College Policy Debate Forums
November 20, 2017, 07:00:29 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: IF YOU EXPERIENCE PROBLEMS WITH THE SITE, INCLUDING LOGGING IN, PLEASE LET ME KNOW IMMEDIATELY.  EMAIL ME DIRECTLY OR USE THE CONTACT US LINK AT THE TOP.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register CEDA caselist Debate Results Council of Tournament Directors Edebate Archive  
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
Author Topic: Working Resolutions  (Read 11023 times)
stables
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Posts: 334


« on: June 05, 2010, 02:50:21 PM »

I am going to update this thread throughout the day to update our working resolutions. These do NOT reflect all of the final resolutions we are considering, but they do speak to our progress to date. Our basic schedule is, in sequential order, is:
1) Visa issues
2) Undocumented individuals
3) Asylum/refugees
4) The combination set of topics

Please feel free to leave feedback on these items.

Resolved: That the United States Federal Government should substantially increase the number of and/or substantially expand the eligibility for its visas for one or more of the following: employment-based immigrant visas, nonimmigrant temporary worker visas, family-based visas, human trafficking-based visas.

Resolved: the USFG should substantially increase its legal protection of unauthorized migrants in the United States regarding one or more of the following: detention, deportation, legal status, public benefits.


Logged

Gordon Stables
Assistant Dean for Student Affairs
Director of Debate & Forensics
Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism
University of Southern California
stables
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Posts: 334


« Reply #1 on: June 05, 2010, 04:53:30 PM »

This is a third working resolution.

Resolved: the United States Federal Government should substantially increase its legal protection of unauthorized migrants in the United States in one or more of the following areas: immigration detention, removal, legal status, eligibility for federal public benefits.

More to come.

Gordon
Logged

Gordon Stables
Assistant Dean for Student Affairs
Director of Debate & Forensics
Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism
University of Southern California
stables
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Posts: 334


« Reply #2 on: June 05, 2010, 05:50:57 PM »

Here is a 4th working resolution. Again, these are not finished but work continues on improving each wording as well as other wording options.


R: The USFG should substantially reduce its legislative/statutory restrictions on asylum claims in the United States.
Logged

Gordon Stables
Assistant Dean for Student Affairs
Director of Debate & Forensics
Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism
University of Southern California
stables
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Posts: 334


« Reply #3 on: June 05, 2010, 07:38:54 PM »

This is the current draft status of the wording options. We will be trying to finish up tonight and they may still be adjusted, but if there are clerical issues please send those along ASAP.

1. Resolved: the United States Federal Government should substantially increase the number of and/or substantially expand the eligibility for its visas for one or more of the following: employment-based immigrant visas, nonimmigrant temporary worker visas, family-based visas, human trafficking-based visas.

2. Resolved: the United States Federal Government should substantially increase the number of and/or substantially expand the eligibility for its visas in one or more of the following classes: H-1, H-2, immigrant E.

3. Resolved: the United States Federal Government should substantially increase its legal protection of unauthorized migrants in the United States in one or more of the following areas: immigration detention, removal, non-asylum legal status, eligibility for federal public benefits.

4. Resolved: the United States Federal Government should substantially reduce its statutory restrictions on asylum claims in the United States.

5. Resolved: the United States Federal Government should substantially reduce its restrictions in one or more of the following areas:  non-asylum legal status for unauthorized migrants, federal health benefits for unauthorized migrants, statutory eligibility for gender-based asylum claims, the number of and/or the eligibility for H-1 or H-2 visas.
Logged

Gordon Stables
Assistant Dean for Student Affairs
Director of Debate & Forensics
Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism
University of Southern California
stables
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Posts: 334


« Reply #4 on: June 05, 2010, 08:10:12 PM »

Here are the wording options as finally revised pending a few minor grammatical clarifications. If there are grammatical concerns please let us know. Tomorrow we will be briefly meeting to resolve these last items.

Ballot Options

1. Resolved: the United States Federal Government should substantially increase the number of and/or substantially expand the eligibility for its visas for one or more of the following: employment-based immigrant visas, nonimmigrant temporary worker visas, family-based visas, human trafficking-based visas.

2. Resolved: the United States Federal Government should substantially increase the number of and/or substantially expand the eligibility for its visas in one or more of the following classes: H-1, H-2, employment-based immigrant E.

3. Resolved: the United States Federal Government should substantially increase its legal protection of unauthorized migrants in the United States in one or more of the following areas: immigration detention, removal, non-asylum legal status, eligibility for federal public benefits.

4. Resolved: the United States Federal Government should substantially reduce its statutory restrictions on asylum claims in the United States.

5. Resolved: the United States Federal Government should substantially reduce its restrictions in one or more of the following areas:  non-asylum legal status or federal health benefits for unauthorized migrants in the United States, statutory eligibility for gender-based asylum claims, the number of and/or the eligibility for H-1 or H-2 visas.


Questions:

1 - Reduce restrictions for #5 - Adrienne
2 - Immigration detention vs. detention - Kevin
3 - Federal health benefit as a term of art - Brendan
Logged

Gordon Stables
Assistant Dean for Student Affairs
Director of Debate & Forensics
Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism
University of Southern California
lacyjp
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 50


« Reply #5 on: June 05, 2010, 08:47:42 PM »


Nice work!

-- JP
Logged
antonucci23
Full Member
***
Posts: 138


« Reply #6 on: June 06, 2010, 03:25:25 AM »

Great and thorough work.  Thank you all for doing this.

I am troubled by only one resolution - #4. 

4. Resolved: the United States Federal Government should substantially reduce its statutory restrictions on asylum claims in the United States.

