Osborn/WarnerUMKC SDI
PoliticsSummer 2007
Politics disadvantage – Immigration reform
***Shells***
1NC Immigration reform bad
1NC Immigration reform good
***Uniqueness***
Immigration reform no
Immigration reform no – bipartisan split
Immigration reform no – proposal fatigue
Immigration reform yes – new amendments
Immigration reform yes – democrats
Bush capital low
Bush capital high
***Link***
Bush gets the blame
Link – foreign aid bipartisan
Link – foreign aid popular
Link – foreign aid popular with conservatives
Link – foreign aid unpopular
Link – AIDS/Malaria bipartisanship
Link – AIDS not bipartisan
Link – debt relief popular
Link – debt relief unpopular with conservatives
Link – global gag rule popular with conservatives
Link – PEPFAR popular
***Impact***
Immigration inevitable
Legal v illegal
Impact – immigration reform ↓ racism
Impact – immigration reform ↑ economy
Impact – immigration reform ↓ economy
Impact – immigration ↑ economy
A2 They’re stealing our jobs
Impact – Immigration ↓ economy
Internal link – U.S. economy key to global economy
Impact – immigration reform ↓ terrorism
Impact – immigration reform terrorism
A2 Immigration terrorism
***Miscellaneous/Internal link***
No internal link
Bush agenda
Bush agenda
LOL KIDZ KHARDS
1NC Immigration reform bad
A. Uniqueness – Republicans recent immigration failure means it will not pass in the near future.
Stephen Dinanstaff writer July 25 2007 "Border reform not a priority for Democrats" Washington Times accessed 7/26/07 (WR)
The congressman's statement was reported by a Hispanic activist and confirmed by Mr. Emanuel. "Congressman Rahm Emanuel said to me two weeks ago, there is no way this legislation is happening in the Democratic House, in the Democratic Senate, in the Democratic presidency, in the first term," Juan Salgado, board chairman of the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, told the National Council of La Raza (NCLR) at its annual convention last weekend. Through a spokesman, Mr. Emanuel, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, blamed Republicans for botching this year's debate and said that makes it tougher for Democrats to return to the issue.
B. Link – plan is popular/bipartisan
C. Impact – Immigration reform shackles anti-terrorism efforts.
Kris W. Kobach5/24/2006 “Terrorist Loophole: Senate Bill Disarms Law Enforcement”
In the wake of the attacks, the Department of Justice announced the conclusion of a new Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion: state and local police officers do have the legal authority to arrest any deportable illegal alien. This announcement did not create any new authority—the police had possessed it all along. Rather, the announcement reminded local lawenforcement agencies of the crucial role that they could, and should, play in the war against terrorism by making immigration arrests. The OLC opinion affirmed the conclusion of numerous U.S. Courts of Appeals that states have the inherent authority to assist the federal government by making immigration arrests. Moreover, Congress has never acted to displace, or “preempt,” this inherent authority. As the Tenth Circuit concluded in United States v. Santana-Garcia (2001), federal law “evinces a clear invitation from Congress for state and local agencies to participate in the process of enforcing federal immigration laws.” Police departments across the country responded to the lessons of 9/11 and the OLC opinion by exercising their inherent arrest authority with renewed determination. The number of calls to LESC by local police officers who had arrested illegal aliens nearly doubled, reaching 504,678 in FY 2005—or 1,383 calls per day, on average. Local police have become a crucial participant in the enforcement of federal immigration laws. Disarming Law Enforcement The Senate’simmigration reform proposal would change all of that.Section 240D would restrict local police to arresting aliens for criminal violations of immigration law only, not civil violations. The results would be disastrous. All of the hijackers who committed immigration violations committed civil violations. Under the bill, police officers would have no power to arrest such terrorists. Moreover, as a practical matter, CIRA would discourage police departments from playing any role in immigration enforcement. Most police officers (indeed, most lawyers) do not know which immigration violations are criminal and which violations are civil. There is no particular logic to the distinctions. Overstaying a visa (something hijackers from the Middle East are more likely to do) is a civil violation, but marriage fraud is a criminal violation. Which one is more dangerous to national security? Afraid of arresting the wrong type of illegal alien—and getting sued as a result—many police departments will stop helping the federal government altogether. As the country is making progress in the war against terrorism, the Senate is poised to unilaterally disarm the men and women on the front line. Sadly, many senators aren’t even aware of the damage they might inflict on U.S. national security.
1NC Immigration reform bad
The impact is extinction.
