ImmigrationSurveillance NEG 2015CoreFile

Immigration Surveillance Negative
Summary................................................................................................................................................2
Glossary ........................................................................................................................................3-4
Inherency
Deportations Decreasing Now.......................................................................................................5-6
Economic Hardship Advantage

Illegal Immigration Hurts the Economy..........................................................................................7-9
Solvency
ICE improving now.......................................................................................................................10-1
Ending surveillance fails State laws deter immigration............................................................12-4
Ending surveillance fails leads to an inefficient system...........................................................14-5
Ending surveillance fails fuels the smuggling crisis.................................................................16-8
Human Rights Advantage

ICE reducing rights violations....................................................................................................18-20
State governments can deport immigrants...............................................................................21-23
Security should be prioritized over human rights .......................................................................24-6
Immigration Courts backlog.........................................................................................................27-8
Curtailing surveillance leads to violent militias..........................................................................29-31
Counterplan
DREAM Act Counterplan................................................................................................................32
Dream Act boosts U.S Economy- Extensions.............................................................................33-6
DREAM Act preserves human rights.........................................................................................37-42

NAUDL 2015-16 DREAM Act Counterplan
Summary
Inherency
The Obama Administration has made it a priority to improve the deportation process so
that it is fair and efficient. New guidelines issued by the federal government call for
immigration enforcement agencies to target individuals who have been convicted of violent
crimes and to reduce the amount of non-criminal individuals being deported. In particular,
the administration has indicated it hopes to keep families together and reduce the amount
of parents being taken away from their children.
Economic Hardship
Unlawful immigration can be detrimental to the economy. First, undocumented immigrants
can burden our social service system by using public goods like healthcare or food
supplements. Second, corporations take advantage of undocumented immigrants by
exploiting them for cheap wages. Not only are they exploited but individuals who are
citizens can no longer to afford to work in those industries because companies will just
choose to hire workers who they can pay less.
Solvency
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has made a lot of progress in improving the
deportation process to make it more humane and fair. Moreover, ending surveillance alone
wont address anti-immigrant policies that states have adopted and will make the ICE more
inefficient by forcing them to do their job without surveillance technology. Some have also
argued that lenient immigration policies fuel the immigration crisis because they give
smugglers an incentive to send people across the border illegally.
Human Rights
Much of the criticism of U.S deportation policy has been that the detention centers we use
to hold immigrants violate human rights. The ICE has been working to solve these
concerns by providing proper medical care and establishing more stringent federal
oversight. Moreover, states have a right to deport immigrants and curtailing surveillance
could make the immigration court system worse and fuel the rise of violent anti-immigrant
militias.
DREAM Act Counterplan
The DREAM Act of 2011 was a proposed law in Congress that would allow individuals who
have lived in the country for 5 years to register with the government and receive
permanent residence status if they entered the country before the age of 16, so long as
they meet other eligibility criterion. The Counterplan is an alternative way of solving for the
U.S Economy and Human Rights harms of the immigration surveillance affirmative.

Glossary (1/2)
Department of Homeland Security (DHS): Is an agency of the United States federal
government that was formed in 2002 from the combination of 22 departments and
agencies. The agency is charge of various task related to making the United States
homeland safe including customs, border, and immigration enforcement; emergency
response to natural and manmade disasters; antiterrorism work; and cybersecurity.
U.S Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE): is an agency within the Department
of Homeland security that enforces federal laws governing border control, customs, trade
and immigration to promote homeland security and public safety.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (U.S.C.I.S.): The U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services is responsible for processing immigration and naturalization
applications and establishing policies regarding immigration services.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (C.B.P.): Customs and Border Protection
prevents people from entering the country illegally, or bringing anything harmful or
illegal into the United States.
Secure Communities Program: is a program of the U.S Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) that uses information shared between the ICE, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI), and local law enforcement agencies to find whether individuals who
have a criminal record have also violated immigration law by entering the United States
illegally.
Non-governmental organizations (NGO): an organization that is not a part of the

government. For example, Doctors Without Borders is an NGO.
Undocumented Immigrant: refers to a foreign nationals residing in the U.S. without legal
immigration status. It includes persons who entered the U.S. without inspection and proper
permission from the U.S. government, and those who entered with a legal visa that is no
longer valid. Undocumented immigrants are also known as unauthorized or illegal
immigrants.
Border Patrol: is the agency in charge of watching and monitoring the border in order to
prevent people from entering the United States illegally.

Glossary (2/2)
mmigrants Detention Center: is a facility used by the federal government to house
undocumented immigrants who have been detained and subject to deportation.
Consular Consolidated Database (CCD): is a database used by U.S consular officials

that records data from visa applications such as photographs and democratic information
of applicants.
Arizona v. United States: a legal case brought to the Supreme Court of the United States
that dealt with whether the State of Arizona could make its own immigration law
independent of the federal government. On a 5-3 decision the court found that Arizona
could not make it a crime to be in Arizona without legal papers, making it a crime to
apply for or get a job in the state, or allowing police to arrest individuals who had
committed crimes that could lead to their deportation because those laws infringed
upon the federal governments authority in immigration law.
Federal expenditures: spending by the federal government.
Attendant: occurring with or as a result of; accompanying.
Dataveillance: Surveillance of someones personal data.
Duress: describes a range of symptoms and experiences of a person's internal life that
are commonly held to be troubling, confusing or out of the ordinary.
Alterity: the state of being other or different; otherness.
Yielded: produce or provide.
Human Rights: a right that is believed to belong justifiably to every person.

Civil Rights: the rights of citizens to political and social freedom and equality.
Nonjusticiable: If a case is "nonjusticiable." a federal court cannot hear it. The justice of
the court of does not have the ability to make a decision on the matter at hand.

Deportations Decreasing Now

(__)The federal government is decreasing deportations now by only focusing on
deporting individuals convicted of a crime.
Washington Post, 2014
[Obama announces immigration overhaul shielding 4 million from deportation,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-immigration-plan-will-shield-37-millionfrom-deportation/2014/11/20/3345d672-70dd-11e4-893f-86bd390a3340_story.html]
President Obama sought to convince the American public Thursday that his plans to
unilaterally change immigration laws were well within the precedent set by previous
administrations and did not amount to an amnesty program for illegal immigrants. In a
prime-time address from the White House, Obama argued that a mass deportation of
the nations more than 11 million undocumented immigrants would be both impossible
and contrary to our character. Rather, the president said, the measures he is
enacting to defer the deportations of 4 million immigrants while simultaneously
refocusing federal border control agents on the highest-priority cases, such as
felons, gang members and recent border-crossers, are aimed at actual threats to
our security. Felons, not families, Obama said of who would be in line for
deportations. Criminals, not children. Gang members, not a mom whos working hard to
provide for her kids. Under Obamas plan, the undocumented parents of U.S. citizens
and legal permanent residents who have lived in the country for at least five years
can apply, starting this spring, for relief from deportations for a period of three
years. About 3.7 million immigrants are expected to qualify under the new
guidelines. The president also is expanding a 2012 program that has provided
administrative relief to nearly 600,000 young people brought to the country illegally
as children. Officials said that expansion, which will remove an age cap, could reach
another 287,000 people.

Deportations Decreasing Now- Extension

(___)
(__) Immigration officials are choosing to not deport children and their families.
Oleaga, reporter at Latin Post, 2014
[Michale, Obama Executive Action on Immigration Expands DACA, Defers Deportation for
Undocumented Parents, Latin Post
http://www.latinpost.com/articles/26598/20141126/obama-executive-action-immigrationexpands-daca-defers-deportation-undocumented-parents.htm]
A memorandum by U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson
detailed the changes that will occur with DACA following Obama's Nov. 20 executive
order. Johnson noted deferred action does not equate to having legal status in the
country, but rather "deprioritizes" an individual's case based on humanitarian reason,
administrative convenience or in the DHS' interests. The DACA program, however, will
expand. The original DACA rules set eligibility for undocumented immigrants under the age
of 31 as of June 15, 2012, and had been in the U.S. before June 15, 2007, to apply for
deferment on renewable two-year cycles. The new rules will remove the age cap and
apply for individuals in the U.S. as of Jan. 1, 2010. Instead of the renewable two-year
period, DACA recipients will have a renewable three-year period. The three-year extension
will only be applicable for first-time applicants and renewal recipients as of Nov. 24.
Beginning on that date (Nov. 24), USCIS should issue all work authorization documents
valid for three years, including to those individuals who have applied and are awaiting twoyear work authorization documents based on the renewal of their DACA grants," wrote
Johnson. "USCIS should also consider means to extend those two-year renewals already
issued to three years." The expansion of DACA will also impact the parents of a
recipient. As a result of Obama's executive order, the undocumented immigrant
parents may be deferred from deportation if their child is a U.S. citizen or lawful
permanent resident as of Nov. 20. The undocumented immigrant parent must have
lived in the U.S. since Jan. 1, 2010, and must be physically present in the U.S. at the
time of the USCIS' deferred action consideration. The undocumented immigrants
parent must pass criminal background checks similar to the concept for DACA applicants
and for a renewable three-year stay period.

