Georgetown 2009
Immigrant Detention Aff
Katzoff
TOC
toc.................................................................................................................................................................. 1
1ac ................................................................................................................................................................. 3
1ac ................................................................................................................................................................. 4
1ac ................................................................................................................................................................. 5
1ac ................................................................................................................................................................. 6
1ac ................................................................................................................................................................. 7
1ac ................................................................................................................................................................. 8
1ac ................................................................................................................................................................. 9
1ac ............................................................................................................................................................... 10
1ac ............................................................................................................................................................... 11
1ac ............................................................................................................................................................... 12
1ac ............................................................................................................................................................... 13
1ac ............................................................................................................................................................... 14
1ac ............................................................................................................................................................... 15
1ac ............................................................................................................................................................... 16
1ac ............................................................................................................................................................... 17
1ac ............................................................................................................................................................... 18
1ac ............................................................................................................................................................... 19
tb impacts .................................................................................................................................................... 20
hr leadership adv ext. .................................................................................................................................. 21
hr leadership adv ext. .................................................................................................................................. 22
hr leadership adv ext. .................................................................................................................................. 23
soft power impact ........................................................................................................................................ 24
key to global human rights .......................................................................................................................... 25
key to global human rights .......................................................................................................................... 26
south african leadership solves ................................................................................................................... 27
south african leadership key to heg ............................................................................................................ 28
zimbabwe impact ........................................................................................................................................ 29
zimbabwe impact ........................................................................................................................................ 30
zimbabwe disease impact ........................................................................................................................... 31
south african leadership uniqueness .......................................................................................................... 32
landmines impact ........................................................................................................................................ 33
eu—discrimination increasing ..................................................................................................................... 34
eu—venezuelan oil impact .......................................................................................................................... 35
at: kritiks ...................................................................................................................................................... 36
mexico modeling scenario ........................................................................................................................... 37
mexico modeling scenario ........................................................................................................................... 38
relations impact ........................................................................................................................................... 39
1
Georgetown 2009
Immigrant Detention Aff
Katzoff
constitution adv ........................................................................................................................................... 40
constitution advantage ................................................................................................................................ 41
international law adv ................................................................................................................................... 42
international law advantage ........................................................................................................................ 43
international law impacts ............................................................................................................................. 44
international law impacts ............................................................................................................................. 45
violates un guidelines .................................................................................................................................. 46
public spillover advantage ........................................................................................................................... 47
inherency ..................................................................................................................................................... 48
inherency ..................................................................................................................................................... 49
inherency ..................................................................................................................................................... 50
inherency ..................................................................................................................................................... 51
inherency ..................................................................................................................................................... 52
harms—women ........................................................................................................................................... 53
harms—women ........................................................................................................................................... 54
harms—hiv .................................................................................................................................................. 55
harms—mental health ................................................................................................................................. 56
harms—mental health ................................................................................................................................. 57
harms—counseling ..................................................................................................................................... 58
solvency advocate ....................................................................................................................................... 59
dhs solvency advocate ................................................................................................................................ 60
harms—human rights .................................................................................................................................. 61
violates icescr .............................................................................................................................................. 62
violates icescr .............................................................................................................................................. 63
swine flu ...................................................................................................................................................... 64
ice’s detention standards not enforced ....................................................................................................... 65
ice’s detention standards not enforced ....................................................................................................... 66
immigrants held with criminals .................................................................................................................... 67
solvency—international law......................................................................................................................... 68
misc ............................................................................................................................................................. 69
detention hurts asylum seekers .................................................................................................................. 70
alternatives to detention key ....................................................................................................................... 71
2
Georgetown 2009
Immigrant Detention Aff
Katzoff
1AC
PLAN: THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD EXPAND HEALTH CARE FOR
DETAINED IMMIGRANTS.
3
Georgetown 2009
Immigrant Detention Aff
Katzoff
1AC
ADVANTAGE 1: TB
IMMIGRANT DETAINEES HAVE VIRTUALLY NO ACCESS TO MEDICAL CARE. TUBERCULOSIS IS
SPREADING WITHIN FEDERAL DETENTION CENTERS.
Priest and Goldstein 08 (Dana and Amy, Washignton Post Staff writers,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/specials/immigration/cwc_d1p1.html)
Some 33,000 people are
crammed into these overcrowded compounds on a given day, waiting to be deported or for a judge to let
them stay here. The medical neglect they endure is part of the hidden human cost of increasingly strict
policies in the post-Sept. 11 United States
Osman's death is a single tragedy in a larger story of life, death and often shabby medical care within an unseen network of special prisons for foreign detainees across the country.
and a lack of preparation for the impact of those policies. The detainees have less access to lawyers than convicted murderers in maximum-security prisons
and some have fewer comforts than al-Qaeda terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. But they are not terrorists. Most are working-class men and women or indigent laborers who made mistakes that seem to pose no threat to national security: a
Salvadoran who bought drugs in his 20th year of poverty in Los Angeles; a U.S. legal U.S. resident from Mexico who took $50 for driving two undocumented day laborers into a border city. Or they are waiting for political asylum from danger in their own countries: a
Somali without a valid visa trying to prove she would be killed had she remained in her village; a journalist who fled Congo out of fear for his life, worked as a limousine driver and fathered six Americ an children, but never was able to get the asylum he sought.
The most vulnerable detainees, the physically sick and the mentally ill, are
denied the proper
treatment to which they are entitled by law and regulation. They are locked in a world of slow care, poor
care and no care, with panic and coverups among employees watching it happen, according to a Post
investigation. The investigation found a hidden world of flawed medical judgments, faulty administrative
practices, neglectful guards, ill-trained technicians, sloppy record-keeping, lost medical files and
dangerous staff shortages.
There is evidence that infectious diseases,
including tuberculosis
are spreading inside the centers. Federal officials who oversee
immigration detention said last week that they are "committed to ensuring the safety and well-being"
sometimes
It is also a world increasingly run by high-priced private contractors.
and chicken pox,
of everyone
in their custody. Some 83 detainees have died in, or soon after, custody during the past five years. The deaths are the loudest alarms about a system teetering on collapse. Actions taken -- or not taken -- by medical staff members may have contributed to 30 of
those deaths, according to confidential internal reviews and the opinions of medical experts who reviewed some death files for The Post. According to an analysis by The Post, most of the people who died were young. Thirty-two of the detainees were younger than
40, and only six were 70 or older. The deaths took place at dozens of sites across the country. The most at one location was six at the San Pedro compound near Los Angeles. Immigration officials told congressional staffers in October that the fac ility at San Pedro
was closed to renovate the fire-suppression system and replace the hot-water boiler. But internal documents and interviews reveal unsafe conditions that forced the agency to relocate all 404 detainees that month. An audit found 53 incidents of medication errors. A
riot in August pushed federal officials to decrease the dangerously high number of detainees, many of them difficult mental health cases, and caused many health workers to quit. Finally, the facility lost its accreditation. The full dimensions of the massive crisis in
detainee medical care are revealed in thousands of pages of government documents obtained by The Post. They include autopsy and medical records, investigative reports, notes, internal e-mails, and memorandums. These documents, along with interviews with
current and former immigration medical officials and staff members, illuminate the underside of the hasty governmental reorganization that took place in response to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The terrorist strikes catapulted immigration to a national security
concern for the first time since World War II, when 120,000 Japanese residents and their American relatives were locked away in desolate internment camps. After Sept. 11, the Bush administration transferred responsibility for border security and deportation to the
new Department of Homeland Security, which gave it to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) -- a reconfiguration of the decades-old Immigration and Naturalization Service -- in 2003, the year the Post used as the starting point for counting detainee deaths.
Each year since, the number of detainees picked up for deportation or waiting behind bars for political asylum has skyrocketed, increasing by 65 percent since July 2005. Government professionals provide health care at 23 facilities, which house roughly half of the
33,000 detainees. Seven of those sites are owned by private prison companies. Last year, the government also housed detainees in 279 local and county jails. To handle the influx of detainees, ICE added 6,300 beds in 2006 and an additional 4,200 since then.
They too are nearly full. These way stations between life in and outside the United States are mostly out of sight: in deserts and industrial warehouse districts, in sequestered valleys next to other prisons, or near noisy airports. Some compounds never allow
detainees outdoor recreation; others let them out onto tiny dirt patches once or twice a week. Detainees are not guaranteed free legal representation, and only about one in 10 has an attorney. When lawyers get involved, they often have difficulty prying medical
information out of the bureaucracy -- or even finding clients, who are routinely moved without notice. The burden of health care for this crush of human lives falls on an obscure federal agency that lacks the political clout and bureaucratic rigor to do its job well. The
Division of Immigration Health Services (DIHS), housed in a private office building at 13th and L streets NW several blocks from ICE headquarters, had a budget last year of $61 million. ICE spent an additional $28 million last year on outside medical care for
Medical spending has not kept pace with the growth in population. Since 2001, the number of
detainees over the course of each year has more than tripled to 311,000, according to ICE and the
Government Accountability Office. Meanwhile, spending for the DIHS and outside care has not quite
doubled,
detainees.
ICE figures show. ICE's conflicting population and budget numbers make the trends difficult to determine. The agency is responsible for managing and monitoring detainee medical care, about half of which is provided by U.S. Public Health
Service professionals and the rest by contracted medical staff. When doctors and nurses at the immigration compounds believe that detainees need more than the most basic treatment, they have to fax a request to the Washington office, where four nurses,
working 9 to 4, East Coast time, five days a week, make the decisions. A proud Statue of Liberty replica stands just beyond the glass doors of DIHS headquarters to remind visitors of the Public Health Service's historical role in screening and treati ng European
immigrants arriving at Ellis Island at the turn of the last century. Its new role is to keep detained immigrants healthy enough to be deported. The mission is accompanied at times by a sense of panic and complicity. Many documents obtained by The Post make clear
that the people in charge know that the system is in trouble and that piecemeal fixes are not enough. "The onus is on us if it hits the fan," one official complained during a high-level headquarters meeting about staff shortages late last summer, according to records
Doctors
express concerns about violating medical ethics and fear lawsuits
The agency's mission of "keeping the detainee medically
ready for deportation" often conflicts with the standards of care in the wider medical community
of the conversation. "We're going to be responsible if something happens, because it's well documented that we know there's a problem, that the problem is severe." "We are putting ourselves and our patients at risk," another official said.
. In July, Esther Hui at Otay Mesa sent a memo to DIHS medical director Timothy T. Shack, saying
her colleagues were worried that they might be sued because of the substandard care they were giving detainees.
, Hui wrote. "I know in my
gut that I am exposing myself to the US legal standard of care argument. ... Do we need to get personal liability insurance?" Nurses who work on the front lines see the problems up close. "Dogs get better care in the dog pound," said Catherine Rouse, a contract
nurse at an Arizona detention center who quit after two months last year because she saw what she regarded as "scary medicine" in the prison: patients taken off medications they needed and nurses doing tasks they were not qualified to do. "You don't treat people
like that. There has to be some kind of moral fiber," Rouse said. In a statement responding to questions raised by The Post, Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials pointed out that the federal government spent nearly $100 million in fiscal 2007 on medical
care for immigration detainees. About one in four immigrants in the detainee population has a chronic health condition, the statement said. "Among ICE's highest priorities is to ensure safe, humane conditions of confinement for those in our custody," the statement
said. "We make every effort to enforce all existing standards and, whenever possible, to improve upon them. When we find stan dards that are not being met, we take immediate action to correct deficiencies and when we believe that the deficiencies cannot be
The deaths, the
statement said, "highlight the tremendous responsibility and potential liability the government faces in
providing medical care to a population that often did not have access to adequate health care before
coming into our custody."
corrected, we relocate our detainees to other facilities." By their calculations, officials said, the mortality rate among detainees has declined since 2004 to a level that is lower than that in U.S. jails and prisons.
To this end, the agency recently increased its inspections of facilities and is creating an inspection group at headquarters to review serious incidents, including deaths or allegations that standards are
not being met.
In some prisons,
the staffing shortages are acute. The Willacy County detention
the largest compound
has no clinical director, no pharmacist and only a part-time psychiatrist
center in South Texas --
2,018 detainees --
, with
. Nearly 50 percent of the nursing positions were unfilled at the
1,500-detainee Eloy, Ariz., prison in February. At the newly opened 744-bed Jena., La., compound, nurses run the place. It has no clinical director, no staff physician, no psychiatrist and no professional dental staff. Last August, Sampson, who was then DIHS
interim director, warned his superiors at ICE that critical personnel shortages were making it impossible to staff the Jena f acility adequately. In a vociferous e-mail to Gary Mead, the ICE deputy director in charge of detention centers, he wrote: "With the Jena request
we have been re-examining our capabilities to meet health care needs at a new site when we are facing critical staffing shortages at most every other DIHS site. While we developed, executed and achieved major successes in our recruitment efforts we have been
unable to meet the demand." The slow ICE security-clearance process forced many job applicants to go elsewhere, Sampson wrote. Of the 312 people who applied for new positions over the past year, 200 withdrew, he wrote, because they found other jobs during
the 250 days it took ICE, on average, to conduct the required background investigations. Last week, ICE officials said the average wait had decreased recently to 37 days. These shortages have burdened the remaining staff. In July 2007, a year after Osman's death
in Otay Mesa, medical director Hui strongly complained to headquarters about workload stress. "The level of burnout . . . is high and rising," she wrote in an e-mail. "I know that I have been averaging approximately 2-6 hrs of overtime daily for the past 2 months. I
The overcrowding has
created a petri dish for the spread of diseases. One mission of the Public Health Service is to detect
infectious diseases and contain them before they spread, but last summer, the gigantic Willacy center
was hit by a chicken pox outbreak. The illness spread because the facility did not have enough available
isolation rooms and its large pods share recycled air, but also because security officers "lack education
about the disease and keep moving around detainees from different units without taking into
consideration if the unit has been isolated due to heavy exposure,"
will no longer be able to sustain this pace and will be decreasing the number of hours that I work overtime. This being said, more will be left undone because we simply do NOT have the staff."
noted the DIHS's top specialist on infectious diseases, Carlos Duchesne. The staff was forced to
vaccinate the entire population in mid-July. In one 2007 death, memos and confidential notes show how medical staff missed an infectious disease, meningitis, in their midst. Victor Alfonso Arellano, 23, a transgender Mexican detainee with AIDS, died in custody at
4
Georgetown 2009
Immigrant Detention Aff
Katzoff
1AC
the San Pedro center. The first three pages of Duchesne's internal review of the death leave the impression that Arellano's c are was proper. But the last page, under the heading "Off the record observations and recommendations," takes a decidedly critical tone:
"The clinical staff at all levels fails to recognize early signs and symptoms of meningitis. . . . Pt was evaluated multiple times and an effort to rule out those infections was not even mentioned." Arellano was given a "completely useless" antibiotic, Duchesne wrote.
Lab work that should have been performed immediately took 22 days because San Pedro's clinical director had ordered staff members to withhold lab work for new detainees until they had been in detention there "for more than 30 days," a violation of agency rules.
"I am sure that there must be a reason why this was mandated but that practice is particularly dangerous with chronic care cases and specially is particularly dangerous with . . . HIV/AIDS patients," Duchesne wrote. "Labs for AIDS patients . . . must be performed
Given the frequency with which ICE moves people within the
detention network, keeping track of detainees is critical to stopping the spread of infectious illnesses.
ASAP to know their immune status and where you are standing in reference to disease control and meds."
The
purchase of an electronic records system named CaseTrakker in 2004 was supposed to help. But according to internal documents and interviews, CaseTrakker is so riddled with problems that facilities often revert to handwritten records. A study at one site found
When detainees are transferred
from one facility to another, their records, if they follow them, are often misleading. Some show
medications with no medical diagnoses, or "lots of diagnoses but no meds,"
that it took one-third more time to use CaseTrakker than to use paper. Thousands of patient files are missing. Recorded data often cannot be r etrieved. Day-long outages are common.
according to Elizabeth Fleming, a former clinical director at one compound
in Arizona. After Yusif Osman's death and the discovery of the problem with his computerized records, the DIHS ordered a review of all charts at the Otay Mesa center. During the review, auditors also found that 260 physical exams were never completed as
required. The nurse responsible for the error in Osman's case was reprimanded, but the computer problem was not fixed. The CaseTrakker system "has failed and must be replaced," Sampson , the DIHS interim director, wrote to his ICE supervisors in August. In
January 2008, medical director Shack told colleagues that CaseTrakker "is more of a liability than the use of paper medical record system," according to the minutes of a meeting. It "puts patients at risk." ICE officials said last week that they are not satisfied with
CaseTrakker and are working to replace it. Along with being at the mercy of computer glitches, detainees suffer from human errors that deny or delay their care. And with few advocates on the outside, they are left alone to plead their cases in the most desperate
ways, in hand-scribbled notes to doctors they rarely see. "I need medicine for pain. All my bones hurt. Thank you," wrote Mexico native Roberto Ledesma Guerrero, 72, three weeks before he died inside the Otay Mesa compound. Delays persist throughout the
system. In January, the detention center in Pearsall, Tex., an hour from San Antonio, had a backlog of 2,097 appointments. Luis Dubegel-Paez, a 60-year-old Cuban, had filled out many sick call requests before he died on March 14. Detained at the Rolling Plains
Detention Facility in the West Texas town of Haskell, he wrote on New Year's Day: "need to see doctor for Heart medication; and having chest pains for the past three days. Can't stand pain." Ten days later he went to the clinic and became upset when he wasn't
seen. He slugged the window, yelled, pointed at his wristwatch. He was escorted back to his cell. Another of his sick call requests said: "Need to see a doctor. I have a lot of symptoms of sickness ... as soon as possible!" The next was more urgent: "I have a
emergency to see the doctor about my heart problems ... for the last couple days and I been getting dizzy a lot." The next day, Dubegel-Paez collapsed and died. His medical records do not show that he ever saw a doctor for his chest pains.
IMMIGRANT DETENTION FACILITIES ARE A UNIQUE RISK FOR TB SPREAD—THEY ARE
GENERATING OUTBREAKS OF DRUG RESISTANT TUBERCULOSIS.
Gostin 95 (Lawrence, Associate Professor at Georgetown University Law Center, 54 Md. L. Rev. 1)
If a person were to set out to design facilities that efficiently transmit airborne diseases, then that person
might well emulate the physical conditions found in congregate settings in America
correctional facilities
immigrant or migrant worker camps. In many
of these settings, residents live, eat, and sleep in small enclosed spaces; beds are inches or feet apart;
and buildings are dark and poorly ventilated. Moreover, the residents of many of these congregate
facilities are impoverished, malnourished, and overrepresented in populations that have
disproportionately high rates of communicable disease, and in populations that have significantly impeded
access to health care services.
These congregate settings harbor a great deal of disease. In
1993, 3.7 percent of reported cases of tuberculosis were in correctional facilities
Working in congregate settings also posed an elevated risk
the Centers for Disease Control has investigated numerous outbreaks of multidrugresistant tuberculosis in congregate facilities. Hundreds of workers and residents have developed
active multidrug-resistant tuberculosis during these outbreaks
The rapid transmission of the multidrug-resistant tuberculosis in congregate settings is
caused by several factors including the close proximity of residents and workers, the delay in detecting
and treating the tuberculosis, and the lack of isolation facilities for infected persons or adequate
ventilation and infection control programs in these facilities.
, such as hospitals, 314 nursing homes, 315 mental
institutions,
,
316
homeless shelters,
322
317
Indian reservations,
318
residential care homes,
319
and
320
321
The United States has one of the highest rates of persons living in congregate settings in the world. The 1990 census reported that ap [*50] proximately 6.7 million persons were living
in group quarters, with 1.12 million in correctional facilities and 1.77 million in nursing homes. 323
, 4.5 percent were in long term care facilities, and many more
were likely to be in health care facilities. 324
, with 3.2 percent of all reported cases of tuberculosis occurring among
health care workers. 325 Moreover, since 1990,
; most of the persons infected also were infected with HIV, and seventy-nine to eighty-nine percent died,
usually within the first four to six weeks. 326
, 327
1. Tuberculosis in Correctional Facilities. - A typical day at the pre-arraignment holding pens at the Criminal Courts
Building in Brooklyn, New York was recently described as follows: More than 200 suspects contend for standing room as they wait to be charged with offenses ranging from turnstile-jumping to murder. Cramped and windowless, each 10-by-15 foot cage holds at
least a dozen detainees, many of them homeless, drug-addicted and sick. Thousands pass through the pens each month some staying two to three days before returning to the streets or moving on to prison or jail. Yet no one screens them for conditions that might
pose a health hazard. One of the city's few concessions to disease control, a ventilation system installed in 1932, hasn't worked for at least six years. A huge fan pushes the same fetid air through the cages day and night. 328 [*51] While this description is probably
the rate of tuberculosis in correctional facilities is
times higher than that of the general population
an extreme illustration of the health hazards posed by the conditions in correctional facilities,
. 329 Ten to twenty-five percent of people in correctional facilities are infected with M. TB.
330
nevertheless more than
three
In 1993, 1177 inmates were receiving treatment for
active tuberculosis, almost a 400 percent increase from the mid 1980s. Moreover, correctional facilities reported 45 current and 141 cumulative cases of drug-resistant tuberculosis. 331 The growth of tuberculosis in large prison systems with high numbers of HIVinfected inmates has been formidable. 332 From 1976 to 1978, the annual incidence of active tuberculosis among New York State inmates was 15.4 per 100,000 and by 1980 this number grew to 105.5 per 100,000. 333 Ninety-five percent of inmates with tuberculosis
were also infected with HIV. 334 Other major correctional systems in states such as New Jersey and California also have reported similarly dramatic increases in tuberculosis. 335 Overcrowding in prisons and jails is also contributing to the growth of tuberculosis in
prisons. 336 There are currently more than [*52] 1.3 million inmates in prisons and jails in the United States. 337 The number of prisoners under the jurisdiction of state and federal correctional authorities increased 168 percent from 1980 to the end of 1992. 338 In
1992, the federal prison system was operating at 37 percent over capacity, while the state prisons of 43 jurisdictions operated at 118 percent over capacity. 339 A common solution to overcrowding has been to place two persons in a one person cell. In 1986, twentyfive percent of all state prison inmates were so double-celled. 340 Because double celling reduces light, ventilation, and access to medical services, the practice contributes to the creation of an environment conducive to the spread of infectious disease. 341
From a public health perspective, overcrowding increases the spread of tuberculosis because microorganisms are more able to find new hosts and to travel shorter distances between hosts. 342
Overcrowding also overwhelms prison ventilation systems. The ventilation systems in prisons were
originally designed to provide heating and cooling, not to prevent disease transmission. When a facility is
overcrowded, whatever marginal impact the ventilation system may have had in filtering the air of microorganisms and in providing an exchange of fresh air is greatly reduced
. 343 Inadequate artificial lighting and insufficient exposure to sunlight in prisons also
enhance the possibility of transmission of M. TB. 344 These factors, along with others documented by prison litigation, including infestation, unwholesome food, and inadequate sanita [*53] tion, contribute to poor health and disease transmission. 345 Because of the
problems associated with overcrowding, the majority of state prison systems are under court order or consent decree to limit the size of their population or improve conditions in the entire system or in major facilities. 346 Mandatory sentencing for drug offenders not
only has fueled the growth in prison populations, but also has changed their composition. 347 The proportion of drug offenders in the Federal Bureau of Prisons is expected to increase from forty-seven percent in 1991 to seventy percent by 1995. 348 An estimated one
in four state prisoners used cocaine or crack in the month before their imprisonment, and one in ten used heroin or other opiates. 349 Because of the high rates of drug abuse, correctional inmates have comparatively high rates of HIV infection and AIDS. In 1991,
over two percent of all prison inmates were infected with HIV, and twenty-eight percent of all prison deaths were attributable to AIDS. 350 In some correctional systems, one in every five inmates is infected with HIV. 351 Also, inmates generally are poor,
The disproportionate prevalence of HIV infection and drug dependency, and
the low socioeconomic status of most inmates, together with the overcrowded, badly ventilated conditions
in most prisons, makes high rates of tuberculosis predictable.
The high rate of tuberculosis
is not merely a health hazard for inmates
but also
is a health hazard for the general public.
inmates are released
Since the median age of inmates on release is relatively young, persons infected during
undereducated, and considerably overrepresented by minorities. 352
As one public health expert warned in 1978, spending time in correctional facilities [*54] is an independent
risk factor for tuberculosis. 353
in prisons
and corrections officers,
Because of the short stays in jails and the overall large population of prisons, more than ten million
each year. 354
5
Georgetown 2009
Immigrant Detention Aff
Katzoff
1AC
incarceration have a considerable lifetime risk for developing active tuberculosis.
355
Despite the well documented health risks that prison
conditions create for inmates, corrections workers, and the community, the health services programs in many correctional systems are below standards recommended by professional medical organizations. 356 For example, few correctional facilities meet the
rigorous tuberculosis control standards set by the Centers for Disease Control, including requirements for screening and diagnosing tuberculosis and requirements for contact investigations, directly observed therapy, and respiratory isolation. 357 [*55] <Card
Correctional facilities need not pose a potent health hazard. To the contrary, properly conceived
correctional facilities could present
public health opportunity. Prior to incarceration, many
are in
poor health, and many have communicable diseases, which are difficult to identify and treat among the
poor, the homeless, and the disenfranchised. Society is ill-served by policies that fail to deal with, and
even exacerbate, inmates' diseases during confinement. Eventually, most
are released from jail, and
prisoners who have a communicable disease when released will ultimately spread the disease to the
wider population. Therefore, it is far more cost effective and beneficial
to society to use the
period of confinement to reach this otherwise elusive group.
Continues>
a [*70]
inmates
prisoners
to inmates, their families, and
A TB OUTBREAK WOULD DESTROY THE U.S. ECONOMY.
Fonkwo 08 (Peter Ndeboc, International Consultant on Public Health, EMBO reports 9, S1, S13–S17
(2008), http://www.nature.com/embor/journal/v9/n1s/full/embor2008110.html)
Infectious diseases constitute a tenacious and major public-health problem all over the world. Although some, such as smallpox and poliomyelitis, have been eradicated from nature or almost wiped out, many diseases persist with little or no hope of getting them
under control. In addition, new infectious diseases are emerging and old ones that were thought to be under control are regaining lost ground. According to the US National Institutes of Health (NIH; Bethesda, MD, USA), 16 new infectious diseases have been
identified in the past two decades (NIH, 2008; Fauci et al, 2005); five others have been identified as re-emerging. The word 'new' refers to the recent discovery of the disease; many of these agents might have long existed as non-pathogenic organisms, but have
only just mutated into a pathogenic form. In fact, we are witnessing a slow realization among public-health experts and the general public that infectious diseases are back with a vengeance. With the discovery of antibiotics in the early twentieth century and the
successful eradication of smallpox in 1979, it seemed that humanity was about to finally rid itself of infectious diseases. D uring the past couple of decades, however, microbes have shown a tenacious ability to adapt, re-adapt, survive and challenge human ingenuity
(Table 1). The impact of these diseases is immense and is felt across the world. In addition to affecting the health of individuals directly, infectious diseases are also having an impact on whole societies, economies and political systems. In the developing world in
particular, crucial sectors for sustained development such as health and education, have seen a marked loss of qualified personnel, most notably to human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)/acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), tuberculosis (TB) and malaria.
infectious agents not only take an enormous physical toll on humanity, but also cause significant
economic losses
It is therefore a matter not only of public health, but also
of economic interest, to invest in and organize an internationally coordinated strategy to fight the major
infectious diseases, or at least to bring them under control
These and other
both directly in the developing world and less directly in the developed world.
. Of course, one could simply think the solution would be to try to eliminate the pathogens and/or their vectors from their
natural reservoirs or hosts. After all, this was successfully done with smallpox, for example. Cholera and malaria were similarly brought under control in the USA and southern Europe. Unfortunately, it is not easy to predict where and when most infectious agents
will strike or which new diseases will emerge. The reasons for their persistence are manifold and include biological, social and political causes. Pathogens constantly change their genetic make-up, which challenges the development of vaccines against infectious
diseases. This genetic flexibility allows many infectious agents to mutate or evolve into more deadly strains against which h umans have little or no resistance: the HIV and influenza viruses, for example, constantly mutate and recombine to find their way through the
host defence mechanisms. "From the evolutionary perspective, they [viruses and bacteria] are 'the fittest' and the chances ar e slim that human ingenuity will ever get the better of them" (Stefansson, 2003). Mass migrations, trade and travel are notoriously effective
at spreading infectious diseases to even the most remote parts of the globe (Table 2). Mass migrations are often the result of emergency situations such as floods, wars, famines or earthquakes, and can create precarious conditions—such as poor hygiene and
where the diseases find a more
vulnerable population and can develop into epidemics; this was the case
when West Nile
virus arrived in New York City, from where it quickly spread throughout North America
nutrition or risky sexual behaviours—which hasten the spread of infectious diseases. Global trade and travel introduce new pathogens into previously virgin regions,
, for example, in the late 1990s,
. In the present-day global village, the next rabies
or Ebola epidemic could occur anywhere in the world. Increasing urbanization and the growth of urban slums that lack sanitation and clean water, provide fertil e ground for infections. Many cities and townships in the developing world expands at the expense of
pristine land, thereby disturbing natural habitats and bringing humans into more intimate contact with unknown and possibly dangerous microorganisms. Human forays into virgin areas of the African equatorial forests have brought us into contact with the Ebola
virus, although its real origin has not yet been identified. When humans live in close contact with animals, pathogens are sometimes able to change hosts and infect humans (Parish et al, 2005). The new host—in this case, a human—is often not as adapted to these
zoonotic diseases as the original host. The past outbreaks of avian influenza, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), hant avirus, Nipah virus and the HIV epidemic were all due to pathogens that were normally found in animals, but which subsequently found a
new, susceptible host in humans. Moreover, the misuse and overuse of antibiotics is eroding our ability to control even common infections. Many bacteria have become resistant to even the most powerful antibiotics or combinations of antibiotics; similarly, the once
first-line drugs against malaria are now almost useless. Promiscuous sexual behaviour and substance abuse remain the main means of transmission of blood-borne infectious diseases such as HIV and hepatitis. In areas of extreme poverty, given the increased
resort to the sex trade for survival, sexual transmission of these diseases is accelerated. In many developing countries, commercial sex workers and long-distance truck drivers have contributed greatly to the spread of such infectious diseases from one community
to another. In addition, institutional settings—such as child-care centres, hospitals and homes for the elderly—provide an ideal environment for the transmission of infectious diseases because they bring susceptible individuals into close contact with one another.
Wars, natural disasters, economic collapse and other catastrophes, either individually or in combination, often cause a breakdown in healthcare systems, which contributes further to the emergence, re-emergence and persistence of otherwise easily controllable
Complacency within the population or health-service providers
could be
dangerous under otherwise normal conditions. Cutbacks in prevention programmes
and a lack of early-detection systems allow infectious diseases to gain a foothold in otherwise healthy
populations. It is often not the lack of tools, but the lack of an appropriate healthcare infrastructure
that handicaps the response to infectious diseases.
diseases. Yet these diseases do not necessarily require an emergency situation to be able to thrive.
equally
, a lack of trained staff
and personnel
More generally, there is not yet enough commitment to control infectious diseases at the political level. The absence of a direct and
obvious link between disease control and the benefits for public health makes it difficult to sustain public-health policies. Programmes to prevent and treat infectious diseases in developing countries depend largely on indigenous health workers, most of whom are
unfortunately not motivated enough to deliver the goods. Given the multiplicity and complexity of the reasons behind this gen eral demotivation, only a strong political will can improve the situation. Finally, public-health experts also worry that global climate change
could contribute further to the spread of both pathogens and their vectors such as mosquitoes or birds, as their migratory patterns and normal habitats are likely to change.
therefore
likely to aggravate, and
in some cases even
provoke
, further
economic decay
The burden of infectious disease is
and political destabilization
, social fragmentation
, especially
in the developing world and former communist countries. As of the year 2001, one billion people lived on less than US$1 per day. Countries with a per capita income of less than US$500 per year spend, on average, US$12 per person per year on health. According
to the World Health Organization (WHO), infectious diseases caused 32% of deaths worldwide, 68% of deaths in Africa and 37% of deaths in Southeast Asia (WHO, 1999). These diseases account for 90% of the health problems worldwide and kill about 14 million
people annually, 90% of whom are from the developing world. They have killed more people than famine, war, accidents and crimes together. AIDS, TB and malaria are increasingly being acknowledged as important factors in the political and economic
destabilization of the developing world. However, the developed world is not spared either. As of the year 2000, the number of annual deaths owing to infectious diseases was estimated at roughly 170,000 in the USA (Gordon, 2000). HIV and pneumonia/influenza
are among the 10 leading causes of death in the USA. At present, approximately one million Americans are infected with HIV. T he WHO estimates that 33.4 million people have contracted HIV worldwide since the beginning of the epidemic in 1983 and about 2.3
million of these died in the year 1998 alone. In the USA and many other countries, AIDS is now the leading cause of death among young adults (Fauci et al, 1996). The United Nations Joint Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS; Geneva, Switzerland) estimates that
The economic costs of infectious diseases
are
significant. Their increasing toll on productivity owing to deaths and chronic debilitating illnesses, reduced
profitability and decreased foreign investment
—especially HIV/AIDS and malaria—
another 115 million people will die by 2015 in the 60 countries most affected by AIDS (UNAIDS, 2006).
, has had a serious effect on the economic growth of some poor countries. According to the WHO, the economic value of the loss-of-life owing to
HIV/AIDS in 1999 was estimated at about 12% of the gross national product (GNP) in sub-Saharan African countries, and the virus could reduce the gross domestic product of some by 20% or more by 2010. Some of the hardest hit countries in sub-Saharan
Africa—and possibly in South and Southeast Asia—will face severe demographic changes as HIV/AIDS and associated diseases reduce human life-expectancy by as much as 30 years and kill as many as 23% of their populations, thereby creating a huge orphan
cohort. Nearly 42 million children in 27 countries will lose one or both parents to AIDS by 2010, and 19 of the hardest-hit countries will be in sub-Saharan Africa (WHO, 2003). These demographic changes also affect economic growth, as endemic diseases deplete a
country of its work force. A 10% increase in life expectancy at birth (LEB) is associated with a rise in economic growth of 0.3–0.4% per year. The difference in annual growth owing to LEB between a typical high-income country with a LEB of 77 years and a typical
The relationship between disease and political instability is
real. A wide-ranging study on the causes of instability indicates that TB prevalence
correlates strongly with political instability, even in countries that have already achieved
democracy
The severe social and economic impact of infectious diseases is likely to intensify the struggle for
the political power to control scarce resources
TB
affects working hours
Families of people who die from the disease lose
income. The
burden
of TB in economic terms
TB
less-developed country with a LEB of 49 years is roughly 1.6% per year, and is cumulative over time.
indirect but
—a good indicator of overall quality of life—
a measure of
(Van Helden, 2003).
