Immigration Surveillance Neg
SLUDL/NAUDL 2015-16
Immigration Surveillance Negative
Immigration Surveillance Negative ..................................................................................................................... 1
Summary ............................................................................................................................................................ 2
Glossary (1/2) ..................................................................................................................................................... 3
Deportations Decreasing Now .......................................................................................................................... 5
Illegal Immigration Hurts the Economy ......................................................................................................... 7
ICE improving now ......................................................................................................................................... 10
Ending surveillance fails – State laws deter immigration ........................................................................... 12
Ending surveillance fails – leads to an inefficient system ............................................................................ 14
Ending surveillance fails – fuels the smuggling crisis .................................................................................. 16
ICE reducing rights violations ....................................................................................................................... 18
State governments can deport immigrants ................................................................................................... 21
Security should be prioritized over human rights (1/3) ............................................................................... 24
Immigration Courts backlog .......................................................................................................................... 27
Militia DA (1NC) (1/2) .................................................................................................................................... 29
Curtailing surveillance leads to violent militias- Ext ................................................................................... 31
DREAM Act Counterplan (1NC) (JV/V only) .............................................................................................. 33
Dream Act boosts U.S Economy- Extensions (JV/V) ................................................................................... 34
DREAM Act preserves human rights (JV/V) ............................................................................................... 38
Immigration Surveillance Negative
Inherency Answers
SLUDL/NAUDL 2015-16
Summary
Inherency
The Obama Administration has made it a priority to improve the deportation process so that it is fair and
efficient. New guidelines issued by the federal government call for immigration enforcement agencies to target
individuals who have been convicted of violent crimes and to reduce the amount of non-criminal individuals
being deported. In particular, the administration has indicated it hopes to keep families together and reduce the
amount of parents being taken away from their children.
Economic Hardship
Unlawful immigration can be detrimental to the economy. First, undocumented immigrants can burden our
social service system by using public goods like healthcare or food supplements. Second, corporations take
advantage of undocumented immigrants by exploiting them for cheap wages. Not only are they exploited but
individuals who are citizens can no longer to afford to work in those industries because companies will just
choose to hire workers who they can pay less.
Solvency
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has made a lot of progress in improving the deportation process
to make it more humane and fair. Moreover, ending surveillance alone won’t address anti-immigrant policies
that states have adopted and will make the ICE more inefficient by forcing them to do their job without
surveillance technology. Some have also argued that lenient immigration policies fuel the immigration crisis
because they give smugglers an incentive to send people across the border illegally.
Human Rights
Much of the criticism of U.S deportation policy has been that the detention centers we use to hold immigrants
violate human rights. The ICE has been working to solve these concerns by providing proper medical care and
establishing more stringent federal oversight. Moreover, states have a right to deport immigrants and curtailing
surveillance could make the immigration court system worse and fuel the rise of violent anti-immigrant militias.
DREAM Act Counterplan
The DREAM Act of 2011 was a proposed law in Congress that would allow individuals who have lived in the
country for 5 years to register with the government and receive permanent residence status if they entered the
country before the age of 16, so long as they meet other eligibility criterion. The Counterplan is an alternative
way of solving for the U.S Economy and Human Rights harms of the immigration surveillance affirmative.
2 / 41
Immigration Surveillance Negative
Inherency Answers
SLUDL/NAUDL 2015-16
Glossary (1/2)
Department of Homeland Security (DHS): Is an agency of the United States federal government that was
formed in 2002 from the combination of 22 departments and agencies. The agency is charge of various task
related to making the United States homeland safe including customs, border, and immigration enforcement;
emergency response to natural and manmade disasters; antiterrorism work; and cybersecurity.
U.S Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE): is an agency within the Department of Homeland
security that enforces federal laws governing border control, customs, trade and immigration to promote
homeland security and public safety.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (U.S.C.I.S.): The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services is
responsible for processing immigration and naturalization applications and establishing policies
regarding immigration services.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (C.B.P.): Customs and Border Protection prevents people from
entering the country illegally, or bringing anything harmful or illegal into the United States.
Secure Communities Program: is a program of the U.S Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) that
uses information shared between the ICE, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and local law enforcement
agencies to find whether individuals who have a criminal record have also violated immigration law by entering
the United States illegally.
Non-governmental organizations (NGO): an organization that is not a part of the government. For example,
Doctors Without Borders is an NGO.
Undocumented Immigrant: refers to a foreign nationals residing in the U.S. without legal immigration status.
It includes persons who entered the U.S. without inspection and proper permission from the U.S. government,
and those who entered with a legal visa that is no longer valid. Undocumented immigrants are also known as
unauthorized or illegal immigrants.
Border Patrol: is the agency in charge of watching and monitoring the border in order to prevent people from
entering the United States illegally.
3 / 41
Immigration Surveillance Negative
Inherency Answers
SLUDL/NAUDL 2015-16
Glossary (2/2)
mmigrants Detention Center: is a facility used by the federal government to house undocumented immigrants
who have been detained and subject to deportation.
Consular Consolidated Database (CCD): is a database used by U.S consular officials that records data from
visa applications such as photographs and democratic information of applicants.
Arizona v. United States: a legal case brought to the Supreme Court of the United States that dealt with
whether the State of Arizona could make its own immigration law independent of the federal government. On a
5-3 decision the court found that Arizona could not make it a crime to be in Arizona without legal papers,
making it a crime to apply for or get a job in the state, or allowing police to arrest individuals who had
committed crimes that could lead to their deportation because those laws infringed upon the federal
government’s authority in immigration law.
Federal expenditures: spending by the federal government.
Attendant: occurring with or as a result of; accompanying.
Dataveillance: Surveillance of someone’s personal data.
Duress: describes a range of symptoms and experiences of a person's internal life that are commonly held to be
troubling, confusing or out of the ordinary.
Alterity: the state of being other or different; otherness.
Yielded: produce or provide.
Human Rights: a right that is believed to belong justifiably to every person.
Civil Rights: the rights of citizens to political and social freedom and equality.
Nonjusticiable: If a case is "nonjusticiable." a federal court cannot hear it. The justice of the court of does not
have the ability to make a decision on the matter at hand.
4 / 41
Immigration Surveillance Negative
Inherency Answers
SLUDL/NAUDL 2015-16
Deportations Decreasing Now
(__)The federal government is decreasing deportations now by only focusing on deporting individual’s
convicted of a crime.
Washington Post, 2014
[Obama announces immigration overhaul shielding 4 million from deportation,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-immigration-plan-will-shield-37-million-fromdeportation/2014/11/20/3345d672-70dd-11e4-893f-86bd390a3340_story.html]
President Obama sought to convince the American public Thursday that his plans to unilaterally change
immigration laws were well within the precedent set by previous administrations and did not amount to an
amnesty program for illegal immigrants. In a prime-time address from the White House, Obama argued that a
mass deportation of the nation’s more than 11 million undocumented immigrants “would be both impossible
and contrary to our character.” Rather, the president said, the measures he is enacting to defer the
deportations of 4 million immigrants while simultaneously refocusing federal border control agents on the
highest-priority cases, such as felons, gang members and recent border-crossers, are aimed at “actual
threats to our security.” “Felons, not families,” Obama said of who would be in line for deportations.
“Criminals, not children. Gang members, not a mom who’s working hard to provide for her kids.” Under
Obama’s plan, the undocumented parents of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents who have lived
in the country for at least five years can apply, starting this spring, for relief from deportations for a
period of three years. About 3.7 million immigrants are expected to qualify under the new guidelines. The
president also is expanding a 2012 program that has provided administrative relief to nearly 600,000
young people brought to the country illegally as children. Officials said that expansion, which will remove
an age cap, could reach another 287,000 people.
5 / 41
Immigration Surveillance Negative
Inherency Answers
SLUDL/NAUDL 2015-16
Deportations Decreasing Now- Extension
(___)
(__) Immigration officials are choosing to not deport children and their families.
Oleaga, reporter at Latin Post, 2014
[Michale, Obama Executive Action on Immigration Expands DACA, Defers Deportation for Undocumented
Parents, Latin Post http://www.latinpost.com/articles/26598/20141126/obama-executive-action-immigrationexpands-daca-defers-deportation-undocumented-parents.htm]
A memorandum by U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson detailed the changes
that will occur with DACA following Obama's Nov. 20 executive order. Johnson noted deferred action
does not equate to having legal status in the country, but rather "deprioritizes" an individual's case based on
humanitarian reason, administrative convenience or in the DHS' interests. The DACA program, however,
will expand. The original DACA rules set eligibility for undocumented immigrants under the age of 31 as of
June 15, 2012, and had been in the U.S. before June 15, 2007, to apply for deferment on renewable two-year
cycles. The new rules will remove the age cap and apply for individuals in the U.S. as of Jan. 1, 2010. Instead of
the renewable two-year period, DACA recipients will have a renewable three-year period. The three-year
extension will only be applicable for first-time applicants and renewal recipients as of Nov. 24. Beginning on
that date (Nov. 24), USCIS should issue all work authorization documents valid for three years, including to
those individuals who have applied and are awaiting two-year work authorization documents based on the
renewal of their DACA grants," wrote Johnson. "USCIS should also consider means to extend those two-year
renewals already issued to three years." The expansion of DACA will also impact the parents of a recipient.
As a result of Obama's executive order, the undocumented immigrant parents may be deferred from
deportation if their child is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident as of Nov. 20. The undocumented
immigrant parent must have lived in the U.S. since Jan. 1, 2010, and must be physically present in the
U.S. at the time of the USCIS' deferred action consideration. The undocumented immigrants parent must
pass criminal background checks similar to the concept for DACA applicants and for a renewable three-year
stay period.
6 / 41
Immigration Surveillance Negative
Economic Hardship Answers
NAUDL 2015-16
Illegal Immigration Hurts the Economy
(__) Unlawful immigration overstretches the governments resources and harms the economy
Camarota, Researcher at the Center for Immigration Studies, 2004
[Steven A. Camarota, The High Cost of Cheap Labor Illegal Immigration and the Federal Budget,
http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html]
Households headed by illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs on the federal government in
2002 and paid only $16 billion in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of almost $10.4 billion, or $2,700 per
illegal household. Among the largest costs are Medicaid ($2.5 billion); treatment for the uninsured ($2.2
billion); food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches ($1.9 billion); the
federal prison and court systems ($1.6 billion); and federal aid to schools ($1.4 billion). With nearly twothirds of illegal aliens lacking a high school degree, the primary reason they create a fiscal deficit is their
low education levels and resulting low incomes and tax payments, not their legal status or heavy use of most
social services.
