ICE Aff CPPFF

The plan is to take away Immigration and Customs Enforcements (Part of Department of
Homeland Security) state and local police cooperation over immigration surveillance.
State and Local police act as ICE agents with federal authority, when acting as immigration
agents.
There are a bunch of problems with this, mostly stemming from undocumented immigrants
reluctance to participate in important parts of society out of fear of being surveilled by police in
common instances. The police advantage all stems from that fear. The scenarios we included
are organized crime, small business success and health care, which all stem from fear of police.
Theres a better version of this aff that would just claim systemic impacts to not being able to
participate in society.
The second advantage is about how federally forced immigration surveillance is blowing up
immigration federalism, which is bad for a lot of MSU reasons.
The third advantage is especially susceptible to some alternative cause claims, but claims that
undocumented immigrants human rights are being violated by the criminalization of
immigration. That kills US Human rights cred.
Some reforms to the program went into effect during the first part of this year, but any
improvements have been largely circumvented, and the subsequent electronic surveillance has
actually gotten worse. The plan heeds the demand to disentangle federal immigration from local
law enforcement. Subsequently, ICE doesnt have the person power to enforce criminalized
immigration.
This file was brought to you by a lot of great hands. There are several parts that need to be
further developed, but some great work was done by the researchers. They include:
Christina
William
Abdus
Thomas
Anant
Liz
Taya
Sabrina
Aditya

And helping out the last couple of days with some good stuff:

Alex
Michael Cho
Varun
Hannah W.
Liam
Jason
Josh S.
Gauri
Michael Cerny

ICE AFF

ICE 1AC

Adv 1 Police
*Scenario 1 is organized crime
Local enforcement of ICE immigration law drives racial profiling,
undermines trust of police, and overstretches police resources
Barry 9 (Tom Barry is an American political analyst. As of 2007 he is Senior Policy Analyst and
Americas Policy Program Fellow at the advocacy group Center for International Policy (CIP). Barry began
his career as a political activist and analyst at Georgetown University in the late 1960s. "Immigrant
Crackdown Joins Failed Crime and Drug Wars." International Policy Report. April 2009. CIP's Americas
Program.)//lb

Like its other criminal alien programs, ICE claims that through the 287(g) program it aims to protect against threats to the
community. In its description of the 287(g) program, ICE says the local law enforcement officials should be cross-designated as
immigration agents because "during the course of daily duties, they will often encounter foreign-born criminals and immigration
violators who pose a threat to national security or public safety." The program gives

local police the "necessary

resources and latitude to pursue investigations related to violent crimes, human
smuggling, gang/organized crime activity, sexual-related offenses, narcotics
smuggling, and money laundering." The 287(g) program has led to widespread
concerns about racial profiling, reduced community trust, inadequate
prioritization of dangerous criminals, and misplaced law enforcement resources.
A study of the operation of the program in North Carolina found that it has been used to "purge towns and
cities of 'unwelcome' immigrants." The Policies and Politics of Local Immigration Enforcement report noted:
"Instead of focusing on those people who commit the violent crimes as stated by
ICE, local law enforcement officers seem to be targeting drivers of a particular
race or national origin and stopping them for traffic violations . For example, during the month
of May 2008, 83% of the immigrants arrested by Gaston County ICE-authorized officers pursuant to the 287(g) program were
charged with traffic violations. This pattern has continued as the program has been implemented throughout the state. The arrest
data appears to indicate that Mecklenburg and Alamance Counties are typical in the targeting of Hispanics for traffic offenses for the
purposes of a deportation policy." These problems were also highlighted in a January 2009 report by the U.S. Government
Accountability Office (GAO) titled Immigration Enforcement: Better Controls Needed over Program Authorizing State and Local
Enforcement of Federal Immigration Laws. The

GAO report discovered that despite ICE's claims

that the program would target dangerous criminal aliens, the agency did nothing
to ensure that the police and sheriff deputies it cross-designated prioritized
immigrants who were suspected of "posing a threat to national security or public
safety." GAO concluded: "While ICE officials have stated that the main objective of the 287(g) program is to enhance the safety
and security of communities by addressing serious criminal activity committed by removable aliens, they have not documented this
objective in program-related materials consistent with internal control standards. As a result, some

participating
agencies are using their 287(g) authority to process for removal aliens who have
committed minor offenses, such as speeding, carrying an open container of alcohol, and urinating in public. None of
these crimes fall into the category of serious criminal activity that ICE officials described to us as the type of crime the 287(g)
program is expected to pursue." The GAO found that

ICE didn't even attempt to ensure that the local

officers it trained and designated as immigration agents used their authority only
for arrested immigrants. Of the 287(g) agreements studied by GAO, not one of the 29 "mentioned that an arrest
should precede use of 287(g) program authority." In other words, cross-designated local police have been
investigating the immigration status of people they stop or otherwise encounter
even when there is no crime involved. A March 2008 report by Justice Strategies, Local Democracy on ICE,
also pointed to the broader problem of mixing immigration law and criminal law. In their report, Aarti Shahani and Judith Greene
warned: "287(g)

represents the fusion of two separate systems of law enforcement

power. Once in place, it can lead to further entanglement of these powers as state and
local politicians jump into the campaign to 'crack down' on immigran ts. But civil
immigration and criminal law are fundamentally incompatible . The grey area
between civil and criminal law creates a situation ripe for abuse . The Constitution's
protections against arrest without probable cause, indefinite detention, trial without counsel, double jeopardy, and selfincrimination, as well as the statute of limitations, do not apply equally (or in some cases at all) in the civil immigration context."

Mistrust in police drives Immigrants to participate or rely on gangs

Increases involvement

Cave 14 (Damien Cave is a foreign correspondent for The New York Times, Crime, Migrants and Politics Intersect on Tulsa
Streets, New York Times Late Edition 6/7/14, Date Accessed: 7/10/15, Lexis, SZ)
The city police, however, see things differently. Most of the drug dealers and murderers arrested in and around Tulsa, they say, are
not immigrants, nor are they Hispanic. And

much of the crime in the Hispanic community,

preying on immigrants who are less likely to
report being victimized. Rather than detain immigrants suspected of being
in the country illegally -- a policy the sheriff's office strongly supports -- the city police say they
would rather work with immigrants, here legally or not, to encourage them to report
crime and reduce violence. Experts say the conflicting views of two law enforcement departments working side
they add, involves non-Hispanic gangs

by side in the same place underscores the complexity, and the competing agendas, found at the nexus of the issue of immigration
and crime -- and the way that the politics of immigration can clash with the reality of beat cops. ''The sheriff is elected; it's a political
position,'' said Elizabeth M. McCormick, a professor at the University of Tulsa College of Law. ''There are motivations at play in the
sheriff's office, in terms of continuing to be engaged with immigration, that don't exist for the Tulsa Police Department.'' The city
police acknowledge that Hispanic

gangs have expanded as the immigrant population

has grown in the past few years. But a vast majority of their members are legal residents or American
citizens: many are the sons or grandsons of immigrants, they say, who seem to join street gangs here not to reach back to their roots,
but rather to become more American. ''Their parents are trying to provide them with a better life, but some of these kids see that
gang lifestyle and they want to follow it,'' Sergeant Larkin said. ''It's almost ingrained into teenage American culture.'' Officer Jesse
Guardiola, a Mexican-American with the Tulsa Police Department, said that Hispanic

gangs were growing in

part because the children of immigrants often come from families in which all the adults are working nonstop,
without the time or inclination to encourage the pursuit of education. ''What we have is a growing epidemic of dropouts who are
Latino -- 52 percent of Latinos in Tulsa are not graduating from high school,'' Officer Guardiola said. And for criminals of all
backgrounds, several city officers said, immigrants

are typically seen as inviting targets.

Immigrant gangs are developing ties to terrorist organizations that will attack the
U.S.
Killebrew 08 -- retired Army Col. And researcher at the Center for a New American Strategy (Robert, A New Threat: The Crossover of
Urban Gang Warfare and Terrorism, file:///C:/Users/clarkj/Downloads/killebrewgangs.pdf)

A growing body of evidence shows that criminal gang activities in the United States
are taking on the characteristics of a domestic insurgency similar, in some ways, to
the war going on in Mexico against drug gangs. There is also growing circumstantial
evidence of mutual support between the more serious international gangs and
state-sponsored terrorism that will soon pose a clear danger to American national
security -- if it hasnt already. This isnt just the local punk gangstas that are preoccupying
our police, educators and parents across America. Nor is it solely an attack by 9/11-style
terrorists, either from outside the U.S. or from sleeper cells inside America. Rather it is a new
thing -- a potentially murderous combination that is spreading rapidly northward
from South and Central America into densely packed American urban centers into

suburbia and rural areas. Unless it is checked, and defeated, the United States will be
increasingly vulnerable to civil violence and catastrophic attack from within .

Nuclear terror kills billons

Brill and Luongo 12 [Kenneth C. Brill is a former U.S. ambassador to the I.A.E.A. Kenneth N. Luongo is president of the Partnership
for Global Security. Both are members of the Fissile Material Working Group, a nonpartisan nongovernmental organization. Nuclear Terrorism: A
Clear Danger The New York Times, 3/15/12 ln]

There is a consensus among international leaders that the threat of nuclear

terrorism is real, not a Hollywood confection. President Obama, the leaders of 46 other nations, the heads of the
International Atomic Energy Agency and the United Nations, and numerous experts have called nuclear terrorism one of the most serious threats to global security and stability.

At least four terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda, have

demonstrated interest in using a nuclear device. These groups operate in or near states with histories of questionable
nuclear security practices. Terrorists do not need to steal a nuclear weapon. It is quite possible to
make an improvised nuclear device from highly enriched uranium or plutonium
being used for civilian purposes. And there is a black market in such material. There have been 18
confirmed thefts or loss of weapons-usable nuclear material. I n 2011, the Moldovan police broke up part
of a smuggling ring attempting to sell highly enriched uranium; one member is thought to remain at large with a kilogram of this material. A terrorist
nuclear explosion could kill hundreds of thousands, create billions of dollars in
damages and undermine the global economy . Former Secretary General Kofi
Annan of the United Nations said that an act of nuclear terrorism would thrust
tens of millions of people into dire poverty and create a second death toll
throughout the developing world .
It is also preventable with more aggressive action.

*Scenario 2 is Small Businesses

Fear of local police is crushing immigrant frequency of small businesses

Branche 11 (Afton Branche -Georgetown University B.S. in Foreign Service, Culture and Politics, International Development. "The Cost of
Failure: The Burden of Immigraton Enforcement in America's Cities." Drum Major Institute for Public Policy. April 2011.
http://uncoverthetruth.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/DMI-Cost-of-Failure.pdf)//lb

Immigration enforcement undercuts the vital contributions immigrants make to

urban economies. In Principles for an Immigration Policy to Strengthen and Expand the Middle Class, the Drum Major
Institute finds that immigrants produce goods and services, pay taxes and support small
businesses , and as such are an integral part of the American economy .50 In the Chicago
metropolitan area alone, undocumented immigrants spend nearly $2.9 billion each year on goods and services, creating an

When immigration enforcement goes local ,

undocumented immigrants may fear that everyday activities could result in
contact with police, and by extension, immigration authorities . As a result, many avoid
public places, to the detriment of neighborhood businesses. In Irving, Texas, a large Dallas
additional 31,908 jobs in the local economy.51

suburb, initial enforcement of the Criminal Alien Program drove many Latino immigrants underground. After controversial arrests
of undocumented immigrants at a local barbeque, the Dallas Consul General of Mexico went so far as to warn Mexican immigrants
to stay away from the suburb completely.52 Soon after, newspapers reported that small businesses dependent on immigrant

customers took a noticeable hit. An article from the Houston Chronicle sheds light on the fallout: The bottom dropped out of Mike
Grangers snack business almost immediately after the Mexican consul general in Dallas warned people to avoid this sprawling
suburb. Im picking up stalesMy customers have disappeared. Joe Reyes, a worker at Nicos Discount Tires on Story Road, said:

The cops are stopping everybody around here, Reyes said, motioning to a stretch
of inexpensive restaurants, auto repair shops and beauty shops. People who used
to come here now go to Grand Prairie, anyplace else , he said. His boss, manager Rafael Romero, said
Nicos business is down 50 percent.53 The same effect was observed on businesses in
metropolitan Atlanta after 287(g) was implemented. From bridal shops to
apartment complexes, business in Cobb and Gwinnett counties that catered to Latino
immigrant customers registered serious and sometimes staggering losses. One Atlanta-based
grocery distributor reported that lagging business post-287(g) forced him to cut the number of Latino grocery stores supplied from
30 to 5.54

A similar effect was observed in Frederick County and Prince William County, two 287(g)

participants in the Washington, D.C metropolitan area.55 In Maricopa County, Arizona, one local politician actually touted
depressed business activity as proof of 287(g)s success. According to former Maricopa County attorney Andrew Thomas:

We

have a lot of anecdotal evidence of areas in the Valley that have a large number of presumed illegal
immigrants leaving (and) businesses that cater to illegal immigrants suffering or
going out of business entirelySo you have all of this evidence that supports the conclusion that illegal
immigration is being curbed significantly, and I believe the main reason for that is the crackdown efforts of law enforcement and
particularly the sheriffs office and our office.56 This

result was no doubt a negative for Maricopa

business owners who relied on the economic support of undocumented
immigrants and their families. Cities and metropolitan areas grappling with fiscal
crises can scarcely afford to pursue immigration enforcement policies that risk
reducing immigrants economic activities.
Latinos are uniquely key to the success of small businesses
RNC 13 (May 2nd, Latinos Are the Engine of Small Business in America ,https://www.gop.com/latinos-are-the-engine-of-small-business-inamerica/)

The small business sector of the United States currently employs 60 million Americans full of entrepreneurial spirit, invaluable
experiences and encouraging solutions for the expansion and growth of our economy .

Small businesses are the

engine of our nation's economic prosperity. They employ about half of all private
sector employees, and they create nearly two-thirds of all new jobs . By far, they are
the most significant, most populated and therefore the most potentially powerful sector of our
economy and our electorate. Hispanic Americans are a major force in this small business sector
with 3 million Latino-owned companies and over $500 billion in revenue. As administrator of the U.S. Small
Business Administration, I led an organization that exceeded all previous records in small business loans, women and minority
owned business support and private-public sector procurement opportunities, guaranteeing loans totaling more than $60 billion.
This week, small business owners from around the nation will come together for The Latino Coalition and U.S. Chamber of
Commerce 2013 Americas Small Business Summit in Washington, D.C. The summit seeks to champion the leadership of individuals
with the American Dream of being small business owners and generate the productive, diverse, and flexible workforce that America
needs to ensure prosperity over the coming generations. On Monday, April 29th Wednesday, May 1st, the TLC Summit will host
more than 40 speakers and panelists on key issues important to small business such as: procurement opportunities, newly available
financing, risk management, legal reform, healthcare, immigration and international trade.

The limitation of small businesses are preventing a recovery and actual

growth
Shepherdson 13 (Ian [Ian Shepherdson is an award-winning British economist. He is the founder and Chief Economist of Pantheon
Macroeconomics, an economic research firm located in Newcastle, England, with an office in White Plains, New York] Small Businesses Are The
(Missing) Key To A Full Economic Recovery, http://www.forbes.com/sites/ianshepherdson/2013/09/10/small-businesses-are-the-missing-key-to-afull-economic-recovery/)

You cant understand the current state of the U.S. economy without understanding
the role of small businesses. Big companies have been performing well for the past four

years, thanks

in part to huge support from the Fed in the early days after the meltdown of the financial
the small business sector is barely growing at all , if the monthly survey from the National
Federation of Independent Business is to be believed. Small firms account for about half of GDP and
employ about half the workforce, so if they are struggling it is very hard for the
economy as a whole to grow in line with its long-term trend. Most small firms are tiny, with fewer than 10
system, but

employees, so their only external source of finance, apart from the owners pocket, is the bank. The stock of bank lending to
commercial and industrial companies fell by about a quarter in the two years after Lehman, continuing to contract long after the
capital markets, which provide most of the finance for big companies, re-opened for business. Small

firms were not

responsible for the boom or the bust, but they are an easy target for banks which have to shrink their balance
sheets in a hurry. The Fed and the administration saved the banking system, but they did nothing to prevent the massive credit
crunch which then engulfed small businesses. Bank lending began to recover in late 2010 and the stock of lending to companies has
now returned to its pre-Lehman level, just. But this takes no account of inflation, and it will take at least another year for real
lending to return to its previous peak. Until that happens, small firms will be constrained in their ability to hire, build inventory and
spend on capital equipment, new software, buildings and research and development. And in the meantime, measures

of

small business activity and sentiment will remain much weaker than those of
larger businesses, and the rate of economic growth will be stranded between the two, as it has been since the recovery
began in 2009. Wall Street is fixated on public companies and doesnt get the importance of the
smallest companies, which is why analysts fall back on the idea that sluggish
growth is now the new normal. It is not .

Global nuclear war

Harris & Burrows 9 Mathew, PhD European History @ Cambridge, counselor of the U.S.
National Intelligence Council (NIC) and Jennifer, member of the NICs Long Range Analysis
Unit Revisiting the Future: Geopolitical Effects of the Financial Crisis
http://www.ciaonet.org/journals/twq/v32i2/f_0016178_13952.pdf
Of course, the report encompasses more than economics and indeed believes the future is likely to be the result of a number of intersecting and
interlocking forces. With so many possible permutations of outcomes, each with ample Revisiting the Future opportunity for unintended consequences,
there is a growing sense of insecurity. Even so, history

may be more instructive than ever. While we continue to believe that the Great
Depression is not likely to be repeated, the lessons to be drawn from that period include the harmful effects on
fledgling democracies and multiethnic societies (think Central Europe in 1920s and 1930s) and on the sustainability of
multilateral institutions (think League of Nations in the same period). There is no reason to think that this would not be true in the
twenty-first as much as in the twentieth century. For that reason, the ways in which the potential for greater conflict
could grow would seem to be even more apt in a constantly volatile economic environment as they would be if change
would be steadier. In surveying those risks, the report stressed the likelihood that terrorism and nonproliferation will remain priorities even as resource
issues move up on the international agenda. Terrorism s appeal will decline if economic growth continues in the Middle
East and youth unemployment is reduced. For those terrorist groups that remain active in 2025, however, the diffusion of technologies and scientific
knowledge will place some of the worlds most dangerous capabilities within their reach. Terrorist groups in 2025 will likely be a
combination of descendants of long established groups_inheriting organizational structures, command and control processes, and training procedures
necessary to conduct sophisticated attacks and newly emergent collections of the angry and disenfranchised that become

self-radicalized,
an economic downturn. The most dangerous
casualty of any economically-induced drawdown of U.S. military presence would almost certainly be the
Middle East. Although Irans acquisition of nuclear weapons is not inevitable, worries about a nuclear-armed Iran could lead states
in the region to develop new security arrangements with external powers, acquire additional weapons ,
and consider pursuing their own nuclear ambitions . It is not clear that the type of stable deterrent
relationship that existed between the great powers for most of the Cold War would emerge naturally in the Middle East with a nuclear
Iran. Episodes of low intensity conflict and terrorism taking place under a nuclear umbrella could lead to an unintended
escalation and broader conflict if clear red lines between those states involved are not well established. The close
proximity of potential nuclear rivals combined with underdeveloped surveillance capabilities and mobile dual-capable Iranian
particularly in the absence of economic outlets that would become narrower in

missile systems also will produce inherent difficulties in achieving reliable indications and warning of an impending nuclear attack. The lack of strategic
depth in neighboring states like Israel, short warning and missile flight times, and uncertainty of Iranian intentions may

place more focus

on preemption rather than defense, potentially leading to escalating crises . 36 Types of conflict that the world
continues to experience, such as over resources, could reemerge, particularly if protectionism grows and there is a resort to
neo-mercantilist practices. Perceptions of renewed energy scarcity will drive countries to take actions to assure their future access to energy supplies. In
the worst case, this could result in interstate conflicts if government leaders deem assured access to energy resources, for
example, to be essential for maintaining domestic stability and the survival of their regime. Even actions short of war, however, will have important
geopolitical implications. Maritime security concerns are providing a rationale for naval buildups and modernization efforts, such as Chinas and
Indias development of blue water naval capabilities. If the fiscal stimulus focus for these countries indeed turns inward, one of the most obvious
funding targets may be military. Buildup

of regional naval capabilities could lead to increased tensions, rivalries,

and counterbalancing moves, but it also will create opportunities for multinational cooperation in protecting critical sea lanes. With water
also becoming scarcer in Asia and the Middle East, cooperation to manage changing water resources is likely to be
increasingly difficult both within and between states in a more dog-eat-dog world.
Scenario 3 is profiling
ICE institutionalizes racism against latino communities
Hing 09 (Bill Ong [University of San Francisco-School of Law]
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=331631)
This Article contends that the evolution of immigration laws and the manner in which
immigration laws operate have institutionalized bias against Latino immigrants
Mexicans in particularand Asian immigrants. This has occurred through laws that initially
manifested racist intent and/or impact, amendments that perpetuated that racism,
and enforcement strategies and legal interpretations reinforcing the racism. Racism has been
institutionalized in our immigration laws and enforcement policies. Kwame Ture
(a.k.a. Stokely Carmichael) coined the phrase institutional racism in the 1960s. He
recognized it was important to distinguish personal bias from institutional bias, which is
generally long-term and grounded more in inertia than in intent. Institutional racism has come
to describe societal patterns that impose oppressive or otherwise negative conditions against
identifiable groups on the basis of race or ethnicity. In the United States, institutional racism
resulted from the social caste system of slavery and racial segregation. Much of its basic
structure still stands to this day. By understanding the fundamental principles of
institutionalized racism we begin to see the application of the concept beyond the
conventional black-white paradigm. Institutional racism embodies discriminating
against certain groups of people through the use of biased laws or practices.
Structures and social arrangements become accepted, operate, and are manipulated in such a
way as to support or acquiesce in acts of racism. Institutional racism can be subtle and
less visible, but is no less destructive than individual acts of racism. Charles Lawrences
discussion of unconscious racism also is relevant. Lawrence teaches us that the source of much
racism lies in the unconscious mind. Individuals raised in a racist culture unknowingly absorb
attitudes and stereotypes that influence behavior in subtle, but pernicious ways. Unconscious
prejudice . . . is not subject to self-correction within the political process.70 The
forces of racism have become embodied in U.S. immigration laws.71 As these laws are
enforced, they are accepted as common practice, in spite of their racial effects. We
may not like particular laws or enforcement policies because of their harshness or their
violations of human dignity or civil rights, but many of us do not sense the inherent racism
because we are not cognizant of the dominant racial framework. Understanding the evolution of
U.S. immigration laws and enforcement provides us with a better0 awareness of the institutional
racism that controls those policies. This Part focuses on the evolution of immigration laws and

enforcement policies. The history begins with slavery. Forced African labor migration set the
stage for the Mexicans and the Chinese. This Part reviews the history of Mexican migration, the
enforcement of the southwest border, and the sea change to enforcement through employer
sanctions enacted in 1986.

*Scenario 3 is health care

Status Quo immigrants stay away from public healthcare in fear of deportation,
only the plan eliminates this fear by removing surveillance of immigrants
Moran 10 ( Benedict Moran, Huffington post, 3/18/10, Undocumented immigrants scared to seek free healthcare,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/benedict-moran/undocumented-immigrants-s_b_376032.html) //AS
"When we do this type of work," he explained, "if

they find out that they need further follow-up, they

won't go!" He paused, "They're just too scared." Though the extent is difficult to quantify, City health
officials say that a large number of undocumented immigrants fear going to health
centers and instead rely on an illegal network of doctors and traditional faith
healers. The free blood testing at Corona Square, sponsored by the Ecuadorian Consulate, was an effort to inform these unauthorized
immigrants that their privacy was protected at City hospitals. The success of such events, though, is limited. "New York City is probably the best
possible place in the country to be undocumented, maybe in the world, because there are a lot of health care services that are available free of charge
and that don't ask questions," said Dr. Peter Muennig, an associate professor at the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University. "The

flip side to this is that many undocumented groups are very fearful of seeking that
kind of care for fear of being reported to the authorities ," he said. Undocumented
immigrants, like other New Yorkers without insurance, can access three types of health services offered by
the City. The Department of Health runs clinics that provide tuberculosis care, vaccinations, and treatment for sexually
transmitted diseases. Community health centers, which are funded by a mix of federal funds, Medicaid, and out of pocket
payments, offer primary care. Then there are hospital emergency rooms. At all of these
locations, federal privacy laws prohibit immigration officials from accessing health records of patients. But despite these protections ,
those without papers often stay away.

Lack of healthcare for immigrants leads to uncontrollable disease, the plan

is a necessary mechanism to solve disease
Betzler 13 (Song Betzler, J.D., M.P.H., Legal Fellow at the Network for Public Health Law
Mid-States Region at the University of Michigan School of Public Health, Undocumented
Immigrants and Healthcare, The Network for Public Health Care,
https://www.networkforphl.org/the_network_blog/2013/07/01/196/undocumented_immigra
nts_and_health_care) //AS
Inadequate access to health care and treatment can lead to the spread of disease
and stymie disease control efforts . In November of 2012, immigration authorities detained
a Nepalese man who had extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis , or XDR-TB. This is the first
XDR-TB case that Immigration and Customs Enforcement encountered, but health officials arent confident it
will be the last.The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report the TB rate among foreign-born
persons in the U.S. in 2012 was 11.5 times higher than among U.S.-born persons. States with large
immigrant populations, such as California, Texas, Florida and New York, represented almost half of
all TB cases reported in 2012. Proposed immigration reform focuses on providing this population a path to citizenship by
granting a registered provisional status. In general, this status allows undocumented immigrants to legally work in the U.S. but
denies them public benefits. Undocumented immigrants are currently excluded from the Affordable Care Act (ACA). For example,
they arent covered under the individual mandate provision, entitled to any government subsidies, and are banned from purchasing

insurance through insurance exchanges. Undocumented immigrants remain ineligible for Medicaid, making them prone to rely on
safety-net providers (providers that offer health services to uninsured or other vulnerable patients). Under the current immigration
reform bill these ACA provisions will continue to apply. Provisions

that exclude undocumented

immigrants from the U.S. health care system have implications that impact public
health. There is no guarantee that undocumented immigrants have been
inoculated for the same diseases the U.S. seeks to control within its borders. Immigration law
requires those seeking to immigrate, or change their status to permanent resident, provide proof of vaccination against vaccinepreventable diseases, but this does not apply to undocumented immigrants. The failure to address immigrant health care means

there are few options available to adequately and quickly address preventable
disease and illness. Because this population tends to live in the shadows of society,
tracking and preventing disease in immigrant communities poses numerous
difficulties. Undocumented immigrants may avoid agencies that require selfidentification, and fear visiting a health clinic will draw the attention of
immigration officials . There is greater risk of exposure to contagious disease when
access to health care is limited. As drug-resistant diseases become more prevalent around the world, the U.S. can
protect itself by providing undocumented immigrants with access to health care. As immigration reform is being considered,
Congress has a second opportunity (the first was during the debate on the ACA) to have a robust debate on the public health benefits
of insuring undocumented immigrants and enabling them to obtain better access to health care. Providing such benefits will widen
the pool of insured persons and offer the potential to decrease the spread of disease and per capita cost. There is also significant
potential to cut costs by lowering the use of emergency care. And most importantly, immigration

health reform
can prevent disease and illness in undocumented immigrants, thereby protecting
the health of the entire U.S. population.

Disease spread causes extinction

Collins 98 (Columnist-Sunday Mirror (UK), Doomsday fear as we over-use antibiotics, 4/12,
Lexis)
THE golden age of antibiotics, the 20th Century's wonder drug, is over. Scientists

now fear a Doomsday scenario,

where infection spreads rapidly across the globe. One in six prescriptions written out by GPs is for antibiotics, yet
they no longer work on many extremely dangerous bacteria - or are only effective when used in amounts so high that they can cause
serious side-effects. Some bugs like salmonella and TB have become resistant to the antibiotics used to
destroy them because of over-use. And other bacteria, such as the deadly hospital superbug MRSA (right) which kills 5,000 patients
a year, are actually the product of the microscopic war against germs. The more doctors have bombarded the bugs with antibiotics
the faster they have mutated to produce resistant strains, like MRSA. Richard Young, head of The Soil Association's Antibiotics
Group which is investigating the crisis, said: "The

problem of antibiotic resistance is very worrying and could

potentially lead to a public health problem of apocalyptic proportions. The misuse of antibiotics is
threatening us all."

Plan reestablishes trust in local law enforcement- Uniquely decreases

violent crime rates

Gascon 13 (George Gascon is the District Attorney in San Francisco, Why cops should back immigration reform,
6/19/13, Date Accessed: 7/7/15, http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/19/opinion/gascon-immigration-

policing/, SZ)

When immigrants -- unauthorized or authorized - feel isolated from the protection of law
enforcement, the entire community suffers. I saw this evidenced during my tenure as police chief in
Mesa, Arizona, where local Sheriff Joe Arpaio's reign of terror over the Latino
community led to increased crime rates in his county. Arpaio blamed most crimes in
Maricopa Country on undocumented immigrants and made racial profiling a common practice. He frequently detained people who
"looked Latino" until they could prove their status in the country .

In direct contrast to this approach, I

worked side by side with community groups and civil rights organizations
to foster a sense of trust between the Latino community and the Mesa Police Department. The effects of a broken
immigration system were a constant thread in the stories of Latino mothers, fathers and workers who refused to report crime for
fear of being detained or deported. In

Mesa, we lowered crime by some 30%, according to

FBI data -- a result of the trust our police department created with all
communities, and not because of immigration enforcement. Law enforcement should focus on
community safety, not enforcing immigration laws. That is not just my opinion, but that
of the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled against Arizona's SB1070, and of many police officers and law
enforcement officials around the country. When undocumented immigrants live in the
shadows, they become wary of law enforcement, crimes go unreported,
perpetrators remain on the loose, and the safety of our communities is
affected. Anti-immigrant forces have long scapegoated undocumented immigrants as the reason for higher crime rates and the
need for greater border security. We in law enforcement must come together and inform our senators that immigrants are a valuable
part of our communities. Research

shows that areas with a high immigrant population

often have much lower rates of crime than similar areas without high
immigrant representation. Our borders are also more secure than they have ever been, with the United States
already spending more than $17 billion annually on immigration and border enforcement.

Adv 2 Immigration Federalism

State sovereignty over immigration has been crushed by ICEs use of state
and local police
Cox and Miles 2014 Professor of Law, NYU School of Law; Clifton R. Musser Professor of
Law and Economics and Walter Mander Research Scholar, University of Chicago Law School.
(Adam and Thomas, The Real World of Immigration Federalism,
http://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/upload_documents/Adam%20Cox%20The
%20Real%20World%20of%20Immigration%20Federalism_2.pdf)//AN
Writing about immigration federalism has, like much federalism scholarship, long been stuck with an outdated model of federal-

the reality today

is quite different: as a number of writers have begun to document, state and local governments today are often
empowered not by their autonomy, but instead by their incorporation into federal
statutory schemes . According to these accounts, sovereignty-based federalism is the past;
cooperative federalism is the future. 1 This turn in federalism theory has often been overlooked in immigration
state relations. Under that old model, states wield power principally by possessing regulatory autonomy. But

law, perhaps because attention has focused on high-profile battles like the recent one between Arizona and the federal government.

Frustrated by what it saw as a lack of federal initiative on immigration policy, Arizona decided to
go it alone, passing a controversial law that created state penalties for violations of federal
immigration law. Nearly all of Arizonas law was invalidated by the Supreme Court in United States v.
Arizonaa decision that many interpreted as a paean to old notions of dual sovereignty. The reality, however, is that arguments over
state or local immigration sovereignty are largely a sideshow. The most

pressing questions of immigration

federalism today pretty much all concern cooperative arrangements between the federal government and
nonfederal officials.2 This is driven by the fact that immigration law has, in recent years, increasingly incorporated
state and local law enforcement officials into federal immigration enforcement. This is the deep
irony of the Supreme Courts decision in Arizona. Largely overlooked in all of the controversy surrounding
Arizonas law is a surprising fact: even while the Justice Department was arguing to the Supreme Court that local law enforcement
officials in Arizona lacked authority to participate in immigration enforcement, the federal government was busy rolling out a
program that incorporated those same officials into the federal enforcement scheme. That program, known as Secure

Communities, has a straightforward goal: to ensure that every person arrested for a crime by
local police anywhere in the country is screened by the federal government for immigration violations .
Secure Communities is in many ways an ideal testing ground for many of the theories that dominate the contemporary federal
literature. One such theory is that cooperative arrangements give local officials to much control over federal policy. This is among
the charges leveled by critics of Secure Communities: they argue that especially in a world where immigration policy is determined
largely through the exercise of enforcement priorities, turning

every local criminal arrest into an immigration

screening event puts local officials in charge of those priorities .

Changes to ICEs 287g now compel state and local police to cooperate in
surveilling for immigration through task forces AND technological
gathering This crushes immigration federalism
Kalhan 2013 Associate Professor of Law, Drexel University (Anil, Immigration Policing and
Federalism Through the Lens of Technology, Surveillance, and Privacy, Vol. 74:6, pg. 1134,
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/students/groups/oslj/files/2013/12/14-Kalhan.pdf)//AN
C. Informational End Runs and the Eroding Boundaries of Immigration Federalism Automated immigration policing has enabled massive levels of state and local involvement in immigration enforcement that
could never have been achieved under earlier programs. The NCIC Immigration Violators File, for example, now makes over 298,900 records of potentially deportable individuals accessible to state and local

over twenty-eight million sets of fingerprints have been

transmitted to DHS since the programs inceptionthousands of fingerprints
per day, according to one official, including fingerprints of all individuals born outside the United States or whose place of birth is unknownfrom which DHS has identified over 1.4 million matching
police nationwide.111 Under Secure Communities,

records in IDENT. ICE has returned or formally removed 279,482 of these individuals, with the number of removals attributable to Secure Communities jumping from 14,364 in 2009, representing four percent of

the 287(g)
program, one of the cornerstones of the previous generation of federal immigration policing initiatives. In order to achieve these numbers, these initiatives have
all removals, to 83,815 in 2012, representing one-fifth of all removals.112 In light of these numbers, the Obama Administration has decreased its reliance on task force agreements under

forcefully challenged and eroded the equilibrium on immigration federalism that

has been emerging in recent years, illustrating the powerful ways in which the technological architecture of
federalism itself can shape and govern the institutional relationships among different levels of
government.113 While sharing with its predecessors the goal of reducing the federal governments information deficit vis--vis states and localities in the identification of potentially deportable
noncitizens, automated immigration policing departs from those earlier initiatives by precluding states and
localities from making affirmative, calibrated, and negotiated choices about the level of immigration policing
assistance they wish to furnish. Instead, these initiativeswhile nominally still tethered to voluntary forms of federalstate cooperation affect informational end runs
around those choices through the use of technology. Both programs tightly weave immigration policing mechanisms into established, deeply ingrained systems designed to facilitate criminal investigation,
prosecution, and sentencingtransforming the process of monitoring and verifying immigration status into a routine, seamless part of virtually all ordinary law enforcement encounters with members of the

This approach erodes the conception of immigration federalism that has emerged in
recent years by narrowing the space for states and localities to make affirmative choices
concerning their cooperation on immigration policing that are independent from other decisionsinitially made decades earlierto exchange
public.

identification and criminal history records for wholly separate criminal justice purposes. With the NCIC, given the manner of its extensive use by state and local police, the inclusion of immigration records means
that individual police officers will automatically receive immigration status information when making routine queries, even if their jurisdictions have policieswhich are likely immune from preemption

police officers may then be

induced to detain or arrest suspected civil or criminal immigration law violators without regard
to their formal immigration arrest authority, which Arizona v. United States now clarifies to be highly constrained, or the extent to which their jurisdictions
have affirmatively chosen to cooperate with ICE.114 Secure Communities goes even further , inducing and routinizing the assistance
of state and local police en masse. Here, the informational end run proceeds in the opposite direction from the flow of information using the NCIC. Rather
than sending immigration status information to law enforcement officials, DHS
automatically extracts identification and criminal history information from state
and local law enforcement agencies when they routinely transmit that information to the FBI for purposes that are unrelated to civil immigration
enforcement, but understood as essential for criminal law enforcement.115 DHS then uses that information for immigration enforcement
purposes without regard to whether those jurisdictions have affirmatively chosen
to cooperate with federal immigration authorities in helping to identify potentially deportable individuals whom they encounter. While technology
prohibiting or restricting officers from collecting that information from members of the public they encounter. Once presented with that information,

being plastic, as Lawrence Lessig has emphasized likely could be designed to preserve the room for state and local choices that existing federal immigration policing initiatives contemplate, these new

automated immigration policing initiatives are early components in a broader federal strategy
that instead appears poised not simply to erode existing conceptions of immigration
federalism even further , but to expand these surveillance mechanisms to encompass even
larger numbers of U.S. citizens.116 Federal officials have championed Secure Communities not just as an immigration policing program, but as the first phase of the FBIs
Next Generation Identification (NGI) initiative, a biometric database system intended to upgrade and replace IAFIS, which will enable the collection, storage, processing, and exchange of unparalleled quantities of
biometric and biographic information of both U.S. citizens and noncitizens alike.117 The scope of NGIs database system is enormous, encompassing multimodal biometric records of fingerprints, multiple
photographs, iris scans, palm prints, voice data, and potentially other biometric identifiers along with detailed biographical information, and populated with data from a multiplicity of sourcesincluding not only
law enforcement agencies, but potentially also commercial databases, security cameras, publicly available sources, social networking platforms, private employers, and individuals. Using powerful facial

NGI not only enables more sophisticated means of immediately identifying particular individuals, but also makes it trivially easy to locate,
identify, and track individuals remotely for investigative, intelligence gathering, or preventive
purposes.118 To the extent that DHS stores the fingerprints of U.S. citizens collected under Secure Communities, as discussed above, the implications of Secure
Communities for U.S. citizens will become even more consequential under NGI and any
other programs that might involve broader sharing of those fingerprints and other biometrics along with any personal
recognition and search tools,

information that may be linked to those biometric records. The comprehensive immigration reform bill recently adopted by the Senate also proposes to use technology in a manner that promises to reshape
existing conceptions of immigration federalism. The bill would require employers to verify employees identities against DHS databases using an enhanced version of E-Verify, DHSs existing online employment
eligibility verification system, which incorporates a photo tool containing photos and personal information drawn from state drivers license and identification bureaus.119 With all of these automated initiatives,

manner in which information from different database systems and regulatory domains is routinely aggregated and
blurs the lines between immigration control and other regulatory domains , on the one hand, and the
institutional lines between federal, state, and local institutions , on the other.120
the

exchanged

Federal limiting of state and local police cooperation with the ICE solves
immigration federalism
Kalhan 2013 Associate Professor of Law, Drexel University (Anil, Immigration Policing and
Federalism Through the Lens of Technology, Surveillance, and Privacy, Vol. 74:6,
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/students/groups/oslj/files/2013/12/14-Kalhan.pdf)//AN
B. Immigration Federalism and Information Federalism One important means of fostering and facilitating these kinds of constraintsof creating
friction in [the] system in aid of the public good may be to harness the existing potential for conflicts over information control between the federal

government and states and localities.219 While it is customary, in immigration as in other areas, to think of the federal government as a bulwark
against rights violations by states, federalism also

establishes multiple centers of power with the

capacity to exert independent checks upon federal authority . Particularly in the face of broad
exercises of federal power, state and local institutions can play important roles in the protection of rights
and libertiesas focal points for the expression of political opposition to national policies , as seedbed[s]
for political change at the national level, as sources of alternative and potentially broader conceptions of federal rights,
and as potentially moderating influences on the federal actors who seek their cooperation.220 Immigration scholars have
long discounted these possibilities, devoting greater attention to more restrictive subfederal impulses. However, in recent years, scholars
increasingly have recognized that states and localities can and do play affirmative and constructive
roles in integrating, protecting, and otherwise affirmatively engaging their noncitizen residents.221 Indeed,
with respect to the collection, processing, storing, and dissemination of immigration status and other personal information for immigration
enforcement purposes, states and localities have long played precisely this

kind of rolefor example, by fashioning

policies that constrain the collection of that information or its dissemination to federal
immigration officials .222 Automated immigration policing initiatives such as Secure Communities directly respond to these forms of

resistance by reducing the need for affirmative state and local assistance in collecting information about potentially deportable noncitizens in their
custody. However, as

both surveillance and federalism scholars might have predicted , that

resistance itself has persisted in the form of efforts to limit the ability of federal immigration officials
to use that information.223 A growing number of states and localities have adopted policies
limiting their cooperation with ICE at the next stage of the enforcement process, when ICE issues
detainers to facilitate apprehension of individuals identified through Secure Communities. For example, California recently adopted the
Trust Act, which, except in cases involving individuals charged with or convicted of serious criminal offenses, prohibits law
enforcement officials within the state from detaining individuals for immigration enforcement
purposes, at ICEs request, if those individuals are otherwise eligible for release.224 The significance of these anti-detainer policies and
the extent to which they take hold in other jurisdictions remain to be seen. However, the broader trajectory leading to their adoption suggests that as

state and local institutions including hospitals, educational institutions, and othersincreasingly collect
and maintain personal information that might be relevant to immigration enforcement , analysis of
immigration federalism may benefit from greater understanding of and attention
to the dynamics of information control. Moreover, like the fingerprints collected through Secure Communities, the
information sought by federal immigration authorities to identify potentially deportable individuals need not even directly include immigration status

federal
officials may well regard other forms of personal informationwhether or not personally identifiableas amply
sufficient to serve their immigration enforcement purposes.225 Accordingly, while states and localities may still find that
itself. As databases become increasingly interoperable and capable of aggregating information from a variety of different sources,

restrictions on collection and dissemination of immigration status information play an important and useful role, they also will likely find those
limitations insufficient to fully achieve the immigration-protective objectives they have sought to advance with those laws. Beyond immigration, these
episodes raise the question of whether conflicts over information control might be harnessed to help protect social interests in privacy and constrain
federal surveillance activities. Scholars have critically assessed the potential for states and localities to protect privacy interests as regulators.226
Separately, scholars have also assessed the prospects for aligning the interests of companies collecting personal information with interests in
privacy.227 Since, as discussed above, states

and localities increasingly possess large volumes of information

that federal authorities seek for their own surveillance and enforcement purposes , the
institutional role of states and localities as holders of this information warrants critical examination as well.
For example, Robert Mikos has recently argued that under prevailing understandings of Tenth
Amendment principles , federal efforts to compel states to provide this information
should be foreclosed as an impermissible form of commandeering .228 While anticommandeering doctrine itself has limits, as Mikos acknowledges, his analysis points to the possibility of information
federalism as a constraint on federal surveillance , whether as a matter of constitutional
doctrine, legislation, or technological design.229

Federal policy is already discriminatory against undocumented people

state experimentalism with immigration is best because impacts are small
and states can foster better policies for the future
Huntington 2008 Associate Professor, University of Colorado Law School; J.D. Columbia
Law School; (Clare, The Constitutional Dimension of Immigration Federalism,
http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1181&context=faculty_scholarship)//AN
To demonstrate how a statutory preemption understanding of federal exclusivity works in practice, consider the laws restricting landlords from renting their premises to
unauthorized migrants. 225 Under a statutory preemption view of immigration authority, these laws would not be struck down simply because they affect immigration. Local
governments share immigration authority with the other levels of government and thus may act absent federal statutory preemption.226 This approach would only be the

Using a federalism lens, courts, policymakers, and legal scholars could understand the
issues at stake more fully and assess the constitutionality of the ordinances in a more refined manner. The
beginning of the constitutional analysis.

competing values of federalism-uniformity, experimentalism, efficiency and effectiveness, protection of fundamental rights, increased political participation and political

restrictions
permit a locality to demonstrate a level of hostility toward certain non-citizens , which may run
contrary to the interests of the national government in establishing at least some minimum level of welcome. On the other hand, the
ordinances apply only to unauthorized migrants, not to legally present non-citizens. The national government already has determined
that non-citizens who do not enter the country legally or who have overstayed their visas are
deportable. 227 In this way, the ordinances do not contradict national policy and, debatably, help reinforce that policy by making
accountability, and a check on federal power-would guide the analysis. The interest in national uniformity may weigh against these ordinances. The

life more difficult for unauthorized migrants. Alternatively, it could be argued that the national government purposefully has chosen to under enforce immigration laws and in
this way has consented to the presence of the unauthorized migrants. Despite the political appeal of this argument, unauthorized migrants, in legal terms, are in the United

national government already has decided that the non-citizens

affected by these ordinances should have no level of welcome whatsoever. 228 Viewed in this light, the ordinances
are simply a local expression of a national sentiment. 229 Experimentalism may weigh in favor of these ordinances. Such laws
States contrary to the will of the national government. The

help to inform states and localities about more and less effective means of encouraging and discouraging migration. If unauthorized migrants choose not to settle in localities

if, as in Colorado and Riverside, New Jersey, anti-immigrant laws

thwart other interests, particularly economic interests, 230 localities would learn about the costs of
such measures before adopting them. Allowing these competing interests to be played out on a
local, rather than national, level may be preferable. If the experiment is too costly in social and economic terms, it will not be repeated more widely, and
the harm will have been limited geographically.
with these ordinances, other localities would know that these laws are effective. Similarly,

Immigration federalism is key to international perception, policy

experimentalism, and individual rightsalso none of their turns apply
eitherIts a self-check system that prevents states from enacting racist
policiesthis card is fire
Huntington 2008 Associate Professor, University of Colorado Law School; J.D. Columbia
Law School; (Clare, The Constitutional Dimension of Immigration Federalism,
http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1181&context=faculty_scholarship)//AN
B. Immigration through a Federalism Lens The federalism debate, raging for more than two centuries, provides a rich vocabulary and nuanced landscape against which to examine questions of the division of
power. To date, this debate has not been applied in a systematic way in the immigration context. To be sure, some commentators have singled out certain federalism values, but the selection tends to be both
outcome determinative and dependent on the substantive commitments of the commentator. Thus, commentators who believe that state and local enforcement of immigration law enhances national security
identify decentralization values in immigration regulation-the importance of drawing on a wider array of law enforcement resources than those in the federal government. 172 By contrast, commentators
concerned about discrimination against non-citizens identify national uniformity as a goal that precludes a state role in immigration regulation. 173 In this Section, I do not take sides on the substantive issues, but
rather demonstrate the relevance and robustness of traditional federalism debates to the novel questions raised by immigration federalism. Uniformity versus experimentalism. Of all the competing values in the
immigration context, uniformity and experimentalism are most clearly in tension. There are strong practical arguments for a uniform rule of pure immigration law. For example, although I argued above that the
concern about a state embroiling the United States in an international conflict should not lead to a rule of structural preemption, 174 the concern is important. There are good reasons for preventing states from
asserting themselves in the international arena, but this concern can be accounted for by weighing the interest in a uniform rule of pure immigration law more heavily than the interest in experimental
immigration laws. The federal government, through statutory preemption, already has precluded a role for states and localities in pure immigration law. 175 Therefore, the federalism argument is simply a

a decentralized system has some advantages. In a world

where some states are offering in-state tuition to unauthorized migrants 176 while the federal government is seeking to construct a wall along the southern border, 177 it is by no means
clear that the national government will better protect the interests of non-citizens. At other
points in history, however, the roles have been reversed. Indeed, all levels of government can and have expressed both hostility and openness to
non-citizens. In short, there is no structural reason to believe that one level of government will be more or
less welcoming to non-citizens and therefore, on this basis, to favor uniformity over experimentalism. Decentralizing and devolving
backstop. Moving beyond pure immigration law and looking at immigration regulation more generally,

decisionmaking regarding noncitizens may accommodate, and reflect a greater variety of views on, non-citizens and perhaps even mitigate
pressure on the federal government to enact legislation that reflects ardently held views of a
small but vocal portion of the population. 178 Decentralization and devolution might ensure, for better or worse, that the
national government does not enact legislation reflecting extremes at either end of the political spectrum. A system
that allows states and localities to express divergent views on the benefits and costs of immigration would permit the
development of a variety of policies, rather than a single, national policy, creating the
proverbial laboratories from which the national government (or states and localities) can learn. This devolution also
would allow for greater tailoring of immigration policy. For example, giving senators from Alaska a voice in determining the
demographic make-up of the work force in the agricultural southwest dilutes the ability of those
states and localities to shape immigration regulation to reflect their needs and interests. State and local experiments in
immigration regulation can lead to quick lessons. There is mounting evidence that the divergent state and local laws are affecting the movement of non-citizens. For example, after Colorado
passed a spate of laws in 2006 making life more difficult for unauthorized migrants by requiring certain forms of
identification and curtailing many public benefits, 179 the state saw a dramatic decrease in the number of migrant workers
available to work on farms, to the great dismay of potential employers .180 Riverside, New Jersey, had a similar experience, leading the town to repeal its antiimmigrant ordinance.181 Further, permitting states and localities to have a role in determining levels of immigration law
enforcement would acknowledge the important economic and social stake that
subnational governments have in immigration. To the extent that the national policy does not address these concerns, the subnational governments should
be able to do so. If state and local governments discourage the presence of non-citizens to their economic and social
detriment, this experimentalism should correct itself quickly . On the other hand,
emphasizing uniformity might lead to the conclusion that the federal government-and not Farmers
Branch, Texas, or Escondido, California-should determine the appropriate level of enforcement of the country's
immigration laws. If, for a variety of political, social, and economic reasons, the United States chooses not to remove all unauthorized migrants and not to seal the border completely, then this determination
arguably should bind states and localities. Efficiency and effectiveness. The experimentalism that would be fostered under devolution and decentralization might promote the values of efficiency and effectiveness.

If one state determined that welcoming non-citizens was to its economic and social advantage, and this
prediction held true, then that state would be rewarded by its immigrant-friendly policies . A state
drawing a different conclusion might be rewarded when its prediction came true. Conversely, if the predictions were inaccurate, then the states
would lose out economically and socially. Allowing states and localities to encourage or discourage the presence of non-citizens also would allow these subnational governments to
tailor their laws to their labor needs. For example, one state might want to encourage non-citizens to work in agriculture while another state might prefer to bolster the workforce in the technology industry.
Indeed, the relationship between immigration law and the demands for labor has deep roots,18 2 and permitting experimentation simply would bring this connection to a local level, allowing for a more finely
tuned supply and demand of labor. On the other hand, these localized results and the potential efficiencies might run afoul of national interests. For example, if every state passed laws discouraging non-citizens'
presence, admittance into the country from the national government might have little practical effect. A non-citizen could cross the border but would not be welcomed by any state. In this way, states and localities
could thwart national immigration policy. Setting aside the constitutional aspect of unencumbered interstate travel,18 3 the free movement of people may be essential to a robust economy. Permitting state and
local governments to express varying degrees of welcome and hostility to non-citizens could discourage non-citizens from moving where they wish to go, perhaps in search of better economic opportunities. For

a uniform rule may be more efficient and may ward off state and local parochialism that could
threaten national interests. This latter argument often is advanced in favor of structural preemption. My point is that we need not set immigration law
apart from mainstream constitutional law with a rule of structural preemption. Instead, we can account for these
concerns through a federalism lens . Protection of individual rights.18 4 Although some commentators contend that non-citizens are at greater risk when the
these reasons,

states take a more active role in the regulation of immigration,18 5 this hypothesis has not always proven true as an empirical matter. 8 6 In light of the explicitly race-based federal immigration laws in effect as

state and local laws explicitly have sought to

protect non-citizens' individual rights: many major cities have "sanctuary laws" that prohibit law enforcement officers from specified conduct, such as inquiring into a
late as 1952, there is no particular reason to think that the federal government is better at protecting individual rights. 8 7 Some recent

person's immigration status.188 Although one of the goals of such policies is to encourage unauthorized migrants to report crimes without fear of detection, the policies also protect non-citizens from racial
discrimination in the enforcement of laws.18 9 Increased political participation and political accountability. A traditional argument is that political participation increases with the localization of government1 90
but that such decisionmaking likely will be parochial, increasing the chance that negative externalities will be imposed on communities that cannot participate in the decisionmaking process. 191 In the context of
immigration, however, this traditional trade-off is complicated by the fact that non-citizens cannot vote at any level of government. 92 To be sure, other forms of participation are available,1 93 but direct
participation is elusive, and therefore, the benefit of decentralization and devolution is not obvious. By contrast, the potential for imposing externalities on other communities remains strong. Through its
regulation, a state or locality could affect patterns of immigration beyond its borders. Whether, in each case, the effect was a negative or positive externality would be a matter of debate, but the potential to affect
others exists. Federalism in the context of immigration will have to account for these peculiarities. With regard to political accountability, there is no reason to believe that either the federal government or states
and localities will be more accountable to non-citizens. 194 Again, non-citizens cannot vote at any level of government. The interests of non-citizens may be asserted by former non-citizens who have naturalized
and thus can now vote. In light of the uneven distribution of former non-citizens around the country, some states and localities arguably will be more responsive to current non-citizens. Where former non-citizens

divergent standards set under the authority

delegated by the PRWORA-with some states providing more generous benefits than those given
by the federal government-is evidence that subnational levels of government are capable of
responsiveness to the interests of non-citizens. Indeed, permitting states and localities to determine their own level of welcome to noncitizens might open the
make up a greater proportion of the population, they may have greater influence. 195 Further, the

door for non-citizens to reward the more welcoming states and localities with their presence. Permitting states and localities to express their preferences also would help to inform non-citizens what to expect in a
given location. Check on federal power. The power sharing envisioned by the federal system was intended to ensure that the states were seen as legitimate sources of power and therefore would retain their citizens'

If authority over an important area like

immigration were shared, it would make states and localities more important in the eyes of their
loyalty, which would translate into the ability to check federal excesses in any field of regulation. 196

citizens, thus serving a legitimating function. Sharing immigration authority means that states and localities also will be able to counteract federal immigration
regulation. Although the federal government could preempt state and local laws, to the extent it has not done so, states and localities would remain free to enact laws that run counter to federal policies. 197 In
the international context, allowing for a range of immigration regulation would let other
countries know that there is a diversity of opinion among U.S. citizens with regard to noncitizens. Although this would mean that a state could send an anti-immigrant message to other
countries, contrary to the views of the U.S. government, it also would mean that, in the face of a national antiimmigrant
policy, a state could send a more positive message . The need of the United States to speak with one voice would be served by the national government's
ability to preempt state and local action.1 98 In this way, the preemption function would serve as an important test of the strength of national policy: if the national government
truly believes that a particular policy is essential for international relations, it can preempt
contrary state and local legislation. The tolerance of divergent views by states and localities would be telling evidence of the strength of the national commitment to the
policy.199 In sum, once we recognize that federal exclusivity is not constitutionally mandated, classic federalism arguments work well in
determining the appropriate allocation of authority among levels of government. Moreover, if the federal government wishes to prevent state and local
governments from undertaking particular immigration regulations, it always can statutorily preempt specified conduct.

A state based approach to immigration is vital to solve the division of high

skilled labor through state sponsored visas
Fuller and Rust 2014 Research scholar at New York University and deputy director of the
Urbanization Project at the NYU Stern School of Business. Rust is a practicing attorney and a
recent graduate of Temple Universitys Beasley School of Law (Brandon and Sean, State-Based
Visas A Federalist Approach to Reforming U.S. Immigration Policy,
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa748_web_1.pdf)//AN
U.S. immigration policy currently prevents many productive foreign workers and entrepreneurs from contributing to the American economy. To help move American immigration policy in a more open direction,

policymakers should consider including principles of federalism as part of immigration reform.

By allowing states a greater say in managing immigration, the U nited S tates can reap economic benefits by allowing
state experimentation with different levels of immigration. State-based visas would be temporary work visas that
allow the visa holder to live and work anywhere within the sponsoring state. Law-abiding visa holders would be eligible
for renewal and free to apply for permanent residency during their stay in the United States. Under the work permit, the migrant worker would be unable to work for an employer outside of the state, but if the

program would allow

state governments to work with local governments and employers to tailor a state-based
immigration strategy to meet their local economic demands . Successful regional visa programs in Canada and
migrant becomes a permanent resident, he or she would be able to travel freely around the United States. Although overseen by the federal government, the

Australia have aided economic and population growth in formerly depressed regions. American policymakers could apply lessons learned in those countries when creating a similar program in the United States.
Based on the experiences of Canada and Australia with their regional visa programs, we outline many of the options that are open to American policymakers for designing and implementing a state-based visa

There are millions of hard working and talented people throughout the
world who would gladly move to the United States if given the chance. There are also many states within the United States that would be happy to welcome them but
program. THE ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF STATE-BASED IMMIGRATION

are currently prevented from doing so because of federal immigration restrictions. A federalist approach to immigration policy would give states a greater say in the numbers and types of foreign workers that they

State-based visas would allow those states that want immigration to recruit the foreign workers that best meet their
local economic needs. If a state does not want additional immigrants, it would simply choose not to issue any statebased visas. If the migrants who enter on a state-based visa eventually
allow in.

earn lawful permanent residency (LPR) status then they would be able to move to other states, but not all workers would choose LPR status and they would likely move to areas with economic growth, which are
also likely to be areas that support statelevel guest-worker visas. In short, state-based visas would be good for the United States because they would funnel additional immigrants to parts of the country where they
will generate the largest benefits. American nominal and real wages are also affected by immigration. A workers nominal wage is the dollar amount of his paycheck, while the real wage is the actual quantity of

Immigration has modest positive effects on the nominal wages of most

American workers because immigrants do not generally compete with many Americans for the
same jobs. Rather, immigrants tend to complement the work of natives and thereby increase their
wages.1 Americans of varying skill levels are impacted differently. In the short run, there are positive effects on wages for U.S.-born workers with at least a high-school degree but small negative nominal
goods and services that his paycheck can buy.

wage effects on those without a highschool degree.2 However, in the long run there is a modest positive wage effect on all workers as the rest of the economy adjusts to the presence of the immigrants, likely
outweighing the short-run negative impact on the wages of U.S.-born workers who have not completed high school.3 The wages of U.S.-born highschool dropouts relative to those of U.S.-born high-school
graduates have remained nearly constant since 1980, despite pressures from immigrant inflows that increase the relative supply of low-skilled labor.4 Real wages generally increase as a result of immigration

services such as child care, gardening,

housekeeping, and home health care make relatively intensive use of immigrant workers . In the
absence of immigration, the prices of such services would be higher for natives.5 Beyond wages, immigrants can
because it lowers the costs of certain goods and services by expanding supply. For example, firms that provide

shore up faltering housing markets on the demand side. Jacob Vigdor, a professor of public policy and economics at Duke University, finds that immigrants substantially boost housing demand each immigrant
in the United States adds, on average, 11.6 cents to the value of a home in their local county.6 Immigration is especially beneficial for less desirable neighborhoods. Drawn by lower housing prices, the immigrants
who arrive in such neighborhoods help to create a virtuous circle in which the vitality of the neighborhood improves and the area once again begins to attract middle and working class Americans. Immigrants were
particularly effective in staunching the decline of population in New York City over the past few decades.7 Immigrants tend to avoid areas where the price of housing is higher and move to areas where housing
supply is more elasticbringing old housing back onto the market rather than driving up the price for existing housing.8 There are negative externalities associated with housing vacancies, so an

immigration driven increase in population is going to have much higher positive spill-over

effects in areas where population is declininglike in the Rust Belt.9 This is a major reason why mayors in
cities such as Dayton, Ohio, and Baltimore, Maryland, are experimenting with policies designed to
attract and retain immigrants.10 In January 2014, Michigan Governor Rick Snyder proposed carving out a share of federal EB-2 employment green cards specifically for the city
of Detroit.11 In contrast, areas in which the supply of housing is more inelasticand housing vacancy rates are near zero, such as San Francisco, will experience crowding from additional migrants, be they
immigrants or newcomers from elsewhere in the United States. That is not to suggest that a city like San Francisco does not benefit from immigration, just that cities like Dayton have comparatively more to gain

They are 30 percent more likely to start a business

from attracting immigrants. Immigrants tend to be especially entrepreneurial and innovative.

than
non-immigrants12 and were founding members of 25 percent of venture-capital-backed companies that went public between 1990 and 2006.13 Immigrants or children of immigrants founded 40 percent of the
Fortune 500 companies in the United States.14 On the innovation side, immigrant college graduates are more likely to file a patent than similarly educated nativeborn Americans. A 1 percent increase in the share
of immigrant college graduates increases patents per capita by about 15 percent, after accounting for the fact that the presence of high-skilled immigrants tends to increase innovation by the native born.15 In
addition to starting new businesses and developing new technologies, immigrants help to facilitate trade and investment links with their home countries.16 Immigration also affects government finances. Taxes
paid by immigrants and their children generally exceed the costs of the public services that they use on the federal level. High-skilled immigrants are particularly beneficial for the federal treasury. Relaxing green
card and H-1B constraints would produce net positive effects on the federal budget running into the tens of billions of dollars over a 10- year period.17 Even lower-skilled immigrants generally have a positive
impact on the federal budget, often consuming fewer government services than their educationally similar U.S.-born counterparts and having higher labor-force participation rates.18 Although immigrants
produce a fiscal surplus at the federal level, the U.S.-born citizen children of immigrants are a fiscal cost at the local level due primarily to school costs.19A federalist approach to immigration is preferable to one

states can better understand the fiscal costs and benefits of additional
immigrants. Because state and local governments incur much of the short-term fiscal costs of immigration, it is important that they have a say in directing the optimal flow.20 A state-based visa
entirely dominated by the federal government because

program will allow states to harness additional economic gains from immigration without relying upon the federal government to change immigration policy for the entire nation. While not all immigrants who

agricultural
workers are highly mobile due to the migratory and seasonal nature of their labor, so they are
most likely to illegally leave the states they are permitted to work in for work opportunities
elsewhere. States could solve this issue by entering into voluntary agreements with
each other to share agricultural guest workers by allowing them to move back and
forth. For instance, California farmers could be allowed to hire an individual guest worker for the spring and summer while Washington farmers would be able to hire the same worker in the fall to help
enter on state-based visas would stay in the state they initially settled in, evidence from Australia and Canada suggests that out movement would be minor. In the United States,

with the harvesting of different crops. In addition to state agreements to manage guest workers, it is important that a state-level guest-worker visa for agricultural workers operate similarly to an earlier agricultural
visa: the so-called Bracero program. Under Bracero, about five million Mexican farm workers legally entered the United States for work from 1942 to 1964 and returned home in a process called circular
migration.21 One deficiency of Bracero was the legal difficulty of a migrant changing employers, which should be corrected. After Bracero was ended in 1964, the resulting unauthorized immigrants that still
worked in agriculture continued to circularly migrate: from 1965 to 1985, there was an estimated 26.7 million entries of unauthorized Mexican migrants into the United States and 21.8 million departures to
Mexico.22 Circular migration ended when increased border security after 1986 raised the cost of moving back and forth, incentivizing permanent settlement in the United States.23 Legal changes could also
incentivize compliance with the terms of the visa. For instance, following the visa regulations should guarantee the guest worker the ability to return the next year. In addition, a bond system for migrant workers,
funded by migrant and employer contributions whereby the migrant and employer lose their contributions if the migrant violates the terms of his work visa, would also disincentivize illegal work.24 Further
incentives to follow the law are also provided by the market. Authorized immigrants realize a wage premium relative to unauthorized immigrants of around 6 to 25 percent, so working in the black market would
come with a steep and immediate wage penalty.25 Higher and more mid-skill professions are less mobile so it is unlikely that these rules would be needed for those guest workers there. States can judge the costs
and benefits of immigration better than the federal government can. The federal government dictates immigration policy in the United States but state and local governments occasionally pursue immigration-

These policies often create conflict between the objectives of

the federal immigration policy and the objectives of the state and local governments.26 A state-based visa program would
enforcement policies that affect the flow of immigrants to their jurisdictions.

allow states to choose to offer lawful immigration opportunities instead of the enforcement-only policies that some of them currently pursue. For example, in 2010 the state of Arizona passed Senate Bill 1070 (SB
1070) in an effort to stop the flow of unauthorized immigrants into the state and force the ones settled there to leave.27 Among other things, the law required immigrants to carry immigration docu-ments and
made it illegal for an immigrant to apply for work without federal authorization.28 The federal government challenged SB 1070 in court, and the Supreme Court found that much of the bill was discriminatory and
preempted by federal law.29 Arizona was determined to deter unauthorized immigrants but other localities want to attract them. Cities such as Baltimore, Los Angeles, New York, and Dayton are passing laws

local pro-immigration strategies often reflect desires to

spur population and economic growth.30 Pro-immigration measures include prohibiting police and local services from asking about an individuals immigration
designed to make it easier for immigrants to live and work in their jurisdictions. The

status, issuing state identification cards, and limiting cooperation with federal immigration enforcement to that required by law.31 States should be able to go even further by creating legal immigration
opportunities. Federal immigration reform pits median voters in pro-immigration states against median voters in anti-immigration states. Some voters feel vulnerable to the additional inflows of immigrants
favored by pro-immigration states, and pro-immigration states feel that their economic development prospects are hamstrung by the restrictions favored by antiimmigration states. A state-based visa provides an
opportunity to mitigate these differences on the state level as each state pursues its own policies, even though there will be some unavoidable immigrant movement between states. By creating a state-based visa
program, the United States would not be stepping into the unknown with an untested approach to immigration policy.

Similar policies have worked well

elsewhere.

Independently, specialized immigration visas are key to foster scientific

growththat solves science diplomacy
Pickering and Agre 10 (Thomas R., Advisory Council Civilian Research and Development
Foundation, and Dr. Peter, Director Johns Hopkins Malaria Research Institute and President
American Association for the Advancement of Science, "More opportunities needed for U.S.
researchers to work with their foreign counterparts", Partnership for a Secure America, 2-9,
http://www.psaonline.org/article.php?id=634)//AN
Leverage Science Diplomacy Now to Boost U.S. Foreign Policy In 1979, a science and technology agreement between the United States and China paved the way for bilateral

science diplomacy may help America open

a door toward improved relations with Pyongyang, too. In December, six Americans representing leading scientific organizations sat down with their
North Korean counterparts. The meeting took place on the heels of U.S. Special Envoy Stephen Bosworth's first official bilateral meeting with North Korea. Science, an
international enterprise that relies on a lively exchange of ideas and data , can help build trust and expand understanding when
government-to-government contacts may be strained. The North Korea visit, plus the first-ever U.S. science envoys, represent a fine
scientific cooperation that continues to benefit American science and society more broadly. Now,

beginning to a new era of international research cooperation. But the White House, the State Department and Congress must do far more to bolster science diplomacy. In

U.S. government should quickly and significantly increase the number of H1-B visas
being approved for specialized foreign workers such as doctors, scientists and engineers . Their
particular, the

contributions are critical to improving human welfare as well as our economy. Foreign scientists working or studying in U.S. universities also become informal goodwill

we
urgently need to expand and deepen links between the U.S. and foreign scientific communities
to advance solutions to common challenges . Climate change, sustainable development,
pandemic disease, malnutrition, protection for oceans and wildlife, national
security and innovative energy technologies all demand solutions that draw on science and
technology. Fortunately, U.S. technological leadership is admired worldwide, suggesting a way to promote dialogue with countries where we
ambassadors for America globally - an important benefit in the developing world, where senior scientists and engineers often enter national politics. More broadly,

otherwise lack access and leverage. A June 2004 Zogby International poll commissioned by the Arab American Institute found that only 11 percent of Moroccans surveyed had a
favorable overall view of the United States - but 90 percent had a positive view of U.S. science and technology. Only 15 percent of Jordanians had a positive overall view, but 83
percent registered admiration for U.S. science and technology. Similarly, Pew polling data from 43 countries show that favorable views of U.S. science and technology exceed

recent mission to North Korea exemplified the vast

potential of science for U.S. diplomacy. Within the scientific community, after all, journals routinely publish articles co-written by

overall views of the United States by an average of 23 points. The

scientists from different nations, and scholars convene frequent conferences to extend those ties. Science demands an intellectually honest atmosphere, peer review and a
common language for professional discourse. Basic values of transparency, vigorous inquiry and respectful debate are all inherent to science. Nations that cooperate on science
strengthen the same values that support peaceful conflict resolution and improved public safety. U.S. and Soviet nongovernmental organizations contributed to a thaw in the

U.S. government is off to a good start in

leveraging science diplomacy, with 43 bilateral umbrella science and technology agreements now in force. The Obama administration further elevated
Cold War through scientific exchanges, with little government support other than travel visas. The

science engagement, beginning with the president's June speech in Cairo. Then, in November, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appointed three science envoys to foster new
partnerships and address common challenges, especially within Muslim-majority countries. She also announced the Global Technology and Innovation Fund, through which the

These steps are

commendable, but the White House and the State Department need to exercise even greater
leadership to build government capacity and partnerships that advance U.S. science
diplomacy globally. Congress should lead as well, with greater recognition of science engagement and increased funding for science capacity-building.
Both chambers must work together to give the executive branch the resources it needs. In an era of complex global challenges, science diplomacy is a
critical tool for U.S. foreign policy. The opportunity to strengthen that tool and advance our diplomatic goals should not be missed.
Overseas Private Investment Corporation will spur private-sector investments in science and technology industries abroad.

Science diplomacy is key to solve a litany of impacts

Federoff 8 professor of biology at Penn State University known for her research on
biology and life sciences, president of the American Association for the Advancement of
Science (AAAS) (April 2008, International Science and Technology Cooperation: Hearing
Before the Subcommittee on Research and Science Education, Committee on Science and
Technology, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-110hhrg41470/html/CHRG-110hhrg41470.htm)
mj
Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Ehlers, and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to discuss science diplomacy at the U.S. Department

scientific strength is both a tool of ``soft

power''--part of our strategic diplomatic arsenal--and a basis for creating partnerships with countries as they move beyond
basic economic and social development. Science diplomacy is a central element of the Secretary's transformational diplomacy initiative, because science and
technology are essential to achieving stability and strengthening failed and fragile states . S&T advances
have immediate and enormous influence on national and global economies, and thus on the international relations between societies. Nation states, nongovernmental
organizations, and multinational corporations are largely shaped by their expertise in and access to intellectual and
physical capital in science, technology, and engineering. Even as S&T advances of our modern era provide opportunities for economic prosperity, some also
challenge the relative position of countries in the world order, and influence our social institutions and principles. America must remain at the
forefront of this new world by maintaining its technological edge , and leading the way internationally
of State. The U.S. is recognized globally for its leadership in science and technology. Our

through science diplomacy and engagement. The Public Diplomacy Role of Science Science by its nature facilitates diplomacy because it strengthens political relationships,
embodies powerful ideals, and creates opportunities for all. The global scientific community embraces principles Americans cherish: transparency, meritocracy, accountability,

Science is inherently democratic, respecting

evidence and truth above all. Science is also a common global language, able to bridge deep
political and religious divides. Scientists share a common language. Scientific interactions serve to keep open lines of communication and cultural
understanding. As scientists everywhere have a common evidentiary external reference system, members of ideologically divergent societies
can use the common language of science to cooperatively address both domestic and the
increasingly trans-national and global problems confronting humanity in the 21st century. There is a growing
the objective evaluation of evidence, and broad and frequently democratic participation.

recognition that science and technology will increasingly drive the successful economies of the 21st century. Using Science Diplomacy to Achieve National Security Objectives

The welfare and stability of countries and regions in many parts of the globe require a concerted effort by the developed world to address the causal factors that render countries

Countries that are unable to defend their people against starvation, or fail to
provide economic opportunity, are susceptible to extremist ideologies, autocratic rule, and
abuses of human rights. As well, the world faces common threats, among them climate change,
energy and water shortages, public health emergencies, environmental
degradation, poverty, food insecurity, and religious extremism. These threats can
undermine the national security of the United States, both directly and indirectly. Many are blind to political boundaries, becoming regional
fragile and cause states to fail.

or global threats. The United States has no monopoly on knowledge in a globalizing world and the scientific challenges facing humankind are enormous. Addressing these
common challenges demands common solutions and necessitates scientific cooperation, common standards, and common goals. We must increasingly harness the power of
American ingenuity in science and technology through strong partnerships with the science community in both academia and the private sector, in the U.S. and abroad among

stillgrowing human population, rising affluence in emerging economies, and other factors have
combined to create unprecedented pressures on global prices of staples such as edible oils and
grains. Encouraging and promoting the use of contemporary molecular techniques in crop improvement
is an essential goal for U.S. science diplomacy. An essential part of the war on terrorism is a war of ideas. The creation of
economic opportunity can do much more to combat the rise of fanaticism than can any weapon .
our allies, to advance U.S. interests in foreign policy. There are also important challenges to the ability of states to supply their populations with sufficient food. The

The war of ideas is a war about rationalism as opposed to irrationalism. Science and technology put us firmly on the side of rationalism by providing ideas and opportunities that
improve people's lives. We may use the recognition and the goodwill that science still generates for the United States to achieve our diplomatic and developmental goals.

Department continues to use science as a means to reduce the proliferation of the

w eapons of m ass d estruction and prevent what has been dubbed `brain drain.' Through cooperative threat reduction activities,
former weapons scientists redirect their skills to participate in peaceful, collaborative
international research in a large variety of scientific fields. In addition, new global efforts focus on improving biological,
chemical, and nuclear security by promoting and implementing best scientific practices as a means to
enhance security, increase global partnerships, and create sustainability.
Additionally, the

Adv 3 Human Rights Credibility

Current methods of HR promotion are ineffective due to a lack of U.S.
credibility on Human Rights only the plans increase in U.S. credibility
can restore effective HR promotion
Cihangir-Tetik 14
(Damla Cihangir-Tetik is a Ph.D Candidate in Political Science, Sabanci
University/Istanbul as well as Project Coordinator for Transparency International
Turkey, pg online @ http://idsmagazine.org/human-rights-and-democracypromotion-as-foreign-policy-tools-of-transatlantic-partners-by-damla-cihangirtetik/ //um-ef)
Regarding human rights protection and democracy promotion, the discrepancy of the West argument reached its
peak with the war on terrorism policy of the US after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Western democracy promotion and human
rights norms deteriorated with the US-led operation in Afghanistan in order to
fight against global terrorism and with the invasion of Iraq by the US and Britain. Additionally, the treatment of
prisoners by the US officials in Guantanamo Bay, Bagram in Afghanistan and Abu Ghraib was perceived as
aggressive, paternalistic, neo-imperialist and a combination of all those by the rest of the international community (Burnell 2010,

the US are faced with an important

credibility problem at the moment concerning their
efforts towards international human rights protection

2). Importantly, the EU and especially

and

Credibility refers to the fact that democratization is hardly

ever the only foreign policy goal of those governments who provide democracy
assistance (Burnell 2010). As Bermeo explains, even though the US has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on democracy and good governance in Egypt, its
democracy promotion in the rest of the world.

military aid, which is much more higher than the ones for democratization, increases the scepticism towards the priority of the US in Egypt (Bermeo 2009).

Democracy promotion can therefore only succeed if it is embedded within the overall set of foreign policies of the
promoting country and if the promoting country itself adheres to the rules, norms and values it
claims to want to become more widespread (Burnell 2010). Similarly, concerning international
human rights protection, the US fails to accede to the ICC with others including China, India,
Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and this discourages these states and also the others from engaging in

activities that promote human rights (Muftuler-Bac and Peterson 2014). As a result, at

the moment
it is not expected from the US to be a global leader of
human rights protection
internationally.
and democracy promotion

However, one has to keep in mind

that the US under President Wilsons administration was leading both bilateral and multilateral means of democracy promotion at the beginning of the 20th century. The US has
established USAID in 1961 and the National Endowment for Democracy as its main democracy promotion instruments. In the mission statement of the State Department,
democracy promotion is underlined as a political purpose for the US; advance freedom for benefit of the American people and the international community by helping to
build and sustain a more democratic, secure and prosperous world composed of well-governed states that respond to the needs of their people, reduce widespread poverty, and

different US administrations have

different modes of democracy promotion and human rights protection. While in the 1990s President Clinton
act responsibly within the international system (US Department of State 2007). As Babayan mentions,

made democracy promotion one of the three main pillars of his foreign policy, President George W. Bush adopted a different democracy promotion rhetoric, which is combined

Obama later distanced himself from (Babayan 2013, Babayan and Huber 2012, 3). Even though he
continues to apply human rights and democracy promotion policies, he is much
more cautious than his predecessors because of increasing multipolarity in global security environment and
increasing domestic pressures. According to discussed outcomes of diverse Western-led human rights protection and democracy promotion
with military means and which President

policies there is no certain, clear answer to the question of do human rights protection and democracy promotion policies of the West work? The answer is both yes and no.
As Gravingholt et. al. mention, the foremost reason for this blurriness is the unknown precise rules of democratization (Gravingholt et. al. 2009). It is the same for human rights
protection, an area where international legal norms and rules are not specified, internationalized and applicable until now, even though some improved steps regarding the

the US and the EU

have different approaches regarding human rights protection and democracy promotion and several
disagreements on some issues, ranging from counterterrorism policies to private data
collection and their shared security measures . As mentioned above, even though there is a
continuation of the discrepancy of the West and/or the credibility problem of
the West, the transatlantic partners still lead human rights protection and democracy
promotion internationally. Therefore, they have been pushing other states, IOs and non-state
creation of enforceable rules of International Criminal Court (ICC) and International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. Even

actors for the creation of international norms in the multilateral framework. However,

this
leadership perception is now insufficient to abolish the
question: Has the West dropped human rights
protection
as a norm in response to the emergence of alternative
and democracy

political regimes to the Western democracy , especially by the rise of China and Russia as global powers?

The U.S.s immigration policy has failed to meet HR guidelines critics

from Human Rights Watch and US citizens
Huffington Post 14 (1/24/2014, Human Rights Watch Blasts U.S. Immigration
Abuses,' Again, The Huffington Post,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/24/human-rights-watchimmigration_n_4661308.html)
The failure of Congress and the White House to address the countrys immigration
problems drew fire from a prominent human rights watchdog this week -- again. Human
Rights Watch criticized the U.S. government in its World Report 2014, released
Tuesday, for what it called abuses related to the incarceration and deportation of
undocumented immigrants. The organization echoed similar faults it found with
U.S. immigration policy in world reports from past years. The authors criticize the U.S.
governments human rights record, calling it marred by abuses related to criminal
justice immigration, national security and drug policy. The report names immigrants
and ethnic minorities as among the most vulnerable members of U.S. society. The report also
notes that U.S. detention centers now hold approximately 400,000 undocumented immigrants
each year, with hundreds in solitary confinement. Many of those prosecuted have minor
or no criminal history and have substantial ties to the U.S. such as U.S. citizen
family members they were seeking to rejoin when arrested, the report says. The federal
government has portrayed these programs as focused on dangerous criminals, but
most immigrants deported through Secure Communities are non-criminal or
lower level offenders, the report says. These programs also exacerbate distrust of police in
immigrant communities. Despite polling reflecting consistent public support for
immigration reform with a pathway to citizenship, the U.S. Congress has yet to pass
legislation and the White House continues to deport undocumented immigrants at a recordsetting pace.

Passing ICE immigration reform is key to U.S. Human Rights Credibility

Singh 12 (Sharon, Key Human Rights Challenge to 2012 U.S. Presidential Candidates, OCTOBER 2, 2012,
http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/press-releases/key-human-rights-challenge-to-2012-us-presidential-candidates//JC)

(Washington, D.C.) Amnesty International is challenging the 2012 U.S. presidential candidates to commit to a set of 12 human
rights goals that will help secure the place of human rights in their administrations. This

is a defining moment in
U.S. history, said Suzanne Nossel, executive director for Amnesty International USA. The United
States global claim to human rights leadership took a major hit in the early part of
the twenty-first century. Ten years later, Guantanamo remains open for business, indefinite detention persists and
other serious problems remain. The next four years will be pivotal in determining whether
the United States will be a human rights trailblazer , or just an occasional actor when principles
coincide with a narrow conception of U.S. national interests, said Nossel. The United States clout in
promoting human rights around the world is only as good as its own record at
home and in its international dealings. If the next president is going to profess a commitment to
human rights, it needs to be backed by a pledge to improve the United States own record. Amnesty
Internationals 12 for 2012 includes domestic and foreign affairs issues. In the first presidential debate focused on domestic issues,
the human rights organization asks the candidates their solutions

to several key national challenges, including massreform

legislation that protects the human rights of documented and undocumented
immigrants. While human rights issues may not be top of mind for swing voters, these questions will help
determine the shape and strength of U.S. society and global credibility for decades
to come, said Nossel. The three domestic-focused questions are listed below. For the full list of questions, please go to
http://www.amnestyusa.org/pdfs/12for2012Final.pdf 10) Will you commit to prioritizing passage in the
Congress of comprehensive immigration reform legislation that would protect undocumented
immigrants from exploitation by traffickers and unscrupulous employers; create opportunities for immigrants to attain
legal status in the United States; bolster oversight and accountability for the conduct of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers; and provide families with avenues to be reunited or
remain together? 11) Will you issue an Executive Order on Human Rights to ensure that full spectrum human
rights promotion and enforcement are prioritized among all federal agencies and
incarceration and racial disparities in the United States criminal justice system and comprehensive immigration

departments and in all legislative policy and regulatory decisions; and by monitoring and accountability offices throughout the
United States government? Will you commit to rigorous follow up on recommendations made by international human rights bodies
and meaningful periodic consultations with civil society on the implementation of the U.S.s human rights obligations?

Collapse of human rights norms causes global WMD conflict

Burke-White 4 William W., Lecturer in Public and International Affairs and Senior Special
Assistant to the Dean at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs,
Princeton University and Ph.D. at Cambridge, Human Rights and National Security: The
Strategic Correlation, The Harvard Human Rights Journal, Spring, 17 Harv. Hum. Rts. J. 249,
Lexis
This Article presents a strategic--as opposed to ideological or normative--argument that the

promotion of human
rights should be given a more prominent place in U.S. foreign policy . It does so by
suggesting a correlation between the domestic human rights practices of states and their propensity to engage in aggressive
international conduct. Among

the chief threats to U.S. national security are acts of

aggression by other states. Aggressive acts of war may directly endanger the United States, as did the Japanese
bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941, or they may require U.S. military action overseas, as in Kuwait fifty years later. Evidence
from the post-Cold War period [*250] indicates that states that systematically abuse their own citizens'
human rights are also those most likely to engage in aggression. To the degree that
improvements in various states' human rights records decrease the likelihood of

aggressive war, a foreign policy informed by human rights can significantly enhance
U.S. and global security . Since 1990, a state's domestic human rights policy appears to be a
telling indicator of that state's propensity to engage in international aggression . A
central element of U.S. foreign policy has long been the preservation of peace and the prevention of such acts of aggression. 2 If the
correlation discussed herein is accurate, it provides U.S. policymakers with a powerful new tool to enhance national security through
the promotion of human rights. A strategic linkage between national security and human rights would result in a number of
important policy modifications. First, it changes the prioritization of those countries U.S. policymakers have identified as presenting
the greatest concern. Second, it alters some of the policy prescriptions for such states. Third, it offers states a means of signaling
benign international intent through the improvement of their domestic human rights records. Fourth, it provides a way for a current
government to prevent future governments from aggressive international behavior through the institutionalization of human rights
protections. Fifth, it

addresses the particular threat of human rights abusing states obtaining weapons of
mass destruction ( WMD ). Finally, it offers a mechanism for U.S.-U.N. cooperation on human rights issues.

Solvency
The shift from Secure Communities to Priority Enforcement has led to no
improvement Local police entanglement creates illegal detainment, racial
profiling and community distrust It must end.
Pasquarella 6/27/15 -- J.D. with a Certificate in Refugee and Humanitarian Emergencies from Georgetown University Law Center,
ACLU Southern California (JENNIE ICE Plays Name Game, https://www.laprogressive.com/ice-priority-enforcement-program///JC)

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)

rolled out a new immigration enforcement program

this month that it bills as an improved approach to using city and county police and jails for
immigration enforcement. The new program, known as Priority Enforcement Program, or PEP, is intended to address many of
the violations that caused ICE to abandon its Secure Communities program last November. But PEP

has left in place

many of the same problems that caused federal courts to find that Secure
Communities violated the constitution. Under Secure Communities, federal officials issued immigration
detainers or detention requests asking city and county jails to detain people after their scheduled release date so ICE could have
extra time to pick them up and investigate whether the individual should be deported. ICE

has not corrected the

fundamental failings of the immigration detainer, which makes compliance with it
unconstitutional. A series of federal court rulings last year made clear that
immigration detainers were voluntary requests and suggested that any local police
agency that complied with them may be violating the Fourth Amendment for making an
unlawful arrest (one that is not supported by probable cause) and can be held liable for damages. Under Secure
Communities, thousands of people were illegally detained for days, weeks, and sometimes
months after their scheduled release dates. In addition to court scrutiny, the program faced criticism for its
dragnet effect, sweeping up anyone who was arrested, regardless of whether or not
they were charged or convicted of any crime, and for tearing families apart and
encouraging racial profiling. In light of these court decisions, and citing harm to
community policing efforts, hundreds of local law enforcement agencies across the country rejected immigration
detainer requests and adopted policies prohibiting compliance with immigration detainers without a judicial warrant or judicial
determination of probable cause. In

response, ICE rebranded Secure Communities,

announcing in November that it was terminating the program and replacing it with PEP. It announced that it would
replace detainers with notification requests; that is, instead of asking for extended detention from local
jails, it would now only ask that the jails advise ICE when a person will become eligible for release so that they can pick them up,

but said it would still use detainers in special circumstances and only when it had probable
cause for the arrest. Thats why we were dismayed when earlier this month ICE released its new forms
for detainer and notification requests under PEP and these limitations on detainer use were not
reflected. Significantly, ICE has not corrected the fundamental failings of the
immigration detainer, which makes compliance with it unconstitutional . The new
detainer forms do not require a judicial warrant, judicial determination of probable
cause, or even an individual, particularized statement of probable cause . Moreover,
nothing in the new detainer form appears to limit immigration detainers to special circumstances. The ACLU and immigrant rights
groups sent a letter to DHS this month in response, urging the agency to discontinue use of detainers entirely, in light of these
continued constitutional problems with their use. PEP, like its predecessor, plainly fails

to satisfy the Fourth

Amendments basic protections. Under PEP, immigration agencies and local law
enforcement will continue to face liability for these illegal detentions. Not only is
PEP illegal, it is completely out of step with the national conversation on the need
for policing and criminal justice reform. The ACLU questions why DHS is continuing to
entangle local police in immigration enforcement when the presidents own Task Force on 21st
Century Policing recommended that DHS decouple federal immigration enforcement

from routine local policing. The Secure Communities program led to an erosion of
police-community trust. PEP appears to be no different.

New changes in policy mean no link uniqueness, but are wrought with
loopholes Only complete disentanglement solves
IRLC 15 (Life After PEP-Comm - Immigrant Legal Resource Center, http://www.ilrc.org/files/documents/ilrc_organizers_advisory-201501_06.pdf.//JC)

On November 20,2014,PresidentObama announced executive reforms to the

immigration system,including:(i)changestoimmigrationenforcementpolicy;(ii)deferredactionexpansion;and(iii)other
changestoproceduresinthelegalimmigrationsystem.1 Thisalertfocuses onchangestohow theDepartmentofHomeland
Securitywill enforce immigration laws,withaparticularfocusoninteriorenforcement.2WhilethePresidents
announcementhasthepotentialtochangethelandscapeofimmigrationenforcement,advocatesneedtounderstandthesechangesinorderto
safeguardthegainswehaveworkedsohardtoachieve,andcontinuegainingmoreground.Whathaschanged?ICEHolds:Perhapsthebiggest
change,ICE statesthatitwill

stop using ICE holds due to constitutional concerns except in

special circumstances.ThismeansthatjailsinmostcaseswillnotbeaskedtoholdindividualsforICEpastthetimethey
shouldotherwisebereleased(eitherbecausethejudgereleasedthemwithnobail,theypostbailmoney,orcompletetheirsentence).Previously,
whenICEissuedholds,itaskedlocallawenforcementtoholdanindividualextratimebeyondtheircriminalreleasesothatICEcouldhaveextra
timetopickthemup.AccordingtoICEsplannedchanges,ICEsaysthattheywillstopissuingICEholdsexceptinspecialcircumstances.Sofar,

no one knows how special circumstances will be defined .Advocates should be

vigilant about monitoring this and holding ICE accountable .ICEstatesthatholdrequestswillbe
replacedwithrequestsfornotificationofreleasedates.ThismeansthatICEwantsnoticeofwhenanindividualwillbereleasedfromjail,sothat
ICEagentscanbereadytopickupthepersonastheywalkoutofjail.Thispracticehadalreadybeguntohappeninmanylocationswherejails
havestoppedrespondingtoICEholds.WhilethesenotificationrequestshavealwaysbeenapartofICEholds,thisshiftfurthersolidifies
communicationbetweenfederalandlocalandstatelawenforcementofficials.ICEfurtherclaimsthattheserequestsfornotificationwillonlybe
forthosewhofallwithincertainpriorities.Theseprioritieswillincludethosewhohavebeenconvictedofonesignificantmisdemeanor
(includingDUIsandDVassaults),threeormoremisdemeanors,anyfelonyoraggravatedfelony,andanypersonwhoposesarisktonational
securityincludingthosewithconvictionsforgangrelatedcrimes.Inotherwords,mostpeopleinlocaljailswilllikelystillbetargeted. One

of the outstanding challenges from these new directives is that ICE should not be
targeting people until they fall into the enforcement priorities thatis,not until after
they have a conviction makingthemapriority.But ICE will continue to be getting
information from local law enforcement immediately upon arrest andthereafterbecauseofits
relationshipswithjailsandprobationdepartments,in addition to cooperation through CAPand287(g).
Requiring ICE to follow the directions intheenforcementprioritiesandpreventingthemfromissuingnotificationor
holdrequestsonpeoplewhohavenotbeenconvictedwill require close monitoring.TIPAdvocatesshouldstayalertas
tohowandwhentheserequestsfornotificationwilloccur.Sofar,wedontknowifICEhasdevelopedinstructionsorprotocols.Itisunclearhow
ICEwillmonitorcasestofindoutwhenpeoplehavebeenconvicted,orwhatcommunitypressurewillbeneededtoforcethemtofollowthatpart
oftheenforcementprioritiesdirective.Wedonotknowiftheywilluseaform,orwhetherthesenotificationshappenorally.Wedontknow
whethercommunicationwillhappenthroughanICECallcenter(LESC)orfromthelocalICEoffices.Thereisalotthatwedontknowsoitis
importantforadvocatesonthegroundtoremainvigilantandtorecordwhattheyareseeing.AttempttoAddressBiasedPolicing:Biased

policing is when law enforcement uses an individuals race or ethnicity as a key

factor in enforcement. ICE claims that it will address biased policing initsenforcement
practices.To do this, ICE states it will monitor its new activities ,includinganalyzingdata,todetectfor
biasedpolicingandthenwillestablisheffectiveremedialmeasuresinresponsetoanyevidenceofbiasedpolicing.Manyorganizationshave
madesimilarrecommendationsinthepastandDHShasrecognizedtheneedtoaddressbiasedpolicinginimmigrationenforcement.3We

mustnowhold ICE accountable for further exacerbating racial profiling and biased
policing practices. ICEs practices have facilitated local law enforcements efforts
to further target immigrant communities.We mustcontinuepushingfor a complete
disentanglement between local law enforcement and ICE .

Post plan, the raids of immigrants will end ICE doesnt have the resources

Golash-Boza 12 (Tanya [Associate Professor at UC Merced] Racial Profiling and Mass Deportation of Black and Latino
Men,http://www.racismreview.com/blog/2012/05/15/racial-profiling-and-mass-deportation-of-black-and-latino-men/)

Immigration law enforcement agents generally do not have license to walk up and
down the streets of U.S. cities and demand proof of U.S. citizenship from
pedestrians. The Border Patrol is only authorized to work in U.S. border areas. And, ICE, only has
20,000 employees overall, only a fraction of whom are officers engaged in raiding
homes and worksites arresting illegally present immigrants. ICE does not have the
staff or resources to patrol the county. Instead, ICE works closely with criminal
law enforcement agencies to apprehend immigrants.

Plans
Plan: Immigration and Customs Enforcement should curtail its local law
enforcement surveillance
Plan: Immigration and Customs Enforcement should curtail its local police
surveillance
Plan: The United States federal government should curtail its Immigration and
Customs Enforcement Surveillance performed by local law enforcement
Plan: The United States federal government should curtail its Immigration and
Customs Enforcement Surveillance performed by local police
Plan: Immigration and Customs Enforcement should curtail its surveillance that is
based on immigration status
Plan: The United States federal government should curtail its surveillance that is
based on immigration status

*Advantage LONG Organized Crime

Local enforcement of ICE immigration law drives racial profiling,
undermines trust of police, and overstretches police resources
Barry 9 (Tom Barry is an American political analyst. As of 2007 he is Senior Policy Analyst and
Americas Policy Program Fellow at the advocacy group Center for International Policy (CIP). Barry began
his career as a political activist and analyst at Georgetown University in the late 1960s. "Immigrant
Crackdown Joins Failed Crime and Drug Wars." International Policy Report. April 2009. CIP's Americas
Program.)//lb

Like its other criminal alien programs, ICE claims that through the 287(g) program it aims to protect against threats to the
community. In its description of the 287(g) program, ICE says the local law enforcement officials should be cross-designated as
immigration agents because "during the course of daily duties, they will often encounter foreign-born criminals and immigration
violators who pose a threat to national security or public safety." The program gives

local police the "necessary

resources and latitude to pursue investigations related to violent crimes, human
smuggling, gang/organized crime activity, sexual-related offenses, narcotics
smuggling, and money laundering." The 287(g) program has led to widespread
concerns about racial profiling, reduced community trust, inadequate
prioritization of dangerous criminals, and misplaced law enforcement resources.
A study of the operation of the program in North Carolina found that it has been used to "purge towns and
cities of 'unwelcome' immigrants." The Policies and Politics of Local Immigration Enforcement report noted:
"Instead of focusing on those people who commit the violent crimes as stated by
ICE, local law enforcement officers seem to be targeting drivers of a particular
race or national origin and stopping them for traffic violations . For example, during the month
of May 2008, 83% of the immigrants arrested by Gaston County ICE-authorized officers pursuant to the 287(g) program were
charged with traffic violations. This pattern has continued as the program has been implemented throughout the state. The arrest
data appears to indicate that Mecklenburg and Alamance Counties are typical in the targeting of Hispanics for traffic offenses for the
purposes of a deportation policy." These problems were also highlighted in a January 2009 report by the U.S. Government
Accountability Office (GAO) titled Immigration Enforcement: Better Controls Needed over Program Authorizing State and Local
Enforcement of Federal Immigration Laws. The

GAO report discovered that despite ICE's claims

that the program would target dangerous criminal aliens, the agency did nothing
to ensure that the police and sheriff deputies it cross-designated prioritized
immigrants who were suspected of "posing a threat to national security or public
safety." GAO concluded: "While ICE officials have stated that the main objective of the 287(g) program is to enhance the safety
and security of communities by addressing serious criminal activity committed by removable aliens, they have not documented this
objective in program-related materials consistent with internal control standards. As a result, some

participating
agencies are using their 287(g) authority to process for removal aliens who have
committed minor offenses, such as speeding, carrying an open container of alcohol, and urinating in public. None of
these crimes fall into the category of serious criminal activity that ICE officials described to us as the type of crime the 287(g)
program is expected to pursue." The GAO found that

ICE didn't even attempt to ensure that the local

officers it trained and designated as immigration agents used their authority only
for arrested immigrants. Of the 287(g) agreements studied by GAO, not one of the 29 "mentioned that an arrest
should precede use of 287(g) program authority." In other words, cross-designated local police have been
investigating the immigration status of people they stop or otherwise encounter
even when there is no crime involved. A March 2008 report by Justice Strategies, Local Democracy on ICE,
also pointed to the broader problem of mixing immigration law and criminal law. In their report, Aarti Shahani and Judith Greene
warned: "287(g)

represents the fusion of two separate systems of law enforcement

power. Once in place, it can lead to further entanglement of these powers as state and
local politicians jump into the campaign to 'crack down' on immigran ts. But civil

immigration and criminal law are fundamentally incompatible . The grey area
between civil and criminal law creates a situation ripe for abuse . The Constitution's
protections against arrest without probable cause, indefinite detention, trial without counsel, double jeopardy, and selfincrimination, as well as the statute of limitations, do not apply equally (or in some cases at all) in the civil immigration context."

ICEs Section 287 specifically overstretches the police & prevents solving
serious crime

HRI 12 (HRI is the Human Rights Initiative, The Misguided Expansion of 287(g) Agreements Allowing Local Police to
Perform Immigration Duties, Published September 2009, Date Accessed: 7/8/15, http://www.hrionline.org/wp-

content/uploads/2012/09/287gFINALFINAL.pdf, SZ)

Section 287(g) programs undermine local law enforcements ability to work

with immigrants to prevent and solve crimes and keep communities safe .
There are two primary ways in which 287(g) agreements make communities less safe. First, 287(g) agreements
are unsuccessful at ridding communities of serious criminals rather than those who
commit minor infractions, such as traffic violations. Second, 287(g) agreements and similar
programs often cause undocumented immigrants to fail to report serious
crimes due to a fear of deportation, thus leading to the failure to apprehend
criminals. With respect to the first issue, DHS admits that although ICE has developed priorities for alien arrest and
detention efforts, it has not established a process to ensure that the emphasis of 287(g) efforts is placed on aliens that fall within the
highest priority level.18 For example, in a sample collected by the DHS, only 9 percent of individuals arrested through the 287(g)
program fell into the Level 1 category, while 44 percent of the individuals were categorized as Level 2. This means that almost half of
those arrested via 287(g) agreements are being arrested for minor crimes such as traffic violations. DHS admits that these results
do not show that 287(g)

resources have been focused on aliens who pose the

greatest risk to the public.19 A study of the Criminal Alien Program (CAP) in Travis County, Texas, has
produced analogous findings. CAP is similar in effect to the 287(g) jail enforcement model. In both programs, law enforcement
officials are granted access to county jails to identify deportable noncitizens.20 The primary difference between CAP and the jail
enforcement model of 287(g) is that ICE officials investigate an individuals residency status under CAP, whereas local law
enforcement officials trained by ICE carry out this duty under 287(g).21 Indeed, CAPs implementation in Travis County has
primarily impacted individuals without criminal records. For instance, an October 2009 DHS report shows that 57 percent of
immigrants identified through CAP had no criminal convictions.22 Similarly, a recent study in Irving, Texas, by the Warren Institute
found that 98 percent of all arrestees placed under detainer (an instrument that flags an inmate as a deportable non-citizen) in 2007
through CAP had been arrested for misdemeanor offenses, rather than felonies or serious crimes.23 These

figures
provide convincing evidence that programs targeting removable aliens do
not significantly increase the safety of communities, and instead primarily
affect individuals with minor (if any) criminal histories. Additionally, the evidence suggests
that 287(g) agreements prevent undocumented immigrants from working
with law enforcement to catch serious criminals. For instance, in Travis County, social service
providers and community organizations in Austin have noted a climate change in the immigrant community coinciding with local
law enforcements cooperation with ICE.24 These observations are corroborated by the Proyecto Defensa Laboral (PDL, Workers
Defense Project), a non-profit center that helps low-wage workers improve their working conditions, which has recorded numerous
calls from members afraid to contact police. One example of such a case occurred when a female members 13-year-old daughter was
sexually assaulted, but waited several days before reporting the incident due to the presence of ICE in Travis County. Only after
speaking with PDL did the member seek help.25

Plan reestablishes trust in local law enforcement- Uniquely decreases

violent crime rates

Gascon 13 (George Gascon is the District Attorney in San Francisco, Why cops should back immigration reform,
6/19/13, Date Accessed: 7/7/15, http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/19/opinion/gascon-immigration-

policing/, SZ)

When immigrants -- unauthorized or authorized - feel isolated from the protection of law
enforcement, the entire community suffers. I saw this evidenced during my tenure as police chief in
Mesa, Arizona, where local Sheriff Joe Arpaio's reign of terror over the Latino
community led to increased crime rates in his county. Arpaio blamed most crimes in
Maricopa Country on undocumented immigrants and made racial profiling a common practice. He frequently detained people who
"looked Latino" until they could prove their status in the country .

In direct contrast to this approach, I

worked side by side with community groups and civil rights organizations
to foster a sense of trust between the Latino community and the Mesa Police Department. The effects of a broken
immigration system were a constant thread in the stories of Latino mothers, fathers and workers who refused to report crime for
fear of being detained or deported. In

Mesa, we lowered crime by some 30%, according to

FBI data -- a result of the trust our police department created with all
communities, and not because of immigration enforcement. Law enforcement should focus on
community safety, not enforcing immigration laws. That is not just my opinion, but that
of the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled against Arizona's SB1070, and of many police officers and law
enforcement officials around the country. When undocumented immigrants live in the
shadows, they become wary of law enforcement, crimes go unreported,
perpetrators remain on the loose, and the safety of our communities is
affected. Anti-immigrant forces have long scapegoated undocumented immigrants as the reason for higher crime rates and the
need for greater border security. We in law enforcement must come together and inform our senators that immigrants are a valuable
part of our communities. Research

shows that areas with a high immigrant population

often have much lower rates of crime than similar areas without high
immigrant representation. Our borders are also more secure than they have ever been, with the United States
already spending more than $17 billion annually on immigration and border enforcement.

US organized violent crime spills over to other countries

Feere and Vaughan 8 (Jon Feere is a legal policy analyst, Jessica Vaughan is the Director of Policy studies at
the Center for Immigration Studies, Taking Back the Streets: ICE and Local Law Enforcement Target Immigrant Gangs, Published
September 2008, Date Accessed: 7/8/15, http://cis.org/ImmigrantGangs, SZ)
The recent emergence and spread of several Hispanic

street gangs, most notably MS-13 and

18th Street, has attracted the attention of law enforcement agencies and
political leaders nationwide. Many gangs are made up of small-time troublemakers, but others have a
reputation for grisly violence. They are responsible for virtually the entire spectrum of
criminal activity, from nuisance crimes like graffiti to murder. Some are
becoming increasingly well-organized and operating as sophisticated crime
syndicates across national borders. Transnational gangs generally are
defined as those gangs that are criminally active and operational in more
than one country, whose activities are sometimes controlled or planned by
individuals in another country, whose members are mobile and adaptable in new areas,
and whose members tend to be involved in cross-border or international crime or
violations with a nexus to the border. 11 The countries of Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala are considered to
be the epicenter of the gang crisis, as most of the criminal transnational gang members in
the United States have ties to these countries. Murder rates in these countries are extremely high;
in 2004, the estimated murder rate per 100,000 people was 45.9 in Honduras, 41.2 in El Salvador, and 34.7 in Guatemala

(compared with a 2004 murder rate in the United States of only 5.7 murders per 100,000 people). Salvadoran police estimate that at
least 60 percent of the 2,756 murders committed in El Salvador in 2004 were gang-related. The gang population in Central
American countries is estimated to be about 500,000. 12

Organized crime hurts the economy and national security

Finklea 09 (Kristin M. Finklea is an analyst in domestic security part of the Congressional Research Service, Organized
Crime in the United States: Trends and Issues for Congress, 4/16/09, Date Accessed: 7/7/15,

http://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/crsreports/crsdocuments/R40525_04162009.pdf , SZ)

Organized crime threatens multiple facets of the United States, including

the economy and national security. In fact, the Organized Crime Council was recently reconvened for the
first time in 15 years to address this continued threat. Organized crime has taken on an
increasingly transnational nature, and with more open borders and the
expansion of the Internet, criminals endanger the United States not only
from within the borders, but beyond. Threats come from a variety of criminal organizations, including
Russian, Asian, Italian, Balkan, Middle Eastern, and African syndicates. Policymakers may question whether the tools they have
provided the federal government to combat organized crime are still effective for countering todays evolving risks. In the wake of
the economic downturn, organized

crime could further weaken the economy with

illegal activities (such as cigarette trafficking and tax evasion scams) that
result in a loss of tax revenue for state and federal governments . Fraudulent
activities in domains such as strategic commodities, credit, insurance, stocks, securities and investments could further weaken the
already-troubled financial market. On

the national security front, experts and

policymakers have expressed concern over a possible nexus between
organized crime and terrorism. Despite the difference in motivation for organized crime (profit) and
terrorism (ideology), the linking element for the two is money. Terrorists may
potentially obtain funding for their operations from partnering directly
with organized crime groups or modeling their profitable criminal acts. Even if organized crime groups and
terrorist organizations do not form long-term alliances, the possibility of short-term business alliances may be of concern to
policymakers.

Organized crime destroy economic development proves plan is key

UN 12 (United Nations General Assembly, Thematic Debate of the 66th session of the United Nations General Assembly on
Drugs and Crime as a Threat to Development On the occasion of the UN International Day against Drug Abuse and Illicit
Trafficking, 6/26/12, Date Accessed: 7/12/15, http://www.un.org/en/ga/president/66/Issues/drugs/drugs-

crime.shtml, SZ)

As economic development is threatened by transnational organized crime

and illicit drugs, countering crime must form part of the development
agenda, and social and economic development approaches need to form part of our response to organized crime. If we are to
ensure that the MDGs are achieved, we must strengthen strategies to deliver these goals, including stepping up efforts to address

Organized crime
every economy, in every country, but they are particularly
devastating in weak and vulnerable countries. Weak and fragile countries are particularly
issues such as money laundering, corruption and trafficking in wildlife, people and arms, and drugs.
and drugs impact

vulnerable to the effects of transnational organized crime. These countries, some devastated by war, others making the complex
journey towards democracy, are preyed upon by crime. As a result, organized

crime flourishes,
successes in development are reversed, and opportunities for social and
economic advancement are lost. Corruption, a facilitator of organized crime and drug trafficking, is a serious
impediment to the rule of law and sustainable development. It can be a dominant factor driving fragile countries towards failure. It

is estimated that up to US$40 billion annually is lost through corruption in developing

countries. Drugs and crime undermine development by eroding social and human
capital. This degrades quality of life and can force skilled workers to leave, while
the direct impacts of victimisation, as well as fear of crime, may impede the development of those that remain. By limiting
movement, crime

impedes access to possible employment and educational

opportunities, and it discourages the accumulation of assets. Crime is also more expensive for
poor people in poor countries, and disadvantaged households may struggle to cope with the shock of
victimisation. Drugs and crime also undermine development by driving away business. Both foreign and domestic investors see
crime as a sign of social instability, and crime drives up the cost of doing business. Tourism is a sector especially sensitive to crime
issues. Drugs and crime, moreover, undermine

the ability of the state to promote

development by destroying the trust relationship between the people and
the state, and undermining democracy and confidence in the criminal justice system. When people lose
confidence in the criminal justice system, they may engage in vigilantism,
which further undermines the state.
Extinction
Richard N. Haass 13, President of the Council on Foreign Relations, 4/30/13, The World
Without America, http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/repairing-the-roots-ofamerican-power-by-richard-n--haass

The most critical threat facing the United States now and for the foreseeable future
is not a rising China, a reckless North Korea, a nuclear Iran, modern terrorism, or climate change. Although all of these
constitute potential or actual threats, the biggest challenges facing the US are its burgeoning debt, crumbling infrastructure, second-rate
primary and secondary schools, outdated immigration system, and slow economic growth in short, the domestic foundations
of American power . Readers in other countries may be tempted to react to this judgment with a dose of schadenfreude, finding more than a little satisfaction in Americas difficulties.
Let me posit a radical idea:

Such a response should not be surprising. The US and those representing it have been guilty of hubris (the US may often be the indispensable nation, but it would be better if others pointed this out), and examples
of inconsistency between Americas practices and its principles understandably provoke charges of hypocrisy. When America does not adhere to the principles that it preaches to others, it breeds resentment. But,

Americas failure
to deal with its internal challenges would come at a steep price . Indeed, the rest of the worlds stake in American
success is nearly as large as that of the US itself. Part of the reason is economic. The US economy still accounts for about one-quarter of global output. If US growth
accelerates, Americas capacity to consume other countries goods and services
will increase, thereby boosting growth around the world. At a time when Europe is drifting and
Asia is slowing, only the US (or, more broadly, North America) has the potential to drive global economic
recovery . The US remains a unique source of innovation. Most of the worlds citizens communicate with mobile devices based on technology developed in Silicon Valley; likewise, the Internet was
like most temptations, the urge to gloat at Americas imperfections and struggles ought to be resisted. People around the globe should be careful what they wish for.

made in America. More recently, new technologies developed in the US greatly increase the ability to extract oil and natural gas from underground formations. This technology is now making its way around the
globe, allowing other societies to increase their energy production and decrease both their reliance on costly imports and their carbon emissions. The US is also an invaluable source of ideas. Its world-class

the US has long been a leading example of what

market economies and democratic politics can accomplish . People and governments
around the world are far more likely to become more open if the American model
is perceived to be succeeding. Finally, the world faces many serious challenges, ranging from the need to
halt the spread of w eapons of m ass d estruction, fight climate change , and maintain a
functioning world economic order that promotes trade and investment to
universities educate a significant percentage of future world leaders. More fundamentally,

regulating practices in cyberspace, improving global health, and preventing

armed

conflicts These problems will not simply go away or sort themselves out
.