First, I really don't think that's what we voted for.  There's a huge and important debate over immigration, and I think this accesses a very small portion of that, if any.  It's narrow to the point of being stale.  The scope of most affirmatives would prohibit any debate over the economic effects of migration, for instance.

Secondly, the topic doesn't even *grant* more asylum claims.  Lifting a statutory restriction is different.  So, for example, it would be topical to lift the one-year filing deadline or alter the persecutor bar, but it would not be topical to, for example, just let in more Iraqi or Haitian refugees...right?  Eligibility to claim asylum is a necessary but not sufficient condition to a grant of asylum.  You really only get process affs.

Numerical changes - just increasing number or increasing number within categories - are pretty clear not in this resolution, as there is no existing numerical restriction:

http://stuff.mit.edu/afs/sipb/contrib/wikileaks-crs/wikileaks-crs-reports/RL31269.pdf

"Asylees are not included in the refugee ceiling. There are no numerical limitations on the granting of asylum."

(If the res talked about refugees, the refugee quotas would apply.)

I understand that all of this can be punted to the voters.  Still, the prospect of debating a handful of process cases in a very slowly developing literature base seems both problematic and dramatically different from the controversy paper.

If there's any decision process to narrow the number of options, I'd urge dropping four.  It is elegant and well-crafted, but conceptually, limiting to a small subset of refugee laws constrains aff options perhaps more thoroughly than the most dreaded list.

Thank you for reading!
Logged
kevin kuswa
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 345


« Reply #7 on: June 06, 2010, 10:53:36 PM »

#4 is not just process affs--it's quite a bit bigger than that.  More on this soon.

1. Statutory restrictions prevent people from receiving asylum.

2. Antonucci, you are conflating refugees and asylum.  They are not the same.  There are no caps on asylum grants like you mention--another reason why reducing restrictions can increase the numbers.  You have done great work on the topics as of late, but I think you posted this time without having read the papers.

3. If anything, the wording of this topic prevents the very tiny process affs (because they would be agency restrictions, not legislative).  STATUTORY RESTRICTIONS INCLUDE THE INCORPORATION OF THE DEFINITION OF PERSECUTION FROM INTERNATIONAL LAW (including a small definitional change that created the nexus test).  THIS MEANS ALL THE PERSECUTION CHANGES ARE TOPICAL.  Asylum determinations are restricted by statutory incorporation of what persecution means in the Refugee Act and the IIRIRA. 

Finally, 4. The Topic Paper suggests a stand-alone asylum wording.  The TC voted for it, and nothing was ever locked in on *having* to debate the economic affects of migration.

Thanks to everyone for all the hard work and effort over the weekend, especially the folks who are not on the committee but contributed to the research immensely as well as all the WEBER DEBATERS--great stuff!!!  And, separately, GORDON STABLES was an amazing Chair once again--we definitely could not have done half of what we did without his insight and organization.

Sincerely,

Kevin

Logged
antonucci23
Full Member
***
Posts: 138


« Reply #8 on: June 07, 2010, 07:29:56 AM »

#4 is not just process affs--it's quite a bit bigger than that.  More on this soon.

A caselist might help to resolve these questions.  Which cases from the controversy paper do you see as potentially topical?

1. Statutory restrictions prevent people from receiving asylum.

That's true.  They are one of several factors that do so.  Overcoming statutory restrictions is a necessary but not sufficient condition to actually receiving asylum.

For example, it would be topical to remove the one-year filing deadline, as mentioned.  A number of sources recommend this aff, so it would have some traction.  However, it is at least hypothetically - and perhaps actually - quite possible to remove the deadline but still see the actual asylum grant numbers remain flat.  The same is true of removing the nexus test.

"Remove a barrier" is different from "give more asylum."  There are a lot of barriers to asylum, and only some of them are statutory.

2. Antonucci, you are conflating refugees and asylum.  They are not the same.  There are no caps on asylum grants like you mention--another reason why reducing restrictions can increase the numbers.  You have done great work on the topics as of late, but I think you posted this time without having read the papers.

Thank you for the compliment.  I read the papers, but I may have misread them, and invite correction.

I include a quote about the asylum/refugee distinction from the Congressional Research Service.  We're certainly agreed on that fact.  We differ on its interpretation.

Since there are no caps, there is no statutory restriction to repeal if one wishes to increase the numbers of a particular subgroup.  There's no Iraqi refugees aff or Haitian refugees aff or maritime interdiction aff (that would be a refugees aff regardless).  The only existent numerical cap on grants of asylum is an odd cap for those fleeing coercive family planning.  I guess that would be the one subgroup aff.

You are correct that changes in procedure could, hypothetically, increase the numbers.  The caps are not an insurmountable barrier to solvency.  However, none of those changes in procedure will be sufficient, in themselves, to increase numbers.  The aff's ability to pursue this claim makes disad ground fairly anemic.

My larger points are this -

1. There is a very static, procedural caselist.  The relevant literature is thin and aff-biased.  The neg will do fine, of course.  The neg always does fine, but sometimes they do fine because of disads and sometimes they do fine because of process, and we seem to like it better when they do fine because of disads. 

2. The standalone resolution is notable for excluding virtually every other public policy consideration related to immigration.  For example, we would not see any good economic debates, as the number involved in an alteration of the persecutor bar (moral turpitude clause) would be so small as to make any link untenable.

It's not an immigration topic.  It's a procedure topic.