(__) Illegal immigration leads to lower paying and worse job prospects for African Americans.
Borjas, Grogger, and Hanson, Economica (Academic Journal), 2009
[GEORGE J. BORJAS, JEFFREY GROGGER and GORDON H. HANSON, Professors at Harvard University,
University of Chicago and University of California, San Diego respectively, Economica (2010) 77, 255–282]
This paper extends the literature by examining the relation between immigration and black wages, employment
and incarceration. We use data drawn from the 1960–2000 US censuses. The data reveal a strong correlation
between immigration and black wages, black employ- ment rates and black incarceration rates. As immigrants
disproportionately increased the supply of workers in a particular skill group, we find a reduction in the
wage of black workers in that group, a reduction in the employment rate, and a corresponding increase
in the incarceration rate. Our study suggests that a 10% immigrant-induced increase in the supply of a
particular skill group is associated with a reduction in the black wage of 2.5%, a reduction in the black
employment rate of 5.9 percentage points, and an increase in the black institutionalization rate of 1.3
percentage points. Among white men, the same 10% increase in supply reduces the wage by 3.2%, but has
much weaker employment and incarceration effects: a 2.1-percentage-point reduction in the employment rate
and a 0.2- percentage-point increase in the incarceration rate. It seems, therefore, that black employment and
incarceration rates are more sensitive to immigration than those of whites.
7
Immigration Surveillance Negative
Inherency Answers
SLUDL/NAUDL 2015-16
Illegal Immigration Hurts the Economy - Extensions
(___)
(__) The government must enforce immigration law because the cost of illegal immigration harms the U.S
budget.
Camarota, Researcher at the Center for Immigration Studies, 2004
[Steven A. Camarota, The High Cost of Cheap Labor Illegal Immigration and the Federal Budget,
http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html]
When defense spending is not considered, illegal households are estimated to impose costs on the federal
treasury of $6,949 a year or 58 percent of what other households received. When defense spending is
included, their costs are only 46 percent those of other households. However, they pay only 28 percent as
much in taxes as non-illegal households. As a result, the estimated net cost per illegal household was $2,736.
Whether one sees this fiscal deficit as resulting from low tax payments or heavy use of services is a matter of
perspective. As already discussed, illegal households comprise 3.6 percent of the total population, but as Table
2 shows they account for an estimated 0.9 percent of taxes paid and 1.4 percent of costs. Thus, both their
payments and costs are significantly less than their share of the total population. Since they use so much less in
federal services than other households, it probably makes the most sense to see the fiscal deficit as resulting
from low tax payments rather than heavy use of public services. Total Deficit Created by Illegals. If the
estimated net fiscal drain of $2,736 a year that each illegal household imposes on the federal treasury is
multiplied by the nearly three million illegal households, the total cost comes to $10.4 billion a year.
Whether one considers this to be a large sum or not is, of course, a matter of perspective. But, this figure is
unambiguously negative and certainly not trivial. It is also worth remembering that these figures are only for
the federal government and do not include any costs at the state or local level, where the impact is likely to
be significant.
8 / 41
Immigration Surveillance Negative
Inherency Answers
SLUDL/NAUDL 2015-16
Illegal Immigration Hurts the Economy - Extensions
(___)
(__) Immigration hurts the economy by increasing competition amongst workers leading them to be paid
less over time.
Lowenstein, report for the NY Times, 2006 [ROGER LOWENSTEIN, The Immigration Equation,
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/magazine/09IMM.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0]
Using a computer, Borjas measured the slope: it suggested that wages fell by 3 to 4 percent for each 10
percent increase in the share of immigrants. With this graph, Borjas could calculate that, during the 80's
and 90's, for instance, immigrants caused dropouts to suffer a 5 percent decline relative to college
graduates. In a paper published in 2003, "The Labor Demand Curve Is Downward Sloping," Borjas
termed the results "negative and significant." But what about the absolute effect? Assuming businesses did
not hire any of the new immigrants, Borjas's finding would translate to a hefty 9 percent wage loss for the
unskilled over those two decades, and lesser declines for other groups (which also received some immigrants).
As we know, however, as the population grows, demand rises and business do hire more workers. When Borjas
adjusted for this hiring, high-school dropouts were still left with a wage loss of 5 percent over those two
decades, some $1,200 a year. Other groups, however, showed a very slight gain. To many economists as well
as lay folk, Borjas's findings confirmed what seemed intuitive all along: add to the supply of labor, and the price
goes down.
9 / 41
Immigration Surveillance Negative
Solvency Answers
SLUDL/NAUDL 2015-16
ICE improving now
(__) ICE has undergone major changes in order to make sure it prioritizes the deportation of criminals.
Rosenblum and Kandel, Congressional Research Service, 2012 [Interior Immigration Enforcement:
Programs Targeting Criminal Aliens, fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R42057.pdf]
ICE also announced three major changes to the §287(g) program (in July 2009) and Secure Communities (in
June 2011) designed to address each of the specific concerns raised above.146 First, ICE has taken steps to
impose agency-wide enforcement priorities on the §287(g) program and Secure Communities. The 2009 MOAs
established a uniform three-level enforcement priority system for the §287(g) program, which was then
superseded by the 2011 agency- and department- wide memos and letter (see “DHS Enforcement Priorities and
Discretion”). The 2011 guidance memos clarify ICE agents’ ability to exercise discretion throughout the
immigration enforcement process, and ICE specifically linked the memos to Secure Communities by
releasing them in the context of the other June 2011 reforms to that program.147 The reforms also included
the creation of a Homeland Security Advisory Council Task Force on Secure Communities composed of
law enforcement professionals, ICE agents, and community and immigrant advocates. The task force’s goal
was to recommend how to focus the program on high-priority offenders and ensure discretion in Secure
Communities jurisdictions, among other issues.148 The task force issued a report with findings and
recommendations in September 2011, and ICE published a formal response to the task force in April 2012.149
Second, ICE has developed new record-keeping requirements and other tools to attempt to guard against
pretextural arrests and racial profiling. ICE’s ENFORCE tracking system has been modified to track
data on the circumstances leading to aliens’ arrests, information which may improve oversight of ICE’s
partnership programs. ICE and CRCL have reportedly developed new statistical data to be collected on a
quarterly basis to evaluate whether Secure Communities is being implemented in a biased way or
otherwise resulting in racial profiling.150 The new §287(g) MOA also seeks to prevent pretextural arrests by
requiring agencies to pursue all charges for which aliens are initially arrested. Nonetheless, media reports
indicate that statistical monitoring of the Secure Communities program had been delayed as of November 2012,
and that ICE may not be able to implement the statistical monitoring that had been announced in response to the
Secure Communities task force recommendation.151 Third, ICE and CRCL also have developed new
materials and procedures to further reduce the risk of racial profiling and misuse of these enforcement
programs.152 New training materials target ICE agents as well as local law enforcement agents involved in
these programs. ICE and CRCL have also developed new immigration detainer forms clarifying that
individuals should not be detained for more than 48 hours and that law enforcement agencies must
provide detainees with information about how to file a complaint if they believe their civil rights have
been violated.
10 / 41
Immigration Surveillance Negative
Solvency Answers
SLUDL/NAUDL 2015-16
ICE improving now – extensions
(__)
(__) Immigration surveillance is improving in the status quo - more humane and guided toward public
safety
Saldaña, ICE Director, 2015 [Sarah Saldaña, Written testimony of ICE Director Sarah Saldaña for a House
Committee on the Judiciary hearing titled “Oversight of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement”,
http://www.dhs.gov/news/2015/04/14/written-testimony-ice-director-sarah-saldaña-house-committee-judiciaryhearing#]
We are working hard to ensure that we provide appropriate care and protections for those in our
facilities and have made progress on our standards to that end. ICE is currently compliant with all DHS
Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) requirements applicable to the agency. This includes the ICE Directive
on “Sexual Abuse and Assault Prevention and Intervention” (SAAPI), which was updated in May 2014 to
incorporate all DHS PREA requirements. The directive established a zero-tolerance policy for sexual abuse
and assault, and outlined the duties of agency employees for reporting, response, investigation, and monitoring
for all allegations; established responsibilities for staff training, timely reporting, protection of victims,
provision of medical and mental health care, and investigation protocols; and includes safeguards to
prevent retaliation against those who report sexual abuse or who participate in a subsequent
investigation, and it defines procedures for facilitating the provision of victim services to detainee victims. ICE
also promulgated a new ERO Policy 11087.1 “Operations of ERO Holding Facilities” in September 2014,
integrating PREA requirements specifically applicable to ICE holding facilities. While PREA’s agency
requirements are primarily addressed in these two policies, ICE has also made revisions to other policies and
protocols as needed (such as medical policies and investigative protocols) in order to incorporate all applicable
PREA mandates. The requirements of ICE’s SAAPI Directive apply to ICE employees responding to any
incident or allegation of sexual abuse or assault at the facility. This ensures that the agency provides timely
and effective response and follow-up with respect to medical and mental health care, victim services,
investigation, protection from retaliation, and other issues, consistent with the requirements of the PREA
regulation.
11 / 41
Immigration Surveillance Negative
Solvency Answers
SLUDL/NAUDL 2015-16
Ending surveillance fails – State laws deter immigration
(__) Ending surveillance fails because states will seek other ways to exclude immigrants
Vaughan, Director of Policy Studies at the Center for Immigration Studies, 2006 [Attrition Through
Enforcement, http://cis.org/Enforcement-IllegalPopulation]
Frustrated with the federal government’s failure to make progress in reducing illegal immigration, and under
pressure from impatient voters, many state and local jurisdictions are taking matters into their own hands
by enacting laws and ordinances to discourage illegal settlement and by taking advantage of federal
services, such as the database used for Basic Pilot, to verify immigration status. According to the National
Conference of State Legislatures, lawmakers in 42 states are considering 380 bills related to immigration; 70
of these bills deal with employment.58 Many of these measures, such as laws to restrict access to driver’s
licenses, are intended primarily to enhance security and minimize identity fraud; nevertheless they have
provided a powerful incentive for illegal immigrants to voluntarily return home. In other cases,
legislatures have considered more direct approaches, such as mandatory work authorization verification.
Because these laws can have such a positive effect on compliance, and require little in the way or federal
resources, they must be more actively supported by federal immigration authorities.