Economic Hardship Answers
NAUDL 2015-16
Illegal Immigration Hurts the Economy

(__) Unlawful immigration overstretches the governments resources and harms the economy
Camarota, Researcher at the Center for Immigration Studies, 2004
[Steven A. Camarota, The High Cost of Cheap Labor Illegal Immigration and the Federal Budget,
http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html]
Households headed by illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs on the federal
government in 2002 and paid only $16 billion in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of almost
$10.4 billion, or $2,700 per illegal household. Among the largest costs are Medicaid ($2.5 billion);
treatment for the uninsured ($2.2 billion); food assistance programs such as food stamps,
WIC, and free school lunches ($1.9 billion); the federal prison and court systems ($1.6 billion);
and federal aid to schools ($1.4 billion). With nearly two-thirds of illegal aliens lacking a high
school degree, the primary reason they create a fiscal deficit is their low education levels and
resulting low incomes and tax payments, not their legal status or heavy use of most social
services.
(__) Illegal immigration leads to lower paying and worse job prospects for African Americans.
Borjas, Grogger, and Hanson, Economica (Academic Journal), 2009
[GEORGE J. BORJAS, JEFFREY GROGGER and GORDON H. HANSON, Professors at Harvard
University, University of Chicago and University of California, San Diego respectively, Economica
(2010) 77, 255282]
This paper extends the literature by examining the relation between immigration and black wages,
employment and incarceration. We use data drawn from the 19602000 US censuses. The data
reveal a strong correlation between immigration and black wages, black employment rates and
black incarceration rates. As immigrants disproportionately increased the supply of workers in a
particular skill group, we find a reduction in the wage of black workers in that group, a
reduction in the employment rate, and a corresponding increase in the incarceration rate. Our
study suggests that a 10% immigrant-induced increase in the supply of a particular skill group
is associated with a reduction in the black wage of 2.5%, a reduction in the black employment
rate of 5.9 percentage points, and an increase in the black institutionalization rate of 1.3
percentage points. Among white men, the same 10% increase in supply reduces the wage by
3.2%, but has much weaker employment and incarceration effects: a 2.1-percentage-point reduction
in the employment rate and a 0.2- percentage-point increase in the incarceration rate. It seems,
therefore, that black employment and incarceration rates are more sensitive to immigration
than those of whites.

NAUDL 2015-16
Illegal Immigration Hurts the Economy - Extensions

(___)
(__) The government must enforce immigration law because the cost of illegal immigration
harms the U.S budget.
Camarota, Researcher at the Center for Immigration Studies, 2004
[Steven A. Camarota, The High Cost of Cheap Labor Illegal Immigration and the Federal Budget,
http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html]
When defense spending is not considered, illegal households are estimated to impose costs on
the federal treasury of $6,949 a year or 58 percent of what other households received. When
defense spending is included, their costs are only 46 percent those of other households. However,
they pay only 28 percent as much in taxes as non-illegal households. As a result, the estimated
net cost per illegal household was $2,736. Whether one sees this fiscal deficit as resulting from low
tax payments or heavy use of services is a matter of perspective. As already discussed, illegal
households comprise 3.6 percent of the total population, but as Table 2 shows they account for an
estimated 0.9 percent of taxes paid and 1.4 percent of costs. Thus, both their payments and costs are
significantly less than their share of the total population. Since they use so much less in federal
services than other households, it probably makes the most sense to see the fiscal deficit as resulting
from low tax payments rather than heavy use of public services. Total Deficit Created by Illegals. If
the estimated net fiscal drain of $2,736 a year that each illegal household imposes on the
federal treasury is multiplied by the nearly three million illegal households, the total cost
comes to $10.4 billion a year. Whether one considers this to be a large sum or not is, of course, a
matter of perspective. But, this figure is unambiguously negative and certainly not trivial. It is
also worth remembering that these figures are only for the federal government and do not include
any costs at the state or local level, where the impact is likely to be significant.

NAUDL 2015-16
Illegal Immigration Hurts the Economy - Extensions

(___)
(__) Immigration hurts the economy by increasing competition amongst workers leading them
to be paid less over time.
Lowenstein, report for the NY Times, 2006 [ROGER LOWENSTEIN, The Immigration Equation,
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/magazine/09IMM.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0]
Using a computer, Borjas measured the slope: it suggested that wages fell by 3 to 4 percent
for each 10 percent increase in the share of immigrants. With this graph, Borjas could calculate
that, during the 80's and 90's, for instance, immigrants caused dropouts to suffer a 5 percent
decline relative to college graduates. In a paper published in 2003, "The Labor Demand Curve
Is Downward Sloping," Borjas termed the results "negative and significant." But what about the
absolute effect? Assuming businesses did not hire any of the new immigrants, Borjas's finding
would translate to a hefty 9 percent wage loss for the unskilled over those two decades, and
lesser declines for other groups (which also received some immigrants). As we know, however, as the
population grows, demand rises and business do hire more workers. When Borjas adjusted for this
hiring, high-school dropouts were still left with a wage loss of 5 percent over those two
decades, some $1,200 a year. Other groups, however, showed a very slight gain. To many
economists as well as lay folk, Borjas's findings confirmed what seemed intuitive all along: add to the
supply of labor, and the price goes down.

NAUDL 2015-16
ICE improving now

(__) ICE has undergone major changes in order to make sure it prioritizes the deportation of
criminals.
Rosenblum and Kandel, Congressional Research Service, 2012 [Interior Immigration
Enforcement: Programs Targeting Criminal Aliens, fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R42057.pdf]
ICE also announced three major changes to the 287(g) program (in July 2009) and Secure
Communities (in June 2011) designed to address each of the specific concerns raised above.146
First, ICE has taken steps to impose agency-wide enforcement priorities on the 287(g) program and
Secure Communities. The 2009 MOAs established a uniform three-level enforcement priority system
for the 287(g) program, which was then superseded by the 2011 agency- and department- wide
memos and letter (see DHS Enforcement Priorities and Discretion). The 2011 guidance memos
clarify ICE agents ability to exercise discretion throughout the immigration enforcement
process, and ICE specifically linked the memos to Secure Communities by releasing them in the
context of the other June 2011 reforms to that program.147 The reforms also included the creation
of a Homeland Security Advisory Council Task Force on Secure Communities composed of law
enforcement professionals, ICE agents, and community and immigrant advocates. The task forces
goal was to recommend how to focus the program on high-priority offenders and ensure
discretion in Secure Communities jurisdictions, among other issues.148 The task force issued a
report with findings and recommendations in September 2011, and ICE published a formal response
to the task force in April 2012.149 Second, ICE has developed new record-keeping requirements
and other tools to attempt to guard against pretextural arrests and racial profiling. ICEs
ENFORCE tracking system has been modified to track data on the circumstances leading to
aliens arrests, information which may improve oversight of ICEs partnership programs. ICE
and CRCL have reportedly developed new statistical data to be collected on a quarterly basis
to evaluate whether Secure Communities is being implemented in a biased way or otherwise
resulting in racial profiling.150 The new 287(g) MOA also seeks to prevent pretextural arrests by
requiring agencies to pursue all charges for which aliens are initially arrested. Nonetheless, media
reports indicate that statistical monitoring of the Secure Communities program had been delayed as
of November 2012, and that ICE may not be able to implement the statistical monitoring that had
been announced in response to the Secure Communities task force recommendation.151 Third, ICE
and CRCL also have developed new materials and procedures to further reduce the risk of
racial profiling and misuse of these enforcement programs.152 New training materials target ICE
agents as well as local law enforcement agents involved in these programs. ICE and CRCL have
also developed new immigration detainer forms clarifying that individuals should not be
detained for more than 48 hours and that law enforcement agencies must provide detainees
with information about how to file a complaint if they believe their civil rights have been
violated.
10

NAUDL 2015-16
11

NAUDL 2015-16
ICE improving now extensions

(__)
(__) Immigration surveillance is improving in the status quo - more humane and guided toward
public safety
Saldaa, ICE Director, 2015 [Sarah Saldaa, Written testimony of ICE Director Sarah Saldaa for a
House Committee on the Judiciary hearing titled Oversight of the U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, http://www.dhs.gov/news/2015/04/14/written-testimony-ice-director-sarah-saldaahouse-committee-judiciary-hearing#]
We are working hard to ensure that we provide appropriate care and protections for those in
our facilities and have made progress on our standards to that end. ICE is currently compliant
with all DHS Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) requirements applicable to the agency. This
includes the ICE Directive on Sexual Abuse and Assault Prevention and Intervention (SAAPI), which
was updated in May 2014 to incorporate all DHS PREA requirements. The directive established a
zero-tolerance policy for sexual abuse and assault, and outlined the duties of agency employees
for reporting, response, investigation, and monitoring for all allegations; established
responsibilities for staff training, timely reporting, protection of victims, provision of medical
and mental health care, and investigation protocols; and includes safeguards to prevent
retaliation against those who report sexual abuse or who participate in a subsequent
investigation, and it defines procedures for facilitating the provision of victim services to detainee
victims. ICE also promulgated a new ERO Policy 11087.1 Operations of ERO Holding Facilities in
September 2014, integrating PREA requirements specifically applicable to ICE holding facilities.
While PREAs agency requirements are primarily addressed in these two policies, ICE has also made
revisions to other policies and protocols as needed (such as medical policies and investigative
protocols) in order to incorporate all applicable PREA mandates. The requirements of ICEs SAAPI
Directive apply to ICE employees responding to any incident or allegation of sexual abuse or assault
at the facility. This ensures that the agency provides timely and effective response and followup with respect to medical and mental health care, victim services, investigation, protection
from retaliation, and other issues, consistent with the requirements of the PREA regulation.
12

NAUDL 2015-16
Ending surveillance fails State laws deter immigration

(__) Ending surveillance fails because states will seek other ways to exclude immigrants
Vaughan, Director of Policy Studies at the Center for Immigration Studies, 2006 [Attrition
Through Enforcement, http://cis.org/Enforcement-IllegalPopulation]
Frustrated with the federal governments failure to make progress in reducing illegal immigration, and
under pressure from impatient voters, many state and local jurisdictions are taking matters into
their own hands by enacting laws and ordinances to discourage illegal settlement and by
taking advantage of federal services, such as the database used for Basic Pilot, to verify
immigration status. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, lawmakers in 42
states are considering 380 bills related to immigration; 70 of these bills deal with
employment.58 Many of these measures, such as laws to restrict access to drivers licenses,
are intended primarily to enhance security and minimize identity fraud; nevertheless they have
provided a powerful incentive for illegal immigrants to voluntarily return home. In other cases,
legislatures have considered more direct approaches, such as mandatory work authorization
verification. Because these laws can have such a positive effect on compliance, and require little in
the way or federal resources, they must be more actively supported by federal immigration
authorities.
(__) There are hundreds of others immigration enforcement laws that are still in the books
Munoz and Barberena,Professors at Loyola University Chicago and University of Illinois
Chicago, 2014 [Everyday Enforcement: Heightened Immigration Enforcement and Community
Responses in the United State, City & Society, Vol. 26, Issue 1, pp. 39]
Immigration policy-making has also broken the confines of federal and state legislative bodies and
proliferated at the local level. Between 2006 and March of 2011, ordinances targeting
undocumented immigrants had been passed and/or considered in over 130 U.S. cities (Varsanyi
2011). These policies range from English-only laws, to limits on the number of adults who can
reside in a household, to bans on sitting in public spaces; they seek to regulate and persecute
everyday behaviors associated with undocumented immigrants. As states and localities implement
their own brands of immigration-related policies, some friendly and others hostile, they have created
a patch quilt land- scape of policy and practice (Quesada this volume) and intensified the
significance of city, county, and state borders in the lives of unauthorized people and their family
members.
As immigration enforcement measures creep unevenly over the U.S., the threat of enforcement seeps
into a myriad of mundane activities and transforms peoples everyday lives. Papers that grant legal
status not only guard against deportation, they confer eligibility to work and drive law- fully
and to access public services. Social security numbers are increas- ingly compulsory on
financial aid applications, health insurance forms, credit applications, and rental agreements.
Government IDs are required for such routine activities as conducting a bank transaction or
13