. Health must therefore be regarded as a major economic factor and investments in health as a profitable business. According to the WHO,
in formal and informal economies, as well as within households (WHO, 2008). Country studies document that each TB patient loses, on average, 3–4 months of work time annually due to the disease, and lost
earnings amount to 20–30% of household income.
approximately 15 years of
global
can therefore be easily calculated: given 8.4 million patients yearly according to the most recent WHO estimates (Kim et al, 2008), the majority of whom are potential wage-earners, and assuming a 30%
decline in average productivity, the toll amounts to approximately US$1 billion each year. Annual deaths are estimated at two million and, with an average loss of 15 years of income per death, there is an additional deficit of US$11 billion. Every 12 months,
6
Georgetown 2009
Immigrant Detention Aff
Katzoff
1AC
therefore
causes roughly US$12 billion to disappear from the global economy
. The social cost of the lost productivity further increases the burden on society. By
contrast, a 50% reduction in TB-related deaths would cost US$900 million per year, but the return on investment by 2010 would be 22 million people cured, 16 million deaths averted and US$6 billion saved. Each year there are between 400 and 900 million febrile
infections owing to malaria (0.7–2.7 million deaths), more than 75% of which are among African children, and less than 20% of these malaria cases ever see a d octor for treatment. Pregnant women have a higher risk of dying from the infection or of having children
with low birth weight. Children suffer cognitive damage and anaemia, and families spend up to 25% of their income on treatment. A study by Gallup & Sachs (2000) showed that countries with endemic malaria had income levels in 1995 that were only 33% of those
in countries that do not suffer from malaria. Countries with a severe malaria burden grew 1.3% less per year, compared with t hose without. Gallup & Sachs estimated the aggregate loss owing to the disease in some 25 countries at approximately US$73 billion in
1987, which represented more than 15% of the GDP. AIDS/HIV also creates an enormous burden for the global economy. In the year 2000, 36.1 million people were living with AIDS (25 million of whom were in sub-Saharan Africa), 5.3 million people were infected
(3.8 million in sub-Saharan Africa) and three million people died (2.4 million in sub-Saharan Africa), and AIDS has caused 21.8 million deaths to date. This has a heavy economic impact on society. According to the WHO Macroeconomics Report, the economic
burden of AIDS on sub-Saharan Africa is approximately 72 million disability-adjusted life years (DALY), and each AIDS death is estimated to have resulted in 34.6 DALYs lost, on average, in 1999 (WHO, 2003). Assuming that each DALY is valued at the per capita
income, the economic value of lost life years in 1999 caused by AIDS represents 11.7% of the GNP. If each DALY is valued at three times the per capita income, the losses repr esent 35.1% of the GNP. In addition, infectious
especially those
that can cause an epidemic
, continue to
make costly disruptions to trade and commerce
diseases
in general,
in every region of the world (Table 3).
Emerging and re-emerging diseases, many of which are likely to appear in poorer countries first, can easily spread to richer parts of the world. The burden of infectious disease alr eady weakens the military capabilities of various countries and international peacekeeping efforts. This will contribute further to political destabilization in the hardest-hit parts of the world. In slowing down social and economic development, diseases challenge democratic developments and trans itions, and contribute to civil conflicts.
Finally, trade embargoes or restrictions on travel and immigration owing to outbreaks of infectious
disease will cause more friction between developing and developed countries, and hinder global
commerce
to the greater detriment of poor countries. The effects of infectious diseases over the next decades depend on three variables: the relationship between increasing microbial resistance and scientific efforts to develop new antibiotics and
vaccines; the future of developing and transitional economies, especially with regard to improving the basic quality of life for the poorest people; and the success of global and national efforts to create effective systems of surveillance and response. Depending on
these variables, the relationship between humans and infectious diseases, and their impact on the human race, could take one of the following pathways. The optimistic scenario foresees steady improvement whereby ageing populations and declining fertility,
socioeconomic advances, and improvements in health care and medical research will lead to a 'health transition' in which infectious diseases will be replaced by non-infectious diseases such as diabetes, heart disease and cancer, as major health challenges. By
a vicious spiral will develop between
infectious diseases and poverty diseases
will reach catastrophic proportions as the viruses
spread throughout populations as a result of increased resistance to multi-drug treatments
contrast, the pessimist scenario of steady deterioration foresees little or no progress in countering infectious diseases in the future. According to this scenario,
. Major
—such as HIV/AIDS—
and the unavailability of expensive
treatments in developing countries, which face the majority of the problem. The third and most likely scenario foresees an initial deterioration followed by limited improvement. Persistent poverty in the least-developed countries will create conditions that sustain
The threat,
from
TB
will cause such
massive socio-economic and cultural upheaval that it will eventually affect a critical mass of humanity
reservoirs of infectious diseases. Microbial resistance will continue to increase faster than the pace of drug and vaccine development.
in particular
HIV/AIDS,
or malaria,
. This will
create the necessary pressure for a movement towards better prevention and control efforts, with new and effective drugs and vaccines made affordable. This will only later result in demographic changes such as red uced fertility and ageing populations, and a
gradual socioeconomic improvement in most countries. The good news is that infectious diseases can be easily prevented through simple and inexpensive methods (Sidebar A). This requires correct education and the spread of knowledge; however, even these
Governments must be made to understand the
stakes involved in fighting infectious diseases—this is the only way to guarantee that the necessary
resources will be allocated in sufficient quantities and on time.
simple measures will not be enough to bring infectious diseases under control if there is no political and international commitment.
We need a global commitment to address the most prominent infectious diseases and to complement local
initiatives with special attention to the least-developed countries (Alilio, 2001; Stop TB Partnership, 2006). This will require analytical and advisory services in order to help countries generate and act on information about the status and dynamics of most infectious
diseases, and to estimate their social and economic impact. Such information is essential for advocacy, and for making appropriate and timely decisions. In the face of limited resources, joint efforts will have to focus on the main killer diseases—including HIV/AIDS,
TB and malaria—in order to have the greatest impact. Medical treatment, psychosocial support—including palliative care for debilitating diseases—and highly active anti-microbial therapy will be essential. In addition, the prevailing problem of the physical and
financial inaccessibility of most of these drugs will have to be addressed. Last, best practices will have to be identified and scaled up. This will require special efforts to identify and overcome legal barriers, and to analyse, country-by-country, financial and nonfinancial resources with a view to mobilizing support internationally. In conclusion, infectious diseases constitute a major problem for the world, but even more so for the developing world. No country can afford to remain aloof in the battle against these diseases,
especially given the potentially far-reaching and devastating effects that they could have on the human race at large. Increasing globalization means that the big questions in relation to epidemics will be those of where and when—and not whether—the next
Even from the
purely economic point of view, the investment in the fight against infectious diseases is evidently good
business: the world economy
stands to benefit from such investments
The future of the human race depends on our actions today.
epidemic emerges, as historical examples have shown. Therefore, all stakeholders—researchers, politicians, health professionals, the financial sector and the community at large—must take the necessary bold steps forward.
—and, subsequently, individual family economies—
. We already know a lot of what we
must do; we just need to do it.
GLOBAL NUCLEAR WAR.
Kerpen 10/28 (Phil, policy director for Americans for Prosperity, From Panic to Depression?,
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OWQ3ZGYzZTQyZGY4ZWFiZWUxNmYwZTJiNWVkMTIxMmU=)
It’s important that we avoid all these policy errors — not just for the sake of our prosperity, but for our
survival. The Great Depression, after all, didn’t end until the advent of World War II, the most destructive
war in the history of the planet. In a world of nuclear and biological weapons and non-state terrorist
organizations that breed on poverty and despair, another global economic breakdown of such extended
duration would risk armed conflicts on an even greater scale.
7
Georgetown 2009
Immigrant Detention Aff
Katzoff
1AC
DRUG RESISTANT TB IS FUELING GLOBAL SPREAD
Reuters, 9 (April 1, By Lucy Hornby and Ben Blanchard)
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/PEK120707.htm
BEIJING, April 1 (Reuters) - Health officials gathered in Beijing on Wednesday warned against deadly
drug-resistant strains of tuberculosis, which are spreading fastest in developing countries that lack the infrastructure to tackle the disease. Over half of new cases of
tuberculosis that are resistant to multiple drugs are resistant right from the start, and not as a direct result of substandard treatment, the head of the World Health Organisation (WHO) warned. "This is
the true alarm bell. This tells us that resistant strains are now circulating in the general population,
spreading widely and largely silently in a growing pool of latent infection," director-general Margaret Chan
said. "Obviously this is a situation set to spiral out of control. Call it what you want, a time bomb
or a powder keg, any way you look at it this is a potentially explosive situation."
According to the WHO, of nine million new TB cases annually, about 490,000 are multiple-drug resistant
TB (MDR-TB) and about 40,000 are extensively drug resistant (XDR-TB) based on 2006 data.
People with XDR-TB, which has cropped up in 55 countries, have few treatment options and death rates
are high. The spread of those strains could compromise the global fight against tuberculosis,
which relies on drugs developed decades ago. "The situation is already alarming, and is poised to
grow much worse very quickly," Chan said.
DRUG RESISTANT DISEASES THREATEN HUMAN EXTINCTION.
Discover 2k (“Twenty Ways the World Could End” by Corey Powell in Discover Magazine, October 2000,
http://discovermagazine.com/2000/oct/featworld)
If Earth doesn't do us in, our fellow organisms might be up to the task. Germs and people have always
coexisted, but occasionally the balance gets out of whack
Old
diseases
have developed new resistance to antibiotics
International travel means diseases can spread faster than ever
Osterholm, an infectious disease
expert
described the situation as "like trying to swim against the current of a raging
river." The grimmest possibility would be the emergence of a strain that spreads so fast we are caught off
guard or that resists all chemical means of control
12,000 years ago, a
sudden wave of mammal extinctions swept through the Americas
the culprit
was extremely virulent disease
. The Black Plague killed one European in four during the 14th century; influenza took at least 20 million lives between
1918 and 1919; the AIDS epidemic has produced a similar death toll and is still going strong. From 1980 to 1992, reports the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, mortality from infectious disease in the United States rose 58 percent.
such as cholera and measles
. Intensive agriculture and land development is bringing humans closer to animal pathogens.
. Michael
who recently left the Minnesota Department of Health,
, perhaps as a result of our stirring of the ecological pot. About
. Ross MacPhee of the American Museum of Natural History argues
, which humans helped transport as they migrated into the New World.
8
Georgetown 2009
Immigrant Detention Aff
Katzoff
1AC
ADVANTAGE 2: HUMAN RIGHTS LEADERSHIP
DENYING HEALTH SERVICES TO IMMIGRANT DETAINEES IS TARNISHING THE U.S. IMAGE
ABROAD—DESTROYS AMERICAN HUMAN RIGHTS LEADERSHIP.
Lovato 09 (Robert, Associate Editor with New America Media and contributor to The Nation Magazine,
Los Angeles Times, Salon, Der Spiegel, Utne Magazine, La Opinion, Commentator and Source on
Univision, CNN, PBS, Bill Moyers Journal, Former Executive Director of CARECEN,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/roberto-lovato/us-immigration-policies-b_b_170309.html)
The proliferation of stories in international media and in global forums about the Guantanamo-like
problems in the country’s immigrant detention system- death, abuse and neglect at the hands of
detention facility guards; prolonged and indefinite detention of immigrants (including children and families)
denied
basic health services – are again tarnishing the U.S.
image abroad,
immigrant detention facilities have created a unique problem:
they are making it increasingly difficult for Obama to persuade the planet’s people that the United States
is ready claim exceptional leadership on human rights
habeas corpus and other fundamental rights; filthy, overcrowded and extremely unhealthy facilities; denial of
according to several experts. As a result, reports from Arizona and
in a soon-to-be-post-Guantanamo world. Consider the case of Mexico. Just last week, following news reports from Arizona, the
Mexican government, which is traditionally silent or very tepid in its criticism of U.S. immigration and other policies, issued a statement in which it “energetically protested the undignified way in which the Mexicans were transferred to ‘Tent City’” in Maricopa Count y.
immigrant detention stories hit Mexicans closer to home because those
reportedly being abused in detention are not from a far off country; they are family, friends, neighbors and
fellow citizens. In the same way that Guantanamo erased the idea of U.S. leadership in human
rights in the Bush era
practices in immigrant detention facilities like those reported by
global media
may begin to do so in the Obama era if something does not change
David Brooks, U.S correspondent for Mexico’s La Jornada newspaper, believes that
, says Brooks, who was born in Mexico,
in Maricopa County
. “Mexicans have never seen the U.S. as
a great model for promotion of human rights. But with Obama we take him at his word. We’re expecting some change,” said Brooks. “But that will not last long if we see him continuing Bush’s [immigration] policies: raids, increasing detention, deportation. Regardless
If uncontested, the expression of such sentiments far
beyond Mexico and Mexican immigrants could lead to the kind of American exceptionalism Obama
doesn’t want
the United States has failed to adhere to
its international obligations to make the human rights of
migrants
a national priority
Bustamante said, “The non-governmental
organizations have really responded. In the United States and outside the United States- in Mexico, in
Guatemala, in Indonesia and other countries- NGO’s are using my report to frame their concerns and
demands in their own countries- and to raise criticism about the United States.”
Alison Parker,
deputy director of the U.S. program of Human Rights Watch, fears a global government “race to the
bottom” around immigrant detention policies
as the rest of world sees the United States practices,
we increase the risk that this will give the green light to other governments to be just as abusive or
more abusive as the United States
of his excuse, he will quickly become mas de lo mismo (more of the same) in terms of the experience down south.”
. In a March 2008 report, Jorge Bustamante, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Human Rights of Migrants, concluded that “
the 37.5 million
living in the country
, using a
comprehensive and coordinated national policy based on clear international obligations.” Asked how his report was received in different countries,
For her part,
. “My concern is that
.” If there is a positive note to be heard in the growing global chorus of critique of and concern about U.S immigration policy, it is to be found among those human rights
activists and groups doing what W.E.B. DuBois, Paul Robeson and other civil rights activists did in previous eras: bring their issues to the global stage. Government documents from the civil rights era, documents that were released just a few years ago, illustrate
members of the Kennedy and Johnson State departments
were acutely aware of
how denunciations in global forums of racial discrimination in United States had a devastating impact
on the U.S. prestige abroad. Such a situation around the rights of migrants today
creates an opportunity out of the globalization of the images of
Obama. “The world will be able to see him as the rogue sheriff that he is”
it will be up to the Obama Administration to show the world that Arpaio is
not a symbol of the rest of the country when it comes to immigration.”
how
and even Kennedy and Johnson themselves
and
sensitive to
, says Oscar Chacon of the National Alliance of Latin American
and Caribbean Communities, a Chicago-based global NGO run by and for immigrants,
Arpaio and Barack
both Sheriff Joe
said Chacon, who was in Mexico City attending a
conference on immigration at which U.S. detention practices were criticized. “And
9
Georgetown 2009
Immigrant Detention Aff
Katzoff
1AC
THIS OVERWHELMS EVERY OTHER ISSUE—AS LONG AS DETAINED IMMIGRANTS ARE DENIED
HEALTH SERVICES THE U.S. WILL NOT BE ABLE TO RESTORE ITS IMAGE.
Huffington Post 09 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-media-consortium/weekly-immigrationwireob_b_172175.html)
President Obama is shaking up the established political and corporate order with a bold economic agenda. Sadly, immigration r eform remains untouched by Obama’s energizing blueprint for Change. Immigration policy and programs are still tied to President
Even as President
Obama moves to close Guantánamo
the promise of change in the U.S. remains tainted
as long as the detention industry grows.
The proliferation of
stories in international media and in global forums about the Guantánamo-like problems in the country’s
immigrant detention system- death, abuse and neglect at the hands of detention facility guards
denial of basic health services – are
again tarnishing the U.S. image abroad
George W. Bush and former Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff: Paramilitary-style raids, detention centers, and the deputizing of otherwise-engaged local police forces continue to stand strong.
(though some argue his method),
Roberto Lovato sums up this hypocritical inattention to immigration reform for New America Media:
; prolonged and indefinite
detention of immigrants (including children and families) denied habeas corpus and other fundamental rights; filthy, overcrowded and extremely unhealthy facilities;
, according to several experts. As a result, reports from Arizona and immigrant detention facilities have created a unique problem: they are making it increasingly
difficult for Obama to persuade the planet’s people that the United States is ready claim exceptional leadership on human rights in a soon-to-be-post-Guantanamo world. Our current immigration policy is not thoughtful, measured legislation crafted by a consensus of
experts. It is, in most cases, a patchwork of painfully and barely functioning laws, like a bone that knits crooked simply because it was never set properly. While those who benefit from unchecked ICE raids boast that “we can make a person disappear,” the rest of us
can only wonder how “American” such a goal is. It’s a policy wrongly reliant on public loathing and lack of oversight. It supersedes U.S. laws to target “the Other.” Agreement 287(g), which bestows immigration-enforcement powers on state and local police forces to
relieve some of the federal government’s duties, has been disastrous in practice. Aarti Shahani and Judith Greene report on the particular fusion of civil and criminal law that is resulting in such chaos for New America Media. They aptly characterize the 287(g)
agreement as “a state and local bailout of the federal government’s failed immigration enforcement business.” Some background: The amendment of section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act was made under the radar of public attention and passed by a
Republican Congress under Democratic President Bill Clinton. This change was a part of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). President Clinton let the ammendment stand. Florida, under the guidance of Gov. Jeb Bush, was the first
state to use the provision to target the immigrant community following 9/11. Critics of the merge between federal obligations and state enforcement charged that “turning police into deportation patrol would result in racial profiling, and make immigrant victims afrai d
to call 911,” write Shahani and Greene. In actuality, 287(g) has played out poorls. Fanatics and TV-star wannabees like Sheriff Joe Arpaio have been given power at the expense of hard-working men and women. Yesterday, the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) issued a congressionally commissioned report on the 287(g) program and, in essence, pronounced it a “misuse of authority.” And in the face of all this, we have but weak and startled declarations of ignorance by Secretary of Homeland Security Janet
Napolitano and silence from the Oval Office. Public News Service reports on the many human beings are “living in limbo“as they wait for the Obama administration to push forward on immigration reform. Even President Obama’s Aunt Zeituni is faci ng deportation. In
an interview with Katie Couric on Nov. 2, 2008, Obama deflected the issue by claiming he hasn’t “been able to be in touch with her” but that immigration laws, “have to be obeyed.” In WireTap’s Crickets Louder Than Obama As Aunt Faces Deportation, Beatriz
Herrera responds with some passionate and true words: “Laws need to be obeyed, huh?” Herrera writes. “What about the fact that his Auntie Zeituni came here seeking asylum because Kenya’s politicians couldn’t obey their own laws, and as a result civil war broke
By working to close Guantánamo, peppering his speech with talk of law and order, and
restoring US image to the world abroad, Obama risks muddying up his accomplishments with a blatant
hypocrisy. We simply cannot lead the way when investing in detention systems
out, forcing her to immigrate to the US?”
from Arizona to Iraq. When did prisons become the solution
to so many of our problems? The below video is from GritTV and features excerpts from a documentary on the U.S. detention system. Perhaps the President is arranging his legistlative actions carefully and we have yet to see how we will make the change that
millions are waiting for. But from the ground level, silence and the continuation of the Bush administration’s failed policies speaks louder. Returning to Wiretap, Beatriz Herrera speaks her heart about Obama’s absence from these issues. I’m sure she speaks for
many of us as well: I don’t want to turn my back on My First Black President, but having solidarity with him means he needs t o have solidarity with me and my community of immigrant people of color, and he could start by taking an Air Force One flight to Auntie
Zetuni’s house in the projects of South Boston and find out what the hell is going on.
CREDIBLE US HUMAN RIGHTS LEADERSHIP IS CRUCIAL TO PREVENT SUFFERING ON A
GLOBAL SCALE---MORE PEOPLE DIE AS A RESULT OF HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS THAN ALL
WARS COMBINED
JOHN SHATTUCK, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND
HUMANITARIAN AFFAIRS, 4/19/94 (Federal News Service, l/n)
I would like to start my testimony, Mr. Chairman, which I will summarize -- obviously, you have an extended statement, and I do apologize for the fact that it arrived perhaps later than it should have -- I'd like to
start by offering some brief observations about what it means to advocate human rights and democracy in the post-Cold- War world, which is where we are today, of course. We are confronted by extraordinary
changes all around us that are at once profoundly inspiring and deeply disturbing. Alongside a worldwide movement for human rights and democratization, which I think has transformed in many ways the political
shape of the globe, we see stirrings of deep cultural and ethnic tensions. The principle of self-determination is being pursued and yet is itself a source of very deep human rights questions. These are not
Around the world we are witnessing ugly and violent racial, ethnic and religious conflict in
Bosnia, Central Asia, Africa, most vividly, perhaps, right now in Rwanda, in the Sudan, but elsewhere,
too, away from the cameras. The international community clearly has not developed an adequate
response to these problems. Why, then, if they are so daunting, has this administration made protecting
human rights and promoting democracy a major part of our foreign policy agenda? I think the answer lies not only in our American
academic questions.
values but in also the strategic benefits to the United States. We know from historical experience that democracies are more likely than other forms of government to respect human rights, to settle conflict
peacefully, to observe international law and honor agreements, to go to war with great reluctance, and rarely against other democracies, to respect the rights of ethnic, racial and religious minorities living within
the costs to the world of repression and
authoritarianism are painfully clear. In the 20th century, the number of people killed by their own
governments under authoritarian regimes is four times the number killed in all this century's wars
combined. Repression pushes refugees across borders and triggers wars; unaccountable governments
are heedless of environmental destruction, and the agenda for repression goes on in a very negative way.
These, then, are the reasons why promoting democracy and human rights are at the forefront of our
foreign policy agenda. What are our strategic objectives? In a word, Mr. Chairman, we aim, perhaps not
yet successfully, to incorporate human rights and democracy into the mainstream of our foreign
policy-making.
their borders, and to provide the social and political basis for free market economics. By contrast, Mr. Chairman,
10
Georgetown 2009
Immigrant Detention Aff
Katzoff
1AC
THE TERMINAL IMPACT IS EXTINCTION.
Rhonda Copelon, law at City University of New York, 1999 (3 N.Y. City L. Rev. 59)
The indivisible human rights framework survived the Cold War despite U.S. machinations to truncate it in
the international arena. The framework is there to shatter the myth of the superiority [*72] of the U.S.
version of rights, to rebuild popular expectations, and to help develop a culture and jurisprudence of indivisible human rights. Indeed, in the face of systemic inequality and crushing poverty,
violence by official and private actors, globalization of the market economy, and military and environmental depredation, the human rights framework is gaining new force and new dimensions. It is being
movements of people in different parts of the world, particularly in the Southern Hemisphere and significantly of women, who understand the
protection of human rights as a matter of individual and collective human survival and betterment.
Also emerging is a notion of third-generation rights, encompassing collective rights that cannot be solved
on a state-by-state basis and that call for new mechanisms of accountability, particularly affecting
Northern countries. The emerging rights include human-centered sustainable development,
environmental protection, peace, and security. 38 Given the poverty and inequality in the United States as
well as our role in the world, it is imperative that we bring the human rights framework to bear on
both domestic and foreign policy.
broadened today by the
11
Georgetown 2009
Immigrant Detention Aff
Katzoff
1AC
ADVANTAGE 3: MODELING
OTHER COUNTRIES WILL MODEL OUR TREATMENT OF IMMIGRANT DETAINEES—RESPECTING
THEIR RIGHT TO HEALTH CARE GIVES US THE CREDIBILITY TO LEAD BY EXAMPLE AND
ENCOURAGE INTERNATIONAL RESPECT FOR IMMIGRANT RIGHTS.
Brane and Lundholm 08 (Michelle and Christiana, Director of the Detention and Asylum Program,
Women’s Commission for Refugee Women and Children, 22 Geo. Immigr. L.J. 147)
the U.S. must find responsible and effective means to lead and
engage in an increasingly interdependent world. The United States must effectively address
issues arising from mass migration. Progress will require that
the United States work closely with friends, allies and other major stakeholders in the international
community. Such support is only possible if it exercises power and influence in a manner that is
widely perceived as legitimate. This approach embodies principles that have marked U.S. foreign policy
at its most effective.
What this means is that in addition to moral or humanitarian arguments for complying with
international law the United States needs to be seen as a team player in order to have the standing to
influence the rest of the world. This is not a new argument but it is increasingly important as
globalization continues. The U.S. cannot effectively condemn the behavior of foreign states if we are not
in compliance ourselves.
we
must work towards a unified human rights-based approach to immigration detention and asylum
We need to energize the global human rights community to engage in dialogue, share and
develop best practices, and develop a unified human rights-based approach to immigration detention and
asylum on a global scale
International human rights standards should be
incorporated into our messages at all levels.
particularly in Mexico, Central America and South America. These are
regions that are particularly within the U.S. sphere of influence and who have direct migration flows into
the United States. We should work together to create a unified approach to immigration detention that
takes into account national interests and security concerns while preserving human rights
we should
be sharing information about immigration detention, including conditions, best practices, and successful
strategies. A somewhat successful strategy in bringing international human rights standards to the
media's attention can be providing concrete examples from other countries
I. Global Approach Globalization is having an increasingly evident impact on work migration and
critical global issues, such as
climate change, nuclear proliferation, and instability in regions confronting poverty and state failure, as well as
Even the general public seems to be accepting this premise; polling research indicated that in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks, Americans were increasingly interested in and concerned about the
United States' role in the world.
138
These are arguments in favor of U.S. compliance with international human rights standards, signing conventions that the U.S. has not yet ratified, and advocating for the U.S. to submit its periodic
reports in a timely fashion. It has become increasingly important in this new age that we do not lose sight of basic human principles and that we hold everyone accountable to these basic principles. [*174] Globalization brings new challenges and
--on a national, regional,
and global scale.
, in order to balance the increasing strength of enforcement-based arguments.
As nation states respond to security concerns by detaining migrants unnecessarily, the advocacy and NGO community must also respond in a unified
manner. At a regional level we could provide support and assistance to other NGOs
. Globally, we should be working through
the newly formed International Detention Coalition, UNHCR, and others to develop a unified approach to immigration detention that takes into account national interests and security concerns while preserving human rights. As a first step,
. This can include both examples where other countries do a better job, and
examples where bad practices have improved. For instance, Australia had developed a terrible reputation for its treatment of undocumented immigrants and asylum seekers. Highlighting the recent changes in t he detention of children and families in Australia, and
Those who assume that the U.S. is the
best at respecting human rights may be inspired by examples in which this is actually the case. In cases
where other countries are better those who would like to take pride in U.S. leadership may be influenced
to change U.S. policy to meet their expectations. We have begun to create a political space and forum for
the global conversation on immigration detention and asylum, with the ultimate goal of improving policies
and practices worldwide.
their transition to a system that could be considered more humane and more respectful of family values than the U.S. system could draw attention in some circles.
We can learn from the practices of other countries both good and bad to help us pressure the U.S. to present an effective mod el in how to treat immigrants and asylum seekers, while encouraging
advances in other countries. IV. CONCLUSION Of course, none of these methods of applying human rights standards to [*175] detention advocacy exists entirely separately from the others. Education and advocacy, whether local, national, or international, work
best when they are informed by thorough research and solid practical experience. Likewise, in order to effectively support a variety of advocacy efforts, research needs to be informed by consideration of the needs and knowledge gaps of those working for change.
human rights law presents a series of challenges to the validity of immigration detention as it is
currently practiced in the U.S.
The use of detention in the U.S.,
however, looks primed to continue to expand. Therefore
methods are needed to ensure that its use is
brought into line with human rights norms
As we have seen,
Not only can detention conditions be rights violations, but confinement in isolated centers can cause serious problems with detainees' abilities to gain access to due process and a fair
determination of their case. Moreover, detention itself can be a violation of international human rights law in situations wh ere the deprivation of liberty is unnecessary or arbitrary.
, creative
and to lessen its impact on populations such as asylum seekers, torture survivors, children, and families. Rigorous research, public education and
awareness-building, media attention, collaboration with local activists, legislative and administrative advocacy, and engagement with international bodies are all interlocking strategies that benefit both one another and the advancement of international human rights
standards in the United States' immigration system. While the political climate in the United States may present challenges, it also presents great opportunity. The 2008 presidential elections are on the near horizon, and immigration is an important topic on the
platform. At the same time, and the United States is at a critical point regarding its standing in the world. A new administr ation will have to address the fact that the U.S. has lost credibility on issues such as human rights--but it is also an opportunity to re-establish
the US as a leader on these issues. As such, now is the time to press for real change. Immigration and detention matters have never received as much attention from the public, the media, or even Congress as they are receiving now. Congress is increasing t he
This is a critical moment for turning the discussion around
Now is the time to ensure that enforceable standards exist
It is only through such measures that the U.S. can reposition itself as a leader on human rights and advance--rather than jeopardize--the movement as other
countries around the world look to its behavior as a model.
budget for immigrant detention quickly, even as report after report reveals that the practice is rife with abuse.
educating the public, media, and policy makers.
, and
, that alternatives to detention are used and that international human
rights standards are respected as a matter of practice within the immigration and detention system in the United States.
12
Georgetown 2009
Immigrant Detention Aff
Katzoff
1AC
INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS STANDARDS FOR IMMIGRANTS ARE NECESSARY TO
MODERATE GROWING TENSION BETWEEN THE NORTH AND SOUTH.
Loescher 02 (Gil, Visiting Professor at the Refugee Studies Centre, Queen Elizabeth House, University
of Oxford, “State Responses to Refugees and Asylum Seekers in Europe,” 43-44
States have the right to fix their own immigration policies
But
and to protect themselves against terrorism.
at the measures they take to prevent asylum abuse and illegal
activity should not make it difficult, if not impossible, for refugees to be protected. Too often, efforts to stop large flows of illegal immigrants also deny asylum seekers access to protection mechanisms. In particular, governments should resist the pressures to
The current inclination to erect new barriers to deter population movements
will not make the problem go away, nor will it ensure a stable base for international
relations. In the longer term, states must recognize the lasting solutions to problems of forcibly displaced
people require a new level of cooperation between countries
a sole emphasis on
the prevention
of refugee movements cannot become a substitute for continued asylum and support for refugees on the
part of all governments.
asylum states
have international obligations too, including supporting human rights
there needs to be a much closer connection
between asylum policy and the conduct of foreign policy. There are reasons of state as well as of
humanitarian concern to offer protection and assistance to refugees and asylum seekers
Respect for human rights
are indispensable foundations for a more stable international order. Placing
unduly harsh restrictions on the forcible movement of people will simply lead to more isolation and
deprivation. An angry, excluded world outside the West will almost inevitable give rise to
conditions in which extremist and aggressive groups and governments can emerge and pose new
threats to long-term security
many will come knocking on the doors of EU states. Dealing in a
comprehensive way with refugee and other population movements both at home and abroad, therefore, is
the self-interest of
industrialized states and coincides with their search for long-term strategic
stability in the world.
completely close their borders to asylum seekers and refugees.
to West
Europe from the South and the East
of the North and the South. The international community can and should insist that the countries of refugee
origin protect their citizens by refraining from actions which are likely to cause people to become refugees. However,
the responsibility of the countries of refugee origin and on
Governments everywhere have the responsibility to refrain from imposing or contributing to refugee generating conditions. This means that
European Union,
, including those in the
, providing asylum, restricting arms sales to refugee-producing states, and
providing financial and political support to promote equitable and sustainable development in countries and regions of origin. Indeed,
EU
EU
. Policy makers need to build on this
coincidence of factors to achieve the political will both to address these problems and to develop the institutional capacity to respond more effectively to future refugee and asylum crises.
, more
equitable development and the strengthening of civil society
. In countries where conditions are desperate, people will seek to emigrate by any means possible, With a global communication system that puts the prosperous and safe advanced
industrial democracies within ready reach of even geographically distant areas,
the EU and other
13
Georgetown 2009
Immigrant Detention Aff
Katzoff
1AC
EXTINCTION
Krieger 06 (David, President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation,
http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2006/09/15_krieger_northsouth.htm)
North and South are approximations, reflecting both a geographic and economic divide. There is no monolithic North, nor South. There is South within North and North within South, inasmuch as in the North there exists much poverty and in the South there is a
stratum enjoying great wealth in most societies. In general, though, the North tends toward industrialization, wealth, dominance and exploitation, while the South, which has a long history of domination by the North in colonial and post -colonial times, tends toward
Within both South and North powerful subcultures of militarism and extremist
violence have emerged that, when linked to nuclear weapons, threaten cities, countries, civilization and
the future of life
poverty, including extreme and sometimes devastating poverty.
. Nuclear weapons have been primarily developed and brandished by the North, and used to threaten other countries, North and South. The South, which for the most part has lacked the technology to develop nuclear
weapons, has begun to cross this technological threshold and join the North in obtaining these weapons of mass annihilation. The original nuclear weapons states - the US, Soviet Union, UK, France and China - were largely of the dominant North, although the
Soviet Union had major areas of poverty and China, although geographically in the North was the exception, reflecting the poverty of the South aft er having been subjected to humiliating colonial domination and exploitation. Israel, an outpost of the North
surrounded by oil-rich but underdeveloped countries of the South, surreptitiously developed a nuclear arsenal. India and Pakistan, coming from a background of poverty and colonial domination, developed nuclear arsenals after it became clear that the other nuclear
weapons states were intent upon indefinitely maintaining their nuclear arsenals rather than fulfilling their obligations for nuclear disarmament. Both countries were clearly on the Southern side of the economic and colonial divide, as was the final nuclear weapons
The world is at a critical nuclear crossroads. In one direction lies an
increasing number of nuclear weapons states and nuclear-armed terrorist organizations, a world of
unfathomable danger
We do not have
the option of standing still, with North and South, rich and poor, dominant and exploited frozen in time and
inequity
state, North Korea, which is thought to have developed a small arsenal of nuclear weapons.
. In the other direction, lies a nuclear weapons-free world. It is the responsibility of those of us alive today on our planet to choose in which direction we shall travel.
. Terrorism is inherent in the possession and implicit threat of use of nuclear weapons by any country. Such state terrorism creates the possibility that extremist non-state actors, who can neither be located nor deterred, will gain possession of
these weapons or the materials to make them and threaten or use nuclear weapons against even the most powerful, nuclear -armed countries. <Card Continues> Unfortunately, the leaders of the nuclear weapons states don't appear to recognize the imperative to
"The splitting of
the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking, and thus we drift toward unparalleled
catastrophe." That is the nature of our drift, toward catastrophe, but a catastrophe in which the likelihood
of the dominant powers becoming the victims is as great as their further victimization and dominance of
the South
end the nuclear weapons era, and continue to cling to their nuclear arms as instruments of dominance. Einstein recognized early in the Nuclear Age that these new weapons required a change in thinking. He famously said,
. Nuclear weapons give more power to the relatively weak than they do to the powerful. With nuclear weapons, the weak can destroy the powerful. The powerful, on the other hand, would certainly destroy their own souls by attacking the
weak with nuclear weapons. In the end, nuclear weapons are equalizers and equal opportunity destroyers. The question that th e North needs to consider seriously is whether it wishes a world with many nuclear powers, including non-state actors, or a world with no
nuclear weapons. What exists between these poles, including the current nuclear status quo, is not sustainable. It must tip in one direction or the other. If it tips toward many nuclear weapons powers, the price will be widespread annihilation. If it tips in the direction
of eliminating nuclear weapons, humanity may save itself from destruction by its most powerful and cowardly tools of warfare. In the Nuclear Age, the South has attempted to pull itself up by its bootstraps, while the North has wasted huge resources on the
development of its weaponry in general and on its nuclear weaponry in particular. The United States alone has spent over $6 trillion on its nuclear arsenal and its delivery systems since the beginning of the Nuclear Age. It is worth contemplating how our world might
have been different if these resources had been used instead to eradicate poverty and disease and provide education and hope in the far corners of the world. Would the North still be resented, as it is now, by the politically aware poor and dispossessed? In
the North-South divide
has benefited neither the North nor the South, and is
bound to end in disaster for all.
