Topicality
A. Interpretation
The topic limits the aff to increasing the number or eliminating eligibility restrictions in one of the four existing
topic visa categories.
The employment-Based immigration visas are visas in the EB category in which immigration is tied to a particular
job and an employer sponsor.
Oder, Immigration Attorney, 2010
[Donald R. "Employment Based Immigration Visas (EB Visas)", http://www.sandiegoattorneynow.com/lawyer-attorney-1466416.html]
Employment Based Immigration Visas (EB Visas)
Employment based (EB)
visas are permanent visas issued to foreign nationals with permanent employment opportunities in the United
States. Sponsorship by a United States employer is required. In order for a U.S. employer to sponsor an EB visa immigrant, the
employer must go through a multi-step process, including, for most categories of employment based immigration, first obtaining Labor Certification.
There are five categories based on employment skills: EB-1 priority workers (foreign nationals of extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business or athletics, outstanding
professors or researchers and managers and executives subject to international transfer to the United States); EB-2 professionals with advanced degrees or persons with exceptional ability
(foreign nationals of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts or business, with advanced professional degrees or qualified alien physicians who will practice medicine in an underserved U.S.
area); EB-3 skilled and professional workers (foreign professionals with bachelor’s degrees, skilled workers with a minimum of 2 years training and experience and unskilled workers); EB-4
special immigrants (foreign national religious workers and U.S. government and former U.S. government employees abroad); and EB-5 immigrant investors (qualified individuals seeking
engaging in a new commercial enterprise).
B. Violation
Employment Based LPR status is distinct form of Green Card that is tied to specific employers.
Jefferys, 05
[Kelly, DHS Office of Immigration Statistics, "Characteristics of Employment-Based Legal Permanent Residents"]
Some of these are employment-based immigrants
who were granted permanent status because their job skills met an employer’s need. This Office of Immigration Statistics Fact Sheet provides
Hundreds of thousands of immigrants become legal permanent residents (LPRs) of the United States every year.
definitions for terms related to LPRs and descriptive characteristics of persons who became employment-based LPRs in the United States during 2004. The data presented in this fact sheet
were derived from approved applications for LPR status that are maintained in the Computer Linked Application Information Management System (CLAIMS) of the U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services (USCIS) of the Department of Homeland Security.
DEFINING “LEGAL PERMANENT RESIDENT”
LPRs, more commonly known as “green
card” recipients, are authorized to live and work permanently in the United States. The immigration laws of the U.S. government give high
priority for LPR status to immediate relatives of U.S. citizens. Preference categories with annual limits are used to designate other priority
groups for LPR status. These include: 1) family-sponsored preferences – sponsored by certain family members, annual limit of 226,000 to 480,000; 2)
employment-based preferences – sponsored by employers, annual limit of 140,000 plus unused family-sponsored preferences in the previous
year; and 3) diversity – nationals of countries with low rates of immigration to the United States, annual limit of 50,000 in 2004. Other major categories of foreign nationals who may
A legal permanent resident (LPR) is a foreign national who has been granted lawful permanent residence in the United States.
be eligible for LPR status include refugees and asylees.
Employment-Based LPRs
An LPR who obtained a “green card” based on an opening for employment is referred to as an employment-based LPR.
In most cases, the employer must first obtain certification from the Department of Labor that U.S. workers won’t be adversely affected, and that none are qualified,
available, and willing to accept the job at prevailing wages. Then, an immigrant worker petition (Form I-140) must be approved by USCIS before the
person may obtain a visa abroad and enter the United States as an LPR. Individuals already living in the United States may apply for an adjustment of status to LPR. This
category includes individuals applying to work permanently within the United States, as well as their spouses and children. The term principal employment-based LPR
refers to the worker, while dependent includes the spouse and children of the worker.
Employment-Based Preference Categories. There are five categories within the employment-based preference, including: • First Preference: Priority Workers. Includes those with extraordinary
ability, outstanding professors and researchers, managers, and executives subject to international transfer to the United States. • Second Preference: Professionals with Advanced Degrees.
Includes those with exceptional ability, advanced degree professionals, and physicians to practice in underserved areas of the United States. • Third Preference: Other Professionals, Skilled,
and Needed Unskilled Workers. Includes professionals with a bachelor’s degree, skilled workers, and unskilled workers.
The existing indian blood quantum restriction is not an EB visa restriction – the blood quantum restriction is for
crossing the border. No visa is required at all
Osburn, 2000
[Richard, graduate of the University of Oklahoma College of Law and is currently serving as a staff attorney with the Office of Law and Justice, Cherokee Nation of
Oklahoma., "NOTE: Problems and Solutions Regarding Indigenous Peoples Split by International Borders", American Indian Law Review 1999 / 2000 24 Am. Indian
L. Rev. 471, lexis law]
Indians can freely pass borders without registering and
without visas (under U.S. law, Canadian Indians must have at least fifty percent blood quantum n66) and can stay as long as they like without need for
registering as immigrants or obtaining visas. Second, tax exemptions of the past are no longer in effect. Immigration and tax issues had their
roots in the Jay Treaty and the Treaty of Ghent, but statute law has superseded both treaties. Immigration law now
controls border passage and tariff law controls duties.
A side issue of immigration law deals with deportation. Under the Akins holding, immigration laws do not apply to Canadian Indians entering the United
States. n67 Accepting this reasoning, one would have to conclude that a Canadian Indian with more than fifty percent blood
quantum of American Indian blood not only can cross the border freely, but also cannot be deported for any reason. The
Board of Immigration Appeals (the Board) applied this reasoning in In re Yellowquill. n68
The cases above illustrate two points in regard to American Indians and immigration law. First,
Jolene Yellowquill, a Canadian citizen who had, according to the record, at least fifty percent American Indian blood quantum, was arrested in Texas [*479] for possession of heroin. n69 An
immigration judge ordered her deported and she appealed claiming that she was exempt from deportation under immigration laws. n70 The
Board cited the Solicitor
General's decision not to appeal Akins, and, under its own interpretation of the statute, decided that it would be illegal to
deport a Canadian of American Indian ancestry (at least fifty percent blood quantum), for any reason , from the United States. n71
1nc—Courts CP
Text: The United States Supreme Court should strike down blood quantum eligibility requirements for
employment based visas on grounds that they fail to meet a strict scrutiny test.
CP solves case, their author
Spruhan 9 (Paul, Navajo Nation Department of Justice Asst. Attorney General, “ The Canadian Indian Free Passage Right: The Last Stronghold
of Explicit Race Restriction in United States Immigration Law” North Dakota Law Review, Vol. 85, p. 301, lexis)
Importantly, the Court, beginning in the seminal case of Morton v. Mancari,154 conceptualized Indian status as “political” and not “racial” for
purposes of equal protection, despite Congress or the Bureau of Indian Affairs’s use of blood quantum as one element in defining “Indian.”155
In an approach similar to, but independent of the one applied by the INS and the Board of Immigration Appeals discussed in this article, the
Court has said that legislation benefiting members of Indian tribes does not concern a racial group, as the United States has unique
responsibilities to Indian tribes as political entities deriving from treaties and other agreements.156 Instead of strict scrutiny, the Court will
uphold the legislation under a modified rational-basis review, asking whether it is “tied rationally to the fulfillment of Congress’ unique
obligation toward the Indians.”157 However, the use of blood quantum to define Indian in such legislation has led to questions
whether Mancari will continue to shield Indian legislation from strict scrutiny review.158 The Iowa Supreme Court recently
reviewed legislation that defines Indians solely by ancestry, with no requirement of tribal membership, under strict scrutiny, and
struck a provision in the state’s version of the Indian Child Welfare Act as an impermissible racial classification.159 So far,
Mancari has survived when the definition of Indian, though incorporating blood quantum, is tied to membership in an Indian tribe recognized by
the United States.160 The unequivocal invocation of race in the free passage statute may shed light on how to distinguish a racial use of Indian
from a political one. It is difficult to argue that Congress intended to benefit a political group of Canadian Indians incidentally defined by blood
quantum. The term “American Indian race” is directly in the statute, and there is no similar additional requirement of membership in a Canadian
band. Further, the United States possesses no political relationship with Indian citizens of Canada through treaties or other agreements similar to
its relationship with American Indians.161 Indeed, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the federal department primarily responsible for implementing
the federal government’s trust responsibility to Indian tribes, appears to not have participated in the development of the free
passage legislation, and deferred to INS when questions arose in its implementation.162 There is no evidence that Congress believed it
was invoking its plenary power over Indian affairs when it legislatively recognized the free passage right. The existence of this
separate legislation for Canadian Indians might be used to distinguish American Indian legislation, which, though it might utilize blood
quantum, is grounded in the political relationship between the federal government and American Indian tribes.163 For immigration law
scholars, the explicit racial restriction on the free passage right may present an opportunity to challenge the exemption of immigration
legislation from judicial review. The Supreme Court similarly has conceptualized Congress’ authority over immigration as plenary and has
concluded that Congress may restrict immigration in any way it deems appropriate, including through racial restrictions, free of judicial
review.164 The Court has upheld explicit racial bars on Asian immigrants under such theory.165 As noted by scholars such as
Gabriel Chin, these cases have never been overruled.1 66 Unlike the application of constitutional limitations to Indian legislation, the
Court has not, as of yet, applied such limitations to racial restrictions in immigration, though it has applied a type of rational basis
review in non-racial challenges to immigration legislation.167 Chin and others have alleged a lack of any racial restrictions in current
immigration law, and that this absence of restrictions precludes challenges to overturn prior precedents.168 However, could persons
recognized as Indian in Canada, but who do not have at least one-half Indian blood, challenge the free passage restriction as an
impermissible racial distinction? Could non-Indians challenge the free passage of Indians under the same theory?169 The statute might
offer the opportunity for either group to argue that allowing free passage only to persons of 50% or more Indian blood,
impermissibly defines immigration rights by race. Of course, merely asserting that it is racial does not mean the Supreme Court would
apply strict scrutiny; it might still excuse such racial definitions under Congress’ plenary authority over immigration, and apply no judicial
review, or apply a rational basis test, perhaps similar to Mancari, that in effect would immunize the legislation from equal protection review.170
Assuming strict scrutiny applies, the free passage statute would have to promote a compelling government interest and be
narrowly tailored to that interest.171 Assuming the Supreme Court accepts a governmental interest as “compelling” and narrowly tailored,
“the means chosen to accomplish the government’s asserted purpose must be specifically and narrowly framed to accomplish that purpose.”172
The narrowly tailored requirement “ensures that the means chosen ‘fit’ the compelling goal so closely that there is little or no possibility that the
motive for the classification was an illegitimate racial prejudice or stereotype.”173 Put another way, the use of the racial classification must be
“necessary to achieve [the] stated goals.”174 What is the compelling governmental interest? Controlling entry from Canada? Even assuming
border security was the interest, which would seem to be “compelling,” is the half-blood cut-off narrowly tailored to promote that interest?