NAUDL 2015-16
buying beer at the local grocery store. For people without the right papers, immigration
enforcement in the current period penetrates all aspects of life, from the public to the
personal, from the economic to the intimate.
14

NAUDL 2015-16
Ending surveillance fails State laws deter immigration extensions

(__)
(__) States will continue to push anti-immigrant legislation
Hoy, writer at Immigration Impact, 2012[Seth Hoy,More and More States Introduce Costly AntiImmigration Bills,
http://www.alternet.org/story/154072/more_and_more_states_introduce_costly_anti-immigration_bills
Legislators in Mississippi, Missouri, Tennessee and Virginia introduced an array of costly
immigration enforcement bills in their 2012 legislative sessionssome which are modeled on
Arizonas SB 1070. While study after study continues to document how these extreme state laws are
costing state economies, disrupting entire industries and driving communities further underground,
state legislators clearly arent getting the message. Last month, legislators in Mississippi
introduced a slew of anti-immigrant bills. State Senator Joey Fillingane, for example, introduced
SB 2090, a bill which requires police to check the immigration status of anyone they
reasonably suspect is undocumented, makes it a crime to fail to carry proper immigration
documents and a crime to harbor or transport an undocumented immigrant, and a
misdemeanor for an undocumented immigrant to apply for or solicit work. Both the Mississippi
House and Senate passed different versions of this bill, but are expected to hammer out one bill to
send to Governor Haley Barbours desk for a signature soon. In Missouri, state Senator Will Kraus
recently introduced SB 590, a bill which requires police to determine the immigration status of
individuals they reasonably suspect are unauthorized and makes it a crime not to carry immigration
documents. Missouris bill, like Alabama, however takes the law a step further by requiring schools to
verify the immigration status of enrolling students and their parents. Remember that the U.S.
Department of Justice blocked a similar provision in Alabamas immigration law, HB 56, last October.
Missouris legislature passed the bill out of committee last weeka bill likely to cost Missouri millions.
The House Judiciary Committee in Tennessee advanced an immigration bill this month, HB
2191, a bill which makes it a felony for anyone in the state to knowingly conceal, harbor or
transport an undocumented immigrant. Tennessees copycat bill, HB 1380which requires police
to question the immigration status of those they suspect of being undocumentedwas put on hold
this month due to budgetary concerns, despite Governor Bill Haslams public support of the bill days
earlier. HB 1380 was also shelved last year due to $3 million price tag, but the bills sponsor, Rep. Joe
Carr, doesnt seem like hes giving up. Putting it behind the budget doesnt kill it. It basically parks it,
Carr said. We are prioritizing the states stance on illegal immigration based on the financial
resources we have. Weve got a very targeted approach to tackle illegal immigration here in the
state. In Virginia, where control of the Governorship, House of Delegates and Senate recently
changed hands to those with an enforcement heavy agenda, legislators recently introduced
two Arizona copycat billsSB 460and its companion bill HB 1060which allow police to
15

NAUDL 2015-16
determine the immigration status of those they suspect are in the country without
documentation.
16

NAUDL 2015-16
Ending surveillance fails leads to an inefficient system

(__) Dismantling surveillance programs causes ICE to revert to enforcement policies that are
extremely inefficient.
Cadman, researcher at Center for Immigration Studies, 2015 [Dan Cadman February 2015
Interior Immigration Enforcement Legislation, http://cis.org/Testimony/Cadman-House-JudiciaryCommittee-Hearing-021115]
But it is not just in the area of worksite enforcement that interior immigration enforcement has
suffered. In her testimony a week ago, Ms. Vaughan spoke eloquently and in detail to the dangers
to public safety that have been engendered by misuse of prosecutorial discretion, which has
been turned on its head from an occasional act of ministerial grace accorded to those few with
significant mitigating circumstances, to one of requiring officers to justify, at length and in detail to
their superiors, taking enforcement action in lieu of said "discretion". What is more, a key public
safety program that takes advantage of modern electronic technologies and connectivity
the same kind of technologies routinely used by citizens today in their multiplicity of
computers, smart phones, tablets, and other devices to quickly and effectively identify alien
criminals in a cost-efficient and work-saving way, has been dismantled. I am speaking of course
of the Secure Communities program. This dismantling pushes the efforts of ICE agents back to
pre-electronics days, in which they have to rely on paper and faxes to obtain and exchange
information in a laborious and time consuming manner.
17

NAUDL 2015-16
Ending surveillance fails leads to an inefficient system - extensions

(__)
(__) Limiting the ICEs surveillance capacity overloads the system and increases public safety
risks.
Cadman and Metcalf, researchers at the Center for Immigration Studies, 2015 [Mark Metcalf,
Dan Cadman January 2015, How the Obama administration has trashed a key immigration
enforcement tool, http://cis.org/disabling-detainers]
The combination of local obstruction of ICE and ICE's self-imposed limits on enforcement
priorities had already begun before Johnson's decision to terminate their use. According to a recent
report from the Syracuse University Transactional Action Clearinghouse (TRAC), ICE detainers have
dropped 39 percent since 2012. Interestingly, the report tells us that, "TRAC shared its findings with
ICE and asked the agency for insights into what was driving this downward trend. However, ICE
declined to comment on why its agents were issuing fewer detainers."42 Ironically, in a recent media
article published by NJ.com published prior to the president's executive action speech and
promulgation of the Johnson memorandum ICE was much less reticent about its dissatisfaction
with state and local jurisdictions ignoring their detainers. An ICE spokesman is quoted in the article as
saying, "When serious criminal offenders are released to the streets in a community, rather than to
ICE custody, it undermines ICE's ability to protect public safety and impedes us from enforcing
the nation's immigration laws. ... Jurisdictions that ignore detainers bear the risk of possible
public safety risks."43 But the problem of ignoring detainers is not just about statistics, and it is far
more than a matter of workload completion for ICE agents and officers in pursuing their mission,
however significant those matters are. Fundamental governmental interests are involved,
including community safety, officer safety, efficient use of taxpayer funds, and maintenance of
an effective regimen of due process within the immigration system established by Congress:
When sheriffs or police turn a suspect loose rather than hold him on the detainer filed, lawabiding members of the community are at risk should he re-offend (and there are many, often
egregious, instances of such alien recidivists victimizing additional members of the public).44 If ICE
officers are obliged to go out and seek the individual once he has been released, they, too, are
at greater risk of injury than if receiving him directly from local law enforcement officers in the
secure constraints of a jail setting especially since the alien offender at the point of release,
notwithstanding the detainer, is likely to know that they are aware of and looking for him. Furthermore,
the time and energy wasted trying to track down and re-apprehend that alien after local police
have released him equates to limited officer resources and public monies not available to do
equally important immigration enforcement work elsewhere in an already overburdened
system.
18

NAUDL 2015-16
Ending surveillance fails fuels the smuggling crisis

(__) Ending surveillance leads to parents paying for their children to be smuggled to the
United States this leads to suffering during the border crossing
Cadman, researcher at Center for Immigration Studies, 2015 [Dan Cadman February 2015
Interior Immigration Enforcement Legislation, http://cis.org/Testimony/Cadman-House-JudiciaryCommittee-Hearing-021115]
This bill confronts the reprehensible fact that, through its policies and practices, the federal
government has become a major facilitator in the business of smuggling minors. In a scenario
repeated thousands of times, it goes something like this: Central American parents living and
working illegally in the United States send remittances back to their home country for the
express purpose of having their children smuggled northward. Smugglers move them through
the perilous journey and, if nothing untoward happens, deliver them on the U.S. side to be united with
relatives. If the children are apprehended, then the government itself moves the children onward to be
united with relatives, no questions asked. This has become so well known that, for their part,
smugglers are just as likely to deposit their loads of minors or families at crossroads
proximate to the border so that they can be found by Border Patrol agents, thus conveniently
relieving the smugglers from the burden of transporting the children on American highways, with the
concomitant chance of exposure and arrest such ventures carry. And, because the illegal parents
face no consequence for their part in having initiated the enterprise, word spreads and others
do the same, at great risk to the children.5 How many perish in the jungle lowlands and
highlands in Central America, or in the heat of the Mexican desert because they can't keep up?
We don't know. How many die from illness, dehydration, hypothermia, accidents, or murder? We
don't know. In the shadowy world of commerce in human beings, there is a thin line between
smuggling and trafficking: how many children whose smuggling is arranged by parents end up
being diverted into lives of abuse in the sex or drug trades? We don't know. On this side of the
border, we don't always even know with certainty who the children are being tendered to. The
bill requires an inquiry into the status of those persons, and initiation of proceedings if they are
unlawfully in the United States. Critics will say this will deter parents from coming forward. Perhaps.
But the alternative is for the United States to continue facilitating the movement of human
beings as cargo, even while we lecture the rest of the world as to their obligations to halt
human smuggling and trafficking. The moral imperative is clear: Our government should
undertake no policy or practice that puts more children at risk.
19