(__) There are hundreds of others immigration enforcement laws that are still in the books
Munoz and Barberena,Professors at Loyola University Chicago and University of Illinois Chicago, 2014
[Everyday Enforcement: Heightened Immigration Enforcement and Community Responses in the United State,
City & Society, Vol. 26, Issue 1, pp. 3–9]
Immigration policy-making has also broken the confines of federal and state legislative bodies and
proliferated at the local level. Between 2006 and March of 2011, ordinances targeting undocumented
immigrants had been passed and/or considered in over 130 U.S. cities (Varsanyi 2011). These policies range
from English-only laws, to limits on the number of adults who can reside in a household, to bans on
sitting in public spaces; they seek to regulate and persecute everyday behaviors associated with undocumented
immigrants. As states and localities implement their own brands of immigration-related policies, some friendly
and others hostile, they have created a “patch quilt” land- scape of policy and practice (Quesada this
volume) and intensified the significance of city, county, and state borders in the lives of unauthorized people
and their family members.
As immigration enforcement measures creep unevenly over the U.S., the threat of enforcement seeps into a
myriad of mundane activities and transforms people’s everyday lives. Papers that grant legal status not only
guard against deportation, they confer eligibility to work and drive law- fully and to access public
services. Social security numbers are increas- ingly compulsory on financial aid applications, health
insurance forms, credit applications, and rental agreements. Government ID’s are required for such
routine activities as conducting a bank transaction or buying beer at the local grocery store. For people
without the right papers, immigration enforcement in the current period penetrates all aspects of life,
from the public to the personal, from the economic to the intimate.
12 / 41
Immigration Surveillance Negative
Solvency Answers
SLUDL/NAUDL 2015-16
Ending surveillance fails – State laws deter immigration – extensions
(__)
(__) States will continue to push anti-immigrant legislation
Hoy, writer at Immigration Impact, 2012[Seth Hoy,More and More States Introduce Costly AntiImmigration Bills, http://www.alternet.org/story/154072/more_and_more_states_introduce_costly_antiimmigration_bills
Legislators in Mississippi, Missouri, Tennessee and Virginia introduced an array of costly immigration
enforcement bills in their 2012 legislative sessions—some which are modeled on Arizona’s SB 1070. While
study after study continues to document how these extreme state laws are costing state economies, disrupting
entire industries and driving communities further underground, state legislators clearly aren’t getting the
message. Last month, legislators in Mississippi introduced a slew of anti-immigrant bills. State Senator
Joey Fillingane, for example, introduced SB 2090, a bill which requires police to check the immigration
status of anyone they reasonably suspect is undocumented, makes it a crime to fail to carry proper
immigration documents and a crime to harbor or transport an undocumented immigrant, and a
misdemeanor for an undocumented immigrant to apply for or solicit work. Both the Mississippi House and
Senate passed different versions of this bill, but are expected to hammer out one bill to send to Governor Haley
Barbour’s desk for a signature soon. In Missouri, state Senator Will Kraus recently introduced SB 590, a bill
which requires police to determine the immigration status of individuals they reasonably suspect are
unauthorized and makes it a crime not to carry immigration documents. Missouri’s bill, like Alabama, however
takes the law a step further by requiring schools to verify the immigration status of enrolling students and their
parents. Remember that the U.S. Department of Justice blocked a similar provision in Alabama’s immigration
law, HB 56, last October. Missouri’s legislature passed the bill out of committee last week—a bill likely to cost
Missouri millions. The House Judiciary Committee in Tennessee advanced an immigration bill this month,
HB 2191, a bill which makes it a felony for anyone in the state to knowingly conceal, harbor or transport
an undocumented immigrant. Tennessee’s copycat bill, HB 1380—which requires police to question the
immigration status of those they suspect of being undocumented—was put on hold this month due to budgetary
concerns, despite Governor Bill Haslam’s public support of the bill days earlier. HB 1380 was also shelved last
year due to $3 million price tag, but the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Joe Carr, doesn’t seem like he’s giving up. “Putting
it behind the budget doesn’t kill it. It basically parks it,” Carr said. “We are prioritizing the state’s stance on
illegal immigration based on the financial resources we have. We’ve got a very targeted approach to tackle
illegal immigration here in the state.” In Virginia, where control of the Governorship, House of Delegates
and Senate recently changed hands to those with an enforcement heavy agenda, legislators recently
introduced two Arizona copycat bills—SB 460and its companion bill HB 1060—which allow police to
determine the immigration status of those they suspect are in the country without documentation.
13 / 41
Immigration Surveillance Negative
Solvency Answers
SLUDL/NAUDL 2015-16
Ending surveillance fails – leads to an inefficient system
(__) Dismantling surveillance programs causes ICE to revert to enforcement policies that are extremely
inefficient.
Cadman, researcher at Center for Immigration Studies, 2015 [Dan Cadman February 2015 Interior
Immigration Enforcement Legislation, http://cis.org/Testimony/Cadman-House-Judiciary-Committee-Hearing021115]
But it is not just in the area of worksite enforcement that interior immigration enforcement has suffered. In
her testimony a week ago, Ms. Vaughan spoke eloquently and in detail to the dangers to public safety that
have been engendered by misuse of prosecutorial discretion, which has been turned on its head from an
occasional act of ministerial grace accorded to those few with significant mitigating circumstances, to one of
requiring officers to justify, at length and in detail to their superiors, taking enforcement action in lieu of
said "discretion". What is more, a key public safety program that takes advantage of modern electronic
technologies and connectivity — the same kind of technologies routinely used by citizens today in their
multiplicity of computers, smart phones, tablets, and other devices — to quickly and effectively identify
alien criminals in a cost-efficient and work-saving way, has been dismantled. I am speaking of course of the
Secure Communities program. This dismantling pushes the efforts of ICE agents back to pre-electronics
days, in which they have to rely on paper and faxes to obtain and exchange information in a laborious
and time consuming manner.
14 / 41
Immigration Surveillance Negative
Solvency Answers
SLUDL/NAUDL 2015-16
Ending surveillance fails – leads to an inefficient system - extensions
(__)
(__) Limiting the ICE’s surveillance capacity overloads the system and increases public safety risks.
Cadman and Metcalf, researchers at the Center for Immigration Studies, 2015 [Mark Metcalf, Dan
Cadman January 2015, How the Obama administration has trashed a key immigration enforcement tool,
http://cis.org/disabling-detainers]
The combination of local obstruction of ICE and ICE's self-imposed limits on enforcement priorities had
already begun before Johnson's decision to terminate their use. According to a recent report from the Syracuse
University Transactional Action Clearinghouse (TRAC), ICE detainers have dropped 39 percent since 2012.
Interestingly, the report tells us that, "TRAC shared its findings with ICE and asked the agency for insights into
what was driving this downward trend. However, ICE declined to comment on why its agents were issuing
fewer detainers."42 Ironically, in a recent media article published by NJ.com — published prior to the
president's executive action speech and promulgation of the Johnson memorandum — ICE was much less
reticent about its dissatisfaction with state and local jurisdictions ignoring their detainers. An ICE spokesman is
quoted in the article as saying, "When serious criminal offenders are released to the streets in a community,
rather than to ICE custody, it undermines ICE's ability to protect public safety and impedes us from
enforcing the nation's immigration laws. ... Jurisdictions that ignore detainers bear the risk of possible
public safety risks."43 But the problem of ignoring detainers is not just about statistics, and it is far more than
a matter of workload completion for ICE agents and officers in pursuing their mission, however significant
those matters are. Fundamental governmental interests are involved, including community safety, officer
safety, efficient use of taxpayer funds, and maintenance of an effective regimen of due process within the
immigration system established by Congress: When sheriffs or police turn a suspect loose rather than
hold him on the detainer filed, law-abiding members of the community are at risk should he re-offend
(and there are many, often egregious, instances of such alien recidivists victimizing additional members of the
public).44 If ICE officers are obliged to go out and seek the individual once he has been released, they,
too, are at greater risk of injury than if receiving him directly from local law enforcement officers in the
secure constraints of a jail setting — especially since the alien offender at the point of release, notwithstanding
the detainer, is likely to know that they are aware of and looking for him. Furthermore, the time and energy
wasted trying to track down and re-apprehend that alien after local police have released him equates to
limited officer resources and public monies not available to do equally important immigration
enforcement work elsewhere in an already overburdened system.
15 / 41
Immigration Surveillance Negative
Solvency Answers
SLUDL/NAUDL 2015-16
Ending surveillance fails – fuels the smuggling crisis
(__) Ending surveillance leads to parents paying for their children to be smuggled to the United States
this leads to suffering during the border crossing
Cadman, researcher at Center for Immigration Studies, 2015 [Dan Cadman February 2015 Interior
Immigration Enforcement Legislation, http://cis.org/Testimony/Cadman-House-Judiciary-Committee-Hearing021115]
This bill confronts the reprehensible fact that, through its policies and practices, the federal government has
become a major facilitator in the business of smuggling minors. In a scenario repeated thousands of times, it
goes something like this: Central American parents living and working illegally in the United States send
remittances back to their home country for the express purpose of having their children smuggled
northward. Smugglers move them through the perilous journey and, if nothing untoward happens, deliver them
on the U.S. side to be united with relatives. If the children are apprehended, then the government itself moves
the children onward to be united with relatives, no questions asked. This has become so well known that, for
their part, smugglers are just as likely to deposit their loads of minors or families at crossroads proximate
to the border so that they can be found by Border Patrol agents, thus conveniently relieving the smugglers
from the burden of transporting the children on American highways, with the concomitant chance of exposure
and arrest such ventures carry. And, because the illegal parents face no consequence for their part in having
initiated the enterprise, word spreads and others do the same, at great risk to the children.5 How many
perish in the jungle lowlands and highlands in Central America, or in the heat of the Mexican desert
because they can't keep up? We don't know. How many die from illness, dehydration, hypothermia,
accidents, or murder? We don't know. In the shadowy world of commerce in human beings, there is a thin
line between smuggling and trafficking: how many children whose smuggling is arranged by parents end up
being diverted into lives of abuse in the sex or drug trades? We don't know. On this side of the border, we
don't always even know with certainty who the children are being tendered to. The bill requires an inquiry
into the status of those persons, and initiation of proceedings if they are unlawfully in the United States. Critics
will say this will deter parents from coming forward. Perhaps. But the alternative is for the United States to
continue facilitating the movement of human beings as cargo, even while we lecture the rest of the world
as to their obligations to halt human smuggling and trafficking. The moral imperative is clear: Our
government should undertake no policy or practice that puts more children at risk.