Yonah Alexander (professor and director of the Inter-University for Terrorism Studies in Israel and the United States) 8/28/2003The Washington Times
Last week's brutal suicide bombings in Baghdad and Jerusalem have once again illustrated dramatically thatthe international community failed, thus far at least, to understand the magnitude and implications of the terrorist threats to the very survival of civilization itself. Even the United States and Israel have for decades tended to regard terrorism as a mere tactical nuisance or irritant rather than a critical strategic challenge to their national security concerns. It is not surprising, therefore, that on September 11, 2001, Americans were stunned by the unprecedented tragedy of 19 al Qaeda terrorists striking a devastating blow at the center of the nation's commercial and military powers. Likewise, Israel and its citizens, despite the collapse of the Oslo Agreements of 1993 and numerous acts of terrorism triggered by the second intifada that began almost three years ago, are still "shocked" by each suicide attack at a time of intensive diplomatic efforts to revive the moribund peace process through the now revoked cease-fire arrangements [hudna]. Why are the United States and Israel, as well as scores of other countries affected by the universal nightmare of modern terrorism surprised by new terrorist "surprises"? There are many reasons, including misunderstanding of the manifold specific factors that contribute to terrorism's expansion, such as lack of a universal definition of terrorism, the religionization of politics, double standards of morality, weak punishment of terrorists, and the exploitation of the media by terrorist propaganda and psychological warfare. Unlike their historical counterparts, contemporary terrorists have introduced a new scale of violence in terms of conventional and unconventional threats and impact. The internationalization and brutalization of current and future terrorism make it clearwe have entered an Age of Super Terrorism [e.g. biological, chemical, radiological, nuclear and cyber] with its serious implications concerning national, regional and global security concerns. Two myths in particular must be debunked immediately if an effective counterterrorism "best practices" strategy can be developed [e.g., strengthening international cooperation]. The first illusion is that terrorism can be greatly reduced, if not eliminated completely, provided the root causes of conflicts - political, social and economic - are addressed. The conventional illusion is that terrorism must be justified by oppressed people seeking to achieve their goals and consequently the argument advanced by "freedom fighters" anywhere, "give me liberty and I will give you death," should be tolerated if not glorified. This traditional rationalization of "sacred" violence often conceals that the real purpose of terrorist groups is to gain political power through the barrel of the gun, in violation of fundamental human rights of the noncombatant segment of societies. For instance, Palestinians religious movements [e.g., Hamas, Islamic Jihad] and secular entities [such as Fatah's Tanzim and Aqsa Martyr Brigades]] wish not only to resolve national grievances [such as Jewish settlements, right of return, Jerusalem] but primarily to destroy the Jewish state. Similarly, Osama bin Laden's international network not only opposes the presence of American military in the Arabian Peninsula and Iraq, but its stated objective is to "unite all Muslims and establish a government that follows the rule of the Caliphs." The second myth is that strong action against terrorist infrastructure [leaders, recruitment, funding, propaganda, training, weapons, operational command and control] will only increase terrorism. The argument here is that law-enforcement efforts and military retaliation inevitably will fuel more brutal acts of violent revenge. Clearly, if this perception continues to prevail, particularly in democratic societies, there is the danger it will paralyze governments and thereby encourage further terrorist attacks. In sum, past experience provides useful lessons for a realistic future strategy. The prudent application of force has been demonstrated to be an effective tool for short- and long-term deterrence of terrorism. For example, Israel's targeted killing of Mohammed Sider, the Hebron commander of the Islamic Jihad, defused a "ticking bomb." The assassination of Ismail Abu Shanab - a top Hamas leader in the Gaza Strip who was directly responsible for several suicide bombings including the latest bus attack in Jerusalem - disrupted potential terrorist operations. Similarly, the U.S. military operation in Iraq eliminated Saddam Hussein's regime as a state sponsor of terror. Thus, it behooves those countries victimized by terrorism to understand a cardinal messagecommunicated by Winston Churchill to the House of Commons on May 13, 1940:"Victory at all costs, victory in spite of terror, victory however long and hard the road may be: For without victory, there is no survival."
1NC Immigration reform good
A. Uniqueness – Immigration Reform bill will pass out of necessity
Eunice MoscosoJuly 25, 2007 “Border Security ‘Cannot Wait’ ” accessed July 26, 2007 [ao]
Rep. Brian Bilbray, R-Calif., who chairs the Immigration Reform Caucus, was not happy to read that Democrats may wait until the second-term of the next president to push an immigration overhaul. “Just a few months ago, everyone in Washington was talking about the importance of employer enforcement and border security,” Bilbray said, in a statement. ”The problems of illegal immigration didn’t disappear overnight…Employer enforcement and border security cannot wait until the second term of new administration.”
B. Link – plan is unpopular/hurts political capital.
C. Impact – Immigration reform is key to the U.S. economy.
David Esmond6/2/2007 “Bush's immigration reform worthy of support”
Immigration reform is one of President Bush's good ideas (he's had some). It deserves the support of all Americans.
America has benefited enormously from the energy and initiative of immigrants. The bipartisan compromise proposal that has received administration support includes a way to legalize the status of those aliens now working as productive members of our economy, as well as provide a path to citizenship for those who are willing and able to meet the requirements for that status. It strengthens border controls and increases enforcement and sanctions directed toward ensuring employer compliance with its provisions. Immigration reform is an essential investment for our future, and will help ensure the vitality and productivity of our society in the decades ahead.