. While Adam

Smiths invisible hand may ensure the success of free markets, it is powerless in the world of geopolitics .
Order requires the visible hand of leadership to formulate and realize global

responses to global challenges. Dont get me wrong: None of this is meant to suggest that the US can deal effectively with the worlds problems on its own.
Unilateralism rarely works. It is not just that the US lacks the means; the very nature of contemporary global problems suggests that only collective responses stand a good chance of succeeding. But

multilateralism is much easier to advocate than to design and implement. Right now there is
only one candidate for this role: the US. No other country has the necessary
combination of capability and outlook . This brings me back to the argument that the US must put its house in
order economically , physically, socially, and politically if it is to have the resources needed to promote
order in the world . Everyone should hope that it does: The alternative to a world led by the US is not a world led by
China, Europe, Russia, Japan, India, or any other country, but rather a world that is
not led at all . Such a world would almost certainly be characterized by chronic crisis and conflict . That would be bad not just
for Americans, but for the vast majority of the planet s inhabitants.

Nuclear terror kills billons

Brill and Luongo 12
[Kenneth C. Brill is a former U.S. ambassador to the I.A.E.A. Kenneth N. Luongo is president of
the Partnership for Global Security. Both are members of the Fissile Material Working Group, a
nonpartisan nongovernmental organization. Nuclear Terrorism: A Clear Danger The New
York Times, 3/15/12 ln]
There is a consensus among international leaders that the threat of nuclear
terrorism is real, not a Hollywood confection. President Obama, the leaders of 46 other nations, the heads of the
International Atomic Energy Agency and the United Nations, and numerous experts have called nuclear terrorism one of the most serious threats to global security and stability.

At least four terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda, have

demonstrated interest in using a nuclear device. These groups operate in or near states with histories of questionable
nuclear security practices. Terrorists do not need to steal a nuclear weapon. It is quite possible to
make an improvised nuclear device from highly enriched uranium or plutonium
being used for civilian purposes. And there is a black market in such material. There have been 18
confirmed thefts or loss of weapons-usable nuclear material. I n 2011, the Moldovan police broke up part
of a smuggling ring attempting to sell highly enriched uranium; one member is thought to remain at large with a kilogram of this material. A terrorist
nuclear explosion could kill hundreds of thousands, create billions of dollars in
damages and undermine the global economy . Former Secretary General Kofi
Annan of the United Nations said that an act of nuclear terrorism would thrust
tens of millions of people into dire poverty and create a second death toll
throughout the developing world .
It is also preventable with more aggressive action.

Add-ons

4th amendment rights

ICE targets minorities in violation 4th amendment rights
Benin 13 (Cynthia Benin NYU grad school. "Randomizing Immigration Enforcement:
Exploring a New Foruth Amendment Regime." New York University Law Review. November
2013. 88 N.Y.U.L. Rev. 1735. Lexis.)//lb
It should be noted at the outset that the Fourth Amendment applies to noncitizens. n72
There are, however, some limitations. The Court's plurality opinion in United States v. VerdugoUrquidez suggested the Fourth Amendment does not apply to most noncitizens searched abroad
and may not apply to noncitizens within the territory who lack "substantial connections" to the
United States. n73 Furthermore, since immigration hearings are civil proceedings, the
exclusionary rule does not prevent the government from using unlawfully
obtained evidence of a noncitizen's unauthorized status to deport him, except in very
limited circumstances. n74 These limitations, however, have little bearing on the proper analysis
of immigration checkpoints: Any diminished constitutional status that noncitizens
may possess [*1748] should not alter decisions about an enforcement regime that
will undoubtedly affect citizens alike. n75 Nevertheless, although the Fourth
Amendment applies in immigration cases, courts have exhibited a willingness to
depart from the traditional requirements of reasonable suspicion and probable
cause. Within 100 miles of the border, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), a division of
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), may stop cars at fixed checkpoints along the road
without any suspicion, n76 and officers may refer individuals to secondary inspection on the
basis of criteria that would not satisfy a reasonable suspicion requirement. n77 U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the DHS agency responsible for enforcement in
the interior, conducts many investigations via suspicionless, purportedly consentbased questioning that looks very much like a seizure. n78 At least one court has
dispensed with individualized suspicion in favor of group-based suspicion in
issuing a workplace raid warrant. n79 In short, Fourth Amendment standards in
the immigration enforcement context are non-traditional, ill-defined in places,
and seem to welcome overhaul. 2. Racial Profiling Run Wild The enormous discretion
immigration officers are afforded often results in racial profiling. n80 During the
famous Swift & Company raids, in which hundreds of federal agents dressed in riot gear
arrested over 1200 workers in meatpacking plants across the country, witnesses reported that
agents singled-out individuals who appeared to be [*1749] Hispanic or of other
minority ethnicity. n81 Reports abound of ICE officials entering homes in Hispanic
areas without probable cause. n82 Local law enforcement officers with authority to
make immigration arrests pursuant to formal agreements with the federal
government n83 have been accused in several jurisdictions of targeting Hispanics.
n84 As one commentator states, racial profiling in immigration law is so prevalent that
"no one familiar with the realities of immigration enforcement would suggest the
contrary." n85

ICE undermines the 4th amendment- breaks into peoples homes based on
racial profiling
Ruiz 9 (Albor Ruiz- M.A., Political Science and Philosophy. "ICE Raid LEave Dissenters Cold"
Daily News New York. July 23, 2009 Sports Final Adition. Suburban: Pg. 2. Lexis.)//lb

Heavily armed men in uniforms, breaking into private homes before dawn, seizing
people without probable cause. This has become the routine behavior of
immigration agents during raids - without warrants or other authorization - on the
homes of the undocumented, says a new report released yesterday. "Constitution on ICE: A
Report on Immigration Home Raid Operations" was conducted by the Immigration Justice
Clinic of the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University. The study found that it
is not uncommon for Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to seize residents
without legal basis. This practice, which smacks of racial profiling , is not new. Many
people have known about it for a long time. But the study makes clear that it is more widespread
than anybody suspected. "This report reveals an alarming pattern of federal
immigration officials breaking into people's homes and bedrooms in the predawn
hours in flagrant violation of the Constitution," said Peter Markowitz, the Immigration
Justice Clinic director and co-author of the report. One has to wonder if those who keep
repeating, "We are a country of laws" in order to demand the harshest possible treatment for
undocumented immigrants will now ask with similar fervor for ICE home raids to cease in the
name of the Constitution. Imagine the terror of children and parents who wake up at
dawn to find their homes invaded by seven-person teams of armed ICE agents. The
display of force is such that one would think agents were about to confront
dangerous terrorists, not detain poor, powerless immigrants. "When communities
are terrorized by ICE immigration raids, when nursing mothers are torn from
their babies, when children come home from school to find their parents missing,
when people are detained without access to legal counsel, when all that is
happening, the system just isn't working, and we need to change it," then-candidate
Barack Obama eloquently told the National Council of La Raza last July during his presidential
run. He was right, of course. The system is indeed broken and in need of repair. Scrapping the
raids would be a great first step. Although the ICE home raids are intended to target
dangerous criminals, as many as two-thirds of those arrested are civil immigration
violators who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, the report found.
Similar results have been found with the 287(g) program that turns local police into surrogate
immigration agents. Although 287(g) is under intense scrutiny for blatant racial
profiling and human rights violations , Washington, inexplicably, is expanding it.
The study also reveals that there is "a pattern of ICE agents physically pushing and
breaking their way into private homes in direct violation of the Fourth
Amendment of the Constitution." "There is an established pattern of misconduct by ICE
agents in the New York and New Jersey Field Offices," the report concludes. It may very well be
a national problem, the study says. In its response to the report, ICE said in a statement, "We do
our job professionally and humanely," adding that the agency recognizes the impact its actions
have on people. Jaya Vasandani, a co-author of the report, points out what may be the crux of
the problem. "If the government were engaged in these types of systematic and widespread
constitutional violations toward any other group in society, there would be a national outcry,"
Vasandani said. "Because these abuses have targeted the most vulnerable segments
of our population they have gone largely unnoticed." Ours is a country of laws. Where is
the outrage?

Childrens mental health

Children mental health is disrupted by the separation of families due to ICE
raids
Hing 09 (Bill Ong [University of San Francisco-School of Law]
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=331631)
Family separation and the special damage to children have been particularly tragic consequences of the ICE
raids.57 Most of the children impacted by raids were U.S. citizens and most were very young
about two-thirds were under ten and about one-third were under age five.58 In three sites studied by the National Council of La
Raza, researchers found that families

and relatives scramble[d] to rearrange care, children

spent at least one night without a parent, often in the care of a relative or nonrelative babysitter, in some cases neighbors and in some cases even landlords;
some children were cared for by extended families for weeks and months. 59 Families
directly affected by the raid also suffered economic hardship and financial instability that creates conditions that are detrimental to
childrens development.60 The National Council of La Raza study also analyzed the emotional and mental side effects upon
children. While the long-term effects of the raids are still unraveling, psychologists have already observed and are concerned about
longterm depression and other mental illness in family members. The report found that younger children translated the temporary
parental absence as abandonment. One parent reported that her child feared that her father love[s] money more than he loves
me.61According

to Dr. Amaro Laria, Director of the Lucero Latino Mental Health

Training Program at the Massachusetts School of Professional Psychology and
faculty of the psychiatry department at Harvard Medical School, [o]ne of the most
well established facts in mental health is that abrupt separation of children from
their parents, particularly their mothers, are among the most severely traumatic
experiences that a child can undergo.62 He testified that in the case of the raid, the traumatic separations
[were] perpetrated and sanctioned by our nations law enforcement agencies, ironically in the name of protecting citizens.63 In his
opinion, ICE had engaged in terrorism against these families and children.

Crime Reporting
Latin American Immigrants in the status quo are less likely to help law
enforcement when their immigration status is in question
Menjivar and Bejarano 04( Cecilia Menjivar, Cynthia Bejarano, professor at the school of family
dynamics Arizona State University, Janurary 2004, Latino Immigrants perceptions of crime
and police authorities in the United States: A case study from the Phoenix Metropolitan area,
Vol.27 No.1 Ethnic and Racial Studies)//AS
To contextualize our work we have borrowed from the bodies of literature on fear of crime and
attitudes towards the police because both inform the central themes in this study. Studies on
victimization and immigration have examined the circumstances under which
immigrants are more or less prone to report crime. Research on fear of crime has
identified important factors that influence whether people will be more or less
fearful of crime. These studies have contributed to dispelling notions about crimes committed and vulnerability to criminal activities, but few have focused on
the particular experiences of immigrants and how these influence not only the immigrants relations with authorities, but even their very definition of what crime is. Perceptions
of and experiences with police authorities are central, for these determine whether people will be likely to report crime; they are 05 RERS27-01-0005.fm Page 124 Thursday,

2015 Latino immigrants perceptions of crime 125

also an indication of underlying relations within a hierarchical system of authority
and subordination. Race and ethnicity (Covington and Taylor 1991; Hagan and Albonetti 1982; Webb and Marshall 1995; Cao, Frank, and Cullen 1996;
Walker, Spohn and DeLone 2000) plus age (Walker 1997), as well as gender and class (Crenshaw 1995) powerfully influence perceptions of the police (Decker 1981 ).
Walker (1997) observes that the young do not express the deference or fear that
characterizes older Hispanics, but are less assertive than either whites or African
Americans. Hispanics, often unfamiliar with the system, may not use it fully to
their advantage; thus, respondents have expressed strong deference to the police
and fear of retaliation, particularly when their immigration status is in limbo.
November 20, 2003 1:09 PM Downloaded by [] at 11:01 07 July

Undocumented immigrants are reluctant to report criminal activity

Arnold 07 J.D. Candidate, University of Arizona (Carrie; Racial Profiling in Immigration
Enforcement: State and Local Agreements to Enforce Federal Immigration Law; 2007;
HeinOnline)//AJ
On the other hand, many

immigrants are unaware of the laws and do not realize that

police officers cannot arrest them for civil immigration violations. 69 For example, when
three people were killed inside a Houston Vietnamese restaurant in July 2002,
most of the witnesses ran away, not only because they were afraid that they might
be implicated in the crime, but also because many of them were in the country
illegally. The police were able to get witnesses to come forward only after they
spoke to the Vietnamese community during a popular Vietnamese-language radio
show and assured people that they were only seeking information. 71 The International
Association of Chiefs of Police ("IACP") has never adopted a policy or resolution about state and local enforcement of immigration
law because members of the law enforcement profession are not in agreement. 72 Members

of the IACP who

oppose local involvement in immigration enforcement have expressed concern
over the "chilling effect" that involvement would have on the willingness of
immigrants to report criminal activity and to assist in criminal investigations. 73
Other members believe that local law enforcement has a duty to assist the federal government in apprehending law violators, even if
the area of law is immigration.

Domestic/Sexual Abuse
Domestic and Sexual violence goes unreported because of fear of deportation
Foley 4-21-15 (Elise, Fear Of Deportation May Be Keeping Latino Victims Of Domestic Violence, Sexual Assault From Seeking Help,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/21/latinos-domestic-violence_n_7112130.html)

WASHINGTON -- A new study of the Latino community's views on domestic violence and sexual assault found that, as in surveys of
the population as a whole, many believe

Latino victims don't come forward because they fear

losing their children or facing more violence . But the study, released Tuesday, found that many
Latinos think victims also may be afraid to go to police for a different reason: concern that it
could lead to them being deported. The study was commissioned by the Avon Foundation on behalf of No More
and Casa de Esperanza. It was conducted by Lake Research Partners. The results will be used as the groups shape the No Ms
campaign with Verizon this fall, aimed at spreading awareness of domestic violence and sexual assault and encouraging bystanders
to intervene. The poll found that more than half of Latinos, 56

percent, said they knew someone who had

been a victim of domestic violence. Twenty-eight percent said they knew someone
who had been a victim of sexual assault. Asked what might be keeping Latino victims
from coming forward, 41 percent of those polled said the primary reason was likely fear of
deportation. That was the case for Delfina Rojas Ayona, 46, an immigrant from Mexico who spoke Tuesday at a briefing on
the new poll on Capitol Hill. She said through a translator that she was abused by her former husband for more than two decades
before she got help from police. At one point, while she was living in the U.S. without authorization, her boss noticed the bruises on
her neck, and his secretary told her she could go to the police, she said. "I didn't do it because I was terrified that I would be deported
and his family would end up doing something to my children," Ayona said through a translator. Immigration

advocates often cite domestic violence as a key reason to keep police out of
immigration matters . Police sometimes arrest both parties at first and then charge only the abuser, but
simply taking the victim's fingerprints could put the victim at risk of deportation . Law
enforcement in many jurisdictions has resisted working with immigration authorities in part to encourage victims to feel safe in
coming forward.

Health Deaths
Fear of law enforcement prevents access to emergency care
Lehman 14 (Shereen, Language barriers and fear of police may prevent minority 911 calls, Fri Dec 26, 2014,
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/26/us-health-minorities-cpr-idUSKBN0K414U20141226)

In poor, mostly Latino areas of Denver, Colorado, people who suffer cardiac arrest are less
likely to get help in part because distrust of law enforcement and language barriers stop bystanders
from calling 911 or learning CPR, researchers say. We always sort of take it for granted the people will call
911, and this is the first study to really take a step back and say, gosh there's real barriers that we need to talk about, said Dr.
Comilla Sasson, who led the new study. People who live in poor and minority neighborhoods are more likely
to suffer cardiac arrest outside of a hospital, and less likely to receive bystander
cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) or to survive, Sasson and her colleagues write in Annals of Emergency Medicine. The results
of the survey point out several misconceptions that need to be addressed in such communities, like the fear that first
responders arent going to help you unless youre documented or that theyre going to arrest
you, Sasson, an emergency physician at the University of Colorado School of Medicine, told Reuters Health. It's something we
spent a lot of time here in Denver really talking to our police officers and talking to our community members to let them know that if
you call 911 we're not going to ask for identification - we're here to help you, Sasson said. For their study, Sasson and colleagues
recruited residents of five low-income, primarily Latino neighborhoods in Denver to form focus groups and do individual interviews
to find out what might prevent them from calling 911, learning CPR or performing it. A total of 55 people participated in six focus
groups, along with an additional nine individual interviews. The researchers identified six major barriers to calling 911, including the
fear of law enforcement if the bystander was undocumented or had a criminal history. Participants also misunderstood or were not
aware of Good Samaritan laws and worried that law enforcement or the victims family would blame them if the person did not
survive. Cultural and language issues were also important. For instance, there was considerable concern about the propriety or
safety of touching another person, especially a stranger, in the chest area or on the mouth. I dont know if its limited to Hispanic
culture or not, but the hesitancy to touch another person, especially in the chest, and if its a woman, oh my goodness . . . Uh, there is
great hesitation on the older peoples part, said one participant. Many also expressed the fear of not being able to communicate with
an emergency dispatcher. One of the things we found thats specific to the Latinos in Denver, and I think it's something that's
important for people to know, is when you do call 911 how to say the right words to get through faster, Sasson said. It can take 5 to
10 minutes for the dispatcher to communicate with somebody who doesn't speak English while trying to figure out the medical
emergency, Sasson said, so she trains people in the community to say heart stopped, Spanish interpreter when they call 911. It's
not rocket science by any means, but heart stopped triggers that this is a medical emergency, Sasson said, and saying Spanish
interpreter immediately lets the operator know they dont speak English. The main reasons people gave for not learning CPR
included the cost, lack of classes and not being aware of how CPR can save lives. We know from the research we've done that
Latinos are 30 percent less likely to have CPR performed and what the study really showed it was not that Latinos don't want to do
CPR or that they're afraid of it, Sasson said. It's truly, I think, that we haven't gotten the messaging out on how important it is and
how easy it is to do, especially now that you can do it without breathing into somebodys mouth - you can do hands-only CPR.
Sasson said the American Heart Association has a Spanish-language website at heart.org/rcp with training materials and a 60second video that people can watch to learn how to do hands-only CPR in Spanish. Cardiac arrest is a major public health problem
and bystander CPR significantly improves your odds of survival on the order of tripling (them) and there's large disparities in who
receives bystander CPR, Dr. Ben Bobrow, who wasnt involved in the study, told Reuters Health. Theres both economic and racial
disparities in who has access to life-saving therapy like CPR and its

unacceptable that people shouldn't

have access to simple life-saving interventions like CPR, said Bobrow, who is medical director of the
EMS and Trauma System in the Arizona Department of Health Services and the University of Arizona College of Medicine in Tucson.

Institutionalized Racism
ICE institutionalizes racism versus immigrant populations
Hing 09 (Bill Ong [University of San Francisco-School of Law]
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=331631)
This Article contends that the evolution of immigration laws and the manner in which immigration

laws operate
have institutionalized bias against Latino immigrantsMexicans in particula rand
Asian immigrants. This has occurred through laws that initially manifested racist intent and/or impact ,
amendments that perpetuated that racism, and enforcement strategies and legal interpretations
reinforcing the racism. Racism has been institutionalized in our immigration laws and
enforcement policies. Kwame Ture (a.k.a. Stokely Carmichael) coined the phrase
institutional racism in the 1960s. He recognized it was important to distinguish personal bias from institutional bias,
which is generally long-term and grounded more in inertia than in intent. Institutional racism has come to describe societal patterns
that impose oppressive or otherwise negative conditions against identifiable groups on the basis of race or ethnicity. In the United
States, institutional racism resulted from the social caste system of slavery and racial segregation. Much of its basic structure still
stands to this day. By

understanding the fundamental principles of institutionalized

racism we begin to see the application of the concept beyond the conventional
black-white paradigm. Institutional racism embodies discriminating against
certain groups of people through the use of biased laws or practices . Structures and social
arrangements become accepted, operate, and are manipulated in such a way as to support or acquiesce in acts of racism.

Institutional racism can be subtle and less visible , but is no less destructive than individual acts of
racism. Charles Lawrences discussion of unconscious racism also is relevant. Lawrence teaches us that the source of much racism
lies in the unconscious mind. Individuals raised in a racist culture unknowingly absorb attitudes and stereotypes that influence
behavior in subtle, but pernicious ways. Unconscious

prejudice . . . is not subject to selfcorrection within the political process.70 The forces of racism have become embodied in U.S. immigration
laws.71 As these laws are enforced, they are accepted as common practice, in spite of
their racial effects. We may not like particular laws or enforcement policies because of their harshness or their violations
of human dignity or civil rights, but many of us do not sense the inherent racism because we are
not cognizant of the dominant racial framework . Understanding the evolution of
U.S. immigration laws and enforcement provides us with a better awareness of the
institutional racism that controls those policies. This Part focuses on the evolution of immigration laws
and enforcement policies. The history begins with slavery. Forced African labor migration set the stage for the Mexicans and the
Chinese. This Part reviews the history of Mexican migration, the enforcement of the southwest border, and the sea change to
enforcement through employer sanctions enacted in 1986.

Organized Crime Economy

Organized crime destroy economic development proves plan is key

UN 12 (United Nations General Assembly, Thematic Debate of the 66th session of the United Nations General Assembly on
Drugs and Crime as a Threat to Development On the occasion of the UN International Day against Drug Abuse and Illicit
Trafficking, 6/26/12, Date Accessed: 7/12/15, http://www.un.org/en/ga/president/66/Issues/drugs/drugs-

crime.shtml, SZ)

As economic development is threatened by transnational organized crime

and illicit drugs, countering crime must form part of the development
agenda, and social and economic development approaches need to form part of our response to organized crime. If we are to
ensure that the MDGs are achieved, we must strengthen strategies to deliver these goals, including stepping up efforts to address

Organized crime
and drugs impact every economy, in every country, but they are particularly
devastating in weak and vulnerable countries. Weak and fragile countries are particularly
issues such as money laundering, corruption and trafficking in wildlife, people and arms, and drugs.

vulnerable to the effects of transnational organized crime. These countries, some devastated by war, others making the complex
journey towards democracy, are preyed upon by crime. As a result, organized

crime flourishes,
successes in development are reversed, and opportunities for social and
economic advancement are lost. Corruption, a facilitator of organized crime and drug trafficking, is a serious
impediment to the rule of law and sustainable development. It can be a dominant factor driving fragile countries towards failure. It
is estimated that up to US$40 billion annually is lost through corruption in developing
countries. Drugs and crime undermine development by eroding social and human
capital. This degrades quality of life and can force skilled workers to leave, while
the direct impacts of victimisation, as well as fear of crime, may impede the development of those that remain. By limiting
movement, crime

impedes access to possible employment and educational

opportunities, and it discourages the accumulation of assets. Crime is also more expensive for
poor people in poor countries, and disadvantaged households may struggle to cope with the shock of
victimisation. Drugs and crime also undermine development by driving away business. Both foreign and domestic investors see
crime as a sign of social instability, and crime drives up the cost of doing business. Tourism is a sector especially sensitive to crime
issues. Drugs and crime, moreover, undermine

the ability of the state to promote

development by destroying the trust relationship between the people and
the state, and undermining democracy and confidence in the criminal justice system. When people lose
confidence in the criminal justice system, they may engage in vigilantism,
which further undermines the state.
Extinction
Richard N. Haass 13, President of the Council on Foreign Relations, 4/30/13, The World
Without America, http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/repairing-the-roots-ofamerican-power-by-richard-n--haass

The most critical threat facing the United States now and for the foreseeable future
is not a rising China, a reckless North Korea, a nuclear Iran, modern terrorism, or climate change. Although all of these
constitute potential or actual threats, the biggest challenges facing the US are its burgeoning debt, crumbling infrastructure, second-rate
primary and secondary schools, outdated immigration system, and slow economic growth in short, the domestic foundations
of American power . Readers in other countries may be tempted to react to this judgment with a dose of schadenfreude, finding more than a little satisfaction in Americas difficulties.
Let me posit a radical idea:

Such a response should not be surprising. The US and those representing it have been guilty of hubris (the US may often be the indispensable nation, but it would be better if others pointed this out), and examples
of inconsistency between Americas practices and its principles understandably provoke charges of hypocrisy. When America does not adhere to the principles that it preaches to others, it breeds resentment. But,

Americas failure
to deal with its internal challenges would come at a steep price . Indeed, the rest of the worlds stake in American
success is nearly as large as that of the US itself. Part of the reason is economic. The US economy still accounts for about one-quarter of global output. If US growth
accelerates, Americas capacity to consume other countries goods and services
will increase, thereby boosting growth around the world. At a time when Europe is drifting and
Asia is slowing, only the US (or, more broadly, North America) has the potential to drive global economic
recovery . The US remains a unique source of innovation. Most of the worlds citizens communicate with mobile devices based on technology developed in Silicon Valley; likewise, the Internet was
like most temptations, the urge to gloat at Americas imperfections and struggles ought to be resisted. People around the globe should be careful what they wish for.

made in America. More recently, new technologies developed in the US greatly increase the ability to extract oil and natural gas from underground formations. This technology is now making its way around the
globe, allowing other societies to increase their energy production and decrease both their reliance on costly imports and their carbon emissions. The US is also an invaluable source of ideas. Its world-class

the US has long been a leading example of what

market economies and democratic politics can accomplish . People and governments
around the world are far more likely to become more open if the American model
is perceived to be succeeding. Finally, the world faces many serious challenges, ranging from the need to
halt the spread of w eapons of m ass d estruction, fight climate change , and maintain a
functioning world economic order that promotes trade and investment to
universities educate a significant percentage of future world leaders. More fundamentally,

regulating practices in cyberspace, improving global health, and preventing

armed

conflicts These problems will not simply go away or sort themselves out
.

. While Adam

Smiths invisible hand may ensure the success of free markets, it is powerless in the world of geopolitics .
Order requires the visible hand of leadership to formulate and realize global
responses to global challenges. Dont get me wrong: None of this is meant to suggest that the US can deal effectively with the worlds problems on its own.
Unilateralism rarely works. It is not just that the US lacks the means; the very nature of contemporary global problems suggests that only collective responses stand a good chance of succeeding. But

multilateralism is much easier to advocate than to design and implement. Right now there is
only one candidate for this role: the US. No other country has the necessary
combination of capability and outlook . This brings me back to the argument that the US must put its house in
order economically , physically, socially, and politically if it is to have the resources needed to promote
order in the world . Everyone should hope that it does: The alternative to a world led by the US is not a world led by
China, Europe, Russia, Japan, India, or any other country, but rather a world that is
not led at all . Such a world would almost certainly be characterized by chronic crisis and conflict . That would be bad not just
for Americans, but for the vast majority of the planet s inhabitants.

Police Overstretch

ICEs Section 287 specifically overstretches the police & prevents solving
serious crime

HRI 12 (HRI is the Human Rights Initiative, The Misguided Expansion of 287(g) Agreements Allowing Local Police to
Perform Immigration Duties, Published September 2009, Date Accessed: 7/8/15, http://www.hrionline.org/wp-

content/uploads/2012/09/287gFINALFINAL.pdf, SZ)

Section 287(g) programs undermine local law enforcements ability to work

with immigrants to prevent and solve crimes and keep communities safe .
There are two primary ways in which 287(g) agreements make communities less safe. First, 287(g) agreements
are unsuccessful at ridding communities of serious criminals rather than those who
commit minor infractions, such as traffic violations. Second, 287(g) agreements and similar
programs often cause undocumented immigrants to fail to report serious
crimes due to a fear of deportation, thus leading to the failure to apprehend
criminals. With respect to the first issue, DHS admits that although ICE has developed priorities for alien arrest and
detention efforts, it has not established a process to ensure that the emphasis of 287(g) efforts is placed on aliens that fall within the
highest priority level.18 For example, in a sample collected by the DHS, only 9 percent of individuals arrested through the 287(g)
program fell into the Level 1 category, while 44 percent of the individuals were categorized as Level 2. This means that almost half of
those arrested via 287(g) agreements are being arrested for minor crimes such as traffic violations. DHS admits that these results
do not show that 287(g)

resources have been focused on aliens who pose the

greatest risk to the public.19 A study of the Criminal Alien Program (CAP) in Travis County, Texas, has
produced analogous findings. CAP is similar in effect to the 287(g) jail enforcement model. In both programs, law enforcement
officials are granted access to county jails to identify deportable noncitizens.20 The primary difference between CAP and the jail
enforcement model of 287(g) is that ICE officials investigate an individuals residency status under CAP, whereas local law
enforcement officials trained by ICE carry out this duty under 287(g).21 Indeed, CAPs implementation in Travis County has
primarily impacted individuals without criminal records. For instance, an October 2009 DHS report shows that 57 percent of
immigrants identified through CAP had no criminal convictions.22 Similarly, a recent study in Irving, Texas, by the Warren Institute
found that 98 percent of all arrestees placed under detainer (an instrument that flags an inmate as a deportable non-citizen) in 2007
through CAP had been arrested for misdemeanor offenses, rather than felonies or serious crimes.23 These

figures
provide convincing evidence that programs targeting removable aliens do
not significantly increase the safety of communities, and instead primarily
affect individuals with minor (if any) criminal histories. Additionally, the evidence suggests
that 287(g) agreements prevent undocumented immigrants from working
with law enforcement to catch serious criminals. For instance, in Travis County, social service
providers and community organizations in Austin have noted a climate change in the immigrant community coinciding with local
law enforcements cooperation with ICE.24 These observations are corroborated by the Proyecto Defensa Laboral (PDL, Workers
Defense Project), a non-profit center that helps low-wage workers improve their working conditions, which has recorded numerous
calls from members afraid to contact police. One example of such a case occurred when a female members 13-year-old daughter was
sexually assaulted, but waited several days before reporting the incident due to the presence of ICE in Travis County. Only after
speaking with PDL did the member seek help.25

state economies
Immigration enforcement undermines local economies- expensive
detention procedure
Branche 11 (Afton Branche -Georgetown University B.S. in Foreign Service, Culture and Politics,
International Development. "The Cost of Failure: The Burden of Immigraton Enforcement in America's
Cities." Drum Major Institute for Public Policy. April 2011. http://uncoverthetruth.org/wpcontent/uploads/2011/04/DMI-Cost-of-Failure.pdf)//lb

Local immigration enforcement is costly for city budgets and local economies.
One joint federal-local enforcement program, 287(g), costs many local governments
more than a million dollars in unreimbursed costs a year. Mecklenburg County, NC,
spent an estimated $5.3 million to set up and operate the 287(g) program in its first year.
According to the Government Accountability Office, 62 percent of local law enforcement
agencies that participate in 287(g) receive no federal reimbursement for any costs
associated with the program. The federal government reimburses cities for less than
a quarter of city and county costs for jailing immigrants who have committed
crimes, an expense incurred under all the federal-local enforcement programs.
Immigrants produce 20 percent of the economic output in the nations largest
metropolitan areas, according to the Fiscal Policy Institute. When immigration
enforcement programs succeed in pushing local immigrant populations
underground, local economies suffer: businesses close, jobs and tax revenue are
lost.

Immigration enforcement undermines the economy- immigrants stay in to

avoid police, hurting businesses
Branche 11 (Afton Branche -Georgetown University B.S. in Foreign Service, Culture and Politics,
International Development. "The Cost of Failure: The Burden of Immigraton Enforcement in America's
Cities." Drum Major Institute for Public Policy. April 2011. http://uncoverthetruth.org/wpcontent/uploads/2011/04/DMI-Cost-of-Failure.pdf)//lb

Immigration enforcement undercuts the vital contributions immigrants make to

urban economies. In Principles for an Immigration Policy to Strengthen and Expand the
Middle Class, the Drum Major Institute finds that immigrants produce goods and
services, pay taxes and support small businesses, and as such are an integral part
of the American economy.50 In the Chicago metropolitan area alone, undocumented
immigrants spend nearly $2.9 billion each year on goods and services, creating an additional
31,908 jobs in the local economy.51 When immigration enforcement goes local,
undocumented immigrants may fear that everyday activities could result in
contact with police, and by extension, immigration authorities. As a result, many
avoid public places, to the detriment of neighborhood businesses. In Irving, Texas, a
large Dallas suburb, initial enforcement of the Criminal Alien Program drove many Latino
immigrants underground. After controversial arrests of undocumented immigrants at a local
barbeque, the Dallas Consul General of Mexico went so far as to warn Mexican immigrants to
stay away from the suburb completely.52 Soon after, newspapers reported that small businesses
dependent on immigrant customers took a noticeable hit. An article from the Houston Chronicle
sheds light on the fallout: The bottom dropped out of Mike Grangers snack business almost
immediately after the Mexican consul general in Dallas warned people to avoid this sprawling

suburb. Im picking up stalesMy customers have disappeared. Joe Reyes, a worker at Nicos
Discount Tires on Story Road, said: The cops are stopping everybody around here,
Reyes said, motioning to a stretch of inexpensive restaurants, auto repair shops
and beauty shops. People who used to come here now go to Grand Prairie,
anyplace else, he said. His boss, manager Rafael Romero, said Nicos business is down 50
percent.53 The same effect was observed on businesses in metropolitan Atlanta
after 287(g) was implemented. From bridal shops to apartment complexes, business in
Cobb and Gwinnett counties that catered to Latino immigrant customers registered serious and
sometimes staggering losses. One Atlanta-based grocery distributor reported that lagging
business post-287(g) forced him to cut the number of Latino grocery stores supplied from 30 to
5.54 A similar effect was observed in Frederick County and Prince William County, two 287(g)
participants in the Washington, D.C metropolitan area.55 In Maricopa County, Arizona, one
local politician actually touted depressed business activity as proof of 287(g)s success.
According to former Maricopa County attorney Andrew Thomas: We have a lot of
anecdotal evidence of areas in the Valley that have a large number of presumed
illegal immigrants leaving (and) businesses that cater to illegal immigrants
suffering or going out of business entirelySo you have all of this evidence that supports
the conclusion that illegal immigration is being curbed significantly, and I believe the main
reason for that is the crackdown efforts of law enforcement and particularly the sheriffs office
and our office.56 This result was no doubt a negative for Maricopa business owners
who relied on the economic support of undocumented immigrants and their
families. Cities and metropolitan areas grappling with fiscal crises can scarcely
afford to pursue immigration enforcement policies that risk reducing immigrants
economic activities

(this would need state/local economies k2 natl economy & U.S. econ k2
global econ)
Economic decline causes nuclear war
Geoffrey Kemp 10, Director of Regional Strategic Programs at The Nixon Center, served in the
White House under Ronald Reagan, special assistant to the president for national security
affairs and senior director for Near East and South Asian affairs on the National Security
Council Staff, Former Director, Middle East Arms Control Project at the Carnegie Endowment
for International Peace, 2010, The East Moves West: India, China, and Asias Growing Presence
in the Middle East, p. 233-4

The second scenario, called Mayhem and Chaos, is the opposite of the first scenario; everything that can go wrong does go wrong.

The world economic situation weakens rather than strengthens , and India, China,
and Japan suffer a major reduction in their growth rates , further weakening the
global economy. As a result, energy demand falls and the price of fossil fuels plummets,
leading to a financial crisis for the energy-producing states, which are forced to cut
back dramatically on expansion programs and social welfare. That in turn leads to
political unrest: and nurtures different radical groups, including, but not limited to, Islamic
extremists. The internal stability of some countries is challenged, and there are more

failed states. Most serious is the collapse of the democratic government in Pakistan and
its takeover by Muslim extremists, who then take possession of a large number of
nuclear weapons . The danger of war between India and Pakistan increases
significantly. Iran, always worried about an extremist Pakistan, expands and weaponizes its nuclear
program. That further enhances nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, with Saudi
Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt joining Israel and Iran as nuclear states. Under these
circumstances, the potential for nuclear terrorism increases, and the possibility of a
nuclear terrorist attack in either the Western world or in the oil-producing states
may lead to a further devastating collapse of the world economic market, with a
tsunami-like impact on stability. In this scenario, major disruptions can be
expected, with dire consequences for two-thirds of the planets population .

AT: Offcase

AT: states CP
State level immigration laws are unconstitutional and result in economic
damage
Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees, and Border Security, '12 (United States.
Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary. Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees, and
Border Securit; 2012; www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-112shrg91385/pdf/CHRG112shrg91385.pdf; 7-12-15; mbc)
Tomorrow the Supreme Court is going to be considering whether the Arizona law, known as SB
1070, is constitutional. Specifically, the Court will be deciding if States can enact comprehensive
immigration enforcement laws designed to promote the self-deportation of illegal immigrants.
Five StatesAlabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina, and Utahhave crafted
laws following Arizonas example. Court challenges have been filed against all five of those
laws, and the outcome of those cases will likely be dictated by the Supreme Courts decision in
the Arizona case. Discussing both the constitutionality and prudence of these laws is
necessary because the Supreme Court will base its decision upon what the Senate
had previously said about the role of State and local government in enforcing
federal immigration law. The wisdom of the Arizona law is also currently being
debated around the country. For instance, SB 1070 has recently been endorsed as a model
for the country by Mitt Romney, the Republican nominee for President. Others such as Marco
Rubio have said they do not believe the Arizona law should be expanded nationwide. In 2 my
view, these State laws are both counterproductive and unconstitutional. In terms of being
counterproductive, the statistics could not be any clearer in terms of the economic
damage these laws cause. In Arizona, studies have shown that after SB 1070 was
passed, the convention and tourism industries lost as much as $140 million.
Moreover, the agriculture industry has seen much of its crops destroyed due to a
lack of labor. In Alabama, a study by the University of Alabama found that the Alabama law is
projected to shrink Alabamas economy by at least $2.3 billion annually and cost the State
$70,000 per yearsorry, 70,000 jobs per year. In terms of being unconstitutional, our
Founding Fathers gave Congress plenary power over immigration law. The
Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the naturalization language in Article
I to mean that the establishment of the immigration laws and their manner of
execution are committed solely to the Federal Government. Even though some on
the other side want to limit the Federal Governments power and increase the
power of the States, immigration is not and never has been an area where States
are able to exercise independent authority. This makes sense, both legally as a matter of
constitutional interpretation and practically as a matter of sound public product. Immigration
involves international commerce and sensitive foreign relations. Just as we would never
allow 50 States to have their own inconsistent and independent trade laws, we
should not have 50 States establishing and enforcing their own inconsistent
immigration laws. And even if States like Arizona say they are only helping the Federal
Government to enforce the law, this issue is much like federal tax law where the Federal Internal
Revenue Service interprets and enforces the law as opposed to 50 State agencies going to
peoples houses to ensure that they have properly filed their federal tax returns. Only federal
comprehensive immigration reform can accomplish the three objectives most
Americans want to see achieved with regard to immigration: first, ending illegal

immigration; second, fixing our dysfunctional legal immigration system; and,

third, addressing the status of people here without legal status.

Reforms in the immigration system are key to the economy prefer Affs
dynamic budget analyses
Holtz-Eakin '13 (Douglas; April 2013; Immigration Reform, Economic Growth, and the Fiscal
Challenge; Douglas J. "Doug" Holtz-Eakin is an American economist. He was formerly an
economics professor, Director of the Congressional Budget Office, and chief economic policy
adviser to U.S. Senator John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign;
americanactionforum.org/sites/default/files/Immigration%20and%20the%20Economy
%20and%20Budget.pdf; 7-13-15; mbc)
Immigration reform can raise population growth, labor force growth, and thus
growth in Gross Domestic Product (GDP). In addition, immigrants have displayed
entrepreneurial rates above that of the native born population. New entrepreneurial vigor
embodied in new capital and consumer goods can raise the standard of living. These channels
suggest that any discussion of immigration reform that omits the benefits on
economic performance is incomplete. Similarly, there will be direct feedback from
better economic growth to more revenues, fewer federal outlays, and dynamic
improvement in the federal budget. Traditional static budget analyses of
immigration reforms impacts will be similarly incomplete. A rudimentary analysis of
these impacts suggests that in the absence of immigration, the population and overall economy
will decline as a result of low U.S. birth rates. A benchmark immigration reform would
raise the pace of economic growth by nearly a percentage point over the near term,
raise GDP per capita by over $1,500 and reduce the cumulative federal deficit by
over $2.5 trillion. Introduction The United States faces interrelated challenges of weak
economic growth and dramatic levels and projected growth in federal debt. The threats posed by
this environment on economic opportunity and the social safety net have been the focus of
recent federal policy debates. Recently, there has arisen bipartisan interest in reform of the
laws that govern U.S. immigration policy, covering the core criteria used to grant
visas, specialized programs for agriculture and hi-tech industries, border security
and visa-tracking capabilities, temporary work programs, the future of
undocumented adults and children already present in the U.S., systems for
employer verification of work eligibility, and other dimensions. Inspection of the
breadth of the impacts of immigration reform suggests that it will have important
economic impacts. This represents an economic policy opportunity at the same time; indeed
the degree to which immigration policy is economic policy has been traditionally
underappreciated in the United States. In this way, immigration reform can be thought of as
another tool to address its growth and fiscal challenges. This short paper examines the linkages
between immigration reform, economic growth and budgetary performance. The mechanics of
reform and the research literature suggest that immigration reform can raise the overall pace of
population growth indeed, in the absence of immigration, low birth-rates mean that the U.S.
population will actually shrink. Because foreign-born individuals tend to have higher
rates of labor force participation, this translates into an even more rapid pace of
growth in the labor force. At historic rates of population growth, this immediately translates
into more rapid overall growth in Gross Domestic Product (GDP). There are, however, two
reasons for even further impacts. Immigrants have traditionally displayed an
entrepreneurial bent, with rates of small business ownership above that of the

native born population. New entrepreneurial vigor offers the potential for
productivity-enhancing innovations. In addition, to the extent that new innovation
is embodied in new capital and consumer goods, more rapid economic growth
per se means that more output will have these advances embedded within, and
productivity per worker will rise. Taken as a whole, these channels of impacts suggest that
any discussion of immigration reform that omits the benefits on economic performance is
incomplete. Similarly, there will be direct feedback from better economic growth to
more revenues, fewer federal outlays, and improved budgetary performance.
These links are fundamentally dynamic in the jargon of federal budgeting. They
stem from the fact that policy changes reshape the growth environment, and thus in turn
reshape the budget. Traditional static budget analyses will be similarly incomplete.
The remainder is organized as follows. I begin with a brief review of some key facts on U.S.
demography and immigration policy, followed by a review of the links between demography and
economic performance. In the next sections, I connect the dots and look at the impacts of
immigration reform on the economy and the budget. The final section is a summary. To
anticipate the results, in the absence of immigration reform the low levels of U.S. birth rates
indicate that the population and overall economy will decline. A benchmark immigration
reform would raise the pace of economic growth by nearly a percentage point over
the near term, raise GDP per capita by over $1,500 and reduce the cumulative
federal deficit by over $2.5 trillion.

ICE is the root cause of racial profiling among local police

Chanin et al. 11 (Robert Chanin writes with others at the Leadership Conference, a 501(c)(4)
organization that engages in legislative advocacy. It was founded in 1950 and has coordinated national
lobbying efforts on behalf of every major civil rights law since 1957.. "Restoring a National Consensus: The
Need to End Racial Profiling in America." The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. March
2011. www.civilrights.org/publications/reports/racial-profiling2011/racial_profiling2011.pdf)//lb

Unfortunately, these clear statements of intent have not guided the operation of the 287(g)
program. Combined with the 2002 OLC "inherent authority" opinion, the program has been
used by state and local law enforcement authorities to stop, detain, question, and
otherwise target individual Hispanics and entire Hispanic communities in a broad
way to enforce federal immigration laws , thus racially profiling vast numbers of
Hispanicsmost of whom are U.S. citizens or legal residentsas suspected
undocumented immigrants. In New Jersey, a wide-ranging study found that despite a 2007
directive issued by the state attorney general that limited police to questioning about
immigration status only those individuals arrested for indictable offenses or driving while
intoxicated, officers routinely ignored these limitations, stopping and questioning tens of
thousands of Hispanic motorists, pedestrians, passengers, and others who had
committed no crime. During the six-month period following issuance of the
directive, police referred 10,000 individuals who they believed were
undocumented to ICE. Some of those turned over to ICE were crime victims.
Others were jailed for days without charges . Many of those referred to ICE turned
out to be legal residents or U.S. citizens . Only 1,417 individuals were charged with
immigration offenses by the federal government. "The data suggest a disturbing trend
towards racial profiling by the New Jersey police," said Bassina Farenblum, a lawyer for the

Center for Social Justice at Seton Hall University Law School, which conducted the study.76 A
familiar and troubling pattern has emerged in some jurisdictions operating under
287(g) MOAs pursuant to which local police make traffic stops of Hispanic drivers
for minor infractions, if any, and then arrest the driver rather than issue the
customary citation. Once an arrest is made, a federal background check can be conducted to
determine if the driver is an undocumented immigrant.

ICE gives local police authority to discriminate- leads to civil unrest- only
abolishing state power solves
Lewis et. Al. 12 (Paul G. Lewis from Arizona State Univeristy, Doris Marie Provine from Arizona State
Univeristy, Monica W. Varsanyi from John Jay College, and Scott H. Decker from Arizona State Univeristy. Why Do
(Some) City Police Departments Enforce Federal Immigration Law? Political, Demographic, and Organizational
Influences on Local Choices. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. October 4, 2012.)//lb

Over the past decade or so, this arrangement began to change. Enabled by changes in
federal legislation and by rising popular pressure to do something about
unauthorized immigration, an increasing number of local governments authorized
or required their police departments to participate in the identification of
unauthorized immigrants and to cooperate with federal enforcement efforts led by the
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) division of the Department of Homeland
Security. As such, local governments now hold a limited legal ability to discriminate
against people on the basis of citizenship status and to take an active part in
ascertaining that status. Some localities, however, have taken the opposite approach,
discouraging or forbidding their police from inquiring about immigration status or collaborating
with ICE. Local decisions regarding immigration enforcement are sometimes met
with considerable controversy, including protests from both pro- and anti-immigrant
groups. States sometimes enter the fray, asserting their authority to make policies more
uniform. The passage in 2010 of Arizonas controversial SB 1070 law, for example, was the state
legislatures attempt to limit the discretion of municipalities in the state to determine their own
policies toward immigrants; legislators expressed frustration with cities that had
instructed officers not to ask about immigration status.

Local law enforcement capabilities are inherently racist rollout targeted

Hispanic communities
Cox and Miles 13 (Adam B. Cox-J.D., University of Michigan Law School, summa cum laude, 1999,
B.S.E, Princeton University, summa cum laude, 1996- and Thomas J. Miles -PhD from UChicago, JD
Suma Cum Laude from Harvard. Policing Immigration. The University of Chicago Law Review. Vol. 80,
No. 1 (Winter 2013) , pp. 87-136 http://www.jstor.org/stable/41825870)//lb

In all of these contexts, the benefits of centralizing discretion often come with hidden costs. As
Bernard Harcourt and others have noted in the criminal context, for example, these more
"rational" models of policing can often obscure the ways in which seemingly
neutral rules can in practice concentrate the burdens of law enforcement on
minority communities.92 Our findings about Secure Communities suggest that this
may be precisely what happened during the program's rollout. Early activation
under the program is highly correlated with the size of a county's Hispanic

population - a possibility that has been obscured by both the official justifications for Secure
Communities and the less-than-transparent "risk -based" model that DHS has said it used to set
activation priorities.93 The tight correlation under Secure Communities between
activation and ethnicity is obviously troubling. Nor can it be dismissed as an
artifact of the government's focus on the border or on areas containing large
pockets of noncitizens. Instead, as the detailed analysis in Part III demonstrated, the
correlation between activation and Hispanic population is extremely persistent: it
remains large and statistically significant even when we control for border
proximity and myriad other factors on which the government might have relied in
deciding where to target its limited enforcement resources.

Immigration enforcement encourages racism- only eliminating it can solve

local profiling
Lewis et. Al. 12 (Paul G. Lewis from Arizona State Univeristy, Doris Marie Provine from Arizona State
Univeristy, Monica W. Varsanyi from John Jay College, and Scott H. Decker from Arizona State Univeristy. Why Do
(Some) City Police Departments Enforce Federal Immigration Law? Political, Demographic, and Organizational
Influences on Local Choices. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. October 4, 2012.)//lb

The involvement of local police in immigration enforcement has potentially

significant ramifications, both for immigrants and for broader police-community relations.
Local immigration enforcement can put at risk relationships of trust that police
have sought to build with immigrant communities. Since the emergence of community
policing as a professional philosophy, police have sought to gain the trust and confidence of local
community members by emphasizing close communication and collaboration between police
and residents, an approach that has become the archetype for police work (Herbert 2006; Oliver
and Bartgis 1998; Skogan 2006). Enforcing civil immigration laws may also encourage
racial profiling (Romero and Serag 2005), particularly as immigration enforcement remains
linked to antiterrorism efforts (Johnson 2004). Even though many police departments
have developed policies that prohibit profiling, immigration enforcement may
encourage officers to focus on people who look Mexican or are heard to speak a
foreign language (see Gardner and Kohli 2009 for a pertinent case study).

states<federal
States only act under federal authority
Tidwell 14 (Natashia has a J.D. from New England Law in Boston. "FRAGMENTING THE
COMMUNITY: IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT AND THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES
OF LOCAL POLICE NON-COOPERATION POLICIES." St.John's Law Review 88.1 (2014): 10542. ProQuest. Web. 7 July 2015.)//lb
In the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA"), the most comprehensive piece of federal
immigration legislation to date,21 Congress granted local and state police arrest
authority for certain violations of immigration law, such as alien smuggling and
unlawful entry or reentry.22 Other INA provisions authorize local police to arrest
previously deported felons but only upon receipt of approval to act from federal
immigration authorities.23 Even in the absence of an express congressional grant of
authority, the federal government, through the Department of Justice ("DOJ"), has long
recognized and sanctioned the power of local police to detain, for limited periods, those
individuals suspected of violating criminal immigration laws.24 In a 1996 advisory opinion
issued by its Office of Legal Counsel ("OLC"), the DOJ expressed its support for the
states' willingness to assist in the federal immigration enforcement effort while
simultaneously affirming its belief that such matters should ideally be left in the
hands of federal law enforcement officials.25

4th amendment

ICE violates 4th amendment

Secure Communities Act promotes racial profiling in search of
undocumented citizens violates 4th amendment rights
Fischer 13 (Amelia Fischer from UT School of Law. "Secure Communities, Racial Profiling, &
Suppression Law in Removal Proceedings" Texas Hispanic Journal of Law and Policy. Spring
2013. 19 Tex. Hisp. J.L. & Pol'y 63. Lexis.)//lb
Of course, SComm has not been implemented that way. Despite the program's purpose of
"identifying and removing the most serious criminal offenders," 60% of the people SComm
has been responsible for deporting had no criminal history or had committed only
minor offenses, like a traffic violation. n14 The percentages in some jurisdictions are
higher. In Travis County, Texas, for example, 82% of those deported had a clean or
minimal criminal record. n15 The numbers suggest strongly that police are not
targeting criminals, but instead stopping and arresting people whom they suspect
are in violation of immigration laws based on the way they look . The fear (and
accusation, by many) is that, by giving police a role in immigration enforcement, SComm has
opened the door to widespread civil rights violations, such as racial profiling and
pretextual and wrongful arrests. n16 The fear is not unfounded. Many reputable sources
have echoed the concern. Dean Kevin R. Johnson from the University of California Davis School
of Law, an expert both in immigration law and racial profiling, has expressed that "besides
frightening immigrant communities from reporting crime and otherwise assisting
community law enforcement, state and local involvement in [immigration]
enforcement will worsen the existing problems with racial profiling in law
enforcement." n17 And the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) in a recent
report warned that "any contact with the police, no matter how trivial, can result in
immigration enforcement and removal. Police may initiate stops for the sole or
primary purpose of enforcing immigration laws, and may engage in racial
profiling or other abusive practices to accomplish this." n18 [*68] Additionally, several
studies have found compelling evidence to support the contention that SComm's
implementation in many cases violates people's basic civil rights, particularly the
right to not be judged by their race. The Berkeley Law School's Warren Institute recently
published an in-depth study on the matter, focusing on the ICE and law enforcement
partnership in Irving, Texas. n19 Among other things, the Institute found that after the
implementation of SComm and similar programs, arrests of Hispanics for petty
offenses and traffic violations skyrocketed by 150% and 223%, respectively. n20 The
authors concluded that there was "strong evidence to support claims that Irving police
engaged in racial profiling of Hispanics in order to filter them through" their
immigration screening systems. n21 Another study, conducted by AILA, took a sampling of
immigration cases from across the country, focusing on how the immigrant in each case had
gotten into removal proceedings. n22 The cases solidly suggested that SComm and similar
programs "encourage those police officers who would choose to engage in
questionable practices to do so." n23 Because many of the cases involved arrests based on
fabricated charges or people being stopped or questioned without cause and then held for ICE,
the study indicates that the "prime motivation for the stop may have been to assess the
person's immigration status," showing powerful evidence of racial profiling. n24

The report cites cases where, for example, "individuals were accused of rolling through a
stop sign at an intersection where no stop sign exists or driving while intoxicated
when testing showed a 0.0 blood/breath alcohol level." n25 In another case, a man
was arrested for burning leaves in his yard, something that was not even against
the law. n26 The potential for and evidence of state and local law enforcement officers' racebased actions in carrying out what they believe to be their SComm duties cannot be ignored and
should have serious bearing on the state of suppression law in removal proceedings. The
conversion of state and local law enforcement into quasi-immigration officials and the
different degrees of applicability of the exclusionary rule, depending on the forum where the
suppression is litigated, create troublesome ambiguities regarding the acceptability of
the use of race in traffic stops and the kinds of stops state and local law
enforcement are allowed to make. Those ambiguities allow police officers to
engage in race-based behavior that would be impermissible in any other context.
For example, in In re Quinteros the respondent brought a suppression claim in immigration
court challenging the lawfulness of a police officer's stop of his vehicle. n27 The stop at issue was
a [*69] quintessential SComm traffic stop, the kind analyzed at length by the AILA study
discussed above. Even though it was evident that the police officer had engaged in unlawful
race-based behavior, the immigration judge refused to even address the claim, stating that the
police officer's actions were unrelated to the immigration proceedings and thus irrelevant to the
respondent's case. n28 The involvement of state and local police in the immigration
enforcement arena along with the racial profiling opportunities created and
clearly capitalized upon present a real danger to the undocumented population . As
this paper will discuss, justifying in legally acceptable terms what is actually a race-based stop
for immigration enforcement purposes is not difficult, and the limited way in which the Fourth
Amendment applies in removal proceedings provides little hope for meaningful remedies. Taken
together, these phenomena create a world where immigration courts not only sanction but
encourage unlawful and reprehensible behavior by state and local law enforcement agencies in
their encounters with the immigrant community. This world is unacceptable and inconsistent
with our constitutional values, and it must be made right. Marshaling the complete protections
of the Fourth Amendment in immigration court is a good place to start.

ICE is unconstitutional and leads to racial profiling

Al-Khatib 14 (Alia Al-Khatib is a Senior Staff Member, American University Law Review,
Volume 64; J.D. Candidate 2015, American University Washington College of Law; B.A., 2008,
Vassar College. "Putting a Hold on ICE: Why Law Enforcement Should Refuse to Honor
Immigration Detainers" October 2014. American University Law Review. 64 Am. U.L. Rev.
109)//lb
The immigration detainer, also known as an ICE hold, is one tool used by ICE to facilitate the deportation of noncitizens with
criminal convictions. Immigration detainers are requests made by ICE to local law enforcement agencies to maintain custody of
noncitizens, who are already detained for state or local charges, for a forty-eight hour period beyond that required in their criminal
case.

The practice of enforcing immigration detainers has led to the mistaken

detention of U.S. citizens and the prolonged detention of noncitizens, including
those with minor, nonviolent criminal convictions. By issuing detainers without
sufficient probable cause, ICE violates the Fourth Amendment rights of both
noncitizens and U.S. citizens held under immigration detainers . Local law
enforcement agencies violate the Fourth Amendment rights of individuals subject to immigration

detainers when they enforce these detainers without probable cause. Local

law enforcement agencies also

violate due process rights of noncitizens when they prolong their detention under
immigration detainers beyond the permitted forty-eight hour period. Additionally,
enforcing immigration detainers presents serious policy concerns. First, it
diminishes immigrant communities' trust in law enforcement, a consequence that
threatens public safety. Second, it may trigger local law enforcement officers'
implicit racial biases such that they may target individuals for minor criminal
offenses based solely on the belief that they may be deportable noncitizens. Third,
enforcing detainers places an enormous financial cost on state and local law
enforcement because the federal government does not pay for their enforcement
according to the relevant regulation.

Human Rights

A2: Alt Causes to US Violations

Detention and racial profiling are the nadir of HR violations UN Council
Dakwar 5-15 (Jamil Dakwar, Director of the ACLU's Human Rights Program,
reporting for the Huffington Post, UN Issues Scathing Assessment of U.S. Human
Rights Record, 5-15-2015, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jamil-dakwar/un-issuesscathing-assess_b_7294792.html)
The UN Human Rights Council adopted a scathing report today, consisting of 348
recommendations that address myriad human rights violations in the United
States. The report came out as a part of a mechanism called the Universal Periodic Review
(UPR), which examines the human rights record of all UN member states. The council
questioned the United States on its record earlier this week. Although many of these
recommendations in the report are redundant or too general to offer tangible solutions to
the human rights situation in the U.S., they echo many of the concerns raised by U.S.
civil society groups like the ACLU, who attended the review and offered concrete
recommendations to reverse policies that are inconsistent with international human rights
principles. For example, the report adopted a recommendation made by Sweden to
"halt the detention of immigrant families and children, seek alternatives to
detention and end use of detention for reason of deterrence." The report also adopted several
recommendations calling on the Obama administration to independently investigate allegations of torture documented in the recent
Senate torture report and provide reparations to victims. Denmark, for instance, recommended that the United States "further
ensure that all victims of torture and ill-treatment -- whether still in US custody or not -- obtain redress and have an enforceable
right to fair and adequate compensation and as full rehabilitation as possible, including medical and psychological assistance."

In

addition, the report included many fitting recommendations to address police

brutality and excessive use of force as well as ending racial profiling against minorities
and immigrants. Mexico recommended that the U.S. "adopt measures at the
federal level to prevent and punish excessive use of force by law enforcement
officials against members of ethnic and racial minorities, including unarmed persons,
which disproportionately affect Afro American and undocumented migrants." Ireland, for its
part, directly touched on the broken trust between American law enforcement and
communities of color and recommended that the U.S. "continue to vigorously
investigate recent cases of alleged police-led human rights abuses against AfricanAmericans and seek to build improved relations and trust between U.S. law enforcement and all
communities around the U.S." While in some areas, like LGBT rights and freedom of speech, the
United States' human rights record fares far better than that of other parts of the world, in many
areas -- including national security, criminal justice, social and economic rights, and
immigration policy -- the U.S. has an abysmal record compared to other liberal democracies.
This report sends a strong message of no-confidence in the U.S. human rights record. It clearly
demonstrates that the United States has a long way to go to live up to its human rights
obligations and commitments. This will be the last major human rights review for the
Obama administration, and it offers a critical opportunity to shape the president's
human rights legacy, especially in the areas of racial justice, national security, and
immigrants' rights. The Obama administration has until September to respond to
the 348 recommendations. At that time, the administration will make a direct commitment
to the world by deciding which of the 348 will be accepted and implemented over the next four
years, and which will be rejected. While many of the recommendations fall outside the
constitutional powers of the executive branch -- such as treaty ratification and legislative actions
on the national, state, and local levels -- the Obama administration should use its executive

powers to their fullest extent to effectuate U.S. human rights obligations. The U.S. record for
implementing UN recommendations has thus far been very disappointing, but if
President Obama really cares about his human rights legacy, he should direct his
administration to adopt a plan of action with concrete benchmarks and effective
implementation mechanisms that will ensure that the U.S. indeed learns from its shortcomings
and genuinely seeks to create a more perfect union. The world will be watching.

A2: Solved Now

Little expectation to change HR
Provo 14 (Kelsey Lynn [J. D., Law, 2014, University of Oregon], Immigrants Without Rights:
Questioning the Role of International Human Rights Law in U.S. Detention and Deportation
Policies, Thesis for a Master of Arts degree, University of Oregons Theses and Dissertations
Library, http://hdl.handle.net/1794/18401, pg. 7-8, 2014)
2. International Human Rights Laws in Immigration Proceedings and the Role of International
Law in U.S. Immigration Policies
This thesis seeks to examine the role of international human rights law in U.S.
immigration policies and, specifically, its role in U.S. immigration, detention and
deportation policies. U.S. domestic immigration laws are complex and rigid, with
limited judicial discretion in immigration proceedings and limited due process
protections for immigrants. U.S. immigration policies prioritize detention,
deportation and militarization of the border as the main mechanisms to control and
regulate immigration. Because the U.S. immigration system is so rigid and the federal
government has relatively unfettered control over immigration law, much of the academic
legal literature (Kanstroom, GolashBoza, Acer and Goodman, Cook) looks outside
of domestic laws to international human rights law as the solution to the
incredible human rights abuses immigrants face in the United States. While the literature
is clear that the United States is violating international human rights laws in the way it detains
and deports immigrants, the United States federal government remains unwilling to
change its deportation system. The Obama administration continues to focus on
detention and deportation as the primary mechanisms for enforcing immigration laws
and the government continues to increase spending for further militarization of the border and
border enforcement. Even though the United States is violating its obligations under
international law, and even though the literature is clear that the U.S. government must
incorporate international human rights standards into its detention and deportation practices,
the U.S. has yet to do so, and it appears it will not do so in the future.

A2: Doesnt Solve

Realignment is best for human rights balances rights and policy
Gilman 14 (Denise [Clinical Professor of Law, University of Texas School of Law; J.D., Columbia Law School], REALIZING
LIBERTY: THE USE OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW TO REALIGN IMMIGRATION DETENTION IN THE UNITED
STATES, 36 Fordham Int'l L.J. 243, pg. 296-298, Feb 2014)

Given the extent to which the US immigration detention system as a whole is out of line with
international human rights standards, significant realignment is necessary to guarantee
the presumption against detention and adequate protection of liberty. Limits must be
imposed on the various components of immigration detention, as described in the following
sections, [*297] using the international human rights standards to interpret US
statutory and constitutional law. However, scaling back immigration detention to bring
the system in line with international standards does not mean that the United
States cannot exercise control over immigration. n230 The United States might most
effectively assert control over immigration by recreating the entire system to
legalize logical immigration flows, thus making harsh enforcement of outdated
laws, including through detention, much less necessary. n231 In any case, the United States may continue to engage in
immigration enforcement, so long as it does so with respect for human rights and without resorting to detention automatically.For
example, nothing in the international human rights standards prevents the initial apprehension of migrants believed to be
removable from the United States. n232 Currently, many removals each year take place shortly after such an arrest through
abbreviated proceedings or decisions to return voluntarily without a formal deportation order. n233 The United States could
continue to remove individuals in this way as a function of immigration control, and the arrests would be justified as necessary to
facilitate immediate deportation so long [*298] as due process and other human rights were protected .

n234 As an
alternative means of enforcement, the United States could also focus its resources
on accomplishing the removal of non-detained individuals who have already
received a final order of deportation rather than on detaining them pending a final
decision on deportability and immigration status. The government has largely ignored such a
strategy, but it could be effective. n235 The United States has instead become reliant on
detention as its principal means of immigration enforcement, and the conflation
of detention and immigration control has led to the current presumption of
detention that violates international human rights standards. n236 US immigration
law and practice must disentangle detention and enforcement and restore the use of detention
to its proper limited role.

ICE hurts HR cred

ICEs policies violate international human rights detention and lack of
due process of law
Gilman 14 (Denise [Clinical Professor of Law, University of Texas School of Law; J.D., Columbia Law School], REALIZING
LIBERTY: THE USE OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW TO REALIGN IMMIGRATION DETENTION IN THE UNITED
STATES, 36 Fordham Int'l L.J. 243, pg. 249-252, Feb 2014)

While many concerns exist regarding immigration detention conditions, including the harsh
prison-like environment at many facilities, inadequate health care and the remote placement of
facilities that impedes access to counsel and family visitation, n24 I do not consider those issues
in this Article. n25 Instead, the Article focuses on the fact and extent of [*250] migrant
detention, regardless of the conditions of the specific detention placement. The analysis does
treat all US immigration detention as "hard" detention, implicating the full
panoply of liberty concerns involved in civil detention. In other words, no adult
immigration detention facilities in the United States allow free movement out of
the facility or otherwise have conditions that call into question their classification as detention
facilities. n26 Nor does the Article explore the very real negative consequences of detention for
migrants, because the deprivation of liberty itself must be understood as having a
severe impact that demands justification, without a showing of further harm. If there
were any doubt, however, the harm caused by detention has been well-documented. Among
other impacts, studies show that detention leads to deterioration of the mental and
physical health of detained migrants as well as their families. n27 Additional studies
show that migrants in detention are much less likely to obtain counsel and are much more likely
to lose their immigration cases. n28 [*251] Finally, this Article focuses on those individuals who
are detained pending a decision as to whether they will be deported or will gain the ability to
remain in the United States. Most detained migrants with a final decision ordering
deportation, either through an abbreviated process or after full proceedings to adjudicate
immigration status, are removed quite quickly. They therefore remain in detention for a short period of time
pending execution of the deportation. n29 US law already imposes time limits and procedural requirements on the detention of such
migrants with a final removal order, although problems remain with the implementation of these rules. n30 The justification for
detention of migrants after issuance of a removal order is also more obvious, including under international human rights standards.
n31 The US government has already decided that these migrants must leave the United States, and only physical removal remains.
This group of detainees does not present the same considerations regarding the appropriateness of detention as those detainees with
a pending decision in their cases. With

these premises in mind, the Article first describes the current state
of immigration detention in the United States in Part I. Part II then traces the recent
unfolding of well-developed international human rights standards regarding
immigration detention and sets out the human rights law framework for
evaluating immigration detention. Part III proceeds to consider the relevance of the
international standards in analyzing US immigration detention. It first explores the binding
nature of the international human rights standards, at least as a question of international law.
Next, it compares the international human [*252] rights framework to US law on
civil detention in non-immigration contexts, concluding that the standards are almost fully in
line with one another. Given these similarities, as well as the importance of complying
with international obligations, I conclude in this Part that the United States should
realign the US immigration detention system so that it meets the international
standards. Specifically, I propose that courts should intervene, where necessary, to
protect liberty and due process by giving substance to the international standards through
the interpretation of US statutory and constitutional provisions. Part IV engages in a detailed
analysis of the US immigration detention system and its various components as measured

against international human rights standards. Significant incompatibilities with

international human rights law are identified, and this Part urges delimitation of
US law to resolve these incompatibilities and curb the excesses of immigration detention in the
United States.

Current U.S. immigration standards are viewed as human rights violations

Gilman 14 (Denise [Clinical Professor of Law, University of Texas School of Law; J.D., Columbia Law School], REALIZING
LIBERTY: THE USE OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW TO REALIGN IMMIGRATION DETENTION IN THE UNITED
STATES, 36 Fordham Int'l L.J. 243, pg. 246-249, Feb 2014)

The United States detained 429,000 migrants like BM and FH during 2011, the last year for
which definitive numbers are available. n13 These 429,000 detainees were held during proceedings to determine
whether they would be deported or allowed to remain in the United States and, in some cases, until physical deportation could
take place. n14 They were held in the custody of ICE, the federal entity within the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS")
charged with enforcing the immigration laws. n15 Detention of migrants has followed a significant and steady upward course
over the last two decades as detention has expanded and become the presumptive norm in immigration cases. n16 This trend has
proceeded largely unchecked despite efforts at reform by advocates concerned with the humanitarian and financial impact of such a
large-scale [*247] detention program that lacks cogent contours. n17 The trend currently shows no sign of reversal. n18

In the

meantime, human rights bodies have overcome their traditional reluctance to

adjudicate claims touching on central aspects of statehood and sovereignty and have
developed meaningful international human rights law standards for assessing
immigration detention practices. The newly-developed standards call into question many
aspects of the current immigration detention system that leads to the widespread detention of
asylum seekers and other migrants in the United States. n19 The international standards
provide a helpful legal framework for considering immigration detention in the
United States, particularly as they derive from binding international legal norms and have
much in common with US law regarding civil detention in contexts not as contentious as
immigration. n20 [*248] Human rights law analysis should therefore spur positive
changes to immigration detention in the United States that will bring rationality
back to our system and protect liberty. While immigration detention has ballooned in the United
States, the available scholarship includes few efforts to analyze the various components that interact to create
such a massive detention system. There is even less scholarship available analyzing the new international human
rights standards as applied to US immigration detention. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, some scholars
analyzed the detention framework that evolved after Congress adopted restrictive immigration measures in 1996
that increased detention. n21 However, that literature involved only a guess at what was to come and could not
address the current reality of detention expanded beyond any expectation. Nor could that scholarship incorporate
a human rights analysis, since the human rights standards developed with specificity only in recent years. Much
more recently,

scholars in the United States have begun to use human rights law to
consider immigration detention, but they have done so mainly by analyzing discrete
aspects of immigration detention in the United States. n22 Meanwhile, international
scholars have begun to evaluate immigration detention laws and policies from a human [*249]
rights perspective. n23 However, that work has not focused on the particularities of the US
immigration detention system. This Article represents a first effort, then, to synthesize and
present the recently-developed international human rights standards and apply those rules to
the US immigration detention system in a systematic manner. In so doing, the Article
demonstrates how the application of international human rights law standards
can bring rationality and humanity to US immigration detention by revitalizing the
right to liberty, which constitutes a core conception in both international human
rights law and US law. The Article does not suggest that immigration detention in the United
States should be abolished. It does urge realignment of US law in a way that would scale
back immigration detention in order to bring the detention system and its components

into line with international human rights norms and with the US tradition of liberty that
treats civil detention as an exceptional situation.

Enforcement abuses human rights - too many immigrants detained in the

squoBranche 11 (Afton Branche -Georgetown University B.S. in Foreign Service, Culture and Politics,
International Development. "The Cost of Failure: The Burden of Immigraton Enforcement in America's
Cities." Drum Major Institute for Public Policy. April 2011. http://uncoverthetruth.org/wpcontent/uploads/2011/04/DMI-Cost-of-Failure.pdf)//lb

ICE ACCESS programs funnel thousands of immigrants per year into a larger
immigration system that desperately needs to be reformed. According to expert observers,
human rights violations plague immigration detention, including inadequate
medical care, mistreatment and sexual abuse by guards.209 In 2009, the Obama
administration committed to major reforms in the interest of creating a more civil detention
system. Recent evaluations find there is much work to be done, in part because the sheer size
of the detention population impedes fast and effective reform. Moreover, immigrants
in detention or facing deportation often lack due process during the adjudication process.
Immigrants who cant afford lawyers dont have the right to representation, which
leaves 84 percent of detained immigrants facing complex proceedings without
legal counsel. 210 This can have serious consequences: if an individual is wrongly
flagged by Secure Communities and subsequently acquitted of a crime, he could be
deported because he isnt able to prove his legal status without the counsel of a
lawyer. Even immigrants who do have attorneys are detained in facilities hundreds of miles
from home, which complicates access to the legal guidance and resources needed to effectively
argue their cases. Finally, increasing numbers of immigrants detained as a result of
local immigration enforcement only adds to the staggering backlog in the nations
immigration court system. By the end of September 2010, there were 261,083
cases awaiting resolution before the immigration courts, an all-time high.211 A
report from the American Bar Association says that given its massive workload, the
immigration courts have too few judges and resources to consistently make fair,
well-researched decisions. This problem is compounded by basic inequities in
immigration law.212

XT Immigration Policy violates HR

Current U.S. immigration standards are viewed as human rights violations
Gilman 14 (Denise [Clinical Professor of Law, University of Texas School of Law; J.D., Columbia Law School], REALIZING
LIBERTY: THE USE OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW TO REALIGN IMMIGRATION DETENTION IN THE UNITED
STATES, 36 Fordham Int'l L.J. 243, pg. 246-249, Feb 2014)

The United States detained 429,000 migrants like BM and FH during 2011, the last year for
which definitive numbers are available. n13 These 429,000 detainees were held during proceedings to determine
whether they would be deported or allowed to remain in the United States and, in some cases, until physical deportation could
take place. n14 They were held in the custody of ICE, the federal entity within the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS")
charged with enforcing the immigration laws. n15 Detention of migrants has followed a significant and steady upward course
over the last two decades as detention has expanded and become the presumptive norm in immigration cases. n16 This trend has
proceeded largely unchecked despite efforts at reform by advocates concerned with the humanitarian and financial impact of such a
large-scale [*247] detention program that lacks cogent contours. n17 The trend currently shows no sign of reversal. n18

In the

meantime, human rights bodies have overcome their traditional reluctance to

adjudicate claims touching on central aspects of statehood and sovereignty and have
developed meaningful international human rights law standards for assessing
immigration detention practices. The newly-developed standards call into question many
aspects of the current immigration detention system that leads to the widespread detention of
asylum seekers and other migrants in the United States. n19 The international standards
provide a helpful legal framework for considering immigration detention in the
United States, particularly as they derive from binding international legal norms and have
much in common with US law regarding civil detention in contexts not as contentious as
immigration. n20 [*248] Human rights law analysis should therefore spur positive
changes to immigration detention in the United States that will bring rationality
back to our system and protect liberty. While immigration detention has ballooned in the United
States, the available scholarship includes few efforts to analyze the various components that interact to create
such a massive detention system. There is even less scholarship available analyzing the new international human
rights standards as applied to US immigration detention. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, some scholars
analyzed the detention framework that evolved after Congress adopted restrictive immigration measures in 1996
that increased detention. n21 However, that literature involved only a guess at what was to come and could not
address the current reality of detention expanded beyond any expectation. Nor could that scholarship incorporate
a human rights analysis, since the human rights standards developed with specificity only in recent years. Much
more recently,

scholars in the United States have begun to use human rights law to
consider immigration detention, but they have done so mainly by analyzing discrete
aspects of immigration detention in the United States. n22 Meanwhile, international
scholars have begun to evaluate immigration detention laws and policies from a human [*249]
rights perspective. n23 However, that work has not focused on the particularities of the US
immigration detention system. This Article represents a first effort, then, to synthesize and
present the recently-developed international human rights standards and apply those rules to
the US immigration detention system in a systematic manner. In so doing, the Article
demonstrates how the application of international human rights law standards
can bring rationality and humanity to US immigration detention by revitalizing the
right to liberty, which constitutes a core conception in both international human
rights law and US law. The Article does not suggest that immigration detention in the United
States should be abolished. It does urge realignment of US law in a way that would scale
back immigration detention in order to bring the detention system and its components
into line with international human rights norms and with the US tradition of liberty that
treats civil detention as an exceptional situation.

Detention must be a last resort the USs consistent practice violates

universal HR law
Gilman 14 (Denise [Clinical Professor of Law, University of Texas School of Law; J.D., Columbia Law School], REALIZING
LIBERTY: THE USE OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW TO REALIGN IMMIGRATION DETENTION IN THE UNITED
STATES, 36 Fordham Int'l L.J. 243, pg. 269-270, Feb 2014)

[*269] Human rights law further establishes the overarching principle that immigration
detention must be a last resort. The bodies of the universal and inter-American
human rights systems have established a presumption against detention for all
migrants in application of the right to liberty guaranteed in the respective human rights
treaties. In connection with its review of detention in the United States, the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights looked to the right to liberty and
explicitly established "the paramount principle" that detention during proceedings is an
"exceptional measure." n102 The Inter-American Commission expounded on this principle
establishing that: "member States must enact immigration laws and establish
immigration policies that are premised on a presumption of liberty--the right of
the immigrant to remain at liberty while his or her immigration proceedings are pending-and not on a presumption of detention." n103 Similarly, in analyzing the application of the right
to liberty to migrants, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and the UN Special
Rapporteurship on the Human Rights of Migrants have concluded that detention of migrants
must be a "last resort." n104 In interpreting states' treaty obligations to asylum seekers
and refugees, UNHCR has established this same "presumption against detention."
n105 The UNHCR Detention Guidelines establish that "detention of asylum-seekers should
normally be avoided" and should be a "measure of last resort, with liberty being the default
position." n106 International human rights law establishes the principle of detention
as a last resort as both a global rule for assessing the overall structure of a state's
detention system n107 and a decision-making rule for states to apply in individual
determinations. n108 [*270] So, a state may not rely systemically on detention as a
primary means of immigration control. At the same time, the presumption against
detention must be a touchstone for individual immigration detention determinations. n109 It
follows that a detention system will violate the principle that treats detention as a last resort if it
consistently fails to employ the presumption against detention in individual proceedings. n1102

Detention must be a last resort the USs consistent practice violates

universal HR law
Gilman 14 (Denise [Clinical Professor of Law, University of Texas School of Law; J.D., Columbia Law School], REALIZING
LIBERTY: THE USE OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW TO REALIGN IMMIGRATION DETENTION IN THE UNITED
STATES, 36 Fordham Int'l L.J. 243, pg. 269-270, Feb 2014)

[*269] Human rights law further establishes the overarching principle that immigration
detention must be a last resort. The bodies of the universal and inter-American
human rights systems have established a presumption against detention for all
migrants in application of the right to liberty guaranteed in the respective human rights
treaties. In connection with its review of detention in the United States, the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights looked to the right to liberty and
explicitly established "the paramount principle" that detention during proceedings is an
"exceptional measure." n102 The Inter-American Commission expounded on this principle
establishing that: "member States must enact immigration laws and establish
immigration policies that are premised on a presumption of liberty--the right of
the immigrant to remain at liberty while his or her immigration proceedings are pending--

and not on a presumption of detention." n103 Similarly, in analyzing the application of the right
to liberty to migrants, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and the UN Special
Rapporteurship on the Human Rights of Migrants have concluded that detention of migrants
must be a "last resort." n104 In interpreting states' treaty obligations to asylum seekers
and refugees, UNHCR has established this same "presumption against detention."
n105 The UNHCR Detention Guidelines establish that "detention of asylum-seekers should
normally be avoided" and should be a "measure of last resort, with liberty being the default
position." n106 International human rights law establishes the principle of detention
as a last resort as both a global rule for assessing the overall structure of a state's
detention system n107 and a decision-making rule for states to apply in individual
determinations. n108 [*270] So, a state may not rely systemically on detention as a
primary means of immigration control. At the same time, the presumption against
detention must be a touchstone for individual immigration detention determinations. n109 It
follows that a detention system will violate the principle that treats detention as a last resort if it
consistently fails to employ the presumption against detention in individual proceedings. n1102

Proportionality is key the USs elongated detention and separation of

families falls outside of HR standards
Gilman 14 (Denise [Clinical Professor of Law, University of Texas School of Law; J.D., Columbia Law School], REALIZING
LIBERTY: THE USE OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW TO REALIGN IMMIGRATION DETENTION IN THE UNITED
STATES, 36 Fordham Int'l L.J. 243, pg. 270-272, Feb 2014)

A final general rule of international human rights law holds that detention of
migrants in connection with immigration status determinations "should never
involve punitive purposes." n111 The human rights bodies have made clear that detention is
allowed solely as an administrative measure, during the process of determining immigration
status or incident to removal following a decision to deport. n112 Applying this principle,
the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has equated immigration
detention with "pre-trial" or "preventive" detention permitted only in nonpunitive circumstances. n113 Where a state deploys detention without adequate connection
to these limited administrative purposes, detention is punitive and impermissible under
international law. n114 [*271] As to asylum seekers, the Refugee Convention also precludes
punitive detention. n115 The Refugee Convention explicitly sets forth that States "shall
not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees."
n116 If there were any doubt about the reach of this treaty provision, n117 UNHCR has made
clear that its prohibition on punitive measures includes detention and applies
broadly to most asylum seekers. n118 The general principles just outlined underlie the concrete
framework for considering immigration detention, which requires that detention be reasonable,
necessary and proportional in order to comply with international human rights obligations.
Numerous decisions, resolutions and interpretations by international human rights bodies have
confirmed this trilogy of necessity, reasonableness and proportionality. The UN Special
Rapporteurship on the Human Rights of Migrants has established that detention
of migrants must be "necessary, reasonable and proportional to the objectives to be
achieved." n119 In the seminal immigration detention case of A v. Australia, the UN Human
Rights Committee also required a "proportionality" analysis for immigration
detention and held [*272] that immigration detention is arbitrary and thus violative
of the right to liberty protected in the ICCPR "if it is not necessary." n120 The InterAmerican Court reached an almost identical holding in Velez Loor v. Panama,
providing that a custodial measure would be arbitrary unless applied only when "necessary and

proportionate." n121 The Inter-American Commission has also concluded that "standards of
necessity and proportionality should be applied" to detention of migrants. n122 In the refugee
context, the UNHCR Detention Guidelines establish that states may resort to detention of
asylum seekers only if detention is "necessary," "reasonable in all the circumstances," and
"proportionate to a legitimate purpose." n123 A recent analysis of the current state of
international law on immigration detention commissioned by UNHCR notes the
importance of each of the requirements of reasonableness, necessity and
proportionality: "In assessing whether detention is necessary and reasonable in all
the circumstances, the standard of proportionality is applied." n124

The U.S.s immigration policy has failed to meet HR guidelines critics

from Human Rights Watch and US citizens
Huffington Post 14 (1/24/2014, Human Rights Watch Blasts U.S. Immigration
Abuses,' Again, The Huffington Post,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/24/human-rights-watchimmigration_n_4661308.html)
The failure of Congress and the White House to address the countrys immigration
problems drew fire from a prominent human rights watchdog this week -- again. Human
Rights Watch criticized the U.S. government in its World Report 2014, released
Tuesday, for what it called abuses related to the incarceration and deportation of
undocumented immigrants. The organization echoed similar faults it found with
U.S. immigration policy in world reports from past years. The authors criticize the U.S.
governments human rights record, calling it marred by abuses related to criminal
justice immigration, national security and drug policy. The report names immigrants
and ethnic minorities as among the most vulnerable members of U.S. society. The report also
notes that U.S. detention centers now hold approximately 400,000 undocumented immigrants
each year, with hundreds in solitary confinement. Many of those prosecuted have minor
or no criminal history and have substantial ties to the U.S. such as U.S. citizen
family members they were seeking to rejoin when arrested, the report says. The federal
government has portrayed these programs as focused on dangerous criminals, but
most immigrants deported through Secure Communities are non-criminal or
lower level offenders, the report says. These programs also exacerbate distrust of police in
immigrant communities. Despite polling reflecting consistent public support for
immigration reform with a pathway to citizenship, the U.S. Congress has yet to pass
legislation and the White House continues to deport undocumented immigrants at a recordsetting pace.

The USs bed quota system of immigration policy undermines human rights
Seattle Times 6-16 (Editoral, The Seattle Times, 6-16-2015, Stop detaining immigrants to fill
quotas in ICE facilities)
SCATHING watchdog report by the Detention Watch Network and the Center for Constitutional
Rights adds fuel to the growing criticism against exorbitant taxpayer funding for private prison
contractors. Detention of any civil prisoner should be based on the severity of the
alleged crimes, not on a bed quota that guarantees private prisons make a profit at the
expense of human rights of detainees. Congress should end the practice of guaranteeing

minimum profits for corporations that now operate many U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention facilities. The United States spends more than $2
billion a year to detain immigrants, and there are few signs that investment improves public
safety. The contracts between ICE and the private industry lack accountability or
transparency. We do know that Congress requires ICE to operate at least 34,000 daily
detention beds nationwide, and much of that work is farmed out to for-profit prison
corporations. These contractors are paid regardless of whether the bed minimum is met. Here in
Washington, the GEO Group runs the Northwest Detention Center in Tacoma and is guaranteed
a minimum of at least 1,181 beds. (ICE reports about 1,400 prisoners are currently detained
there.) Congress needs to get rid of this bed quota now and start exploring more
alternatives to incarceration that have proved to reduce costs and keep families
together. Remember: Many of these detainees pose no threat to society and have
committed civil violations, such as overstaying a visa. Federal elected officials also
should ban a tiered pricing system that allows the contractors to give ICE discounted pricing
when the number of detainees exceeds minimum guarantees. The report reveals troubling
examples of how this practice leads some federal officials to pressure their employees to fill the
beds. With a bed quota and discount pricing in place, theres no real incentive for ICE agents to
explore non-prison options like community monitoring that cost a fraction of the estimated
daily $164 price tag of locking up each detainee. Last month, The Seattle Times editorial board
pushed for Congress to support a bill to end unnecessary detentions. In Tacoma, reports of
human-rights abuses have lingered for months, leading to hunger strikes and
prison conflicts. The GEO Groups contract to run the center expired in April, but it has been
extended through June 30 as negotiations continue. The company insists it meets industry
standards, providing high quality services in safe, secure and humane environments, and
strongly refutes allegations to the contrary. Nonetheless, U.S. Rep. Adam Smith, DBellevue, recently wrote to ICE Director Sarah Saldaa imploring her to consider
alternatives to detention. Short of this, he appropriately encouraged her to
increase transparency in the negotiations with GEO Group and to set stricter standards that
ensure human rights are not being abused. Detainees should be more than a number to meet a
quota.

Unjust detention and deportation from US Meneses

Meneses 12 (Adriane [St. Mary's University School of Law, J. D. Candidate, May 2012],
COMMENT: THE DEPORTATION OF LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENTS FOR OLD AND
MINOR CRIMES: RESTORING JUDICIAL REVIEW, ENDING RETROACTIVITY, AND
RECOGNIZING DEPORTATION AS PUNISHMENT, 14 Scholar St. Mary L. R. on Minority
Issues 767, Symposium 2012, pg. 770-773)
The law governing the effect of criminal activity on aliens is a hodge-podge of legislation and reinterpretations spanning over a century. Legislation is found in sources ranging from major
immigration reform initiatives n7 to laws aimed at creating a "drug-free America." n8 All noncitizens in the United States are subject to removal and the consequences of immigration [*771]
law. n9 The phrase "non-citizens" describes a broad category of people - ranging from lawful
permanent residents, including veterans of our armed forces and children adopted from abroad,
to those who have entered without inspection and remain "undocumented." n10 Surprisingly,
the immigration consequences for criminal conduct committed by lawful
permanent residents or "Green Card holders" are often more severe than the

consequences for aliens who entered illegally and remain unlawfully present; this
effectively penalizes aliens lawfully admitted to the United States more harshly than those who
entered without inspection. n11 Certain activity can also create grounds for denying
admission to aliens seeking to enter the United States legally, even without conclusive
proof or a conviction, and even for activity committed when the alien was a child. n12 More
troubling, existing laws hinge the "loss of both property and life, or of all that
makes life worth living" n13 on terms that have no definition, n14 assigns counterintuitive meanings to others, and create new grounds of [*772] removal based on conduct
committed more than a half century ago. n15 There is no statute of limitations governing
when removal proceedings must be initiated, and often proceedings are not
brought until many years after the incident triggering them is committed. n16
Unfortunately, courts find that these delays in proceedings do not to give rise to estoppel
arguments, n17 except where the actions of the government constitute affirmative misconduct
that prejudiced the alien. n18 Trial judges adjudicating criminal matters have been divested of a
long-standing discretionary power to make recommendations against deportation of non-citizen
defendants. n19 The result has been an explosion in the number of aliens facing
deportation in removal hearings, with a current estimated backlog of nearly 300,000 cases
to be handled by only 272 immigration judges n20 --a task one immigration judge likened to
"holding death penalty cases in traffic court." n21 In addition to the increased workload for
immigration proceedings, Kumar Kibble, Deputy Director, Immigration and Customs [*773]
Enforcement stated that: "It costs approximately $ 12,500 to arrest, detain, and remove an
individual from the United States." n22

Status quo detention fails to enforce immigration laws only deprives

persons of human rights
Gilman 14 (Denise [Clinical Professor of Law, University of Texas School of Law; J.D., Columbia Law School], REALIZING
LIBERTY: THE USE OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW TO REALIGN IMMIGRATION DETENTION IN THE UNITED
STATES, 36 Fordham Int'l L.J. 243, pg. 299-300, Feb 2014)

[*299] As noted, the government need not rely on expansive detention to enforce
immigration laws. n237 Conversely, presumptive use of detention does not
necessarily further enforcement goals. The US immigration system foresees the
possibility that, after an initial arrest, some migrants will undergo contested
immigration proceedings where they may assert challenges to the government's allegations
of deportability or otherwise seek authorization to remain in the United States. n238 The
opportunities to raise claims to avoid deportation reflect the rights due to
migrants and policy decisions about which migrants should hold lawful immigration status in
the United States. n239 The detention regime must reflect this reality that not all
migrants placed in removal proceedings will merit expulsion from this country.
There can be no presumption, then, that detention during immigration
proceedings is justified as a means of achieving deportation in enforcement of the
immigration laws. n240 To comply with international human rights standards, the
detention system must instead require that the government justify ongoing
detention after arrest in connection with immigration proceedings. n241 The
government must do so based [*300] on individualized determinations, with
adequate review, regarding the existence of a flight risk or danger to the community. The
government must also consider all possible alternatives to detention that might address such
risks. n242

International human rights conventions created provisions for

immigration liberty, due process, and refugee status
Gilman 14 (Denise [Clinical Professor of Law, University of Texas School of Law; J.D., Columbia Law School], REALIZING
LIBERTY: THE USE OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW TO REALIGN IMMIGRATION DETENTION IN THE UNITED
STATES, 36 Fordham Int'l L.J. 243, pg. 266-267, Feb 2014)

1. Rights that Form the Basis of the International Human Rights Standards
The international human rights standards relating to immigration detention rely
on bedrock rights guaranteed in international human rights instruments. The
human right to liberty is a principal source of law. The right to liberty and freedom
from "arbitrary" detention is set forth in the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights (the "ICCPR") n86 as well as in the American Convention on
Human Rights (the "American Convention"), n87 which further develops the right as
originally set out in the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man ("the American
Declaration"). n88 The right to due process protected in the ICCPR, the American
Convention and the American Declaration, also serves as a vital source of law for
international standards on immigration detention. Each treaty establishes that no
individual shall be deprived of physical liberty except as established by law; additionally each of
the treaties includes a separate provision guaranteeing due process in legal proceedings. n89
[*267] As to refugees and asylum seekers, the limitations on immigration
detention derive from the same human right to liberty guaranteed to all migrants
but also from specific provisions in the refugee treaties. n90 These treaty provisions prohibit
punishment of or undue restrictions on the rights of those seeking protection. n91 The United
Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (the "Refugee Convention")
n92 provides that states "shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal
entry or presence, on refugees who enter or are present in their territory without
authorization." n93 The treaty further provides that states may not apply "restrictions other
than those which are necessary" to irregular migrants claiming refugee status. n94

International HR law is the best way to guide USfg action credibility and
constitutional frameworks
Gilman 14 (Denise [Clinical Professor of Law, University of Texas School of Law; J.D., Columbia Law School], REALIZING
LIBERTY: THE USE OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW TO REALIGN IMMIGRATION DETENTION IN THE UNITED
STATES, 36 Fordham Int'l L.J. 243, pg. 287-290, Feb 2014)

C. The Use of the International Human Rights Standards to Interpret US Law

International human rights law standards should therefore be used in the United
States to ensure adequate protection of the right to liberty and due process in the
immigration detention context. This Article urges a moderate route by which the courts would
use the international standards to inform their interpretations of the US Constitution and the
relevant US statutes regulating immigration detention. This proposal acknowledges that not all
of the international human rights standards are fully binding and judicially enforceable as a
matter [*288] of US law, even where they do constitute international obligations. n190
However, as noted above, the potential problems with direct applicability, under
US law, do not affect the international obligations of the United States in

connection with the human rights standards set out in Part II. n191 As such, the
proposal maintains that it is feasible and desirable for courts to interpret US law
in a manner that allows compliance with those obligations. n192 This approach
responds to the suggestion by scholars that US courts are most likely to use
international law, and are on the most stable ground in doing so, when international law
informs their interpretations of statutes and the Constitution rather than serving as a direct
source of US law. n193 The proposal finds specific support in the work of international law
scholars who have suggested that US courts should reference international law in circumstances
such as those presented in the immigration detention context, where [*289] international
human rights standards bind the United States and do not run counter to basic principles of US
law. n194 The use of international human rights standards relating to immigration
detention fits particularly well with the framework proposed by Sarah Cleveland, which
outlines principles for the application of international law in constitutional interpretation. n195
Two central criteria identified by Cleveland for the use of international law in US
courts inquire about: 1. the level of US acceptance of the international law norms;
and 2. the degree of receptivity in the US Constitution to the norms. n196 The
principle giving weight to the degree of US acceptance of the international rule
argues in favor of the applicability of the international standards here. n197 As
discussed above, the human rights standards constitute "'US international law
obligations'" which are '"binding on the United States.'" n198 The constitutional
receptiveness principle is met as well, because the international standards do not
"depart from the established constitutional rule." n199 Rather they match the
"historical interpretation" given to the rights of liberty and due process found in the US
constitution. n200 US courts have even [*290] acknowledged the benefits of interpreting US
law in light of the applicable international norms on immigration. n201

The US is under obligation to its HR treaties and organizations own

acceptance
Gilman 14 (Denise [Clinical Professor of Law, University of Texas School of Law; J.D., Columbia Law School], REALIZING
LIBERTY: THE USE OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW TO REALIGN IMMIGRATION DETENTION IN THE UNITED
STATES, 36 Fordham Int'l L.J. 243, pg. 280-283, Feb 2014)

A. US Obligations Under International Human Rights Law

It is appropriate for the US courts to apply international human rights law standards in
interpreting statutes and constitutional guarantees to ensure that the United States does not fail
to uphold international obligations that it has assumed. n155 Regardless of their direct domestic
effect, the [*281] United States is bound by the treaties that underlie the
international human rights standards relating to immigration detention and thus
has an international obligation to comply with those standards. n156 The United States
became bound by the Refugee Convention through accession in 1968 to the
Refugee Protocol. n157 The United States has recognized its legal obligations under the
Refugee Convention and has adopted legislation to codify the Convention in US law in order to
ensure compliance with its terms. n158 The ICCPR also creates legal obligations for the
United States, as a treaty duly ratified by the United States in 1992. n159 The United
States did not limit its legal obligations under the ICCPR in the context of immigration
detention by entering any relevant reservations, understandings or declarations to the relevant
provisions, in articles 9 and 14 of the ICCPR, relating to the right to liberty and due process.

n160 While the United States Senate declared the ICCPR non-self-executing at the
time of ratification, n161 that fact does not dilute the international obligations
imposed. n162 While direct domestic judicial enforcement of the ICCPR may not be possible
without domestic implementing legislation, the international legal [*282] obligation to
comply with the treaty remains binding on the United States. n163 Through its
membership in the OAS and ratification of the legally binding OAS Charter, the United
States accepted binding obligations to protect the human rights set forth in the
American Declaration. n164 While the United States questions the exact nature of its
obligations, which are well-established as a matter of international law, the government
acknowledges that the American Declaration does serve as a source of obligation.
n165 The US government has accepted the applicability of the American Declaration as a source
for reviewing its actions in matters brought before the bodies of the inter-American human
rights system. n166 The United States has also explicitly undertaken [*283] a
"political commitment to uphold the American Convention" and has agreed that
violations of the American Declaration constitute a failure to fulfill that obligation. n167

International human rights law have greater power than immigration law
comes first
Gilman 14 (Denise [Clinical Professor of Law, University of Texas School of Law; J.D., Columbia Law School], REALIZING
LIBERTY: THE USE OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW TO REALIGN IMMIGRATION DETENTION IN THE UNITED
STATES, 36 Fordham Int'l L.J. 243, pg. 267-268, Feb 2014)

Based on these core rights, international human rights law establishes general
principles on immigration detention. These principles impose human rights
limitations on government authority to control immigration, require that immigration
detention be used as a last resort, and mandate the non-punitive nature of
immigration detention. In turn, these general principles lead to a framework requiring that
immigration detention be reasonable, necessary, and proportional in order to comply with
international human rights obligations. Thus, international human rights law standards
on immigration detention start from the premise that governments may control
immigration and may expel or exclude non- [*268] citizens. n95 However, this
ability to control migration is limited by the requirement that, even in carrying out
immigration control, states must abide by international human rights norms and
refugee law protections. n96 The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has held
succinctly that "States may establish mechanisms to control the entry into and
departure from their territory of individuals who are not nationals, as long as they
are compatible with the norms of human rights protection." n97 Further developing
this rule of law, the court has noted that, "international law has placed certain limits on the
application of migratory policies that must always be applied . . . whatever the legal situation of
the migrant may be." n98

US detention standards go against international human rights standards

Gilman 14 (Denise [Clinical Professor of Law, University of Texas School of Law; J.D., Columbia Law School], REALIZING
LIBERTY: THE USE OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW TO REALIGN IMMIGRATION DETENTION IN THE UNITED
STATES, 36 Fordham Int'l L.J. 243, pg. 294-295, Feb 2014)

IV. INCOMPATIBILITIES BETWEEN THE IMMIGRATION DETENTION REGIME IN THE

UNITED STATES AND THE INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS STANDARDS

Having established the relevance and role of the international human rights standards, it is now
necessary to measure the US immigration detention system against those standards. Detention
in the United States takes place pursuant to pre-established law and so meets that
basic requirement of international human rights law. Unfortunately, the overall detention
system in the United States, as well as specific components of that system, conflict
with multiple other international standards. The system thus fails to adequately
protect liberty and due process. This Part will first address systemic violations
created by the approach of the US detention system as a whole. It will then consider
the main categories of detention n223 that deprive migrants of liberty pending a
decision in their immigration cases by the US immigration courts: 1. detention of
individuals in limited or abbreviated proceedings known as expedited removal and
reinstatement of removal; 2. detention of "arriving aliens" who are placed into
immigration proceedings upon arrival at a port of entry into the United States; 3.
mandatory detention of individuals suspected of [*295] criminal activity or
involvement in terrorism; and 4. discretionary detention of all other individuals
undergoing immigration proceedings. n224

Bed Quota
Local surveillance contributes to bed-filling quota aff is key
Shah 13 (Silky Shah- Detention Watch Network, Grassroots Leadership Previous WBAI Radio - Asia
Pacific Forum, Democracy Now! Productions, Grassroots Leadership, Bachelors from University of Texas
at Austin. Immigration reform could still leave thousands in detention MSNBC. Oct. 25, 2013.
http://www.immigrantjustice.org/sites/immigrantjustice.org/files/MediaCoverage_DetentionBedManda
te_2015_06_01.pdf)//lb

In just a few weeks, President Obamas administration will hit the two-million mark in
deportations. During his time in office, weve also seen a massive expansion of the number of
people detained in immigration jails, to more than 400,000 a year. The impact of this increased
enforcement has fueled the drive towards comprehensive immigration reform, which the
president said Thursday he expects the House to take up again after considerable movement in
the Senate last summer. Unfortunately, for the detention system, immigration reform wont
mean much. Currently, the detention system is run on a quota that requires at least
34,000 immigrants be detained daily. This quota mandated by the Congressional
Appropriations committee each year will mean that even if immigration reform results in
relief for some of the 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the U.S., many
will still be targeted to fill immigration jail beds. When people are detained they
are taken from their families and communities. Local economies are impacted and
families often lose their chief breadwinner. When someone isnt there to support
children of those detained, they are often shipped off to the foster care system.
Policies like the detention bed quota effectively force immigration and local police to
find people that are deportable in order to make sure beds are filled . With a
network of more than 250 jails and detention centers operated by federal, state,
and local government , as well as by private industry, the system exacts a grim toll
on immigrant communities (emotional, physical and financial) at the taxpayers
expense, (more than $2 billion was spent on immigration detention in fiscal year
2012). Immigrants in detention are often denied basic needs, such as adequate
food and hygiene, and access to fresh air and sunlight and many are subjected to
solitary confinement . To exacerbate the issue, immigrants in detention have no access to
counsel, meaning that more than 80% end up representing themselves in immigration
court. During the shutdown, this was even more intensified due the furloughing of legal
orientation programs that educate immigrants about their legal options. Beyond that, the
everexpanding immigration case backlog was most likely affected with several courts closed
during the shutdown. The repercussions of the shutdown are still unclear, but there is no doubt
that immigrants in detention were affected. Not surprisingly, detaining immigrants has become
good business. Prison corporations lobby heavily to secure these government contracts to
increase their profits in a billion-dollar industry, while county jails benefit by using money
earned from detaining immigrants to fill gaps in their shrinking budgets. Of the 34,000
detention beds, 50% are operated by private prison companies, such as Corrections Corporation
of America (CCA) and the GEO Group.

ICE requires local law enforcement to detain a minimum number of

undocumented immigrants leads to deportation of citizens
Miroff 13 (Nick Miroff is a Latin America correspondent for The Washington Post, roaming from the U.S.-Mexico
borderlands to the southern cone of South America. He has been a staff writer since 2006. Miroff has a master's
degree from the UC Berkeley School of Journalism and studied Spanish and Latin American literature at UC Santa
Cruz. He grew up in Albany, New York.. "Controversial Quota Drives Immigration Detention Boom." The Washington
Post. October 13, 2013. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/controversial-quota-drives-immigration-detentionboom/2013/10/13/09bb689e-214c-11e3-ad1a-1a919f2ed890_story.html)//lb

KARNES CITY, Tex. In the past five years, Homeland Security officials have jailed
record numbers of immigrants, driven by a little-known congressional directive
known on Capitol Hill as the bed mandate. The policy requires U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to keep an average of 34,000 detainees per day in its
custody, a quota that has steadily risen since it was established in 2006 by
conservative lawmakers who insisted that the agency wasnt doing enough to deport unlawful
immigrants. But as illegal crossings from Mexico have fallen to near their lowest
levels since the early 1970s, ICE has been meeting Congresss immigration
detention goals by reaching deeper into the criminal justice system to vacuum up
foreign-born, legal U.S. residents convicted of any crimes that could render them
eligible for deportation. The agency also has greatly expanded the number of
undocumented immigrants it takes into custody after traffic stops by local police.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials say that they are not needlessly jailing
immigrants to meet a quota and that they find plenty of candidates for detention and
deportation by targeting criminals who pose a threat to public safety and border security. But
critics of the mandate note that the majority of ICE detainees are not violent offenders .
Immigration judges eventually allow many to remain in the United States, but the
detainees may spend months in costly federal custody, even when far cheaper
alternatives are available, such as ankle bracelets and other forms of electronic
monitoring. With federal spending on immigration detention and deportation reaching $2.8
billion a year, more than doubling since 2006, the mandate has met growing skepticism from
budget hawks in both parties, particularly after DHS officials told Congress during the
sequestration debate in April that the agency could save money by lowering the bed mandate
to 31,800 and relying on cheaper alternatives to jails. But House Republicans successfully
pushed back, set the mandate at 34,000 detainees and ordered ICE officials to spend nearly
$400 million more than they requested.

Detention Center bed quotas cause human rights violations

Planas 15 (Roque Planas is a Huffington Post Editor with a Masters from NYU. "Bed Quota
Fuels 'Inhumane' And 'Unnecessary' Immigrant Detention: Report" Huffington Post. 4.15.15.
www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/15/private-prison-immigrantdetention_n_7072902.html)//lb
The private prison industrys growing role in immigrant detention is due in part to
Congress' requiring the federal government to maintain some 34,000 detention
beds, according to a report released Wednesday. The report, drafted by Grassroots Leadership,
a nonprofit based in Austin, Texas, calls on Congress to eliminate the immigrant detention
quota from its 2016 appropriations request. The detention bed mandate was first inserted into
the Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2010. Today, private companies control

about 62 percent of the immigrant detention beds used by Immigration and

Customs Enforcement, according to the report. That's up from 49 percent in 2009. The rest
of the beds are operated by the federal government. Of the 10 largest immigrant
detention centers in the country, nine are operated by private companies. We simply detain too
many people, and the federal mandate certainly drives a lot of that, Rep. Adam Smith (DWash.) said Wednesday on a call with reporters organized by Grassroots Leadership. Frankly, I
think if you eliminate the bed mandate, thats the first step toward eliminating privatization,
because thats a huge thing thats driving their profits. The two largest private prison
companies involved in detention -- Corrections Corporation of America and the GEO Group -have lobbied Congress in order to push up the number of required immigrant detention beds,
according to the study. CCA and the GEO Group together took in nearly half a billion dollars
from immigrant detention services in 2014 alone, according to Grassroots. CCA did not
immediately respond to a request for comment. Pablo Paez, a spokesman for the GEO Group,
denied that the company plays a role in promoting immigrant detention. "As a matter of
long-standing policy, GEO's governmental advocacy focuses on promoting the
benefits of public-private partnerships and does not encompass immigration
policies, which are set exclusively by the federal government," Paez told The
Huffington Post in an email. But the Grassroots report, citing lobbying disclosure forms, says
that both companies have lobbied Congress on immigration issues. Between 2008 and 2014,
CCA directly lobbied members of the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations
Subcommittee, which set the bed quota, according to the report. Both CCA and the GEO Group
have acknowledged in filings to the Securities and Exchange Commission that immigration
reform or other efforts to liberalize the immigrant detention system would undermine the
companies' business, the report says. Both companies received contracts to operate family
detention centers in Texas following the child migrant crisis last year. CCA runs the newly
constructed, 2,400-bed family detention center at Dilley, while the GEO Group operates a 530bed family detention center in Karnes City. Mothers detained at the Karnes City facility
have launched hunger strikes twice this month to protest their continued
detention while they apply for asylum. Marichuy Leal, a transgender woman who
was released from a CCA-run detention facility in Eloy, Arizona, this year,
described her detention as a traumatic experience. I got tortured in Mexico, Leal
said on Wednesday's call. She said she came to the United States seeking asylum, but my
torture kept going in the detention center . Theres no safety in the detention
center where I got detained. I was abused by my cellmate, abused by the security
guards. Bethany Carson, a co-author of the study who spoke on the call, said the detention
bed quota is inhumane and unnecessary . The Grassroots report urges policymakers
to reduce the number of required detention beds through community-based alternatives to
detention. The report does not describe those alternatives in detail, but Grassroots has in the
past endorsed programs in which immigration authorities partner with non-governmental
organizations to ensure that released migrants comply with court proceedings and find access to
community services. The only beneficiaries from the detention quota are for-profit
corporations that benefit from human pain, Carson told reporters.

