhan, 2013 (Associate Professor of Law, Drexel University, Ohio State Law Journal,
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/students/groups/oslj/files/2013/12/14-Kalhan.pdf, Accessed 6/21/2015, rwg)
15 Anil Kalhan, Immigration Surveillance (unpublished manuscript) (on file with author); see also J ENNIFER L YNCH , I MMIGRATION P OLICY C
TR . & E LEC . F RONTIER F OUND ., F ROM F INGERPRINTS TO DNA: B IOMETRIC D ATA C OLLECTION IN U.S. I MMIGRANT C OMMUNITIES AND B
EYOND (2012) (discussing implications of
expanded collection of biometrics and use of interoperable biometrics
databases in immigration enforcement); M EISSNER ET AL ., supra note 9, at 66 (“Database screening now
accompanies virtually all key interactions between noncitizens and the federal government. ”); Kalhan, supra
note 1, at 1165–68 (discussing manner in which expansion of interior immigration enforcement has increased the salience and visibility of
immigration status in society)
3) Reasonability: Good is good enough on topicality.
4) Literature checks abuse: we need federal government warrants for the
plan.