Changes for page Loyola Namkung Aff

Last modified by Administrator on 2017/08/29 03:37

From version < 11.1 >
edited by Joseph Namkung
on 2016/11/20 15:57
To version < 49.1 >
edited by Luis Arbelaez
on 2017/02/13 03:30
< >
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Page properties
Author
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1 -XWiki.josephnamkung@lhslaorg
1 +XWiki.luisarbelaez@lhslaorg
Caselist.CitesClass[0]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Feel free to contact me through Facebook or through email: josephnamkung@lhsla.org
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2016-11-19 02:58:44.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -NA
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -NA
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -1
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -1
Team
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Loyola Namkung Aff
Title
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Disclosure Information
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Glenbrooks
Caselist.CitesClass[1]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,104 +1,0 @@
1 -Don’t Tread on Me AC
2 -Inherency
3 -US Border Patrol is out of control. Border agents abuse their power and refuse to follow legal procedures. Turck ’15.
4 -Mary Turck “US Border Patrol is out of control” April 1, 2015 2:00AM ET. http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/4/us-border-patrol-is-out-of-control.html
5 -On March 20, the Michigan Attorney General's Public Integrity Unit charged two U.S. Border Patrol agents with theft and misconduct while on duty. The two agents allegedly stole from a home while executing an agency-authorized search warrant. The case exemplifies the type of unchecked abuse and corruption that has become so rampant within the U.S. Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
6 -From 2010 to 2014 CBP agents shot and killed 28 people. Other charges against CBP agents included drug trafficking, theft, assaults, kidnapping and rape. Investigative reports from multiple sources paint a picture of a law enforcement agency that is out of control. Even worse, most of its victims are people who cannot fight back — undocumented immigrants and refugees with limited or no access to U.S. courts.
7 -Report after report recounts tales of unchecked abuse of power. Agents frequently respond to cross-border rock throwing with deadly force. Sometimes CBP officers step into the path of moving cars to justify shooting the drivers as a “response to deadly force.” The agency has refused to ban either practice, disregarding recommendations from a report that it commissioned. Other kinds of corruption also plague the agency. A 2011 internal study by the CBP found that the agency’s disciplinary system “does not foster timely discipline or exoneration.”
8 -The story of failure traces back to 2001. After 9/11, any legislation to protect U.S. borders sailed through Congress. Need more agents? Done. More money? Done. Lawmakers were eager to support border enforcement. In 2003, they merged the previously understaffed Border Patrol with Customs enforcement and Department of Agriculture inspectors to create the CBP. The new agency now has more than 60,000 employees, a $12.4 billion annual budget and a reputation for corruption and abuse. On average, at least one agent is arrested daily for misconduct, according to Politico Magazine’s Garrett M. Graff.
9 -What happened was predictable. But no one bothered to consult law enforcement experts. Effective law enforcement requires high standards, careful screening of candidates for criminal backgrounds and for psychological fitness, and intensive training by experienced officers. The rush to fill a lot of vacant positions meant inadequate screening and skimping on training.
10 -“Illegal entry is now less than a third of what it was in the year 2000, and it’s at its lowest level since the 1970s,” Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson said in October. The estimated number of undocumented immigrants in the United States has dropped by more than a million since 2006. Yet throwing money at CBP remains a way for Congress to boast of protecting borders and getting tough on immigration. The agency continues to grow, with 2,000 new jobs listed in 2014.
11 -“From an integrity issue, you can’t grow a law enforcement agency that quickly,” Robert Bonner, the former federal judge who headed up CBP’s reorganization, told Politico last year. Not only did the old Border Patrol more than double in size, it also merged employees from customs, immigration and agricultural inspectors.
12 -CBP’s record on corruption and abuse is appalling. The Center for Investigative Reporting (CIR) has documented cases of excessive force, drug smuggling, theft and numerous other abuses. “Between 5 and 10 percent of border agents and officers are actively corrupt or were at some point in their career,” James F. Tomscheck, the former CBP chief of internal affairs, told CIR in August.
13 -A 2011 CBP internal study of employee integrity questioned whether the problems could be attributed to the surge in hiring, but acknowledged the severity of the problem. The report attributed the spike in cases of abuse to lack of psychological assessments and ethical training for officers.
14 -CBP’s problems start at the top. While Congress was happy to appropriate money for enforcement and more officers, it balked at confirming CBP commissioners, leaving the agency without a confirmed commissioner for five years. The current commissioner, R. Gil Kerlikowske, was confirmed in March 2014. But his authority was undercut from the very beginning.
15 -Graff’s article tells the story of a CBP agent who arrested, kidnapped and raped three women from Honduras, and tried to kill two of them. This happened in March 2014, just days after Kerlikowske’s confirmation. The commissioner’s statement condemning the kidnapping and rape was stalled for two days while he argued with senior CBP officials.
16 -An agent under his command committed a heinous act. When FBI agents approached the suspect’s apartment, where one of the victims was naked and tied to a chair, the CBP agent shot and killed himself. Yet Kerlikowske’s subordinates prevented him from immediately denouncing the crime.