LGBT Rights
Trans women are uniquely abused in detention centers
Senzee, 5/25/15, [award-winning Southern California journalist, political columnist at 429
Magazine.] (Thom, "Women Are Still Locked in Immigration Detention Cells with Men just
Because They're Trans", www.advocate.com/world/2015/05/25/women-are-still-lockedimmigration-detention-cells-men-just-because-theyre-trans)//lb

But unlike an estimated 80 percent of migrant women entering the U.S. through its border with Mexico, the now-23-year-old
trans woman says she was not raped on her journey to the "Land of the Free." The

rape didn't happen until she found

herself locked in a cell with a mentally disturbed man, in a privately operated prison under
contract with the Department of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement
agency. She was awaiting a decision on her request for asylum when she was attacked. "Transgender women are not
safe in detention because they put us in with the men," Gamino told The Advocate during a recent phone
interview from her residence in Phoenix. "We don't know when something's going to happen. There are
detainees locked up for long periods, sometimes in isolation . People go crazy. That cellmate I had was not all
there. He would always talk sexually to me. I told the guards and they did nothing. ... The guard saw him [exposing himself] to me,
and they did nothing." In fact, says Gamino, some guards even facilitated the alleged abuse she experienced in ICE custody. "There
was a unit manager ... who treated detainees so bad that he lost control of the unit and [prison administrators] had to kick him out,
because people would scream the minute he walked onto the unit," she said. Gamino was released from the privately run lock-up in
January, but only on bail, and only after an aggressive lobbying campaign by a coalition of groups to raise funds and awareness
about the abuse Gamino allegedy suffered. Gamino now counts herself a member of the advocacy groups that pushed for her
freedom, working to eliminate private prisons and detention facilities in the U.S. The

alleged assault took place last

August, while Gamino was held in a privately run men's detention facility in Eloy, Ariz. When
she informed facility officials of the rape, Gamino says she was coerced into signing a statement
claiming the sexual assault was "consensual. " According to Phoenix TV station KSAZ, the Eloy Police Department is
investigating the alleged rape. Prison officials refused to comment; however, ICE officials confirmed that there was an incident that
included an initial allegation from Gamino of rape at the hands of her former cellmate. "U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
is firmly committed to providing for the safety and welfare of all those in its custody," said an ICE spokesperson in a statement
provided to The Advocate. "ICE has a strict zero tolerance policy for any kind of abusive or inappropriate behavior in its facilities and
takes any allegations of such mistreatment very seriously." But Gamino

says she had previously informed officials

that her alleged assailant made derogatory remarks and threatened her with rape before the
assault. She further contends those officials took no action to prevent the alleged attack. After
reporting the attack, Gamino was placed in solitary confinement for "protection," according to officials though advocates called

the
thought of going back to Mexico is even more frightening. "Transgender women and other
immigrants who are running away from abuse in other countries come asking for asylum, and
then they put us in custody where the abuse continues," Gamino said. "It's the same situation.
I'll get killed if they make me go back home, to the town where I was in Mexico. And I'll be
tortured in a men's facility if ICE takes me into custody again ."
the move "punishment" for speaking out about her treatment. Gamino (pictured right) says her time at Eloy was torturous. But

*Impacts

Dehumanization
US immigration law is based off of discrimination, killing human rights and
dismissing other crimes trafficking and domestic violence
Inman and Tummala-Narra 14 (Arpana G. [Ph.D. in Counseling Psychology, Temple
University; Professor and Chair, Department of Education & Human Services, Lehigh
University] and Pratyausha [Ph.D. in Clincal Psychology, Michigan State University; Associate
Professor: Counseling, Developmental, and Educational Psychology Department], Immigration
and Human Rights, The Handbook of Race-ethnicity and Gender in Psychology, pg. 91-92,
Jan. 11 2014, http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4614-8860-6_5#page-1)
While positive attitudes towards immigration have evolved out of a desire to build the US
economy, negative attitudes have been based in the notion that immigration is a
threat to national security. For example, in recent years, xenophobia toward Muslim
and Latino/a immigrants has been rising (American Psychological Association, 2012 ;
Chavez, 2008 ; Sirin & Fine, 2008 ). Subgroups of immigrants, such as women and LGBT
immigrants face multiple forms of oppression, including sexism, racism, and 5 Immigration and
Human Rights 92 homophobia. Recent restrictions post 9/11 as well as legislations in
the state of Arizona, focused on eliminating illegal immigration, through police
detention of anyone suspected as a terrorist or undocumented, represents an ethos of
intolerance in contemporary American society. Such laws are particularly challenging for
women immigrants who are more vulnerable to interpersonal and political violence (e.g., rape,
assault, separation from children) (Comas-Diaz, 2010 ; Tummala- Narra, 2013 ). Xenophobic
attitudes have come at the expense of not addressing issues such as human
trafficking, domestic violence, promoting the ability to detain, harass, and/or
discriminate anyone suspected of being an illegal immigrant by virtue of their looks,
regardless of their status that impacts basic human rights and equal treatment
under the law. In particular, such gender- related persecutions and discrimination has
significant impact on immigrant/refugee womens experiences through increased risk of
poverty, violence, ill health, a poor education, and lack of access to health care. These issues
highlight the need to examine how structural, systemic, and sociopolitical conditions intersect in
their influence and impact the migrant experience.

Failure to reform immigration dehumanizes non-citizens experiences in

and out of the US
Inman and Tummala-Narra 14 (Arpana G. [Ph.D. in Counseling Psychology, Temple
University; Professor and Chair, Department of Education & Human Services, Lehigh
University] and Pratyausha [Ph.D. in Clincal Psychology, Michigan State University; Associate
Professor: Counseling, Developmental, and Educational Psychology Department], Immigration
and Human Rights, The Handbook of Race-ethnicity and Gender in Psychology, pg. 92, Jan. 11
2014, http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4614-8860-6_5#page-1)
Structural and Systemic Impacts on the Immigrant Experience
The social context within which migration occurs is largely influenced by not only proximal
contexts such as family relations but also distal contexts composed of socially constructed
structures (e.g., gender, racial/ethnic backgrounds) and laws and policies (Brabeck & Xu,
2010 ). Immigrants thus experience multiple jeopardies emanating from being
migrants, separating from familial supports, and occupying a transnational space as a

function of their gender and race. Further, many women and girls who are forced to flee
their countries of origin face gender-specific forms of persecution, namely rape,
sexual violence, forced sterilization, genital mutilation, domestic violence,
indentured slavery, forced marriage, and prostitution. Upon arrival in the United
States, they frequently face harsh detention conditions, sexual and verbal abuse,
limited access to counsel, and poor health care. Despite the feminization of migration,
immigration policies tend to ignore the unique and distinct experiences that men and
in particular women have in their migratory experience. In this section we will highlight
specific vulnerabilities that are created and enhanced through the systemic impact of genderneutral immigration policies.

Basic human rights are eradicated in the process of deportationshackles

and deprivation of necessities paint migrants into brutalized animals
Inda et. al 13 Chair and Associate Professor of Latina/Latino Studies, Ph.D. in Anthropology
from the University of California, Berkeley in 1997. His research areas include the politics of
immigration, governmentality and life politics, the critical study of race and medicine, the
anthropology of globalization, and Latino populations in the United States. Dr. Inda is currently
Associate Professor of Latina/Latino Studies and Criticism and Interpretive Theory. (Jonathan
Xavier Inda & Julie A. Dowling, Governing Immigration through Crime, pg. 240-241)//cl
Noncitizens who are subjected to deportation may find this transformation shocking. A
Homies Unidos member who was interviewed for this project after having been
deported to El Salvador could not imagine that he could never return legally to the
United States: "You can't just say, 'You're expelled for life. You're deported for life.' I mean, I
hope not!" Of course, deportation is not supposed to transform individuals. Rather, it is
supposed to be a consequence of already being both alien and unauthorized. Note that in Alex
Sanchez's case his only legal option when faced with deportation was to demonstrate that he
could not safely return to El Salvador, and therefore he had to remain in the United States.
Despite having lived in this country for more than two decades and having U.S.
citizen relatives (including a wife and son), his criminal convictions, prior
deportation, and unauthorized reentry were presumed to define him as alien and
his presence as illicit. Nonetheless, there is a sense in which the process of deportation
produces the very "alienage" and "illegality" from which it is supposed to flow. The
transformative nature of deportation is demonstrated by the experiences of King (a
pseudonym), whom I interviewed in El Salvador in 2001. King came to the United States in the
early 1980s at age four or five and became a legal permanent resident in the late 1980s,
when he was approximately nine or ten. As a teenager, he began to have trouble with the
law and served time in juvenile hall, but he was not concerned about immigration
consequences. Because I had the residency, I figured, oh, shssh, I got it made, you know, a
resident." King was incarcerated in 1993, and then in 1996 he learned about the
passage of AEDPA and IIRIRA: "I always watched the news in prison.... And then after that
Timothy McVeigh blew up that building? They passed a law, . . . instead of, you know, going
after the guys that did that, they decided to wash their hands and throw it out from all the
[immigrants] and residents, uh-huh. They called 'em, uh, 'a terrorist threat.' To them, we're a
terrorist threat. Just because of what Timothy, Timothy McVeigh did." An immigration hold
was placed on King, and when he completed his prison sentence, he was
transferred to an immigration detention center, where he unsuccessfully fought
his deportation case for six months. Although King had projected a future in the United

States, he was ordered deported. Before being deported, King was transferred to a holding cell,
where conditions were difficult: "We were there all night, and we were cold." From the
holding cell, he and others were bused to Arizona, where, in shackles, they were flown to
Houston, Texas. In Texas, they were processed for deportation and then taken to a
county jail, which King described as "messed up.... They wouldn't let us buy
nothing at the store or nothing, so we didn't have no deodorant, no razor, no
toothbrush. And they wouldn't, uh, give us any, because they were treating us like
lower, you know what I mean? Like, you're getting deported anyways, you don't
need none of that." Being treated as "lower" continued as King was placed in another holding
cell: "And it was like hot, moisture. Like everything starts sweating, you know, with
the body heat. And the water was no good. There was no drinking water. Only a
shower to shower. The toilets were messed up, there was no pressure." King was in
the holding cell for four or five days. King found these conditions dehumanizing,
telling one of the sergeants, "Look, Sergeant, man, what's going on? We don't get rec, yard,
nothing. You know? You're treating us like animals, man!" Finally, King and other deportees
were shackled and placed on one of the oldest planes that King had ever seen: "And we took off.
Fshshshsh0000000000! All shackled up. And then, like, they give us, like, a tore-up sandwich
and stuff? To eat up there? You know, I wasn't hungry, I didn't eat nothing. That's the least thing
I had on my mind was food after leaving, you know, the country you were raised in." King found
the shackles particularly debasing: "They think they can treat you like you don't know
your rights, you know what I mean? Even if you're deportable, you still got rights,
human rights." King's account of deportation is replete with references to humiliating
experiences, to being treated as an animal, as debased, as lacking rights. The shackleswhich
King reported were removed before landing, after flying out of U.S. airspacewere
a particularly vivid marker of criminalized "illegality" and alienage. King
experienced deportation not as a return, but rather as a departure, "leaving, you
know, the country you were raised in." Deportation officially transformed King in ways that he
experienced bodily (heat, cold, shackles, and deprivation). Officially he was not only a noncitizen
of the United States but also a citizen of El Salvador. Unofficially, however, deportees'
membership in their countries of origin can also be questioned.

Immigrants, who are held as detainees, have lives that are worsened by
detention or deportation
Hamilton 11 (Kimberly R. [Candidate for Doctor of Jurisprudence, May 2011, University of
Tennessee, College of Law], IMMIGRANT DETENTION CENTERS IN THE UNITED STATES
AND INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, 21 Berkeley La Raza L.J. 93, pg. 99-100,
2011)
A. Composition of Immigrant Detainees
Immigrant detainees consist of individuals, families, and unaccompanied minors
including a broad range of ages, races, and immigration statuses. n50 A large
majority of immigrant detainees earn less than the national average. n51 Immigrant
detainees who are being detained are non-citizens who are allegedly deportable .
n52 The immigrant detainees are both documented and undocumented, many of whom
[*100] may have been in the United States for several years. n53 Immigrant detainees
include asylum seekers, torture survivors, human trafficking victims, longtime
lawful permanent residents, and parents of U.S. citizen children. n54 Half of all

immigrant detainees held in detention have no criminal record at all. n55 The
remainder may have committed some crime in the past, but have already served time for prior
convictions. n56 ICE does not imprison non-citizens for criminal convictions. n57 All of the
immigrant detainees are being detained for immigration purposes only. n58 Immigrant
detainees with criminal convictions first serve their criminal sentences and only
after that are they placed in ICE custody for deportation. n59

Undocumented persons are forced to live in criminal standards as

detainees
Hamilton 11 (Kimberly R. [Candidate for Doctor of Jurisprudence, May 2011, University of
Tennessee, College of Law], IMMIGRANT DETENTION CENTERS IN THE UNITED STATES
AND INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, 21 Berkeley La Raza L.J. 93, pg. 103-104,
2011)
D. Immigrant Detainees Are Not All Criminal Detainees
A violation of an immigration law pertaining to legal status is a civil violation, not a
criminal violation. n84 Entering the United States or remaining in the United States after the
expiration of a visa is a civil violation. n85 Dr. Dora Schriro, former Director
of ICE Office of Detention Policy and Planning, underscores the key difference
between civil and criminal proceedings: "Immigration proceedings are civil proceedings
and immigration detention is not punishment." n86 Although immigration status
violations are civil offenses, immigrants held at the subcontracted facilities are
mixed with the local prison population. n87 Immigrant detainees are often held with
criminal detainees who are accused or convicted of committing violent
crimes. n88 Not only is this contrary to international standards, but this also
increases the risk of physical harm to immigrant detainees. n89 Amnesty International
states that mixing the immigrant detainee population with the criminal detainee population
results in "inappropriate and excessive use of restraints, inadequate access to
healthcare including mental health services, and inadequate access to exercise
for ICE detainees." n90 Additionally supporting the use of separate facilities, Dr. Schriro
describes the difference in the demeanor of civil immigrant detainees: The demeanor of the
Immigration Detention population is distinct from the Criminal Incarceration population. The
majority of the population is motivated by the desire for repatriation or relief, and exercise
exceptional restraint. According to reports provided by contract monitors and
submitted by the field, relatively few detainees file grievances, fights are
infrequent, and assaults on staff are even rarer. n91 Although immigrants held in
detention are charged only with civil violations of the law, the detention facilities are very
much like jails. n92 In fact, a 2005 report on asylum seekers in expedited removal
describes the ICE civil detention standards as "identical to [and] modeled after
correctional standards for criminal [*104] populations." n93 For example, some
facilities contain all of the detainees together in one large, windowless, locked, and
brightly lit room. n94 Other facilities lack significant opportunities for detainees

to participate in recreational or unstructured activities. n95 Frequently, facilities

provide only "a small outdoor space surrounded by high concrete walls or a chain
link fence." n96 Finally, detainees wear prison uniforms. n97 Immigrants are entitled
to due process rights, including a trial on whether they are deportable or whether they can stay
in the United States. n98 During this process,immigrants may be detained until their
immigration statuses are determined. n99 Before 2005, immigrants awaiting their court
dates were not usually detained. But, ICE's recent focus on detention and removal
has significantly increased the number of detained immigrants in the United
States. n100 In addition, increased use of 287(g) agreements has expanded federal
immigration enforcement authority to local law enforcement officers, which has also led to
increases in the number of individuals detained. n101

Climate Change
Human rights are key to combatting climate change
Cameron and Limon 12 (Edward Cameron and Marc Limon. "Restoring The Climate By Realizing
Rights: The Role Of The International Human Rights System." Review Of European Community &
International Environmental Law 21.3 (2012): 204-219. Academic Search Complete. Weeb. 28 June
2015.)

As a result, for many years, this approach represented a high-risk and often unwelcome strategy.
However, five years on from the Male Declaration, the tables have turned. Professor Daniel
Magraw, former President of the Center for International Law and one of the earliest
proponents of the link between human rights and climate change, has said that when this nexus
was first mooted people laughed at the very thought; but no one is laughing now.16 Today
human rights are seen as a legitimate and powerful element of a wider climate
change regime complex, stretching across a wide range of multilateral processes.17
Rather than being shunned, the succession of Human Rights Council resolutions,
the explosion of academic and civil society output on this issue, and the increasing call to
human rights norms within the UNFCCC suggest that human rights is increasingly
viewed as a potentially transformational part of tackling the climate challenge.18
The climate justice narrative has become a powerful advocacy tool for civil society
organizations and vulnerable countries, which is helping to evolve our analysis of
socioecological thresholds and is enhancing political processes both internationally and
domestically to better account for the experience of vulnerable populations.

Nuclear War
Collapse of human rights norms causes global WMD conflict
Burke-White 4 William W., Lecturer in Public and International Affairs and Senior Special
Assistant to the Dean at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs,
Princeton University and Ph.D. at Cambridge, Human Rights and National Security: The
Strategic Correlation, The Harvard Human Rights Journal, Spring, 17 Harv. Hum. Rts. J. 249,
Lexis
This Article presents a strategic--as opposed to ideological or normative--argument that the

promotion of human
rights should be given a more prominent place in U.S. foreign policy . It does so by
suggesting a correlation between the domestic human rights practices of states and their propensity to engage in aggressive
international conduct. Among

the chief threats to U.S. national security are acts of

aggression by other states. Aggressive acts of war may directly endanger the United States, as did the Japanese
bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941, or they may require U.S. military action overseas, as in Kuwait fifty years later. Evidence
from the post-Cold War period [*250] indicates that states that systematically abuse their own citizens'
human rights are also those most likely to engage in aggression. To the degree that
improvements in various states' human rights records decrease the likelihood of
aggressive war, a foreign policy informed by human rights can significantly enhance
U.S. and global security . Since 1990, a state's domestic human rights policy appears to be a
telling indicator of that state's propensity to engage in international aggression . A
central element of U.S. foreign policy has long been the preservation of peace and the prevention of such acts of aggression. 2 If the
correlation discussed herein is accurate, it provides U.S. policymakers with a powerful new tool to enhance national security through
the promotion of human rights. A strategic linkage between national security and human rights would result in a number of
important policy modifications. First, it changes the prioritization of those countries U.S. policymakers have identified as presenting
the greatest concern. Second, it alters some of the policy prescriptions for such states. Third, it offers states a means of signaling
benign international intent through the improvement of their domestic human rights records. Fourth, it provides a way for a current
government to prevent future governments from aggressive international behavior through the institutionalization of human rights
protections. Fifth, it

addresses the particular threat of human rights abusing states obtaining weapons of
mass destruction ( WMD ). Finally, it offers a mechanism for U.S.-U.N. cooperation on human rights issues.

Authoritarian leaders lash out with nukes.

Holdorf, 10 (Polly M. Holdorf, MA in International Security and a BA in
International Studies, Limited Nuclear War in the 21st Century,
http://csis.org/files/publication/110916_Holdorf.pdf)
There are four specific objectives that nuclear-armed regional adversaries might seek to achieve
through the use of nuclear weapons. They might seek to deter the United States from
intervening in a conflict or projecting military power into the region by
threatening escalation. If the United States is not deterred by threats of escalation,
the adversary might consider using its nuclear weapons to limit or defeat U.S.
military operations. The adversary might seek to intimidate U.S. allies or friends
within the region, or to split regional political coalitions apart. Certainly the
adversary would attempt to limit U.S. objectives in the confrontation and try to
dissuade the United States from seeking to impose regime change. For
authoritarian or despotic leaders, nuclear weapons may be seen as a means of
survival. These types of leaders may be preoccupied with the survival not just of
their regimes, but of their own personal survival. Regional adversaries facing a

confrontation with the United States would know beyond any doubt that they faced
an opponent with vastly superior military forces and resources. Adversarial leaders
may not be prepared to face the disastrous consequences of a military defeat, particularly one
that would result in their removal from power. Such leaders may feel that their only hope
for survival would be to attempt to stave off, or at least delay, a defeat by
employing a nuclear weapon against U.S. forces. It is also possible that an adversary,
knowing that it cannot and will not prevail, may wish to go out with a bang; or they may wish
to be remembered as the leader who stood up to the United States by utilizing nuclear weapons.
A number of factors exist that could serve as catalysts for future nuclear use. Latent conflicts
within a regional setting could ignite and nuclear threats may be signaled by one or both sides in
order to influence the opposing states actions. A nuclear state on the verge of losing a
conventional war might employ its nuclear weapons in order to avert defeat. Small
nuclear states which harbor feelings of isolation (such as North Korea) could
perceive the actions of others as threatening and therefore be intimidated into
employing nuclear weapons as a means to protect their interests. Traditional
means of deterrence may not work the same way between small states as they did
with the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Strategic discourse
between two small nuclear-armed states may be lacking, thus elevating the prospect for the
collapse of deterrence at the regional level. Small nuclear states may have flawed or incomplete
intelligence regarding their relative positions in a conflict. A misperception regarding an
adversarys intentions could compel a country to conduct a preemptive strike on
the opponents nuclear arsenal or conventional military forces. There is also the
possibility that a small nuclear armed state may have a deficient command and
control structure, increasing the risk of an accidental or unauthorized nuclear
launch. The use of nuclear weapons in a regional setting could support a range of
objectives including coercion, war termination, regime preservation or even
revenge. Some states could view the use of nuclear weapons as a means-of-last
resort, while others may view them as the only viable means to alter the status quo
or to remedy a deteriorating regional security situation. In some circumstances a
state may view the use of nuclear weapons as the best, or the least bad, option
available to them. The fear of regime change may be a compelling reason for a nuclear-armed
regional adversary to consider employing nuclear weapons during a conflict. For leaders who are
concerned about their ability to remain in power in the event of a war with a superiorly armed
adversary, nuclear weapons could be viewed as a valuable tool to have in their arsenal. If an
attack by a U.S.-led coalition would pose a significant threat to your regime and
your nation cannot afford conventional forces capable of deterring or defeating
such an attack, you may regard nuclear weapons as the answer. One can be certain
that the overthrow of the Taliban in 2001 and Saddam Hussein in 2003 are still very fresh,
particularly in the minds of the Iranian and North Korean regimes. These regimes are also
aware that they have been identified as security threats to the United States.

Structural Violence
*Authoritarianisms racial and patriarchal structure promotes structural
violence in the form of gendered violence and racial profiling- Hungary
proves
McRobie '14 (novelist, journalist, co-editor of openDemocracy 50.50, and editor of the Oxford
Human Rights Hub. She is completing a PhD on the 2011 Egyptian revolution at Oxford
University and holds an MA focusing on Balkan studies from the University of Sarajevo. Her
latest book Literary Freedom: a Cultural Right to Literature was published in December 2013
https://www.opendemocracy.net/5050/heather-mcrobie/it-takes-broken-bonesauthoritarianism-and-violence-against-women-in-hungary // 6-26-15 // MC)
Authoritarianism is never good news for women as citizens or as the structurally
more marginalised gender and Hungarys continued shift away from democracy
and upholding human rights under the right-wing Fidesz government is mirrored
by its regressive backsliding on gender equality. Last week, Hungarian feminist groups
spoke out to condemn a public service announcement made by a Hungarian police department
that blamed women for inviting sexual violence. In a shockingly misguided attempt to
mark the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, the
video showed young women drinking, dancing and flirting before cutting to what
looked like the aftermath of a sexual assault. The video ended with the warning
its your responsibility, implying that women invite sexual violence through
irresponsibility. Compounding the erroneous messages the Hungarian public are
given on violence against women, another Hungarian police department issued a
statement last week on rape prevention that claimed "flirting by young women
can often elicit violence." This isnt the first time in recent years that Hungarian officials and
government departments have communicated victim-blaming messages on the subject of
violence against women, erroneously shifting the blame away from the responsibility of the
perpetrator. In 2012, MP Istvan Varga, from the ruling Fidesz party claimed that domestic
violence could be solved if women fulfilled their natural role and gave birth to several children.
(The logic being that if women fulfilled their societal duty and reproduced, their partners
would respect them more and therefore stop beating them). The popular protests and
campaigns by Hungarian feminist groups in the face of this statement were part of
what pushed the parliament to agree to legally demarcate domestic violence as a
specific offence in the new criminal code. Previously, abusers could only be
prosecuted for individual acts of assault and there was no legal recognition of the
wider violence and oppression of abusive relationships. However, an extensive Human
Rights Watch report in November 2013, Unless Blood Flows, documented both the gaps in the
new legal provisions for domestic violence, and the inadequate implementation of existing laws
and lack of funding and provisions for violence against women. It pointed both to the lack of
political will to address violence against women, and to entrenched patriarchal
norms as barriers to combatting violence against women and achieving gender
equality in both the private and public spheres. Hungarian womens rights
organisations pointed out that, although the rates of domestic violence and
violence against women are in keeping with the (lamentable) European average,
Hungary lagged behind other European countries in terms of both legal and
societal recognition of this abuse: it takes broken bones for a case of domestic violence to
be brought to court, both preventing catching domestic violence at an earlier stage (in light of

the fact that domestic abuse often operates on an escalating dynamic) and sending a message
that it is not taken seriously by legal and governmental institutions. Screenshot of 2014 'antirape' video made by Hungarian police. The Fidesz party spent the last four years gutting
independent media and social provisions, and won a second term by a landslide in the elections
of April this year, in which the far-right, anti-immigrant and anti-Semitic Jobbik party also won
20% of the votes. Fidesz has brought with it a plethora of bizarre and reactionary policies and
statements from government officials, most recently the widely-protested proposed Internet tax.
And the right-wing discourse dominating politics weaves into it a regressive
construction of gender relations, in which Fidesz and other right-wing political
voices trade on the concept of family values in which women are reduced solely
to their supposedly natural role as mothers and submissive wives. Such a
conception of gender relations constructed by right-wing authoritarianism and
exclusivist nationalism in which women are seen as mere vessels for
childbearing and subordinate units within the all-important traditional family
delegates women to the private sphere whilst giving men dominance within both
the public and the private spheres. In such a conception, domestic violence
becomes a matter both of no-one elses business and she was probably asking
for it. One instance of violence against women did, however, become a public
issue when last November Fidesz politician Jozsef Balogh admitted to beating his
wife, yet refused to resign from public office. Hungarys chief prosecutor found that Mr
Baloghs wife had been struck in the face with more than medium force, dragged by her hair,
and suffered facial fractures after being assaulted by her husband when the couple returned
home from a wedding party. Although Mr Balogh was expelled from the Fidesz party in the wake
of public outcry over his violence, his behaviour seemed not far removed from the
official message communicated by the government: the patriarchal family with its
dominating male head is all-important, and domestic violence is a private matter
which concerns neither society nor government. The continued lack of government
funding for domestic violence shelters and the victim-blaming public service
announcements communicate the same message, that violence against women is both a
trivial and a private matter for which the abused can be blamed. Hungarys right-ward shift and
slide away from liberal democracy is bad news for women, not because liberal democracy
guarantees the decline of violence against women (the cases of several Scandinavian countries
show that even high levels of gender equity in public life, and gender-sensitive welfare
provisions, can coexist with high levels of domestic violence and violence against women in the
private sphere) but because, under the current prevailing ideology in Hungary women are
sidelined as all structurally marginalised groups are sidelined if not targetted. Over the
same period as the rise of Fidesz and the far-right Jobbik party, Hungary has
slipped down the World Economic Forums ranking on gender-equity, from 55th
place in 2006 to 93 in 2014 (although the number of ranked countries expanded from 115 to
142 in the same period). The alarming rise (or resurgence) of anti-Semitism and antiRoma sentiment shows the corrosive right-wing discourse eating at Hungarys
society as anyone who occupies the marginal position as an ethnic minority, or
immigrant, or on the grounds of their gender or sexual orientation is sidelined,
demonised and targetted, as if in a Nietzschean reading of social order enacting a
sociopathic mindset in which the structurally weaker are punished for being
weak. The public service announcement telling women it is your responsibility to prevent
sexual assault by 'not flirting and drinking' is in keeping with the regressive worldview of
rightwing discourse swirling in Hungarian political life, with its fetishisation of the patriarchal

family and its increasing persecution of minorities and the structurally disadvantaged. In such a
climate, violence against women is both a private issue of the exalted family-unit and a
natural situation in which the dominant enacts its will on the disadvantaged. And so the
structural and social violence the Hungarian state is waging upon its marginalised is enacted
again, as if in aftershock, over and over upon the bodies of women.

Authoritarian governmental practices promote violence against vestiges of

its social contract including minorities, women, and people in poverty
Giroux '15 (Henry A., Global TV Network Chair Professor at McMaster University in the
English and Cultural Studies Department and a Distinguished Visiting Professor at Ryerson
University www.counterpunch.org/2015/03/30/terrorism-violence-and-the-culture-ofmadness/ // 6-26-15 // MC)
George Orwells nightmarish vision of a totalitarian society casts a dark shadow
over the United States. The consequences can be seen clearly in the ongoing and
ruthless assault on the social state, workers, unions, higher education, students,
poor minorities and any vestige of the social contract. Free market policies, values, and
practices with their emphasis on the privatization of public wealth, the elimination of social
protections, and the deregulation of economic activity now shape practically every
commanding political and economic institution in the United States. Public
spheres that once offered at least the glimmer of progressive ideas, enlightened
social policies, non-commodified values, and critical dialogue and exchange have
been increasingly militarizedor replaced by private spaces and corporate
settings whose ultimate fidelity is to increasing profit margins. Citizenship is now
subsumed by the national security state and a cult of secrecy, organized and reinforced by
the constant mobilization of fear and insecurity designed to produce a form of ethical
tranquilization and a paralyzing level of social infantilism. Chris Hedges crystalizes
this premise in arguing that Americans now live in a society in which violence is the
habitual response by the state to every dilemma, legitimizing war as a permanent
feature of society and violence as the organizing principle of politics.[1] Under
such circumstances, malevolent modes of rationality now impose the values of a
militarized neoliberal regime on everyone, shattering viable modes of agency,
solidarity, and hope. Amid the bleakness and despair, the discourses of militarism, danger
and war now fuel a war on terrorism that represents the negation of politicssince all
interaction is reduced to a test of military strength war brings death and destruction, not only to
the adversary but also to ones side, and without distinguishing between guilty and innocent.[2]

Authoritarian ecological practices make the government vulnerable to

racist, right-wing policies empirics
Zimmerman '14 (Michael E., June 3, 2014 Michael E. Zimmerman is Professor of Philosophy
and Director of the Center for Humanities and the Arts at CU, Boulder.
www.colorado.edu/philosophy/paper_zimmerman_ecofascism.pdf // 6-28-15 // MC)
Some environmentalists regard the takings issue as spurious, whereas others
agree that it has some merit. Almost all environmentalists, however, claim that the
charge of ecofascism is the ludicrous creation of anti-environmental corporations
and extractive industries. Even though this evaluation may be accurate, I argue that the

threat of ecofascism cannot be dismissed out of hand. True, ecofascism is unlikely to occur
in the United States any time soon, but environmentalists need to be aware that
ecofascism was a component of German National Socialism, and that even today
neo-fascists and members of far right-wing groups in Europe and the United States
put to dark uses concepts drawn from the environmental movement. Twenty years
ago, far right-wing groups in Germany were already linking their antiimmigrationist platform to the mainstream concern about the environmental
impacts of human population growth and population density. These days, even
mainstream German politicians link immigration to environmental concerns, only
now in the context of the renewal of anti-Semitism.2 Far right-wing groups in the
United States have begun to tie public concern about urban sprawl and
environmental pollution to immigrants from countries that 2 allegedly fail to
respect the natural environment. In the current global situation, environmentalists should
continue to promote their agenda, but should also be prepared to dissociate themselves from
those who might exploit aspects of it for their own ends. Before beginning my discussion of
ecofascism, let me make some comments about how I depict positions on the political spectrum.
I distinguish between right-wing and far right-wing. Ron Arnolds political views are right-wing,
insofar as he strongly endorses limited government and affirms the primacy of individual
liberty. His views on these point are consistent with neo-classical liberalism, which is often
described as conservatism these days, and which is to be distinguished from the welfare
liberalism that most people now identity as liberalism. The latter favors some state intervention
to level the playing field and to provide a safety net for people with economic and social
problems. Most Americans, including welfare liberals, have strong commitments to
some variety of individualism, and most Americans also support a significant role
for government in many domains of life. Despite what right-wing commentators
like Arnold may say, there is not a strong left-wing presence in American politics, if
left-wing is understood to mean socialist or communist. Far right-wingers demand that the
state take very strong measures to save the people from alleged danger. Upon
taking power, far right-wingers would temporarily suspend constitutional
freedoms in order to have a free hand to destroy the enemy within. Limited
individual freedom may eventually be restored, but only to those who are
sufficiently like those who are in power. Whereas American right-wing
individualists are suspicious of the state and its coercive powers, many far rightwingers seek to use such powers to suppress or eradicate those whose politics,
economic status, race, class, religion, or national origin are regarded as
unacceptably different. The far right-wing becomes fascist when it describes the state itself
in semi-religious terms, for example, as the life-giving organism whose organs are constituted by
the people. The fascist state controls everything; individuals have no status apart from what the
state permits. In requiring that individuals sacrifice their own selfish interests for the higher
interests of the social 3 whole, fascism is similar to communism. This similarity explains why
someone like Ron Arnold describes radical environmentalists now as communists, now as
ecofascists.

Terrorism
U.S. HR leadership solves the root cause of terrorism
Duffy 6/26/15 Senior Media Relations Associate for Human Rights First, former
intern for or Senators Schumer, Gillibrand, and Clinton (Corrine, U.S.
Government Should Promote Global Counterterrorism Strategy Rooted in Human
Rights, Human Rights First, http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/press-release/usgovernment-should-promote-global-counterterrorism-strategy-rooted-human-rights)//JJ
U.S. government to redouble its efforts to
combat terrorism and counter violent extremism by tackling the underlying
drivers of violent extremism. It is clear that there is a need for a concerted, sustained international effort to combat and prevent terrorist violence such as the horrific
attacks in Sousse and Kuwait today, said Human Rights Firsts Neil Hicks. " Violent extremists and repressive authoritarian
governments are mutually reinforcing . To break this destructive cycle, governments that wish to be
effective partners in the struggle against violent extremism must extend human rights
protections to all members of their communities, make independent civil society a
partner, protect religious freedom and denounce sectarian incitement ." In February, President
Today, in response to terrorist attacks in Kuwait and Tunisia, Human Rights First urged the

Obama outlined a preventive strategy at the White House Summit on Countering Violent Extremism, and this week a regional conference in Kenya focuses on similar issues. As Under Secretary of State Sarah

renewed focus on protecting the

rights of religious and ethnic minorities, an end to the incitement of sectarian
violence, which leads to atrocities such as the suicide bombing of a Shi'ite mosque
in Kuwait today, and for empowering independent civil society organizations as core partners in
the struggle against violent extremism. "Tunisia represents a hopeful alternative to endless conflict between repressive authoritarianism and violent
Sewall reiterated in her opening remarks in Kenya yesterday, the international community must commit itself to a

extremism. The United States has a vital interest in ensuring the success of Tunisia's fragile transition towards democracy," noted Hicks. "Tunisia has become a target for terrorist violence in recent months
because of the progress it has made in transitioning away from decades of authoritarian rule towards democratic government grounded in the rule of law. With its international partners, the United States should
make clear that it will not let terrorism win a victory in Tunisia, and that it will stand behind the Tunisian economy and help the Tunisian security forces to secure further progress towards a peaceful democratic

The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant ( ISIL ) has claimed responsibility
for the suicide bombing of a Shi'ite mosque in Kuwait, further spreading its
sectarian violence in the Gulf region. The global struggle against ISIL requires cooperation from key Arab partners, especially among the Gulf Cooperation
Council (GCC) states. Since the Arab Spring protests of 2011 Saudi Arabia and the GCC states have been leading a region-wide
pushback against popular demands for more representative, more responsive
government. This has included a Saudi-led, GCC supported, military incursion into Bahrain to put down a peaceful protest movement and ample financial and political support for President
Abdel Fattah al-Sisi's authoritarian rule in Egypt. The repressive policies of such governments undermine global
efforts to counter violent extremism and combat terrorism.
future for Tunisia."

Specifically nuclear terror

Weiss and Burroughs 4 President of the New York-based Lawyers Committee on
Nuclear Policy and Vice President of the Paris-based International Federation of
Human Rights Leagues, AND ** Executive Director of the Lawyers Committee on
Nuclear Policy and Adjunct Professor of International Law at Rutgers Law School
(Peter and John, Weapons of mass destruction and human rights, HUMAN
RIGHTS, HUMAN SECURITY AND DISARMAMENT, 2004, p. 33)//JJ
There can be no doubt that a world rife with weapons of mass destruction is less safe a place than a world without them, a point only reinforced by the
rise of catastrophic terrorism. The elimination of WMD is a matter of political will. It can be achieved through full implementation of the Chemical
Weapons Convention and the Biological Weapons Convention and the negotiation of measures to eliminate nuclear arms within the overarching
framework of a convention. The

nuclear weapons states are pledged to negotiate in good faith

toward this end, but so far have refused to honour their pledge. When they do,
they will also be acting to uphold the human rights to life and peace. The elimination of
terrorism may be a more difficult goal to reach. When leaders speak of waging the war against terrorism to its final victory, one can only wince and
wonder what they have in mind. What war? Where fought? Against whom? With what weapons? The last question is probably the crucial one. Yes,

competent intelligence and brute force can reduce the danger of terrorist attacks. But

if there is one lesson that history

teaches it is that social, economic, ethnic and religious differences can translate
into feelings of powerlessness and give rise to violencewhich the powerless call
the search for justice and those at whom the violence is directed call terrorism.
This is where human rights come in . There may never be a world without terrorism. But it is reasonable to
expect that the closer the world comes to realizing the full panoply of human rights
enshrined in the Universal Declaration and the International Covenants, the closer
it will be to freedom from terrorism, not least WMD terrorism . It is a goal worth striving for.

Sexism
Failure to reform immigration dehumanizes non-citizens experiences in
and out of the US
Inman and Tummala-Narra 14 (Arpana G. [Ph.D. in Counseling Psychology, Temple
University; Professor and Chair, Department of Education & Human Services, Lehigh
University] and Pratyausha [Ph.D. in Clincal Psychology, Michigan State University; Associate
Professor: Counseling, Developmental, and Educational Psychology Department], Immigration
and Human Rights, The Handbook of Race-ethnicity and Gender in Psychology, pg. 92, Jan. 11
2014, http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4614-8860-6_5#page-1)
Structural and Systemic Impacts on the Immigrant Experience
The social context within which migration occurs is largely influenced by not only proximal
contexts such as family relations but also distal contexts composed of socially constructed
structures (e.g., gender, racial/ethnic backgrounds) and laws and policies (Brabeck & Xu,
2010 ). Immigrants thus experience multiple jeopardies emanating from being
migrants, separating from familial supports, and occupying a transnational space as a
function of their gender and race. Further, many women and girls who are forced to flee
their countries of origin face gender-specific forms of persecution, namely rape,
sexual violence, forced sterilization, genital mutilation, domestic violence,
indentured slavery, forced marriage, and prostitution. Upon arrival in the United
States, they frequently face harsh detention conditions, sexual and verbal abuse,
limited access to counsel, and poor health care. Despite the feminization of migration,
immigration policies tend to ignore the unique and distinct experiences that men and
in particular women have in their migratory experience. In this section we will highlight
specific vulnerabilities that are created and enhanced through the systemic impact of genderneutral immigration policies.

Detention of immigrants destroys their human rights women in

particular, multiple abuses
Inman and Tummala-Narra 14 (Arpana G. [Ph.D. in Counseling Psychology, Temple
University; Professor and Chair, Department of Education & Human Services, Lehigh
University] and Pratyausha [Ph.D. in Clincal Psychology, Michigan State University; Associate
Professor: Counseling, Developmental, and Educational Psychology Department], Immigration
and Human Rights, The Handbook of Race-ethnicity and Gender in Psychology, pg. 94, Jan. 11
2014, http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4614-8860-6_5#page-1)
Detention, Deportation, and Legislation
Detention based on immigration is the fastest growing form of incarceration in the USA. On a
typical day, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) holds 33,000
immigrants in detention. About 10 % of these immigrants are women (Human Rights
Watch, 2009 ). Detainees include asylum seekers, victims of trafficking, survivors of sexual
assault and domestic violence, pregnant women, and mothers of children who are US citizens.
Most often detained for administrative/civil rather than criminal situations, these
individuals are held for an undetermined amount of time with no right to an

attorney. When immigrant women are apprehended and detained, their vulnerability
increases. Sometimes women and children are held in close confi nement with men increasing
violence and assaults (Silove et al., 2001 ). Further, women are often subjected to
extreme temperatures, inadequate nutrition, medical staffing shortages, long
delays for critically needed health care (i.e., gynecological), lack accurate health
care information, and pregnant women are shackled during transportation.
Treatment is frequently delayed or denied and confi dentiality is breached (security guards in
exam rooms, lack of interpreters). Women have trouble directly accessing facility health clinics
and persuading security guards that they needed medical attention (Human Rights Watch, 2009
). Detention often removes access to services and legal relief necessary for immigrant women to
protect their children and access services. For single parents, the detention separates
immigrant women from their children, often with devastating effects. Because
these mothers may not be given the opportunity to make basic arrangements for
their childrens care, they may lose custody of their children. In detention they are
denied access to telephones and the legal assistance necessary to locate their children and
communicate with family courts to preserve their parental rights (Human Rights Watch, 2009 ).
Such separations can have a devastating impact on the emotional health and well-being of the
family.

Racism
Xenophobic discrimination of immigrants destroys human rights
Achiume 14 (E. Tendayi [Binder Teaching Fellow, UCLA School of Law. J.D., Yale Law
School], BEYOND PREJUDICE: STRUCTURAL XENOPHOBIC DISCRIMINATION AGAINST
REFUGEES, 45 Geo. J. Int'l L. 323, pg. 324-325, Winter 2014)
[*324] I. INTRODUCTION
There were 15.4 million refugees n1 in the world at the end of 2012, and global trends suggest
that this number will only continue to rise. n2 According to the United Nations Refugee
Agency (UNHCR)--the most influential refugee protection actor in the world--xenophobic
or "foreignness" n3 discrimination is among the greatest challenges to refugees
globally. n4 Sometimes this discrimination is violent. Brutal attacks [*325] against foreign
nationals threaten the lives of refugees in contexts as varied as Libya, Greece, the United
Kingdom, India, Malaysia, Thailand, Ukraine, and even the United States. n5 This is the case
regardless of whether they possess legal documentation authorizing their
presence in these countries. Refugees are also regular targets of verbal and physical
harassment by private citizens and even public authorities, such as police officers.
Where xenophobic discrimination is not violent, it can nonetheless be a severe threat
to refugee livelihood. Refugees are regularly denied access to vital public services
such as health care and basic education on account of foreignness. Even where they have
been granted the right to work, as foreigners they also face grave challenges to securing
formal employment, regardless of their skills, training, and experience. n6 This
often has the effect of threatening their very ability to subsist. Unsurprisingly, UNHCR has
placed xenophobic discrimination on its list of strategic priorities for refugee
protection.

ICE has become an outlet for racial profiling and discourages police
protections
Albert 11 (Jared, J.D. [post-writing] from Georgetown University, CURRENT DEVELOPMENT:
DEVELOPMENT IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH: HOW SECURE IS SECURE COMMUNITIES? THE FUTURE OF
ONE OF ICE'S MOST CONTROVERSIAL PROGRAMS, 26 Geo. Immigr. L.J. 187, 188-190, Fall 2011)

Criticism of Secure Communities

The program has long been a lightning rod for controversy. Many immigrant rights groups,
including the American Immigration Lawyers Association, have called for the
suspension or termination of the program. n9 Although criticisms of the program are
myriad, most of the criticism focuses on three specific complaints. First, many
question whether the program has accomplished its goal of focusing on high priority
aliens, which ICE defines as "individuals who pose a threat to public safety such as
criminal aliens and national security threats, as well as repeat immigration law
violators and recent border entrants." n10 ICE statistics published in September 2011
indicate that of the 134,378 aliens identified and deported under Secure Communities,
38,962 (29%) had no criminal history whatsoever, and of those with criminal
histories, 63.6% did not have convictions for the most serious level of offenses. n11
Many media outlets have provided anecdotal evidence to argue that Secure Communities is
missing the mark. For example, a recent CNBC documentary profiled Ms. Brenda

Ambrosio, an illegal immigrant who emigrated from Guatemala to the United States. n12
Ambrosio reported that she came to the United States illegally in 2001 to escape an
abusive husband back home, and settled in Maryland. When she was pulled over
for a minor traffic violation, the police officer, through the jurisdiction's participation in
Secure Communities, determined that she was in the country illegally. ICE officials
sent her across the country to Arizona to a privately-run immigration detention
facility, where she remains. Another media outlet, Frontline on PBS, profiled the
story of Susana Ramirez, a mother of five American citizens in Illinois who herself
came into the United States illegally. n13 Ramirez was pulled over for changing lanes
without using a turn signal, and when it was determined, again by the use of Secure
Communities, that she was in the country illegally, she was deported back to
Mexico, leaving her five children and husband in [*189] the United States. Others
argue that Secure Communities sanctions racial profiling. n14 A recent report
released on October 19, 2011, by The Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute on Law and Social
Policy at the University of California, Berkeley Law School sheds light on some data that
critics have isolated in mounting their attack on Secure Communities. n15 The report
notes, from a random national sample of 375 individuals who were identified
under Secure Communities and arrested by ICE, 93% of those identified and
arrested were Latino/a, even though Latinos represent only 77% of the
undocumented population in the United States. n16 The American Civil Liberties Union
(ACLU) has similarly argued that Secure Communities "invites" racial profiling. n17
Additionally, other critics argue that Secure Communities undermines community
policing efforts. n18 Critics point out that if police agencies cannot guarantee that
there will be no immigration consequences when individuals provide information to or
cooperate with the police, that immigrants will be less likely to come forward to report
crimes. Media accounts are replete with stories of witnesses and victims of crime
who, upon speaking with the police, had their own immigration status checked,
ultimately leading to action by ICE. As previously discussed, even if charges are
eventually dropped, anyone arrested in a Secure Communities jurisdiction will
have his finger-prints run through the ICE database. And so, as in the case of Isaura
Garcia of Los Angeles, California, an illegal alien and domestic violence victim who calls
the police on her abusive boyfriend might end up herself being deported under
Secure Communities. n19 Initially, after interviewing both Ms. Garcia and her boyfriend,
the police credited the boyfriend's story, and arrested Ms. Garcia, sending her
fingerprints to the ICE database due to Los Angeles' involvement with Secure
Communities. n20 Even though the charges against Ms. Garcia were eventually dropped, she
was transferred to an immigration [*190] detention facility, where she currently
awaits deportation. n21 The ACLU article detailing her story quotes Ms. Garcia as
having said, "Had I realized I could be arrested after calling 911 for help and
deported, I never would have called." n22

Extinction

Human rights credibility solves inevitable extinction

Rhonda Copelan, Professor of Law NYU, New York City Law Review, 1999, p. 71-2
The indivisible human rights framework survived the Cold War despite U.S. machinations to
truncate it in the international arena. The framework is there to shatter the myth of the
superiority. Indeed, in the face of systemic inequality and crushing poverty, violence by official
and private actors, globalization of the market economy, and military and environmental
depredation, the human rights framework is gaining new force and new dimensions. It is being
broadened today by the movements of people in different parts of the world, particularly in the
Southern Hemisphere and significantly of women, who understand the protection of human
rights as a matter of individual and collective human survival and betterment. Also emerging is a
notion of third-generation rights, encompassing collective rights that cannot be solved on a
state-by-state basis and that call for new mechanisms of accountability, particularly affecting
Northern countries. The emerging rights include human-centered sustainable development,
environmental protection, peace, and security. Given the poverty and inequality in the United
States as well as our role in the world, it is imperative that we bring the human rights framework
to bear on both domestic and foreign policy.

Human rights protection prevents extinction

Annas et al 2 Edward R. Utley Prof. and Chair Health Law @ Boston U. School of Public
Health and Prof. SocioMedical Sciences and Community Science @ Boston U. School of
Medicine and Prof. Law @ Boston U. School of Law [George, Lori Andrews, (Distinguished Prof.
Law @ Chicago-Kent College of Law and Dir. Institute for Science, Law, and Technology @
Illinois Institute Tech), and Rosario M. Isasa, (Health Law and Biotethics Fellow @ Health Law
Dept. of Boston U. School of Public Health), American Journal of Law & Medicine, THE
GENETICS REVOLUTION: CONFLICTS, CHALLENGES AND CONUNDRA: ARTICLE:
Protecting the Endangered Human: Toward an International Treaty Prohibiting Cloning and
Inheritable Alterations, 28 Am. J. L. and Med. 151, L/N]
The development of the atomic bomb not only presented to the world for the first time the
prospect of total annihilation , but also, paradoxically, led to a renewed emphasis on the "nuclear family,"
complete with its personal bomb shelter. The conclusion of World War II (with the dropping of the only two
atomic bombs ever used in war) led to the recognition that world wars were now suicidal to
the entire species and to the formation of the United Nations with the primary
goal of preventing such wars . n2 Prevention , of course, must be based on the
recognition that all humans are fundamentally the same , rather than on an emphasis on our
differences. In the aftermath of the Cuban missile crisis , the closest the world has
ever come to nuclear war , President John F. Kennedy, in an address to the former Soviet Union,
underscored the necessity for recognizing similarities for our survival: [L]et us
not be blind to our differences, but let us also direct attention to our common
interests and the means by which those differences can be resolved . . . . For, in the final
analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet . We all
breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal. n3 That we are all fundamentally the same, all
human, all with the same dignity and rights, is at the core of the most important document to come out of World War II, the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the two treaties that followed it (together known as the "International Bill of
Rights"). n4

The recognition of universal human rights, based on human dignity and

equality as well as the principle of nondiscrimination, is fundamental to the

development of a species consciousness . As Daniel Lev of Human Rights Watch/Asia said in 1993,
shortly before the Vienna Human Rights Conference: Whatever else may separate them, human
beings belong to a single biological species, the simplest and most fundamental
commonality before which the significance of human differences quickly fades . . .
. We are all capable, in exactly the same ways, of feeling pain, hunger, [*153] and a hundred kinds of deprivation. Consequently,
people nowhere routinely concede that those with enough power to do so ought to be able to kill, torture, imprison, and

The idea of universal human rights shares the recognition of

one common humanity, and provides a minimum solution to deal with its miseries .
n5 Membership in the human species is central to the meaning and
enforcement of human rights, and respect for basic human rights is essential
for the survival of the human species . The development of the concept of "crimes against humanity" was a
generally abuse others. . . .

milestone for universalizing human rights in that it recognized that there were certain actions, such as slavery and genocide, that
implicated the welfare of the entire species and therefore merited universal condemnation. n6 Nuclear weapons were
immediately seen as a technology that required international control, as extreme genetic manipulations like cloning and
inheritable genetic alterations have come to be seen today. In fact, cloning and inheritable genetic alterations can be seen as
crimes against humanity of a unique sort: they are techniques that can alter the essence of humanity itself (and thus threaten to
change the foundation of human rights) by taking human evolution into our own hands and directing it toward the development
of a new species, sometimes termed the "posthuman." n7 It may be that species-altering techniques, like cloning and inheritable
genetic modifications, could provide benefits to the human species in extraordinary circumstances. For example, asexual genetic
replication could potentially save humans from extinction if all humans were rendered sterile by some catastrophic event. But no
such necessity currently exists or is on the horizon.

*A2: Ks

HR Good
Flawed applications of rights CANNOT be compared to the absence of such
Human Rights open up space for transformation and prevent facism
Daly, 04 - Australian National University (Frances, The non-citizen and the concept of 'human
rights', http://www.borderlandsejournal.adelaide.edu.au/vol3no1_2004/daly_noncitizen.htm)

An ahistorical disdain for legal action is merely the obverse of the process of fetishizing legality.
Much theory that merely substitutes the idea of the static essence of the person to explain the consequence of good and evil in the
world with an equally static, invariant view of authority and the State is, I would argue, ultimately eternalizing such concepts.
Undoubtedly, some sort of move beyond categories underscoring divisions within the ways people are entitled to live their lives is

much of the power of any such critique must depend upon the manner in which the
context of this life the possible experience of acting in the world, or 'form-of-life' - is itself understood. In the
absence of any such context, what tends to emerge is a return to the problem of rights reduced to
a division of form and content, rather than the overturning of this very problematic. Only in this
necessary. But

case, because the content is seen to fall short of the abstraction of, for example, a "whatever singularity", the form is wholly

More importantly, by revisiting this problem via a dismissal of the context of rights, and
more specifically of the possibility of traces of the intention towards human dignity, a rich
heritage of critique is sidelined. Continues... The use and abuse of right is not the same thing as a
complete absence of right, and understanding this is vital to being able to comprehend where
and in what ways democratic, constitutional States become, or are, fascistic. Natural right, or the
right of the human being, occupies a space of interruption in the divide between law and
ethicality that can, on occasion, act as to reintroduce a radical pathos within right.
discarded.

State Good
A state reform is the only way to solve human rights cries from
outside policy legitimizes the civil system
Flynn 12 (Michael Flynn [Founder and coordinator of the Global Detention Project, at the
Graduate Institutes Programme for the Study of Global Migration], On the Unintended
Consequences of Human Rights Promotion on Immigration Detention, Discussion Paper, 3-1212,
http://www.globaldetentionproject.org/fileadmin/publications/Flynn_Discussion_Paper_v4.p
df, pg. 1-2)
This discussion paper argues that an overlooked factor in explanations about the
growth of immigration detention is human rights advocacy on behalf of migrant
detainees. A close look at the evolution of detention policies seems to show that
there is a tension between efforts to promote norms related to the right to liberty
and campaigns aimed at improving conditions of detention and reforming the state's
custodial relationship with detainees. At first blushand indeed in most cases of advocacy on
behalf of migrant detainees these two issues appear closely related. However, there is cause
for concern that a narrow focus on improving the treatment of detainees can help
rationalize the practice of immigration detention, providing states with cover for
their continued efforts to deprive noncitizens of liberty and helping ensure the vitality of
detention regimes into the foreseeable future. The United States is a good case in point.
At the beginning of the Obama administration there was enormous hope that
serious reforms would be undertaken. While some changes have been implemented with
respect to the U.S. detention estate, the reforms have been disappointing. For example,
instead of working to limit numbers of detainees, the Obama administration has
bolstered enforcement strategies that have led to record levels of deportations
while placating critics by touting efforts to put in place a "truly civil" detention
estate. A recent conversation with Andrew Lorenzen-Strait, Immigration and Customs
Enforcements (ICS) first "public advocate," helps illustrate this point. In discussing recent
changes in the overall U.S. detention infrastructure, Lorenzen-Strait highlighted how ICE
had made great strides in limiting the use of prisons by gradually replacing these
with "civil" detention centers. His key exemplar was the Karnes detention center
near San Antonio, what he called the first "civil detention facility" in the United
States, which recently opened under the operation of the private prison company the
Geo Group. ICE is making an enormous effort to put a comfortable face on
immigration detention, and this effort is paying off. Take for example a comment by a
UNHCR official in early 2011 describing the Berks County Family Shelter as the embodiment of
the best practices for a truly civil immigration detention model. The official explained that
while UNHCR believes strongly that the vast majority of asylum seekers should not be
detained, in the event that families should be detained, Berks was the model to follow.

Perm: Criticize but use rights

Rejecting rights altogether undermines critical theorys struggle against
oppression. Permutation allows us to criticize rights while simultaneously
enacting their protections against oppression.
Deranty, Professor of Philosophy, 2k4 (Jean-Phillipe, Macquarie University, Agambens
challenge to normative theories of modern rights, borderlands,
http://www.borderlandsejournal.adelaide.edu.au/vol3no1_2004/deranty_agambnschall.htm)
11. In the case of empirical examples, the erasure of difference between phenomena seems
particularly counter-intuitive in the case of dissimilar modes of internment. From a practical
point of view, it seems counter-productive to claim that there is no substantial difference
between archaic communities and modern communities provided with the language of rights,
between the lawlessness of war times and democratic discourse. There must be a way of
problematising the ideological mantra of Western freedom, of modernitys moral superiority,
that does not simply equate it with Nazi propaganda (Ogilvie 2001). Habermas and Honneth
probably have a point when they highlight the advances made by modernity in the
entrenchment of rights. If the ethical task is that of testimony, then our testimony should go also
to all the individual lives that were freed from alienation by the establishment of legal barriers
against arbitrariness and exclusion. We should heed Honneths reminder that struggles for
social and political emancipation have often privileged the language of rights over any other
discourse (Fraser, Honneth 2003). To reject the language of human rights altogether could be a
costly gesture in understanding past political struggles in their relevance for future ones, and a
serious strategic, political loss for accompanying present struggles. We want to criticise the
ideology of human rights, but not at the cost of renouncing the resources that rights provide.
Otherwise, critical theory would be in the odd position of casting aspersions upon the very
people it purports to speak for, and of depriving itself of a major weapon in the struggle against
oppression.

AT: HR are imperialist

Human Rights arent imperialist 6 reasons
Fasching, (Darrell J ,THE ETHICAL CHALLENGE OF AUSCHWITZ AND HIROSHIMA: APOCALYPSE OR
UTOPIA?, 1993
Narrative ethicists, such as Stanley Hauerwas and Alasdair MacIntyre, raise a related form of the
charge of imperialism, namely, that a human rights ethic is a form of Western Enlightenment
imperialism that seeks to impose a universal, rational, storyless ethic on the whole human
race. And because all rationality, they argue, is contingent on story and there is no single
universal story , such an ethic is imposs ible. The case I have been making for the emergence of
a human rights ethic in this chapter should make it possible to answer these objections. First,
human rights have universal roots in the transforma tions of human consciousness brought
about by urban secularization and in universal experiences of doubt and self-questioning. Second,
human rights have particular roots the emergence of sociohistorical consciousness that
began in the West and is now being globalized. Third, rights have cross-cultural roots in
experiences of transcendence that gave rise to the formation of holy communities in diverse
cultures, East and West. Fourth, what needs to be agreed on in a human rights ethic is the
inalienability of human dignity, an experience available cross-culturally in both secular (e.g.,
the experience of doubt) and religious (e.g., the experience of the holy as emptiness or imagelessness)
forms. Fifth, disagreements between First, Second, and Third World countries, or between
various religious traditions, about the number and types of human rights should be seen as the
occasion for the global discussion and working out of a human rights ethic, without which human
rights would indeed be a form of cultural imperialism. Sixth, therefore, a human rights ethic must
not be built on a single narrative tradition but rather needs to be constructed within a pluralistic
ecology of complementary narrative traditions. The only common requirement of such narratives
is that they promote an ethic of welcoming strangers and their stories. Those narrative traditions
that require one to welcome the stranger implicitly testify that it is not so much participating in one
particular story that makes us human but rather participating in a story that enables us to
recognize the humanity of the one who does not participate in our particular story. To
welcome the stranger is to recognize that, as with the divine (or transcendence), human dignity
cannot be confined to any one particular culture or story. 195

AT: HR rights = bad interventionism

Its certainly true that the US has intervened for self-interested reasons in
the past but the humanitarian crises of the present and the US position as
a global power puts us in a position of responsibility for the lives of millions
we cant wash our hands, but we can at least not turn our backs on the
consequences of the world we helped to create
Joshua Pringle 9-27-2011 Worldpress.org, The Case for U.S. Humanitarian
Interventionism http://www.worldpress.org/Mideast/3814.cfm#down
The Arab Spring has been marked by a season of rebellion. With any rebellion,
there will always be a force working to crush it, usually violently . Citizens all over
the Middle Eastincluding but not limited to those in Syria, Libya, Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain
have suffered human rights abuses, many gunned down indiscriminately by the regimes that wish
to stay in power. This leaves the United States and its Western allies in a difficult position,
weighing the consequences of intervention, sanctions, or the lack thereof. B ecause the U.S. record in
this regard is rife with questionable choices, to say the least, the rest of the world
views these decisions with a healthy degree of cynicism . Cases where the United
States has intervened out of self-interest (which pockmark the bulk of the postWorld War II era) seem to some to have dirtied our hands to such an extent that
no action of ours could be seen as clean and virtuous. This does not mean,
however, that humanitarian interventionism is dead . In fact, the Arab Spring has
brought with it opportunities to shift away from unilateral action built on a U.S.
agenda and toward an interventionist policy that prioritizes the lives of innocent
people. Not all these opportunities have been lost . American disillusionment In 2004, former
Marine Captain Brian Steidle accepted a position with the African Union as a U.S. military observer in the Darfur
region of Sudan. During this assignment he witnessed thousands being killed, villages being wiped out. Unable to
intervene, he resorted to taking photographs. In writing home to his girlfriend, Steidle said that if the U.S.
government were to see the images, "there would be troops here in no time." In the book and documentary of the
same name, The Devil Came on Horseback, Steidle describes the disillusionment he went through when he
realized how wrong he was about that assumption. What Steidle discoveredand what is true about any case
where intervention is considered by the United Statesis that the criteria for intervention do not boil down
simply to whether or not the U.S. military has the means to prevent innocent people from being killed. Steidle
shared his photos and eyewitness account of what was happening in Darfur with U.S. heads of state, Congress and
countless news programs. Nothing happened. Of course, at the same time, U.S. forces were expending
tremendous capital on the occupation of Iraq, setting up a veritable city in the Green Zone from which to operate.
I need not go into the lies on which this operation were predicated, nor the mayhem it brought to the country, as
plenty has been illuminated on these accounts. Suffice it to say that, as Iraqis worried about electricity and water,
watching pieces of their infrastructure handed over to independent contractors, it is doubtful that any of them
would have called this intervention "humanitarian." Libya Say

what you will about President Obama's

criticisms are plenty, and they are not
unfounded. It is true that we armed and supported rebel fighters who neither knew
what they were doing nor had a unifying identity. It is true that the National Transitional
decision to lead a NATO intervention in Libya. The

Council (NTC) faces a hard road ahead and is in no way guaranteed to succeed in effectively governing the Libyan
people. One

can even make the argument that our oil interests indirectly drove the
decision. But the fact remains that Muammar Gaddafi was defeated, and that the
brutal assault on his people has come to an end. Democracy Now! correspondent Anjali Kamat
recently reported from Libya, "Even though Gaddafis whereabouts remain unknown and his sons
whereabouts remain unknown, in a sense, for most people we spoke to in Libya, it seemed like he had already

passed into the dustbin of history." Heavy questions remain for the NTC, such as how to rein
in the weapons that have proliferated, or to what extent to assimilate the Muslim community into the new

government. However,

for the Libyan people, Kamat added, "theres a real sense of

rebirth, a feeling that their lives are starting anew." They would not have
accomplished this without help. Post-Libya Analysts will debate whether supporting
the rebels in Libya was a victory for humanitarian interventionism or not. After
Gaddafi fell, Tom Nichols concluded, "Humanitarian interventions are here to stay and are
going to be driven more by moral calculation and military opportunity than by 'national
interest.'" I don't know if that will be the case, but I appreciate the optimism. Nikolas Gvosdev wrote in World
Politics Review, "Even with its fiscal constraints, the United States will continue to
retain an absolute preponderance of the world's economic and military power for
the foreseeable future. And if Libya provides a model for 'intervention on the cheap,' we
are likely to see this template emulated in other situations." Libya cost a sliver of what
we're spending in Afghanistan and, arguably, accomplished more . If the civil conflict in
Ivory Coast had received more press this springwith hundreds caught in the crossfire as Laurent Gbagbo
refused to give up his presidency to Alassane Outtarathe United States, working with its international partners
and consulting the U.N. Security Council, could have saved more lives by stepping in and quelling the violence. We
could have been in and out without violating the War Powers Resolution. If

we turn our eyes to Syria,

clearly there would be a tangle of strings attached to taking military action against
Bashar al-Assad, making an intervention in Syria diplomatically complicated. Assad has proven himself
to be just as ruthless as any ruler clinging to power, but the ramifications for
nearby countries, such as Iran and Lebanon, could turn the event into a regional debacle .
Already we see Iraqi refugees who fled to Syria now turning around to head back to Iraq. The refugee
problem alone would be significant. So for now, unfortunately (for Syrians living in fear), sanctions
appear to be the prudent course in dealing with Syria. Any intervention will bring with it political
controversy and diplomatic complexities. These are not to be discounted. But the
files of U.S. history show many examples of interventions that were not motivated
by humanitarian aims (see South America in the 1970s) and other instances where a failure
to act resulted in the deaths of innocent people (such as with the Rwanda genocide). With the
power that the United States wields, we have a moral imperative to assist in
protecting the lives of the innocent . Doing so should be viewed in the same light as the act of handing
out food to starving Somalians.

AT: HR calculations are zero point

Rational, Individual Rights are Goodthis is the Opposite of Holocaust
Logic, Not the Zero Point
TRACINSKY 2003 (Robert, Senior Writer at the Ayn Rand Institute, April 22, Why It Can
Happen Again, http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?
page=NewsArticle&id=7888&news_iv_ctrl=1021)

And the Nazis certainly practiced what Rocco preached. A

central goal of the concentration camps, wrote survivor

Bruno Bettelheim, was "to break the prisoners as individuals, and to change them into a docile mass."
"There are to be no more private Germans," one Nazi writer declared; "each is to attain significance only by his service to the state."

The goal of National Socialism was the relentless sacrifice of the individual : the sacrifice of his mind, his
independence, and ultimately his person. A free country is based on precisely the opposite principle. To protect against what they
called the "tyranny of the majority," America's Founding Fathers upheld

the individual's right to "life, liberty,

and the pursuit of happiness." The implicit basis of American government was an ethics of
individualism--the view that the individual is not subordinate to the collective, that he has a moral right
to his own interests, and that all rational people benefit under such a system . Today, however, self-sacrifice is
regarded as self-evidently good. True, most people do not want a pure, consistent system of sacrifice, as practiced by the Nazis. But
once the principle is accepted, no amount of this "virtue" can ever be condemned as "too much." We

will not have learned

the lessons of the Holocaust until we completely reject this sacrifice-worship and rediscover the
morality of individualism.

AT: HR are Too Western

Human rights are not inherently Western.
Donnelly, 07 Andrew Mellon Professor at the Graduate School of International Studies,
University of Denver 2007 (Jack Donnelly, The Relative Universality of Human Rights,
Human Rights Quarterly 29 page 281-306, Project Muse).
The social-structural "modernity" of these ideas and practices, however, not their cultural
"Westernness," deserves emphasis.15 Human rights ideas and practices arose not from any deep
Western cultural roots but from the social, economic, and political transformations of
modernity. They thus have relevance wherever those transformations have occurred,
irrespective of the pre-existing culture of the place.

Human rights not exclusive to Western countriesit si essentialist to imply

that other cultures inherently oppose rights.
Donnelly, 07 Andrew Mellon Professor at the Graduate School of International Studies,
University of Denver 2007 (Jack Donnelly, The Relative Universality of Human Rights,
Human Rights Quarterly 29 page 281-306, Project Muse).
It is important to remember that virtually all Western religious and philosophical doctrines
through most of their history have either rejected or ignored human rights Today, however,
most adherents of most Western comprehensive doctrines endorse human rights. And if the
medieval Christian world of crusades, serfdom, and hereditary aristocracy could become today's
world of liberal and social democratic welfare states, it is hard to think of a place where a similar
transformation is inconceivable. Consider claims that "Asian values" are incompatible with
internationally recognized human rights.24. Asian valueslike Western values, African values,
and most other sets of valuescan be, and have been, understood as incompatible with human
rights. But they also can be and have been interpreted to support human rights, as they regularly
are today in Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea. And political developments in a growing number
of Asian countries suggest that ordinary people and even governments are increasingly viewing
human rights as a contemporary political expression of their deepest ethical, cultural, and
political values and aspirations.25 No culture or comprehensive doctrine is "by nature," or in any
given or fixed way, either compatible or incompatible with human rights.

Even if the law is not perfect and culture values matter, rights still protect us from
oppression.
Altman, 90 (Andrew, (Professor of Philosophy; Georgia State University) Critical Legal
Studies: A Liberal Critique, page 8)

There are undoubtedly elements of the liberal tradition which exaggerate the extent to which the
law alone gives contemporary liberal societies the degree of humanity and decency they have.
There are undoubtedly elements of the liberal tradition which exaggerate the power of law to
work its will against the entrenched customs and traditions of a culture. We would be wise to

keep in mind Tocquevilles lesson about the failures of law in cultural set tings where it has tried
to operate in opposition to pervasive and deep-seated social norms. But it would be equally
wrong to dismiss the protections offered by the law as superfluous or useless. Between the area
in which law is useless because it receives insufficient support from the rest of the culture and
the area in which law is superfluous because the rest of the culture provides all of the protections
we can reasonably ask for, there is a wide expanse of territory. It is within the borders of that
territory that law can and does make a difference. It is within the borders of that territory that
legal rights can and do work to protect people from the evils of intolerance, prejudice, and
oppression. This is the heart of the liberal tradition in legal philosophy. It is a tradition worthy
of allegiance.

AT: HR are Anthropocentric

Human rights is a diverse struggle and it includes non-human animals
they cant reduce human rights to just one aspect of it
Baxi, Professor at University of Warwick, 1998 [Upendra, Introduction to the Symposium:
Voices of Suffering and the Future of Human Rights Transnational Law & Contemporary
Problems, l/n]
The very term "human rights," which I invoke constantly, is itself problematic. The abundance of its meanings may not be reduced to
a false totality such as "basic human rights" inasmuch as all human rights are basic to those who are deprived, disadvantaged, and
dispossessed. Nor

may we succumb to an anthropomorphic illusion that the range of human rights

is limited to human beings; the new rights to a clean and healthy environment (or what is somewhat
inappropriately, even cruelly, called "sustainable development" n10 ) take us far beyond such a narrow notion. Nor
should one reduce the forbiddingly diverse range of human rights enunciations or totality of sentiments that give rise to them to

The
expression "human rights" shelters an incredibly diverse range of desire-in-dominance politics
and desire-in-insurrection politics. These forms of politics resist encapsulation in any formula.
The best one may hope for is to let the contexts of domination and resistance articulate
themselves as separate but equal perspectives on the meaning of "human rights."
some uniform narrative that seeks family resemblance in such ideas as "dignity," "well-being," or human "flourishing."

AT: HR Socialize/make everyone same

HUMAN RIGHTS ARE A FACET OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF DIGNITY
Fasching and Dechant 01 (Darrell J Dell,Comparative Religion Ethics: A Narrative Approach,p. )
The origins of human rights thought are controversial. We do not think it is either possible or
desirable to trace a human rights ethic to a single source. Human rights emerged as a distinct
theme of modern ethical consciousness as the result of the influences of a variety of sources, both
ancient and modern, both secular and religious. We can identify at least four. The first is the awareness of our humanity as in the image of the holy, that which cannot be named or imaged, and the
formation of holy communities hospitable to strangers on the basis of such experiences. The Buddhist
experiences of emptiness and the sangha, and the Jewish experiences of being created in the image of a God without image and the synagogue, provide
two examples. Second, the Socratic experience of doubt which opens the self to the infinite unseen measure. Like the Athenian state, every state fears
the power to doubt and to question. In every totalitarian society the drive toward genocide is rooted in this fear. If the doubter could be separated from his
or her doubt and totally conformed to the demands of society, violent coercion would be unnecessary. But there is no way to prevent doubts from occurring,
so to eliminate the doubts one must eliminate the doubter. All violence and coercion is rooted in fear of the holy - fear of our openness to the infinite that,
through doubt, prevents us from being confined to the finite (i.e., the way things are). Third, the experience of indignation as the root of rebellion against
sacred order. Such experiences are an expression of a visceral awareness of our openness to the infinite; for instance, when Rosa Parks refused to be defined
as a "Negro" and relegated to the back of the bus. Or when Gandhi refused to be defined as "colored" and relegated to the baggage car. Each refused
to be defined by, and confined to, a system of segrega tion. Their indignation was an instinctive reaction rooted in their openness to the infinite.
Each knew they were and could be more than the sacred order of society allowed them to be, and out of indignation they refused to conform to "the way

the recognition that is fundamental to the social sciences, that no society has
ever succeeded in completely socializing any of its members. Our dignity is inalienable. No culture
(composed of a finite set of roles and expectations) has ever succeeded in estranging us from it. No
matter how well indoctrinated we are in our culture, there always remains a part of us that refuses to
be defined, that cannot be defined, and so remains deviant and a stranger. Our openness to the
infinite places an inviolable limit on all cultures and societies and the sacred roles they would
impose on us. Hence human dignity manifests itself in every culture as a limit which no culture
can successfully transgress.
things are." Fourth, and finally,

Organized Crime

distrust = crime
Undocumented immigrants are statistically less likely to report crime fear
of deportation

Lee 13 (Esther Yu-Hsi Lee is the Immigration Reporter for ThinkProgress and received her B.A. in Psychology and Middle
East and Islamic Studies and a M.A. in Psychology from New York University, How The Fear Of Deportation Prevented Police From
Solving A 22-Year-Old Murder, 10/17/13, Date Accessed: 7/7/15,

http://thinkprogress.org/immigration/2013/10/17/2791841/deportation-fears-cold-case-babyhope/, SZ)
Castillos fear

of deportation and her husbands family, is sadly all too common among the
undocumented immigrant community. Between 2010 to 2012, more than 200,000
undocumented parents were deported and ripped away from their U.S. citizen children. A 2013 survey
found that 70 percent of undocumented Latinos were less likely to contact police
officers if they are crime victims. Another study shows that immigrant women are three to six times more
likely to face gender-based violence than their American-born peers. A startling 77 percent of immigrants who are dependent on
their spouses for immigration status experienced domestic violence. And women who face a language barrier, as in Castillos case,
are not always aware that some non-profit organizations that shelter abused women are exempt from inquiring about immigration
status. This

mistrust of law enforcement officials is not unfounded. In one

instance, an undocumented immigrant was placed in deportation
proceedings days after his collaboration as a police informant helped law
enforcement officials to bust a drug trafficking organization. Even a 59 year old
grandmother who drove without a license was given a set time period to voluntarily leave the country, then later taken to an
immigration detention facility. Cooperation with police investigations is also hindered by programs like Secure Communities, which
asks local police to check the immigration status of anyone who comes in, and Arizonas anti-immigration SB 1070 law, which allows

police officers to question the legal status of undocumented immigrants

who report abuse or crime. In 2011, Republicans proposed the HALT Act, which gave law
enforcement officials the ability to deport undocumented immigrants when
they report crime.

Fear of police destroys community safety- Afraid to report crimes and gang
activity

Theodore 13 (Nik Theodore is part of the Department of Urban Planning and Policy at the University of Illinois in
Chicago, Insecure Communities: Latino Perceptions of Police Involvement in Immigration Enforcement, Published May 2013,
Date Accessed: 7/7/15,

http://www.policylink.org/sites/default/files/INSECURE_COMMUNITIES_REPORT_FINAL.
PDF, SZ)

State and local law enforcement authorities increasingly are involved in

immigration enforcement, whether under the 287(g) program, the Secure Communities
program, or various state laws. This report has identified an important unintended consequence of
police involvement in immigration enforcement: a substantial portion of the Latino
populations in Cook, Harris, Los Angeles, and Maricopa Counties are reluctant to voluntarily
contact the police to report a crime or to provide information about crimes,
specifically because they fear that police officers will inquire about the
immigration status of themselves, their friends, or their family members . The

survey findings indicate that: 1. Isolation

and disconnectedness from police: Many

Latinos feel isolated from the law enforcement officers who are sworn to
protect them. More than four in ten would be more likely to turn to a church or community leader than to law enforcement
authorities if they are victims of or witness to a crime, for fear they would call attention to their own immigration status or that of
someone they know. Similarly, more than four in ten say that because police are more involved in enforcing immigration laws they
have become less likely to volunteer information about crimes because they fear getting caught in the web of immigration
enforcement themselves or bringing unwanted attention to their family or friends. 2. Withdrawal:

Many Latinos
feel isolated and admit to withdrawing from their community. A large share
feels under suspicion and is afraid to leave their homes . This sense of withdrawal by a
substantial portion of Latinos in the counties surveyed especially those younger and raising children has short- and long-term
negative consequences for public safety and community life. In the short term, crimes become more difficult to solve as the social
distance between police and residents increases. Over the long term, a significant segment of the population may withdraw and
develop a fear of law enforcement authorities. 3. Diminished

sense of public safety: Rather than

feeling safer because of increased police involvement in immigration
enforcement, many Latinos feel less safe. Many Latinos say criminals are
moving into their neighborhoods, making them and their neighbors less
safe, because criminals know residents are less likely to report them to
police given the increased involvement of police in immigration
enforcement. Few feel safer because of the increased focus on immigration by local law enforcement. 18 The findings
presented here indicate that the greater involvement of police in immigration enforcement has significantly heightened the fears
many Latinos have of the police, contributing to their social isolation and exacerbating their mistrust of law enforcement authorities.

This fear, isolation and mistrust, in turn, has led to a reduction in public
safety, a serious negative consequence of the involvement of police in
immigration enforcement.
Racially biased immigration laws cause a fear of police

Theodore 13 (Nik Theodore is part of the Department of Urban Planning and Policy at the University of Illinois in
Chicago, Insecure Communities: Latino Perceptions of Police Involvement in Immigration Enforcement, Published May 2013,
Date Accessed: 7/7/15,

http://www.policylink.org/sites/default/files/INSECURE_COMMUNITIES_REPORT_FINAL.
PDF, SZ)

Survey results indicate that the increased involvement of police in

immigration enforcement has significantly heightened the fears many Latinos have of the
police, contributing to their social isolation and exacerbating their mistrust
of law enforcement authorities. Key findings include: 44 percent of Latinos surveyed
reported they are less likely to contact police officers if they have been the
victim of a crime because they fear that police officers will use this interaction as an opportunity
to inquire into their immigration status or that of people they know. 45 percent of
Latinos stated that they are less likely to voluntarily offer information about crimes, and 45 percent are less likely to report a crime
because they are afraid the police will ask them or people they know about their immigration status. 70

percent of
undocumented immigrants reported they are less likely to contact law
enforcement authorities if they were victims of a crime . Fear of police contact is not
confined to immigrants. For example, 28 percent of US-born Latinos said they are less likely to contact police officers if they have
been the victim of a crime because they fear that police officers will use this interaction as an opportunity to inquire into their
immigration status or that of people they know. 38 percent of Latinos reported they feel like they are under more suspicion now that
local law enforcement authorities have become involved in immigration enforcement. This figure includes 26 percent of US-born
respondents, 40 percent of foreign-born respondents, and 58 percent of undocumented immigrant respondents. When asked how

often police officers stop Latinos without good reason or cause, 62 percent said very or somewhat often, including 58 percent of USborn respondents, 64 percent of foreign-born respondents, and 78 percent of undocumented immigrant respondents

Plan solves for public safety

Maestas 13 (Adriana Maestas is the senior contributing editor of Politic365.com, Immigration Enforcement
Consequence: Latinos Fear the Police, 5/9/13, Date Accessed: 7/7/15,

http://politic365.com/2013/05/09/immigration-enforcement-consequence-latinos-fear-thepolice/, SZ)
Congresswoman Lucille Roybal-Allard (D California) expressed her frustration with having the police involved in immigration

local police
shouldnt be in the business of enforcing our immigration laws. As the Los Angeles
Police Department has said repeatedly, when immigrant and minority communities fear the
cops who patrol their streets, fewer witnesses come forward and more
victims choose to suffer in silence. That makes all of us less safe. We should end federal
partnerships with local law enforcement, like the deeply flawed 287(g) and
Secure Communities programs, while Congress works to overhaul our broken immigration system.
enforcement in response to this study with a statement, The results of this scientific survey clearly show that

ICE arrests citizens because of race and ethnicity - Discussion key to solves
profiling USFG bad
*Potential narrative at the top
Briggs 15 (Christian Briggs University of Southern California Law School Doctor of Law (J.D.).
"The Reasonableness of a Race-Based Suspicion: The Fourth Amendment and teh Costs and
benefits of Racial Profiling in Immigration Enforcement" Southern California Law Review.
January 2015. 88 S. Cal. L. Rev. 379. Lexis.)//lb
Claudia, a Mexican American with family roots in the United States since the mid-1800s, walked
out of a grocery store, happily chatting with her three young children in Spanish as they walked
toward her car. n1 Before arriving at her car, she was stopped by government officials and asked
for proof of citizenship. n2 Speaking to the officers in accent-free English, she explained that she
is in fact a United States citizen, offering her driver's license as proof. n3 After rejecting her
driver's license, the officers requested another form of identification as proof that she was in the
United States legally. n4 Eventually, Claudia gave the officers something that satisfied them, and
they allowed her to continue with her children to her car. n5 After [*380] the event, Claudia
wondered what she might do in the future to avoid being stereotyped as an "undocumented
Mexican." n6 In a similar event in 2012, officers from the Maricopa County Sherriff's
Office ("MCSO") in Arizona were trained by Immigration and Customs
Enforcement ("ICE") to use "Mexican ancestry" n7 as a factor in determining
whether any given individual may be undocumented. n8 As a result, MCSO officers
targeted individuals on the sole basis of their Mexican appearance, in violation of
the Fourth Amendment. n9 Around the same time, officers from the Almance County
Sheriff's Office ("ACSO") in North Carolina were told by their sheriff to "go out there
and get me some of those taco eaters." n10 Several years later, the Department of Justice
("DOJ") found that the ASCO had engaged in "an egregious pattern of racial
profiling" against Latinos. n11 Stories like these illustrate why a discussion of racial
profiling in immigration enforcement is particularly important in 2015. For one, data suggests

that racial profiling of Latinos has increased n12 as the role of local and state police
has been expanded to include enforcing federal immigration law. n13 [*381] Because
a person is not visibly identifiable as being undocumented, the basic problem with
local police enforcing immigration law is that police officers who are often not adequately
trained, and in some cases not trained at all, in federal immigration enforcement will improperly
rely on race or ethnicity as a proxy for undocumented status ... . State or local police with
minimal training in immigration law are put on the street with a mandate to arrest
"illegal aliens." The predictable and inevitable result is that any person who looks
or sounds "foreign" is more likely to be stopped by police, and more likely to be
arrested (rather than warned or cited or simply let go) when stopped. n14 Furthermore,
an examination of racial profiling in immigration enforcement is especially timely because it can
inform agency guidelines and pending legislation. In December 2014, the DOJ released
updated guidelines on racial profiling that include not only race and ethnicity, but
also national origin and religion as protected categories. n15 While the new guidelines
improve upon the oft-criticized n16 2003 guidelines n17 by including national origin and
religion as protected categories, and by covering interior immigration enforcement, n18 they
have several holes. First, they provide little direction for how the new guidelines
should be enforced. n19 Second, it is unclear how the guidelines should apply to
local and state police officers who routinely [*382] enforce federal immigration
law. Third, the guidelines' requirement that federal agencies train enforcement officers and
collect data is vague and unclear. n20 Significantly, Congress's 2014 attempt at
comprehensive immigration reform - the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and
Immigration Modernization Act (the "Act") - also attempted to address racial profiling.
n21 In fact, the Act's provisions on racial profiling mirrored the 2003 DOJ
guidelines n22 that Attorney General Eric Holder replaced, prohibiting race and
ethnicity-based profiling, but declining to prohibit profiling on the basis of
national origin and religion. n23 While reports suggest that the 2014 attempt at
comprehensive immigration reform may never be passed, n24 a discussion of the complex
issues surrounding race and immigration enforcement can help assure that fair
and effective legislation is passed in the future.

gang violence=high
Gang activity expanding rapidly Proven by studies

PERF 10 (PERF is the Police Executive Research Form, CRITICAL ISSUES IN POLICING SERIES: Gang Violence: The
Police Role in Developing Community-Wide Solutions, Published February 2010, Date Accessed: 7/13/15,

http://www.policeforum.org/assets/docs/Critical_Issues_Series/gang%20violence%20%20the%20police%20role%20in%20developing%20community-wide%20solutions.pdf , SZ)
PERFs survey respondents indicated that the dynamics of gang activity today are not the same as they were several years ago. Gangs
have seen shifts in their basic motivations, structure and activities. The PERF survey sought to get a police perspective on how the
nature of the gang problem has changed during the past two years. Broadly speaking, respondents

reported
seeing an expansion of gangs and an increase in gang members use of
firearms. Seventy percent of the responding agencies reported seeing an
increase in gang membership over the past two years, and 55 percent
reported an increase of the use of guns in gang crimes during that time.
Gang influence seems to be expanding, as well: 60 percent of survey respondents reported an increase in
multi-jurisdictional gang-related crimes over the past two years.

Gang violence on the increase

Rojas 14 (Leslie Berestein Rojas is KPCC's Immigration and Emerging Communities Reporter and an award-winning
journalist, Transnational gangs: The Central American migrant crisis' LA connection, 7/16/14, Date Accessed: 7/8/15,

http://www.scpr.org/blogs/multiamerican/2014/07/16/17018/transnational-gangs-how-thecentral-american-migra/?slide=1, SZ)
But much of that gang violence isn't rooted in Central America. It's rooted in the United States, particularly
in Los Angeles. It's part of a long and complicated history between the U.S. and Central America, in which the deportation policies of
recent decades figure prominently. "Gang

violence has increased steadily over the last

decade or two, and one factor that has contributed to it is that the U.S. has
deported a lot of convicted criminals back to Central America," said Marc Rosenblum, deputy director of
the U.S. immigration program for the Migration Policy Institute in Washington. "All three of the countries in the northern triangle
are pretty weak states, and so thats given criminal organizations an opportunity to sort of establish themselves and flourish."

ICE = gangs
Additionally, many illegal immigrants join gangs- Hundreds of thousands of
crimes

Lee 14 (Tony Lee is a writer for Breitbart on policy and government activity, TEXAS STATE SENATOR: 100,000 ILLEGAL
IMMIGRANT GANG MEMBERS IN STATE, 7/21/14, Date Accessed: 7/7/15, http://www.breitbart.com/big-

government/2014/07/21/texas-state-senator-100-000-illegal-immigrant-gangsters-in-state/# ,
SZ)
Hours before Texas Gov. Rick Perry announced he would send National Guard troops to the border, Texas state Senator Dan Patrick
said there are at least 100,000 illegal immigrant gang members in the state. On
Mondays The Laura Ingraham Show, Patrick, who is also the Republican candidate for lieutenant governor, said from 2008 to 2012,

143,000 illegal immigrant criminals were arrested and jailed in Texas. He said these were hardened
criminals, gang members, and other criminals that we identified as being in Texas illegally.
We charged them with 447,000 crimes, a half-million crimes in four years,
just in Texas, including over 5,000 rapes and 2,000 murders, Patrick said. We estimate we
have 100,000 gang members here illegally. Patrick also observed during his trips to the border and
detention centers that many of the young children are teenagers and with parents and family members. He said there is a concern
that some are gang

members and that potential terrorists can exploit the

porous border.
Immigrants are driven to the gangs Increased involvement

Cave 14 (Damien Cave is a foreign correspondent for The New York Times, Crime, Migrants and Politics Intersect on Tulsa
Streets, New York Times Late Edition 6/7/14, Date Accessed: 7/10/15, Lexis, SZ)
The city police, however, see things differently. Most of the drug dealers and murderers arrested in and around Tulsa, they say, are
not immigrants, nor are they Hispanic. And

much of the crime in the Hispanic community,

preying on immigrants who are less likely to
report being victimized. Rather than detain immigrants suspected of being
in the country illegally -- a policy the sheriff's office strongly supports -- the city police say they
would rather work with immigrants, here legally or not, to encourage them to report
crime and reduce violence. Experts say the conflicting views of two law enforcement departments working side
they add, involves non-Hispanic gangs

by side in the same place underscores the complexity, and the competing agendas, found at the nexus of the issue of immigration
and crime -- and the way that the politics of immigration can clash with the reality of beat cops. ''The sheriff is elected; it's a political
position,'' said Elizabeth M. McCormick, a professor at the University of Tulsa College of Law. ''There are motivations at play in the
sheriff's office, in terms of continuing to be engaged with immigration, that don't exist for the Tulsa Police Department.'' The city
police acknowledge that Hispanic

gangs have expanded as the immigrant population

has grown in the past few years. But a vast majority of their members are legal residents or American
citizens: many are the sons or grandsons of immigrants, they say, who seem to join street gangs here not to reach back to their roots,
but rather to become more American. ''Their parents are trying to provide them with a better life, but some of these kids see that
gang lifestyle and they want to follow it,'' Sergeant Larkin said. ''It's almost ingrained into teenage American culture.'' Officer Jesse
Guardiola, a Mexican-American with the Tulsa Police Department, said that Hispanic

gangs were growing in

part because the children of immigrants often come from families in which all the adults are working nonstop,
without the time or inclination to encourage the pursuit of education. ''What we have is a growing epidemic of dropouts who are
Latino -- 52 percent of Latinos in Tulsa are not graduating from high school,'' Officer Guardiola said. And for criminals of all
backgrounds, several city officers said, immigrants

are typically seen as inviting targets.

Immigrant populations are susceptible to gang activity

Squire 14 (Paul Squire is a reporter for the Times Review Media, Gang activity continues to move farther east, police say,
10/24/14, Date Accessed: 7/10/15, http://suffolktimes.timesreview.com/2014/10/53208/gang-activity-

continues-to-move-farther-east-police-say/, SZ)
Police have also found that gang members known to live in Nassau or New York City have turned up across Suffolk County, Sgt.
Lundquist said. He believes those gang

members are traveling east to avoid a larger police

presence. Last weeks incident was an escalation of the gang activity typically reported in Southold Town, where shootings
are rare, said police chief Martin Flatley. None of [the recent violence] has been as blatant as this, he said. Chief Flatley said police
suspect that some

assaults involving different factions of Hispanic men may be

gang-related, but added that its often difficult to prove, since some members of the Hispanic
community often do not trust police. He said the root of that problem with trusting cops lies in Central
America, where police corruption is rampant and gangs are said to control many parts of the region. The last major gang-related
incident in Southold Town took place in 2009, when a 15-year-old Eber Lopez of Greenport went missing from a christening
celebration in Southold, Chief Flatley said. At the time, neighbors said they heard three gunshots just before midnight and police
found blood in the backyard, according to a previous Suffolk Times article. Homicide investigators said that Eber who was not
affiliated with a gang had been confronted by known gang members at the celebration. The teens body was discovered in
Farmingville the following month. A Southold man was later convicted of aiding another man who murdered the boy, though the
killer was never caught. Chief

Flatley said crimes like the murder of Eber Lopez or the shooting early last Tuesday are rare.
He told The Suffolk Times that police have noticed more activity with
Hispanic gangs in the area, likely because of the rising immigrant
population.

Immigrant gangs threaten public safety- Especially in immigrant

populations

Feere and Vaughan 8 (Jon Feere is a legal policy analyst, Jessica Vaughan is the Director of Policy studies at
the Center for Immigration Studies, Taking Back the Streets: ICE and Local Law Enforcement Target Immigrant Gangs, Published
September 2008, Date Accessed: 7/7/15, http://cis.org/ImmigrantGangs, SZ)

Immigrant gangs are considered a unique public safety threat due to their
members propensity for violence and their involvement in transnational
crime. The latest national gang threat assessment noted that Hispanic gang membership has been
growing, especially in the Northeast and the South, and that areas with new immigrant populations are
especially vulnerable to gang activity. 2 A large share of the immigrant gangsters
in the most notorious gangs such as Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13), Surenos-13, and 18th Street are illegal
aliens. Their illegal status means they are especially vulnerable to law enforcement, and local authorities should take advantage of
the immigration tools available in order to disrupt criminal gang activity, remove gang members from American communities, and
deter their return. Once explained, these measures find much support, especially in immigrant communities where gang crime is
rampant. This report describes the

exceptional public safety problems posed by immigrant

gangs and looks at how one jurisdiction, Virginia, has used immigration law enforcement tools successfully to check their
further proliferation. The authors conducted extensive research on immigrant gang characteristics and activities, analyzed arrest
data from Operation Community Shield (OCS), and interviewed dozens of federal, state, and local law enforcement officers around
the country who are involved in gang suppression. They were assisted by consultants with federal law enforcement experience and
by research interns. 3 This report is a product of a larger study on immigrant gangs in Virginia (forthcoming), supported by a grant
from the U.S. Department of Justice.

ICE = LGBTQ violence

Immigrant racial profiling legitimizes LGBT discrimination aff key to
solve
Gehi 13 (Pooja Gehi graduated from American University's Washington College (WCL) of Law
in 2004 with a JD/MA in international affairs. At WCL she was the board chair of her National
Lawyers Guild Law School Chapter. "Gendered (In)security: Migration and Criminalization in
the Security State." The Dukeminier Awards Best Sexual Orientation Law Review Articles. 2013.
12 Dukeminier Awares 357. Lexis.)//lb
The United States has a long history of hyper-criminalization, disproportionate imprisonment,
and law enforcement profiling of people of color. n33 As Andrea Ritchie and Joey Mogul
explain, "Since the advent of the first state-sponsored police forces in the United States--slave
patrols--racialized policing has been a feature of the American landscape. Indeed, racial
profiling and police brutality have their roots in enforcement of Slave Codes, and later Black
Codes and Jim Crow segregation laws." n34 Many scholars view the criminal punishment
system as it exists today as an extension of slavery as it existed throughout the
history of the United States. n35 [*365] Gender policing has also been a key part of
illegitimate profiling throughout history. n36 While the data on discrimination and
profiling of LGBTQ communities is underdeveloped, n37 several recent reports have
yielded findings of employment discrimination, n38 housing discrimination, n39
and incarceration rates n40 significantly disproportionate to rates within the
general population. This data suggests a prevalence of an unconscious bias, n41 one
that influences law enforcement norms. n42 While "unconscious bias" theory reveals the ways in
which people with certain marked identities such as poverty, race, gender expression, and
sexuality are policed in a way [*366] that is not universal, it does not address the history of
policing and punishment that is directly related to power, white supremacy, and maintaining the
status quo. In certain ways, immigration enforcement based on profiling through the
devolution of criminal and immigration law illustrates this insidious underlying
agenda of criminalization more clearly. Although the civil rights movement in
America has eradicated most race-specific discriminatory laws, the devolution of
immigrant and police profiling has allowed profiling based on race (and poverty,
gender expression, and sexuality) to continue . n43 And, while such profiling occurs all
the time, the legal system deems itself to be grounded in equal protection. The ways in which
criminal immigration laws disproportionately affect transgender people of color
is a striking example of why equal protection under the law is not indicative of
reality.

Aff eliminates police stops based on LGBT immigrant assumptions

Gehi 13 (Pooja Gehi graduated from American University's Washington College (WCL) of Law
in 2004 with a JD/MA in international affairs. "Gendered (In)security: Migration and
Criminalization in the Security State." The Dukeminier Awards Best Sexual Orientation Law
Review Articles. 2013. 12 Dukeminier Awares 357. Lexis.)//lb
Over the past few decades even the mainstream U.S. media has acknowledged the existence of
racial profiling. From the infamous Rodney King beating in the 1990s n58 to the profiling and

false arrest of prominent scholar/professor Henry Louis Gates of Harvard in 2011, n59 the fact
that police profile people of color is a phenomenon that is difficult to deny. n60 For
transgender [*369] people living in poverty who also identify as people of color or
are perceived as immigrants , n61 particularly those with psychiatric or physical disabilities,
n62 policing stops are almost inevitable . Transgender people of color often even
describe the consequential arrests stemming from these police interactions as
"walking while trans." n63 New "war on terror"-based legislation such as SB 1070,
n64 Secure Communities, n65 and Section 287(g) n66 that "legalize" criminal stops
and arrests on the basis of race serve only as tools to increase the vulnerability
that marginalized transgender communities already encounter at the hands of
local law enforcement.
The legal standard for law enforcement to stop and interrogate people on the
street is so vague and deferential that it offers no protection against such
discrimination . n67 For example, pursuant to the Fourth Amendment, local [*370] law
enforcement is subject to a standard that demands a "reasonable, articulable suspicion that
crime is afoot." n68 This standard, however, is so unclear that a person may be stopped for
almost any reason and, in particular, for reasons relating to one's race, gender
identity, and/or perceived sexual orientation. n69 For example, in People v. Lomiller,
the First Department held that "a man carrying a purse" meets this standard. n70 This reason
for a stop and frisk, among others that are equally unjustified, is not uncommon. Wearing tight
clothing or too much makeup is seen as a reasonable, articulable suspicion of solicitation for the
purposes of prostitution, especially for people whose gender expression appears "wrong" or
"suspicious" to police enforcement. n71 Similarly, in my clients' experience, not making eye
contact is often used as an indication of drug use, and holding hands with someone perceived to
be of the same sex or different gender expression may be considered indication of prostitution.
According to my clients, using the bathroom that a police officer perceives as "the wrong
bathroom" is often used as an indication of lewd conduct. Some police departments have been
accused of claiming that possession of three or more condoms is sufficient [*371] cause for
presuming that a suspect is engaged in prostitution. n72 Although specific actions or
inactions are named by law enforcement as the reasons for police stops, a person's
race is often considered an indicator of a threat generally; n73 brown or black skin
is also a marker of potential immigration status . n74 Each of these stops is based on
a combination of race, poverty, gender expression, sexual orientation, and/or
perceived immigrant status . In addition, transgender individuals are often falsely
arrested when they call the police to report incidents of violence. For example, in
domestic violence disputes involving a queer or transgender relationship, police officers often
operate on pre-existing stereotypes about who is a perpetrator and who is a victim n75 and
either fail to arrest the perpetrator in situations that do not involve perceived male-againstfemale violence or arrest everyone, including the survivor of the violence. n76
Police brutality and excessive force are also common experiences for my transgender and
gender-nonconforming clients. Amnesty International has documented "serious patterns of
police misconduct and brutality aimed at LGBT people, including abuses that amount to torture
and ill treatment." Amnesty explains that their findings:

strongly indicate that police abuse and the forms it takes are often specific to the different
aspects of the victim's identity, such as sexual orientation, race, gender or gender identity, age or
economic status. Identities are complex, multi-layered and intersectional, such that a
person may be targeted for human rights violations based on a composite of
identities that the person seems to represent. For example, a lesbian woman who
is black may not only be a target of police abuse because of her sexual orientation
but also because she is a woman of color . The targeting of lesbian, gay, bisexual
and transgender people for discriminatory enforcement of laws and their
treatment in the hands of the police needs to [*372] be understood within the
larger context of identity-based discrimination, and the interplay between different
forms of discrimination--such as racism, sexism, homophobia and transphobia--[that] create
the conditions in which human rights abuses are perpetuated. n77

ICE = race profiler

ICE encourages racial profiling to maximize undocumented
immigrant detainees
Ramos 12 (Katarina Ramos- DePaul University - "LATCRIT XVI SYMPOSIUM - GLOBAL
JUSTICE: THEORIES, HISTORIES, FUTURES: Immigration, Crime, and Neo-Segregation:
Criminalizing Race in the Name of Secure Communities" California Western Law Review.
Spring 2012. 48 Cal. W. L. Rev. 317.)//lb
The Secure Communities program (Secure Communities) was introduced by DHS as a less divisive method of involving local law
enforcement in enforcing immigration statutes. n3 The program was introduced as a milder alternative to the Immigration and
Nationality Act section 287(g) Memorandum of Agreement, n4 which allows local law enforcement officers to request immigration
status during a mere traffic stop. n5 Secure Communities is designed as a modification of the basic fingerprinting system. n6
Previously, law enforcement checked only an arrestee's prior criminal history. Under Secure Communities, an

arrestee's
fingerprints are run, not just through the FBI system to find previous arrests, but also through the DHS
Immigration system, to search for any outstanding immigration violations. If the FBI database has a hit of
a Level 1 felony and there is also a hit in the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services (USCIS) database, an ICE detainer is automatically issued; anything lower
than a Level 1 offense is left to the discretion of the local ICE agency office . n7
This program was sold to communities as preferable to a 287(g) memorandum because it would remove violent criminals, stop nonviolent criminals from being put into removal proceedings, and place less discretion and responsibility in the hands of local law
enforcement officers. n8 ICE has claimed that this program is a victory for DHS and its community partners against violent,
undocumented [*320] criminal migrants. n9 ICE

lists the high numbers of "criminal aliens" it has

deported since the program was enacted as evidence of its success. n10
In the case of our driver, however, mere entry into the United States without permission is considered a removable offense. In fact,
he is not deportable, because under immigration law, he never was admitted to this country. Under a neat piece of legal fiction, even
though he has been physically present in this country for years he is considered "inadmissible" because he was not inspected by
border patrol agents.

The number of removals of people without a violent criminal history

is almost double that of the Level 1 felons that are eligible for automatic removal
under Secure Communities. n11 In states and counties in Illinois that have been
traditionally white, the number of removals of non-criminal immigrants is high. n12
Under the new system, officers are encouraged to target minorities , particularly Hispanics.
They know that the potential number of arrests is greater in the Latino population,
particularly the undocumented portion. Furthermore, any arrest is enough to bring an
undocumented person to the attention of ICE. While the arrestable activity may be
a misdemeanor or even a ticketable offense, once ICE finds an undocumented
person, their very presence makes them removable. n13
[*321] While Secure Communities removes the discretion to ask someone for their papers, a minor arrest is now sufficient to be
placed in removal proceedings, even when criminal charges are dropped. Local

law enforcement officials still

have the discretion to choose who to arrest and run through the Automatic Biometric
Identification System (IDENT). n14 Until recently, local officers were not given any training before beginning the program,
which creates obvious problems. n15 Although the program was enacted in 2009, ICE did not
propose training for local law enforcement in racial profiling until June 2011 , after
outside organizations began to draw attention to this issue. n16 As of March 29, 2012, "Avoiding Racial and Ethnic Profiling" is a
topic under development. n17 Furthermore,

ICE's own enactment policies show a discriminatory

bias against immigrants of Hispanic origin. The less than subtle racial overtones
of Secure Communities demonstrate the problem of racial profiling in the national
security debate.

Although Secure Communities has been touted as an immigration enforcement plan that targets "criminal aliens," and as an answer
to the racial profiling tendencies witnessed in enforcement of 287(g) traffic stops, the

program is still inherently

flawed in its dependence on racial profiling because the plan does not have
sufficient safeguards. Many of these racial problems appear to be a response to the
changing demographics in areas where the program has been introduced. These
problems raise questions regarding what training is necessary before the country delegates enforcement of a federal immigration law
to local law enforcement, and whether it is ever acceptable to base security decisions on race.
[*322] This Essay will map out the basics of Secure Communities, and the racial profiling that is inherent to the program. Part II
begins with a brief summary of Secure Communities. Part III examines the definitions of criminality used by ICE in drafting Secure
Communities. Part IV addresses problems

facing the program, including lack of sufficient

training for local law enforcement and the use of racial profiling to classify
immigrants as criminals: starting with the phrase "illegal," and finishing with a
discussion of the inherent trap in combining immigration and criminal legislation .
Part V discusses demographic changes in some of the Illinois counties that have enacted the program, and how this leads to
accepting a program that allows racial profiling. Part VI discusses the disturbing trend of aggression that ICE has shown in enforcing
Secure Communities. The Essay concludes with a very brief discussion of Illinois's current attempts to withdraw from Secure
Communities - the ideal solution for the problems in this inherently, racially flawed program.

ICE use of police results in racial profiling

Hing 09 (Bill Ong [University of San Francisco-School of Law]
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=331631)
The nightmare was only beginning. Although

supervisory ICE agents carried a civil warrant for

a few individuals, the squad demanded that all plant employees be held, separated
by nationality That included U.S. citizen workers who were interrogated and detained. No one was free to
leavenot even those who carried evidence of lawful status or proof they were in
the process of seeking proper permission to be in this country . Each was interrogated
individually. The process took the entire day, and phone calls were not permitted until later in the day. By the end of the day,

ninety were arrested, but hundreds, including citizens, had been detained for
hours. The entire community was shaken to its core. Although immigration raids are not a recent phenomenon, this Article
focuses on a few egregious ICE raids that occurred after President Bushs push for immigration reform in 2004. I had the
opportunity to learn more about several such raids first hand as part of a commission that was established by the United Food and
Commercial Workers International Union in 2008.5 The Commission spent more than a year holding regional hearings,
interviewing witnesses, and soliciting input from a wide range of workers, elected officials, policy experts, psychologists, and
religious and community leaders. Commissioners learned about the abuse that ICE officials visited upon workers, their families, and
the communities. This Articles discussion of

ICE raids addresses racial profiling, the trauma to

children and families, the damage to communities, and some legal considerations.
Descriptions of ICE raids challenge us to think more seriously about the underlying racial implications of those raids. The tragic
effects on families and communities, as well as the serious constitutional violations committed by ICE agents during the raids,
provide ample moral and legal justification to end the raids. The inherent racism at the center of the ICE raids and other ICE and
Border Patrol operations raises further concern that receives little public attention. With few exceptions, the ICE

operations

targeted Latinosusually Mexicans. The exceptions were Chinese restaurants and other businesses that relied
on workers of color. That racial effect is the focus of this Article and the basis for advocating that both immigration policies and

ICE enforcement need to be rethought.

ICE profiles all immigrants as criminal threats regardless as their situation

Grossman 14 (Jordan Grossman. J.D. Candidate 2014, Harvard Law School. The author
served as a Special Advisor in the Office of the Secretary at the U.S. Department of Homeland

Security from 2009 to 2011. "Hidden in Plain Sight: Examining the Obama Administration's
Discreet Implementation of a Scaled-Down Version of Comprehensive Immigration Reform"
Harvard Law & Policy Review. Winter 2014. 8 Harv. L. & Pol'y Rev. 195)//lb
This Article examines the Obama administration's effort to encourage the use of prosecutorial discretion by Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE), the executive agency in charge of the enforcement of immigration laws. Since 2010, the Obama
administration has repeatedly stated that agency officials are to focus enforcement efforts on those who pose a threat or danger,
rather than pursuing deportation of all undocumented immigrants with equal fervor. Yet, despite repeated directives by the
Administration, the

implementation of prosecutorial discretion is widely considered a

failure. Data and anecdotes from the field suggest that ICE has yet to embrace this
more nuanced approach to the enforcement of immigration laws .
In this Article, I argue that one key reason that prosecutorial discretion has not taken hold within ICE is the failure of the President
and his Administration to adequately account for agency culture. In particular, the prosecutorial discretion initiative directly
conflicts with the central role that criminal convictions play in ICE culture. To support my argument, I present an in-depth case
study of the agency's refusal to exercise discretion in a highly compelling case. For

over two years, ICE

aggressively prosecuted a client of the University of Arizona's immigration clinic who appeared to be
the quintessential recipient of prosecutorial discretion, as the victim of domestic violence, sex
trafficking, and the primary caregiver for three young U.S citizen children. Despite
these equities, ICE's decision to prosecute was based wholly on the single
conviction on her record, which was directly related to her victimization and for
which she received a sentence of probation only .
I situate this case study in a theoretical framework regarding bureaucratic culture .

Applying this analysis to ICE

brings into focus key elements of the agency's culture, particularly its tendency to
view all immigrants as criminal threats. This culture makes the sole fact of a
conviction - without regard to its seriousness or context - a nearly irreversible
determinant of the agency's approach to any given case . My analysis of the nature and intensity of
ICE's bureaucratic culture has troubling implications for the capacity of the President and his Administration to implement reforms
that counter the lack of nuance in the immigration system's current legal framework. It suggests that

locating
discretion primarily in the enforcement arm of the immigration bureaucracy has
inherent limitations that lead to a system poorly designed to address
humanitarian concerns raised in individual cases.