3. If anything, the wording of this topic prevents the very tiny process affs (because they would be agency restrictions, not legislative).  STATUTORY RESTRICTIONS INCLUDE THE INCORPORATION OF THE DEFINITION OF PERSECUTION FROM INTERNATIONAL LAW (including a small definitional change that created the nexus test).  THIS MEANS ALL THE PERSECUTION CHANGES ARE TOPICAL.  Asylum determinations are restricted by statutory incorporation of what persecution means in the Refugee Act and the IIRIRA. 

Yes - removing the nexus test is topical.  I don't think this really addresses my concern - it's a small, procedure-oriented caselist with little dynamism, less aff choice and a paucity of two-sided debate.

Finally, 4. The Topic Paper suggests a stand-alone asylum wording.  The TC voted for it, and nothing was ever locked in on *having* to debate the economic affects of migration.

Well, there's nothing sure in this world.  I fully support the Topic Committee's authority to advance the resolutions they feel best, and I support my non-authority to politely say some stuff about it.  I like some topics better than others, but I'm not calling for anyone's head.

I'm referencing the original controversy paper, which I found persuasive.  Here are some of the lines from it I found particularly compelling:

-- "The immigration topic is just about as big of an argumentative tent as anyone can find. In our opinion, everyone benefits when the topic encourages debaters to research, win, and learn about a topic that intersects so many intellectual areas ..."

...which I feel is not well served by a small, largely procedural (courtsy) topic.

-- "Immigration is timely and intense.

Scholars, politicians, and activists, have deep seated positions on immigration and the controversy continues to be a part of our national political discourse. As we discuss in the next section, we do not believe that the reduce restrictions mechanism is *too* timely, but it is evident that this controversy is not going away anytime soon. We believe debaters should be at the forefront of this intense political discussion rather than avoiding it in favor of less salient issues."

Well said, but this resolution 4 does not address immigration.  Statutory restrictions on asylum are one necessary condition to immigration, but a procedural question that, at its absolute hypothetical largest, affected a tenth of the inflow couldn't really bring much of this intense political discussion to bear.

-- The refugees and asylum section is very well researched.  It includes a number of potential affs.  The actual resolution, however, includes only some of this caselist.  For example, you caselist "mandate higher numbers of accepted asylum cases and/or refugee allotments" - but I don't think we got that.

-- You're ultimately correct - we were warned.  A version of this resolution occurs within the paper.  It is the narrow resolution included in subsection b of the addendum.  Caveat emptor...

I think the work on asylum is very good.  I wish that it were a larger component of some of the topics.  I feel that voter choice is limited to asylum *or* immigration/visas (with a one-aff exception for 5.)  This slate of topics is a little unusual because of the stark caselist difference - there's just zero intersection between 1 and 4.

I think the topic slate is great.  The committee produced great research overall, and I thank you all for what's generally far too thankless a task.  I hope my opinion on a topic doesn't ruffle any feathers.  I missed the livecast (which was a fascinating and democratizing feature) because of some real life stuff, so probably worded my objections too starkly because the buzzer was going off as I was typing.
Logged
edlee3
Newbie
*
Posts: 17


« Reply #9 on: June 08, 2010, 09:51:02 AM »

If Antonucci is correct that the AFF can't topically fiat the granting of asylum but is dependent on winning that the process change is strong enough to increase number, then this resolution seems overly restrictive on the AFF.  Kevin is probably right that there would probably be "grant asylum to x good/bad" debates but making this a solvency burden for the AFF seems to make the most interesting advantage ground difficult for the AFF to access. The grant asylum CP + change in procedure bad DA could deter many affs from even researching those advantages.       

Is the AFF restricted to procedural changes? Is is topical to fiat a granting of asylum?   I am just starting to think about this and i am genuinely interested in others thoughts.

Thanks for any and all thoughts.
e
Logged
kevin kuswa
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 345


« Reply #10 on: June 08, 2010, 10:42:36 AM »

What do you think about when someone says “immigration”?  What stereotypes and images come to the surface?  On one hand, this next year should be about breaking down many of our assumptions about immigration and crossing U.S. borders.  On the other hand, we cannot shy away from the core issues of immigration in our attempts to explore/research/analyze.


A couple of things that come up when thinking about immigration and legislation about immigration are: 1. The Immigration and Nationality Act; 2. The REAL Identification Act along with a number of actions after 9-11 designed to limit and keep track of immigrants coming into the US; 3. The IIRIA and reforms on those involuntary immigrants seeking refuge in the U.S.; 4. Motivations for entering into the U.S.; 5. US government structure surrounding immigration and immigration enforcement.

All five of those areas are related in significant ways to asylum and restrictions on asylum claims.  In fact, the best definitions of immigration talk about “voluntary” and “involuntary” migrants coming into the U.S. or already here.  Although the notion of “choice” is hard to determine and define, the “involuntary” side of immigration, particularly asylum, is at the core of immigration restrictions and the evolution of “intermestic” policy (we cannot divide between international and domestic anymore).   

Antonucci continues to make some inaccurate claims about this topic: Resolved: the United States Federal Government should substantially reduce its statutory restrictions on asylum claims in the United States.  I’ll try to briefly answer the specific questions below.

1. “Process”?  What does that mean, exactly, and why is that bad?  The asylum topic is less about process than the other options in many ways.  Immigration is the process of entering the country—of course it is going to be a process topic.  The thing is, the statutory restrictions on asylum claims are central to actually offering asylum to those being persecuted on a number of levels.

2. The potential case list is robust and diverse (and allows for debates over the meaning of the topic and how narrow it should be interpreted).  Affirmatives could run cases within all the areas mentioned in the topic paper and follow-up papers.  It will be difficult (perhaps very difficult) to run three types of cases in my opinion, depending on the topicality arguments: 1. refugee resettlement abroad; 2. tiny asylum officers training affs; 3. affs that deal with the meaning of asylum after the claim has been granted.