16 / 41
Immigration Surveillance Negative
Solvency Answers
SLUDL/NAUDL 2015-16
Ending surveillance fails – fuels the smuggling crisis – extensions
(__)
(__) Removing surveillance and enforcement will lead to a U.S-Mexico border crisis as individuals take
advantage and move north
Judicial Watch, an education foundation, 2014 [Weekly Update: Obama Causes Border Crisis,
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/weekly-updates/weekly-update-obama-causes-border-crisis/]
The barrage of illegal immigrant minors entering the U.S. through Mexico in recent weeks has created an
out-of-control disaster with jam-packed holding centers, rampant diseases and sexually active teenagers at a
Nogales (Arizona) facility, according to information obtained by Judicial Watch from a Homeland Security
source… The minors are coming mostly from Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador and some may have
criminal backgrounds. “They’re not all little kids,” said Art Del Cueto, the Tucson Border Patrol Union
president. “Some are 17 years old and they have possible ties to gang members yet they will be relocated in the
U.S. with family.” Now the Obama administration has a story to tell you about what is happening on the border
and why: These “young kids” are merely fleeing violence in their own countries. The crisis is under control.
These children will be “processed” and subjected to “removal proceedings.” None qualify for the president’s
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). These are flagrant lies as anyone who is on the ground
dealing with this illegal immigration mess will tell you… Under control? One local sheriff, who estimates
1,000 illegals a day are coming across the border into Texas, characterized the influx of illegals and the
chaos on the border to “Hurricane Katrina.” Merely fleeing violence in Central America? Not according to
Art Del Cueto, who says rumors of amnesty are responsible for the unforeseen bombardment. When
agents ask the illegal border crossers what drove them, “we are hearing a lot of amnistía (amnesty),” he
said. The Washington Times reported in an editorial this week that according to an internal Border Patrol
intelligence memo, “The surge in illegal immigrants jumping the U.S. border in recent weeks is almost
entirely due to U.S. policy,” as these “immigrants are taking advantage of the catch-and-release system of
enforcement.” [Emphasis added.] “The immigrants come seeking “permisos,” which apparently are the
“Notices to appear” or NTAs, the legal documents given to non-Mexicans caught at the border that
officially put them in deportation proceedings — but that also grant them at least a temporary entry to
the interior of the U.S,” the Times notes.
17 / 41
Immigration Surveillance Negative
SLUDL/NAUDL 2015-16
ICE reducing rights violations
(__) ICE is now subject to federal oversight and this is resolving any human rights concerns
Kelly, reporter at the Arizona Republic, 2010 [Erin Kelly, ICE strives to improve migrant-detainee care,
azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2010/01/26/20100126az-ice.html]
The head of U.S. immigration enforcement on Monday announced plans for an overhaul of the
government's controversial detention system for people who face deportation. The moves described by John
T. Morton, assistant secretary of Homeland Security for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, address
oversight, medical care and tracking of detainees at facilities in Arizona and across the country. Plans
include: Hiring 50 federal employees to oversee the largest detention facilities, which now are largely run by
contractors without much government oversight, Morton said. Assigning regional case managers to keep tabs
on detainees with significant medical problems to ensure they are getting proper care. Detainees with
major problems will be housed in facilities near hospitals and medical centers, Morton said. In June,
launching an online immigrant-detainee locator so family members can easily find their relatives when
they are in custody awaiting possible deportation.
(__) ICE is reforming now by providing proper medical care
American Civil Liberties Union, 2010 [Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Lawsuit Charged Lack
Of Medical And Mental Health Care Led To Unnecessary Suffering And Death, https://www.aclu.org/news/iceagrees-improve-health-care-provided-immigration-detainees-part-settlement-aclu-lawsuit
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials have agreed to provide immigration detainees
with constitutionally adequate levels of medical and mental health care as part of an agreement to settle an
American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit charging that deficient care at the San Diego Correctional Facility
(SDCF) caused unnecessary suffering and death. As part of the settlement, ICE has also agreed to change its
policy on medical care that had led to the denial of what ICE deemed to be "non-emergency" care,
including heart surgeries and cancer biopsies. "For the first time, ICE has committed to providing all
necessary health care to immigration detainees beyond just emergency care," said Elizabeth Alexander,
former Director of the ACLU National Prison Project and lead counsel on the case. "For too long, ICE's own
policies allowed it to provide detainees with nothing beyond a narrow definition of emergency. This settlement
is recognition that it is unconstitutional not to provide people in government custody with all necessary health
care." Among the settlement agreement's provisions are requirements that detainees at SDCF receive health care
that meets or exceeds National Commission on Correctional Health Care standards and that an additional fulltime psychiatrist and four full-time psychiatric nurses be hired to ensure that detainees receive adequate mental
health care. The settlement also requires immigration officials to remove from existing policies all
statements suggesting that detainees will receive only emergency medical services and to include in the
same policies explicit statements mandating that detainees shall be provided medical care whenever it is
necessary to address a serious medical need.
18 / 41
Immigration Surveillance Negative
SLUDL/NAUDL 2015-16
ICE reducing rights violations - extensions
(__)
(__) ICE is reforming to provide quality physical and mental care for any individual detained.
ICE 2014 [ICE provides quality medical care to detainees, http://www.ice.gov/news/releases/top-story-iceprovides-quality-medical-care-detainees]
Providing quality health care to detainees in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) custody is an
important and challenging task — one that Assistant Director for ICE Health Service Corps (IHSC) Dr. Jon
Krohmer takes very seriously. The ICE Office of Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) ensures the
safe and humane conditions of confinement for aliens detained in ICE custody. This includes the provision
of reliable, consistent and appropriate health services. IHSC, which falls under ERO, is comprised of more
than 900 Public Health Service-commissioned officers, federal civil servants and contract support staff.
Their mission is straightforward: to serve as the medical authority for ICE on a wide range of medical issues,
including the agency's comprehensive detainee health care program. IHSC provides direct care to
approximately 15,000 detainees housed at 21 IHSC-designated facilities throughout the nation. In
addition, IHSC oversees the medical care provided to an additional 17,000 detainees at non-IHSC staffed
detention facilities across the country. Whenever necessary, it authorizes and pays for off-site specialty and
emergency care, consultations and case management. "A detainee's health care begins the moment they walk
through the facility's doors," said Dr. Krohmer. "Within the first 12 hours of their admission, all detainees
undergo a preliminary health screening, which includes an evaluation of the individual's medical, dental
and mental health status and within the next 14 days, a more detailed physical examination takes place."
Because so many of these detainees are either new arrivals in the country or haven't had access to health
care in the past, Dr. Krohmer said it is not unusual for serious health problems to be diagnosed at these
screenings. "We're finding out about health issues that even they didn't even know about and in most
cases are able to begin treatment," he said. This continuity of care not only lasts during the individual's
period of detention, but also throughout their removal to their country of origin.
19 / 41
Immigration Surveillance Negative
SLUDL/NAUDL 2015-16
ICE reducing rights violations - extensions
(__)
(__) ICE has reduced the rate of violence towards immigrants and improved standards of care.
Myers, assistant secretary of homeland security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 2008[Julie
L. Myers, Caring for Immigration Detainees, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2008/05/19/AR2008051902296.html]
ICE spent nearly $100 million last year for detainee health care, double the funding of just five years ago.
Our efforts are producing results. While the number of people in ICE detention has increased more than 30
percent since 2004, the first full year for which statistics under the agency are available, the mortality rate has
declined every year. In 2004, the mortality rate for ICE detainees was 10.8 per 100,000. In 2007, it was 3.5
per 100,000. The number of deaths in detention has decreased, from 29 in 2004 to seven in 2007. ICE
detainees have access to mental health care provided by qualified professionals, and staff working with
detainees receive ongoing training in suicide risk and prevention techniques. Psychologists and social workers
have managed a daily population of more than 1,350 seriously mentally ill detainees without a single
suicide being committed in the past 15 months. ICE has increased oversight and accountability at all its
detention facilities. Progress includes establishing an independent body to review detention inspections;
implementing national detention standards that are comparable to or surpass industry standards in their
commitment to detainee health and comfort; retaining full-time quality assurance professionals to assess
compliance with those standards; and contracting independent corrections and detention experts to audit
ICE facilities. Moreover, ICE detention facilities are open to those outside the agency: We routinely conduct
tours for members of Congress, representatives from nongovernmental organizations and the media.
20 / 41
Immigration Surveillance Negative
SLUDL/NAUDL 2015-16
State governments can deport immigrants
(__) States have an obligation to deport individuals that are imposing obligations upon their political
communities by immigrating illegally.
Kates and Pevnick, Journal of Philosophy & Public Affairs, 2014 [Immigration, Jurisdiction, and History,
Philosophy and Public Affairs, Volume 42, Issue 2, pages 179–194, Spring 2014]
It is important to recognize, however, that from the fact that all inhabitants within a particular territorial
jurisdiction are entitled to the equal protection of their human rights, it does not follow that these rights “are
equally pressed against all human institutions at all times” (p. 110). In a world divided between states, human
rights impose distinct obligations on distinct political communities. Whereas the obligation to respect human
rights is global in scope and application, the obligation to protect and fulfill them is fundamentally local. Thus,
although all states are forbidden, on Blake’s view, from violating the human rights of any individual no matter
where such a violation may occur, they are only required to establish institutional mechanisms for securing and
defending the human rights of those individuals who happen to reside within their own political community.
Accordingly, one justification for state B excluding a potential immigrant from its jurisdiction is that, while she
was residing in state A, her human rights were already protected and fulfilled. But if that is the case, then by
entering state B she imposes a “new set of obligations” (p. 114) on its current inhabitants to extend equal
protection of the law to her. This new set of obligations, however, limits the freedom of those inhabitants, and
in Blake’s view, we “have a presumptive right to be free from others imposing obligations on us without our
consent” (p. 115). Thus, the alleged reason why states have a right to exclude potential immigrants from their
jurisdiction is that immigrants impose obligations on those who are already present within that jurisdiction and
the latter have a presumptive right to refuse to take on new obligations of that sort
21 / 41
Immigration Surveillance Negative
SLUDL/NAUDL 2015-16
State governments can deport immigrants - extensions
(___)
(__) States have a primary obligation to ensure the security of their citizens
Jenks, Centennial Institute Debate, 2011 [Rosemary Jenks, A Less Restrictive Immigration Policy is NOT
Morally and Civically Best for America, https://www.numbersusa.com/content/learn/issues/americanworkers/less-restrictive-immigration-policy-not-morally-and-civically-best-ame]
In other words, noncitizens do NOT have a right to immigrate; rather, immigration is a privilege granted by a
nation to those individuals it chooses. So, how should nations choose to whom they grant that privilege? In
America, the U.S. Constitution specifically empowers Congress to set immigration policy, and the preamble of
the Constitution provides the framework in which that should be done. The preamble reads, “We the people of
the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide
for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our
posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America.” So, under the Constitution,
we the people empower our elected officials to establish policies that serve the interests of Americans. Today in
the United States, 22 million Americans want, but cannot find, full-time jobs. Among Americans with only a
high school education, one in five (20%) cannot find full-time work. Among Hispanic Americans with only a
high school education, 36 percent cannot find full-time work. Among Black Americans with only a high school
education, 40 percent cannot find full-time work. Among American teens—16 and 17 year olds—40 percent
cannot find full-time jobs. And yet, today in the United States, because our government has abdicated its duty to
enforce immigration laws, an estimated 7 million non-agricultural jobs are held by illegal aliens. The vast
majority of these illegal aliens have no more than a high school education. In addition, our government
currently grants permanent work permits to an average of 75,000 working-age legal immigrants every single
month, under the most generous legal immigration policy in the world. About half of these immigrants have no
more than a high school education. How is it morally or civically acceptable for the U.S. government to not just
ignore the plight of 22 million Americans who desperately need jobs, but to actively pursue a policy that
actually imports more workers to compete with them for scarce jobs, and that drives down wages?