ICE arrest citizens and deports non-criminals Florida proves

Little 10 (Cheryl Little "Targeting the wrong immigrants; ICE deporting people for minor
offenses" Palm Beach Post. July 11, 2010. Pg. 18A.) //lb
This is why

we have concerns about ICE's Secure Communities program . ICE claims, as it has
the program screens the
fingerprints of anyone arrested by local police, not just those convicted of crimes.
With such a wide net, it's not surprising that 90 percent of the people flagged by Secure
Communities were not the "most dangerous criminal aliens, '' according to ICE's own data in
November. Another 5 percent of the "hits" were U.S. citizens, which means that
thousands of people risk being wrongly detained or even deported.
done for years, that it is targeting dangerous criminals, like murderers and rapists. Yet

This may explain what the

center is seeing in Florida detention centers: A flood of detainees with

minor offenses such as driving with an expired license, improper car window tints
and loitering. One detainee in Collier Country was charged for taking coins from a fountain. These are not the

national security risks that the Department of Homeland Security should be

targeting.
Nor does deporting such immigrants make our streets safer. On the contrary ,

immigrant communities, like many in

in fear when local police collaborate with ICE. Who will report a crime to
police or agree to be a witness when they or a relative risks being deported ?
Florida, live

Given the lives affected, you would think ICE would release all the available data on Secure Communities, including statistics and
plans for the program. Instead, advocates

are having to sue to get what should be public

information. That's what the Center for Constitutional Rights did in May.
We applauded when President Obama recently reiterated his commitment to enacting comprehensive immigration reforms,
including a pathway for unauthorized immigrants to earn legal status. Meanwhile ,

tens of thousands of
immigrants who pay taxes, have U.S. citizen relatives, contribute to their
communities and have lived here for years are being detained and deported by ICE .
So why is ICE spending billions of taxpayers' dollars to reel in the very people who
would be able to earn legal status under the comprehensive immigration reform
that President Obama rightly advocates?

ICE illegally extends custody and denies rights to non-citizens

Beckett and Evans 5/15 (Katherine Beckett and Heather Evans "Crimmigration at the Local
Level: Criminal Justice Process in the Shadow of Deportation" March 2015. Law & Society
Review. 49 Law & Soc'y Rev. 241.) //lb
In short, although the effects of ICE detainers likely vary across locales, it is notable that

ICE detainers
significantly extended jail stays and led to the denial of rights even in liberal King County.
Moreover, there is evidence that detainers also prolong jail stays in Los Angeles (Greene 2012), where, according to Eagly (2013),
practitioners and policymakers alike attempt to counter the perceived unfair impact of immigration policy by purposefully taking

where ICE
detainers are honored, the threat of deportation casts a long shadow over local
criminal proceedings--even where authorities attempt to either ignore or mitigate
that reality. Interestingly, the King County council recently voted to limit the circumstances under which ICE detainer
immigration consequences into account and treating them as quasi-punishments. It thus appears that

requests will be honored by jail administrators, joining a number of other counties that have elected to limit their cooperation with
federal government (Admur 2014). However,

a majority of counties continue to fully participate in

the Secure Communities program.
Our findings have important substantive implications. Feeley's ( 1992) classic account of the handling of misdemeanor cases in New
Haven, Connecticut suggests that the criminal justice process is inherently punitive, so much so that misdemeanants endeavor
mainly to disentangle themselves from the courts as quickly as possible .

Where ICE detainers are honored,

the conjoining of the immigration and criminal systems appears to prolong both
criminal case processing and jail stays, thus enhancing the degree of penal pain
experienced by non-citizen defendants. Incarceration, including short-term jail
stays, has a number of adverse social, psychological and economic consequences
(Clear 2007; Freudenberg 2002; Freudenberg et al. 2008). In particular, the denial of pretrial release not only prolongs
incarceration but also increases the likelihood of conviction and receipt of a prison sentence (Devers 2011; Phillips 2007, 2008). De
facto ineligibility

for alternative sentences also increases the likelihood that noncitizens will be sentenced to jail or prison. Insofar as detainers extend noncitizen'
jail stays, prolong their contact with the criminal justice system, and increase the likelihood of conviction, they are an
important means by which penal pain is differentially imposed on non-citizens.

Although our findings are based on a single case study, sociolegal scholars analyzing other venues and court systems have [*273]
reached similar conclusions. For example, Cade argues that, " the

deportation and misdemeanor

prosecution systems interact to produce graver injustices than observers have
previously understood" (2012: 1811). Similarly, Eagly notes that non-citizens in the federal
system are "treated differently along alienage lines" (2010: 1317). For example, 75 percent of
all citizen defendants, but only 14 percent of non-citizen defendants, facing a
sentence of six months or less are sentenced to probation (2010: 1318). Similar gaps exist for
people with longer recommended sentences (2010: 1318). Moreover, the Federal Bureau of Prisons
designates all non-citizen defendants "deportable aliens" without an investigation
into their legal status, flight risk or dangerousness; this classification , in turn,
subjects non-citizen defendants to harsher treatment in prison, including
assignment to facilities with higher security levels, more stringent
recommendations, fewer recreational programs (2010: 1318).
Immigrant gangs have link to terrorism
Killebrew 08 -- retired Army Col. And researcher at the Center for a New American Strategy (Robert, A New Threat: The Crossover of
Urban Gang Warfare and Terrorism, file:///C:/Users/clarkj/Downloads/killebrewgangs.pdf)

Criminal gangs of both the international and local variety have already cooperated with
terrorist organizations, and will do so again. When they do, they will operate with
the worst features of both -- ruthlessness and long-range planning -- and so
become a more potent threat to the security of the U.S. To counter this more dangerous version of
either threat, tactics and strategy used by U.S. police must be combined with a patient and focused diplomatic, military and law
enforcement policies outside the 24 Ken Ellngwood in the Los Angeles Times, Mexico versus the Drug Gangs; a Deadly Clash for
Control, June 3, 2008. National Strategy Forum Review Fall 2008 A New Threat 23 U.S. While there is no particular order in
which solutions should be begun, the fi rst concern should be close to home -- to disrupt criminal gangs and terrorist cells now in the
U.S. and begin to turn the tide against the spread of both local and international gangs. Second, U.S. diplomatic, military and law
enforcement activities overseas should be coordinated to support emerging countries struggling with their own gang and terrorist
problems. In his book Terrorism: The New Face of Warfare, scholar Donald Hanle makes the argument that if the objectives of
ideologically-motivated terrorists or insurgents are frustrated long enough, members get disillusioned and eventually turn to crime - as FARC has done in Colombia. As they do, their movement devolves into common crime, vulnerable to be picked off by law
enforcement and without any ideological attraction for the population it was trying to win. If so, then a strategy for South America
may well be to hold Hezbollah and its clones at bay long enough for the local jihads to sink into the criminal background they have
chosen, while at the same time assisting local police forces and other relevant national institutions, thus increasing the vulnerability
of gangs and terrorists to improved policing and counterinsurgency techniques. Even so, its not an easy solution --

Mexicos

intense criminal drug war is threatening the state itself without any ideological expression but money, and
most South American nations are not now prepared to fi ght an all-out, Mexican-style war on narcoterrorists, but in the future its

The
first step, however, is for the U.S. to get its own house in order and recognize that
gangs and terrorists are increasingly different parts of a common problem .
quite likely they will be, and our role can be as the quiet American who supports them in their own fights for survival.

impact -Racial profiling

Racial profiling undermines law enforcement distracts police from
preattack behaviors
Chanin et al. 11 (Robert Chanin writes with others at the Leadership Conference, a 501(c)(4)
organization that engages in legislative advocacy. It was founded in 1950 and has coordinated national
lobbying efforts on behalf of every major civil rights law since 1957.. "Restoring a National Consensus: The
Need to End Racial Profiling in America." The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. March
2011. www.civilrights.org/publications/reports/racial-profiling2011/racial_profiling2011.pdf)//lb

Defenders of racial profiling argue that profiling is necessary and useful in the effort by law
enforcement authorities to fight street-crime, combat terrorism, and enforce the nations
immigration laws. The opposite is true: racial profiling is in all contexts a flawed law
enforcement tactic that may increase the number of people who are brought
through the legal system, but that actually decreases the hit rate for catching
criminals , terrorists, or undocumented immigrants. There are two primary reasons for
this. To begin with, racial profiling is a tactic that diverts and misuses precious law
enforcement resources. This became clear in 1998 when the U.S. Customs Service
responded to a series of discrimination complaints by eliminating the use of race
in its investigations and focusing solely on suspect behavior. A study found that 22
this policy shift led to an almost 300 percent increase in the discovery of
contraband or illegal activity.120 Consider the inefficient allocation of scarce police
resources in New Jersey when, as described in Chapter III (C) of this report local law
enforcement authorities stopped tens of thousands of Hispanic motorists, pedestrians,
passengers, and others in a six-month period. Just 1,417 of the tens of thousands stopped were
ultimately charged with immigration offenses by the federal government.121 Or, consider the
April 2008 assault by more than 100 Maricopa County, Arizona deputies, a volunteer
posse, and a helicopter on a small town of 6,000 Yaqui Indians and Hispanics outside of
Phoenix, as described in Chapter III (C) above. After terrorizing the residents for two
days, stopping residents and chasing them into their homes to conduct
background checks, Sheriff Joe Arpaios operation resulted in the arrest of just
nine undocumented immigrants.122 Turning to the counterterrorism context, the use of
racial profilingand the focus on the many Arabs, Muslims, Sikhs, and other South Asians who
pose no threat to national securitydiverts law enforcement resources away from investigations
of individuals who have been linked to terrorist activity by specific and credible evidence. A
memorandum circulated to U.S. law enforcement agents worldwide by a group of
senior law enforcement officials in October 2002 makes clear that race is an
ineffective measure of an individuals terrorist intentions. The memorandum, entitled
Assessing Behaviors, emphasized that focusing on the racial characteristics of individuals was
a waste of law enforcement resources and might cause law enforcement officials to ignore
suspicious behavior, past or present, by someone who did not fit a racial profile.123 One of the
authors of the report noted: Fundamentally, believing that you can achieve safety by
looking at characteristics instead of behaviors is silly. If your goal is preventing
attacks you want your eyes and ears looking for preattack behaviors, not
characteristics.124

Racial profiling undermines community safety lack of cooperation

between police and civilians
Chanin et al. 11 (Robert Chanin writes with others at the Leadership Conference, a 501(c)(4)
organization that engages in legislative advocacy. It was founded in 1950 and has coordinated national
lobbying efforts on behalf of every major civil rights law since 1957.. "Restoring a National Consensus: The
Need to End Racial Profiling in America." The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. March
2011. www.civilrights.org/publications/reports/racial-profiling2011/racial_profiling2011.pdf)//lb

An additional reason why racial profiling is not an effective law enforcement tactic is that it
destroys the relationship between local law enforcement authorities and the
communities that they serve. This is particularly true with regard to the enforcement
of federal immigration laws by local police under the 287(g) program and other
ICE ACCESS programs. When local police function as rogue immigration agents,
fearas opposed to trustis created in Hispanic and other immigrant communities .
U.S. born children with parents who are either U.S. citizens or lawful residents 23
may avoid coming in contact with police or other public officials (including school officials)
out of concern that they, their parents, or family members will be targeted by local law
enforcement authorities for a check of their immigration status. Victims of
domestic violence who are immigrants may fear interacting with the police
because of their immigration status, or the status of their families, or even their abusers,
and the consequences of that fear can leave them in dangerous and violent
situations. Respect and trust between law enforcement authorities and immigrant
communities are essential to successful police work. Racial profiling has a
destructive impact on minority communities . How many community members will step
up to be Good Samaritans and report crimes or accidents, or offer help to a victim until the
police arrive, if the risk of doing the good deed is an interaction with a police officer that may
result in a background check or challenge to immigration status? Perversely, the ultimate
result of racial profiling in minority communities is precisely the opposite of the
goal of effective local law enforcement. It is for this reason that many police
executives and police organizations have expressed concern that the enforcement
of the immigration laws by local law enforcement authorities has a negative
overall impact on public safety.126 The use of racial profiling in the counterterrorism
contextas in the immigration contextalienates the very people that federal authorities have
deemed instrumental in the anti-terrorism fight. Arab and Muslim communities may yield
useful information to those fighting terrorism. Arabs and Arab Americans also offer the
government an important source of Arabic speakers and translators. The singling out of Arabs
and Muslims for investigation regardless of whether any credible evidence links them to
terrorism simply alienates these individuals and compromises the anti-terrorism effort. In
particular, to the extent that federal authorities use the anti-terrorism effort as a pretext for
detaining or deporting immigration law violators, individuals who might have information that
is useful in the fight against terrorism may be reluctant to come forward. For a special
registration program such as NSEERS, those individuals will choose not to register, thereby
defeating the very purpose of the program.127

impact -Racism/VTL
Intrusive, racially-biased police stops cause distrust, less value to live,
fewer voters, vigilantism, and ineffective emergency response
Epp et. Al 14 (Charles R. Epp - Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Wisconsin-Madison,
Stephen Maynard-Moody- Ph.D. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, and Donald P. Haider-Markel- University
of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Ph.D., Political Science. Pulled Over How Police Stops Define Race and
Citizenship. University of Chicago Press. Published in 2014.)//lb

An accumulating body of research suggests that intrusive police stops cause deep and
lasting harm; they are a form of racial subordination. Bernard Harcourt argues that
investigatory stops have a ratchet effect with overt and hidden costs.2 By targeting African
Americans, these stops subject this group to pervasive, ongoing surveillance, skew
the prison populations racial composition, and reinforce the entrenched
stereotype that blacks are criminal and violent. Interview-based stud- ies consistently show
that African Americans commonly feel demeaned and even abused by intrusive police stops.3
Psychological studies dem-onstrate that African Americans subjected to intrusive police
stops ex-perience heightened levels of psychological stress.4 Much of the research
finds that such personal experiencesparticularly experiences of police disrespect
and frequent subjection to stops-directly erode peoples trust in the police.5 Trust
in the police is important because people who do not trust the police are less
willing to call the police for help, may be more likely to turn to self-help
vigilantism, and may be less willing to cooper-ate with the police in criminal
investigations.6 The harms may go even deeper: people stopped by the police are less
likely to vote.7 In a society in which voting rates are comparatively low and the poor are
among the least likely to vote, the possibility that polie stops may further suppress
peoples willingness to vote is a significant concern.

Law enforcement entrenches racial dichotomies

Epp et. Al 14 (Charles R. Epp - Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Wisconsin-Madison,
Stephen Maynard-Moody- Ph.D. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, and Donald P. Haider-Markel- University
of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Ph.D., Political Science. Pulled Over How Police Stops Define Race and
Citizenship. University of Chicago Press. Published in 2014.)//lb

Law and law enforcement reflect racial divisions in society. It is also increasingly dear that
they contribute to the ongoing marking of racial identities and maintaining racial
divisions. The meaning of race itself is a socialand thus partly a legal
construction.29 While this basic insight is well accepted and the subject of many histories of
racial identities, whether law contributes to ongoing racial divisions may seem a more open
question. For example, to contemporary Americans it is obvious that the notorious Jim Crow
laws requiring racial segregation created racial divisions in an earlier era, but it may seem less
obvious how law enforcement may do the same thing today.30 Still, a growing number of
studies suggest that encounters with the law shape racial identities and, even, racial
hierarchies.3 For example, Andrew Penner and Aliya Saperstein analyzed the National Youth
Survey panel and found that respondents who had been incarcerated were more likely to self-

identify as black and to be perceived by their interviewer as black.32 (Unemployment and

poverty also increased the identification of a respondent as black) In a society in which
black people are disproportionately sentenced to prison, imprisonment alters the
social meaning of race.

Impact National Security/Spillover

US organized violent crime spills over to other countries

Feere and Vaughan 8 (Jon Feere is a legal policy analyst, Jessica Vaughan is the Director of Policy studies at
the Center for Immigration Studies, Taking Back the Streets: ICE and Local Law Enforcement Target Immigrant Gangs, Published
September 2008, Date Accessed: 7/8/15, http://cis.org/ImmigrantGangs, SZ)
The recent emergence and spread of several Hispanic

street gangs, most notably MS-13 and

18th Street, has attracted the attention of law enforcement agencies and
political leaders nationwide. Many gangs are made up of small-time troublemakers, but others have a
reputation for grisly violence. They are responsible for virtually the entire spectrum of
criminal activity, from nuisance crimes like graffiti to murder. Some are
becoming increasingly well-organized and operating as sophisticated crime
syndicates across national borders. Transnational gangs generally are
defined as those gangs that are criminally active and operational in more
than one country, whose activities are sometimes controlled or planned by
individuals in another country, whose members are mobile and adaptable in new areas,
and whose members tend to be involved in cross-border or international crime or
violations with a nexus to the border. 11 The countries of Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala are considered to
be the epicenter of the gang crisis, as most of the criminal transnational gang members in
the United States have ties to these countries. Murder rates in these countries are extremely high;
in 2004, the estimated murder rate per 100,000 people was 45.9 in Honduras, 41.2 in El Salvador, and 34.7 in Guatemala
(compared with a 2004 murder rate in the United States of only 5.7 murders per 100,000 people). Salvadoran police estimate that at
least 60 percent of the 2,756 murders committed in El Salvador in 2004 were gang-related. The gang population in Central
American countries is estimated to be about 500,000. 12

overstretch internal
local immigration enforcement trades off with emergency response and
violent crime- time and resource diversion
Branche 11 (Afton Branche -Georgetown University B.S. in Foreign Service, Culture and Politics,
International Development. "The Cost of Failure: The Burden of Immigraton Enforcement in America's
Cities." Drum Major Institute for Public Policy. April 2011. http://uncoverthetruth.org/wpcontent/uploads/2011/04/DMI-Cost-of-Failure.pdf)//lb

Local immigration enforcement is counterproductive to public safety. Enforcing

civil immigration law diverts police time and resources away from criminal
matters. In one extreme case, when Maricopa County, AZ began immigration
enforcement, local deputies arrived late two-thirds of the time to the most serious
emergency 911 calls. County detectives arrest rates for criminal investigations plummeted.
Local immigration enforcement undermines police-community relationships in
immigrant communities, deterring crime reporting. In Salt Lake City, UT, experts
found that one in three city residents are unwilling to report drug-related crimes
when local law enforcement has the power to detain based on immigration status.
THE BURDEN OF IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT DRUM MAJOR INSTITUTE FOR
PUBLIC POLICY 2 The growth of Secure Communities, a mandatory program for local
governments, undermines successful community policing strategies including policies in which
local authorities agree not to inquire about the immigration status of crime victims and
suspects.

Racial profiling leads to detention of thousands of citizens and non-citizens

alike
Branche 11 (Afton Branche -Georgetown University B.S. in Foreign Service, Culture and Politics,
International Development. "The Cost of Failure: The Burden of Immigraton Enforcement in America's
Cities." Drum Major Institute for Public Policy. April 2011. http://uncoverthetruth.org/wpcontent/uploads/2011/04/DMI-Cost-of-Failure.pdf)//lb

Data and evidence from local immigration enforcement programs shows that ICE ACCESS
hasnt been consistent in deporting non-citizens who represent threats to public
safety. There is also evidence that ICE local enforcement programs have mistakenly
detained and even deported U.S. citizens, a clear violation of federal law.170 Many
of these U.S. citizens spend months in detention fighting deportation, made even more difficult
for lowincome individuals who cannot afford legal representation and lack the due process
protections given to criminal offenders. For citizens who are actually removed, this may
mean deportation to an unfamiliar country and language. In addition, there is
currently no mechanism for an arrested person to challenge a wrongly issued detainer.171
Experts warn that the US-VISIT and IDENT databases used to operate Secure Communities are
riddled with errors and inaccuracies, leading to false matches.172 False matches occur
most frequently in the context of derivative citizens, foreign-born individuals who
become U.S. citizens by operation of law when one of their parents naturalizes.
Because derivative citizens gain citizenship automatically, without the
intervention of any government agency, they are likely to appear as potentially
removable non-citizens in a DHS database.173 ICE figures state that over an 18-month
period, the Secure Communities program identified about 24,000 U.S. citizens.174 In North

Carolina, one mentally disabled U.S. citizen served time for a misdemeanor and
spent two months at an ICE detention center before being deported to Mexico,
despite the fact that the man spoke no Spanish and had no Mexican ancestry.175 In
Chicago, a Puerto Rican man was suspected of having stolen a car and arrested; after 48 hours
in police custody, he was interviewed by an ICE agent, placed under detainer, and transferred to
the Cook County Correctional Center.176 What happened next reveals a major flaw in jail-based
immigration interviews: He repeatedly told officers that he was born in Puerto Rico and
therefore an American citizen. His mother also presented his birth certificate, but despite that
and his state-issued ID, officials told him he was facing deportation. He says officers asked him
specific questions about the Caribbean island that he could not answer, mostly because he
moved to the mainland when he was 8 months old and has only been back to Puerto Rico once
since birth.177 ICE subsequently acknowledged the error, though not until after the citizen spent
a week in jail. As Secure Communities and other immigration partnerships grow in
number, serious errors perpetuated by flawed federal databases will only increase.

Abundance of time and resources devoted to immigration enforcementcitizens are deported

Barry 9 (Tom Barry is an American political analyst. As of 2007 he is Senior Policy Analyst and
Americas Policy Program Fellow at the advocacy group Center for International Policy (CIP). Barry began
his career as a political activist and analyst at Georgetown University in the late 1960s. "Immigrant
Crackdown Joins Failed Crime and Drug Wars." International Policy Report. April 2009. CIP's Americas
Program.)//lb

The prosecution and imprisonment of criminal aliens is saturating the country's

criminal justice system. Overall, federal criminal prosecutions are rising spectacularly,
overwhelming judges and burdening federal prosecutors with unprecedented caseloads.
According to new statistics released by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC),
prosecutions in 2008 were 70% higher than in 2003. The arrest and prosecution of
immigrants for immigration violations accounted for 55% of the new cases in
December 2008, while drug cases accounted for 16% of the caseload that month. Five years
ago drug abuse cases accounted for the most prosecutions but today immigration
violations far outnumber drug abuse prosecutions. While charges for illegal entry
and reentry have increased steadily over the past five years, the charge that
showed the greatest increase in prosecutionsup 120% over 2007was document
fraud, a charge filed mostly against illegal immigrants living and working in the country. Even
as illegal immigration and apprehension rates have been falling over the past three
years, the number of immigrants detained and deported by ICE has been rising.
Between 2003 and 2007, the total number of immigrants detained by ICE rose from 231,500 to
311,213. Although apprehensions along the border fell by 17% in 2008, deportations increased,
rising from 319,382 in 2007 to 349,041 in 2008. One major reason for increased
detention and removals is the increasing number of legal immigrants who are
being removed because they have been identified as criminal aliens. In 2007, 99,924
of the 319,041 immigrants deported were criminal aliens. Roughly one in five of these criminal
aliens had been charged with criminal immigration violations such as illegal entry and
aggravated identity fraud. The leading criminal violationone in threewas a drug abuse
conviction. In 2008 ICE deported 110,000 criminal aliens. The proportion of criminal
aliens to the total number of deported immigrants will likely increase at a much

greater rate in coming years as ICE implements its plans to identify and charge
with deportation all the immigrants, legal and illegal, who are in federal, state, or
local detention. In the past, legal and illegal immigrants who were convicted and
sentenced to prison were generally released following the completion of their
sentence

Undocumented immigrants are not criminals- detention trades off with

serious conviction
Branche 11 (Afton Branche -Georgetown University B.S. in Foreign Service, Culture and Politics,
International Development. "The Cost of Failure: The Burden of Immigraton Enforcement in America's
Cities." Drum Major Institute for Public Policy. April 2011. http://uncoverthetruth.org/wpcontent/uploads/2011/04/DMI-Cost-of-Failure.pdf)//lb

Local immigration enforcement is misguided as a crime control strategy.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) reportedly aims to target non-citizens who
have committed serious crimes. Yet 57 percent of immigrants identified by the
Criminal Alien Program and 65 percent of those identified by 287(g) in FY 2009
were never convicted of a crime. Since October 2008, Secure Communities has transferred
over 52,000 non-criminal immigrants to ICE custody. Among the immigrants detained
by local law enforcement who were convicted of crimes, many were charged with
minor offenses. In Davidson County, TN, 75 percent of immigrants marked for deportation
were picked up for traffic offenses. In Irving, TX, 98 percent of individuals held under
immigration detainers were charged with misdemeanors. Proponents of local
immigration enforcement make false connections between immigration and
crime. According to decades of research, immigrantsincluding undocumented
immigrantsdont commit crimes at higher rates than U.S.-born residents. The
majority of communities have low or declining crime rates when they sign local immigration
enforcement agreements. The proliferation of local 287(g) agreements is more closely
linked to the rapid growth of a regions immigrant population (including legal
residents as well as unauthorized immigrants) and to its ideological bent than it is
to rates of violent or property crime.

Police overstretch from immigration leads to collapse public safety

Habhab 8 (Delia Habhab has a Master of Arts in Communications degree from Wayne State
University "Local Law Enforcement of Immigration Rules Debated." The Arab American News:
22. Aug 2008. ProQuest. Web. 7 July 2015.)//lb
"America's local police are unclear about their role and responsibility in the enforcement of
federal immigration law, and worry that their participation in immigration
enforcement undermines their ability to fulfill their core mission of providing for
public safety," he stated. "Police leaders know that without community cooperation,

their efforts to effectively prevent and address crime are severely compromised."
"There have been numerous challenges encountered by the Arab and Muslim American
communities as a result of certain U.S. Government policies that have involved local law
enforcement agencies' enforcement of federal immigration law," [Kareem Shora] stated "This
has had an impact on the ability of our communities to actively participate, as
members of civil society, in reaching our full-potential in assisting legitimate
efforts aimed at combating crime in all its forms." Raquel Aldana, Professor of
Law at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, School of Law, added that a breakdown in
trust between law enforcers and community members will have damaging effects on immigrant
communities. "These tactics by local law enforcement agencies will only increase the
tensions that exist in immigrant communities," she stated. "There are already
numerous problems that exist within these communities, and enforcing these
policies will only add to problems like racial profiling."

Immigration enforcement trades off with crime prevention- limited

resources
Alto Arizona no date (Arizona Alto. About ICE ACCESS Programs. Alto Arizona.
http://www.altoarizona.com/ice-access-programs.html)
The Federal Government, not cops, should enforce immigration laws; 287(g) programs make
communities less safe Sheriffs and Police Chiefs around the country find that deputizing state
and local law enforcement officials to enforce civil immigration laws interferes
with their core mission of protecting and serving the community that they police.
Community members become less likely to report crimes or come forward as
witnesses for fear that they or someone in their community will be deported. The
Major Cities Chiefs Association concluded: Immigration enforcement by local police
would likely negatively effect and undermine the level of trust and cooperation
between local police and immigrant communities. . . . Such a divide between the
local police and immigrant groups would result in increased crime against
immigrants and in the broader community, create a class of silent victims and
eliminate the potential for assistance from immigrants in solving crimes or
preventing future terroristic acts. When community members stop cooperating
with law enforcement, everyone is less safe.

Reducing ICE surveillance devotes resources to more severe crime

Preston 15 (Julia is a National Immigration Correspondent at The New York Times. "U.S.
Arrests Foreigners Convicted of Crimes." New York Times, Late Edition (East Coast) ed.Mar 10
2015. ProQuest. Web. 7 July 2015 .)//lb
Showing tough immigration enforcement is central to the administration's strategy to justify
President Obama's controversial executive actions that would protect millions of illegal
immigrants from deportation. The president said those programs -- which currently have
been placed on hold by a federal judge in Texas, based on a lawsuit by 26 states -- would allow

immigrants who had not committed crimes to come forward and register for work
permits, allowing federal agents to spend their time pursuing dangerous
criminals.

Time spent on search immigrant documentation diverts resource from

violent crime
Font 10 (Jocelyn Fong graduated from Goshen College in 2007 with a bachelor's degree in peace, justice, and
conflict studies. She worked most recently as an AmeriCorps member with Public Allies Arizona. She is a member of
the Research Department at Media Matters for America. "Phoenix police chief disputes right's claim that AZ law is
needed because of violent crime." Media Matters. May 6, 2010.
http://mediamatters.org/research/2010/05/06/phoenix-police-chief-disputes-rights-claim-that/164312)//lb

HARRIS: Proponents of this legislation have repeatedly said that the new law
provides a tool for local law enforcement. But I don't really believe that that's true
or accurate. We have the tools that we need to enforce laws in this state to reduce
property crime and to reduce violent crime, to go after criminals that are
responsible for human smuggling, to go after criminals that are responsible for
those home invasions, kidnappings, robberies, murders. We have those tools. I
have ten ICE agents embedded in the violent crimes bureau. We have a policy that
allows officers to contact ICE when they need to access their databanks to further
criminal investigation. I'm not sure what the tool is that this new law is providing
to local law enforcement. What I believe it is, is it provides a tool to divert our
officers from investigating property crimes and violent crimes and divert their -these resources, our personnel to enforcing civil portions of federal immigration
law. In other words, it takes officers away from doing what our main core mission
of local law enforcement is, and that's to make our communities safe and enforce
our criminal codes in that effort.

These racist investigatory stops undermine public safety no trust

Epp et. Al 14 (Charles R. Epp - Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Wisconsin-Madison,
Stephen Maynard-Moody- Ph.D. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, and Donald P. Haider-Markel- University
of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Ph.D., Political Science. Pulled Over How Police Stops Define Race and
Citizenship. University of Chicago Press. Published in 2014.)//lb

On December 14,2010,21-year-old Marion Denmon was laid to rest, the victim of yet another
apparent gang killing on Kansas Citys troubled east side. During the funeral at the
Macedonia Baptist Church several carfuls of young men drove up and fired more than
seventy gunshots, apparently as a show of disrespect.2 Pandemonium broke out and some
mourners rushed to fire shots at the fleeing vehicles. The police had been told no violence was
expected at the funeral and so they had stayed away. In a neighborhood all too familiar with
shootings, nearly everybody agreed that this one, outside a church and during a funeral, had
crossed the line. People were outraged. Nonetheless, witnesses stonewalled police
efforts to identify the shooters. Nobody talked with the police, and no shooters
were identified, much less caught. It was not the first time that Kansas City police faced
thorough noncooperation in their investigations. As the mother of a young man shot only a few

months before the funeral incident and only a short distance away observed, In our
community, people are quick to come and tell the family of the victim things, but
they will not tell the police.3 If investigatory stops worked as claimed none of this
should have happened. Advocates insist that investigatory stops get guns and
drugs off the streets and make cities safer. They also claim that people and neighborhoods subjected to investigatory stops accept the stops and surveil lance so long as officers
are professional and courteous. East Kansas City is a testing ground for these claims. The
Macedonia Baptist Church is in the heart of the area targeted by the Kansas City Gun
Experiment, which, in the early 1990s, offered evidence that investigatory stops get guns off the
street and dramatically reduce shootings.4 Sixteen years later, these stops are everyday
occurrences, yet guns abound and shootings continue. The Kansas City Police Department
is among the more professionalized in the country and has first-rate systems for
training and oversight over officers. But after a generation of investigatory stops,
neighborhood residents in east Kansas City so distrust the police that they will not
cooperate in investigations even when the crime is a gang land shooting at a church
funeral. This books concluding message is simple: the benefits of investigatory stops are
modest and greatly exaggerated, yet their costs are sub stantial and largely
unrecognized. It is time to end this failed practice. Investigatory stops fail because they violate
a widely shared norm of fair treatment.5 This norm requires that people should be
treated as equal, respected members of society and not as second-class outsiders, as participants in a common endeavor and not as objects to be controlled and manipulated. When
police enforcement activities respect this fundamental norm, as they do in some
collaborative, carefully targeted efforts that we will summarize below, members of the
community are drawn into cooperation with the police and public safety is
enhanced. When police enforcement activities violate this fundamental norm, as
they do in investigatory stops, members of the community learn to distrust the
police, putting public safety at risk.

Investigatory stops are ineffective distract from focused police

efforts and undermine safety
Epp et. Al 14 (Charles R. Epp - Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Wisconsin-Madison,
Stephen Maynard-Moody- Ph.D. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, and Donald P. Haider-Markel- University
of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Ph.D., Political Science. Pulled Over How Police Stops Define Race and
Citizenship. University of Chicago Press. Published in 2014.)//lb

It is increasingly clear that the most effective kinds of police enforcement are efforts
that respect procedural justice norms, as the research of David M. Kennedy on gang
shootings has shown, and as careful metaanalyses have confirmed.10 First, police
enforcement is most effective when it carefully targets serious criminals rather
than stopping large numbers of people, many of whom are innocent, in the hope of
apprehending the few who are guilty. Targeting many to get the few is unjust and, as we
will emphasize below, widely resented. Second, police effectiveness is enhanced when the
police work closely with community members and groups to identify serious
violators and to bring pressure on them to cease their predations. Even in low-income, highcrime neighborhoods only a small number of people commit the vast majority of the crime.
Police and community members often know or can find out who these serious criminals are.

Cooperation from community members is often crucial for identifying criminals

and for bringing social pressure to bear on them in ways that ratify and amplify
the efforts of the police. Community members are more likely to participate in
efforts to control serious crime when police treat them as respected participants in
a shared effort. Scattershot investigatory stops of people who merely look suspicious
are at best a distraction from more focused police efforts . They are not effective.

racial profiling hurt police cred

Racial profiling kills police force legitimacy
Simmons '12 (Kami Chavis; 2011; Beginning to End Racial Profiling: Definitive Solutions to an
Elusive Problemt; Kami Chavis Simmons is a Professor of Law and Director of the Criminal
Justice Program at Wake Forest University School of Law. In 2015, she was appointed as a
Senior Academic Fellow at the Joint Center for Political And Economic Studies.;
poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?
ID=2890041120081130900311251100960170990250070570170060130980230780260171030
090870901050050600431070580471180700660870850150061160190590070230931240060
70074013100107011091032002072106083009115008101004120019099067104004015001116
082104012093073114105006&EXT=pdf&TYPE=2; 7-12-15; mbc)
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the perception that certain groups are treated
unfairly undermines the legitimacy of the law enforcement agency, and thus has a
deleterious effect on crime control and prevention.94 Many members of minority
communities are also disproportionately victims of crime and may live in areas
that experience higher rates of crime.95 For example, in many large urban areas, a
disproportionate number of crime victims are AfricanAmerican, and thus partnerships between
citizens and police are essential to crime prevention.96 As one scholar noted, "[T]here is a
causal link between the perception of the law and levels of compliance.
Unfortunately, the perception in many poor and minority communities is that the
law, as exemplified by the police, is illegitimate, a perception that encourages noncompliance. 97 It follows that areas in need of the greatest amount of law
enforcement protection are also likely to have a large proportion of residents who
distrust law enforcement. Racial profiling also exacerbates tensions between
racial minorities and law enforcement, and undermines the rationale for
community policing. Thus, efforts to engage these citizens in crime prevention
partnerships with law enforcement face challenges that may not be present in
other communities. David Harris also notes that racial profiling can have a negative impact
on the way in which minority groups view law enforcement. Harris writes, "Racially targeted
traffic stops cause deep cynicism among blacks about the fairness and legitimacy of law
enforcement and courts .... Thus it is no wonder that Blacks view the criminal justice system in
totally different terms than whites do.",98 For example, San Diego Police Chief Jerome Sanders
and the San Diego Police Department voiced concerned that the "growing public perception that
police target minority drivers [] was 'eroding public trust and need[ed] to be addressed if
community policing. . . [was] [] to be successful."' 99 Not only is racial profiling harmful
to individuals and communities, but, as previously discussed, there is evidence
demonstrating that racial profiling is an ineffective law-enforcement tool. Despite
the disproportionate number of stops and searches of African-Americans and Latinos, studies
show that when searched, these groups were less likely than Whites to have contraband.'00
Together, these facts confirm not only the existence of racial profiling, but that
racial profiling is an ineffective tool for law enforcement whose costs outweigh any
negligible benefit. Given these societal costs, innovative solutions are required to address
racial profiling.

racial profiling=crime
Racially biased laws increases crime

Rivera 12 (Javan Rivera is a writer for Voices of Utah and a journalist at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City police chief,
Utah representatives combat new immigration laws, 3/29/12, Date Accessed: 7/7/15,

https://voicesofutah.wordpress.com/2012/03/29/state-immigration-laws-that-increase-crimeand-racial-profiling-salt-lake-city-police-chief-wants-no-part-of-it/, SZ)
Burbank, whose infamously lenient take on illegal immigration has earned him the nickname Sanctuary Burbank, from opponents,
said that the

current proposed solutions for illegal immigration in Utah represent a

serious threat to the civil liberties of U.S. citizens and could actually
increase the crime rate of Utah should they be enacted. These are ridiculous laws,
Burbank said of proposed immigration laws similar to those passed in Arizona. Arizonas SB 1070 require police officers to actively
check immigration status during legal stops, and require all aliens, legal or otherwise, to carry proper documentation of their
citizenship at all times. Failure to do so could result in a misdemeanor charge. Any

time we as a society can say

one segment of our populationbecause of who they are, what they look
like, the language they speakis more engaged in criminal behavior [as a result].
Well thats as racist and biased as anything Ive ever heard, Burbank said. Burbank said that he believes by
creating laws that target illegal immigrants, Utah will create significant
problems for the community on two levelscrime increase, and the all too
slippery slope of racial profiling. You actually increase crime when you
enforce these kinds of laws, Burbank said. He cited the formation of the Italian Mafia
as an example of racially specific profiling leading to increased crime , saying that
due to the shunning of the Italian people on the East Coast, they began to look to each other for
support and eventually turned to crime as an alternative to pursuing legal
jobs outside of their own community. One of Burbanks main concerns with the proposed laws, is that
the threatened deportation of illegal immigrants increases the likelihood
those immigrants wont feel comfortable reporting crimes to the police for fear of calling
deportation down on themselves. When we have a segment of society that turns their back or says
Were not going to interact with the police, Burbank said. Well, the criminal
element thrives. The other great threat Burbank believes these laws represent is that of selective racial profiling. We
are a very effective form of oppression, Burbank said of the dangers associated with racial profiling. Those things [ profiling]
are wrong and its my job to prevent that from happening in my profession. I will not allow my officers to be involved in that
behavior. Burbank isnt the only one interested in seeing Utahs illegal immigration status solved through non-aggressive
legislation. State Rep. Rebecca Edwards, R-North Salt Lake, also stated concerns similar to Burbanks regarding an increase in
crime, should these laws be enacted. I think that [Burbanks view] is probably true, Edwards said. Ive talked to people in law
enforcement who believe that it [immigration laws] would drive people who might report crime underground. Not only did
Edwards express concerns regarding a possible increase

in crime, but also the potentially

disastrous effect such laws could have on Utahs economy, citing the
numerous illegal immigrants who help maintain Utahs farmland.
Racial profiling causes gang violence- Increases immigrant gang activity

Tanovich 5 (David M. Tanovich is an assistant professor at the Faculty of Law, University of Windsor, Racial profiling
won't defeat gangs, The Toronto Star August 17 2005, Date Accessed: 7/10/15, Lexis, SZ)
A recent study suggests that 8 per cent of black youth are involved in gang activity. From a policing perspective, gang violence will
only be deterred or solved with good intelligence and tips from the community. This point was made the other day by George
Rhoden, a high-ranking member of Scotland Yard in a presentation to the National Black Police Association meeting in Toronto.

One of the problems, however, is that individuals with relevant information

often remain silent. This, in part, is due to the deep mistrust between visible minority
communities and the police that is only perpetuated by racial profiling. But,
racial profiling is a significant
gang violence . In 1986, 131 blacks were admitted to Toronto jails for drug-

perhaps most significantly, there is every reason to believe that

contributing cause of gun and

trafficking offences. This was the time period that the "war on drugs" changed gears and started to use a drug courier profile and
intensive policing of poor and racialized neighbourhoods as its primary weapons. Six years later, the number of black admissions for
drug trafficking offences increased to 1,656, an increase of more than 1,164 per cent, despite a population growth of approximately
31 per cent. By comparison, the white admission rate increased by 151 per cent. What the "war on drugs" and racial profiling have
created is a one-way ticket to jail for many young black men in this city - despite the fact that drug use and trafficking is
overwhelmingly a white activity. Limited

education and employment opportunities that

existed before prison because of systemic racism become even scarcer upon
release. Is it really a surprise that many turn to informal structures to find self-worth, community
and a means of earning a living? And it is not just racial profiling on the street that is contributing to the problem. The application of
the Safe Schools Act in our high schools has had a disproportionate impact on black students. When students are expelled and
cannot find work, trouble is not far ahead. This is not a black problem but one of human nature. Racial profiling, however, has made
it a black problem. There

is another link between racial profiling and gun violence.

It is an alienating, humiliating and frightening experience to be confronted
by the police when you have done nothing wrong. It confirms that race still matters and that no matter
what you do or who you become, you will always be perceived as the "usual suspect ." This is, in
part, why racial profiling engenders a sense of anger, injustice and a lack of
respect for law enforcement and the law. Moreover, as the Ontario Human Rights Commission documented in
its racial profiling report, the stigmatizing of a community by treating violence as a
race issue impacts on its psychological well-being and sense of self-worth. Racial
profiling brings "fear, anxiety, intimidation, and feelings of helplessness and hopelessness ... suicidal thoughts, depression
and drug abuse." It sends "a message to the person that he or she is less worthy of
consideration and respect as a human being." This, in turn, can lead to a general devaluing of
human dignity and ultimately the sanctity of life. For a small number of individuals, particularly those who have faced the brutality
of prison, the

damage becomes manifested in serious deviance and violence.

racial profiling=high
Current efforts against racial profiling are failing

Clark 14 (Meredith Clark is a reporter for MSNBC, Racial profiling report finds not one state with acceptable protections,
9/25/14, Date Accessed: 7/7/15, http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/racial-profiling-report-finds-not-one-

state-acceptable-protections, SZ)

Racial profiling is still a major part of life for communities of color across
the country, and a new report has found that legal protections from such
profiling vary wildly from state to state. The NAACP report came the same day the families of three black
men killed by police officers in recent months called for justice for their loved ones. After several noteworthy killings of black men by
white police officers, the

NAACP on Thursday released Born Suspect: Stop-and-Frisk Abuses and the Continued Fight to End
at racial profile laws in all 50 states. It also examined how
activists and civil liberties advocates in New York City successfully fought
the NYPDs discriminatory stop and frisk police search policy, which
disproportionately targeted black and Hispanic residents. In 2014 there is
not one state that has a statute that can stand up against this pandemic of
police misconduct, NAACP President Cornell Brooks said of the report .
According the NAACPs review, 20 states dont have a ban on racial profiling, and only 17
states with anti-profiling laws make violations a crime. The kind of data collected by law
Racial Profiling in America, which looked

enforcement varies from state to state, the report found, making it difficult to compare communities and strategies effectively.

Even recent guidelines on profiling are insufficient- Proves plan is key

Hughes 14 (Brian Hughes is a White House Correspondent for the Washington Examiner, Obama's racial profiling
reforms seen as lacking, 12/9/14, Date Accessed: 7/7/15, http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obamas-

racial-profiling-reforms-seen-as-lacking/article/2557118, SZ)

New guidelines on racial profiling released by the Obama administration

failed Monday to quell calls for an overhaul to how police target minorities suspected of
crimes. Attorney General Eric Holder outlined new rules on Monday that banned profiling not just based on race and ethnicity,
but also religion, gender and sexual orientation. Civil rights leaders welcomed the revisions but
expressed disappointment with loopholes for border agents and those screening travelers at airports.
National security exemptions allow many practices to continue that were not
addressed by President George W. Bushs ban on racial profiling in 2003. Perhaps most lacking, advocates said,
were reforms that would apply to local police departments , now under heavy scrutiny
following black suspects being killed by white officers in Ferguson, Mo., and New York City. We urge the Department of Justice to
continue its work beyond this guidance to prevent the street-level profiling which is ongoing across the country and to hold agencies
accountable for engaging in profiling, said Wade Henderson, president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human
Rights. It

does not ban the offensive practice of mapping American

communities based on stereotypes, nor does it appear to curtail the F ederal
Bureau of Investigations authority to engage in unlawful and abusive surveillance of innocent
Americans, he added. The long-awaited update on racial profiling comes as the administration is
attempting to overhaul police practices in predominantly minority communities and as President Obama tries to assuage growing
criticism of his approach to racial issues. The president had already called for heightened oversight of the militarization of local
police departments and funding for body cameras for up to 50,000 cops. But those measures, like the new racial profiling rules,
received a less-than-enthusiastic response from civil libertarians. The

change in racial profiling

parameters will cover federal law enforcement officials but are solely

guidance for state and local police officers, unless they are participating in federal investigations,
according to the Justice Department. Sens. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and Ben Cardin, D-Md., among others, had pushed the White House
to adopt rules that would cover local agencies. I can definitely understand why

a lot of people are

disappointed today, said a Democratic Senate aide who has worked extensively on the issue. A lot of it seems
cosmetic. Theres plenty left to get done and now might have been the best
time to do it.
Racial profiling is still an issue in society, causes distrust in the
government- Proves plan is key

Badger 14 (Emily Badger is a reporter for The Washington Post covering urban policy, The long, halting, unfinished fight
to end racial profiling in America, 12/4/14, Date Accessed: 7/7/15,

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/12/04/the-long-haltingunfinished-fight-to-end-racial-profiling-in-america/, SZ)
In his very first address to Congress in the speech where new presidents first detail their priorities for the nation George W.
Bush devoted a few moments to an unlikely topic: racial profiling. " Too

many of our citizens have cause

to doubt our nation's justice," he said, "when the law points a finger of suspicion
at groups instead of individuals." The issue had, in fact, played into the 2000 election. The national news was
full of stories of doctors and lawyers and NFL players stopped for "driving while black," in seemingly every state from California to
Massachusetts. Both candidates that year were asked in a presidential debate if they would support a federal law banning racial
profiling, and they said they would. Before Congress, Bush was unequivocal. "Earlier today, I asked John Ashcroft, the attorney
general, to develop specific recommendations to

end racial profiling," he announced. "It's wrong, and we will

end it in America." More than a decade later, with a rare moment of bipartisan momentum long past, Bush's promise
remains unfulfilled. Communities across the country still chafe at the profiling they perceive
in state immigration laws that allow police to disproportionately challenge the
status of Hispanics, in surveillance of local Muslim communities, and in statistics showing that blacks
are still interrogated by police on the street at a far higher rate than other
groups. Black drivers, nationwide, are twice as likely as whites to be arrested during a traffic stop. The
consequences of this racial profiling are as evident as ever: in the frayed
relationships between police and minorities, in the deep distrust among
minorities of the justice system, and in the racial tension in Ferguson , Mo. The
year Bush declared that profiling was wrong, a bill was introduced in Congress, the End Racial Profiling Act, that attempted to make
good on his promise. It required federal agencies to stop the practice, and local agencies that wanted federal money to do the same.
By the fall of 2001, though after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 the will to tackle the issue waned. People who opposed profiling
black drivers on New Jersey highways found they felt differently about profiling Muslim passengers at airports. When he came to
office, Barack Obama inherited much of the same problems that Bush described. And his attorney general, Eric Holder, vowed early
in the new administration to pick up where Ashcroft left off, putting the weight of the federal government more firmly behind a
policy to eradicate racial profiling. Holder's promise, though, has lingered for the last four years, the review of federal policy
dragging on, the new guidance still unreleased as the final days of Holder's tenure wind down. Civil-rights
groups have grown anxious waiting for it, as several incidents from the arrest of Henry Louis Gates Jr., to the shooting of Michael
Brown, to the death of Eric Garner have fanned racial tensions across the country. On
Monday, speaking in Atlanta about the tension that erupted in Ferguson, Holder hinted that he would finally announce such changes
in the coming days, unveiling "rigorous new standards" on the use of race by law enforcement "to help end racial profiling," he
said, "once and for all." The

new policy would be one of the last major accomplishments of Holder's tenure, a
central pillar of his civil-rights legacy.

Law enforcement is racist- racial profiling and redundant violence

Wolcott 15 (James Wolcott is an American journalist known for his critique of contemporary media and is the cultural
critic for Vanity Fair and The New Yorker, The Other Cultural Forces Behind Police Brutality, From Vanity Fair July 2015, Date
Accessed: 7/7/15, http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2015/06/police-deaths-baltimore-ferguson-

james-wolcott, SZ)

Its no great revelation that racism is rife in many police departments, even
those in a city renowned for its liberal cosmopolitanism such as San Francisco, where a toxic spill of text messages between
policemen (the most flagrant offender shared this handy health tip: Cross burning lowers blood pressure! I did the test myself!) led
to officer dismissals and the review of thousands of cases. Such

slur-slinging is sometimes defended

as a combination of gallows humor and fraternal hazing, a Friars Roast on squad-car
wheels that expresses camaraderie and releases job pressure, but the torture claims of nearly 200
black men at the hands of a white police commander and detectives in Chicago
over the course of decades show that racial slurs emerge from embedded
supremacist attitudes. No matter how unabashedly the novels of Joseph Wambaugh and James Ellroy or television
series such as The Shield and True Detective unscrewed the skulls of the armed and dangerous guardians of law and order and gave
us a tour of their lusts, greeds, paranoia, prejudices, and borderline-psycho compulsions, its the Dragnet ideal that dominates our
political discourse and editorial pieties, a cardboard knighthood of fallen heroes and a few bad apples. But beneath the lip service, in
the dirty rooting section of our limbic brains, weve

been cultured to identify with the sentinels

at the expense of those in the crosshairs, because thats where power, authority, status, and
prerogative suit up every day for duty. We may pity the victims, but pity is a watery emotion compared
with the blood rush of a good chase and a vigorous takedown. The long-running success of Cops derives its voyeuristic fascination
from this valorizing of the figure in the foreground, the camera riding sidekick on the night shift and allowing the viewer to share the
cops windshield view of the world, which is often a pretty skanky panorama of sketchy behavior, so many of the perps appearing to
opt for the pants-less look. Cops spawned a genre of police-perspective procedurals that make up the meat of the programming
lineup of cable channels such as CI (Crime & Investigation), with its heavy rotation of Manhunters: Fugitive Task Force; Jacked:
Auto Theft Task Force; and Dallas SWAT and its spin-off, Kansas City SWAT. Yes, this is a country that treats its urban SWAT teams
as if they were Real Housewives, though in fairness the SWAT members behave far more admirably between Starship Trooper raids
in full battle gear than those table-flipping divas in their gauche finery. Beyond the confines of reality-TV conventions, the picture is
much uglier. The Cato Institute features a handy interactive map of botched SWAT and paramilitary police raids as a supplement
to Radley Balkos book Overkill: The

Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids in Americaraids

described as needlessly subjecting nonviolent drug offenders, bystanders,
and wrongly targeted civilians to the terror of having their homes invaded
while theyre sleeping, usually by teams of heavily armed paramilitary units dressed not as police
officers but as soldiers. A reality almost never reflected in Hollywood films, where SWAT units are either anonymous centurions
backing up the overpaid hero or fodder for some drug kingpins or super-villains booby trap.

organized crime=econ
Organized Crime is increasing- Vast economic impact

UNICRI 14 (United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute, The impact of organized crime on the
legal economy: identifying strategies to disrupt criminal investment in key sectors, 6/16/14, Date Accessed: 7/10/15,

http://unicri.it/news/article/organized_crime_, SZ)

Organized crime has demonstrated an increasing ability to adapt to rapid

changes in the political and economic arenas, especially in recent years. Over the past few decades,
criminal organizations have increased their sphere of action, perpetuating
a vicious and inseparable cycle between the management of illegal activities and
the reinvestment of capital in the legal economy. Reinvesting revenues from illegal
activities and illicit markets into assets and the legal economy enables criminal
organizations to launder proceeds of crime, diversify their activities, increase their
funding sources, and exercise control over the territory at different levels. The negative
consequences of this process, for governments and the society at large, are vast: the licit economy is
infiltrated by criminal groups, competition is distorted and resources are diverted from
public services. Furthermore, this process is facilitated by sophisticated money laundering mechanisms which make it
difficult to separate the legal from the illegal economy.

Organized crime destroys the economy

FBI No date (FBI is the Federal Bureau of Investigation of the United States of America, Organized Crime, No date,
Date Accessed: 7/12/15, https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/organizedcrime/overview , SZ)

The Impact of Organized Crime. It isnt easily measured, but we know its
significant. Organized crime rings manipulate and monopolize financial
markets, traditional institutions like labor unions, and legitimate industries like construction and trash hauling. They bring
drugs into our cities and raise the level of violence in our communities by buying off corrupt officials and using graft, extortion,
intimidation, and murder to maintain their operations. Their underground businessesincluding prostitution and human
traffickingsow misery nationally and globally. They also

con us out of millions each year through

various stock frauds and financial scams. The economic impact alone is
staggering: its estimated that global organized crime reaps illegal profits of around
$1 trillion per year.

Organized crime destroy economic development proves plan is key

UN 12 (United Nations General Assembly, Thematic Debate of the 66th session of the United Nations General Assembly on
Drugs and Crime as a Threat to Development On the occasion of the UN International Day against Drug Abuse and Illicit
Trafficking, 6/26/12, Date Accessed: 7/12/15, http://www.un.org/en/ga/president/66/Issues/drugs/drugs-

crime.shtml, SZ)

As economic development is threatened by transnational organized crime

and illicit drugs, countering crime must form part of the development
agenda, and social and economic development approaches need to form part of our response to organized crime. If we are to

ensure that the MDGs are achieved, we must strengthen strategies to deliver these goals, including stepping up efforts to address

Organized crime
every economy, in every country, but they are particularly
devastating in weak and vulnerable countries. Weak and fragile countries are particularly
issues such as money laundering, corruption and trafficking in wildlife, people and arms, and drugs.
and drugs impact

vulnerable to the effects of transnational organized crime. These countries, some devastated by war, others making the complex
journey towards democracy, are preyed upon by crime. As a result, organized

crime flourishes,
successes in development are reversed, and opportunities for social and
economic advancement are lost. Corruption, a facilitator of organized crime and drug trafficking, is a serious
impediment to the rule of law and sustainable development. It can be a dominant factor driving fragile countries towards failure. It
is estimated that up to US$40 billion annually is lost through corruption in developing
countries. Drugs and crime undermine development by eroding social and human
capital. This degrades quality of life and can force skilled workers to leave, while
the direct impacts of victimisation, as well as fear of crime, may impede the development of those that remain. By limiting
movement, crime

impedes access to possible employment and educational

opportunities, and it discourages the accumulation of assets. Crime is also more expensive for
poor people in poor countries, and disadvantaged households may struggle to cope with the shock of
victimisation. Drugs and crime also undermine development by driving away business. Both foreign and domestic investors see
crime as a sign of social instability, and crime drives up the cost of doing business. Tourism is a sector especially sensitive to crime
issues. Drugs and crime, moreover, undermine

the ability of the state to promote

development by destroying the trust relationship between the people and
the state, and undermining democracy and confidence in the criminal justice system. When people lose
confidence in the criminal justice system, they may engage in vigilantism,
which further undermines the state.

Organized crime substantially hurts the economy

Pinotti 11 (Paolo Pinotti has a PhD in economics and is a professor in the Department of Policy Analysis and Public
Management at Bocconi University, a Fellow of the Paolo Baffi Center, and a researcher at Dondena, The Economic Consequences
of Organized Crime: Evidence from Southern Italy, Published November 2011, Date Accessed: 7/12/15,

https://www.tcd.ie/Economics/assets/pdf/Paolo_Pinotti_paper.pdf, SZ)
The present study provides the first available evidence

on the economic costs of organized

crime. The empirical exercise applies a transparent and intuitive policy evaluation method, originally devised
by Abadie and Gardeazabal (2003), to study the economic effects of organized crime in two
Italian regions recently exposed to this phenomenon. The results suggest that the
aggregate loss implied by the presence of organized crime amounts to 16%
of GDP per capita and goes mainly through a reallocation from private
economic activity to (less productive) public investment . One limitation of the
macroeconomic approach adopted here is that it does not lend itself easily to explore these mechanisms in greater detail. Another
limit concerns the external validity of the estimates, which is constrained by the specificities of a complex phenomenon such as
organized crime in different countries and periods. Finally, the

outcomes examined here (primarily GDP per

capita and its components) capture only some of the effects of organized crime on
social welfare. Utility losses along many other dimensions (human, psychological and
social) have no direct counterpart into observable quantities, even though indicators such as life expectancy and housing prices
may go a long way in this direction (see, respectively, Thaler, 1978; Soares, 2006). For all these reasons, the present study should be

seen as a first step to better understand the

economic effects of organized crime, as well as an

indication that such effects might be large enough to deserve further attention in the future.

organized crime=terror
Gang activity is intertwined with and a cause of terrorism
Stanojoska 11 (Angelina, Law professor at St. Kliment Ohridski in Bitola, The Connection between
Terrorism and Organized Crime: Narcoterrorism and other hybrids,
https://www.academia.edu/2163809/The_Connection_between_Terrorism_and_Organized_Crime_Na
rcoterrorism_and_other_hybrids), LJH
Historically, a fanatical sect of Ismaili Shiite Muslims active between the eleventh and thirteenth centuries
in Syria and Iran provides the first known link between drugs and terrorist crimes. The very name
assassins is thought to derive from Arabic Hashish in, the drug that reportedly used before engaging on
their murderous missions of assassinations by dagger. Until this day, some terrorists (e.g. in Kashmir) are
fired up by drugs as they are sent to commit acts of terrorism . Many centuries later, in the

1980s, the political aspirations of guerrillas in Latin America were called

narcoterrorism. The term was used as a tool for their de-legitimization.
Originally the term narcoterrorism was used to explain the usage of terrorist
activities by drug traffickers in Peru and Colombia . Today it is used to refer to the use of
profits from drug trafficking for financing terrorist activities. Also it is used to suggest an
alliance between terrorism and organized crime. The term narcoterrorism was coined by
Peruvian president Belaunde Terry in 1983 to describe violent attacks on antinarcotics police by the
Shining Path (Sendero Luminoso) insurgents in Peru. Other Latin American countries have borrowed the
term, most notably Colombia, in reference to links between drug traffickers and guerrillas. There is still a
lack of consensus as to what exactly constitutes narcoterrorism, with critics suggesting that it connotes
too broad a range of activities to be definitive for a particular type of terrorism. Some scholars suggest
that it refers to all insurgent actors involved in the drug trade, whereas others argue the term only
confuses the issues linking terrorism and drug trafficking. Most authorities agree, however,

that it refers to a type of terrorism linked to the production of illegal drugs. Narco,
or narcotic-related, terrorist activities are performed to further the aims of drug
traffickers. These aims include nancial gain, avoiding detection and
apprehension, and establishing control over territories. This form of terrorism
has been the focus of law enforcement and militaries from a wide array of
countries for many years. Narcoterrorist activities are often directed toward judges, prosecutors,
politicians, and law enforcement officials in the form of assassinations, extortions, hijackings, bombings,
and kidnappings. As we mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, the countries of Latin America are the
best example of narcoterrorism territories. They are cultivation areas and important part of the chain
called cocaine and heroin supply system. Also they are cultivation for much rebellion, military and
terrorist groups. The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia (FARC) collects taxes from traffickers to
raise funds to finance their lengthy war against the Government of Colombia. In some regions, U.S.
sources believe, FARC also protects jungle laboratories and maintains airstrips for planes that carry
cocaine out of remote areas for several of the cartels. Theyre paid either in cash or in weapons. Sources
give information that FARCs prices for services to cartels are $15.70 per kilo of cocaine produced in
laboratories, $4 210 per hectare of poppy field, $5 263 for international flights, and $2631 for protection
of landing strips. Same as FARC, the National Liberation Army (ELN) works with drug trafficking groups
in Colombia and Venezuela. They collect taxes for protecting and guarding marijuana and opium poppy
fields. Although we speak for terrorist organizations in Latin America, we mustnt forget that
narcoterrorism can also be found in the Middle East where heroin is produced. In Afghanistan, that gives
70% from the world opiums production, with the defeat of Taliban, many of the opium kingpins reemerged through the usage of the pro American profile. In 2005, American authorities arrested Bashir
Noorzai (Pablo Escobar of heroin trafficking in Asia) in New York City. Noorzai is charged with smuggling
more than $50 million worth of heroin into the U.S. over a 14 year period. He was reportedly supplying
al Qaeda operatives in Pakistan with 2 000 kilograms of heroin every eight weeks. That gave to Osama

Bin Laden an annual income of $28 million. Narcoterrorism on the Balkan has emerged since the
beginning of conflicts. The main players at the Balkan are former Albanian guerrilla and terrorist groups,
the ndrangheta of Southern Italy and the mafia like Sacra Corona Unita from the Apulia area. They
control many of the heroin routes from Afghanistan through Turkey, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Albania, and
on into Italy, where mafia groups distribute it in Western Europe. There are authors which

explain narcoterrorism as a multistage process. In the first stage the two groups
begin actively buy and sell services from each other, borrowing each others
methods in a process of activity appropriation . Both groups in the next stage will
begin to work more closely together in a symbiotic relationship once they mutually
recognize their shared methodologies and motivations . As the most illustrative
nexus between organized crime groups and a terrorist organization is the mutual
relationship between the Albanian Mafia and the Kosovo Liberation Army
(KLA).Although KLA was born with the conflict in Yugoslavia, their link comes from much earlier,
somewhere in 1990s.For a very short time, the Albanian Mafia gained control over heroin routes on the
Balkans. Millions of dollars from drug trafficking were used of KLAs weapons. By 1999, Kosovo was
called Colombia of Europe. Terrorist groups by using drug trafficking provide them a

degree of autonomy, flexibility and freedom. They also use narcoterrorism for
weakening their enemies system. Drugs enter into target countries where they
corrupt, harm future generations and open free paths for arms trafficking for
future actions

Small Business

ICE hurts econ

Immigration detention expensive on both local and federal levels
Barry 9 (Tom Barry is an American political analyst. As of 2007 he is Senior Policy Analyst and
Americas Policy Program Fellow at the advocacy group Center for International Policy (CIP). Barry began
his career as a political activist and analyst at Georgetown University in the late 1960s. "Immigrant
Crackdown Joins Failed Crime and Drug Wars." International Policy Report. April 2009. CIP's Americas
Program.)//lb

This immigrant crime/prison complex overlaps with the citizen crime/prison complex. But there
are important differences. While state and local governments in the face of budgetary
and economic crises are starting to question the sustainability of the crime and
punishment system as the costs of maintaining the penal system mount, DHS and
DOJ are the beneficiaries of generous congressional funding increases for the
immigrant crackdown. ICE alone spends $1.7 billion a year for immigrant
detention. While DHS officials routinely say that immigration law enforcement aims to
uphold the "rule of law," it's a rule of law for citizens alone that is being enforced. A
far inferior and ever-more degraded set of laws and regulations rules the
immigrant world.

ICEs enforcement program uses up $ without securing the

community
Barry 9 (Tom Barry is an American political analyst. As of 2007 he is Senior Policy Analyst and
Americas Policy Program Fellow at the advocacy group Center for International Policy (CIP). Barry began
his career as a political activist and analyst at Georgetown University in the late 1960s. "Immigrant
Crackdown Joins Failed Crime and Drug Wars." International Policy Report. April 2009. CIP's Americas
Program.)//lb

As lawmakers move to roll back drug laws and downsize the crime/prison complex, they
would do well also to consider the costs of criminalizing and imprisoning
immigrants. On the federal level, Congress should question whether the nation can
afford the billions of dollars allocated annually for arresting and imprisoning
immigrants. The Department of Homeland Security's immigration agencies should not
get a free pass in a budget review of porkbarrel and unnecessary funding.
Specifically, Congress should tell the president, Napolitano, and Holder that ICE's
criminal alien programs are unfocused and as such do little to improve community
security and public safety, as they claim.

Immigrant Small Business Key

Now is the key time -- Immigrants and Latinos are opening up new businesses
which account for ALL of the growth in small businesses
Simon 5-27-15 (Ruth, Immigrants, Latinos Helped Drive Business Creation Last Year, May 27, 2015, Immigrants, Latinos Helped Drive
Business Creation Last Year)

Immigrants and Latinos helped drive an uptick in new business creation, according to a
measure of 2014 U.S. startup activity to be released Thursday. Immigrant entrepreneurs launched 28.5%
of the new businesses in 2014, up from 25.9% a year earlier and just 13.3% in 1996, according to an annual startup
index by the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, a Kansas City, Mo., nonprofit. Kauffman-funded researchers found that

immigrants started new companies or became self-employed at nearly twice the rate of
native-born Americans, creating an average of 520 businesses a month per 100,000 people last year. Immigrants
accounted for 12.9% of the U.S. population in 2012, the most recent data available, up from 9.3% in 1996, according to the U.S.
Census Bureau. The share of new Latino business owners also climbed, to 22.1% in 2014 from
20.4% in 2013 and just 10% in 1996, Kauffman said. Latinos comprised 17.1% of the U.S. population in 2013, according to the most
recent census count, up from 10.6% in 1996. The

increase in startups could reflect greater opportunities for

possible struggle for them to find salaried employment
because of language barriers and other obstacles, said Alberto Dvila, chairman of the economics and finance
Hispanic entrepreneurs as well as the

department at the University of Texas-Pan American in Edinburg, Texas. He added that immigrant Latino entrepreneurs often start
small mom and pop shops rather than the fast-growing firms that account for a disproportionate share of U.S. job growth. If you
dig into the numbers, its really Mexican self-employment that is carrying this growth in Latino
business-creation, he said, citing data from the census and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The number of high-skilled immigrant
business owners has risen in recent years as more immigrants with advanced degrees have opted to start their own firms, added
Magnus Lofstrom, a senior research fellow at the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California in San Francisco who also
analyzed census data. Yet, he said, many self-employed immigrants have a high-school education, or less, and their ventures may be
less likely to result in high earnings. In

31 of the 50 largest U.S. metro areas, immigrants accounted

for all of the net growth in owners of Main Street businesses such as restaurants, retailers, drycleaning services and beauty salons from 2010 to 2013, according to the nonpartisan Fiscal Policy Institute and the Americas
Society/Council of the Americas, which released a separate analysis of Census Bureau data earlier this year. Because they come from
different backgrounds, some immigrants may

be able to identify gaps in the marketplace for

products or services that could benefit their local communities , said David Kallick, a senior
fellow at the institute. For instance, Laura Gomez, 35 years old, last year launched Atipica Inc., a four-employee software startup
that helps companies find and recruit more diverse workforces. Two years ago, I wouldnt have started a company, said Ms.
Gomez, who was born in Mexico. But today, its easier to get customers, she said, in part because people are talking a lot more about
the business need for diversity not only in the technology sector but also in other industries. More than 93% of self-employed
Latino immigrants had fewer than 10 employees, compared with 88.9% of self-employed non-Hispanic whites, according to a
separate analysis of the 2014 Current Population Survey by Marie Mora, a University of Texas-Pan American economist. Adriana
Perez of Norwalk, Conn., came to the U.S. from Colombia in 1985. She was working for a global marketing company when she was
laid off in 2014. The 51-year-old started a marketing company to work with Hispanic business owners and to help U.S. business
owners connect with the Hispanic market. Her young firm has no staff employees, though she uses independent contract workers.

Latino businesses are more likely than non-Latino businesses to be family-owned

and less likely to secure outside funding, according to Remy Arteaga, whose nonprofit Stanford Latino
Entrepreneurship Initiative is building a database of Latino-owned firms in the U.S. in collaboration with Stanford University. Many
Latino entrepreneurs struggle to scaleor rapidly expandtheir businesses , Mr.
Arteaga said, adding that roughly 25% of Latino firms get most of their sales from non-Latino customers, a figure that is about the
same for young and older firms.

Small Business is Key

No Economic Recovery Without Small Business Recovery
Bekore 13 (Lynda [Lynda Bekore is the Content Director of Tarkenton Companies. Previously,
she was the Social Sciences Editor for Collier's Encyclopedia, No Economic Recovery Without
Small Business Recovery, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lynda-bekore/no-economicrecovery-with_b_3451681.html)
As small business goes, so goes the nation. That's the take-away from the recent news that 65% of
small businesses (SMBs) don't plan to expand in the current period or the next 6 months. And if you
think you're not affected by the woes of SMBs because you're employed by a big company or the government, think again. According
to the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB), May showed

a near zero hiring rate. Almost

80% of small businesses didn't hire anyone in the last month ; 12% actually
eliminated jobs. Considering that small businesses make up 49% of private sector jobs in
this country, that means the job prospects of your newly-graduated daughter don't look too great, along with your unemployed,
bookkeeper neighbor, or your girlfriend's hairstylist who's looking for a salon gig. News headlines, Wall Street, and the White House
all tell us the economy is improving. But

any small business person can tell you the economy is

not recovering . And SMBs know that "the economy" is not the reason for high unemployment and slow growth--taxes and
red tape are.

Small Businesses are also key to global economy

Schoen 14 (John W., [John W. Schoen is an award-winning online journalist, who has reported and written about economics, business and
financial news for more than 30 years. He is economics reporter for CNBC.com, and was a founder of msnbc.com, CNBC and public radio's
Marketplace. His reporting covers a wide range of economic stories, from Beijing to Berlin. In the summer of 2012, he reported on the economic and
financial turmoil in Europe as a fellow with the RIAS RTDNF German] Small-business slowdown holds back global recovery

ThesmallbusinessslowdownafflictingtheU.S.isapparentlyaglobalphenomenon. American

economists recently have pointed to the fading fortunes of U.S. small

businessesonce the "engine" of job growthas a key reason the economic
recovery has been longer and deeper than in any post-war recession. Butsmall
businesses throughoutthedevelopedworldarealso struggling, according to research
published this week bytheOrganizationforEconomicCooperationandDevelopment. The
slowdown in new company formation helps explain why the economies of the
developed world are growing slowly or, in the case of much of Europe, mired in
recession. Inthe18countriescoveredbythestudy,newandyoungcompanies(thoselessthan2yearsold)still
create42percentofnewjobs,eventhoughtheyaccountforjust17percentoftotalemployment. But that pace
of job creation is falling as start-ups make up a smaller share of all companies. The
decline in the formation of new businesses is a troubling sign for the
economic health ofthedevelopedworld. The churn of jobsas they're destroyed by
older companies and created by new onesmay be disruptive to the workers
involved. But thatchurneconomists call it business dynamismisessentialtothelong
termhealthofagrowingeconomy. "A lot of the new ideas and business models come
from (new companies)," said Dirk Pilat, deputy director of the OECD's Science,
Technology & Industry Directorate and a co-author of the study. "Thisdynamismisa
sourceofnewjobcreation,butit'salsoreallyimportantinadynamiceconomywhereyouneedto
constantlyrefreshyoureconomyandmoveintonewareasandnewmarkets."

Immigration Federalism

Internal Links

K2 CIR
Immigration federalism solves the balance of power and spurs successful
policymaking for comprehensive immigration reform
Sucheski 2011 2007 Buck Scholar, Senior Thesis at Claremont McKenna College (Laura,
Immigration and the States: Reinforcing Federalism through Limited Preemption, pg. 116,
http://scholarship.claremont.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1186&context=cmc_theses)//AN
If the Courts reaffirm their commitment to the narrowest understanding of the Naturalization Clause, Congress would have to rely on statutory

Forcing Congress to preempt through statute directly

will reinvigorate the role of federalism in immigration policy . Congress retains its supremacy on
immigration regulation, but they have to actively pass statutory language to do so. Until Congress takes action on an
issue, states are free to regulate provided the regulation does not constitute a rule of
naturalization, admission, or deportation. One can refer to this understanding of immigration law as a proposal for
immigration federalism. Immigration federalism has several advantages for American public policy. First,
reaffirming states initial equal authority over immigration regulation, states and local governments can
pursue policies that are narrowly tailored to the specific circumstances of their state or region. This will give
states a greater ability to respond quickly to emerging administrative problems. Some communities may decide they
preemption to control immigration regulation.

stand more to gain by accommodating illegal immigrants, while others may conclude they will benefit from deterring them. Immigration federalism
best protects the federal-state cooperative effort in action today. States and local governments have already adopted many policies that could be
invalidated through structural preemption if the Court interprets Congresss implied power more broadly. Many policies now are permitted that could
be preempted under a structural understanding of preemption. Moving

to statutory preemption would legitimize those

state actions and also protect other actions from arbitrary challenges . If a state enacts a policy Congress finds
truly contrary to the national interest, it can pass its own law and preempt the state law. But to pass this law, Congress will need to convince a majority
of representatives to invalidate the local law, a tough argument to make to representatives whose constituents are ambivalent on immigration policy.

However, should the localized interest run contrary enough to the national interest , Congress
could make persuasive arguments to adopt a contrary uniform national policy. Importantly, policy changes would have to
garner a broad base of support before preemption of state regulation could occur. Several scholars argue limiting preemption on any number of
different issues will force the federal government to take action rather than passively preempt. Influential legal scholar Professor Erwin Chemerinsky
has written extensively on the valuable role limited preemption has in reinforcing federalism. Although Chemerinsky focuses on corporate and tort
preemption, the values ascribes to limited preemption also apply to immigration policy. There should only be two situations when there is preemption
of state law. One is express preemption. The other is when federal law and state law are mutually exclusive, so it is not possible for somebody to comply
with both. This would then eliminate preemption based on states interfering with the achievement of the federal objective. It would eliminate implied
preemption based on the intent of CongressNarrowing

preemption means that in all other instances the state and local
governments may regulate as they see fit. If Congress doesnt like what state and local governments
are doing, Congress can always step in and expressly preempt state and local laws.214 Professor Matthew J.
Parlow applies the immigration federalism argument in favor of permitting increased local regulation in the hopes that local ideas will spur
higher government action. Letting states experiment with policy responses to illegal
immigration could inspire Congress to adopt successful policy innovations on the
national level. Empowering local governments will stimulate more innovative policymaking in the immigration arena that may generate
macro-level solutions for what is seen as an intractable problem, he writes.215 Professor Clare Huntingtons argument for immigration
federalism sees increased competition between state policies in the marketplace of ideas as a
benefit to federal policymakers . After seeing what works at lower levels, federal policymakers can better respond to the needs
of the states when enacting comprehensive immigration reform . A system that allows states and localities
to express divergent views on the benefits and costs of immigration would permit the development of a variety of policies rather than a single national
policy, Huntington argues, Creating the proverbial laboratories from which the national government (or states and localities) can learn.216

Opponents of immigration federalism might object that permitting more state regulation will create an
incoherent patchwork of laws that treats illegal immigrants unequally based on state or local preference.
Opponents may also be uncomfortable with the disadvantages of federalism generally, preferring a national system for its tendencies to create laws that
apply equally to all people no matter where they live. But although

some public issues are best addressed through

legal centralization, in this illegal immigration case decentralization better suits the nature
of the problem . Illegal immigration and its associated costs are not uniform across states, and

neither are existing regulations. While statutory preemption would permit more regulatory patchworking, it might spur more
national legislation as well. If Congress knows that it cannot rely on a constitutional challenge to clear the field of regulation it opposes, it will have to
create policy in the affirmative to preempt and obtain the results it desires that under structural preemption it could preempt without action.

Immigration federalism means that the political process will determine the balance of regulatory
power between Congress and the states, consistent with the framers preference for political solutions to federalism questions.
The Courts limited view of exclusive federal power over immigration will restore deliberation to American immigration policy to the benefit of affected
states and the country overall.

K2 Federalism
Federalism and immigration federalism feed off of each otherthey are
intrinsically tied
Huntington 2008 Associate Professor, University of Colorado Law School; J.D. Columbia
Law School; (Clare, The Constitutional Dimension of Immigration Federalism,
http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1181&context=faculty_scholarship)//AN
The competing values in federalism are always the subject of debate and disagreement. But the
above discussion demonstrates that it is quite possible to take cognizance of important
immigration concerns within the framework-the language, arguments, and interests-of
federalism. Federalism is, in important ways, germane to sound immigration policy
concerns. Further, once we view immigration through a federalism lens, it becomes apparent
that federalism concerns do not univocally support federal exclusivity. Indeed, there is ample
room for disagreement about which way the competing values cut. This room for debate
only underscores the need to subject immigration to traditional arguments over
federalism, as opposed to setting immigration apart as structural preemption would counsel.

K2 Organized Crime
This type of community policing constructed through immigration
federalism has undermined critical trust between law enforcement and
Hispanic communitiesit relies on racist profiling techniques
Decker et al. No Date Professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Arizona State
University (Scott et. al., Immigration and Local Policing: Results from a National Survey of Law
Enforcement Executives- Appendix G, pg. 169,
http://www.policefoundation.org/sites/pftest1.drupalgardens.com/files/Appendix
%20G.pdf)//AN
The devolution of immigration policing authority from the federal to local governments represents a sharp break with a long-established tradition of federal control over all
aspects of immigration enforcement and is giving rise to what some observers are calling immigration federalism (Spiro 1997; Huntington 2007). Although federal authority
over immigration has always involved a degree of cooperation and occasional conflict between local and federal officials, the federal government has historically been recognized
to have plenary power in this area. Being present in the U.S. without authorization is a civil violation under federal law, not a prosecutable crime under the jurisdiction of
localities. In the past, state and local police forces played only a supportive role, sometimes sharing information about those they had detained as criminal suspects or assisting
in enforcement actions. The federal government cannot require local governments to do immigration policing. Police powers are constitutionally reserved for the states and their

the federal
government has created an opening for localities to ask their police officers to be trained by and
to join the federal government in enforcing immigration laws within the interior of the United States. Beginning in 2002,
jurisdictional subunits, an arrangement that provides localities with significant flexibility and autonomy. But with the AEDPA and IIRIRA,

informal working relationships between local police and federal immigration agents have developed in some departments. Others are seeking formal training from federal

under the 287(g) program

immigration authorities
(referring to the section of the IIRIRA which authorizes such collaboration). Federal agents also are
embedded in some police departments to assist in enforcement of drug and human smuggling laws. A number of state prisons and local jails send the names of criminal suspects

an increasing number of police departments are electing to

do their own immigration status checks. Within the past several years, the number of law enforcement agencies that have asked for training to
to federal authorities to be checked for immigration violations. And

make these checks has increased from eight to more than sixty (Immigration and Customs Enforcement 2008). Other local governments and police departments, stating
concerns for public safety and the importance of police-community relationships, have rejected local civil immigration enforcement entirelya small number have declared
themselves to be sanctuary cities, while others follow a kind of informal dont ask, dont tell policy regarding contacts with possible unauthorized immigrants. This

devolution of immigration policing to the local level presents police departments with several
important challenges. One is the potential for conflict between commitments to community
policing and active involvement in immigration control . Community policing practices emphasize close communication and
collaboration between police and community. Engagement in identifying and removing unauthorized immigrants
challenges these relationships in areas with large numbers of Hispanic residents . As the
Immigration Committee of the Major Cities Chiefs (2006, p. 3) observed, Local enforcement of federal immigration laws raises many daunting and complex legal, logistical and
resource issues for local agencies and the diverse communities they serve. While stopping short of endorsing one approach for local law enforcement in the debate over how

recommendations highlight the many challenges to local law enforcement

in carrying out its primary function, including loss of trust among immigrant groups, inadequate resources,
complexity of federal laws, lack of local legal authority for intervention, and risks of civil liability .
A second concern is that immigration enforcement activities may discourage members of immigrant
communities who are victims or witnesses of crime to come forward . Many new immigrant groups that may be
best to respond to unauthorized immigration, the

vulnerable to high rates of victimization come from countries where distrust of authoritiesparticularly law enforcementis a valid concern. In such cases, building community
trust in the police is already a difficult task. A 2007 report by the International Association of Chiefs of Police notes that local immigration enforcement makes that task even
more difficult. This report identifies eight specific areas of conflict between communities, elected officials, and federal and local law enforcement. A third concern is that the core
commitment to local concerns in policing will be lost in the process of developing stronger links with federal immigration authorities. American policing spent the last half of the
twentieth century elaborating on and strengthening local control. During this period, the focus of police evolved from an emphasis on administrative and professional issues, to
community relations and interaction. Problem solving and fear reduction and an emphasis on zero-tolerance have also been added to the policy mix (Greene 2001). Each of

conceptualizations of American policing, despite their differences, has a decidedly local character .

these re-

Local communities have provided an important check on the expansion of police authority and jurisdiction, reflecting the historical antipathy of the American populace toward

police commitments to avoid racial profiling are put at risk by

active involvement in immigration enforcement because the drive to eliminate unauthorized
immigrants has focused on people who have crossed the nations southern border from Mexico .
Although many departments have developed antiprofiling policies , immigration enforcement subtly encourages officers to
focus on people who look Mexican or who are heard to speak a foreign language . Also, enforcement efforts
federalizing law enforcement (Mastrofski 1988). Finally,

that target unauthorized immigrants will inevitably draw some naturalized citizens, legal permanent residents, and citizens into newly intrusive contacts with the police. The

over half of all Latinos in the

United States fear that they or someone close to them may be deported in the
current enforcement climate (Pew Hispanic Center 2007). How, then, should police respond? Will enforcing civil immigration laws erode

climate is reportedly becoming inhospitable for many people: as detailed in a recent Pew Hispanic Center report,

community policing ideals, particularly in towns and cities with significant immigrant populations? Are other essential elements of local police services at risk? The growing
involvement of local police in immigration enforcement has gained enormous momentum with almost no systematic research or information base (though see Waslin 2007 and
www.trac.syr.edu). Law enforcement executives, public officials, and scholars seeking information on this topic have largely had to rely on media accounts, anecdotal
information, and reports by advocacy groups of one stripe or another. To respond to the need for systematic information on this topic, the authors have launched a four-stage
project, which includes two rounds of survey research and two rounds of local, in-depth, comparative case studies. Our research is geared toward describing the range of actions
local police have taken in regard to unauthorized immigration and ultimately describing the context for these actions. This report presents the initial results of our first

These issues include the role of local politics in

setting police policy, the relationship of local police departments with federal Immigration and Customs
Enforcement authorities, the range of variation in local practices and policies, and community relations. The results indicate that local police
nationwide survey of police executives in large U.S. cities. We report on several issues.

play a critical role in the ways in which local communities relate to immigrants, particularly in their exercise of discretion with regard to immigration enforcement.

K2 State Economies
Federal control over immigration bogs down state economies and trust in
local governments
Sucheski 2011 2007 Buck Scholar, Senior Thesis at Claremont McKenna College (Laura,
Immigration and the States: Reinforcing Federalism through Limited Preemption, pg. 116,
http://scholarship.claremont.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1186&context=cmc_theses)//AN
The way in which our

legal system distributes authority for immigration regulation and the way in which the
costs manifest only on the state level violates the principle of constitutional federalism. Justice Sandra Day OConnor,
writing for the majority in New York v. United States, succinctly articulated what it is to violate the constitutional principle of federalism:
Accountability is thus diminished when, due to federal coercion, elected state officials cannot regulate in accordance with the views of the local
electorate.177 Illegal immigration

creates a problem that states cannot regulate but that they must pay
for, causing voters to hold them accountable for the effects of the problem. Whether the states can pursue a
remedy to this problem is another question. The nature of the problem has neutralized the reality of a possible political process solution. Immigrationaffected states senators and congressmen represent a small minority in Congress. Overall, Congress is ambivalent when it comes to immigration policy.
By passively permitting a great deal of illegal immigration, the economy

benefits overall from the induction of lowskilled labor, but existing law allows them to exclude illegal immigrants from federal
disbursements. On the state side, the state too benefits from the economic boost but must
provide public services with little federal assistance. The effect of this scenario is that voters tend to
punish state elected officials for problems they are powerless to control . Pursuing a judicial remedy to
this violation of federalism is complicated by several factors inherent in the nature of the problem. First, although the fiscal impact of immigrants
appears to be the classic example of an unfunded mandate,178 making the problem effectively similar to one identified in New York v. United States, it
is not directly analogous. The federal

governments ineffective immigration enforcement saddled states with the

fiscal costs of illegal immigration, but it is not because the government has refused to take legislative action. If the Supreme
Court gets involved, they may be excessively burdened with determining the effectiveness
of the implementation of any federal law that adversely affects a state . The Court would have to develop a
standard to determine the point at which state sovereignty was impermissibly violated. 179 Developing those standards could unduly involve the courts
in the political processes, a prospect that neither the courts nor the other branches relish. Furthermore, the Court rejected this line of reasoning in
Garcia after experimenting with a standard of necessary governmental function following National League of Cities.

State-controlled immigration policies key to spur economic development in

citiesDetroit proves
Wainer and Singer 2014 Senior Immigration Policy Analyst for Bread for the World
Institute, Senior fellow at the Brookings Metropolitan Policy Program (Andrew, Audrey,
Immigration Policy: Is Federalism the Answer?,
http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2014/04/21-immigration-policy-federalismwainer-singer)//AN
For those of us tracking immigration policy, the shift is undeniable. With President Obama recently pointing out just how gridlocked a once-promising
bipartisan Senate immigration proposal has become, cities and states have become the new immigration-policy innovators. They are filling the void.
U.S. immigration policy has been the purview of the federal government for more than a century .
But it was not always that way. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, individual states had their own immigration laws. States typically sought to

immigration
policy is, in some ways, returning to its roots. Increasingly, places that want to put out the welcome mat and encourage
entrepreneurial activity are sharing ideas. And as a quick federal fix to immigration policy looks like a long shot, local and state proposals are
gaining traction. In perhaps the most well-known current example of state-level immigration strategy, Michigan's Republican governor, Rick
Snyder, proposed in January bringing 50,000 immigrants to Detroit over five years through a visa
program aimed at immigrants with advanced degrees or exceptional abilities in science, business, or the arts. These
immigrants would have to live and work in the struggling city. Detroit, a city that lost about 237,500 residentsa full quarter of its population
between 2000 and 2010 alone, needs people . The hope is that immigrant newcomers will occupy
empty residential blocks, launch small businesses, and fill both high- and low-skill job niches.
Perhaps that's why Snyder's proposal has been endorsed by conservative think tanks and newspapers. But given congressional
regulate immigrant influxes with policies that reflected particular concern about the arrival of poor European newcomers. Now,

control over immigration policy, it looks unlikely to become law in the near future . Nevertheless,
Snyder's proposal ranks among a growing list of ideas emanating from states and cities seeking ways
to manage immigration. In 2013, there was a 64 percent increase in proposed or enacted state laws dealing with immigration, compared
with 2012. And that increase follows a doubling of state immigration legislation between 2006 and 2010. Moreover, these initiatives reflect a shift from
those focused on immigration enforcement and deflecting immigrants to those that expand state benefits such as extending driver's license eligibility
and in-state tuition to unauthorized residents. In the latest state attempt to work around the federal stalemate, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick

unveiled the Global Entrepreneur Program that recruits foreign students to stay and work on
new start-ups in the state. It exploits an existing loophole in the federal H-1B visa program . State laws can make a
difference in the lives of immigrants and their families. In late 2013, California approved
the "Trust Act," which directs state law enforcement to expedite the release of detained unauthorized immigrants after they are determined not
to have serious criminal records rather than quickly turn them over to federal officials, who can deport them. Implemented in January, the law
has already slowed the rate of deportations in California by 44 percent , according to an Associated Press
analysis. To craft effective policies, communities must understand the drivers that direct immigrants to certain towns or regions. This is easier said than
done. About a decade ago, the Abell Foundation studied the issue for Baltimore and found, "The few

comparable cities that

reversed their population decline through immigration did not plan their success ." Today's immigration
is driven by a variety of factors. Recent research released by Bread for the World Institute on "blue-collar" immigrants in Baltimore and Detroit

lowerskilled immigrants who are helping revitalize these cities tend to select a new city to call home
based on three primary factors: low housing costs, a plentiful manual-labor job market, and
family connections. As one Baltimore-area construction company owner who observed the increase in Latino immigration noted, "Rent was
cheap, and the work was there; that's really the bottom line." Family and community connections are also important . Once an
provides some clues about what attracts working-class immigrants to cities. While a reputation as an immigrant-friendly city can't hurt,

immigrant has settled in a U.S. city, it's a safe bet that if others from that person's region, village, or family decide to migrate, they will begin that
journey in cities where they know people who can help them find housing or offer them a place to stay, connect them with jobs, and explain the way
things work in their new home. Municipalities

with large and diverse immigrant populations such as New York are
leading the way when it comes to taking economic drivers into account. Its blueprint for immigrant integration
includes assistance for immigrant entrepreneurs and employment services for underemployed immigrants with in-demand skills. These practical

programs align with most immigrants' primary goaleconomic advancementwhich can also potentially
contribute to a city's economic development . But whatever the configuration of state and municipal immigrantattraction strategies, they are not a substitute for federal legislative action. It is federal, not state or local, policy that controls the laws that allow
immigrants to enter the country to live and work. As long as immigration reform remains stuck in Congress, states and cities will continue to generate
new policies, for better or for worse.

***Impacts

*High Skilled Visas Impact

Science Diplomacy

Science Diplomacy Good

Science diplomacy provides a cooperative framework to avoid conflict
Royal Society, 10 a Fellowship of more than 1400 outstanding individuals from all areas of
science, mathematics, engineering and medicine (January, 2010, New frontiers in science
diplomacy https://royalsociety.org/policy/publications/2010/new-frontiers-sciencediplomacy/)//gingE

Science diplomacy is not new, but it has never been more important . Many of the defining
challenges of the 21st century from climate change and food security, to poverty reduction
and nuclear disarmamenthave scientific dimensions. No one country will be able
to solve these problems on its own. The tools, techniques and tactics of foreign
policy need to adapt to a world of increasing scientific and technical complexity.
There are strong foundations on which to renew momentum for science
diplomacy. Advances in science have long relied on international flows of people
and ideas. To give an example close to home, the post of Foreign Secretary of the Royal Society was instituted in 1723, nearly
60 years before the British Government appointed its first Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Throughout the Cold War, scientific
organisations were an important conduit for informal discussion of nuclear issues between the United States and the Soviet Union.

The
potential contribution of science to foreign policy is attracting more attention in
several countries. In the UK, the Prime Minister Gordon Brown recently called for a new role for science in international
Today, science offers alternative channels of engagement with countries such as Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

policymaking and diplomacy (Brown 2009). This report attempts to define this role, and to demonstrate how scientists, diplomats
and other policymakers can make it work in practice. The report is based on the evidence gathered at a two-day meeting on New
frontiers in science diplomacy, which was hosted by the Royal Society from 1_2 June 2009, in partnership with the American
Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). The meeting was attended by almost 200 delegates from twenty countries in
Africa, Asia, Europe, the Middle East, North and South America. Attendees included government ministers, scientists, diplomats,
policymakers, business leaders and journalists (see Appendix 1 for the meeting agenda). Three dimensions of science diplomacy

Drawing on historical and contemporary examples, the meeting explored how

science can contribute to foreign policy objectives. Key points to emerge from the discussion include:
Science diplomacy is still a fluid concept, but can usefully be applied to the role
of science, technology and innovation in three dimensions of policy: The Royal Society New Frontiers in
Science Diplomacy I January 2010 I v informing foreign policy objectives with scientific advice
(science in diplomacy); facilitating international science cooperation (diplomacy for science); using
science cooperation to improve international relations between countries (science
for diplomacy). Scientific values of rationality, transparency and universality are the same the world over. They can
help to underpin good governance and build trust between nations. Science
provides a non-ideological environment for the participation and free exchange of
ideas between people, regardless of cultural, national or religious backgrounds.
Science is a source of what Joseph Nye, the former dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, terms soft
power (Nye 2004). The

scientific community often works beyond national boundaries on

problems of common interest, so is well placed to support emerging forms of
diplomacy that require non- traditional alliances of nations, sectors and non-governmental
organisations. If aligned with wider foreign policy goals, these channels of scientific exchange can
contribute to coalition- building and conflict resolution. Cooperation on the
scientific aspects of sensitive issuessuch as nuclear non-proliferationcan
sometimes provide an effective route to other forms of political dialogue. vi I January
2010 I New Frontiers in Science Diplomacy The Royal Society Science diplomacy seeks to strengthen the symbiosis between the
interests and motivations of the scientific and foreign policy communities. For the former, international

cooperation

is often driven by a desire to access the best people , research facilities or new sources of funding. For

the latter, science offers potentially useful networks and channels of communi- cation that can be used to support wider policy goals.
But it

is important that scientific and diplomatic goals remain clearly defined, to

avoid the undue politicisation of science. Foreign ministries should place greater emphasis on science
within their strategies, and draw more extensively on scientific advice in the formation and delivery of policy objectives. In the UK,
the appointment of Professor David Clary FRS as the Chief Scientific Adviser at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office creates an
important opportunity to integrate science across FCO priorities, and develop stronger linkages with science-related policies in other
government departments. Regulatory barriers, such as visa restrictions and security controls, can also be a practical constraint to
science diplomacy. Immediately after September 11 2001, the imposition of stringent travel and visa regimes in countries like the US
and the UK severely limited opportunities for visiting scientists and scholars, particularly from Islamic countries. Whilst the strictest
controls have since been lifted, the value of scientific partnerships means that further reforms may be needed. Scientific

organisations, including national academies, also have an important role to play in

science diplomacy, particularly when formal political relationships are weak or
strained. The scientific community may be able to broker new or different types of partnerships. The range of actors involved
in these efforts should expand to include non-governmental organisations, multilateral agencies and other informal networks.

There need to be more effective mechanisms and spaces for dialogue between
policymakers, academics and researchers working in the foreign policy and
scientific communities, to identify projects and processes that can further the interests of both communities. Foreign
policy institutions and think tanks can offer leadership here, by devoting intellectual resources to science as an important
component of modern day diplomacy. Science

diplomacy needs support and encouragement at

all levels of the science community. Younger scientists need opportunities and career incentives to engage with
policy debates from the earliest stage of their careers. There is much to learn from related debates over science communication and
public engagement by scientists, where there has been a culture change within science over the past ten years. Three immediate
areas of opportunity for science diplomacy were highlighted at the meeting: New scientific partnerships with the Middle East and
wider Islamic world A new initiative to support these efforts, The Atlas of Islamic-World Science and Innovation, was announced at
the meeting, with partners including the Royal Society, Organisation of Islamic Conference, Nature, the British Council and the
International Development Research Centre (see Case study 1). Confidence building and nuclear disarmament The Royal Society
New Frontiers in Science Diplomacy I January 2010 I vii With the Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
(NPT) taking place in May 2010, it is timely to consider how cooperation on the scientific aspects of nuclear disarmament could
support the wider diplomatic process. Governance of international spaces International

spaces beyond
national jurisdictions including Antarctica, the high seas, the deep sea and outer
space cannot be managed through conventional models of governance and
diplomacy, and will require flexible approaches to international cooperation,
informed by scientific evidence and underpinned by practical scientific
partnerships (see Case study 2).

Key to cooperation with other countries

Royal Society, 10 a Fellowship of more than 1400 outstanding individuals from all areas of
science, mathematics, engineering and medicine (January, 2010, New frontiers in science
diplomacy https://royalsociety.org/policy/publications/2010/new-frontiers-sciencediplomacy/)//gingE
International

scientific and engineering collaboration is imperative to meet global

challenges. Models of international scientific collaboration can lead the way for
international diplomacy and policy. Professor John Beddington FRS, Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK
Government The second dimension of science diplomacydiplomacy for scienceseeks
to facilitate international cooperation, whether in pursuit of top-down strategic
priorities for research or bottom-up collaboration between individual scientists
and researchers. Flagship international projects, such as the International Thermonuclear
Experimental Reactor (ITER) and the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) are one approach. These projects carry
enormous costs and risks, but are increasingly vital in areas of science which require large
upfront investments in infrastructure, beyond the budget of any one country .
However, such projects are the visible tip of a large iceberg of everyday, bottom-up collaboration that takes place between individual

scientists and institutions. The stereotype of the scientist as a lone genius no longer holds true. The

scientific
enterprise is now premised on the need to collaborate and connect. Globally there
is an invisible college of researchers who collaborate not because they are told to
but because they want to ... because they can offer each other complementary
insight, knowledge or skills (Wagner 2008). Collaborations are no longer based purely on historical, institutional
or cultural links. This creates an opportunity for the foreign policy community. Science
can be a bridge to communities where political ties are weaker, but to develop
relationships in these areas, scientists may require diplomatic assistance, whether
in contract negotiations, intellectual property agreements or dealing with visa
regulations. Many countries conduct bilateral summits specifically on science
issues, in order to establish government-level agreements on joint funding and
facilitation of research. The UK, for example, has regular high-level meetings on science and innovation with Brazil,
China, India, Russia, South Africa and South Korea. These are not only symbolic of cordial relations,
but they provide an overarching framework within which scientists can work
together. For the UK, these processes have resulted in a number of successful funding initiatives, including the UK-India
Education and Research Initiative and the Science Bridges schemes with China, India and the US. Research Councils UK (RCUK)
has also opened offices in Beijing, Brussels, New Delhi and Washington DC as part of the UKs efforts to drive bilateral research with
strategic countries. Global

policy challenges must be addressed in a holistic way, drawing

not only on science and technology, but also on economic, social, political and
behavioural sciences. Interdisciplinary collaboration will be crucial, as illustrated by the recent consultation by the
International Council on Science (ICSU) on the future of earth system research, which highlighted the complex inter-relationships
between biological, geochemical, climate and social systems and suggested that natural science should no longer dictate the Earth
system research agenda; social science will be at least as important in its next phase (Reid et al. 2009). Competition

hasnt gone away: the growing scientific capabilities of China, India, Brazil and
others will challenge Europe and the US in some areas. But it is short sighted to
view these developments primarily as a threat. As science and innovation
capabilities grow worldwide, a central question is whether more defensive, national strategies gather momentum,
or whether the countervailing impulse towards global collaboration will prove stronger. Efforts to strengthen
national science and innovation systems remain vital, but must increasingly be
accompanied by more creative and better- resourced mechanisms for
orchestrating research across international networks in pursuit of shared goals
such as tackling climate change, food and energy security . The Large Hadron Collider is an
excellent example of what countries can achieve by working together: a scale of scientific investment and ambition that no one
country could manage alone.

Instability coming nowscience diplomacy increases soft power thats

necessary to prevent military conflict
Royal Society, 10 a Fellowship of more than 1400 outstanding individuals from all areas of
science, mathematics, engineering and medicine (January, 2010, New frontiers in science
diplomacy https://royalsociety.org/policy/publications/2010/new-frontiers-sciencediplomacy/)//gingE
Science

diplomacy and science and technology cooperation . . . is one of our most

effective ways of influencing and assisting other nations and creating real bridges
between the United States and counterparts. Hillary Clinton, US Secretary of State A third dimension of
science diplomacy is science for diplomacy. Joseph Nye, former dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University
famously distinguished between hard power, which uses military and economic means to coerce the behaviour of other nations, and
soft

power, which builds on common interests and values to attract, persuade and
influence (Nye 2004). Science has always played a role in the development of hard

power capabilities, such as military technologies. But science for diplomacy

primarily draws on the soft power of science: its attractiveness and influence
both as a national asset, and as a universal activity that transcends national
interests. The soft power of science interacts with international relations in several
ways, ranging from cultural diplomacy to more traditional forms of negotiation
and mediation (see Figure 1). Types of science for diplomacy include: Science cooperation
agreements, which have long been used to symbolise improving political relations,
for example between the US, USSR and China in the 1970s and 1980s. A scientific agreement was the first bilateral treaty to be
agreed between the US and Libya in 2004, after Libya gave up its biological, chemical and nuclear weapons programmes. New

institutions can be created to reflect the goals of science for diplomacy . Perhaps the best
example is the European Organisation for Nuclear Research (CERN), which was founded after World War II to help rebuild bridges
between nations. CERN enabled some of the first post-war contacts between German and Israeli scientists, and kept open scientific
relations with Russia and other Eastern bloc countries during the Cold War. Educational

scholarships are a
well- established mechanism for network- building and encouraging partnerships .
For example, the Royal Society runs the Newton International Fellowships scheme, in partnership with the Royal Academy of
Engineering and British Academy, to select the best early stage post-doctoral researchers from around the world, and offer them
long-term support to sustain relations with institutions in the UK.7 Track

two diplomacy can be used to

involve those working outside an official negotiation or mediation process,
including scientists and other academics. To be effective, it requires outside participants who remain
credible and influential. Official track one processes must also recognise the role of track two efforts. For example, it was openly
acknowledged during the Cold War meetings between national academies that both sides would report back to their political leaders.
Science festivals and exhibitions, particularly linked to the history of science, can be an effective platform from which to emphasise
the universality of science, and common cultural interests. China, India, Iran and other Islamic countries are particularly proud of
their contributions to the history of science (see Case study 1). 4.1 New dimensions of international security Cooperation

on
the scientific aspects of sensitive issues may sometimes be the only way to initiate
a wider political dialogue. The soft power of science , and the universality of
scientific methods, can be used to diffuse tensions even in hard power scenarios ,
such as those relating to traditional military threats . For example, technologies to verify nuclear arms
control agreements were a rare focus of joint working between the US and USSR during the Cold War. Lessons from the Cold War
are once again highly pertinent. In the run-up to the May 2010 Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT),
nuclear disarmament is firmly back on the international agenda. However, the timescale for disarmament is long, as illustrated by
the history of negotiations over the Chemical Weapons Convention. After the Geneva Convention banned the use of chemical
weapons in 1925, negotiations for a treaty banning their production and stockpiling did not start until the 1980s, and the convention
entered into force only in 1997. Even now, stockpiles of chemical weapons in the US and Russia have yet to be destroyed. So focusing
in 2010 on the challenges of the final stages of a nuclear disarmament proc ess may be premature. A

more practical next

step could be to establish the scientific requirements for the verification regime
necessary to support future stages of negotiation (Pregenzer 2008). In 2008, the Norwegian Minister
of Foreign Affairs suggested that a high-level Intergovernmental Panel on Nuclear Disarmament could be established (based on the
model of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). This panel could begin by identifying the scientific and technical aspects
of disarmament, and then set out a research agenda necessary to achieve them. International cooperation would be essential, both
between nuclear and non-nuclear weapon states, as all would need to have confidence that Figure 2. Multiple stress zones.
reductions are taking place. The recent initiative between the UK and Norwegian governments on disarmament verification sets a
precedent here, and could be expanded to include additional States (VERTIC 2009). However, security

threats now
extend beyond the military domain, with environmental security attracting
particular attention (Abbott C, Rogers P & Sloboda S 2007). Essential resources, such as
freshwater, cultivable land, crop yields and fish stocks, are likely to become
scarcer in many parts of the world, increasing the risk of competition over
resources within and between states (UNEP 2009). This could intensify as previously
inaccessible regions, such as the Arctic Ocean, open up as a consequence of
climate change and ice melt. Substantial parts of the world also risk being left
uninhabitable by rising sea levels, reduced freshwater availability or declining
agricultural capacity. Many of the regions that are vulnerable to the impacts of

these multiple stresses are already the locus of existing instability and conflict (see
Figure 2).

Science diplomacy key to reversing all existential impacts

Sackett, 10 former Chief Scientist for Australia, former Program Director at the NSF, PhD in
theoretical physics (Penny, August 10, 2010, Science diplomacy: Collaboration for solutions,
Forum for Australian-European Science and Technology cooperation magazine,
http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/2010/08/science-diplomacy-collaboration-forsolutions/)//gingE
Imagine for a moment that the globe is inhabited by a single individual who roams free across outback plains, through rainforests,
across pure white beaches living off the resources available. Picture the immensity of the world surrounding this one person and
ask yourself, what possible impact could this single person have on the planet? Now turn your attention to todays reality.

Almost 7 billion people inhabit the planet and this number increases at an average
of a little over one per cent per year. Thats about 2 more mouths to feed every second. Do these 7 billion
people have an impact on the planet? Yes. An irreversible impact? Probably. Taken together this huge number
of people has managed to change the face of the Earth and threaten the very
systems that support them. We are now embarked on a trajectory that, if
unchecked, will certainly have detrimental impacts on our way of life and to
natural ecosystems. Some of these are irreversible, including the extinction of many species. But returning to
that single individual, surely two things are true. A single person could not have
caused all of this, nor can a single person solve all the associated problems. The
message here is that the human-induced global problems that confront us cannot
be solved by any one individual, group, agency or nation. It will take a large
collective effort to change the course that we are on; nothing less will suffice. Our planet is
facing several mammoth challenges: to its atmosphere, to its resources, to its
inhabitants. Wicked problems such as climate change, over-population, disease,
and food, water and energy security require concerted efforts and worldwide
collaboration to find and implement effective, ethical and sustainable solutions.
These are no longer solely scientific and technical matters . Solutions must be viable in the larger
context of the global economy, global unrest and global inequality. Common understandings and commitment to action are required
between individuals, within communities and across international networks. Science

can play a special role in

international relations. Its participants share a common language that transcends
mother tongue and borders. For centuries scientists have corresponded and
collaborated on international scales in order to arrive at a better and common
understanding of the natural and human world. Values integral to science such as transparency,
vigorous inquiry and informed debate also support effective international relation practices. Furthermore, given the longestablished global trade of scientific information and results, many important
international links are already in place at a scientific level. These links can lead to
coalition-building, trust and cooperation on sensitive scientific issues which, when
supported at a political level, can provide a soft politics route to other policy
dialogues. That is, if nations are already working together on global science issues,
they may be more likely to be open to collaboration on other global issues such as
trade and security. Many countries have recognised the value of science
diplomacy.