I can see ok topicality defenses for those three areas, but it will be tough.

EVERYTHING ELSE IS IN.  ALL THE BIG ASYLUM AFFS—tons of gender cases, tons of terrorism cases (IMMIGRATION AND TERRORISM POST 9-11 IS ALL ABOUT ASYLUM in terms of new restrictions), tons of civil conflict victims affs like Drug violence, gang violence, child soldiers, asylum for non-state persecution like environmental catastrophe, sexual orientation persecution, One-Child policy and coercive sterilization, religious persecution (the Religious Persecution Act is HUGE), race/etnic/nationality persecution, stowaways (still have claims in the U.S.), persecution against stateless groups and IDPS (Kurds), create minimum numbers of accepted claims, lower the burden of proof for persecution or credibility, new forms of persecution, the moral exemption clause, material support (part of the terrorism debate), and the larger obstacles to the claims that are tied to legislation (1 year waiting period, etc.).  There are more and I have not looked at the original paper in some time so I’m sure I’m missing some.  These should have good topicality defenses, but T is still in play.  Also, the idea of a stable case list this early in the process is somewhat flawed and may be a reason to be wary of stagnancy in other areas more than here. 

3. Sub-groups can fit in through a couple of fairly easy aff T defenses.  From going back to the Haiti articles, the stowaways debate, and even some of the asylum claims coming out of Iraq, there are definitely statutory restrictions governing those instances of asylum.  It would not be hard to write plan texts to reach some of those advantage areas and still be topical.

4. The nexus test is far more interesting than you give it credit for…unless you are just expressing a personal preference for US competitiveness (yeah, Mead will be fresh!) debates over actually learning about immigration and the meaning of “huddled masses as America” over time.  “Number” of immigrants should not be your standard.  Debating about the economy should not be your standard.  The fact that the case-lists between 1 and 4 do not exactly match up should not be your standard.  You should think about the complexity and nuance of INVOLUNTARY immigration as well as voluntary and then decide.  Back at you on the compliment—you always spark important discussion.

5. How about some more cards?

---from ermo—the terrorism debate.

Berkeley Journal of Gender, Law & Justice Spring, 2009 24 Berkeley J. Gender L. & Just. 1
27664 words Article: Real Bias: How REAL ID's Credibility and Corroboration Requirements Impair Sexual Minority Asylum Applicants NAME: Melanie A. Conroy+ BIO: + J.D., Harvard Law School, 2008

Real ID is but one part of the larger milieu that is the securitization of U.S. immigration law. Over the past two decades, asylum applicants have shouldered much of the burden that results from immigration "reforms" passed to assuage fears of terrorism and security threats. Congress has consistently decided that, on balance, the refoulement of asylees is an acceptable cost for tightening purported security weaknesses in immigration law. n118 Prior to Real ID, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act ("IIRIRA") of 1996 responded to concerns that immigration law, and in particular asylum, created gaps through which terrorists could enter and remain in the United States. n119 Evidence that Ramzi Yousef perpetrated the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993 while awaiting his asylum hearing supported these fears. n120 After September 11, 2001, concerns that the U.S. immigration system was ripe for abuse by would-be terrorists resurfaced. Legislators interpreted the 9/11 Commission Report to reinforce these suspicions, arguing that asylum was a potential loophole for terrorists. n121 The influence of the securitization of asylum law was evident from the inception of Real ID's asylum provisions. The title of Section 101 of Real ID, which contains the credibility and corroboration provisions, reveals its rationale: "Preventing Terrorists from Obtaining Asylum." n122


---the statutory restriction internal link (topicality) to all the persecution affs

Simcox and Jenks, 1992 (David and Rosemary Feb. “Refugee and Asylum Policy: National Passion versus National Interest,” http://www.npg.org/forum_series/ref&asylum_policy.htm, accsd 4/13/10)
Congress passed the 1980 Refugee Act to consolidate the profusion of special and ad hoc arrangements, to bring U.S. criteria and procedures for granting refugee status into line with international law, and to grant resettlement assistance. The Act (8 USC 1101 (a)(42)) defines refugees as persons who are persecuted or who have ". . . a well founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion." 
Wasem, Immigration Policy Expert, Domestic Social Policy Division, 2005 (Ruth Ellen, “US Immigration Policy of Asylum Seekers,” Feb. 16, 2005, CRS Report for Congress, accsd 4/11/10 http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rl32621.pdf.  Also: To be eligible for refugee or asylum status, an applicant must meet the definition of a refugee set forth in 101(a)(42) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA): a person who is unable or unwilling to return to his or her country of nationality because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. Martin & Hoefer, June 2009 (Daniel & Michael, Refugees and Asylees: 2008, Office of Immigration Statistics, http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/ois_rfa_fr_2008.pdf, accsd 4/11/10)

---more ground discussion from the original paper

The best ground for the affirmative is in the direction of human rights, gender discrimination, including global protections for differences in sexual orientation, US soft power good, children’s rights, specific regional conflict situations (such as the Drug War in Mexico), modeling arguments, homeland security, and cultural norms such as a stance against female genital mutilation.  You could create new classification of persecution for application, open up current category to more cases such as gang violence or gender.  Just one example in this sub-area would deal with “derivative asylum,” the process of applying for asylum for one’s children or relative because of their fears of persecution.  Law and policy on this matter conflicts, particularly when the specific cases of China’s One Child Policy and other nations’ practices of female genital mutilation are considered.  Even if derivative asylum is incorporated, the parents may not be protected, resulting in a situation where, in order to avoid persecution and suffering, a child’s parents are deported from the US while the child is sent to adoption or resettlement services in the US.  More directly, the argument would be that China’s One-Child Policy creates persecution.  Of course derivative asylum is not always enough because in some cases other standards and requirements are used to preclude a comprehensive solution.  Some examples involve giving children asylum but then deporting the mother or parents, protecting the parents insofar as the child effects the parents (but still refraining from actually granting asylum to the children), not protecting minors who are not accompanied by an adult because there is no original source from which the claim can be derived, or simply inconsistency in determining the validity of the claim.