Surely other ways to control entry exist than allowing only Canadian Indians of one-half or more Indian blood free passage.175 Or was
Congress’ interest to affirm the historical, arguably treaty-based free passage right of Indians?176 If so, why use a specific blood quantum
threshold to do so? To avoid the gender discrimination in Canadian law? Even assuming Congress defined Indian by descent to avoid the
negative effect of the Canadian Indian Act’s exclusion of Indian women married to non-Indian men and their children, it still might have defined
Indian without relying on a specific quantum of Indian blood.177 If the compelling interest is the ongoing recognition of the free passage right,
it then might not be “necessary” to define Indians as a racial group to continue that right.178 However, could the federal government argue that
its definition is actually more inclusive by using blood quantum instead of the Indian Act, and therefore serving the interest of recognizing the
free passage right better than following Canada’s Indian Act definition, which still excludes some Indians, and all Inuit and Métis?179 It is hard
to prove. Comparative population numbers are difficult to come by given that the Canadian government does not record the blood quantum of
its Indian, Inuit, and Métis citizens, whether recognized under the Indian Act or not.180 In the end, these alleged compelling interests are purely
speculative. The legislative history lacks any discussion of the purpose for applying a racial definition, and the federal government might be
hard-pressed to assert a plausible compelling interest in the absence of any congressional guidance. 181 It might be that members of
Congress simply considered Canadian Indians to be a race, as it considered other immigrant groups, such as Asians, to be races, and therefore
restricted the pre-existing free passage right to those it believed to be truly racially Indian.182 Though the outcome of a challenge under a strict
scrutiny review is ultimately unclear, it appears the federal government would have difficulty justifying its use of blood quantum in
this context.183 Even under a limited rational basis review, it might be difficult for the federal government to argue that limiting Canadian
Indian free passage by race is “rational.”184 There appears to be no rational justification to define Canadian Indians by race, other than
the avoidance of the effect of the noweliminated gender distinctions in the Canadian Indian Act, or an unproven assertion that a half-blood
definition is more inclusive than a political definition.185 However, if an immigration rational basis test were as deferential as the Indian law
test, it might be that any justification for using blood quantum the federal government offered would be sufficient.186 Indeed, blood quantum is
pervasive in federal Indian law, and when used to define Canadian Indians, as opposed to other racial groups in immigration law, it might appear
“rational” within the context of this larger phenomenon.187
Net benefit is politics—courts don’t link, they’re shielded from political pressure
Artemus Ward, Political Science, Northern Illinois University, Jan-Apr. 2009, Congress and The Presidency, “Political
Foundations of Judicial Supremacy: The Presidency, the Supreme Court, and Constitutional Leadership in U.S. History,”
Jesuit proquest
After the old order has collapse the once- united, new-regime coalition begins to fracture as original commitments are extended to new issues. In chapter 3 Whittington
combines Skowronek's articulation and disjunctive categories into the overarching "affiliated" presidencies as both seek to elaborate the regime begun under
reconstructive leaders. By this point in the ascendant regime, Courts are staffed by justices from the dominant ruling coalition via the appointment process - and
Whittington spends time on appointment politics here and more fully in chapter 4. Perhaps counter-intuitively, affiliated political actors - including
presidents - encourage Courts to exercise vetoes and operate in issue areas of relatively low political salience. Of course, this
"activism" is never used against the affiliated president per se. Instead, affiliated Courts correct for the overreaching of those who operate outside the preferred
constitutional vision, which are often state and local governments who need to be brought into line with nationally dominant constitutional commitments. Whittington
explains why it is easier for affiliated judges, rather than affiliated presidents, to rein in outliers and conduct constitutional
maintenance. The latter are saddled with controlling opposition political figures, satisfying short-term political demands,
and navigating intraregime gridlock and political thickets. Furthermore, because of their electoral accountability,
politicians engage in position-taking, credit-claiming, and blame-avoidance behavior. By contrast, their judicial
counterparts are relatively sheltered from political pressures and have more straightforward decisional processes. Activist
Courts can take the blame for advancing and legitimizing constitutional commitments that might have electoral costs. In
short, a division of labor exists between politicians and judges affiliated with the dominant regime.
SKAFT Will pass now
The Hill 11
The Hill, 1/28/2011 (South Korean ambassador confident about trade deal, p. http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/international-taxes/140995-south-koreanambassador-confident-about-trade-deal)
South Korea’s ambassador on Friday said he’s confident Congress will approve a trade deal with his country. Ambassador Han
Duk-Soo said negotiations over the finalized text of the agreement have been completed and he expects both sides will sign the
deal soon. “There will be no further negotiations. It is done now,” said Han, who spoke to reporters at a lunch hosted by the
National Foreign Trade Council. South Korea’s goal is to see Congress pass the trade deal “as soon as possible.” Approval by
Congress likely will prompt South Korea’s legislature to sign off on it as well, he said. July 1 looms large as a target date for
approval for the Obama administration because that is when a trade deal between Korea and the European Union is expected to go
into effect. U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk has said the administration wants the U.S. trade agreement to be moved through
Congress before then. But some obstacles remain. Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, is not
pleased that the deal didn’t address trade barriers for U.S. beef exports. The ambassador said he was not concerned by Baucus’s
opposition because the trade deal has the support of several industry associations, such as the National Cattlemen’s Beef
Association, and that the Montana senator has been a “champion” for opening up trade with Korea in the past. In addition, several
Republican lawmakers have said that they want to include the Korean trade deal in a lump vote with two other pending agreements
with Colombia and Panama. Kirk, however, has said in the past that it would be a “huge mistake” to do so that because it would
“short-circuit” the process in fixing the two South American trade deals. The ambassador said he was not worried that GOP
demands would slow down approval of Korea’s trade deal. President Obama has said he plans to move quickly on the Colombia
and Panama trade agreements once Korea’s deal is approved. “I’m not very worried much about that,” Han said. “I think
Republicans are very much in favor of this agreement.”
Capital is key
McLarty and Cunningham 11,
1/24/2011 (Thomas - chief of staff to Clinton, and Nelson - aide to Clinton, Obama’s free trade opportunity, Wall Street Journal, p.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703954004576090290103169526.html?mod=googlenews_wsj)
In the first two years of President Obama's tenure, progress on trade was largely frozen. Mr. Obama stated his support for the
uncompleted pieces of the Bush trade agenda—free trade agreements with South Korea, Panama and Colombia, the dangling Doha
World Trade Organization round, and Russia WTO accession—but little measurable progress was made. Now, in a few short
weeks, Mr. Obama has renegotiated the U.S.-Korea free trade agreement and announced that it will be a priority in the new
Congress. He has taken steps to resolve a longstanding trade dispute with Mexico over trucks that goes back to the Clinton years.
And, with his selection of Mr. Daley, the president has hired the man who can make this trade revival a reality. What now? Our
experience tells us that the only way to push a major trade agreement through Congress—even one where the nominally pro-trade
GOP rules the House—is with strong and unyielding presidential leadership, a unified White House staff and cabinet, and a
genuinely bipartisan approach to stakeholders and the Congress. First, the president must be fully committed. Nafta was a
bipartisan success in no small part because of the personal involvement of Mr. Clinton and sometimes tortuous negotiations
with members of Congress. It's true that some pork was doled out and more than one bridge was built as a result of a Nafta
vote—something they probably still understand in Chicago.
1NC
SKAFTA Will pass now
The Hill 11
The Hill, 1/28/2011 (South Korean ambassador confident about trade deal, p. http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/international-taxes/140995-south-koreanambassador-confident-about-trade-deal)
South Korea’s ambassador on Friday said he’s confident Congress will approve a trade deal with his country. Ambassador Han
Duk-Soo said negotiations over the finalized text of the agreement have been completed and he expects both sides will sign the
deal soon. “There will be no further negotiations. It is done now,” said Han, who spoke to reporters at a lunch hosted by the
National Foreign Trade Council. South Korea’s goal is to see Congress pass the trade deal “as soon as possible.” Approval by
Congress likely will prompt South Korea’s legislature to sign off on it as well, he said. July 1 looms large as a target date for
approval for the Obama administration because that is when a trade deal between Korea and the European Union is expected to go
into effect. U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk has said the administration wants the U.S. trade agreement to be moved through
Congress before then. But some obstacles remain. Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, is not
pleased that the deal didn’t address trade barriers for U.S. beef exports. The ambassador said he was not concerned by Baucus’s
opposition because the trade deal has the support of several industry associations, such as the National Cattlemen’s Beef
Association, and that the Montana senator has been a “champion” for opening up trade with Korea in the past. In addition, several
Republican lawmakers have said that they want to include the Korean trade deal in a lump vote with two other pending agreements
with Colombia and Panama. Kirk, however, has said in the past that it would be a “huge mistake” to do so that because it would
“short-circuit” the process in fixing the two South American trade deals. The ambassador said he was not worried that GOP
demands would slow down approval of Korea’s trade deal. President Obama has said he plans to move quickly on the Colombia
and Panama trade agreements once Korea’s deal is approved. “I’m not very worried much about that,” Han said. “I think
Republicans are very much in favor of this agreement.”
Capital is key
McLarty and Cunningham 11,
1/24/2011 (Thomas - chief of staff to Clinton, and Nelson - aide to Clinton, Obama’s free trade opportunity, Wall Street Journal, p.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703954004576090290103169526.html?mod=googlenews_wsj)
In the first two years of President Obama's tenure, progress on trade was largely frozen. Mr. Obama stated his support for the
uncompleted pieces of the Bush trade agenda—free trade agreements with South Korea, Panama and Colombia, the dangling Doha
World Trade Organization round, and Russia WTO accession—but little measurable progress was made. Now, in a few short
weeks, Mr. Obama has renegotiated the U.S.-Korea free trade agreement and announced that it will be a priority in the new
Congress. He has taken steps to resolve a longstanding trade dispute with Mexico over trucks that goes back to the Clinton years.
And, with his selection of Mr. Daley, the president has hired the man who can make this trade revival a reality. What now? Our
experience tells us that the only way to push a major trade agreement through Congress—even one where the nominally pro-trade
GOP rules the House—is with strong and unyielding presidential leadership, a unified White House staff and cabinet, and a
genuinely bipartisan approach to stakeholders and the Congress. First, the president must be fully committed. Nafta was a
bipartisan success in no small part because of the personal involvement of Mr. Clinton and sometimes tortuous negotiations
with members of Congress. It's true that some pork was doled out and more than one bridge was built as a result of a Nafta
vote—something they probably still understand in Chicago.
Debates over blood quantums unpopular, their author
Spruhan 6
(Paul, Navajo Nation Department of Justice Asst. Attorney General, “ARTICLE: A LEGAL HISTORY OF BLOOD QUANTUM IN FEDERAL
INDIAN LAW TO 1935”, 51 S.D. L. REV. 1, lexis)
D. The Indian Reorganization Act (1934) and the Definition of Indian The Indian Reorganization Act n409 (IRA) brought farreaching changes to the federal administration of Indian affairs. Congress rejected the allotment policy and, among other things,
provided land purchase and loan programs and a process by which tribes could organize constitutional governments and form
corporate entities. n410 Because of the significant philosophical shift in Indian policy, the bill was controversial when
presented to Congress. n411 One item that created discussion was the definition of Indian advocated by Commissioner of
Indian Affairs John Collier, the architect of reorganization. n412 Collier originally proposed a definition for the IRA that included
all those of Indian descent who were members of recognized tribes, their descendants who resided on a reservation, and all other
Indians of one-quarter or more Indian blood. n413 However, members of Congress, especially Senator Wheeler of Montana,
objected to the one-quarter standard: I do not think the government of the United States should go out there and take a lot of
Indians in that are quarter bloods and take them in under this act. If they are Indians in the half blood then the government
should perhaps take them in, but not unless they are. If you pass it to where they are quarter blood Indians you are going to have all kinds of
people coming in and claiming they are quarter blood Indians and want to be put on the government rolls, and in my judgment it should not be done. What we are
trying to do is get rid of the Indian problem rather than to add to it. n414 Wheeler perpetuated the rhetoric of competency, objecting to those of less than one-half
Indian blood from participating at all, stating that Indians in Montana and California were "white people" who were "just as capable of handling their own affairs
as any white man in this room." n415 As passed by Congress, the IRA used Collier's hybrid definition, but raised [*47] the threshold blood quantum to one-half.
n416 The definition included: All persons of Indian descent who are members of any recognized Indian tribe now under Federal jurisdiction, and all persons who
are descendants of such members who were, on June 1, 1934, residing within the present boundaries of any Indian reservation, and ... persons of one-half or more
Indian blood. n417 The membership, descent and residence, and blood components were discreet methods to define Indian. n418 An individual could be a
member of a tribe, a descendant of a member residing on a reservation, or could possess the requisite amount of blood. Importantly, the definition required some
Indian blood in all three categories, thereby excluding persons with no Indian ancestry married into or adopted by the tribe. The half-blood and
descendant categories expanded the definition of Indian beyond tribal membership. To come under federal administration
under the act, one could be politically and biologically Indian or just biologically Indian. The IRA also was an important
crossroads for tribal membership. The Bureau of Indian Affairs' legal interpretation of the act recognized the inherent sovereignty
of tribes to define their own membership. n419 With the ability to draft constitutions, the question of tribal membership, and
whether to use blood quantum to define it, generally became the choice of tribes themselves. n420 However, definitions of Indian
eligibility for federal programs, and the choice to use blood quantum or not, would remain within the authority of the federal
government. IV. CONCLUSION The legal history of blood quantum to 1935 is more striking for its lack of use than its
application. Rules defining the status of mixed-ancestry persons by blood and descent existed from at least 1705 in AngloAmerican law, but the federal government only applied blood quantum to Indians on a large scale in the early twentieth century.