Cyber Security
US cybersecurity is lowhigh skilled workers are crucial to solvevisas are
key
Gjelten 2010 (Tom, Correspondent NPR, "Cyberwarrior Shortage Threatens U.S. Security",
NPR)//AN
There may be no country on the planet more vulnerable to a massive cyberattack than the U nited
States, where financial, transportation, telecommunications and even military operations are now deeply dependent on data networking. A shadowy hand hovers over a computer keyboard.i U.S. industry,
government and military operations are all at risk of an attack on complex computer systems , analysts warn. What's worse: U.S.
security officials say the country's cyberdefenses are not up to the challenge . In part, it's due to a severe shortage of
computer security specialists and engineers with the skills and knowledge necessary to do battle against would-be adversaries. The protection of U.S. computer
systems essentially requires an army of cyberwarriors, but the recruitment of that force is suffering. "We don't have sufficiently bright people moving into this field to support those national security objectives as

If U.S.
cyberdefenses are to be improved, more people like Gosler will be needed on the front lines. Gosler, 58, works
we move forward in time," says James Gosler, a veteran cybersecurity specialist who has worked at the CIA, the National Security Agency and the Energy Department.

at the Energy Department's Sandia National Laboratory in Albuquerque, N.M., where he focuses on ways to counter efforts to penetrate U.S. data networks. It's an ever-increasing challenge. "You can have
vulnerabilities in the fundamentals of the technology, you can have vulnerabilities introduced based on how that technology is implemented, and you can have vulnerabilities introduced through the artificial

It takes a very skilled person to operate at that level, and we

don't have enough of them." Web Resources CSIS Report On Cybersecurity Gosler estimates there are now only 1,000 people in the entire United States with the sophisticated
applications that are built on that fundamental technology," Gosler says. "

skills needed for the most demanding cyberdefense tasks. To meet the computer security needs of U.S. government agencies and large corporations, he says, a force of 20,000 to 30,000 similarly skilled specialists
is needed. Some are currently being trained at the nonprofit SANS (SysAdmin, Audit, Network, Security) Institute outside Washington, D.C., but the demand for qualified cybersecurity specialists far exceeds the
supply. Retired Vice Adm. Mike McConnell INTELLIGENCE SQUARED U.S. Has The Cyberwar Threat Been Exaggerated? "You go looking for those people, but everybody else is looking for the same thousand
people," says SANS Research Director Alan Paller. "So they're just being pushed around from NSA to CIA to DHS to Boeing. It's a mess." The Center for Strategic and International Studies highlights the problem
in a forthcoming report, "A Human Capital Crisis in Cybersecurity." According to the report, a key element of a "robust" cybersecurity strategy is "having the right people at every level to identify, build and staff
the defenses and responses." The CSIS report highlights a "desperate shortage" of people with the skills to "design secure systems, write safe computer code, and create the ever more sophisticated tools needed to
prevent, detect, mitigate and reconstitute from damage due to system failures and malicious acts." U.S. Computer Emergency Readiness Team/National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Centeri
The U.S. Computer Emergency Readiness Team/National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center is designed to help protect the technical infrastructure of the United States. Win McNamee/Getty

cyber manpower crisis in the United States stands in sharp contrast to the situation in
China, where the training of computer experts is a top national priority. In the most recent round of the International
Collegiate Programming Contest, co-sponsored by IBM and the Association for Computing Machinery, Chinese universities took four of the top 10
places. No U.S. university made the list. The Chinese government, in fact, appears to be systematically building a cyberwarrior force. "Every military district of the
Images The

Peoples' Liberation Army runs a competition every spring," says Alan Paller of SANS, "and they search for kids who might have gotten caught hacking." One of the Chinese youths who won that competition had
earlier been caught hacking into a Japanese computer, according to Paller, only to be rewarded with extra training. "Later that year, we found him hacking into the Pentagon," Paller says. "So they find them, they
train them, and they get them into operation very, very fast." Some members of Congress, eager to follow China's example, are now promoting a U.S. Cyber Challenge, a national talent search at the high school
level. The aim is to find up to 10,000 potential cyberwarriors, ready to play both offense and defense. "The idea is for schools around the country to field teams, and the teams would compete against one another,"
says Sen. Thomas Carper, a Delaware Democrat who is one of the backers of the effort. He sees the challenge as an opportunity "not only for them to hone their skills on being able to hack into other systems,
particularly those of folks we may not be fond of, but also to use what they learn to strengthen our defenses." In order to protect a computer system, one needs to know how someone might attack it. Last year's
preliminary Cyber Challenge game was won by a 17-year-old from Connecticut Michael Coppola who was smart enough to hack into the game computer and add points to his own score. "There's actually a
flaw within that Web application," Coppola says. "Using that, I was able to execute commands on the computer running the scoring software, and I was able to add points and basically do whatever I wanted." It
was certainly an unconventional approach, but the competition judges were so impressed by Coppola's ability to hack into the computer game that they actually rewarded him for changing his score. "It's cheating,"
Michael says, "but it's like the entire game is cheating." Indeed. People who know how to cheat will soon be on the front lines of cyber defense, because the best way to defend a computer system from attack is to
figure out how an adversary would be able to hack into it. Now 18, Coppola is himself looking to a career in cybersecurity.

US is extremely vulnerable to cyber attacks on power gridsmost recent

evidence proves
Inquisitr 6/30/15 News Agency (Power Grid Vulnerable To Cyber Attack, Former Defense
Secretary Says, http://www.inquisitr.com/2213678/power-grid-vulnerable-to-cyber-attackformer-defense-secretary-says/)//AN
power grid is vulnerable to a terrorist attack, former Secretary of Defense William Cohen said. A direct assault on the
electrical system would cause chaos and civil unrest throughout the country, the former government official said.
The

Natural disasters, such as Carrington Event-level solar flares, could also take down the power delivery system nationwide. William Cohen was a Republican Senator from Maine
and is currently serving as the CEO and chairman of The Cohen Group. Cohen recently released a new thriller, Collision, which is published by Forge Books. Cohen served as

destruction of the power grid by terrorists would not

necessarily have to involve an EMP attack, according to Cohen. You can do it through cyber attacks ,
and thats the real threat coming up as well. We have to look at cyber attacks being able to shut down our
power grid, which you have to remember is in the private sectors hands , not the governments. And were
Secretary of Defense under President Bill Clinton from 1997-2001. The

vulnerable, the former Secretary of Defense added. Its possible and whether its likely to happen soon remains to be seen. As previously reported by the Inquisitr, former

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said that a cyber attack on the power
grid was a matter of when, not if. Former senior CIA analyst and EMP Task Force On National Homeland Security Director, Dr.

Department of

Peter Vincent Pry, told Newsmax TV that that America is a sitting duck for a terror attack that could completely destroy the power grid and take the lives of every nine out of
ten Americans in the process. William Cohen detailed the

power grid threats and what role modern technology could play in a terror attack

that would leave all of America sitting in the dark. Thats because the technology continues to expand and terrorism has become
democratized. Many, many people across the globe now have access to information which allows them to be able to put together a very destructive means of carrying out their
terrorist plans. Were better at detecting than we were in the past. Were much more focused in integrating and sharing the information that we have, but were still vulnerable
and well continue to be vulnerable as long as groups can operate either on the margins or covertly to build these kind of campaigns of terror. The American Society of Civil

ASCE) reviewed the soundness and functionality of the power grid, and gave the vital
piece of infrastructure a barely passing grade of D+ . The rating means the power grid is in poor to fair condition and mostly
below standard, with many elements approaching the end of their service life. The ASCE review also revealed that a large portion of the system
exhibits significant deterioration with a strong risk of failure. Do you think enough attention and funds are being given in
Engineers (

order to the secure the power grid?

Grid collapse causes nuclear meltdownscauses extinction

Drell, 9 Professor emeritus of theoretical physics at the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory at Stanford University, senior
fellow at the Hoover Institution, and a member of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board and Science Advisory
Committee, 12 (THE NUCLEAR ENTERPRISE High-Consequence Accidents: How to Enhance Safety and Minimize Risks in
Nuclear Weapons and Reactors, pg. 1-3)

We live in dangerous times for many reasons. Prominent among them is the existence of a
global nuclear enterprise made up of weapons that can cause damage of unimaginable proportions and power plants at
which accidents can have severe , essentially unpredictable consequences for human life .
For all of its utility and promise, the nuclear enterprise is unique in the enormity of the vast quantities
of destructive energy that can be released through blast, heat, and radioactivity. We
addressed just this subject in a conference in October 2011 at Stanford University's Hoover Institution. The complete set of papers
prepared for the conference is reproduced in this book. The conference included experts on weapons, on power plants, on regulatory
experience, and on the development of public perceptions and the ways in which these perceptions influence policy7. The reassuring
outcome of the conference was a general sense that the U.S. nuclear enterprise currently meets very high standards in its
commitment to safety and security. That has not always been the case in all aspects of the nuclear enterprise. And the unsettling
outcome of the conference was that it will not be the case globally unless governments, international organizations, industry7, and
media recognize and address the nuclear challenges and mounting risks posed by a rapidly changing world. The acceptance of the
nuclear enterprise is now being challenged by concerns about the questionable safety and security of programs primarily in
countries relatively new to the nuclear enterprise, and the potential loss of control to terrorist or criminal gangs of fissile material
that exists in such abundance around the world. In a number of countries, confidence in nuclear energy production was severely
shaken in the spring of 2011 by the Fukushima nuclear reactor plant disaster. And in the military sphere, the doctrine of deterrence
that remains primarily dependent on nuclear weapons is seen in decline due to the importance of non-state actors such as al Qaeda

When risks and

consequences are unknown, undervalued, or ignored, our nation and the world are
dangerously vulnerable . Nowhere is this risk-consequence equation more relevant than with
respect to the nucleus of the atom. The nuclear enterprise was introduced to the world by the shock of the devastation
and terrorist affiliates that seek destruction for destruction's sake. We have two nuclear tigers by the tail.

produced by two atomic bombs hitting Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Modern nuclear weapons are far more powerful than those early
bombs, which presented their own hazards. Early research depended on a program of atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons. In the
early years following World War II, the impact and the amount of radioactive fallout in the atmosphere generated by above-ground
nuclear explosions was not fully appreciated. During those years, the United States and also the Soviet Union conducted several
hundred tests in the atmosphere that created fallout. The recent Stanford conference focused on a regulatory weak point from that
time that exists in many places today, as the Fukushima disaster clearly indicates. The U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) was
initially assigned conflicting responsibilities: to create an arsenal of nuclear weapons for the United States to confront a growing
nuclear-armed Soviet threat; and, at the same time, to ensure public safety from the effects of radioactive fallout. The AEC was faced
with the same conundrum with regard to civilian nuclear power generation. It was charged with promoting civilian nuclear power
and simultaneously protecting the public. Progress came in 1963 with the negotiation and signing of the Limited Test Ban Treaty
(LTBT) banning all nuclear explosive testing in the atmosphere (initially by the United States, the Soviet Union, and the United
Kingdom). With the successful safety7 record of the U.S. nuclear weapons program, domestic anxiety about nuclear weapons
receded somewhat. Meanwhile, public attitudes toward nuclear weapons reflected recognition of their key role in establishing a
more stable nuclear deterrent posture in the confrontation with the Soviet Union. The positive record on safety of the nuclear
weapons enterprise in the United Statesthere have been accidents involving nuclear weapons, but none that led to the release of
nuclear energywas the result of a strong effort and continuing commitment to include safety as a primary criterion in new weapons
designs, as well as careful production, handling, and deployment procedures. The key to the health of today's nuclear weapons
enterprise is confidence in the safety7 of its operations and in the protection of special nuclear materials against theft. One can
imagine how different the situation would be today if there had been a recognized theft of material sufficient for a bomb, or if one of
the two four-megaton bombs dropped from a disabled B-52 Strategic Air Command bomber overflying Goldsboro, North Carolina,
in 1961 had detonated. In that event, just one switch in the arming sequence of one of the bombs, by remaining in its "off position"
while the aircraft was disintegrating, was all that prevented a full-yield nuclear explosion. A close call indeed! In the twenty-six years
since Chernobyl, the nuclear power industry has strengthened its safety practices. Over the past decade, growing concerns about

global warming and energy independence have actually strengthened support for nuclear energy in the United States and many
nations around the world. Yet despite these trends, the civil nuclear enterprise remains fragile. Following
Fukushima, opinion polls gave stark evidence of the public's deep fears of the invisible force of nuclear radiation, shown by public
opposition to the construction of new nuclear power plants in close proximity. It is not simply a matter of getting better information
to the public but of actually educating the public about the true nature of nuclear radiation and its risks. Of course, the immediate
task of the nuclear power component of the enterprise is to strive for the best possible safety record with one overriding objective: no
more Fukushimas. Another issue that must be resolved involves the continued effectiveness of a policy of deterrence that remains
primarily dependent upon nuclear weapons, and the hazards these weapons pose due to the spread of nuclear technology and
material. There is growing apprehension about the determination of terrorists to get their hands on weapons or, for that matter, on
the special nuclear materialplutonium and highly enriched uraniumthat fuels them in the most challenging step toward
developing a weapon. The

global effects of a regional war between nuclear-armed adversaries such as

India and Pakistan would also wield an enormous impact, potentially involving radioactive fallout at
large distances caused by a limited number of nuclear explosions. This is true as well for
nuclear radiation from a reactor explosion fallout at large distances would have a
serious societal impact on the nuclear enterprise. There is little understanding of the reality and potential
danger of consequences if such an event were to occur halfway around the world. An effort should be made to
prepare the public by providing information on how to respond to such an event.

Space Colonization/Asteroids
Restrictive Visa policies bog down international cooperation over space
policythat decks any chance of space col or productive scientific progress
Abbey and Lane 2005 Senior Fellow in Space Policy Baker Institute and Neal, Professor of
Physics Rice University (George and Neal, United States Space Policy Challenges and
Opportunities, https://www.amacad.org/publications/spacePolicy.pdf)//AN
foreign-born individuals are an integral part of the continued success of the U nited S tates in
scientific and technological endeavors, export controls inhibit precisely the type of study that attracts these talented individuals and the research collaboration that benefits U.S. science and
technology. While not the subject of this paper, the cumbersome and slow visa approval process compounds the problem by
making it much less attractive for foreigners to come to the United States to study, attend
conferences, or collaborate on research projects. In a survey of 126 institutions released in October of 2004, the Council of
Graduate Schools found an 18-percent decrease in admissions of foreign graduate students in the fall of
Though these

2004 compared with the fall of 2003. The graduate school council expected actual enrollments of new foreign graduate students to be down by an amount similar to the 18-percent fall in admissions.16The NSB
identifies three possible outcomes of these trends in the growth and composition of the S&E workforce: The number of jobs in the U.S. economy that require science and engineering training will grow; the

the availability of people from other countries who

have science and engineering training will decline, either because of visa restrictions or

number of U.S. citizens prepared for those jobs will, at best, be level; and

because of intense global competition for people with these skills.17 The NSB report also notes that actions taken today to alter trends in the U.S. S&E workforce may require 10 to 20 years to take effect. The
students entering the science and engineering workforce in 2004 with advanced degrees decided to take the necessary math courses to enable this career path when they were in middle school, up to 14 years ago.
The students making that same decision in middle school today wont complete advanced training for science and engineering occupations until 2018 or 2020. If action is not taken now to change these trends, we

the ability of U.S. research and education institutions to regenerate has been
damaged and that their preeminence has been lost to other areas of the world.18 Comparison between the U.S. and other industrial nations, as shown in Table 2, clearly illustrates this critical national
problem. Concurrent with these educational challenges, the United States faces daunting demographic shifts. The American workforce is aging ; over the past 20 years the primeage (2556) workforce grew 44 percent, but it will have zero growth over the next twenty years .19 In addition, the increase in the share of workers with
could reach 2020 and find that

posthigh school education grew 19 percent during the last twenty years and is projected to grow only 4 percent over the next twenty years. These statistics, when compared to numbers from the NSBs Science and
Engineering Indicators 2004, raise concern about future S&E needs. The report notes that the number of jobs requiring S&E skills in the U.S. labor force is growing almost 5 percent per year. By comparison, the
rest of the labor force is growing at just over 1 percent. Before September 11, 2001, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) projected that S&E occupations would increase at three times the rate of all occupations. The
rise projected by the BLS was 2.2 million, representing a 47-percent increase in the number of S&E jobs by 2010. The rates of increase between 1980 and 2000 ranged from 18 percent for the life sciences to 123

Many of those who entered the expanding S&E

workforce in the 1960s and 1970s (the baby boom generation) are expected to retire in the next 20 years. The children of that
percent for jobs in math and computer science.20 The average age of the S&E workforce is rising.

generation are not choosing careers in S&E in the same numbers as their parents. During the 1950s and 60s, the U.S. government invested heavily in research and development (R&D). Government research
laboratories and agencies conducted a substantial amount of in-house research. This led to the creation of a workforce with significant technical and management capabilities. The National Advisory Committee for
Aeronautics had outstanding technical skills and potential. The Army Ballistic Missile Agency, formed with Werner Von Braun and his team of scientists and engineers, was equally well qualified. These two groups

there was a highly qualified workforce that had conducted

aeronautical research from the end of World War II through the 1960s. They pushed the limits of
aeronautical research with their aircraft and research vehicles and arrived at the edge of space with the X-15. NASA grew to approximately 36,000 employees during the 1960s. That
organization today employs approximately 18,000 people. Over the past few years, the aerospace industry has been unable to develop
the experienced workforce that they had during the 1960s due to consolidations
and the absence of new programs . These are important factors in assessing whether the skill base exists to implement a major new space program. THE
formed the nucleus of NASA. Within the contractor community,

THIRD BARRIER: INADEQUATE PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE OF NASA AND THE U.S. CIVILIAN SPACE PROGRAM President George W. Bush, in his speech of January 14, 2004, proposed that NASA
refocus its programs and resources with the objective of returninghumans to the Moon and plan for the prospect of humans going to Mars sometime in the distant future.21 The plan, Vision for Space
Exploration (referred to here as the NASA Plan) has three goals: 1. Complete the International Space Station by 2010. 2. Develop and test a new spacecraft by 2008 and conduct the first manned mission no
later than 2014. 3. Return to the Moon by 2020, as a launching point for missions beyond. President George W. Bushs NASA Plan, which echoed that of President George H. W. Bush over a decade before, is bold
by any measure. It is also incomplete and unrealistic. It is incomplete, in part, because it raises serious questions about the future commitment of the United States to astronomy and to planetary, earth, and space
science. It is unrealistic from the perspectives of cost, timetable, and technological capability. It raises expectations that are not matched by the Administrations commitments. Indeed, pursuit of the NASA Plan,
as formulated, is likely to result in substantial harm to the U.S. space program. The first part of the NASA Plan, as proposed, was to be funded by adding $1 billion to the NASA budget over five years, and
reallocating $11 billion from within the NASA budget during the same time frame. These amounts were within the annual 5 percent increase the current Administration planned to add to the NASA base budget
(approximately $15 billion) starting in fiscal year 2005. This budget, however, was very small in comparison to the cost of going to the Moon with the Apollo program. The cost of the Apollo program was
approximately $25 billion in 1960 dollars or $125 billion in 2004 dollars, and the objectives of the NASA Plan are, in many ways, no less challenging. The U.S. Congress has made clear with its NASA appropriation
for fiscal year 2005 that it has serious questions about the NASA Plan. Moreover, The G.W. Bush Administrations budget request for the fiscal year 2006 falls over $500 million short of what the President
committed when he announced his plan. Over the period 20062009, the Administrations out-year projections fall $2.5 billion short of what NASA has said would be required to implement the plan. It is clear

space science is given a low priority . While the overall NASA budget increases by 2.4 percent, the basic research
portion is cut by 7 percent. NASAs contributions to interagency initiatives are also cut: Nanotechnology by 22 percent, Networking and Information Technology R&D by 70 percent,
and the Climate Change Science Program by 8 percent. Even with these dramatic cuts in science programs , and equally alarming cuts in Earth
observations, which are vital to weather and climate forecasting, the NASA budget will not allow for serious progress toward the
ambitious mission to send humans to the Moon, then eventually to Mars. Nonetheless, the NASA Plan will continue to shape
that in the 2006 budget,

the debate over space policy. NASA has reorganized itself and begun to implement the early phases of the plan. There are many in Congress who will continue to push for some of the elements of the NASA Plan

NASA Plan, as currently described by the agency, is the plan for U.S. space
science and human exploration. These concerns and criticisms are offered in the hope that a new, more realistic, and better-balanced plan will emerge.22 Space-Based Science
regardless of future White House policy. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that the

The NASA Plan redirects NASAs science program in ways that might entail serious consequences. Although it makes sense to focus research carried out on the space station on the long-term effects of zero gravity
and radiation on the human body, eliminating all other research is shortsighted. Of equal concern, the under-funding of other elements of the ambitious NASA Plan is likely to cut deeply into all NASA research

programs. Science has been fundamental to NASAs success in advancing human understanding of the universe, the solar system, and the Earth, and in providing the knowledge and technology that enable human
exploration of space. Unless NASA asserts that science is one of its highest priorities, it will be relegated, in Washington parlance, to the to be protected category, rather than remaining in the to be enhanced

unique
contributions that NASA can make to astronomy and to planetary, earth, and space science will
be lost , and America will no longer occupy its leadership role in these frontier areas of science.
column. Any rational and truly visionary plan for NASAs future should specify science, including robotic exploration of space, as one of NASAs principal goals. Otherwise, the

Actions taken by the NASA leadership in the latter part of 2004 and early 2005, following the controversial early cancellation of the Hubble telescope repair mission, particularly the budgetary tradeoffs necessary
to even begin to follow the NASA Plan, make clear that science is already a lower priority. The cuts in President Bushs 2006 request for NASA, described above, only confirm the future downward spiral for

This is the wrong direction fo

the United States

science.
r NASA and for
. Earth Observations NASAs Earth Observation System (EOS) missions have
contributed not only to increased scientific understanding of the Earths surface and atmosphere, but they have also been critically important to weather prediction, hurricane tracking, response to natural
disasters, and many other societal applications. Planning has been underway for several years for a post-EOS era in Earthobservation and a corresponding set of missions. Unfortunately, the redirection of NASA
priorities toward human exploration of the Moon and Mars has resulted in delays or cancellations of many critical Earth-observation missions, including the Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM) mission, a
follow-on to Landsat 7, the Glory mission to measure aerosols, the Geostationary Imaging Fourier Transform Spectrometer (GIFTS), and others. The ongoing NASA road-mapping exercise will likely propose new
Earth-observation missions. In addition, a National Research Council decadal study of Earth Science and Applications from Space has been launched at the request of NASA, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the United States Geological Survey (USGS). This study is expected to make recommendations on future Earth-observation missions. An interim report, Earth Science
and Applications from Space: Urgent Needs and Opportunities to Serve the Nation, was released in April 2005. However, the Administrations budget projections for the next several years, coupled with the
redirection of priorities toward human exploration, present a serious obstacle to future earth science and applications missions.There are other troubling aspects of the NASA Plan that require clarification. The
Space Shuttle is to be returned to flight as soon as possible, when the safety concerns recommended by the Columbia Accident Investigation Board have been addressed. According to the plan, the shuttles chief
purpose is to assemble the International Space Station. In 2010, the Shuttle is to be retired. There are a number of serious difficulties with this part of the plan. The space stations full potential will be realized
when it is completely assembled and when all of the modules, including those of our international partners, are in orbit. To accomplish meaningful science, the station requires both up-mass (delivering payloads
from Earth to orbit) and down-mass (returning payloads from orbit to Earth) capability. If the shuttle is retired in 2010, that down-mass capability will clearly be unavailable. There is no space vehicle other than
the shuttle that has significant down-mass capability, nor are there plans for such a vehicle. Moreover, if the space station is to produce serious scientific research, it must have larger crews. Crew size is limited by
accommodations and supplies, as well as by crew-escape capability. If NASA retires the shuttle, crew-escape capability will rely solely on Russian Soyuz spacecraft, which can provide escape capability only for a
crew of three. Increasing the size of the crew, above the present two or three, will require an additional Soyuz spacecraft, as no other available vehicle can take its place. All partners are aware of these constraints,
and the source of funding for the additional spacecraft is unclear. The United States is expected to contribute to the cost of additional transportation to and from the space station, but the Iran Non-Proliferation
Act of 2000 directly affects cooperation between the United States and Russia and limits U.S. ability to fund additional Soyuz vehicles. The French are already working with the Russians toestablish a Soyuz
capability in Korau, French Guinea. With that capability, Europeans will no longer be as dependent on the United States for human access to space. Beyond 2010, when the shuttle is supposed to be permanently
grounded, U.S. participation in the space station is also in question. Because the NASA Plans proposed new manned space vehicle is scheduled to begin flight no earlier than 2014, there will be a gap in the U.S.
human space-flight program. The United States should recognize the critical support that Russia provides for the space station and direct funding to Russia to maintain the station and its crew. The United States
and Russia should reach an agreement on the additional Soyuz vehicles required for the program. All partners should agree on a schedule for increasing the crew size to the planned six or seven astronauts and
cosmonauts. Russia has been a vital partner in the construction of the station and, following the tragic Columbia accident, our only means of getting crews to the station and back to Earth. Russia has excellent
space technology, skilled workers, considerable experience in orbit, and an admirable safety record. However, it is a mistake to be completely dependent on any one nations space program (whether that of Russia
or the United States) when lives are at stake. The Space Shuttle should return to flight once the recommended safety improvements have been made and should continue to fly until a new space vehicle with the
necessary up-mass and down-mass capability has been designed, tested, and placed into operation. The long-planned Space Shuttle upgrades, including those recommended by the Columbia Accident
Investigation Board, should be implemented to improve shuttle safety and reliability. One of the most important questions plaguing the current NASA Plan is the degree to which other nations will be invited to
join the United States as true partners and to participate in the early planning stages of future human exploration missions. President Bush, in his speech of January 14, 2004, appeared to invite other nations to
share the challenges and opportunities of his vision and the new era of discovery. However, NASA leadership subsequently contradicted that promise when then-NASA Administrator Sean OKeefe stated that the
new space initiative was very much going to be a U.S. led endeavor. Thats our intent. And, again, much of what we had been directed and what the President envisions we do is to achieve this set of American,
U.S. exploration objectives.23 This is not an invitation to partnership. Partnership, of course, does not exclude national objectives, but it does require a sharing of vision, objectives, and commitments, at the

United States cannot expect other nations to participate enthusiastically and

to provide the necessary staffing and funding . Based on the authors conversations, it is clear that scientists, engineers, and
policy makers around the world perceive that the United States has no interest in bringing other
nations into the planning process, though it expects them to take on the operation of the space
station and to provide assistance for other U.S.-led space efforts when asked. Given the present limited U.S. capability to undertake a major program such as returning humans to the Moon and sending
earliest stages of planning. Otherwise, the

them, eventually, to Mars, it is clear that international cooperation is necessary for these missions. Furthermore, even if the United States had all the necessary resources, why would it make sense to go it alone in
the scientific and human exploration of space? For international cooperation to be a realistic possibility the United States will have to take a very different approach to prospective partnerships, in tone and in

America does not have a future in spacehuman exploration, space science, or

commercial space activitieswithout considerable international cooperation . The degree of cooperation that
will be necessary will not be possible under current export control and other
restrictive policies . The International Space Station and the Space Shuttle programs, as well as many of the most successful robotic science missions, were accomplished with
substance. Whatever path the United States chooses to follow with its policies,

considerable international involvement and the free exchange of data and technical information. Neither of these programs could have been successful under any other conditions. The creation of complex systems,
which operate in an integrated fashion in order to support human life in a hostile environment, requires an international partnership, with open discussions and sharing of information and technology. As
important a role as these matters play in discouraging cooperation with the United States in space, the issue most threatening to cooperation may well be a growing international perception that the United States
intends to control space militarily. Although it is not the subject of this paper, military space policy is a matter of profound importance to the future of U.S. civilian space programs and the space programs of other
nations.24 In recent years, the United States has accelerated its efforts to put in place a primitive missile-defense system. The decision was made apparently without any international consultation and before
adequate R&D and testing had shown the feasibility of such a system. This action suggested that the United States is impatient to signal to the rest of the world that it intends to treat space differently in the future
than it has in the past. Many members of Congress who have been advocating for a missile-defense system for several decades heartily endorsed the decision. Powerful industrial interests are also at stake. Missile
defense is only one aspect of the increased military use of space. The Report of the Commission to Assess the United States NationalSecurity Space Management and Organization, published in 2001, identifies
the importance of space to national security and outlines a series of recommendations for the future of military space activities.25 The report proposes, among other things, that the military vigorously pursue
capabilities that would enable the President to deploy weapons in space to deter threats to and, if necessary, defend against attacks on U.S. interests.26 This proposal represents a departure from President
Kennedys vision of 1962, when he vowed, We shall not see space filled with weapons of mass destruction but with instruments of knowledge and understanding.27 Placing offensive weapons in space would be a
cause for alarm throughout the world and, in the context of the issues addressed in this paper, would create a major obstacle to international cooperation in space. American companies could expect an even more
restrictive U.S. export control policy. Such restrictions could further damage commercial space activities and preclude the willingness of other nations to join U.S.-led programs for both human and robotic space
science and exploration missions. The placement of weapons in space would reinforce in the world community the feeling that the United States increasingly is basing its foreign policy on unilateral initiatives. As
such, it would severely impact the progress that has been made over the last fifty years towards multilateral international cooperation. The four barriers to progress in the U.S. space program described in this
paper need not remain obstacles to future U.S. efforts in space commerce, science and technology, and human exploration. However, in order to remove them, the United States will need to reassess current space
policy and, where necessary, make corrections. The world has changed in fundamental ways in the forty years since President Kennedy challenged the American people to take humans to the Moon and return

response of the U.S.

government to 9/11 has been to take visible measures to improve the personal safety of
American citizens. Some of those measures are placing unintended barriers in the way of
progress for the U.S. space program. There is no question that the U nited S tates must, as its highest priority,
protect its citizens from attacks by terrorists and other hostile forces. However, this can and should be accomplished in a manner that does not damage other
national interests. The United States should base its export control and visa policies on reason
and common sense . Clearly, the government must identify and protect critical technologies, but policies should recognize that the strength of U.S. industry
depends on its ability to compete effectively in the world market . This requires exporting goods and cooperating with other countries
them safely to Earth. The fear of the Cold War adversary, the Soviet Union, has been replaced by a very different, largely decentralized, fear of terrorism. The

when doing so is beneficial to American companies. Just as clearly, the United States should prevent individuals who intend to do harm from entering the country; however, the government should put in place a
rational and efficient process for making that determination. The future vitality of the U.S. aerospace industry in the increasingly competitive world market and the ability of the United States to undertake major
cooperative space-science and human-exploration endeavors, as suggested by the President, depend on the revision of American export controls and other overly restrictive policies. The international community

believes that U.S. rules currently display arrogance and a mistaken assumption that the development of advanced technologies is unique to the United States. That the United States is alone in its level of
technological development clearly is not the case, nor has it been for some time. The United States must protect its citizens and prevent the proliferation of potentially dangerous technologies. However,
restrictions on U.S. products are ineffective, even counterproductive, when substitutes for regulated products exist on the world market. In this situation, embargos and regulations serve no purpose. The United
States should identify satellite technologies and processes that are unique and vital to national security interests, hence appropriate for licensing by the State Department under ITAR. All other exports of satellites

If rational steps are taken to review and modify the U.S. policy on export controls,
not only will satellite and related industries be better positioned to compete in the world space
market, but such actions might also foster U.S. cooperation with other nations in space
activities. As the United States prepares for future space science and human exploration, possibly with an expanded role for industry, as outlined in A Journey to Innovate, Inspire, and Discover,
and satellite components and technologies should be licensed by the Commerce Department.

the report of the Presidents Commission on Implementation of United States Space Exploration Policy, the best route will be through strong international cooperation, where collaborators share the costs as well
as the benefits.28 While the commission did not address export controls, a serious weakness of their report, it is clear that present export control policies should be changed.

Thats key to space colonizationextinction

Collins and Autino, 08 [Dr. Patrick Collins, an exceptionally well known and respected
authority on space economics, space tourism, reusable launch vehicles, and space solar power,
professor of economics at Azabu University in Japan, AND Adriano Autino, President of Space
Renaissance International, "What the Growth of a Space Tourism Industry Could Contribute to
Employment, Economic Growth, Environmental Protection, Education, Culture and World
Peace", Originally presented at Plenary Session of the International Academy of Astronautics' 1st
Symposium on Private Human Access to Space, Arcachon, France, 25-28 May 2008, , Evan]
7.2. High return in safety from extra-terrestrial settlement Investment

in low-cost orbital access and

other space infrastructure will facilitate the establishment of settlements on the
Moon, Mars, asteroids and in man-made space structures. In the first phase, development
of new regulatory infrastructure in various Earth orbits, including property /usufruct
rights, real estate, mortgage financing and insurance, traffic management,
pilotage, policing and other services will enable the population living in Earth
orbits to grow very large. Such activities aimed at making near-Earth space
habitable are the logical extension of humans' historical spread over the surface of
the Earth. As trade spreads through near-Earth space, settlements are likely to
follow, of which the inhabitants will add to the wealth of different cultures which
humans have created in the many different environments in which they live .
Success of such extra-terrestrial settlements will have the additional benefit of
reducing the danger of human extinction due to planet-wide or cosmic accidents
[27]. These horrors include both man-made disasters such as nuclear war, plagues or
growing pollution, and natural disasters such as super-volcanoes or asteroid impact. It
is hard to think of any objective that is more important than preserving peace. Weapons
developed in recent decades are so destructive, and have such horrific, long-term
side-effects that their use should be discouraged as strongly as possible by the international community. Hence,
reducing the incentive to use these weapons by rapidly developing the ability to use
space-based resources on a large scale is surely equally important [11,16]. The
achievement of this depends on low space travel costs which, at the present time,
appear to be achievable only through the development of a vigorous space tourism
industry.

Space access solves inevitable global resource warskills vtl and causes
extinction
Collins and Autino, 08 [Dr. Patrick Collins, an exceptionally well known and respected
authority on space economics, space tourism, reusable launch vehicles, and space solar power,
professor of economics at Azabu University in Japan, AND Adriano Autino, President of Space
Renaissance International, "What the Growth of a Space Tourism Industry Could Contribute to
Employment, Economic Growth, Environmental Protection, Education, Culture and World

Peace", Originally presented at Plenary Session of the International Academy of Astronautics' 1st
Symposium on Private Human Access to Space, Arcachon, France, 25-28 May 2008, Evan]
7. World peace and preservation of human civilisation The

major source of social friction, including

international friction, has surely always been unequal access to resources. People
fight to control the valuable resources on and under the land, and in and under
the sea. The natural resources of Earth are limited in quantity, and economically
accessible resources even more so. As the population grows , and demand grows for a higher
material standard of living, industrial activity grows exponentially. The threat of resources
becoming scarce has led to the concept of "Resource Wars" . Having begun long ago with wars to
control the gold and diamonds of Africa and South America, and oil in the Middle East, the current phase is at centre stage of world
events today [37]. A particular danger of "resource wars" is

that, if the general public can be persuaded

to support them, they may become impossible to stop as resources become
increasingly scarce. Many commentators have noted the similarity of the language of US and UK government advocates
of "war on terror" to the language of the novel "1984" which describes a dystopian future of endless,
fraudulent war in which citizens are reduced to slaves. 7.1. Expansion into nearEarth space is the only alternative to endless "resource wars" As an alternative to
the "resource wars" already devastating many countries today, opening access to
the unlimited resources of near-Earth space could clearly facilitate world peace
and security . The US National Security Space Office, at the start of its report on the potential of space-based solar power
( SSP) published in early 2007, stated: "Expanding human populations and declining natural
resources are potential sources of local and strategic conict in the 21st Century,
and many see energy as the foremost threat to national security " [38]. The report ended by
encouraging urgent research on the feasibility of SSP: "Considering the timescales that are involved , and
the exponential growth of population and resource pressures within that same strategic period, it is imperative that
this work for "drilling up" vs. drilling down for energy security begins
immediately" [38]. Although the use of extra-terrestrial resources on a substantial
scale may still be some decades away, it is important to recognise that simply
acknowledging its feasibility using known technology is the surest way of ending
the threat of resource wars . That is, if it is assumed that the resources available for
human use are limited to those on Earth, then it can be argued that resource wars
are inescapable [22,37]. If, by contrast, it is assumed that the resources of space are
economically accessible, this not only eliminates the need for resource wars, it can
also preserve the benefits of civilisation which are being eroded today by "resource
war-mongers", most notably the governments of the "Anglo-Saxon" countries and their "neo-con" advisers. It is also worth
noting that the $1 trillion that these have already committed to wars in the Middle-East in the 21st century is orders of magnitude
more than the public investment needed to aid companies sufficiently to start the commercial use of space resources.

Industrial and financial groups which profit from monopolistic control of

terrestrial supplies of various natural resources , like those which profit from wars, have an
economic interest in protecting their profitable situation. However, these groups'
continuing profits are justified neither by capitalism nor by democracy: they could
be preserved only by maintaining the pretence that use of space resources is not
feasible, and by preventing the development of low-cost space travel . Once the
feasibility of low-cost space travel is understood, "resource wars" are clearly
foolish as well as tragic . A visiting extra-terrestrial would be pityingly amused at the foolish antics of homo sapiens
using longrange rockets to fight each other over dwindling terrestrial resourcesrather than using the same rockets to travel in
space and have the use of all the resources they need!

An asteroid impact is inevitableits only a question of how to deflect it

and US-International coop is key to prevent the collapse of civilization
Schweickart '7 (Russell L., Former Apollo Astronaut and Chair B612 Foundation, New York
Times, 3-16, Lexis)//AN
850-footlong asteroid called Apophis could strike Earth with catastrophic consequences on April 13,
2036. What few probably realize is that there are thousands of other space objects that could hit us in the next century that could cause severe damage, if not total
AMERICANS who read the papers or watch Jay Leno have been aware for some time now that there is a slim but real possibility about 1 in 45,000 that an

destruction. Last week two events in Washington a conference on planetary defense held by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, and the release by
NASA of a report titled Near-Earth Object Survey and Deflection Analysis of Alternatives gave us good news and bad on this front. On the promising side, scientists have a

the government doesnt

seem to have any clear plan to put this expertise into action. In 1998, Congress gave NASAs Spaceguard Survey program a
mandate of discovering, tracking, cataloging and characterizing 90 percent of the near-Earth objects larger than one kilometer (3,200 feet) wide by 2008. An object
that size could devastate a small country and would probably destroy civilization . The consensus at the
good grasp of the risks of a cosmic fender-bender, and have several ideas that could potentially stave off disaster. Unfortunately,

conference was that the initial survey is doing fairly well although it will probably not quite meet the 2008 goal. Realizing that there are many smaller but still terribly
destructive asteroids out there, Congress has modified the Spaceguard goal to identify 90 percent of even smaller objects 460 feet and larger by 2020. This revised survey,

scientists feel we have the

technology to intercept and deflect many asteroids headed toward Earth. Basically, if we have
early enough warning, a robotic space mission could slightly change the orbit of a dangerous
asteroid so that it would subsequently miss the planet . Two potential deflection techniques appear to
work nicely together first we would deflect the asteroid with kinetic impact from a missile (that is,
giving us decades of early warning, will go a long way toward protecting life on the planet in the future. The good news is that

running into it); then we would use the slight pull of a gravity tractor a satellite that would hover near the asteroid to fine-tune its new trajectory to our liking. (In the case
of an extremely large object, probably one in 100, the missile might have to contain a nuclear warhead.) To be effective, however, such missions would have to be launched 15 or
even 30 years before a calculated impact. The bad news? While this all looks fine on paper, scientists havent had a chance to try it in practice. And this is where NASAs report
was supposed to come in. Congress directed the agency in 2005 to come up with a program, a budget to support it and an array of alternatives for preventing an asteroid impact.
But instead of coming up with a plan and budget to get the job done, the report bluntly stated that due to current budget constraints,

NASA cannot initiate a

new program at this time. Representative Bart Gordon, Democrat of Tennessee, was right to say that NASAs recommended approach isnt a credible
plan and that Congress expected a more responsive approach within the year. Why did the space agency drop the ball? Like all government departments, it fears the dreaded

Congress has the habit of directing agencies to do something and then declining to
give them the money to do so. This is understandable. But in this case, Congress not only directed NASA to provide it with a recommended program but
unfunded mandate;

also asked for the estimated budget to support it. It was a left-handed way for the Congress to say to NASA that this is our priority ... like it or not. But for some reason NASA

, it estimated that
using a nuclear-armed missile to divert an asteroid would be 10 to 100 times more effective
than non-nuclear approaches. It is possible that in some cases such as an asteroid greater than a third of a mile across the nuclear option might be
seems to have opted for a federal form of civil disobedience. Another problem with the report was that, while it outlined other possibilities

necessary. But for the overwhelming majority of potential deflection cases, using a nuclear warhead would be like a golfer swinging away with his driver to sink a three-foot putt;
the bigger bang is not always better. Why the concern? First, even with good intentions, launching a nuclear-armed missile would violate the international agreements by which
all weaponry is banned from space. Second, the laws of probability say we would be struck by such a large asteroid only once every 200,000 years thats a long time to keep a
standing arsenal of nuclear asteroid-blasters, and raises all sorts of possibilities of accidents or sabotage the old cure being worse than the disease phenomenon. In the end,

this is not just Americas problem, as an asteroid strike would be felt around the globe. The
course is international coordination on deflection technology, along with global agreements
on what should be done if a collision looks likely . Along these lines, the Association of Space Explorers, a group of more than 300 people
of course,
best

from 30 nations who have flown in space (of which I am a member), is beginning a series of meetings in cooperation with the United Nations to work out the outlines of such an

little will be accomplished unless the United States takes the lead

agreement. Still, as with many global issues,

. With the
entire planet in the cross hairs, NASA cant be allowed to dither. If Congresss mandates and budget requests arent energizing the agency, perhaps public hearings would shame
it into action.

*CIR Impact

Competitiveness/STEM
Safe and sound immigration reform is key to solve STEM workers and
economic competitiveness
PRNewswire 2015 News Agency based in NYC (Poorly Designed Immigration Reform Will
Negatively Impact American Innovation and Economic Growth,
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/poorly-designed-immigration-reform-willnegatively-impact-american-innovation-and-economic-growth-300058490.html)//AN
S. is on the brink of a new IT revolution that could produce $5 trillion in economic gains by
enabling companies to drive innovation, jobs and income growth, and opportunity from a new wave of technologies requires updated immigration and visa policies,
The U.

concludes a new report released today by the American Competitiveness Alliance (ACAlliance). The new paper "IT Services, Immigration, and American Economic Strength" by Professor Matthew J. Slaughter,
incoming Dean of the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouthidentifies the policy challenges facing the U.S. labor market as it expands its high-value knowledge and technology-based economy. It advances the
requirements for a suite of recommended actions that Congress can take to address the shortage of specialized STEM workers at U.S. companies and further harness the IT sector as a driver of American

new wave of IT innovation is building around social, mobile, analytical, and

cloud technologies," said Slaughter, incoming Dean of the Dartmouth Business School. "This next IT revolution could create economic
value worth 10% to 30% of U.S. GDPmanifested in new jobs, new goods and services, and rising incomesif America has sufficient access to global talent." The report,
drawing on both employment and economic data, finds that IT services companies are increasingly critical to America's economic future. Professor Slaughter's research also illustrates how current U.S.
immigration policies, many hatched years ago in the PC and early internet era, unduly constrain American companies'
ability to hire immigrants with specialized new technology skills from the global
pool of talent and deploy them in support of American innovation and
competitiveness . Professor Slaughter also finds that proposals presented during the last Congress could have caused substantial harm to U.S. economic growth, including fewer jobs
innovation and growth. "Today a

created, higher employer and consumer costs, reduced quality of service, and decreased innovation. Slaughter also notes the strong and positive impact that skilled immigrants have had in supporting new job

2015 H-1B visa lottery will serve as yet another

reminder that the U.S. needs access to a larger pool of the world's professional STEM workers.
creation and rising wages in America by helping drive American innovation. This week's

On April 1, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will begin accepting H-1B petitions for fiscal year 2016. The current annual cap for H-1B visas is set at 65,000, with an additional 20,000
reserved for foreign nationals graduating with a U.S. master's degree or higher. In 2014, there were 172,500 applications for H-1Bs, surpassing the quota within days of the first application-filing date. An

United States today

continues to confront a competitiveness challenge of recruiting and securing talent for jobs. Too many
improving economy and an increasing demand for qualified workers to supplement America's current skilled worker shortage suggest a similar story for 2015. "The

of the world's smartest workers are going to competing markets," said Rosario Marin, former U.S. Treasurer and Co-Chair of the ACAlliance. "Professor Slaughter's work highlights the potential for America to

Doing so will require sound U.S. policies based on a

sound understanding of how innovative U.S. companies succeed in today's complex global
economy." Professor Slaughter's paper joins volumes of research highlighting America's serious STEM skills deficit. While advancing STEM education programs is essential for long-term success,
support the creation of millions of high-quality, high-paying jobs right here in America.

Slaughter's paper outlines policy recommendations that will enable companies across the U.S. economy to better harness IT for innovation, efficiency, and growth today. "Nearly every aspect of America's economy

"Our elected officials can and

policies that support the dynamic companies that drive innovation

today is supported by some sort of IT system that improves efficiencies, quality, or growth, but our public policies are out of date," said Slaughter.

advance modern

should
, constructive
, jobs,
and opportunitycompanies like America's IT-services providers. By taking action now, Congress can ensure access to the kind of global talent that could create tremendous economic value for the United States."
Matthew J. Slaughter is the Signal Companies' Professor of Management and associate dean for faculty at the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth. He was named the school's 10th dean in January, a role he will
assume on July 1, 2015. A scholar of international economics and an expert in globalization, Slaughter is the founding Faculty Director of the Center for Global Business and Government. He is also currently a
Research Associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research; an adjunct Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations; a member of the advisory committee of the Export-Import Bank of the United
States; and a member of the academic advisory board of the International Tax Policy Forum. From 2005 to 2007, Professor Slaughter served as a Member on the Council of Economic Advisers in the Executive
Office of the President. In this Senate-confirmed position he held the international portfolio, advising the President, the Cabinet, and many others on issues including international trade and investment, currency
and energy markets, and the competitiveness of the U.S. economy.

Competiveness key to hegemony

Segal 2004 Senior Fellow in China Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations (Adam, Foreign
Affairs, Is America Losing Its Edge? November / December 2004,
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20041101facomment83601/adam-segal/is-america-losing-itsedge.html)//AN
The U nited S tates' global primacy depends in large part on its ability to develop new
technologies and industries faster than anyone else. For the last five decades, U.S.
scientific innovation and technological entrepreneurship have ensured the
country's economic prosperity and military power. It was Americans who invented and commercialized the
semiconductor, the personal computer, and the Internet; other countries merely followed the U.S. lead. Today, however, this
technological edge-so long taken for granted-may be slipping, and the most serious

challenge is coming from Asia. Through competitive tax policies, increased investment in research and development (R&D),
and preferential policies for science and technology (S&T) personnel, Asian governments are improving the quality of their science and ensuring the
exploitation of future innovations. The percentage of patents issued to and science journal articles published by scientists in China, Singapore, South
Korea, and Taiwan is rising. Indian companies are quickly becoming the second-largest producers of application services in the world, developing,
supplying, and managing database and other types of software for clients around the world. South Korea has rapidly eaten away at the U.S. advantage
in the manufacture of computer chips and telecommunications software. And even China has made impressive gains in advanced technologies such as
lasers, biotechnology, and advanced materials used in semiconductors, aerospace, and many other types of manufacturing. Although the United States'
technical dominance remains solid, the globalization of research and development is exerting considerable pressures on the American system. Indeed,
as the United States is learning, globalization cuts both ways: it is both a potent catalyst of U.S. technological innovation and a significant threat to it.

The U nited S tates will never be able to prevent rivals from developing new technologies; it can remain dominant only by
continuing to innovate faster than everyone else. But this won't be easy; to keep its privileged
position in the world, the U nited S tates must get better at fostering technological
entrepreneurship at home.

Hegemonic decline leads to transition wars-empirics prove

Kupchan 14< Security Studies Volume 23, Issue 2, 2014 The Normative Foundations of
Hegemony and The Coming Challenge to Pax Americana Charles A. Kupchan Dr. Kupchan is
Professor of International Affairs in the School of Foreign Service and Government Department
at Georgetown University pages 219-257 Publishing models and article dates explained
Published online: 16 May 2014>
In order to advance understanding of the normative dimensions of hegemony, this article has thus far examined different orders in isolation rather than
focusing on the interaction among them. However, extending the analysis to periods of systemic transition, when hegemons intensely interact with one
another, only confirms this article's core claims. During

hegemonic transitions, great powers compete

not just over the international pecking order, but also over the norms and rules
that each power seeks to enforce internationally . After the Roman Empire split into eastern and western halves
in the fourth century, competition between Rome and Constantinople was about governance, culture, and religious doctrine as much as status or
territory. The

conflict that raged between the Ottoman Empire and Safavid Persia
during much of the sixteenth century was rooted in competition between Sunni
and Shiite traditions. World War I, World War II, and the Cold War were contests
over ideology as well as hierarchy and territory, with liberal democracies generally
lining up against monarchic, fascist, and communist alternatives. It can hardly be accidental that
the only peaceful power transition in history occurred between Great Britain and
the United States; the baton was passed within the family, from one Anglo-Saxon
great power to another. It is of important geopolitical consequence that hegemony
has normative dimensions and that power transitions entail clashes among
competing norms. The world is entering a period of transformation as power
shifts from the West to the rising rest. One school of thoughtwhich dominates in Washingtonholds that emerging
powers are poised to embrace the existing international order; Western norms are universal norms, and the dictates of globalization are ensuring their
worldwide spread. According to Ikenberry, The

United States global position may be weakening, but

the international system the United States leads can remain the dominant order of
the twenty-first century. The West should sink the roots of this order as deeply
as possible to ensure that the world continues to play by its rules even as its
material preponderance wanes. China and other emerging great powers, he concludes, do not want to contest the basic
rules and principles of the liberal international order; they wish to gain more authority and leadership within it. 82

US hegemony key to solve great power war

Ikenberry, International Affairs Professor at Princeton, Brooks, Associate
Professor of Government at Brooks, Dartmouth government professor, et al., 13

[Brooks, Stephen G., Ikenberry, G. John, Wohlforth, William C., STEPHEN G. BROOKS is
Associate Professor of Government at Dartmouth College. G. JOHN IKENBERRY is Albert G.
Milbank Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University and Global
Eminence Scholar at Kyung Hee University in Seoul. WILLIAM C. WOHLFORTH is Daniel
Webster Professor of Government at Dartmouth College, Foreign Affairs, Lean Forward,
Jan/Feb2013, Vol. 92, Issue 1, Academic Search Complete, accessed 7-4-13, AA]
even if it is true that the costs of deep engagement fall far below what
advocates of retrenchment claim, they would not be worth bearing unless they
yielded greater benefits. In fact, they do. The most obvious benefit of the current strategy is that it reduces the risk of a
dangerous conflict. The United States' security commitments deter states with
aspirations to regional hegemony from contemplating expansion and dissuade
U.S. partners from trying to solve security problems on their own in ways that
would end up threatening other states. Skeptics discount this benefit by arguing that U.S. security guarantees aren't necessary to
Of course,

prevent dangerous rivalries from erupting. They maintain that the high costs of territorial conquest and the many tools countries can use to signal their benign intentions are

If
Washington got out of East Asia, Japan and South Korea would likely expand their
military capabilities and go nuclear, which could provoke a destabilizing reaction
from China. It's worth noting that during the Cold War, both South Korea and
Taiwan tried to obtain nuclear weapons; the only thing that stopped them was the
United States, which used its security commitments to restrain their nuclear temptations. Similarly, were the United States to
leave the Middle East, the countries currently backed by Washington--notably,
Israel, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia--might act in ways that would intensify the region's
security dilemmas. There would even be reason to worry about Europe. Although it's hard to imagine the
return of great-power military competition in a post-American Europe, it's not
difficult to foresee governments there refusing to pay the budgetary costs of higher
military outlays and the political costs of increasing EU defense cooperation . The result
enough to prevent conflict. In other words, major powers could peacefully manage regional multipolarity without the American pacifier. But that outlook is too sanguine.

might be a continent incapable of securing itself from threats on its periphery, unable to join foreign interventions on which U.S. leaders might want European help, and
vulnerable to the influence of outside rising powers. Given how easily a U.S. withdrawal from key regions could lead to dangerous competition, advocates of retrenchment tend

, few doubt that the United States

could survive the return of conflict among powers in Asia or the Middle East--but
at what cost? Were states in one or both of these regions to start competing against one another, they would likely boost their
military budgets, arm client states, and perhaps even start regional proxy wars, all
of which should concern the United States, in part because its lead in military
capabilities would narrow. Greater regional insecurity could also produce cascades of nuclear proliferation as powers such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia,
Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan built nuclear forces of their own. Those countries' regional competitors might then also seek nuclear arsenals. Although
nuclear deterrence can promote stability between two states with the kinds of nuclear forces that the Soviet Union and the United
States possessed, things get shakier when there are multiple nuclear rivals with less robust
arsenals. As the number of nuclear powers increases, the probability of illicit transfers, irrational decisions, accidents, and unforeseen crises goes up. The case for
abandoning the United States' global role misses the underlying security logic of the current approach. By reassuring allies and actively
managing regional relations, Washington dampens competition in the worlds key
areas, thereby preventing the emergence of a hothouse in which countries would grow new military capabilities. For proof that this strategy is working , one
need look no further than the defense budgets of the current great powers: on
average, since 1991 they have kept their military expenditures as A percentage of
GDP to historic lows, and they have not attempted to match the United States' top-end military capabilities. Moreover, all of the
world's most modern militaries are U.S. allies, and the United States' military lead
over its potential rivals .is by many measures growing. On top of all this, the current grand strategy acts as a hedge
to put forth another argument: that such rivalries wouldn't actually hurt the United States. To be sure

against the emergence regional hegemons. Some supporters of retrenchment argue that the U.S. military should keep its forces over the horizon and pass the buck to local
powers to do the dangerous work of counterbalancing rising regional powers. Washington, they contend, should deploy forces abroad only when a truly credible contender for
regional hegemony arises, as in the cases of Germany and Japan during World War II and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Yet

there is already a

potential contender for regional hegemony--China--and to balance it, the United

States will need to maintain its key alliances in Asia and the military capacity to
intervene there. The implication is that the United States should get out of Afghanistan and Iraq, reduce its military presence in Europe, and pivot to Asia. Yet
that is exactly what the Obama administration is doing.

*Federalism

Ukraine
Ukraines on the brink of collapseeconomic debt and downturn in the
energy sector prove
Butler 7/12/15 Author of FT's Energy and Power blog and Visiting Prof at Kings College
London. (Nick, Ukraine the dangers of neglecting Europes other debt crisis,
http://blogs.ft.com/nick-butler/2015/07/12/ukraine-the-dangers-of-neglecting-europes-otherdebt-crisis/)//AN
With all attention concentrated on Greece for the past month there
is a real danger that an even greater problem is developing, almost unnoticed, in Ukraine . The economy
there is in deep trouble. A further collapse, perhaps triggered by a debt default, could
lead to an outflow of refugees that would make the problem of migrants crossing
the Mediterranean look trivial . Energy is at the heart of the crisis but could just possibly be part of the
Politicians and policy makers can only focus on one problem at a time.

solution. The basic story is well known. Since the Maidan demonstrations in November 2013, the Ukrainian economy has shrunk. A 5 per cent fall last year is variously forecast
to be followed by a contraction of between 5 and 10 per cent in 2015. Investment has ground to a halt and in the energy sector big potential projects such as the shale gas

fighting in the east has cut off coal supplies to the rest of
the country from the 300 mines in the Donbass region. The Russian annexation of Crimea has cut
off gas supplies from the developments managed by Chernomorneftegaz in the Black Sea. Ukraine, as a result, has become even more
dependent on imports of coal and gas from South Africa, Australia, other parts of Europe and even ironically from Russia. These
supplies do not come cheap and in many cases suppliers will only do business if they are paid in advance and in hard currency. All this has produced a
growing national debt burden that by common consent is now unsustainable. Ukraine cannot afford to service the debts it already has and
developments planned by Shell and Chevron have been halted. The

every monthly repayment is turning into a moment of trauma. The Government in Kiev is reported to be close to defaulting on some or all of the debts a step that would halt

The risk is not just

that a default would alienate lenders and investors. It could also push thousands of Ukrainians to migrate across the countrys long and
porous borders with Poland, Romania, Hungary and Slovakia. If Europe cannot cope with the limited flow of people
crossing the Mediterranean one can only imagine the panic and chaos that would
follow an exodus from Ukraine . Can anything be done? A big conference is being held in Washington this week to encourage new investment
both further lending and the desperately needed flow of new industrial investment that offers the only prospect of halting economic decline.

in Ukraine. The effort is admirable and a further demonstration of the fact that the US government is taking the situation in Ukraine more seriously than anyone in Europe. But

effort will fail unless the debt issue is resolved and a default prevented

the
. The IMF and a group of private creditors,
mostly US based, have been in intensive discussions around a rescheduling package but to be acceptable all round such a deal needs to be linked to investments that offer a real
prospect of financial returns from which the debts can eventually be repaid. Energy should be at the heart of this. Ukraine has resources that can and should be developed. Even
if those situated close to the fighting in the east (such as Shells prospective shale gas development around Yuzivska) are still beyond reach because of the physical risks involved
other projects are viable. Gas conventional and unconventional, hydro and biomass are all identified as priorities in a report recently published by the International Energy

existing nuclear stations are ageing and need refurbishment and in some cases complete
renewal. The electricity grid needs to be modernised and there is enormous potential for investments in energy efficiency. All these
Agency. The

projects would create jobs and provide secure supplies to local users (including other industries) while reducing the burden of imports. Over time there is even the possibility of
Ukraine becoming a supplier of electricity to other parts of the region. Each of the potential projects would generate revenue and it cannot be beyond the intelligence of investors
and the international institutions to design a package in which a share of the revenue is allocated to creditors in return for a rescheduling of the current debt and some limited

Ukraine badly needs a new business model for

its economy and energy has to be at the heart of the answer. None of this, of course, solves the problems created by the
continuing separatist conflict in the east. The political situation can only be resolved when Russia gets tired of
funding a conflict that it is not winning and tired too of the relative isolation that sanctions
bring. The west is clearly not ready to fight for eastern Ukraine. But we do need to act to stop the country entering a downward spiral that could end up with a failed state of
and focused new lending. Some debt could for instance be swapped for an energy bond.

45m people less than 350 miles from Budapest and only 250 from Warsaw.

A system of decentralization is key to solve the Ukraine crisisUS input and

modeling are vital
Joseph 2014 Executive director of the Institute of Current World Affairs and a lecturer at
Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. (Edward P., How Putin could achieve
all of his designs on Ukraine -- without sending a single tank across the border.,
http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/04/24/constitutional-conquest/)//AN

if the
Ukraine crisis is ever going to subside, Kiev and its backers in the West will need to
come up with a viable formula for boosting the power of ethnic Russians in the eastern part of the
With the threat of a Russian invasion still heavy in the air of eastern Ukraine, its understandable that the esoteric subject of constitutional federalism isnt plastered across the headlines. But

country without giving Moscow everything it wants. Last weeks Geneva agreement between Russia, Ukraine, the European Union, and the United States endorsed the concept of greater autonomy in eastern

urgent imperative for Washington and Kiev is to devise a way to

devolve power that stems, rather than accelerates, the centrifugal dynamics that are currently destabilizing
Ukraine. The stakes couldnt be higher: A poorly crafted autonomy plan risks helping Russia achieve all of its designs on Ukraine without sending a single tank across the border. The best
place to draw lessons about the risks of autonomy is the Balkans, where a variety of
federalization models have been applied to the regions ethnic conflicts . The biggest federalization failure and therefore the
Ukraine, but the all-important details have yet to be worked out. The

preferred model for Moscow is Bosnias Dayton Agreement, which provided rebellious Serbs with an autonomous but non-independent entity known as Republika Srpska. Rather than attenuate Serb demands
with ironclad security and extensive self-government, this arrangement has had the opposite effect, serving only to reinforce Serb separatism. Granted both sweeping executive powers and a defined territory over
which it has near-wholesale control, Republika Srpska has little incentive to cooperate with the central government in Sarajevo. Over the last eight years, while the international communitys gaze was trained
elsewhere, the leadership of Republika Srpska has worked assiduously to erode painstakingly constructed state-level institutions. Numerous desperately-needed governance reforms have stopped; Bosnias

, it is hard to envision a solution to the Ukrainian crisis

that better serves Russian interests than Bosnia-style federalization. At this point, it is hard to envision a solution to the Ukrainian
progress towards European Union and NATO membership has stalled out. At this point

crisis that better serves Russian interests than Bosnia-style federalization.Without a pliable, Russian-oriented autocrat like the departed Viktor Yanukovych in Kiev, Moscows imperative is to weaken and
delegitimize Ukraines central government, stymie its advancement towards Euro-Atlantic institutions, and consolidate Russian influence in the east of the country. Ultimately, of course, Moscow would like to see

even the threat of secession serves Russian interests

the new "region" eventually hold a referendum to secede, as Crimea has done. But
: Bosnian Serb
leader Milorad Dodiks deft use of this tactic is a powerful demonstration of just how pernicious wide, regional autonomy can be. Underscoring the appeal of the Bosnia model, Dodik visited Moscow last month at

Ukrainian
leaders are wise to this danger, and have already rejected the term "federalism" in negotiations.
But the real lesson from Bosnia is the need to go beyond semantics and transfer
meaningful power away from the center but to the municipal, rather than
provincial level. Doing so would give restive minorities a greater stake in government without simultaneously enhancing their ability to sabotage the state, or worse, secede altogether. In
the height of crisis over Crimea, proclaimed his unabashed support for Russian policy in Ukraine, and left with a commitment for a whopping 270 million credit line for Republika Srpska.

this sense, a far better model from the fractious Balkans is Macedonia, which unlike Bosnia, forged a deal with its once-rebellious ethnic Albanian minority to increase their powers both at the central and local
government levels without creating any new "regions" or "entities" at all. Doing so has constrained the ability of would-be Albanian separatists to coalesce in a bid to undermine state authority. On the contrary, to
realize their communal rights, Albanians must go to the capital, Skopje, and participate actively in central government institutions, thereby reinforcing the countrys unity. Steps to boost Albanian power at the
local level, meanwhile, have proven popular across the country, including in predominantly Macedonian towns. To be sure, ethnic divisions, mistrust, and misrule still dog Macedonia, but none is institutionalized

Ukraines
existing constitution provides ample space for local self-government on the Macedonian model .
as all three are in Bosnia. Unlike Bosnia, Macedonia is a divided, but functioning state that has progressed to the doorstep of NATO membership and kept its EU aspirations in view.

Some western Ukrainian towns like Lviv, for example, are already taking advantage of the arrangement, developing their local economies and increasing their tax revenue independently of the central government.

challenge is to make decentralization

at the local level appealing to the east of the country, where a significant segment of the ethnic
Russian population has demanded greater autonomy not as a way of reforming government,
but as a way of perpetuating the role of the state as sole the provider . Breaking this Soviet-style,
statist mentality will take more than just reasserting Kievs control . If a deal on decentralization
is to be struck and implemented, the E uropean U nion is going to have to step in with generous programs that reward local self-reliance, and emphasize
accountability and transparency in local government. Just as Albanian and Macedonian mayors learned to cooperate with one
another in order to wrest powers from the stifling central state, so might Ukraines successful mayors in the west work
together, under EU auspices, with their colleagues in the east to make decentralization work , cooperating in the
popular fight against rapacious corruption at the central level. The United States should work closely with Kiev and its EU partners to
develop a package deal for Ukraines ethnic Russians that is grounded in sensible, broad principles, but also specific on concrete EU assistance
The potentially contested southern town of Odessa, seen as the next Russian domino, has also made moves in this direction. The

programs, particularly at the local level. As part of this arrangement, the Ukrainian government should allow the direct election of all provincial officials, not only in the east but all over the country. (Most
decentralization provisions should be uniform throughout the country, so as to prevent the exploitation of special privileges like those enjoyed by Crimea prior to its annexation to move toward secession.)
Language provisions, including the right to use Russian in the national parliament, should be clarified, not just by law but in the constitution. This would amount to an important symbolic commitment to

, Ukraine should resist efforts to allow the provinces to join together

in a formal association like the Serbs in Kosovo have done . Devolving additional power to the
provincial, rather than local level, risks deepening divisions and inviting a regional secessionist
movement. Would such a prudent package, backed by serious EU money, have any chance of winning backing from Moscow? Perhaps not at present, but if Washington backs up its tough rhetoric with
protecting the rights of ethnic Russians. Critically, however

concrete steps to counter Russian aggression, Ukraine has another card to play: its relationship with NATO. Beyond federalism, Moscow is also demanding that Ukraine promise to remain outside the alliance. The
truth is that NATO membership is not in the cards for Ukraine at the moment anyway, given the mountain of reforms that its weak military would need to accomplish and the anxiety many allies feel about
bringing in a member with Ukraines level of security exposure to Ru ssia. It is telling that the alliance has evinced no appetite for advancing Georgias NATO prospects, even though it is smaller, better organized,

it is within the realm of possibility to imagine a deal in which Kiev

trades its immediate, largely illusory NATO prospects for Moscows acceptance of a viable
decentralization plan backed by the United States and European Union. The deal, of course, would be expressly conditioned on Russian respect for
and has a stronger military than Ukraine. In other words,

Ukraines territorial integrity. Should a secessionist movement emerge in the future, Kiev would be free to move ahead with NATO membership providing a real incentive for Moscow to actually honor an
agreement with Ukraine. Naked Russian aggression in Ukraine makes it much harder to address the legitimate concerns of the countrys ethnic Russian citizens. But

Kiev and its Western backers

should still be exploring a range of options for doing so, from risky federalism to benign
decentralization . As they ponder constitutional revisions, however, they would do well to recall the lessons of the Balkans, lest they unwittingly deliver eastern Ukraine to Russia on a
platter.

That solves Ukrainian state collapse

Roberts and Fisun 2014 Expert on democracy development assistance and is the Director of
the International Development Studies Program at the The George Washington Universitys
Elliott School of International Affairs. Oleksandr Fisun is an expert in post-Soviet politics and
regime types, especially as they relate to Ukraine and is the Chair of the Political Science
Department at the Kharkiv National University (Sean and Olkesander, LOCAL GOVERNANCE
AND DECENTRALIZATION ASSESSMENT: IMPLICATIONS OF PROPOSED REFORMS IN
UKRAINE, http://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1863/LOCAL
%20GOVERNANCE%20ASSESSMENT%20FINAL.pdf)//AN
At the same time, many international and local experts have suggested that decentralization

is the most critical reform for

Ukraine at the moment. As will be further discussed below, a well designed decentralization plan could help to
dismantle the vertical power structures that have been the primary forms of political power
since independence, hence improving efficiency of governance and reducing at least the largest scale corruption that has continually plagued
the country, especially under Viktor Yanukovychs leadership. Furthermore, decentralization that encourages local variance
and is based in locally driven initiatives will be critical politically in re-uniting Ukraine in the
aftermath of the divisive conflict that continues in the east of the country. For all of these reasons, many of the local experts with
whom the assessment team met suggested that serious progress on decentralization reforms is critical
to Ukraines future and must be adopted as quickly as possible. The most passionate stakeholders even suggested that a failure
of this reform could lead to the failure of the Ukrainian state all together given the
other pressures the country presently faces. At the same time, most local experts acknowledged that this reform
would not be easy either politically or technically. The challenges faced by the reforms and the important role they can play
in democratizing Ukraines present model of governance are discussed below in the analysis of the countrys general political economy.

Causes war with Russia and becomes a global hotspotextinction

Bandow 2014 (Doug, senior fellow at CATO institute, "Avoid War, Cold Or Hot, with Russia
over Ukraine: Finding a Way Back from the Catastrophic Brink," March 3,
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/avoid-war-cold-or-hot-russia-over-ukrainefinding-way-back-catastrophic)//AN
Ukrainians won an important political battle by ousting the corrupt Viktor Yanukovich as president. But replacing Yanukovich with another dubious politico, such as opposition leader Yulia Tymoshenko, just
released from prison, would change little. Washington also triumphed. Without doing muchno troops, no money, few wordsAmericans watched protestors rebuff police attacks, force Yanukovich to flee, and
frustrate Russias Vladimir Putin. A trifecta at virtually no expense. Contrast that with U.S. debacles in Iraq, Egypt, and more. But now Russia is attempting to win as well, intervening in Crimea to an unknown
end. Whether intending to simply reinforce Moscows influence or completely sever the region from Ukraine, Russian President Vladimir Putin has created a tinderbox that could burst into flames with one errant
shot from a Russian or Ukrainian soldier, or even angry protestor. The only certainty is that the U.S. should avoid being drawn into a war with Russia over Ukraines future. Kiev called for a UN Security Council
meeting and pointed to general territorial guarantees included in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum signed by Washington governing divestment of nuclear weapons left in Ukraine. Moscows conduct is

Conflict with Russia would be many times worse. The Ukrainian people have suffered much
throughout history, especially under Communist oppressionhighlighted by mass starvation under Joseph Stalin and briefly interrupted by brutal Nazi
intolerable.

occupation. Independence came two decades ago. But the nations politics have remained tempestuous. The 2004 Orange Revolution led to the election of U.S. favorite Viktor Yushchenko, who exhibited
unparalleled incompetence and inconstancy. He broke with his ally Tymoshenko, the legendary gas princess, and eventually appointed Yanukovich, whom he had accused of attempted assassination during the
presidential campaign, as prime minister. Yushchenko received just 5.4 percent of the vote in his reelection bid, while Yanukovich defeated Tymoshenko in a poll considered to be fair if not entirely clean.
Yanukovichs corrupt proclivities surprised no one. In just a couple years his son, a dentist, became one of the countrys wealthiest businessmen. But victory by the scandal-tainted Tymoshenko would only have
rearranged the oligarchs at the public trough. Indeed, her premiership under Yushchenko was friendlier towards Moscow than was Yanukovichs presidency. Even in accepting Putins largesse last November
Yanukovich refused to sign the Russian-led Customs Union; the Ukrainian president looked like the proverbial rug merchant squeezing the last penny out of his Russian customer. Protestors filled Maidan Square
in Kiev over Yanukovichs rejection of a trade agreement with the European Union, but it was not Washingtons business. If the democratically elected government Ukraine desired to look east rather than west
economically, so be it. The EU wasnt happy, but it was outbid. Brussels assumed Ukraine had no choice. Brussels was wrong. The issue, in contrast to Kievs later brutal treatment of protestors, had nothing to do
with democracy, human rights, or even sovereignty. In fact, inking the proposed European pact would have meant agreeing to far more, and far more onerous conditions. Associating with Europe likely would have
meant a more prosperous and freer future, but that was up to the Ukrainian people acting through their elected government. Ironically, plenty of Greeks and other Europeans now want to reconsider the EU deals
struck by their past leaders. And

Ukraine is divided . Broadly speaking, the nations west is nationalist and leans European while the east is Russo-friendly. Kiev falls within opposition

territorytwo-thirds of city voters chose Tymoshenko over Yanukovichso anti-government protestors rally easily. Demonstrations over policy quickly turned into a de facto putsch or street revolution, a
machtuebernahme. It was as if Republican Party politicians, Ron Paul fans, and Tea Party activists showed up in Washington to protest ObamaCare and took over the Mall, occupied the Treasury Department,
surrounded the White House, burned down the Democratic National Committee, blockaded key intersections, armed nationalist radicals, tossed firebombs at the police, demanded Barack Obamas resignation,
and threatened more violence if he didnt quit immediately. Good demands, perhaps, but dubious tactics. Even so, that wasnt Washingtons problem either. Yanukovichs ouster was Ukraines gain, especially if its
people prove able to create a more liberal political order. However, the price paid may be high. Democratic parties allied with the neo-fascist Svoboda Party and strongly nationalistic Right Sector. Worse, street
violence, especially by extreme nationalists, helped overturn the Yanukovich and could be deployed against better and more honest elected leaders in the future. Unfortunately, the good guys cant assume only
they get to violate democratic norms. Indeed, many of those who look east and voted for Yanukovicheven if unenthused about his obvious failings, including newly exposed lavish lifestylefeel cheated. There
was no fascist coup, but the government they helped elect was violently overthrown. Some of them might prefer to shift their allegiance to Russia. These sentiments appear to be strongest in the Crimea, a Tartar
state allied with the Ottoman Empire until conquered by the Russian Empire in the 18th Century. In 1954 Soviet Communist Party General Secretary Nikita Krushchev, from Ukraine, gifted Crimea to Ukraine,
largely for economic reasons. At the time the switch meant nothing internationally since no one expected the U.S.S.R. to split apart. But after the Soviet Unions disintegration in late 1991 Ukraine departed with
Crimea in tow. Moscow was forced to lease back its Black Sea naval base at Sevastopol. National accommodation should be possible today through a commitment by Kiev to engage both east and west, which the

Ukrainian people clearly desire. Moreover, the government should address disenfranchised Yanukovich backers, perhaps offering greater regional autonomy. Kiev also should reassure Moscow that Ukraine is not
about to join any anti-Russia bloc, including NATO. But if Crimeans, in particular, want to return to Russia, they should be able to do so. It still wouldnt be easy, since no region of Ukraine is truly monolithic. But

We should wish
Ukrainians of all regions well as they attempt to rebuild amid the political rubble left by
Yanukovichs violent ouster. But there is no important let alone vital security issue at stake for the
U.S. in the specific choices they make. And certainly nothing that warrants the sort of intrusive meddling evident in the recorded phone call between Victoria Nuland,
the 1993 Velvet Divorce between the Czech and Slovak sections of Czechoslovakia offers an obvious model. However, none of this should matter much to America.

Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs, and U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt. Most important, the extended and violent protests against the Yanukovich government demonstrate that Moscow
has no hope of dominating the country. A Russian invasion would face resistance from a determined people as well as sizable military and victory would yield perpetual conflict and instability. Kiev will be
independent and almost certainly will look west economically. The only question is how much of Ukraine. n principle that also isnt Washingtons concern. It is hard for American officials to acknowledge that not
everything requires Washingtons attention. But what is in or out of Ukraine does not. Indeed, in a poll last week just 17 percent of Americans wanted the U.S. involved. That shouldnt stop the EU from playing a
new Great Game if it desires. Europe is both wealthy and next door: the European nations could offer foreign aid and the EU could promise membership. If Brussels believes Kievs orientation is critical, then the
former should outbid Russia. That shouldnt be hard, since the EU has ten times the GDP of Putins bedraggled wannabe empire. Hard-pressed U.S. taxpayers shouldnt foot the bill for Europes benefit. But rather
than play the game Vladimir Putin has upended the board and scattered the pieces. Russia introduced troops, taking effective control of the Crimea at the formal request of Sergei Aksyonov, the regions new proRussian premier. What comes next no one knows. Of course, Russia shouldnt meddle. However, a U.S. government that is ever ready to make demands, offer aid, impose sanctions, support leaders and factions,
undermine governments, launch covert actions, and, most important, bomb, invade, and occupy other nations is in a weak position to criticize Moscows involvement in Ukraine. The most militarily interventionist
state today is America. However good Washingtons justificationsand, frankly, in many cases they have not been very goodU.S. leaders have no principled argument against other governments acting in similar
ways even if for more venal, even criminal, reasons, as in this case. As for Ukraines east, and especially Crimea, all sides should abide by the wishes of its residents, many of whom appear committed to separation.
In fact, in 1992 the Crimean parliament voted to secede, though advocates settled for additional autonomy. Now they may be more serious. Washington should discourage the new Ukrainian governmentboth
unrepresentative and unstablefrom using force to hold any region which genuinely seeks separation. Yet Putin, demonstrating the hubris that comes naturally with authoritarian control, tossed aside his trump
card, a planned referendum by Crimeas residents. A majority secession vote would have allowed him to claim the moral high ground in standing by a kindred people. Aksyonov announced that he is advancing the
poll, which will occur on March 30 and offer choices of autonomous status quo, independence, and Russian affiliation. However, an election conducted under foreign occupation lacks credibility. As it stands

Could Russia attempt to take Ukraine in

two gulps rather than one, rather like Adolf Hitler grabbed Czechoslovakia? Russia isnt Nazi Germany and Ukraine isnt
1938 Czechoslovakia, with or without the Crimea. Ukraines west wouldnt be incorporated easily or completely. So far the participants
have not lost their heads and started shooting. That could lead to genuine disaster. Russia has more than ten times
Ukraines GDP and outspends Ukraine 20-1 on the military. The former should easily win any conventional contest. But the aftermath,
Russia has committed acts of aggression and war. The only good news is that Putins ends almost certainly are limited.

especially if Moscow sought to occupy anything more than the most heavily pro-Russian areas, would be continuing resistance and strife. Hopefully one Chechnya is enough for Vladimir Putin. Even in the worst
case the U.S. has no cause for military intervention. Andrew C. Kuchins of the Center for Strategic and International Studies complained: If you are effectively taking the stick option off the table, then what are
you left with? However, it would be foolish to wave the stick if using it would risk far more than is at stake. Who controls the Crimea just aint worth a possible nuclear confrontation. Putin is a nasty guy with a

Ukraine is not in the center of Europe as the

Washington Post strangely proclaimed. Moscow perceives its vital interests as securing regional security, not winning global domination. The only thing worse than a
completely unnecessary conflict would be a completely unnecessary conflict involving America
especially with a nuclear-armed power. This possibility offers a stark reminder of the
case against inducting Ukraine into NATO, which would have created a formal
legal commitment to start World War III. The allies should develop an out for Russia. Moscow can yet step back. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov
nasty agenda, but Great Power wannabe Russia is no ideologically-driven superpower Soviet Union. Moreover,

said the troop presence was required until the normalization of the political situation. How so? One scenario: Russia withdraws its forces while Kiev schedules independence referendums in Russian-leaning
areas. Popular approval would lead to a negotiated separation process. Other modus Vivendi also are possible. If Putin refuses to draw back, Washington and Brussels have little choice but to retaliate, imposing

allies could impose a range of sanctions

cancelling the June G-8 summit in Sochi, abandoning new economic or trade negotiations,
denying visas to leading Russians, recalling ambassadors, refusing normal diplomatic discourse,
excluding Russian banks from international financebut none of these actions , except perhaps the latter,
would have much impact. Tougher would be banning investment and trade, which might build domestic political opposition to Putin. However, such a policy also might perversely
strengthen the Russian state by making private Russian business more dependent on the authorities. Moreover, the Europeans are unlikely to stop
purchasing natural gas from Moscow. The other problem with retaliation is that the tougher the response the more likely Moscow would harm American interests
costs, in the presidents word. Secretary of State John Kerry promised to go to the hilt in order to isolate Russia. The

elsewhere: interfere with operations in Afghanistan, offer positive support for Iran and its nuclear program, enhance backing for Syrias Bashar Assad, and provide succor to North Koreas Kim Jong-un. Today

Putins machinations in Ukraine are not directed at

the U.S. But Moscow could take over that spot if it desired. Whatever else Washington does, it needs to keep
communications open, as even President Ronald Reagan did with the Evil Empire during the
Cold War. The struggle in Ukraine is vital for Ukrainians. However, history, geography, and reality all defy hysterical claims as to Ukraines global and
historic importance. Its people deserve prosperity, stability, liberty, and democracy. America also would benefit from that result. But that
future is not within Washingtons power to bestow, on Ukraine or anyone else. Today the U.S. should concentrate on pulling Russia
back from the brink in Ukraine. A new cold war is in no ones interest. A hot war
would be a global catastrophe.
Russia is not, as Mitt Romney bizarrely claimed, Americas number one geopolitical adversary. And

*Organized Crime
Find an impact to this from organized crime adv

*State Economies

*Terrorism Scenario
Decentralizing immigration is key to domestic counterterrorism
prioritizes federal homeland security
Davon M Collins 2007; J.D. Candidate Yale Law School, Toward a More Federalist Employment-Based Immigration
System1, 25 Yale L. & Poly Rev. 349, Spring, Lexis
In this age of international terrorism, the

American immigration system is caught between our national security

needs and a socioeconomic imperative to remain a "nation of immigrants." 1 Yet the system can be reconceived and
administered in a way that further increases economic opportunities while better
protecting the homeland. To that end, this Note advocates reshaping our economic immigration system into a
cooperative federalist system 2 in which the federal government allows states more responsibility
for selecting employment-based immigrants while simultaneously shifting greater
federal resources into immigration services and enforcement . 3 Specifically, Congress should
affirmatively decentralize 4 to the states administrative control over employment-based (EB) immigration decision-making, in the
model of the 1996 welfare reforms and emissions trading [*351] credits. 5 As discussed in greater detail below, many scholars and
policymakers have called for increasing the states' role in law enforcement 6 or in distributing public benefits. 7 This Note proposes
instead that states exercise greater control over the admission of employment-based immigrants. Three basic premises underlie this
proposal. First, lawful immigration produces net benefits for the United States and should be encouraged. Second,

employment-based immigration primarily implicates local economic interests,

such as education and labor regulation. Third, the federal and state governments'
distinctive competencies should be exploited to the benefit of both immigrants and
the entire nation. While the states are more responsive to local economic needs
and interests, the federal government is better positioned to regulate aspects of
immigration affecting the nation as a whole, such as security, overseas consular
administration, and the prevention of spillover and race-to-the-bottom effects. I elaborate upon
these themes throughout the Note.

Means and motive for nuclear terrorism are inevitable efficient

immigration resource allocation is key to solve
Eugene E Aloise, Susan M Collins, and Joseph Lieberman 6-30-2010; Director Natural Resources and
Environmental Division GAO; Susan M., Senator (R-ME), and Joseph, Senator (ID-CT), Nuclear Terrorism: Strengthening Our
Domestic Defenses, Part I Hearing of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Federal News Service,
6/30, Lexis
SEN. LIEBERMAN: Good morning and welcome. This is the eighth in a series of hearings our committee has held since 2007 to discuss how our nation is confronting the real

the threat of
nuclear terrorist attack on the United States is growing faster than our ability to
prevent a nuclear terrorist attack on the United States, on our homeland , and obviously as the
and dire threats posed by nuclear terrorism. And I must say today that it seems to me, as I look back, I look at where we are now, that

homeland security committee, this is of great and growing concern to us. I know that most people would prefer not to think about the unthinkable, but President Obama, to his
credit, has clearly recognized the threat that brings us together this morning. At the 47-nation nuclear summit held in April, the president outlined the dangers here quite

Nuclear materials that could be sold and fashioned into a nuclear

weapon exist in dozens of nations . Just the smallest amount of plutonium, about the size of an apple, could kill and injure hundreds of
thousands of innocent people. "Terrorist networks, such as al Qaeda, have tried to acquire the material for a
nuclear weapon, and if they ever succeeded, they would surely use it ." These are all continuing
quotes from the president. "Were they to do so, it would be a catastrophe for the world, causing
extraordinary loss of life and striking a major blow to global peace and stability . In
short, it is" -- and this is President Obama concluding -- " it is increasingly clear that the danger of nuclear
terrorism is one of the greatest threats to global security, to our collective security ,"
end of quote. Then, a month or so later, the National Security Strategy released by the administration added, quote, " The American people face
no greater or more urgent danger than a terrorist attack with a nuclear weapon.
Black markets trade in nuclear secrets and materials. Terrorists are determined to
buy, build, or steal a nuclear weapon," end of quote. The International Atomic Energy Agency's Illicit Trafficking Database, which
clearly, and I quote: "

tracks all reported cases of smuggling, theft, unexplained losses, or black-market sales of nuclear materials, reports that there have been 1,340 confirmed incidents of smuggling
since 2007 that involve materials that could at least be used to make a so-called "dirty bomb." And of those cases, 18 involved the smuggling of highly enriched uranium or
plutonium, the material that is critical to the making of an actual atomic weapon. In 2008, our committee held hearings to examine the office created in our government to
counter this threat, the little-known Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, DNDO, within the Department of Homeland Security. At that time, the question was: How do we keep
DNDO on track? Today, I ask seriously whether DNDO has been on the right track and moving rapidly enough to achieve its critical mission. Though most Americans have never
heard of DNDO, its mission is clearly vital to our homeland security in the world in which we live today. President Bush established the DNDO in 2005 to coordinate and oversee
federal efforts to protect the U.S. against nuclear terrorism. Homeland Security Presidential Directive 14 designated DNDO as the lead organization for domestic nuclear
detection, and charged it to work with the Departments of Defense, Energy, and State, and others to develop a GNDA Global Nuclear Detection Architecture. Though it has never
been defined in statute, the GNDA, the Global Nuclear Detection Architecture, seems to consist of programs across numerous agencies designed to stop terrorists from getting
nuclear materials or weapons, and if they do get them, to stop them from bringing them into the United States. And I they do bring them into the United States, to stop them
from successful detonating them. DNDO was given the critical job of coming up with an overall plan about how the different departments would work together to implement that
plan, and then to recommend what kind of investments in technology would be needed. This was a big mission that they were given. And so in fairness, I should say that, and

DHS has deployed nearly two thirds of the more than 2,100
radiation portal monitors identified in its deployment plan at established ports of
entry on the northern and southern borders. Today, nearly 100 percent -- 100 percent of the
seaport containerized cargo and 100 percent of vehicle traffic on the southern and
northern borders are scanned for nuclear material. But there also have been
omissions and failures, and they're serious . Cargo coming by rail from Canada or Mexico is still not scanned. Only a small
there have been some successes. For instance,

percentage of international air cargo is scanned, and DNDO apparently has no plans to scan commercial aviation aircraft of baggage. Five years into its existence, based on its
record, it's just inescapable to conclude that DNDO requires real retooling, and quickly. It's made too little progress on its major mission, which is the development of the Global
Nuclear Detection Architecture. Even DNDO seems to have concluded that its approach to this task is fundamentally flawed and now seeks an increase of $13 million in next

The time
for urgent action really is now. We're going to hear today that DNDO has spent hundreds of millions of dollars trying to develop a new
year's budget for a new round of studies to produce yet another overarching strategy plan over the next several years. The time for multi-year studies is over.

radiation detection technology that GAO concludes is only marginally better than we have now. Known as the Advanced Spectroscopic Portal, or ASP, this program has clearly
drained resources from other programs, including development and deployment of mobile, portable, or hand-held technologies that could screen other types of inbound cargo or
bulk shipments, like in -- those on international -- on trains or commercial aviation. I know that the administration is reexamining DNDO. We hope that DHS, Department of
Homeland Security, would come and testify today. They said they weren't ready. We've set down a hearing for July 21st to hear their response to what we're going to hear from
this distinguished group of independent evaluators of DNDO. And I'll say that it's certainly my expectation that what we need to hear from DNDO, from the Department of
Homeland Security, is exactly what the intent -- to do with and to DNDO to make sure that it gets its critical mission right, and quickly. Senator Collins. SEN. SUSAN M.

Safeguarding our nation against the threat of nuclear

terrorism is surely one of the most important responsibilities of the Department of
Homeland Security. The WMD Commission in its 2008 reported predicted that "it is more likely than not that a weapon of mass destruction will be used
COLLINS (R-ME): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

in a terrorist attack somewhere in the world by the end of 2013." Technological innovation is a critical element in our efforts to prevent nuclear terrorism. It is, therefore,
troubling that the department's efforts to develop a next-generation technology for scanning cargo for nuclear materials at ports of entry have been less than successful. As the
chairman has pointed out, the Advanced Spectroscopic Portal Program has repeatedly encountered problems since its inception in 2004. As a result, the ASP has been relegated
to being a potential secondary scanning tool, although that technology has yet to receive certification from DHS for even this limited function. Given the unwavering ambitions
of America's enemies, our nation cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of the past. The DHS office currently responsible for making decisions about the development, testing,
evaluation, and acquisition of detection equipment is the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, DNDO, as the chairman pointed out in his remarks. This office simply must make
well-informed and threat-based investment decisions to meet the challenge of interdicting illicit nuclear material not only at our nation's borders, but also within our country.
Given our nation's significant investment in this critical area, it is disappointing that DNDO has not made more progress. DNDO must also serve as the responsible steward of
taxpayer dollars. Again, the department has fallen short in this area as well. As we navigate the road forward, the department must have a clearer strategy for developing the next
generation of scanning technologies to detect and identify shielded and unshielded nuclear materials. The three organizations represented at our hearing today, GAO, CRS, and
the National Research Council, have all produced recent reports that have found significant problems with the ASP program. They can give us valuable insights into the
challenges the department confronts and that Congress must consider, as we move beyond the ASP program. It is surely significant that the department is not represented here
today. They are not represented because they are not prepared to give us that strategy forward and to respond to these reports. So the second hearing that the chairman has
announced for next month is also going to be extremely important. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. SEN. LIEBERMAN: Thank you very much, Senator Collins. And we'll go right to
the witnesses with thanks for the considerable work you did in preparing your reports and your testimony, all of which will be entered by consent in the record in addition to the
testimony you'll deliver. First witness -- help me with the pronunciation of your last name. MR. ALOISE: Aloise. SEN. LIEBERMAN: That's exactly what I would've said, but I
wanted to make sure. (Laughs.) MR. ALOISE (Right ?). (Laughs.) SEN. LIEBERMAN: Eugene Aloise, director of the Natural Resources and Environment Division at the United
States Government Accountability Office. Thanks, Mr. Aloise, and please proceed with your testimony. MR. ALOISE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ranking Member.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am pleased to be here today to discuss the progress DHS has made in deploying radiation detection equipment to scan cargo and
conveyances entering the United States by land, sea, and air for nuclear and radiological materials and the development of a strategic plan for the Global Nuclear Detection
System. My testimony is based on our numerous issued reports, as well as current work assessing U.S. government efforts to deploy a radiation detection system at home and
abroad. On the positive side, and as you just mentioned, Mr. Chairman, DHS has made progress and reports that it scans nearly 100 percent of the cargo and conveyances
entering the United States through land borders and major seaports. On the downside, however, DHS has made little progress in scanning radiation in railcars entering the
United States from Canada and Mexico, international air cargo, and international commercial aircraft, passengers and baggage. Nationwide, about 1,400 radiation detection
portal monitors have been deployed. That's about two thirds of the 2,100 monitors planned for deployment, and another 700 monitors are needed. Scanning for nuclear
materials in international rail and air cargo are presenting DHS with unique challenges. For example, the length of trains presents a huge scanning problem because trains can
be up to two miles long. And separating alarming cars from other train cars for a closer look is very difficult. Air cargo is a problem because, among other things, there is a lack of
natural choke points in airports where fixed detection equipment can be deployed. And until solutions can be found, DHS' goal of scanning 99 percent of air cargo at the 3,300
national airports in the United States by 2014 is currently on hold. The only scanning for radiation that is now occurring for international rail and air cargo is being done with
hand-held detectors, not portal monitors. In addition, DHS' efforts to plug the gaps in the nuclear detection system is just at the early stages of development. Current gaps
include land border crossings between U.S. ports of entry, international general aviation, and small maritime crafts, such as recreational boats and fishing vessels. It is important
to close these gaps, because dangerous quantities of nuclear materials can be portable enough to be carried across by borders by vehicles or pedestrians on most private aircraft

Closing the gaps is a major challenge because the United States has over
6,000 miles of land borders with many locations outside of established ports of
entry where people and vehicles can enter. Also, according to the Coast Guard, small boats pose a greater threat for nuclear
smuggling than shipping containers, because, among other things, there are at least 13 million pleasure craft and 110,000 fishing vessels in the United States. DHS is
addressing these gaps by, among other things, developing testing and deploying
radiation detection equipment and developing threat studies, but these efforts are
all in their very early stages. Regarding DHS' strategic plan for the Global Nuclear Detection System, it has been two years since we testified
or small boats.

before this committee and recommended such a plan, but no such plan yet exists. DHS officials told us they are working on a plan and hope to complete it by this fall. The lack of
a strategic plan has limited DHS efforts to complete the Global Nuclear Detection System. Without a plan, it has been difficult for DHS to address the gaps in the system. Also,

DNDO's failed four-year effort to develop the next generation portal monitor, the ASP, is a consequence of not reaching consensus on a strategic plan with other federal agencies.
We believe the proposed deployments of ASPs distracted DNDO from finishing the nuclear detection system and closing the gaps in it. In short, Mr. Chairman, because it had no
plan to follow, DNDO took its eye off the ball. Instead, DNDO focused on replacing current equipment with questionably performing ASPs in areas where a detection system was

At this moment DHS is at a crossroads. Because of the vast land borders,

coast lines, and air space to protect, addressing the gaps in the detection system is
in many ways more challenging than preventing nuclear smuggling through fixed
ports of entry. Now that the ports of entry are more secure, it makes the gaps in
the system more attracted to would-be smugglers or terrorists. With increasingly
limited federal resources, it is especially important for DHS to develop a strategic
plan which prioritizes how it will address the gaps in the detection system and
allocate resources accordingly.
already in place.

Nuclear war
Ayson 10 (Robert, Professor of Strategic Studies, Director of Strategic Studies: New Zealand,
Senior Research Associate with Oxfords Centre for International Studies. After a Terrorist
Nuclear Attack: Envisaging Catalytic Effects. Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, Volume 33,
Issue 7, July 2010, pages 571-593)
Washington's early response to a terrorist nuclear attack on its own soil might also raise the possibility of an unwanted (and nuclear
aided) confrontation with Russia and/or China. For example, in

the noise and confusion during the

immediate aftermath of the terrorist nuclear attack, the U.S. president might be
expected to place the country's armed forces, including its nuclear arsenal, on a
higher stage of alert. In such a tense environment, when careful planning runs up against the friction of reality, it is just
possible that Moscow and/or China might mistakenly read this as a sign of U.S.
intentions to use force (and possibly nuclear force) against them . In that situation, the
temptations to preempt such actions might grow, although it must be admitted that any preemption would probably still
meet with a devastating response. As part of its initial response to the act of nuclear terrorism (as discussed
earlier) Washington might decide to order a significant conventional (or nuclear) retaliatory or
disarming attack against the leadership of the terrorist group and/or states seen to support that group. Depending on the
identity and especially the location of these targets, Russia and/or China might interpret such action as being far too close for their
comfort, and potentially as an infringement on their spheres of influence and even on their sovereignty. One far-fetched but perhaps
not impossible scenario might stem from a judgment in Washington that some of the main aiders and abetters of the terrorist action
resided somewhere such as Chechnya, perhaps in connection with what Allison claims is the Chechen insurgents' long-standing
interest in all things nuclear.42 American pressure on that part of the world would almost certainly raise alarms in Moscow that
might require a degree of advanced consultation from Washington that the latter found itself unable or unwilling to provide.

Extra Solvency

Executive Key
Executive action is key to spur congress and state cooperation over
immigration federalism
Ramakrishan 14 (Karthick; professor of public policy and political science at the University of
California, "Immigration federalism: Obama's actions likely to spur states, not Congress, to act",
www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_27046376/immigration-federalism-obamas-actions-likelyspur-states-not, December 6, 2014)//ADS
When the president announced his plans for administrative relief for
unauthorized immigrants in the U nited S tates, he expressed hope that his executive
action will spur congressional legislation on immigration . Indeed, most executive actions on immigration since
2006 were intended, at least in part, to prod Congress. However, our analysis of executive discretion on immigration indicates that presidential action has led to greater policy
responses at the state level, what we call a "federalism effect," rather than a legislative response at the national level. Much of the debate surrounding the president's executive
action has centered on its legality and on the war of words between the president and his Democratic allies and Republican opponents in Congress. However, most legal experts,
including those who have served in Republican administrations, say the president is within his legal authority, particularly given limited resources from Congress. Indeed, prior

While Congress can still counter

the president's moves, with options ranging from impeachment to passing an
enforcement bill that can override his veto, these are not likely to occur with a
party that needs a modicum of Latino support to win the presidency in 2016.
Instead, we will likely see significant policy actions at the state level . First, state and local

lawsuits against the president's 2012 deferred action program have failed to gain traction in federal courts.

administrative processes and record-keeping will be important for undocumented immigrants who must prove their long-term residency and good standing through government
documents, such as school enrollment, tax, judicial and municipal utility records. In addition, state and local policies on driver's licenses, in-state tuition and public assistance
will significantly impact the realization of the president's policy goals. Finally, state motor vehicle departments will have to deal with the increased number of deferred action
recipients who may now seek driver's licenses to get to work or college. Indeed, we can look back to the Obama administration's prior executive action -- its 2012 Deferred Action
for Child Arrivals program -- to see how presidential action can spur policy changes at the state level. In the two years since DACA's implementation, 46 states clarified that they
would provide licenses to DACA recipients. DACA appears to have also advanced momentum on other state and local policies, as advocates pushed for expanded access to health
care and in-state tuition for deferred action recipients and undocumented immigrants more generally. On the other hand, we have also seen instances where conservative
advocates have been able to use state policy to push back against federal momentum. This is particularly true in Republican-led states, which have been less likely to pass
immigrant integration laws and more likely to pass pro-enforcement laws. With greater Republican control of state governments in 2014, we might see more conservative
legislation and administrative action at the state level. At the recent annual meeting of the Republican Governors Association, several members said they would try to thwart the

. States are where we

see policies that deeply affect the daily lives of immigrants, including those who
are beneficiaries of deferred action. It is at this level where activists will likely
focus their efforts, and where the interested public would be well advised to pay
attention

president's new policies. Thus, despite all the bluster, Congress remains an unlikely place for legislative action on immigration

Case

AT: Racism Turns

States that hate workers can just defer acting on immigration theyll go to
states where political pressure is lower
Davon M Collins 2007; J.D. Candidate Yale Law School, Toward a More Federalist Employment-Based Immigration
System1, 25 Yale L. & Poly Rev. 349, Spring, Lexis
Federalism can also function as a steam-valve. In the immigration context, Spiro has described this steam-valve effect as the capacity of "those states harboring intense antialien sentiment to act on those sentiments at the state level, thus diminishing any interest on their part to seek national legislation to similarly restrictionist ends." 198 The
absence of such a steam-valve in the immigration arena has been thought by some to be a contributing factor to the flashes of anti-immigration legislation at the national level,
such as those that prompted the Chinese Exclusion Act. Presumably, areas with high anti-immigrant sentiment are unable to affect change at the local level, and thus forced to
seek immigration restrictions in Congress. And due to the nature of political logrolling, a small interest group with an intense preference pitted against the neutral posture of
other, larger groups may prevail in the legislature. 199 While some scholars dispute this steam-valve theory as an explanation for every instance of major restrictionist
legislation, 200 steam-valve federalism is a [*387] well understood aspect of public choice analysis generally. Thus, greater local input in EB admissions under DEBI might help

interest groups currently threatened by the

influx of tech workers from such places as India would be able to oppose their entry within their
own states. Perennial high-stakes fights in Congress over the number of H1-B visas might
thereby be scattered across the several states, as congressional debate focused on total
immigration cap-setting. Ultimately, tech workers might be funneled through the visa market
into high-demand states and deflected from high-resistance states, resulting in greater overall
opportunities for economic growth and human happiness.
to reduce pressure at the state level before it percolates up to Washington. For example,

Counterplans

AT: Legalization CP
Legalization efforts are tunnel visions defending the immigration
surveillance state
Kalhan 2014 Associate Professor of Law, Drexel University (Anil, Immigration
SurveillanceMaryland Law Review, Vol. 74, Issue 1, Article 2, pg. 54,
http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=3646&context=mlr)//AN
expansions in the scope of immigration
enforcement, together with major investments to construct the technological infrastructure to support those expansions, have given rise to what I
described above as the immigration surveillance state. 217 In its current incarnation, the immigration surveillance state has most visibly facilitated a
regime of mass detention and deportation. However, as an approach to governance, immigration surveillance runs much deeper,
encompassing a broader range of activities that both control and facilitate migration and mobility of both noncitizens
and U.S. citizens, both within and outside the United States. Accordingly, in this Part, I explain why comprehensive immigration reform and other
legalization proposals, while holding the potential to drastically reduce the number of noncitizens subject to removal from the United States, are not
only unlikely to slow or reverse the development of the immigration surveillance state but, to
the contrary, are likely to consolidate and extend its reach .218 To begin with, comprehensive approaches to
III. LEGALIZATION AND THE IMMIGRATION SURVEILLANCE STATE These broad

immigration reform conventionally have been understood to entail a pairing between two sets of objectives: regularization of current undocumented immigrants and increased
future immigrant and nonimmigrant flows, on the one hand, along with increased investments in border control and immigration enforcement, on the other.219 Accordingly,
like IRCAs legalization provisions in 1986, the past decades leading comprehensive reform proposalsfrom the Bush Administrations reform principles in 2004, to the bills
passed by the Senate in 2006 and 2013, to the Obama Administrations reform principles in 2013, to the reform principles briefly floated by House Republicans in January 2014
all forcefully pledge major investments to expand immigration enforcement activities across all of the many domains in which they now take place, including further

legalization also reinforces immigration

surveillance at an even more basic level. Like other aspects of immigration governance, legalization programseven if
they take the form of straightforward amnesty rather than the more demanding earned
legalization that todays leading proposals contemplatenecessarily require identification, screening, and
authorization of individuals to determine whether they meet certain eligibility criteria and to formally confer the
investments in the new technologies used to fashion the immigration surveillance state. However,

legal status that they seek. For example, IRCAs legalization programwhich granted permanent residence to individuals meeting the relatively straightforward criteria of having
resided in the United States before a specified cutoff date or having performed agricultural work for at least ninety days during the prior yearrequired applicants to provide
documentation establishing their identity, residence, financial responsibility, and proof of employment; to be fingerprinted and photographed; and to appear for an in-person
interview.220 The earned legalization approaches contemplated by todays comprehensive reform proposals are considerably more complex, involving stringent initial

applicants must satisfy a series of continuing obligations to

earn legal status.221 For example, under the initial eligibility criteria in the Senates 2013 reform bill, applicants not only must satisfy a
durational residence requirement but also must not have convictions for specified offenses; pay
an application fee, a penalty, and any back taxes; submit biometric and biographic data; and
successfully complete national security, criminal law, and immigration background checks . After
eligibility criteria and long probationary periods during which

extended periods of time in this provisional status, individuals may adjust to permanent resident status if they continue to satisfy the initial eligibility criteria, successfully
complete a second set of background checks, and meet a series of additional prospective criteria, such as obtaining employment, satisfying minimum income requirements,

registering for the military draft, meeting English language

proficiency and civics knowledge requirements, and others.222 To implement and monitor compliance with these
requirements, authorities invariably will turn to the techniques and technologies of immigration
surveillancecollecting, storing, analyzing, and disseminating vast quantities of information on
millions of eligible noncitizens, on an ongoing basis, to identify and ascertain who qualifies for legalization and,
remaining continuously physically present in the United States,

ultimately, for adjustment to lawful permanent resident status. In a world in which the availability of more information is almost always assumed to be better, the likelihood of
long retention periods and secondary use of that data for purposes not contemplated at the time of collection is quite high.223 By definition, not every unauthorized migrant will
be able to regularize his or her status.

Those who ultimately fall short of these requirements and remain undocumentedan enduring
will effectively become super-undocumented , even more deeply in the shadows than

population that, as Michael Wishnie describes,

current undocumented immigrantswill continue to face the entire spectrum of enforcement practices, processes, and penalties that have emerged in recent decades, if not
more aggressive and intrusive mechanisms of surveillance and control.224 Albeit on a comparatively modest scale, the Obama Administrations Deferred Action for Childhood

DACA) program offers a glimpse at how immigration reform reinforces the immigration
surveillance state.225 Strictly speaking, DACA involves a categorical but temporary exercise of prosecutorial discretion, but the DACAmented status it confers
Arrivals (

should be understood as a form of quasi-legalization.226 The program permits unlawfully present noncitizens under the age of thirty-one to request a renewable, two-year
period of temporary relief from deportation and employment authorization if they arrived in the United States while below age sixteen; have continuously resided in the United
States since June 15, 2007; are currently enrolled in school, graduated from high school or a GED program, or received an honorable U.S. military discharge; have not been
convicted of certain specified criminal offenses; and do not otherwise present any threat to national security or public safety.227 DACA applicants must submit documentation
to USCIS establishing their identity and fulfillment of these eligibility criteria. In addition, USCIS collects detailed biographic information and biometrics (photographs,

fingerprints, and signatures) from all applicants in order to conduct criminal history and national security background checks against FBIs IAFIS, DHSs TECS, and other

1.8 million
individuals could be eligible for DACA, and as of March 2014, over 673,000 DACA applications had
been received.229 Whether as part of comprehensive immigration reform or in some other incarnation, any legalization program that
Congress ultimately might adopt would invariably requireon a much larger scalesimilar processes of
data collection, processing, storage, and dissemination of personal information.230 While legalization usually is framed in public
discourse as a means of advancing justice , compassion, and human dignity, advocates and policymakers increasingly
government databases, and to enroll individuals into IDENT if their biometric records are not already included.228 Experts have estimated that as many as

characterize legalization as a means of achieving instrumental objectives closely tied to the logic of immigration surveillance. For example, some legalization advocates
emphasize the social harms that arise from a large underground shadow population and the benefits legalization would bring by enabling authorities to learn the names and
addresses of the nations inhabitants.231 Especially in the wake of the 2001 attacks, these instrumental

arguments are frequently advanced in the

name of national security and public safety : [T]he security dangers of allowing a large, unauthorized population to remain are
substantial. Effective homeland security requires that the U.S. government know who is living in this country to the greatest extent possible. It is simply not safe to allow so
many to live a shadow existence in the country.
in an effort to evade immigration enforcement,

Efforts at deportation will only drive such people further underground

when U.S. security would be better served by making their presence

here lawful.232 With these pragmatic concerns front and center, the task of making unauthorized noncitizens visible and legible to government authorities invariably
becomes a central objective in any legalization scheme.233 To that end, the logic, practices, and institutions of immigration
surveillance of identification, screening and authorization, mobility tracking and control, and information sharing also become critical.

AT: Transparency CP
Information sharing and greater transparency still affects immigrantsit
exacerbates existing problems
Kalhan 2014 Associate Professor of Law, Drexel University (Anil, Immigration
SurveillanceMaryland Law Review, Vol. 74, Issue 1, Article 2, pg. 73,
http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=3646&context=mlr)//AN
Immigration surveillance demands reassessment of the interests at stake when personal
information and travel history are collected, maintained, analyzed, and disseminated for
purposes related to immigration control and the mechanisms to protect those interests.304 The
proliferation of zones where immigration control activities take placeand where detailed
information on individuals and their migration and mobility histories is collected and
subsequently aggregated, stored, and disseminatedcarries a range of social costs .305 While
it is entirely appropriate to collect, maintain, and disseminate personal information for
immigration control purposes in some contexts and subject to certain constraints, both
individuals and society as a whole have legitimate interests in preserving zones in which these
immigration surveillance activities do not take place and in making sure that when they do take
place those activities are appropriately limited and constrained. To some extent, those interests
are individual interests, stemming from the value of preserving individual anonymity or quasianonymity more generally and the individual harms that can result when individuals migration
and mobility are routinely tracked and detailed information is maintained.306 But they also
arise from a broader set of social concerns that surveillance and information privacy scholars
have increasingly recognized as important. These social interestsfor example, preventing
coercive or excessive aggregations of unrestrained government poweroften have less to do
with the particular information being collected in any given instance than with the harms that
can arise from the means of surveillance and information management.307 In recent decisions,
the Supreme Court has signaled a willingness to give greater weight to these kinds of interests
than they have traditionally received.308 Vindicating these interests in the context of
immigration surveillance therefore requires context-appropriate constraints on the
collection, use, storage, and dissemination of personal information for immigration enforcement
purposesincluding robust limits on retention periods and secondary uses of information that
were not originally contemplated. To date, however, exuberance over the potential benefits of
interoperable databases and other new technologies has clouded attention to the continued
importance of these limits when implementing these systems for migration and mobility control
purposes. In an era in which more data is almost always assumed to be better, more
information sharing and interconnectivity between database systems is also often assumed
to be better as well.309 But as John Palfrey and Urs Gasser have emphasized, complete
interoperability at all times and in all places . . . can introduce new vulnerabilities
and exacerbate existing problems. Accordingly, they argue, placing constraints upon
information sharing and interoperability and retaining friction in [the] system may often be
more optimal.310

AT: Border Surveillance CP

probable cause warrants are badthey are powerful tools that are still
used at the justification of authorities
Kalhan 2014 Associate Professor of Law, Drexel University (Anil, Immigration
SurveillanceMaryland Law Review, Vol. 74, Issue 1, Article 2, pg. 74,
http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=3646&context=mlr)//AN
Immigration surveillance sits at the intersection of several different doctrines that afford significant deference to government actors
in border, migration, and mobility control. Under its border enforcement jurisprudence, the

Supreme Court has afforded

federal officials considerable latitude to conduct immigration and customs enforcement
activities. This deference is strongest at the physical border itself, where the Court has deemed routine,
suspicionless searches and seizures of individuals and property for purposes of enforcing immigration and customs
laws to be per se reasonable, and therefore exempt from the Fourth Amendments warrant and
probable cause requirements, simply by virtue of the fact that they occur at the border.311 The Court has reached
this conclusion with little explanation, often relying on conclusory statements or invocations of history and tradition
with little more.312 In some instances, the Court has explicitly invoked and tied this border exception to the federal governments
power over immigration, which it has long deemed to be plenary. In others, the Court

has instead characterized

border searches as falling within the categories of exceptions from ordinary Fourth Amendment limits for administrative or
special needs searches.313 In a world in which the migration border is effectively everywhere, policed by large numbers of
actors other than federal immigration officialsand in which immigration surveillance activities reach large numbers of U.S. citizens
and noncitizens with lawful immigration status the justifications for such sweeping deference become more difficult to maintain.
The categories of potential deprivations that can result from immigration surveillance activities have multiplied drastically beyond
the simple ability to enter and remain in the United States. With the expansion of the domains of enforcement and the tools of
immigration surveillance, these enforcement activities can place restrictions on the rights to international and domestic travel,
employment, education, social service benefits, and freedom from physical restraint in both the criminal justice and immigration
enforcement processes. As discussed above, the powerful

tools of immigration surveillance create significant

risks of erroneous deprivations and are easily susceptible for uses beyond those originally contemplated when implemented.
Courts have slowly begun to recognize that significant interests are at stake in immigration surveillance
activities for both noncitizens and U.S. citizens.314 However, these interests have continued to be given
insufficient weight by Congress , which has exempted records of most noncitizens from the
Privacy Act, and the executive branch, which has invoked the Acts exemptions from its coverage
for databases used for law enforcement and national security purposes . Narrowing these
exemptions in the Acts coverage would enable these interests to be given the weight that they
deserve, and ensure that any countervailing government interests are recognized and given effect
only when supported by reasoned justifications.