17 -CBP’s defensiveness and disregard for the law appear pervasive. While only a small number of its agents commit violent or criminal acts, indifference to immigrants' legal rights seems to be standard practice across the agency.
18 -Border Patrol agents are required by law to ask whether a person they detain is afraid to return home. If migrants express fear of return, the law requires agents to refer them for a “credible fear” screening by an asylum officer, who can assess eligibility. The law requires referral precisely because CBP agents are not qualified to make eligibility determinations.
19 -In case after case, migrants report that CBP agents refused to allow them to tell their stories to an asylum officer. Instead, they tell people fleeing gang violence, rape and persecution that they have no rights.
20 -From excessive force and shootings to peremptory denial of access to asylum, the CBP violates the laws it is charged with upholding. Reform is imperative. It should begin with implementation of the recommendations of the 2013 study conducted by the Police Executive Research Forum, ranging from training to prohibition of use of deadly force unless officers’ lives are actually threatened.
21 -Death and suffering on the border is increasing with each passing day. Johnson 07
22 -Dean and Mabie-Apallas, Professor of Public Interest Law and Chicana/o Studies, “Opening the Floodgates”, New York University Publication)
23 -As of March 2006, the CRLAF California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation attributed more than 3,000 deaths to a single southern California border operation known as Operation Gatekeeper.97 Numerous other operations have been put into place in the U.S.-Mexico border region. All have had similar deadly impacts. Despite the death toll, the U.S. government continues to pursue enforcement operations with great vigor. Indeed, Congress consistently enacts proposals designed to bolster border enforcement, with such proposals often representing the only items of political consensus when it comes to immigration reform. Operation Gatekeeper demonstrates the U.S. government’s callous indifference to the human suffering caused by its aggressive border enforcement policy. In the words of one informed commentator, “the real tragedy of Operation Gatekeeper . . . is the direct link . . . to the staggering rise in the number of deaths among border crossers. The U.S. government has forced these crossers to attempt entry in areas plagued by extreme weather conditions and rugged terrain that the U.S. government knows to present mortal danger.”98 In planning Operation Gatekeeper, the U.S. government knew that its strategy would risk many lives but proceeded nonetheless. As another observer concludes, “Operation Gatekeeper, as an enforcement immigration policy financed and politically supported by the U.S. government, flagrantly violates international human rights because this policy was deliberately formulated to maximize the physical risks of Mexican migrant workers, thereby ensuring that hundreds of them would die.”99 Apparently, the government and rationalized the deaths of migrants as collateral damage in the “war” on illegal immigration. Even before the 1990s, the Border Patrol had a reputation for committing human rights abuses against immigrants and U.S. citizens of Mexican ancestry.100 Created to police the U.S.-Mexican border, the Border Patrol has historically been plagued by reports of brutality, shootings, beatings, and killings.101 Amnesty International, American Friends Service Committee, and Human Rights Watch have all issued reports documenting recent human rights abuses by the
24 -
25 -
26 -
27 -Plan
28 -Plan text: The Supreme Court of the United States will overturn the Fifth Circuit Court's decision on Hernandez v. Mesa
29 -Krent and Revesz 15
30 -Krent, Stephanie and Revesz, Joshua as Counsel for Pelinttitioner. (Both are J.D. candidates for Yale Law School) “Morris Tyler Moot Court of Appeals at Yale JESUS C. HERNANDEZ, ET AL. Petitioners, v. JESUS MESA, JR. Respondent” ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT BRIEF FOR PETITIONERS.November 2015, https://www.law.yale.edu/system/files/brief_3.pdf BS
31 -Considering the Fourth Amendment’s extraterritoriality in light of Boumediene reveals¶ that Mesa’s use of excessive force across the Paso Del Norte border is subject to the Fourth¶ Amendment’s reasonableness requirement. Hernández seeks the protection of a fundamental¶right, the freedom from unlawful restraint. His status as a civilian and his connection to the El¶ Paso-Juárez community similarly weigh in favor of extraterritoriality. The United States has¶exertedcontinuous, substantial control both overthe locationin El Paso where Mesa firedhis¶ weapon, and in the Rio Grande culvert where Hernández died. This case involves no national¶security concerns, and foreign relations with Mexico would be improved, not hurt, by application¶ of the Fourth Amendment to Mesa’s actions. For these reasons, the Court should reverse the¶Fifth Circuit and apply the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness standard to Mesa’sactions.