NAUDL 2015-16
Ending surveillance fails fuels the smuggling crisis extensions

(__)
(__) Removing surveillance and enforcement will lead to a U.S-Mexico border crisis as
individuals take advantage and move north
Judicial Watch, an education foundation, 2014 [Weekly Update: Obama Causes Border Crisis,
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/weekly-updates/weekly-update-obama-causes-border-crisis/]
The barrage of illegal immigrant minors entering the U.S. through Mexico in recent weeks has
created an out-of-control disaster with jam-packed holding centers, rampant diseases and sexually
active teenagers at a Nogales (Arizona) facility, according to information obtained by Judicial Watch
from a Homeland Security source The minors are coming mostly from Honduras, Guatemala and El
Salvador and some may have criminal backgrounds. Theyre not all little kids, said Art Del Cueto,
the Tucson Border Patrol Union president. Some are 17 years old and they have possible ties to
gang members yet they will be relocated in the U.S. with family. Now the Obama administration has
a story to tell you about what is happening on the border and why: These young kids are merely
fleeing violence in their own countries. The crisis is under control. These children will be processed
and subjected to removal proceedings. None qualify for the presidents Deferred Action for
Childhood Arrivals (DACA). These are flagrant lies as anyone who is on the ground dealing with this
illegal immigration mess will tell you Under control? One local sheriff, who estimates 1,000
illegals a day are coming across the border into Texas, characterized the influx of illegals and
the chaos on the border to Hurricane Katrina. Merely fleeing violence in Central America? Not
according to Art Del Cueto, who says rumors of amnesty are responsible for the unforeseen
bombardment. When agents ask the illegal border crossers what drove them, we are hearing
a lot of amnista (amnesty), he said. The Washington Times reported in an editorial this week that
according to an internal Border Patrol intelligence memo, The surge in illegal immigrants jumping
the U.S. border in recent weeks is almost entirely due to U.S. policy, as these immigrants are
taking advantage of the catch-and-release system of enforcement. [Emphasis added.] The
immigrants come seeking permisos, which apparently are the Notices to appear or NTAs,
the legal documents given to non-Mexicans caught at the border that officially put them in
deportation proceedings but that also grant them at least a temporary entry to the interior
of the U.S, the Times notes.
20

NAUDL 2015-16
ICE reducing rights violations

(__) ICE is now subject to federal oversight and this is resolving any human rights concerns
Kelly, reporter at the Arizona Republic, 2010 [Erin Kelly, ICE strives to improve migrant-detainee
care, azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2010/01/26/20100126az-ice.html]
The head of U.S. immigration enforcement on Monday announced plans for an overhaul of the
government's controversial detention system for people who face deportation. The moves
described by John T. Morton, assistant secretary of Homeland Security for U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement, address oversight, medical care and tracking of detainees at facilities in
Arizona and across the country. Plans include: Hiring 50 federal employees to oversee the
largest detention facilities, which now are largely run by contractors without much government
oversight, Morton said. Assigning regional case managers to keep tabs on detainees with
significant medical problems to ensure they are getting proper care. Detainees with major
problems will be housed in facilities near hospitals and medical centers, Morton said. In June,
launching an online immigrant-detainee locator so family members can easily find their
relatives when they are in custody awaiting possible deportation.
(__) ICE is reforming now by providing proper medical care
American Civil Liberties Union, 2010 [Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Lawsuit
Charged Lack Of Medical And Mental Health Care Led To Unnecessary Suffering And Death,
https://www.aclu.org/news/ice-agrees-improve-health-care-provided-immigration-detainees-partsettlement-aclu-lawsuit
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials have agreed to provide immigration
detainees with constitutionally adequate levels of medical and mental health care as part of an
agreement to settle an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit charging that deficient care at the San
Diego Correctional Facility (SDCF) caused unnecessary suffering and death. As part of the
settlement, ICE has also agreed to change its policy on medical care that had led to the denial
of what ICE deemed to be "non-emergency" care, including heart surgeries and cancer
biopsies. "For the first time, ICE has committed to providing all necessary health care to
immigration detainees beyond just emergency care," said Elizabeth Alexander, former Director of
the ACLU National Prison Project and lead counsel on the case. "For too long, ICE's own policies
allowed it to provide detainees with nothing beyond a narrow definition of emergency. This settlement
is recognition that it is unconstitutional not to provide people in government custody with all necessary
health care." Among the settlement agreement's provisions are requirements that detainees at SDCF
receive health care that meets or exceeds National Commission on Correctional Health Care
standards and that an additional full-time psychiatrist and four full-time psychiatric nurses be hired to
ensure that detainees receive adequate mental health care. The settlement also requires
immigration officials to remove from existing policies all statements suggesting that detainees
will receive only emergency medical services and to include in the same policies explicit
21

NAUDL 2015-16
statements mandating that detainees shall be provided medical care whenever it is necessary
to address a serious medical need.
22

NAUDL 2015-16
ICE reducing rights violations - extensions

(__)
(__) ICE is reforming to provide quality physical and mental care for any individual detained.
ICE 2014 [ICE provides quality medical care to detainees, http://www.ice.gov/news/releases/topstory-ice-provides-quality-medical-care-detainees]
Providing quality health care to detainees in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE)
custody is an important and challenging task one that Assistant Director for ICE Health Service
Corps (IHSC) Dr. Jon Krohmer takes very seriously. The ICE Office of Enforcement and Removal
Operations (ERO) ensures the safe and humane conditions of confinement for aliens detained
in ICE custody. This includes the provision of reliable, consistent and appropriate health
services. IHSC, which falls under ERO, is comprised of more than 900 Public Health Servicecommissioned officers, federal civil servants and contract support staff. Their mission is
straightforward: to serve as the medical authority for ICE on a wide range of medical issues, including
the agency's comprehensive detainee health care program. IHSC provides direct care to
approximately 15,000 detainees housed at 21 IHSC-designated facilities throughout the nation.
In addition, IHSC oversees the medical care provided to an additional 17,000 detainees at non-IHSC
staffed detention facilities across the country. Whenever necessary, it authorizes and pays for off-site
specialty and emergency care, consultations and case management. "A detainee's health care
begins the moment they walk through the facility's doors," said Dr. Krohmer. "Within the first 12
hours of their admission, all detainees undergo a preliminary health screening, which includes
an evaluation of the individual's medical, dental and mental health status and within the next
14 days, a more detailed physical examination takes place." Because so many of these
detainees are either new arrivals in the country or haven't had access to health care in the
past, Dr. Krohmer said it is not unusual for serious health problems to be diagnosed at these
screenings. "We're finding out about health issues that even they didn't even know about and
in most cases are able to begin treatment," he said. This continuity of care not only lasts
during the individual's period of detention, but also throughout their removal to their country
of origin.
23

NAUDL 2015-16
ICE reducing rights violations - extensions

(__)
(__) ICE has reduced the rate of violence towards immigrants and improved standards of care.
Myers, assistant secretary of homeland security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
2008[Julie L. Myers, Caring for Immigration Detainees, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2008/05/19/AR2008051902296.html]
ICE spent nearly $100 million last year for detainee health care, double the funding of just five
years ago. Our efforts are producing results. While the number of people in ICE detention has
increased more than 30 percent since 2004, the first full year for which statistics under the agency are
available, the mortality rate has declined every year. In 2004, the mortality rate for ICE
detainees was 10.8 per 100,000. In 2007, it was 3.5 per 100,000. The number of deaths in
detention has decreased, from 29 in 2004 to seven in 2007. ICE detainees have access to
mental health care provided by qualified professionals, and staff working with detainees receive
ongoing training in suicide risk and prevention techniques. Psychologists and social workers have
managed a daily population of more than 1,350 seriously mentally ill detainees without a
single suicide being committed in the past 15 months. ICE has increased oversight and
accountability at all its detention facilities. Progress includes establishing an independent body to
review detention inspections; implementing national detention standards that are comparable
to or surpass industry standards in their commitment to detainee health and comfort;
retaining full-time quality assurance professionals to assess compliance with those
standards; and contracting independent corrections and detention experts to audit ICE
facilities. Moreover, ICE detention facilities are open to those outside the agency: We routinely
conduct tours for members of Congress, representatives from nongovernmental organizations and
the media.
24

NAUDL 2015-16
State governments can deport immigrants

(__) States have an obligation to deport individuals that are imposing obligations upon their
political communities by immigrating illegally.
Kates and Pevnick, Journal of Philosophy & Public Affairs, 2014 [Immigration, Jurisdiction, and
History, Philosophy and Public Affairs, Volume 42, Issue 2, pages 179194, Spring 2014]
It is important to recognize, however, that from the fact that all inhabitants within a particular territorial
jurisdiction are entitled to the equal protection of their human rights, it does not follow that these rights
are equally pressed against all human institutions at all times (p. 110). In a world divided between
states, human rights impose distinct obligations on distinct political communities. Whereas the
obligation to respect human rights is global in scope and application, the obligation to protect and
fulfill them is fundamentally local. Thus, although all states are forbidden, on Blakes view, from
violating the human rights of any individual no matter where such a violation may occur, they are only
required to establish institutional mechanisms for securing and defending the human rights of those
individuals who happen to reside within their own political community. Accordingly, one justification for
state B excluding a potential immigrant from its jurisdiction is that, while she was residing in state A,
her human rights were already protected and fulfilled. But if that is the case, then by entering state B
she imposes a new set of obligations (p. 114) on its current inhabitants to extend equal protection of
the law to her. This new set of obligations, however, limits the freedom of those inhabitants, and in
Blakes view, we have a presumptive right to be free from others imposing obligations on us without
our consent (p. 115). Thus, the alleged reason why states have a right to exclude potential
immigrants from their jurisdiction is that immigrants impose obligations on those who are already
present within that jurisdiction and the latter have a presumptive right to refuse to take on new
obligations of that sort
25