Though early federal officials knew of blood quantum, and used it to describe individuals of mixed ancestry, they generally
avoided its application. In the allotment era, federal officials applied blood quantum for a variety of purposes. Though federal
policy shifted again in the Indian Reorganization Act to emphasize tribal self-government, blood quantum was by then firmly
entrenched, though existing alongside political definitions. The main [*48] question is: why blood quantum became a prominent
method of defining Indian status, but remained only one of several methods? The evolution in the use of blood quantum tracks the
interaction of two sets of foundational contradictions in federal Indian law. At once Indians are citizens of political entities and
members of an Indian race. Further, Indian tribes are autonomous governments with federally-recognized sovereignty over their
territories, but Indians are dependent wards of the federal government subject to detailed controls over their lives. The muddled
array of individual uses of the legal term Indian that developed to 1935, some requiring a threshold blood quantum
(without a consistent quantum) and some requiring tribal membership, reflects that the United States failed to resolve
these inherent contradictions in its Indian law. Instead, individual statutes, regulations, and court rulings emphasized different aspects of Indian
status, with no cohesive explanation for the varied definitions. As discussed, the perception of Indians as a biological population entered into nineteenth-century
federal Indian law. In 1846 the Supreme Court extended federal criminal jurisdiction over white tribal members by interpreting the statutory term Indian to refer to
a race of Indians. Further, federal law barred Indians from American citizenship, explained by some officials as due to the alleged incapacity of the Indian race.
Consistent with this perception, the pre-existing colonial concept of different Indian, white, and black bloods and the expression of biological intermixture
between Indians and non-Indians in terms of fractionated blood entered into early federal discussions of Indian policy. However, nineteenth-century federal
officials also treated tribes as autonomous political entities, and "Indian" as a political citizen of a tribe. The federal government negotiated treaties with tribes for
various purposes, and mostly did not interfere with internal membership. Early treaty provisions included references to half-breeds or quarter-bloods, and a few
treaties defined eligibility for specific benefits by blood, but no treaty stated that mixed-bloods were not tribal members or were not Indian. Indeed, some later
treaties explicitly recognized mixed-bloods and even intermarried whites and black freedmen as tribal members. Bureau of Indian Affairs administrative practice
generally made no distinction between mixed-bloods and other Indians for distribution of benefits, and generally left the decision up to tribal officials whether to
recognize mixed-bloods as members. Even when the Attorney General and federal judges suggested a distinction between Indians and white citizens, defined by
the amount of Indian blood, they declined to apply it. Instead, the branches of the federal government preferred rules of matrilineal or patrilineal descent or tribal
membership to classify mixed-bloods. While the federal government viewed Indians as members of political entities, it also exerted supervision and control over
Indian property as the guardian of Indian wards. The government barred Indians from making contracts, from selling land, and from other activities associated
with "competent" citizens of the United States under the notion of guardianship. Federal officials selectively extended their guardianship authority to protect
mixed-bloods as Indians by supervising their transactions. [*49] By the 1870s the federal government increasingly asserted its guardianship authority and deemphasized the concept of Indians as citizens of autonomous tribes. Congress abolished treaty-making with tribes, though it continued to negotiate agreements.
Citizen and Indian slowly ceased to be a viable distinction, as Congress bestowed citizenship on various groups of Indians. The Bureau of Indian Affairs grew to
control the day-to-day activities of reservation Indians. Congress extended federal court jurisdiction in the Major Crimes Act to prosecute for the first time crimes
between Indians. Congress moved to assimilate individual Indians into American society and established the allotment program to dissolve tribes as collective
entities. However, the political conception of Indian identity never completely went away. When the federal government distributed allotments, all three branches
eventually applied tribal membership to define eligibility. Officials recognized intermarried white men as empowered to vote on land cession agreements, and
these white men shared in the distribution of property at certain times as tribal members. Even when Congress in 1888 barred newly intermarried white men from
sharing in tribal property, it still recognized the authority of tribes to recognize them as members. In the early twentieth century the federal government asserted
virtually absolute control over Indian lands and applied the pre-existing concept of blood quantum directly. Blessed by the Supreme Court, Congress dismantled
Indian lands and selectively released allottees based on their relative competency. The use of blood quantum combined the concepts of Indian as a member of a
biological group and Indian as an incompetent ward. Both Congress and the Bureau of Indian Affairs used blood quantum as one of the defining elements of
competency to release whole classes of Indians, while retaining restrictions on others. Congress then conditioned funding and, for certain
tribes, membership itself, based on blood quantum, limiting its responsibilities to a subset of biological wards.
However, even when Congress applied blood quantum during this time, there was no consistent approach. Status as an Indian for
some purposes required a threshold blood quantum, while for other purposes it did not. Congress used different amounts for
different purposes, with no cohesive explanation for the inconsistent applications of blood quantum or the specific amounts
chosen. To add to the confusion, the IRA combined the various conceptions of Indian identity in one piece of legislation. With the
exception of adopted non-Indian tribal members, both political and biological Indians were beneficiaries of the act. Tribal
membership continued to be important, as the IRA included all tribal members of "Indian descent." However, Congress also
included on-reservation descendants of members and Indians of one-half or more Indian blood not affiliated with any tribe.
Further, the IRA included both the notions of Indians as autonomous communities and as wards of the federal government. The
IRA set up a process for tribes to organize constitutional governments and corporate entities, and subsequent BIA interpretation
left membership to the tribes themselves. However, the increase of the blood quantum threshold from [*50] one-quarter to
one-half perpetuated the notion of Indian as biological ward, as powerful congressmen successfully objected to the
extension of benefits to allegedly competent mixed-bloods. The array of definitions built up over the span of federal Indian
law during this period remains unresolved. Many of the definitions in the statutes, regulations, and cases discussed in this article
are still in effect. They exist together in the United States Code, the Code of Federal Regulations, and in federal judicial decisions
with subsequent definitions that continue to incorporate the various approaches. The resulting muddle will continue as long as the
United States applies blood quantum and tribal membership inconsistently, frustrating future generations of Indian people, as well
as those who practice federal Indian law, by perpetuating the inconsistencies of Indian legal identity.
SKAFTA key to South Korean Relations
Stangarone 10,
11/4/2010 (Troy - director of Congressional Affairs and Trade for the Korea Economic Institute, On the sidelines of the g20, Asia Pacific Bulletin, No. 79, p. 1-2)
The pending free trade agreement between the United States and South Korea, KORUS FTA, is heading into a defining period. After more than three years of delay,
Presidents Barack Obama and Lee Myung-bak have committed to resolving each side’s differences by the upcoming G-20 summit in Seoul on November 11-12, paving
the way for passage in 2011. However, for political reasons in both countries, 2011 may be the last opportunity to move forward on the
KORUS FTA for a period of years and falling short of that could have reverberations for the alliance. Timelines and the G-20 The
KORUS FTA’s prospects are inversely tied to the next US presidential election. As it draws nearer, the agreement’s chances of passing Congress grow slimmer. For
this reason, the FTA needs to be sent to Congress no later than this spring to ensure it is passed prior to the August recess, and thus avoids any budget showdown next
fall. If there is not a vote in 2011, the chances of a vote in a presidential election year are slim. Instead, the agreement might be facing the worst of all possibilities—
delay until the next administration. In that case, a vote might not occur until late 2013 or early 2014, as a reelected Obama administration or a new Republican
administration would want to move on any major campaign promises first. The only real window of opportunity is the first half of 2011. The Consequences of Not
Reaching a Deal The sinking of the Cheonan earlier this year focused the US administration’s thinking about the KORUS FTA and the US-ROK alliance. In the
face of North Korean aggression the Obama administration sought to signal its support for an embattled US ally in the
strongest terms possible. Continued delay on a key alliance issue such as the KORUS FTA would have signaled that there was distance
between the two governments, especially in light of the policy significance that South Korea places on the agreement. Having publicly committed to a
resolution on the FTA means that falling short will have a quantitatively different impact on relations than would have occurred in the absence of a public commitment.
As the G-20 approaches, its worth considering what this would mean. First, the alliance will not come to an end. Core security considerations relating to North Korea
and the Korean peninsula will not change. However, there is the possibility for policy divergence in other areas and a change in the conception each side has for the
future direction of the alliance. The first impact is the easiest to quantify—the continued decline of the United States as an economic actor on the Korean peninsula.
This is a process that is already taking place. The last decade has seen China rapidly surpass the United States in terms of trade with South Korea, as well as the
European Union. The European Union’s FTA with South Korea will come into force on July 1 of next year, while South Korea is expected to engage in FTA
negotiations with China in 2012. Along with South Korea’s other FTAs, these will continue to erode the United States’ position as an economic player on the Korean
peninsula. On a regional level, there
would be consequences to the United S tates’ economic position as well. The U nited S tates would lose
credibility as a negotiating partner on the most significant set of issues in Asia, trade and economic growth. This would likely have a
direct impact on the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations, as America’s partners would likely have concerns about the United States’ ability to follow through on its
commitments. On the political and strategic side, the nature of the outcome could create disappointment that would have political consequences in South Korea. It
would be understandable for South Koreans to question the United States’ commitment to the alliance and further a narrative,
even if untrue, of the United States as an unreliable partner in some quarters. This would strengthen the position of those in South Korea who
believe that South Korea’s future is outside of the US-ROK alliance and weaken those who want to work with the
United States. At a time when China is growing more assertive as a regional power and South Korea’s economic ties to the United States are loosening, it would
give new context to the question of whether South Korea’s long- term future is tied to that of the United States, especially if unification were to occur. Policy
divergence might also occur in other areas such as trade, economics, nuclear proliferation and climate change, to name but a few. In the absence of a close relationship
with the United States the recent decision by South Korea to impose additional sanctions on Iran might have been different. This decision was highly contentious in
South Korea because of the potential consequences it had for South Korean interests in the Middle East. In a less friendly political environment it
might be difficult for a South Korean government that wanted to work with the United States. Let alone a government that did not,
creating incentives to take a different course much as Turkey has done as it reorients its foreign policy in the light of cooling relations with Washington and Europe.