32 -Solvency
33 -Qualified immunity protects corrupt, murderous border patrol agents. Eslinger15
34 -Eslinger, Bonnie. "Family Of Mexican Teen Slain By US Border Agent Seeks Cert." Law360. 24 Jul 2015. Web. 1 Nov 2016. DMK
35 -Law360, Los Angeles (July 24, 2015, 4:54 PM EDT) ~-~- The family of a Mexican teenager fatally shot in Mexico by an American border patrol agent standing across the U.S. border is urging the U.S. Supreme Court to review a Fifth Circuit decision holding that the agent had qualified immunity and couldn’t be sued. The family of Sergio Adrian Hernandez Guereca filed the cert petition Thursday, asking the court to overturn the Fifth Circuit’s April rulingthat it couldn’t sue under the Fourth Amendment because Hernandez was a Mexican citizen, on Mexican soil and had no “significant voluntary connection” to the U.S. The court found that the border patrol agent’s actions did not violate Hernandez’s Fifth Amendment due process rights but agreed with Hernandez’ family that any right he had as a foreign national would not have been clear to the federal agent at the time of the shooting. Robert C. Hilliard, an attorney for the Hernandez family, told Law360 on Friday that the time was right for the high court to weigh in on the issue because rulings in federal courts on border patrol shootings in various states have differed. If Hernandez had been an American teen, the border patrol agent, Jesus Mesa Jr., would not be immune from civil suit, Hilliard said. “The Supreme Court has got to put this to rest,” Hilliard said. “Anywhere a law enforcement officer wrongly shoots an individual, that individual should have a constitutionally protected right to pursue civil remedies.” A functionalist rather than formalist approach should govern the extraterritorial application of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unjustified deadly force, the lawyers argued in the July 23 petition. “May qualified immunity be granted or denied based on facts — such as the victim’s legal status — unknown to the officer at the time of the incident?” the petition states. While standing in Texas, Mesa shot the unarmed Hernandez twice in June 2010 after detaining one of Hernandez’s friends near the border fence. Mesa had claimed someone from the Mexican side of the border threw rocks at him. In a series of cases, the family filed suits against Mesa, his supervisors and the U.S. government, claiming assault, negligence and use of excessive force. According to the petition, the Supreme Court’s Boumediene v. Bush decision, which found detainees at Guantanamo Bay have a constitutional right to habeas corpus, applied to Hernandez’s situation and showed the teen’s rights were violated, the first part of a test to determine qualified immunity. The Fifth Circuit held that the Boumediene case was limited to its specific factual circumstances. “If left standing, the Fifth Circuit’s decision will create a unique no-man’s land — a law-free zone in which U.S. agents can kill innocent civilians with impunity,” the petition states. Representatives for the government and Mesa could not be reached Friday for comment. Hernandez’s family is represented by Steve D. Shadowen of Hilliard andShadowen LLP, Robert C. Hilliard of Hilliard Munoz Gonzales LLP and Cristobal M. Galindo PC. The government is represented by Acting Assistant Attorney General Joyce R. Branda, Acting U.S. Attorney Richard L. Durbin Jr. and Civil Division attorneys Mark B. Stern and Henry C. Whitaker. Mesa is represented by Randolph J. Ortega and Louis E. Lopez Jr. of Ortega McGlashan Perez and Hicks PLLC. The cases are Jesus C. Hernandez et al. v. United States of America, case number 11-50792, Jesus C. Hernandez et al. v. Jesus Mesa Jr., case number 12-50217, and Jesus C. Hernandez et al. v. Ramiro Cordero et al., case number 12-50301, in the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Fifth Circuit.
36 -Overturning Mesa v. Hernandez is key to holding border patrol agents accountable.
37 -Wells 15
38 -Wells, Marc. (Wells is contributor for WSWB)"World Socialist Web Site." US Appeals Court Grants Immunity to Border Patrol Agent Who Killed Mexican Teenager -.N.p., 1 May 2015. Web. 03 Nov. 2016. https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/05/01/immi-m01.html. DMK
39 -The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit unanimously granted“qualifiedimmunity” last Friday to a border patrol agent standing on US territory who shot an unarmed 15-year-old boy in the face near the Mexican border. The ruling further erodes basic constitutional rights and strengthens the arbitrary powers of the police, especially at the border.¶ The lawsuit arose from the shooting of a 15-year-old Mexican boy, Sergio Adrián Hernández Güereca, on June 7, 2010, near the Paso del Norte Bridge in Texas. According to Sergio’s parents, the boy was playing with his friends running up and down a cement culvert standing between the US and Mexico when agent Jesus Mesa Jr. arrived on the scene and detained one of Sergio’s friends.¶ As the boy retreated beneath the pillars of the Paso del Norte Bridge to observe, agent Mesa fired two shots, one of which struck Sergio in the face. Agent Mesa alleged that he responded to the boy throwing rocks.¶ The officer was not charged with murder or any other crime. Instead, as is common practice in American law enforcement agencies, the officer received paid administrative leave (i.e., a paid vacation) before he resumed his normal duties.¶ Last Friday’s ruling affirms most of a previous decision last June by a three-judge panel of the court. The plaintiffs had filed the lawsuit alleging, among other things, that the shooting violated Sergio’s Fourth Amendment right not to be subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures, including excessive force, as well as his and Fifth Amendment right not to bedeprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Both amendments are part of the Bill of Rights.