NAUDL 2015-16
State governments can deport immigrants - extensions

(___)
(__) States have a primary obligation to ensure the security of their citizens
Jenks, Centennial Institute Debate, 2011 [Rosemary Jenks, A Less Restrictive Immigration Policy is
NOT Morally and Civically Best for America,
https://www.numbersusa.com/content/learn/issues/american-workers/less-restrictive-immigrationpolicy-not-morally-and-civically-best-ame]
In other words, noncitizens do NOT have a right to immigrate; rather, immigration is a privilege
granted by a nation to those individuals it chooses. So, how should nations choose to whom they
grant that privilege? In America, the U.S. Constitution specifically empowers Congress to set
immigration policy, and the preamble of the Constitution provides the framework in which that should
be done. The preamble reads, We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect
union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the
general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and
establish this constitution for the United States of America. So, under the Constitution, we the people
empower our elected officials to establish policies that serve the interests of Americans. Today in the
United States, 22 million Americans want, but cannot find, full-time jobs. Among Americans with only
a high school education, one in five (20%) cannot find full-time work. Among Hispanic Americans with
only a high school education, 36 percent cannot find full-time work. Among Black Americans with only
a high school education, 40 percent cannot find full-time work. Among American teens16 and 17
year olds40 percent cannot find full-time jobs. And yet, today in the United States, because our
government has abdicated its duty to enforce immigration laws, an estimated 7 million nonagricultural jobs are held by illegal aliens. The vast majority of these illegal aliens have no more than
a high school education. In addition, our government currently grants permanent work permits to an
average of 75,000 working-age legal immigrants every single month, under the most generous legal
immigration policy in the world. About half of these immigrants have no more than a high school
education. How is it morally or civically acceptable for the U.S. government to not just ignore the
plight of 22 million Americans who desperately need jobs, but to actively pursue a policy that actually
imports more workers to compete with them for scarce jobs, and that drives down wages?
26

NAUDL 2015-16
State governments can deport immigrants - extensions

(__)
(__) The damage done by curtailing immigration enforcement is a primary national security
concern and extending human rights to all immigrants makes everyone worse off.
Weiner, International Migration Review, 1996 [Myron Weiner Ethics, National Sovereignty and the
Control of Immigration, International Migration Review. Vol. 30, No. 1, Special Issue: Ethics,
Migration, and Global Stewardship (Spring, 1996), pp. 171-197]
To most citizens, however, the argument in favor of national sovereignty with respect to control over
migration appears to be commonsensical. Let us consider what the consequences might be if a
country had completely open borders to anyone who wished to enter. While this approach seems to
take the moral high ground by avoiding coercion, it clearly jeopardizes the well-being of the host
population and threatens politicide. A safe and prosperous country that declares its borders open
risks being overwhelmed by a massive influx of
immigrants from poor and/or violent countries. If the country then provides these immigrants with the
same benefits it offers its own citizens (education for children, healthcare, unemployment benefits,
etc.), its social services and welfare services may be stretched to the limit. The country's own poor
may find themselves pushed aside by migrants prepared to work at lower wages. If the number of
migrants is large enough, the local population may find itself outnumbered by people who speak
another language, belong to another culture, and perhaps seek to change the political system. As the
number of migrants grows, the local population may become xenophobic, resulting in the growth of
antimigrant political organizations, violence, and social disorder. Poor countries might also be at risk if
their borders are open. Peasants from densely populated neighboring countries might freely enter in
search of land and employment, thereby putting pressure on the local population. Refugees from civil
conflict might cross the border and damage the local ecology by cutting firewood, consuming water,
generating waste, and destroying grasslands. The indigenous population might become acutely afraid
of domination by the intruding ethnic group, especially if the community is one with which it has a
history of enmity. Any country, rich or poor,that opened its borders might soon find other states taking
advantage of its beneficent policy. A neighboring country whose elite wanted a more homogeneous
society could now readily expel its minorities. A government that wanted a more egalitarian society
could dump its unemployed and its poor. An authoritarian regime could rid itself of its opponents; a
country could empty its jails, mental institutions, and homes for the aged. In an extreme case, an
overcrowded populous country could take over a hypothetically generous country simply by
"transferring" a large part of its population, and an aggressive country would no longer need tanks
and missiles for an invasion.
27

NAUDL 2015-16
28

NAUDL 2015-16
Security should be prioritized over human rights (1/3)

(__) Survival is a prerequisite to values and because of this we should prioritize security over
human rights
Nye, Dean of the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, 86 [Joseph S.
1986; Phd Political Science Harvard. University; Served as Assistant Secretary of Defense for
International Security Affairs; Nuclear Ethics pg. 45-46]
Some people argue that "we are required to undergo gross injustice that will break many souls sooner
than ourselves be the authors of mass murder."73 Still others say that "when a person makes survival
the highest value, he has declared that there is nothing he will not betray. But for a civilization to
sacrifice itself makes no sense since there are not survivors to give meaning to the sacrifical [sic] act.
In that case, survival may be worth betrayal." Is it possible to avoid the "moral calamity of a policy like
unilateral disarmament that forces us to choose between being dead or red (while increasing the
chances of both)"?74 How one judges the issue of ends can be affected by how one poses the
questions. If one asks "what is worth a billion lives (or the survival of the species)," it is natural to
resist contemplating a positive answer. But suppose one asks, "is it possible to imagine any threat to
our civilization and values that would justify raising the threat to a billion lives from one in ten
thousand to one in a thousand for a specific period?" Then there are several plausible answers,
including a democratic way of life and cherished freedoms that give meaning to life beyond mere
survival. When we pursue several values simultaneously, we face the fact that they often conflict and
that we face difficult tradeoffs. If we make one value absolute in priority, we are likely to get that value
and little else. Survival is a necessary condition for the enjoyment of other values, but that does not
make it sufficient. Logical priority does not make it an absolute value. Few people act as though
survival were an absolute value in their personal lives, or they would never enter an automobile. We
can give survival of the species a very high priority without giving it the paralyzing status of an
absolute value. Some degree of risk is unavoidable if individuals or societies are to avoid paralysis
and enhance the quality of life beyond mere survival. The degree of that risk is a justifiable topic of
both prudential and moral reasoning.
29

NAUDL 2015-16

(__)
(__) Absolute commitments to values like human rights fail when confronted with violence in
the real world because of this we should prioritize security first
Isaac, Professor of Political Science at Indiana-Bloomington, 2002 [Director of the Center for the
Study of Democracy and Public Life, PhD from Yale, Jeffery C., Dissent Magazine, Vol. 49, Iss. 2,
Ends, Means, and Politics, p. Proquest]
What should be done to respond to the violence of a Saddam Hussein, or a Milosevic, or a
Taliban regime? What means are likely to stop violence and bring criminals to justice? Calls for
diplomacy and international law are well intended and important; they implicate a decent and
civilized ethic of global order. But they are also vague and empty, because they are not
accompanied by any account of how diplomacy or international law can work effectively to
address the problem at hand. The campus left offers no such account. To do so would require it
to contemplate tragic choices in which moral goodness is of limited utility. Here what matters is
not purity of intention but the intelligent exercise of power. Power is not a dirty word or an unfortunate
feature of the world. It is the core of politics. Power is the ability to effect outcomes in the world.
Politics, in large part, involves contests over the distribution and use of power. To accomplish
anything in the political world, one must attend to the means that are necessary to bring it
about. And to develop such means is to develop, and to exercise, power. To say this is not to say
that power is beyond morality. It is to say that power is not reducible to morality. As writers
such as Niccolo Machiavelli, Max Weber, Reinhold Niebuhr, and Hannah Arendt have taught, an
unyielding concern with moral goodness undercuts political responsibility. The concern may
be morally laudable, reflecting a kind of personal integrity, but it suffers from three fatal flaws: (1) It
fails to see that the purity of one's intention does not ensure the achievement of what one intends.
Abjuring violence or refusing to make common cause with morally compromised parties may
seem like the right thing; but if such tactics entail impotence, then it is hard to view them as
serving any moral good beyond the clean conscience of their supporters; (2) it fails to see that
in a world of real violence and injustice, moral purity is not simply a form of powerlessness; it
is often a form of complicity in injustice. This is why, from the standpoint of politics--as
opposed to religion--pacifism is always a potentially immoral stand. In categorically
repudiating violence, it refuses in principle to oppose certain violent injustices with any effect;
and (3) it fails to see that politics is as much about unintended consequences as it is about
intentions; it is the effects of action, rather than the motives of action, that is most significant.
Just as the alignment with "good" may engender impotence, it is often the pursuit of "good" that
generates evil. This is the lesson of communism in the twentieth century: it is not enough that one's
goals be sincere or idealistic; it is equally important, always, to ask about the effects of pursuing
these goals and to judge these effects in pragmatic and historically contextualized ways.
30

NAUDL 2015-16
Moral absolutism inhibits this judgment. It alienates those who are not true believers. It
promotes arrogance. And it undermines political effectiveness.
31