This divide is perhaps most dangerous when it could ignite a nuclear conflagration, but it is still dangerous
when the divide breeds terrorism
The world cannot continue indefinitely half-slave and half-free, half mired in poverty and half
indulged in abundance. Resources are not limitless and modern communications make each half aware
of the status of the other half
analyzing
in nuclear weaponry, one realizes that this divide
But the same is true of the North-South divide absent nuclear weapons. A relationship of domination, enforced by any means - military, economic or political - is not sustainable.
in response to structural violence. It is not only the nuclear divide that must be ended by the elimination of nuclear weapon s, but the greater divide between the North and South that
must be closed.
. The Narrowing Nuclear Divide Nuclear weapons, the ultimate weapon of cowardice, may be seen as a symbol of what separates rather than what unites the world. Nuclear weapons turn the
North into cowards and bullies and the South into victims that may most effectively find their heroism and personhood in acts of resistance. Ending the nuclear threat by eliminating nuclear weapons will lead to finding more equitable and decent ways of settling
differences between states of the North and South, ways that will in the end benefit both sides of this divide. In 1955, Bertrand Russell, Albert Einstein and nine other distinguished scientists issued an appeal, the Russell-Einstein Manifesto. This appeal concluded
with these thoughts: "There lies before us, if we choose, continual progress in happiness, knowledge, and wisdom. Shall we, instead, choose death, because we c annot forget our quarrels? We appeal as human beings to human beings: Remember your humanity,
Nuclear
weapons confront humankind with the risk of universal death. We are challenged, North and South
alike, to end this risk to humanity and to the human future. To effectively end this risk will require that
peoples of North and South to join hands and form a bond rooted in their common humanity
and forget the rest. If you can do so, the way lies open to a new Paradise; if you cannot, there lies before you the risk of universal death." More than fifty years later, the warning in the Russell-Einstein Manifesto rings true.
and their common concern with
protecting and passing on the planet and all its natural and man-made treasures in tact to future generations.
14
Georgetown 2009
Immigrant Detention Aff
Katzoff
1AC
TWO SPECIFIC SCENARIOS
SCENARIO 1: EUROPE
THE EU IS ADOPTING INCREASINGLY PUNITIVE IMMIGRATION POLICIES—THIS IS FUELING
INSTABILITY.
EU Observer 5/28 (http://euobserver.com/22/28201)
Human rights violations remained widespread across the world in 2008, including Europe, with the global economic crisis not only aggravating the existing problems, but creating new ones as well, human rights group Amnesty International's yearly report released
on Thursday (28 May) shows. Roma communities and settlements in Italy have been subjected to ongoing discrimination (Photo: A mnesty International) "The global economic crisis is an explosive human rights crisis. A combination of social, economic and political
problems has created a time bomb of human rights abuses [across the world]," said Irene Khan, the group's secretary general. "There are growing signs of political unrest and violence, adding to the global insecurity that already exists because of deadly conflicts
we are sitting on a powder keg of inequality, injustice and
insecurity, and it is about to explode
which the international community seems unable or unwilling to resolve. In other words:
," she wrote in the introduction to Amnesty's report on the situation of human rights in the world. The crisis, which has been widely qualified as the worst in many
decades, has brought recession to many parts of the world and left many people out of work. Subsequently, protests took place in several countri es worldwide, but the protests were often met with tough responses, the report notes. "We may well end up in a
situation where recession could be accompanied by greater repression as beleaguered governments – particularly those with an authoritarian bent – clamp down harshly on dissent, criticism and public exposure of corruption and economic mismanagement," Ms
The study found that the crisis had increased the deprivation and the stigmatisation of
certain communities – such as the Roma, as well as diverted governments' intention from human rights
problems
a negative impact on their immigration and asylum policies
Khan wrote. Roma targeted
also
and has had
. "Roma have remained largely excluded from public life in all countries, unable
to enjoy full access to housing, education, employment and health services. The adverse economic situation seemed to provide fertile ground for old stereotypes of Roma to be exploited by elements hostile to them," the document said. Several European countries
– Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Italy, Serbia – recorded serious cases of ill treatment of people of Roma origin and practically none has noted an improvement in that respect. "In Europe, the Roma face the most profound and systematic discrimination and
The economic downturn has also started to show a
tendency for a tougher policy towards refugees, asylum seekers and migrants
Spain and Italy signed agreements
such agreements act as a license for
more human rights violations in the transit countries
sets a dangerous precedent for EU member states." Meanwhile in Greece,
the treatment of irregular migrants and asylum-seekers continued to violate
international standards,"
A call for 'new global deal' on human rights In the face of a worsening
human rights situation worldwide, the EU itself "remains ambivalent on its commitment to human rights,"
marginalisation, excluded from public life, segregated in schools and ghettos, facing hostility and violence." Harder immigration policies
. "Last year borders pushed outwards from Europe into Africa as
countries like
with Mauritania and Libya to stop people from entering Europe, and
," Ms Khan warned. An Italian move to return migrants rescued at sea to Libya "without proper examination of their protections needs"
is against the country's obligations under refugee law and "
"despite new
legislation on the asylum process and conditions of reception of migrants,
the report said.
Amnesty concluded. "Europe too often lacked political leadership to ensure the protection of human rights in the region, with many of its states also lacking the political will to live up to their obligations," it went on. The organisation urges the EU to "shoulder its
responsibility in fighting against discrimination, poverty and insecurity" and calls on governments worldwide to act to set up "a new global deal on human rights." "The world doesn't need another treaty, the world doesn't need any more paper promises –
what it needs is real commitment and concrete action from governments
," Amnesty says.
15
Georgetown 2009
Immigrant Detention Aff
Katzoff
1AC
HARSH IMMIGRATION POLICIES TARGETED AT THE BALKANS ARE DESTROYING THE EU’S
LEVERAGE—WILL RESULT IN A NEW ROUND OF DESTABILIZATION.
European Policy Center 03
(http://www.epc.eu/en/ce.asp?AI=337&LV=177&PG=CE/EN/detail&TYP=CE&l=3&see=y&t=42)
The Balkans have been stamped a 'success story' and largely forgotten by the
international community
but remains a volatile region
The EU is in a unique position to defuse the powder keg
Defusing the Balkans Powder Keg
, preoccupied with fighting global terrorism elsewhere in the world,
, which needs increased and coherent support, argues Misha
Glenny.
, putting an end to organised crime and trafficking, with an added positive effect for the strained transatlantic
partnership. <Card Continues> Over hundreds of years, the Balkans has become a specialised transit route – this is a real cultural legacy. The core activity of Balkan organised crime syndicates is transferring illicit goods, services and people across borders – they
are the Henry Fords and Jack Welches of this game. The only people from the Balkans that the ‘Fortress Europe’ keeps out are those who want to engage in honest activities on the labour markets of the EU. Our policy here is not working – it is not stopping the
Although labour
immigration from South Eastern Europe into the EU is strikingly low, this has not prevented the
emergence of some extremely negative stereotypes in many Member States
this phenomenon
has
contributed significantly to the persistence of a strong sense of antipathy felt towards the
Balkans and its peoples in several Member States.
Albanian-run brothels; it is not stopping the Serbian mafia from supplying heroin to Frankfurt; by maintaining such a strict visa regime vis-à-vis the western Balkans, we are quite simply compounding the problem.
(SEE)
. Although hard to quantify,
, I believe,
Nonetheless, the arguments for easing access of SEE citizens to EU labour markets are compelling and clearly mutually benefic ial.
The economic requirements of the SEE and the EU are complementary – the latter needs to replenish its labour force, the former needs to alleviate unemployment and find ways of injecting liquidity into the local economi es. In a system of managed migration,
workers are removed from criminal activities, they pay taxes in the host country, they contribute to their own economy both in terms of remittances, and also in returning home with skills learned in a more dynamic labour market. Furthermore, the acceptance of
Romania and Bulgaria into Schengen has meant that western Balkan citizens no longer have free access to these two, creating a major obstacle to the goal of regional cooperation which the EU claims is central to both the east and western Balkans if they wish to
be considered serious candidates for membership. What the tough visa policy does not do is have any impact on organised crime whatsoever. It is not stopping the Albanian-run brothels; it is not stopping the Serbian mafia from supplying heroin in Frankfurt. The
Balkan mafias are already here with sufficient funds and skills to circumvent any visa regime with ludicrous ease. The Stabilisation and Association Process: More than window-dressing Let me now address the central issue of the Stabilisation and Association
(SAP) process. When I recently published my article in The Guardian entitled Kosovo: EU Asleep at the Wheel, I received an astonishing number of emails from various shafts in the deep mines of Brussels’ bureaucracy accusing me of being unfair because I had
ignored the historic decisions made at the Thessaloniki Summit in June. At this event, the EU bestowed on the region what was effectively a rhetorical commitment to eventual membership. The SAP, they continued, is an effective and proper process. Let me
explain what the SAP looks like in the region – it is as if you were sitting on a deserted railway platform with a rusty sign swinging in the wind and weeds smothering the track. Every six months or so on the glistening outside track (inaccessible but visible to all our
Balkan commuters heading nowhere), a Eurostar shoots past at astonishing speed, with lots of happy faces waving furiously from inside the warm carriages. Barely audible our would-be passengers think they hear the words, ‘Hello! Nice to see you! See you soon,
Neither governments nor people in South Eastern Europe can see any
concrete evidence that they are wanted in the European Union or that they even really part of the longterm plans. Europe needs to start addressing the issue of alienation more seriously. The EU needs to sell
itself – it is not just a bureaucratic process.
The EU has virtually no input in this
process
maybe.’ Before, that is, they are left with the echo of a ghostly dream.
It is a vision. NATO is selling itself in the region.
– indeed, with the exception of technical assistance offered by the British Ministry of Defence, Europe has no input in this process. This is an American project, driven almost exclusively by the indefatigable Bruce Jackson. Now, I don’t suppose
that Macedonian NATO membership amounts to much with regard to the Euro-Atlantic Alliance’s defence capability. But it makes Macedonians feel part of something bigger, feel more secure and it allows the Albanians of Macedonia to feel that they have some
advantages in being Macedonian citizens as opposed to citizens of Albania or, heaven forbid, a Republic of Kosovo. I am tired of travelling from Belgrade to Skopje to Tetovo to Tirana and seeing the misery and the poverty cheek by jowl with the rest of Europe’s
We treat the Balkans like an idiot cousin, undoubtedly of our blood but locked away in the shed
at the bottom of the garden when polite company comes to call. Europe can defuse the powder keg
unprecedented affluence.
But I
believe deeply that the European Union is a visionary project (and I realise this puts me at odds with a number of my compatriots), so let me offer a vision that is in our easy grasp. As the talks on Kosovo are now beginning, let us use this opportunity to shore up the
most ambitious peace project since the Second World War. Let us defuse Europe’s Powder Keg. This is a region of just over 20 million people, less than half the size of Poland. It is home to a highly educated and cheap labour force that would rejoice at the
opportunity of doing honest work instead of loading cartons of untaxed cigarettes into trucks bound for Western Europe. With a little coaxing, it can be transformed into an integrated market that Romania and Bulgaria will happily join – that is already a large market
We all agree. Defusing the
Powder Keg would allow America to free up its troops, and it would allow Europe to boast that it has
cleaned up its back yard in a fashion that the United States cannot do. Hard power and soft power could
claim equal credit for a fifteen year peace process that would have implications beyond our region.
and one with excellent connections to neighbouring Turkey. Not only is this viable if the political will is there, but it contains no conflict of interests between Europe and the United States on this.
This is not an
argument for conferring membership on the western Balkans in one fell swoop in the near future. It means adjusting the current mechanisms of integration so that they include tangible benefits both for ordinary citizens but crucially as we begin to confront the
Otherwise, the risk of economic and social
determination in the southern Balkans is simply too great and the issue of Albanian irredentism will lead
to a new round of destabilisation
Kosovo issue, benefits for politicians in the region so that they can persuade their electorates to accept difficult political compromises.
. That would be ten times more costly than the modest readjustment and strengthening of assistance programmes as proposed by think tanks like the European Stability
Initiative which would go a long way towards taking out the political sting of underdevelopment in South Eastern Europe.
GLOBAL NUCLEAR WAR
Baker 95 (James, Former Secretary of State, http://www.hri.org/news/forpapers/95-04-30.frp)
The first great European conflict of this century began in the Balkans. Unless we are careful, so may the
last
we could see the outbreak of a general Balkan war that could draw in the European powers and even the
United States
The strategic importance of Macedonia transcends its size
. Three years after the beginning of war in Bosnia, international attention remains riveted on the fate of that tragic nation. But Macedonia is perhaps an even more dangerous fash point in the Balkans. Unless the international c ommunity takes strong action
. And there will be no such strong action without firm U.S. leadership.
, about
that of Vermont, and its population, just a fraction more than 2 million. It looms large because of the Balkans' unforgiving geography and Macedonia's own volatile ethnic mix. Tension between the country's Macedonian majority and Albanian minority -estimated at
between 20% and 40%- already runs high.
Should
this
tension escalate into civil war
, it might prompt intervention from Albania to the west. Conflict could spread across Macedonia's northern border with
West
Europeans, the United States and even Russia could be forced to pick sides -with disastrous
consequences for the peace of Europe
there is far more than humanitarianism at issue
The U.S. has fought three European wars in the century -two hot and one cold- and three are enough.
We should have learned by now that we cannot ignore a fundamental challenge to continental stability. If
general instability occurs in Europe -and a deterioration of the situation in Macedonia risks precisely thatthe U.S. will become involved whether we like it or not.
Serbia -where there is a large and restive Albanian population in Kosovo. Greece, already consumed by an angry dispute with Macedonia, migh t be tempted to become involved. Turkey, Bulgaria and others could follow. Under such a scenario, the
. The Clinton Administration is clearly aware of the risks in Macedonia but appears unwilling to take decisive action necessary to address them. <Card Continues> If
we do not move quickly, there could be a repeat of the Bosnian humanitarian nightmare, as Macedonia plunges into chaos. But
for U.S. policy-
makers.
It is better to accept the cost of deterrence now than pay the price of broader conflict later.
16
Georgetown 2009
Immigrant Detention Aff
Katzoff
1AC
AND THIS WOULD CREATE A BLACK HOLE OF TERRORISM.
NYT 01 (http://www.amerikabrev.nu/index.asp?page=artiklar&read=14)
For 10 years, the Balkans have presented Europe and America with one of their greatest foreign policy challenges. The aftermath of four violent conflicts has consumed billions of taxpayers' dollars in aid. In March 1999, the Balkans triggered the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization's first war, almost 50 years to the day after the alliance was founded. And bitter disputes over Balkan policy occasionally threatened the foundations of America's relations with Europe and, indeed, harmony within Europe. That is quite a record
for a single decade. After Sept. 11, however,
nobody can afford the luxury of a fractious Balkans.
The United States and Europe feel compelled to divert political, military and financial
resources away from the region and into their struggle against terrorism. The Balkan countries have a simple choice. All aspire to membership in the European Union, but unless they cooperate among themselves to stabilize the region, they will be moving in the
opposite direction. Just wishing for concord among the Balkan nations will not make it happen. The problems they face are very real and very dangerous. The former Yugoslavia is a jumble of chronically weak states and quasi-protectorates run by the international
community's ill-disciplined army of acronyms -- SFOR, KFOR and the rest. The greatest beneficiaries of this disorganization are criminal mafias, that have constructed huge n etworks based on the trade in illegal immigrants, prostitutes, weapons, drugs and, above
all, cigarettes. These mafias do not recognize national boundaries. The Serbian underworld cooperates as happily with Albanian gangsters as it does with Bosnian or Croat tough guys. So influential has this web of crime become that the Sicilian mafia has retreated
from its operations in central and northern Italy, which are now dominated by Balkan gangs. The NATO secretary general, Lord Robertson, hit the nail on the head earlier this week when he said that
become another ''black hole'' of terrorism like Afghanistan
the Balkans must not
. Mr. Robertson did not mean that the Muslims of the region would take up the anti-American cause. You will not find
When
guns and the black market form the backbone of society, they attract all sorts of dubious characters who
can easily avoid the attention of the state's overstretched police forces. It is easy for terrorists to hide. And
given the Balkans' proximity to Western Europe, it is a very handy place to plot
the Balkan states
cannot be ignored
more committed pro-American communities anywhere in Europe than the two Muslim nations of the Balkans: the Albanians and the Bosnians. But in a region where $30 buys you not just a counterfeit passport but a real one, that is not the issue.
. So although
longer a primary foreign policy consideration, they
are no
. The international community and the Balkan powers have to shape up. The former must learn within the next few weeks to speak with one voice. Until now, its
members have often spoken with so many tongues as to be unintelligible. In Macedonia, for example, until last May American and European policies were hopelessly out of step with one another. Extremists on both the Macedonian and the Albanian sides exploited
this. Washington and Brussels now agree broadly that the European Union should be primarily responsible for developing a coherent political and economic strategy to assist the Balkans . Chris Patten and Javier Solana, the E.U.'s foreign policy chiefs, need to
establish a small, tightly knit unit to create policy, to talk to the regional governments, to cooperate closely with America and to maintain a dialogue with the Russians. If polic y is not streamlined, failure is inevitable. Of course, Balkan countries have to pull their
weight, too. They need to articulate their long-term needs more effectively. Governments have to quit the debilitating habit of seeking short-term benefits from the West. Here, they can learn from each other. For beyond the narrow, inefficient central governments,
there has grown a rich and vigorous Balkan civil society that is breaking down barriers and offering solutions. Think tanks joined in the Southeast European Policy Institute Network, refugee support groups and other charities, and independent newspaper and
television and radio stations (particularly the members of Anem, the Association of Independent Media) are showing the way toward cooperation across borders and ethnic lines. There are encouraging signs that governments wish to follow that path. If they do, the
Time is short. Macedonia is still in crisis. Kosovo is a mess. In the southern
Balkans, Slav-Albanian relations threaten almost everywhere to collapse into conflict. A monumental
effort is needed to prevent the Balkans from turning into a black hole of terrorism, but that effort can and
must be made.
politics of identity may at last yield to the politics of interests.
EXTINCTION
Yonah Alexander, professor and director of the Inter-University for Terrorism Studies, 8/28/03
(Washington Times, l/n)
Last week's brutal suicide bombings in Baghdad and Jerusalem have once again illustrated dramatically
that the international community failed, thus far at least, to understand the magnitude and implications of
the terrorist threats to the very survival of civilization itself.Even the United States and Israel have for
decades tended to regard terrorism as a mere tactical nuisance or irritant rather than a critical
strategic challenge to their national security concerns.It is not surprising, therefore, that on September 11, 2001, Americans were stunned by the unprecedented tragedy of 19 al Qaeda
terrorists striking a devastating blow at the center of the nation's commercial and military powers.Likewise, Israel and its citizens, despite the collapse of the Oslo Agreements of 1993 and numerous acts of
terrorism triggered by the second intifada that began almost three years ago, are still "shocked" by each suicide attack at a time of intensive diplomatic efforts to revive the moribund peace process through the
now revoked cease-fire arrangements [hudna]. Why are the United States and Israel, as well as scores of other countries affected by the universal nightmare of modern terrorism surprised by new terrorist
"surprises"?There are many reasons, including misunderstanding of the manifold specific factors that contribute to terrorism's expansion, such as lack of a universal definition of terrorism, the religionization of
politics, double standards of morality, weak punishment of terrorists, and the exploitation of the media by terrorist propaganda and psychological warfare.Unlike their historical counterparts,
contemporary terrorists have introduced a new scale of violence in terms of conventional and
unconventional threats and impact.The internationalization and brutalization of current and future
terrorism make it clear we have entered an Age of Super Terrorism [e.g. biological, chemical, radiological,
nuclear and cyber] with its serious implications concerning national, regional and global security
concerns.[continues]Thus, it behooves those countries victimized by terrorism to understand a cardinal
message communicated by Winston Churchill to the House of Commons on May 13, 1940: "Victory at all costs, victory in spite of terror, victory however long and hard the road may be: For
without victory, there is no survival."
17
Georgetown 2009
Immigrant Detention Aff
Katzoff
1AC
SCENARIO 2: SOUTH AFRICA
SOUTH AFRICA IS A REGIONAL LEADER, BUT MUST MAINTAIN HUMAN RIGHTS CREDIBILITY.
Wheeler 07 (Tom, Research Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations,
http://www.cfr.org/publication/12992/is_south_africa_living_up_to_its_responsibility_as_africas_leader.ht
ml?breadcrumb=%2Fregion%2F151%2Fsouthern_africa)
South Africa has taken positions on better governance at the global as well as the continental level. While
it has made some very substantive contributions to peace and security in Africa, some of its own
shortcomings will invariably be held up to scrutiny because of its strong pronouncements on
democracy, governance, and human rights. South Africa’s responsibility is not only at the global level, but
begins at home. The African Peer Review Mechanism was mainly a South African idea and one that
twenty-six African states have signed up to.
SOUTH AFRICA IS EXPERIENCING A WAVE OF XENOPHOBIC VIOLENCE DRIVEN BY
INSTITUTIONALIZED GOVERNMENT PRACTICES THAT DEPRIVE IMMIGRANTS OF RIGHTS—
DESTROYS SOUTH AFRICA’S MORAL AUTHORITY.
Landau et al 09 (Loren B., Director of Forced Migration Studies Program at University of Witwatersrand,
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/events/docs/Addressing%20Violence%20against%20Foreign%20Nationals_I
OM.pdf)
Violence against foreign nationals did not begin with the May 2008 attacks.
For many
previous attacks were an unfortunate but largely
insignificant by-product of South Africa’s rapid social transformation
This perception was
rapidly dislodged in May 2008. The ferocity, intensity and scale of the violence against outsiders
were extraordinary in both their scope and the attention they attracted. What started as but another
isolated anti-foreigner attack in Alexandra
quickly spread to other townships and informal
settlements across the country
Although initially condemned by actors across the
political spectrum, the violence has rapidly faded from public debate. This is a mistake. What happened
reflects deep tensions and dysfunctions in contemporary South African
society and politics. If not addressed, the fractures and incentives that led to the 2008 killings could have
grave consequences in the months and years ahead. The casualties will not only be South Africa’s poor
and dispossessed residents, but also the country’s moral authority and ability to achieve the unity,
stability and reputation for which it strives.
Xenophobia, economic
inequality, and a culture of violence are endemic to South Africa. However, it is the micro-politics of
township life
translates them into violence
primary factors that promote the
initiation and continuation of anti-outsider violence. Institutionalised attitudes and practices that
dehumanise foreign nationals
and exclude them from access to social protection and rights
Since 1994, hundreds of people have been harassed, attacked, or killed
because of their status as outsiders or non-nationals.
within and outside of government,
and integration into the global economy.
on 11 May,
.1 After two weeks, and the deployment of the army, the melee had subsided. In its wake, 62 people were reported dead; at least 670 wounded; dozens raped2; more than 100 000
displaced; and millions of Rand worth of property looted, destroyed or appropriated by local residents (CoRMSA, 2008).
in
May 2008 – involving the murders of both South Africans and foreign nationals –
<Card Continues> The report confirms the adage that ‘all politics is local.’
that turn these divides into resources and
. This report identifies four
and/or minority groups
;
Political leadership vacuums and competition in community leadership that encourage the emergence of parallel and self -serving leadership structures; A lack of trusted, prompt and effective conflict resolution mechanisms that leads to vigilantism and mob justice;
There are
areas of political
action that illustrate how non-nationals have been turned into the violable alien: legal status and
documentation; related practices associated with arrest, detention, and deportation; and a more general
lack of access to constitutional protections through the court and political processes.
What
separates non-nationals is the degree to which exclusion is both bureaucratically and socially
institutionalised
it is not only the material acts of marginalisation – imprisonment, denial of services, or harassment
but also the nationalist discourse evoked to legitimise and explain them.
and A culture of impunity with regard to public violence in general and xenophobic violence in particular that encour ages the ill intentioned to attack non-nationals. <Card Continues>
at least three
Taken singly, none of these exclusions are unique to
non-nationals; many of the poor are similarly marginalised. Those from historically disempowered populations – particularly Shangaans, Vendas, and Pedis – often face enormous challenges in claiming full citizenship within the country’s cities.
. Although there are opportunities for transgression through corruption or other forms of subversion and subterfuge (for instance, passing as a local), the barriers to social and political membership are almost insurmountable. In
– that
all cases,
matter,
This is not the place to review the full range of exclusionary tendencies
within South African politics and society. Rather, we wish to highlight that many of the attitudes and much of the language used during the May 2008 attacks draw directly from political rhetoric espoused by leaders across the political spectrum. In some instances,
spurious claims and estimates of the number of foreigners and their alleged negative socio-economic impact on South Africa have helped drive xenophobic sentiments. For example, former Home Affairs Minister Mangosuthu Buthelezi said in 1997: South Africa is
faced with another threat, and that is the SADC ideology of free movement of people, free trade and freedom to choose where you live or work. Free movement of persons spells disaster for our country. Former Director-General of Home Affairs, Billy Masetlha
(2002) commented on migrants involvement in criminal activities in the following way: Approximately 90 per cent of foreign persons who are in RSA with fraudulent documents, i.e., either citizenship or migration documents, are involved in other crimes as well… it is
In politics, perception drives action
and these statements, however inflated or irresponsible, have helped ensure that prejudice against
foreigners is endemic in South Africa
The legacy of such top-level
attitudes is difficult to shake off
quicker to charge these criminals for their false documentation and then to deport them than to pursue the long route in respect of the other crimes that are committed.
(see Crush and Williams 2001; Palmary 2002; Newham, Masuku & Dlamini 2006).
despite the more tolerant ethos promoted by current Home Affairs Minister, Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula and Deputy Home Affairs Minister, Malusi Gigaba (SAGI 2004). Such attitudes are
18
Georgetown 2009
Immigrant Detention Aff
Katzoff
1AC
also deeply entrenched among the police. A 2006 police diversity survey found ‘pervasive xenophobic attitudes among police officers’: 87% of police believed most undocumented migrants in Johannesburg are involved in crime, and over 78% believed that
foreigners caused a lot of crime regardless of immigration status (Newham, Masuku & Dlamini 2006). According to Palmary (2002), the attitudes of police officials may fuel existing levels of xenophobia among South African communities, because senior police
officials can be important opinion-makers, as can any public service official who uses a public platform to espouse unfounded anti-foreigner sentiments. Xenophobia in the public service also limits the likelihood that non-national victims will report crimes because
Although anti-foreigner violence has been common in South Africa
since the end of Apartheid, it reached a new peak of intensity
they are often victimised or treated with indifference by the same authorities. <Card Continues>
in May and June 2008. A brief outline of the attacks reported during this period follows. <Card
Continues> While there are broad structural and historical explanations that are of critical relevance, notably the legacy of previous regimes and the continued institutional discrimination, this study confirms that the emergence of xenophobic violence is typically
The study
finds little evidence to support early accounts and common hypotheses that blamed the eruption of the
violence on factors such as the existence of
poor border control, changes in national political
leadership, and rising food and commodity prices.
Instead, it identifies
Institutionalised
xenophobic attitudes and practices that continue to dehumanise foreign nationals in the country
rooted in the micro-politics of township life. It finds that violence against foreigners was organised and led by local groups and individuals as an attempt to appropriate local state authority for localised political and economic interests.
a ‘third force’,
While these factors may have contributed to generalised tensions, they cannot explain the emergence of violence in some places and not
others.
a number of factors and conditions that helped translate prevailing xenophobic attitudes into anti-foreigner violence. These include:
;
Political leadership vacuums and competition in community leadership that allow • the emergence of parallel and self-serving leadership structures; A lack of trusted, prompt and effective conflict resolution mechanisms that leads • to vigilantism and mob justice; A
culture of impunity with regard to public violence in general and xenophobic • violence in particular, that continues to encourage the ill-intentioned to attack non-nationals for a variety of reasons; Limited knowledge among communities and leaders of the country’s
immigration • laws and policies that leads to criminalisation of foreign nationals; Local authorities’ support and enforcement of illegal practices that, while • violating the law, reinforce communities’ resentment towards non-compliant foreign nationals. In terms of
immediate responses to the threat and outbreak of violence, the study finds that local leaders and police were in most cases reluctant to intervene for different reasons including: i) the fact that they share the same attitudes with the general community and also
wanted foreign nationals to leave; ii) their fear of victimization; and iii) their fear of losing legitimacy and political positions in the forthcoming elections.
SOUTH AFRICAN LEADERSHIP IS CRUCIAL TO REGIONAL STABILITY.
Habib and Selinyane 06 (Executive director of the democracy and governance research programme of
the Human Sciences Research Council, Doctoral fellow of the Centre for Civil Society of the University of
KwaZulu-Natal, “South Africa; Why SA Should Rule Regional Roost”, lexis)
SA's role should be one of hegemon. Simply being a pivotal state means rejecting the role of leadership.
This is not in SA's interests, nor those of the region. Stability in the region, and, as a result,
development and democracy, will be achieved only when a regional hegemon is prepared to
underwrite these objectives. So long as that does not happen, SA's economic goals will remain
compromised. For, as President Thabo Mbeki has often stated, the fate of a democratic SA is inextricably
bound up with what happens on the continent. Analysts often assume or imply that SA's foreign policy is
consistent and homogeneous, whereas this is clearly not the case. In some cases, it has acted in a
hegemonic manner to establish and guarantee stability, while in others it has hesitated to intervene effectively. SA's
lack of leadership has been most patent in its relations with Mobutu Sese Seko's Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of Congo),
Zimbabwe, and Swaziland -- in all cases initial hegemonic leadership was abandoned. As regards Zimbabwe and Swaziland, SA
has been condemned for its classic multilateralist stance: arguing that the problems of democracy can only be resolved by the
people of these countries, while pledging that it will only act within the Southern African Development Community (SADC)
framework, and with the blessing and co-operation of other SADC members. This has not stopped SA warding off international
condemnation of Zimbabwe's human rights and governance record. It may be more useful to typify SA's stance on Zimbabwe as
one of appeasement, and that on Swaziland as being informed by an absence of strategic interests. Given that SA needs
Zimbabwe's support to exercise regional leadership, and Zimbabwe shares Swaziland's despotic credentials, it becomes practically
inadvisable for SA to adopt a tough stance towards the latter.
THE IMPACT IS GLOBAL NUCLEAR WAR---AFRICA IS THE MOST LIKELY REGION FOR GREAT
POWER PROXY WARS
Jeffrey Deutsch, PhD and political risk consultant and Founder, Rabid Tiger Project, 11/18/02
(http://www.rabidtigers.com/rtn/newsletterv2n9.html)
The Rabid Tiger Project believes that a nuclear war is most likely to start in Africa. Civil wars
and domestic instability
Geopolitically speaking,
Africa is open range. Very few countries in Africa are beholden to any particular power.
outside powers can more easily find client states
Thus, an African war can attract outside
involvement very quickly
a proxy war alone may not induce the Great Powers to fight each other. But
an African nuclear strike can ignite a much broader conflagration
in the Congo (the country formerly known as Zaire), Rwanda,
in Zimbabwe, Sudan and other countries, as well as occasional brushfire and other wars (thanks in part to “national” borders that cut across tribal ones) turn into a really nasty
Somalia and Sierra Leone,
stew. We’ve got all too many rabid tigers and potential rabid tigers, who are willing to push the button rather than risk being seen as wishy-washy in the face of a mortal threat and overthrown.
South Africa is a major exception in this
respect - not to mention in that she also probably already has the Bomb. Thus,
there than, say, in Europe where the political lines have long
since been drawn, or Asia where many of the countries (China, India, Japan) are powers unto themselves and don’t need any “help,” thank you.
. Of course,
, if the other powers are interested in a fight. Certainly, such a strike would in the first place have been
facilitated by outside help - financial, scientific, engineering, etc. Africa is an ocean of troubled waters, and some people love to go fishing.
19
Georgetown 2009
Immigrant Detention Aff
Katzoff
TB IMPACTS
TB COLLAPSES THE ECONOMY
Thomas, 5
(Chris, Writer for the World Health Organization (WHO), April 08, 2005,
http://www.usaid.gov/press/frontlines/fl_apr05/pillars.htm )
TB tends to threaten the poorest and most marginalized groups of people. It disrupts the social
fabric of society and slows or undermines gains in economic development. An overwhelming 98
percent of the 2 million annual TB deaths—and some 95 percent of all new cases—occur in developing
countries. On average, TB causes three to four months of lost work time and lost earnings for a
household. USAID has been a key player in the Stop TB Partnership, an effort of more than 350 partner
governments and organizations. Aside from funding, the Agency invests in the Stop TB Partnership and
GDF by providing technical support. This helps poor countries improve their drug management systems,
trains local TB experts, and helps health ministries draw up comprehensive TB strategies. USAID has
been particularly involved in administering DOTS, a system of observing people while they take the full
course of medicine to prevent drug-resistant strains from developing.
TIME FRAME/PROBABILITY
Lite, 9 (Jordan, April 1, Scientific American)
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=drug-resistant-tuberculosis-atime-2009-04-01
The growing prevalence of drug-resistant tuberculosis is a "potentially explosive situation," the World
Health Organization's director general, Margaret Chan, said today at the opening of a three-day meeting on the problem.Representatives from 27
countries affected by multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) and extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis (XDRTB) are gathering in Beijing to discuss how to address the trend. MDR-TB is resistant to first-line drugs; XDR-TB doesn’t respond to
those meds or second-line therapies. More than 500,000 MDR-TB cases occur annually—only 3 percent of them treated according to WHO standards—and XDR-TB exists in
more than 50 countries, the agency says. People with HIV, whose immune systems are already weakened by the AIDS-causing virus, are at increased risk of TB. "Call it what you
may—a time bomb or a powder keg," Chan said today, according to the Associated Press. "Any way
you look at it, this is a potentially explosive situation."
20
Georgetown 2009
Immigrant Detention Aff
Katzoff
HR LEADERSHIP ADV EXT.