Concluding the FTA would provide an institutional structure to the alliance and point to a commitment by both sides
beyond the resolution of long-standing tensions on the peninsula. This
would help the alliance to weather changes in government better by
relationship goes
through difficult periods and having additional ties between both sides will help to make those periods easier to weather.
providing an additional institutional framework. As has been the case before with South Korea and is currently the case with Japan, every
The KORUS FTA as a First Step in Asia With South Korea being awarded the distinction of hosting the G-20 summit this November and the 2012 nuclear summit
attest, Seoul is beginning to come of age on the global stage. It is also doing so during a time of significant change. The G-20 is already rewriting the global economic
power structure and those same shifts in economic power will precipitate changes in diplomatic and international power structures in the years ahead. While the
KORUS FTA will not address all of the challenges the United States will face in a changing international system, it is a key part of the strategic picture for the United
States in South Korea and Asia more generally. If
the U nited S tates allows itself to continue to lose ground as an economic presence on
the peninsula and Asia, over time it will see the same outcome on its diplomatic and military influence. The first step to
avoiding that outcome is to reach an understanding on the KORUS FTA.
That stops North Korean aggression.
Pritchard et al, 09 – President of the Korea Economic Institute (Charles L, 6/16. With John H. Tilelli Jr., Chairman and CEO, Cypress International, and Scott
A. Snyder, Adjunct Senior Fellow for Korea Studies, CFR. “A New Chapter for U.S.-South Korea Alliance.” Council on Foreign Relations.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/19635/new_chapter_for_ussouth_korea_alliance.html)
While all eyes have been trained on North Korea's belligerent and aggressive actions in recent weeks, it is important to note that the U.S.-South
Korea
alliance has emerged as a linchpin in the Obama administration's efforts to successfully manage an overcrowded global agenda, and a pivotal tool for
safeguarding U.S. long-term interests in Asia. When South Korea's President Lee Myung-bak meets with President Barack Obama at the White House
Tuesday, the two leaders must effectively address three main areas: policy coordination to address North Korea's nuclear threat, the development of a global security
agenda that extends beyond the peninsula, and collaboration to address the global financial crisis as South Korea takes a lead on the G-20 process. By conducting a
second nuclear test in May, followed by a number of missile launches, North Korea has forced its way onto the Obama administration's agenda. First and foremost,
effective U.S.-South Korea alliance coordination is critical to managing both the global effects of North Korea's nuclear
threat on the nonproliferation regime and the regional security challenges posed by potential regime actions that lead to
further crisis in the region. North Korea's internal focus on its leadership succession, and the apparent naming of North Korean leader Kim Jong-il's littleknown and inexperienced youngest son as his successor, make the task of responding to North Korea's aggressive and destabilizing actions all the more challenging.
Both deterrence and negotiation must be pursued on the basis of close consultations. Presidents Obama and Lee must also
develop coordinated contingency plans in the event of internal instability in North Korea. Through effective U.S.-South Korea alliance
coordination, it should be possible to forge a combined strategy capable of managing the nuclear, proliferation, and
regional security dimensions of North Korea's threat. A coordinated position would also strengthen the administration's hand in its efforts to
persuade China to put pressure on North Korea.
Global nuclear war
Hayes and Green, 10 - *Victoria University AND **Executive Director of the Nautilus Institute (Peter and Michael, “-“The Path Not Taken, the Way Still
Open: Denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula and Northeast Asia”, 1/5, http://www.nautilus.org/fora/security/10001HayesHamalGreen.pdf)
The consequences of failing to address the proliferation threat posed by the North Korea developments, and related political and economic issues,
are serious, not only for the Northeast Asian region but for the whole international community. At worst, there is the possibility of nuclear attack1,
whether by intention, miscalculation, or merely accident, leading to the resumption of Korean War hostilities. On the Korean
Peninsula itself, key population centres are well within short or medium range missiles. The whole of Japan is likely to come within North Korean missile range.
Pyongyang has a population of over 2 million, Seoul (close to the North Korean border) 11 million, and Tokyo over 20 million. Even a limited nuclear
exchange would result in a holocaust of unprecedented proportions. But the catastrophe within the region would not be the only outcome.
New research indicates that even a limited nuclear war in the region would rearrange our global climate far more quickly
than global warming. Westberg draws attention to new studies modelling the effects of even a limited nuclear exchange involving approximately 100
Hiroshima-sized 15 kt bombs2 (by comparison it should be noted that the United States currently deploys warheads in the range 100 to 477 kt, that is, individual
warheads equivalent in yield to a range of 6 to 32 Hiroshimas).The studies indicate that the soot from the fires produced would lead to
a
decrease in global temperature by 1.25 degrees Celsius for a period of 6-8 years.3 In Westberg’s view: That is not global winter, but the
nuclear darkness will cause a deeper drop in temperature than at any time during the last 1000 years. The temperature over the
continents would decrease substantially more than the global average. A decrease in rainfall over the continents would also follow...The period of nuclear darkness will
cause much greater decrease in grain production than 5% and it will continue for many years... hundreds of millions of people will die from
hunger...To make matters even worse, such amounts of smoke injected into the stratosphere would cause a huge reduction in the
Earth’s protective ozone.4 These, of course, are not the only consequences. Reactors might also be targeted, causing further mayhem and downwind radiation
effects, superimposed on a smoking, radiating ruin left by nuclear next-use. Millions of refugees would flee the affected regions. The direct impacts, and the
follow-on impacts on the global economy via ecological and food insecurity, could make the present global financial
crisis pale by comparison. How the great powers, especially the nuclear weapons states respond to such a crisis, and in particular, whether nuclear
weapons are used in response to nuclear first-use, could make or break the global non proliferation and disarmament regimes. There could be
many unanticipated impacts on regional and global security relationships5, with subsequent nuclear breakout and
geopolitical turbulence, including possible loss-of-control over fissile material or warheads in the chaos of nuclear war,
and aftermath chain-reaction affects involving other potential proliferant states. The Korean nuclear proliferation issue is not just a
regional threat but a global one that warrants priority consideration from the international community.
1NC
A.
Modern leftist struggles are stuck within coordinates of capitalism—their efforts only serve to regulate the worst
excesses of capitalism without challenging its global destruction
Zizek 4, Prof of Sociology at the Institute for Sociology at Ljubljana Univ, 2004
[Slavoj, Conversations With Zizek, pg 148-9]
My position is almost classical Marxist in the sense that I would insist that anti-capitalist struggle is not simply one among
other political struggles for greater equality, cultural recognition, anti-sexism and so on. I believe in the central structuring
role of the anti-capitalist struggle. And I don’t think that my position is as crazy or idiosyncratic as it appeared maybe a
couple a years ago. It is not only the so-called Seattle Movement; there are many other signals that demonstrate—how
shall I put it?—capitalism is becoming a problem again; that the honeymoon of globalization, which lasted through the
1990s, is coming to an end. It’s in this context that we can also understand the incredible successes of Negri and Hardt’s
Empire, which points out that people are again perceiving capitalism as a problem. It is no longer the old story that the
ideological battles are over and that capitalism has won. Capitalism is once more a problem. This would be my starting
point. And I am not thinking of anti-capitalist struggle just in terms of consumerist movements. This is not enough. We
need to do more than simply organize a multitude of sites of resistance against capitalism. There is a basic necessity to
translate this resistance into a more global project—otherwise we will merely be creating regulatory instances that
control on the worst excesses of capitalism. GD: This also appears to be at the base of your dispute with Ernesto Laclau –
in J. Butler (et al.) Contingency, Hegemony, and Universality – where you seem to be arguing that the existing political
struggles are already caught up in a certain liberal capitalist ethos and that the contemporary logiics of hegemony are
already hegemonized; already configured within the capital processes themselves…SJ: Yes, I agree with your formulation
that hegemony itself is hegemonized. In what sense? I think that the idea that today we no longer have a central struggle
but a multitude of struggles is a fake one, because we shouldn’t forget that the group for this multitude of struggles was
created by modern global capitalism. This doesn’t devaluate these struggles: I am not saying they are not real struggles. I
am saying that the passage from old-fashioned class struggle to all these post-modern struggles of ecological, cultural,
sexual etc. struggles is one that is opened up by global capitalism. The ground of these struggles is global capitalism.
Their attempt to integrate Native Americans into US masks root cause of indigenous oppression within
capitalism
Aldred 2K
, Montana State University, Center for Native American Studies, professor, 00
(Lisa, “Plastic Shamans and Astroturf Sun Dances New Age Commercialization of Native American Spirituality,” American Indian Quarterly, volume: 24, no. 3)
The subjectivities of human experience produced under capitalism leads to feelings of alienation. Yet people
increasingly think of themselves and others as akin to commodities. Purchasable lifestyles are mistaken for
communities. So, driven by the quest for some kind of community and historical tradition, New Agers
fetishize Native Americans and their religio-cultural practices. Yet the only way they know how to achieve
the attributes that they project onto Native Americans is through commercialization and purchase. This
cycle does not end their alienation. They are still so removed from any recognition of social relations (much
less historical conflict) that they cannot understand why Native American peoples themselves would object to
their appropriations. The individualism that has become characteristic of both capitalism and American
political ideology cannot fathom political and social accountability. Yet the kind of community New Agers so
desperately seek to relieve their feelings of isolation would, in my view, not be defined by superficial trappings,
but by col- lective accountability. Despite the New Agers’ professions that they are working toward social and
cultural change, their commercialization of Native American spirituality articulates well within latetwentieth-century consumer capitalism. There is strong historical and social evidence that the
commercialization of ideas and values, as well as the fetishized image of a social body perceived to be
ethnically Other, stems in part from thought and practices produced within the context of recent consumer
capitalism. Although the New Age spiritualists identify themselves as countercultural, their uncritical ideas about
commercialization and marketing practices appear to have been shaped by the larger capitalist market economy.
Moreover, their imperialistically nostalgic fetishization of Native American spirituality hinders any
recognition of their own historical and so- cial complicity in the oppression of indigenous peoples.
This results in extinction
Foster 7
, Professor of Sociology at Oregon, 07 [John Bellamy, Monthly Review, February,
http://www.monthlyreview.org/0207JBF.htm]
In the Oh shit era, the debate, McKibben says, is over. There is no longer any doubt that global warming represents a crisis of earth‐shaking proportions. Yet, it is absolutely
essential to understand that this is only one part of what we call the environmental crisis. The global ecological threat as a whole is made up of a large number of interrelated crises
and problems that are confronting us simultaneously. In my 1994 book, The Vulnerable Planet, I started out with a brief litany of some of these, to which others might now be added:
Overpopulation, destruction of the ozone layer, global warming, extinction of species, loss of genetic diversity, acid rain, nuclear contamination, tropical deforestation, the
elimination of climax forests, wetland destruction, soil erosion, desertification, floods, famine, the despoliation of lakes, streams, and rivers, the drawing down and contamination of
ground water, the pollution of coastal waters and estuaries, the destruction of coral reefs, oil spills, overfishing, expanding landfills, toxic wastes, the poisonous effects of insecticides
and herbicides, exposure to hazards on the job, urban congestion, and the depletion of nonrenewable resources.11 The point is that not just global warming but many of these other
problems as well can each be seen as constituting a global ecological crisis. Today every major ecosystem on the earth is in decline. Issues of environmental justice are becoming
more prominent and pressing everywhere we turn. Underlying
this is the fact that the class/imperial war that defines capitalism
as a world system, and that governs its system of accumulation, is a juggernaut that knows no limits. In this
deadly conflict the natural world is seen as a mere instrument of world social domination. Hence, capital by
its very logic imposes what is in effect a scorched earth strategy. The planetary ecological crisis is
increasingly all‐encompassing, a product of the destructive uncontrollability of a rapidly globalizing
capitalist economy, which knows no law other than its own drive to exponential expansion. Transcending Business as
Usual Most climate scientists, including Lovelock and Hansen, follow the IPCC in basing their main projections of global warming on a socioecnomic scenario described as
“business as usual.” The dire trends indicated are predicated on our fundamental economic and technological developments and our basic relation to nature remaining the same. The
With time running out the implication is that it
is necessary to alter business as usual in radical ways in order to stave off or lessen catastrophe. Yet, the
dominant solutions—those associated with the dominant ideology, i.e., the ideology of the dominant class—
emphasize minimal changes in business as usual that will somehow get us off the hook. After being directed to the growing
planetary threats of global warming and species extinction we are told that the answer is better gas mileage and better emissions
standards, the introduction of hydrogen‐powered cars, the capture and sequestration of carbon dioxide
emitted in the atmosphere, improved conservation, and voluntary cutbacks in consumption. Environmental political
scientists specialize in the construction of new environmental policy regimes, embodying state and market regulations . Environmental economists talk of
tradable pollution permits and the incorporation of all environmental factors into the market to ensure their
efficient use. Some environmental sociologists (my own field) speak of ecological modernization: a whole
panoply of green taxes, green regulations, and new green technologies, even the greening of capitalism itself.