NAUDL 2015-16

(__)
(__) Instead of asserting human rights, policy makers must prioritize the cost and benefits of
actions because that is the only way to maximize security and the well-being of everyone
Shaw Philosophy Professor 1999 (William H. Shaw, 1999, Philosophy and Chair of the Philosophy
at SJSU, contemporary ethics: taking account of utilitarianism p 171-2)
In the public realm utilitarianism is especially compelling. Because of its consequentialist
character, a utilitarian approach to public policy requires officials to base their actions,
procedures, and programs on the most accurate and detailed understanding they can obtain
of the circumstances in which they are operating and the likely results of the alternatives
open to them. Realism and empiricism are the hallmarks of a utilitarian orientation, not customary
practice, unverified abstractions, or wishful Promotion of the wellbeing of all seems to be the
appropriate, indeed the only sensible, touchstone for assessing public policies and institutions, and
the standard objections to utilitarianism as a personal morality carry little or no weight against
it when viewed as a public philosophy. Consider, for instance, the criticisms that utilitarianism is
too impersonal and ignores one's individual attachments and personal commitments, that it is coldly
calculating and concerned only with maximizing, that it demands too much of moral agents and that it
permits one to violate certain basic moral restraints on the treatment of others. The previous two
chapters addressed sorne of these criticisms; others will be dealt with in Chapter 8. The point here,
though, is that far from undermining utilitarianism as a public philosophy, these criticisms
highlight its strengths. We want public officials to be neutral, impersonal. and detached and to
proceed with their eyes firmly on the effects of the policies they pursue and the institutions
that their decisions shape. Policy making requires public officials to address general issues,
typical conditions. and common circumstances. Inevitably, they must do this through general
rules, not on a case by case basis. As explained later in this chapter, this fact precludes public
officials from violating the rights of individuals as a matter of policy. Moreover, by organizing
the efforts of countless individuals and compelling each of us to play our part in collective endeavors
to enhance welfare, public officials can make it less likely that utilitarianism will demand too much of
any one individual because others are doing too little. Utilitarians will seek to direct and
coordinate people's actions through effective public policy and to reshape, in utilityenhancing ways, the institutions that structure the choices people face. By doing so,
utilitarians can usually accomplish more good than they can through isolated individual
action, however dedicated and well intentioned. For this reason, they will strive to Easter
institutions that false over from individuals much of the task of promoting the general welfare of
society. General welfare is a broad goal, of course, and sensible policies and institutions will
typically focus on more specific desiderata - such as promoting productivity, increasing
individual freedom and opportunity, improving peoples physical health, guaranteeing their
personal security, and so on that contribute significantly to people's well-being .
32

NAUDL 2015-16
33

NAUDL 2015-16
Immigration Courts backlog

(__) Immigration courts suffer when immigration law is not enforced because it adds to the
backlog of unexecuted deportations.
Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow in The Heritage Foundations Edwin Meese III Center for Legal
and Judicial Studies, 2013 [No Fix For Our Immigration Courts,
http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2013/6/no-fix-for-our-immigration-courts
This is a crucial difference because immigration judges, who are Justice Department employees, do
not have the power to enforce their own orders. So even if an aliens case goes through the entire
immigration court system (including the appeals process), and ends, finally, with an official
deportation order, nothing automatically happens. That final order will simply sit in a file drawer unless
and until DHS decides to enforce it. Immigration judges have no ability to tell federal marshals or any
other law enforcement official to enforce their orders. They cant tell ICE (Immigration and Customs
Enforcement) agents to take a deportable alien and put him on a plane headed back to his country of
origin. The immigration court system is broken. Badly. It suffers from a huge backlog of cases: more
than 330,000. But even worse is the huge backlog of unenforced deportation orders. According to
Mark Metcalf, a former Justice Department immigration judge, the number of unexecuted deportation
orders now stands at 1.2 million. This means that there are 1.2 million aliens who have exhausted
their legal rights and have been declared by an immigration judge to have no valid reason to remain
in the United States. Many of those aliens are individuals who had been detained by DHS, but were
released upon their promise to appear in court for a hearing on their immigration claims. According
to Metcalf, 900,000 aliens skipped court and disappeared during the last 16 years. Skipping out is
exactly what you would expect from someone who knows he has no legal right to be here to begin
with. Why show up in court and risk being deported when you can just disappear and show up
somewhere else in the country under a new name?
34

NAUDL 2015-16
Immigration Courts backlog- extensions

(__) Curtailing immigration enforcement creates a magnet for undocumented immigrants that
worsens the immigration court system
Ward, a reporter for Watchdog.org, 2014 [Kenric Ward, U.S. Immigration Courts Have Huge
Backlogs, Leading to Long Waits for Trials, http://dailysignal.com/2014/09/12/u-s-immigration-courtshave-huge-backlogs-leading-to-long-waits-for-trials/]
U.S. immigration courts are backlogged with nearly 400,000 cases, and experts say the Obama
administration is to blame. The 396,552 cases awaiting adjudication represent a 22 percent increase
over last year, according to Syracuse University researchers. Not surprisingly, wait times are up, too.
The average case in Imperial, Calif., currently lingers 857 days before resolution. Richard Kelsey,
assistant dean at the George Mason University School of Law and a longtime observer of immigration
issues, said the problem starts at the White House. The president has telegraphed that he is going to
take some kind of action (on immigration), so neither the courts nor the prosecutors are killing
themselves to get things done, Kelsey said in an interview. Anyone who thinks theres no
correlation has their head buried so deep in sand theyre not getting enough air. Bob Dane,
spokesman for the enforcement-oriented Federation for American Immigration Reform, sees other
bad actors, as well: One reason the backlogs are building is that while illegal aliens who are caught
crossing the border can accept a swift, no-fuss voluntary departure, most dont opt for it. And why
would they? Theyre egged on to buy time by their immigration attorneys, local amnesty groups, the
ACLU, the Mexican-American Legal Defense Fund and La Raza. Making the backlogged system
even more dysfunctional, defendants often fail to appear for their court hearings. Unlike normal court
proceedings where a notice of the hearing must be served there is no legal requirement that these
individuals actually receive notification only that a notice be sent out to the address they have,
said Susan Long, associate professor of managerial studies at Syracuse.
35

NAUDL 2015-16
Curtailing surveillance leads to violent militias

(__) Refusing to enforce immigration law leads to a rise in violent militias
Bever, reporter at Washington Post, 2014 [Lindsey Bever, Texas militia says its heading out to
help secure border, http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/07/08/locallawmakers-law-enforcement-and-residents-take-on-the-immigration-crisis/]
The group, called Operation Secure Our Border-Laredo, was identified to the San Antonio ExpressNews as Patriots, Oathkeepers and Three Percenters, a reference to the 3 percent of colonists
who took up arms against England during the Revolutionary War. Organizers are using social media
and a 24-hour hotline to recruit and mobilize armed volunteers to send to Laredo, Tex., within the
coming weeks.
Its uncertain how many people belong to the group or how many might actually show up.
Were here to supplement and be where law enforcement is not and help them support the border,
Chris Davis, the 37-year-old listed leader, told the Los Angeles Times. Theres nothing malicious,
theres no malicious intent every person is vetted. Were just here to serve freedom, liberty and
national sovereignty. Davis said once the group has enough manpower, it will do its duty in a legal
and lawful manner.
Its quite a different tactic than the one Davis announced via a YouTube video in which he allegedly
said: You see an illegal. You point your gun dead at him, right between his eyes, and you say, Get
back across the border or you will be shot,' the McAllen Monitor reported last week. Davis told the
Express-News he removed the video after it was taken out of context by a newspaper that supports
amnesty.
36

NAUDL 2015-16
Curtailing surveillance leads to violent militias- Extensions

(__)
(__) A rise in militia groups leads to the violent murder of undocumented immigrants and
Latinos
Lenz, Southern Poverty Law Center, 2012 [Investigating Deaths of Undocumented Immigrants on
the Border, Intelligence Report, Fall 2012, Issue Number: 147, http://www.splcenter.org/getinformed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2012/fall/death-in-the-desert]
For years, the area has been crisscrossed by civilian border patrols the Minutemen groups that
President George W. Bush characterized as vigilantes and that were enraged by what they saw as a
purposeful invasion. A neo-Nazi leader who led fellow armed radicals to the border spoke of laying
mines to prevent non-whites from entering and later reportedly asked a witness to help him surveill
homes where he hoped to murder Latinos. Law enforcement has found at least one pipe bomb
planted on a smuggling trail, and last year a neo-Nazi was arrested with other bombs he was taking
to the border. Still other neo-Nazis told the Intelligence Report several years earlier that they were
scouting sniper positions at the border. The recent shootings near Eloy, coupled with the murders in
January and February of 2007, have raised these worries again. An internal Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) report from the earlier period, obtained by the Report, said the 2007 shootings were
likely connected to each other. And in the second incident that year, police found two men with nonHispanic names concealed in the brush nearby watching the police response a curious fact, the
DHS report said. Through it all, most Arizona authorities have dismissed virtually all the non-weatherrelated deaths as the result of attacks by drug and human smugglers and there is little doubt that
that is behind some of the mayhem. But many activists and at least some in law enforcement fear that
a small but committed cadre of hard-core extremists on the border may actually be engaging in
murder. Matt Browning, a retired Mesa police detective who spent years undercover infiltrating racist
border and neo-Nazi skinhead groups, is one of them. In Arizona, we might not have Hammerskins
or Volksfront or the Klan, Browning said, referencing some of the more prominent contemporary
white supremacist groups. What we do have is a lot of angry, militant white men on the border sitting
like hunters waiting for these people to come across.
37

NAUDL 2015-16
Curtailing surveillance leads to violent militias- extensions

(___)
(__) Violent militias are the most dangerous types of terrorist
Bergen and Sterman, contributors to CNN, 2014 [Peter Bergen and David Sterman, U.S. right
wing extremists more deadly than jihadists, http://us.cnn.com/2014/04/14/opinion/bergen-stermankansas-shooting/]
In fact, since 9/11 extremists affiliated with a variety of far-right wing ideologies, including white
supremacists, anti-abortion extremists and anti-government militants, have killed more people in the
United States than have extremists motivated by al Qaeda's ideology. According to a count by the
New America Foundation, right wing extremists have killed 34 people in the United States for political
reasons since 9/11. (The total includes the latest shootings in Kansas, which are being classified as a
hate crime). By contrast, terrorists motivated by al Qaeda's ideology have killed 21 people in the
United States since 9/11. (Although a variety of left wing militants and environmental extremists have
carried out violent attacks for political reasons against property and individuals since 9/11, none have
been linked to a lethal attack, according to research by the New America Foundation.) Moreover,
since 9/11 none of the more than 200 individuals indicted or convicted in the United States of some
act of jihadist terrorism have acquired or used chemical or biological weapons or their precursor
materials, while 13 individuals motivated by right wing extremist ideology, one individual motivated by
left-wing extremist ideology, and two with idiosyncratic beliefs, used or acquired such weapons or
their precursors.
(__) Anti-immigrant militias increase when the federal government ceases to enforce
immigration laws.
Nasser, reporter at Al Jazeera, 2014 [Haya El Nasser, Immigration protest movement gains new
impetus, http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/7/31/immigration-protestsus.html]
Many of the anti-immigration groups are trying to use the issue to put pressure on the Obama
administration, which is now considering executive action [on immigration reform], she said. We see
really troubling things from groups that have either been dormant or shuttered. The extent to which
theyve come back, we dont know yet. Marine Corps veteran Jim Gilchrist, who founded the
Minuteman Project in 2004 to get the government to enforce immigration laws, has resurfaced and
launched Operation Normandy a week after protesters in Murrieta forced a bus bringing immigrants to
a detention facility to turn around.
The Minuteman website said it expects to recruit and organize 3,500 nonmilitia volunteers and
uncounted groups of militia to participate on D-Day. The plan is to blanket the 2,000-mile border
from San Diego to Brownsville, Texas. This event will dwarf the Minuteman Project of 2005, the site
proclaims. In that year the organization stationed scores of men and women along the Mexican
border in a controversial effort to track down undocumented immigrants. This current border crisis has
38