ABUSES AT IMMIGRANT DETENTION FACILITIES ARE INTERNATIONALLY PERCEIVED
Lovato 08 (Robert, Associate Editor with New America Media and contributor to The Nation Magazine,
Los Angeles Times, Salon, Der Spiegel, Utne Magazine, La Opinion, Commentator and Source on
Univision, CNN, PBS, Bill Moyers Journal, Former Executive Director of CARECEN,
http://ofamerica.wordpress.com/2008/06/18/the-guantanamization-of-immigrant-detention)
Ahmad’s story will not shock anyone familiar with stories of death, violence and other abuse coming out
of Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and other offshore military detention facilities holding men in orange prison
uniforms. But what makes his story noteworthy is that it reflects how many of these same offshore
practices are now being perpetrated against detainees held within the borders of the United States: the
hundreds of thousands of immigrants held in one of the growing number of detention facilities run by the
Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency
(ICE), the most militarized branch of the U.S. government besides the Pentagon. To protest what they consider the increasingly cruel and
inhuman conditions and practices in the ICE detention facilities, Ahmad and thousands of activists are organizing the Night of 1000 Conversations, a series of vigils, town halls, house meetings and other events which will take place in over 250 towns and cities
Among the principal concerns
is nothing less than a
“Guantanamization” of migrant detention within the borders of the United States: death, abuse and
neglect at the hands of detention facility guards
the prolonged and
indefinite detention of thousands including children and families
as they languish in
filthy, overcrowded and extremely unhealthy facilities
across the country on June 19th .
to be discussed during the nationwide events are what critics say,
(many of whom are former military personnel who served in Iraq and Afghanistan);
denied due process and other fundamental rights
; orange-uniformed detainees sedated with psychotropic drugs, attacked by growling dogs and physically and sexually abused by
guards; multi-million government contracts for prison construction and management given to high-powered, military industrial and prison industrial giants like Halliburton and the Utah-based Management and Training Corporation, whose former director set up the
infamous Abu Ghraib detention facility. Jamil Dakwar, director of the Human Rights Division of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), is currently at
Guantanamo
detention practices
have now
the lack of respect for human
, outside one of the notorious Military Commission hearings created as a result
of the recently rescinded (but still being implemented) law that denied the right to habeas corpus to both military and immigrant facility detainees. Dakwar sees clearly how
crept onto detention facilities on the mainland.
dignity for persons held in
immigration facilities
on the island
“The general lack of accountability and oversight, the secrecy,
military and
, the lack of legally binding standards regulating treatment of persons in both (military and immigrant) facilities—all of this leads to the
abuses we’re now seeing in both” said Dakwar, adding, “In cases of people who die while in custody, for example, the government makes it extremely difficult to impossible to find out who is responsible for conditions that lead to the killing or other loss of life.” For
her part, Dakwar’s ALCU colleague, Amrit Singh, a staff attorney who has worked on different cases involving people detained by the Pentagon in Guantanamo and people held in ICE detention facilities believes that “Noncitizen detainees at home and abroad are
part of the same continuum of mistreatment. The dogs used on detainees in the New Jersey [immigrant] detention facilities look very similar to the dogs used on detainees in Abu Ghraib and Iraq.” In the case of both the military and immigrant detention facilities,
says Singh, the Bush Administration has used national security imperatives to deny many of the Freedom of Information Act r equests she and her colleagues have filed in their efforts to find out things like how people are being treated in detention, under what
conditions did detainees die and what kind of medical treatment they are receiving. Asked about progress towards answer ing these and other questions, Singh responded, “The answer to these questions are still not being made available to us.”
connections between abuse and death in
international community
military and
immigration facilities has
also
The
caught the eye of the
. Singh, Darwit and some of the groups and individuals participating in the Night of 1000 Conversations, will be submitting testimony to a United Nations Special Rapporteur who, in the next two
weeks, will visit several U.S. cities as he investigates deaths in both overseas detention facilities and in U.S. prisons and immigration detention facilities.
21
Georgetown 2009
Immigrant Detention Aff
Katzoff
HR LEADERSHIP ADV EXT.
U.S. RIGHTS CREDIBILITY IS KEY TO GLOBAL RESPECT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS.
Powel, Associate Prof of Law @ Fordham, 8 (Catherine, American Constitutional Society, October)
http://www.acslaw.org/files/C%20Powell%20Blueprint.pdf
As a new Administration takes office in January 2009, it will have an opportunity to reaffirm and
strengthen the longstanding commitment of the United States to human rights at home and abroad. This
commitment is one that has been expressed throughout U.S. history, by leaders from both parties. In reality, however, when the idea of human rights is discussed in the United States today, more often than not
, human rights has come to be seen as a purely international
concern, even though it is fundamentally the responsibility of each nation to guarantee basic rights for its
own people, as a matter of domestic policy. Reaffirming and implementing the U.S. commitment to human
rights at home is critical for two reasons. First, human rights principles are at the core of America’s
founding values, and Americans (as well as others within our borders or in U.S. custody), no less than others
around the world, are entitled to the full benefit of these basic guarantees . That can hardly be open to debate. The second reason is
perhaps less obvious, but equally compelling. When the United States fails to practice at home what it
preaches to others, it loses credibility and undermines its ability to play an effective leadership role
in the world. Leading through the power of our example rather than through the example of our power3
is particularly critical now, at a juncture when the United States needs to cultivate international cooperation to address pressing issues – such as the current economic downturn – that
the focus is on the promotion of human rights abroad and not at home. Indeed
have global dimensions. Perhaps not surprisingly, then, an overwhelming majority of Americans strongly embrace the notion of human rights: that is, the idea that every person has basic rights regardless of
there remains a gap between the human rights ideals that the
United States professes and its actual domestic practice, resulting in both a gap in credibility and a
weakening of U.S. moral authority to lead by example. Human rights include the right to be free from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading
whether or not the government recognizes those rights.4Continues… Even so,
treatment, and yet the United States has committed such acts in the name of counterterrorism efforts. Human rights include the rights to emergency shelter, food, and water, as well as security of person, and yet
Human rights include the right to equality of opportunity,
and yet inequalities persist in access to housing, education, jobs, and health care. Human rights include the right to equality in the application of law
the United States failed to adequately guarantee these rights in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
enforcement measures, and yet there are gross racial disparities in the application of the death penalty, and racial and ethnic profiling has been used unfairly to target African Americans, Latinos, and those who
appear Arab, Muslim, South Asian, or immigrant (whether through traffic stops, airport screening, or immigration raids). Human rights include the right to equal pay and gender equality, and yet a pay gap persists
between female and male workers. Certainly, the journey to fully realizing human rights is a work-in-progress, but to make progress, we must work – through smart, principled policies that advance the ability of
the United States to live up to its own highest ideals. Thus, January 2009 should mark the beginning of a transition from a society that has condoned torture, cruel interrogation, and inhumane treatment of
We should make the transition from a
society that has tolerated little or no access to health care for certain individuals to a society that
recognizes access to health care for all as a basic right. We should make the transition from a society of structural inequality to one in which not only the very
highest glass ceilings are broken, but also in which sticky floors and broken ladders to opportunity are repaired. Marking the transition in this way is both
principled and in America’s self-interest.
detained terrorism suspects to a society that deems such conduct unacceptable – not only by other nations, but by our own.
22
Georgetown 2009
Immigrant Detention Aff
Katzoff
HR LEADERSHIP ADV EXT.
RESTORING ADEQUATE HEALTH CARE IS KEY TO UNITED STATES HUMAN RIGHTS
LEADERSHIP
AMANN 08 (6/13/08 Diane Marie Amann, Visiting Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley,
School of Law (Boalt Hall); Professor of Law, University of California, Davis, School of Law, “Symposium:
Human Rights in the United States” www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss21-2/171-182.pdf)
The debate respecting the extent of state responsibility, sometimes labeled the question of negative
versus positive liberties, is beyond the scope of this inquiry. Details of implementation are of secondary
concern; first, reaffirmation of America’s human rights tradition will have to stir in policymakers a sense of
obligation to act. In reclaiming that tradition the United States must address at once the most acute
problems. The United States thus must come to grips with the reality of violence in the lives of many
Americans, particularly in certain neighborhoods. Then it must work to reduce such violence through fair
and effective enforcement of criminal laws, through attention to rehabilitation as well as punishment, and
through preventive measures. It must fortify the educational system and work in particular to stanch early
departures from school, given the link between dropout rates and relegation to low paying, no-benefits
jobs. It must tackle the crisis in health and health care, produced in part by a failure of market forces to
assure Americans’ mental and physical wellbeing. It must trace the causes and desirability of income
inequalities. Finally, whenever domestic harms are shown to relate to attributes like race, ancestry,
country of birth, or similar factor, it must work to eliminate such iniquitous causes of inequality. Genuine
progress toward these domestic objectives surely would entrench the United States’ global role as a
promoter of human rights. In securing for its own people security at home and in the streets, better health
care and education, and freer political, cultural, and spiritual exercise, the United States would establish a
model for human rights protection worthy of international emulation. That, in turn, would give rise to a new
question: Who should draw attention to this fact?
PROVIDING HEALTH CARE WOULD REESTABLISH AMERICA’S HUMAN RIGHTS CREDIBILITY
AMANN 08 (6/13/08 Diane Marie Amann, Visiting Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley,
School of Law (Boalt Hall); Professor of Law, University of California, Davis, School of Law, “Symposium:
Human Rights in the United States” www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss21-2/171-182.pdf)
Though American rhetoric has tended to favor the bold stroke and the quick result, history shows human
rights unlikely to advance by such an approach. Measures taken abroad, in reliance on an “American
‘know-how’”47 ignorant of cultural complexities, have failed; indeed, in some cases such measures have
increased constraints on liberty. Recognition that the course of human rights seldom has run smooth
counsels care when acting to promote such rights. In the specific case of the United States, a twopronged strategy holds promise for a break from the tragic policies of its recent past. The first prong
would apply overseas. The United States should work to bolster existing international human rights
enforcement mechanisms, resorting to innovation only if mechanisms in place fail de- spite genuine
efforts at reinforcement; furthermore, it should help to strengthen means for enforcement within each
nation-state. The second prong would apply at home. The United States must redouble its commitment to
the liberty and security of each person, paying particular attention to street violence and steep rates of
imprisonment, to inequalities in income and among racial and other groups, and to inadequacies in health
care, education, and employment. Improvement of these persistent domestic problems would do much to
set the United States upon a truer course of global action in service of human rights.
23
Georgetown 2009
Immigrant Detention Aff
Katzoff
SOFT POWER IMPACT
US SOFT POWER HAS HIT ROCK BOTTOM BECAUSE OF HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS.
SHATTUCK 8 [John Shattuck, CEO of the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation and served as assistant
secretary of state for democracy, human rights and labor, and ambassador to the Czech Republic in the
Clinton administration; “How US can get its groove back,” Aug 2,
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/08/02/how_us_can_get_its_groo
ve_back/]
One of the biggest challenges facing the next president is how to restore US credibility in the world.
Despite military assets unparalleled in history, US global standing has hit rock bottom.
The United States government is widely perceived today to be a violator of human rights. A poll
conducted by the British Broadcasting Corp. last year in 18 countries on all continents revealed that 67
percent disapproved of US detention and interrogation practices in Guantanamo. Another poll in
Germany, Great Britain, Poland, and India found that majorities or pluralities condemned the United
States for torture and other violations of international law. A third poll by the Chicago Council on Foreign
Relations showed that majorities in 13 countries, including traditional allies, believe "the US cannot be
trusted to act responsibly in the world."
The gap between America's values and its actions has severely eroded US global influence. How does it
get it back?
24
Georgetown 2009
Immigrant Detention Aff
Katzoff
KEY TO GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS
US COMPLIANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW IS KEY TO INCREASING HUMAN RIGHTS
GLOBALLY
CASSEL 01 (Spring 2001, Douglass Cassel, Director of the Center for International Human Rights at
Northwestern University School of Law, Chicago Journal of International Law “International Human Rights
Law In Practice: Does International Human Rights Law Make a Difference?”
http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T680985
8309&format=GNBFI&sort=BOOLEAN&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T6809858312&cisb=22_T6809
858311&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=237721&docNo=1)
To some degree, as noted, these attributes of international law are not necessarily unique. Precision
might be demanded, for example, even in a political declaration. But in practice this unique combination
of attributes--commonality of terms, near universality of formal acceptance, legitimacy of adoption,
perceived reflection of international will, relative normative precision, increased expectations of
compliance, susceptibility to domestic legal enforcement, potential and uncertainty of international
enforcement, the additional stigma of violation, and moral clarity--enables international human rights law
to make a distinctive contribution in support of growing human rights consciousness, organizing, and
national legal and institutional development. Each of the other strands, in turn, reinforces the reach and
credibility of international human rights law. Public human rights consciousness gives international human
rights law more teeth, by imposing a cost on most governments--again excepting the most powerful--of
openly violating or being credibly accused of violating international human rights law. Nongovernmental
organizations are often the main users of enforcement procedures and the main lobbyists for stronger
treaties and enforcement procedures. n31 National human rights ombudsmen and courts, too, give
international law greater currency and credibility by invoking it. Reinforced by these interactions,
international human rights law is then even better positioned to contribute legitimizing force to these other
institutions. In other words, the interactions among strands in the rope are mutually reinforcing. The full
impact of international human rights law is not limited to its initial, indirect impact on rights protection,
through its strengthening of other strands in the rope, but also includes a secondary impact, made
possible by the reinforcement it receives from the other strands. Quantifying the ultimate benefit for rights protection of all these interacting
processes, or even demonstrating a clear qualitative impact, would require an enormously sophisticated methodology, coupled with a herculean effort to gather a range of data, much of which may not exist or
may not be reliable. Perhaps some day such an ambitious research agenda will be attempted. In the meantime, judgment, based on experience, and tested for plausibility against the leading international
relations-international law theories, is the best guide for policy. One way to detect the distinctive, indirect role of international law is to assume its absence. Without international human rights law--with only
national laws or international philosophical declarations--could we count on a comparable degree of universality, legitimacy and precision in human rights norms, and of stigma and risk of potential sanction for
violations? One would be hard pressed to make that case. IV. DIRECT IMPACT: Account should also be taken of the growing, non-negligible, direct impact of international human rights law. Unquestionably the
direct impact has been greatest in Europe, where it has grown recently and rapidly in a hospitable climate of democratic values and regional unification. In the Council of Europe, which has grown from the postwar democracies of Western Europe to its current embrace of some forty European states, the European Convention on Human Rights was adopted in 1950 and came into force in 1953. Not until the 1970s,
however, did its enforcement institutions--the European Commission and Court of Human Rights--have much business. After gaining public and governmental trust, they expanded their dockets and effectiveness
from the mid-1970s on. n32 By 1990 the European Court had come to play for Europe approximately the same role in safeguarding approximately the same set of basic rights, as the US [*132] Supreme Court
plays in enforcing constitutional rights among the fifty states, with comparable substantive outcomes and degrees of compliance. n33 As a result of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, not only
have individual plaintiffs been awarded damages, but European governments have revised legislation on such sensitive matters as media criticism of judicial proceedings, n34 national security measures against
The direct impact of international human rights law in Europe is
not only comparable to that of domestic constitutional law in developed democracies, but greater than
that of domestic law in nations where the rule of law has yet to take hold or is crippled by corruption.
While the European Court of Justice of the European Union mainly deals with economic and regulatory issues, it, too, has rendered important and effective rulings on such matters as
terrorists, n35 gay rights, n36 family rights, n37 and criminal justice procedures.
gender discrimination and rights of immigrants. n39 Outside Europe, however, the direct impact of international human rights law has been sporadic. The UN human rights system--developed largely since the
mid-1970s through state reporting requirements, special rapporteurs and experts who investigate and publish reports, and individual complaint procedures under several treaties--has been a useful strand in the
rope of human rights protection. It indirectly protects rights by reinforcing public awareness, exposing violations, legitimizing efforts by nongovernmental organizations and keeping issues of human rights on
diplomatic agendas. n40 Beyond a few exceptions--its contribution to the fall of apartheid in South Africa; human rights components of peacekeeping missions in countries ranging from El Salvador to East Timor;
ad hoc international or partly international criminal tribunals for the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Sierra Leone; and occasionally successful interventions in individual cases by rapporteurs and treaty [*133]
committees--the UN's direct impact on rights protection has been exceedingly modest. Two other regional systems merit mention. During the Cold War it could fairly be said that the Organization of American
States had an ineffectual human rights declaration since 1948, a mostly ineffectual Inter-American Commission on Human Rights since 1959, and an Inter-American Court of Human Rights with no contentious
caseload since 1979. Such successes as the system could claim--for example, documentation and exposure of Argentina's "dirty war" in 1980--were more diplomatic than legal in nature. By the late 1980s,
however, the Inter-American Human Rights legal system began to make claims of direct impact. n41 In 1988, ruling under the American Convention on Human Rights, the Inter-American Court delivered the first
of what are now a score of significant damage awards against states for violations of the right to life, and there are many more cases currently on its docket. Governments also began to accept substantial damage
awards in settlement negotiations with the commission. In the 1990s the commission and court began regularly to issue requests and orders for "precautionary measures" by governments to protect the lives of
dozens of human rights defenders and witnesses. In nearly all these cases, security measures were taken or offered, and in nearly all, the intended beneficiaries were not thereafter killed. n42 The court's orders
also appear to have freed at least two wrongfully imprisoned persons. n43 They also led to the restoration to Peruvian media owner Baruch Ivcher Bronstein of a TV station wrongly taken from him by the Fujimori
regime, after the station criticized the regime's involvement in corruption and torture. n44 In addition, in [*134] the 1990s, national courts in Latin America have begun to follow the jurisprudence of the InterAmerican Court in rights cases, resulting in modifications of national law. n45 In terms of real operation, the Inter-American human rights legal system is thus little more than a decade old. But it has become
consolidated--all Spanish- and Portuguese-speaking nations in Latin America (except Cuba) now accept the binding, contentious jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court. Its output is growing, as is the degree of
state compliance. Although its direct impact remains far short of that of the European Court, the Inter-American system can claim solid achievements and shows promise. The African regional system remains at
an earlier and less effective stage of development. The African Convention of Human and People's Rights came into force only in 1986. It created an African Commission which has limited powers and did not
begin to function until the 1990s, when it began reporting cases with little or no impact on the real world. Under South African leadership, African states recently agreed to establish an African Court of Human
Rights. As yet, the direct impact of the African system is negligible. The question is whether, like the Inter-American system, it may slowly evolve into a system capable of making meaningful contributions to rights
protection. V. THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW IN PERSPECTIVE In evaluating the direct and indirect impact of international human rights law on rights protection, at least
three further perspectives should be borne in mind. One is that of relative utility: the issue is not whether international human rights law achieves its lofty objectives or even comes close. Rather, the question is
whether it is a useful tool for human rights protection activities carried out by nongovernmental organizations, the press, government agencies, and courts. Plainly the users of the tool--human rights activists,
advocacy journalists, ombudsmen, and human rights litigators--testify by their regular use that they find it to be of value in their efforts. A second perspective is that of history. As historical movements go,
international human rights laws and the international human rights movement are still in their relative infancy. Until 1945, human rights was generally considered to be a matter within the exclusive domestic
sovereignty of states. The first significant conceptual breakthrough, a vague "internationalizing" of human rights, came only with the United Nations Charter of 1945. The first international bill of rights came only
with [*135] the Universal Declaration in 1948. The principal human rights treaties, the International Covenants, were not adopted until 1966 and did not enter into effect, with only 35 ratifying states, until 1976.
Enforcement mechanisms under both the UN Charter and the main human rights treaties did not begin to take generalized effect until the late 1970s and have grown steadily since then. Except for the post-World
War II trials at Nuremberg and Tokyo (which fell well short of current human rights standards), international prosecutions of human rights violators have developed only within the last decade. International human
rights law and institutions, then, are still rapidly growing. It is far too soon to assess their effectiveness at maturity. What they have already achieved in their fledgling state is, arguably, remarkable. A third
perspective is that of variable context. That is, the effectiveness of the international human rights law strand--and indeed of the entire rope of the international human rights movement--varies tremendously with
25
Georgetown 2009
Immigrant Detention Aff
Katzoff
KEY TO GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS
Where governments are powerful globally (the
US, China, Russia) or regionally (India, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Brazil), they are relatively impervious to
external human rights pressures, legal or otherwise. Even if international human rights law helps to nudge much of the world toward greater respect for rights, it
context. Where wars are underway or governments dictatorial, rights protection is usually ineffective in the short term.
cannot be expected to work in all times and all places. VI. CONCLUSION The direct impact of international human rights law on practice in most of the world remains weak and inconsistent. But both this
incipient body of law, and to a lesser degree its direct and even more its indirect influence on conduct, have grown rapidly in historical terms, and appear to be spreading in ways that cannot be explained by a
, international human rights law must be
understood as part of a broader set of interrelated, mutually reinforcing processes and institutions-interwoven strands in a rope--that together pull human rights forward, and to which international law
makes distinctive contributions. Thus understood, international law can be seen as a useful tool for the
protection of human rights, and one which promises to be more useful in the future. By promoting
international human rights law, the US can make this body of law more useful for rights victims worldwide.
On the other hand, by opposing and denigrating it, the US weakens not only international law, but the full
range (the entire rope) of interrelated cultural, organizational, institutional and political supports for
expanded protection of human rights in the world. Considering the stakes in human lives and dignity,
international human rights law deserves a place of respect in US domestic and foreign policy debates.
worldview based solely on state power and rational calculations of self-interest. To appreciate its effectiveness and potential
26
Georgetown 2009
Immigrant Detention Aff
Katzoff
SOUTH AFRICAN LEADERSHIP SOLVES
SOUTH AFRICAN LEADERSHIP GUARANTEES EFFECTIVE CONFLICT RESOLUTION WITH
DIPLOMATIC RATHER THAN MILITARY SOLUTIONS.
Stemlau 2k (John, Head of the Department of International Relations @ University of
Witwatersrand and Former Deputy Director of the U.S. State Department's Policy Planning Staff, "Ending
Africa's Wars," Foreign Affairs, vol. 79, no 4)
South Africa is of singular strategic significance to U.S. Africa policy. It is the continent's most advanced
democracy by far, with an economy that accounts for 40 percent of sub-Saharan Africa's total GDP.
Excluding oil imports, 60 percent of U.S. trade with Africa is with South Africa. The late U.S. Commerce Secretary Ron Brown included it in his list of the world's ten "Big
Emerging Markets" vital to America's economic future. Such faith in the country as the economic engine of Africa appears well placed. Roughly half of South Africa's economy
depends on trade, and its fastest growing export markets are in Africa. Two-way trade with the rest of the continent shot up 20 percent between 1996 and 1998. The total
volume of Pretoria's Africa trade in 1998 was just under $4 billion, compared to $5.75 billion with its biggest partner that year, the United States. And although South Africa ran
trade deficits with industrial countries, it achieved a surplus with Africa of over $2.7 billion--enough to cover its deficits with three of its major trade partners, the United States,
the United Kingdom, and Japan. These economic ties to the rest of Africa are vital to Pretoria's attempt to pull the country out of its apartheid legacy of inequality and
unemployment. Although South Africa's economy grew only one percent in 1999, it is projected to increase by six percent over the next two years as the result of a highly
disciplined macroeconomic strategy. Business and government leaders in South Africa assert that they have only begun to penetrate African markets. Leaders of the country's
newly empowered black business community, drawing on personal networks that date back to the antiapartheid struggle, claim to be doing especially well in quickly expanding
joint ventures across the region. South African companies, which enjoy greater proximity and familiarity with African conditions than their Western competitors, are expanding
rapidly in areas of infrastructure development, telecommunications, and mining in Central, West, and North Africa. In 1997, South Africa surpassed the United Kingdom as the
biggest exporter to Kenya. And last year, the South African Broadcasting Corporation launched Africa's first all-Africa 24-hour news service, available to satellite subscribers
All of this is relevant to conflict prevention, since South Africa now promotes democracy
elsewhere to serve its vital interests. Simply put, the rule of law is good for South African business. More
important, human rights and democracy are essential for stemming the deadly conflicts that create
millions of refugees (many of whom could become a burden to Pretoria), divert and destroy scarce resources, and discredit
throughout the continent.
Africa internationally. When South Africa's leaders call on governments to hold each other more accountable for their domestic
behavior, they make clear that this is not merely a moral issue, nor an effort to export their domestic values. It is what Nelson
Mandela called "democratic realism," noting, The neglect of human rights is the certain recipe for internal and international disaster.
The powerful secessionist movements that are found throughout the world are nurtured by neglect. The erosion of national
sovereignty by global forces, from trade to communications, has paradoxically been accompanied by an increase in the means to
ensure separateness: the right to differ has, tragically, become the fight to differ. On balance, Pretoria is living up to its
commitments. Earlier this year, Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, South Africa's Minister of Foreign Affairs, announced that two newly
discovered covert slush funds from the apartheid era would be used to strengthen "electoral and conciliation skills for emerging
democracies in Africa" with an initial $30 million grant--an amount nearly equal to what the U.S. Congress provides annually to the
National Endowment for Democracy. Another investment in conflict prevention is the $140 million "lifeline" of emergency
loans and credits to help stabilize Zimbabwe's economy and halt its slide toward authoritarianism and mass
violence. Although its leverage in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Angola is more limited, South Africa
continues a strenuous diplomatic campaign seeking political, not military, solutions.
27
Georgetown 2009
Immigrant Detention Aff
Katzoff
SOUTH AFRICAN LEADERSHIP KEY TO HEG
SOUTH AFRICAN LEADERSHIP IS KEY TO SECURE U.S. INTERESTS.
Woodward 02 (Margaret, US army officer and professor, http://www.ndu.edu/library/n2/n015604E.pdf)
South Africa's leadership as a pluralistic, market-oriented democracy is critical to the achievement of US
goals in Africa, particularly in integrating Africa into the global economy, establishing regional stability,
and combating transnational threats to our security. Many U.S. firms and investors see South Africa both
as a vital market itself, as well as a springboard to other markets elsewhere in Africa, South Africa is the
continent's most advanced economy, accounting for over 40 percent of sub-Saharan Africa's total GDP.
Excluding oil imports, nearly 60 percent of US trade with Africa is with South Africa. It ranks on the U.S.
Commerce Department's list of the world's ten "Big Emerging Markets," vital to America's economic
future.[8] More than 500 US companies have more than $5 billion in direct investments there, and trade is
increasing steadily. The health of South Africa's economy, and U.S. access to it, is an important national
interest.
28
Georgetown 2009
Immigrant Detention Aff
Katzoff
ZIMBABWE IMPACT
ZIMBABWE WILL COLLAPSE AND DESTABILIZE THE ENTIRE REGION WITHOUT A CREDIBLE
SOUTH AFRICAN RESPONSE.
International Crisis Group 07 (“Zimbabwe: A Regional Solution,”
http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=5083)
Six months before scheduled elections, Zimbabwe is closer than ever to complete collapse. Inflation is
between 7,600 per cent (government figures) and 13,000 per cent (independent estimates). Four out of
five of the country’s twelve million people live below the poverty line and a quarter have fled, mainly to
neighbouring countries. A military-led campaign to slash prices has produced acute food and fuel
shortages, and conducting any business is becoming almost impossible. An initiative launched by the
regional intergovernmental organisation, the Southern African Development Community (SADC), to
facilitate a negotiated political solution offers the only realistic chance to escape a crisis that
increasingly threatens to destabilise the region. But SADC must resolve internal differences about
how hard to press into retirement Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe’s 83-year-old president and liberation hero,
and the wider international community needs to give it full support. Following a government crackdown on
the opposition in early March 2007, SADC mandated South Africa’s President Thabo Mbeki to mediate
between the ruling Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) and the Movement for
Democratic Change (MDC), with the objectives of securing agreement on constitutional reform ahead of
March 2008 elections and ending the economic crisis. The SADC initiative is fragile but South Africa and
the other regional countries are the only external actors with a chance to make a difference. Western
sanctions – mainly targeting just over 200 members of the leadership with travel bans and asset freezes –
have proven largely symbolic, and general condemnations from the UK and U.S. if anything
counterproductive because they help Mugabe claim he is the victim of neo-colonial ambitions.
The regime needs external financial support to maintain its patronage networks and shore up the
economy before risking elections (or before desperate people riot), and its request for a rescue package
gives the regional initiative crucial leverage if SADC is willing to use it. Nevertheless, the challenges are
daunting. Mugabe outmanoeuvred rivals in March 2007 to gain the ZANU-PF nomination for a new term.
The party seeks to bypass Mbeki’s mediation by advancing a unilateral constitutional amendment that
would tighten its hold on power by rigging the electoral process and ensuring it can name an eventual
successor to Mugabe without a new popular vote. The MDC is bitterly divided and appears unable to
mobilise effective opposition. South Africa and the SADC mistrust the MDC, especially its larger faction
led by Morgan Tsvangirai, and would like to see a government of national unity emerge led by a reformed
ZANU-PF. Some SADC leaders remain Mugabe supporters, and there is a risk the organisation will
accept cosmetic changes that further entrench the status quo. The ultimate objective of the reform
process, however, is not regime change as such but to guarantee that all adult citizens can freely and
fairly choose their rulers and that an electorally legitimated government can reengage with donors to turn
the economy around. There is little likelihood that the opposition – so long as it remains badly fractured –
can win an election in 2008, so the political risks the ruling party and SADC members who distrust the
opposition are being asked to take are relatively limited. It is critical that all international actors close
ranks behind the Mbeki mediation. SADC should use its leverage and extend the desperately needed aid
package and ask the West to lift its sanctions – such as they are – only in exchange for full ZANU-PF
cooperation with the mediation process and implementation of reforms that will allow free and fair
elections as early as possible in 2008. If such cooperation is not forthcoming, Mbeki should candidly and
promptly acknowledge failure, and SADC should refuse to endorse any election not a product of the
mediation and be prepared to isolate Mugabe and his regime. The regional body should also enlist a
panel of retired African presidents to help Mbeki prevail on Mugabe to accept and implement reforms and
most critically convince him to retire in 2008. The wider international community should make detailed
preparations to contribute to Zimbabwe’s recovery if the mediation succeeds but also be ready to apply
tougher sanctions if it collapses.
29
Georgetown 2009
Immigrant Detention Aff
Katzoff
ZIMBABWE IMPACT
COLLAPSE SPREADS ANARCHY AND ETHNIC CONFLICT.
Telegraph 07 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/19/wzim119.xml)
The economy of Zimbabwe is facing total collapse within four months, leaving the country facing a
slide into Congo-style anarchy, The Sunday Telegraph has been told. Western officials fear the
business, farming and financial sectors may be crippled by Christmas, triggering a collapse of
government control that could leave the country prey to warlords and ignite long-suppressed tribal
tensions. The stark warning of the scale of the crisis comes despite the welcome given to Mr Mugabe by
fellow African leaders at a summit in neighbouring Zambia last week, where critics had hoped he might be
pressurised into changing his policies. It also follows reports that Britain's military is reviewing
contingency plans to evacuate more than 20,000 Britons, were any widespread state of emergency to
occur. Speaking anonymously because of the sensitivity of the subject, one Western official said: "It is
hard to be definitive, but probably within months, by the end of the year, we will see the formal economy
cease to work." He added: "One of the great dangers in all this, if Mugabe hangs on for much longer, is
that the country will slip from authoritarianism to anarchy, the government will lose control of the
provinces, it will lose control of the towns and you will have a situation where the central authority's writ
no longer holds." Asked which other African nation Zimbabwe might end up resembling under a worstcase scenario, the official cited as an example the Democratic Republic of Congo (the former Zaire),
beset for years by famine, civil war and inter-ethnic conflict. There are also fears that a breakdown in law
and order could lead to an outbreak of ethnic conflict between Zimbabwe's two main tribes, Mugabe's
own Shona and the Ndebele in the southwest. Some political groups are already talking about regime
change as an opportunity to press for independence, while more extreme elements have voiced agendas
that could amount to "ethnic cleansing".
30
Georgetown 2009
Immigrant Detention Aff
Katzoff
ZIMBABWE DISEASE IMPACT
ZIMBABWE’S COLLAPSE DESTROYS HEALTH INFRASTRUCTURE AND FUELS DISEASE
OUTBREAKS.
Telegraph 07 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/09/wzim09.xml)
The collapse of Zimbabwe's economy has finally taken its toll on President Robert Mugabe's regime. It is
facing a disintegrating army and police, a wave of strikes, power black-outs and the breakdown of every
essential service. With inflation running at 1,281 per cent – the highest rate in the world — Mr Mugabe
finds himself locked in a vicious circle. It takes only a few weeks for the value of every pay rise given to
civil servants to be wiped out. But the bankrupt regime can only cover the cost of further wage rises by
printing money – which fuels inflation still further and creates pressure for yet more pay increases.
Tension on the streets of the capital, Harare, was mounting yesterday as people scavenged to earn extra
money for food and transport. Some of those fortunate enough to have jobs cannot even afford bus fares.
In what was once one of Africa's most prosperous economies, a 35-year-old primary school teacher with
six years' service earns £13 a month. The woman, who wished to remain anonymous, said: "My takehome pay is not enough for transport to work, so I am not going to school this week." She is not on strike,
although many of the 110,000 state teachers started a "go slow" this week and are absent from
classrooms. This has left parents to fill in as home-teachers. Zimbabwe's four largest hospitals are
crippled by a seven-week strike among junior doctors, who earn only £6 a month after deductions.
All civil servants received a 300 per cent pay rise in January – but inflation has already eroded this gain.
Cholera has broken out in Harare because the water treatment plants are collapsing. Power blackouts are increasing and one town, Chitungwiza, gets only four days of electricity a week.
31
Georgetown 2009
Immigrant Detention Aff
Katzoff
SOUTH AFRICAN LEADERSHIP UNIQUENESS
SOUTH AFRICA IS EMERGING AS A REGIONAL LEADER
Zabek 03 (LTC Anthony D., U.S. Army, “The Emerging Role of the Republic of South Africa as a Regional
Power,” http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA415797&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf)
Since 1994 the Republic of South Africa has emerged from the limited role of an isolated government,
governed by apartheid programs, to a democracy where apartheid has been rejected and a new republic
has been established. A large centralized government with minority rule dominated the country and its
peoples. Today, South Africa is the strongest democracy on the continent and a leader in promoting
regional stability. This transformation can be seen all across the government and the society of the South
African people. The transformation can be contributed to many factors but is due in large part to the
willingness of the very diverse people to work and govern together. South Africa’s rise to regional
hegemon can be seen in its initiatives to promote and sustain good governance – combating poverty,
instituting policies of inclusion and government responsiveness and providing services and resources that
moderate social tensions. When examining the general definition of war, it can be argued that the
apartheid government of South Africa was engaged in a war with insurgent guerilla groups during the
1970s and 1980s. It can also be argued that stopping wars does not require outside intervention as noted
in different research on war and conflict in Africa and South Africa is such a case.
SOUTH AFRICA IS ABLE TO ENSURE REGIONAL SECURITY
Zabek 03 (LTC Anthony D., U.S. Army, “The Emerging Role of the Republic of South Africa as a Regional
Power,” http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA415797&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf)
As the Republic emerges, South Africa is developing the capabilities to project regional power and has
the opportunity to take the lead for regional security in southern Africa. Economically, South Africa
embraces globalization; politically, it is non-aligned and promotes African nationalism. This emerging role
not only promotes Africans assisting Africans, which leads to region stabilization, but it also impacts the
security strategies for Africa. Focusing on Hans Morgenthau’s elements of national power, this study will
examine the emerging role of the Republic as a regional power and its ability to influence and shape
regional security.