22 / 41
Immigration Surveillance Negative
SLUDL/NAUDL 2015-16
State governments can deport immigrants - extensions
(__)
(__) The damage done by curtailing immigration enforcement is a primary national security concern and
extending human rights to all immigrants makes everyone worse off.
Weiner, International Migration Review, 1996 [Myron Weiner Ethics, National Sovereignty and the Control
of Immigration, International Migration Review. Vol. 30, No. 1, Special Issue: Ethics, Migration, and Global
Stewardship (Spring, 1996), pp. 171-197]
To most citizens, however, the argument in favor of national sovereignty with respect to control over migration
appears to be commonsensical. Let us consider what the consequences might be if a country had completely
open borders to anyone who wished to enter. While this approach seems to take the moral high ground by
avoiding coercion, it clearly jeopardizes the well-being of the host population and threatens politicide. A safe
and prosperous country that declares its borders open risks being overwhelmed by a massive influx of
immigrants from poor and/or violent countries. If the country then provides these immigrants with the same
benefits it offers its own citizens (education for children, healthcare, unemployment benefits, etc.), its social
services and welfare services may be stretched to the limit. The country's own poor may find themselves pushed
aside by migrants prepared to work at lower wages. If the number of migrants is large enough, the local
population may find itself outnumbered by people who speak another language, belong to another culture, and
perhaps seek to change the political system. As the number of migrants grows, the local population may become
xenophobic, resulting in the growth of antimigrant political organizations, violence, and social disorder. Poor
countries might also be at risk if their borders are open. Peasants from densely populated neighboring countries
might freely enter in search of land and employment, thereby putting pressure on the local population. Refugees
from civil conflict might cross the border and damage the local ecology by cutting firewood, consuming water,
generating waste, and destroying grasslands. The indigenous population might become acutely afraid of
domination by the intruding ethnic group, especially if the community is one with which it has a history of
enmity. Any country, rich or poor,that opened its borders might soon find other states taking advantage of its
beneficent policy. A neighboring country whose elite wanted a more homogeneous society could now readily
expel its minorities. A government that wanted a more egalitarian society could dump its unemployed and its
poor. An authoritarian regime could rid itself of its opponents; a country could empty its jails, mental
institutions, and homes for the aged. In an extreme case, an overcrowded populous country could take over a
hypothetically generous country simply by "transferring" a large part of its population, and an aggressive
country would no longer need tanks and missiles for an invasion.
23 / 41
Immigration Surveillance Negative
SLUDL/NAUDL 2015-16
Security should be prioritized over human rights (1/3)
(__) Survival is a prerequisite to values and because of this we should prioritize security over
human rights
Nye, Dean of the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, 86 [Joseph S.
1986; Phd Political Science Harvard. University; Served as Assistant Secretary of Defense for International
Security Affairs; “Nuclear Ethics” pg. 45-46]
Some people argue that "we are required to undergo gross injustice that will break many souls sooner than
ourselves be the authors of mass murder."73 Still others say that "when a person makes survival the highest
value, he has declared that there is nothing he will not betray. But for a civilization to sacrifice itself makes no
sense since there are not survivors to give meaning to the sacrifical [sic] act. In that case, survival may be worth
betrayal." Is it possible to avoid the "moral calamity of a policy like unilateral disarmament that forces us to
choose between being dead or red (while increasing the chances of both)"?74 How one judges the issue of ends
can be affected by how one poses the questions. If one asks "what is worth a billion lives (or the survival of the
species)," it is natural to resist contemplating a positive answer. But suppose one asks, "is it possible to imagine
any threat to our civilization and values that would justify raising the threat to a billion lives from one in ten
thousand to one in a thousand for a specific period?" Then there are several plausible answers, including a
democratic way of life and cherished freedoms that give meaning to life beyond mere survival. When we pursue
several values simultaneously, we face the fact that they often conflict and that we face difficult tradeoffs. If we
make one value absolute in priority, we are likely to get that value and little else. Survival is a necessary
condition for the enjoyment of other values, but that does not make it sufficient. Logical priority does not make
it an absolute value. Few people act as though survival were an absolute value in their personal lives, or they
would never enter an automobile. We can give survival of the species a very high priority without giving it the
paralyzing status of an absolute value. Some degree of risk is unavoidable if individuals or societies are to avoid
paralysis and enhance the quality of life beyond mere survival. The degree of that risk is a justifiable topic of
both prudential and moral reasoning.
24 / 41
Immigration Surveillance Negative
SLUDL/NAUDL 2015-16
Security should be prioritized over human rights (2/3)
(__)
(__) Absolute commitments to values like human rights fail when confronted with violence in the
real world – because of this we should prioritize security first
Isaac, Professor of Political Science at Indiana-Bloomington, 2002 [Director of the Center for the Study of
Democracy and Public Life, PhD from Yale, Jeffery C., Dissent Magazine, Vol. 49, Iss. 2, “Ends, Means, and
Politics,” p. Proquest]
What should be done to respond to the violence of a Saddam Hussein, or a Milosevic, or a Taliban
regime? What means are likely to stop violence and bring criminals to justice? Calls for diplomacy and
international law are well intended and important; they implicate a decent and civilized ethic of global
order. But they are also vague and empty, because they are not accompanied by any account of how
diplomacy or international law can work effectively to address the problem at hand. The campus left
offers no such account. To do so would require it to contemplate tragic choices in which moral goodness is
of limited utility. Here what matters is not purity of intention but the intelligent exercise of power. Power is not
a dirty word or an unfortunate feature of the world. It is the core of politics. Power is the ability to effect
outcomes in the world. Politics, in large part, involves contests over the distribution and use of power. To
accomplish anything in the political world, one must attend to the means that are necessary to bring it
about. And to develop such means is to develop, and to exercise, power. To say this is not to say that power
is beyond morality. It is to say that power is not reducible to morality. As writers such as Niccolo
Machiavelli, Max Weber, Reinhold Niebuhr, and Hannah Arendt have taught, an unyielding concern with
moral goodness undercuts political responsibility. The concern may be morally laudable, reflecting a kind of
personal integrity, but it suffers from three fatal flaws: (1) It fails to see that the purity of one's intention does
not ensure the achievement of what one intends. Abjuring violence or refusing to make common cause with
morally compromised parties may seem like the right thing; but if such tactics entail impotence, then it is
hard to view them as serving any moral good beyond the clean conscience of their supporters; (2) it fails
to see that in a world of real violence and injustice, moral purity is not simply a form of powerlessness; it
is often a form of complicity in injustice. This is why, from the standpoint of politics--as opposed to
religion--pacifism is always a potentially immoral stand. In categorically repudiating violence, it refuses
in principle to oppose certain violent injustices with any effect; and (3) it fails to see that politics is as
much about unintended consequences as it is about intentions; it is the effects of action, rather than the
motives of action, that is most significant. Just as the alignment with "good" may engender impotence, it is
often the pursuit of "good" that generates evil. This is the lesson of communism in the twentieth century: it is
not enough that one's goals be sincere or idealistic; it is equally important, always, to ask about the effects of
pursuing these goals and to judge these effects in pragmatic and historically contextualized ways. Moral
absolutism inhibits this judgment. It alienates those who are not true believers. It promotes arrogance.
And it undermines political effectiveness.
25 / 41
Immigration Surveillance Negative
SLUDL/NAUDL 2015-16
Security should be prioritized over human rights (3/3)
(__)
(__) Instead of asserting human rights, policy makers must prioritize the cost and benefits of
actions because that is the only way to maximize security and the well-being of everyone
Shaw Philosophy Professor 1999 (William H. Shaw, 1999, Philosophy and Chair of the Philosophy at
SJSU, “contemporary ethics: taking account of utilitarianism” p 171-2)
In the public realm utilitarianism is especially compelling. Because of its consequentialist character, a
utilitarian approach to public policy requires officials to base their actions, procedures, and programs on
the most accurate and detailed understanding they can obtain of the circum- stances in which they are
operating and the likely results of the alternatives open to them. Realism and empiricism are the hallmarks
of a utilitarian orientation, not customary practice, unverified abstractions, or wishful Promotion of the
wellbeing of all seems to be the appropriate, indeed the only sensible, touchstone for assessing public policies
and institutions, and the standard objections to utilitarianism as a personal morality carry little or no
weight against it when viewed as a public philosophy. Consider, for instance, the criticisms that utilitarianism
is too impersonal and ignores one's individual attachments and personal commitments, that it is coldly
calculating and concerned only with maximizing, that it demands too much of moral agents and that it permits
one to violate certain basic moral restraints on the treatment of others. The previous two chapters addressed
sorne of these criticisms; others will be dealt with in Chapter 8. The point here, though, is that far from
undermining utilitarianism as a public philosophy, these criticisms highlight its strengths. We want
public officials to be neutral, impersonal. and detached and to proceed with their eyes firmly on the
effects of the policies they pursue and the institutions that their decisions shape. Policy making requires
public officials to address general issues, typical conditions. and common circum- stances. Inevitably, they
must do this through general rules, not on a case by case basis. As explained later in this chapter, this fact
precludes public officials from violating the rights of individuals as a matter of policy. Moreover, by
organizing the efforts of countless individuals and compelling each of us to play our part in collective endeavors
to enhance welfare, public officials can make it less likely that utilitarianism will demand too much of any one
individual because others are doing too little. Utilitarians — will seek to direct and coordinate people's
actions through effective public policy and to reshape, in utility-enhancing ways, the institutions that
structure the choices people face. By doing so, utilitarians can usually accomplish more good than they
can through isolated individual action, however dedicated and well intentioned. For this reason, they will
strive to Easter institutions that false over from individuals much of the task of promoting the general welfare of
society. General welfare is a broad goal, of course, and sensible policies and institutions will typically
focus on more specific desiderata - such as promoting productivity, increasing individual freedom and
opportunity, improving people’s physical health, guaranteeing their personal security, and so on — that
contribute significantly to people's well-being.