NAUDL 2015-16
galvanized groups that care less about immigration than they do about protesting government, said
Jill Garvey, executive director of the Center for New Community, a Chicago-based national civil rights
organization that provides support to advocacy groups.
39

NAUDL 2015-16
DREAM Act Counterplan

Text: The United States federal government should pass the Development, Relief, and
Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act of 2011
The DREAM ACT provides economic opportunity for immigrants and grows the economy
without increasing surveillance.
Immigration Policy Center 2010 [THE DREAM ACT: Creating Opportunities for Immigrant Students
and Supporting the U.S. Economy,
immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/Dream_Act_071310_0.pdf]
The DREAM Act would give beneficiaries access to greater educational opportunities and
better jobs, which in turn means more taxable income: A 2010 study by the UCLA North American
Integration and Development Center estimates that the total earnings of DREAM Act
beneficiaries over the course of their working lives would be between $1.4 trillion and $3.6
trillion.19 A 2008 study from Arizona State University found that an individual with a bachelors
degree earns approximately $750,000 more over the course of his or her lifetime than an individual
with only a high school diploma.20 As of 2006, workers without a high-school diploma earned $419
per week and had an unemployment rate of 6.8 percent. Workers with a bachelors degree earned
$962 per week and had an unemployment rate of 2.3 percent, while workers with a doctoral degree
earned $1,441 per week and had an unemployment rate of 1.4 percent.21 A study by the College
Board found that over the course of their working lives, the average college graduate earns in excess
of 60 percent more than a high-school graduate, and workers with advanced degrees earn two to
three times as much as highschool graduates.22 The U.S. Department of Labor found that the
wages of immigrants in the 1986 legalization increased 15 percent over five years,23 and that
the immigrants move on to significantly better 24 jobs. The DREAM Act would allow
legalized immigrants to invest in the U.S. economy:
Dr. Raul Hinojosa-Ojeda of the University of California, Los Angeles, and others have studied
the impact of legalization and found important long-term improvements among previously
undocumented immigrants. Specifically, removing the uncertainty of undocumented status
allows legalized immigrants to earn higher wages and move into higher-paying occupations,
and also encourages them to invest more in their own education, open bank accounts, buy
homes, and start businesses.25 The DREAM Act would save taxpayers money: A RAND study
from 1999 shows that raising the college graduation rate of Hispanics to that of non-Hispanic
whites would increase spending on public education by 10 percent nationwide, but the costs
would be more than offset by savings in public health and benefits, as well as increased tax
revenues resulting from higher incomes. For example, a 30-year-old Mexican immigrant woman
40

NAUDL 2015-16
with a college degree will pay $5,300 more in taxes and use $3,900 less in government expenses
each year compared to a high-school dropout with similar characteristics.26
41

NAUDL 2015-16
Dream Act boosts U.S Economy- Extensions

(__) Extending legal status to college ready undocumented immigrants will contribute jobs
and billions of dollars to the U.S economy
Guzman and Jara 2012 [Juan Carlos Guzmn is a monitoring and evaluation specialist at the
Initiative for
Global Development. Ral Jara is a research associate at the University of Notre Dames Institute for
Latino Studies. The Economic Benefits of Passing the DREAM Act.
http://www.renewoureconomy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/economic-benefits-dream.pdf]
Through a combination of improved educational attainment and higher paid jobs available to
authorized immigrants, the passage of the DREAM Act would result directly in $148 billion in
increased earnings for beneficiaries of the passage of the proposed law. This direct effect would
result in an induced effect of an additional $181 billion of economic activity. We conservatively
estimate the combined economic benefits of the DREAM Act would be approximately $329 billion
over the next 20 years, leading to 1.4 million new jobs and at least an additional $10.2 billion in tax
revenue. This study shows that passing the DREAM Act would lead to economic growth and
improved fiscal health for our nation. Quite simply, extending legal status to more college-age
undocumented immigrants who have known no other home but America is the economically sensible
approach. It will encourage more students to enroll in school and result in a more highly educated
workforce.
42

NAUDL 2015-16

(___)
(__) The Dream Act helps build a highly educated workforce amongst immigrants and that is
key to the economy
Americans Voice, immigration advocacy group, 2010 [5 REASONS TO SUPPORT THE DREAM
ACT, http://americasvoice.org/research/reasons_to_support_the_dream_act/]
The DREAM Act is a great return on money we have already invested and will prepare the country
for the global economy. The students who would benefit under the DREAM Act have been raised
and educated in the U.S. State and local taxpayers have already invested in the education of
these children in elementary and secondary school. America deserves a return on their
investment. Todays global economy requires an educated and skilled workforce capable of
acquiring, creating, and distributing knowledge. Passage of the DREAM Act will mean a group
of talented, multi-lingual and multi-cultural workers will help America compete with innovators
throughout the world. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) estimates that many of the occupations
that will be most in demand in years to come will rely on highly educated workers. Of the 15
occupations projected to grow at least twice as fast as the national average (13 percent), 10
require an associate degree or higher. For this reason it is imperative to develop policies
to help these talented students gain access to postsecondary educational opportunities and
the workforce as legal residents. [3] Leading businesses such as Microsoft have endorsed the
DREAM Act because they recognize that our broken immigration system is draining our
economy of the talent and resources needed to compete in the global economy.
43

NAUDL 2015-16

(___)
(__) The DREAM Act allows undocumented immigrants to work legally which helps the
economy by increasing the amount of people contributing to the workforce and tax base.
National Immigration Law Center 2009 [Economic Benefits of the DREAM Act,
http://www.nilc.org/DREAM-econbens-2009-03-26.html]
Why is the DREAM Act needed? Each year about 65,000 U.S.raised students who would qualify
for the DREAM Acts benefits graduate from high school. These include honor roll students, star
athletes, talented artists, homecoming queens, and aspiring teachers, doctors, and U.S. soldiers.
They are young people who have lived in the U.S. for most of their lives and desire only to call this
country their home. Even though they were brought to the U.S. years ago as children, they face
unique barriers to higher education, are unable to work legally in the U.S., and often live in
constant fear of detection by immigration authorities. The DREAM Act will prepare the country
for a new, global economy. Todays global economy depends on the creation, acquisition,
distribution, and use of knowledge, and this requires an educated and skilled population. Passage of
the DREAM Act would add thousands of talented, motivated, multilingual and multicultural
people into our workforce. Passage of the DREAM Act will increase tax revenues for cashstrapped federal, state, and local governments. Newly legalized students would earn more and
pay more in taxes. A RAND study showed that a 30-year-old Mexican immigrant woman who
graduates from college will pay $5,300 more in taxes and cost $3,900 less in government
expenses each year than if she had dropped out of high school. This amounts to an annual
fiscal benefit of over $9,000 per person every year, money that can be used to pay for the
education of others. The DREAM Act is a stimulus policy. As President Obama said in his address
to Congress, creating an educated workforce will stimulate our economy, increase productivity,
and help the U.S compete in the global economy. Students who would benefit from the DREAM
Act are our future teachers, doctors, nurses, and lawyers. The DREAM Act will allow thousands of
immigrant students to access higher education and maximize their contributions to our
economy and communities.
44

NAUDL 2015-16

(___)
(__) The DREAM Act legalizes millions of undocumented immigrants while supplying highly
skilled labor into the economy.
Nil, immigration reporter for ThinkProgress, 2010 [New Study Cites DREAM Act Economic
Benefits, https://www.laprogressive.com/dream-act-economic-benefits/]
More specifically, the report concludes, In the No DREAMers Left Behind scenario, 2.1 million
undocumented immigrants would become legalized and generate approximately $3.6 trillion over a
40-year period. Another positive effect of the DREAM Act would be that [a] higher supply of
skilled students would also advance the U.S. global competitive position in science,
technology, medicine, education and many other endeavors. These findings are especially
significant given the nations falling level of educational attainment. As Wonk Room economics
blogger Pat Garofalo notes, By 2025, according to estimates by the Lumina Foundation, our nation
will be short 16 million college-educated workers. This will have real consequences for both the
economy as a whole and for individual workers. In the past, the College Board has indirectly
supported the reports conclusions, stating, In strictly economic terms, the contributions that
DREAM Act students would make over their lifetimes would dwarf the small additional
investment in their education beyond high school, and the intangible benefits of legalizing and
educating these students would be significant. The reasoning behind the reports findings is
pretty straightforward. The DREAM Act provides young undocumented immigrants who were
brought to the U.S. through no fault of their own with the opportunity to get on a path to
legalization by attaining a college education or serving in the military. As a result, those who
qualify for the DREAM Act will also have access to better economic opportunities than they
would if they were working without a visa in the shadows of the economy.
45