Health Care

Immigrants need health care

Undocumented immigrants fear deportation cant get access to medical
care
Hacker et al. 12 (Karen Hacker [M.D.], Jocelyn Chu [ScD, MPH ], Lisa Arsenault [PhD],
Robert Marlin [PhD]; Provider's Perspectives on the Impact of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) Activity on Immigrant Health; Journal of health care for the poor and
underserved 23.2 (2012): 651-65; ProQuest)//AJ
Qualitatively, of those observing negative effects of ICE on either health or health
access, 57% (n=43) provided specific examples. Four salient themes emerged from
these narratives centered on the fear of deportation: 1) deportation fear affected
emotional health; 2) deportation fear led to interrupted care; 3) familial
separation resulting from detention and/or deportation affected health and wellbeing; and 4) deportation fear also created perceived barriers to access. Over 40%
of responses referred to "stress," "fear," and "anxiety" in their patients resulting
from the threat of deportation. A few months ago I saw a patient with posttraumatic stress disorder whose husband was picked up in one of the raids. She
was very reluctant to come out of the house to the clinic for fear of being stopped
by the police. Her symptoms of anxiety, insomnia had worsened significantly.
Examples detailed how ICE activity and the resulting fear of deportation led to
interrupted medical care. At the time of the raids in New Bedford, some patients did
not come for follow-up visits. Fear of getting deported keeps all these folks awayalso even folks with green cards are afraid of losing their insurance now and have
stopped getting necessary treatments. Children miss their well-child appointments
because their parents are afraid of immigration services. A case comes to mind of
a young man badly injured in a work accident. As soon as he was conscious, but
still badly injured, he tried to leave the hospital because he was so fearful of being
discovered and deported. I have a toddler [a patient] whose father was in jail for
immigration and the patient was living with friends of the father. During this period
of time, the toddler missed well-child checks and now has speech delay. I see
patients with longstanding anxiety disorders who have been forced to remain "on
the move" as a result of immigration policies. As such, they have not been able to
maintain a stable mental health provider. Responses described the impact of
deportation of loved ones on patient's emotional and physical health, as well as the
financial burden created by additional responsibilities. I saw a . . . couple from El
Salvador whose son had been marked to be deported. The [woman] is a
diabetic/cardiac patient; her blood sugar was out of control, her blood pressure was
out of control. [My patient] . . . from Uganda with HIV/AIDS and end-stage renal
disease was unable to consistently keep appointments for dialysis because she
needed to work to support her sister's two children after [her] sister was arrested by
immigration. Concerns about ICE and deportation were also seen as obstacles to
health care access. Patients feared that providing any documentation for
insurance enrollment purposes would risk exposure. It is important to note that in
Massachusetts, undocumented immigrants have access to the Health Care Safety
Net, a state-funded program. This is often mistakenly considered health insurance
as it requires documentation for enrollment. Patients [are] afraid to apply for
insurance or accept visiting nurses for fear they will be reported. I also know some

of my immigrant patients are nervous about getting needed services and avoid
giving information about their true identity, which often impacts health (difficult
getting old records when patient uses another name). Overall, the examples helped
to depict how ICE activity had negative emotional and physical consequences for
immigrant patients.

Allowing undocumented immigrants to access health care is key to the

economy
Glen 13 Professor at Georgetown University Law Center (Patrick Glen; Health Care and the
Illegal Immigrant; Spring 2013; http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1788&context=facpub; Vol 23 Health Matrix; 197-236)//AJ
The staggering costs of health insurance, care, and services in the United States were a primary
motivating factor behind the push for general healthcare reform in 2010. As Peter Orszag,
former director of the Office of Management and Budget, wrote in the wake of the ACAs
passage, [t]he Congressional Budget Office projects that between now and 2050,
Medicare, Medicaid, and other federal spending on health care will rise from 5.5
percent of GDP to more than 12 percent.133 If public financing is combined with private
financing, total spending in 2010 reached almost 17 percent of GDP, or over $7,000 on each
American annually.134 An increasingly large share of this price is the result of
uncompensated healthcare costscosts that are not paid out-of-pocket by the
individual treated, by the government via a public benefits program, or by a
private insurance company. Between 1994 and 2000, uncompensated care costs were
approximately $26 billion.135 In 2001, the University of Arizonas Udall Center estimated that
uncompensated healthcare costs ranged from $34 to $38 billion.136 These costs
are the result of an uninsured population in the United States that exceeds 46
million individuals.137
Measuring the number of illegal immigrants in this population is difficult given an
understandable reluctance to state that one lacks legal status to be in a country. Nevertheless,
most studies note clear trends in insurance coverage related to whether an individual is a citizen,
lawful resident, or illegal immigrant. A study published in Health Affairs in 2006 reported that
68 percent of illegal immigrants lacked coverage versus 23 percent of naturalized US
citizens.138 Moreover, while 23 percent of illegal immigrants possessed insurance coverage
through their employer, nearly 60 percent of naturalized citizens had such coverage.139 The
next year, Health Affairs estimated that 65 percent of illegal immigrants lacked insurance
coverage versus 32 percent of lawful residents.140 A 2007 JAMA article reported the uninsured
percentage of illegal immigrants at 77 percent,141 while a 2008 USA Today report indicated that
59 percent of illegal immigrants are uninsured, versus 25 percent of lawful residents and 14
percent of US citizens.142 Whatever the exact number of uninsured illegal immigrants
in the United States, these studies show that the number is substantial, especially
when contrasted against the number of uninsured US citizens and lawful
residents.
Along with the difficulty in estimating the exact number of the illegal immigrant population,
pinpointing the costs of health care attributable to this segment has proven equally troublesome.
There are no reliable national figures on hospital costs for undocumented immigrants143 and

no reliable figure regarding what amount of uncompensated healthcare costs are attributable to
illegal immigrants.144 Nevertheless, there have been attempts to estimate the cost of providing
health care to illegal immigrants within discrete regional areas. For instance, one study of
Medicaid spending from 2001 to 2004 in North Carolina estimated that 99 percent
of emergency Medicaid recipients were illegal immigrants.145 This number casts some
light on the issue but focuses only on one type of medical spending in a single state. Studies in
Colorado and Minnesota estimated that those states spent $31 million and $17
million respectively on health care for illegal immigrants in 2005, while a 2004
California study found the states expenditures at $1.4 billion, and the Texas state
comptroller estimated that state spent $1.3 billion in 2006.146 As with the number of
illegal immigrants, whatever the true cost of providing health care and services to these
individuals, it is not de minimis.
Bringing illegal immigrants within the fold of the official US healthcare systemby
allowing them to come within the bounds of Medicaid or providing subsidies
through which to purchase private insurancecould help to significantly lower
many of these costs. The idea that extending government benefits could reduce costs is
perhaps counterintuitive, but a similar projection holds for the course of the ACA itself. As
Orszag noted, [p]rojections from the CBO suggest that the added cost of covering millions
more Americans will initially exceed the cost reductions included in the legislation
but that eventually the pattern will be reversed.147 Likewise, adding illegal
immigrants, although adding costs at some points in the system, should save money on a
system-wide basis. This is a function of two trends. First, including illegal immigrants in
the pool of those insured should spread costs more broadly across the system,
especially as immigrants tend to seek and use fewer health services. Second, by
encouraging insurance coverage, public or private, the government can save costs
elsewhere, such as in emergency Medicaid spending and by paying for cheaper, preventative
treatments before chronic issues arise.

Undocumented immigrants are costing society a fortune because they can

only get care in emergency rooms
Asbury 13 Chief Executive of The Legacy Companies (Neal; The Cost of Permanent Patients;
May 9, 2013; http://www.newsmax.com/Finance/NealAsbury/Immigration-healthcare-illegalemergency/2013/05/09/id/503579)
The United States currently has an estimated 11 million immigrants who entered
this country illegally. According to the National Research Council, the migration of these
individuals into the United States costs American taxpayers $346 billion annually.
Now we are starting to get a feel for the costs being absorbed by one sector the U.S.
healthcare system to treat this population. And the cost is staggering. The Center for
Immigration Studies estimates that the current cost of treating uninsured immigrants
who entered this country illegally at all levels of government to be $4.3 billion a
year, primarily at emergency rooms and free clinics. This doesn't take into account the
billions being absorbed by in-patient care delivered by hospitals. Who is picking up
these costs? Every American taxpayer not to mention medical facilities and
insurance companies who turn around and raise their rates for everyone else. For

instance, it may surprise you to learn that immigrants who entered this country illegally, who
have not paid one dime into Medicaid, are receiving Medicaid benefits. Kaiser Healthcare News
reports that "federal law generally bars immigrants who enter this country illegally from being
covered by Medicaid. But a little-known part of the state-federal health insurance illegally. This
only covers emergency room care, but many thousands of patients in the United States who lack
health insurance but who need long-term care program for the poor has long paid about $2
billion a year for emergency treatment for a group of patients who, according to hospitals,
mostly comprise this class of immigrants." A 2007 report by the Journal of the American
Medical Association found that in a four-year period, about 99 percent of those who used
Emergency Medicaid were determined to be immigrants that entered this country
term care wind up lingering in hospitals for many weeks, months or even years
because the current healthcare system doesn't offer workable solutions for them.
There is a term for these people: "permanent patients," because they have no
relatives, insurance or an established address where they can go once released.
Ashish Jha, associate professor of health policy and management at Harvard School of Public
Health, told NBC, "It's completely illogical that hospitals have to spend about $2,000
a day on patients who could be cared for much more cheaply in a skilled nursing
or rehabilitation facility. But because the law prohibits hospitals from discharging
patients without a plan in place for ongoing care and because nursing homes
and rehabs are not required to take patients without insurance many hospitals
wind up keeping these patients for long periods of time." Many patients are stuck
because they have no money or insurance to pay for long-term care. Other patients may have
insurance, but their medical needs are too complex for most skilled nursing facilities to accept.
Then there are those in limbo at the hospital waiting sometimes for months to qualify for
Medicaid. Once they're approved, Medicaid will cover the nursing or rehab facility they need. In
a case documented by NBC News, a Polish native, who had cleaned homes in the Chicago area
for 20 years, suffered a stroke while on the job. An ambulance took her to Adventist La Grange
Memorial Hospital in Illinois. She stayed at La Grange for two years, costing the hospital $1.4
million. A skilled nursing facility would have been a fraction of the cost, but they were
prohibited from transferring her because she couldn't pay for care and had no insurance. Once
a patient is in stable condition, the hospital is technically not required to continue
care. However, some desperate hospitals have turned to "medical repatriations"
a term used when a hospital deports an injured or sick immigrant to a different
medical facility in their home country without their consent. A report reveals that over
the past six years, several organizations have registered over 800 cases of attempted or achieved
medical repatriations. This, despite the fact that according to the Emergency Medical Treatment
and Active Labor Act, hospitals are required to screen and treat all patients for emergency care
regardless of their health insurance coverage or immigration status. In one recent case that
received extensive press, a Colorado medical facility that had been treating two illegal
Mexican immigrants for some time without any compensation or a timeframe for
discharge, flew them back to Mexico. We talk about an immigration policy where
people can become permanent legal residents, but instead find ourselves dealing
with illegal permanent patients. This is a sad little secret in our overall immigration and
healthcare discussion that gets little attention and is costing us dearly.

Extending health care stops the outbreak of disease

Glen 13 Professor at Georgetown University Law Center (Patrick Glen; Health Care and the
Illegal Immigrant; Spring 2013; http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1788&context=facpub; Vol 23 Health Matrix; 197-236)//AJ
Thomas Rundall argues that an effective public health system reduces the need for
medical services to treat conditions that can be prevented, thereby helping to
control costs and make personal health care affordable.166 However, at present,
because preventative and ambulatory care are too expensive or inaccessible for broad swaths of
the population, including illegal immigrants, the healthcare system must spend even
higher amounts at the back-end of illnesses by treating more virulent and
troublesome manifestations using procedures far more expensive than primary
care.167 This is an obvious extension of the economic argument made in the preceding section:
by providing insurance to illegal immigrants, the system can save money by
offering cheaper preventative care that makes the need for subsequent emergency
care or more sophisticated procedures less likely.
The extension of insurance thus trades higher-priced health services for lowerpriced alternatives. It also frees up resources for other public health programs that
could prove beneficial to the population as a whole.168 Yet this argument contains
more than just an assertion that preventative care can lessen the general economic strains on
the healthcare system. The true public health benefits lies in preventing diseases,
including possible epidemic and other contagious conditions, and thereby
safeguarding the health of the public as a whole.169 For instance, contagious diseases
such as tuberculosis may cause widespread infection if not properly diagnosed and treated at the
outset. The unavailability of a service that would permit treatment at the earliest stages makes
such diagnosis and treatment less likely, which in turn increases the possibilities of broader
infections amongst the entire population.170 This scenario is applicable to all types of infectious
disease. By making primary care more difficult or costly to obtain, the entire
population is opened up to greater exposure to infection and contagious disease.
When preventative or educational care is unavailable, the dangers of illnesses like heart disease
and diabetes risk being magnified, and care is ultimately shifted from prevention to more costly
treatments.171 This side of the issue is especially important because, despite the initial general
good health that immigrants enjoy, their health eventually deteriorates to a level consistent with
US citizens.172 Preventative care can ensure better health over longer periods of
time, benefiting both the economic and public health aspects of the healthcare
system. Denying coverage for preventative care, but permitting emergency treatment, also has
a perverse effect in the context of family planning. By not providing prenatal care and routine
or preventative services, the system is unlikely to see fewer babies born, but it will see fewer
healthy babies born as inadequate numbers of expecting mothers will receive quality medical
care during their pregnancies.173 Thus, the pernicious effects of denying coverage may begin at
the very birth of these children (who would be US citizens), bringing about a possible lifetime of
expensive care that could have been avoided by providing certain benefits and coverage to the
illegal immigrant mother.

Disease harms the entire population expanding health care solves

Glen 13 Professor at Georgetown University Law Center (Patrick Glen; Health Care and the
Illegal Immigrant; Spring 2013; http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1788&context=facpub; Vol 23 Health Matrix; 197-236)//AJ
Behind the simple economic calculations that weigh in favor of bringing illegal immigrants
within the purview of governmental health benefits, there are pressing issues related to
public health. The failure to promptly diagnose, treat, or medicate diseases can
bring about public health consequences touching every segment of the population.
Drug resistant or more virulent strains of disease are a risk for everyone within
the United States and would, beyond the obvious impact of making people sick, likely
cause cost spikes across the system. These risks can be mitigated in part by simply
bringing illegal immigrants within the fold of the public health system.
Preventative and ambulatory care can properly and promptly diagnose illnesses.
Keeping individuals within the formal market negates the need to track down
possibly counterfeit medications that would fail to adequately address the disease.
Such results are beneficial not only to the individual seeking care, but to the
population as a whole.

Studies prove that hyperdiseases can wipe out species

Viegas 8 (Jennifer; [Journalist at Discovery Communications, Discovery Channel]; How
disease can wipe out an entire species; 11/5/2008;
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/27556747/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/how-diseasecan-wipe-out-entire-species/#.VaK7_vlViko) JKS
Disease can wipe out an entire species , reveals a new study on rats native to Australia's
Christmas Island that fell prey to " hyperdisease conditions" caused by a pathogen that led
to the rodents' extinction . The study, published in the latest issue of the journal PLoS One,
presents the first evidence for extinction of an animal entirely because of disease. The
researchers say it's possible for any animal species, including humans, to die out in a
similar fashion , although a complete eradication of Homo sapiens would be unlikely. "I can
certainly imagine local population or even citywide 'extinction,' or population crashes due to
introduced pathogens under a condition where you have a pathogen that can spread like the flu
and has the pathogenicity of the 1918 flu or Ebola viruses," co-author Alex Greenwood, assistant
professor of biological sciences at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Va., told Discovery
News. The 1918 flu killed millions of people, while Ebola outbreaks have helped to push gorillas
close to extinction. For the Christmas Island study, Greenwood and his colleagues collected
DNA samples from the island's now-extinct native rats, Rattus macleari and R. nativitatis, from
museum-housed remains dating to both before and after the extinction event, which occurred
between 1899 and 1908. Co-author Ross MacPhee, a curator of vertebrate zoology at the
American Museum of Natural History in New York, N.Y., explained that Charles Andrews of the
British Museum documented at the time that black rats were first brought to the island via the
S.S. Hindustan in 1899. The ship-jumping black rats then carried a protozoan known as
Trypanosoma lewisi. A related organism causes sleeping sickness in humans. "Fleas are the
intermediate host for one of the developmental stages of Trypanosoma, and the only likely
method (of disease spread) is infected fleas crossing from black rats to endemic rats," MacPhee

told Discovery News. After the Hindustan's arrival, the native island rats were observed
staggering around deathly ill on footpaths. Shortly thereafter, they were never seen again. The
museum DNA samples showed that Christmas Island native rodents collected before the black
rats invaded the island were not infected with the protozoan, but six out of 18 collected postcontact were infected. Eight great extinct species "Not every rat would have to be infected,"
Greenwood explained. "If you push a population down to an unsustainable number
then it will collapse . In addition, if a substantial number of reproducing individuals became
infected and ill, even if they survived the infection, their reproduction rate may be lowered and
lead to a population crash." Given the rats' fate, scientists are concerned about Tasmanian
devils, which have been dying in record numbers due to devil facial tumor disease, a contagious
cancer for which the carnivorous marsupials appear to have no immunity. Such island species
seem to be more vulnerable to extinction by disease. In a prior study, MacPhee determined that
at least 80 percent of all species-level losses during the past 500 years have occurred on islands.
"The general explanation for islander susceptibility would presumably be that island denizens
live in a sort of bubble, protected by water barriers from diseases prevalent on mainlands or
elsewhere," MacPhee explained. "But when the bubble is broken -- think measles epidemics in
Iceland in the 19th century -- the mortality can be extreme." Karen Lips, associate professor of
zoology at Southern Illinois University, told Discovery News that the new research was "well
done and convincing, despite the limited number of samples available." She also pointed out
that island-like conditions exist within mainland areas. "I work up on mountaintops, another
kind of island with high endemism, which is greatly affected by emerging infectious disease," she
said. Elk in North America, for example, have suffered worrisome population losses due to
wasting diseases induced by prions. Various South Pacific fruit bats and amphibians are also
under threat now due to infectious diseases. "What can be done?" asked MacPhee. "Probably
nothing other than captive conservation," he added. "Most wildlife biologists are hoping that
such diseases, although severe, will eventually accommodate and the species will pull through."

Status quo deprivation of healthcare towards immigrants raises many

ethical/moral concerns
Faden 09 (Ruth Faden, 12/31/09 Phillip Franklin Wagley Professor of Biomedical Ethics At
Johns Hopkins University, Denying Care to Illegal Immigrants Raises Ethical Concerns,
Kaiser Health News, http://khn.org/news/123109faden/) //AS
Even with these measures, however, it is likely that some of the units former patients will die for lack of maintenance dialysis and that others will suffer the heartbreak of

tragedy facing these patients and their families, and the tragic
choice the Grady Memorial leadership felt it had to make, are hardly unique. A
recent study estimates that about 5,500 undocumented immigrants with end stage
renal disease currently live in the United States.1 No national data are available about how many of these people are able
to secure the lifeline of maintenance dialysis, and how many die for lack of it , but in another recent survey, only 50 percent
of nephrologists responded that undocumented immigrants had access to
maintenance dialysis.2 Clinicians who understand that refusing to provide lifesustaining care goes against the moral foundations of their profession are
constantly forced to confront the realities underlying these dry statistics. In some cases like
separation from loved ones. But the

Grady Memorials, institutional decisions are based on financial assessments of the burdens of providing uncompensated treatment to undocumented immigrants, and the
impact these costs have on the capacity to provide care to other patients. Depending on the facts, such local decisions may be ethically justifiable, but the same cannot be said for
the public policies against which these agonizing choices must be made. Americans who object to providing health care to those who are in this country illegally
make the principled point that people who violate the immigration laws of this country have forfeited any moral claim to assistance and should not benefit
from their illegal behavior. They also argue that providing those here illegally with access to regular health care will as a practical matter have the
undesirable effect of increasing illegal immigration.

The principled argument in favor of including illegal

immigrants in health reform is that decent health coverage is a basic human right.
A just nation should support that right for everyone, regardless of why or how a
person is in the country. There are also practical reasons to support including
undocumented immigrants in health reform. Ethics aside, there is no pragmatic
way to deny emergency care to illegal immigrants. As the dialysis story illustrates,
in many cases, it is difficult if not impossible to make coherent distinctions
between emergency and regular care that make financial and medical sense.
While the practical arguments on both sides are important, this is one debate that
can and should be settled on principled grounds. The problem of illegal
immigration should be solved by immigration policy, not health policy. People
who are in this country illegally have broken our laws, but the magnitude of their
crime does not justify depriving them of the basic right to health care coverage
while they are in our midst. The most extraordinary thing about health reform is
that it finally enshrines the principle that America is committed to universal
access to health care. It will take time, but eventually, as with other American
declarations of rights, universal will come to mean universal. The Houses
proposal for illegal immigrants is a good first step.

Solvency
Following Mexicos proven model of healthcare solves best as they have
almost as many undocumented immigrants as the U.S
Wolbert 11( Samuel Wolbert, J.D candidate university of Pittsburgh Law, winter 2011,
Universal Healthcare and access for undocumented immigrants, Pittsburgh Journal of
Environmental and Public Health Law 5 Pitt. J. Envtl. Pub. Health L. 61)//AS
A number of pragmatic options exist, several of which would satisfy both sides of
the healthcare debate. One such plan is found by looking across the southern
border of the United States at the Mexican healthcare system. By studying the
Mexican system, we may be provided with a diverse and unique solution to the
current public debate. This note does not purport to represent [*74] the Mexican
social welfare policies as the definitive approach; rather, the analysis relies upon
pragmatic observations drawn from examining Mexico's attempts to cope with
many of the same domestic issues present in the U.S. healthcare system. Mexico's
healthcare policy provides a unique case study for a variety of reasons. First, Mexico faces welfare and poverty issues that are much more pervasive
than in any domestic region within the United States. Also, like the United States, Mexico is a bourgeoning home for immigrants. Mexico annually
receives a large number of undocumented immigrantsfrom surrounding countries. While this number does not exceed the immigration levels in the

Thus, Mexico's solutions to

its healthcare problems could provide a unique and practical perspective to the
United State's dilemma. Supplying healthcare to a developing country of over 105
million, such as Mexico, involves a complex system ranging from small, private
insurance plans to a vast universal health insurance program that mixes public,
private, and employer funding. n71 Mexico's private health insurance system is not as prevalent as its counterpart in the
United States, it is nonetheless substantial for a country of its size, population, and resources.

n70

United States: only about three million wealthy and middle class Mexicans are able to afford private care. However, those that can afford private
healthcare do receive ample care at relatively cheap rates. n72Mexico also has a public system where about 50 million salaried Mexicans, along with their
employers and government, pay into a progressive insurance scheme based on wage. n73Finally, and most importantly, is the universal healthcare system

approximately 40 million uninsured Mexicans began receiving access

to full health coverage through Mexico's universal healthcare system, the Seguro
Popular de Salud (Social Health Insurance Program). n74 The crux [*75] of the plan is
to provide Mexicans with social health protection covering the most basic
treatments, including 266 different types of general procedures and 312
medications. These basic treatments are provided to reduce catastrophic health
expenditures, which can increase exponentially when standard preventative
measures are ignored. n75 In exchange for access to these basic treatments, most
families pay a premium based upon their income and then make preventative
healthcare visits at clinics. The poorest 20% of the population pay nothing. Though the program is still in the nascent stages
in Mexico. In 2003,

n76

n77

of implementation, early results have shown that catastrophic healthcare expenditures have declined for poor families and the general population as a

. n78 Equally as promising, these special programs have helped reduce malaria
by sixty percent, tuberculosis mortality rates by thirty percent, and are on track to
reduce child mortality by up to two-thirds by 2015. n79
whole

The only way to solve ethical questions is to grant undocumented

immigrants unquestioned healthcare assistance
Hanrahan 13(Donna Hanrahan, 1/17/13, The ethics of advocacy for undocumented patients,
Ethics Illustrated A project of Bioethics International,
http://www.bioethicsinternational.org/blog/2013/01/17/the-ethics-of-advocacy-forundocumented-patients/) //AS

Uncertain how to proceed in the face of these financial constraints, clinicians may improvise remediesa strategy that allows our society to avoid confronting the clinical and
organizational implications of public policy gaps. While one of the consequences of the 2012 election may be comprehensive immigration reform that gives undocumented

immigration reform on its own does not ensure access to health

care. Attention to the health care needs of this low-income population, and to the concerns of health care professionals, cannot wait on consensus around immigration.
immigrants a path to citizenship,

There is no simple solutionno quick fixthat will work across organizations (in particular, hospitals with emergency departments) in states with different concentrations of
undocumented immigrants, varying public and private resources for safety-net health care, and differing approaches to law and policy concerning the rights of immigrants.

However, every hospital can help its clinicians by addressing access to health care
for undocumented immigrants as an ethical issue. Here, we offer some
recommendations for doing this in a structured, fair, and transparent way. We also
describe the problems that may result when clinicians are forced to grapple with this issue on their own . Studies show that
undocumented immigrants seek medical care less often than the general
population. This is because they are relatively young, they often have jobs that dont
allow time to visit a doctor or health care facility, and they may fear deportation
when they venture outside their known communities. When they do seek care, they have long been eligible for
emergency medical treatment, as mandated by the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act and funded by Department of Health and Human Services allocations

. They are also eligible for comprehensive primary care

offered by eight thousand nonprofit community health facilities across the United
States and funded by the Health Resource and Service Agency. But what happens
when they have a serious illness or chronic medical condition (which will become
more likely as the population ages) that does not readily fit into emergency or
primary care? Undocumented patients who initially seek emergency treatment
may later need cancer therapies, dialysis for end-stage renal disease, or even joint
replacement for severe arthritis. Clinicians (including physicians, nurse practitioners, registered nurses, physician assistants, and social
and emergency Medicaid reimbursements to hospitals

workers) who work in emergency departments in safety-net hospitals generally strive to provide good care to and advocate for these patients, who may not speak English, have

. But exactly how to be an effective advocate

and provide sufficient care in situations where an undocumented patients medical
needs exceed his or her financial resources presents ethical challenges to these
frontline clinicians. Under these conditions, clinicians may perceive a range of informal
practices to be expedient or compulsory so that patients can be treated under EMTALA
provisions
few resources, and are sometimes wary of providing identifying information

*2AC Extensions

2AC Extension #1 Cant Access

Socioeconomic status of undocumented immigrants plays a major factor in
their lack of healthcare assistance
Baustamente 10 (Arturo Baustamente, Variations in Healthcare Access and Utilization Among
Mexican Immigrants: The Role of Documentation Status, 10/24/10)//AS
Our findings quantify the adverse effects of undocumented status on healthcare access and utilization among Mexican immigrant adults. According to our

, approximately 88% of the disparities between undocumented and

documented immigrants from Mexico can be traced to socioeconomic and
demographic characteristics such as sex, marital status, education, poverty status,
health insurance coverage, time in the US and English proficiency. We find that if
all undocumented immigrants from Mexico had the same characteristics of the
documented population, they would enjoy a 27% higher probability of having a
doctor visit and a 35% increased probability of having a usual source of care.
analyses

Consequently, if undocumented immigrants from Mexico resembled documented immigrants in socioeconomic and demographic characteristics, differences in healthcare

differences between documented and

undocumented immigrants from Mexico with respect to utilization of ED visits,
number of doctor visits, delay in drugs receipt and delays for other healthcare
services are not statistically significant. These results suggest that the adverse effect of legal status on healthcare access and
access and utilization would narrow significantly. We find that

utilization is heterogeneous across healthcare services. English proficiency while more widespread among documented immigrants was not always a predictor of healthcare

More
limited healthcare access and utilization among undocumented immigrants is
likely to aggravate undiagnosed health problems compared to documented
immigrants. Undocumented immigrants arriving to the ED with health conditions
that progressed unchecked may require costly treatments that could have been
avoided if they were encouraged to use less invasive forms of healthcare without
restrictions [42]. Undocumented immigrant status discourages doctor visits and
having a usual source of care that could reduce the utilization of the ED among this
population [43, 44].
utilization in all measures. Healthcare providers should be aware that lack of English proficiency is not necessarily a predictor of undocumented status.

Hispanic immigrants inability to use healthcare, enables them to use

dangerous and unsafe contingencies for care
Rhodes 14 (Scott Rhodes, PH.D. professor of public health sciences at Wake Forest, The
impact of local immigration enforcement policies on the health of immigrant Hispanics/Latinos
in the United States. American Journal of Public Health 105.2) //AS
Among immigrant Hispanics/ Latinos, the fear of deportation, a lack of required
forms of documentation, interaction with law enforcement personnel, and racial
profiling are factors also associated with re-duced utilization of health services
and worse health. Such fears lead to incomplete sequences of care and promote
the use of nonstandard and unsafe contingencies for care, and contribute to public
health hazards, as immigrants delay preventive care or treatment. These fears
further affect long-term health outcomes as immigrant Hispanics/Latinos alter
their physical activity, food purchasing behaviors, and food con-sumption because
of concerns about being in public.29They may withhold information from health
care providers19 and experience high levels of stress, leading to compromised
mental health.

Undocumented immigrants face significant barriers to health care

Wallace et al. 13 (Steven Wallace [PhD, associate director of the UCLA Center for Health
Policy Research and professor], Jacqueline Torres [MA, MPH, graduate student researcher at
the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research], Tabashir Nobari [MPH, graduate student
researcher at the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research], Nadereh Pourat [PhD, professor of
health policy and management at the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health]; Undocumented
and Uninsured: Barriers to Affordable Care for Immigrant Populations; August 2013;
eScholarship University of California)//AJ
Maintaining the relatively good health status of undocumented immigrants
requires adequate access to health care. Nationally, studies have found that
undocumented immigrants have substantially lower access to health care and use
fewer health care services than their U.S.- born and other immigrant counterparts.
In California, nonelderly undocumented adults were more than twice as likely to
report having no usual source of care as U.S.-born and naturalized citizens of similar ages
and genders. Similarly, undocumented immigrants were almost twice as likely to
report making no past-year doctor visits as U.S.-born residents. Despite having no
usual source of care and reporting significantly fewer doctor visits than their U.S.born and naturalized citizen counterparts, undocumented immigrants were the
least likely to have used an emergency department in the past year (Exhibit 3).
When undocumented immigrants do visit the doctor, they often face high out-ofpocket costs since over half do not have health insurance coverage. Among
Californians who reported having medical bills, 42 percent of undocumented immigrants said
they were unable to pay for basic necessities because of these bills, a significantly higher
proportion than the 27 percent of U.S.-born citizens who reported similar problems (data not
shown).

Obamacare wont include undocumented immigrants

Millman and Eilperen 14 (Jason Millman [Reporter for The Washington Post], Juliet
Eilperen [Reporter for The Washington Post]; Obamas order wont extend Obamacare to
undocumented immigrants; November 19, 2014; The Washington Post;
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/11/19/obamas-order-wont-extendobamacare-to-undocumented-immigrants)//AJ
President Obama's impending executive action on immigration apparently won't
bestow health care benefits on millions of undocumented immigrants, according to
an individual familiar with the decision. That means the millions who will be protected
from deportation won't be eligible to purchase subsidized coverage from the
public health insurance marketplaces established under the Affordable Care Act.
The decision will disappoint advocacy groups, but it doesn't come as a total surprise. The Obama
administration passed on a similar opportunity two years ago to extend health-care eligibility to
so-called "dreamers," illegal immigrants who entered the United States as children. In
September, the Obama administration said it cut off ACA marketplace coverage to
about 115,000 immigrants who failed to provide proof of their citizenship or
immigration status. And many Hispanics, who have the highest uninsured rates of any

group, are hesitant to sign up for Obamacare coverage for fear of an undocumented
relative being deported as a result. Extending government health care to undocumented immigrants has been a lightning
rod in the Obamacare debate since it was drafted in Congress. Rep. Joe Wilson's (R-S.C.) infamous "You lie" moment was in direct response to
President Obama's assertion that his health-care plan wouldn't insure illegal immigrants. The truth is that the government already funds some care for
undocumented immigrants and has been for years before the ACA. It's through a program that's known as "emergency Medicaid," which pays hospitals
to provide emergency and maternity care to immigrants who'd 1) otherwise be Medicaid eligible if they weren't in the country illegally or 2) are legally
present in this country but haven't been here for at least five years. As my colleague Sandhya Somashekhar reported last year, the federal government
paid out $1.3 billion for this program in 2011, and states paid out hundreds of millions more from their own budgets. That program will grow in the
states that have expanded their Medicaid programs under the ACA. Previous estimates from the Congressional Budget Office found that

between 7 million and 8 million undocumented immigrants will remain uninsured

under the ACA. They still have limited options for insurance: They can buy
coverage through an employer if it's offered, they can purchase directly from an
insurer (but not receive federal subsidies), or receive care from Federally Qualified
Health Centers. Some states do extend benefits to undocumented immigrants, but
they still face greater barriers to care. However much Obama's executive order may
change the lives of these immigrants overnight, their health care will remain the same for most
as if the ACA never happened.

The perception that undocumented immigrants are dangerous criminals is

extremely incorrect and not a reason to reject healthcare
Wolbert 11(Samuel Wolbert, J.D candidate university of Pittsburgh Law, winter 2011,
Universal Healthcare and access for undocumented immigrants, Pittsburgh Journal of
Environmental and Public Health Law 5 Pitt. J. Envtl. Pub. Health L. 61)//AS
After 9/11 and the discovery that five out of the nineteen hijackers were in the
United States illegally, n5 the general public demanded a concentrated effort to fix
immigration. Today, as the job market continues to stagnate and the American economy
remains crippled by a recession, the discourse surrounding immigration has become
an even more salient and germane concern for the American people. Throughout it
all, the American public at large has turned a skeptical eye towards immigrants,
particularly those immigrants here illegally. The current public perception of
undocumented immigrants is fueled by fear and mistrust. The image of the
undocumented immigrant has been that of person whom we should chastise and
exclude. n6 Also, the language used in the immigration discourse mirrors language
used in domestic criminal policy; terms such as "illegals" and "illegal aliens"
reinforce the image of immigrants as nothing more than common criminals. n7 The
potency of this image is exacerbated by the threat of violence spilling over the American border.
Now, the vast majority of undocumented immigrants are seen as gang-related and
extremely dangerous. n8 From a political perspective, giving healthcare to
undocumented immigrants is not viewed as a benevolent hand-up to hard-working
immigrants as much as it is seen as a poor allocation of funds to undeserving
criminals. However, this perception is erroneous and should not be used as a
justification for denying any healthcare services . New studies are emerging which
disprove the myth that undocumented immigrants create more crime. n9 These
studies show that, even though [*64] immigration continues to increase, cities
with the highest immigration population have actually seen a substantial drop in
homicide, robbery, and violent crime rates. n10 For instance, San Diego, California
has the lowest homicide rate out of every major urban area in the United States,
n11 despite being directly across the Mexican border. Other major cities in the

Southwest, such as Phoenix, El Paso, and San Antonio, also, according to FBI data,
continue to have declining crime rates. n12 Overall, researchers are in agreement that there
is "no support for the argument that immigrants are committing more crime and . . . driving up
the crime rate."

Current measures prevent undocumented citizens from accessing proper

prenatal care
Fabi 14 (Rachel; [HR Assistant at Alumni Affairs & Development at Cornell University];
Undocumented Immigrants in the United States: Access to Prenatal Care; 9/29/2014;
http://www.undocumentedpatients.org/issuebrief/undocumented-immigrants-in-the-unitedstates-access-to-prenatal-care/) JKS
Access to prenatal care for women who are undocumented immigrants varies widely across the
United States due to differences in state policies and differing state-level interpretations of federal policies that fund health services for pregnant women. This issue brief provides an overview
of this access problem and the consequences of policy-related uncertainty or variation for
undocumented patients, their families, and the health care safety-net. Why is access to prenatal
care for undocumented immigrants important? There is long-established medical consensus
that prenatal care is fundamental to reproductive and infant health; however, undocumented
immigrants living in the U.S. are significantly less likely to have adequate prenatal care, compared to other immigrants and to U.S. born citizens. [14] The reasons for this gap include lack
of means to pay for prenatal care, lack of access to sources of prenatal care, and mistrust of the
health care system. [5] Other barriers to health care that undocumented immigrants face
include difficulties navigating the health care system; linguistic, literacy, and other challenges in
communicating about health care needs; inability to take time off from work; misinformation
about the immigration-related consequences of using health care services; and perceived and
actual risks of encountering immigration authorities or local law enforcement in the course of
seeking health care. The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), which
prevents hospitals from turning away uninsured patients in need of emergency treatment,
encompasses labor and delivery, and most emergency health care services used by undocumented immigrants are related to childbirth. [68] State-level Emergency Medicaid programs
provide some reimbursement to hospitals for treatment provided under EMTALA. In some
states, undocumented immigrants may account for as much as 99% of Emergency Medicaid
expenditures; approximately 80% of these costs are related to childbirth or to complications of
pregnancy and labor. [8] Because access under EMTALA is restricted to emergent conditions, it
is not a mechanism for access to routine prenatal care that could prevent or monitor pregnancyrelated complications. Lack of access to prenatal care increases the risk of premature birth and
low birth-weight, and may be a factor in a range of poor health outcomes experienced by undocumented pregnant women and their babies, including higher rates of labor and delivery complications such as precipitous labor, excessive bleeding, breech presentation, cord prolapse, and
fetal distress. [9, 10] These risks and outcomes have consequences for the viability and health of
newborns, infant and child development, and the health of mothers, and for costs associated
with treating medical conditions that could have be prevented or managed before birth.

Undocumented citizens arent able to have full access to health care in the
squo
Gusmano 12 (Michael K.; [research scholar for the Hastings Center]; Undocumented
Immigrants in the United States: Use of Health Care; 3/27/2012;
http://www.undocumentedpatients.org/issuebrief/health-care-use/) JKS
How does the use of health care services among undocumented immigrants compare with U.S.
citizens and legal residents? As noted, comparisons of health care spending consistently find
that total per capita spending on undocumented immigrants is lower than spending on legal
immigrants and citizens. A 2010 study based on data from last decade concluded that spending
on health care for all immigrants is lower than for U.S. born citizens, and that immigrants are
not contributing disproportionately to high health care costs in public programs such as Medicaid.3 This study found that national health expenditures for immigrant adults were 55% lower
than for U.S. born adults. A 2006 study that looked specifically at undocumented immigrants
found that health expenditures were 39% lower for undocumented men and 54% lower for
undocumented women when compared to U.S. born men and women.4 In Los Angeles County,
where the undocumented population represents 12% of the total population, undocumented
immigrants consume only 6% of medical expenditures.5 Use of health care services is lower
among undocumented adults and their children regardless of the immigration status of those
children than it is among adult U.S. citizens and their children. Undocumented adults and
their children are less likely than U.S. citizens to use emergency department care, visit a physician or nurse on an outpatient basis, or use mental health or dental services.6 A 2007 survey of
undocumented Latinos reported that they are less likely than U.S. born citizens to have a usual
source of care (58% vs. 79%) or to have their blood pressure (67% vs. 87%) and cholesterol (56%
vs. 83%) checked annually.7 When undocumented immigrants do use health care services, they
are more likely than U.S. citizens to pay out of pocket for this care.8

2AC Extension #2 Fear

Undocumented immigrants dont get medical care for fear of being caught
Tam 14 Online Editorial Production Assistant at the PBS NewsHour (Ruth; Whats holding
undocumented immigrants back from seeking health care?; May 5, 2014;
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/whats-holding-undocumented-immigrants-back)//AJ
NEWSHOUR: How do undocumented immigrants in California use health care?
NADEREH POURAT: We compared the undocumented population in California to native-born
and naturalized populations. What we found is that, no matter whether you look at children or
adults, or whether youre looking at types of services, there was not a single instance
where the undocumented population exceeded other categories in health care
utilization. In most cases, their level of use was significantly lower.
And we found that uninsured undocumented (populations) use fewer services than
other uninsured populations. Even undocumented immigrants who were in insured
surprisingly dont use services more or as much as insured documented groups. Youre
looking at a systematic lower level of use. And when you see theyre using lower
levels of care, you have to ask yourself, Why is that? Why would that be? We
speculate that lower levels of utilization have to do with other unmeasured
barriers. There are other issues going on that keep undocumented immigrants
from using health care.
NEWSHOUR: Can you talk about those unmeasured barriers? What is holding undocumented
immigrants back?
NADEREH POURAT: One likely issue is the fear or worry that you walk into the door
of the emergency room, and you might have to provide some documentation.
Emergency room staff tries to figure out whether or not you have insurance and
they try to see if you qualify for any of the public forms of coverage out there.
Eventually you might have to say something about your documentation status.
That could keep people away. We did focus groups with young populations, and they say
you learn early on to avoid going to the doctor. Your first instinct is to avoid (doctors) as long as
possible. While the lower level utilization might seem like a good thing, if undocumented
immigrants undergo any major health problems, theyre often not discovered until
(those problems are) more severe and more costly, and the patient could have a
worse prognosis.

Latino immigrants reject any forms of healthcare because it is closely

associated with government authority
Rhodes 14 (Scott Rhodes, PH.D. professor of public health sciences at Wake Forest, The
impact of local immigration enforcement policies on the health of immigrant Hispanics/Latinos
in the United States. American Journal of Public Health 105.2) //AS
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act bars undocumented or recent
legal immi grants from receiving financial assistance for health insurance; thus,
many will continue to remain uninsured and dependent on public health services and free
clinics for a significant portion of their care. Because these services are associated with

government authority, there is the potential that increasing immigration en

forcement policies will deter noncitizens from seeking needed care, not only to
their detri ment but also to the detriment of public health. Currently there is little
research examining the impact of recent immigration enforcement policies on the access to
and utilization of health care, and there has been a call to better understand the public health
impact of current immigration policies and their enforcement. 29 Through mixed
methods, we explored the effect of local immigration enforcement policies on
access to and utilization of health services among immigrant Hispanics/Latinos
in North Carolina. We analyzed vital records data to determine whether there were differences in utilization of prenatal services by Hispanic/
Latina mothers pre- and postimplementation of section 287(g), and we conducted focus groups and in-depth interviews with Hispanics/ Latinos living in counties that had
implemented section 287(g) and in sanctuary counties, counties in which leaders, including politicians and clergy, have spoken out against the program.

Undocumented immigrants are fearful of receiving medical services

Berk and Schur 01 (Mark [Director of the Project HOPE Center for Health Affairs in
Bethesda, Maryland], Claudia [Deputy Director of the Project HOPE Center for Health Affairs in
Bethesda, Maryland]; The Effect of Fear on Access to Care Among Undocumented Latino
Immigrants; July 2001; http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1011389105821#page1)//AJ
Across all four sites, 39% of undocumented Latino adults reported that they had
been afraid of not receiving medical services because of their undocumented
status (see Table I). Neither age, sex, nor years in the United States were significant predictors
of being afraid about immigration status. The number of persons expressing fear about
obtaining care did vary by site, ranging from 34% in Los Angeles and 35% in
Houston to 44% in Fresno and 45% in El Paso, with persons in the larger cities expressing
less concern.
Of particular interest to policymakers, persons who reported fear that they would not
receive medical services were substantially more likely than those not expressing
fear to report being unable to get the care they needed. As shown in Table II, over 14%
of persons who had expressed fear said they were unable to get medical care or
surgical care at some time during the last year, compared to only about 3% of persons
who had not expressed fear. Fear was associated with a more than fourfold increase in the
probability of reporting unmet need for prescription drugs among undocumented Latinos, with
9.6% of those expressing fear reporting an inability to get a prescription filled compared with
only 2.2% of those who had not expressed concern. Over 20% of those who said they were
afraid were unable to get dental care and more than 13% could not get eyeglasses
(compared to 8 and 3.5%, respectively, of those without fear). And, overall, one-third of
undocumented Latinos who expressed fear were unable to obtain at least one of
the four services, compared to 11% who had not reported being afraid.
Estimates on the association between fear and ability to obtain medical/surgical care are
presented for each site in Table III. We find that persons expressing fear are about three
times as likely to have trouble getting care in Fresno as persons who were not
fearful. This ratio increases to five times as likely in El Paso and six times as likely
in Houston. In Los Angeles there is no statistically significant relationship; it appears that very
few persons were unable to get care regardless of documentation status. Differences between the
undocumented and documented populations are also large in Fresno, Houston, and El Paso
when prescription drugs, dental care, and eyeglasses are examined (data not shown).

Status Quo immigrants stay away from public healthcare in fear of

deportation, only the plan eliminates this fear by removing surveillance of
immigrants
Moran 10 (Benedict Moran, Huffington post, 3/18/10, Undocumented immigrants scared to
seek free healthcare, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/benedict-moran/undocumentedimmigrants-s_b_376032.html) //AS
"When we do this type of work," he explained, "if they find out that they need further
follow-up, they won't go!" He paused, "They're just too scared." Though the extent is
difficult to quantify, City health officials say that a large number of undocumented
immigrants fear going to health centers and instead rely on an illegal network of
doctors and traditional faith healers. The free blood testing at Corona Square, sponsored by the Ecuadorian Consulate, was an effort
to inform these unauthorized immigrants that their privacy was protected at City hospitals. The success of such events, though, is limited. "New York City is probably the best
possible place in the country to be undocumented, maybe in the world, because there are a lot of health care services that are available free of charge and that don't ask

"The flip side to this is

that many undocumented groups are very fearful of seeking that kind of care for
fear of being reported to the authorities ," he said. Undocumented immigrants,
like other New Yorkers without insurance, can access three types of health
services offered by the City. The Department of Health runs clinics that provide tuberculosis care, vaccinations, and treatment for sexually
transmitted diseases. Community health centers, which are funded by a mix of federal funds, Medicaid, and out of pocket payments, offer primary care . Then there
are hospital emergency rooms. At all of these locations, federal privacy laws
prohibit immigration officials from accessing health records of patients. But
despite these protections, those without papers often stay away.
questions," said Dr. Peter Muennig, an associate professor at the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University.

2AC Extension #3 Economy

Strong healthcare system key to the economy-accounts for 1/6 th of entire US
economy
Johnson 09 (Linda Johnson, 6/19/15, How Healthcare affects the economy, Herald Media,
http://www.heraldextra.com/business/health-med-fit/how-health-care-affects-theeconomy/article_b22549e0-67a5-5989-8753-aa9f3214f55c.html) //AS
President Barack Obama has said problems with the current health care system
are a big cause of our economic troubles. He's even called the system, with its
spiraling costs and inconsistencies in the amount and quality of care people get, a "ticking
time bomb" for the federal budget. Just how serious is the problem? How big a
role does health care play in the nation's economy? Here are some questions and
answers about the economic impact of health care. Q: How big a part of the economy
is health care? A: It accounts for about one-sixth of the entire economy -- more
than any other industry. Spending on health care totals about $2.5 trillion, 17.5
percent of our gross domestic product -- a measure of the value of all goods and
services produced in the United States. That's up from 13.8 percent of GDP in 2000
and 5.2 percent in 1960, when health spending totaled just $27.5 billion -- barely 1
percent of today's level, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan
health policy group. What's included in that spending? It covers money paid to
health care providers -- hospitals, outpatient centers, Veterans Affairs and other
clinics, doctor and dentist practices, physical therapists, nursing homes, home
health services and on-site care at places such as schools and work sites. Also
included are retail sales of prescription and nonprescription drugs, premiums paid to health
insurers, and revenues of makers of medical devices, surgical equipment and durable medical
equipment such as eyeglasses, hearing aids and wheelchairs. It also counts out-of-pocket
payments by consumers for health insurance premiums, deductibles and copayments, along with costs not covered by insurance and "medical sundries" like
heating pads.

Economic Recession causes undocumented immigrants to be cut off from

healthcare services
Wood 09 (Daniel Wood, Christian Science Monitor, In Hard times, Illegal immigrants lose healthcare
3/24/09, LexisNexis Academic) //AS

Jose Cedillo, an illegal immigrant from Mexico, says he has nowhere to turn. A day
laborer since 1986, Mr. Cedillo has received notice from a Los Angeles County
hospital that he must start paying out of pocket for the treatment he will need. "I
have no choice because I have no insurance and can't work while I'm taking these
treatments," he says, sitting in the tiny apartment he shares with his wife, a janitor. The
recession - and a big state deficit -- is leading some California counties to cut back on
nonemergency health services to illegal immigrants. In others, cutbacks in services
for the uninsured are hitting illegal immigrants especially hard. The problem is
socking California because it is home to the lion's share of US immigrants, both legal and illegal.
The latter are often eligible for healthcare provided to the poor. But health departments
across the country are facing budget pressures that are leading to slashed services

- and that could reignite the debate over providing medical care to illegal
immigrants. "There simply isn't enough revenue to support the network of
services which heretofore has been expected," says Robert Pestronk, executive director
of National Association of County and City Health Officials (NACCHO). In many states,
budget cuts mean reduced funding for the uninsured, many of whom are
immigransts and low-income families. In Arizona, a $13 million cut from the state budget
eliminated funds partly used to reimburse hospitals for caring for the uninsured. About 64
percent of illegal immigrants nationwide -- 7.2 million -- are uninsured, according to the
Washington-based, Center for Immigration Studies (CIS). "The states and local governments
tend to bear the brunt of illegal immigration," says Steve Camarota, statistician and
demographer for CIS. Now, with revenues falling well short of predictions, services to
undocumented immigrants are getting the ax in an effort to preserve other
programs, from infrastructure to schools to the environment. The cutbacks could
potentially refire the debate over providing social services such as healthcare for
illegal immigrants. In 2007, several state legislatures introduced bills that sought to limit
social service benefits including healthcare to illegal immigrants. An LA
Times/Bloomberg survey in December 2007 found that one in three Americans
wanted to deny social services, including public schooling and emergency-room
healthcare, to illegal immigrants. In California, two counties are pulling back on
health services for illegal immigrants.

Healthcare reforms are incomplete without the inclusion of undocumented

immigrants
Wolbert 11(Samuel Wolbert, J.D candidate university of Pittsburgh Law, winter 2011,
Universal Healthcare and access for undocumented immigrants, Pittsburgh Journal of
Environmental and Public Health Law 5 Pitt. J. Envtl. Pub. Health L. 61)//AS
Nothing can rouse fury in even the most apathetic voter or stir the vitriol of American
political discourse like the healthcare debate. From the run-up to the 2008 Presidential Election--when then-Senator Barack
Obama made the creation of a revamped healthcare system the crux of his platform--through the present, the President's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("PPACA")
has been under siege. Obstreperous members of Congress on both sides of the debate levied traditional lines of criticism, concerning themselves with the law's perceived socialist
Still other critics believe the healthcare plan will grant
undocumented immigrants unmerited access to the benefits of a public healthcare
system. Collectively, the narrative surrounding the healthcare debate has been so [*62] overly contentious and hostile as to obviate any remaining comity within the
n3
political discourse surrounding the problem.
But, behind all this white noise and livid rhetoric there still
remains the central issue: without an adequate proposal that addresses the
undocumented immigrant 'problem,' President Obama's healthcare plan is
incomplete. Generally, hospitals would not turn anyone away from medical coverage in emergency situations, regardless of immigration status . Under
the new healthcare plan, taxpayers still pay for coverage of those uninsured,
undocumented immigrants seeking healthcare access for emergencies, just as they
have done in the past. By not creating provisions for undocumented immigrants,
the new plan effectively ignores one of the biggest problems that crippled our prior
healthcare system. Thus, any healthcare plan that does not adequately cover
undocumented immigrants would effectively minimize the cost-saving benefit of a
program that purports to be universal. This note will first address the flawed logic
behind denying undocumented immigrants access to healthcare and,
subsequently, it will address the reasons for healthcare inclusion . Next, the note will analyze the prior
leaning

n1

or the associated financial burden.

n2

healthcare system vis-a-vis available care for undocumented immigrants and how it is comparable to the new plan. Finally, the note will suggest pragmatic solutions to this

controversial issue by examining Mexico's universal healthcare system and also addressing a compromising 'middle ground' to the problem that calls for distributing healthcare
to only undocumented children.

2AC Extension #4 Disease

Expanding health care services to undocumented immigrants is key to
prevent disease
Glen 13 Professor at Georgetown University Law Center (Patrick Glen; Health Care and the
Illegal Immigrant; Spring 2013; http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1788&context=facpub; Vol 23 Health Matrix; 197-236)//AJ
Providing some form of health insurance to illegal immigrants should not only lower
the economic burden on the US healthcare system, it may also contribute to public
health generally. By directing medical care and services at the initial stages of an
illness or disease, not only can money be saved by warding off the potentially more
complicated and costly procedures required when diseases and illnesses are left
untreated, but the population in general would be protected from the spread of
disease, thus ensuring its overall health and well-being.
Lawrence Gostin argues that [t]he intentional decision not to cover certain
disadvantaged populations, such as illegal immigrants, has significant public
health implications, particularly in the area of communicable diseases, including
[u]ndiagnosed and untreated infectious and sexually transmitted diseases, such
as HIV, syphilis, and tuberculosis (especially multidrug-resistant strains), [that] pose a
major risk to the population.163 The preceding section noted that illegal immigrants have
lower frequencies of doctors visits, a lower frequency of utilizing healthcare services, and a
disproportionate reliance on emergency medical services.164 These patterns can be partly, if not
entirely, explained by the lack of insurance, public or private. This lack of coverage raises
concerns about both the long-term health of illegal immigrants who are not
receiving necessary treatment at the outset of illness as well as the health of the
public at large, who could be exposed to infectious and contagious diseases that
might have been addressed by a simple visit to the doctor.165

Lack of healthcare for immigrants leads to uncontrollable disease, the plan

is a necessary mechanism to solve disease
Betzler 13 (Song Betzler, J.D., M.P.H., Legal Fellow at the Network for Public Health Law
Mid-States Region at the University of Michigan School of Public Health, Undocumented
Immigrants and Healthcare, The Network for Public Health Care,
https://www.networkforphl.org/the_network_blog/2013/07/01/196/undocumented_immigra
nts_and_health_care) //AS
Inadequate access to health care and treatment can lead to the spread of disease
and stymie disease control efforts. In November of 2012, immigration authorities
detained a Nepalese man who had extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis, or XDRTB. This is the first XDR-TB case that Immigration and Customs Enforcement encountered, but
health officials arent confident it will be the last.The Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention report the TB rate among foreign-born persons in the U.S. in 2012
was 11.5 times higher than among U.S.-born persons. States with large immigrant populations, such as California,
Texas, Florida and New York, represented almost half of all TB cases reported in 2012. Proposed immigration reform focuses on providing this population a path to citizenship
by granting a registered provisional status. In general, this status allows undocumented immigrants to legally work in the U.S. but denies them public benefits.

Undocumented immigrants are currently excluded from the Affordable Care Act
(ACA). For example, they arent covered under the individual mandate provision, entitled to

any government subsidies, and are banned from purchasing insurance through insurance
exchanges. Undocumented immigrants remain ineligible for Medicaid, making
them prone to rely on safety-net providers (providers that offer health services to uninsured or other vulnerable patients). Under
the current immigration reform bill these ACA provisions will continue to apply. Provisions that exclude undocumented immigrants from the U.S. health care system have
implications that impact public health. There is no guarantee that undocumented immigrants have been inoculated for the same diseases the U.S. seeks to control within its

Immigration law requires those seeking to immigrate, or change their status

to permanent resident, provide proof of vaccination against vaccine-preventable
diseases, but this does not apply to undocumented immigrants. The failure to
address immigrant health care means there are few options available to
adequately and quickly address preventable disease and illness . Because this
population tends to live in the shadows of society, tracking and preventing disease in
immigrant communities poses numerous difficulties. Undocumented immigrants
may avoid agencies that require self-identification, and fear visiting a health clinic
will draw the attention of immigration officials. There is greater risk of exposure to
contagious disease when access to health care is limited. As drug-resistant diseases
become more prevalent around the world, the U.S. can protect itself by providing
undocumented immigrants with access to health care . As immigration reform is being considered, Congress has a
borders.

second opportunity (the first was during the debate on the ACA) to have a robust debate on the public health benefits of insuring undocumented immigrants and enabling them

Providing such benefits will widen the pool of insured persons

and offer the potential to decrease the spread of disease and per capita cost. There
is also significant potential to cut costs by lowering the use of emergency care. And
most importantly, immigration health reform can prevent disease and illness in
undocumented immigrants, thereby protecting the health of the entire U.S.
population.
to obtain better access to health care.

Immigrant children carry many devastating diseases which require

healthcare to mitigate
Poon 14 (Linda Poon, 7/22/14, The immigrant Kids have health issues-But not the ones you
would think, NPR news,
http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2014/07/22/332598798/the-immigrantkids-have-health-issues-but-not-the-ones-youd-think) //AS
Close to 60,000 children have crossed illegally into the U.S. since last
October. They've sparked a crisis. But is it a humanitarian crisis or a public
health one? The children carry "swine flu, dengue fever, Ebola virus, and
tuberculosis," and can spread the diseases to the U.S., wrote Rep. Phil
Gingrey, R-Ga., a retired obstetrician-gynecologist, in a July 7 letter to the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Gingrey's concerns have been widely circulated as part of a
public campaign by folks who share his view that the kids should be sent back. And some of the points he's raised have been widely rebuffed. The current
Ebola outbreak has been confined to Africa, as have past outbreaks. And neither dengue nor the "kissing bug" disease known as Chagas, which was

Transmission involves bugs and dogs. But some

health issues in this contentious debate require closer examination. There
have, for example, been a handful of reported cases of TB among the
children. And concerns that the children may not have been vaccinated or
may harbor scabies and lice aren't as absurd as the Ebola claims. A TB epidemic is perhaps one of the
biggest concerns, since the U.S. doesn't vaccinate against the disease.
The fear of a fatal respiratory disease that attacks the lungs and can
brought up by others, spread from human to human.

spread through the air is understandable. But it's worth

coverage for TB vaccine in Central America was 93 percent, the World Health Organization reports.

keeping in mind that in 2012, the average

Impact EXT Disease

Extinction.
Fox, Command Surgeon Joint Readiness Training Council, 1998
[William, Phantom Warriors, Parameters, Winter, http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/97winter/fox.htm]
HIV is a pandemic killer without a cure, and viruses such as Ebola-Zaire are merely a plane ride away from the population centers of
the developed world. Viruses like Ebola, which are endemic to Africa, have the potential to inflict morbidity and

mortality on a scale not seen in the world since the Black Plague epidemics of medieval Europe, which
killed a quarter of Europe's population in the 13th and 14th centuries.[16] These diseases are not merely African
problems; they present real threats to [hu]mankind. They should be taken every bit as seriously as the
concern for deliberate use of w eapons of m ass d estruction.

The impact is extinction

The Scotsman in 95(The mega death, 9-11, L/N)
Bullets and bombs may be the weapons of the present, but plagues, viruses and killer

microbes are the arsenal of the

future. Together with the sarin gas which it released on the Tokyo underground in April, the Japanese Ohm cult had stockpiled a
lethal bacterium which it chose not to unleash. Crippling continents by using killer infectious diseases is no far- fetched idea of scifi novels. But the scientists' inability to distinguish between naturally emerging and synthetic disease outbreaks means whole areas
could be laid waste before anyone realised what was happening, warns Laurie Garrett, author of a ground-breaking book on the
burgeoning of infectious disease. All this on top of the fact that new diseases are emerging naturally at an alarming

rate - representing a real threat to the survival of the human species - says The Coming Plague.

Meticulously
researched over the past decade, Garrett's book charts the history of our age-old battle against the microbes, and concludes that we
are beginning to cede the advantage to the disease-carriers. The optimism born out of defeating smallpox in the Sixties was
dangerously premature. Everything from overuse of antibiotics to increased promiscuity have helped smooth the path for the
microbes ever since. "The survival of the human species is not a pre- ordained evolutionary programme," warns

Nobel Laureate Joshua Lederberg in The Coming Plague. When Garrett's book was released in the United States, it caused
such widespread alarm that Vice President Al Gore set up a special task force to review American preparedness to
tackle newly-emerging epidemics. In July, the evaluation concluded that the microbial threat was not just a domestic
problem, but a national security question. It is no longer just governments which had the capability to engage in biological
warfare.

Extinction.
South China Morning Post, 1996 [1/4/1996. Kavita Daswani, Leading the way to a cure for AIDS, Lexis]

There is a
much more pressing medical crisis at hand - one he believes the world must be alerted to: the possibility of a virus
deadlier than HIV. If this makes Dr Ben-Abraham sound like a prophet of doom, then he makes no apology for it. AIDS, the
Ebola outbreak which killed more than 100 people in Africa last year, the flu epidemic that has now affected 200,000 in the
former Soviet Union - they are all, according to Dr Ben-Abraham, the "tip of the iceberg". Two decades of intensive study and
Despite the importance of the discovery of the "facilitating" cell, it is not what Dr Ben-Abraham wants to talk about.

research in the field of virology have convinced him of one thing: in place of natural and man-made disasters or nuclear warfare,

humanity could face extinction because of a single virus, deadlier than HIV. "An airborne virus is a lively,
complex and dangerous organism," he said. "It can come from a rare animal or from anywhere and can
mutate constantly. If there is no cure, it affects one person and then there is a chain reaction and it is
unstoppable. It is a tragedy waiting to happen." That may sound like a far-fetched plot for a Hollywood film, but Dr Ben
-Abraham said history has already proven his theory. Fifteen years ago, few could have predicted the impact of AIDS on the world.
Ebola has had sporadic outbreaks over the past 20 years and the only way the deadly virus - which turns internal organs into liquid could be contained was because it was killed before it had a chance to spread. Imagine, he says, if it was closer to home: an outbreak
of that scale in London, New York or Hong Kong. It could happen anytime in the next 20 years - theoretically, it could happen
tomorrow. The shock of the AIDS epidemic has prompted virus experts to admit "that something new is indeed happening and that

the threat of a deadly viral outbreak is imminent", said Joshua Lederberg of the Rockefeller University in New York, at a recent
conference. He added that the problem was "very serious and is getting worse". Dr Ben-Abraham said: "Nature isn't benign. The
survival of the human species is not a preordained evolutionary programme. Abundant sources of genetic variation exist

for viruses to learn how to mutate and evade the immune system." He cites the 1968 Hong Kong flu outbreak as an
example of how viruses have outsmarted human intelligence. And as new "mega-cities" are being developed in the Third World and
rainforests are destroyed, disease-carrying animals and insects are forced into areas of human habitation. "This raises the very

real possibility that lethal, mysterious viruses would, for the first time, infect humanity at a large scale
and imperil the survival of the human race," he said.

Miscellaneous

AT: K
Education debate over ICE state and local police entanglement challenges
institutional racism
Hing 09 (Bill Ong [University of San Francisco-School of Law]
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=331631)
This Article contends that the evolution of immigration laws and the manner in which immigration

laws operate
have institutionalized bias against Latino immigrantsMexicans in particula rand
Asian immigrants. This has occurred through laws that initially manifested racist intent and/or impact ,
amendments that perpetuated that racism, and enforcement strategies and legal interpretations
reinforcing the racism. Racism has been institutionalized in our immigration laws and
enforcement policies. Kwame Ture (a.k.a. Stokely Carmichael) coined the phrase
institutional racism in the 1960s. He recognized it was important to distinguish personal bias from institutional bias,
which is generally long-term and grounded more in inertia than in intent. Institutional racism has come to describe societal patterns
that impose oppressive or otherwise negative conditions against identifiable groups on the basis of race or ethnicity. In the United
States, institutional racism resulted from the social caste system of slavery and racial segregation. Much of its basic structure still
stands to this day. By

understanding the fundamental principles of institutionalized

racism we begin to see the application of the concept beyond the conventional
black-white paradigm. Institutional racism embodies discriminating against
certain groups of people through the use of biased laws or practices . Structures and social
arrangements become accepted, operate, and are manipulated in such a way as to support or acquiesce in acts of racism.

Institutional racism can be subtle and less visible , but is no less destructive than individual acts of
racism. Charles Lawrences discussion of unconscious racism also is relevant. Lawrence teaches us that the source of much racism
lies in the unconscious mind. Individuals raised in a racist culture unknowingly absorb attitudes and stereotypes that influence
behavior in subtle, but pernicious ways. Unconscious

prejudice . . . is not subject to selfcorrection within the political process.70 The forces of racism have become embodied in U.S. immigration
laws.71 As these laws are enforced, they are accepted as common practice, in spite of
their racial effects. We may not like particular laws or enforcement policies because of their harshness or their violations
of human dignity or civil rights, but many of us do not sense the inherent racism because we are
not cognizant of the dominant racial framework . Understanding the evolution of
U.S. immigration laws and enforcement provides us with a better awareness of the
institutional racism that controls those policies. This Part focuses on the evolution of immigration laws
and enforcement policies. The history begins with slavery. Forced African labor migration set the stage for the Mexicans and the
Chinese. This Part reviews the history of Mexican migration, the enforcement of the southwest border, and the sea change to
enforcement through employer sanctions enacted in 1986.

AT: Politics
Obama empirically doesnt push the plan
Bowers 12 (Becky, No racial profiling bill for President Barack Obama to sign, November 12th, 2012, http://www.politifact.com/truth-ometer/promises/obameter/promise/303/ban-racial-profiling-by-federal-law-enforcement-ag//JC)

A bill to ban racial profiling never made it to President Barack Obama"s desk. The White
House didn't speak up in favor of the most recent versions in the House and Senate, according to Rights
Working Group, which advocates for policies to prohibit racial profiling at the local, state and
federal level. "His White House has not actually taken an active role ," said Margaret
Huang, executive director of Rights Working Group. The legislation, known as the End of Racial Profiling Act of
2011, didn't make it to a committee vote, though it did gain sponsors in both chambers, a move forward from our update in 2010.
Huang said the administration said it would wait to weigh in until the legislation hit the House or Senate floor. The second question,
whether the administration provided federal funding to state and local police departments if they adopted policies that prohibited
the practice, is "complicated," Huang said. What's more clear is that the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice
investigated local agencies for discriminating on the basis of race or national origin, such as the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office in
Arizona led by Joe Arpaio. But Huang didn't hear of funding being jeopardized on the basis of such investigations, much less the
opposite support for agencies who performed well. "So, it's a mixed record, she said. The White House didn't provide additional
evidence. Obama

promised to sign legislation that will ban the practice of racial profiling. Such a bill never
made it to his desk, and a key advocacy group says the White House didn't take an active role to get
it there. Meanwhile, we don't see evidence of additional federal funding for agencies
that adopted policies to prohibit the practice. We rate this Promise Broken.

Immigration Reform would have massive public support

Nesterak 14- Max earned a B.A. in English Literature and German Studies from Swarthmore College in 2013, where he
served as the Co-Editor in Chief of The Daily Gazette. Max is a Fulbright Scholar (2013-2014) pursuing independent research and
graduate level study in Berlin, Germany, (Max N., Immigration: The Disconnect Between Perception and
Policy,http://thepsychreport.com/current-events/immigration-the-disconnect-between-perception-and-policy/) VD

Two-thirds of Americans believe the countrys current immigration policy needs at

least major revisions. What that reform should look like varies, but not as much
one might think. A solid majority of Americans believe immigrants help
strengthen society. 73% of Americans believe that there should be a way for
current undocumented workers to remain in the country legally. 44% believe that
should include a path to citizenship. (Pew Research Center, 2013)

US public has massive support for immigration reform

Ekins 13research fellow at the Cato Institute. Her research focuses primarily on American politics, public opinion, political
psychology, and social movements, with an emphasis in survey and quantitative methods, and she was the polling director for this
study, (Emily E., Support for Immigration Reform Correlated with Perception of Immigrants Economic
Impact, http://reason.com/assets/db/13648288657856.pdf) VD
This report details Americans perceptions of immigrations economic impact and their support for reform, based on findings from the
latest national Reason-Rupe poll, which interviewed 1002 adults on landline and mobile phones February 21-25, 2013.
A majority

supports legal residency and path to citizenship for the 11 million

unauthorized immigrants currently residing in the United States . However, Americans are
less supportive of making it easier for future immigrants to enter the country legally.Support for reform is
correlated with perception of immigrants economic impact, education, and
youth.Fully 70 percent of Americans think unauthorized immigrants currently
living in the United States should be allowed to stay . Moreover, a majority (55 percent) believes
unauthorized immigrants should be eventually allowed to apply for citizenship if they meet certain requirements. There is less
enthusiastic support for raising visa caps for high-skilled (40 percent) and low-skilled workers (40 percent). Nevertheless, few want
to decrease legal immigration into the country. Interestingly, both high-skilled and low-skilled visas enjoy similar levels of support.
Significant partisan differences emerge regarding views of immigrations impact on the economy and support for lega residency and

path to citizenship for unauthorized immigrants. However, partisan differences are attenuated when controlling for differences in

Interestingly, there is little

partisan disagreement when it comes to easing the path for new high- and lowskilled workers seeking visas.
economic assumptions, such as immigrants effect on the economy and jobs.

Topicality

T - Surveillance
Immigration surveillance is conducted through electronic and physical
means by local police
Camayd-Freixas 2013 - Ph.D., Spanish Interpreter for Federal Courts, and Professor of
Spanish & Director of Translation & Interpretation Program at Florida International University
(Erik, US Immigration Reform and Its Global Impact: Lessons from the Postville Raid)//AN
The imposition

of a national security agenda at the neighborhood level, via local police surveillance and
denunciations by social militants, has always been the trademark of totalitarian regimes. Now this old recipe has been enhanced by a
network of databases, telecommunications, and electronic methods of surveillance ,
detection, and enforcement, linking national, state, and community intelligence, to enable the
systematic persecution of a profiled population. Through the combination of ICE s DRO, FOT, 287(g), and Secure
Communities programs, racially profiled Latinos are routinely ambushed on their way to church, to pick their kids up from school,
traveling by car, train, or bus, going to and from work, or when their homes are invaded. They are arrested without a warrant and detained indefinitely
with-out a hearing.00 Over 20 million people, including not only undocumented immigrants, but also their US-citizen and legal resident families, now
live in fear of violent arrest, incarceration, and deportation under the brazen dic-tates of a technocratic police state. It is the constant fear that every
time they say goodbye to their loved ones could be the last.

T- Its
State immigration enforcement occurs only through the ICE
Fahey et al. 2015 Writers for the Harvard Law Review (Bridge et al., Harvard Law Review:
Volume 128, Number 6 - April 2015)//AN
2. The Actors Enforcing Immigration Laws. The federal

government enforces federal immigration laws, and

today states and cities do too. State and local police have the authority to enforce immigration laws by
two broadly defined sources. Section (a) describes federal delegation, and section (b) describes enforcement by state
authority. (a) Enforcement by Federal Delegation, Immigration enforcement is the prerogative of the federal government, but

Congress has defined circumstances under which the federal government may
delegate immigration-enforcement authority to state and local police. The biggest federal
delegation program, the 287(g) program, allows the Attorney General to grant immigration enforcement
authority to state and local police departments that sign Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) with Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE).411 These MOUs allow state and local police to enforce civil immigration laws"
so long as they participate in ICE training, agree to ICE supervision, and abide by
certain ICE rules. The Secure Communities Program (SCP) is another increasingly important federal delegation
program/- Under SCP, ICE can issue detainers4' to state and local police authorizing them to keep certain people incarcerated
while ICE decides whether to detain them itself. State and local jails do not have to use this authority," but they may, if ICE asks
them to, incarcerate people who have not been and will not be charged with a crime.

State authorities share information under ICE programs

Garcia and Manuel 2012 Legislative Attorneys and Writers for the Congressional Research
Service (Michael and Kate, Authority of State and Local Police to Enforce Federal Immigration
Law, http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/library/P6609.pdf)//AN
A separate program, Secure Communities, is also used to identify criminal aliens in local law enforcement custody. This program
which was

first implemented in 14 jurisdictions in 2008 and is scheduled for implementation nationwide in 2013
relies upon the sharing of information regarding persons arrested by state and
local law enforcement to identify aliens who may be removable.34 Specifically, the fingerprints of persons
arrested by state and local officers are sent to the Federal Bureau of Investigations ( FBI s) Integrated Automatic
Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS), which then sends them to ICEs Automated Biometric Identification
System (IDENT). This system automatically notifies ICE personnel whenever the fingerprints of persons arrested by
state and local officers match those of a person previously encountered and fingerprinted by immigration
officials.35 ICE personnel then review other databases to determine whether the person is here
illegally or otherwise removable, and may issue detainers for any aliens who appear removable.36]

The ICE trains and has federal oversight over state and local law
enforcement authorities
Garcia and Manuel 2012 Legislative Attorneys and Writers for the Congressional Research
Service (Michael and Kate, Authority of State and Local Police to Enforce Federal Immigration
Law, http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/library/P6609.pdf)//AN
In 2009, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the agency within the Department of Homeland Security which
administers the 287(g) program, renegotiated

agreements with participating jurisdictions in an effort to bolster

federal oversight, training, and communication within the 287(g) program, and to prioritize the arrest
and detention of aliens involved in serious criminal activity.30 As of August 31, 2012, agreements pursuant to INA Section
287(g) were in place with 64 law enforcement agencies within 24 states .31

T- Substantial
Substantial local surveillance activities now - target specific
groups
RWG 13 (RWG is the Rights Working Group which is a coalition of more than 300 community-based grassroots groups and
policy organizations committed to promoting the civil liberties and human rights of all people in the United States, THE
MINORITY REPORTS How the Intersection of Criminal Justice, Immigration and Surveillance Undermines Freedoms in
California, Published in 2013, Date Accessed: 7/17/15, http://blog.endisolation.org/wp-

content/uploads/2013/03/RWG_MinorityReports_2013.pdf, SZ)

Perhaps the most terrifying

effect of surveillance is the racial, religious, and

political profiling inherent in suspicious activity reporting, intelligence-led
policing, and an all-encompassing counterterrorism framework. Since 9/11, the FBI and other
federal agencies have conducted intense and intrusive surveillance of Muslim
communities, Arab Americans, South Asians, and Middle Eastern people,
and FBI agents are permitted to enter mosques and churches without
identifying themselves. Although Suspicious Activity Reports are supposed to be based on behavior and not skin
color, the guidelines are extremely vague and invite subjective usage easily
influenced by individual bias. Standards issued to state and local police
include the following as suspicious activities: taking pictures or videos of
facilities or infrastructure; taking notes or drawing maps or structures of a
facility; and monitoring the activities of people, facilities, processes or
systems. These behaviors are completely legal and clearly widespread : many people and
tourists are likely to take pictures, videos, and other renderings of government buildings and other elements of infrastructure for
aesthetic or other innocent reasons. Because police could not possibly question or report every individual taking part in these
activities, they are

likely to fall back on racial bias in choosing whom to target . The

police and federal agents to target
political dissidents and people engaging in free speech and assembly.
vague standards regarding suspicious behavior also permit

ICE Neg

AT: Human Rights

alt causes

Agency to ensure legal compliance with HR obligations is key to restore credibility

Shattuck 08- CEO of the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation and a lecturer on U.S. foreign policy at Tufts University (John S., Restoring U.S.

Credibility on Human Rights, Vol. 35 No. 4,

http://www.americanbar.org/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/human_rights_vol35_2008/human_rights_fall2008/hr_fall08_shattuck.h
VD

U.S. Commission on Human Rights. A permanent institution could be created to monitor the U.S
governments compliance with its legal obligations on human rights . I urge you to endorse legislation pending in
Congress that would establish a United States Commission on Human Rights with oversight authori
and subpoena power. The legislation would require the executive branch to provide regular repo
to the commission on its implementation of international human rights treaties such as the
Torture Convention and the Geneva Conventions.

Counter-Terrorism Assistance Key to restore US credibility

Shattuck 08- CEO of the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation and a lecturer on U.S. foreign policy at Tufts University (John S., Restoring U.S.

Credibility on Human Rights, Vol. 35 No. 4,

http://www.americanbar.org/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/human_rights_vol35_2008/human_rights_fall2008/hr_fall08_shattuck.h
VD
Counterterrorism Assistance. The

United States could provide assistance to other countries for

counterterrorism operations that comply with basic standards on human rights . Fighting terror
has become a convenient excuse for repressive regimes around the world to engage in further
repression, often leading to more terrorism in an increasing cycle of violence. To break this cycle
this country could provide assistance and training to foreign military and law enforcement
personnel in methods of fighting terrorism within the rule of law.

Promotion of Democracy and HR assistant is key to restore US credibility

Shattuck 08- CEO of the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation and a lecturer on U.S. foreign policy at Tufts University (John S., Restoring U.S.

Credibility on Human Rights, Vol. 35 No. 4,

http://www.americanbar.org/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/human_rights_vol35_2008/human_rights_fall2008/hr_fall08_shattuck.h
VD
Democracy and Human Rights Assistance. The

United States should find appropriate ways to support those seeking

promote the rule of law, democracy, and human rights within their own countries . Democracy and huma

rights activists are the shock troops in the struggle against terrorism. But democracy and human rights can never be delivered from the barrel of a gun.
Assistance to those working to build their own democratic societies must be carefully planned, sustained over time, and based on a thorough understand-i
of the unique circumstances and profound differences among cultures, religions, and countries. The

new administration should work

within a multilateral framework to assist those struggling around the world to bring democracy
and human rights to their own societies.

Evoking the Doctrine of Responsibility to Protect is key to restore US

credibility
Shattuck 08- CEO of the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation and a lecturer on U.S. foreign policy at Tufts University (John S., Restoring U.S.

Credibility on Human Rights, Vol. 35 No. 4,

http://www.americanbar.org/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/human_rights_vol35_2008/human_rights_fall2008/hr_fall08_shattuck.h
VD
Responsibility to Protect. The

United States should join with other countries, alliances, and international

organizations to pre-vent or stop crimes against humanity and genocide . Mr. President, you could invo
the Doctrine of Responsibility to Protect, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2006, to work with other leader
to develop effective multilateral methods of preventing human rights catastrophes such as
Rwanda, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Darfur. Diplomatic and economic tools should be employed first to head off impending genocides, bu
multilateral military intervention must remain available under international law if other means have been ex-hausted. By recommitting the
United States to a foreign policy conducted within a framework of human rights and the rule of
law, Presi-dent Obama, you can restore Americas moral leadership in the world, and, by doing s
strengthen U.S. national security.

US HR promotion will have no effect on other countries

Walt 13- Robert and Rene Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University (Stephen W., China grades Americas human rights
conduct, April 2013, http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/04/23/china-grades-americas-human-rights-conduct/) VD

One of the cool things about being as powerful and fortunate as the United States is that you get to preach
other countries about how they ought to behave. In that spirit, the U.S. State Department puts out a
human rights report every year, and basically wags its finger at countries that dont measure up. Of cou

the report tends to go easy on close allies, but its still a useful document. Among other things, it provides data that scholars interested in human rights can
use to test their ideas about the causes of violations and the policies that might alleviate them. But as you might expect,

the world isnt just

sitting around and passively accepting report cards from Washington anymore . Case in point: China h
just released its own human rights report on the U nited States, and it makes for rather interesting reading. Its hardly an
objective assessment of life in America, of course, but much of the information contained within it is factually accurate. The incidence of gun
violence and crime in the U.S. is far above the level of other industrial democracies, and having t
worlds highest incarceration rate is not exactly consistent with being the "Land of the Free ."
Chinas point is that the United States is being pretty hypocritical in singling out other countries, and maybe we ought to remove

log in our own eye before we start telling everyone else what to do. Add to this the recent bipartisan report confirming that Bush-era officials authorized th
widespread use of torture and the fact that none of them has ever been indicted or prosecuted, and American hypocrisy on this score looks even more
damning. The Chinese report may not be objective, and the fact that U.S. leaders authorized torture does not mean Washington hasnt done plenty of
morally admirable things too. But this

gap between Americas professed ideals and its actual behavior matter
Not just in moral terms, but in terms of power and global influence too . Smaller and weaker states are more like

to tolerate American primacy if they think the United States is a generally good society and led by individuals who are not just ruthlessly self-interested. T

The more that

others view the United States as hypocritical, self-absorbed, and indifferent to others, the more
likely they are to ignore U.S. advice and to secretly welcome those moments when the U.S. gets
taken down a peg or two. The 9/11 attacks produced an unusual outpouring of sympathy for the United States ("nous sommes toutes
will be more willing to tolerate the asymmetry of power in Americas favor if they think that power is used for the greater good.

Americains" headlined Le Monde), and weve seen a similar reaction in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombings. But such expressions of solidarity ten
be fleeting and especially when U.S. behavior gives opponents an easy way to heighten dissatisfaction with Americas global role. Whats going on here is a
struggle for legitimacy in the eyes of the wider world, and it would be foolish to believe that we will win that struggle just because were the "good guys." Th
may be how we see ourselves, but Americans are only 5 percent of the worlds population, and plenty of other people around the world have a rather differ
view.

No US HR credibility- seen as hypocritical

Carasik 14- clinical professor of law and the director of the international human rights clinic at the Western New England University School of Law

(Lauren C., Human rights for thee but not for me, http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/3/the-us-lacks-moralauthorityonhumanrights.html) VD

Last month U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry unveiled the State Departments comprehensive
annual assessment of human rights around the globe . It painted a grim picture of pervasive violations. Notably absent from

the report, however, was any discussion of Washingtons own record on human rights. The report elicited sharp rebukes from some of the countries single
out for criticism. Many of them questioned

the United States legitimacy as self-appointed global champion of

human rights. China issued its own report, 154 pages long, excoriating the U.S. record on human rights
and presenting a list of Washingtons violations. Egypts Foreign Ministry called the report
unbalanced and nonobjective and censured the U.S. for appointing itself the worlds watchdog
Ecuador, Russia and Iran also criticized the report .By signaling that the world cares about human rights violations, the repo

provides a useful tool for advocates. While the omission of any internal critique is unsurprising, that stance ultimately undermines the State Departments

goals of promoting human rights abroad. Abuses unfolding around the world demand and deserve condemnation. But it

is difficult for the U.

to don the unimpeachable mantle, behave hypocritically and still maintain credibility.

cred high now

Rights for undocumented immigrants improving drastically-municipal ID program prov

Medina 15- a multimedia journalist and documentary film-maker, (Daniel M., Undocumented immigrants in New York get ID cards to open bank

accounts, http://www.theguardian.com/money/us-money-blog/2015/jan/12/undocumented-immigrants-id-cards-new-york) VD
Lupe is a 35-year-old mother of three who immigrated to New York in 2003 from the eastern Mexican state of Veracruz. On Monday,

a new municipal
program that could bring big changes for the citys large undocumented population. Though all residents wil
she says, The system will acknowledge for the first time that I exist. The reason: New York City will unveil

eligible to apply for the new ID, called IDNYC, undocumented New Yorkers are expected to benefit most. There are an estimated
500,000 undocumented immigrants in New York City, an underserved and, at times, exploited population that lives in the shadows o
the citys gleaming skyscrapers. In

addition to a free one-year membership to the citys leading cultural

institutions, the IDNYC card will provide undocumented immigrants with the ability to access
state buildings and open bank accounts with a number of participating financial institutions . Tho
participating banks and credit unions will also be announced as early as Monday, according to city officials. An ID card could
be life changing for Lupe. She and her husband, both undocumented, have lived in Brooklyns Bay Ridge neighborhood for mo

than a decade without the financial security of even a bank account. Banks, which require an ID for proof of residency, have turned
away Lupes Mexican passport as insufficient proof that she is a city resident. She says the isolation, in addition to the insecurity of
living without an identity in a city that she and her family call home, has been trying. For now, Lupe says

the citys ID will

provide her an immediate lifeline: The ID will list my home address for those who question my status as a resident in thi

city. Im basically invisible in this city without proper identification, said Lupe, who refused to provide her surname due to her
immigration status. My husband and I work hard every day, we have children and the security that something as simple as an ID ca
will give us cannot be overstated. When he ran for office, Mayor Bill De Blasio promised an overhaul to the citys immigration poli
as part of his Tale of Two Cities campaign. The ID clearly represents a first step, says Betsy Plum, director of special projects at the
New York Immigrant Coalition, a city-based advocacy group. Something

as simple as a form of identification

could be a quality-of-life improvement for these New Yorkers, said Plum. For example, if your employer
unlawfully fires you and you want to contest it in court, you cant even get into a public building
without an ID. There are real tangible benefits here . One of those tangible benefits is legal
protection from law enforcement in the case of an arrest , says Muzzaffar Chishti, an expert on US immigration

policy who heads the office for the Migration Policy Institute, a Washington-based independent, non-partisan, nonprofit think tank,
New York Universitys School of Law. If

youre arrested by police, police want to know who you are. The
card makes it easier for the police to release you , said Chishti.
No HR abuse in Immigration policy
Veuger 14- resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and the editor of AEI Economic Perspectives. His research areas are political econo
and public finance, (Stan V., Good policy, good politics, https://www.aei.org/publication/good-policy-good-politics/) VD

After years of playing defense, apologizing for while doubling down on his lies about the Affordable Care Act, President Barack Obama has chosen to go on
offense. Not against the junior varsity terrorists of the Islamic State group in any sort of new, more meaningful way, but on the domestic front, by finally

the president is expected to

announce that he will grant millions of undocumented aliens, seemingly mostly those with close family
ties to U.S. citizens (often their children), reprieve from deportation and some sort of permissio
to work legally. These actions appear to be wise ones, both on political and on substantive grounds. What the president is doing, in effect, is going
taking action to shield large numbers of illegal immigrants from deportation. Later today, in a prime-time address,

from not enforcing federal immigration law (much like his predecessors) to announcing that he is not enforcing federal immigration law, and detailing mo
of the specifics of this non-enforcement. In other words, hes gone from not deporting 11 million people to not deporting 5 million or 3 million people. For
number of reasons this

is, along practically all dimensions, good and helpful public policy . First and foremost,
brings a sense of safety to the lives of the immigrants in question . They will no longer face the ris
small as it may currently be, of not being able to go home to their children. And hundreds of thousands, if n
millions, of U.S. citizens will be able rest assured that their government will not one day decide t
tear their families apart. The newly quasi-legal immigrants will also be able to make even more o
contribution to the American economy than they are currently, with their new-found work
authorizations and ability to apply for jobs that require more of a legal status than they currently

have. This should allow them to perform work they are better suited for, without too much of a
harmful impact on native workers; they have been here for a while, after all. Some native workers and employers will gain a bit, and

some native workers will lose a bit politicians hiring illegal immigrants to work on their lawns while running for office, for example but the overall imp
should be positive. And this positive impact will be felt by the nations treasury as well. Reasonable people can, of course, disagree about the exact
composition of the group of immigrants to be regularized, but family ties are about as good a criterion as any.

Case

inherency
Plan is non-inherent- Efforts to end Racial Profiling now

Cardin 13 (Senator Benjamin Cardin from Maryland, THE END RACIAL PROFILING ACT INTRODUCED
IN BOTH THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE SENATE, Introduced in Senate on 5/23/13, Date
Accessed: 7/8/15, http://www.naacp.org/action-alerts/entry/the-end-racial-profiling-act-

introduced-in-both-the-u.s.-house-of-represent, SZ)
The End Racial Profiling Act has now been introduced in the U.S. Senate

by
Senator Cardin (MD) (S. 1038) and in the U.S. House of Representatives by Congressman John Conyers, Jr. (MI)
(H.R. 2851). The

End Racial Profiling Act comprehensively addresses the

insidious practice of racial profiling by law enforcement on five levels: first, it
clearly defines the racially discriminatory practice of racial profiling by law enforcement at all levels; second, it
creates a federal prohibition against racial profiling; thirdly, it mandates data collection so we can fully assess the
true extent of the problem; fourth, it provides funding for the retraining of law enforcement officials on how to
discontinue and prevent the use of racial profiling; and fifth, it holds law enforcement agencies that continue to
use racial profiling accountable. We

need to urge Members of both the House and

Senate to co-sponsor and help move the bill through to passage as soon as
possible. As painfully demonstrated over the past months, racial profiling is a serious
problem in the United States, and can lead to deadly consequences. It is difficult for our faith in the
American judicial system not to be challenged when we cannot walk down the street, drive down an interstate, go
through an airport, or even enter into our own homes without being stopped merely because of the color of our
skin. Training

law enforcement officers how to more efficiently carry out the

essential policing without avoid using this counter-productive procedure will
not only help our nations criminal justice system at all levels, but it will trickle down to other
groups as well, such as neighborhood watch organizations and citizens community groups, which often model
themselves after their local police and which have taken on additional responsibilities in light of the budget cuts
being faced by almost every locality and jurisdiction.

Programs currently exist to decrease gang violence- Proves the plan is not
key

OJJDP No Date (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Gang Violence
Reduction Program, No Date, Date Accessed: 7/9/15,
https://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/spt/programs/71, SZ)

The Gang Violence Reduction Program targeted mainly older members (ages 17 to 24) of two of
the Chicago areas most violent Hispanic gangs, the Latin Kings and the Two
Six. Specifically, the Little Village program targeted more than 200 of the shooters (also called influential persons or leaders) of
the two gangs. A steering committee was established to support the project . This group
was composed of representatives from local churches, two Boys & Girls Clubs, a local community organization, a business group,
other social agencies, the local alderman, and local citizens. The

priority goal of the project was to

reduce the extremely high level of gang violence among youth who were
already involved in the two gangs; drug-related activity was not specifically targeted. The main goal was to
be accomplished by a combination of outreach work, an Intervention Team, case management, youth services, and suppression.

Outreach youth workers aimed to prevent and control gang conflicts in

specific situations and to persuade gang youth to leave the gang as soon as
possible. Virtually all of these youth workers were former members of the two target gangs. An Intervention Team (mainly the
outreach youth workers, police, and probation officers) met biweekly and exchanged information on violence that was occurring (or
about to occur) in the community. It provided intensive services to gang members, including crisis intervention, brief family and
individual counseling and referrals for services, and surveillance and suppression activities. Altogether, a good balance of services
was provided. Project

police were hired to target the two gangs and their most
violent members. They used standard policing tactics employed elsewhere
in the city by Chicago police in controlling gang violence . The outreach youth workers
sometimes collaborated with the project tactical officers in the exchange of information that was vital to the police suppression role,
and project police officers often encouraged gang youth to accept services. The suppression contacts reduced the youths interest in

The
process evaluation of the program revealed that it was well-implemented ,
and attachment to the gang. Services such as job placement reduced target youths time spent with other gang members.

achieving an excellent rating on 8 of the 18 program-implementation elements: interagency and street (intervention) team
coordinators; criminal justice participation; lead agency project management and commitment to the model; social and crisis
intervention and outreach work; suppression; targeting, especially of gang members; balance of services; and intensity of services.
The outcome evaluation examined the effects of the Little Village project on the approximately 200 targeted, hard-core gang youths
during the period in which they were served by the program. Self-reports

of criminal involvement
showed that the program reduced serious violent and property crimes, and
sharp declines were also seen in the frequencies of various types of
offenses. The program was more effective with older, high-rate, violent gang
offenders than with younger, less violent offenders. Active gang involvement was also reduced among project youths, but
mostly among older members, and this change was associated with less criminal activity. Most youth in both targeted gangs
improved their educational and employment status during the program period. Employment was associated with a general

reduction in youths criminal activity, especially drug selling

Gang violence decreasing- prefer recent statistics

Brenoff 15 (Ann Brenoff is a Huffington Post Senior Writer/Columnist, Behind LA's Dramatic Decline In Gang Violence,
2/24/15, Date Accessed: 7/8/15, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/24/gang-violence-

decline_n_6656840.html, SZ)
From 1988 to 1998 -- known to some as the decade of death -- close

to a thousand people per year were

killed in Los Angeles. Gangs didnt run all the neighborhoods, but the ones they did, they terrorized. Drugs moved openly on street
corners, drive-by shootings occurred with dispiriting frequency, and wearing the wrong color T-shirt on the wrong street could be
interpreted as a death wish. It all seems improbable now. There are still terrible parts of the city, where brutality and blight reign,
but to say that LA is a city unchanged is to ignore the statistics. From 2008 to 2012, violent

crime across the

nation went down about 16 percent, according to a recent cover story on the subject for Pacific Standard
magazine. But in Los Angeles that drop was notably more precipitous in gang areas, the magazine notes: 30 percent in Compton, 50
percent in Bell Gardens and 50 percent in El Monte. Gang-related

homicides in Los Angeles have

gone down 66.7 percent over the past eight years , and gang-related crimes
have seen a 55.3 percent dip since 2005. So, what accounts for this drastic decline? The only thing that
everyone -- from police representatives to community organizers to Sam Quinones, the author of the Pacific Standard piece -- can
agree on is that theres no single answer. But if you consider the six theories below, and how they interact and build on each other,
you can begin to see why city officials say Los Angeles hasnt been this safe since the Eisenhower administration.

Local police enforcement solves Gang violence

Weinberger 15 (Jodi Weinberger is a reporter for the Portland Tribune, Gang violence declines in 2014, 1/22/15,
Date Accessed: 7/9/15, http://www.pamplinmedia.com/go/42-news/248105-116263-gang-violence-

declinesin-2014, SZ)

Gang violence in Gresham decreased last year following targeted efforts by the
police department and city staff. Police Chief Craig Junginger reported this week that only one homicide was
gang related in 2014, a sharp decrease from 2013 when five of the seven homicides were linked to gangs. I think were making
inroads, Junginger said. Were

on the right track and well continue our current

strategies and add more in the upcoming year. With grant funding, the police department was
able to hire two gang outreach workers in 2014 which allowed the department to increase visibility in many neighborhoods.

Police take a multipronged approach to decreasing gang violence with much of it

being referring families and children to social services as a gang deterrent. Prevention work starts in the middle schools, Junginger
said, when students are most susceptible to joining gangs. Other strategies include keeping a close watch on vacant or foreclosed
homes for gang activity. They have been able to board up properties and keep gangs out, Junginger said. Undercover

cops in plain clothes often patrol the MAX train stations as well where much of the
violence happens as rival gang members may cross paths. Following an incident, Gresham works collaboratively with
Portland on cool down strategies which includes saturating the area where the incident took place with law
enforcement to lessen the chance of retaliation. A new partnership program with the Multnomah
County Districts Attorney Prosecution and Law Enforcement Unified Strategies will use data to target specific drivers of crime
in Rockwood, Junginger said. Its based on a theory that a

lot of times crime can be boiled down to

a handful of individuals, said Joe Walsh, Greshams gang prevention adviser.

AT: overstretch
Turn- the Plan prevents Police from being able to enforce law
effectively
MacDonald 04 (Heather MacDonald is an American political commentator and journalist, The Illegal-Alien Crime
Wave, Published in The City Journal Winter 2004, Date Accessed: 7/8/15, http://www.city-

journal.org/html/14_1_the_illegal_alien.html, SZ)

Some of the most violent criminals at large today are illegal aliens . Yet in cities
where the crime these aliens commit is highest, the police cannot use the most obvious tool to
apprehend them: their immigration status. In Los Angeles, for example, dozens of members of a ruthless
Salvadoran prison gang have sneaked back into town after having been deported for such crimes as murder, assault with a deadly
weapon, and drug trafficking. Police

officers know who they are and know that their

mere presence in the country is a felony. Yet should a cop arrest an illegal
gangbanger for felonious reentry, it is he who will be treated as a criminal,
for violating the LAPDs rule against enforcing immigration law. The LAPDs ban on
immigration enforcement mirrors bans in immigrant-saturated cities around the country, from New York and Chicago to San Diego,
Austin, and Houston. These sanctuary policies

generally prohibit city employees, including the cops,

from reporting immigration violations to federal authorities. Such laws testify to the
sheer political power of immigrant lobbies, a power so irresistible that police officials shrink from even mentioning the illegal-alien
crime wave. We cant even talk about it, says a frustrated LAPD captain. People are afraid of a backlash from Hispanics.

Another LAPD commander in a predominantly Hispanic, gang-infested district sighs: I would get a
firestorm of criticism if I talked about [enforcing the immigration law
against illegals]. Neither captain would speak for attribution. But however pernicious in themselves, sanctuary rules are
a symptom of a much broader disease: the nations near-total loss of control over immigration policy. Fifty years ago, immigration
policy might have driven immigration numbers, but today the numbers drive policy. The nonstop increase of immigration is
reshaping the language and the law to dissolve any distinction between legal and illegal aliens and, ultimately, the very idea of
national borders. It is a measure of how topsy-turvy the immigration environment has become that to ask police officials about the
illegal-alien crime problem feels like a gross faux pas, not done in polite company. And a police official asked to violate this powerful
taboo will give a strangled responseor, as in the case of a New York deputy commissioner, break off communication altogether.
Meanwhile, millions

of illegal aliens work, shop, travel, and commit crimes in

plain view, utterly secure in their de facto immunity from the immigration
law.

AT: organized crime

No security challenges No connection between terrorism and
organized crime Proves no impact
Williams 14 (Phil Williams is a published author, has a PhD, and teaches and researches Security studies,
foreign policy analysis, transnational organized crime, terrorism, Organized Crime and Terrorism, LACC Working Paper No.
2/2014, Date Accessed: 7/13/15, https://lacc.fiu.edu/research/publications/working-paper-2-

williams.pdf, SZ)

The security challenges posed by terrorist-criminal cooperation and by

terrorists engaged in drug trafficking, extortion, kidnapping and other activities
are relatively modest. Convergence and cooperation cannot be ignored, but do
not represent the kind or level of threat sometimes claimed. Moreover, there is a downside for terrorists
in both cooperation with traffickers and appropriation of trafficking
methods. For terrorists, cooperation creates risks of betrayal by pragmatic criminals, especially those who
have no affinity for the cause. Moreover, cooperating with criminals also increases the possibility of infiltration
by law enforcement and intelligence agents. Similarly, trafficking and other criminal activities can
undermine both the status and legitimacy of a terrorist organization , as well as
cause internal arguments and even divisions over the allocation of increased resources. Governments can also develop counternarratives that tarnish the appeal of high-minded terrorists by emphasizing their linkage to common criminals and common

the final analysis, therefore, not only can the threat be contained, but it might
also provide opportunities that can be exploited by the United States and its
allies.
criminality. In

Their authors are exaggerating No real threat of organized

crime
Williams 14 (Phil Williams is a published author, has a PhD, and teaches and researches Security studies, foreign policy
analysis, transnational organized crime, terrorism, Organized Crime and Terrorism, LACC Working Paper No. 2/2014, Date
Accessed: 7/13/15, https://lacc.fiu.edu/research/publications/working-paper-2-williams.pdf , SZ)

The notion of a nexus between criminal and terrorist organizations

surfaced during the 1990s. The term narco-terrorism, however, was coined even earlier than this. Ironically, it
initially referred to the Medellin drug trafficking organization in Colombia using terrorist tactics to coerce the government into
abandoning its policy of extraditing drug traffickers to the United States; subsequently, its meaning was reversed and it was
predominantly used to describe terrorist organizations using narcotics trafficking as a funding mechanism. After September 11, in
particular, it was frequently used to refer to the FARC and the Taliban using income from the drug business to fund their insurgent
activities. Meanwhile, the broader notion of a criminal-terrorist nexus that emerged during the 1990s, inspired by events in the
Balkans, focused less on the appropriation of criminal activities by terrorists or terrorist activities by criminals, and more on direct
cooperation between criminal and terrorist organizationsa cooperation that soon became enshrined in the concept of a criminalterrorist nexus. The Madrid bombings in 2003, in

which the attacks and their preparation were

financed with the proceeds of drug trafficking, are also portrayed as an
example of a nexus in action. This argument challenges widespread
allegations of an emerging crime terrorism or trafficking-terrorism nexus ,
as well as a broader analytic trend emphasizing threat convergence . It suggests
that most claims about the nexus are based on little more than flimsy anecdotal evidence, from which unwarranted
and exaggerated inferences are drawn . One or even a few examples of cooperation between criminals and
terrorists do not make a nexus. And

they certainly do not provide evidence of a grand

shift whereby international drug traffickers and international terrorists

are in a hedonistic marriage of design . . . linked at the hip, and extremely wealthy.1 Yet such
grandiose claims abound, fueled by worst-case thinking and unwarranted generalizations from the
few to the many.

Threat of Organized crime is exaggerated

Andreas 14 (Peter Andreas is a Professor of Political Science and International Studies at Brown University,
Transnational Crime, Written for CQ Researcher August 2014, Date Accessed: 7/12/15,

http://photo.pds.org:5012/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqresrre2014082906 , SZ)
For the most part, transnational crime is a fuzzy new term for an old practice: smuggling. Although the speed, content, methods and
organization of smuggling have varied greatly across time and place, the basic activity has not fundamentally changed.

Even

though the global reach of some smuggling groups has accelerated with the
integration of the global economy, the image of an octopus-like network of crime syndicates that runs the underworld
is fiction . Even the most sophisticated smuggling schemes tend to be defined more by fragmentation and loose, informal
networks than by concentration and hierarchical organization. And no so-called drug cartel actually fits the definition of a cartel. We

we have
no idea how true those statistical claims are they tend to be assertions
and guesstimates rather than reliable and verifiable empirical evidence . Still,
are often told that the volume of organized transnational criminal activity has surged in recent decades. Of course,

cross-border organized crime would simply have to keep pace with the illicit economy to grow at an impressive rate. But that does
not necessarily mean it has increased as an overall percentage of global economic transactions. Indeed, the

liberalization of trade in recent decades has sharply reduced incentives to

engage in smuggling practices designed to evade taxes and tariffs, historically the backbone of illicit commerce.

And, Either organized crime has no effect on the economy - or it actually

increases economic growth
Canadian Department of Justice 15 (1/7/15, Economic and Organized Crime: Challenges for
Criminal Justice, http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/jsp-sjp/rp02_12dr02_12/p4.html#sec4_1), LJH

Others argue that aggregate crime statistics are meaningless, given how widely the
sub-components vary in nature and social consequence, and that certain types of
crimes, judged in strictly economic terms, constitute a net benefit by generating
new incomes to some citizens. (Indeed, some go further, arguing that much economic activity in
the underground economy is actually good in so far as it challenges bad laws that retard economic
development. ) [13] The reality is that both sides are right, for they are talking about two quite different
things. Predatory crimes are crimes purely of redistribution of existing wealth . They do not generate new
goods and services and therefore do not increase total income flows. Therefore, barring indirect
consequences like the costs of increased security (which could be argued either way), their net effect on
Gross National Product (GNP) is zero. By contrast, market-based crimes involve the

production and distribution of new goods and services . Judged in strictly

economic terms, they should have a positive impact on GNP. Indeed, it is now standard
procedure in many countries to try to estimate the value of underground transactions in both legal and
illegal goods and services, provided they are based on consensual exchanges, and to add that value to their
existing national income data to get a better picture of just how well their economies are doing.
Commercial crimes are more complex to judge. The essence of a commercial crime is to apply illegal
methods to the production and distribution of legal goods and services that would otherwise be produced

by someone else using legal methods. The supplier, for example, using illegal methods to

reduce costs, does not gain at the expense of other suppliers or its own workers; it
is a matter purely of redistribution. There is no net effect on the economy's total
production of goods and services. The gains made by the supplier at the expense of customers by
cutting quality or engaging in deceptive marketing, arguably the supply of goods and services conforming
to what the customer thinks he or she is getting, are actually reduced. GNP, adjusted for the quality of
goods, should fall in this case. On the other hand, it is remotely possible that, on occasion, the commission
of a commercial offence helps expand the supply of goods and services. If, for example, the fraud takes the
form of something like illegal disposal of hazardous wastes, with the result that costs to consumers are
reduced at the expense of environmental degradation, depending on how the economic impact of the
environmental damage is reckoned, the result could be an actual increase in GNP even though sensible
environmental accounting would dispel any notion this represents a net gain in economic welfare.

Similarly, with social crime, the net effect depends entirely on how the
measurement is done. If national income is estimated in the normal way, by
examining total value of market transactions, then any production of new goods
and services unambiguously increases society's total GNP and, with it, supposedly,
economic welfare. [14] This is all the more true because in this case, unlike that of
market-based crime, the new goods and services, being legal, can be directly
measured. But if national income is measured in a broader way to take account of potential
depreciation of human and ecological capital, there are unintended costs which should be subtracted. It is
impossible to say a priori what the net effect will be. In all cases, when assessing the overall economic
effects of criminal acts, it is necessary to distinguish between the immediate impact of the act at the micro
level, and the consequences of increased expenditure for policing, prosecution and correction at the macro
level. If an economy is at full employment, arguably the diversion of resources into economically
unproductive activity associated with crime control is a net loss. But if the economy has

unemployed resources, increased expenditure on police, prosecution and

imprisonment operates just like any other net injection of funds to produce a
positive multiplier effect. Indeed, one of the reasons the US economy did not
stumble badly in the post-Cold War period may be that increased expenditure for
the prison-industrial complex more than offset reductions in what previously went
to the military-industrial complex. Over the last decade, the military budget has fallen about
US$50 billion, while the crime-control budget has risen by about $100 billion. Furthermore, that the US
employs so many people in construction and maintenance of prisons, and jails such a large percentage of
its economically active population, may itself account for the fact that the US unemployment rate is lower
than that of other wealthy Western countries.