26 / 41
Immigration Surveillance Negative
SLUDL/NAUDL 2015-16
Immigration Courts backlog
(__) Immigration courts suffer when immigration law is not enforced because it adds to the backlog of
unexecuted deportations.
Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and
Judicial Studies, 2013 [No Fix For Our Immigration Courts,
http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2013/6/no-fix-for-our-immigration-courts
This is a crucial difference because immigration judges, who are Justice Department employees, do not have the
power to enforce their own orders. So even if an alien’s case goes through the entire immigration court system
(including the appeals process), and ends, finally, with an official deportation order, nothing automatically
happens. That final order will simply sit in a file drawer unless and until DHS decides to enforce it. Immigration
judges have no ability to tell federal marshals or any other law enforcement official to enforce their orders.
They can’t tell ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) agents to take a deportable alien and put him on a
plane headed back to his country of origin. The immigration court system is broken. Badly. It suffers from a
huge backlog of cases: more than 330,000. But even worse is the huge backlog of unenforced deportation
orders. According to Mark Metcalf, a former Justice Department immigration judge, the number of unexecuted
deportation orders now stands at 1.2 million. This means that there are 1.2 million aliens who have exhausted
their legal rights and have been declared by an immigration judge to have no valid reason to remain in the
United States. Many of those aliens are individuals who had been detained by DHS, but were released upon
their “promise” to appear in court for a hearing on their immigration claims. According to Metcalf, 900,000
aliens skipped court and disappeared during the last 16 years. Skipping out is exactly what you would expect
from someone who knows he has no legal right to be here to begin with. Why show up in court and risk being
deported when you can just disappear and show up somewhere else in the country under a new name?
27 / 41
Immigration Surveillance Negative
SLUDL/NAUDL 2015-16
Immigration Courts backlog- extensions
(__) Curtailing immigration enforcement creates a magnet for undocumented immigrants that worsens
the immigration court system
Ward, a reporter for Watchdog.org, 2014 [Kenric Ward, U.S. Immigration Courts Have Huge Backlogs,
Leading to Long Waits for Trials, http://dailysignal.com/2014/09/12/u-s-immigration-courts-have-hugebacklogs-leading-to-long-waits-for-trials/]
U.S. immigration courts are backlogged with nearly 400,000 cases, and experts say the Obama administration is
to blame. The 396,552 cases awaiting adjudication represent a 22 percent increase over last year, according to
Syracuse University researchers. Not surprisingly, wait times are up, too. The average case in Imperial, Calif.,
currently lingers 857 days before resolution. Richard Kelsey, assistant dean at the George Mason University
School of Law and a longtime observer of immigration issues, said the problem starts at the White House. “The
president has telegraphed that he is going to take some kind of action (on immigration), so neither the courts nor
the prosecutors are killing themselves to get things done,” Kelsey said in an interview. “Anyone who thinks
there’s no correlation has their head buried so deep in sand they’re not getting enough air.” Bob Dane,
spokesman for the enforcement-oriented Federation for American Immigration Reform, sees other bad actors,
as well: One reason the backlogs are building is that while illegal aliens who are caught crossing the border can
accept a swift, no-fuss voluntary departure, most don’t opt for it. And why would they? They’re egged on to
buy time by their immigration attorneys, local amnesty groups, the ACLU, the Mexican-American Legal
Defense Fund and La Raza. Making the backlogged system even more dysfunctional, defendants often fail to
appear for their court hearings. “Unlike normal court proceedings where a notice of the hearing must be served
… there is no legal requirement that these individuals actually receive notification — only that a notice be sent
out to the address they have,” said Susan Long, associate professor of managerial studies at Syracuse.
28 / 41
Immigration Surveillance Negative
SLUDL/NAUDL 2015-16
Militia DA (1NC) (1/2)
A. Terrorist attacks set the stage for Extremist groups to exploit immigration to promote violence
WRIGHT '09 (Stuart, Dept of Sociology, Social Work & Criminal Justice @ Lamar Univ, Strategic Framing of Racial-Nationalism in N
Ama and Europe: An Analysis of a Burgeoning Trsnt Network, Terrorism and Political Violence, Apr, Vol 21, Issue 2 , p.
189 – 210, http://www.infor maworld.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/smpp/section?content=a909857462&ful ltext=713240928)
Following the deadly Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, far-right racialist leaders responded rapidly to changes
in the political environment, disavowing militia and Patriot violence and exploiting increased public concerns about
immigration and the growth of nonwhite populations. Evidence suggests that Patriot movement demobilization may have actually
helped to swell the ranks of racial-nationalists. As attention to political violence shifted to international terrorism in the aftermath of
September 11, racial-nationalist movement actors again moved quickly to seize the opportunity. The strategic framing
of the crisis by racial-nationalist leaders revealed the existence of a transnational network of allies promoting a twopronged message, 1) a virulent anti-Semitic assault on pro-Israel U.S. foreign policy and 2) a broadside on immigration and
multiculturalism. The lineaments of these transnational networks are analyzed in an effort to explain a “trajectory of contention” regarding this emergent
movement. Possible links between racial-nationalists and Islamic militants are also explored.
This study analyzes a burgeoning racial-nationalist movement in North
America and Europe as a trajectory of contention shaped by a complex interplay of convergent forces. Racial-nationalist ideas and theories are not new; but the strategic
framing—or reframing—of these ideas by key movement leaders in recent years has gained greater currency in the face of broad social and political change. In Europe,
the end of the Cold War produced a resurgence of ethnic nationalism, particularly in some of the former Eastern bloc countries under Soviet control. New waves of
immigration, the forces of globalization, and Western economic expansion fueled high unemployment, rapid growth of minority and non-European populations, nativist
resentment, and a corresponding increase in the number of racial-nationalist parties. In the U.S., far-right activism in the early years of the post-Cold War era mobilized
around antigovernment militia and Patriot groups in an escalating spiral of conflict with the state over expanding enforcement of gun control and militarization of
police.1 In the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing, however, the Patriot movement demobilized, opening up opportunities for racialist factions on the far right to
recruit and absorb defectors. This movement transformation went largely unnoticed by the state, the media, and the general public. The
terrorist attacks
on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon by al Qaeda operatives in 2001 introduced significant change in the
political climate, creating a surge of nationalism and strong anti-immigration sentiment. Racialnationalist leaders in both North America and Europe were able to exploit the new political conditions and widespread
fears to their advantage, effectively framing the crisis as a result of 1) Jewish control over pro-Israel U.S. foreign policy and 2)
non-white or non-European immigration. Cloaking deep-seated racist and anti-Semitic beliefs, racialnationalists constructed narratives that dovetailed with wider public concerns about border/national
security and immigration reform and successfully expanded their base.
29 / 41
Immigration Surveillance Negative
SLUDL/NAUDL 2015-16
Militia DA (1NC) (2/2)
B. Refusing to enforce immigration law leads to a rise in violent militias
Bever, reporter at Washington Post, 2014 [Lindsey Bever, Texas ‘militia’ says it’s heading out to help ‘secure’ border,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/07/08/local-lawmakers-law-enforcement-and-residents-take-on-the-immigration-crisis/]
The group, called Operation Secure Our Border-Laredo, was identified to the San Antonio Express-News as “Patriots,”
“Oathkeepers” and “Three Percenters,” a reference to the 3 percent of colonists who took up arms against England during the Revolutionary War. Organizers
are using social media and a 24-hour hotline to recruit and mobilize armed volunteers to send to Laredo, Tex.,
within the coming weeks.
It’s uncertain how many people belong to the group or how many might actually show up.
“We’re here to supplement and be where law enforcement is not and help them support the border ,” Chris Davis, the
37-year-old listed leader, told the Los Angeles Times. “There’s nothing malicious, there’s no malicious intent — every person is vetted. We’re just here to serve
freedom, liberty and national sovereignty.” Davis
lawful manner.”
said once the group has enough manpower, it will do its duty in a “legal and
It’s quite a different tactic than the one Davis announced via a YouTube video in which he allegedly said: “You see an
illegal. You point your gun dead at him, right between his eyes, and you say, ‘Get back across the border
or you will be shot,'” the McAllen Monitor reported last week. Davis told the Express-News he removed the video after it was taken out of context “by a
newspaper that supports amnesty.”
C. Nativist fears drive spikes in racist organizations & hate crime
NAVARRETTE '06
(USA Today, "In defense of familia," June 1, p. A11)
For many Americans, the problem isn't just that people are coming into the country illegally. It's
that once they get here, these folks change their surroundings, maintain their Spanish and transform
Main Street into Little Mexico. Those changes terrify many Americans, who complain about feeling like visitors in their
native land.
And how
do they respond? A recent report by the Southern Poverty Law Center found that tension
over illegal immigration has contributed to a spike in hate groups and hate crimes. In fact, says a spokesman
for the center, the immigration issue is a recruitment tool for racists and reactionaries.
30 / 41
Immigration Surveillance Negative
SLUDL/NAUDL 2015-16
Curtailing surveillance leads to violent militias- Ext
(__)
(__) A rise in militia groups leads to the violent murder of undocumented immigrants and Latinos
Lenz, Southern Poverty Law Center, 2012 [Investigating Deaths of Undocumented Immigrants on the
Border, Intelligence Report, Fall 2012, Issue Number: 147, http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligencereport/browse-all-issues/2012/fall/death-in-the-desert]
For years, the area has been crisscrossed by “civilian border patrols” — the “Minutemen” groups that President
George W. Bush characterized as “vigilantes” and that were enraged by what they saw as a purposeful invasion.
