College Policy Debate Forums
December 15, 2017, 01:27:22 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 [3]
  Print  
Author Topic: Immigration Controversy - Open wording thread  (Read 29750 times)
David Glass
Newbie
*
Posts: 6


« Reply #30 on: June 02, 2010, 01:32:08 PM »


Hi Michael,

The topic has no effect on outflows.  The topic says "its restrictions on..."
Outflows are governed by other countries' restrictions on visas etc.
So there is no topical aff that would increase visits to Cuba, for example.

The restriction on going to Cuba is not due to US restrictions on visas,
or any other word in the topic;  the restriction on going to Cuba is
a function of US restrictions for travel to Cuba... the law doesn't say "you
can't get a Cuba visa"  it says "you can't travel to Cuba, unless X, Y, Z".

Here's the wording:
(http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1097.html)
ENTRY / EXIT REQUIREMENTS, TRAVEL TRANSACTION LIMITATIONS: The Cuban Assets Control Regulations are enforced by the U.S. Department of the Treasury and affect all U.S. citizens and permanent residents wherever they are located, all people and organizations physically located in the United States, and all branches and subsidiaries of U.S. organizations throughout the world. The regulations require that persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction be licensed in order to engage in any travel-related transactions pursuant to travel to, from, and within Cuba. Transactions related to tourist travel are not licensable. This restriction includes tourist travel to Cuba from or through a third country such as Mexico or Canada. U.S. law enforcement authorities enforce these regulations at U.S. airports and pre-clearance facilities in third countries. Travelers who fail to comply with Department of the Treasury regulations could face civil penalties and criminal prosecution upon return to the United States.

Although Cuba issues visas upon arrival to American citizens, all travelers to Cuba, including religious workers, should have the appropriate type of visa and, if required, specific authorization from Cuban authorities.  Cuba has announced that as of May 2010 it will start requiring visitors to have non-U.S. medical insurance, and will sell a temporary policy to those who do not have it. Questions about this insurance requirement should be directed to the Cuban Interests Section. Some HIV/AIDS entry restrictions exist for visitors to and foreign residents of Cuba. Cuban authorities do not demand HIV tests of travelers to Cuba , with the exception of foreign students on scholarships. The Cuban authorities accept the results of HIV tests conducted by labs in the United States. Please verify this information with the Cuban Interests Section in Washington before traveling.

However a clarification like US visas, etc isn't objectionable.

2.  even if you lose out on some asylum seekers due to inderdiction on the high
seas, that doesn't seem like a big percentage of the problem.




Logged
antonucci23
Full Member
***
Posts: 138


« Reply #31 on: June 02, 2010, 02:25:35 PM »

a. Cuba:

Untrue - I think, although I welcome correction.

The travel restriction restricts obtaining visas via the Cuban government.  It is currently illegal for me to obtain a Cuban tourist visa because I'd have to buy it.  As such, it would be illegal under "Cuban Asset Control Regulations."  

You cited this section, but I think you misread it.  Reread.  

Not travel - transactions.  

Obtaining a Cuban visa is currently a restricted transaction.  In fact, the restriction on spending money in Cuba is the backbone of the travel restriction (http://wikitravel.org/en/Americans_in_Cuba):

"Although the government of Cuba permits U.S. citizens to visit, the U.S. itself restricts its citizens from travelling there, except with a license issued by the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control [1]. The specific restriction is against spending money in Cuba, however U.S. authorities consider any visit of more than one day to be prima facie proof that one has spent money there. Furthermore, OFAC also holds that U.S. citizens also may not receive goods or services for free from any Cuban national, eliminating any attempts to circumvent the regulation based on that premise."

That is from a wiki, so here's another card from the Office of the Treasury:
http://www.treas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/programs/cuba/cuba.pdf

"Unauthorized travelers may not purchase meals, pay for transportation, lodging, dockage or mooring fees, cruising fees, visas, or entry or exit fees."

More cards available on request.

b. As noted, there's also the aff that removes restrictions on dual citizenship - for US citizens.  Although several Supreme Court decisions make this a little murky, I promise there's an aff in there that's topical while skirting the actual *immigration inflow* debate.

c. There's no disad to these mods.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2010, 02:38:55 PM by antonucci23 » Logged
David Glass
Newbie
*
Posts: 6


« Reply #32 on: June 02, 2010, 02:48:34 PM »


Exactly - the restriction is on travel; and spending money, not obtaining visas.

So the rez is not relevant to this... 


However if I am wrong you can always simply amend the wording to be "United States visas" instead of "visas".
No harm in that.
Logged
antonucci23
Full Member
***
Posts: 138


« Reply #33 on: June 02, 2010, 02:52:52 PM »

You have to buy your visa:

"Unauthorized travelers may not purchase...visas, or entry or exit fees."

Buying a visa is spending money.  The United States restricts tourist visas.  You may not purchase a Cuban visa according to a US restriction.

There's also the US dual/multiple citizenship aff. 

My larger point:

Dear Committees,

When crafting your resolutions, please carefully examine said resolutions to make sure they do not accidentally include emigration - unless you feel we should debate emigration.