The US isnt key to the global economy

Kenny 2015 (Charles; Why the Developing World Won't Catch the U.S. Economy's Cold; May
4; www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-04/why-the-developing-world-won-t-catchthe-u-s-economy-s-cold; kdf)
Last week the U.S. Commerce Department announced that first-quarter

GDP growth for 2015 was an anemic

fears that a U.S. slowdown could lead to a global
recession. But the clich about America sneezing and the rest of the world catching
the cold doesnt hold like it used to. The U.S. isnt as contagious as it was, and developing countries
in particular are far more robust to economic shocks. Thats good news for everyone. It means
less volatility in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, which contributes to happier people, greater political stability, and stronger
long-term growthall of which should help lift the U.S. out of its own doldrums. A team of IMF researchers has
looked at the long-term record of the worlds economies when it comes to growth
and recession. They measured how long economies expanded without interruption, as well as the depth and length of
0.2 percent. This immediately sparked

downturns. Over the past two decades, low and middle-income economies have spent more time in expansions, while downturns
and recoveries have become shallower and shorter. This suggests countries have become more resilient to shocks. In the 1970s and
'80s, the median developing economy took more than 10 years after a downturn to recover to the GDP per capita it had prior to that
slump. By the early 2000s, that recovery time had dropped to two years. In the 1970s and '80s, countries of the developing world
spent more than a third of their time in downturns, but by the 2000s they spent 80 percent of their time in expansions. The first
decade of the 21st century was the first time that developing economies saw more expansion and shorter downturns than did
advanced economies: Median growth in the developing world was at its highest since 1950 and volatility at its lowest. Developing
countries still face a larger risk of deeper recession when terms of trade turn against them, capital flows dry up, or advanced
economies enter recessions themselves. But the scale of that risk has diminished. Thats because low and middle-income economies
have introduced policy reforms that increase resilience: flexible exchange rates, inflation targeting, and lower debt. Economies with
inflation-targeting regimes see recovery periods less than a third as long as economies without targeting, for example. Larger
reserves are associated with longer expansions. And median reserves in developing countries more than doubled as a percentage of
GDP between the 1990s and 2010. Median external debt has dropped from 60 percent to 35 percent of GDP over that same period.
Such policy changes account for two-thirds of the increased recession-resilience of developing countries since the turn of the
century, suggest the IMF researchersleaving external factors, such as positive terms of trade, accounting for just one-third. Thats
good news for the developing worldnot least because volatile growth is particularly bad for poorer people, who are most at risk of
falling into malnutrition or being forced to take children out of school, which has long-term consequences for future earnings. That
might help explain the relationship between growth volatility, slower reductions in poverty, and rising inequality. Sudden negative
income shocks can also be a factor in sparking violence: When rains fail, the risk of civil war in Africa spikes, and when coffee prices
in Colombia fall, municipalities cultivating more coffee see increased drug-related conflict. The African analysis suggests that a five
percentage-point drop in income growth is associated with a 10 percent increase in the risk of civil conflict in the following year.
Finally,

because volatility increases the uncertainty attached to investments, it can

also be a drag on overall long-term economic performance . Viktoria Hnatkovska and Norman
Loayza of the World Bank estimated that moving from a comparatively stable to a relatively volatile growth trajectory is associated
with a drop in average annual growth of as much as 2 percent of GDP. Lower

volatility in the developing

world and its associated long-term growth performance is also good news for the
U.S. A strong global economy is still a positive force for growth in every country, including developed nations. And with the
developing world accounting for about one-third of trade and GDP at market rates, as well as three-fifths of U.S. exports, its role in
supporting American economic performance has never been greater. Those

hoping for a recovery in U.S.

output should be grateful for stronger economic immune systems in the rest of the
world.

No existential threat from terrorists

Mueller and Stewart, 2/24/15 (John, Political scientist at Ohio State; Mark, engineer and
risk analyst at the University of Newcastle in Australia; Terrorism poses no existential threat to
America. We must stop pretending otherwise;
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/24/terrorism-poses-no-existentialthreat-to-america)//JPM
One of the most unchallenged, zany assertions during the war on terror has been
that terrorists present an existential threat to the United States, the modern state
and civilization itself. This is important because the overwrought expression, if
accepted as valid, could close off evaluation of security efforts. For example, no
defense of civil liberties is likely to be terribly effective if people believe the threat
from terrorism to be existential. At long last, President Barack Obama and other top
officials are beginning to back away from this absurd position. This much overdue
development may not last, however. Extravagant alarmism about the pathological
but self-destructive Islamic State (Isis) in areas of Syria and Iraq may cause us to
backslide. The notion that international terrorism presents an existential threat
was spawned by the traumatized in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. Rudy Giuliani,
mayor of New York at the time, recalls that all security experts expected dozens and
dozens and multiyears of attacks like this and, in her book The Dark Side, Jane
Mayer observed that the only certainty shared by virtually the entire American

intelligence community was that a second wave of even more devastating

terrorist attacks on America was imminent. Duly terrified, US intelligence services
were soon imaginatively calculating the number of trained al-Qaida operatives in
the United States to be between 2,000 and 5,000. Also compelling was the
extrapolation that, because the 9/11 terrorists were successful with box-cutters, they might well
be able to turn out nuclear weapons. Soon it was being authoritatively proclaimed that atomic
terrorists could destroy civilization as we know it and that it was likely that a nuclear terrorist
attack on the United States would transpire by 2014. No atomic terrorists have yet
appeared (al-Qaidas entire budget in 2001 for research on all weapons of mass
destruction totaled less than $4,000), and intelligence has been far better at
counting al-Qaida operatives in the country than at finding them. But the notion
that terrorism presents an existential threat has played on. By 2008, Homeland
Security Secretary Michael Chertoff declared it to be a significant existential one - carefully
differentiating it, apparently, from all those insignificant existential threats
Americans have faced in the past. The bizarre formulation survived into the
Obama years. In October 2009, Bruce Riedel, an advisor to the new administration, publicly
maintained the al-Qaida threat to the country to be existential. In 2014, however, things began
to change. In a speech at Harvard in October, Vice President Joseph Biden offered the
thought that we face no existential threat none to our way of life or our
ultimate security. After a decent interval of three months, President Barack Obama
reiterated this point at a press conference, and then expanded in an interview a
few weeks later, adding that the US should not provide a victory to these terrorist
networks by over-inflating their importance and suggesting in some fashion that
they are an existential threat to the United States or the world order. Later, his
national security advisor, Susan Rice, echoed the point in a formal speech. It is astounding that
these utterances blindingly obvious as security specialist Bruce Schneier puts it
appear to mark the first time any officials in the United States have had the
notion and the courage to say so in public

AT: racial profiling

DHS and ICE prohibit racial profiling passage of the 2013 DHS
Commitment to Nondiscriminatory law and Enforcement and Screening
Activities proves
Department of Homeland Security '15 (Department of Homeland Security ;March 19, 2015
;Acquisition and Use of License Plate Reader Data from a Commercial Service DHS/ICE/PIA039; pg.8-pg.9; www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/privacy-pia-ice-lprmarch2015.pdf; 7-12-15; mbc)
ICE, in coordination with the DHS Chief Privacy Officer and the DHS Officer for
Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, has included in this PIA a discussion of civil
liberties issues raised by the use of LPRs to more completely address public
concerns regarding the use of this technology. The inclusion of an individual rights and
liberties discussion in this PIA will improve transparency and assist the public
understanding of ICEs use of LPR technology. In addition to the above framework
of privacy and civil liberties protections, existing DHS policies will foster the
proper use of LPR data. DHS prohibits the consideration of race or ethnicity in
investigation, screening, and law enforcement activities in all but the most
exceptional instances. Accordingly, consistent with law and DHS policy, LPR data may not
be collected, accessed, used, or retained to target or monitor an individual solely on the basis of
actual or perceived race, ethnicity, or nationality. The following is the Departments
official policy7 on this issue: Racial profiling is the invidious use of race or
ethnicity as a criterion in conducting stops, searches, and other law enforcement,
investigation, or screening activities. It is premised on the erroneous assumption
that any particular individual of one race or ethnicity is more likely to engage in
misconduct than any particular individual of another race or ethnicity. The
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has explicitly adopted the Department of Justices
Guidance Regarding the Use of Race by Federal Law Enforcement Agencies, issued in 7 Janet
Napolitano, The Department of Homeland Securitys Commitment to Nondiscriminatory Law
Enforcement and Screening Activities (Apr. 26, 2013). Privacy Impact Assessment ICE/LPR
Page 8 June 2003. It is the policy of DHS to prohibit the consideration of race or
ethnicity in our daily law enforcement and screening activities in all but the most
exceptional instances, as defined in the DOJ Guidance. DHS personnel may use
race or ethnicity only when a compelling governmental interest is present, and
only in a way narrowly tailored to meet that compelling interest. Of course, race or
ethnicity-based information that is specific to particular suspects or incidents, or ongoing
criminal activities, schemes or enterprises, may be considered, as stated in the DOJ Guidance.

Fear of racial profiling stems from the perception of police bias Aff cant
solve
Simmons '12 (Kami Chavis; 2011; Beginning to End Racial Profiling: Definitive Solutions to an
Elusive Problemt; Kami Chavis Simmons is a Professor of Law and Director of the Criminal
Justice Program at Wake Forest University School of Law. In 2015, she was appointed as a
Senior Academic Fellow at the Joint Center for Political And Economic Studies.;
poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?
ID=2890041120081130900311251100960170990250070570170060130980230780260171030
090870901050050600431070580471180700660870850150061160190590070230931240060

70074013100107011091032002072106083009115008101004120019099067104004015001116
082104012093073114105006&EXT=pdf&TYPE=2; 7-12-15; mbc)
Many Americans have had interactions with police officers and other law-enforcement agents,
and the majority of these police-citizen encounters occur in the context of traffic stops.'
Although mildly inconvenient, traffic stops are necessary not only for enforcing traffic
rules and deterring traffic violations, but they are generally beneficial for broader public
safety concerns. For many people, traffic stops are simply part of life. For many
racial minorities, however, especially African-American and Latino men, 2 even a
routine traffic stop takes on an entirely different meaning. Historically, the
relationship between racial minorities and police has been strained, and many
members of racial minority groups believe that law enforcement officers unfairly
target them because of their race or ethnicity.3 It is widely known that many Americans,
especially minorities, believe that police officers use race as a "proxy" for criminal involvement.
There is strong evidence that racial minorities believe law enforcement officers
engage in racial profiling. African-Americans have long argued that police officers
scrutinize their behavior more closely, and many report that they are fearful of
arrest even if they have done nothing illegal.4 The majority of African-Americans believe
that racial profiling is wrong, yet is pervasive within their communities.5 The September I Ith
tragedy and increased attention surrounding immigration from Mexico, however, have caused
other minority groups such as Arab-Americans and Latinos to become increasingly concerned
that law-enforcement officers also unfairly target them based on their race or ethnicity. 6
Stories of the humiliation and helplessness of families stranded in the rain with
their belongings strewn alongside the highway are commonplace for many
members of society.7 Undoubtedly, the pernicious practice of racial profiling, or at least the
perception that this practice occurs, has caused many citizens to alter their routine to avoid the
indignity of yet another police stop. Unfortunately, there is a growing body of evidence
that suggests that the perception that police unjustly target minorities is not
merely an unsubstantiated feeling, but an uncomfortable reality. While all forms of
police misconduct or corruption are disturbing, racial profiling occupies a unique place among
such harmful practices because it presents several unique issues that make it difficult to address
through standard police accountability measures. Society entrusts lawenforcement officers with
a wide-breadth of discretion in order to perform their everyday duties.8 While the fast-paced
nature of law enforcement necessitates discretion, if left unchecked, broad grants of discretion
can lead police officers to abuse their position and engage in misconduct ranging from falsifying
evidence, participating in violent excessive uses of force, and engaging in racial profiling. Many
forms of police misconduct and corruption leave tangible evidence that allows law-enforcement
agencies to implement remedial measures to alleviate the problem. 9 Racial profiling, however,
is an elusive practice that can easily remain shrouded from view.

Courts rarely recognize victims claims of being racially profiled cant

solve
Simmons '12 (Kami Chavis; 2011; Beginning to End Racial Profiling: Definitive Solutions to an
Elusive Problemt; Kami Chavis Simmons is a Professor of Law and Director of the Criminal
Justice Program at Wake Forest University School of Law. In 2015, she was appointed as a
Senior Academic Fellow at the Joint Center for Political And Economic Studies.;
poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?
ID=2890041120081130900311251100960170990250070570170060130980230780260171030

090870901050050600431070580471180700660870850150061160190590070230931240060
70074013100107011091032002072106083009115008101004120019099067104004015001116
082104012093073114105006&EXT=pdf&TYPE=2; 7-12-15; mbc)
Remedying an elusive practice such as racial profiling remains a challenging issue
for the judiciary and reformers must rely on other avenues for a solution. For
example, even where evidence demonstrates that minorities are disproportionately
stopped and searched, courts rarely recognize the victim's claim or provide
relief.21 Thus, it is clear that courts will not be the catalysts of change. This Article
argues that while courts may be reluctant to provide judicial remedies, police departments
themselves should not ignore the perceptions and should take measures to reduce any possible
profiling and increase partnerships with communities. An indication that a police
department may be engaging in racial profiling has a detrimental and far-reaching
impact not only on the individuals who experience it first-hand, but also on other
members of the targeted community. Ultimately, this pernicious practice threatens to
undermine legitimacy in law enforcement and the criminal justice system for large segments of
society, which impacts society as a whole. Part III concludes by suggesting proactive remedies
institutions and policymakers should consider to alleviate the tensions between communities
and police office with respect to racial profiling. Data collection efforts are imperative to
educating the public and police agencies about racial profiling, but these efforts
fall short as a long-term remedy. Therefore, in addition to data collection during traffic
stops, this Article proposes several policy solutions that the federal government and state
legislatures should implement to address racial profiling within local law enforcement agencies.

Profiling is situational, not about race

Cutler 15 (Michael Cutler is an Immigration and Naturalization Service Senior Special Agent for thirty years,
IMMIGRATION AND POLITICAL RACIAL 'PROFILING, 7/2/15, Date Accessed, 7/7/15,

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/259319/immigration-and-political-racial-profilingmichael-cutler, SZ)

What is ignored by many journalists is that law enforcement must use profiling in
order to be proactive and effective. However, ethical law enforcement
profiling involves far more than the race or simple outward appearances of
suspicious people. Effective and fair profiling must include situational and
behavioral factors as integral components of such an effort. When I was an INS agent conducting
surveillance in Harlem as part of a team of NYPD and DEA agents in conjunction with a narcotics investigation, we would
take notice if, for the sake of argument, we spotted a Caucasian young man behind the wheel of a new high-priced vehicle,
such as a BMW, with out-of-state license plates driving slowly up a block near a known drug location. If he was looking around
furtively, as though he was expecting to meet someone, we might well have stopped him and ask who he was looking for and check
his license, etc. Certainly we were basing our stop of the vehicle on a profile that had many components. More often than not, such
stops yielded invaluable information and often led to arrests and seizures of narcotics and weapons. However identifying voters by a
single element -- whether it is race, religion or ethnicity -- constitutes a different sort of profiling and one that is as insidious and
ugly as it gets. To talk about the Latino vote is to postulate that all Latinos will vote the same way and presupposes that all Latinos
have the same values, orientations and concerns. This is racism and bigotry plain and simple. It is unfair, it is insulting and it is

It creates
the false impression that immigration is all about race. In point of fact, our
immigration laws are, as they should be, utterly and completely blind as to
race, religion and ethnicity. Our immigration laws have two primary goals: protect innocent lives and the jobs of
divisive. The notion of the supposedly monolithic Latino voter does great harm in a number of important ways.

American workers. Nothing could be more reasonable. Title 8 U.S. Code 1182: (Inadmissible Aliens) enumerates various categories
of aliens who are to be prevented from entering the U.S. You will notice that there

is nothing in this section of law

that makes any distinction about such superficial issues as race, religion or
ethnicity. The list of excludible classes of aliens includes aliens who suffer dangerous communicable diseases, severe mental
illness, are fugitives from justice, aliens who are convicted felons, spies, terrorists, war criminals, human rights violators, and others
whose presence would undermine national security and/or public safety. This section of law also addresses the issue of protecting
the jobs, wages, and working conditions of the American worker. Here is the relevant portion of this section of law: (5) Labor
certification and qualifications for certain immigrants (A) Labor certification (i) In general Any alien who seeks to enter the U.S. for
the purpose of performing skilled or unskilled labor is inadmissible, unless the Secretary of Labor has determined and certified to
the Secretary of State and the Attorney General that (I) there are not sufficient workers who are able, willing, qualified (or equally
qualified in the case of an alien described in clause (ii)) and available at the time of application for a visa and admission to the U.S.
and at the place where the alien is to perform such skilled or unskilled labor, and (II) the employment of such alien will not adversely
affect the wages and working conditions of workers in the U.S. similarly employed. What

does race have to do

with the enforcement of our immigration laws? Making this an issue about
race is unfair, unreasonable and pits Americans against Americans , creating the
impression that Americans who want our borders secured and immigration laws enforced hate anyone of Latino ethnicity. This is a
vicious lie. This is the equivalent of saying that if you lock your doors at night you are a xenophobic and anti-social misanthrope.

Absent of intentional forms of structural discrimination, police officer bias

still maintains minorities perception of racism
Simmons '12 (Kami Chavis; 2011; Beginning to End Racial Profiling: Definitive Solutions to an
Elusive Problemt; Kami Chavis Simmons is a Professor of Law and Director of the Criminal
Justice Program at Wake Forest University School of Law. In 2015, she was appointed as a
Senior Academic Fellow at the Joint Center for Political And Economic Studies.;
poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?
ID=2890041120081130900311251100960170990250070570170060130980230780260171030
090870901050050600431070580471180700660870850150061160190590070230931240060
70074013100107011091032002072106083009115008101004120019099067104004015001116
082104012093073114105006&EXT=pdf&TYPE=2; 7-12-15; mbc)
Furthermore, racial profiling remains elusive and difficult to remediate because,
even in the absence of intentional forms of discrimination, individual officers may
be motivated by their unconscious racial biases. Despite much progress on racial issues,
racial discrimination is not a "relic of the past" but instead remains a
contemporary feature of modem society.69 Today, overt displays of discrimination are
rare, but racial prejudice "often goes unrecognized even by the individual who responds
unconsciously to such motivation.,, 70 For example, several psychological studies
testing implicit bias demonstrate that images of African-Americans evoke more
fear than other groups and confirm that members of minority groups, particularly
African-American males, are associated with aggressive behavior.7 " Whether or not there is
definitive proof of discrimination, it is indisputable that many members of
minority groups perceive that many police officers harbor and exercise racial
animus when policing communities of color.72 This perception itself can be
damaging to the credibility and legitimacy of a law-enforcement agency. practical
impact for certain individuals or the police officers who work within those
communities to keep residents safe. With or without the imprimatur of a court
decision, it is indisputable that many members of minority groups perceive an injustice, and
this perception is dangerous and harmful to both the community and law enforcement. Even
the perception that certain groups are treated unfairly undermines the legitimacy

of the law enforcement agency, and thus has a deleterious effect on crime control
and prevention.

Legal immigrants experience the psychological burden of being portrayed

as illegal by the police force
Simmons '12 (Kami Chavis; 2011; Beginning to End Racial Profiling: Definitive Solutions to an
Elusive Problemt; Kami Chavis Simmons is a Professor of Law and Director of the Criminal
Justice Program at Wake Forest University School of Law. In 2015, she was appointed as a
Senior Academic Fellow at the Joint Center for Political And Economic Studies.;
poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?
ID=2890041120081130900311251100960170990250070570170060130980230780260171030
090870901050050600431070580471180700660870850150061160190590070230931240060
70074013100107011091032002072106083009115008101004120019099067104004015001116
082104012093073114105006&EXT=pdf&TYPE=2; 7-12-15; mbc)
Racial profiling leads to the societal stigmatization of victims known as a "racial
tax. 74 Both the individual and the targeted community as a whole suffer
psychological and emotional harms of racial profiling. Casual observers may view
multiple police stops as a mere inconvenience, but in reality this "mere inconvenience" is really a
harsh form of social stigmatization. Those who become targets of racial profiling suffer
the emotional and psychological burden of racial profiling, and some members of
minority groups have reported psychological harms of humiliation and depression
as a result of racial profiling.75 The "broad taint of suspected criminality" 76 that burdens
the entire ethnic or racial group that has been profiled, has been referred to as a "racial tax. 77
Randall Kennedy, a professor at Harvard Law School, burdens placed upon African-American,
Arabic, Latino and Asian minorities for their membership within their specific race/ethnic
group.78 The "tax" has a particularly acute impact upon those of Latino descent,
since they are often forced to prove their citizenship in addition to suffering the
injustice of racial profiling.79 Officers create an environment where Latinos are
"cast as foreigners," and those of the working class in emerging Latino
communities are questioned more often since they might bear a resemblance to
the "stereotypical image of what illegal immigrants supposedly look like.",80
Because a large majority of Latinos live in the United States are citizens or legal
immigrants, this means that legal and lawful residents unjustly bear the burden of
these "citizenship encounters."'' , Each of these forms of racial taxation unduly burdens the
targeted group, for no other reason than a person's membership to that group. 82

AT: Immigration Federalism

AT: Science Diplomacy

Visas are exploitative and exclusionary dont solve scientific diplomacy
Rygiel 10 [Kim. Asstistant Professor of Political Science at Wilfrid Laurier Univ. Globalizing
Citizenship, 2010. Pg 5-6. Available Online via the University of Wisconsins EBook Collection]
As forms of human mobility grow (e.g., displacement, asylum, travel for work, study,
family, and leisure), and as regulatory controls become more restrictive, legalized, regular,
and regulated forms of migration produce irregular, and what has increasingly become
illegalized, forms of movement across borders (De Genova 2002). The increased
implementation of border controls on the part of governing authorities has enabled the
greater segregation (and differential treatment) of legitimate mobilities such as
leisure and business, from illegitimate mobilities such as terrorism and illegal
immigration (Amoore 2006, 336). This illegalization of migration is produced by
greater securitization, particularly by wealthy postindustrial societies in the North. In the
process, certain bodies are perceived as threatening, disruptive, and risky and,
therefore, in need of being securitized, regulated, and controlled. At the same
time, these bodies are rendered vulnerable and are perceived as an invaluable
source of cheap and exploitable labour (Bacon, 2008; Bigo 2002 and 2007; Bigo and
Guild 2005; Ceyhan and Tsoukala 2002; Coleman 2005; Epstein 2007; Pickering and Weber
2006). Since 2001, they have frequently taken the form of the immigrant, the refugee or asylum
claimant, and the undocumented migrant; however, they are also exchangeable and racialized,
such that people of colour and those from countries in the South, as well as people of Muslim,
Arab, and/or Middle Eastern background, have come to be viewed as risky subjects (Thobani
2004). It is within this context, then, that citizenship has increasingly become a way
of governing individuals and populations. Despite the criss-crossing and transgression of
territorial state borders and the reconfiguration of the state as a result of globalization,
citizenship as a form of governing has been strengthened through innovative
strategies and technologies of power, becoming an increasingly effective way of
controlling populations in a globalizing environment. The reason for this is that,
under the logic and discourse of citizenship, a host of strategies have been
implemented to further open borders and liberalize trade and the flow of capital in
ways that simultaneously maintain the role of the state with regard to controlling
population and enforcing security. This is why Barry Hindess (2003, 24) argues that we
can best understand this seeming contradiction between the promotion of open
borders for goods, on the one hand, and the simultaneous restriction on the mobility of
people, on the other, if we view them both as parts of the one regime of population
control. This has been especially evident since the events of 11 September 2001 [9-11],
which have led to the increasing use of citizenship as a means of governing the
tension between an increasingly deterritorialized political economy and a
territorialized political system . This is the context within which the principle arguments
are situated.

Science Diplomacy Impact Defense

Science diplomacy doesnt spill over
Hormats 3/12 - Served Under Secretary of State for Economic Growth, Energy, and the
Environment (Robert, Science Diplomacy and Twenty-First Century Statecraft) AAAS
http://www.sciencediplomacy.org/perspective/2012/science-diplomacy-and-twenty-firstcentury-statecraft (LT)
SCIENCE diplomacy is a central component of Americas twenty-first century statecraft
agenda. The United States must increasingly recognize the vital role science and
technology can play in addressing major challenges, such as making our economy
more competitive, tackling global health issues, and dealing with climate change.
American leadership in global technological advances and scientific research, and
the dynamism of our companies and universities in these areas, is a major source of our
economic, foreign policy, and national security strength. Additionally, it is a hallmark
of the success of the American system. While some seek to delegitimize scientific ideas, we
believe the United States should celebrate science and see itas was the case since the
time of Benjamin Franklinas an opportunity to advance the prosperity, health, and
overall well-being of Americans and the global community. Innovation policy is part of our
science diplomacy engagement. More than ever before, modern economies are rooted in science
and technology. It is estimated that Americas knowledge-based industries represent 40
percent of our economic growth and 60 percent of our exports. Sustaining a vibrant
knowledge-based economy, as well as a strong commitment to educational excellence
and advanced research, provides an opportunity for our citizens to prosper and
enjoy upward mobility. America attracts people from all over the worldscientists,
engineers, inventors, and entrepreneurswho want the opportunity to participate in, and
contribute to, our innovation economy. At the same time, our bilateral and multilateral
dialogues support science, technology, and innovation abroad by promoting improved
education; research and development funding; good governance and transparent regulatory
policies; markets that are open and competitive; and policies that allow researchers and
companies to succeed, and, if they fail, to have the opportunity to try again. We advocate for
governments to embrace and enforce an intellectual property system that allows
innovators to reap the benefits of their ideas and also rewards their risk taking. Abraham
Lincoln himself held a patent on an invention, a device for preventing ships from being
grounded on shoals. He said in his Second Lecture on Discoveries and Inventions in 1859 that
patents added the fuel of interest to the fire of genius, in the discovery and production of new
and useful things. The practice of science is increasingly expanding from individuals to
groups, from single disciplines to interdisciplinary, and from a national to an international
scope. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development reported that
from 1985 to 2007, the number of scientific articles published by a single author
decreased by 45 percent. During that same period, the number of scientific articles
published with domestic co-authorship increased by 136 percent, and those with
international co-authorship increased by 409 percent. The same trend holds for
patents. Science collaboration is exciting because it takes advantage of expertise that exists
around the country and around the globe. American researchers, innovators, and institutions, as
well as their foreign counterparts, benefit through these international collaborations.
Governments that restrict the flow of scientific expertise and data will find themselves isolated,
cut off from the global networks that drive scientific and economic innovation. While the

scientific partnerships that the United States builds with other nations, and international ties
among universities and research labs, are a means to address shared challenges, they also
contribute to broadening and strengthening our diplomatic relationships. Scientific
partnerships are based on disciplines and values that transcend politics, languages, borders, and
cultures. Processes that define the scientific communitysuch as merit review,
critical thinking, diversity of thought, and transparencyare fundamental values
from which the global community can reap benefits. History provides many examples
of how scientific cooperation can bolster diplomatic ties and cultural exchange.
American scientists collaborated with Russian and Chinese counterparts for decades, even as
other aspects of our relationship proved more challenging. Similarly, the science and technology
behind the agricultural Green Revolution of the 1960s and 70s was the product of American,
Mexican, and Indian researchers working toward a common goal. Today, the United States
has formal science and technology agreements with over fifty countries. We are
committed to finding new ways to work with other countries in science and
technology, to conduct mutually beneficial joint research activities, and to advance
the interests of the U.S. science and technology community. Twenty-first century
statecraft also requires that we build greater people-topeople relationships. Science and
technology cooperation makes that possible. For example, through the Science Envoy program,
announced by President Obama in 2009 in Cairo, Egypt, eminent U.S. scientists have met with
counterparts throughout Asia, Africa, and the Middle East to build relationships and identify
opportunities for sustained cooperation. With over half of the worlds population under the age
of thirty, we are developing new ways to inspire the next generation of science and
technology leaders. Over the past five years, the Department of States International
Fulbright Science & Technology Award has brought more than two hundred exceptional
students from seventy-three different countries to the United States to pursue graduate studies.
Through the Global Innovation through Science and Technology Initiative, the United States
recently invited young innovators from North Africa, the Middle East, and Asia to post YouTube
videos describing solutions to problems they face at home. The top submissions will receive
financial support, business mentorship, and networking opportunities.

Science diplomacys impact is marginal it doesnt create real diplomacy

Dickson 10 - director of SciDev.net (David, Science in diplomacy: On tap but not on top, 6/28
http://scidevnet.wordpress.com/category/science-diplomacy-conference-2010/)

Theres a general consensus in both the scientific and political worlds that the principle of science diplomacy, at least in the somewhat restricted sense
of the need to get more and better science into international negotiations, is a desirable objective. There

is less agreement, however, on

how far the concept can or indeed should be extended to embrace broader goals and objectives, in
particular attempts to use science to achieve political or diplomatic goals at the international level.
Science, despite its international characteristics, is no substitute for effective diplomacy. Any more than diplomatic initiatives
necessarily lead to good science. These seem to have been the broad conclusions to emerge from a three-day meeting at Wilton Park in Sussex, UK,
organised by the British Foreign Office and the Royal Society, and attended by scientists, government officials and politicians from 17 countries around
the world. The definition of science diplomacy varied widely among participants. Some saw it as a subcategory of public diplomacy, or what US
diplomats have recently been promoting as soft power (the carrot rather than the stick approach, as a participant described it). Others preferred to
see it as a core element of the broader concept of innovation diplomacy, covering the politics of engagement in the familiar fields of international
scientific exchange and technology transfer, but raising these to a higher level as a diplomatic objective. Whatever definition is used, three particular
aspects of the debate became the focus of attention during the Wilton Park meeting: how science can inform the diplomatic process; how diplomacy can
assist science in achieving its objectives; and, finally, how science can provide a channel for quasi-diplomatic exchanges by forming an apparently
neutral bridge between countries. There was little disagreement on the first of these. Indeed for many, given the increasing number of international
issues with a scientific dimension that politicians have to deal with, this is essentially what the core of science diplomacy should be about. Chris Whitty,

for example, chief scientist at the UKs Department for International Development, described how knowledge about the threat raised by the spread of
the highly damaging plant disease stem rust had been an important input by researchers into discussions by politicians and diplomats over strategies
for persuading Afghan farmers to shift from the production of opium to wheat. Others pointed out that the scientific community had played a major
role in drawing attention to issues such as the links between chlorofluorocarbons in the atmosphere and the growth of the ozone hole, or between
carbon dioxide emissions and climate change. Each has made essential contributions to policy decisions. Acknowledging this role for science has some
important implications. No-one dissented when Rohinton Medhora, from Canadas International Development Research Centre, complained of the
lack of adequate scientific expertise in the embassies of many countries of the developed and developing world alike. Nor perhaps predictably was
there any major disagreement that diplomatic initiatives can both help and occasionally hinder the process of science. On the positive side, such
diplomacy can play a significant role in facilitating science exchange and the launch of international science projects, both essential for the development
of modern science. Europes framework programme of research programmes was quoted as a successful advantage of the first of these. Examples of the
second range from the establishment of the European Organisation of Nuclear Research (usually known as CERN) in Switzerland after the Second
World War, to current efforts to build a large new nuclear fusion facility (ITER). Less positively, increasing restrictions on entry to certain countries,
and in particular the United States after the 9/11 attacks in New York and elsewhere, have significantly impeded scientific exchange programmes. Here
the challenge for diplomats was seen as helping to find ways to ease the burdens of such restrictions. The broadest gaps in understanding the potential
of scientific diplomacy lay in the third category, namely the use of science as a channel of international diplomacy, either as a way of helping to forge
consensus on contentious issues, or as a catalyst for peace in situations of conflict. On the first of these, some pointed to recent climate change
negotiations, and in particular the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as a good example, of the way that the scientific community
can provide a strong rationale for joint international action. But others referred

to the failure of the Copenhagen climate

summit last December to come up with a meaningful agreement on action as a demonstration of the
limitations of this way of thinking. It was argued that this failure had been partly due to a misplaced
belief that scientific consensus would be sufficient to generate a commitment to collective
action, without taking into account the political impact that scientific ideas would have. Another
example that received considerable attention was the current construction of a synchrotron facility SESAME
in Jordan, a project that is already is bringing together researchers in a range of scientific
disciplines from various countries in the Middle East (including Israel, Egypt and Palestine, as well as both Greece and
Turkey). The promoters of SESAME hope that as with the building of CERN 60 years ago, and its operation as a research centre involving, for
example, physicists from both Russia and the United States SESAME will become a symbol of what regional collaboration can achieve. In that sense,

however successful
SESAME may turn out to be in purely scientific terms, its potential impact on the Middle East
peace process should not be exaggerated. Political conflicts have deep roots that cannot easily be
papered over, however open-minded scientists may be to professional colleagues coming from
other political contexts. Indeed, there was even a warning that in the developing world, high profile
scientific projects, particular those with explicit political backing, could end up doing damage by
inadvertently favouring one social group over another . Scientists should be wary of having their
prestige used in this way; those who did so could come over as patronising, appearing unaware
of political realities. Similarly, those who hold science in esteem as a practice committed to promoting the causes of peace and development
it would become what one participant described as a beacon of hope for the region. But others cautioned that,

were reminded of the need to take into account how advances in science whether nuclear physics or genetic technology have also led to new types of
weaponry. Nor did science automatically lead to the reduction of global inequalities. Science for diplomacy therefore ended up with a highly mixed
review. The consensus seemed to be that science can prepare the ground for diplomatic initiatives and benefit from diplomatic agreements but
cannot provide the solutions to either.

Science diplomacy fails multiple reasons

Dickson, 10 Dave, Director of SciDev (Science diplomacy: easier said than done, SciDev, 6/24/10,
http://scidevnet.wordpress.com/category/science-diplomacy-conference-2010/) Red
But, as rapidly become clear in the opening session of the three-day meeting on science diplomacy being held at Wilton Park in Sussex, UK,

putting the principle of such diplomacy into action presents many practical problems , some of
which SciDev.Net aired last week (see Science diplomacy must be more ambitious). As several participants pointed out, this is
particularly the case at a time when science budgets are under pressure, and scientists
are being asked to justify their support from the public purse in terms of the practical
contributions they make to national rather than international well-being. The dilemma was
highlighted by the very first speaker at the meeting, Peter Fletcher, chair of panel that seeks to co-ordinate the international activities of Britains
research councils. Fletcher outlined the many ways in which science can be effectively used as a diplomatic tool. He pointed out, for example, that
scientific cooperation offered countries such as Britain an opportunity to establish good relations with the Muslim world in just the same way that
it had helped them build bridges with China in the 1990s. Science is a way of building relationships, sometimes even before politicians have
agreed to talk. Fletcher said. Researchers are used to working across national boundaries. They understand people who are thinking about the
same things as they are, and are used to working together in ways in which other people are not. But he also pointed out that, with the UK having
just announced a 25% reduction in its science budget, governments were increasingly requiring scientists to demonstrate the value of their work

for those who paid for it. How much are we prepared to commit to solving global challenges for mutual benefit [in this context]? he asked. Other

challenges were highlighted by Vaughan Turekian, director of the Center for Science Diplomacy,
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Washington DC Turekian pointed out that part of
the attraction of using science for diplomatic purposes was its apolitical nature. In addition, the United States, for example, was well placed to
exploit the fact that its science was held in much higher regard around the world that many of its other activities. He quoted a recent visit to Syria
by a US scientific delegation that had met with President Assad an ophthalmologist as an example of how science diplomacy could help
promote political engagement in situations where official relations were limited. Science cooperation has provided a wonderful way to have a

barriers that prevent science

diplomacy from operating effectively , such as asymmetries in scientific
capabilities, economic or security concerns over providing access to certain
types of key technologies, and a general lack of funding. In the discussion that followed, it became
clear that these barriers are likely to become an important focus of attention over the next two days. Several participants, for example,
pointed to the obstacles to international scientific exchange presented by the increasing
restrictions on entrance visas being placed by countries such as the U nited States. It becomes so
difficult for someone to get into the US that once they are there, they cannot afford to go
home, even for a short visit, because they have no idea whether they will be able to get back in, was one typical comment.
dialogue on issues of mutual interest, Turekian said. But he also pointed to some of the

Science diplomacy fails

David Dickson, SciDev.net, June 2, 2009. http://scidevnet.wordpress.com/2009/06/02/science-diplomacy-the-case-for-caution/

One of the frustrations of meetings at which scientists gather to discuss policy-related issues is
the speed with which the requirements for evidence-based discussion they would expect in a
professional context can go out of the window. Such has been the issue over the past two days in the meeting jointly
organised in London by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and the Royal Society on the topic New Frontiers in Science
Diplomacy. There has been much lively discussion on the value of international collaboration in achieving scientific goals, on the need for researchers
to work together on the scientific aspects of global challenges such as climate change and food security, and on the importance of science capacity
building in developing countries in order to make this possible. But there remained little evidence at the end of the meeting on how useful it was to
lump all these activities together under the umbrella term of science diplomacy. More significantly, although

numerous claims were

made during the conference about the broader social and political value of scientific
collaboration for example, in establishing a framework for collaboration in other areas, and in
particular reducing tensions between rival countries little was produced to demonstrate
whether this hypothesis is true. If it is not, then some of the arguments made on behalf of science
diplomacy, and in particular its value as a mechanism for exercising soft power in foreign
policy, do not stand up to close scrutiny.

Diplomacy cant spillover

Daniel Brumberg, May 6, 2006. http://hir.harvard.edu/development-and-modernization/hegemony-or-leadership
Indeed, I agree with many of his points. US President George Bushs administration has alienated much of the world by its rejection of international
treaties, advocacy of regime change, implicit rejection of national sovereignty, failure to push for a two-state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict,

much of the "hatred" toward the

United States has more to do with US policies than US values. No amount of shrewd public
diplomacy can overcome the basic policy clashes that separate Europe and Washington almost as
decisively as they divide Washington and the Third World. That said, Ambassador Zarif has simplified some of the
and what many see as a self-serving and hypocritical approach to non-proliferation. I also agree that

inevitable challenges that the worlds remaining superpower must encounter. Moreover, he ignores the daunting challenge that Iranian leaders still face
in squaring their espousal of international norms and institutions with many of Irans foreign policies. Unfortunately, some of these policies reflect the
enduring influence of a hard-line clerical establishment that repudiates many of the very global norms that Ambassador Zarif advocates.

AT: State Experimentalism Good

State experimentation doesnt help immigration
Cunningham-Parmeter 11 Associate Professor of Law, Willamette University. J.D., Stanford
University. opyright (c) 2011 U.C. Hastings College of the Law Hastings Law Journal July, 2011
Hastings Law Journal 62 Hastings L.J. 1673 LENGTH: 29161 words Article: Forced Federalism:
States as Laboratories of Immigration Reform
Ever since Justice Louis Brandeis characterized states as laboratories of democracy, judges and
scholars have championed the ability of states to offer a diverse array of solutions
to complex national problems. Today, proponents of enhanced immigration restrictions apply
the same rationale to state immigration laws. This Article challenges the assertion that states
can serve as valuable laboratories of immigration reform. States that enact their own
immigration laws do not internalize costs or yield replicable results - two
conditions needed for viable experimentation. When states internalize costs, other
jurisdictions can effectively evaluate outcomes. Replication occurs when states take diverse
approaches to common problems. Unfortunately, current state immigration laws do not meet
these criteria because states operate in a system of "forced federalism": a division of
power between the two levels of government in which subnational jurisdictions attempt to force
the federal government to accept state-defined immigration enforcement schemes. But as
states thrust their chosen levels of immigration control on the federal government,
their potential to innovate on immigration matters is quite restricted. Essentially,
forced federalism limits states to a narrow set of enforcement decisions based on federally
defined norms - far from the type of diverse testing associated with true innovation and
replication. Today's state immigration experiments also fail to internalize costs another condition of successful subnational tests. Restrictionist states that encourage
unauthorized immigrants to resettle in other jurisdictions export the economic
damage they claim illegal immigration causes. In addition to economic spillovers,
laboratory states export social costs to the nation by fundamentally altering the concept
of a shared national identity. For example, when immigrants flee restrictionist states in order to
avoid racial profiling or harassment, the national commitment to values such as egalitarianism
and nondiscrimination is weakened. These harms are not confined to restrictionist states alone
but are felt by the nation as a whole. Not all subjects are ripe for local experimentation
and not all tests produce valid results . Despite the appealing image of states as
laboratories, today's immigration experiments will not advance the nation's
ongoing search for sounder immigration policies.

Federal control over immigration is super resilient Arizona ruling

Vincent J Cannato Fall 2012; associate professor of history at the University of Massachusetts, Boston, and the author of
American Passage: The History of Ellis Island. Our Evolving Immigration Policy National Affairs Issue 13 Fall 2012
http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/our-evolving-immigration-policy

For all the debate that surrounds America's immigration policy, just who is
responsible for enforcing that policy has rarely been in dispute in recent decades
until Arizona adopted the statute S.B. 1070. Arguing that the federal government had proved incapable of stopping the illegal
immigration wreaking havoc in the state, Arizona lawmakers took matters into their own hands, enacting legislation that used state
penalties and state police to try to give meaningful force to federal laws already on the books. Washington, for its part, resisted,
claiming that Arizona's approach intruded on federal prerogatives. The

federal-state power struggle ultimately

landed before the Supreme Court, which, amid a swirl of politicized commentary

on both sides of the matter, issued its ruling in June. "The Government of the United
States has broad, undoubted power over the subject of immigration and the status
of aliens....The federal power to determine immigration policy is well settled ," opined
Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the Court's majority in Arizona v. United States. In a 5-3 decision (Justice Elena Kagan
recused herself), the Court struck down most of the Arizona law and limited the permissible range of state activity in the realm of
immigration enforcement. To allow each of the 50 states to enact its own immigration-control laws even if those laws did not
conflict with, but instead complemented, federal law would, in the Court's view, violate the doctrine that " the

States are
precluded from regulating conduct in a field that Congress, acting within its
proper authority, has determined must be regulated by its exclusive governance."
In the eyes of the Court's majority, the regulation of immigration has been so
thoroughly dominated by the federal government as to leave virtually no room for
action by the states. Justice Antonin Scalia disagreed, writing in his dissent that such a ruling "deprives States of what
most would consider the defining characteristic of sovereignty: the power to exclude from the sovereign's territory people who have
no right to be there." The majority's opinion, he contended, is supported by "neither the Constitution itself nor even any law passed
by Congress."

The plan doesnt create legal clarity to encourage state action Court ruling
wouldnt solve federal reassertion of power, either
Tamar Jacoby 4-22-2012; a fellow of the New America Foundation, is president of ImmigrationWorks USA, a national
federation of small business owners working for better immigration law. States Should Experiment on Immigration Policy NYT,
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/04/22/how-states-should-approach-immigration/states-should-experiment-onimmigration-policy?gwh=48DC6026D5DF65A992E332FAEEE2FFBB&gwt=pay&assetType=opinion

If only it were clear what is within the states power on immigration and what isnt.
That would make things a lot easier for everyone. The problem is we dont know .
Throughout American history, the pendulum of states rights and federal power
has swung back and forth, and not just on immigration. Today, were in the middle of
a federalist revolution of historic proportions, with states across the country taking immigration
lawmaking into their own hands and getting a yellow if not green light from the U.S. Supreme
Court. This summer, the court will issue its second immigration opinion in two years, and I predict that again it will be at least a
yellow light. So what are states to do? Virtually all the state immigration laws enacted in the last
decade have been enforcement measures. Thats understandable; lawmakers and voters want to
get control of illegal immigration.

States are just incompetent at immigration only federal policy solves

Adam Cohen 5-7-2012; teaches at Yale Law School. Why States Shouldnt Control Immigration: Whatever the Supreme Court's
decision on Arizona's controversial law, it should be a wake-up call about why American immigration policy must be established on a
national not state level http://ideas.time.com/2012/05/07/why-states-shouldnt-control-immigration/
Advocates for illegal immigrants are, naturally, worried they fear harsh new laws and crackdowns in state after state. But even
people who take a harder line on immigration should not be particularly pleased if this is how things go. There

is a good
reason that we look to the federal government and not the states to take the
lead on immigration law. Only Congress can address the issue in all its complexity,
taking on the many concerns on all sides. (MORE: Do Elected Officials Have to Speak English?) The
Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007, which never passed, showed what Congress could do. That bill would have created
a clear path to citizenship for the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants currently in the U.S. It also had real get-tough provisions,
including increased enforcement along the U.S.-Mexico border and a national database for employers to check the immigration
status of job applicants. States

cannot do anything this ambitious . They may be able to hound individual

cannot give
people a path to citizenship or create a national database. They cannot fix a
national system that almost everyone agrees is badly broken. The main reason that Arizona, Alabama and other states have
begun acting aggressively on immigration is that Washington has failed for years to address the problem. Even if the
immigrants into leaving the country or drive the ones who remain to live their lives in the shadows. But states

Supreme Court says that states have the legal right to enact immigration laws like
Arizonas, that does not mean that it makes any sense for the nations immigration
policy to be established at the state level. Whatever the outcome of the challenge to Arizonas law, it should
be a wake-up call to Congress that the American people are tired of waiting for immigration reform.

Federal control is inevitable and good

Tamar Jacoby 2-24-2012; Tamar Jacoby, a fellow at the New America Foundation, president of ImmigrationWorks USA, a
national federation of small business owners in favor of immigration reform. What if justices let states make immigration policy?
http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/24/opinion/jacoby-immigration-supreme-court/

Those who want Washington to make immigration policy have a hundred years of
history and a raft of persuasive arguments on their side . The Constitution reserves
some powers for Congress: naturalization and, by extension, determining who and how
many immigrants we admit. Federal law carves out other areas, including most worksite enforcement. And
sheer practicality argues for one national policy on the border.

AT: Space Impact

Tons of state experimentation on immigration in the squo

Elias 13
[Assc Prof Law Iowa. The New Immigration Federalism 2013
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/students/groups/oslj/files/2013/12/6-Elias.pdf//jv]
During the 2011 and 2012 legislative sessions, comprehensive immigration reform was once
again a topic of vibrant debate and speculation in Congress, in the media, and in the legal
academy. On June 27, 2013, the Senate passed S. 744, the Border Security, Economic
Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act. 3 Speculation aboundedand indeed
continues to aboundas to what action, if any, the House of Representatives might take. But, as
federal lawmakers and commentators argued the relative merits of different proposed solutions
to cut visa backlogs, attract immigrants with skills in science and technology, and address the
challenges posed by approximately 11.2 million undocumented migrants, 4 some of the most
important stakeholdersthe governments of the fifty stateswere unusually silent. This was
particularly noteworthy, because until the summer of 2012, those very state governments were
often at the forefront of efforts to influence the reform of immigration law and policy; in 2010,
for example, 346 separate bills pertaining to immigration and alienage were passed by state
legislatures. 5 The catalyst for the change in states immigration-related rulemaking was the
United States Supreme Courts June 25, 2012 decision in Arizona v. United States , 6 which
reasserted the federal governments primacy in the immigration arena and clarified the
boundaries of federal, state, and local rulemaking pertaining to immigration enforcement and
immigration-related criminal sanctions. In the wake of the Arizona ruling, a number of states
suspended immigration enforcement operations and ceased to promulgate anti- unauthorizedimmigrant laws. At the same time, immigration law scholars and commentatorssome of
whom had prev iously argued that it would be conceptually unstable to accord the federal
government exclusive power over immigration enforcement, while allowing states and localities
to choose different methods of integrating immigrants 7 suggested that the Courts
reaffirmation of federal primacy in the sphere of immigration enforcement signaled the demise
of immigration federalism, 8 or at the very least a return to state inaction in both
immigration and alienage rulemaking. 9 I disagree. Arizona v. United States may mark a
watershed in U.S. immigration law and policy, but it does not mark the end of state and local
engagement in immigration regulation. Instead, it portends a new direction for immigration
federalism. The Arizona Courts reinvigoration of the doctrine of broad federal power in the
immigration arena does not foreclose all state action pertaining to immigrants and
immigration. Rather, the post- Arizona legal landscape provides ample opportunity for
different varieties of state and local engagement with noncitizen residentssome of which will
be novel and some of which will involve the further development or redirection of preexisting
laws and policies. This new immigration federalism is and will be grounded in immigrantinclusionary rulemaking, which has the potential to complement (as well as occasionally
contradict) federal efforts at comprehensive immigration reform. Early analyses of post-
Arizona state lawmaking support this understanding of the new framework of immigration
federalism. After a lull during 2012, which coincided with the Courts consideration of Arizona ,
state rulemaking pertaining to immigrants rebounded in the first six months of 2013. By the
end of June of 2013, forty-three states and the District of Columbia had passed a total of 377
laws and resolutions related to immigration; an 83% increase from the first half of 2012. 10
Notably, just one state, Georgia, passed immigrant- exclusionary legislation in early 2013; the

other forty-two states enacted immigrant-inclusionary measures. 11 Legislation intended to

expand access to drivers licenses for all immigrants was introduced in at least nineteen states,
as well as in the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. 12 Bills designed to provide access to instate tuition rates for students, regardless of their immigration status, so-called State DREAM
Acts, were introduced in at least sixteen states, and proposals for greater access to scholarships
and/or financial aid for immigrant students were considered in several states. 13 At the same
time, five state legislatures debated new measures to provide greater workplace protections to
immigrant domestic workers. 14 These recent developments portend the future direction of
immigration federalism in the United States.

Your evidence says that NASA needs to fund and prioritize asteroid
readiness the status quo solves that
King 14
[Ledyard. USA Today Staff. NASA budget would ramp up asteroid mission 3/4/14
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/03/04/nasa-budget-asteroidmission/6021269/ //jv]
NASA's proposed budget for fiscal 2015 would ramp up funding to fly astronauts to an
asteroid by 2025 as part of a steppingstone approach to Mars, a mission some lawmakers want to
replace with a return trip to the moon. The $133 million for the mission, which would deflect a small
asteroid into near-Earth orbit so astronauts could practice landing on it and study its
characteristics, is part of the space agency's proposed $17.46 billion budget released by the administration Tuesday. Fiscal
2015 begins on Oct. 1 and ends on Sept. 30, 2015. The budget also includes funding to continue NASA's other top
priorities: a deep-space Space Launch System rocket and the Orion multi-purpose vehicle it will carry to Mars, the James Webb
Space Telescope due for launch in 2018, and the Commercial Crew Program that helps fund private efforts to send
astronauts from the U.S. to the International Space Station. The budget is about $185 million below the fiscal
2014 level but roughly $600 million more than NASA received in fiscal 2013 , when
sequestration cut discretionary spending across the board. NASA could have access to another $900 million
as well its share of a $56 billion Opportunity, Growth and Security Initiative that would be separate from the regular budget.

Sufficient detection and deflection efforts now but increased US asteroid

leadership guts those
CSM 10
(May 14, Who is responsible for averting an asteroid strike?
http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/2009/0514/who-is-responsible-for-averting-anasteroid-strike)
Asteroid hunters have good news and a challenge for the rest of us. After an
extensive search for asteroids a kilometer or more across, engineer Steve Chesley says that
"we can now say with confidence that no asteroids large enough to cause such a global
calamity [as killing off the dinosaurs] are headed our way." But if one of them or even
a smaller, city-destroying rock were detected on a collision course, would the world
community be prepared to handle it? A conference of legal experts that discussed this
question at the University of Nebraska in Lincoln last month answered it with a resounding
"No." Scientists and engineers who have studied the problem of deflecting a dangerous asteroid
believe the technical issues are difficult but solvable. The challenge now is figuring out the
legal issues of who takes action on behalf of humankind and of what their
responsibilities and liabilities will be. Asteroid hunters believe they can give us

plenty of warning. There is "a fair chance that the next Earth impactor will actually be
identified with many decades and perhaps centuries of warning time," explains
Mr. Chesley of the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., in the
March/April issue of the Planetary Report. That's plenty of time to develop a
spacecraft whose gravitational attraction might nudge an asteroid aside or a
rocket or some application of nuclear explosives to do the job. However, if a single
country or small group of nations tries to take the initiative on its own, the
international reaction could stall any action at all. "The international political
reactions to the US shooting down one of its own satellites a year ago to prevent
presumably dangerous and toxic rocket fuel from reaching Earth only
foreshadows what would happen if the US would detonate nukes claiming to
destroy an incoming asteroid," said Frans von der Dunk, a University of Nebraska space
law expert, at the Nebraska conference, according to Space News. Overlooking the hype
about nuclear weapons, which engineers consider an unlikely, extreme measure,
Professor von der Dunk has pointed out the main issue. Averting a regional or global
asteroid threat may involve unforeseen collateral damage such as splintered
chunks making their way to Earth or worse. Therefore, the world community has
to have a say in how that threat is handled. Right now, to use von der Dunk's word, that
community is "underorganized" to meet this challenge.

No extinction impact
BENNETT 10
(James, Eminent Scholar at George Mason University and holds the William P. Snavely Chair of
Political Economy and Public Policy in the Department of Economics and is Director of the John
M. Olin Institute for Employment Practice and Policy. He received his Ph.D. from Case Western
Reserve University in 1970 and has specialized in research related to public policy issues, the
economics of government and bureaucracy, labor unions, and health charities. The Doomsday
Lobby: Hype and Panic from Sputniks, Martians, and Marauding Meteors, p. 157-158
It should be noted that the Alvarez et al. hypothesis was not universally accepted . As Peter M. Sheehan and
Dale A. Russell wrote in their paper Faunal Change Following the CretaceousTertiary Impact: Using Paleontological Data to Assess the Hazards of
Impacts, published in Hazards Due to Comets & Asteroids (1994), edited by Tom Gehrels, many

paleontologists resist
accepting a cause and effect relationship between the iridum evidence, the Chicxulub
crater, and the mass extinction of 65 million years ago .15 For instance, Dennis V. Kent of the Lamont
Doherty Geological Observatory of Columbia University, writing in Science, disputed that a high concentration of iridium is necessarily associated with
an extraordinary extraterrestrial event and that, moreover, a

large asteroid is not likely to have had the

dire consequences to life on the earth that they propose .16 Briefly, Kent argues that the Alvarez team
mistakenly chose the 1883 Krakatoa eruption as the standard from it extrapolated the effects of stratospheric material upon sunlight. Yet Krakatoa was
too small a volcanic eruption from which to draw any such conclusions; better, says Kent, is the

Toba caldera in Sumatra, remnant of an

enormous eruption 75,000 years ago. (A caldera is the imprint left upon the earth from a volcanic eruption.) The volume of the Toba caldera

is
closer to the effect that an asteroid impact might
have. Yet the sunlight attenuation factor [for Toba] is not nearly as large as the
one postulated by Alvarez et al. for the asteroid impact. Indeed, the Toba eruption is not
associated with any mass extinctions, leading Kent to believe that the cause of the massive extinctions is not closely
related to a drastic reduction in sunlight alone.17 Reporting in Science, Richard A. Kerr wrote that Many geologists,
paleontologists, astronomers, and statisticians find the geological evidence merely
suggestive or even nonexistent and the supposed underlying mechanisms improbable at
best. Even the iridium anomalies have been challenged: Bruce Corliss of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute argues that the major
extinctions associated with the KT event were not immediate and catastrophic
400 times as great as that of Krakatoa considerably

but gradual and apparently linked to progressive climate change .18 Others argue
that a massive volcanic event predating the Alvarezian killer asteroid created an
overwhelming greenhouse effect and set the dinosaurs up for the knockout punch.
A considerable number of scientists believe that gradually changing sea levels
were the primary cause of the KT Extinction. If either of these hypotheses is true
and a substantial number of geologists hold these positionns then the killer
asteroid is getting credit that it does not deserve. Even if the KT Extinction was
the work of a rock from space, the Alvarez team credits a probable interval of 100 million years between collisions with 10km-diameter objects.19 The next rendezvous with annihilation wont be overdue for about 40
million years. We have time.

2NC Space Impacts

If the status quo doesnt solve, then neither does the aff NASAs NEO
program is a dumpster fire
AFP 14
[The Agence France Presse. NASA asteroid defense program falls short: audit 9/15/14
http://phys.org/news/2014-09-nasa-asteroid-defense-falls-short.html//jv]
The US space agency's program to detect and protect the Earth from incoming
asteroids is poorly managed and far behind schedule, said a government audit report
on Monday. Just one million of the program's $40 million annual budget is spent on
strategies to deflect an incoming asteroid or evacuate areas in danger of impact,
said the report by NASA inspector General Paul Martin. NASA was tasked by Congress in 2005
to establish a program for tracking near-Earth objects (NEO) greater than 140 meters in
diameter (460 feet), to decide on their threat and to catalogue 90 percent of these objects by
2020. "While the program has discovered, categorized, and plotted the orbits of more
than 11,000 NEOs since 1998, NASA estimates that it has identified only 10 percent of
all asteroids 140 meters and larger and will not meet the 2020 deadline," said the audit.
Furthermore, it described NASA's NEO Program as organized under "a single program
executive who manages a loosely structured, non-integrated conglomerate of
research activities with little coordination , insufficient program oversight , and
no established milestones to track progress." The report noted that most NEOs are
harmless and disintegrate before they reach the surface of the Earth. However, some survive, it
said, pointing to the 18-meter (57-foot) meteor that exploded above the city of Chelyabinsk,
Russia in 2013 "with the force of 30 atomic bombs, blowing out windows, destroying buildings,
and injuring more than 1,000 people." Other problems with NASA management of the
program included an asteroid redirect mission that was not managed by the NEO
program, and "inadequate controls to ensure proper accounting of agency-funded
grants and task orders." The " lack of planning and resources has prevented the
NEO Program from developing additional agreements that could help achieve
program goals," it added. "For example, establishing formal partnerships with the
Department of Defense, the National Science Foundation, and international agencies could give
the NEO Program access to additional Earth-based telescopes and thereby increase its ability to
detect, track, and characterize a greater number of NEOs." The report said NASA spends just
seven percent of its $40 million budget on "studying mitigation strategies to
defend the Earth from the effects of NEO impacts," including civil defense strategies,
emergency evacuations or "attempting to destroy or deflect the trajectory of an Earth-bound
NEO."

The status quo should be enough to solve your internal link, because its all
about data and collaboration were doing all of that stuff now
Economist 10
(Data, data everywhere, Feb 24, http://www.economist.com/node/15557443)

the Sloan Digital Sky Survey started work in 2000, its telescope in New Mexico collected more data in its
first few weeks than had been amassed in the entire history of astronomy . Now, a
WHEN

decade later, its archive contains a whopping 140 terabytes of information. A successor, the Large Synoptic
Survey Telescope, due to come on stream in Chile in 2016, will acquire that quantity of data
every five days. Such astronomical amounts of information can be found closer to Earth too. Wal-Mart, a retail giant, handles more than 1m customer
transactions every hour, feeding databases estimated at more than 2.5 petabytesthe equivalent of 167 times the books in Americas Library of Congress (see article for an
explanation of how data are quantified). Facebook, a social-networking website, is home to 40 billion photos. And decoding the human genome involves analysing 3 billion base
pairswhich took ten years the first time it was done, in 2003, but can now be achieved in one week. All these examples tell the same story: that the world contains an
unimaginably vast amount of digital information which is getting ever vaster ever more rapidly. This makes it possible to do many things that previously could not be done: spot
business trends, prevent diseases, combat crime and so on. Managed well, the data can be used to unlock new sources of economic value, provide fresh insights into science and

Despite the abundance of tools to capture,

process and share all this informationsensors, computers, mobile phones and the likeit already exceeds
the available storage space (see chart 1). Moreover, ensuring data security and protecting privacy is becoming harder as the information multiplies
and is shared ever more widely around the world. Alex Szalay, an astrophysicist at Johns Hopkins University, notes that the
proliferation of data is making them increasingly inaccessible. How to make
sense of all these data? People should be worried about how we train the next
generation, not just of scientists, but people in government and industry , he says. We are at a
hold governments to account. But they are also creating a host of new problems.

different period because of so much information, says James Cortada of IBM, who has written a couple of dozen books on the history of information in society. Joe Hellerstein,
a computer scientist at the University of California in Berkeley, calls it the industrial revolution of data. The effect is being felt everywhere, from business to science, from
government to the arts. Scientists and computer engineers have coined a new term for the phenomenon: big data. Epistemologically speaking, information is made up of a
collection of data and knowledge is made up of different strands of information. But this special report uses data and information interchangeably because, as it will argue,
the two are increasingly difficult to tell apart. Given enough raw data, todays algorithms and powerful computers can reveal new insights that would previously have remained
hidden. The business of information managementhelping organisations to make sense of their proliferating datais growing by leaps and bounds. In recent years Oracle, IBM,
Microsoft and SAP between them have spent more than $15 billion on buying software firms specialising in data management and analytics. This industry is estimated to be
worth more than $100 billion and growing at almost 10% a year, roughly twice as fast as the software business as a whole. Chief information officers (CIOs) have become
somewhat more prominent in the executive suite, and a new kind of professional has emerged, the data scientist, who combines the skills of software programmer, statistician
and storyteller/artist to extract the nuggets of gold hidden under mountains of data. Hal Varian, Googles chief economist, predicts that the job of statistician will become the

Data, he explains, are widely available; what is scarce is the ability to extract
wisdom from them. More of everything There are many reasons for the information explosion. The most obvious one is technology. As the capabilities of
sexiest around.

digital devices soar and prices plummet, sensors and gadgets are digitising lots of information that was previously unavailable. And many more people have access to far more
powerful tools. For example, there are 4.6 billion mobile-phone subscriptions worldwide (though many people have more than one, so the worlds 6.8 billion people are not quite
as well supplied as these figures suggest), and 1 billion-2 billion people use the internet. Moreover, there are now many more people who interact with information. Between
1990 and 2005 more than 1 billion people worldwide entered the middle class. As they get richer they become more literate, which fuels information growth, notes Mr Cortada.
The results are showing up in politics, economics and the law as well. Revolutions in science have often been preceded by revolutions in measurement, says Sinan Aral, a
business professor at New York University. Just as the microscope transformed biology by exposing germs, and the electron microscope changed physics, all these data are
turning the social sciences upside down, he explains. Researchers are now able to understand human behaviour at the population level rather than the individual level. The
amount of digital information increases tenfold every five years. Moores law, which the computer industry now takes for granted, says that the processing power and storage
capacity of computer chips double or their prices halve roughly every 18 months. The software programs are getting better too. Edward Felten, a computer scientist at Princeton
University, reckons that the improvements in the algorithms driving computer applications have played as important a part as Moores law for decades. A vast amount of that
information is shared. By 2013 the amount of traffic flowing over the internet annually will reach 667 exabytes, according to Cisco, a maker of communications gear. And the
quantity of data continues to grow faster than the ability of the network to carry it all. People have long groused that they were swamped by information. Back in 1917 the
manager of a Connecticut manufacturing firm complained about the effects of the telephone: Time is lost, confusion results and money is spent. Yet what is happening now
goes way beyond incremental growth. The quantitative change has begun to make a qualitative difference. This shift from information scarcity to surfeit has broad effects. What
we are seeing is the ability to have economies form around the dataand that to me is the big change at a societal and even macroeconomic level, says Craig Mundie, head of
research and strategy at Microsoft. Data are becoming the new raw material of business: an economic input almost on a par with capital and labour. Every day I wake up and
ask, how can I flow data better, manage data better, analyse data better? says Rollin Ford, the CIO of Wal-Mart. Sophisticated quantitative analysis is being applied to many
aspects of life, not just missile trajectories or financial hedging strategies, as in the past. For example, Farecast, a part of Microsofts search engine Bing, can advise customers
whether to buy an airline ticket now or wait for the price to come down by examining 225 billion flight and price records. The same idea is being extended to hotel rooms, cars
and similar items. Personal-finance websites and banks are aggregating their customer data to show up macroeconomic trends, which may develop into ancillary businesses in
their own right. Number-crunchers have even uncovered match-fixing in Japanese sumo wrestling. Dross into gold Data exhaustthe trail of clicks that internet users leave
behind from which value can be extractedis becoming a mainstay of the internet economy. One example is Googles search engine, which is partly guided by the number of
clicks on an item to help determine its relevance to a search query. If the eighth listing for a search term is the one most people go to, the algorithm puts it higher up. As the
world is becoming increasingly digital, aggregating and analysing data is likely to bring huge benefits in other fields as well. For example, Mr Mundie of Microsoft and Eric
Schmidt, the boss of Google, sit on a presidential task force to reform American health care. Early on in this process Eric and I both said: Look, if you really want to transform
health care, you basically build a sort of health-care economy around the data that relate to people, Mr Mundie explains. You would not just think of data as the exhaust of
providing health services, but rather they become a central asset in trying to figure out how you would improve every aspect of health care. Its a bit of an inversion. To be sure,
digital records should make life easier for doctors, bring down costs for providers and patients and improve the quality of care. But in aggregate the data can also be mined to
spot unwanted drug interactions, identify the most effective treatments and predict the onset of disease before symptoms emerge. Computers already attempt to do these things,
but need to be explicitly programmed for them. In a world of big data the correlations surface almost by themselves. Sometimes those data reveal more than was intended. For
example, the city of Oakland, California, releases information on where and when arrests were made, which is put out on a private website, Oakland Crimespotting. At one point
a few clicks revealed that police swept the whole of a busy street for prostitution every evening except on Wednesdays, a tactic they probably meant to keep to themselves. But

big data can have far more serious consequences than that. During the recent financial
crisis it became clear that banks and rating agencies had been relying on models which,
although they required a vast amount of information to be fed in, failed to reflect
financial risk in the real world. This was the first crisis to be sparked by big data
and there will be more.

Tons of international asteroid coop now

NRC 10
[National Research Council, Committee to Review NEO Surveys and Hazard Mitigation
Strategies and Space Studies Board Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board Division on

Engineering and Physical Sciences, Defending Planet Earth: Near-Earth-Object Surveys and
Hazard Mitigation Strategies Retrieved from Google Books]
Recognizing that impacts from near-Earth objects represent a hazard to humanity,
the United States, the European Union. Japan, and other countries cooperatively
organized to identify, track, and study NEOs in an effort termed "Spaceguard." From
this organization, a nonprofit group named the Spaceguard Foundation was created to
coordinate NEO detection and studies: it is currently located at the European Space Agency's
(ESA's) Centre for Earth Observation (ESRIN) in Frascati. Italy. The United States input to
this collective effort comprises three aspects: telescopic search efforts to find
NEOs, the Minor Planet Center (MPC) at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for
Astrophysics, and the NASA NEO Program Office at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
Existing, retired, and proposed telescopic systems for the U.S. NEO searches are detailed below.
Other telescopic survey, detection, and characterization efforts are conducted
worldwide and work synergistically with U.S. telescopic searches (e.g.. Asiago-DLR
Asteroid Survey, jointly operated by the University of Padua and the German Aerospace Center
[DLR|. Campo Imperatore Near-Earth Object Survey at Rome Observatory; and the Bisei
Spaceguard Center of the Japanese Spaceguard Association). To date, the U.S. search effort
has been the major contributor to the number of known NEOs. The functions of the
two U.S. data- and information-gathering offices, the MPC and the NEO Program Office, are
complementary. A European data- and information-gathering office, the Near-Earth Objects
Dynamic Site (NEODyS) is maintained at the University of Pisa in Italy, with a mirror site at the
University of Valladolid in Spain. These three services are described below.

The squo solves your coop and travel internal links but increased US
leadership on the matter just causes confusion and data overload
Economist 10
(Data, data everywhere, Feb 24, http://www.economist.com/node/15557443)

as the torrent of information increases, it is not surprising that people feel

overwhelmed. "There is an immense risk of cognitive overload ," explains Carl Pabo, a molecular biologist who studies
Is this everybody's future? Probably not. But

cognition. The mind can handle seven pieces of information in its short-term memory and can generally deal with only four concepts or relationships at once. If there is more
information to process, or it is especially complex, people become confused. Moreover, knowledge has become so specialised that it is impossible for any individual to grasp the
whole picture. A true understanding of climate change, for instance, requires a knowledge of meteorology, chemistry, economics and law, among many other things. And
whereas doctors a century ago were expected to keep up with the entire field of medicine, now they would need to be familiar with about 10,000 diseases, 3,000 drugs and more
than 1,000 lab tests. A study in 2004 suggested that in epidemiology alone it would take 21 hours of work a day just to stay current. And as more people around the world
become more educated, the flow of knowledge will increase even further. The number of peer-reviewed scientific papers in China alone has increased 14-fold since 1990 (see

information consumes is rather obvious: it consumes the attention of its recipients," wrote
Hence a wealth of information creates a poverty of attention."
But just as it is machines that are generating most of the data deluge, so they can
also be put to work to deal with it. That highlights the role of "information intermediaries". People rarely deal
with raw data but consume them in processed form, once they have been
aggregated or winnowed by computers. Indeed, many of the technologies described in this report, from business analytics to
chart 3, next page). "What

Herbert Simon, an economist, in 1971. "

recursive machine-learning to visualisation software, exist to make data more digestible for humans. Some applications have already become so widespread that they are taken
for granted. For example, banks use credit scores, based on data about past financial transactions, to judge an applicant's ability to repay a loan. That makes the process less
subjective than the say-so of a bank manager. Likewise, landing a plane requires a lot of mental effort, so the process has been largely automated, and both pilots and passengers
feel safer. And in health care the trend is towards "evidence-based medicine", where not only doctors but computers too get involved in diagnosis and treatment. The dangers of

algorithms will be doing more of the thinking for people. But that
carries risks. The technology is far less reliable than people realise. For every
success with big data there are many failures. The inability of banks to understand their risks in the lead-up to the financial
complacency In the age of big data,

crisis is one example. The deficient system used to identify potential terrorists is another. On Christmas Day last year a Nigerian man, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, tried to
ignite a hidden bomb as his plane was landing in Detroit. It turned out his father had informed American officials that he posed a threat. His name was entered into a big
database of around 550,000 people who potentially posed a security risk. But the database is notoriously flawed. It contains many duplicates, and names are regularly lost
during back-ups. The officials had followed all the right procedures, but the system still did not prevent the suspect from boarding the plane. One big worry is

what

happens if the technology stops working altogether. This is not a far-fetched idea.
In January 2000 the torrent of data pouring into America's National Security
Agency (NSA) brought the system to a crashing halt. The agency was "brain-dead" for three-and-a-half days, General Michael
Hayden, then its director, said publicly in 2002. "We were dark. Our ability to process information was gone." If an intelligence agency can be
hit in this way, the chances are that most other users are at even greater risk . Part of the
solution will be to pour more resources into improving the performance of existing technologies, not just pursue more innovations. The computer industry went through a
similar period of reassessment in 2001-02 when Microsoft and others announced that they were concentrating on making their products much more secure rather than adding

Another concern is energy consumption. Processing huge amounts of data

takes a lot of power. "In two to three years we will saturate the electric cables running
into the building," says Alex Szalay at Johns Hopkins University. "The next challenge is how to do the same things as today, but with ten to 100 times less power." It is a
worry that affects many organisations. The NSA in 2006 came close to exceeding its power supply, which would have blown out its
new features.

electrical infrastructure. Both Google and Microsoft have had to put some of their huge data centres next to hydroelectric plants to ensure access to enough energy at a

Some people are even questioning whether the scramble for ever more
information is a good idea. Nick Bostrom, a philosopher at Oxford University, identifies "information
hazards" which result from disseminating information that is likely to cause harm ,
such as publishing the blueprint for a nuclear bomb or broadcasting news of a race riot that could provoke further violence. "It is said that a little knowledge
is a dangerous thing," he writes. "It is an open question whether more knowledge is safer ."
reasonable price.

Yet similar concerns have been raised through the ages, and mostly proved overblown.

The techs not good enough to deflect

Barbee and Nuth 9
(*Aerospace Engineer and Planetary Defense Scientist, Emergent Space Technologies, Inc AND
**Senior Scientist for Primitive Bodies, Solar System Exploration Division, NASAs Goddard
Space Flight Center (10/31/2009, Brent and Joseph, Asteroid Impact Threats: Advancements
in Asteroid Science to Enable Rapid and Effective Deflection Missions, Journal of Cosmology,
Vol 2, pgs. 386-410, http://journalofcosmology.com/Extinction109.html)
We begin with the premise that Earth is to be protected from the incoming asteroid and
therefore we do not seek to move the Earth from the collision point. That would of course be
both undesirable and unachievable for myriad reasons. Therefore we seek to act upon the
asteroid. Annihilating the asteroid, either by vaporizing it or pulverizing it into a
fine grain dust cloud is nowhere near achievable with current or foreseeable
technology. Breaking an asteroid into fragments in a controlled fashion is possible
in theory, but studies have shown that the required technology is not yet within
our reach (Barbee et al., 2007). Fragmenting an incoming asteroid in an uncontrolled fashion
is highly undesirable because there is no way to guarantee that all the fragments will be
small enough to burn up harmlessly in our atmosphere should they go on to hit the
Earth, or that all fragments of sufficient size to do ground damage would miss the
Earth subsequent to the fragmentation of the asteroid (Sanchez et al., 2008).

Rotation of the asteroid makes deflection impossible

Walker Et. Al 05
[Roger, European Space Agency Advanced Concepts Team, European Space Agency, Concepts
For Near- Earth Asteroid Deflection Using Spacecraft With Advanced Nuclear and Solar Electric
Propulsion Systems, 2005, SM, Accessed: 7/11/11,
http://www.esa.int/gsp/ACT/doc/PRO/ACT-RPR-PRO-2005-ConceptsForNear.pdf]

For any deflection technique to be used, clearly its response time capability must be within
the given warning time of an impact. If the warning time is only a few months to a year, then
the only possible option would be a mass evacuation of the impact zone. The use of nuclear
weapons would be unsuitable, since the dispersion of fragments from the disrupted body
would not be sufficient and the hazard would be simply spread over a much wider area of the
Earths surface. For longer warning times of a few years, space-based intercept/impulsive
methods are possible but their effectiveness would strongly depend upon the asteroid mass.
With only a few revolutions before impact, the required delta-V to be imparted to the body
(order 10-20 cm/s) is at least an order of magnitude higher than with warning times of a
decade or more 5 . Rendezvous/propulsive methods would not be feasible in this scenario
due to the time required for rendezvous and thrusting in addition to the coast time for a
miss. Typical warning times for asteroid impact are expected to be on the order of 10-50
years 6 with current optical survey capabilities. Over these timescales, both
intercept/impulsive methods and rendezvous/propulsive methods become feasible
(assuming that the rendezvous delta-V is not too high). There are a number of
significant challenges associated with the propulsive deflection method. Most
asteroids rotate about their principal moment of inertia, but some asteroids
have been observed to be tumbling about all three axes, e.g. the slow, excited
rotation state of NEA Toutatis 7 . In the latter scenario, it may be very difficult to stabilise
and control its attitude motion so that propulsive thrusting for the deflection can occur.
Additionally, if the asteroid angular momentum is too large (e.g. it is a fast rotator
and/or dense), a high delta-V on-board the spacecraft will be required to re-orient
the spin axis by the desired amount prior to deflection thrusting, thus reducing the
deflection effectiveness. With irregular (but measurable) rotation states and
gravity fields due to inhomogeneous internal mass distributions, a safe landing
on the surface of an asteroid may also be difficult operationally, though not
impossible 8

We can only deflect the small ones no shot of stopping anything big
enough to cause extinction
Shapiro et al 10
(Irwin, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Chair FAITH VILAS, MMT Observatory
at Mt. Hopkins, Arizona, Vice Chair MICHAEL AHEARN, University of Maryland, College Park,
Vice Chair ANDREW F. CHENG, Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory FRANK
CULBERTSON, JR., Orbital Sciences Corporation DAVID C. JEWITT, University of California,
Los Angeles STEPHEN MACKWELL, Lunar and Planetary Institute H. JAY MELOSH, Purdue
University JOSEPH H. ROTHENBERG, Universal Space Network, Committee to Review NearEarth Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies Space Studies Board Aeronautics and
Space Engineering Board Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences, THE NATIONAL
ACADEMIES PRESS,
http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~planets/sstewart/reprints/other/4_NEOReportDefending
%20Planet%20Earth%20Prepub%202010.pdf)
Slow push or slow pull methods. For these options the orbit of the target object
would be changed so that it avoided collision with Earth. The most effective way to
change the orbit, given a constraint on the energy that would be available, is to change the
velocity of the object, either in or opposite to the direction in which it is moving
(direct deflectionmoving the object sidewaysis much less efficient). These options take

considerable time to be effective, of the order of decades, and even then would be
useful only for objects whose diameters are no larger than 100 meters or so.

Even if we could, political hurdles mean we wouldnt get our stuff together
in time
Chapman 5
(Clark R., Southwest Research Institute, B.S. in Astronomy, Harvard University, 1967 M.S. in
Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1968 Ph.D. in Planetary Science,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1972, The asteroid impact hazard and interdisciplinary
issues)
The most salient fact about integration of asteroid impact disaster planning into the broader
responsibilities of public disaster management agencies is that there has been none. Despite
publication of a few papers on the topic (e.g. Garshnek et al. 2000), I am aware of no
consideration at all of the impact hazard by United States or international agencies
responsible for managing a broad spectrum of other disasters. Theoretically, one
might expect that an "all-hazards" approach would suffice for the impact hazard, because of
some of the similarities. But I expect that there are sufficient differences between this
particular never-before-witnessed kind of disaster and others that a specific focus
on the unusual or unique features of the impact hazard is also essential.
Indeed, even as NASA tries to formalize procedures for communications within that agency if
the cognizant official is notified by astronomers of an impact prediction, it remains uncertain
who the NASA Administrator should notify within the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (a part of the U.S. Dept. for Homeland Security) or whether anyone
is prepared to receive such information and would know what to do with it.
Although Britain has established an NEO Information Centre
(http://www.nearearthobjects.co.uk), I am unaware that the British government, any
other national agency, or the United Nations has even a rudimentary plan for
responding to announcement of an impending impact. The only significant steps that
have been taken have been by astronomers: (a) formulation of an impact prediction evaluation
process by the Working Group on Near Earth Objects of the International Astronomical Union
(a member of ICSU), (b) the development and promulgation of the Torino Scale (Binzel 2000)
for articulating the significance of an impact prediction to the public through the news media,
and (c) the maintenance of several web sites where up-to-date information is available on NEAs
(http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/, http://newton.dm.unipi.it/cgi-bin/neodys/neoibo?, and
http://spaceguard.rm.iasf.cnr.it/; background information is maintained at
http://www.nearearthobjects.co.uk and http://impact.arc.nasa.gov/index.html, among other
sites. But for an end-to-end disaster management plan to be effective, astronomers
constitute only the first link in a lengthy, so-far-undefined chain of
communications and responsibilities.

Doesnt cause extinction

Kluger 9

[Jeffrey Kluger, senior writer for Time Magazine, winner of the Overseas Press Clubs Award for
best reporting on environmental issues, and former professor of science and journalism at NYU;
Maybe an Asteroid Didnt Kill the Dinosaurs; published 4/27/2009;
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1894225,00.html; ]
When a scientific principle is common knowledge even in grammar school, you know it has long
since crossed the line from theory to established fact. That's the case with dinosaur extinction.
Some 65 million years ago as we've all come to know an asteroid struck the earth,
sending up a cloud that blocked the sun and cooled the planet. That, in turn, wiped out the
dinosaurs and made way for the rise of mammals. The suddenness with which so many species
vanished after that time always suggested a single cataclysmic event, and the 1978 discovery of a
112-mile, 65-million-year-old crater off the Yucatn Peninsula near the town of Chicxulub
seemed to seal the deal. Now, however, a study in the Journal of the Geological Society
throws all that into question. The asteroid impact and dinosaur extinction, say the
authors, may not have been simultaneous, instead occurring 300,000 years apart.
That's an eyeblink in geologic time, but it's a relevant eyeblink all the same one that occurred
at just the right moment in ancient history to send the extinction theory entirely awry. (See
pictures of meteors striking the earth.) The controversial paper was written by geoscientists
Gerta Keller of Princeton University and Thierry Addate of the University of Lausanne, in
Switzerland. Both researchers knew that challenging the impact doctrine would not be easy. The
asteroid charged with killing the dinosaurs, after all, left more than the Chicxulub crater as its
calling card. At the same 65-million-year depth, the geologic record reveals that a thin layer of
iridium was deposited pretty much everywhere in the world. Iridium is an element that's rare on
Earth but common in asteroids, and a fine global dusting of the stuff is precisely what you'd
expect to find if an asteroid struck the ground, vaporized on impact and eventually rained its
remains back down. Below that iridium layer, the fossil record shows that a riot of species was
thriving; above it, 65% of them went suddenly missing. (Read about China's dinosaur fossils.)
But Keller and Addate worried that we were misreading both the geologic and
fossil records. They conducted surveys at numerous sites in Mexico, including a spot
called El Pen, near the impact crater. They were especially interested in a 30-ft. layer of
sediment just above the iridium layer. That sediment, they calculate, was laid down at a rate of
about 0.8 in. to 1.2 in. per thousand years, meaning that all 30 feet took 300,000 years to settle
into place. Analyzing the fossils at this small site, they counted 52 distinct species just below the
iridium layer. Then they counted the species above it. The result: the same 52. It wasn't until
they sampled 30 feet higher and 300,000 years later that they saw the die-offs. "The mass
extinction level can be seen above this interval," Keller says. "Not a single species went
extinct as a result of the Chicxulub impact." Keller's and Addate's species samplings are
not, of course, conclusive, and plenty of other surveys since 1978 do tie the extinctions closely to
the asteroid. But since the new digs were so close to ground zero, the immediate species loss
ought to be have been if anything greater there than anywhere else in the world. Instead,
the animals seemed to escape unharmed. Other paleontologists, however, believe that the very
proximity of El Pen to the impact site makes the results even less reliable. Earthquakes and
tsunamis that resulted from the collision could have wrought havoc on the sedimentary record,
causing discrete strata to swirl together and completely scrambling time lines. Keller disagrees,
pointing out that the slow accretion of sediment that she and Addate recorded is completely
inconsistent with a sudden event like a tsunami. (See pictures of animals in space.) "The
sandstone complex was not deposited over hours or days," she says. "Deposition occurred over a
very long time period." So if the Chicxulub asteroid didn't kill the dinosaurs, what

did? Paleontologists have advanced all manner of other theories over the years,
including the appearance of land bridges that allowed different species to migrate
to different continents, bringing with them diseases to which native species hadn't
developed immunity. Keller and Addate do not see any reason to stray so far from
the prevailing model. Some kind of atmospheric haze might indeed have blocked the
sun, making the planet too cold for the dinosaurs it just didn't have to have come from
an asteroid. Rather, they say, the source might have been massive volcanoes, like the
ones that blew in the Deccan Traps in what is now India at just the right point in history. For the
dinosaurs that perished 65 million years ago, extinction was extinction and the precise cause
was immaterial. But for the bipedal mammals who were allowed to rise once the big lizards were
finally gone, it is a matter of enduring fascination.

Turn: Uncooperative Federalism

Uncooperative federalism spills to immigration specifically
Hu 12 Copyright (c) 2012 Regents of the University of California UC Davis Law Review
December, 2012 UC Davis Law Review 46 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 535 LENGTH: 38814 words
ARTICLE: Reverse-Commandeering NAME: Margaret Hu* isiting Assistant Professor, Duke
Law School.
The federal government's encroachment upon the states' historic police power
through the domestication of immigration policy weakens the federal
government's argument that it is defending its exclusive power to control
immigration under the Supremacy Clause. Conversely, the cooperative nature of
immigration enforcement activities between the federal and state governments
weakens a state government's argument that this domestication is a form of
commandeering or a Tenth Amendment violation of state sovereignty. n117 Nevertheless,
this contested boundary is becoming the target of increasing controversy, as
witnessed by recent legal challenges. Multiple state and local jurisdictions are
increasingly rejecting f ederal proposals for further cooperation in federal
immigration enforcement efforts. n118 As this movement of "uncooperative
federalism" n119 grows into a new wave of immigration [*566] federalism, it is
likely that state and local governments will raise anti-commandeering principles
under the Tenth Amendment as a method to challenge this encroachment by the
federal government into states' historic police powers.

State noncooperation creates superior immigration federalism

Elias, 13 Associate Professor of Law, University of Iowa College of Law (Stella, The New
Immigration Federalism OHIO STATE LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 74:5)
A broad definition of immigration federalism is therefore needed to encompass involvement by multiple tiers of governmentat the federal, state,
and local levelsin the promulgation of laws and regulations implicating immigration and alienage that may pertain to either immigrant exclusion or
immigrant inclusion. (Re)defining

immigration federalism as the engagement by national, state, and local

states and localities potential to engage both in
anti-unauthorized- immigrant rulemaking and in the promulgation of laws
designed to foster immigrant inclusion. As this Article will demonstrate, such a broad definition is necessary to
governmental actors in immigration regulation, recognizes

accurately capture the new direction of immigration federalism in the aftermath of Arizona and Whiting, wherein immigrantexclusionary rulemaking is
broadly constrained, whilst immigrant-inclusionary lawmaking is not. This broad definition of immigration federalism also implicitly acknowledges
that allowing the immigration debate to play out at multiple levels may provide an opportunity for a variety of different legislative and regulatory
outcomes.27 Immigration rulemaking, the enforcement of those rules, and dissent from those rules now implicate an increasingly complicated
patchwork of federalstate, statelocal, and in some instances even federal local or federalstatelocal relationships. As I discuss infra, in recent
years, despite well-established doctrine mandating federal primacy, states have acted either under the supervision of the federal government,
concurrently with the federal government, in competition with the federal government, or in dissent from the federal government to both exclude
immigrants and to include them.28 Moreover, the engagement by state and local governmental actors in immigration regulation does not necessarily

The
new immigration federalism, in the post- Arizona legal landscape, may thus involve differentiated
dissenting or uncooperative rulemaking by states and localities,30 whether with respect to
involve state and local authorities acting in uniform ways to cooperate and coordinate their actions with those of the federal government.29

immigrant-exclusionary measures such as laws directing local police officers to question individuals about their immigration status or immigrantinclusionary measures such as the sanctuary city movement or state DREAM Act legislation.31 In sum, a broad and inclusive definition of immigration
federalism is now warranted to characterize the current nature and future direction of state, local, and federal engagement with immigration regulation.
I turn, therefore, in the next Part of this Article, to the parameters of this new immigration federalism, as articulated in the United States Supreme
Courts recent immigration preemption cases.

Turn: States Bad

Congress wont be able to step in states will ruin everything
Emily Chiang 2003; Associate Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, Think Locally, Act Globally? Dormant Federal Common Law
Preemption of State and Local Activities Affecting Foreign Affairs, 53 Syracuse L. Rev. 923, Lexis
Pro-preemption scholars frequently contend that requiring

Congress to act affirmatively to preempt

state and local activities it finds threatening to the nation ignores the political
realities of how Congress functions and the potential damage such activities may
create before Congress acts to forestall them. 171 Not only does sheer institutional
inertia act to limit the likelihood that Congress will act, but the political popularity
of many of the state activities, such as the Massachusetts Burma law or the South Africa divestment statutes,
also ensures that even statutes damaging to the nation's foreign policy have a high
chance of survival . 172 One might well contend that the failure of Congress to preempt politically popular statutes is not a
failure at all, but rather democracy at work, with representatives properly taking the political preferences of their constituents into
account when casting their votes. The United States does not, however, operate as a pure democracy, but rather as a democratic
republic that differentiates between state legislatures and the national legislature for [*959] a reason. One should perhaps put a finer
point on the pro-preemption argument just described and make it more nuanced: the problem is not when members of Congress
vote not to preempt a state statute they actually favor (whether because their constituents favor it and it is the right thing to do
politically or because they personally favor the statute) but rather when members of Congress vote not to preempt a statute they
oppose on national interest grounds because they fear the political consequences of doing so. Perhaps one can differentiate between
the two instances by asking whether Congress would ever pass a similar federal statute; if it would not because of the international
relations consequences, but the state statute is permitted to pass preemption anyway, one might properly deem that its passing is a
failure of our republican system to act as an adequate filter for state actions when the national interest is involved.

Collapses foreign policy credibility

Emily Chiang 2003; Associate Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, Think Locally, Act Globally? Dormant Federal Common Law
Preemption of State and Local Activities Affecting Foreign Affairs, 53 Syracuse L. Rev. 923, Lexis
The problem with these anti-preemption contentions is twofold. First, one

consideration typically given short

shrift is the possibility that state and local actions may interfere with federal
foreign policy when silence itself is a part of that policy . 178 Some commentators have suggested
that Congress has various political incentives not to overrule politically popular
state and local actions such as the Massachusetts Burma Law; these political incentives may also
have a foreign policy facet. For example, when Congress agrees with the
substantive ends of a statute, but nevertheless should overrule it for international
political reasons, because it has angered valuable trading partners perhaps,
overruling the statute may send the offending nation the wrong signal or imply
substantive disagreement with the statute it [*961] would prefer not to. As the Court in
Sabbatino noted, "often the State Department will wish to refrain from taking an official
position, particularly at a moment that would be dictated by the development of
private litigation but might be inopportune diplomatically. Adverse domestic
consequences might flow from an official stand which could be assuaged, if at all,
only be revealing matters best kept secret ." 179 Setting the default rule at preemption, unless Congress
gives the states a green light, avoids this problem by freeing Congress to decide when and on what issues it wishes to speak. 180

Causes net under-pre-emption Congress wont have the guts to step in

CHIANG 03 (Emily; Associate Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, Think Locally, Act Globally?
Dormant Federal Common Law Preemption of State and Local Activities Affecting Foreign
Affairs, 53 Syracuse L. Rev. 923, l/n)
Most of the anti-preemption commentary also fails to take into account the
frictions of legislating in Congress. 182 Given the impediments to passing even

popular legislation, it is likely that Congress will often fail to preempt or overrule
even those statutes that do catch its attention and that it feels should be overruled.
The likely result given the political realities of Congressional action is underpreemption , where the ideal level of preemption is what would exist in a world of frictionless legislation. In a world of
frictionless legislation, the default rule would not matter because Congress could and would simply preempt or overrule all state and
local activity it [*962] found troubling. The problem of where to set the default arises only because legislation is not frictionless;
given the anti-preemption consensus that the last word on foreign affairs, so to speak, belongs to the political branches, 183 it seems
that the default rule should attempt to obtain the optimal level of preemption that would hold in a world of frictionless legislation,
i.e. come closest to what Congress would prefer to do but cannot given the contingencies of legislating.

Turn: Causes Racism

State power increases discrimination against undocumented immigrants
Varsanyi et al. 2012 Associate Professor of Political Science at John Jay College of Criminal
Justice (Monica, Immigration Federalism: Which Policy Prevails?,
http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/immigration-federalism-which-policy-prevails)//AN
Immigration federalism, defined as the role of the states and localities in making and implementing immigration law and policy , has
become an increasingly relevant issue. Contemporary scholarship explores two emerging dynamics: (1) the devolution of
immigration authority to subnational jurisdictions, authorized in 1996 by IIRIRA and the 1996 welfare reform law formally known as the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), and (2) the recent explosion of grassroots immigration policies and enforcement
practices. Legal scholars are divided between those arguing for and against the constitutionality and desirability of immigration federalism. Peter Spiro,
an early proponent of immigration federalism, argued for "steam valve federalism" in immigration policymaking, and also supported state-level
immigration policy activism. Under steam valve federalism, the pressure

on the federal government to pass a

potentially undesirable national-level policy is lowered by allowing localities to determine
their own enforcement approach . Some scholars suggest that immigration policymaking at subnational levels will not
necessarily be hostile to immigrants, while others view the devolution of immigration policing authority as a
crucial force multiplier in the war on terror, because only roughly 2,000 U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) agents were assigned to interior enforcement as of 2009. Other scholars are principally
concerned that devolution and grassroots immigration policy activism together have opened the door to
discrimination against noncitizens . They view the devolution of federal authority as an
erosion of the traditional barrier, imposed by the 14th Amendment, against state and local discrimination on
the basis of national origin. Under immigration federalism , immigrants are much more at the mercy
of the discriminatory powers of the local state.

State officers lack fundamental training in immigration lawthat risk

racial profiling and alienation of communities
Chavez 13 Juris Doctor Northwestern University School of Law (Eduardo Reyes,
IMMIGRATION FEDERALISM: THE CASE OF IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT BY NONFEDERAL AGENCIES, http://epubs.utah.edu/index.php/HJP/article/viewFile/967/729)//AN
By enforcing immigration laws, state and local governments jeopardize overstepping and
violating constitutional rights of non-citizens. In addition, their enforcement also breeds
alienation between the community and the local authorities. In a country where local
community collaboration is essential to combat local crime, alienation from the local police can
result in an increased percentage of crime rates. Not only that, since immigration is a very
complex field, state and local officers sometimes do not receive enough training to truly
understand immigration laws, especially criminal and civil laws. In many cases, this lack of
understanding these laws has resulted in violation of civil rights and racial profiling. In a time
when money is not as available as it used to be, state and local agencies should use their
resources wisely and only engage in law enforcement that falls under the local jurisdiction. Even
though in some case enforcing immigration laws can serve as a security measure, those laws
are federal laws and should therefore be enforced by the federal government.
Instead, the local officers should focus in building bridges among cultures and strengthening
their connection with the entire community. Even though the United States Constitution does
not specify who is entitled to enforce immigration law, the federal government has established
itself as the exclusive enforcer through congressional legislation and recognition by Supreme
Court rulings. State and local governments may voluntarily come into written agreements with
the federal government to enforce criminal and, to some extent, civil provisions of the U.S.

immigration law but they are still restricted to federal preemption. Therefore, states and
localities should not engage in immigration enforcement since the likelihood of overstepping
their legal boundaries may occur due to the lack of expertise and the risk of violating civil rights
and civil liberties of racial minorities.

Federal immigration enforcement is criticalanything else risks police

violence and racism
Varsanyi et al. 2012 Associate Professor of Political Science at John Jay College of Criminal
Justice (Monica, Immigration Federalism: Which Policy Prevails?,
http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/immigration-federalism-which-policy-prevails)//AN
Devolution of governmental authority creates variation in local policy regimes that is often celebrated as a way to better reflect the
needs and preferences of local residents, or as a way to experiment with new and different ways of carrying out public services.
Those who argue for devolution of immigration enforcement authority stress these qualities, suggesting that devolution reduces
pressure on the central government in a hotly contested policy area. Such variation is certainly apparent in our surveys, and has
various implications for local governments and immigrants. Immigration

enforcement, however, cannot be grouped

with policy domains such as education or employment training . Immigration enforcement can be described
as "intermestic" policy, standing at the juncture of foreign and domestic policy. The implications of enforcement are
significant for both individuals and communities, raising fundamental issues about who
belongs. Enforcement decisions can also have international ramifications. This is a complex area of law , and the
standards are not even entirely clear to legal scholars, who remain sharply divided over whether local police can legitimately enforce
civil immigration violations. Nor

does immigration federalism fit the usual model of "cooperative

federalism," because it bypasses the traditional role of the state government in policy
implementation in favor of local governments, where coordination among neighboring jurisdictions is lacking. Municipal police
departments and sheriffs often act in isolation , without considering policies in nearby areas, as they
decide whether and how to participate in enforcement. The decisions localities make are influenced by local political dynamics, and

there is no effort to achieve consensus among law enforcement leaders . The implications of the trend
toward more formal local engagement in immigration enforcement are significant. Approximately 4 percent of the U.S. population
lacks legal status. Enforcement

efforts that target unauthorized immigrants can also draw U.S.

citizens and legal permanent residents into intrusive contacts with the police. The enforcement
effort may be perceived as racist or haphazard because there is discretion at the individual level and because
police departments may operate in overlapping jurisdictions. A 2007 Pew Hispanic Center report noted that
over half of all Latinos in the United States fear that they, or someone close to them, may be deported. The MJP means that no
local government can allay that fear , and the federal government cannot ensure that
enforcement will protect the civil rights and liberties of American citizens and legal residents . The
federal government has remained largely silent regarding alleged abuses by local law enforcement when it has partnered to deport
residents, though certainly the Justice Department has closely monitored developments in Maricopa County and the Department of
Homeland Security ended 287(g) authorities there. It has at times responded aggressively to local policies of non-enforcement, as
the New Haven case illustrates. The devolution

of immigration enforcement, combined with the absence of a

created a "no-policy policy" where enforcement programs and practices vary
from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The federal government has extended its reach, even as it has reduced its oversight.
consistent federal policy, has

States CP
States solve for immigration federalism better than the Courts or Congress
Ramakrishan 2013(Karthick; Associate Professor University of California, Riverside, "The
importance of the Political in Immigration Fedralism", poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?,
&EXT=pdf&TYPE=2, January 13)//ADS
Importantly, elected officials and restriction advocates have paired these demographic claims with a complaint that the federal
government has forsaken its constitutional and statutory responsibility to control unwanted immigration. In signing Arizonas E-

Janet Napolitano (now Secretary of the Department of Homeland

Security) declared : Immigration is a federal responsibility, but I signed [the law]
because it is now abundantly clear that Congress finds itself incapable of coping
with the comprehensive immigration reforms our country needs. 11 Unable to wait any

Verify law, then-Governor

longer for the federal government to seal the border and vigorously enforce provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act,12
states and localities had to legislate to protect their residents and solve their impending demographic crisis. Undoubtedly, this
conventional wisdom is appealing. However, it is, at best, an incomplete account of the rise of subnational immigration regulation;

In prior empirical work, we cast doubt on the factual

premise undergirding much of the new immigration federalism, showing that
state and local immigration laws are not, as commonly assumed, policy responses
tailored to immigration induced demographic problems .13 That is, the primary justifications

at worst, it is purposefully misleading.

undergirding most scholarly, political, and judicial explanations for this recent spate of state and local immigration regulations have
little empirical support. Instead, restrictionist state and local laws are largely the product of political partisanship, with Republicanheavy areas especially ripe for political action.

Foucault Links
Devolution of authority from the Migration State to the local level becomes
another justification for controlling immigrant bodiestheir practice just
shifts the burden of populace regulation to the localthat results in
insecurity
Coleman 2012 PhD in the Department of Geography at UCLA in 2005, Associate Professor,
Department of Geography at Ohio State University (Matthew, The Local Migration State: The
Site-Specific Devolution of Immigration Enforcement in the U.S. South, Law & Policy, Volume
34: 159190)//AN
Three basic sets of conclusions about the migration state, following Hollifield, can be gleaned from the two case studies above. First, nonfederal immigration enforcementin this case in the form of 287(g)
authority and Secure Communitiesis heavily mediated by local practices and policies. Indeed, the studies above show that because nonfederal immigration enforcement, even if federally sanctioned, varies
enormously depending on where it takes place, the mere fact that a nonfederal law enforcement agency is enrolled in a partnership with federal authorities to police immigration tells us neither about how the
power over immigration is being enacted nor to what effect. In the two adjacent cases in Raleigh-Durham, for example, ostensibly similar immigration enforcement powers have been shaped remarkably
differently by political, legal, policing, and biographical contexts. The relevant factors are, on the one hand, Durham City's long-standing and widely supported community policing and no-cooperation policies,
Durham Police Department's use of immigration partnerships with ICE to supplement specifically antigang enforcement, and Durham Police Chief Lopez's leadership on steering 287(g) authority away from nonriminal naturalization investigations within the larger noncooperation context by virtue of his personal belief in, and advocacy for, community policing. In Wake County, on the other hand, 287(g) and Secure
Communities plays out very differently as a result of the sheriff's Cracker Jack or spitting on sidewalks approach to 287(g)/Secure Communities policing, the Raleigh-based NCSA's aggressive stance on illegal
alien invaders, federal elected officials' support for the program in the county, and the county's role as an experimental site for devolutionary immigration enforcement. In the latter case, 287(g)/Secure
Communities has resulted in thousands of deportations; in the former case, local immigration enforcement is a relatively focused antigang investigations tool and has produced two orders of magnitude fewer

by virtue of the devolution of immigration enforcement to nonfederal authorities , as well as

we can conclude that the migration state comprises a complex
landscape of spatially uneven enforcement practices. What this theoretically points to is that the migration state be tackled explicitly in terms of how
deportations. In sum,

the ways in which nonfederal contexts shape this process,

localized conditions of possibility mediate, at least theoretically, standardized federal initiatives. In other words, the local migration state is an aggregation of site-specific practices that, even if in part provided

Wake County

for by macrolevel initiatives, constitute detention and deportation regimes in the plural. Second, the
exampleas well as the counter example in Durhamshows how immigrant
mobility is increasingly a central concern of the migration state. Indeed, Wake County's implementation of 287(g)/Secure Communities, indicative of broader enforcement practices shared by its NCSA partners,
suggests that the local surveillance of immigrant automobility (Urry 2004) specifically is an all-important way in which noncitizens are brought into contact with nonfederal authorities and eventually transferred
to federal custody for deportation. In the central North Carolina case, the focus on immigrant automobility is in significant measure due to the broadly discretionary aspects of traffic enforcement as well as the

practices in low-income and Latino neighborhoods; it also reflects the way in which
state legislators have explicitly linked traffic enforcement to questions about citizenship and
naturalization. More generally, the problem of immigration policing via routine traffic enforcement points to an important second aspect of the local migration state, in addition to its sitesaturation of traffic enforcement

specificity: its attachment of serious civil immigration penalties (i.e., deportation), to nonserious criminal activity (i.e., minor infractions and/or misdemeanors), by virtue of the civil deputization of primarily
criminal law enforcement officers. Third, and lastly, the Wake County example shows that non-287(g) and/or nonSecure Communities agencies may be as important, if not more so, than formally deputized or
otherwise formally cooperative law enforcement agencies when it comes to measuring the impact of local immigration enforcement practices in specific sites. As noted above, this is because nonenrolled agencies
may engage in policing practices, which they may reasonably expect to result in an immigration check in the case that a 287(g) or Secure Communities agreement is in effect at a shared detention site. This problem
is best called a hub and spokes enlargement of official 287(g) and Secure Communities sites by virtue of local detention practices. What the hub and spokes problem suggests is that the local migration state, in
addition to its spatial unevenness, as well as punitive melding of civil and criminal enforcement, comprises increasingly informal, off-the-radar policing practices. In other words, the devolution of federal
immigration responsibilities to identifiable nonfederal proxies may also have heralded the dissolution of immigration enforcement across countless law enforcement agencies with no immediately identifiable
linkages with either federal or deputized immigration agencies.

enforcement and how.

In effect this obscures who is doing immigration

The hub and spokes dilemma is more than a conceptual or theoretical issue; it is also immediately relevant to reforms to 287(g) and Secure

Communities undertaken in late 2009, based ultimately on the Durham City model, which advise a focus on criminal aliens who pose a threat to public safety or danger to the community rather than on lesser
offenders. The impetus for this change was a January 2009 congressional report, which found that the 287(g) program lacked overall policy objectives, encouraged non-uniform applications, and had unclear and
uneven federal supervision (U.S. Government Accountability Office 2009; in the North Carolina context, see also Gill and Nguyen 2010; Weissman and Headen 2009). Task force 287(g)s were the focus of the
reform effort, on the presumption that the power of warrantless arrest built into these agreements could encourage mass street sweeps for minor infractions or for immigration violations alone. For example, newly
included language in task force 287(g) agreements stresses that the power to detain solely based on an immigration violation . . . will be delegated only on a case-by-case basis and on the prior authority of an ICE

,
changes to the jail model operations are slight; although the explicit criminal alien language
above applies also to the jail models, the latter are, in practice, left to work as they did prior to 2009 . Crucially,
the attention to the task force model neglects how, in practice, the jail model programs are just as likely to encourage large-scale
round upsonly in this case by non-enrolled law enforcement agencies engaged in mass enforcement campaigns around minor infractions with the understanding that immigration documents
will be checked later at a shared detention facility. I want to conclude with a caveat about the problem of site-specificity as developed above. My debt to feminist geographers
working specifically on studying up the state, as noted at the outset of the article, has in this project entailed a
decentralization and destabilization of the state, which is too often regarded as an all-powerful and
stable constellation of knowledges and practices. Rather than a global form of power (i.e., seamless and
encompassing in a socio-spatial sense), my deployment of studying up vis--vis 287(g) and Secure Communities has been with
the aim of investigating the migration state's regulation of immigrant bodies unevenly
and in formation across a multiplicity of locations . In other words, the devolutionary trend in
immigration enforcement, which accounts for both 287(g) and Secure Communities, is not simply a problem of downloading a federal
enforcement toolbox that then gets enacted at the local scale by nonfederal proxies in a relatively uniform manner. Collier and Ong (2005)
develop interesting language for theorizing this problem, which they refer to as the actual global of power relationships
conventionally imagined in terms of a global-local continuity : rather than a mobile and
official who will prioritize the removal of gang members, smugglers and traffickers and when reasonable suspicion exists to believe the alien is or was involved in criminal activity. In comparison

immutable strategy, in which a global initiative is transported in whole to the local, what they suggest is approaching
power as a strategy that is situated in the sense of a geographically contingent
generativity . As they argue, a global variable does not produce similar effects everywhere, and its function may be limited by direct conflicts with other variables in specific sub-modules of a
program. Its operation and significance, thus, are defined as much by these exclusions or conflicts in particular modules as by the variable's global character (ibid., 13). An alternative
citation would be Foucault's (1980) work on power as a strategic elaboration, meaning that the
regimes of truth and institutional practices that constitute power relations are elaborated in
often geographically and historically precise and open-ended ways. However, in the case of
immigration enforcement practices authored by programs like 287(g) and Secure Communities ,
the problem of site-specificity strikes me as unuseful if it means that we cannot talk about the more general properties programs like 287(g) and Secure
Communities exhibit. In other words, if the concept of site-specificity is a good way of approaching what happens when
nonfederal police are given the power to police immigration, I nonetheless think it important to be able to articulate the
suprasite implications of these programs. What, then, can be said in the aggregate about 287(g) and Secure Communities? Perhaps the most
important generalizable aspect of these programs, despite their practiced specificities, is how they shift immigration policing into immigrant
populations' everyday spaces. But not just any space. For example, neither of the programs puts a premium on worksite enforcement. This is a new development in terms of
interior policing. While large worksite operations like the raid at the Agriprocessors Inc. meatpacking facility in Postville, Iowa, in May 2008 have generated significant headlines, in general worksite enforcement
now does not contribute significantly to the aggregate detention and deportation numbers examined above. This is particularly so in comparison to the ramping up of worksite raids during the 1990sa tactic
abandoned in 1999 in response to mounting criticism in Congress about the rising costs, as well as economic disruptiveness, of worksite enforcement. In light of this general deemphasis on worksite policing,

the finding from central North Carolina that 287(g) and Secure Communities targets mostly
individuals who come into routine contact with police for nonserious reasons , the near majority of which are immigrant
automobile operators, is significant because it shows that spaces of immigrant social reproduction are now
ground zero for interior immigration enforcement. Indeed, it is increasingly the case in central North Carolina that driving between spaces of work,
leisure, education, shopping, religious practice, and so on is more dangerous for undocumented immigrants in terms of risking deportation than actually working without papers (Stuesse 2010; Nuez and

The point then is that programs like 287(g) and Secure Communities work , despite their specificities,
to generate insecurity namely, the ever-present threat of detention and deportationfor
undocumented populations who are, as a result, increasingly structurally cut off in social reproduction
terms from the society in which they nonetheless labor.
Heyman 2007).