A neo-Nazi leader who led fellow armed radicals to the border spoke of laying mines to prevent non-whites
from entering — and later reportedly asked a witness to help him surveill homes where he hoped to murder
Latinos. Law enforcement has found at least one pipe bomb planted on a smuggling trail, and last year a neoNazi was arrested with other bombs he was taking to the border. Still other neo-Nazis told the Intelligence
Report several years earlier that they were scouting sniper positions at the border. The recent shootings near
Eloy, coupled with the murders in January and February of 2007, have raised these worries again. An internal
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) report from the earlier period, obtained by the Report, said the 2007
shootings were likely connected to each other. And in the second incident that year, police found two men with
non-Hispanic names “concealed in the brush” nearby watching the police response — a “curious” fact, the DHS
report said. Through it all, most Arizona authorities have dismissed virtually all the non-weather-related deaths
as the result of attacks by drug and human smugglers — and there is little doubt that that is behind some of the
mayhem. But many activists and at least some in law enforcement fear that a small but committed cadre of
hard-core extremists on the border may actually be engaging in murder. Matt Browning, a retired Mesa police
detective who spent years undercover infiltrating racist border and neo-Nazi skinhead groups, is one of them.
“In Arizona, we might not have Hammerskins or Volksfront or the Klan,” Browning said, referencing some of
the more prominent contemporary white supremacist groups. “What we do have is a lot of angry, militant white
men on the border sitting like hunters waiting for these people to come across.”
31 / 41
Immigration Surveillance Negative
SLUDL/NAUDL 2015-16
Curtailing surveillance leads to violent militias- extensions
(___)
(__) Violent militias are the most dangerous types of terrorist
Bergen and Sterman, contributors to CNN, 2014 [Peter Bergen and David Sterman, U.S. right wing
extremists more deadly than jihadists, http://us.cnn.com/2014/04/14/opinion/bergen-sterman-kansas-shooting/]
In fact, since 9/11 extremists affiliated with a variety of far-right wing ideologies, including white supremacists,
anti-abortion extremists and anti-government militants, have killed more people in the United States than have
extremists motivated by al Qaeda's ideology. According to a count by the New America Foundation, right wing
extremists have killed 34 people in the United States for political reasons since 9/11. (The total includes the
latest shootings in Kansas, which are being classified as a hate crime). By contrast, terrorists motivated by al
Qaeda's ideology have killed 21 people in the United States since 9/11. (Although a variety of left wing
militants and environmental extremists have carried out violent attacks for political reasons against property and
individuals since 9/11, none have been linked to a lethal attack, according to research by the New America
Foundation.) Moreover, since 9/11 none of the more than 200 individuals indicted or convicted in the United
States of some act of jihadist terrorism have acquired or used chemical or biological weapons or their precursor
materials, while 13 individuals motivated by right wing extremist ideology, one individual motivated by leftwing extremist ideology, and two with idiosyncratic beliefs, used or acquired such weapons or their precursors.
(__) Anti-immigrant militias increase when the federal government ceases to enforce immigration laws.
Nasser, reporter at Al Jazeera, 2014 [Haya El Nasser, Immigration protest movement gains new impetus,
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/7/31/immigration-protestsus.html]
“Many of the anti-immigration groups are trying to use the issue to put pressure on the Obama administration,
which is now considering executive action [on immigration reform],” she said. “We see really troubling things
from groups that have either been dormant or shuttered. The extent to which they’ve come back, we don’t know
yet.” Marine Corps veteran Jim Gilchrist, who founded the Minuteman Project in 2004 to get the government to
enforce immigration laws, has resurfaced and launched Operation Normandy a week after protesters in Murrieta
forced a bus bringing immigrants to a detention facility to turn around.
The Minuteman website said it expects to recruit and organize 3,500 nonmilitia volunteers and “uncounted
groups of militia” to participate on D-Day. The plan is to blanket the 2,000-mile border from San Diego to
Brownsville, Texas. “This event will dwarf the Minuteman Project of 2005,” the site proclaims. In that year the
organization stationed scores of men and women along the Mexican border in a controversial effort to track
down undocumented immigrants. This current border crisis has galvanized groups that care less about
immigration than they do about protesting government, said Jill Garvey, executive director of the Center for
New Community, a Chicago-based national civil rights organization that provides support to advocacy groups.
32 / 41
Immigration Surveillance Negative
DREAM Act Counterplan
SLUDL/NAUDL 2015-16
DREAM Act Counterplan (1NC) (JV/V only)
1) As an alternative to the plan, we offer the following Counterplan Text: The United States
federal government should pass the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors
(DREAM) Act of 2011
2) The DREAM ACT provides economic opportunity for immigrants and grows the economy
without increasing surveillance.
Immigration Policy Center 2010 [THE DREAM ACT: Creating Opportunities for Immigrant Students and Supporting the U.S. Economy,
immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/Dream_Act_071310_0.pdf]
The DREAM Act would give beneficiaries access to greater educational opportunities and better jobs, which
in turn means more taxable income: A 2010 study by the UCLA North American Integration and Development Center
estimates that the total earnings of DREAM Act beneficiaries over the course of their working lives
would be between $1.4 trillion and $3.6 trillion.19 A 2008 study from Arizona State University found that an individual with a bachelor’s
degree earns approximately $750,000 more over the course of his or her lifetime than an individual with only a high school diploma.20 As of 2006, workers without a
high-school diploma earned $419 per week and had an unemployment rate of 6.8 percent. Workers with a bachelor’s degree earned $962 per week and had an
unemployment rate of 2.3 percent, while workers with a doctoral degree earned $1,441 per week and had an unemployment rate of 1.4 percent.21 A study by the
College Board found that over the course of their working lives, the average college graduate earns in excess of 60 percent more than a high-school graduate, and
workers with advanced degrees earn two to three times as much as highschool graduates.22 The
U.S. Department of Labor found that the
wages of immigrants in the 1986 legalization increased 15 percent over five years,23 and that the
immigrants move on to “significantly better 24 jobs.” ¾ The DREAM Act would allow legalized
immigrants to invest in the U.S. economy:
Dr. Raul Hinojosa-Ojeda of the University of California, Los Angeles, and others have studied the impact
of legalization and found important long-term improvements among previously undocumented
immigrants. Specifically, removing the uncertainty of undocumented status allows legalized immigrants
to earn higher wages and move into higher-paying occupations, and also encourages them to invest more
in their own education, open bank accounts, buy homes, and start businesses.25 ¾ The DREAM Act would save taxpayers
money: A RAND study from 1999 shows that raising the college graduation rate of Hispanics to that of nonHispanic whites would increase spending on public education by 10 percent nationwide, but the costs
would be more than offset by savings in public health and benefits, as well as increased tax revenues
resulting from higher incomes. For example, a 30-year-old Mexican immigrant woman with a college degree will pay $5,300 more in taxes and use
$3,900 less in government expenses each year compared to a high-school dropout with similar characteristics.26
33
Immigration Surveillance Negative
DREAM Act Counterplan
SLUDL/NAUDL 2015-16
Dream Act boosts U.S Economy- Extensions (JV/V)
(__) Extending legal status to college ready undocumented immigrants will contribute jobs and billions of
dollars to the U.S economy
Guzman and Jara 2012 [Juan Carlos Guzmán is a monitoring and evaluation specialist at the Initiative for
Global Development. Raúl Jara is a research associate at the University of Notre Dame’s Institute for Latino
Studies. The Economic Benefits of Passing the DREAM Act. http://www.renewoureconomy.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/07/economic-benefits-dream.pdf]
Through a combination of improved educational attainment and higher paid jobs available to authorized
immigrants, the passage of the DREAM Act would result directly in $148 billion in increased earnings for
beneficiaries of the passage of the proposed law. This direct effect would result in an induced effect of an
additional $181 billion of economic activity. We conservatively estimate the combined economic benefits of the
DREAM Act would be approximately $329 billion over the next 20 years, leading to 1.4 million new jobs and
at least an additional $10.2 billion in tax revenue. This study shows that passing the DREAM Act would lead to
economic growth and improved fiscal health for our nation. Quite simply, extending legal status to more
college-age undocumented immigrants who have known no other home but America is the economically
sensible approach. It will encourage more students to enroll in school and result in a more highly educated
workforce.
34 / 41
Immigration Surveillance Negative
DREAM Act Counterplan
SLUDL/NAUDL 2015-16
Dream Act boosts U.S Economy- Extensions (JV/V)
(___)
(__) The Dream Act helps build a highly educated workforce amongst immigrants and that is key to the
economy
American’s Voice, immigration advocacy group, 2010 [5 REASONS TO SUPPORT THE DREAM ACT,
http://americasvoice.org/research/reasons_to_support_the_dream_act/]
The DREAM Act is a great return on money we have already invested and will prepare the country for the
global economy. The students who would benefit under the DREAM Act have been raised and educated
in the U.S. State and local taxpayers have already invested in the education of these children in
elementary and secondary school. America deserves a return on their investment. Today’s global economy
requires an educated and skilled workforce capable of acquiring, creating, and distributing knowledge.
Passage of the DREAM Act will mean a group of talented, multi-lingual and multi-cultural workers will
help America compete with innovators throughout the world. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)
“estimates that many of the occupations that will be most in demand in years to come will rely on highly
educated workers. Of the 15 occupations projected to grow at least twice as fast as the national average (13
percent), 10 require an associate degree or higher.” For this reason “it is imperative to develop policies
…to help these talented students gain access to postsecondary educational opportunities and the
workforce as legal residents.” [3] Leading businesses such as Microsoft have endorsed the DREAM Act
because they recognize that our broken immigration system is draining our economy of the talent and
resources needed to compete in the global economy.
35 / 41
Immigration Surveillance Negative
DREAM Act Counterplan
SLUDL/NAUDL 2015-16
Dream Act boosts U.S Economy- Extensions (JV/V)
(___)
(__) The DREAM Act allows undocumented immigrants to work legally which helps the economy by
increasing the amount of people contributing to the workforce and tax base.
National Immigration Law Center 2009 [Economic Benefits of the DREAM Act,
http://www.nilc.org/DREAM-econbens-2009-03-26.html]
Why is the DREAM Act needed? Each year about 65,000 U.S.–raised students who would qualify for the
DREAM Act’s benefits graduate from high school. These include honor roll students, star athletes, talented
artists, homecoming queens, and aspiring teachers, doctors, and U.S. soldiers. They are young people who have
lived in the U.S. for most of their lives and desire only to call this country their home. Even though they were
brought to the U.S. years ago as children, they face unique barriers to higher education, are unable to work
legally in the U.S., and often live in constant fear of detection by immigration authorities. The DREAM
Act will prepare the country for a new, global economy. Today’s global economy depends on the creation,
acquisition, distribution, and use of knowledge, and this requires an educated and skilled population. Passage of
the DREAM Act would add thousands of talented, motivated, multilingual and multicultural people into
our workforce. Passage of the DREAM Act will increase tax revenues for cash-strapped federal, state,
and local governments. Newly legalized students would earn more and pay more in taxes. A RAND study
showed that a 30-year-old Mexican immigrant woman who graduates from college will pay $5,300 more
in taxes and cost $3,900 less in government expenses each year than if she had dropped out of high school.