32
Georgetown 2009
Immigrant Detention Aff
Katzoff
LANDMINES IMPACT
SOUTH AFRICA IS EMERGING AS A MIDDLE POWER
Janis van der Westhuizen, a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Political Science, University of
Stellenbosch, South Africa, September ‘98 ,”South Africa’s Emergence as a Middle Power”, “Third World
Quarterly”, Vol.19, Iss. 3; pg. 435, 21 pgs, Proquest
In this article, I contend that despite its ostensibly 'erratic' or 'unpredictable' nature, South African foreign
policy actually reflects the dynamics of a new middle power emerging in the developing world. South
Africa is not simply another `goody-two-shoes state' as middle powers are often caricatured. Rather
South Africa is being propelled into such a posture by a variety of interrelated forces. Change at the level
of world order, its position within the international political economy, and diverse social forces operating in
its state-societal complex all drive the kind of internationalist activity that typifies middle power behaviour.
Playing a mediatory role not only helps the South African state make diverse foreign policy goals more
compatible, it also goes some way in thwarting criticism levelled at its foreign policy. In short, its middle
power orientation represents the external extension of domestic politics organised along corporatist lines.
MAINTAINING THIS POSITION IS KEY TO END THE USE OF LANDMINES INTERNATIONALLY
Nel et al 01 (Philip Nel, Department of Political Science at the University of Stellenbosch in South Africa,
Ian Taylor, Centre for International and Comparative Politics at the University of Stellenbosch in South
Africa, and Janis Van Der Westhuizen, Department of Politics at the University of Natal in South Africa,
“South Africa’s Mulitlateral Diplomacy and Global Change, Page 31)
The remarkable success with which the so-called ‘Ottawa Process’ has encouraged a large number of
states to agree to a global ban on the use and production of landmines has widely been credited for
ushering in an era of ‘new multilateralism’. What makes the ‘Ottawa Process’ so remarkable is that a truly
international movement of non-state actors convinced more than 100 govemments of the need to support
a complete ban on antipersonnel (AP) landmines in less than a year in clear defiance of the United States
(US) and other major powers. For students of South African foreign policy the global landmines campaign
represents one of the first instances of an NGO/social movement coalition moving South Africa as an
‘emerging’ middle power towards taking a leading multilateral role in collaboration with other ‘traditional’
middle powers and extending the normative limits of the reigning global order. Before examining how and
why this happened,’ some of the most significant developments during this process need to be revisited
briefly.
<INSERT LANDMINES IMPACT>
33
Georgetown 2009
Immigrant Detention Aff
Katzoff
EU—DISCRIMINATION INCREASING
ANTI-IMMIGRANT FACTIONS ARE GAINING POWER IN EUROPE—GUARANTEES
DISCRIMINATORY POLICIES.
Stoyadinova 6/12 (Maria, Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies,
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/sais/nexteurope/2009/06/europe_swings_sharply_to_the
_r.html)
A
growing preference for stronger anti-immigrant
domestic policies was evident last weekend,
when voters from the 27 EU member countries headed to the polls. In a majority of states, far right-wing
candidates garnered solid support and in some places parties with outright xenophobic agendas seemed
to be quite popular
In his much-anticipated Cairo speech, President Obama rebuked the "negative stereotypes of Islam" and faced the Muslim world with a call for "mutual respect." Yet at the same moment, European sentiment seemed to be moving in the opposite direction.
, anti-Islam and nationalist
. Dutch voters gave the nod to Geert Wilders, the leader of the openly and passionately anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim Freedom Party. Italy has been divided by the immigration debate in the past few weeks, with
Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi trying to attract voters by publicly expressing his concerns that the immigrants in Italy make him feel like he is in Africa and not in Europe. Favored candidates in other countries kept up with the xenophobia as well. Amidst protests in
the UK, the British National Party (BNP) secured a place in the European Parliament, even though the party does not allow non-white members into its ranks and is famous for its racist platform. Austria's Freedom Party, which is also popular for its fierce opposition
to Islam, has gained significant traction. Before the Czech Republic's elections, some candidates compared members of the Roma minority to 'parasites'. And in Bulgaria, nearly 12% of the votes went to the far-right Ataka party, which has become popular for its
fascist far-right rhetoric. Ironically, although many analysts believe the economic crisis is fueling this renewed xenophobia, this new wave of anti-immigration sentiment is likely to push the European economies even further into recession. Immigration could provide
a much-needed boost to the aging European workforce. It could increase economic productivity and alleviate unemployment pressures that have plagued European economies even prior to the global financial crisis. Concerns that immigrants strain the social
the rise in racist attitudes is likely
to aggravate existing problems with protecting the human rights of the EU's immigrants and asylum
seekers
Detention of
immigrants is widespread
non-citizens face
inadequate health care and exploitation.
Such abuses are unforgivable
security system without benefiting the economy are easy rallying cries, but they are economically unfounded and socially damaging. What is most concerning, however, is that
. In its latest annual report on Europe and Central Asia, Amnesty International noted that discrimination and repression against migrants and people seeking asylum are common across the old continent.
; even where it is not,
Authorities in the Netherlands often go as far as incarcerating torture and human trafficking victims.
legal discrimination,
in countries that have the economic and legal capacity to provide asylum and help to
populations in need, at a time when more and more people across the globe face dire poverty, violence and severe abus e.
34
Georgetown 2009
Immigrant Detention Aff
Katzoff
EU—VENEZUELAN OIL IMPACT
ANTI-IMMIGRANT POLICIES WILL CAUSE VENEZUELA TO STOP SELLING OIL TO EUROPE
Suggett 08 (James, Venezuela Analysis Writer, http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/3579)
The immigrant incarceration
law passed by the European Union’s parliament on Wednesday is a
“law of shame,” according to Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, who threatened economic retaliation
and urged Latin American and world leaders to unite against the measure.
“let us unite forces in one single cry: Respect
the dignity of our people, we will make it be respected.”
Chávez
threatened to deny investment opportunities to countries which enforce the new law. “If any European
country begins to apply this, and puts in jail Colombians, Paraguayans, Ecuadorians, Bolivians... then we
are going to review the investments that they have here in order for us as well to apply a return order.
Return their investments to them!” Chávez exclaimed. The leader of Venezuela’s “Bolivarian Revolution”
also vowed that Venezuelan oil “should not arrive to those European countries” which carry out the law
Chávez asserted that future political and economic summits with EU leaders will not be necessary
if the new law takes effect
and deportation
(EU)
“We call on Latin America, members of parliament, independent of whether
we are from the Left or the Right, the OAS [Organization of American States], the United Nations and African nations,” Chávez proclaimed Thursday,
The EU approved a law Wednesday that could force the 27 member states to adopt stricter immigration policies by 2010,
including the detention of undocumented immigrants for 18 months prior to their expulsion, 5-year bans on returning after expulsion, and the use of advanced satellite technology and more invasive screening procedures.
. In
addition, President
. “For what are we going to meet with them, if they are mistreating our Latin American brothers?” he asked rhetorically.
VENEZEULA WILL RETALIATE BY SHUTTING OFF OIL SUPPLIES
Euronews 08 (http://www.euronews.net/2008/07/02/south-america-furious-over-eu-anti-immigrant-plans/)
South American leaders meeting in Argentina have slammed European Union plans to incarcerate illegal
immigrants for up to 18 months. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said he might stop selling oil to
European countries. Others said it was ‘inadmissible xenophobia’ given how Latin America has always
welcomed European immigrants
Morales said EU attempts to criminalise immigration amounted to “a directive of
shame.” Hugo Chavez said: “Civilised Europe has opened the door to legalised barbarity. We should put
together possible answers and ask the European government to do some thinking about it.”
. “People have been sent back from Europe practically naked,” raged Bolivian President Evo Morales. “In the past, Europeans coveted our resources, took over our land, exploited our
brothers, and now they approve this ‘send back’ directive.’”
Hundreds of thousands of Latin
Americans have immigrated to Europe in recent years in search of jobs. The European Commission estimates there are up to eight million illegal immigrants living in the EU. It is that influx which it is trying to tackle, by threatening people with detention and no right
to return to Europe for at least five years.
35
Georgetown 2009
Immigrant Detention Aff
Katzoff
AT: KRITIKS
THEIR ALTERNATIVE IS MYOPIC—EUROPEAN IMMIGRATION POLICIES ARE ALSO DRIVEN BY
SECURITY. REESTABLISHING U.S. CREDIBILITY IS KEY TO A GLOBAL TRANSITION ON
IMMIGRANTS RIGHTS.
Stoyanova-Yerburgh 08 (Zornitsa, Managing Editor of Ethics & International Affairs and Adjunct Faculty
at NYU, http://www.cceia.org/resources/ethics_online/0022.html)
Those who question the moral significance of borders often invoke the European Union as an admirable
model of post-national belonging: EU member states have abolished borders among themselves.
European citizenship has released itself from the narrow bonds of ethnicity and nationality
Yet for those who arrive in
the EU as outsiders, the old label "Fortress Europe" represents a more accurate description
many
arrivals find hostile attitudes, prolonged detentions, and labyrinthine laws
; instead it is based on common civic
values such as democracy, the rule of law, and human rights. The EU's motto, "unity in diversity," reflects a commitment to transnational solidarity combined with respect for national differences.
. Among them are a vulnerable
group of asylum seekers who often undertake long, costly, and dangerous journeys to escape persecution, war, and other life-threatening situations in their home states. Many of them are given the chance to build a new life in Europe. Yet
. Some are expelled on fast-track procedures; still others may be prevented from
ever reaching a European country to lodge an application. The end of the Cold War eliminated the ideological basis for grant ing asylum to political exiles from the East. Several refugee "crises" later, once generous Western liberal democracies (and now Southern
and Eastern as well) struggle to redefine their response to asylum in the context of increased international migration and "mixed flows," which include irregular migrants and people fleeing genuine persecution. The issue is on top of the politic al agenda with a steady
flow of proposals, directives, and conclusions devoted to it. EU leaders are currently poring over Nicolas Sarkozy's "European Pact on Immigration and Asylum," a proposal for toughening up migration policy during the 2008 French presidency, which will require
asylum-seekers to apply for refugee status in advance. On May 21, Italy announced migration reforms as part of a new "security package," which will criminali ze illegal immigration and will have grave consequences for asylum seekers. As many human rights
it is security
rather than the principle of refugee protection, that are driving EU
asylum policy
the EU is tightening asylum laws and shifting responsibility for asylum
protection beyond its borders
The EU treats
migration and asylum as a "global" issue and a security matter whose management requires joint
solutions with outside partners
In effect the result is a shifting of responsibility away from EU jurisdiction—
an "outsourcing of asylum."
advocates have argued,
and immigration management,
. One aspect of this approach is that
. In addition, EU members have shown little willingness to cooperate on resettlement programs, establish common procedures, or rally around humanitarian goals. The results are wrangling
over responsibilities, risks of refoulement [the expulsion of persons to places where their lives or liberties will be at risk], unfair procedures, and erosion of the rights of asylum-seekers. Outsourcing of Asylum Protections
. It is a part of a larger security agenda based on the recognition of interdependence among states and the search for collective responses to global problems. This approach takes the form
of readmission agreements and cooperative projects to migration control.
As part of a "circle of friends" (in Romano Prodi's phrase), which stretches the area of control beyond the current borders of the Union, neighbors and other partners play an important role. Since
the early 1990s EU members have concluded a number of bilateral and EU-wide agreements, initially with candidate countries in East and Central Europe, and most recently with more distant partners. Readmission agreements , which allow for fast-track procedures
on return of irregular migrants and failed asylum seekers (but may also affect asylum seekers whose claims have not been adequately addressed), are negotiated as part of cooperation and trade agreements and have both an element of coercion and incentives to
them. Visa concessions, for example, may be tied to the signing of a readmission agreement. The EU has signed such agreements with all the Balkan countries, Russia, Ukraine, Moldova, Hong Kong, Macao, and Sri Lanka, and is negotiating with others, including
Turkey, Algeria, and Morocco. Beyond readmission agreements, "creative" thinking on as ylum has produced some questionable new policies. Taking a cue from Australia, in 2003 the UK proposed the establishment of r egional "safe havens" and offshore transit
processing centers, where asylum-seekers would be returned for the processing of their claims. The proposals were roundly condemned by human rights advocates and were quickly shelved; however, similar plans have s ince been floated by Germany and Italy.
Among the proposed host countries were EU neighbors such as Ukraine, Libya, and Morocco, whose human rights record is hardly exemplary, and whose refugee laws, if any at all, fall below international standards. The EU Commission is now experimenting with
two Pilot Regional Protection Programs (RPPs), one in Eastern Europe and one in the Lakes Region in East Africa, which provide aid and technical assistance to strengthen the refugee protection capacity of countries in the two regions. Whether RPPs are simply
"safe havens" in a new guise or an ethically motivated and genuine offer of assistance is a matter of debate. According to some views, RPPs are a sign of a welcome switch from the logic of control to a preventive strategy, which fosters a "more liberal, humanitarian
approach outside.".1 Although there is a case to be made for a preventive, development-based approach, which deals with the root cases of refugee flows and works in mutually beneficial ways with partners, there are reasons to be cautious when the aims of
protection, migration control, and development intermesh.2 The Concept of Safe Countries A related, controversial innovation introduced by the EU is the concept of "safe countries." This is based on the understanding that governments of such states do not
engage in human rights abuses and therefore applications by their citizens are unfounded. The concept of "safe third countries," on the other hand, refers to transit countries where it is presumed an asylum seeker could find adequate refuge. The logic of "safe
country" may mean that a refugee can be sent back to places along his journey, and even back to his country of origin. Human rights organizations have criticized the concept because it does not distinguish among individual cases and because it is incapable of
recognizing rapidly deteriorating situations. In addition, the declaration of a territory as "safe" by outsiders is inherentl y problematic, as the massacre in Srebrenica, a UN safe zone, demonstrated not long ago. The difficulty in determining safety may lead to some
paradoxical situations: For example, in the 1990s Roma people from then applicant states in East Central Europe were often labeled "bogus refugees," yet at the same time the European Commission was issuing report after report that called attention to the
systematic discrimination that many Roma citizens face in their home countries. The Burden of Burden-Sharing Ironically, it may be the very same factors for which Europe is celebrated that explain the restrictive turn in EU migration and asylum policy. Hard
external borders compensate for internal freedom of movement, uncertainties related to the finality of the EU's enlargement feed xenophobic attitudes, and loss of sovereignty in certain policy areas is balanced by the reassertion of state control in others. Indeed, like
other pillars of state autonomy such as defense or national education, refugee policy is one of the last areas to be "Europeanized." Since the 1999 Tampere Summit, EU members have agreed on the need to design a common asylum system with the principle of
refugee protection at its core. Nine years later, the harmonization of refugee law is still far off—it is currently optimistically planned for 2010. The difficulty in designing a common approach stems from controversies that are normative in nature—they concern the
definition of a refugee, the type of protection that should be offered, and, most important, the country which should give protection.3 It has proven harder to achieve consensus on such matters than on cooperative measures to restrict migration into the EU. For
asylum seekers, this means that applying for protection in Europe is a kind of lottery: Recognition rates, levels of protection, and opportunities for integration in a new society, which vary widely among EU members, depend on the pl ace where they first land. So far,
European states have exhibited little solidarity among themselves when it comes to the receipt of refugees. Under the so-called Dublin system the obligation for processing a refugee claim usually falls upon the country of entry. This creates uneven pressures based
on geographical location and makes states all the more eager to prevent arrival. In one infamous example, Germany, Malta, and Italy quarreled over who should take in 37 people who were rescued in the Mediterranean in 2004. In 2007, African migrants were left
hanging on fishing nets for three days while Maltese officials insisted that they be taken in by Libya. Southern European st ates such as Malta, Greece and Spain have seen high increases in asylum applications. In the case of Malta and Greece, 2007 saw the
highest numbers on historical record. Both of these countries have rightfully been criticized for their treatment of refugees —and Athens' refugee practices are currently challenged by the European Court of Justice—yet their calls for more assistance on part of the
EU have gone unheeded. Or take the case of Sweden, which has admitted more Iraqi refugees than all other EU states combined—nearly 49,000 since 2003—and which has now announced that its liberal approach is coming to an end. In the words of George
"the
loss of access to sovereign territory… is the most pressing problem and outcome of the externalization of
asylum."4 Asylum protection cannot in practice be de-territorialized: A refugee will always be on some
state's sovereign territory. To think otherwise is to condemn refugees to a state of limbo. Given that the
developing world hosts 70% of the world's refugees, there is a compelling case for a greater role on the
part of EU members and other industrialized countries in global refugee protection. The first step would
be not to slam the door on refugees. An ethical EU asylum policy should also be based on humanitarian
values, fair procedures, and solidarity, both within the Union and externally. These principles are evoked
in virtually every EU document on migration and asylum. The challenge is not to let high-minded ideals be
dampened by the realities of popular anti-immigrant pressures and intergovernmental bargaining. A
human-rights-based approach to asylum will go a long way toward bolstering the EU's self-image as an
"ethical power"—one that relies not only on its power of attraction, but also on an active role in addressing
humanitarian challenges.
Joseph, a director of a Catholic aid group, as quoted by The Christian Science Monitor, "We had hoped to see other nations rise to Sweden's level. Instead Sweden has stooped to meet them." "Ethical Power" Europe? As some authors argue,
36
Georgetown 2009
Immigrant Detention Aff
Katzoff
MEXICO MODELING SCENARIO
MEXICO MODELS U.S. IMMIGRATION POLICIES
Burgos 07 (Vanessa, Independent Journalist and Human Rights Worker,
http://upsidedownworld.org/main/content/view/1004/79/)
The immigration experience of Central Americans offers cautions about current approaches to immigration reform, just as a U.S. debate on immigration fails to produce meaningful changes in immigration policies. When the topic of immigration comes up in the
U.S., the debate usually centers on the Mexico-U.S. border and the Mexican immigrants that make up a large portion of those who cross the border running along the states of California, Arizona, and Texas. Far fewer think about the significant number of
thousands of Central Americans and others cross
the border between Mexico and Guatemala. It is the natural gateway for the rest of Latin Americans
immigrants who must cross multiple borders before they arrive in the U.S. Pushed by the hope of finding new economic opportunities,
. According to
Mexico’s National Institute of Migration, 2 million documented and undocumented cross Mexico’s southern border a year.[1] The majority of these undocumented immigrants are Guatemaltecos, followed by Hondurans, Salvadorians, and a fewer number of
Nicaraguans. They are either in route to the U.S or seeking temporary work in Mexico’s southern state of Chiapas. Over the last years, difficult economic circumstances, lack of opportunities, along with natural disasters have increased undocumented migration.
Since 2001, the number of undocumented Central Americans coming into Mexico has more than doubled.[2] This number is a low estimate considering it is hard to accurately document the actual number of undocumented immigrants who cross the border. Central
American immigration to Mexico, however, is no new phenomenon. During the civil wars of the 1980s, Mexico saw an increase of immigration from Central America as refugees fled genocide in their home countries. Natural disasters such as hurricanes Mitch and
Stan have also put more pressure on already poor communities to migrate north. In the last two decades, however, a growing factor in Central American migration to Mexico has been the adoption of free-trade policies in the region. Free-trade a Factor in
Immigration Free-trade policies, while trumpeted as the solution to Latin America’s underdevelopment and economic problems, have led to a loss of jobs, a decline in salaries, worsening working conditions and increased cost of living, all of which have exacerbated
existing inequalities. NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement), the free trade agreement signed between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, has been the most glaring example of the disastrous effects of these policies. Since its inception in 1994, Mexico’s small
farmers have been forced into poverty as they lost land due to land privatization or went out of business due to their inability to compete with U.S. agricultural imports, especially corn. In turn, the general Mexican population has suffered a hard blow in the resulting
rise in corn tortilla prices, one of Mexico’s principle food staples. Mexicans have also experienced increased unemployment, and a decline in quality and access to public services as a result of privatization. Another effect of reduced qualit y of life: immigration from
Mexico to the U.S. increased by more than 61% in the first 8 years of the policy’s implementation.[3] Central America is experiencing trends in the same directions with the initiation of its own free-trade agreement with the U.S., known as CAFTA (Central American
Free Trade Agreement). CAFTA took affect last year after Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, and the Dominican Republic signed agreements with the U.S. Much like its predecessor, CAFTA threatens to displace a large number of agricultural workers,
forcing many into larger cities to search for other employment. This is worrisome, as the agricultural industry provides an important source of revenue, and Central American countries do not seem to have a viable economic replacement for a loss of jobs in this
sector. Some of the negative affects of CAFTA can already be seen in the first year of its inception. In El Salvador, the first to implement CAFTA, exports to the U.S. have already dropped by more than half from $187 million to $88 million.[4] In Guatemala there has
been an inundation of North American chicken in the domestic market, that has increased its price, despite promises that the free-trade agreement would reduce food costs.[5] In Honduras, while exports to the U.S. have increased by 1%, U.S. exports to Honduras
have risen by 13%.[6] According to some analysts, CAFTA’s promise of foreign investments is also an empty one. Umberto Mazzei, Director of the Institute of International Economic Relations in Geneva stated in a recent article that “The purchase of national
companies by foreigners in particular - represents a transfer of property and not a new investment,” pointing to the fact that much of the profits end up leaving the country rather than being used to invest further in the nation.[7] The loss of jobs in the agricultural
industries, along with increases in the cost of living with fewer employment opportunities are speculated to produce economic and social hardships that will result in migration both within and outside Central American nations. Most of this migration will be directed
towards Mexico and the U.S. Women will be affected disproportionately as immigration patterns have changed over the years. According to the United Nations 2006 Migration and Development Report, women migrants represent one half of all migrants and are a
larger group than men in developed countries. These women are being pulled by a demand to fill jobs in the domestic and service sector. Central American women have not escaped t his trend, migrating north to work as housekeepers, nannies, hotel workers,
caretakers of the elderly, as well as, a growing number of young Central American women entering the sex industry. Female immigrants also face the added risks of rape, physical ab use, and exploitation in their attempts to migrate across borders. Business Boom
in Traffic of Undocumented Pushed by market forces to migrate north, immigrants are also becoming an increasingly profitable commodity themselves. Mexican immigration authorities have recognized that the traffic of undocumented immigrants is, after
narcotrafficking, the second most profitable illicit business in the country and generates $10 billion dollars annually. The cost of a coyote, the name given to border smugglers, can easily reach thousands of dollars, an enormous price for those who are already trying
to escape conditions of poverty. Furthermore, paying a coyote does not secure an immigrant’s safe arrival on the other side of the border. Recently the New York Times reported a case in which a truck with 81 immigrants was abandoned in Monterrey, Mexico,
immigrants from Central America face an increasingly
militarized Mexican border. Mexico Looks to U.S. Militarization as Example
“In Mexico, there is a tendency to push the U.S. border further south in terms of security and
migration.” That is, Mexico has adopted similar
policies to the U.S
leaving those inside trapped and sweltering. The Mexico-Guatemala border is no exception to these dangers, as undocumented
According to the conclusions of the 2001 International Colloquium
on Security of Mexico’s Borders,
border
., which has meant an increased emphasis on combating narcotrafficking, terrorism, and
securing borders. Current president Felipe Calderón has focused much of his first year in office on cracking down on drug tr afficking and organized crime. This has translated into an effort to militarize many parts of Mexico, and in particular the border it shares with
Tirado
referenced the relationship between Mexico’s immigration policies with
those of the U.S., stating, “Our immigration policy in the region is expressed in a punitive form rather than
one based on economic and social rationality
the
paranoia of the United States tightens its
punitive controls at the federal and state levels of our country.”
undocumented
immigrants
face the brunt
as one of
Mexico’s and Central America’s most marginalized and discriminated populations
Guatemala. Like the U.S., adjustments in Mexican immigration policies continue to stress military might over policy reforms as solutions to illegal immigration. During a national forum on Mexico’s immigration policies in May 2005, Erubiel
, the
Coordinator for the Iberoamericana University’s National Security Program,
…in which
anti-terrorist
[10] Militarization’s Threat to Human Rights The boost in military units, bases, and patrols has had negative
effects on Mexico’s civil population and on undocumented immigrants trying to enter Mexico’s southern state of Chiapas. In li ght of the new focus on fighting the drug trade, organized crime, and terrorism,
face the increased danger of being tagged as narcotraffickers, gang members, or terrorists. Indigenous peoples of the region stand to
of this military profiling
. The numerous deaths of innocent Mexican citizens at the
hands of military soldiers this year alone has led the National Commission on Human Rights (CNDH) to call for the military to be “taken off the streets and [to] focus on their exclusive constitutional function of defending national security, n ot the persecution of
delinquency.”[11] These human rights violations by the Mexican military, along with the broken promises of ec onomic growth in Mexico and Central America, is a telling story and one that can shed light on the U.S. stalemate on immigration. The future effects of
CAFTA and increased militarization will prove unfortunate evidence of how strategies have failed to reduce undocumented immigration and secure the U.S.’s national borders. Perhaps then policy makers and politicians will realize that investing in socially and
economically just policies in the U.S. and in Latin America will be more successful at creating border security than military might and unbalanced trade agreements.
MEXICO VIOLATES THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF IMMIGRANTS.
Carlsen 08 (Laura, Mexico City-based director of the Americas Policy Program of the Center for
International Policy,
http://www.alternet.org/rights/110975/%22securitizing%22_immigration_leads_to_flagrant_human_rights_
abuses_in_mexico,_u.s._/?page=2)
Mexico has become a focal point in the violation of the human rights of
immigrants even as it criticizes the treatment of Mexican migrants in the United States
"We are responsible for violations of the rights of Central Americans
passing through Mexico, the same or worse as those of Mexicans in the United States."
In the first two years of the Felipe Calderon administration,
. The UN Special Rapporteur on the Human
Rights of Migrants Jorge Bustamante states the problem in no uncertain terms:
The analogy between the treatment of
Central Americans by the Mexican government and Mexicans by the U.S. government is particularly relevant. President Calderon came to office with two seemingly different challenges: to find a solution to U.S. treatment of Mexican migrants on the northern border,
The contrast between the mostly rhetorical
defense of Mexican migrants and the violations of migrant rights here demonstrates not only hypocrisy,
but more importantly, the absence of a coherent rights-based immigration policy
and to deal fairly and efficiently with a burgeoning flow of immigrants and trans-migrants crossing over his southern border. Neither challenge has been met.
that would apply the standards developed in UN declarations
on migrant rights, and other conventions. Participants in the World Social Forum on Migrations designated Mexico a "red flag" zone for the violation of migrants' rights. The first reason is that it is one of the countries that produce the largest number of migrants.
Migrant organizations in the United States accuse the Calderon government of a lack of results in defending their rights, and a lack of direct dialogue with the migrants. Calderon's statements that migration is inevitable, they claim, show a fatalistic resignation to the
lack of options at home. The second reason is the treatment of Central Americans in Mexico. Chiapas alone receives some 45,000 agricultural migrant workers a year and 200,000 illegal entries. Bustamante reports that migrants are "tortured, robbed, and extorted"
by criminal networks comprised of corrupt members of the armed forces, police, and government officials. The Salvadorean vice consul recently affirmed that 17 percent of Salvadoran migrants had been assaulted when entering Mexico.
reports and testimonies reveal the terrible conditions of overcrowding in migratory stations
Press
, extortion by security forces, and
routine violations of rights in raids and return programs. It's not that the administration has entirely ignored the problem. Undocumented status was decriminalized. Discourse and training on human rights has increased within immigration agencies and services have
been expanded. Special programs have been instituted to protect women and child migrants.
37
Georgetown 2009
Immigrant Detention Aff
Katzoff
MEXICO MODELING SCENARIO
MEXICO ABUSES DETAINED IMMIGRANTS—DENIES THEM BASIC RIGHTS
Wall 06 (Allan, English Professor and Journalist, http://vdare.com/awall/060518_memo.htm
"Every year more than 250,000 Central Americans cross the [Mexican] border. They are treated with respect, and are offered a better place to stay and new opportunities." [Newsflash: HR4437 Rejected!—By Mexico’s Meddling Government] But Jose Luis
Central American and even Mexican migrants in
Mexico are subject to abuse
"the Mexican government
mistreats ‘indocumentados’ that cross its territory, it keeps them in jails, in overcrowded conditions, many
times without food, without medical attention and overall, violating their human rights."
"go to the municipal jails, where they stay for days and weeks. In some small rooms
there are dozens of them and they do not separate the men and the women."
Soberanes, president of the CNDH (National Commission of Human Rights) doesn’t agree with Fox. Soberanes has reported that
at the hands of police and military personnel, and that immigrants are detained in municipal prisons. According to Soberanes,
Mauricio Farath, another CNDH official, reported
that in some Mexican states, Central Americans
[CNDH: Aquí se criminaliza a los ilegales, Victor Ballinas Enviado,
December 21st, 2005] Later, Jose Luis Soberanes put it this way "We demand that they [Americans] treat us well, and we are incapable of treating Central Americans well." [Exigimos que a nosotros nos traten bien, y somos incapaces de tratar bien a los
centroamericanos.] (Presidente promete ‘pelear’ por los paisanos by Jose Luis Ruiz, Universal, March 29th, 2006) In 2005, Mexico detained 240, 269 illegal aliens in its territory. Of that total, 42% were from Guatemala, 33% from Honduras, with most of the rest
being from El Salvador. All three of those countries are poorer than Mexico (more on that later). I recall some years ago in the state of Quintana Roo in southeastern Mexico. There were quite a few Guatemalans on the bus I was traveling on. At a checkpoint, the
Guatemalans were unceremoniously yanked off the bus and their papers rifled through. It seemed like an everyday occurrence. Mexico is certainly within its rights to control its own immigration policy. Mexico has the right to detain and deport illegal aliens. (For that
matter, Mexico has the right to expel legal aliens if it so desires). According to Mexico’s Ley General de Población, Article 123, illegal aliens can be fined and sentenced to up to two years in prison. "Se impondrá pena hasta de dos años de prisión y multa de
trescientos y cinco mil pesos, al extranjero que se interne ilegalmente al pais. " Usually though, they’re just deported, as Article 125 allows. [PDF] The Mexican immigration agency is the INM—Instituto Nacional de Migracion). But it is not the only agency that
enforces immigration law. The Mexican military helps. And so do local Mexican police. In fact, by law, all Mexican police, regardless of unit or level, are required to enforce immigration law. (On that point, we could surely learn from Mexico).
Enforcing the law is one thing, abuse of authority is another. And that’s what frequently happens to
Central Americans in Mexico.
The illegal aliens are victims of both corrupt authorities and private criminals. Corrupt officials often shake them down for bribes. Some are robbed, raped or even murdered. Not much is
done about it.
38
Georgetown 2009
Immigrant Detention Aff
Katzoff
RELATIONS IMPACT
MEXICAN HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES DESTROY RELATIONS WITH THE REST OF CENTRAL
AMERICA
Newell 06 (Jason, SB Sun Staff Writer, http://www.sbsun.com/columnists/ci_3767570)
With Mexico
calling on Congress to provide more humane treatment for
undocumented residents, some are irritated by what they see as hypocrisy. "By making increasing
demands that the U.S. not enforce its immigration laws and, indeed, that it liberalize them, Mexico is
throwing stones within its own glass house,"
and many of its citizens who live illegally in the United States
J. Michael Waller, vice president of the Center for Security Policy, wrote in a recent paper on the issue. The immigration debate, which has become
increasingly heated since the House passed a tough reform bill in December, will gain even more momentum on Monday, when the latest of several massive demonstrations are expected to take place. In what appears to be the most organized effort yet,
supporters of illegal immigrants' rights across the nation plan to steer clear of work, school and all consumer activity. Instead, they will spend the day participating in marches and rallies. But as the debate continues over whether to crack down or ease up on illegal
immigrants in the United States,
little attention has been paid to the treatment immigrants receive in Mexico
. Similarities abound between the two
countries' policies, given that Mexico built much of its 1917 constitution and other laws on the United States' example. But Mexico has some noteworth y standouts:  Under Article 123 of the General Population Act, illegal immigration is an offense punishable by up
to two years in prison and a fine of up to 5,000 pesos, or about $450. Typically, any crime with a punishment of a year or more is considered a felony.  Article 118 of the act says foreigners who are deported and then later attempt to re-enter the country without
authorization can be punished with up to 10 years in prison.  Under Article 73, local police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities when asked to help enforce the nation's immigration laws.  As set forth in several articles of the act, immigrants are
admitted into Mexico according to their potential to "contribute to the national progress" and must have the income needed to support themselves.  Article 9 of the constitution says only citizens may assemble to "take part in the political affairs of the country."
Under Article 33, noncitizens "may not in any way participate in the political affairs of the country." When looking at Mexico's immigration laws, it helps to understand the context behind them, said Miguel Tinker Salas, a professor of Latin American studies at
Pomona College. The nation fashioned its constitution at a time when many foreigners were coming into the country for the sole purpose of buying up huge tracts of land. Mexico created "some of the most difficult immigration laws arou nd" as a means of stopping
that practice and preserving the country's stability, Tinker Salas said. Of course, as the United States has demonstrated, just because an immigration law is on the books doesn't mean it's enforced. The same holds true for Mexico, Tinker Salas said, citing the
many U.S. retirees living in coastal resort towns as one example. Also, Mexico has been very generous throughout the decades in providing political asylum to people facing persecution, he said. "There is a disconnect between what the law says and what the
practice is," he said. "There is the absence of enforcement on many levels." One reason: Immigration in Mexico isn't nearly the pressing issue it is in the United States. Less than 1 percent of Mexico's population is foreign-born; in a country of 106 million people,
roughly 500,000 are migrants. By contrast, foreign-born residents account for about 12 percent of the U.S. population. Still, Mexico has witnessed a rapid rise in the number of people entering its borders illegally, primarily from Central America. Authorities
apprehended more than 240,000 illegal immigrants in 2005, a significant jump from the 138,000 detained in 2002. Nearly all were deported - more than 235,000 in 2005, figures from the government's National Institute of Migration show. For most of the illegal
immigrants who cross Mexico's southern border, deportation or other legal penalties are the least of their worries. Migrants routinely face rape, robbery and assault. Corrupt police and soldiers are known to abuse them and take their money.
has a deplorable record of human-rights violations on its southern border,"
"Mexico
Tinker Salas said. "That is well documented." Mexico's National Human
Rights Commission outlined some of the abuses and the poor condition of migrant-detainment facilities in a report in December. Commission President Jose Luis Sobernanes Fernandez said the report highlighted Mexico's imbalance of demanding respect for
human rights from the United States while treating migrants in its own country harshly. "There is a tendency to criminalize the undocumented migrants owing to the fact that the General Act of Population considers entering the country without proper authorization to
be a crime," he said. "This increases the vulnerability of the migrant person and makes them susceptible to arbitrary treatment or arbitrary responses on behalf of federal, state and municipal public officials, or exposes them to exactions or mistreatment." But even
as illegal immigrants face harsh treatment in Mexico, the Mexican Constitution helps to explain why the country is pushing for a warmer welcome of illegal immigrants in the United States, said Jorge A. Vargas, a University of San Diego School of Law professor and
a leading expert on Mexican law. Article 11 of the Mexican Constitution guarantees a "freedom of transit" - granting citizens the right to move freely throughout Mexico and around the world, said Vargas, author of "Mexican Law: A Treatise for Legal Practitioners
and International Investors." Citing that, the government claims it can't impede its citizens from emigrating, even if - as in the case of the United States - they're barred from the destination country. "If Americans are going to travel to Mexico or France or any other
to the detriment of its foreign relationships
"One way of keeping friendly, peaceful and cooperative relations with other countries is to respect the
laws of other countries."
country, we have to enter into that country respectfully," Vargas said. "We have to respect the laws of that country." That's not the case in Mexico -
, Vargas
said.