D. U.S. Economic Downturn goes global and causes nuclear war.
Walter Russel Mead, Senior fellow in American FoPo @ the Council on Foreign Relations, World Policy Institute, 1992.
Hundreds of millions, billions , of people have pinned their hopes on the international market. They and their leaders have embraced market principles and drawn closer to the west because they believe the system can work for them? But what if it can’t? What if the global economy stagnates or even shrinks? In that case, we will face a new period of international conflict: North against South, rich against poor, Russia, China, India, these countries with their billions of people and their nuclear weapons will pose a much greater danger to the world than Germany and Japan did in the 30’s.
***Uniqueness***
Immigration reform no
It is unclear whether the immigration reform bill will pass
Mary M. Shaffrey,Staff writer, June 27, 2007 "Burr holds out hope for bill on immigration; Dole still opposed: Hesays changes could improve it; she won't budge" Winston-Salem Journal lexis nexis accessed 7/26/07 (WR)
Whether the bill will pass in the Senate remains unclear. Most Republicans are opposed to it, as are several Democrats. The bill got more than the 60 votes needed to proceed yesterday, but that does not ensure that it will advance. "The big hurdle for this bill is the Senate, (and) I would say 64 is the high-water mark. And the 64 they got (in yesterday's vote) is not the same 64 they will get at the end of the week," said John Dinan, a professor of political science at WakeForestUniversity.
Immigration reform no – bipartisan split
Democrats and republicans are extremely split on the issue of immigration reform
Nicole Gaouette, Times Staff Writer July 26, 2007 "GOP border bill fails in Senate;
Amid bickering, the $3-billion plan is derailed by Democrats opposed to its broad enforcement measures." Los Angeles Times lexis nexis acccessed 7/26/07 (WR)
Lawmakers clashed anew over immigration Wednesday as Senate Republicans pushed to introduce far-reaching new enforcement measures and California's senators led an impassioned plea to allow in more foreign agriculture workers.The extended exchanges -- often tart, sometimes angry -- came during debate on the homeland security spending bill, creating new fault lines and deepening old ones.At one point, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) objected when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) tried to persuade the Senate to agree unanimously to a border enforcement measure without a roll-call vote. Reid accused Cornyn of impeding the measure for political reasons. "It seems sometimes people like to have the issue rather than solving the issue," Reid said. "This [measure] would have gone a long ways toward easing the friction on both sides toward problems with immigration," he said. "It hasn't, and my friend ... still has an issue to talk about. Maybe that's more important to him than solving this problem."Cornyn snapped back: "I thought we were getting along well until that last comment."
Washington divisiveness has prevented immigration reform from passing specifically on agriculture
Ruben Navarrette Jr, staff writer, July 22, 2007, "Who will pick our fruit?" San Diego Union-Tribune lexisnexis accessed 7/26/07 (WR)
So farm groups pressed Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform. They were especially interested in the Agricultural Job Opportunities, Benefits and Security Act of 2006, or AgJobs, which would have created a new guest-worker program and granted legal status to hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants who work in agriculture. Instead, farmers watched Republicans push racist hot buttons over how we shouldn't have to "press one for English" and how any illegal immigrant who gets legal status would go on welfare. Then they watched Democrats attack the guest-worker plan in order to pander to organized labor desperate to protect union members from having to compete with foreign laborers. Meanwhile, pundits in Washington and New York showed their ignorance. The city folk suggested that farmers use machines to pick crops, but farmers maintain that could bruise fruits and vegetables and destroy their profit margin.Try picking blueberries with a machine -- you'll wind up with puree. Do it with strawberries and, before you know it, you'll have jam. Then there's the money. Congress' failure to pass immigration reform is especially galling since many in agriculture have forked over millions in campaign contributions to officeholders from both parties. And when farmers asked for one thing in return, they got the runaround. They also got insulted; the anti-reform lobby painted them as greedy growers hungry for more illegal immigrants to exploit.
The current Senate has terrible leadership and won't be able to pass any immigration reform
Herbert G. Klein, national fellow of the American Enterprise Institute, July 13, 2007 "Immigration reform one step at a time" San Diego Union-Tribune lexis nexis accessed 7/26/07 (WR)
Where are great Senate leaders such as Lyndon Johnson and Everett Dirksen when we need them? The current leaders, Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell, just don't measure up. This is a critical time for the nation, but Congress seems to simply debate the issues and then back away, leaving the problems unresolved.Social Security and Medicare reforms were widely debated in Congress, but nothing happened. Nowwith the August recess fast approaching, we find the same situation with immigration. The complex bipartisan immigration bill was defeated and then left hanging, though several parts of the bill appeared to have majority support if considered separately. The dominant public opinion is that there will be no action on immigration until after the 2008 presidential elections; and who knows when constructive changes in Social Security and Medicare will take place? The word "amnesty" has developed strong emotions, and thus the fate of an estimated 12 million illegals will remain undetermined.During the Senate debate, no one came up with an acceptable solution to the question of what to do with this growing percentage of our population. The major problem is clear, but not the answers.