Futurists describe a new technological world in which the weight of nations on the earth is miraculously
lifted as a result of digital “dematerialization” of the economy. In all of these views, however, there is one
constant: the fundamental character of business as usual is hardly changed at all. Indeed, what all such
analyses intentionally avoid is the fact that business as usual in our society in any fundamental sense means
the capitalist economy—an economy run on the logic of profit and accumulation. Moreover, there is little
question we need to ask then is what actually is business as usual? What can be changed and how fast?
acknowledgement or even appreciation of the fact that the Hobbesian war of all against all that characterizes capitalism requires for its fulfillment a universal
war on nature. In this sense new technology cannot solve the problem since it is inevitably used to further the class war and to increas Capitalism Kills the
Planet Marxism UTNIF 2009 Marxism_UTNIF 09.doc University of Texas National Institute of Forensics 69 production dies down or social resistance
imposes barriers on the expansion of capital the answer is always to find new ways to exploit/degrade nature more intensively. To quote Pontecorvo’s Burn!,
“that is the logic of profit....One builds to make money and to go on making it or to make more sometimes it is necessary to destroy.” Ironically, this
destructive relation of capitalism to the environment was probably understood better in the nineteenth century—at a time when social analysts were acutely
aware of the issue of revolutionary changes taking place in the mode of production and how this was transforming the human relation to nature. As a result,
environmental sociologists of the more radical stamp in the United States, where the contradiction between economy and ecology nowadays is especially acute,
draw heavily on three interrelated ideas derived from Marx and the critique
of capitalist political economy dating back to the nineteenth century: (1)
the treadmill of production, (2) the second contradiction of
capitalism, and (3) the metabolic rift. The first of these, the treadmill of production, describes capitalism as
an unstoppable, accelerating treadmill that constantly increases the scale of the throughput of energy and
raw materials as part of its quest for profit and accumulation, thereby pressing on the earth’s absorptive
capacity. “Accumulate, Accumulate!” Marx wrote, “that is Moses and the prophets!” for capital.12 The second of these notions, the second
contradiction of capitalism, is the idea that capitalism, in addition to its primary economic contradiction
stemming from class inequalities in production and distribution, also undermines the human and natural
conditions (i.e, environmental conditions) of production on which its economic advancement ultimately rests.
For example, by systematically removing forests we lay the grounds for increasing scarcities in this area—
the more so to the extent that globalization makes this contradiction universal. This heightens the overall cost of economic
development and creates an economic crisis for capitalism based on supply‐side constraints on production.13 The third notion, the metabolic rift,
suggests that the logic of capital accumulation inexorably creates a rift in the metabolism between society
and nature, severing basic processes of natural reproduction. This raises the issue of the ecological
sustainability—not simply in relation to the scale of the economy, but also even more importantly in the form
and intensity of the interaction between nature and society under capitalism.
Role of the ballot is to reject the practices of capitalism—reforms will inevitably reproduce the status
quo, we must ideologically endorse the building of new institutions to create social change
Lebowitz 10
(Michael, Simon Fraser University Professor Emeritus of Economics, The Socialist Alternative, P. 147-154)
The key is the existence of communal institutions—formal or informal arrangements by which common property is
monitored and which provide sanctions for the abuse of the common interest by individuals. Those communal
institutions can be effective because (in contrast to the premise of neoclassical economics that the unit of analysis is
the atomistic individual with neither past nor future), the individuals in these communities "have shared a past and
expect to share a future. It is important," Elinor Ostrom notes, "for individuals to maintain their reputations as reliable
members of the community."24 Insofar as the community (which is small enough to allow easy monitoring and
sanctioning) is able to administer the commons, its institutions (such as neighborhood councils) are strengthened
through this process. Expanding the commons acknowledges everyone's right to human development, and it thus
produces social individuals who recognize their interdependence. But where will the resources that constitute the
commons in each community come from? In part, they will come from local workplaces as contributions to the
community and from the collective work within the community itself. And, depending upon the particular
communities, they may be made available from elsewhere (other communities) and from the existing state. The
solidarian society develops organically by beginning at the neighborhood and community level, but it continues only
by building solidarity directly between rich and poor communities—both within and between individual nations. And
that, too, is an important part of the process of building rich human beings. The process of building a path to socialism
involves the development and deepening of a new social relation—that of associated producers who relate to each
other on the basis of commu- nality. In this process, the producers (a) rupture capitalist property rights and establish
social ownership of the means of production, (b) "seize possession" of production and transform it into a protagonistic
process in which their capacities expand, and (c) produce use-values in accordance with the need of everyone for the
opportunity to develop her full potential. Every step of this process is a process of struggle.
7. Developing a
Socialist Mode of Regulation /KX~ ^ach aspect of the process of "becoming" of socialism involves an encroachment
upon capital. Yet, as noted in chapter 5, until such time as the associated producers develop a specifically socialist
mode of production, all the inroads made by the invading socialist society remain contingent. Indeed, only struggle
will ensure that the continued existence of elements inherited from capitalism does not lead to reversal of those
inroads. Given the tendency for systemic incoherence and crises inherent in the combination of alien elements
characteristic of the becoming of socialism, the threat to the new socialist society is always present. Not only the
counter-revolution implicit in the remaining outposts of capitalist ownership of the means of production. And not only
the tendency of bureaucrats and managers to usurp the protagonistic democracy of the producers in workplaces and
communities and thereby to "seize possession of production" for themselves. But also the tendency to resolve
problems and inefficiencies by turning to the logic of the market. Precisely because of the need to struggle to ensure
that the invading socialist society continues to advance, we have insisted that the development of a "socialist mode of
regulation" is essential. That mode of regulation must achieve consciously what a specifically socialist mode of
production will tend to do spontaneously—ensure the reproduction of socialist relations of production (as represented
by the socialist triangle). In short, the socialist mode of regulation supports the inroads of the new socialist society
during the period in which the associated producers begin to alter the mode of production into one that serves their
needs. The socialist mode of regulation encompasses, firstly, the Battle of Ideas—the ideological struggle oriented
toward human development. It thus stresses the perversion of capitalism, the importance of democratic, participatory,
and protagonistic practice in workplaces and communities, and the emphasis upon a new social rationality based upon
cooperation and solidarity. Secondly, it involves the creation of institutions like workers councils and neighborhood
councils, which are essential instruments for developing new socialist subjects through their practice. Finally, this
mode of regulation requires a state that supports this struggle ideologically, economically, and militarily and thus
serves as the midwife for the birth of the new society. But what do we mean by the state? We have talked about two
states here—one, the state that workers captured at the outset and that initiates despotic inroads upon capital, that is,
the old state; and, second, the emerging new state based upon workers councils and neighborhood councils as its cells.
The starting point, of course, is with the old state, and the becoming of socialism as an organic system is a process of
transition from the old state to the new. But this means that the two must coexist and interact throughout this process
of becoming. Both that "engine of despotism," with that "ready-made state machinery" characterized by a "systematic
and hierarchic division of labour," and the participatory and protagonistic state from below, accordingly form part of
that socialist mode of regulation that must support the new relations based upon the associated producers. The
inherent tension between these two states— between the top-down orientation from within the old state and the
bottom-up emphasis of the workers and community councils—is obvious. Yet that tension is not the principal
contradiction. Given the significant presence within the old state of revolutionary actors who are committed to
building the new society, it would be an error to treat the old state as if it were no different from the capitalist state.
Similarly, given the effects of the "education, tradition and habit" of those formed within the old society, we should
not be surprised at the power of the old ideas to undermine efforts to build the new state from below. Thus, both
within the cells of the new state and within the structures of the old state, there is an inevitable struggle between those
who are working to build the new society and those who are content with the old (either because of inertia or because
of existing privileges). So it would appear that there is a clear basis for connecting revolutionaries at both levels, in
both states. However, wouldn't such a link be incoherent and unstable—given the profound dif-ference in the two
states? In fact, the interaction between the two states is essential. Each has a necessary part in a socialist mode of
regulation. The old state can see the picture as a whole at the outset; thus it is well situated to identify critical
bottlenecks and places for initiatives that require a concentration of forces (including actions to defend the process
militarily against internal and external enemies determined to reverse every inroad). However, as might be expected
from its heritage, this state has the tendency to act from above, to choose expedience over the process of revolutionary
practice—that is, to divide society into two parts, one part of which is superior to society.1 In contrast, the cells of the
new state, which are the space for human development through practice, can identify the needs and capacities of
people and can mobilize people to link those needs and capacities directly. Further, precisely because this is where
transparency is most effective, the councils in workplaces and communities can police waste, sabotage, and other
attempts to reverse the process. However, the initial focus of these cells inevitably will be one of localism. And, since
the links to other communities and workplaces only develop through practice, it takes time before the concept of the
whole develops organically in these units. In short, although the course of development of socialism as an organic
system requires the creation of those links between cells, that process cannot be instantaneous; accordingly, the new
state is not capable at the outset of making essential decisions that require concentration and coordination of forces.
Thus, though the process of development is one in which the old state yields to the new, the two contradictory states
(by origin and orientation) complement each other in building socialism. Isolated, these two states inherently lead to
deformations, but the process advances through the combination of the revolutionary elements within each—in short,
by walking on two legs. But how can the old state foster the development of the new— rather than cause it to be
stillborn? THE IMPORTANCE OF "SOCIALIST ACCOUNTANCY" To build the new socialist society, it is
necessary to develop new, socialist concepts. We cannot proceed as if the categories and concepts of capitalism are
applicable to the relations of associated producers (any more than the specifically capitalist mode of production or the
capitalist state). Indeed, the Battle of Ideas requires the development of concepts that support social rationality over
the rationality of the logic of capital.
Impact Calc FL
The affirmative has the foxes watching the hen house. They appeal to the same legal apparatus that they
cite as the source of oppression for help. However, the law is inherently conservative and incapable of
achieving the aims they seek. Their use of the legal system simply serves to reinforce the status quo
Ansley 89
Frances Lee Ansley, Professor of Law at University of Tennessee. Cornell Law Review September, 1989 74 Cornell L. Rev. 993, STIRRING THE ASHES: RACE,
CLASS AND THE FUTURE OF CIVIL RIGHTS
SCHOLARSHIP
Law functions not as a weapon wielded so that, say, bosses win and workers lose in
every legal conflict, but more subtly and powerfully by convincing us that the status quo is natural and just.