39
Georgetown 2009
Immigrant Detention Aff
Katzoff
CONSTITUTION ADV
DENYING IMMIGRANTS HEALTH CARE VIOLATES THE FIFTH AND EIGTH AMENDMENTS
Cahan 07 (Lisa, J.D. Candidate at Suffolk University Law School, 3 J. Health & Biomed. L. 343)
Immigration detainees include aliens who have never been charged with any criminal offense, asylumseekers, and lawful permanent residents ("LPR"). 13 They are civil detainees who enjoy the protections of
due process rights derived from the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 14 Denying
immigration detainees access to health care is a violation of not only the DOM but also their constitutional
rights
. 15 Few lawsuits have been initiated, despite the frequency of these violations, because of the difficulties in suing the U.S. government. 16 Yet, the legislative branch is becoming increasingly aware of the issue of inadequate health care in detention
facilities, exemplified by representatives' speeches and by a Congressional hearing held on October 4, 2007. 17 At this hearing, former immigration detainees and their advocates described the gross inadequacies of immigration detention facilities, focusing on the
deterioration of conditions has caused
violations of the aliens' due process rights. Aliens enjoy constitutional protections, derived from the Fifth
Amendment, which protects any person in the custody of the United States from conditions that amount
to punishment without due process of law
deprivation of necessary and timely medical care. 18 <Card Continues> Advocates allege that the tremendous increase in immigration detention and resultant
. 37 For example, the Ninth Circuit held in Martinez-de Bojorquez v. Ashcroft that the Board of Immigration Appeals violated the alien's due process rights when
they terminated her appeal after she departed the United States briefly to seek medical treatment in Mexico without first warning her of the consequences of her departure on her immigration case. 38 Additionally, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has
conditions of confinement for civil detainees, including immigration detainees, must be superior to
conditions for both convicted offenders and pre-trial criminal detainees. Just as convicted offenders are
protected under the Eighth Amendment, immigration detainees may
be protected against cruel and
unusual punishment. In the context of medical cases, the standard to establish punishment under the
Eighth Amendment is "deliberate indifference to serious medical needs." The standard for protection of
immigration detainees is, therefore, at a minimum, protection against punishment without due process of
law and at most, protection against deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.
held that
arguably
42
brought by individual immigration detainees alleging inadequate health care services.
43
The courts have heard a limited number of cases
While they have recognized that immigration detainees have constitutional protections, the vast majority declined to find a violation thereof. 44 Notably, the American Civil
At least sixty-four
immigration detainees have died in custody in the last four years, and many of these deaths were
preventable. Moreover, the detention facilities are not obligated to report detainee deaths, so the number
of immigration detainees who have died in ICE custody may be even higher
Liberties Union [*353] ("ACLU") has recently filed a lawsuit alleging that the lack of access to necessary health care services amounted to punishment and violated the due process rights of aliens.
45
likely
. 47 These recent deaths of detainees caused by lack of necessary medical
attention have caught the attention of the media and some Congressmen. 48 In reaction to the media attention, a Congressional hearing was held on October 4, 2007 before the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International
Law. 49 The major demand of the presenters was that the standards for immigration detention facilities must be [*354] improved and codified. 50 <Card Continues> The 1996 changes in immigration laws not only affect individual aliens and their families but also
adversely impact immigration detention facilities, creating a much higher demand for health care. Overburdened detention facilities across the country are currently unable to meet these new demands at the expense of the health and well-being of thousands of
It is time for the government to take action. Health care regulations for immigration
detainees must be improved and codified. Detention facilities must be held accountable for their failure to
provide adequate care.
All
immigration detainees have an irrefutable right to quality heath care that must be satisfied at all times
and without exceptions.
immigration detainees, such as Yusif Osman.
The government must reexamine the laws that were passed in 1996, and recognize the adverse, secondary impacts that they have had on detention facilities. Reducing the number of immigration detainees
would allow the detention centers to deliver a standard of medical care concordant with the detainees' constitutional rights. Immigration detainees who are not flight risks or dangers to society should be released into society while awaiting their hearings.
40
Georgetown 2009
Immigrant Detention Aff
Katzoff
CONSTITUTION ADVANTAGE
DENYING DETAINEES MEDICAL CARE VIOLATES THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS
Papst 09 (Kelsey, J.D. Candidate University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law, 40 McGeorge L.
Rev. 261)
Immigration detainees are civil, not
criminal, detainees.
the Fifth
Amendment applies to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
"aliens, even aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful, have long been recognized as "persons'
guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments."
II. Immigration Detainee Rights A. Constitutional Rights For over a century, the Supreme Court has recognized that immigration detainees have constitutional rights. 32
33
As civil detainees, they have the right to challenge the condition of their confinement under the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause.
34
This right to challenge exists because
35
36
As the Supreme Court has stated,
One commentator questioned the ability of immigration detainees to
challenge the conditions of their confinement because of the discretion the Supreme Court has given the executive and legislative branches over immigration. 37 Indeed, Congress has plenary power over immigration law, which the Court has recognized since the
late nineteenth century. 38 However, in Zadvydas v. Davis, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Congress' plenary power over immigration law "is subject to important constitutional limitations"; 39 while Congress has the power to detain and remove undocumented
immigrants, it must do so by "constitutionally permissible means." 40 Thus, while immigration [*266] detainees' procedural due process rights may be limited, especially given their civil detainee status, 41 they retain certain substantive due process rights which
The primary substantive protection given to civil detainees under the Due Process Clause is
that the conditions and restrictions of a detention facility may not amount to punishment; punishment is
reserved only for those who have been tried and convicted.
civil detention
of undocumented immigrants is assumed to be nonpunitive in purpose and effect.
govern their confinement. 42
44
But defining the standard of "punishment" set by the Supreme Court is difficult at best. In Zadvydas, the Court
held that government detention violates the Due Process Clause unless the detainee is either given criminal procedural protections or is held under special, nonpunitive circumstances. 45 The Court went on to say, however, that
plenary power of the legislative and executive branches over immigrant rights, it did not concern the actual facilities within which immigration detainees are held.
47
46
While Zadvydas was important in circumscribing the
Indeed, no Supreme Court case and few federal cases have directly examined the constitutionality of
the Due
Process Clause guarantees that civil detainees have the right to be free from unsafe conditions
have a right to basic human necessities, including
medical
care
the conditions of immigration detention facilities. 48 Thus, an examination of case law pertaining to civil detainees in other contexts is useful in delineating when a detention facility's conditions cross the line into punishment. At a minimum,
and bodily restraint.
Supreme Court dicta also supports the proposition that civil detainees
49
adequate food, clothing, shelter, and
. 50 However, to determine whether a substantive due process right has been violated, these basic individual rights and liberty interests must be balanced against the [*267] government's legitimate interests in maintaining order and security within the
facility 51 and ensuring a detainee's presence at trial. 52 Such governmental interests are "valid objectives that may justify imposition of conditions and restrictions of pretrial detention and dispel any inference that such restrictions are intended as punishment." 53
Indeed, the Supreme Court cautions the judicial branch to give much deference to the decisions of detention officials. 54 In Youngberg v. Romeo, the Court held that decisions made by officials managing civil detainee facilities "are entitled to a presumption of
correctness." 55 Only where there is substantial evidence indicating that officials have overstepped constitutional boundaries should courts interfere. 56 Some case law suggests that detainees are entitled to conditions better than those given criminal detainees or
prisoners. Youngberg held that those who have been involuntarily committed - civil detainees - are entitled to better treatment and conditions of confinement than convicted criminals "whose conditions of confinement are designed to punish." 57 One Ninth Circuit
case held that "when a [civil] detainee is confined in conditions identical to, similar to, or more restrictive than, those in which his criminal counterparts are held, we presume that the detainee is being subjected to "punishment.'" 58 In sum,
immigration detainees have substantive due process rights protecting them from being held under
punitive conditions and entitling them to certain basic necessities
ICE facilities
violate the Fifth
Amendment Due Process Clause.
. Punitive conditions are those that substantially infringe upon a detainee's liberty interests outweighing
any justifiable government interest. Such conditions may even be found when immigration detainees are held in similar facilit ies as prisoners.
that meet this level of punishment
DETAINEES HAVE RIGHT TO STANDARDS OF MEDICAL CARE HIGHER THAN WHAT THE
EIGHTH AMENDMENT REQUIRES FOR PRISONERS
HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH 07 (12/07 Human Rights Watch “Chronic Indifference: HIV/AIDS Services for
Immigrants Detained by the United States” Vol. 19 No. 5
http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2007/12/05/chronic-indifference-0)
The Eighth Amendment to the US Constitution protects all convicted prisoners from “cruel and unusual
punishment” and requires corrections officials to provide a “safe and humane environment.” Estelle v.
Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976). In the United States, prisoners have a right to health care that is not shared
by the general population. As Justice Marshall explained in the Estelle decision: These elementary
principles establish the government’s obligation to provide medical care for those whom it is punishing by
incarceration. An inmate must rely on prison authorities to treat his medical needs; if the authorities fail to do so, those needs will
not be met. In the worst cases, such a failure may actually produce physical torture or lingering death, the evils of most concern to
the drafters of the Amendment. In Estelle, the Supreme Court established a narrow interpretation of the Eighth Amendment,
requiring prisoners to demonstrate that officials were “deliberately indifferent to serious medical needs.” Courts have
consistently held that prisoners diagnosed with HIV/AIDS have demonstrated a “serious medical need”
under the Eighth Amendment. Immigration detainees, however, are not convicted prisoners. Rather, they
are civil detainees held under administrative provisions. Their constitutional protection derives from the
Fifth Amendment, which prohibits the imposition of punishment upon any person in the custody of the
United States without due process of law. Courts have held in a variety of contexts that persons in non-punitive detention
need not demonstrate “deliberate indifference” in challenging their conditions of confinement. Indeed, the Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit has held that the conditions of confinement for administrative detainees must be superior
not only to those of convicted prisoners, but also to those of pre-trial criminal detainees. One federal court
has expressly endorsed a higher standard for medical care for administrative detainees: Persons in nonpunitive detention have a right to “reasonable medical care”, a standard demonstrably higher than the
Eighth Amendment standard that protects convicted prisoners.
41
Georgetown 2009
Immigrant Detention Aff
Katzoff
INTERNATIONAL LAW ADV
CONDITIONS FOR IMMIGRANT DETAINEES VIOLATE INTERNATIONAL LAW
Brane and Lundholm 08 (Michelle and Christiana, Director of the Detention and Asylum Program,
Women’s Commission for Refugee Women and Children, 22 Geo. Immigr. L.J. 147)
the conditions themselves may infringe on human rights
guarantees. At their
extreme, they may violate prohibitions of torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading
treatment, such as are found in the ICCPR and the Convention against Torture In general, international
law requires that "all persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for
the inherent dignity of the human person
international law
is not sufficiently
acknowledged within the U.S. system and, in particular, are not addressed in the U.S. detention
standards. The Universal declaration of Human Rights, International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man, and the Convention on the Rights of
the Child
With
these legal norms and recommendations in mind, the application of ICE National Detention Standards
presents particular problems. The conditions of U.S. detention are governed by the ICE Detention
Standards. ICE has a set of 38 National Detention Standards for adult facilities.
four to
health care, and sixteen to security and control. However, these standards do not apply equally to all
facilities. Some are required to meet these standards, and others are only required to meet the intent of
the standards. Another major
obstacle to the standards' effectiveness is that they are not codified in
law and remain difficult to adequately enforce. Detention center staff is ignorant about the distinction
between administrative detention and punitive custody.
officials
did not know that standards specifically applicable to ICE detainees existed, and so corrections officers
were trained to treat detainees the same as inmates. This lack of awareness is particularly troubling when
it comes to the special situations of asylum seekers, torture survivors, and other especially vulnerable
populations
C. Conditions as Rights Violations Beyond the due process implications of detention conditions,
also
[*161]
. 98
." 99 UNHCR's Revised Guidelines on Applicable Criteria and Standards Relating to the Detention of Asylum Seekers demand that asylum seekers be
accommodated separately from criminal populations, and that "the use of prisons should be avoided."
105
100
Additionally,
gives special protection to families and children 101 that
always
all recognize families as a fundamental unit of society that should be protected. Specifically, the Convention on the Rights of the Child addresses the vulnerability of children and their need for particular care and attention.
Eighteen standards relate to detainee services,
[*162]
In just one example, when interviewed by the Office of Inspector General, five Bureau of Prison (BOP)
. 110 For instance, the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey recently found that county jails in New Jersey that house immigration detainees are rarely in compliance with the standards, and often fail to provide even basic
necessities. 111 Moreover, simply ensuring compliance with the standards fails to acknowledge that for asylum seekers and others, detention is inappropriate; the experience itself is traumatic, regardless of how good the conditions are or how well the standards are
met. 112 The GAO study also found that found the systemic problems with the standard for telephone access also found non-compliance with other standards at nine of the 23 facilities they visited. 113 In particular, these violations involved "food service issues at 3
facilities, medical care policy at 3 facilities, hold room policy at 3 facilities . . . use of force policy at 4 facilities," and overcrowding at 4 facilities. 114 The study's review of the DHS Office of Inspector General's complaints database revealed that "most complaints
related to medical treatment; case management; mistreatment; detainee protests of detention or deportation; civil rights, human rights or discrimination; property issues; and employee misconduct at the facility." 115 A 2006 report from DHS's own Office of the
Inspector General (OIG) examined five facilities, and found instances of non-compliance at all of them, including medical care, environmental health and safety, disciplinary policy, classification, and the lack of a process to report abuse or civil rights violations. 116
Various other organizations have also noted problems with [*163] meeting the standards. For example, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has noted overcrowding during f acility visits, 117 and the ACLU of New Jersey has documented
serious problems regarding compliance with, and even knowledge of, the detention standards at county jails in New Jersey. 118 As mentioned previously, ICE is also increasingly detaining entire families. A recent report by the Women's Commission and Lutheran
Immigration and Refugee Service found serious problems with conditions at the T. Don Hutto Residential Facility in Texas, including children receiving only one hour of education per day, families being housed in prison cells, and chi ldren being threatened with
separation from their parents. 119 A particular concern is the lack of standards governing confinement in these facilities. The National Detention Standards are intended for adult facilities, and the FSA regulates only the detention of unaccompanied children. 120 The
settlement of the law suit filed by the ACLU and the University of Texas Law School resolved many issues but the continued pr actice of detaining families, lack of alternatives to detention and lack of national standards continue to r aise serious concerns. 121
The fact that the standards are not codified in law, and are therefore very difficult to enforce, means that
the risk of asylum seekers being exposed to inappropriate or unjust conditions is much greater
and ICE's continuing reluctance to acknowledge systemic problems with
detention conditions, may mean that many issues are going unnoticed until they result in serious
consequences. For example, several recent deaths of immigrants in detention seem to point to systemwide problems related to medical care, particularly for people with chronic conditions that demand
continuous, uninterrupted treatment.
In order to avoid violations of international obligations, it is vital that ICE begin to
address recurring problems with the detention standards at the level of system-wide implementation, in
addition to dealing with individual incidents.
. The lack of awareness on
the part of many facility staff (especially in state or county),
122
123
It is not clear that the Detention Standards if applied in practice as they currently exist ensure that the U.S. is compliant with international law, but they do provide many
basic requirements that mirror international standards.
42
Georgetown 2009
Immigrant Detention Aff
Katzoff
INTERNATIONAL LAW ADVANTAGE
MEDICAL CARE IS DOES NOT MEET EQUIVALENCE STANDARD AND WITHOUT IMPROVEMENT
IMMIGRANTS WILL CONTINUE TO DIE
HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH 07 (12/07 Human Rights Watch “Chronic Indifference: HIV/AIDS Services for
Immigrants Detained by the United States” Vol. 19 No. 5
http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2007/12/05/chronic-indifference-0)
ICE remains responsible for the health and welfare of the 30,000 immigrants in its custody, but the
medical care described by detainees with HIV/AIDS could not meet any appropriate, required standard of
medical care. Under what standard of care would the following be considered acceptable: delivery of the
proper dosage of lifesaving medications to Peter R. only 65 percent of the time; failure to prevent
opportunistic infections that can be deadly to AIDS patients such as Anna F.; failure to appropriately
monitor Jean P. for a condition that left him blind in one eye. It is clear that the medical care provided by
ICE does not meet the “equivalence” standard set by national correctional health experts, nor does it
meet the recommended standards under international law for compliance with human rights and
best medical practice. Following a review of detainee medical records, an independent medical expert
found numerous instances of key medical services falling below the community standard of care. In four
cases, detainees were notified and advised to obtain supplemental medical care and testing if possible.
The medical treatment of immigration detainees with HIV/AIDS clearly puts their rights to health, dignity
and in some cases, right to life, at risk. Without delay, the detention standards must be upgraded and
issued as formal administrative regulations, open to public notice and comment. Monitoring and oversight
must improve, or people with HIV/AIDS will continue to needlessly suffer, and even to die, in immigration
detention.
43
Georgetown 2009
Immigrant Detention Aff
Katzoff
INTERNATIONAL LAW IMPACTS
ACCEPTING CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LEGAL NORMS IS KEY TO SOLVING MULTIPLE
GLOBAL ISSUES.
CHARNEY 03 (10/03 Jonathan I. Charney, Of the Board of Editors. Support for this paper was provided
by the Vanderbilt University School of Law. Research assistance was provided by Jennifer McGinty, J.D.
Vanderbilt University, 1993. “Universal International Law”
http://www.lexisnexis.com:80/us/lnacademic/search/journalssubmitForm.do)
unless all states are bound, an
exempted recalcitrant state could act as a spoiler for the entire international community states that are
not bound by international laws
could become havens for the harmful activities
concerned
in the
case of international terrorism, one state that serves as a safe haven for terrorists can threaten all. War
crimes, apartheid or genocide committed in one state
threaten international peace and security
worldwide
To resolve such problems, it may be necessary to establish new rules that are binding on all subjects of international law regardless of the attitude of any particular state. For
. Thus,
designed to combat universal environmental threats
. Such states might have an economic advantage over states that are bound because they would not have to bear the costs of th e requisite environmental protection. They would be free riders on the system and would benefit from the
environmentally protective measures introduced by others at some cost. Furthermore, the example of such free riders might und ermine the system by encouraging other states not to participate, and could thus derail the entire effort. Similarly,
might
. Consequently, for certain circumstances it may be incumbent on the international community to establish international law t hat is binding on all states regardless of any one state's disposition. Unfortunately, the traditions of the international
legal system appear to work against the ability to legislate universal norms. States are said to be sovereign, thus able to d etermine for themselves what they must or may do. State autonomy continues to serve the international system well in traditional spheres of
international relations. The freedom of states to control their own destinies and policies has substantial value: it permits diversity and the choice by each state of its own social priorities. Few, if any, states favor a world government that would dictate uniform behavior
for all. Consequently, many writers use the language of autonomy when they declare that international law requires the consent of the states that are governed by it. Many take the position that a state that does not wish to be bound by a new rule of international law
may object to it and be exempted from its application. If sovereignty and autonomy prevailed in all areas of international law, however, one could hardly hope to develop rules to bind all states. In a community of nearly two hundred diverse states, it is virtually
impossible to obtain the acceptance of all to any norm, particularly one that requires significant expenses or changes in beh avior. Complete autonomy may have been acceptable in the past when no state could take actions that would threaten the international
community as a whole. Today, the enormous destructive potential of some activities and the precarious condition of some objec ts of international concern make full autonomy undesirable, if not potentially catastrophic. In this article I explore the limits of state
autonomy to determine whether some or all of international law may be made universally binding regardless of the position of one or a small number of unwilling states. To accomplish this objective, I begin by analyzing the secondary rules of recognition (the
doctrine of sources) used to establish primary rules of international law. While treaties may require the consent of individual states to be binding on them, such consent is not required for customary norms. Finally, I explore in greater depth the actual processes by
which many customary law norms have come into being in the last half of the twentieth century. The contemporary process that is often used is significantly different from that described in the classic treatises on the formation of customary law. Contemporary
procedural developments place the international legal system closer to the more formal notions of positive law, facilitating the development of universal international law. These procedural developments strengthen the argument that the system may establish
general international law binding on all states, regardless of the objection of a small number of states. Like many others, I take the position that there exists an international legal system with standards and procedures for making, applying and enforcing international
law. n6 As a jurisprudential matter, the source of the obligation to abide by international law is a matter of debate. Perhaps the most popular theory is that states become bound to the international legal system on the basis of a social contract, actual consent or tacit
consent. n7 Other theories dispense with consent as the source of a state's obligation to abide by international law. The principal ones maintain (1) that natural law imposes a duty on those located within the territorial scope of the legal system to abide by it,
especially when it is legitimate and just; n8 (2) that principles of fair play or gratitude bind those who benefit from the legal system to abide by its rules; n9 and (3) that utilitarian considerations based on the value of the rule or of the system to individuals obligate
As is true of
all societies, the international community has a need for rules to impart a degree of order, predictability
and stability to relations among its members. The rules of the system also permit members to avoid
conflict and injury, and promote beneficial reciprocal and cooperative relations. They may even promote
values of justice and morality.
There is also an effective decentralized system for imposing
sanctions on violators of the law through individual state and collective acts of disapproval, denial and
penalties
Its decentralized structure places some limits on what
can be accomplished, but within those limits international law has an important role. Even though
individual states may find short-term advantages in violating the law in particular situations, their longterm interests are likely to be served best by the system. Because the decentralized international legal
system is governed directly by the subjects of the law, i.e., states, it inherently favors rules of law that
optimize the interests of states.
them to abide by the law. n10 Depending upon the theory, the consent of states may or may not be found at the root of all international law. Be that as it may, the system of international law serves the practical interests of states.
The international legal system is supported not only by states' interests in promoting individual rules, but also by their interests in preserving and promoting the system as a whole. Thus,
states collectively and severally maintain an interest in encouraging law-abiding behavior.
. Fear of sanctions, the desire to be viewed by others as law-abiding, and domestic institutional inclinations to conform to rules denominated as law further impel states to comply with i nternational law. Despite the decentralized nature of the
international legal system, there are strong reasons why states need international law and are compelled to abide by it.
Despite the differences in power and influence of states, no individual or small group of states is now dominant. Decisions t end to reflect the power relationships and the right of all states
to participate in reaching them. When the lawmakers themselves are the primary subjects of the law, the law should reflect th eir collective interests.
44
Georgetown 2009
Immigrant Detention Aff
Katzoff
INTERNATIONAL LAW IMPACTS
THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE TO INTERNATIONAL LAW IS GENOCIDE AND NUCLEAR WAR.
SHAW 01 (10/3/01 Martin Shaw Professor of International Relations and Politics at the University of
Sussex. “The unfinished global revolution: intellectuals and the new politics of international relations”
http://www.martinshaw.org/unfinished.pdf)
The new politics of international relations require us, therefore, to go beyond the anti-imperialism of the
intellectual left as well as of the semi-anarchist traditions of the academic discipline. We need to
recognize three fundamental truths. First, in the twenty-first century people struggling for democratic
liberties across the non-Western world are likely to make constant demands on our solidarity.
Courageous academics, students and other intellectuals will be in the forefront of these movements. They
deserve the unstinting support of intellectuals in the West. Second, the old international thinking in which
democratic movements are seen as purely internal to states no longer carries conviction – despite the
lingering nostalgia for it on both the American right and the anti-American left. The idea that global
principles can and should be enforced worldwide is firmly established in the minds of hundreds of millions
of people. This consciousness will a powerful force in the coming decades. Third, global state-formation is
a fact. International institutions are being extended, and (like it or not) they have a symbiotic relation with
the major centre of state power, the increasingly internationalised Western conglomerate. The success of
the global-democratic revolutionary wave depends first on how well it is consolidated in each national
context – but second, how thoroughly it is embedded in international networks of power, at the centre of
which, inescapably, is the West. From on these political fundamentals, strategic propositions can be
derived. First, democratic movements cannot regard non-governmental organisations and civil society as
ends in themselves. They must aim to civilise local states, rendering them open, accountable and
pluralistic, and curtail the arbitrary and violent exercise of power. Second, democratising local states is
not a separate task from integrating them into global and often Western-centred networks. Reproducing
isolated local centres of power carries with it classic dangers of states as centres of war.84 Embedding
global norms and integrating new state centres with global institutional frameworks are essential to the
control of violence. (To put this another way: the proliferation of purely national democracies is not a
recipe for peace.) Third, while the global revolution cannot do without the West and the UN, neither can it
rely on them unconditionally. We need these power networks, but we need to tame them too, to make
their messy bureaucracies enormously more accountable and sensitive to the needs of society worldwide.
This will involve the kind of ‘cosmopolitan democracy’ argued for by David Held85. It will also require us to
advance a global social-democratic agenda, to address the literally catastrophic scale of world social
inequalities. This is not a separate problem: social and economic reform is an essential ingredient of
alternatives to warlike and genocidal power; these feed off and reinforce corrupt and criminal political
economies. Fourth, if we need the global-Western state, if we want to democratise it and make its
institutions friendlier to global peace and justice, we cannot be indifferent to its strategic debates. It
matters to develop international political interventions, legal institutions and robust peacekeeping as
strategic alternatives to bombing our way through zones of crisis. It matters that international intervention
supports pluralist structures, rather than ratifying Bosnia-style apartheid.86 As political intellectuals in the
West, we need to have our eyes on the ball at our feet, but we also need to raise them to the horizon. We
need to grasp the historic drama that is transforming worldwide relationships between people and state,
as well as between state and state. We need to think about how the turbulence of the global revolution
can be consolidated in democratic, pluralist, international networks of both social relations and state
authority. We cannot be simply optimistic about this prospect. Sadly, it will require repeated violent
political crises to push Western and other governments towards the required restructuring of world
institutions.87 What I have outlined is a huge challenge; but the alternative is to see the global revolution
splutter into partial defeat, or degenerate into new genocidal wars - perhaps even nuclear conflicts. The
practical challenge for all concerned citizens, and the theoretical and analytical challenges for students of
international relations and politics, are intertwined.
45
Georgetown 2009
Immigrant Detention Aff
Katzoff
VIOLATES UN GUIDELINES
UNDER UN GUIDELINES PRISONERS ARE ENTITLES TO HEALTH STANDARDS EQUIVALENT TO
WHAT IS AVAILIBLE IN THE COMMUNITY
HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH 07 (12/07 Human Rights Watch “Chronic Indifference: HIV/AIDS Services for
Immigrants Detained by the United States” Vol. 19 No. 5
http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2007/12/05/chronic-indifference-0)
International Guidelines for the Treatment of Prisoners with HIV/AIDS: The World Health Organization
(WHO) Guidelines on HIV Infection and AIDS in Prison, the UNAIDS International Guidelines on
HIV/AIDS and Human Rights, and the UN Office of Drug and Crime (UNODC) HIV/AIDS Prevention,
Care, Treatment and Support in Prison Settings provide guidance to states on protecting prisoners’
fundamental right to HIV/AIDS prevention and medical care.127 These documents establish international
best practices with regard to prison HIV/AIDS care, and uniformly underscore the principle of
equivalence. As stated by the UNODC: The following principles reflect the international consensus on
effective prison management and the ethical treatment of prisoners as defined in various international
health, HIV/AIDS and human rights instruments…Prisoners are entitled, without discrimination, to a
standard of health care equivalent to that available in the outside community, including preventive
measures. Providing health care equivalent to that available in the community includes access to
voluntary testing and counseling; adequate access to licensed health care providers (registered nurses,
licensed physicians, and specialty care); laboratory and diagnostic testing at appropriate intervals; access
to anti-retroviral and other medications when medically necessary and continuity of care.129 International
standards also require protection of the confidentiality of medical information for prisoners with HIV/AIDS:
Information on the health status and medical treatment of prisoners is confidential and should be
recorded in files available only to health personnel….Routine communication of the HIV status of
prisoners to the prison administration should never take place. No mark, label, stamp or other visible sign
should be placed on prisoners’ files, cells or papers to indicate their HIV status. Under international
guidelines, health services shall be provided to prisoners “free of charge.”
46
Georgetown 2009
Immigrant Detention Aff
Katzoff
PUBLIC SPILLOVER ADVANTAGE
CHANGING GOVERNMENT POLICY SPILLS OVER TO PUBLIC ATTITUDES—CHALLENGES THE
AMERICAN CULTURE OF XENOPHOBIE AND RACISM
Brane and Lundholm 08 (Michelle and Christiana, Director of the Detention and Asylum Program,
Women’s Commission for Refugee Women and Children, 22 Geo. Immigr. L.J. 147)
In order to use international human rights frameworks to institute change we will need to
re-shape the debate among the American public. The needs of vulnerable immigrants and asylum
seekers--and our obligation to protect them--are being obscured by economic fears and pressures and
fear-inducing, anti-immigrant language surrounding the "war on terror". We must find a way to
communicate to the American public that asylum seekers are not a threat to our national security. Rather
they are women, children, and families who have suffered severe human rights abuses and are seeking
relief in the U.S., a nation with a strong history and tradition of providing safe haven. This history and
tradition are in great jeopardy. As a country with a strong tradition of providing refuge for the oppressed,
we should be setting an example for the rest of the world
In order to build public
support for United States compliance with international human rights norms we need to create awareness
of what they are and why they are important. Our challenge is to
increase awareness and understanding of international human rights frameworks
we
have been reluctant to raise a response grounded in American values and even more hesitant raise the
importance of international law. However, these are exactly the responses and arguments that are most
persuasive to the American public and the American media. Arguments based on fundamental American
values are what speak to people - especially if they can be put into a context that people relate to at a
basic level
international human rights
parallel basic American values and should be presented as such to the American public. Many strong
parallels exist between international human rights, constitutional or basic civil rights, and American
values. Due process
and freedom from racial discrimination are two U.S. constitutional rights
supported by international human rights law. Another is protection from cruel and unusual punishment
A. Reframing the American Perception
. B. Communicating Effectively with the Public
reach a wide variety of audiences to mobilize broad support for asylum seekers and detained
immigrants,
, and enhance our advocacy efforts. To date we
have struggled with effective responses to the indiscriminate use of the "security" argument for infringing on liberties and in particular the closing of our doors to immigrants and asylum seekers. It seems that particularly in the immigration context,
125
. 126 Americans consistently value the right to due process even in the case of suspected terrorists and do not believe in denying due process based on citizenship.
editorial that noted that while comprehensive immigration reform may not be moving in Congress, the "decent" treatment of immigration [*166] detainees should be handled now.
128
127
We saw a recent example of this in the language of a Washington Post
In effect,
and the right to an attorney,
. Instead
of seeing international conventions as something that the international community is imposing on the United States and that t he United States should resist, they should be presented as a mechanism for internationalizing fundamental American principles and
reinforcing the United States' role as a leader in human rights and democratization. As a founding member state of the United Nations, the United States was a leader in drafting and promoting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 129 While Americans may not
be interested in the U.S. being bound by international law, most Americans assume that the United States treats all persons better that any oth er nation. Americans believe we are the best model. It is time to capitalize on that assumption and make the connection to
international human rights. C. Communicating Effectively with the Public We should become educated about how best to communicate with the public. We should work with communications experts to learn how best to communicate our issues to a broad spectrum
of the American public, media, and policy-makers. This includes an assessment of the current overall awareness of our issues, determining whether and how the use of international human rights frameworks can be effective, and understanding how to address
widespread security concerns. For example, how do Americans respond to arguments based on international human rights conventions? How can we effectively convey to Americans that protecting the rights of asylum seekers does not represent a national security
threat? Some recent examples of effective advocacy efforts could be helpful in planning for the future. The response of the media and the public to the recent joint report LIRS and Women's Commission for Refugee Women and Children and the accompanying
lawsuit by the ACLU and University of Texas is an excellent example. The appeal for a response to the detention of families, and, in particul ar, families with young children, was grounded in basic American values, specifically, "family values." LIRS and the Women's
Commission were able to coordinate with grass roots organizations that were [*167] already holding vigils and protests outside of the facility to garner additional media attention and public outcry. The ACLU created a video that provided visuals and can be
distributed through the internet. This allows us to put a human face on the issue, through interviews of children who were detained and visuals of the barbed wire and community outrage that something like this is happening in their own backyard. The media and
public responded enthusiastically and Congressional interest followed suit. In confronting the detention of families as fundamentally un-American, we succeeded in appealing to the public's basic values and overcoming the security argument. This meant that ICE
was on the defensive. Before the outcry they had been confident that the facility was a model that worked and they were not r esponsive to our arguments that the conditions were unacceptable. While we have not yet accomplished an end to the practice of family
detention and many other concerns remain, much progress has been made and conditions at the Texas facility have improved. Perhaps most importantly, a debate has been initiated and continues around whether the detention of families who have committed no
criminal acts and therefore not a threat to society, is ever justified. The impact of a National Public radio (NPR) story 130 covering immigration detainees at the Passaic County Jail is another example of how the public responds to detention conditions at odds with
American values. The story covered the inhumane treatment of immigration detainees in dramatic detail including the use of dogs and physical mistreatment. The descriptions and sound of barking dogs in the story invoked images of Abu Gharaib, another recent
breaking story that had shocked the American public with the reality of U.S. association with human rights violations. There was significant interest in the story. After the NPR r eport, the DHS Office of the Inspector General added Passaic County to its audit of
facilities, and after refusing them access to his facility, the sheriff subsequently terminated the DHS contract. The facility portrayed it as their choice and a loss to ICE because contracting with ICE was too complicated and demanding, but the fact that it is no longer
a contract facility should be seen as a victory. It was clear from the public and media reaction that the extreme and inhumane conditions were not acceptabl e to the American public.The debate surrounding conditions and medical treatment in immigration detention
has begun and Congress has taken an interest. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has felt the need to respond by stating publicly that they are reinstituting parole guidelines and developing "performance based [*168] detention standards". 131 We have not yet
seen these performance based standards and guidelines, and don't know whether they comply with human rights norms, but Congress has taken an interest and ICE has felt compelled to respond. It will be up to us to follow up and ensure that we raise concerns if
they fail. D. Education Basic education about human rights law is essential. We need to inform people that human rights conventions exist and that international conventions are mechanisms in which the United States had a direct hand. They are created by states
to govern their own behavior, and are not something invented by the UN or another international body to undermine national sovereignty. Americans are not necessarily aware of the existence of these agreements or of their content. Even with people who are
basically sympathetic to human rights there can be a real lack of awareness. Some creative ideas are already being implemented. Breakthrough, a New York-based human rights organization, has created a video game on immigration called 'ICED! I Can End
Deportation' that teaches players about U.S. immigration policy. The game is set to launch online this winter. 132 The ACLU has been making significant strides in this respect and in coordination with other NGOs and advocacy groups has begun to conduct
workshops and regional conferences highlighting human rights and their application to U.S. practices. In June they organized a conference entitled "Locked Away: Immigration Detention and Human Rights" at Northwestern University School of Law in Chicago. In
These sorts of education efforts are essential if we are to
succeed in achieving a public understanding that human rights are relevant in the United States.