----make TPS permanent….
Simcox and Jenks, 1992 (David and Rosemary Feb. “Refugee and Asylum Policy: National Passion versus National Interest,” http://www.npg.org/forum_series/ref&asylum_policy.htm, accsd 4/13/10)
In the Immigration Act of 1990 Congress refined and expanded the concept of "Extended Voluntary Departure" into "Temporary Protected Status (TPS)," an arrangement for ostensibly temporary refuge for aliens from troubled countries. The legislation significantly expands the coverage of American refugee policy, extending potential eligibility for safe haven in the United States to hundreds of millions of those threatened in their home countries by generalized violence or environmental disasters such as famines, earthquakes and floods.
---the benefits debate also matters to asylum claims and it’s a statutory restriction.

Huyen Pham, Prof. of Law, Texas Wesleyan University, ’09 (Article: When immigration borders move, December, 2009, 61 Fla. L. Rev. 1115, 21630, School of Law; A.B., 1992 Harvard College; J.D., 1996 Harvard Law School)
Because of this legal uncertainty, cities and states often take their cue from the federal government. The most significant federal legislation to form moving borders was the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), n73 which significantly restricts the eligibility of immigrants, even those with legal status, for federal public benefits. n74 Specifically, under PRWORA, only "qualified aliens" are eligible for any "federal public benefit," n75 and even they face significant restrictions on their eligibility. n76 So undocumented immigrants or applicants for asylum, because of their unqualified status, cannot apply for Medicaid, State Child Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), or any of thirty-one programs identified as providing restricted federal benefits. n77 Furthermore, even legal permanent residents who do have qualified status under PRWORA are categorically ineligible for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) or food stamps. n78 Subsequent legislation restored many of these federal benefits for qualified immigrants who arrived in the United States before August 22, 1996, n79 but otherwise, these benefits continue to be largely limited to citizens. n80 Therefore, with the enactment of PRWORA, legal immigration status (and often, citizenship) has become a prerequisite for an array of federal benefits.
Significantly, PRWORA also gave considerable authority to states to make eligibility determinations based on immigration status. This authority extends to both joint federal-state programs and wholly state-funded programs. For specified jointly-funded programs (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Medicaid, and programs funded by federal social services block grants), states are authorized to determine the eligibility of qualified aliens. n81 Practically speaking, this means a state can deny these specified benefits to qualified aliens, as at least one state has chosen to do. n82

---those with asylum claims cannot apply for jobs.  This is statutory.  Here’s your economy debate, even though it’s small—at least this way, the economy does not dwarf the actual consideration of the topic..

Huyen Pham, Prof. of Law, Texas Wesleyan University, ’09 (Article: When immigration borders move, December, 2009, 61 Fla. L. Rev. 1115, 21630, School of Law; A.B., 1992 Harvard College; J.D., 1996 Harvard Law School)
Like restrictions on government benefits, laws restricting private benefits have been enacted at all levels of government, with the federal government taking the lead. In 1986, Congress enacted the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) to address illegal immigration, with employer sanctions as its centerpiece. n118 For the first time, IRCA made it illegal under federal law to hire an unauthorized worker. n119 By making it more difficult for undocumented immigrants to find work, Congress believed that employer sanctions would reduce the incentives for illegal immigration. n120 The sanctions impose two requirements on employers: one substantive (prohibiting the "knowing" hire of unauthorized workers) and one administrative (requiring employers to verify the work eligibility of all employees by checking for certain documents). n121 An employer who violates the law faces fines; n122 an employer who "engages in a pattern or practice" of substantive violations may also face criminal penalties. n123
---the populations are not totally distinct.  Asylum claims come from other groups.

Bohmer and Shuman, Sociology @Dartmouth College and Anthropology @ Ohio State,’08 (Carol and Amy, Rejecting Refugees: Political Asylum in the 21st Century).

   Asylum applicants, by contrast, who are the subject of this book, are those who travel to the U.S. or the UK under their own steam and then apply for asylum.  Some asylum seekers come legally on other visas, as Henri did, on a student visa or on a visitor’s visa.  They may intend to seek asylum when they arrive, or may determine after their arrival that they can’t go home….Other asylum seekers come with false papers or no papers, as we saw in the case of Fauziya, whose story we discussed above.  They are fleeing persecution and are looking for a safe haven, though they may not know the word “asylum” or understand the process of applying for it. (p24-25)


(    ). Refugees makes claims for asylum

Hodgens, ’06 (Lynn, Summer, 30 Vermont Law Review 1045, “Domestic Silence: HOW THE U.S.-CANADA-SAFE-THIRD-COUNTRY AGREEMENT BRINGS NEW URGENCY TO THE NEED FOR GENDER-BASED-ASYLUM REGULATIONS”)

In December 2002, the United States and Canada entered into the Agreement to allocate responsibility for processing the asylum claims of refugees crossing the land border between the two countries.