Love,
Michael
« Last Edit: June 02, 2010, 02:58:30 PM by antonucci23 » Logged
David Glass
Newbie
*
Posts: 6


« Reply #34 on: June 02, 2010, 03:01:10 PM »


Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially reduce its restrictions on one or more of the following: obtaining United States visas; establishing legal permanent United States residence; obtaining United States citizenship; obtaining asylum in the United States.
Logged
anon1384
Newbie
*
Posts: 5


« Reply #35 on: June 02, 2010, 04:59:28 PM »


Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially reduce its restrictions on one or more of the following: obtaining United States visas; establishing legal permanent United States residence; obtaining United States citizenship; obtaining asylum in the United States.

im sure this concern has already been mentioned, but how does this type of resolution (w/o the word immigration or some variation) restrict AFF's that reform non-immigrant related programs? Here's a few examples of what i mean:

-lift the fee for printing new birth certificates for otherwise completely naturalized newborns (obtaining US citizenship)
-increase the number of batered women's shelters (see definitions of asylum that include non-interstate travel, particular "benevolent" or "destitute" asylum)
-give more discretional visas to US companies

im sure theres a perfectly reasonable explanation, but i havent been keeping up
Logged
antonucci23
Full Member
***
Posts: 138


« Reply #36 on: June 02, 2010, 07:20:51 PM »

Anonymity = lame.  That said:

-lift the fee for printing new birth certificates for otherwise completely naturalized newborns (obtaining US citizenship)

I'm pretty sure that, under the Fourteenth Amendment, citizenship is conferred upon birth.  A birth certificate provides a record of citizenship, but does not establish it.  What am I missing?

I'd be more concerned about goofy affs that remove restrictions upon the legal category of personhood, which limits the scope of citizenship.  You know, like corporations and monkeys. 

That would be an easy fix by including the phrase "by foreign nationals."  The acquisition of US citizenship by foreign nationals?  Awkward, but...monkeys.

-increase the number of batered women's shelters (see definitions of asylum that include non-interstate travel, particular "benevolent" or "destitute" asylum)
-give more discretional visas to US companies

im sure theres a perfectly reasonable explanation, but i havent been keeping up

Can you attach some links?  I couldn't even find Google hits for "discretional visas."  I found more for "discretionary visas" - but those do seem to be granted to foreign nationals.  What do you mean here?  You clearly know something we don't.

Asylum may need clarification.
Logged
anon1384
Newbie
*
Posts: 5


« Reply #37 on: June 03, 2010, 02:58:07 PM »

you = lame. that said:

i totally agree a phrase like "foreign nationals" or "immigrants" is a good idea to be included. in fact, thats the argument i was making

prima fascia evidence is critical to establishing citizenship
babies without that evidence may be citizens in concept, but without legal record, they cannot be confirmed as such by the US govenrment
is it a good aff? no. does it meet is topical burden to be "substantial"? no.
but i tend to think substantially fails to really exclude these micro-affs. who needs real advantage ground when you dont link to anything in the NEG's tub because you arent an immigration aff? your argument about the 14th amendment is true, but doesnt disprove that birthcertificate fees are a civil documentation.


discretionary was my word for these kinds of visas, but i think it still applies as a synonym for when H1Bs are given to american companies at their discretion rather than directly to the immigrants or programs that distribute them within the source nation. if that program doesnt currently exist, it only means it has inherency. the problem with this aff isnt huge, but its entirely FX topical because it relies on the companies to send out more visas instead of the government. <insert FX T bad block>

"reduce restrictions on asylum in the US" doesnt restrict non-immigrant asylum programs. can count as a homeless shelter, batered women, orphans or even actual asylums (mental health). give me a reason why the topic posted above my original post restricts any these. im not doubting anyones thought of this, im just curious

from online dictionary
asylum(n.) -
1.A place of safety
2.The protection, physical and legal, afforded by such a place.
3.A place of protection or restraint for one or more classes of the disadvantaged, especially the mentally ill. shelter
Logged
David Glass
Newbie
*
Posts: 6


« Reply #38 on: June 03, 2010, 05:03:47 PM »


Asylum might be redundant in the resolution, because asylum status is granted as a type of visa, it seems.  However, during that process, an applicant would likely try to get temporary protected status... but even that could be seen as part of the visa application process.  Still, if one wants to call out asylum independently, and make sure the wording limits out battered women and the like:

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially reduce its restrictions on one or more of the following: obtaining United States visas; establishing legal permanent United States residence; obtaining United States citizenship; obtaining asylum by filing to the United States Citizen and Immigration  Services or the Executive Office for Immigration Review. 

but I'd prefer this: 

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially reduce its restrictions on one or more of the following: obtaining United States visas; establishing legal permanent United States residence; obtaining United States citizenship.

Logged
anon1384
Newbie
*
Posts: 5


« Reply #39 on: June 03, 2010, 06:34:34 PM »

another example i just thought of

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially reduce its restrictions on ... establishing legal permanent United States residence

how can this restrict out
Plan - The USFG should lower property taxes on families looking to purchase homes

by any technical definiton, property taxes are a "restriction on establishing legal permanent United States residence"

am i overlooking some aspect that limits these AFFs? i still dont understand why my crappy examples arent topical without a modifier like "restrictions on immigration"
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]
  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!