Law plays a "fundamental social role . . . as legitimation of existing social and power relations." n150 According to
Freeman, the redress of centuries of discrimination was simply too unsettling for the system to accommodate. n151
Undoing black subordination turned out to require massive social dislocation and redistribution. But our legal
ideas and institutions are strongly, centrally anti-redistributionist. Concepts like the legitimacy of existing
rights, the myth of equal opportunity and the sacredness of formal equality are lynch-pins in rationalizing class
domination, and in justifying substantive inequalities in our class system. For Freeman, this account explains the uneven shape of Supreme Court civil rights doctrine. n152
Having committed itself to ending race discrimination, the Court soon found itself under tremendous pressure
(both external and internal) to achieve results. In ordering remedies, n153 and sometimes even in finding
violations, n154 the Court was pushed to try to end conditions of injustice, not simply instances of
discrimination. In attempting to do so, the Court stretched traditional jurisprudence quite far. Eventually,
however, this impulse was contained and anti-discrimination law was restricted within "safer" bounds not so
potentially destabilizing to the system.
[*1031] Law plays an important role.
This ensures the plan will ultimately serve the interest of the white power structure. It mirrors the Brown
decision: Empirically empowerment doesn’t happen unless it serves the interest of the white elite. The
plan is such an interest convergence
Delgado 2
Professor of Law@University of Colorado-Boulder
(Richard, “Explaining the Rise and Fall of African American Fortunes-Interest Convergence and Civil rights Gains,” Review of Mary L. Dudziak, Cold War Civil
Rights: Race and the Image of American Democracy, Volume 37, http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/crcl/vol37_2/delgado.pdf)
Mary Dudziak’s recent Princeton University Press book Cold War Civil Rights: Race and the Image of American Democracy23 heralds a return to the powerful
insights of the Critical Race Theory movement’s founding ªgures. This work expands on a theme Dudziak first articulated in an influential 1994 Stanford Law
gains for blacks coincide with white
self-interest and materialize at times when elite groups need a breakthrough for African Americans, usually for
the sake of world appearances or the imperatives of international competition.25 Bell hypothesized that racism serves
such powerful economic and psychic interests that only equally strong countervailing forces would hold it in
abeyance.26 To explain the rise and fall of black fortunes, according to Bell, one must attend to such matters as the
labor market, the need to placate working class whites, wartime needs for solidarity and bodies to serve in
industry or on the front, and the exigencies of Cold War competition.27 Taking as his principal example Brown v.
Board of Education,28 Bell posited that this remarkable decision came about when it did due to Cold War politics.29 Bell invited his
readers to consider how the NAACP Legal Defense Fund had been litigating school funding and desegregation cases
for decades throughout the South, generally losing or winning, at most, narrow victories.30 Then, in 1954, the skies opened—the Court declared,
for the ªrst time in a school desegregation case, that separate was no longer equal.31 Why then? Bell pointed out that the country had just
celebrated the end of a bloody world war against Germany and Japan, during which many black men and
women had served gallantly. Having risked their lives for the cause of freedom, they were unlikely to return
meekly to the former regime of menial jobs and segregated facilities.32 For the first time in decades, the prospect of
serious racial unrest loomed. At the same time, the United States was in the early stages of a Cold War against
the forces of monolithic, atheist communism, competing for the loyalties of the uncommitted Third World, most of which
was black, brown, or Asian.33 Incidents like the murder of Emmett Till34 and the death sentence of handyman Jimmy Wilson35
splashed across the pages of the world news, reflecting poorly on America. The balance of interests shifted;
elite whites now saw a powerful reason to advance blacks’ cause. For Bell, the Brown decision came about when it did, not because
of altruism or advancing notions of social morality. Rather, elite whites on the Supreme Court, in the State Department, and in other circles of power
simply perceived that America’s self-interest lay in publicly supporting blacks so as to gain an edge in the Cold War
Review article.24 That article and her recent book in turn build on an impressive insight by Derrick Bell that
with Russia.36
The plan aids white supremacy in two ways: First, it lends legitimacy to an unjust legal system, masking
the way oppression is built into the law. Secondly it ensures that “gains” stay within the bounds of the
establishment by providing seemingly emancipatory symbols that in the end don’t go far enough
Ansley 89
Frances Lee Ansley, Professor of Law at University of Tennessee. Cornell Law Review September, 1989 74 Cornell L. Rev. 993, STIRRING THE
ASHES: RACE, CLASS AND THE FUTURE OF CIVIL RIGHTS
SCHOLARSHIP
The long cycles of American race law lend strength to the supremacy-for-its-own-sake argument. Despite a sequence
of dramatic changes in underlying social and economic conditions from colonial times to the present, and despite unparalleled legal upheavals, blacks as a race
are still subordinate: American society periodically produces a symbol of redemption in the wake of
unspeakable cruelties to its blacks. At the national level, the symbol is usually a document with liberating potential: the
Emancipation Proclamation, the post Civil War Amendments, the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s and, of course,
the decision in Brown v. Board of Education. Each of these documents, while issued out of the honest commitment of some
and the selfish self-interest of many, contained language with the potential to expunge our national Bluebeard image, the dark
stain of [*1037] slavery and racism. Without looking closely at the motives behind the drafting of these documents, black Americans have accepted the
language for its redemptive promise and have urged its fulfillment. . . . [But after] a brief period of hope,
blacks once again find themselves trapped in the darkness of a new and more subtle set of subordinating social
shadows. n171
Questions of methodologies and paradigms come before implementation-If we win their paradigm is bad
vote neg
Singer 89
(Joseph William, Associate Professor Boston University of Law, Duke Law Journal)
the assumptions with which we approach the world, and the
modes of analysis we employ have important consequences in channeling our attention in particular directions.
The paradigms we adopt affect what we see and how we interpret it. They determine to a large extent, who we listen
to and what we make of what we hear. They determine what questions we ask and the kinds of answers we
seek. Investigation into such matters is important, according to Spelman, because the seemingly neutral and
innocuous assumptions with which we approach the world may blot from our view facts we ourselves would
consider to be important. In this way, we may unconsciously recreate or express forms of hierarchy that we intended to
criticize. Self-reflection about such matters may enable us to ferret out the political effects of seemingly neutral
premises. We should be on the lookout for ways in which our approaches to problems of illegitimate power
relations reinforce those very relations. Good intentions do not immunize against the illegitimate exercise of
power. In fact, a great impetus to the exercise of power is the inability to recognize that one is exercising it; when
this happens, one need not worry about whether power is being used wisely. One goal of philosophic inquiry,
therefore is to understand concretely where privilege lodges in our thought.
Spelman argues that the categories and forms of discourse we use,
Utilitarianism is the only moral framework and alternatives are inevitability self-contradictory
Nye, 86 (Joseph S. 1986; Phd Political Science Harvard. University; Served as Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs; “Nuclear Ethics” pg. 18-19)
Imagine that you are visiting a Central American country and you happen upon a village square where
an army captain is about to order his men to shoot two peasants lined up against a wall. When you ask the reason, you are told someone in this village shot at
The significance and the limits of the two broad traditions can be captured by contemplating a hypothetical case.34
the captain's men last night. When you object to the killing of possibly innocent people, you are told that civil wars do not permit moral niceties. Just to prove the point that we all have dirty hands in such situations, the
and tells you that if you will shoot one peasant, he will free the other. Otherwise both die. He warns you not to try any tricks because his men have
their guns trained on you. Will you shoot one person with the consequences of saving one, or will you allow both to die but preserve your
moral integrity by refusing to play his dirty game? The point of the story is to show the value and limits of both traditions. Integrity is
clearly an important value, and many of us would refuse to shoot. But at what point does the principle of not taking an innocent
life collapse before the consequentialist burden? Would it matter if there were twenty or 1,000 peasants to be saved? What if killing or torturing one innocent
person could save a city of 10 million persons from a terrorists' nuclear device? At some point does not integrity become the ultimate egoism of fastidious selfrighteousness in which the purity of the self is more important than the lives of countless others? Is it not better to follow a consequentialist approach, admit remorse or
regret over the immoral means, but justify the action by the consequences? Do absolutist approaches to integrity become self-contradictory in a world of nuclear
captain hands you a rifle
weapons? "Do what is right though the world should perish" was a difficult principle even when Kant expounded it in the eighteenth century, and there is some evidence that he did not mean it to be taken literally even then.
Now that it may be literally possible in the nuclear age, it seems more than ever to be self-contradictory.35 Absolutist
ethics bear a heavier burden of proof in the nuclear age than ever before.
Evaluate consequences – blind adherence to rigid principals in the face of catastrophe leads to ideological
overreaction. We should try to analyze consequences even if they’re uncertain.
Weiss, 99 – Presidential Professor of Political Science @ CUNY Graduate Center
(Thomas G, Ethics and International Affairs 13.1, “Principles, Politics, and Humanitarian Action”)
Scholars and practitioners frequently employ the term “dilemma” to describe painful decision making but “quandary”
would be more apt.27A dilemma involves two or more alternative courses of action with unintended but unavoidable and
equally undesirable consequences. If consequences are equally unpalatable, then remaining inactive on the sidelines is an
option rather than entering the serum on the field. A quandary, on the other hand, entails tough choices among
unattractive options with better or worse possible outcomes. While humanitarians are perplexed, they are not and should
not be immobilized. The solution is not indifference or withdrawal but rather appropriate engagement. The key lies in
making a good faith effort to analyze the advantages and disadvantages of different alloys of politics and
humanitarianism, and then to choose what often amounts to the lesser of evils.
Thoughtful humanitarianism is more appropriate than rigid ideological responses, for four reasons: goals of humanitarian
action often conflict, good intentions can have catastrophic consequences; there are alternative ways to achieve ends;
and even if none of the choices is ideal, victims still require decisions about outside help. What Myron Wiener has called
“instrumental humanitarianism” would resemble just war doctrine because contextual analyses and not formulas are
required. Rather than resorting to knee-jerk reactions to help, it is necessary to weigh options and make decisions about
choices that are far from optimal.
Many humanitarian decisions in northern Iraq, Somalia, Bosnia, and Rwanda—and especially those involving economic
or military sanctions— required selecting least-bad options. Thomas Nagle advises that “given the limitations on human
action, it is naive to suppose that there is a solution to every moral problem. “29 Action-oriented institutions and staff are
required in order to contextualized their work rather than apply preconceived notions of what is right or wrong.
Nonetheless, classicists continue to insist on Pictet’s “indivisible whole” because humanitarian principles “are
interlocking, overlapping and mutually supportive. . . . It is hard to accept the logic of one without also accepting the
others. “30
The process of making decisions in war zones could be compared to that pursued by “clinical ethical review teams” whose
members are on call to make painful decisions about life-and-death matters in hospitals.sl The sanctity of life is
complicated by new technologies, but urgent decisions cannot be finessed. It is impermissible to long for another era or to
pretend that the bases for decisions are unchanged. However emotionally wrenching, finding solutions is an operational
imperative that is challenging but intellectually doable. Humanitarians who cannot stand the heat generated by situational
ethics should stay out of the post-Cold War humanitarian kitchen.
Principles in an Unprincipled World
Why are humanitarians in such a state of moral and operational disrepair? In many ways Western liberal values over the
last few centuries have been moving toward interpreting moral obligations as going beyond a family and intimate
networks, beyond a tribe, and beyond a nation. The impalpable moral ideal is concern about the fate of other people, no
matter how far away.szThe evaporation of distance with advances in technology and media coverage, along with a
willingness to intervene in a variety of post–Cold War crises, however, has produced situations in which humanitarians
are damned if they do and if they don’t. Engagement by outsiders does not necessarily make things better, and it may even
create a “moral hazard by altering the payoffs to combatants in such a way as to encourage more intensive fighting.“33
This new terrain requires analysts and practitioners to admit ignorance and question orthodoxies. There is no comfortable
theoretical framework or world vision to function as a compass to steer between integration and fragmentation,
globalization and insularity. Michael Ignatieff observes, “The world is not becoming more chaotic or violent, although our
failure to understand and act makes it seem so. “34Gwyn Prins has pointed to the “scary humility of admitting one’s
ignorance” because “the new vogue for ‘complex emergencies’ is too often a means of concealing from oneself that one
does not know what is going on. “3sTo make matters more frustrating, never before has there been such a bombardment
of data and instant analysis; the challenge of distilling such jumbled and seemingly contradictory information adds to the
frustration of trying to do something appropriate fast.