Immigration surveillance has created a migration borderthis has

transformed the life of an immigrant into a panoptic realityevery place
becomes a symbol of insecurity from the overarching state
Kalhan 2014 Associate Professor of Law, Drexel University (Anil, Immigration
SurveillanceMaryland Law Review, Vol. 74, Issue 1, Article 2, pg. 58,
http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=3646&context=mlr)//AN
A. Deterritorializing the Migration Border Borders, it is routinely observed, are

malleable constructions rather than fixed

realities: less than definite, permeable, and subject to shifts and changes.234 As such, to speak of the border in the context of immigration
governance can be misleading and insufficiently nuanced. While territorial borders have long played a constitutive role in defining nation-state
sovereignty under international law, like other kinds of boundaries they can be relevant and important for some purposes but not for others, and in
varying degrees.235 In some contexts, nonterritorial demarcations are more consequential than territorial borders. The significance and meanings
given to both territorial and nonterritorial boundaries are legally, politically, socially, economically, and culturally defined, and can evolve and shift

immigration surveillance has accelerated a longterm process of decoupling the territorial border of the United States from what I term its migration
border : the set of boundary points at which nation-states authorize individuals to enter or be
admitted, prevent or allow their entry or admission, or subject them to possible expulsion .237 Of
over time.236 The deployment of new technologies and practices of

course, migration borders have never been fully coextensive with territorial borders as a literal matter. Indeed, a longstanding cluster of legal fictions
treats individuals as being at the border or seeking entry when they have been paroled into the United States or arrive at boundary points that,
strictly speaking, are well within the countrys territorial limits.238 Like other nation-states, the United States also has long acted extraterritorially to
prevent individuals from entering for example, by interdicting and turning away would-be migrants while they are still traveling to the United States
through international waters.239 Migration boundary points also typically exist within broader zones that often are treated as roughly equivalent, in
varying degrees, to the actual boundary points themselves.240 Nevertheless, a

powerful and commonplace narrative

assumes that migration borders are and should be coextensive with territorial borders as reflected in
the very fact that the doctrinal principles that comprise entry-related legal fictions are understood as fictions in the first place rather than simply as

immigration
surveillance has hastened the detachment of migration borders from territorial
borders . On the one hand, the changes in rules and practices for use of drones along the U.S.-Mexico border, visa
issuance, the Visa Waiver Program, preinspection and screening of travelers outside the United States,
and pre-departure collection and analysis of travelers data from international carriers all seekselfconsciously and by designto push the migration border extraterritorially
outward .241 This objective long predates the 2001 terrorist attacks. As volumes of cross-border traffic into the United States became
doctrinal nuances or complexities. However, in combination with immense expansions of immigration enforcement activities,

considerably larger, officials began to implement extraterritorial screening mechanisms as a means of facilitating more efficient immigration and
customs screening when individuals and goods arrived in the United States.242 Since the late 1990s, however, and especially since the 2001 attacks, the
expansion of extraterritorial migration and mobility screening mechanisms increasingly has been justified with reference to antiterrorism, national
security, and public safety-related concernsas seen in Congresss explicit 2004 finding that [t]he

further away from the borders

of the United States that screening occurs, the more security benefits the United States will
gain.243 DHS understands its own mission in precisely these terms : to push[] our operational
borders outward so that our physical borders become our last line of defense and not our first.244 On the other hand, the e xpansion of both
direct and indirect post-entry enforcement simultaneously draws the migration border inward,
selfconsciously constructing virtual, domestic border checkpoints throughout the countrys interior by
identifying events that are necessary for life in a modern society where it may be
possible to exercise control over individuals in a manner analogous to the control exercised at the territorial
border.245 The particular approaches of these post-entry enforcement initiatives vary considerably, and each one involves a
distinct set of public and private actorsincluding law enforcement and criminal justice officials, but also
welfare agencies, public hospitals and health agencies , motor vehicle licensing
agencies , private employers, private landlords, and potentially others. Collectively, however, these
initiatives establish a kind of immigration panopticism , which eliminates zones in
society where immigration status is invisible and irrelevant and puts this large array of public and private actors in the
position of identifying individuals and determining immigration status; collecting, analyzing, and storing personal information; screening and
identifying potential immigration law violators; and sharing information with federal immigration authorities.246 While these initiatives increase the
likelihood of placing many individuals in removal proceedings, proponents

place even greater emphasis on their ability

to trigger a process they characterize as self-deportation, which disciplines potentially deportable
noncitizens into internalizing the perception that their immigration status is constantly
being monitored and, ultimately, into both revealing their status in a range of day-to-day settings and conforming to social expectations
that they depart the country.247

racial profiling indict

Their studies are flawed and if theres racial profiling the law its on the
individual level law cant solve

Charles 14 (Patrick J. Charles- Cleveland-Marshall College of Law Doctor of Law (J.D.) in

Law, Comparative Law, Constitutional History and Queen Mary-University of London LLM in
Legal Theory and History, Distinction. "Weighing the Constitutionality of State Immigration
Verification Laws in the Wake of Arizona v. United States." Journal of Civil Rights and
Economic Development. Winter 2014. 27 J. Civ. Rts. & Econ. Dev. 441. Lexis.)//lb
It should be noted here that even before state immigration verification laws were enacted,
verification of immigration status was already taking place accordance with 8 U.S.C. 1357(g)
(10). In these instances, state and local law enforcement were not required to verify immigration
status in accordance with state law. The officer maintained individual discretion in contacting
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). n97 And despite [*461] this already existent
enforcement at the state and federal levels, there has yet to be a study affirmatively
linking immigration verification with racial profiling. This includes lawful
vehicular stops, which are statistically monitored by most states. Certainly,
immigration rights groups and liberal immigration law professors may continue to claim
otherwise, but their evidentiary links are tenuous and built on personal suspicions
rather than hard data. n98 According to the United States Bureau of Justice statistics,
national traffic stops are being conducted nearly proportionate to race; white
(8.4%), black (8.8%), and Hispanic (9.1%). n99 In other words, the potential for persons to
be questioned about their immigration status during vehicular stops is not
disproportionate according to race. This does not negate that there may be certain police
districts or officials that intentionally profile based on race, but there is no substantiated
evidence this will be the result of state immigration enforcement as a whole. n100 A
study by the reputable Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute on Race, [*462] Ethnicity & Diversity
has provided the most detailed data set asserting otherwise. n101 The study examined ICE's
Criminal Alien Program (CAP) in Irving, Texas from September 2006 to November 2007. The
CAP seeks to target the deportation of criminal aliens booked or processed in state and local
jails. n102 Although the CAP is designed to target deportable aliens with criminal histories, the
study convincingly shows that aliens with civil immigration violations were deported at a
substantially higher rate than criminal aliens. n103 It is from this conclusion that the
study infers cooperation with ICE led the Irving Police Department to engage in
racial profiling. n104 A general glance at the study's tables and data seems to support this
stance. Yet a closer look at the evidence reveals the conclusions are mere inferences
that lack sufficient data points. For instance, the study argues that racial profiling is proven
by two data sets. The first is a chart tracking the overall arrests of persons according to race.
Excluding the month of July 2007, the percentage of arrests according to race remained
consistent with census data. If anything, the data shows that persons of white complexion were
arrested at a higher rate than Hispanics when they constituted 7% less of the population total.
n105 July 2007 was arguably the only month in which Hispanics were arrested consistently with
census data according to race. The second data set is much more problematic. Upon the
implementation of the CAP, the chart indicates that the arrests of Hispanics for Class-C
misdemeanors rose exponentially before tailing off. n106 Because arrests for Class-C
misdemeanors are at the discretion of the officer, the study concludes that race proved
instrumental in that discretion. What the study fails to take into account is the two additional

data sets necessary to make this connection: (a) data on the nature of the misdemeanor and (b)
data on [*463] whether Class-C misdemeanors rose as a whole. The nature of the misdemeanor
is rather important. A general comparison of the increase in Hispanic traffic arrests with the
overall Hispanic arrests during the same period reveals that the July 2007 rise was almost solely
the result of traffic violations. n107 It is likely that these arrests were the result of
driving without a valid license (a Class-C misdemeanor in Texas), lack of insurance
or valid immigration papers, and other potential factors that would lead a
reasonably prudent officer to inquire about immigration status. It would be upon
this inquiry and checking with ICE about issuing a detainer that the officer likely
made an arrest. Circumstances like this do not indicate racial profiling, but the
active enforcement of federal immigration law at the state level. The two are very
distinct in terms of constitutionality. The former (deliberate racial profiling) is
unconstitutional, and the latter (enforcing the law and cooperating with federal
authorities) is constitutional. It must be noted, however, the circumstances of the vehicular
stops mentioned above are merely speculation. The study never sought to answer this all
important question, nor did it track data of vehicular stops as a whole. Thus, many questions
are left unanswered in order to affirmatively link racial profiling with state and
local immigration enforcement. Did vehicular stops rise upon the implementation of the
CAP? Did the racial composition of vehicular stops rise or change dramatically? Did the
arresting officer first arrest the person and contact ICE later or did the officer contact ICE after a
reasonable suspicion of unlawful status? The lack of sufficient data points on vehicular stops
also applies to lawful stops or investigations for breaches of the peace and drunken behavior.
n108 Did the lawful stops increase as a result of the CAP or did the officers merely become
aware that they could legally cooperate with federal authorities? The answer to this question is
significant, for the officers may have been unaware of their ability to cooperate with ICE,
unfamiliar with detecting fraudulent immigration documents, and other immigration
enforcement procedures before partnering with ICE. Overall, the study does not prove what
it contends - i.e. racial profiling increases when state and local law enforcement
cooperate with ICE. The only conclusion that the study supports is ICE deports more
unlawful aliens for civil violations than criminal activity. Its authors believe this should not be
the case because it is inconsistent with congressional intent in instituting the CAP. However,
the federal immigration scheme as a whole allows [*464] for the deportation of any
unlawful immigrant, not just criminal immigrants. In fact, it is more reasonable to
argue that if ICE did not act it would violate the executive branch's duty to enforce the law as
prescribed by Congress. n109 Naturally, this does not dispel that state immigration verification
laws may lead to ancillary burdens not contemplated by Congress such as the repeated
interception and detention of lawfully present aliens or unconstitutional racial profiling. n110 If
either of these scenarios should present themselves the respective state immigration verification
law is preempted. However, the evidentiary foundation necessary to prove such
unconstitutional ancillary burdens must be clear and convincing, not a plausible
conclusion based upon the manipulation of evidence. n111 As was seen in the case of
the Justice Earl Warren Institute on Race, Ethnicity & Diversity report, it is rather easy for
analysts to manipulate data to support a desired conclusion. It is for this reason that the data
points must be intimately related and connected as to prove the verification of immigration
status results in unconstitutional violations across the board. n112 There will indeed be
instances where individual persons are improperly detained or racially profiled.
There will also be instances where a respective city, town, or county improperly

enforces the law as to impose unconstitutional [*465] ancillary burdens. In such

cases, however, it is not the law that is unconstitutional, but the enforcement. And
in such cases, the legal redress is civil rights litigation against the respective
offenders, not the preemption of the law itself. To be clear , there is a strong legal
distinction between a law that imposes unconstitutional ancillary burdens and
individuals that choose to impose unconstitutional ancillary burdens, such as
racial profiling, based upon a poor reading and application of the law .

Circumvention/Solvency
Shadow enforcement means aff cant solve locals will still profile
Sweeney 14 (Maureen A. Sweeney JD, 1989, Yale Law School. "Criminal Law: Shadow
Immigration Enforcement and Its Constitutional Dangers." Journal of Criminal Law &
Criminology. Spring, 2014. 104 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 227. Lexis.)//b
Shadow immigration enforcement is the distorted exercise of regular policing
powers by a state or local officer who has no immigration enforcement authority
for the purpose of increasing immigration enforcement. In a regular law enforcement
environment, shadow enforcement involves the disproportionate targeting of
vulnerable "foreign-seeming" populations for hyper-enforcement for reasons
wholly independent of suspected involvement in criminal activity as defined by
state or local law. Shadow enforcement occurs at the margins of regular police
work, external to the enforcement mandate of state troopers, local police, and sheriffs'
deputies. In the vast majority of cases, these officers have no training, mandate, or
authority to enforce federal immigration law. Their involvement in the routine
communication of immigration information to federal authorities, however, can create strong
and sometimes perverse incentives that distort the ways in which they carry out their mandated
policing duties. The lure of possible immigration checks, for example, can influence
the officers' choice of targets for traffic enforcement or whether to merely cite
people for offenses or to arrest them (and thus bring them into the station for fingerprint
checks that can reveal immigration status). n5 This dynamic generally goes unacknowledged
and unregulated within regular police structures. It operates under the table, in the shadows.
The effects of shadow immigration incentives are widespread and profound for the
relationship between local law enforcement and the broad communities they
serve, especially with regard to community trust and guarantees against biased
policing based on race or national origin. A few concrete illustrations help to describe the
phenomenon of shadow enforcement and to highlight its dangers. The U.S. Department of
Justice (DOJ) Civil Rights Division recently conducted a number of investigations of
biased policing that revealed compelling evidence of shadow immigration
enforcement, which both distorted the conduct of regular policing in local
jurisdictions and resulted in rampant civil rights violations. One of these
investigations focused on the sheriff's office in [*231] Alamance, North Carolina. After an
exhaustive two-year investigation that included statistics and records review; review of policies,
procedures, and training materials; and over 125 interviews, DOJ concluded that the
sheriff's office engaged in a pervasive pattern or practice of biased policing
targeted against Latinos. n6 Among other problems, DOJ found that Latino drivers were
targeted for traffic enforcement at a rate between four and ten times greater than non-Latino
drivers. n7 Notably, DOJ found that many of the deputies' discriminatory practices
were specifically intended to facilitate immigration checks on the targeted Latinos,
thus connecting the racially targeted policing to shadow immigration
enforcement. n8

Officers without authority illegally detain undocumented citizens aff cant

solve
Sweeney 14 (Maureen A. Sweeney JD, 1989, Yale Law School. "Criminal Law: Shadow
Immigration Enforcement and Its Constitutional Dangers." Journal of Criminal Law &
Criminology. Spring, 2014. 104 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 227. Lexis.)//lb
Another illustration of these dynamics in a different context can be seen in the recent
investigations of Transportation Security Administration (TSA) officers at various airports. n9
The officers in question were specially trained "assessors" as part of a model behavior detection
antiterrorism program tasked with detecting unusual behavior in passengers that could indicate
a security threat. But officers reported that managers in Boston, anxious to boost numbers and
justify their program, pressured their assessors to meet certain threshold numbers for referrals
to other law enforcement agencies, including the state police and immigration officials. To
meet those thresholds, significant numbers of officers explicitly targeted blacks
and Latinos in the hope that searches would yield drugs or immigration problems.
n10 In the words of an attorney who interviewed eight officers who complained about the
rampant practice, "Selecting people based on race or ethnicity was a way of finding
easy marks." n11 Officers reported that as many as 80% of passengers searched during
certain shifts were minorities and that so many minorities were referred to the state police
that officers there questioned why minorities represented such a disproportionate number of
those referred. n12 In Newark, New Jersey, the racial profiling of Mexicans and
Dominicans was so blatant that fellow TSA officers called that airport's behavior
detection group "the great Mexican hunters." n13 Officers reported that the direction for
these practices came to them from their superiors who conveyed that they were "to go look
[*232] for illegal aliens and make up behaviors" with which they could justify and document a
referral to immigration authorities. n14 Finally, there are instances when even this thin
veneer of regular law enforcement disappears, leaving a state officer with
absolutely no justification for an arrest other than immigration enforcement that
is wholly outside his authority. Recently, in Maryland, a Latino man was called to the scene
of a traffic stop to recover his car, which someone else had been driving. When he arrived at the
scene (at the officer's request and having committed no violation of traffic or other state law), he
was immediately questioned by the officer about his immigration status; had his keys taken; and
was removed from the car, handcuffed, taken to a holding cell, and held for approximately two
hours for purposes of "immigration investigation" before he was turned over to Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE). n15 The state officer had no delegated federal authority to
conduct civil immigration enforcement, and he did not have authority under state
law to detain or arrest this man for a (nonexistent) state crime or for a federal
administrative violation. When the officer was questioned in immigration court about the
legal basis for his actions, he acknowledged that he had no authority to enforce federal civil
immigration violations and explained that this was why he had merely "detained," rather than
arrested, the man. n16 He further explained that he was not required to inform the man of his
right to remain silent under Miranda or to comply with other arrest procedures because the man
was not being accused of a crime. n17 In other words, precisely because the officer was
acting without legal authority, he took the position that the usual legal limits to his
authority did not apply, leaving him free to act without constitutional justification.
These examples demonstrate how the lure of the easy, collateral immigration arrest has proved
to be strong for officers in a variety of contexts. In some cases, politically accountable
enforcement policymakers, such as sheriffs, encourage officers to be tough on immigration and

to increase immigration-related arrests. In others, officers seem to internalize and respond to

rhetoric that has increasingly cast unlawful immigration as a [*233] law-and-order issue rather
than a response to a complex web of influences such as family, economics, politics, and
opportunity. n18 As a result, many officers have come to understand immigration
enforcement as part of their general duty to enforce the law. They may experience
satisfaction in making more immigration arrests, even if those arrests are not part
of their law enforcement mandate. This motivation to carry out their duties so as to
maximize immigration arrests takes a toll on these officers' primary law enforcement focus. The
officers in the above examples were mandated to carry out a specific task - to
screen for terrorism, or to enforce the criminal and traffic laws of the state.
Instead of focusing on those tasks, however, the lure of the "easy mark" led them
to distort (or ignore) their primary jobs in favor of increasing immigration
apprehensions. In the process, of course, they also engaged in wholesale violations of
the constitutional rights of those subjected to race-based stops, searches, and
interrogations. n19

No oversight means aff cant solve empirics prove local law enforcement
circumvents
Sweeney 14 (Maureen A. Sweeney JD, 1989, Yale Law School. "Criminal Law: Shadow
Immigration Enforcement and Its Constitutional Dangers." Journal of Criminal Law &
Criminology. Spring, 2014. 104 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 227. Lexis.)//lb
Just as no central regulations govern state and local enforcement of federal immigration law ,
no standardized training curriculum for, or oversight of, state and local officers
exists regarding immigration enforcement or the proper sharing of immigration
status information with federal authorities. Most departments likely provide no training
on these aspects of the job; the peripheral nature of officers' involvement in immigration
enforcement virtually ensures that departments' training and oversight will not focus specifically
on immigration activities, even when shadow immigration enforcement creates particular
constitutional dangers. The fact that law enforcement officials are elected in many
jurisdictions where immigrants have little political voice further means that those
officials have few political incentives to invest resources in vigorously protecting
immigrants' civil liberties . n193 [*270] Unfortunately, the Maricopa and Alamance County
sheriff's offices again provide examples of what can happen in a local office when officers have
inadequate training or politically compromised oversight on suspects' constitutional protections.
Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio has made no secret of his strong political views about
immigrants, and DOJ found that he had created "a general culture of bias" in the
office and encouraged broadly discriminatory policing targeted against Latinos.
Significantly, DOJ's investigation concluded, among its many findings, that specific failures
in training and oversight allowed for and exacerbated this discriminatory culture:
[ Maricopa County Sheriff's Office] fosters and perpetuates discriminatory police
and jail practices by failing to operate in accordance with basic policing and
correctional practices and by failing to develop and implement policing and
correctional safeguards against discrimination in such areas as training,

supervision, and accountability systems. n194 The investigation likewise found that the
office retaliated directly against individuals who complained about or criticized its
practices. n195 Testimony in a racial profiling lawsuit brought by private plaintiffs against the
county and its sheriff's office additionally focused on deputy training and oversight. n196 The
interaction of these elements is, of course, not unique to that county but rather demonstrates
dynamics that play out in perhaps less dramatic fashion in various programs and in
departments all over the country. DHS's own Homeland Security Advisory Council's Task Force
on Secure Communities found in September 2011 that the program's integrity suffered
because state and local jurisdictions were not sufficiently accountable for civil
rights abuses connected with Secure Communities. n197 The Task Force recommended
reforms to the complaint process, active ICE monitoring for improper policing connected with
Secure Communities, and the establishment of a pilot multidisciplinary panel to review
complaints. n198 In response, ICE has developed additional training materials and has
[*271] publicized its complaint procedure, n199 but it has been unable to compel
state and local law enforcement to use those training materials or cooperate in
investigations of abuse. In its July 2012 report on Secure Communities, GAO continued to
identify as a problem for civil rights protections the lack of accountability of state and local
jurisdictions. n200 DOJ's Alamance County investigation similarly found a culture of
bias that began with the sheriff and permeated the department. Specifically, it found
that poor reporting of its activities made oversight of the department difficult by
masking racial profiling and other discriminatory practices. n201

Anti-profiling laws empirically fail officers discriminate subconsciously

Benin 13 (Cynthia Benin NYU School of Law . "Randomizing Immigration Enforcement:
Exploring a New Foruth Amendment Regime." New York University Law Review. November
2013. 88 N.Y.U.L. Rev. 1735. Lexis.)//lb
The observation that racial profiling is common practice is not to suggest that the government
encourages immigration officers to do so. Agencies have attempted to guide officer
discretion through stipulated factors that inform individualized suspicion. ICE has
published "indicators" for certified local officers to consider in making
immigration arrests, including proximity to the border, number of occupants in a
vehicle, disheveled manner of dress, and English-speaking ability. n86 [*1750]
Arizona law enforcement officers are given a similar non-exclusive list of considerations when
formulating reasonable suspicion of unlawful presence. n87 The Supreme Court itself
effectively created a profile in Brignoni-Ponce by stipulating a laundry list of
factors that a Border Patrol officer may consider in making stops along the border.
n88
The failure of such profiles to prevent racial profiling is manifest. Most obviously,
both the ICE indicators and the Brignoni-Ponce factors permit consideration of
race or ethnicity so long as those traits are not relied on exclusively. n89 Parts II.B
and II.C of this Note include a broader discussion of race and ethnicity in the immigration
context and consider whether, if Hispanic appearance is statistically correlated with
unauthorized status, its use by law enforcement amounts to the kind of "illegitimate" profiling
the authors seek to avoid. This normative debate notwithstanding, scholars note that even a
"statistically legitimate 'profile that includes race'" is likely to become

discriminatory in effect. n90 Where one factor is more salient than others - as is
the case with race, gender, or ethnicity - that factor tends to acquire
disproportionate weight. n91 Officers acting on the Brignoni-Ponce and ICE factors
will unduly rely on Hispanic appearance, creating a vastly [*1751] overinclusive
profile that subjects masses of U.S. citizens and lawful residents to unwarranted
investigation. n92
Even if Hispanic appearance was not an approved factor in officially sanctioned profiles, its
exclusion would not prevent officers from considering it. Officers at Chicago's O'Hare
Airport employing a drug courier profile, which did not include race or ethnicity
as a factor, disproportionately stopped African-American women and subjected
them to humiliating body-cavity searches. n93 Unfettered bigotry is not the only
explanation for racial profiling. An officer's own experience may lead him to believe race and
ethnicity are legitimate indicators. Unofficial norms may develop within agencies as
officers share information and develop a profile of "the usual suspects." n94 Finally,
officers may discriminate unwittingly through what one scholar describes as "the
unconscious failure to extend to a minority the same recognition of humanity, and
hence the same sympathy and care, given as a matter of course to one's own
group." n95 A wealth of literature suggests the danger of implicit bias is real and
prevalent. n96

States pass immigration legislation- Arizona Supreme Court ruling proves

Lewis et. Al. 12 (Paul G. Lewis from Arizona State Univeristy, Doris Marie Provine from Arizona State
Univeristy, Monica W. Varsanyi from John Jay College, and Scott H. Decker from Arizona State Univeristy. Why Do
(Some) City Police Departments Enforce Federal Immigration Law? Political, Demographic, and Organizational
Influences on Local Choices. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. October 4, 2012.)//lb

At least two kinds of legislative pressures bear on local police agencies in their interactions with
immigrants. First, an increasing number of states and local governments have passed
legislation specifically authorizing or requiring local police to assume a more
proactive posture in identifying unauthorized immigrants. Arizonas SB1070, for
instance, requires local police to check for immigration violations when they encounter someone
they suspect may be an unauthorized immigrant and forbids local governments from limiting
police cooperation with federal immigration authorities. Similar laws were passed in other
states, but their legitimacy has been challenged in the courts. In its June 2012 decision in
US v. Arizona (567US ___ (2012)), the US Supreme Court placed strict limits on the
power of police to detain the persons they stop to check immigration status, whereas
nevertheless allowing the laws so-called show me your papers provision to stand.
The courts are also considering claims that racial profiling will be encouraged by
such laws.

2NC Ext. Organized Crime

AT: Organized Crime

Undocumented immigrants have zero trust in state and local policethat
decks solvency for organized crime
Chvez 2013 Department of Political Science, University of Utah (Eduardo Reyes,
IMMIGRATION FEDERALISM: THE CASE OF IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT BY NONFEDERAL AGENCIES, http://epubs.utah.edu/index.php/HJP/article/viewFile/967/729)//AN
When state and local police enforce immigration laws, the relationship between them and
their respective communities can be jeopardized . When the community fears the local police
force, the level of trust and cooperation is seriously undermined. In the case of undocumented
immigrants, they are less likely to come forward and report crimes due to the
possibility of deportation. When the community does not cooperate with the local police,
the ability for the police force to effectively perform their duties is destabilized. Most immigrants
would be discouraged to participate with the local police either because of fear of deportation or
distrust. Thus, a great number of prospective witnesses of crime would not be willing to
cooperate, decreasing the chances of a case being solved. For instance, Many...immigration
groups that may be vulnerable to high rates of victimization come from countries where distrust
of authorities is common (Decker et al., 2008, p. 170). So, when local residents perceive their
local officers to have business with federal immigration officers, they would be reluctant to
participate due to fear and lack of trust.

Theres no decrease in trust, and decreasing programs like S-Comm wont

revitalize itprefer our evits the most comprehensive analysis
Cox and Miles 2014 Professor of Law, NYU School of Law; Clifton R. Musser Professor of
Law and Economics and Walter Mander Research Scholar, University of Chicago Law School.
(Adam and Thomas, The Real World of Immigration Federalism,
http://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/upload_documents/Adam%20Cox%20The
%20Real%20World%20of%20Immigration%20Federalism_2.pdf)//AN
In short, we

find no meaningful evidence that the largest integration of local police into federal
immigration enforcement in the history of the United States undermined the efficacy of local law
enforcement. This core finding calls into question many of the strong claims made by the literatures on cooperative immigration federalism and
procedural justice. It also raises an obvious question: where did these claims go wrong? Sussing this out is beyond the scope of this
project, but in closing we offer a few speculative thoughts. First, theorists of cooperative immigration federalism may have been working with an
excessively optimistic account of what immigrant-police relationships look like in the absence of local involvement in federal immigration enforcement.
A longstanding finding in the procedural justice literature is that the communities most likely to have large numbers of immigrants--urban centers with

If
baseline levels of trust are low, there isn't much lower to go when a new program like Secure
Communities is introduced. Relatedly, if immigrants (like many citizens) often view different "law enforcement" entities as a single
large minority populations, higher rates of poverty, and so on--are places where there is already a considerable lack of trust in the police.

undifferentiated mass--seeing local cops, federal investigative services like the FBI and DEA, and immigration enforcement arms like CBP and ICE as

changes in the extent of cooperation between these entities will actually

have little effect on public attitude s. Second, the procedural justice work on public attitudes about the police may have a

all of a piecethen

reverse causation problem. As we described earlier, that literature makes quite detailed claims about how the public comes to hold particular beliefs
about law enforcement officials. Beliefs

about fair treatment are driven by actual police practices, and those
beliefs in shape perceptions of police legitimacy, with legitimacy shaping willingness to comply
with the law and cooperate with law enforcement. While there is no doubt some truth to this account,
it also seem plausible that causation often runs the other way: that a person's perception of
whether the police are legitimate shapes her beliefs about whether the police are likely to treat
her fairly. To the extent causation runs in this direction, discrete policy interventionseven a widely publicized and highly salient one

like Secure Communities are

extremely unlikely to have much of an effect on one's willingness to help

out the police. Third, accounts of law enforcement success that turn on the cooperation of the community at large, rather than on other law
enforcement techniques may be overblown. The sort of cooperation contemplated by those accounts may be important for a limited set of offenses
perhaps paradigmatically for cases involving domestic abuse and other forms of violence among intimates. But other investigative techniques, including
the very different sort of cooperation that is often obtained from co-conspirators or others involved in a criminal enterprise, may be much more
important. Thus, even

in a world where Secure Communities sows distrust of the police among

immigrants, that distrust may not interfere with the bulk of what police do in order to solve
most crimes.

2NC Ext. Gang Violence Low

Gang Violence decreasing now- LA proves

Reicher 15 (Mike Reicher is an investigative reporter for the Los Angeles News Group with a focus on government
accountability, Decline in gang violence leads to dramatic drop in Los Angeles homicides, 1/23/15, Date Accessed: 7/10/15,

http://www.dailynews.com/general-news/20150123/decline-in-gang-violence-leads-todramatic-drop-in-los-angeles-homicides, SZ)
They moved away, found peace or were locked up. However it happened, fewer

gang members have been

killing others since the early 2000s, and the decline has fueled a dramatic
drop in all Los Angeles County homicides, experts say. Nearly all of the nation has benefited
from a drop in crime, but Los Angeles County stands out. In 2002, 1,231 people died at the hands of others, but by 2010,
the figure dropped below 700. Fueling the countywide drop, the city of Los Angeles homicide rate fell
at about twice the pace of New Yorks between 2000 and 2010, according to U.S. Census and FBI
statistics. Why has L.A. succeeded so strikingly? Sociologists, police officials, social workers and
criminologists havent been able to explain, let alone give one key reason. Instead, they point to trends and
efforts on the national and local levels: more effective policing , the absence of a drug
epidemic, stricter sentencing laws, gang intervention programs and demographic changes. I dont think anybody can tell you, said
Wes McBride, executive director of the California Gang Investigators Association. I think its all these issues working together. I
think its a change in attitude with the younger people. Theyre tired of it. Some

of them are hustling in less

violent businesses or moving to new markets. Instead of dealing narcotics, they might be forging
immigration papers, birth certificates or drivers licenses, McBride said. A sustained police crackdown in the Los Angeles area also
pushed many gang members to economically depressed portions of the Inland Empire or to Las Vegas, said Jorja Leap, professor at
the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs.

2NC Ext. Exaggerated/No Impact

Their authors are exaggerating No real threat of organized
crime
Williams 14 (Phil Williams is a published author, has a PhD, and teaches and researches Security studies, foreign policy
analysis, transnational organized crime, terrorism, Organized Crime and Terrorism, LACC Working Paper No. 2/2014, Date
Accessed: 7/13/15, https://lacc.fiu.edu/research/publications/working-paper-2-williams.pdf , SZ)

The notion of a nexus between criminal and terrorist organizations

surfaced during the 1990s. The term narco-terrorism, however, was coined even earlier than this. Ironically, it
initially referred to the Medellin drug trafficking organization in Colombia using terrorist tactics to coerce the government into
abandoning its policy of extraditing drug traffickers to the United States; subsequently, its meaning was reversed and it was
predominantly used to describe terrorist organizations using narcotics trafficking as a funding mechanism. After September 11, in
particular, it was frequently used to refer to the FARC and the Taliban using income from the drug business to fund their insurgent
activities. Meanwhile, the broader notion of a criminal-terrorist nexus that emerged during the 1990s, inspired by events in the
Balkans, focused less on the appropriation of criminal activities by terrorists or terrorist activities by criminals, and more on direct
cooperation between criminal and terrorist organizationsa cooperation that soon became enshrined in the concept of a criminalterrorist nexus. The Madrid bombings in 2003, in

which the attacks and their preparation were

financed with the proceeds of drug trafficking, are also portrayed as an
example of a nexus in action. This argument challenges widespread
allegations of an emerging crime terrorism or trafficking-terrorism nexus ,
as well as a broader analytic trend emphasizing threat convergence . It suggests
that most claims about the nexus are based on little more than flimsy anecdotal evidence, from which unwarranted
and exaggerated inferences are drawn . One or even a few examples of cooperation between criminals and
terrorists do not make a nexus. And

they certainly do not provide evidence of a grand

shift whereby international drug traffickers and international terrorists
are in a hedonistic marriage of design . . . linked at the hip, and extremely wealthy.1 Yet such
grandiose claims abound, fueled by worst-case thinking and unwarranted generalizations from the
few to the many.

No security challenges No connection between terrorism and

organized crime Proves no impact
Williams 14 (Phil Williams is a published author, has a PhD, and teaches and researches Security studies,
foreign policy analysis, transnational organized crime, terrorism, Organized Crime and Terrorism, LACC Working Paper No.
2/2014, Date Accessed: 7/13/15, https://lacc.fiu.edu/research/publications/working-paper-2-

williams.pdf, SZ)

The security challenges posed by terrorist-criminal cooperation and by

terrorists engaged in drug trafficking, extortion, kidnapping and other activities
are relatively modest. Convergence and cooperation cannot be ignored, but do
not represent the kind or level of threat sometimes claimed. Moreover, there is a downside for terrorists
in both cooperation with traffickers and appropriation of trafficking
methods. For terrorists, cooperation creates risks of betrayal by pragmatic criminals, especially those who
have no affinity for the cause. Moreover, cooperating with criminals also increases the possibility of infiltration
by law enforcement and intelligence agents. Similarly, trafficking and other criminal activities can
undermine both the status and legitimacy of a terrorist organization , as well as

cause internal arguments and even divisions over the allocation of increased resources. Governments can also develop counternarratives that tarnish the appeal of high-minded terrorists by emphasizing their linkage to common criminals and common
criminality. In

the final analysis, therefore, not only can the threat be contained, but it might

also provide opportunities that can be exploited by the United States and its
allies.

2NC Ext. Non-Inherent

End Racial Profiling Act of 2015 was introduced- Proves the plan
is non-inherent
Gregg 15 (Remington Gregg serves as legislative counsel at the Human Rights Campaign, principally counseling the
organization on federal legal and policy issues, End Racial Profiling Act of 2015 Introduced in Congress, 4/24/15, Date Accessed:
7/10/15, http://www.hrc.org/blog/entry/end-racial-profiling-act-of-2015-introduced-in-congress ,
SZ)
On Wednesday, Senator

Ben Cardin (D-MD) and Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) introduced

the End Racial Profiling Act of 2015. The bill creates a federal prohibition on
racial profiling that includes targeting a person based on their race,
ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender, gender identity, or sexual
orientation gender identity or sexual orientation. Recent incidents of racial profiling which
have ended tragically has brought renewed national attention to the issue in every corner of this country. Profiling of LGBT
individuals also continues to be problem, especially for LGBT people of color and members of the transgender community. In a
recent report on profiling by law enforcement, the NAACP found: As a number of the human impact stories above show, members of
the LGBT community, particularly LGBT people of color, face discrimination at every stage of the criminal justice system. A 2014
national survey indicates that 73 percent of LGBT people and people with HIV report having had face-to-face contact with the police.
In another study, a quarter of LGBT people and people with HIV who reported in-person contact with law enforcement said they
experienced one form of harassment or misconductincluding profiling, verbal or physical assault, sexual harassment, or assault
and false arrest. In a separate survey of transgender discrimination, 22 percent of transgender individuals who had police
interactions reported harassment, 6 percent reported physical assault and 2 percent reported being sexually assaulted by officers.

In December 2014, the Department of Justice updated guidance which

prohibited federal law enforcement officials from profiling an individual
based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, and religion to include
gender, gender identity, and sexual orientation. While an important step, the guidance is unable
to address issues at the state and local level. The End Racial Profiling Act of 2015 would
prohibit federal, state, and local law enforcement from targeting a person
based on actual or perceived race, ethnicity, national origin, religion,
gender, gender identity, or sexual orientation without trustworthy
information that is relevant to linking a person to a crime. The bill also requires federal
law enforcement to maintain adequate policies and procedures designed to eliminate racial profiling (defined broadly), including
data collecting and processes for investigating and responding to complaints alleging racial profiling.

AT: Health Care

Case answers

AT: Economy
Turn: Giving healthcare to undocumented immigrants will cause major
economic downfall
Work 15 (Workpermit.com, July 1st 2015, California will subsidize health care of illegal
immigrant children, http://www.workpermit.com/news/2015-07-01/california-will-subsidizehealth-care-of-illigal-immigrant-children)
to receive state-funded
subsidize the healthcare costs of illegal

A recently announced budget deal in California could pave the way for children, living in the USA illegally,
healthcare coverage. California would be the first state in the US to

immigrant children. A deal struck between Governor Jerry Brown and legislative leaders would provide cover for an
estimated 170,000 immigrants aged 18 years and under. It's expected that the plan will easily pass the state Senate and Assembly. To
subsidize the healthcare costs of 170,000 illegal immigrant children ,

it's estimated that the new plan will

cost taxpayers $40 million over the first 12 months, beginning May 2016. According to the Los
Angeles Times it will then cost $132 million annually, after the first year, to extend
Medi-Cal coverage to low-income children under the age of 19 irrespective of their legal status. Senior research fellow on
poverty and the US welfare system for the right wing Heritage Foundation, Robert Rector, said: "It's a fact that illegal
immigrants cost approximately $60 billion per year meaning that they receive
$60 billion more in US government benefits than they pay in taxes. The new plan in
California will simply increase the amount of tax." California's healthcare provision forms part of a $115.4 billion
budget agreement for the state's upcoming fiscal year. Supporters of expanded healthcare spending say that 'it's a necessity because
of federal inaction.' State senate leader, Kevin de Len, said: "As Washington dithers because it can't get things done, we are in need
of immigration reform. The fact is, many of these children require some form of healthcare and they get it in the emergency room."
However, according to the Associated Press, Republicans are arguing that expanded

healthcare provisions
won't improve access for illegal immigrants as there are not enough doctors that
accept 'Medi-Cal' patients California's Medicaid program. Generous laws for illegal immigrants Mr de Len said:
"This budget highlights that in California immigrants matter, irrespective of who they are and where they come from. California
boasts some of the USA's most generous immigration laws when it comes to illegal immigrants." California is well-known for its
liberal approach to illegal immigrants. In 2014, the state permitted those in the US illegally to apply for a driving licence. By April
2015, the state had received over 200,000 applications for a driving licence from undocumented immigrants, while the California
Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) predicts that 1.4 million licences will be issued to illegal immigrants over the next three years.
Spokesman for the anti-immigration Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) - Ira Mehlman, criticised the plan to
expand healthcare provisions saying: "I don't care how generous California thinks it is being this is just another example of the state
paying massive bills in a continued and relentless effort to accommodate illegal US immigration." He added: "It

is forcing
taxpayers to pay money to provide healthcare that could be supporting other
crucial needs in the state. God knows there are many vital needs not being met in California."

Economic collapse inevitable

Moran 15 (Andrew Moran, July 10th 2015, U.S. economy to collapse like Greece if country
stays on current path, http://economiccollapsenews.com/2015/07/10/peter-schiff-u-seconomy-to-collapse-like-greece-if-country-stays-on-current-path/)
The United States could become the next Greece, a bankrupt economy and an
insolvent government, if the country maintains the current path . When politicians
promise the moon without sufficient funding then this is what you get, says Peter Schiff, CEO of Euro Pacific
Capital. Speaking in an interview with Newsmax on Monday, Schiff noted that the

only difference
between Greece and the U.S. is that creditors have finally realized that Athens is
broke. For some reason, Americas creditors are still delusional.They still think that
were good for our debts and the only reason that delusion is possible is because
interest rates are still at zero, said Schiff. [If] interest rates ever allowed to rise, it would become
obvious that we cant pay our bills and we would have a crisis similar to what Greece is
looking at now. This is why, suggests Schiff, the U.S. has to look to Greece as an economic lesson. This is

what happens when politicians promise more than their taxpayers can pay, he added. Politicians on both sides
of the Atlantic are guilty of this. They pander [to] the voters, they make all sorts of promises and when the bills
come due, its a crisis and theyre going to come due in more countries than Greece. Eventually, the bills will
come due in the U.S., but those bill will be a lot more than what the country can afford to pay. And

quantitative easing from the Federal Reserve has become the issue because the
central bank monetized government debt. This leads to excessive money printing .
Unfortunately, the same thing will happen in Greece once they leave the European Union and adopt the drachma,
the Greek currency. Since Greeks dont want to make any serious reforms, like pension payments, everything will
be worth a lot less. Thats the fate that awaits Greece if they return to the drachma, Schiff stated. The Greeks
dont want to accept cuts to their pensions, but if they end up getting their pensions in drachma instead of euros,
those pension payments will be worth a lot less. Again, the

same thing will occur in the U.S.,

except it wont change currencies. Were not going to change currencies, but the
only way the U.S. government can make good on its obligations is to print the
money, Schiff posited. When they do that, the money is not going to have very much value when the Social
Security recipients or the bondholders ultimately get paid.

Turn-Healthcare is bad for the economy

Sanger-Katz 13 (Margot Sanger-Katz, correspondent at the New York Times, Health Care:
Great For the Economy Today, Terrible later, Jan 31, 2013,
http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/health-care-great-for-the-economy-today-terriblelater-20130131) //AS
In the short term, the Affordable Care Act will create even more health care jobs. But
over the long term, it is likely to push down salaries, not in - flate them. Some 40
million uninsured Americans stand to benefit from the laws new subsidies in the
next 10 years. And evidence suggests that once they get insurance, theyll seek more care. At
the same time, the programs to reduce utilization will exert significant downward
pressure on health spending. Hospitals have begun facing penalties if too many patients
who leave the hospital return within 30 days. Soon, doctors will begin earning bonus
payments based on how their care measures up to quality standards. In doctors
offices, health care professionals are trying to work at the top of their license. Nurses, instead
of doctors, administer flu shots. Medical assistants, instead of nurses, take patients vital signs.
Medical assistants can check blood pressure. This transformation may not reduce the total
number of jobs, but it could push the distribution of health professions down the income scale.
You dont need an M.D. to phone a patient and ask him his weight or remind him
to come in for a blood test. Indeed, the fastest-growing subspecialty is home
health. Aides in this field require minimal training and command low salaries, but
they can help prevent the kind of catastrophic health problems that lead to
expensive hospitalizations.

Health care remained strong through the economic recession wouldnt

bring it down, actually brought it back up
Lobb 9 (Annelena; [reporter for MarketWatch]; US Stocks Bounce; Health-Care
Strong; Banks, GM Weak; 2/3/2009; http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-stocksbounce-health-care-strong) JKS
A rise for health-care stocks and an unexpected increase in pending-home sales
Tuesday helped major indexes break a three-session losing streak and sent the

Dow Jones Industrial Average up more than 100 points. Weakness for financial
stocks and car makers served as a reminder of the shaky state of some of the
pillars of the U.S. economy. Tuesday's move felt like the continuation of a technical
bounce that began when the S&P 500 and Dow Jones Industrial Average tested
their lows for the year Monday, said Joe Kinahan, chief derivatives strategist for options
brokerage thinkorswim. Financial stocks were conspicuously absent from the rally,
however, as Bank of America fell by more than 10%, coming within 25 cents of its lowest mark of
the crisis, and Citigroup was off 4.4%. "What's discouraging in today's market is that the
financials are taking it on the chin," Kinahan said. "There is no way we have any kind of
long-term recovery without the financials being at least a stabilizer, if not a leader." Nobody is
willing to buy into the financial sector before the Treasury Department plan that's supposed to
surface next week, Kinahan said. "Are we nationalized, or are we not nationalized? Is it 'good
bank/bad bank' and who falls under what category? There's so much uncertainty right now." In
the latest round of earnings reports, drug maker Merck was one of the few bright spots,
up 4.4% in recent trading, after posting a profit for the fourth quarter. Large health
care firms have been one of the stalwarts in equities to start 2009, with traders
highlighting their defensive nature and strong balance sheets. But the ascendancy
of defensive stocks, which are thought to be hiding in the worst of times, points to a
trading environment where economic concerns remain at the forefront. The Dow
was recently up 129 points, or 1.6%, to 8065, led by Merck. Even at that level, the Dow is
just over 500 points from its bear-market closing low, set on Nov. 20. General Motors shed 3.5%
to $2.79 after saying its light-vehicle sales plunged 59% in January. Fleet sales, or sales to
rental-car companies and other mass users, fell to 13,000, the lowest monthly tally since
1975. Ford Motor said January light vehicle sales fell 40%, below already low expectations. And
though the S&P 500 Index was up 1.3% at 836, its financial sector was down 2.4%.
PNC Financial Services shares declined by 12% after the bank posted a loss and
said it plans to cut jobs as it integrates National City, which it acquired in
December. Other regional lenders also declined, with SunTrust Banks falling 23%. The
National Association of Realtors reported a 6.3% rise in its gauge of pending home sales in
December. Lower prices are drawing in buyers, the trade group said. Lawrence Yun, chief
economist for NAR, observed that the "biggest gains were in areas with the biggest
improvements in affordability." Traders say a turnaround in the housing market
will likely precede any economic recovery. The SPDR S&P Homebuilders ETF
added 6.9% to $10.98. The Nasdaq Composite Index was recently up 13 points, or
0.9%, at 1508. Gordon Charlop, managing director at Rosenblatt Securities Inc., said, "I'm still
not getting any sense we have our feet under us." More than half of the S&P 500 has now
reported earnings, Mr. Charlop noted, so traders have turned more attention on the Obama
stimulus plan and any information out of Washington that might move the markets. "It's going
to be things like the fiscal stimulus and what we're seeing on regulation that we're keeping an
eye on," he said. There is also anticipation ahead of what is presumably a gloomy monthly
employment report Friday, he said, but "it's unlikely that we're going to get surprised," he said.
"You can't put too much into it."

Health care strong in weak times

Vyas 9 (Kejal; [writer for Dow Jones Newswires Caracas bureau]; US Stocks In
Tight Range; Health Care Strong; 3/13/2009;
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-stocks-in-tight-range-health)
U.S. stocks traded slightly higher Friday, after swinging much of the day between gains and
losses, on the heels of a three-day surge. Coming into the trading day, technicians and analysts
expected some declines as lingering uncertainty in the credit markets and the overall economy
likely will influence investors to take short-term profit. But for much of the day, stocks have
moved between positive and negative territory, with no real certainty as to which way the
market might close. "The market doesn't seem to have any sense of what it wants to do today,"
said Chris Colarik, portfolio manager at Glenmede Investment Management. "A lot of people felt
the move up went so quickly. There may be some reluctance to put money back to work." In a
note to investors, Oppenheimer chief market technician Carter Worth said stocks are likely to
remain around current depressed levels for another two or three months, mirroring the sevento eight-month bear market in 2002 and 2003. Some market observers say this week's rally was
likely initiated by traders and money managers buying back bets against stocks. Once the tide
turns in a market where short-selling is popular, rallies can be exacerbated by the bears' rush to
limit losses by buying back their bets. That's known as a "short squeeze." "I definitely believe
this started with a 'short squeeze,' then some people came out of the woodwork and put a little
money into the market," said Frank Beck, chief investment officer at Capital Financial Group,
adding he himself had sold some clients' positions in the Grizzly Short Fund, an exchangetraded fund that takes short positions on financial and other individual stocks. He anticipates a
"bear-market rally" comparable to the gains between the lows on Nov. 20 and the 2009 peak
in January. Recently, the Dow Jones Industrial Average, which has leapt 623 points, or 9.5%
since Monday, was up 44 points at 7213. General Motors rose 25%. Microsoft, however, slid
3.1% amid an earlier broad decline in large technology stocks. The tech-focused Nasdaq
Composite Index was up 2 to 1428. The S&P 500 was up 3 at 753. Health-care and utilities
stocks, traditional defensive sectors, were higher, a sign that risk appetite may not be as high as
the previous three sessions suggested. Humana shares were recently trading up 9.7%, on heavy
options activity, which some believe may indicate the company may be an acquisition target.
Assurances from top executives at major banks that the companies have been profitable so far
this year have helped drive the market's gains this week, but some market watchers say banks
must now walk the walk, having set an expectation.

AT: Disease
Immigrants have greater immunity to disease
Ross 15 (Philip Ross, July 7th 2015, gcb, Do Mexican Immigrants Bring Disease Into The US?
Donald Trump Says Theres A Health Scare, But Statistics Say Otherwise,
http://www.ibtimes.com/do-mexican-immigrants-bring-disease-us-donald-trump-says-thereshealth-scare-1997922)
Not only are Mexican immigrants wreaking criminal mayhem in America, theyre also unleashing their diseases on the country,
according to real estate mogul and White House hopeful Donald Trump, who defended his recent explosive claims about immigrants
being rapists and felons with more outrageous allegations, saying they pose a public health threat. In reality, the idea that

Immigrants from Mexico and

Central America pose very little risk to U.S. residents in terms of spreading
disease. Immunization rates for common infectious illnesses in Mexico and in
other countries from which most U.S. immigrants originate are actually relatively
high -- in some instances, Mexican and Central American immigrants are even
better protected against diseases than Americans . While some immigrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico
border are indeed ill, very rarely are there cases of swine flu, dengue fever or tuberculosis,
as politicians have previously claimed. Thats not to say the risk is zero. Some children who end up in U.S.
immigrants pose such a threat is a notion as tenuous as Trumps political prospects.

detention centers, for instance, do test positive for tuberculosis, an upper respiratory disease for which treatments are available and
effective. And outbreaks of chickenpox have at times plagued immigrant facilities. But its

hardly the torrent of

tremendous infectious disease Trump has made it out to be. Immigrants tend to
arrive in the U.S. tired, dehydrated and with injuries like twisted ankles, not
dangerous diseases. The chance an unauthorized Mexican immigrant has been vaccinated against common infectious
diseases is pretty high, given that Mexico has a relatively robust immunization program and healthy immunization rates. The
country has a 99 percent vaccination rate for measles, which is actually higher than the U.S. rate of 92 percent. For other infectious
diseases, the U.S. and Mexico have comparable immunization rates, according to the World Bank. Of course, immigrants arent
arriving in the U.S. only from Mexico. Theyre also coming from Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador, countries that also have high
vaccination rates, around 93 percent -- still higher than in the U.S. (There are 113 countries that have higher immunization rates for
some infectious diseases, including measles, than the U.S .)

A child from Guatemala is more likely to

have been immunized for most infectious diseases than a young person from
Texas, which, along with California, Florida, New York, New Jersey and Illinois,
handles the bulk of new immigrants arriving in the U.S., both legally and illegally . Many

children and adults coming into the U.S. actually carry their vaccination cards with them, according to NBC News. Anyone arriving
in the U.S. legally is given a thorough health screening through a Department of Health and Human Services program and
quarantined if there are any red flags. Not that all immigrants coming into the U.S. are perfectly healthy. Immigrant detention
centers have at times had to deal with flare-ups of diseases, including tuberculosis and chickenpox. However, the chickenpox
vaccination is part of the U.S. immunization plan anyway, so theres no risk to anyone who has already been vaccinated or exposed
to it. And tuberculosis has long history in the U.S. In 2013, there were 9,500 cases of tuberculosis in the country, according to the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Trump announced his presidential bid June 16. During his announcement speech in
New York, Trump said if he were elected, he would terminate President Barack Obamas executive order allowing undocumented
immigrants to apply for work visas and claimed Mexico was sending people [across the border] that have lots of problems, and
they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. The billionaire tycoon,
who hopes to win the Republican nomination for the 2016 presidential race -- and is actually neck-and-neck with former Florida
Gov. Jeb Bush as the party favorite among likely Republican voters -- later doubled down on his remarks about immigrants being
rapists and criminals during an interview with CNN in early July. He again defended the comments in a statement Monday, and
went one step further by accusing immigrants of being vectors of tremendous infectious diseases. The remarks have been met with
criticism from Trumps opponents, his business partners and even his own party. Trump has lost several business deals because of
the claims about Mexicans, including his partnerships with Macys department store, NBC, Serta and Nascar. Former Texas Gov.
Rick Perry, also a 2016 presidential aspirant, said he was offended by Trumps remarks. To paint with that broad a brush that
Donald Trump did is -- I mean he's going to have to defend those remarks, Perry said. I never will. And I will stand up and say that
those are offensive, which they were."

The idea that immigrants are bringing disease into the

U.S. isnt true. Politicians and political pundits, from U.S. Rep. Randy Weber, R-Texas, to conservative television
personality Pat Buchanan and author and radio host Lou Dobbs, have often underscored the threat of disease to stigmatize

foreigners and immigrants. Such claims have frequently been used to argue immigrant children and mothers should be sent back

Health officials have denounced such claims

as rooted in fear-mongering and political gain, not science . When measles struck California

across the border or to boot out immigrants working legally.

earlier this year, some were quick to blame the outbreak on undocumented immigrants. Rep. Mo Brooks, R-Ala., said a lot of the
diseases that enter the U.S. are borne by [an] illegal alien, and pinned the outbreak that sickened dozens across several states on
immigrants. The measles probably did start because of a virus brought to the U.S. from overseas, but not from Mexico. Health
officials said it likely came from a foreign tourist visiting Southern California or from an American who returned with the virus after
traveling abroad. For the most part, theres

nothing coming across the border that U.S. health

officials wouldnt expect to encounter or with which they've never dealt. The most
common diseases immigration health officials have encountered are the everyday cold and other respiratory infections, as well as
certain stomach bugs and diarrheal conditions. Most health problems in immigration detention facilities have sprung from a lack of
hand-washing, according to the Texas Department of State Health, not diseases immigrants brought with them.

AT: healthcare
Health care remained strong through the economic recession wouldnt
bring it down, actually brought it back up
Lobb 9 (Annelena; [reporter for MarketWatch]; US Stocks Bounce; Health-Care
Strong; Banks, GM Weak; 2/3/2009; http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-stocksbounce-health-care-strong) JKS
A rise for health-care stocks and an unexpected increase in pending-home sales
Tuesday helped major indexes break a three-session losing streak and sent the
Dow Jones Industrial Average up more than 100 points. Weakness for financial
stocks and car makers served as a reminder of the shaky state of some of the
pillars of the U.S. economy. Tuesday's move felt like the continuation of a technical
bounce that began when the S&P 500 and Dow Jones Industrial Average tested
their lows for the year Monday, said Joe Kinahan, chief derivatives strategist for options
brokerage thinkorswim. Financial stocks were conspicuously absent from the rally,
however, as Bank of America fell by more than 10%, coming within 25 cents of its lowest mark of
the crisis, and Citigroup was off 4.4%. "What's discouraging in today's market is that the
financials are taking it on the chin," Kinahan said. "There is no way we have any kind of
long-term recovery without the financials being at least a stabilizer, if not a leader." Nobody is
willing to buy into the financial sector before the Treasury Department plan that's supposed to
surface next week, Kinahan said. "Are we nationalized, or are we not nationalized? Is it 'good
bank/bad bank' and who falls under what category? There's so much uncertainty right now." In
the latest round of earnings reports, drug maker Merck was one of the few bright spots,
up 4.4% in recent trading, after posting a profit for the fourth quarter. Large health
care firms have been one of the stalwarts in equities to start 2009, with traders
highlighting their defensive nature and strong balance sheets. But the ascendancy
of defensive stocks, which are thought to be hiding in the worst of times, points to a
trading environment where economic concerns remain at the forefront. The Dow
was recently up 129 points, or 1.6%, to 8065, led by Merck. Even at that level, the Dow is
just over 500 points from its bear-market closing low, set on Nov. 20. General Motors shed 3.5%
to $2.79 after saying its light-vehicle sales plunged 59% in January. Fleet sales, or sales to
rental-car companies and other mass users, fell to 13,000, the lowest monthly tally since
1975. Ford Motor said January light vehicle sales fell 40%, below already low expectations. And
though the S&P 500 Index was up 1.3% at 836, its financial sector was down 2.4%.
PNC Financial Services shares declined by 12% after the bank posted a loss and
said it plans to cut jobs as it integrates National City, which it acquired in
December. Other regional lenders also declined, with SunTrust Banks falling 23%. The
National Association of Realtors reported a 6.3% rise in its gauge of pending home sales in
December. Lower prices are drawing in buyers, the trade group said. Lawrence Yun, chief
economist for NAR, observed that the "biggest gains were in areas with the biggest
improvements in affordability." Traders say a turnaround in the housing market
will likely precede any economic recovery. The SPDR S&P Homebuilders ETF
added 6.9% to $10.98. The Nasdaq Composite Index was recently up 13 points, or
0.9%, at 1508. Gordon Charlop, managing director at Rosenblatt Securities Inc., said, "I'm still
not getting any sense we have our feet under us." More than half of the S&P 500 has now
reported earnings, Mr. Charlop noted, so traders have turned more attention on the Obama

stimulus plan and any information out of Washington that might move the markets. "It's going
to be things like the fiscal stimulus and what we're seeing on regulation that we're keeping an
eye on," he said. There is also anticipation ahead of what is presumably a gloomy monthly
employment report Friday, he said, but "it's unlikely that we're going to get surprised," he said.
"You can't put too much into it."

Health care strong in weak times

Vyas 9 (Kejal; [writer for Dow Jones Newswires Caracas bureau]; US Stocks In
Tight Range; Health Care Strong; 3/13/2009;
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-stocks-in-tight-range-health)
U.S. stocks traded slightly higher Friday, after swinging much of the day between gains and
losses, on the heels of a three-day surge. Coming into the trading day, technicians and analysts
expected some declines as lingering uncertainty in the credit markets and the overall economy
likely will influence investors to take short-term profit. But for much of the day, stocks have
moved between positive and negative territory, with no real certainty as to which way the
market might close. "The market doesn't seem to have any sense of what it wants to do today,"
said Chris Colarik, portfolio manager at Glenmede Investment Management. "A lot of people felt
the move up went so quickly. There may be some reluctance to put money back to work." In a
note to investors, Oppenheimer chief market technician Carter Worth said stocks are likely to
remain around current depressed levels for another two or three months, mirroring the sevento eight-month bear market in 2002 and 2003. Some market observers say this week's rally was
likely initiated by traders and money managers buying back bets against stocks. Once the tide
turns in a market where short-selling is popular, rallies can be exacerbated by the bears' rush to
limit losses by buying back their bets. That's known as a "short squeeze." "I definitely believe
this started with a 'short squeeze,' then some people came out of the woodwork and put a little
money into the market," said Frank Beck, chief investment officer at Capital Financial Group,
adding he himself had sold some clients' positions in the Grizzly Short Fund, an exchangetraded fund that takes short positions on financial and other individual stocks. He anticipates a
"bear-market rally" comparable to the gains between the lows on Nov. 20 and the 2009 peak
in January. Recently, the Dow Jones Industrial Average, which has leapt 623 points, or 9.5%
since Monday, was up 44 points at 7213. General Motors rose 25%. Microsoft, however, slid
3.1% amid an earlier broad decline in large technology stocks. The tech-focused Nasdaq
Composite Index was up 2 to 1428. The S&P 500 was up 3 at 753. Health-care and utilities
stocks, traditional defensive sectors, were higher, a sign that risk appetite may not be as high as
the previous three sessions suggested. Humana shares were recently trading up 9.7%, on heavy
options activity, which some believe may indicate the company may be an acquisition target.
Assurances from top executives at major banks that the companies have been profitable so far
this year have helped drive the market's gains this week, but some market watchers say banks
must now walk the walk, having set an expectation.

Advantage CP

1NC
Text: The United States Federal Government should expand health care
coverage to all immigrants by banning deportation of undocumented
immigrants.
CP solves gives all undocumented immigrants health care
Congress 15 (Elaine; [MSW, DSW, LCSW, graduate school of social service, Fordham
University]; Expanding Health Care Coverage to All Immigrants; 2015;
https://apha.confex.com/apha/143am/webprogram/Paper319772.html) JKS
The Affordable Health Care Act (ACA) made health care possible for millions who
had previously been uninsured. Yet there are many who are still excluded because of their
immigration status. The face of America is changing, as there are more immigrants
(40,000,000) in the United States than ever before of whom over one quarter (11,700,000) are
undocumented (US Census, 2014). Because this large undocumented population is
not able to purchase health insurance, receive tax credits for the purchase of
health care under ACA, or apply for Medicaid, they have no health care coverage.
According to the Pew Hispanic Center (2014), nine million families can be referred to as mixed
status families with undocumented parents and children who are U.S. citizens. In these
families each family member may have different health care coverage. While
undocumented parents can apply for their children with U.S. citizenship to receive
Medicaid coverage, they themselves are not eligible for Medicaid or to receive health
care coverage through employers. The widely acclaimed Presidential Executive Orders that
provided a pathway to legal status for undocumented children (DACA) and their parents
(DAPA) still did not extend health care to children and parents who are
undocumented. Public health social workers have a professional and ethical
responsibility to provide health care equity for all and thus strive to decrease
health disparities. Yet they frequently encounter undocumented people who
cannot access regular health care. The need for advocacy to extend health care
coverage to all including undocumented immigrants will be discussed.

CP is possible Obama is very interested in these immigration policies

FNL 7-10 (Fox News Latino; [News network for Latin American people of the United States];
Obama administration seeks judges' OK for executive actions on immigration; 7/10/2015;
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2015/07/10/obama-administration-seeks-judges-okfor-executive-actions-on-immigration/) JKS
President Barack Obama's administration tried again Friday to convince the 5th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals in New Orleans to allow executive orders benefiting roughly 5 million
undocumented immigrants to take effect . Those actions were blocked via a preliminary
injunction handed down by U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen on Feb. 16, and since then
the Obama administration has sought to reverse that decision. Last November, Obama
expanded the population eligible for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA,
program, which was started in mid-2012 and has thus far has allowed more than 500,000
immigrants who came to the United States as children to receive a renewable two-year work

permit and exemption from deportation. He also issued an order creating a new program,
known as Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, or DAPA,
that would allow some immigrants who are parents of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent
residents to apply for work permits and a reprieve from deportation. Obama took those
actions, neither of which provide a path to citizenship, after Congress did not pass a broad
immigration overhaul bill last year. Justice Department attorneys argued Friday before a panel
of three judges - the Republican-appointed Jennifer Walker Elrod and Jerry Edwin Smith and
the Democratic-appointed Carolyn Dineen King - that those actions were lawful and necessary
to fix a "broken" immigration system. But a coalition of 26 mostly Republican-led states, led
by Texas, asked the judges to uphold the injunction handed down by Hanen, saying Obama
had abused his presidential power. In an earlier decision in May, Elrod and Smith
rejected the administration's request to lift the hold on the executive actions. A study released
last November by the Migration Policy Institute, a Washington-based think tank, put the
number of potential beneficiaries of DAPA and DACA at more than 5.2 million, or half of all
unauthorized immigrants residing in the United States. Of that total, 3.7 million would be
beneficiaries of DAPA and 1.5 million of DACA, including 300,000 people newly eligible under
the expanded guidelines. EFE

CP Net-Benefit
CP would create a major boost of the economy
Livio 7-10 (Susan K.; [writer for NJ.com]; Obama immigration order would boost N.J.'s
sputtering economy, group says; 7/10/2015;
http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/07/obamas_immigration_executive_order_would
_allow_200.html) JKS
More than 200,000 unauthorized immigrants living in New Jersey could provide a muchneeded boost to the state's sputtering economy if President Obama's executive actions on
immigration policy were allowed to proceed, according to a report by New Jersey Policy
Perspective. Released in advance of a federal district court hearing in Texas on Friday
challenging the president's executive order, the report predicts New Jersey would see 1,500 jobs
and $29 million in state and local taxes added to its economy each year. The executive order
would protect from deportation 55,000 children in New Jersey who were brought to America
before they were 16, and would allow 146,000 parents of children who are legal immigrants to
apply for work authorization. Another 277,000 immigrants who entered the country illegally
would not qualify, according to the report. "These federal actions on immigration are a clear,
simple and important step forward for millions of immigrants across the nation. And as a state
with many immigrants, New Jersey clearly has a lot to gain," says New Jersey Policy Perspective
policy analyst Erika J. Nava, the author of the brief for the left-leaning group. "Most
importantly, more than 200,000 New Jerseyans would directly benefit and be better integrated
into the state's social and economic fabric. And when these folks are allowed to participate more
fully in our communities, they'll help give an important boost to the state's economy, as well as
put their own families on clearer paths out of poverty ," she said. In February, a federal
judge in Texas blocked the president's executive order, saying the federal government "has
adopted a new rule that substantially changes both the status and employability of ... 4.3 million
removable aliens." "In fact the law mandates that these illegally present individuals be
removed," according to the decision. New Jersey has the sixth largest number of unauthorized
immigrants who would qualify for the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful
Permanent Residents or DAPA program and expand the existing Deferred Action for Childhood
Arrivals DACA program, according to the report. The child program applied to people 30 and
older before the president's 2014 executive order. Although they are scattered throughout the
state, the majority live Hudson, Bergen, Middlesex, Essex, Passaic and Union counties,
according to the report. About 40 percent of qualified applicants in New Jersey are from India
and Mexico. "Of the undocumented New Jerseyans hailing from India, over half would be
eligible for these executive actions the highest share of the largest origin countries," according
to the report. Undocumented New Jerseyans directly affected by these policies would likely see a
wage bump between 5 and 10 percent, "which would help to close the enormous gap between the
average annual income of the state's undocumented families ($34,500) and all New Jersey
families ($113,394)," the report said.

Counterplans

Oversight CP
Potential Text: Local police departments should adopt an internal system of
oversight for pulling drivers over, and one that requires officers to
demonstrate probable cause in order to receive authorization by a
supervisor conduct searches.
The counterplan solves racism in local law enforcement
Epp et. Al 14 (Charles R. Epp - Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Wisconsin-Madison,
Stephen Maynard-Moody- Ph.D. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, and Donald P. Haider-Markel- University
of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Ph.D., Political Science. Pulled Over How Police Stops Define Race and
Citizenship. University of Chicago Press. Published in 2014.)//lb

Second, to enforce this requirement, police departments should adopt internal

guidelines and systems of oversight governing the decision to make a stop and
conduct investigatory intrusions that are modeled on how departments regulate
uses of force.26 Thus, departments should prohibit pretextual stops except when
justified by an overriding public safety exigency. To oversee this guidance, departments
should require officers in every stop to articulate and record their reason for the stop and departments should conduct internal reviews of these reasons. Departments should strive to make
pretextual stops the rare exception rather than the common pattern. Further, a computerized
search of the persons name in crime records should be allowed only after the legal
basis for the stop is reported and recorded. These recording and oversight procedures
would severely limit the use of pretext stops in the hunt for crime and deliberately sobut this
is an essential step in limiting the racial bias now so evident in investigatory stops .
The essential third step is to prohibit searches unless based on probable cause to
believe a crime has been committed. Consent searches authorize unfettered police
discretion to search whoever they wish, even though a drivers consent cannot be considered
freely given. Drivers told us that they felt they were incarcerated when pulled over and that
they had no choice but to consent. Training police officers to solicit permis sion to
search cars or persons takes undue advantage of individuals who are
psychologically, if not legally, held by the police. Such consent relies on
manipulation, as documented in Charles Remsbergs police training manual.27 Searches
should be conducted only after receiving specific authorization by a supervisor
and should be allowed on an articulation of probable cause, or, in other words,
particularized evidence to believe the person has committed a crime. This evidence
should be recorded and evaluated by supervisors.

DOJ CP
Counterplan Text: Under 42 U.S.C. 14141, the United States federal
government should require the DOJ to repeal all local and state police
authorities ability to racially profile under any circumstance, and sue for
injunctive relief of police forces found to be racially profiling by regular
complaint investigations, under Section 14141.
Solves racial profiling and police force credibility
Simmons '12 (Kami Chavis; 2011; Beginning to End Racial Profiling: Definitive Solutions to an
Elusive Problemt; Kami Chavis Simmons is a Professor of Law and Director of the Criminal
Justice Program at Wake Forest University School of Law. In 2015, she was appointed as a
Senior Academic Fellow at the Joint Center for Political And Economic Studies.;
poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?
ID=2890041120081130900311251100960170990250070570170060130980230780260171030
090870901050050600431070580471180700660870850150061160190590070230931240060
70074013100107011091032002072106083009115008101004120019099067104004015001116
082104012093073114105006&EXT=pdf&TYPE=2; 7-12-15; mbc)
Much of the contemporary debate related to racial profiling focuses upon whether
definitive proof exists regarding an officer's intentional discrimination or whether
an agency has a policy or custom of racial profiling.'09 It is unlikely that an officer
will admit his or her bias or that an agency will produce their racially-biased
policy, thus making definitive proof of profiling difficult to ascertain. A more effective
strategy to address racial profiling involves ameliorating systemic policies and practices that encourage or tolerate racial profiling
and to assist the police department in implementing practices that will rehabilitate minority's confidence in the police department.

It is now widely accepted among scholars that much police misconduct is

attributable to an organizational culture within law enforcement agencies that
"cultivates or tolerates" police misbehavior. " 0 Experts have agreed that
adjudicatory remedies that are focused on the past misconduct of individual
officers are largely ineffective, and that the best way to address police misconduct
is to implement proactive practices that encourage broader institutional changes ."'
For example, the Christopher Commission, which examined the Los Angeles Police Department after the infamous police beating of
Rodney King, found that a small number of officers within a police department were responsible for the majority of complaints." 2

Therefore, many experts theorize that identifying, monitoring, re-training, or

disciplining "problem" officers is likely to lead to the greatest reduction in
misconduct.1 3 Civil rights suits against officers and municipalities, internal
investigations, and citizen-complaint review boards are all tools to address police
misconduct. These tools, however, are reactionary and are only utilized to remedy
previous, discrete instances of misconduct. It is clear that these adjudicatory measures are inadequate to
change the culture of a police department that engages in racial profiling or other systemic issues of misconduct. An
institutional culture that encourages or tolerates racial profiling necessitates an
institutional remedy. One of the most promising models to remedy systemic police
misconduct is the DOJ's "pattern or practice" authority, which the federal
government has used to implement systemic reforms within several local police
departments nationwide. In 1994, Congress enacted 42 U.S.C. 14141, a statute that seeks to
address the policies and practices of a police agency, and has shown great promise
in spurring institutional reforms in several local law-enforcement agencies .! 14

Pursuant to its "pattern or practice" authority under 42 U.S.C. 14141, the DOJ has
required several police departments nationwide, including the Los Angeles Police Department and the
District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department, to reform their policies and practices.115 Section 14141 grants
the U.S. government the authority to sue for injunctive relief to change policies
within a local police department where DOJ has found a pattern or practice of
constitutional violations. 16 Generally, the resulting consent decrees or agreements have included reforms of both
substantive and procedural policies to create more transparency and ensure accountability.' 1 7 One reform includes
modifying use of force policies to provide guidelines regarding what type of force
is appropriate in apprehending a suspect and defining or limiting circumstances
when certain uses of force are appropriate.' 18 Another common reform DOJ has
required is the implementation of an early-warning tracking system to help
supervisors identify officers who might need to be re-trained or disciplined. 1 9
Collecting this type of information and using it to make training and personnel decisions may deter the intentional wrongdoing of
individual officers.

Yet another reform is the implementation of fair and comprehensive

complaint processes for citizens who wish to report alleged misconduct . 120 Many
citizens, especially minorities, are reluctant to file complaints against police
officers because they simply believe that their complaints will not be fairly
processed. To ensure fairness and reduce the possibility for retaliation, officers
assigned to investigate citizen complaints should be sufficiently independent from
the officers they are investigating. Notably, DOJ has also required several jurisdictions to compile information
related to racial profiling.'12 Compiling and publishing information related o race and traffic stops and searches may help
jurisdictions determine whether officers are disproportionately stopping racial minorities. With

vigorous
enforcement, DOJ's pattern or practice authority could lead to reforms that will
ultimately address many of the systemic issues contributing to tension between
minorities and the police.

Racial profiling kills police force legitimacy

Simmons '12 (Kami Chavis; 2011; Beginning to End Racial Profiling: Definitive Solutions to an
Elusive Problemt; Kami Chavis Simmons is a Professor of Law and Director of the Criminal
Justice Program at Wake Forest University School of Law. In 2015, she was appointed as a
Senior Academic Fellow at the Joint Center for Political And Economic Studies.;
poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?
ID=2890041120081130900311251100960170990250070570170060130980230780260171030
090870901050050600431070580471180700660870850150061160190590070230931240060
70074013100107011091032002072106083009115008101004120019099067104004015001116
082104012093073114105006&EXT=pdf&TYPE=2; 7-12-15; mbc)
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the perception that certain groups are treated
unfairly undermines the legitimacy of the law enforcement agency, and thus has a
deleterious effect on crime control and prevention.94 Many members of minority
communities are also disproportionately victims of crime and may live in areas
that experience higher rates of crime.95 For example, in many large urban areas, a
disproportionate number of crime victims are AfricanAmerican, and thus partnerships between
citizens and police are essential to crime prevention.96 As one scholar noted, "[T]here is a
causal link between the perception of the law and levels of compliance.
Unfortunately, the perception in many poor and minority communities is that the
law, as exemplified by the police, is illegitimate, a perception that encourages noncompliance. 97 It follows that areas in need of the greatest amount of law
enforcement protection are also likely to have a large proportion of residents who

distrust law enforcement. Racial profiling also exacerbates tensions between

racial minorities and law enforcement, and undermines the rationale for
community policing. Thus, efforts to engage these citizens in crime prevention
partnerships with law enforcement face challenges that may not be present in
other communities. David Harris also notes that racial profiling can have a negative impact
on the way in which minority groups view law enforcement. Harris writes, "Racially targeted
traffic stops cause deep cynicism among blacks about the fairness and legitimacy of law
enforcement and courts .... Thus it is no wonder that Blacks view the criminal justice system in
totally different terms than whites do.",98 For example, San Diego Police Chief Jerome Sanders
and the San Diego Police Department voiced concerned that the "growing public perception that
police target minority drivers [] was 'eroding public trust and need[ed] to be addressed if
community policing. . . [was] [] to be successful."' 99 Not only is racial profiling harmful
to individuals and communities, but, as previously discussed, there is evidence
demonstrating that racial profiling is an ineffective law-enforcement tool. Despite
the disproportionate number of stops and searches of African-Americans and Latinos, studies
show that when searched, these groups were less likely than Whites to have contraband.'00
Together, these facts confirm not only the existence of racial profiling, but that
racial profiling is an ineffective tool for law enforcement whose costs outweigh any
negligible benefit. Given these societal costs, innovative solutions are required to address
racial profiling.

Politics Links

ICE Links
ICE and DHS reform unpopular prison lobbyists prove
Lee '15 (Esther Yu-Hsi; April 16, 2015; Millions Spent Lobbying By Private Prison Corporations
To Keep A Quota Of Arrested Immigrants, Report Says; She received her B.A. in Psychology and
Middle East and Islamic Studies and a M.A. in Psychology from New York University. A
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) beneficiary, Esther is passionate about
immigration issues from all sides of the debate. She is also a White House Champion of Change
recipient.; thinkprogress.org/immigration/2015/04/16/3647407/immigrant-detention-privateprison-11-million-lobbying/; 7-13-15; mbc)
Private prison corporations spent $11 million over six years to lobby Congress to
keep immigrants in detention centers, a new report released Wednesday found. The
Grassroots Leadership report, Payoff: How Congress Ensures Private Prison Profit with an Immigrant Detention Quota, found that
lobbying efforts of the two largest private prison corporations have made them the main beneficiaries of aggressive immigration
detention policies. For-profit

family detention centers have come under scrutiny in recent

times as migrant women renewed a hunger strike this week in Texas, demanding
that they be released on bond with their children. Since 2007, Congress has
approved federal funding for the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
agency to detain at least 33,400 people (increased to 34,000 in 2014) per day in detention
facilities. Provisions in this budget have long been referred to as an immigrant detention
quota and bed mandate on the rationale that they require a certain number of immigrants be detained at any given time.
Last year, about 33,000 immigrants were held on a daily basis. Defenders of the bed mandate say it
remains a useful tool to compel ICE to devote the maximum amount of resources
to catching and deporting illegal migrants and foreign-born legal residents who
commit crimes, including dangerous gang members, rapists and other violent felons, the Washington Post reported in
2013. A record number of immigrants have been kept in detention, but the majority are not violent offenders. When ICE
released more than 2,000 detainees in 2013 to save money, House Homeland
Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul, R-Texas wrote a letter to then ICE
director John Morton stating that ICE was in clear violation of statute for not
maintaining all 34,000 bed spaces with immigrant detainees. Morton indicated that a
continuing resolution funded ICE to maintain an average daily population of approximately 34,000 individuals. But DHS
Homeland Secretary Jeh Johnson insisted during a House Appropriations Committee hearing last year that the quota wasnt
mandatory and that ICE should only maintain the capability for 34,000 beds, some of which might be empty at any given time.
Rep. John Culberson (R-TX) contended at the time that the DHS should fill all the beds and enforcement officials do not have the
authority to use discretion because they must enforce the law as it is written. In

a possible sign that Johnsons

statement may signal a change in the interpretation of the statute, the daily
detainee population for the first five months of 2015 dropped to around 26,000.
The Grassroots Leadership report found that private prison corporations operate
62 percent of ICE immigrant detention beds , while nine of the ten largest ICE immigrant detention
facilities are operated by for-profit prison corporations. T he report also found that Corrections
Corporation of America (CCA), one of the major private prison companies, spent
at least 75 percent of its lobbying expenditures in quarters where it has lobbied
directly on the [Department of Homeland Security] Appropriations
Subcommittee. Meanwhile, GEO Group, another major private prison company, has not directly lobbied the DHS
Appropriations Subcommittee but the report authors said that the company recently began lobbying on
immigration and immigrant detention issues , spending $460,000 between 2011 and 2014 in quarters
when they lobbied on these issues. Last year CCA made $195,022,000, while GEO made $143,840,000 in profits. During a
teleconference Wednesday, Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA) explained that the only way
that Congress could get rid of a bed mandate would be through the annual DHS

appropriations budget. The Republican majority has resisted allowing those

amendments to come up, Smith said. He said that introducing a stand-alone bill
getting rid of the mandate hasnt worked in the past . Reps. Bill Foster (D-IL) and Ted Deutch (D-FL)
previously introduced such a bill, calling the mandate a costly and inhumane directive, but the bill hasnt moved through Congress.
Smith said that eliminating the bed mandate would be the first step to eliminating privatization. Its a huge thing that drives their
profits. Watchdog

and activist groups across the country have long criticized the
growing political influence of the private prison industry . The National Institute on Money and
Politics found that GEO Group contributed $5,709,456 to candidates over the past 12 years. Contribution money has gone to both
Republican, Democrats, and third party candidates. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, companies like GEO Group,
Corrections Corp. of America, and Management and Training Corp. all spent significantly more lobbying in state capitals than on
Capitol Hill In 2014 alone, they spent nearly $2 million lobbying Congress, and individuals from these companies gave well over
$500,000 to congressional candidates as well. Republican candidates received more money overall, though GEO Group gave the
highest individual contribution to Gov. Jerry Brown (D-CA. Overall, GEO Group contributed nearly $3 million to the Florida
Republican Party.

Plan partisan- private prison lobbyists prove

National Immigration Forum Staff '13 (National Immigraton Forum; August 22, 2013;
THE MATH OF IMMIGRATION DETENTION;
https://immigrationforum.org/blog/themathofimmigrationdetention/; 7-13-15-;mbc)
As previously indicated, the expansion of the immigration detention system has
created a profitable market for those involved in operating county and state jails.
The private prison industry has also benefited directly from this expansion.
Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) is the largest ICE detention contractor, operating a
total of fifteen ICE-contracted facilities with a total of 5,800 beds.[35] GEO Group, Inc. (GEO),
the second largest ICE contractor, operates seven facilities with a total of 7,183 beds.[36] In
FY2012 CCA and GEO reported annual revenues of $1.8 billion[37] and $1.5 billion[38]
respectively. In December 2010, GEO purchased B.I. Incorporated, a company that has lucrative
government contracts with ICE as the sole administrator of its alternatives to detention
program.[39] Private prison companies in 2011 housed nearly half of all
immigration detainees.[40] Private prison corporations have also exerted their
influence on legislators by lobbying for laws that detain immigrants more
frequently and for longer periods of time.[41] According to the Associated Press,
the three corporations holding the largest percentage of ICE detention contracts,
including CCA and GEO, collectively spent at least $45 million in the past decade
on campaign donations and lobbyists at the state and federal levels.[42] The
relationships between legislators and private prison corporations are perhaps best illustrated by
Arizonas controversial S.B. 1070 bill, which was drafted in the presence of officials from CCA.
[43] Of the 36 co-sponsors of S.B. 1070, 30 received campaign contributions from private prison
lobbyists or companies, including CCA.[44] With the recent activity on immigration
reform in both the House and the Senate, these companies have a vested interest
in any reform related to interior enforcement. While both GEO and CCA have
denied lobbying on immigration reform, the Lobbying Disclosure Act database
shows that both companies have regularly lobbied the House and Senate on
immigration matters in recent years.[45] With regards to the current effort to pass
immigration reform legislation, GEO initially told media outlets that The GEO
Group has never directly or indirectly lobbied to influence immigration policy. We
have not discussed any immigration reform related matters with any members of Congress, and
we will not participate in the current immigration reform debate. However their recent
lobbying disclosure forms show that they have hired the DC based lobby group
Navigators Global to lobby on behalf of the company with both houses of Congress

on issues related to comprehensive immigration reform[46]. In June, S. 744, the

Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act,
which is the Senates version of a comprehensive immigration reform bill, passed
the Senate. The CBO estimates this bill could increase the prison population by 14,000, and
further estimates a $1.6 billion budget over the next decade.[47] Private estimates suggest
that private prisons will acquire 80 percent of the bed increase in government
contracts, a significant profit for shareholders.[48] The influence of private prison
corporations is even more troubling given persistent and numerous complaints by
detainees held at private facilities, including sexual abuse,[49] inadequate access
to translators, prolonged detention, and insufficient medical treatment.[50] ICE
detention standards, designed to guide the operation of immigration detention facilities, are not
expressly enforceable at many of the facilities under contract with ICE.[51] Given the lack of
strict standards and proper oversight at these facilities, it is no surprise that sub-par conditions
persist at these locations.

Conservative prison lobbies make the plan unpopular

Markowitz '15 (Eric; April 19, 15; Report: Private Prison Lobbyists Spend Millions To Keep
Immigrants Locked Up; Eric Markowitz is a senior writer with the International Business Times,
where focuses mostly on long-form feature writing. He is graduate of New York University's
Arthur L. Carter journalism school.; www.ibtimes.com/report-private-prison-lobbyists-spendmillions-keep-immigrants-locked-1887875; 7-17-15; mbc)
In 2010, the

Department of Homeland Security adopted a bed quota that required

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to detain about 34,000 individuals
on any given day. The quota certainly did not benefit immigrants -- but it did prove to be extraordinarily lucrative for the
private prison companies that picked up the new business. A report released last week by Grassroots
Leadership, a Texas non-profit, details how private prison companies have spent
five years lobbying the government, not only to maintain the quota, but to enact
conservative immigration reform that would continue to ensure a steady flow of
inmates into its detention centers. Payoff: How Congress Ensures Private Prison Profit with an Immigrant
Detention, says 62 percent of all ICE detention beds now are operated by for-profit
prison companies. In fact, nine out of the 10 largest immigrant detention camps are
private, with eight owned by only two corporations -- Corrections Corporation of
America and the GEO Group. Those two corporations reaped about $500 million
in 2014 alone. To protect their interests, these companies -- particularly CCA -have spent millions in conservative lobbying efforts . Contrary to private prison corporation claims
that they do not lobby on issues related to immigration policy, between 2008 and 2014, CCA spent $10.56 million in quarters where

The report also

found since the 2010 bed quota was instituted, the two companies have expanded
operations in a number of states, now detaining "3,600 refugee mothers and
children, at enormous profit to these corporations." Critics say the conditions at these facilities are
they lobbied on issues related to immigrant detention and immigration reform, the authors note.

abysmal, and access to medical care is scant. The report detailed the experience of Henry Taracena, an immigrant who was detained
for five months at the GEO-run Northwest Detention Center in Tacoma, Washington. Taracena participated in a hunger strike while
detained to bring publicity to the facility's conditions.

Immigration reform partisan now Republicans will block it until Obama

backs down over immigration executive action
Everett and Seung 15(Burgess and Min Kim; 3/9/15; Immigration reform looks dead in this
Congress; Everett is originally from Maine and a University of Maryland graduate. He got his
start in journalism at the Portland Press Herald + Seung Min Kim is an assistant editor who

covers Congress for POLITICO; www.politico.com/story/2015/03/immigration-reformcongress-115880.html; 7-17-15; mbc)

Singed by their defeat in the battle over Homeland Security funding, Republicans
arent about to renew their fight against President Barack Obamas executive
actions on immigration anytime soon. When the GOP-controlled Senate bent to Democratic demands to
fund the Department of Homeland Security, effectively undercut ting conservatives
who were willing to allow the agency to shut down until Obama backed down,
there was talk of Senate GOP leaders returning to the immigration issue to find
new ways to thwart Obamas orders. Story Continued Below But few within the GOP expect any kind of
immigration debate in the Senate in the foreseeable future. The issue has been relegated to the back
burner as Republicans instead focus on the budget, trade deals and, possibly, tax
reform. At this point, we have a lot of other issues to do , said Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who
authored stand-alone legislation to block Obamas immigration directives. Im very happy the Department of
Homeland Security is funded, and I think the issue of the presidents overreach
with his executive order of last November is probably going to end up being
decided by the courts. And thats not a bad option. Senate Republican leadership
aides also indicated that the chamber is not likely to return to the Collins
legislation in the next several weeks a work period that will be dominated by anti-trafficking legislation,
nominations, a fiscal 2016 budget and perhaps an Iran bill. In the House, committees are humming along on some immigration
bills, but leadership has shown no indication when or if they will come to the floor. The

inaction on
immigration comes as the GOP is trying to improve its standing among Latinos in
the 2016 presidential election. An autopsy of the partys problems after the 2012 election warned that
Republicans must embrace and champion comprehensive immigration reform. If we do not, our Partys appeal will continue to
shrink. Reform

advocates were buoyed when the Senate overwhelmingly passed a

sweeping bipartisan bill in June 2013. But the measure stalled in the House. And
immigration, until at least after the next election, is more likely to be fodder for
the campaign trail than congressional action . And if there was any question, Obamas
executive actions, which are deeply despised by Republicans, likely extinguished
any remaining prospects of this White House working with the GOP on
immigration. In a meeting with advocates last month, Obama said he was not hopeful this Republican-led Congress would
pass immigration bills that he would be able to sign, one person who attended the meeting said. Senate Majority
Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) left himself the option of bringing back the
measure to stymie Obamas directives. And GOP leaders, wary of criticism from conservatives who are girding
for combat over immigration, wont close the door entirely on revisiting it.

Department of Homeland Security commits human rights violations

Dagnal-Myron '14 (Cynthia; 11/04/14; Report Alleges Human Rights Abuses at DHS Facilities
on the Mexican Border; Cynthia Dagnal-Myron is an award-winning former reporter for both
the Chicago Sun Times and Arizona Daily Star and author of The Keka Collection.;
www.huffingtonpost.com/cynthia-dagnalmyron/report-alleges-aystematic_b_6070102.html; 77-15; mbc)
Detainees at short-term Department of Homeland Security facilities in Southern
Arizona have faced "a long term pattern of human rights violations" according to a
report released today by the Guatemala Acupuncture and Medical Aid Project
(GUAMAP), a non-governmental international health organization based in
Tucson. In an email exchange, Blake Gentry, GUAMAP member and author of Deprivation Not Deterrence said the report was
meant to "use our experience in health care and with the cultures of Guatemala in interpreting what conditions Central Americans
were migrating from and what they were migrating to." GUAMAP, which has trained rural Guatemalan health care workers for over

20 years, conducted 45 minute interviews with 68 detainees over a two month period. According

to Gentry, two
dozen additional families were interviewed, but asked that their responses not be
made public, "even with the guarantee that personal identifying information
would not be published." The families felt "anxiety over their future US
immigration proceedings." Among the violations reported by detainees were:
Insufficient, spoiled and sub-standard food Insufficient or tainted drinking water
Psychological, physical, or verbal abuse Insufficient medical care, most notably for
pregnant women and children Anecdotal evidence of the latter was given by a Honduran mother who said her young son,
"began to bleed from the nose" while in detention. She said a border agent told her that "this is
normal," and refused to allow medical personnel to attend to the sick child. Along with tales of abuse and
statistics to support those allegations, the report also "debunks... the public
perception of immigrants as terrorists and criminals," Gentry asserted. "Economic
displacement created by NAFTA and CAFTA trade agreements drove and continues
to drive rural agricultural workers out of those countries in order that they can
survive," Gentry said. Gentry added that some 6.6 million of the approximately 11 million undocumented in the United States
are "farm workers who are migrating to survive economic collapse in the agricultural labor market." "In plain terms
their jobs were destroyed by large plantation agriculture now reaping enormous
profits and US commercial agriculture that exports basic crops to those areas
where they used to grow such crops." Gentry also believes the report proves "the
DHS (Department of Homeland Security) policy of subjecting immigrants to harsh treatment in
border patrol stations in order to deter them from coming has failed ." "We perceive
looming international threats but are being guided by fear and those who traffic in selling fear," Gentry said, also
comparing current immigration policies to those which eventually sent several
Native American tribes--once also considered "illegals"--down the infamous Trail
of Tears. "However, this time, [it is] our neighbors in North America and Central America, whose immigrants account for 73%
of all undocumented in the United States," Gentry said. "We do not live in an isolated region any longer. If you make international
trade deals to exchange goods, capital investments and technology, but exclude the people hurt by the worst by those trade deals,
more illegal people will be coming unless the deals are fixed. We can no longer afford not to [fix them]--unless taxpayers want to
shell out more money for a problem we were told was going to be solved in 1995."

States CP

federal enforcement bad

Federal crime enforcement is ineffective Proves the
Counterplan Solves
Muhlhausen and Little 7 (David B Muhlhausen PhD is a leading expert on criminal justice programs in The
Heritage Foundations Center for Data Analysis and Erica Little is a staff member at The Heritage Foundation, Gang Crime:
Effective and Constitutional Policies to Stop ViolentGangs, 6/6/07, Date Accessed: 7/13/15,

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/06/gang-crime-effective-and-constitutionalpolicies-to-stop-violent-gangs, SZ)
Overfederalization of Crime. The tendency to search for a solution at the national
level is misguided and problematic. Federal crimes should address problems reserved to the national government in the Constitution. In a speech to the American Law Institute, the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist reiterated what the
Judicial Conference of the United States had stated years before: " Civil

and criminal jurisdiction should be

assigned to the federal courts only to further clearly defined and justified national
interests."[7] He went on to list the types of crimes to which the federal government should be limited: offenses against the
federal government or its interests, crimes with a substantial multi-state or international aspect, crimes involving complex
commercial or institutional enterprises, serious state or local government corruption, and crimes raising highly sensitive local issues.
[8] Criminal

street gangs are a problem common to all of the states, but the crimes
that they commit are almost entirely and inherently local in nature and regulated
by state criminal law, law enforcement, and courts. For example, despite the fact that an automobile theft could involve
interstate travel, it does not do so in most instances. State agencies investigate and prosecute such
crimes. Adding the label of "gang crime" does not change the offense in a way that
justifies or constitutionally authorizes federal involvement unless there really is significant interstate activity that
has a direct and substantial effect on interstate commerce. In the same speech to the American Law Institute, Rehnquist repeated a
principle enunciated by President Abraham Lincoln in the 19th century and President Dwight D. Eisenhower in the 20th century:
"Matters that can be adequately handled by the states should be left to them, [and] matters that cannot be so handled should be
undertaken by the federal government."[9] When Congress adds to the federal criminal law, it generally claims to do so based on its
power under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which is known as the Commerce Clause, arguing that the activity being
criminalized has some sort of effect on interstate commerce. This use of the Commerce Clause is far from the true meaning of the
Constitution. As Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in his concurring opinion in United States v. Lopez, if Congress had been given
authority over matters that simply "affect" interstate commerce, most of Article I, Section 8, which enumerates Congress's powers,
would be rendered surplusage.[10] In addition to violating the constitutional structure of the U.S. government, federalizing

crime also reduces accountability and efficiency as law enforcement agencies fight
crime. By involving the federal government, Congress undermines the responsibility of
state and local law enforcement to develop effective crime-reduction policies . Local
officials can pass the buck by pointing the finger at federal enforcement authorities. The problem is compounded because

federal action is often ineffective . Federalizing a crime is frequently a symbolic

gesture, enabling Congress to say that it has addressed the problem without regard to whether or not the new laws will actually
be implemented, much less actually reduce crime.[11] Although it may appear harmless, Congress's gesture only
impedes state and local enforcement in addressing a problem that should be
solved primarily at the state and local levels. In addition to undermining state and local accountability,
federal involvement in crime fighting is detrimental to quintessential federal responsibilities. Enforcing criminal law
that is not really national in scope is a misuse of federal resources and a
distraction from true national concerns . By increasing the federal role in traditional state
and local responsibilities, Congress needlessly drains federal resources that should be used for more
urgent priorities such as pursuing foreign spies, combating counterfeiting, fighting international terrorism, and improving
homeland security.

solves human rights

All 50 States failed both the UN and Amnesty Internationals standards for
protection of life
Laughland and Lartey '15 (Oliver and Jamiles; June 18, 15; Oliver Laughland is senior
reporter for Guardian + Lartey is a reporter for the Guardian US US; www.theguardian.com/usnews/2015/jun/18/us-states-police-use-of-force-standards-amnesty; 7-13-15; mbc)
Every state in the US fails to comply with international standards on the lethal use
of force by law enforcement officers, according to a report by Amnesty
International USA, which also says 13 US states fall beneath even lower legal
standards enshrined in US constitutional law and that nine states currently have
no laws at all to deal with the issue. The stinging review comes amid a national debate over
police violence and widespread protest following the high-profile deaths of 18-year-old Michael
Brown in Ferguson, Missouri; 43-year-old Eric Garner in New York; 50-year-old Walter Scott in
South Carolina; and 25-year-old Freddie Gray in Baltimore all unarmed black men killed by
police within the past 11 months. Amnesty USAs executive director, Steven Hawkins,
told the Guardian the findings represented a shocking lack of fundamental respect for the
sanctity of human life. While law enforcement in the United States is given the
authority to use lethal force, there is no equal obligation to respect and preserve
human life. Its shocking that while we give law enforcement this extraordinary
power, so many states either have no regulation on their books or nothing that
complies with international standards, Hawkins said. The Counted: people killed by
police in the United States in 2015 interactive The Guardian is counting the people killed by
US law enforcement agencies this year. Read their stories and contribute to our ongoing,
crowdsourced project Read more The analysis, which Hawkins said he believed was the
first of its kind, compared state statutes on law enforcements use of lethal force
with international legislation, including the enshrinement of the right to life, as
well as United Nations principles limiting lethal use of force to unavoidable
instances in order to protect life after less extreme means have failed. Further
UN guidelines state that officers should attempt to identify themselves and give
warning of intent to use lethal force. Advertisement Amnesty found that in all 50 states
and Washington DC, written statutes were too broad to fit these international standards,
concluding: None of the laws establish the requirement that lethal force may only
be used as a last resort with non-violent means and less harmful means to be tried
first. The vast majority of laws do not require officers to give a warning of their
intent to use firearms. The report arrived just weeks after the recommendations of Barack
Obamas police taskforce were made public and his executive actions on police reform criticized
for not going far enough to curtail police violence. The presidential commission stated
that not only should there be policies for deadly and non-deadly uses of force,
but that a clearly stated sanctity of life philosophy must also be in the forefront
of every officers mind. The Amnesty review found that only eight states require a verbal
warning to be given before an officer engages in lethal force. In nine states, law
enforcement officers are legally allowed to use lethal force during riot. In
Pennsylvania, for instance, the use of force statute mandates that deadly force is
justifiable if it is necessary to suppress a riot or mutiny after the rioters or
mutineers have been ordered to disperse. Further, Amnesty found that in 20 states it is
legally permissible for law enforcement officers to employ lethal force against an individual

attempting to escape prison or jail, even if they pose no threat. In Mississippi, for instance, law
declares the killing of a human being justifiable [w]hen necessarily committed by public
officers, or those acting by their command in their aid and assistance, in retaking any felon who
has been rescued or has escaped. Amnestys report also charges that the laws on lethal
force in 13 states do not even meet the less stringent constitutional standard set by
the 1985 US supreme court case Tennessee v Garner. The case was centered on the
death of an unarmed black 15-year-old, Edward Garner, a suspect in a home burglary. He was
shot in the back of the head as he fled by officers acting under a Tennessee state statute which
permitted use all the necessary means to make an arrest of a fleeing subject. The 6-3
majority decision declared that police may not use deadly force to prevent a
suspect from escaping unless the officer has probable cause to believe that the
suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer
or others. The states whose laws do not meet this constitutional standard, according to
Amnesty, tend to include permissive or vague language around the use of force. North Dakotas
statute, for example, permits deadly force against an individual who has committed or
attempted to commit a felony involving violence, without defining the level of violence that
might warrant deadly force. Amnesty identifies nine states Maryland, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Ohio, South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming alongside
Washington DC where no law enforcement officer lethal force statutes exist.

solves immigration
States work out immigration issues while Congress argues
Grovum 2014 (Jake [Staff Writer for Stateline]; With No Federal Fix, States Are Addressing
Immigration on Their Own; August 25, 2014; www.governing.com/news/headlines/with-nofederal-fix-states-are-addressing-immigration.html; jDUBS)
With Congress at a standstill on immigration issues, states have pursued their own solutions, with some
offering in-state tuition and financial aid to unauthorized students and others approving more spending to enforce immigration laws. " While Congress cannot
seem to take action on immigration issues, states remain engaged in debating and solving
immigration challenges, whether we are discussing services or enforcement ," state Sen. John Watkins, a Virginia
Republican and co-chair of the National Conference of State Legislatures' immigration task force, said in releasing an immigration report during NCSL's annual meeting last

States have enacted 132 immigration-related laws this year

week.
, according to the report. The number is only slightly down
from last year, even though some states, including immigration hot spot Texas, held no legislative session this year. Seven states approved resolutions calling on Congress or the

In many cases, the laws enacted in the

states continued a trend of opening the door to recent immigrants, authorized and
unauthorized, to be more engaged in civic life and the community . The measures include employment and labor
White House to act on a immigration issues like deportation policy and a general overhaul of federal laws.

regulations, education policies and health-care access. Among the notable examples: Florida and Tennessee joined 15 other states that offer in-state tuition by law for
unauthorized immigrants. Four states offer it through their higher education systems' boards of regents. Washington state went further this year, joining California, New Mexico
and Texas in offering financial aid to unauthorized students. Florida also made it possible for unauthorized immigrants to be members of the state bar association. In New York
and Oregon, lawmakers approved measures to expand health care access to immigrants, including those who are unauthorized and in general excluded from federal safety-net
programs like Medicaid, the federal-state health care program for the poor. New York's measure aims to make medical assistance available to those who might be otherwise
ineligible because of their immigration status under federal law. Oregon will spend $60,000 to study creating a basic health plan that could serve legal resident immigrants who
are excluded from other programs. California, meanwhile, continued to be a leader in pushing for more immigrant-friendly laws. Lawmakers approved a measure that would bar
employers from pursuing punitive immigration enforcement actions against their workers for any reason. Other states went in the opposite direction. Missouri, for example,
approved a law blocking any in-state tuition benefit for unauthorized immigrants. Six other states have also moved to block in-state tuition for those immigrants. Arizona
lawmakers approved a change to make it a felony to assume someone else's identity to be declared eligible to work. In South Carolina, notaries public must now read and write
English and be registered to vote. Utah repealed a law that urged its Commission on Immigration and Migration to coordinate with local, state and federal officials to help
integrate immigrants into the state. Despite the flurry of state activity, however, few of the measures approved in 2014 generated the sort of controversy that engulfed states such
as Arizona and Alabama in recent years. According to the NCSL report, no states moved to offer driver's licenses to unauthorized immigrants this year (11 states and the District
of Columbia already offer them), a step that has ignited strong opposition in some states. There were no broad-based immigration omnibus measures passed in the states this
year either, according to the report. Much of the legislative action covered in the NCSL report, however, predated the national focus on the flood of unaccompanied child
immigrants flooding across the U.S.-Mexico border.

In just the early weeks of that crisis, many states moved to respond

to the situation. Some states, such as Maryland, led by Democratic Gov. Martin O'Malley, took steps to welcome child immigrants, calling on religious and other
private groups to provide shelter for them. Other governors, such as Dave Heineman of Nebraska and Terry Branstad of Iowa, both Republicans, criticized federal officials for
considering their states as potential landing zones for immigrant children. Massachusetts Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick saw a backlash from his initial openness to house
immigrant children, and the state ended up not sheltering any children. The child immigrant situation could lead to more action in general, but also to a further divide among
the states in how they treat immigration in general. Already, Republican Gov. Rick Perry of Texas has led the way in strong reactions to the immigrant crisis, sending his state's
National Guard to the border for extra security. Washington state Rep. Sharon Tomiko Santos, a Democrat who also co-chairs the NCSL immigration task force, said action in
the states might have been down a bit this year because people had hoped Congress might do something. Because it didn't, "states are going to try to fill that vacuum," she said.
"Our motto is that the federal government has the responsibility to address the immigration policy," she said, "but

states have the responsibility to

address immigrant integration."

States solve immigration issues better than the federal government

Nowrasteh 6/16 (Alex [Immigration Policy Analyst at the Cato Institute]; Immigration
reform: Let the states lead the way; June 16, 2015; www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oenowratseh-let-states-issue-guest-worker-visas-20150613-story.html; jDUBS)
Texas and California are trying to reform legal migration on their own. The politics in these two states
couldn't be more different, but legislators in both states recently proposed running their own guest-worker visa programs to get
around the federal immigration reform gridlock. Relying

on states to create their own migration systems may

well be the solution to America's immigration woes. One-size-fits-all national immigration laws
aren't working. Federal reform efforts have repeatedly failed , so why not let states take a crack at it?
States experiment with education, welfare and drug policies immigration should be next. A
state-based guest-worker visa seems like a radical idea because immigration rules generally fall under federal jurisdiction in the
United States. However, Canada and Australia which like the U.S. are continent-spanning, economically diverse countries with
traditions of federalism each have such programs. In a recent report, Canada called its Provincial Nominee Program a success;
96% of the program's immigrants to Manitoba, British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan were employed within a year, many
filling niche rolls in the labor market. If

the U.S. government followed that example and relinquished some

migration powers to state governments, we'd see a proliferation of different visas
regulated in various ways. California might create a state visa for high-tech workers and agricultural laborers, while

Texas might create visas for agriculture, construction and high tech. Michigan could create one for real estate investors in Detroit.

There could be hundreds of different visas all tuned to local economic demands rather than just
one or two temporary federal visas forced to fit the needs of the entire U.S. economy Texas and
California could be the first to succeed with pilot programs. Texas' brief legislative session saw three bipartisan bills introduced to
create a state-based guest-worker visa program. The California Assembly just passed a guest-worker visa bill authored by
Assemblyman Luis Alejo (D-Salinas). After

noting the failure of federal immigration reform, Alejo said, "If

California wants change in immigration policy, we as state officials must stand up and lead." His bill would create a guest
visa work permit for unauthorized farmworkers already working in the state. None of the Texas bills would have legalized any
current unlawful migrants, but they would have provided for the future entry of legal migrant workers to Texas. In both states, the
bills require that the federal government grant a waiver or permission to run their own programs. That has been a stumbling block
for Kansas, Utah and Colorado, which have also tried to establish their own guest-worker programs in recent years. The waivers
weren't forthcoming, but Washington would have a much harder time ignoring politically powerful California and Texas, which have
the two largest economies in the United States. State-based guest-worker programs admittedly bring up some potentially thorny
issues. One is that migrants who enter the U.S. in one state could simply leave and work in another illegally. That problem would
probably be a minor one. Only about 2% of current visa "overstays" involve guest workers, while 87% are tourists and vacationers.
Guest workers are more closely regulated than tourists, and they have much more to fear from deportation, so fewer of them
overstay. If, however, state guest workers do disappear, states

have more flexibility to experiment with

responses and prevention measures. They might make guest workers pay a bond that they forfeit if they violated the
program, or levy fines against employers when their workers leave, or deduct some amount of wages to be returned when the worker
leaves the U.S. as agreed. Another concern is abuse of guest workers, as has happened in the past. Allowing guest
workers' visas to be tied to employment in a state rather than to specific employers would go a long way toward preventing such
abuses. States

are in a better position than the federal government to discover, appropriately

punish and design programs to prevent worker abuse. State guest workers would not be eligible for citizenship.
The Constitution unambiguously assigns naturalization the process of becoming a U.S. citizen to the federal government. A
decentralized guest-worker visa would merely allow states to create narrow and enforceable migrant worker programs tailored to
local needs. With immigration reform deadlocked on the federal level, Washington

should get out of the way and let

the states devise their own migration policies.

Congress immigration reform better than states

Joaquin 2014 (Linton [General Counsel of the National Immigration Law Center]; Congress,
not states, should handle immigration reform; 2014;
www.progressive.org/news/2013/05/182221/congress-not-states-should-handle-immigrationreform; jDUBS)
Congress should enact common-sense immigration reform to put an end to the frustration that has led to a
patchwork of poorly conceived anti-immigrant laws at the state level. While a panel of U.S. senators debates how to repair the
immigration system, a federal appellate court panel seated 109 miles south in Richmond, Va., will be considering whether to allow
parts of South Carolina's anti-immigrant law, modeled after Arizona's notorious SB1070, to take effect. Almost a year ago, the U.S.
Supreme Court found that several key provisions of Arizona's

law were unconstitutional, affirming that the

federal government has supreme authority over immigration law and enforcement. Congress
should exercise that authority now. Its failure to deal with the problems created by our out-of-date
immigration laws led to a patchwork of harsh and discriminatory state laws sharing a common thread: to make life
so miserable for immigrants that they "self-deport," a term coined by the architect of several of these state laws and made famous by
Mitt Romney. Some of the provisions in these laws have included keeping undocumented immigrants from exercising their First
Amendment rights, or from getting rides to work or being able to rent a house. Enforcement

of the laws would

certainly have subjected people of color to racial profiling. Our organization, the National Immigration
Law Center, with assistance from the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the American Civil Liberties
Union and the Southern Poverty Law Center, has challenged these laws in Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, South
Carolina and Utah.

solves organized crime

Counterplan solves organized crime
Muhlhausen and Little 7 (David B Muhlhausen PhD is a leading expert on criminal justice programs in The
Heritage Foundations Center for Data Analysis and Erica Little is a staff member at The Heritage Foundation, Gang Crime:
Effective and Constitutional Policies to Stop ViolentGangs, 6/6/07, Date Accessed: 7/13/15,

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/06/gang-crime-effective-and-constitutionalpolicies-to-stop-violent-gangs, SZ)
The best way to prevent and suppress gang-related crime is to adhere to federalist
principles that respect the allocation of responsibilities among national, state, and
local governments. To address gang-related crime appropriately, the national government
should limit itself to handling tasks that are within its constitutionally designed sphere and that
state and local governments cannot perform by themselves. The national government should
secure the nation's borders, deport gang members who are illegal immigrants, incarcerate them
if they return to the United States illegally, and produce research and coordinate information
sharing on law enforcement activities that involve interstate gang-related crime. While
criminal street gangs are a problem common to all of the states, the crimes that
they commit are almost entirely and inherently local in nature and regulated by
state criminal law, law enforcement, and courts. For this reason, state and local
governments are the most appropriate level of government to develop policies to
prevent and suppress most gang-related crime. On the prevention side, Boys and Girls
Clubs and multisystemic therapy have a track record of success in preventing delinquency and
may be promising gang-related crime prevention programs. For gang suppression,
Boston's Operation Ceasefire demonstrated that a law enforcement strategy based
on generating a strong deterrent to gang violence can make a difference.

solves racial profiling

State citizenship solves for racial profiling
Markowitz 15 (Peter L. Markowitz has his J.D. from New York University School of Law.
"UNDOCUMENTED NO MORE: THE POWER OF STATE CITIZENSHIP." Stanford law review
67.4 (2015): 869-915. ProQuest. Web. 7 July 2015.)//lb
Our national dialogue on immigration is stuck. Millions of individuals living without legal
documentation are nonetheless deeply integrated into our economy and our families, and
have become something of a semipermanent underclass. All reasonable observers agree that
these individuals are largely here to stay. Nevertheless, they are unable to participate in our
political process, thereby undermining our democracy, and the instability caused
by their status not only visits hardships on immigrant communities but also
negatively impacts our collective well-being. While a significant majority of Americans
favor federal reform, including a legalization program for undocumented immigrants,
Congress is unlikely to act soon. States thus have an opportunity to take the lead
on the immigration issue. By adopting a broad definition of state citizenship and
formally welcoming immigrant populations into state political communities, states
can begin to move our national conversation forward. At the same time, they can
substantially improve the lives of marginalized immigrant communities and
improve the health, safety, and economies of the states as a whole.