November on this year they are planning a workshop on Immigrant Workers and Human Rights in Fort Myers, Florida.
47
Georgetown 2009
Immigrant Detention Aff
Katzoff
INHERENCY
ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS ARE ONLY GIVEN SHORT TERM CARE IN US HOSPITALS AND NO CARE
IN DETENTION CENTERS
DEVI 09 (2/13/09 Sharmila Devi – writer for the Washington post and the Lancet, 2/13/09, The Lancet
“US health and immigration systems failing migrants”
http://www.lexisnexis.com:80/us/lnacademic/returnTo.do?returnToKey=20_T6772160183)
Uninsured migrants and illegal immigrants who fall ill in the USA get a raw deal from the country's health
and immigration systems.
Sharmila Devi reports from New York City. The USA is a nation built by immigrants but the latest newcomers are finding that when it comes to health care, they are falling through the cracks."Medical
renditions"-the repatriation of uninsured migrant patients by hospi-tals-and harsh conditions for rising numbers of immigrant detainees are the in-evitable consequences of the twin failures of the health and immigration sys-tems, say campaigners. Around 12 million
people in the USA are undocumented workers. In addition, around 3·5 million children, many of whom are US-born citizens, are believed to live in families where at least one member is in the USA illegally. In recent months, clinicians say a rising number of migrants
have become too afraid to come forward for treatment for fear of being detained and deported by law en-forcement agencies. "Even though these workers have helped to revitalize burnt-out communities, lots of people are saying get them out of town. But it's a
double-edged sword because Americans don't want to do the jobs that they do and these towns have to reinvent themselves somehow", said Steven Larson, a migrant health expert and physician at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA,
USA. "Until we have immigration reform, there won't be a resolution." Many Americans voted for Barack Obama in the hope he would tackle health as well as immigration reform. Obama spoke of granting "amnesty" to the 12 million illegal immigrants, many of whom
work in low-wage agricultural and other low-skilled jobs. But American concerns, heightened since the September 11 attacks, will not easily be allayed given that up to 500&puncsp;000 people stream across US borders each year. Adding to worries is the recession,
leading to greater fears about the loss of US jobs and strained resources. The creaking public-health system, administered on a state-by-state basis, is being forced to come up with ad-hoc solutions for migrants given the absence of universal health care or federal
Although
emergency rooms are required-and reimbursed-to provide acute care to anyone regardless of ability to
pay, long-term and rehabilitative care is not always covered by Medicaid-the federal programme for those
on low-incomes. Hospitals find it cheaper to pay for the cost of repatriation than to provide long-term care
for uninsured migrants. Neither the immigration system, overseen by the Department of Homeland
Security, nor the health system has made any pro-vision for such cases, so individual states, particularly
those in overburdened border areas, have to come up with their own responses. In some cases, only lastminute interventions by lawyers and judges have pre-vented seriously-ill patients from being dumped
across the US border.
reimbursements for their care. Some of the more egregious cases of ill-treatment by hospitals were highlighted last year by re-ports done in the USA and Latin America by The New York Times and The Washington Post.
One case concerned Elliott Bustamente, an infant who was born a US citizen with Down's syndrome and a heart problem. But University Medical Centre (UMC) in Tuscon, Arizona, the hospital where he was
born, tried to have him deported to Mexico. UMC said it believed his parents were resident in Mexico and moving him there would provide continuity of care. Meanwhile, his parents did not seem to be able to pay some US$28&puncsp;000 in hospital charges.
The baby was heading to the airport when a lawyer for his parents summoned the police, who called UMC, which ended up bringing the baby back. "They said we had no rights, the baby neither", Gricelda Mejia Medehuari, the child's mother, told The New York
Times. "When Elliott was 2 weeks, they told me to gather my things because the baby was leaving in 15 minutes with a lady. It was very ugly. We contacted the Mexican consulate. They got us a lawyer."
The lawyer said the hospital dropped its "medical pretext" for Elliott's transfer to Mexico after the Arizona Medicaid system approved payment for his treatment. A hospital spokeswoman said Elliott's case was "not representative of UMC's long history of successful
medical transfers of patients both to and from northern Mexico but it does underline the complex dilemmas that border hospitals face every day". More hospitals are resorting to such "medical transfers" where patients have no means to pay for long-term treatment
and neither state nor charitable assis-tance is available. Health advocates call these cases "medical renditions"-a reference to the Bush administration's extraordinary transfer of suspected ter-rorists to countries known to torture prisoners. Private companies, such
as MexCare, have also found a niche in the medical transfer market. The company was founded in California 6 years ago to help to provide a "significant reduction in the cost of unpaid services" to US hospi-tals. MexCare said it worked with private hospitals in Latin
America with the full consent of the patients willing to move. In a statement, it rejected what it called The New York Times' inference that it served a role in "deporting un-documented residents".The USA does not compile national statistics on medical transfers,
which have involved several national governments, particularly in Latin America. The Mexi-can consulate in San Diego alone said it handled 87 medical cases last year but not all of them ended in repatriation. "The whole concept of sending immigrants away runs
counter to what I do as a physician", said Edward Zuroweste, chief medical officer of the Migrant Clinicians Network, which provides assistance to 5000 clinicians who serve vulner able migrant populations across the country. "I have sympathy with hospitals that
can't transfer patients out to rehab or a nursing home because they don't have insurance. But many of these people are es-sentially deported when that shouldn't happen and wouldn't happen if we had proper immigration reform." Zuroweste and other p hysicians
look to New York and California where the state provides full health coverage regardless of status or ability to pay (see panel). In a stark contrast, most US states do not finance post-hospital care for illegal immigrants, temporary legal immigrants, or legal residents
living in the USA for less than 5 years. Alan Alviles, president of the New York City Health and Hospitals Corp, is proud of his publicly-funded system, the largest in the country that serves 1·3 million New Yorkers including 400&puncsp;000 uninsured. "From my
perspective, I view health provision the same way as education and I would never think of ra-tioning it or not admitting the kids of undocumented workers. We try to provide a medical home for all patients whether they' re insured or not", he said. "I do think over the
long-term we'll see the US move to universal health care. I don't know what will happen in the short-term because of the recession. We in New York are vulnerable because we have many low-income patients. Medicaid provides 65% of our revenue base, so any
Health and human rights advocates are also urging the incoming Obama administration to address the issue of inadequate health care in immigration detention centres, which held more
than 300&puncsp;000 people awaiting deportation deci-sions last year, triple the number since 2001.
Human Rights Watch, the New York-based group, has highlighted the failure by the Immigration and
Customs Enforcement arm of the Department of Homeland Security to provide care to detainees with
chronic conditions
cuts to programmes do have a disproportionate ef-fect."
, such as HIV/AIDS. "There's very little information out there, such as how many detainees have HIV, and the care does not meet international standards", said Rebecca Schleifer of the health division of Human Rights
Watch. "One man became resistant to 13 medi-cations for HIV and can't work anymore. Another detainee in custody was ridi-culed when he said he had meningitis and was given the wrong treatment." In the past 5 years, about 83 immigrants died during or soon
after being taken into custody, with actions by medical staff possibly contributing to 30 of these deaths, The Washington Post reported last year.
48
Georgetown 2009
Immigrant Detention Aff
Katzoff
INHERENCY
THE IMMIGRANTS IN DETENTION CENTERS ARE GIVEN EXTREMLY POOR MEDICAL
TREATMENT AND THEY ARE LEFT TO DIE.
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL 09 (4/11/09 AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL “Tens of Thousands Languish in Immigration
Detention Without Hearings or Bond, Numbers Tripled Since 1996, Charges Amnesty International”
http://www.lexisnexis.com:80/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T6785049003&format=GNB
FI&sort=BOOLEAN&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T6785049006&cisb=22_T6785049005&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=2
46798&docNo=20)
Tens of thousands of people languish in U.S. immigration detention facilities every year -- including a
number of U.S. citizens -- without receiving a hearing to determine whether their detention is warranted,
Amnesty International USA (AIUSA) said in a report released. The report, Jailed Without Justice:
Immigration Detention in the USA, shows that, in just over a decade, the number of immigrants in
detention each day has tripled from 10,000 in 1996 to more than 30,000 in 2008. Numbers are likely to
increase in 2009. A majority of the detainees have extreme difficulty retaining a lawyer or help navigating
the complex legal process. In some cases, individuals become so desperate that they agree to
deportation even if their circumstances don't warrant it (see also Amnesty International). The people
detained include lawful permanent residents, undocumented immigrants, asylum seekers and survivors of
torture and human trafficking. For some people, an immigration official is the final and only decision
maker on detention -- others receive no detention review at all. In the current system, rife with errors and
lacking meaningful oversight, being detained in and of itself can virtually seal an immigrant's fate.
"America should be outraged by the scale of human rights abuses occurring within its own borders," said
Larry Cox, executive director of AIUSA. "Officials are locking up thousands of human beings without due
process and holding them in a system that is impossible to navigate without the legal equivalent of GPS.
The United States has long been a country of immigrants, and whether they have been here five years or
five generations, their human rights are to be respected. The U.S. government must ensure that every
person in immigration detention has a hearing to determine whether that detention is necessary." The
AIUSA report shows that the average cost of locking up an immigrant is $95 per person, per day, or
approximately $2,850 per month -- which amounts to hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars per year.
Effective alternatives to detention are available and cheaper -- costing as little as $12 per day. A study of
one alternative program documented a 91-percent appearance rate before immigration courts. According
to international law and standards, detention should only be used in exceptional circumstances, must be
justified in each individual case and must be subject to judicial review. For many immigrants, release from
detention is out of reach because bonds are set impossibly high. And although immigration judges have
the authority in some cases to release immigrants on their own recognizance or with a minimum bond of
$1,500, reports indicate that the judges are now less likely to do so. According to the Executive Office for
Immigration Review (EOIR), in 2006, immigration judges in the United States declined to set bond in
14,750 cases. In 2007, the number increased to 22,254, and in the first five months of 2008, immigration
judges had already refused to set bond in 21,842 cases. Moreover, lawful permanent residents can be
placed in "mandatory detention" with no right to a bond hearing before an immigration judge or judicial
body. The categories of crimes that trigger mandatory detention are broad and difficult to define. In one
case, a 37-year-old lawful permanent resident was deported to Haiti for possession of stolen bus pass
transfers. The court found that these convictions constituted two "crimes of moral turpitude" warranting
mandatory detention and deportation. Even more astounding, in 2007 alone, legal service providers
identified 322 individuals in detention who may have been able to claim U.S. citizenship. For instance, Mr.
W, born in Minnesota, was placed in immigration detention in Florence, AZ. Because he was detained, he
could not access his birth certificate. He was finally released after a month of working for a dollar a day in
the prison kitchen to earn the $30 necessary to order a copy of his birth certificate.
Immigrants are often put in excessive restraints, including handcuffs, belly chains and leg restraints, and
are detained alongside individuals incarcerated for criminal offenses. Immigrant detainees also find it
difficult to get medical attention; at least 74 immigrants have died in detention during the last five years.
49
Georgetown 2009
Immigrant Detention Aff
Katzoff
INHERENCY
THERE IS A NEED TO IMPROVE STANDARDS OF MEDICAL CARE TO COMPLY WITH
INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL 09 (3/25/09 Amnesty International USA “Jailed Without Justice:
Immigration Detention in the USA”http://www.amnestyusa.org/uploads/JailedWithoutJustice.pdf)
ICE detainees may find it very difficult to get timely and at times any treatment for their medical needs.
International standards clearly specify that medical care and treatment shall be provided whenever
necessary.140 ICE detention standards state that all facilities should provide detainees with initial medical
screening, cost-effective primary care, and emergency care. Several recent cases reported in the media
have involved failure to provide medical treatment, which resulted in the death of immigration detainees.
According to ICE, 74 people have died while in immigration detention over the past five years. 141 Following
heightened public attention, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the Department of Homeland
Security conducted a review examining ICE’s standards on medical treatment of immigration detainees
and procedures related to detainee deaths. The study found a need to improve oversight at facilities
housing immigration detainees to ensure adherence to standards of medical care.142 Some individuals
in immigration detention require mental health services, particularly those who have been victims of
torture and abuse. Detention itself can have detrimental effects on an individual’s mental health.145
However, reports indicate that such services are frequently not provided, or are inadequate. One detainee
who had been in detention one year, reported he was taking anti-depressants, but he only speaks to a
mental health practitioner by phone briefly once every two months about whether the medications are
working. He told Amnesty International that the mental health practitioner doesn’t seem to know the
reason why he is on the medications: he was a prisoner of war in his home country and raped while
captive. He is seeking relief from removal under the UN Convention Against Torture.
50
Georgetown 2009
Immigrant Detention Aff
Katzoff
INHERENCY
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL 09 (3/25/09 Amnesty International USA “Jailed Without Justice:
Immigration Detention in the USA”http://www.amnestyusa.org/uploads/JailedWithoutJustice.pdf)
The majority of detainees who spoke with Amnesty International reported that they did not have the
opportunity to exercise daily. Reports ranged from being allowed time to exercise from two to four days
per week. Exercise is reportedly often scheduled at unreasonable hours of the day. One detainee
described how recreation time is scheduled for one hour at 5:30 a.m. and that it only takes place when
the majority of the detainees in the housing unit want to go. Detainees reported that they often forego
their recreation time because it is scheduled so early in the morning. Amnesty International also received
reports that some detainees do not have the opportunity to exercise outdoors. The DHS Office of
Inspector General conducted an investigation into the treatment of immigration detainees housed in ICE
facilities and found that immigration detainees do not always have access to adequate exercise. 147
International standards provide that detainees should have at least one hour of suitable exercise in the
open air daily if the weather permits.148 Under ICE’s detention guidelines, detainees should wherever
possible be housed in a facility that offers outdoor recreation, and each detainee should have access for
at least one hour daily, at a reasonable time of day, weather permitting.
DETENTION CENTERS DON’T ABIDE BY ANY HEALTH STANDARDS WHEN TREATING ILLEGAL
IMMIGRANTS
HERNANDEZ 08 (6/1/08 Sandra Hernandez Los Angeles Times “A lethal limbo for migrants: Lack of
healthcare turns federal detention into a death sentence for some immigrants.”
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/commentary/la-op-hernandez1-2008jun01,0,4800385.story)
Unlike federal and state prisons, immigrant detention centers, many of which are run by private
contractors, are not legally mandated to abide by any healthcare standards when it comes to treating sick
immigrants. Civil and immigrant rights groups have filed suit in New York to force federal officials to issue
such rules, but the Department of Homeland Security, which has jurisdiction in the matter, has yet to
produce them. In the absence of legally binding standards, detained immigrants, such as Arellano, have
no legal way to complain about the lax healthcare they receive at the facilities where they are held. They
cannot appeal the denial of care or sue in federal court to obtain it. What medical care is available is
often delayed, or denied, while doctors and nurses at the facilities await approval from officials in
Washington, who can deny crucial care without explanation. Most of the 30,000 immigrants detained at
these centers do not face criminal charges. Many are there for civil violations. Some have overstayed a
visa. Others seek asylum. Still others are legal residents who suddenly could be deported because they
have committed crimes that were formerly misdemeanors -- such as shoplifting -- but have been
upgraded to felonies by a 1996 law that sought to deter illegal immigration by making it easier to deport
those who are in the country illegally. Detention at these centers is the fastest-growing form of
incarceration in the U.S. in terms of the sheer number of detainees -- more than 300,000 in 2007 -passing through the system. Because they face civil charges, most of the immigrant detainees are not
entitled to a public defender. As a result, they must wage their civil rights battles, including the fight to
obtain healthcare, from facilities that are often in remote rural areas where there are few pro bono groups
or pro-immigrant advocates. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has repeatedly told Congress that it
spends millions of dollars on medical care for detained immigrants facing deportation. But many of the
immigrants are already sick when detained, and the public health nurses and doctors at the detention
centers are too overwhelmed to treat them adequately.
51
Georgetown 2009
Immigrant Detention Aff
Katzoff
INHERENCY
DETAINEES ARE UNSATISFIED BY THE HEALTH CARE THE RECEIVE
PHYSICIANS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS 03 (6/03 Physicians for Human Rights and The Bellevue/NYU
Program for Survivors of Torture “From Persecution to Prison: The Health Consequences of Detention for
Asylum Seekers” http://physiciansforhumanrights.org/library/documents/reports/report-perstoprison2003.pdf)
Detained asylum seekers reported to Bellevue/NYU-PHR researchers numerous physical health/medical
complaints during their detention experience. Musculoskeletal pain, headaches and gastrointestinal
symptoms were among the most commonly reported problems. Many detainees believed that in addition
to worsening psychological health, as previously noted (See Chapter V: Mental Health), their physical
health worsened as well while in detention. Medical services are available on-site in all of the detention
facilities visited in the course of this study, providing detained asylum seekers with access to services
many did not have in their countries of origin. Nevertheless, detainees interviewed for this study were
frequently dissatisfied with their level of access to medical care, particularly specialized care, including
dental services. Dissatisfaction with the quality of care received was also common. Detainees frequently
complained of repeatedly being given the same medication without improvement or being dissatisfied with
their interactions with health staff, including what they often perceived as rude and dismissive behavior.
Information regarding detainee’s medical problems and the care they received is based on interviews
conducted with detainees.
DETENTION CENTER STANDARDS DO NOT COMPLY WITH INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS
PHYSICIANS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS 03 (6/03 Physicians for Human Rights and The Bellevue/NYU
Program for Survivors of Torture “From Persecution to Prison: The Health Consequences of Detention for
Asylum Seekers” http://physiciansforhumanrights.org/library/documents/reports/report-perstoprison2003.pdf)
Besides this major conceptual difference, specific standards in the international documents and the
Detention Standards differ as well. The international documents make mental health an integral part of
health care, while the Detention Standards relegate it to an adjunct by an outside provider when
necessary. In addition, in contrast to the Detention Standards, international standards generally forbid the
use of chains and irons. Moreover, the international standard requiring medical review before ordering
segregation is not mentioned in the Detention Standards. Finally, and significantly for the purposes of this
study, the Detention Standards do not reflect the recognition in international laws and standards of
asylum seekers’ vulnerability and likelihood of having experienced torture, and that detention can be
harmful to the mental health and well being of those detained. In fact, the Detention Standards frequently
reference or incorporate standards and procedures developed for the punitive setting of criminal justice
institutions. While the use of such standards is better than none at all, it reflects the agency’s failure to
recognize or appreciate the non-criminal status and traumatic history of asylum seekers.
52
Georgetown 2009
Immigrant Detention Aff
Katzoff
HARMS—WOMEN
WOMEN RECEIVE THE WORST MEDICAL TREATMENT
IPS 09 (3/19/2009 Inter Press Service “Clinical staff at U.S. immigration detention centres abuse detainees; RIGHTS-US: Ill
Migrants Left to Languish Behind Bars”
http://www.lexisnexis.com:80/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T6785177718&format=GNB
FI&sort=BOOLEAN&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T6785177721&cisb=22_T6785177720&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=2
59273&docNo=1)
The reports, released Tuesday, detail the callous treatment of detainees, especially women, who are in
need of medical attention. 'Death rates in detention appear to be worsening,' said FIAC executive director
Cheryl Little. 'Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) needlessly detains people with severe
illnesses and those who pose no harm to U.S. communities.' The 78-page FIAC report exposes the
exceedingly poor healthcare available to people in custody at immigration detention centres as well as the
lack of official accountability. It identifies wide-ranging problems with the medical care provided to
detainees, including some as severe as improper care of physically and mentally disabled patients, 'cruel
and abusive behaviour' by clinic staff, overcrowded and unsanitary facilities and even isolation or transfer
of patients as punishment for medical complaints. According to FIAC, 'detainees routinely report being
treated as criminals, being accused of faking illnesses, and having painful symptoms ignored.' The
accompanying HRW report, also 78 pages, focuses on the treatment of women in immigration detention.
'Women in detention described violations such as shackling pregnant detainees or failing to follow up on
signs of breast and cervical cancer, as well as basic affronts to their dignity,' said Meghan Rhoad, a
researcher in the women's rights division at Human Rights Watch. The HRW report found that problems
in medical services in detention centres are acutely felt by female detainees, and described a long list of
grievances including 'unwarranted denial of services', long delays in potentially life-saving services, and
unavailability of basic female hygiene supplies. Both reports were researched through extensive
interviews with detainees and staff at detention facilities as well as immigration officials and attorneys,
and include many victims' personal accounts of abuse. For example, one woman who was forced to take
the wrong medication in a California detention facility told researchers: 'Immediately, my body started
shaking. I felt so cold that I thought I was freezing to death, but at the same time I was sweating... Within
minutes, I had a seizure and my body began to shake so violently that I fell off the bed onto the floor.' But
these reports might not even show the worst of it. 'Because we went through legal providers, all of the
women we spoke to had access to counsel,' Rhoad told IPS. 'Eighty percent of detainees have no lawyer,
so it is possible they also have even less access to care.' The HRW report interviewed 48 women in nine
detention facilities in Florida, Texas and California because these states have a particularly high
concentration of female detainees, but ICE has many immigration detention centres in every state.
'Because immigration detention is the fastest-growing form of incarceration in the United States, these
abuses are especially dangerous. They remain largely hidden from public scrutiny or effective oversight,'
said Rhoad. The Immigration and Customs Enforcement department was founded in 2003 and is a
branch of Homeland Security. The ICE website describes its mission as 'protecting national security and
upholding public safety by targeting criminal networks and terrorist organizations'. 'ICE has prosecutorial
discretion, they say they prioritise criminals, but that is not really the case,' Rhoad told IPS. 'The majority
of these detainees are out of step with some minor administrative law, they do not have criminal records.'
There were more than 300,000 people in immigration custody in 2008, most of them in state and county
jails. The average stay in custody is 38 days, according to the FIAC report, but some detainees are held
for months and even years. 'Only independent, external scrutiny of detainees' medical care will ensure
that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and ICE carry out their moral and legal responsibility to
provide for the health and safety of detainees entrusted to their care,' the FIAC report says. 'Given the
dramatic increase in detainees, the need for proper scrutiny of medical care is more critical now than
ever.' The FIAC is a not-for-profit legal organisation that works to protect and promote the human rights of
immigrants to the United States. HRW was formed out of the merging of several groups in 1988 and is a
leading non-governmental organisation monitoring compliance with the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights all over the world.
53
Georgetown 2009
Immigrant Detention Aff
Katzoff
HARMS—WOMEN
WOMEN ARE NOT GIVEN NECESSARY TREATMENT FOR PREGNANCY AND OTHER FEMALE
PROBLEMS.
PRO IMMIGRANT 09 (1/24/09 Pro Immigrant “Detention Center Standard experienced aggressive Hardships for
Immigrants” http://proinmigrant.blogspot.com/2009/01/detention-centers-standards-experienced.html)
Some 300 women held at immigration detention centers in Arizona face dangerous delays in health care
and widespread mistreatment, according to a new study by the University of Arizona, the latest report to
criticize conditions at such centers throughout the United States. The study, which federal immigration
officials criticized as narrow and unsubstantiated, was conducted from August 2007 to August 2008 by
the Southwest Institute of Research on Women and the James E. Rogers College of Law, both at the
University of Arizona. It was released Jan. 13. Researchers examined the conditions facing women in the
process of deportation proceedings at three federal immigration centers in Arizona. An estimated 3,000
women are being held nationwide. The study concluded that immigration authorities were too aggressive
in detaining the women, who rarely posed a flight risk, and that as a result, they experienced severe
hardships, including a lack of prenatal care, treatment for cancer, ovarian cysts and other serious medical
conditions, and, in some cases, being mixed in with federal prisoners. Katrina S. Kane, who directs
Arizona detention and removal operations for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, dismissed the
study as unsubstantiated accounts from a limited number of detainees and their advocates. “Reports
such as this, while alleging to be unbiased, do great harm to the public’s understanding of the complex
issues involved in immigration law enforcement,” Ms. Kane said. The director of border research for the
institute on women, Nina Rabin, an immigration lawyer who led the study, countered that interviews with
detainees, former detainees and their lawyers corroborated a pattern of endemic mistreatment. And Ms.
Rabin said she had spoken with immigrant advocacy groups around the United States, many of whom
stated that mistreatment of women at the centers was not unusual. “We were pretty shocked to learn
about all the ways in which life is made endlessly difficult for these women,” Ms. Rabin said, especially
those who were pregnant or had recently given birth. The immigration department has been under
increasing pressure to improve conditions at its detention centers. The federal Government Accountability
Office and the inspector general’s office at the Department of Homeland Security have each released
reports in the last three years criticizing standards at such centers, many of which are operated by private
contractors. Last September, the immigration department announced plans to improve conditions at its
detention centers, but the new rules will not fully take effect until 2010. Meanwhile, Congress has been
weighing whether to impose its own requirements on the department after a New York Times article on
immigrants who died in federal custody. The three centers that the study focused on are not run by the
immigration department but by the Pinal County Sheriff’s Department and the Corrections Corporation of
America. “We strictly enforce all national ICE standards,” Ms. Kane said, “and if we find those standards
are not being met and we feel the deficiencies are not being corrected, we locate our detainees to other
facilities.” In one of several cases documented in the study, a woman being held at the Central Arizona
Detention Center in Florence who experienced excruciating abdominal pain for months after she had
been forced to undergo female genital mutilation in West Africa was told by the center’s staff to “exercise
and watch her diet,” her lawyer at the time, Raha Jorjani, said. After nearly six months, the woman, who
had been convicted of a nonviolent crime, was taken to a hospital where an ultrasound revealed a cyst
the size of a five-month-old fetus, Ms. Jorjani said. Immigration officials then suddenly released the
woman with no money or health insurance to treat the cyst, Ms. Jorjani said. “That she had to remain in
detention at all during this period is egregious,” Ms. Jorjani said. “She shouldn’t have had to get that sick
for immigration to consider her request for release.” Ms. Kane, the department spokeswoman, said that
this was the first the agency had heard of the case and that it took accusations of mistreatment seriously.
In one case the study described, an Undocumented immigrant identified as Ana, who had come to the
United States from Mexico as a baby and served a brief stint in jail for using a fake credit card, was being
held at the Central Arizona Detention Center. Although Ana was six months pregnant and had an ovarian
cyst, she was ordered to use a top bunk and denied a sonogram and prenatal vitamins during the five
weeks she was held, the study said. Three women also told a local immigrant rights group that they had
suffered miscarriages while in detention in the last three years, according to the study. Ms. Kane said that
while her department could not corroborate any of the report’s accusations, it had found that a detainee’s
contention that she had not received treatment for cervical cancer had proved false.
54
Georgetown 2009
Immigrant Detention Aff
Katzoff
HARMS—HIV
MEDICAL CARE IS DENIED TO HIV POSITIVE IMMIGRANTS
LAB BUSINESS WEEK 07 (12/30/07 Lab Buisness Week “HOMELAND SECURITY; Denial of Care for HIV+ Detainees
'Unacceptable,' Says AHF”
http://www.lexisnexis.com:80/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T6785268696&format=GNB
FI&sort=BOOLEAN&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T6785268699&cisb=22_T6785268698&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=2
46798&docNo=4”)
On the heels of today's Human Rights Watch report descrying the treatment of HIV-positive immigrant
detainees, AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) today criticized the U.S. Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) for its callous disregard for the health and well-being of people living with HIV/AIDS in its care. The
71-page report "Chronic Indifference: HIV/AIDS Services for Immigrants Detained by the U.S.," chronicles
the experiences of HIV-positive immigrants whose medical care has been denied or delayed while in U.S.
custody, leading to serious medical consequences and even death. The conclusion of the report: DHS is
failing to provide adequate care to the HIV-positive individuals in its charge (see also Homeland Security).
"The grossly inadequate treatment of HIV-positive detainees in the government's care, as detailed in this
report, shows a callous disregard for human life and is simply unacceptable," said Michael Weinstein,
President of AIDS Healthcare Foundation. "We commend Human Rights Watch for monitoring the
treatment of immigrants living with HIV/AIDS in the government's custody and for bringing this important
issue to light. Government-run institutions -- such as jails, prisons and detention centers -- have an
obligation to provide medical care to those in their charge. We call on the Department of Homeland
Security to take immediate steps to remedy the situation and ensure that, whether an individual remains
in the U.S. or not, all persons in the government's care receive the lifesaving medical treatment they
need." "The consequences of being denied medicine for those living with HIV/AIDS can be dire," said Dr.
Homayoon Khanlou, Chief of Medicine for AIDS Healthcare Foundation. "If patients are not able to take
their 'drug cocktail,' their immune system is not able to provide an adequate level of defense against
pathogens. Off their medications, patients can quickly develop pneumonia, diarrhea, meningitis. They
may even die. In addition, any interruption in the provision of HIV/AIDS meds can lead to drug-resistance
-- a serious consequence when one has a life-threatening condition."
55
Georgetown 2009
Immigrant Detention Aff
Katzoff
HARMS—MENTAL HEALTH
MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEMS ARE WORSENED BY DETENTION
PHYSICIANS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS 03 (6/03 Physicians for Human Rights and The Bellevue/NYU
Program for Survivors of Torture “From Persecution to Prison: The Health Consequences of Detention for
Asylum Seekers” http://physiciansforhumanrights.org/library/documents/reports/report-perstoprison2003.pdf)
Although many of the detainees had suffered substantial pre-migration trauma and reported experiencing
symptoms before detention in the US, the large majority said that their symptoms grew much worse while
in detention. In fact, the levels of anxiety, depression and PTSD observed in this sample of detained
asylum seekers were substantially higher than those reported in several previous studies of refugees
living in refugee camps and asylum seekers /refugees living in the community, further suggesting the
detrimental effects of detention.144 Despite the fact that detained asylum seekers presented a strikingly
high level of psychological distress, access to mental health services in INS facilities appears to be quite
limited. Although the facilities included in this study had mental health professionals contracted to provide
consultation on a part time basis, researchers were unaware of any of the facilities offering ongoing
counseling. Medications for depression, anxiety, or difficulty sleeping were apparently more readily
available, although a number of detainees reportedly were not aware of their availability either. Several
detainees described suicidal thoughts and two reported having attempted to commit suicide while in
detention. Most of these individuals with suicidal thoughts, however, did not notify detention center staff of
this, often apparently because of fear of possible repercussions . Many detainees expressed a concern about how
suicidal individuals would be treated by detention center staff (i.e. placement in segregation) while others feared that revealing their
suicidal ideation might adversely affect their asylum application (see Narratives). The qualitative data from asylum seekers’
testimonies vividly describe how being imprisoned further worsened their already fragile mental health. Many detainees cited the
system’s treatment of them as criminals as particularly stressful. In addition, many of the specific experiences that reportedly
occurred inside the detention centers further exacerbated their psychological difficulties. Several described how a fear of being
placed in segregation or the uncertainty of unannounced transfers among the facilities weighed heavily on them. Harsh
treatment by detention center staff, including verbal abuse, also took an emotional toll on these
individuals. Those who eventually won asylum and were released offered examples of how their mental health improved upon
release, but also described lingering effects of the detention experience. Finally, several detainees indicated that, even when
conditions were relatively good, detention was nevertheless harmful to their mental health.
THE MENTAL HEALTH OF DETAINED ASYLUM SEEKERS IS FURTHER HARMED IN DETENTION
CENTERS
HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST 09 (4/09 Human Rights First “U.S. Detention of Asylum Seekers: Seeking
Protection, Finding Prison” http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/pdf/090429-RP-hrf-asylum-detentionreport.pdf)
In reports and assessments released over the last six years, medical and mental health experts have
documented the harmful impact of detention on the physical and mental health of asylum seekers.
Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) and the Bellevue/NYU Program for Survivors of Torture issued a
comprehensive report in June 2003 that concluded that the detention of asylum seekers inflicts further
harm on what is an already traumatized population.213 The 70 participants in the study were asylum
seekers confined in detention facilities and jails in New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania, with the
majority of detained asylum seekers who were interviewed coming from countries in Africa.214 The
average length of detention at the time of the interviews was 5 months, with a range that stretched from 1
month to 5 years.215 The study found that detained asylum seekers suffer extremely high levels of
anxiety, depression, and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (“PTSD”). Specifically, it found that of those
interviewed: 86% suffered significant depression; 77% suffered from anxiety; and 50% suffered from
PTSD.216 Moreover, the study found that the already poor psychological health of asylum seekers worsened the longer they
remained in custody. In fact, uncertainty about the length of detention was itself a significant cause of anxiety and mental
distress.217 Given the impact of detention, the PHR/Bellevue report recommended that asylum seekers who are not a flight or
security risk be released on parole. The report also recommended that asylum seekers who are not eligible for unconditional parole
be released from detention and placed into alternatives to detention programs. The medical experts specifically recommended that
asylum seekers not be shackled, be permitted to wear personal clothing, be allowed more liberal visitation by friends, family and
others, and be provided with adequate medical and mental health services.218
56
Georgetown 2009
Immigrant Detention Aff
Katzoff
HARMS—MENTAL HEALTH
MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH CARE IN DENTENTION CENTERS MUST BE IMPROVED
HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST 09 (4/09 Human Rights First “U.S. Detention of Asylum Seekers: Seeking
Protection, Finding Prison” http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/pdf/090429-RP-hrf-asylum-detentionreport.pdf)
Medical and Mental Health Care Must be Improved: The Department of Homeland Security and ICE
should take steps to improve the provision of medical and mental health care at all facilities where asylum
seekers and other immigrant detainees are held, seeking input from independent experts and medical
professionals, many of whom have provided detailed recommendations on improving medical care.
These reforms should include steps to ensure that: Medical units have an appropriate level of staffing
prior to detaining asylum seekers and other immigrants at a facility, and a mechanism is in place to
ensure that detainees are removed from facilities that do not have adequate medical staffing.
Interpretation services are appropriately used during medical visits at all facilities, including by creating a
mechanism and/or form to evaluate and monitor the use of interpreters by medical staff at facilities.
Mental health care should include specialized counseling for survivors of torture and trauma. Congress
should continue to provide increased oversight to issues relating to detainee health care and deaths, and
should pass legislation mandating improved medical care and the independent investigation of detainee
deaths.
57
Georgetown 2009
Immigrant Detention Aff
Katzoff
HARMS—COUNSELING
COUNSELING SERVICES ARE NOT READILY AVAILIBLE
PHYSICIANS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS 03 (6/03 Physicians for Human Rights and The Bellevue/NYU
Program for Survivors of Torture “From Persecution to Prison: The Health Consequences of Detention for
Asylum Seekers” http://physiciansforhumanrights.org/library/documents/reports/report-perstoprison2003.pdf)
While many detainees voiced interest in speaking with a counselor, such services, were apparently not
readily available or limited and not sustained. Many individuals who reported being interested in
counseling never requested it because of a commonly held understanding that it was not available.