International discourse is not condemned to follow North American fashions and adapt sound bites and slogans. It is
essential to struggle with and even embrace the ambiguities that permeate international responses to wars, but without the
illusion of a one-size-fits-all solution. The trick is to grapple with complexities, to tease out the general without ignoring
the particular, and still to be inspired enough to engage actively in trying to make a difference.
Because more and more staff of aid agencies, their governing boards, and their financial backers have come to value
reflection, an earlier policy prescription by Larry Minear and me no longer appears bizarre: “Don’t just do something,
stand there! “3sThis advice represented our conviction about the payoffs from thoughtful analyses and our growing
distaste for the stereotypical, yet often accurate,
Their appeal to simplistic thinking is more likely to cause violence and dehumanization
Chandler, 1 – Policy Research Institute @ Leeds Metropolitan University
(David, Human Rights Quarterly 23, “The Road to Military Humanitarianism”)
The search for victims has dominated media coverage of humanitarian crises. The Kosovo crisis, for example, saw
journalists “impatient to find a ‘good’ story—i.e. a mass atrocity.”57 Many Western journalists were dispatched to
Macedonia and Albania with the sole purpose of finding a rape victim. Benedicte Giaever of the Organization for Security
and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) was angered that “almost every journalist who came to see her asked one thing: could
she give them a rape victim to interview?”58 This approach, which takes the humanitarian crisis out of a political context
to tell a “fairy tale” or moral story, has been termed the “journalism of attachment.” This style of journalism has been
forcefully critiqued:
[F]ar from raising public understanding of the horrors of war, their reports mystify what conflicts are really about. By
abstracting acts of violence from any wider conflict over political aims, they remove any possibility of people seeing what
caused the war. The result of imposing a ready-made Good v Evil framework on every situation is that conflicts can only
be understood as the consequence of man’s atavistic, bestial urges. Instead of “humanising” a war, this approach
ultimately dehumanises all those involved.59
Alex de Waal terms the outlook of the international humanitarian agencies, and media promotion of their cause, “disaster
tourism”; in humanitarian crises they selectively saw the worst and assumed the worst.60 The lack of knowledge of the
severity of the famine, drought, or civil conflict led to exaggerated predictions of the death toll, and, of course, the need
for support for the agency’s declared rights-based humanitarian aims. The predominant approach of humanitarian
interventionists to the conflicts in former Yugoslavia and Rwanda demonstrates the dangers inherent in this perspective.
The humanitarian NGOs have explained the civil conflicts as events in and of themselves, from which it can only be
concluded that the people of these regions are uncivilized, prone to violent and savage ethnic passions, or at the very least
easily manipulated by government propaganda because they lack independent critical faculties.61
The campaigning human rights-based NGOs did much to denigrate the non-Western state and legitimize Western activism
through the creation of the incapable human rights victim. As Pierre Krähenbuhl notes:
[T]he legitimacy of the humanitarian gesture is intimately connected with the ability to consider the “other”, the person in
need, as a human being, something which the repeated use of the expression “victim” tends to make more difficult. It
strips of all human dignity the man, woman or child whom it is supposed to define.62
While Cold War power politics tarnished the idea of “human-centered” state-led human rights activism, the campaigning
and aid NGOs revived the concept of “ethical” Western involvement in humanitarian issues. As the late John Vincent
noted: “[t]here is one sense, however, in which the arrival of the issue of human rights in international society may be
regarded as wholly progressive. It is the sense in which the idea of human rights is borne by non-governmental
organizations who act in defense of no sectional interest.”63
With the end of the Cold War the geopolitical straitjacket was removed and humanitarian agencies and human rights
advocacy groups seized the opportunity to influence the international agenda.64 The agencies that were able to do this
most successfully were those that clearly pursued rightsbased “new humanitarianism” and rejected the post-1945
humanitarian aid framework of ICRC neutrality and needs-based emergency relief, which was tied to respect for state
sovereignty rather than human rights protection. The NGOs made the running in the New Order because they were less
bound by either official mandates or Cold War orientations than international institutions. The lack of legal mandate and
organizational flexibility has made it easy for NGOs to adapt their perspective to be in tune with the times. The major
exception to this shift has been the ICRC, the only international relief organization apart from the UN High Commissioner
for Refugees (UNHCR) tied to a mandate under international law (the Geneva Convention regulations).
This new sort of humanitarianism, which instead of operating separately from political mechanisms, saw itself as an
alternative guide to policy making. Far from being neutral in relation to the aspirations of both Soviet Communism and
US-led market economies, both these perspectives were seen to be flawed because they put politics above people. The
language of human rights was the perfect foil for advocating an NGO-led approach. Rejecting the political Cold War
framework and the narrow strategic concerns of geopolitical strategy, the immediate situation of the victims was held to
be all that mattered. Michael Ignatieff quotes the disillusion of Don McCullin, a British war photographer:
[B]ut what are my politics? I certainly take the side of the underprivileged. I could never say I was politically neutral. But
whether I’m of the Right or the Left—I can’t say. . . . I feel, in my guts, at one with the victims. And I find there’s
integrity in that stance.65
Ignatieff astutely notes that this approach is a “weary world away from the internationalism of the 1960s” when there was
a political cause at stake and conflict and interventionism could be supported or opposed on the basis of Left and Right.66
Today, he states “there are no good causes left— only victims of bad causes.”67 Once political change in non-Western
states is seen to be a flawed and pointless exercise, the only sympathy is for victims: “the twentieth-century inflection of
moral universalism has taken the form of an anti-ideological and antipolitical ethic of siding with the victim; the moral
risk entailed by this ethic is misanthropy.”68 This approach risks “misanthropy” because human rights activists find little
that is positive in the societies in which they work. Instead, the activists see only passive victims and evil or dangerous
abusers.
Their moral decision-making is evil
Issac, 02—Professor of Political Science at Indiana-Bloomington, 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)
It is assumed that U.S. military intervention is an act of "aggression," but no
consideration is given to the aggression to which intervention is a response. The status quo ante in Afghanistan is not, as peace
activists would have it, peace, but rather terrorist violence abetted by a regime--the Taliban--that rose to power through brutality
and repression. This requires us to ask a question that most "peace" activists would prefer not to ask: 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.
As a result, the most important political questions are simply not asked.
Blood Quantum FL
Impact inevitable—casino culture
Jim PathFinder Ewing, no date (Nvnehi Awatisgi), 53, is an enrolled member of the Southern Cherokee Tribe & Associated Bands in Texas,
Ceremonial Elder, Paint Clan (Ani-Wodi, Tsalagiyi Uganawa Anigusdi), member of the Manataka American Indian Council (Hot Springs, Ark.), and
a member of the Bear Clan Medicine Society (Russellville, Ark). He alternates living in Buffalo, Texas, at the tribe’s Ceremonial Grounds, and in
Lena, Miss., where he practices, teaches, and holds Bear Lodge (Asi/Inipi) and leads a monthly Drum Circle, a prayer ceremony honoring the Native
American Medicine Wheel. He writes a monthly newsletter ("Keeping In Touch …") that has subscribers across the United States and in several
foreign countries (“New American Spirituality”, http://www.manataka.org/page1965.html)
As one example: "The Osage Nation of Oklahoma has just four members -- all older than 96 -- who are recognized by the
federal government. More than 20,000 Osage descendants in several states, including Kansas, Oklahoma, Arizona,
California, Colorado, New Mexico and Texas, aren't. A 1906 law gave all those on the rolls before June 30, 1907, a
portion called a headright. Those 2,229 people are the only federally recognized members of the Osage Nation. Those
members have about 4,000 descendants, 3,000 of whom have voting rights in what is similar to a corporation with
shareholders. Only when a person inherits a headright or a portion of a headright does he or she have voting rights.
However, those rights don't make those descendants members." Even now, varying from tribe to tribe, there are such
anomalies as a non-tribal woman having certain privileges, such as healthcare, while carrying a tribal member’s child, but
none before or after the baby is born. The baby will have tribal privileges after it is born if blood-quantum is sufficient.
While some point to the fact that there are over 500 BIA tribes, many if not most are composed of few members; plus,
federal recognition is constantly changing. Even traditional, long-standing historic tribes (such as the Delaware, which
was the first tribe to sign a treaty with the newly formed United States) have had their recognition removed, for various
reasons, leaving their descendents in a quandary. Lawsuits involving recognition and the revocation of recognition are
constant and unrelenting, leading to tribes to care more about BIA rules (to keep federal dollars flowing) than their
“sovereignty.” CASINO CULTURE CLASH Casinos have accelerated the dis-enrollments, with tribes tightening bloodquantum requirements so that fewer people share more of the profits, even if hundreds of members, even elderly and longstanding families, are summarily wiped off the rolls. Not only are these people no longer eligible for federal protections,
but they are no longer legally “Native American.” With casinos, in addition, the imposition of non-traditional ways of
thinking and alien social structure are as damaging as the federally imposed tribal government system itself. Traditional
ways are inclusive, the tribe and family first, care of the elderly, women and children. With casinos, greed comes
foremost: inequality of the distribution of resources, every one for him or herself first, profits rule, and with it comes graft
with government (such as the Abramoff scandal), influence-peddling, cronyism. Whereas the traditional tribal structure
(throughout time, among all groups, bands, tribes) has been communal with "giveaway" and shared decision-making, the
casino culture promotes separation, fracturing of families, promotion of self-interest and favoritism on reservations that
already are fragmented and rife with social ills. Whereas traditional tribal communities were spirit-based, with leaders
chosen for the wisdom and the retention of practices favorable to keeping communities together, inclusive and healthy for
generations to come, with spiritual values at their core, the modern reservation/casino culture promotes only material
values that are, at heart, the worst of short-sighted Western culture.
Absolutist ethics justifies killing them to save them
Aberson, professor of philosophy, 2005 (Raziel, “The Philosophical Forum”, Spring, p. 31-8)
Shelley Kagan’s discussion of these issues in his important book, The Limits of Morality, offers a subtle and challenging
critique of the agent-centered ethics I have been defending. Kagan argues that if the cost to the agent, or to those close to
the agent, can override the pro tanto principle that one should promote the general good, as the “moderate” (read common
sense) view maintains, then such cost can also override any moral constraint on action, such as the rule not to cause
serious, even lethal, harm. One could, then, if one’s child or one’s friend needed a heart transplant, kill a stranger to obtain
one could then, if one’s child or one’s friend would die without a heart transplant, kill a stranger to obtain his heart. After all,
if considerations of cost generate reasons that oppose making considerable sacrifices, then it is logically possible that these same reasons will outweigh (or balance) the
reasons that normally generate the constraint. The possibility remains, therefore, that it will be permissible for the agent to do harm when the cost to the agent of not
doing so would be significant.7 I cannot agree with Kagan that common sense morality ever allows reasons of cost to the agent or
to those close to the agent to override the constraint not to do serious harm. That possibility suggested by Kagan is, I
believe, foreclosed by the common sense (and Kantian) distinction between the strict (i.e., not overrideable) duty not to do
serious harm and the meritorious (overrideable) duty to aid others.
This disproves their ethics claims
D. G. Myers, Associate professor of English and religious studies at Texas A & M, “Responsible for Every Single Pain: Holocaust
Literature and the Ethics of Interpretation,” Comparative Literature, 51, Fall, 1999, p. 266-288, http://wwwenglish.tamu.edu/pers/fac/myers/responsible.html
Nevertheless, I must expect to betray them more often than I am adequate to the challenge of their need. Holocaust literature is a summons to responsibility for the victims of
genocide, but this merely describes
what is possible, not what is real. Historicity is a reminder that some things are past changing. The reality of six million deaths is
But if I can do nothing about the past I may yet
affect the future. It is often said that the purpose of studying the Holocaust is to prevent it from ever happening again. As the sociologist Zygmunt
something I can neither alter nor deny; the suffering on six million faces is something to which I can never adequately respond.