¶ The Obama administration vigorously defended the border patrol agent, asserting that he was entitled to “qualified immunity.” The government’s position exposes the true content of its immigration policy. While Obama postures as sympathetic to the plight of immigrants, his government treats them with contempt—as “aliens” with absolutely no rights, not even the right to live.¶ The unanimous decision by the Fifth Circuit was the culmination of five years of litigation by the victim’s parents. The Fifth Circuit held that the plaintiffs “fail to allege a violation of the Fourth Amendment.” According to the ruling, Sergio “had no ‘significant voluntary connection’ to the United States.” Moreover, he “was on Mexican soil at the time he was shot,” and therefore “cannot assert a claim under the Fourth Amendment.”¶ The Fifth Circuit also held that the plaintiffs could not sue under the Alien Tort Statute, a section of US Code that has traditionally allowed foreign citizens to seek remedy in US courts in cases of human rights violations occurring outside the US, because the US did not “consent” to be sued.¶ Finally, although the court was split on whether agent Mesa’s conduct might violate the Fifth Amendment, it ruled that “the Fifth Amendment right asserted by the plaintiffs was not clearly established at the time of the complained-of incident,” since “the person injured by a US official standing on US soil is an alien who had no significant voluntary connection to, and was not in, the United States when the incident occurred.”¶Since the right was allegedly not “clearly established,” the Fifth Circuit ruled that the agent was entitled to “qualified immunity.” Qualified immunity is a reactionary and pseudo-legal doctrine that has no basis in the Constitution. However, it is increasingly being used throughout the judiciary to shield killer cops from legal accountability.¶ In this case, the invocation of “qualified immunity” is absurd on its face. The Fifth Amendment, which has been the supreme law of the United States since 1791, is perfectly clear. It provides that no person “shall be deprived of life … without due process of law.”¶ The deadly implication of the Fifth Circuit’s ruling is that it is no longer “clearly established” that US border patrol agents cannot open fire on unarmed children on the Mexican side of the border. Instead, with respect to shootings at the border, the decision practically proclaims that it is “open season.”¶A year ago, the American Civil Liberties Union reported that since 2010, at least 28 civilians “died following an encounter with US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) personnel.” All but one died as the result of the use of force. Around a third of the victims were children.¶ In 2012, 16-year-old Jose Antonio Elena Rodriguez met his brother for a snack in Nogales, Sonora, Mexico, near the border when he was killed by CBP agents. Ten bullets entered the back of his head, eight bullets struck him as he was already on the ground and two of the agents were alleged to have shot at least 14 times.¶ No charges were filed and no explanation was given for such a horrific and barbaric event, except a perfunctory explanation that children were throwing rocks behind a 60-foot tall fence.¶In the context of an intensified persecution and criminalization of undocumented immigrants, the Fifth Circuit’s ruling marks a further step in the escalation of authoritarian measures aimed at dismantling democratic rule.
40 -Aff would eliminate qualified immunity for border patrol agents and allow people a way to seek compensation through civil suits
41 -Kennis 16
42 -Kennis, Andrew. (Assistant Professor of Journalism at The University of Texas at El Paso) "Supreme Court to Decide Fate of Case That Challenges Cross-Border Killings by US Agents | VICE News." VICE News RSS.N.p., 30 Mar. 2016. Web. 06 Nov. 2016. https://news.vice.com/article/supreme-court-cross-border-killing-patrol-agent-usa-mexico. BS
43 -One of the cases, the shooting of the 15-year-old boy, led to a lawsuit— Hernández v. Mesa — that is now before the US Supreme Court, which is due to decide by April 1 whether to postpone the case, fully consider it, or throw it out altogether. At the same time, several other cases are moving through the courts, including another civil suit that is similar to the one being considered by the Supreme Court and the first criminal case ever to be prosecuted for a cross-border shooting.¶ If the Supreme Court either rejects the case, or if it upholds the last appellate court ruling in the government's favor, Mexican families will not have the right to sue the government for civil rights violations of deceased relatives who have been victims of cross-border killings at the hands of Border Patrol agents.¶ However, if Mexican families win either or both of the civil cases, they will gain Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights, including the chance to sue Border Patrol agents who kill or seriously injure their family members. Thiscould result incompensatory damages via the constitutional and civil rights they will have gained.¶ The Hernández v. Mesa case got to the Supreme Court after the notoriously conservative Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over all of Texas and many border areas, ruled against the families. The government argues that this is a case where "qualified immunity" applies to the agent responsible for the shooting. This means that in order to successfully sue a government official, you have to show a violation of clearly established law. The Fifth Circuit agreed, reasoning that it is not clearly established by law that the US Constitution applies to a Mexican national killed in Mexico.¶ ¶ Lawyers representing the families argue that this argument circumvents the obvious.¶ "You don't need a court decision to say that it is wrong to kill an unarmed 15-year-old boy," says Steve Shadowen, one of the lawyers representing the Hernández family.¶ "It's common sense and decency that you get judicial review when it comes to police killings of unarmed children," he added.¶Shadowen also stressed that at the time Hernández was shot, the officer didn't know whether the boy was a US or a Mexican national.