(     ).  Must obtain refugee-status if claiming asylum

Frantz, ’07 (Brigette L., 5 Ave Maria L. Rev. 499, PROVING PERSECUTION: THE BURDENS OF ESTABLISHING A NEXUS IN RELIGIOUS ASYLUM CLAIMS AND THE DANGERS OF NEW REFORMS, JD Ave Maria School of Law)

…to establish eligibility for asylum and withholding of deportation. The first requirement in establishing eligibility for either form of relief, however, was proving refugee status. That is, the asylum seeker had to demonstrate that she was a refugee as statutorily defined.


(    ).  “Asylum”—a person granted asylum is a refugee.

ICMC, ’01 (International Catholic Migration Commission, “Glossary,” from the UNHCR publication Protecting Refugees: A Field Guide for NGOs, #GV.E.99.0.22, 2nd edition Dec 2001; http://www.icmc.net/glossary/term/279, acsd 5/28/10)

Asylum
The grant, by a State, of protection on its territory to persons from another State who are fleeing persecution or serious danger. A person who is granted asylum is a refugee. Asylum encompasses a variety of elements, including non-refoulement, permission to remain on the territory of the asylum country, and humane standards of treatment.

(    ).  Asylee Process

Jeanne Batalova, PhD, Migration Policy Institute, ’06 (“Spotlight on Refugees and Asylees in the United States “
http://www.migrationinformation.org/usfocus/display.cfm?ID=415, accsed 5/22/10)

Asylees: According to the US Refugee Act of 1980 and based on the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, any aliens, whether their current immigration status is legal or not, who are physically present in the country or at a port of entry may apply for asylum. An asylum seeker acquires asylee status when his or her application has been processed and approved and asylum is granted.

---this is about immigration.

ANTHONY ASUNCION, ’88 (Spring, 1988, 37 Am. U.L. Rev. 915, “INS v. CARDOZA-FONSECA: ESTABLISHMENT OF A MORE LIBERAL ASYLUM STANDARD”).

Under existing admissions standards, an alien seeking to have his deportation withheld must establish a "clear probability" of persecution if deported. Under this standard, an alien must show that it is more likely than not that he would be subject to persecution in the country to which he would be returned. In an effort to remain in the United States, an alien also may apply for asylum under section 208 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. An alien seeking asylum must first establish that he is a refugee. To qualify as a refugee, the alien must show that it is  likely that he will be persecuted if he is returned to his country. As a result of congressional revision of the asylum laws in 1980, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and the courts have differed over the appropriate standard of proof necessary to qualify for asylum. The INS has argued that an alien must prove that there is a clear probability of persecution in order to qualify for asylum. This clear probability standard is an obstacle to the attainment of refugee status because it requires the presentation of specific, objective facts. In contrast, some courts have advocated the use of the well-founded fear standard, which is a more liberal  standard that requires only a showing of a good reason to fear persecution.  The need for uniform, unambiguous standards of proof to determine the applicability of asylum laws is critical. As Justice Stewart has cautioned, in this area of the law we would do well to avoid technicalities and fictions, and to deal instead with realities. Reality for those wrongfully deported may mean death. Moreover, the choice of the applicable asylum standard has important ramifications for the many people who seek refuge in America each year and will set the tone for America's future immigration policy.


thanks for reading, this might not change your mind, but there is a debate.

Kevin
Logged
kevin kuswa
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 345


« Reply #11 on: June 08, 2010, 10:53:06 AM »


Two more helpful cards on this:

(both from the Rachel Settlage article):

The Real ID Act further amended the INA by now requiring the applicant to establish that "race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant." n193 In the past, courts have followed a "mixed motive" standard, holding that persecution must simply relate to one of the five grounds, not that it was a central reason. n194 It is unclear if this mixed motive standard can survive under the new statutory language.


Legislative Obstacles to Affirmative Asylum after September 11, 2001
 
Irresponsible judges have made asylum laws vulnerable to fraud and abuse. We will end judge-imposed presumptions that benefit suspected terrorists in order to stop providing a safe haven to some of the worst people on Earth [sic]. The REAL ID Act will reduce the opportunity for immigration fraud so that we can protect honest asylum-seekers and stop rewarding terrorists and criminals who falsely claim persecution.
-Congressman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.'s official statement on the 2005 Real ID Act

Logged
antonucci23
Full Member
***
Posts: 138


« Reply #12 on: June 09, 2010, 04:56:11 PM »

I think our readings of resolution 4 differ significantly.  You wrote the resolution, and you've likely done more research on the topic than I have, so I may well be misinformed.  I will lay out my understanding of this topic briefly, and contrast this with your implied reading.

"Resolved: the United States Federal Government should substantially reduce its statutory restrictions on asylum claims in the United States. "

My reading of this sentence is that a topical affirmative would need to identify a restriction on asylum claims that's currently in a statute - a piece of legislation - then repeal or significantly revise it.  Put more simply, there would need to be a law, on the books, that said "oh hai guys, maybe you thought this one could has asylum, but akshually, cannot has, is not legal."

Your post identifies a lot of issues that are related to asylum law.  This does not establish aff ground.  The Real ID Act and IIRIA are very diverse and multifarious pieces of legislation, but it would not be topical to change most of those statutes.  It is only topical to repeal or revise an identified existing restriction on asylum claims. 

The sniff test on T on this topic is as clear an unmuddied lake. 

Show me the statute.   

Here are some things that are topical:

- Repealing the asylum filing deadline is topical, because it's an existing statutory bar on asylum claims, as codified in the IIRIA.