This amounts to an annual fiscal benefit of over $9,000 per person every year, money that can be used to
pay for the education of others. The DREAM Act is a stimulus policy. As President Obama said in his address
to Congress, creating an educated workforce will stimulate our economy, increase productivity, and help
the U.S compete in the global economy. Students who would benefit from the DREAM Act are our future
teachers, doctors, nurses, and lawyers. The DREAM Act will allow thousands of immigrant students to
access higher education and maximize their contributions to our economy and communities.
36 / 41
Immigration Surveillance Negative
DREAM Act Counterplan
SLUDL/NAUDL 2015-16
Dream Act boosts U.S Economy- Extensions (JV/V)
(___)
(__) The DREAM Act legalizes millions of undocumented immigrants while supplying highly skilled
labor into the economy.
Nil, immigration reporter for ThinkProgress, 2010 [New Study Cites DREAM Act Economic Benefits,
https://www.laprogressive.com/dream-act-economic-benefits/]
More specifically, the report concludes, “In the No DREAMers Left Behind scenario, 2.1 million
undocumented immigrants would become legalized and generate approximately $3.6 trillion” over a 40-year
period. Another positive effect of the DREAM Act would be that “[a] higher supply of skilled students
would also advance the U.S. global competitive position in science, technology, medicine, education and
many other endeavors.” These findings are especially significant given the nation’s falling level of
educational attainment. As Wonk Room economics blogger Pat Garofalo notes, “By 2025, according to
estimates by the Lumina Foundation, our nation will be short 16 million college-educated workers. This will
have real consequences for both the economy as a whole and for individual workers.” In the past, the College
Board has indirectly supported the report’s conclusions, stating, “In strictly economic terms, the
contributions that DREAM Act students would make over their lifetimes would dwarf the small
additional investment in their education beyond high school, and the intangible benefits of legalizing and
educating these students would be significant.” The reasoning behind the report’s findings is pretty
straightforward. The DREAM Act provides young undocumented immigrants who were brought to the
U.S. through no fault of their own with the opportunity to get on a path to legalization by attaining a
college education or serving in the military. As a result, those who qualify for the DREAM Act will also
have access to better economic opportunities than they would if they were working without a visa in the
shadows of the economy.
37 / 41
Immigration Surveillance Negative
DREAM Act Counterplan
SLUDL/NAUDL 2015-16
DREAM Act preserves human rights (JV/V)
(__)
(__)The Dream Act would strengthen human rights protections for undocumented immigrants
Ginatta, advocacy director for the US Program at Human Rights Watch, 2010 [US: Senate Should Pass the
DREAM Act, http://www.hrw.org/news/2010/11/29/us-senate-should-pass-dream-act]
Passing the DREAM Act would at the same time both respect the sovereign prerogative of the United
States on immigration and improve the likelihood that those decisions are made in a manner that
promotes fundamental human rights recognized by the United States. Passage of the DREAM Act furthers
the commitment of the United States to protect the human rights of immigrants brought to the country as
children. It represents a choice by the US to protect long-residing immigrant youth from adverse
government action based on the acts of their parents. It would help to shield eligible youth from violence
and abusive treatment for which the authorities often provide little protection. And it would recognize
the strong community ties of youth and respect their family ties, goals long supported by the US. Under
current immigration law regulating deportation, the US often severs a long-resident immigrant child from his
cultural, family, educational, social, and religious roots in the US on the basis of the act of a parent. Article 2(2)
of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which the US is a signatory, provides that children are to be
"protected against all forms of ... punishment" on the basis of the status or activities of the child's parents, legal
guardians, or family members. For children eligible for the DREAM Act, the person deciding to enter the
country without authorization is overwhelmingly the parent, not the child. The DREAM Act reforms US
immigration policy so that it takes into account the best interests of youth long-residing in the country. Human
Rights Watch has reported on greater risk of violence and abusive treatment of children with unauthorized
immigration status. Our May 2010 report "Fields of Peril: Child Labor in US Agriculture" details how
vulnerability to deportation (as well as the obstacles to seeking protection by law enforcement) allows violence
and abusive treatment against farmworker children to flourish. Our research highlighted how isolation and lack
of legal status make girls especially vulnerable to sexual abuse. According to a US Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission regional attorney in 2009, "There are probably scores of women and girls who are
being raped in the fields every day but don't come forward. They're scared." A path to legal status for
DREAM Act eligible children would offer an avenue of protection currently unavailable to these
children. Authorized status would make it easier for youth who are victims of violence and other abusive
treatment to report violations to the police. To better safeguard human rights protected under
international law, governments making determinations of all those subject to deportation should take
into consideration the connections that immigrants establish with their communities.
38 / 41
Immigration Surveillance Negative
DREAM Act Counterplan
SLUDL/NAUDL 2015-16
DREAM Act preserves human rights – extensions (JV/V)
(___)
(__) The DREAM Act ensures that human rights abuses are curtailed by maintaining family unity.
Ginatta, advocacy director for the US Program at Human Rights Watch, 2010 [US: Senate Should Pass the
DREAM Act, http://www.hrw.org/news/2010/11/29/us-senate-should-pass-dream-act]
When facing removal, these young immigrants risk being torn apart from their family. The International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), a core human rights treaty ratified by the US in 1992,
states that "[t]he family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection
by society and the state."[2] The importance of family unity has been recognized by the US Supreme
Court, which has held that the "right to live together as a family" is an important right deserving
constitutional protection, and that "the institution of the family is deeply rooted in this Nation's history
and tradition."[3] By providing a path to legal status for eligible youth, the DREAM Act recognizes the
importance of family bonds. Human Rights Watch strongly believes that passing the DREAM Act would
show a commitment by the United States to respect the human rights of immigrant youth who have
resided in the country for a considerable amount of time. "
39 / 41
Immigration Surveillance Negative
DREAM Act Counterplan
SLUDL/NAUDL 2015-16
DREAM Act preserves human rights- extensions (JV/V)
(__)
(__) The DREAM Act protects the human rights of young immigrants and enhances the quality of life for
immigrant families through access to education
Loha Human Right to Housing Director at NESRI (The National Economic and Social Rights Initiative),
2012 [Tanuka Loha, Immigrants’ Rights: DREAM Act,
http://www.amnestyusa.org/pdfs/federal_toolkit_final.pdf]
Roughly 2.1 million undocumented minors currently reside here – they immigrated to the United States with
their parents while they were children. Many of these young individuals would like to pursue higher education
but often their immigration status, and its implications, stands in the way. This leaves around 65,000
undocumented high school graduates per year struggling to continue with their higher education. Passing the
DREAM Act would allow these young members of our communities to realize their human
right to access education, secure the unity of their families, and be free from certain forms of
discrimination.
The Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act, (S. 952/H.R. 1842), would provide
conditional legal status to those currently undocumented young migrants who entered the
U.S. before the age of 16, have lived in the U.S. continuously for at least 5 years, and have earned their
high school diploma or GED. After 6 years, individuals meeting these criteria will have an opportunity to
permanently legalize their status, subject to having a “good moral character”, completing at least two years of
higher education or uniformed service, and meeting additional requirements under the law. Article 26 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “Everyone has the right to education…and
higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.” Amnesty International
stands in solidarity with the DREAMers and DREAM coalitions. Amnesty International has supported the
DREAM Act for many years because it advances the right to education for undocumented students in the U.S.,
many of whom came to this country as small children and have often known no other home. The right to
education is guaranteed under international human rights instruments (such as the International
Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, which the U.S. has signed but not ratified, and the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which the U.S. played a significant role in drafting). In addition to the
international obligations to respect, protect, and fulfill the human rights of all individuals who reside in the U.S.,
the U.S. Government should uphold the right to education in the interests of combating
discrimination and creating an environment in which human rights are respected and can
thrive for all – after all, our entire society benefits when all members of our communities are able to access
education and make their valuable contributions. Education has been a crucial battleground in the
fight for human rights in the U.S. for many years - while significant advances have been made to date,
many important struggles are clearly still to be won. On June 15, 2012, President Obama announced the
Department of Homeland Security’s guidelines on exercising prosecutorial discretion on the
detention and deportation of DREAM-eligible students. While this guidance provides temporary relief
to many young students, it neither ensures that DREAMers gain equal access to education nor
provides a stable and permanent solution for DREAMers and their families. The passing of the
2011 DREAM Act would provide more security for the DREAMers – a sizeable part of our population – and
protect their right to education.
40 / 41
Immigration Surveillance Negative
DREAM Act Counterplan
SLUDL/NAUDL 2015-16
DREAM Act preserves human rights- extensions (JV/V)
(__)
(__) The DREAM Act fulfills the human rights of young immigrants by providing a safeguard against
harsh deportation practices
Amnesty International 2011 [Student Activist Toolkit 2011,
www.amnestyusa.org/pdfs/AmnestyInternational_DREAM_Act_ToolKit_2011%20FINAL.pdf
Human rights law and standards require that a person be provided with an opportunity to acquire legal
status based on circumstances such as long-time residence in a country, age on arrival, and family presence.
TheDREAM Act fulfills this obligation for some young people. It promotes the right to family unity and
dignity and the right to be free from discrimination. It also provides an avenue for students to continue their
education, an indispensable means of realizing their full spectrum of human rights. The passage of the DREAM
Act would provide thousands of students with the opportunity to attend college. The right to family life and
unity, protected by several international human rights conventions and covenants, would be advanced by
the
DREAM Act's path to legalization for eligible young people. With legal status made possible under the
DREAM Act, it offers young people a form of protection from many human rights abuses, such as
arbitrary arrests, detention and deportations, currently experienced by thousands of young people who
entered the U.S. as children. WHO: Over 2.1 million minors in the United States may be subject to
deportation and every year an estimated 65,000 undocumented high school graduates are unable to
pursue a further education.
Many of these students live in constant fear of detention and deportation if exposed to immigration authority.
A denial of access to justice and arbitrary arrests and detention make it very difficult for students and
their families to defend their cases, even when they are eligible for asylum, an immigration visa, or
another avenue to stay legally in the U.S. While the Department of Homeland Security's Secretary Janet
Napolitano has said that DREAM Act students were “not the priority” when it came to enforcing
immigration laws, DREAMers continue to be deported. Most DREAMers never have a fair chance to go
before a judge and tell their story before being deported. Without any real avenue to acquire legal status,
oftentimes many students who graduate from high school have limited options to continue their studies,
or work and stay in the only country they know.
41 / 41