44 -
45 -
46 -
47 -
48 -
49 -
50 -Impacts
51 -
52 -Nativism
53 -QI reinforces territorial notions of sovereign control that cause nativism. Moore and Moore 14
54 -
55 -Moore, Guinevere E., and Robert T. Moore. "Extraterritorial Application of the Fifth Amendment: A Need for Expanded Constitutional Protections, The." . Mary's LJ 46 (2014): 1.
56 -There exists an almost universal acceptance that when there is a deprivation of life, even by state actors who were acting within their official capacity, there must be an effective remedy.179 Here, the only effective remedy is the ability to bring suit before a U.S. federal court, as that is the only court that would have jurisdiction over all of the parties.180 If the United States will not allow for such an action to be brought, then it denies the check on governmental power that the Constitution provides, and the United States violates its duty at international law.181 Furthermore, if the United States refuses extradition, then the United States is also in violation of the principle of aut dedere, aut iudicare, which is a state’s duty under international law to either give the individual up for extradition or try the individual itself.182 Guilt or innocence of the agent is irrelevant at this point as that is for a jury to decide.183 First, however, the parties have to be able to bring the matter before a competent domestic court. That right to have adequate due process is enshrined in the Constitution and is now accepted widely at international law.184 If the United States denies that right to due process in this instance, it will pave the way for the U.S.–Mexico border to become a place where the government acts without legal constraint—the very thing that Justice Kennedy warned of in Boumediene. 185 It will also set a dangerous precedent at international law, where states may act as they choose and potentially violate fundamental human rights with impunity so long as the violation occurs in a territory that is not under sovereign control of the state.186
57 -The difference between police officers and border patrol is tied to the idea of borders. MyPursuit ’16.
58 -MyPursuit. "The Differences Between a Border Patrol and a Police Officer Career." MyPursuit.n.d. Web. 1 Nov 2016.
59 -Since quite some time, when humans started living in bordered communities, the need to safeguard the territories has been recognized and practiced by many people. Various forms of land safety and guard have been opted for and some of them have been very successful. These days, most countries rely on Border Security Force to protect their boundaries and Border Patrol to monitor these boundaries. Border Patrol is the uniformed common law enforcement arm of the security forces, responsible for patrolling the international land borders and coastal waters. They resist illegal entries and smuggling across the border. Members of this force work 24 hours in all conditions of land and weather. The primary requirement to be a member of the Border Force is to be a recognized citizen of the country. The person involved in any criminal act is not eligible to join this force. He also ought to have a driver’s license at the time of appointment and be less than 40 years of age. Along with written examination and interview, the candidate also undergoes medical examination, drug testing and physical fitness tests. His background is also thoroughly investigated. On selection, new member is hired at various levels depending upon his academic qualification and experience. His salary is equal to any other Federal Law Enforcement Personnel, ranging from $36,000 to $47,000. There is also an opportunity to earn overtime pay. A uniform allowance of up to $1500 is also permissible under the law. Other constituents of the package accorded to him include life insurance, health insurance, liberal retirement benefits and a thrift savings plan. Border Patrol is responsible for the safety of the borders, but within borders, Police Officers safeguard the citizens. In contrast to border patrol officers, the police officers may be employed by the Federal, state or municipal government and is responsible for enforcing federal and state laws along with municipal ordinances. They also help maintain peace in the community by keeping a check on anti-social elements. A uniformed pro-active patrolling within the jurisdiction helps them control criminal activity and attend public calls for service. They keep a documented record of their activities. The duties of a police officer are not limited to those mentioned above.
60 -Geography is socially constructed, and reinforces nativism.
61 -Tuathail 1998 -Department of Geography,Virginia Polytechnic Institute Gearóid Ó Re-Thinking Geopolitics: Towards a Critical Geopolitics. Introductory chapter co-authored with Simon Dalby to Rethinking Geopolitics, Routledge, 1-15.
62 -
63 -Critical geopolitics bears witness to the irredeemable plurality of space and the multiplicity of possible political constructions of space. Thus, and this is the second argument characterizing critical geopolitics, it pays particular attention to the boundary-drawing practices and performances that characterize the everyday life of states. In contrast to conventional geography and geopolitics, both the material borders at the edge of the state and the conceptual borders designating this as a boundarybetween a secure inside and an anarchic outside are objects of investigation. Critical geopolitics is not about 'the outside' of the state but about the very construction of boundaries of 'inside' and 'outside,' 'here' and 'there,' the 'domestic' and the 'foreign' (Walker 1993). As Campbell (1992) has argued, the study of foreign policy involves more than the study of conventional inter-state relations. States are not prior to the inter-state system but perpetually constituted by their performances in relationship to an outside against which they define themselves. Foreign policy involves the making of the 'foreign' as an identity and space against which a domestic self is evoked and realized. "The construction of the 'foreign' is made possible by practices that also constitute the 'domestic.' In other words, foreign policy is a 'specific sort of boundary-producing political performance'" (Campbell 1992, 69 quoting Ashley; original emphasis). In describing the struggle between the Soviet Union and the United States as "not simply geopolitical" Campbell (1992, 26) himself does not radicalize the notion of geopolitics but his argument implicitly suggests how territorial geopolitics is contextualized and sustained by a more pervasive cultural geo-politics, in other words (following Campbell's 1992, 76 capitalized distinction between "foreign policy" and "Foreign Policy") that a primary and pervasive foreign policy geo-politics makes the secondary, specialist and conventionally understood Foreign Policy Geopolitics of elites possible.