NAUDL 2015-16
DREAM Act preserves human rights

(__)
(__)The Dream Act would strengthen human rights protections for undocumented immigrants
Ginatta, advocacy director for the US Program at Human Rights Watch, 2010 [US: Senate
Should Pass the DREAM Act, http://www.hrw.org/news/2010/11/29/us-senate-should-pass-dream-act]
Passing the DREAM Act would at the same time both respect the sovereign prerogative of the
United States on immigration and improve the likelihood that those decisions are made in a
manner that promotes fundamental human rights recognized by the United States. Passage of
the DREAM Act furthers the commitment of the United States to protect the human rights of
immigrants brought to the country as children. It represents a choice by the US to protect longresiding immigrant youth from adverse government action based on the acts of their parents.
It would help to shield eligible youth from violence and abusive treatment for which the
authorities often provide little protection. And it would recognize the strong community ties of
youth and respect their family ties, goals long supported by the US. Under current immigration
law regulating deportation, the US often severs a long-resident immigrant child from his cultural,
family, educational, social, and religious roots in the US on the basis of the act of a parent. Article 2(2)
of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which the US is a signatory, provides that children are
to be "protected against all forms of ... punishment" on the basis of the status or activities of the
child's parents, legal guardians, or family members. For children eligible for the DREAM Act, the
person deciding to enter the country without authorization is overwhelmingly the parent, not the child.
The DREAM Act reforms US immigration policy so that it takes into account the best interests of
youth long-residing in the country. Human Rights Watch has reported on greater risk of violence and
abusive treatment of children with unauthorized immigration status. Our May 2010 report "Fields of
Peril: Child Labor in US Agriculture" details how vulnerability to deportation (as well as the obstacles
to seeking protection by law enforcement) allows violence and abusive treatment against farmworker
children to flourish. Our research highlighted how isolation and lack of legal status make girls
especially vulnerable to sexual abuse. According to a US Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission regional attorney in 2009, "There are probably scores of women and girls who are being
raped in the fields every day but don't come forward. They're scared." A path to legal status for
DREAM Act eligible children would offer an avenue of protection currently unavailable to
these children. Authorized status would make it easier for youth who are victims of violence
and other abusive treatment to report violations to the police. To better safeguard human
rights protected under international law, governments making determinations of all those
subject to deportation should take into consideration the connections that immigrants
establish with their communities.
46

NAUDL 2015-16
DREAM Act preserves human rights - extensions

(___)
(__) The DREAM Act ensures that human rights abuses are curtailed by maintaining family
unity.
Ginatta, advocacy director for the US Program at Human Rights Watch, 2010 [US: Senate
Should Pass the DREAM Act, http://www.hrw.org/news/2010/11/29/us-senate-should-pass-dream-act]
When facing removal, these young immigrants risk being torn apart from their family. The
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), a core human rights treaty
ratified by the US in 1992, states that "[t]he family is the natural and fundamental group unit of
society and is entitled to protection by society and the state."[2] The importance of family
unity has been recognized by the US Supreme Court, which has held that the "right to live
together as a family" is an important right deserving constitutional protection, and that "the
institution of the family is deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition."[3] By providing
a path to legal status for eligible youth, the DREAM Act recognizes the importance of family
bonds. Human Rights Watch strongly believes that passing the DREAM Act would show a
commitment by the United States to respect the human rights of immigrant youth who have
resided in the country for a considerable amount of time. "
47

NAUDL 2015-16
DREAM Act preserves human rights- extensions

(__)
(__) The DREAM Act protects the human rights of young immigrants and enhances the quality
of life for immigrant families through access to education
Loha Human Right to Housing Director at NESRI (The National Economic and Social Rights
Initiative), 2012 [Tanuka Loha, Immigrants Rights: DREAM Act,
http://www.amnestyusa.org/pdfs/federal_toolkit_final.pdf]
Roughly 2.1 million undocumented minors currently reside here they immigrated to the United States with
their parents while they were children. Many of these young individuals would like to pursue higher education
but often their immigration status, and its implications, stands in the way. This leaves around 65,000
undocumented high school graduates per year struggling to continue with their higher education. Passing the
DREAM Act would allow these young members of our communities to realize their human
right to access education, secure the unity of their families, and be free from certain forms of
discrimination.
The Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act, (S. 952/H.R. 1842), would provide
conditional legal status to those currently undocumented young migrants who entered the
U.S. before the age of 16, have lived in the U.S. continuously for at least 5 years, and have earned their
high school diploma or GED. After 6 years, individuals meeting these criteria will have an opportunity to
permanently legalize their status, subject to having a good moral character, completing at least two years of
higher education or uniformed service, and meeting additional requirements under the law. Article 26 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that Everyone has the right to educationand
higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit. Amnesty International
stands in solidarity with the DREAMers and DREAM coalitions. Amnesty International has supported the
DREAM Act for many years because it advances the right to education for undocumented students in the U.S.,
many of whom came to this country as small children and have often known no other home. The right to
education is guaranteed under international human rights instruments (such as the International
Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, which the U.S. has signed but not ratified, and the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which the U.S. played a significant role in drafting). In addition to the
international obligations to respect, protect, and fulfill the human rights of all individuals who reside in the U.S.,
the U.S. Government should uphold the right to education in the interests of combating
discrimination and creating an environment in which human rights are respected and can
thrive for all after all, our entire society benefits when all members of our communities are able to access
education and make their valuable contributions. Education has been a crucial battleground in the
fight for human rights in the U.S. for many years - while significant advances have been made to date,
many important struggles are clearly still to be won. On June 15, 2012, President Obama announced the
Department of Homeland Securitys guidelines on exercising prosecutorial discretion on the
detention and deportation of DREAM-eligible students. While this guidance provides temporary relief
to many young students, it neither ensures that DREAMers gain equal access to education nor
provides a stable and permanent solution for DREAMers and their families. The passing of the
48

NAUDL 2015-16
2011 DREAM Act would provide more security for the DREAMers a sizeable part of our population and
protect their right to education.
49

NAUDL 2015-16
DREAM Act preserves human rights- extensions

(__)
(__) The DREAM Act fulfills the human rights of young immigrants by providing a safeguard against
harsh deportation practices
Amnesty International 2011 [Student Activist Toolkit 2011,
www.amnestyusa.org/pdfs/AmnestyInternational_DREAM_Act_ToolKit_2011%20FINAL.pdf
Human rights law and standards require that a person be provided with an opportunity to
acquire legal status based on circumstances such as long-time residence in a country, age on
arrival, and family presence. TheDREAM Act fulfills this obligation for some young people. It promotes
the right to family unity and dignity and the right to be free from discrimination. It also provides an
avenue for students to continue their education, an indispensable means of realizing their full
spectrum of human rights. The passage of the DREAM Act would provide thousands of students with
the opportunity to attend college. The right to family life and unity, protected by several
international human rights conventions and covenants, would be advanced by the
DREAM Act's path to legalization for eligible young people. With legal status made possible
under the DREAM Act, it offers young people a form of protection from many human rights
abuses, such as arbitrary arrests, detention and deportations, currently experienced by
thousands of young people who entered the U.S. as children. WHO: Over 2.1 million minors in
the United States may be subject to deportation and every year an estimated 65,000
undocumented high school graduates are unable to pursue a further education.
Many of these students live in constant fear of detention and deportation if exposed to immigration
authority. A denial of access to justice and arbitrary arrests and detention make it very difficult
for students and their families to defend their cases, even when they are eligible for asylum,
an immigration visa, or another avenue to stay legally in the U.S. While the Department of
Homeland Security's Secretary Janet Napolitano has said that DREAM Act students were not the
priority when it came to enforcing immigration laws, DREAMers continue to be deported.
Most DREAMers never have a fair chance to go before a judge and tell their story before being
deported. Without any real avenue to acquire legal status, oftentimes many students who
graduate from high school have limited options to continue their studies, or work and stay in
the only country they know.
50

ImmigrationSurveillance NEG 2015CoreFile

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ImmigrationSurveillance NEG 2015CoreFile

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Immigration Surveillance Negative

Economic Hardship Advantage

Human Rights Advantage

Immigration Surveillance Negative

Immigration Surveillance Negative

Non-governmental organizations (NGO): an organization that is not a part of the

Immigration Surveillance Negative

Consular Consolidated Database (CCD): is a database used by U.S consular officials

Federal expenditures: spending by the federal government.

Attendant: occurring with or as a result of; accompanying.

Dataveillance: Surveillance of someones personal data.

Human Rights: a right that is believed to belong justifiably to every person.

Immigration Surveillance Negative

Deportations Decreasing Now

Immigration Surveillance Negative

Deportations Decreasing Now- Extension

Immigration Surveillance Negative

Illegal Immigration Hurts the Economy

Immigration Surveillance Negative

Illegal Immigration Hurts the Economy - Extensions

Immigration Surveillance Negative

Illegal Immigration Hurts the Economy - Extensions

Immigration Surveillance Negative

ICE improving now

Immigration Surveillance Negative

Immigration Surveillance Negative

ICE improving now extensions

Immigration Surveillance Negative

Ending surveillance fails State laws deter immigration

Immigration Surveillance Negative

Immigration Surveillance Negative

Ending surveillance fails State laws deter immigration extensions

Immigration Surveillance Negative

Immigration Surveillance Negative

Ending surveillance fails leads to an inefficient system

Immigration Surveillance Negative

Ending surveillance fails leads to an inefficient system - extensions

Immigration Surveillance Negative

Ending surveillance fails fuels the smuggling crisis

Immigration Surveillance Negative

Ending surveillance fails fuels the smuggling crisis extensions

Immigration Surveillance Negative

ICE reducing rights violations

Immigration Surveillance Negative

Immigration Surveillance Negative

ICE reducing rights violations - extensions

Immigration Surveillance Negative

ICE reducing rights violations - extensions

Immigration Surveillance Negative

State governments can deport immigrants

Immigration Surveillance Negative

State governments can deport immigrants - extensions

Immigration Surveillance Negative

State governments can deport immigrants - extensions

Immigration Surveillance Negative

Immigration Surveillance Negative

Security should be prioritized over human rights (1/3)

Immigration Surveillance Negative

Security should be prioritized over human rights (2/3)

Immigration Surveillance Negative

Immigration Surveillance Negative

Security should be prioritized over human rights (3/3)

Immigration Surveillance Negative

Immigration Surveillance Negative