Bauman says: Much more is involved in [studying the Holocaust] than the tribute to the memory of murdered millions, settling the account with the murderers and healing the still-festering moral wounds of the passive
and silent witnesses. Obviously, the study itself, even a most diligent study, is not a sufficient guarantee against the return of mass murdere[r]s and numb bystanders. Yet without such a study, we would not even know
If we cannot affect its outcome we
can still do something about its meaning. Events mean nothing in themselves; they must be interpreted. But what this also indicates is that meaning arises from our
how likely or improbable such a return may be. What this indicates is that the Holocaust does not belong only to history but also to possibility.
responsibility. The counterfactual possibility of doing something appropriate about the Holocaust is what creates our responsibility to it, and if what we want is to discover its meaning—that
is, to interpret the Holocaust—then our
interpretation must be shaped and guided by our responsibility.
Their framework paralyzes politics in search of perfection
Jacob Schiff, Professor of Political Science at U Chicago, March 5, 2005, “Politics Against Redemption: Rereading
Levinas for Critical International Theory,” isa05_proceeding_69730.pdf
What has gone wrong here? I believe that this dismal response to genocide reflects an insistence upon redemptive politics;
upon politics that seek to purify us and deliver us from that which we hate, fear and resent, of that which shames us and
makes us feel dirty, evil, wrong, or bad. Such politics seek perfect peace, justice, order, virtue, and the like, but they are
ultimately self-defeating. In this case, the aspiration that gives voice to our “Never again!”, that spurs us to rid the world
of genocide forever, imposes upon us an absolute, infinite responsibility that paralyzes us into inaction--and so genocide
continues. The lessons of history—principally that “never again” is not enough”-- amply demonstrate the ongoing
frustration to which redemptive politics seem condemned. Given such lessons, the persistence of redemptive language and
logic in some of our political claims--like those concerning genocide--deserves attention.3 We are unlikely ever to escape
the trap of redemptive politics altogether--to suggest that we could, would reinforce its logic. But we can work harder to
articulate political claims in ways that resist redemptive temptations, ways that reflect the urgency of combating cruelty
and injustice whenever we confront them, but that resist the intolerable burden of an elusive future in which we will be
forever rid of them. We should, I will suggest, urge not “Never again!” but, rather, “Not this time!”
Turn—displacement, their state based ethics are just a ruse of the majority
Arrigo and Williams ‘00
[Bruce and Christopher, California School of Professional Psychology, Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, August
2000]
The impediments to establishing democratic justice in contemporary American society have caused a
national paralysis; one that has recklessly spawned an aporetic 1 existence for minorities. 2 The
entrenched ideological complexities afflicting under- and nonrepresented groups (e.g., poverty,
unemployment, illiteracy, crime) at the hands of political, legal, cultural, and economic power elites have
produced counterfeit, perhaps even fraudulent, efforts at reform: Discrimination and inequality in
opportunity prevail (e.g., Lynch & Patterson, 1996). The misguided and futile initiatives of the state, in
pursuit of transcending this public affairs crisis, have fostered a reification, that is, a reinforcement of
divisiveness. This time, however, minority groups compete with one another for recognition, affirmation,
and identity in the national collective psyche (Rosenfeld, 1993). What ensues by way of state effort, though, is a
contemporaneous sense of equality for all and a near imperceptible endorsement of inequality; a silent conviction that the
majority 3 still retains power. 4 The “gift” of equality, procured through state legislative enactments as an emblem of
democratic justice, embodies true (legitimated) power that remains nervously secure in the hands of the
majority. 5 The ostensible empowerment of minority groups is a facade; it is the ruse of the majority
gift. What exists, in fact, is a simulacrum (Baudrillard, 1981, 1983) of equality (and by extension, democratic
justice): a pseudo-sign image (a hypertext or simulation) of real sociopolitical progress. For the future relationship
between equality and the social to more fully embrace minority sensibilities, calculated legal reform
efforts in the name of equality must be displaced and the rule and authority of the status quo must be
decentered. Imaginable, calculable equality is self-limiting and self-referential. Ultimately, it is always (at
least) one step removed from true equality and, therefore, true justice. 6 The ruse of the majority gift
currently operates under the assumption of a presumed empowerment, which it confers on minority
populations. Yet, the presented power is itself circumscribed by the stifling horizons of majority rule with their effects.
Thus, the gift can only be construed as falsely eudemonic: An avaricious, although insatiable, pursuit of
narcissistic legitimacy supporting majority directives. The commission (bestowal) of power to minority groups
or citizens through prevailing state reformatory efforts underscores a polemic with implications for public affairs and civic
life. We contend that the avenir (i.e., the “to come”) of equality as an (in)calculable, (un)recognizable
destination in search of democratic justice is needed. However, we argue that this displacement of equality is
unattainable if prevailing juridico-ethico-political conditions (and societal consciousness pertaining to them) remain fixed,
stagnant, and immutable. In this article, we will demonstrate how the gift of the majority is problematic,
producing, as it must, a narcissistic hegemony, that is, a sustained empowering of the privileged, a
constant relegitimation of the powerful. 7 Relying on Derrida’s postmodern critique of Eurocentric logic and
thought, we will show how complicated and fragmented the question of establishing democratic justice is in Western
cultures, especially in American society. We will argue that what is needed is a relocation of the debate about
justice and difference from the circumscribed boundaries of legal redistributive discourse on equality
to the more encompassing context of alterity, undecidability, cultural plurality, and affirmative
postmodern thought. 8
Turn—assimilation
Weaver, Assistant Professor at the School of Social Work at the State University of New York at Buffalo, 98
(Hilary, “Indigenious People in a Multicutural Society: Unique Issues for Human Services,” Social Work, May98, Vol.
43, Issue 3)
Sovereignty is the most basic principle of American Indian law, yet the U.S. courts have a mixed record of upholding this principle (Wilkinson, 1987). The inherent sovereignty of
Indian nations, equal to that of foreign nations, is recognized in the commerce clause of the Constitution of the United States. The Supreme Court reaffirmed this sovereignty in
Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831) (Deloria & Lytle, 1984; Porter, 1983; Wald, 1992). The 1924 Indian Citizenship Act bestowed U.S. citizenship on Indian peoples without
infringing on the rights that they enjoy as citizens of Indian nations, essentially amounting to dual citizenship (Deloria & Lytle, 1984). It
should be noted that not
all Indian people desire or accept U.S. citizenship. Historically, most American Indians expressed a strong desire
to remain apart from the dominant society as a way of protecting the people. Many moved westward in an attempt to escape
Western civilization (Deloria & Lytle, 1984). One aim of most treaties was to keep land for Indian people separate and apart
from the rest of the United States. The dominant society has seen reservations as epitomizing poverty, but for many Indian people reservations constitute
homelands that provide an opportunity for self-preservation (Wilkinson, 1987). Emerging nationalism in the 1960s led to an emphasis on
preserving culture, language, religious freedom, norms, self-determination, and ways of healing (Deloria & Lytle,
1984; Morris, 1992). The issue of sovereignty places American Indians in a unique position relative to other groups
of color in the United States. Indigenous people are not just ethnic or cultural minorities within a larger society (Morris, 1992). The unique historical
relationship between Indian people and the United States has led to distinct social policies, programs, and
obligations unlike those that apply to any other group. Examples of such policies and programs include the Indian Child Welfare
Act and the Indian Health Service.
Turns case
Toshka, Member of the La Huerta Cochimi Band Indian Tribe, 94
(Hummingbird, Network Katzlan, “The Genocide of Native Americans: A Sociological View”,
http://www.networkaztlan.com/history/genocide_of_native.html, AD-7-9-09, KEH)
The Europeans saw themselves as the superior culture bringing civilization to an inferior culture. The colonial world
view split reality into popular parts: good and evil, body and spirit, man and nature, head and hear, European and primitive. American Indians
spirituality lacks these dualism's; language expresses the oneness of all things. God is not the transcendent Father but the Mother Earth, the
Corn Mother, the Great Spirit who nourishes all. It is polytheistic, believing in many gods and many levels of deity. "At the basis of most
American Native beliefs is the supernatural was a profound conviction that an invisible force, a powerful spirit, permeated the entire universe
and ordered the cycles of birth and death for all living things." Beyond this belief in a universal spirit, most American Indians attached
supernatural qualities to animals, heavenly bodies, the seasons, dead ancestors, the elements, and geologic formations. Their world was
infused with the divine - The Sacred Hoop. This was not at all a personal being presiding ominpotently over the salvation or damnation of individual people as the
For the Europeans such beliefs were pagan. Thus, the conquest was rationalized as a necessary evil that would
bestow upon the heathen "Indians" a moral consciousness that would redeem their amorality. The world view
Europeans believed
which converted bare economic self interest into noble, even moral, motives was a notion of Christianity as the one redemptive religion
which demands fealty from all cultures. In this remaking of the American Indians the impetus which drove the conquistador's invading wars
not exploration, but the drive to expand an empire, not discovery of new land, but the drive to accumulate treasure, land and cheap labor.
CULTURE Culture is the statement of a people's creativity -- everything they make which is distinctively theirs : language, music, art,
religion, healing, agriculture, cooking style, the institutions governing social life. To suppress culture is to aim a cannonball at the people's heart and spirit. Such a
conquest is more accomplished than a massacre. "We have seen the colonization materially kills the colonized. It must be added that it kills him spiritually. Colonization
distorts relationships, destroys and petrifies institutions, and corrupts....both colonizers and the colonized." Strategies
of targeting American Indian children for
assimilation began with violence. Forts were erected by Jesuits, in which indigenous youths were incarcerated, indoctrinated
with non-indigenous Christian values, and forced into manual labor. Schooling provided a crucial tool in changing not only the
language but the culture of impressionable young people. In boarding schools students could be immersed in a 24 hours bath of assimilation. "The founder of the Carlisle Indian
Industrial School in Pennsylvania , Capt. Richard H. Pratt, observed in 1892 that Carlisle has always planted treason to the tribe and loyalty to the nation at large. More crudely put,
the Carlisle philosophy was, "Kill the Indian to save the man." At the boarding schools children were forbidden to speak their native languages, forced to shed
familiar clothing for uniforms, cut their hair and subjected to harsh discipline. Children who had seldom heard an unkind word spoken to them were all too often verbally and
physically abused by their white teachers. In short, "there was a full-scale attempt at deracination -- the uprooting or destruction of a race and its culture." A few American Indian
The children, forcibly separated from their parents by
soldiers often never saw their families until later in their adulthood, after their value-system and knowledge
had been supplanted with colonial thinking. When these children returned from boarding schools they no longer knew their native language, they were
strangers in their own world, there was a loss, a void of not belonging in the native world, nor the white man's world. In the movie "Lakota
children were able to run away, others died of illness and some died of homesickness.
Women," these children are referred to as "Apple
Children [red on the outside, white on the inside]" they do not know where they fit in, they were
unable to assimilate into either culture. This confusion and loss of cultural identity, leads to suicide, drinking and violence. The most
destructive aspect of alienation is the loss of power, of control over one's destiny, over one's memories, through relationships -- past and
future. Jose Noriega's well-documented historical account of the forced indoctrination of colonial thought into the minds of American
Indian children as a means of disrupting the generational transmission of cultural values, clearly demonstrates the
cultural genocide employed by the U.S. government as a means of separating the American Indians from
their land.