64 -Nativism drives racism. Alcoff
65 -Alcoff, Linda Martin. (a philosopher at the City University of New York who specializes in epistemology, feminism, race theory and existentialism.) "LATINOS BEYOND THE BINARY." Alcoff.com. n.d. Web. 2 Nov 2016.
66 -The discrimination against Latinos (among others, especially Asian Americans and now Arab and Muslim Americans) has also operated very strongly on the basis of nativism. We might think of nativism as a fourth axis of racism that targets immigrants. Nativism is distinct, though often related to, a general xenophobia, ethnic chauvinism or dislike of foreigners because it adds a racialized construction of the group in question as inassimilabledue to inherent characteristics. Thus, in the U.S. today there is ethnic chauvinism against numerous groups, but not all of these experience racialization. Consider the French, who have been the target of a publicly sanctioned derogation that is not based on attributions of innate inferiority. All immigrant groups are not racialized in the sense of universalizing negative values onto a group that is demarcated on the basis of visible features, nor subject to the essentializing of their cultural characteristics as static. Russian and Eastern European immigrants are not the targets of random identity-based violence or national scapegoating to "explain" economic downturns. European immigrants are not tagged as inassimilable cultural inferiors nor is their difference racialized in the way that some Latinos, Arabs, and Asian Americans experience. Thus nativism today takes a decidedly racialized form, different from earlier periods in U.S. history when, for example, German immigrants were shunned, German street names were changed, and frankfurters were renamed hot dogs. The target of nativism today is a racialized other who threatens the imaginary identity of the U.S. nation to an extent no European culture probably can, given that that imaginary identity is centrally European based. A cultural amalgamation of European and Latin elements that might occur naturally as Latino numbers in the U.S. rise strikes many people with horror.8 Nativism's racialized attributions encourages people to turn a blind eye to the injustices that happen to "non-Native" peoples, such as those profiled as terrorists or those standing on the corner day-labor meat markets or those trying to cross borders. It puts non-native groups outside the pale of peer group conventions of tolerance, respect and civil rights. On this view, the problem with Latinosis not just that they are seen as foreign but that their cultural background makes them ineluctably foreign, both incapable of and unmotivated toward assimilation to the superior, mainstream, white Anglo culture. Debates over bilingualism thus invoke the specter of a concerted resistance to assimilation rather than language rights, and the public celebration of nationally specific holidays, such as "Puerto Rican Day" or Mexican Independence Day, and even the presence of ethnic-specific cuisines can come to signify a threat to the imagined community of Anglo nationalism. Despite the fact that Mexican-Americans have been living within the current U.S. borders for longer than most Anglo-Americans, they are all too often seen as squatters on U.S. soil, interlopers who "belong" elsewhere. This has nothing to do with claims to native inclusion and everything to do with cultural racism.9 Anti-Latino racism mobilizes very specific narratives involving history and culture as well as accounts of racial hierarchies and the effects of race-mixing to portray all Latinos negatively. Thus, the color axis is only one of the axes that need to be understood as pivotal in racist ideologies. Racism can and has operated through a variety of physical features, cultural characteristics and origins, and status as "native" or "non-native" to exclude groups from engendering empathic identification, or from deserving social inclusion and political representation. These multiple axes produce a mechanism for the classification and delimitation of subsets of people that then justifies discrimination and exclusion. Numerous groups experience more than one axis of racism, including African Americans who are derided for a variety of physical features as well as geographical origin. But my argument in this section as been that to understand anti-Latino racism we especially need an attentiveness to these multiple axes, since all four come into play against Latinos. Thus, we need an expanded analysis of racism and an attentiveness to the specific forms it can take in regard to different groups, rather than continuing to accept the idea that it operates in basically one way, with one axis, that is differentially distributed among various groups. In its over-simplification of racisms, the black-white binary inhibits our ability to accurately describe and understand current social realities, in some cases eclipsing the severity as well as the complexity of the problem. And any foreshortened understanding of the problems reduces the possibility of effective solutions as well as the possibility of making common cause.
67 -You have an apriori obligation to resist racism. It comes precludes and outweighs all other impacts.