‘
58
Georgetown 2009
Immigrant Detention Aff
Katzoff
SOLVENCY ADVOCATE
HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH RECOMMENDATIONS FOR HEALTHY DETENTION CENTERS
HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH 07 (12/07 Human Rights Watch “Chronic Indifference: HIV/AIDS Services for
Immigrants Detained by the United States” Vol. 19 No. 5
http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2007/12/05/chronic-indifference-0)
To the U.S. Department of Homeland Security: Ensure the adequacy of care for detainees by increasing
the number and quality of inspections by the DHS Office of Inspector General. This will require
strengthening the internal monitoring capacity of the Detention Standards Compliance Unit that should
have the capacity to conduct multiple on-site inspections, including unannounced ones, of each facility
housing detainees. Monitors should interview detainees. Monitors should possess the expertise to ensure
that each facility complies with national and international correctional health care standards by providing
medical care equivalent to that afforded in the community. Ensure the adequacy of care for detainees by
revising the Medical Care Detention Standard, including the provisions related to HIV/AIDS, to conform to
standards established by the National Commission on Correctional Health Care, the American Public
Health Association Standards for Health Care in a Correctional Setting, or other nationally recognized
standards that require medical care equivalent to that afforded in the community. Protect vulnerable
populations from abuse and harassment by revising the Detention Standards to include a nondiscrimination policy with education, training and enforcement provisions for the protection of lesbian,
gay, bisexual, and transgender detainees and detainees with HIV/AIDS. Ensure transparency and
accountability to the public by converting the Medical Care and other Detention Standards to federal
administrative regulations. The promulgation of regulations would provide the public with an opportunity
for comment and dialogue with the Department, increasing the transparency of immigration detention
procedures. The issuance of regulations would provide legal recourse to detainees in the case of
violation. Promote alternatives to detention for immigrants with HIV/AIDS and other chronic medical
conditions. Ensure implementation of existing policies permitting prosecutorial discretion in such cases.
To the Division of Immigration Health Services: Ensure the adequacy of care for detainees by gathering
information from all detention facilities holding immigrants about the number of detainees with HIV/AIDS
and the treatment and services provided to them. This information should inform the development of
evidence-based policies and programs designed to address the needs of this vulnerable population.
Ensure the adequacy of care for detainees by revising the HIV/AIDS provisions of the Medical Care
Detention Standard to ensure access to voluntary testing and counseling. These provisions should
ensure informed consent, confidentiality and counseling and should conform to national and international
recommended standards for HIV/AIDS testing in a correctional setting. To Immigration and Customs
Enforcement: Incorporate and require compliance with Medical Care Detention Standards (as revised
above) as an express condition of contracts with private, local or county facilities. Provide training to each
facility designed to ensure compliance with the standards. Improve the current system for tracking
complaints from detainees. Ensure that complaints relating to medical care can be monitored and serious
or systematic violations of the medical care standards can be identified and redressed. Ensure that
detainees who complain are protected from retaliation. Ensure that all immigrants detained by ICE
receive notification of complaint procedures in their native languages. Ensure that all detainees receive
medical services free of charge. To the U.S. Government Accountability Office Increase executive and
legislative branch oversight of conditions of detention for immigrants by ensuring that ICE has taken
appropriate action in response to the recommendations in its recent report. To the U.S. Congress: Ensure
that all immigrants detained in federal custody are subject to comparable standards of medical care.
These standards should comply with national and international correctional health care standards by
requiring medical care equivalent to that afforded in the community. Establish a monitoring body
independent of the Department of Homeland Security with the responsibility and the expertise to ensure
that each facility housing immigration detainees complies with national and international correctional
health care standards by providing medical care equivalent to that afforded in the community.
59
Georgetown 2009
Immigrant Detention Aff
Katzoff
DHS SOLVENCY ADVOCATE
Mechanism
Cahan 07 (Lisa, J.D. Candidate at Suffolk University Law School, 3 J. Health & Biomed. L. 343)
Congress passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 ("IIRIRA") 7 and the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"), 8 which resulted in a tremendous increase in the use of detention by
Immigration and Customs Enforcement
detains more than three times the number of
aliens than were detained in 1995
The Department of Homeland
Security ("DHS") set forth regulations in the Detention Operations Manual
including five standards on
health and medical care, which serve as guidelines for immigration detention centers. However, these
[*346] regulations are not binding and are frequently disregarded by the detention facilities without
consequence to those responsible.
The section entitled "Medical Care"
provides "All detainees shall have access to medical services that promote detainee health and general
well-being." To accomplish this goal, the DOM requires that the detainees receive an "initial medical and
mental health screening immediately upon their arrival" and, if need be, "specialized health care, mental
health care, and hospitalization within the local community." Moreover, each facility is required to "have
regularly scheduled times, known as sick call, when medical personnel will be available to see detainees
who have requested medical services." They are also required to "have a written plan for delivery of 24hour emergency health care when no medical personnel are on duty at the facility, or when immediate
outside medical attention is required." Notwithstanding the clear DOM regulations, there have been
numerous instances where aliens' complaints of health problems have been ignored, denying them
access to necessary medical services.
there must be binding and enforceable
regulations for immigration detention facilities. As long as the facilities are not held accountable for the
mistreatment of detainees, the violations will continue
Second, the government must require that all detention facilities
implement a functional grievance procedure, whereby an immigration detainee may report violations
without having to initiate a lawsuit
("ICE"). 9 Consequently, ICE currently
, which has caused severe overcrowding and straining of resources in many facilities.
10
("DOM"),
12
serve as mere unenforceable guidelines to the SPCs, CDFs, and IGSAs.
29
<Card Continues> [*350] To regulate immigration detention, ICE introduced the DOM in November 2000, but the thirty-eight standards that were set forth in this document
Five of the thirty-eight standards are related to health and medical care of detainees.
35
30
<Card Continues> A. Improve and Codify the Regulations First,
. 56 The government and its agents must be held accountable for their improper actions.
alien has is filing suit in federal district court, which is a costly endeavor that few can initiate or afford.
57
Currently, the only practical recourse an
58
. 59 The DOM does provide for a formal grievance [*357] procedure, by which an alien may file written complaints against the conditions of confinement. 60 Under the DOM, every
facility is required to provide assistance for detainees who are "illiterate, disabled, or non-English speaking." 61 Further, informal and oral grievances must be responded to in a timely manner, and the facility has a duty to provide translation services, as necessary. 62
many facilities have failed to comply with the DOM regulations and have not implemented a
grievance procedure
The regulations themselves must be improved
medical personnel who examine
immigration detainees must be on-site physicians, not nurses. Should the detainee require medical
attention, there cannot be any delay beyond what is absolutely necessary
The detention
facility must also provide prompt evaluations of acute medical needs and be prepared to transfer
detainees to a hospital, as necessary.
However,
. 63 Even those that have established a grievance procedure often ignore complaints.
64
Each complaint must be legitimately considered and the facility must respond within a reasonable amount of time.
65
. 66 The ACLU has demanded [*358] that
. 68 Immigration detainees must be able to receive their previously prescribed
medications reliably.
69
Prior treatment of common ailments, such as hypertension, diabetes, and asthma must be maintained to prevent complications that may become life threatening without continued medication.
71
70
Finally, translation services must be available so the detainees can effectively communicate their needs for health services and immediate medical attention. 72
60
Georgetown 2009
Immigrant Detention Aff
Katzoff
HARMS—HUMAN RIGHTS
PRISONERS ARE ENTITLED TO MEDICAL CARE THAT MUST MEET HUMAN RIGHTS STANDARDS
HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH 07 (12/07 Human Rights Watch “Chronic Indifference: HIV/AIDS Services for
Immigrants Detained by the United States” Vol. 19 No. 5
http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2007/12/05/chronic-indifference-0)
Human Rights Watch maintains that all prisoners, whether administratively or criminally detained, are
entitled to adequate and appropriate medical care in compliance with human rights standards and
medical best practice. While no US court has yet articulated in detail what is “reasonable” health care for
administrative detainees, “reasonable” should equate to medical care that meets human rights standards
and medical best practice. In line with human rights standards, correctional health experts, in the US and
internationally, consider that prison health care should meet the “equivalence standard,” which means it
should meet at least the same standards of health care applicable in the community. In the case of
HIV/AIDS, US correctional health experts have made clear that this standard reflects the principle that
“the medical management of HIV-positive inmates…should parallel that offered to individuals in the noncorrectional community.” Specifically, “medical care must meet the professional standards of the
community and be performed by appropriately trained and credentialed providers who are properly
supervised and who use clinical protocols.” Key elements of the standard of equivalence for HIV/AIDS
care in a correctional setting, as detailed by the National Commission on Correctional Health Care and
the American Public Health Association include: HIV prevention education, availability and promotion of
voluntary testing, and counseling; Adherence to Center for Disease Control, Department of Health and
Human Services or other nationally accepted clinical protocols for the treatment of HIV; Consultation
and/or supervision of HIV-related care by clinicians with expertise in HIV care; Procedures to ensure
maintenance of confidentiality in a correctional setting. Yet, medical care for detainees failed to meet any
of the key elements of the “equivalence standard” outlined: ICE has no program for voluntary testing,
education or counseling detainees. with HIV/AIDS. The Detention Standard for HIV/AIDS makes no
reference to the nationally accepted clinical protocols for the treatment of HIV/AIDS. The Detention
Standard for HIV/AIDS fails to require training or consultation with specialists for physicians treating
detainees with HIV/AIDS. The Detention Standards inadequately address the issue of confidentiality,
leaving detainees with HIV/AIDS exposed to discrimination and harassment. Gay and transgender
detainees are particularly vulnerable to discrimination.
61
Georgetown 2009
Immigrant Detention Aff
Katzoff
VIOLATES ICESCR
ICESCR REQUIRES THAT HEALTH FACILITIES AND CARE BE ACCESSIBLE TO ALL INCLUDING
MARGINALIZED POPULATIONS
UN 2000 (11/8/00 United Nations Econoimic and Social Council “Substantative Issues Arising in the
Implementation of the International Cocenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights” Article 12
http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(symbol)/E.C.12.2000.4.En?OpenDocument)
12. The right to health in all its forms and at all levels contains the following interrelated and essential
elements, the precise application of which will depend on the conditions prevailing in a particular State
party: (a) Availability. Functioning public health and health-care facilities, goods and services, as well as
programmes, have to be available in sufficient quantity within the State party. The precise nature of the
facilities, goods and services will vary depending on numerous factors, including the State party's
developmental level. They will include, however, the underlying determinants of health, such as safe and
potable drinking water and adequate sanitation facilities, hospitals, clinics and other health-related
buildings, trained medical and professional personnel receiving domestically competitive salaries, and
essential drugs, as defined by the WHO Action Programme on Essential Drugs. (5)
(b) Accessibility.
Health facilities, goods and services (6) have to be accessible to everyone without discrimination, within
the jurisdiction of the State party. Accessibility has four overlapping dimensions: Non-discrimination:
health facilities, goods and services must be accessible to all, especially the most vulnerable or
marginalized sections of the population, in law and in fact, without discrimination on any of the prohibited
grounds. (7) Physical accessibility: health facilities, goods and services must be within safe physical
reach for all sections of the population, especially vulnerable or marginalized groups, such as ethnic
minorities and indigenous populations, women, children, adolescents, older persons, persons with
disabilities and persons with HIV/AIDS. Accessibility also implies that medical services and underlying
determinants of health, such as safe and potable water and adequate sanitation facilities, are within safe
physical reach, including in rural areas. Accessibility further includes adequate access to buildings for
persons with disabilities. Economic accessibility (affordability): health facilities, goods and services must
be affordable for all. Payment for health-care services, as well as services related to the underlying
determinants of health, has to be based on the principle of equity, ensuring that these services, whether
privately or publicly provided, are affordable for all, including socially disadvantaged groups. Equity
demands that poorer households should not be disproportionately burdened with health expenses as
compared to richer households. Information accessibility: accessibility includes the right to seek, receive
and impart information and ideas (8) concerning health issues. However, accessibility of information
should not impair the right to have personal health data treated with confidentiality. (c) Acceptability. All
health facilities, goods and services must be respectful of medical ethics and culturally appropriate, i.e.
respectful of the culture of individuals, minorities, peoples and communities, sensitive to gender and lifecycle requirements, as well as being designed to respect confidentiality and improve the health status of
those concerned. (d) Quality. As well as being culturally acceptable, health facilities, goods and
services must also be scientifically and medically appropriate and of good quality. This requires, inter alia,
skilled medical personnel, scientifically approved and unexpired drugs and hospital equipment, safe and
potable water, and adequate sanitation.
62
Georgetown 2009
Immigrant Detention Aff
Katzoff
VIOLATES ICESCR
THE ICESCR REQUIRES ACCESS TO METICAL ATTENTION FOR BOTH PHYSICAL AND MENTAL
ILLNESS.
UN 2000 (11/8/00 United Nations Econoimic and Social Council “Substantative Issues Arising in the
Implementation of the International Cocenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights” Article 12
http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(symbol)/E.C.12.2000.4.En?OpenDocument)
17. "The creation of conditions which would assure to all medical service and medical attention in the
event of sickness" (art. 12.2 (d)), both physical and mental, includes the provision of equal and timely
access to basic preventive, curative, rehabilitative health services and health education; regular screening
programmes; appropriate treatment of prevalent diseases, illnesses, injuries and disabilities, preferably at
community level; the provision of essential drugs; and appropriate mental health treatment and care. A
further important aspect is the improvement and furtherance of participation of the population in the
provision of preventive and curative health services, such as the organization of the health sector, the
insurance system and, in particular, participation in political decisions relating to the right to health taken
at both the community and national levels.
THE ICESCR REQUIRES STATES TO PROVIDE HEALTH SERVICES TO THOSE WHO DON’T HAVE
SUFFICIENT MEANS
UN 2000 (11/8/00 United Nations Econoimic and Social Council “Substantative Issues Arising in the
Implementation of the International Cocenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights” Article 12
http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(symbol)/E.C.12.2000.4.En?OpenDocument)
With respect to the right to health, equality of access to health care and health services has to be
emphasized. States have a special obligation to provide those who do not have sufficient means with the
necessary health insurance and health-care facilities, and to prevent any discrimination on internationally
prohibited grounds in the provision of health care and health services, especially with respect to the core
obligations of the right to health. Inappropriate health resource allocation can lead to discrimination that
may not be overt. For example, investments should not disproportionately favour expensive curative
health services which are often accessible only to a small, privileged fraction of the population, rather
than primary and preventive health care benefiting a far larger part of the population.
63
Georgetown 2009
Immigrant Detention Aff
Katzoff
SWINE FLU
SWINE FLU IS IN DETENTION CENTERS
ANDERSON 09 (6/11/09 Curt Anderson, The Associated Press “Miami immigration center has 3 swine flu
cases” http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hCBNjOCQxJAFQGJTiVz87LfMapAD98P8MDG1)
Three cases of swine flu were confirmed Friday at Miami's Krome immigration detention center,
prompting authorities to temporarily stop accepting new inmates and halt social visits. The three inmates,
whose identities and nationalities were not released, are among 16 who came down with flu-like
symptoms this week, said U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokeswoman Nicole Navas.
They are being treated for the disease and separated from the main population to prevent its spread.
Krome housed 542 detainees as of Friday, most of them immigrants awaiting decisions on whether they
will be deported. ICE officials could not immediately say whether H1N1 virus has been detected in other
immigration detention facilities around the country. New detainees are being sent to other facilities and
visitation will be suspended at least through Sunday, Navas said. ICE operates a number of other
detention centers in South Florida but not all are secure enough to accept detainees accused of crimes
as Krome does. Krome detainees can still have non-contact visits with their lawyers, and contact visits will
be allowed on a case-by-case basis. No workers at Krome have tested positive for the H1N1 virus but
one guard has flu symptoms, said Matthew Brooks, president of Local 527 of the American Federation of
Government Employees. Brooks said Krome personnel are getting masks and guidance on how to avoid
the disease, such as frequent hand-washing. "We have been harping on this for weeks to have these
masks issued," Brooks said. "We were disappointed that it took this long." According to Friday's update
from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there have been 417 confirmed swine flu
cases in Florida and 17,855 across the country. No deaths have been reported in Florida. The disease
has affected about 29,000 people in 74 countries during the current outbreak.
64
Georgetown 2009
Immigrant Detention Aff
Katzoff
ICE’S DETENTION STANDARDS NOT ENFORCED
ICE’S NATIONAL DETENTION STANDARDS ARE NOT ENFORCEABLE
TUMLIN 07 (7/20/07 Karen Tumlin,
National Immigration Law Center Skadden Fellow “Immigration
Detention Centers under the Microscope: Recent Reports Reveal Widespread Violations on the National
Detention Standards” Immigrants Rights Update, Vol. 21, Issue 6,
http://www.nilc.org/immlawpolicy/arrestdet/ad090.htm)
Over the last several months, independent reports have focused public attention on the substandard
conditions immigrants face while detained by U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
Although ICE has national detention standards outlining basic requirements for immigration detention,
they are not legally enforceable, unlike the comparable rules for criminal detainees. As a result, over
230,000 immigrants who are detained each year may be unable to win meritorious cases for relief from
removal, such as asylum, because of the tremendous obstacles posed by detention, including lack of
access to phones, counsel, and basic legal materials. Recent reports have highlighted system-wide
problems with detainees’ access to phones and medical treatment.
DEATHS IN DETENTION CENTERS MAY HAVE BEEN PREVENTED IF ICE ADHERED TO THEIR
NATIONAL DENTENTION CENTER STANDADS
TUMLIN 07 (7/20/07 Karen Tumlin,
National Immigration Law Center Skadden Fellow “Immigration
Detention Centers under the Microscope: Recent Reports Reveal Widespread Violations on the National
Detention Standards” Immigrants Rights Update, Vol. 21, Issue 6,
http://www.nilc.org/immlawpolicy/arrestdet/ad090.htm)
Recent reports have also highlighted longstanding problems that detainees face in obtaining the most
basic medical care. Due to the inadequate provision of medical treatment, some immigrants suffer longterm damage to their health and some even die in detention. At the end of June, the New York Times
reported a new tally of the number of immigrants who have died in detention—62 since 2004. Before ICE
disclosed this number to the New York Times, advocates only knew of approximately 20 deaths during
this period. (See Nina Bernstein, “New Scrutiny as Immigrants Die in Custody,” New York Times, June
26, 2007.)
Many of these deaths could have been prevented had ICE adhered to its own detention standards
regarding medical care, and diagnosed and treated basic medical problems. The Times article relays
grim tales of detained immigrants, including a woman detained in New Mexico whose requests for
medical care went unanswered for weeks before her death, a man in Virginia who huddled for warmth
next to the dryer in his housing unit after guards failed to provide his kidney medication, and a lawful
permanent resident detained in Virginia whose cellmate could not rouse a guard for 20 minutes after she
fell from the top bunk of their cell. Worse still, the article describes detention staff callously telling a
detainee his medication was unavailable because ICE does not pay enough for medical care, as well as
the testimony of a warden plainly stating that his facility fell below constitutional requirements for medical
care due to the constraints place on it by ICE.
The Times article touched off a firestorm of press, including subsequent editorials in the New York
Times (“Gitmos Across America”) and the Washington Post (“An Immigration Basic: Broad Reform May
Have to Wait, Decent Treatment at Detention Centers Does Not”) highlighting the dire consequences of
the decades-long expansion of immigration detention, increased immigration enforcement, and a woefully
unregulated detention system. The Post editorial was published shortly after the prospects for
comprehensive immigration reform died in the Senate, and it called for reforms to the immigration
detention system outside of the context of comprehensive reform. In particular, the editorial called for the
promulgation of binding detention standards and an independent review of the sprawling immigration
detention system.
ICE felt compelled to respond to the New York Times article. John Torres, director of ICE’s Detention
and Removal Operations, submitted a letter to the editor, published on July 4, 2007, stating that ICE did
not “believe that only healthy individuals should be accountable for violating the law, while others should
get a pass.” He went on to explain the deaths of detained immigrants by claiming that for “a population
that typically has little preventive or continuing medical care, it’s sadly unsurprising that health issues are
prevalent and that some chronic conditions result in death.”
65
Georgetown 2009
Immigrant Detention Aff
Katzoff
ICE’S DETENTION STANDARDS NOT ENFORCED
THE GOVERNMENT USES THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS REGARDING THE CONDITIONS OF
CONFINMENT OF IMMIGRATION DETAINEES, THE ICE NATIONAL DETENTION STANDARDS
NILC 07 (5/3/07 NILC and ACLU of So. Calif.: Presentation prepared for the United Nations Special
Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants “US Immigration Detention System: Substandard
Conditions of Confinement and Ineffective Oversight”
http://www.nilc.org/immlawpolicy/arrestdet/UNspecialrapporteur_presentation_2007-05-03.pdf)
The U.S. government has failed to promulgate binding minimum standards for the conditions of
confinement for detained immigrants. In addition, it has failed to ensure that detention facilities comply
with the nonbinding standards that exist. As a result, over 200,000 immigrants who are detained each
year may be unable to win meritorious cases for relief from removal, such as asylum, because of the
tremendous obstacles posed by detention, including lack of crucial protections such as access to counsel
and basic legal materials. The government’s management of immigration detention is further marred by
ineffective oversight, lack of accountability, and lack of transparency. In 2000, the federal government
adopted minimum requirements regarding the conditions of confinement of immigration detainees, now
known as the ICE National Detention Standards (“Detention Standards”). The Detention Standards are
nonbinding and not judicially enforceable. The Standards include 38 standards concerning detainee legal
rights, detainee services, and facility security.
66
Georgetown 2009
Immigrant Detention Aff
Katzoff
IMMIGRANTS HELD WITH CRIMINALS
IMMIGRANTS ARE OFTEN TIMES HELD IN THE SAME DETENTION CENTERS AS CONVICTED
CRIMINALS
NILC 07 (5/3/07 NILC and ACLU of So. Calif.: Presentation prepared for the United Nations Special
Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants “US Immigration Detention System: Substandard
Conditions of Confinement and Ineffective Oversight”
http://www.nilc.org/immlawpolicy/arrestdet/UNspecialrapporteur_presentation_2007-05-03.pdf)
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), an agency under the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS), detains immigrants in removal proceedings or awaiting removal. ICE detains immigrants
in four types of jails, including Service Processing Centers (SPCs), which are directly owned and
operated by ICE, often using private company personnel as guards; Contract Detention Facilities (CDFs),
which are operated by private companies under contract with the DHS; Intergovernmental Service
Agreement facilities (IGSAs), which are actually state and local jails with contracts with DHS; and federal
Bureau of Prisons (BOP) facilities. CDFs, IGSAs, and BOP facilities routinely hold convicted criminals
along with immigrants. Immigrants may be detained for months or years while their cases progress. In
2005, DHS operated eight SPCs, and contracted with seven CDFs and over four hundred IGSAs. In
recent years, according to government estimates, one-half to three-fourths of all immigrant detainees
were held at state and local county jails, or IGSAs. ICE personnel are not stationed at IGSAs, and ICE
does not adequately train IGSA staff on the Detention Standards. Reports by the United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the American Bar Association (ABA), and even reviews of
facilities by DHS itself show that the government has not achieved even minimal compliance with the
Detention Standards. Several years after the Detention Standards were adopted, detained immigrants
continue to be deprived of phone access, visitation, and legal materials, and subjected to irrational and
abusive practices. DHS does not publicly release its annual reviews, or reviews by the ABA and UNHCR.
In fact, it allows ABA and UNHCR to inspect and review facilities on the condition that the reports are held
confidential. In recent litigation, however, the National Immigration Law Center, the ACLU of Southern
U.S. Immigration Detention System: Substandard Conditions of Confinement and Ineffective Oversight
California, and the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project obtained copies of approximately 200 such reviews
from 2002 to 2005.
67
Georgetown 2009
Immigrant Detention Aff
Katzoff
SOLVENCY—INTERNATIONAL LAW
THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURTY NEEDS TO ADOPT REGULATIONS THAT ARE IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONSTITUTION AND THE PRINCIPALS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
NILC 07 (5/3/07 NILC and ACLU of So. Calif.: Presentation prepared for the United Nations Special
Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants “US Immigration Detention System: Substandard
Conditions of Confinement and Ineffective Oversight”
http://www.nilc.org/immlawpolicy/arrestdet/UNspecialrapporteur_presentation_2007-05-03.pdf)
The report, based on hundreds of DHS, ABA, and UNHCR reviews of detention facilities that were
previously unavailable to the public, will detail scores of violations of over a dozen Detention Standards,
including key standards relating to detainees’ ability to prepare and win their removal cases. In most
cases, these Detention Standard violations also represent violations of international standards concerning
detention of preconviction populations and asylum-seekers. Based on our study of these reviews and
information from government officials regarding detention oversight, we agree that certain changes in
policy are vital to ensure humane conditions of confinement for detained immigrants, in accordance with
the U.S. Constitution as well as principles of international law. First, DHS must adopt binding regulations
governing the minimum requirements of detention. The ICE National Standards must be made binding
and judicially enforceable. Second, DHS must ensure that all facilities comply with the Detention
Standards, by training facility staff on the Standards and by maintaining a regular presence of DHS
personnel at each state and local county jail where immigrants are detained. Third, DHS must expand
and impose penalties on facilities that fail to comply with the Detention Standards and establish incentives
for compliance. In addition, DHS must improve its oversight of detention facilities. It should ensure that
each facility is in fact reviewed on an annual basis, that those reviews require interviews with detainees,
and that the reviews are conducted by staff who are specialists in the Detention Standards. Significantly
more staffing and training resources must be devoted to oversight of detention facilities. DHS must
promote and support reviews of facilities by independent agencies, including the ABA and UNHCR. All
facility reviews must be publicly released, and DHS should analyze these reviews to determine which
areas and which facilities require focused improvement. DHS should report the results of this analysis
each year to Congress and the public. Finally, DHS should review select facilities on an unannounced
basis.
68
Georgetown 2009
Immigrant Detention Aff
Katzoff
MISC
A LAWSUIT WAS FILED REGARDING THE UNHUMAN CONDITIONS AT THE B-18 DETENTION
CENTER
ALCU 09 (4/2/09 “Immigration Officials Sued for Holding Detainees in Appalling Conditions at L.A.
Detention Facility” http://www.nilc.org/immlawpolicy/arrestdet/B18-newsrelease-2009-04-02.pdf)
LOS ANGELES, Calif. – A team of legal organizations announced today that it is suing the U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency in federal district court for detaining immigrants in
egregious, unsanitary conditions in a downtown Los Angeles facility without soap, drinking water,
toothpaste, toothbrushes, sanitary napkins, changes of clothing or showers. The lawsuit – filed by the
American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, the National Immigration Law Center, and the law
firm of Paul, Hastings, Janofsky and Walker LLP – also charges that the unsanitary conditions have led
ICE to deprive immigrants of due-process rights such as access to mail or attorneys while in detention.
The facility, known as “B-18,” was intended to temporarily house detainees for no more than 12 hours.
But in a perverse distortion of its original purpose, immigration officials have kept detainees in this
basement facility for weeks by shuttling them to local jails in the evening and on weekends, and returning
them to the facility the next business day. Under these intolerable conditions, immigration officials often
fail to notify detainees that they have the right to obtain release on bond while their cases remain
pending. Meanwhile, immigration officials deny detainees any mail correspondence, writing materials or
access to other materials that would enable them to defend themselves – all of which are required by law.
“It’s shameful that immigration officers are treating detainees like animals, apparently because the
immigration bureaucracy cannot seem to send detainees to the right place,” said Ahilan Arulanantham,
ACLU/SC director of immigrant rights and national security. “Officers routinely crowd detainees into dirty
cells under grossly unsanitary conditions. They then deny them access to basic constitutional necessities
like the use of the mail, making it impossible for them to defend themselves.” “There is no good reason
why authorities cannot simply send the detainees to the right place and release those who are eligible for
bond, rather than shuttling them back and forth for days or weeks on end. The B-18 fiasco is yet another
example of how our immigration detention system has completely broken down,” Arulanantham added.
The lawsuit also contends that the conditions at issue violate an order from a federal court in Los Angeles
in another case which involved similarly egregious abuses. “The shell game officials are playing with
human lives has left detainees without the ability to access basic services that any detention center must
provide. Detainees at B-18 have no access to outdoor recreation and cannot send or receive mail, even
for legal purposes,” said Karen Tumlin, a staff attorney with the National Immigration Law Center. “They
cannot make private phone calls to attorneys and have no ability to learn their rights because officials
deny them access to a law library and create barriers to their access to counsel.” “The plain fact is that B18 was never intended to be used as a detention facility,” Tumlin continued. “The facility fails on every
level to house detainees in a way that comports with basic notions of dignity. B-18 does not provide soap
or a change of clothes to detainees and routinely denies menstruating women sanitary napkins. Detention
under such conditions is not only unlawful, but downright cruel.” While in B-18, detainees are crowded
into a cell with as many as 50 other people. In the cell, there is a single phone, a bench and one or two
exposed toilets, but no soap or drinking water. Detainees are often forced to sleep on the floor.
Menstruating women who ask for sanitary napkins are routinely ignored. And there is no access to
medical attention. On some occasions, it has taken ICE officials more than a day to fix a clogged toilet.
Despite these heinous conditions, there is no mechanism for detainees to lodge a complaint. According to
Toliver Besson, a partner at Paul Hastings, the lawsuit gives the new administration of President Barack
Obama a way to demonstrate its commitment to immigrants’ rights. "The Obama administration has
indicated that it wants all immigrant detention facilities to be operated in a clean, safe and constitutional
manner. B-18 fails miserably to meet this standard, but the administration's response to this lawsuit is an
opportunity to rectify this injustice and show that it is moving in a new direction," Besson said. The
National ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project also serves as co-counsel in the case.
69
Georgetown 2009
Immigrant Detention Aff
Katzoff
DETENTION HURTS ASYLUM SEEKERS
DETENTION UNDERMINES THE ABILITY OF REFUGEES TO WIN ASYLUM
HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST 09 (4/09 Human Rights First “U.S. Detention of Asylum Seekers: Seeking
Protection, Finding Prison” http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/pdf/090429-RP-hrf-asylum-detentionreport.pdf)
Detention negatively affects the mental health of asylum seekers, and their poor psychological health
deteriorates further the longer they remain in detention. Detention also undermines the ability of refugees
to win asylum—by making it more difficult for them to obtain legal representation and limiting their ability
to gather information in support of their asylum requests. Some refugees may even decide to abandon
their requests for asylum in the United States, because they cannot bear to be detained any longer in a
U.S. immigration jail.
CONDITIONS IN DETENTION CENTERS ARE SO BAD THAT ASYLUM SEEKERS OFTEN
WITHDRAW THEIR APPLICATIONS FOR ASYLUM
HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST 09 (4/09 Human Rights First “U.S. Detention of Asylum Seekers: Seeking
Protection, Finding Prison” http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/pdf/090429-RP-hrf-asylum-detentionreport.pdf)
Because detention can be particularly difficult for victims of persecution and torture, some asylum seekers
may decide to withdraw their applications and return to their home country—even though they would face
grave danger there—rather than face the prospect of months of additional detention in the United States
as their cases make their way through the system. Others give up efforts to block their deportation while
their cases are on appeal. The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom’s study documented
a number of instances in which asylum seekers cited harsh detention conditions as a factor in the
decision to abandon their asylum claims. The study concluded that some asylum seekers who may very
well be eligible for asylum “could be deterred from continuing to pursue their claims because they are
forced to remain in detention throughout the course of the asylum process.” For arriving asylum seekers
in particular, many expressed surprise at being handcuffed, imprisoned and treated like criminals when
they came to the United States to flee persecution and seek protection. 234 Through its interviews with
asylum seekers and their attorneys, as well as through its own pro bono representation work, Human
Rights First has learned of cases of asylum seekers who decided to abandon their cases or stop fighting
their deportation rather than spend more time detained in U.S. immigration jails.
PROBLEMS IN DETENTION CENTERS INCLUDE 90 DEATHS AND A FAILURE TO ADHERE TO
MANDITORY MEDICAL TASKS
HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST 09 (4/09 Human Rights First “U.S. Detention of Asylum Seekers: Seeking
Protection, Finding Prison” http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/pdf/090429-RP-hrf-asylum-detentionreport.pdf)
Over the last year, a number of U.S. government assessments, media reports and other studies have
identified serious deficiencies in the health care provided to asylum seekers and immigrants who are held
in detention centers and jails across the country. These reports have documented a range of problems,
including: Severe staffing shortages, with over 140 medical staff openings and an 18 percent vacancy
rate for medical staff as of June 2008; Failures to use interpreters to communicate with detainees during
medical exams, in some cases leading to dangerous misdiagnoses; 90 deaths of detainees since ICE’s
inception in 2003, including 13 suicides; In addition, these reports have detailed failures by medical staff
to administer mandatory physical exams that are required to take place within 24 hours of detention, as
well as initial medical screenings. The reports have also documented examples of significant delays and
backlogs in responding to detainee requests for medical attention.
70
Georgetown 2009
Immigrant Detention Aff
Katzoff
ALTERNATIVES TO DETENTION KEY
ALTERNATIVES TO DETENTION SUCESSFULY LOWER COSTS OF DETENTION AS WELL AS
DECREASE CHANCES FOR ABUSE WHILE GOING THROUGH THE IMMIGRATION SYSTEM
HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST 09 (4/09 Human Rights First “U.S. Detention of Asylum Seekers: Seeking Protection, Finding
Prison” http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/pdf/090429-RP-hrf-asylum-detention-report.pdf)
A number of programs, known as “alternatives to detention,” have been successfully tested in the United
States. These programs generally provide for release from immigration detention with some additional
measures to monitor the individual after release. These measures can include in-person reporting,
reporting by telephone, and home visits by representatives of the organization overseeing the program.
The UNHCR, in a comprehensive study of alternatives to detention for asylum seekers, concluded that
the factors that influence the effectiveness of an alternatives to detention program include: the provision
of legal services, ensuring that asylum seekers are informed about their rights and obligations, and
screening for family or community ties or using community groups as sponsors.332 Participants in these
kinds of programs have very high “appearance rates” for their immigration court hearings— ranging from
93 percent to 99 percent.333 While the average daily cost of detention is $95, the average daily cost for
an alternatives to detention program falls between $10 and $14.334 These kinds of programs—when
used as true alternatives to detention for individuals who could not otherwise be released on parole or
bond—represent significant cost-savings to the government.
UNDER INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS, ASYLUM SEEKERS SHOULD NOT BE DETAINED IN
PRISONS, RATHER ALTHERNATIVES TO DETENTION SHOULD BE USED
HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST 09 (4/09 Human Rights First “U.S. Detention of Asylum Seekers: Seeking
Protection, Finding Prison” http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/pdf/090429-RP-hrf-asylum-detentionreport.pdf)
The United States should bring its laws and practices relating to immigration detention in line with
international standards and U.S. traditions of fairness. The United States has pledged to treat those who
seek asylum in accordance with its commitment to the Refugee Convention and Protocol and the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which prohibits arbitrary detention. Under
international standards, asylum seekers should generally not be detained. When they are, that detention
should have adequate safeguards, including procedures to ensure review by an independent authority or
court. Alternatives to detention should be used. And when an asylum seeker is detained, he or she should
not be held in penal or prison-like conditions. Detention policies should not discriminate against asylum
seekers on the grounds of race, religion, national origin, or any other immutable characteristic. Thorough
reform of the U.S. detention system will require a combination of legislative, regulatory and administrative
actions. We have outlined below a series of significant changes that will improve U.S. detention policies
and practices in general and for the victims of persecution who seek this country’s protection.
71