- Changing the nexus requirement is likely topical.  (The courts interpret and apply this fairly nebulous statutory language, which I suspect will be the nexus point of many of those debates.)

- Changing the definition of terrorism, as articulated in the amendments to the INA.  I've mostly often heard this called the Tier III definitions.  (There's still a negative T argument here, as I think Tier III prohibits *granting* asylum, not *claiming* asylum, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt.  It's also a problematic aff, because the executive interprets those definitions, making the counterplan pretty intuitive.)

- Eliminating the 1000 person cap on persons fleeing CPC. (Also potentially a little sketchy, because of conditional asylum.)

(I am leaving out several, such as the moral turpitude clause, and potentially the material support clauses, and so ponbecause you hopefully get my point.)

Here are some things that I don't think are topical.

- Affirmatively granting asylum to a particular subgroup, aside from the aforementioned one.  You reference all of these statutory restrictions on the admission of Kurds and Iraqis and Haitians and gang violence victims.  What are you talking about?  I'm not being snarky here - I really don't get it.

Do we have distinct laws - in statutes, not in the common law of subsequent judicial interpretation - that say "no (or only some) Iraqis need apply"?  Where are these subgroup targeting laws? 

Show me the statute.

One could stuff some of these claims under the nexus requirement.  For example, one could topically modify the definition of a refugee found at INA § 101(a)(42)5 to include gang violence, since it would lessen the strictness of the nexus requirement.  This would have be the formula for any subgroups aff.

Think about this aff's strategic value for a second.  I have difficulty imagining a quicker formula for losing.  You would never ever ever debate the advantage.  No one cares about your scary gangs, because it would be very simple and competitive for the Supreme Court to reinterpet the nexus requirement to actually include these victims.  It would also be non topical and competitive for the EOIR to just streamline and grant all those asylum claims.  The Procrustean bed of topicality puts all of these affs in a bad, bad place.

This is Ed Lee's question, in a slightly wordier form - and I don't think you answered it.

It would be a bad idea to run this aff.  The prevalence of these strategies would drive affs toward the advantages that they can defend - modifications to legislation that bring us in line with international law.  This is the actual core of the topic, and I think it's interesting, but it ain't enough.

This is just as true of the many identified BIG BIG AREAS such as GENDER and SEXUAL ORIENTATION.  Since these are all social groups, we wouldn't need to codify their inclusion in the nexus requirement if we received unequivocal guidance from the courts, or, generally, more decisive executive action in granting asylum claims.

Almost every interesting aff demands that you change the nexus test - change the statute.  You wrote this process demand into the topic.

Is there a *way* to make these affs topical?  I guess, yeah, if you run through mods to the nexus requirement.  Is that pretty for the aff? Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

This is why it's a "process topic."

-  your benefits aff.

Is this claim in good faith?  Of course that's not topical.  That's a statutory restriction on *asylees* - not *asylum claims*, as your topic says.  The same's true of your "allow asylum claimants to work" - those are restrictions on their employability, not the claim itself.  This seems pretty cut and dried to me?

- maritime interdiction

Those refugees can't become asylees until they touch ground - wet feet/dry feet.  That's *why* maritime interdiction exists, and why we see the spectacle of people swimming to shore, because legal status changes on the beach.
Logged
Hester
Full Member
***
Posts: 153


« Reply #13 on: June 10, 2010, 07:53:37 AM »

I'm not attempting to engage the main part of the Kuswa-Antonucci Asylum debate, but did want to interject one comment about topical agency on the Asylum rez:

Antonucci's last post identified CPs which would solve via "unequivocal guidance from the courts."

my initial thought is the Court giving unequivocal guidance could very well be a "substantial reduction in statutory restrictions." If the Supreme Court were to rule that statutory restrictions have been too restrictive and declares the overly restrictive interpretation of the Squo to be unconstitutional, i think a good team could easily win that such a plan would be a "substantial reduction." Even if the plan merely had the Court rule that such statutory restrictions should not be interpreted so restrictively (i.e., they aren't stricken from the code, but just interpreted to be less restrictive), that could be argued to meet the "bring down to a smaller extent" definition of Reduce.

i realize this has little to no bearing on what they are debating, but wanted to make sure it wasn't just assumed (and unquestioned) that the Asylum resolution would limit AFFs to only Congress as their actor. (that wasn't stated explicitly by Michael, but may have been inferred from some of his claims)
Logged
kevin kuswa
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 345


« Reply #14 on: June 10, 2010, 08:09:37 AM »

Hi all,
The big difference between the two views (narrow and open) is that Antonucci's narrow view relies on additional constraints to "statutory restrictions" that correspond to a distinction between "claims" and "grants" that does not exist.  I'd also note that most affs can win their interpretation of the topic if it has forseeable grounding in the literature and does not explode the number of cases available (especially when compared to an interpretation with three cases, selected somewhat arbitrarily).

I think our readings of resolution 4 differ significantly.  You wrote the resolution, and you've likely done more research on the topic than I have, so I may well be misinformed.  I will lay out my understanding of this topic briefly, and contrast this with your implied reading.

"Resolved: the United States Federal Government should substantially reduce its statutory restrictions on asylum claims in the United States. "

My reading of this sentence is that a topical affirmative would need to identify a restriction on asylum claims that's currently in a statute - a piece of legislation - then repeal or significantly revise it.  Put more simply, there would need to be a law, on the books, that said "oh hai guys, maybe you thought this one could has asylum, but akshually, cannot has, is not legal."