68 -Memmi 2k Albert (Profesor Emeritus of Sociology at the University of Paris) RACISM translated by Steve Martinot pp. 163-165
69 -The struggle against racism will be long, difficult, without intermission, without remission, probably never achieved, yet for this very reason, it is a struggle to be undertaken without surcease and without concessions. One cannot be indulgent toward racism. One cannot even let the monster in the house, especially not in a mask. To give it merely a foothold means to augment the bestial part in us and in other people which is to diminish what is human. To accept the racist universe to the slightest degree is to endorse fear, injustice, and violence. It is to accept the persistence of the dark history in which we still largely live. It is to agree that the outsider will always be a possible victim (and which person man is not themself himself an outsider relative to someone else?). Racism illustrates in sum, the inevitable negativity of the condition of the dominated; that is it illuminates in a certain sense the entire human condition. The anti-racist struggle, difficult though it is, and always in question, is nevertheless one of the prologues to the ultimate passage from animality to humanity. In that sense, we cannot fail to rise to the racist challenge. However, it remains true that one’s moral conduct only emerges from a choice: one has to want it. It is a choice among other choices, and always debatable in its foundations and its consequences. Let us say, broadly speaking, that the choice to conduct oneself morally is the condition for the establishment of a human order for which racism is the very negation. This is almost a redundancy. One cannot found a moral order, let alone a legislative order, on racism because racism signifies the exclusion of the other and his or her subjection to violence and domination. From an ethical point of view, if one can deploy a little religious language, racism is “the truly capital sin.”fn22 It is not an accident that almost all of humanity’s spiritual traditions counsel respect for the weak, for orphans, widows, or strangers. It is not just a question of theoretical counsel respect for the weak, for orphans, widows or strangers. It is not just a question of theoretical morality and disinterested commandments. Such unanimity in the safeguarding of the other suggests the real utility of such sentiments. All things considered, we have an interest in banishing injustice, because injustice engenders violence and death. Of course, this is debatable. There are those who think that if one is strong enough, the assault on and oppression of others is permissible. But no one is ever sure of remaining the strongest. One day, perhaps, the roles will be reversed. All unjust society contains within itself the seeds of its own death. It is probably smarter to treat others with respect so that they treat you with respect. “Recall,” says the bible, “that you were once a stranger in Egypt,” which means both that you ought to respect the stranger because you were a stranger yourself and that you risk becoming once again someday. It is an ethical and a practical appeal – indeed, it is a contract, however implicit it might be. In short, the refusal of racism is the condition for all theoretical and practical morality. Because, in the end, the ethical choice commands the political choice. A just society must be a society accepted by all. If this contractual principle is not accepted, then only conflict, violence, and destruction will be our lot. If it is accepted, we can hope someday to live in peace. True, it is a wager, but the stakes are irresistible.
70 -
71 -Econ
72 -Aff would strengthen relations with Mexico
73 -Krent and Revesz 15
74 -Krent, Stephanie and Revesz, Joshua as Counsel for Pelinttitioner. (Both are J.D. candidates for Yale Law School) “Morris Tyler Moot Court of Appeals at Yale JESUS C. HERNANDEZ, ET AL. Petitioners, v. JESUS MESA, JR. Respondent” ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT BRIEF FOR PETITIONERS. November 2015, https://www.law.yale.edu/system/files/brief_3.pdf BS
75 -b. The diplomatic relationship between the United States andMexico further supports¶extraterritorialapplication. In determining the extraterritorial reach of constitutional provisions,¶ this Court has taken caution to avoid upsetting diplomatic relationships. See United States v.¶ Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 278 (1990) (Kennedy, J., concurring) (noting the need to¶ cooperate with Mexican officials). Mesa remained in the United States while he used excessive¶force across the Paso del Norte border, killing Hernández. He remains outside the jurisdiction of¶Mexico; thus his actions, as in Boumediene, “are answerable to no othersovereign.” Hernandez,¶ 757 F.3d at 271 (citing Boumediene, 553 U.S. at 770). Likely for these reasons, Mexico has¶indicated its supportof the extension of the Fourth Amendmentstotheborder zone in this case.¶ See Hernandez, 785 F.3d at 133 (Dennis, J., concurring); see also Swartz, 4:14-CV-02251-RCC,¶ slip op. at 15 (noting same in an excessive force case on the Nogales border zone). To decline application of the Fourth Amendments for practical reasons would undermine the U.S.-Mexico relationship so crucial to maintaining security at the border.¶ Hernández’s status and his connection to the U.S.-controlled Paso del Norte border zone,¶ the importance of the right he seeks to vindicate, and the importance of ensuring strong¶ diplomatic relationships between Mexico and the United States all weigh in favor ofapplication.¶ In short, there is nothing that suggests the Fourth Amendment should not apply to the actions of¶ an American federal officer, standing in the United States, and using unprovoked, excessive¶ force against a foreign national standing in a U.S.-controlled border zone. To the contrary, every ¶ 24¶factorthat this Court has emphasized in determining the reach of fundamental constitutional¶ rights points toward its application. The opinion of the Fifth Circuit should be reversed.
76 -US-Mexico relations are the backbone of the Mexican economy - key to the US and global economies.