The laws we've been discussing meet this test.  Nice rendition of statute slang by the way.  Look, the law on the books can restrict asylum claims without directly stating that a certain person or group can always make a claim.  A restriction on asylum can say "asylum can only be granted to those individuals showing a well-founded fear of future persecution."  If that statement is in US law, than any statute relying on that statement is a restriction on claims.  "Claims" is even more helpful for the aff than "grants" because we are talking about what constraints exist on an application.  If an application is less likely to be granted because of statutory stipulation, than that is a topical intersection between legislation and the claim.  It is negative ground to argue that court intrepretations defy legislative change, but that does not make the affirmative non-topical.  The aff can also act through the Court by using a decision to restrict an earlier decision that relies on statutory restrictions (thereby reducing those statutory restrictions)--this means a lot of these cases have possibilities for distinct agents.

Here are some things that are topical:

- Repealing the asylum filing deadline is topical, because it's an existing statutory bar on asylum claims, as codified in the IIRIA.

- Changing the nexus requirement is likely topical.  (The courts interpret and apply this fairly nebulous statutory language, which I suspect will be the nexus point of many of those debates.)

- Changing the definition of terrorism, as articulated in the amendments to the INA.  I've mostly often heard this called the Tier III definitions.  (There's still a negative T argument here, as I think Tier III prohibits *granting* asylum, not *claiming* asylum, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt.  It's also a problematic aff, because the executive interprets those definitions, making the counterplan pretty intuitive.)

- Eliminating the 1000 person cap on persons fleeing CPC. (Also potentially a little sketchy, because of conditional asylum.)

(I am leaving out several, such as the moral turpitude clause, and potentially the material support clauses, and so ponbecause you hopefully get my point.)

Here are some things that I don't think are topical.

- Affirmatively granting asylum to a particular subgroup, aside from the aforementioned one.  You reference all of these statutory restrictions on the admission of Kurds and Iraqis and Haitians and gang violence victims.  What are you talking about?  I'm not being snarky here - I really don't get it.

Do we have distinct laws - in statutes, not in the common law of subsequent judicial interpretation - that say "no (or only some) Iraqis need apply"?  Where are these subgroup targeting laws?  

Show me the statute.

One could stuff some of these claims under the nexus requirement.  For example, one could topically modify the definition of a refugee found at INA § 101(a)(42)5 to include gang violence, since it would lessen the strictness of the nexus requirement.  This would have be the formula for any subgroups aff.


So, in just a few minutes of thinking about it, you resolved your own "sniff test" and found a way to run a bunch of the interesting affs that focus on particular groups.  No, the plan cannot just specify the group and provide a waiver, but the plan can refine/repeal the statute in question in order to access those advantages.  This could be done through additional legislation (look at the 2010 Refugee Protection Act for some examples) or through the Court (returning to the way the Refugee Act and the IIRIRA are cited in a lot of these Court cases as a statutory restriction).  hester points this out as well.  The nexus test is one good way, restrictions on the inclusion of the defintion of persecution is another, dealing with the statutory stipulations on how the persecution is evaluated would be another.  There are at least six important statutes and probably another dozen with more research.  Each of those has multiple restrictions and each of those restrictions can be substantially reduced in different ways.

Think about this aff's strategic value for a second.  I have difficulty imagining a quicker formula for losing.  You would never ever ever debate the advantage.  No one cares about your scary gangs, because it would be very simple and competitive for the Supreme Court to reinterpet the nexus requirement to actually include these victims.  It would also be non topical and competitive for the EOIR to just streamline and grant all those asylum claims.  The Procrustean bed of topicality puts all of these affs in a bad, bad place.

This is Ed Lee's question, in a slightly wordier form - and I don't think you answered it.

It would be a bad idea to run this aff.  The prevalence of these strategies would drive affs toward the advantages that they can defend - modifications to legislation that bring us in line with international law.  This is the actual core of the topic, and I think it's interesting, but it ain't enough.

I have not seen Ed Lee's post--pop it in here and I'll do my best.  There are some negative strategies against some of the affs--of course, but nothing as scary as you seem to think.  A good 2AC would love to debate the 2AR against an executive CP that does not solve or can be permuted (and has no external net benefit) or a Courts CP that is the aff every round.  The advantage does matter because the statutory restriction is the obstacle to current and future asylum.  The advantages come from the lives of real people and may defy your super process CP.  There will definitely be solvency deficits for the CP.  Plus, in general in this area, the CP debates will have to have on-point solvency and net benefit arguments, making them quite different from years past.  Every aff on any of these topics will have to be careful about agent choices, process CPs, neg's attempts to Counterplan in a politics link or at least politcs uniqueness, and the reasons why legislation (or the orbiter dictum etc.) matter.  Don't forget about the States CP and State Courts because those apply in a MAJOR way on some of the other topics.  You are right--the topicality debate is rigorous and interesting, the aff does have ways to acces the big persecution and terrorism affs, and the Agent debate is a place to hunker down/be wary of not being prepared.  Sounds like a great topic.

Don't get me wrong, I like all of these topics (#3 is awesome) and I do not think my T interpretation on #4 is automatically right just because I helped to work on the wording.  What I am saying is that a lot of folks (not just me) put a ton of time into thinking through the particular wordings and the aff possibilities are quite a bit greater than the assumptions you are making.  For example, in resolution #5 it specifies "statutory restrictions on gender-based asylum claims."  That is a sub-set of the stand alone asylum topic where you seem to believe the aff cannot really access persecution.  You have been shown the statutes and the diversity under many of them.  Thanks again for the engagement.  kevin

« Last Edit: June 10, 2010, 08:11:34 AM by kevin kuswa » Logged
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
SMF customization services by 2by2host.com
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!