77 -Diplomatic Courier 2/24/13 “U.S.-Mexico Relations: Love Thy Neighbor” Global Affairs, http://www.diplomaticourier.com/news/regions/latin-america/1331-us-mexico-relations-love-thy-neighbor
78 -It is not common knowledge that Mexico is the United States’ third largest trading partner, behind Canada and China. Every day, at least a billion dollars of goods flows across the border. Yet, Mexico is frequently negatively caricaturized, primarily with images of migrants illegally crossing the border into the U.S. and stealing U.S. jobs. Instead of viewing Mexico as a valuable partner that can benefit the U.S. in many facets, it is perceived as a liability, a region that cultivates corruption and violence and is the root of the current U.S. immigration ‘problem’ that has spurred controversial rogue measures like Arizona’s SB 1070. In matters of foreign policy, Mexico is an afterthought—our attention and resources are diverted to the Middle East or to grand strategies based on ‘pivoting’ our geopolitical and economical capacity towards Asia. With the U.S. economy performing at a snail-like pace, an emphasis on exports has re-emerged, but the bulk of the exporting narrative revolves around Asia. This is unfortunate, because our neighbor to the south has quietly positioned itself to be the next jewel in the emerging markets portfolio. For example, Market Watch (a Wall Street Journal subsidiary) recently published a bullish article on Mexico with the following headline: “Mexico: Investor’s New China”. The Economist published an opinion piece titled “The Global Mexican: Mexico is open for business”, highlighting Mexican companies that are investing locally and in the U.S. and arguing that Mexico is fertile ground for more investment, especially in the manufacturing sector. And according to The Financial Times, BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) are no longer the flavor of the month; Mexico is now taking over that distinction. In essence, immigration and the drug trade will no longer anchor the relationship between the U.S. and Mexico; instead, economics, finance, trade, and commerce will dictate the terms between the neighboring countries. However, in order to move forward, undoubtedly the elephant in the room must be addressed promptly. Immigration—although the topic is polarizing, it is imperative that President Obama tackles this issue steadfastly and in the most bi-partisan manner possible. It can be seen as one-sided that the onus is on the U.S., while Mexico gets carte blanche in its contradictory policy with their border patrol methods towards Central American migrants entering through Guatemala. True, but when you are world’s super power, not all is fair in love and war. Fortifying borders, beefing up security, creating walls that divide the two countries that mimic uncomfortable parallels between Israel and Palestine should not be the main focus. With the world becoming more flat, the emphasis in tackling the immigration quagmire should be trade and commerce. Engagement, interaction, and the exchange of ideas should be the picture we want to paint. We should not foster the argument that an open border policy and a global business paradigm will compromise American jobs and bite into our distinctive American competitiveness. The reason Mexicans cross the border illegally into the U.S. is because of one desire: opportunity. If Mexico develops a lasting robust economy, Mexicans will no longer desire to come to the U.S. in such droves. According to Nelson Balido, President of the Border Trade Alliance, this already occurring: “Mexico’s economy has, for the most part, weathered the worst of the economic downturn, meaning that more young Mexicans can reasonably seek and find work in their patria rather than heading north.” A strong American economy is extremely favorable for Mexico. Turn the tables a bit, and ponder what it means for the U.S. when a Mexican economy is robust and stable—more export possibilities for the U.S.; more investment from the U.S. to Mexico, and vice versa, creating a win-win situation. Less need for Mexicans to leave their homeland and look for jobs in the U.S. Sounds familiar? The characteristics of many vibrant emerging markets such as China, Indonesia, Brazil, and India, are occurring right next door. Why go East when we can venture South? Or perhaps, approach both simultaneously. According to a Nomura Equity Research report, Mexico in the next decade will surpass Brazil in being Latin America’s largest economy. When comparing Mexico on a GDP per capita basis, Mexico happens to be less developed than Argentina, Chile, and Brazil. This might sound negative, but in actuality it should be music to investors’ ears: more catching up for Mexico, meaning more investment and business activity. Moreover, Mexico’s economy is highly interconnected with the U.S. economy. Currently, Mexico sends almost 80 percent of its exports to the U.S., and roughly 50 percent of its imports are from the U.S. Manufacturing costs in Mexico are once again competitive compared to China. Ten years ago, China’s labor costs were four times cheaper than Mexico, but with labor wages in China inflating, Mexico now has a comparative advantage because its proximity to the U.S. Shipping cargo across the Pacific can be more expensive and arduous, versus trucking cargo from northern Mexico and delivering to Wisconsin in a matter of days. However if the U.S. administration continues to close the borders, the exchange of commerce between Mexico and the U.S. will suffer due to setbacks of just getting goods to cross the border. Luckily, NAFTA is already in place, but both parties (and Canada) can do more to cut red tape and streamline the movement of trade and commerce. Currently, Mexico is entering a perfect demographic storm. It has a young and growing population, which is expected to last for several decades. Mexico is no longer only looking north for economic advancement, as many of their multinational companies, such as Bimbo and Cemex, are currently doing business in Latin America and Spain. Mexico’s stock market is currently in talks to integrate their stock exchange with the MILA group—the established stock exchanges between Colombia, Peru, and Chile. The U.S. must act soon before it arrives at the party too late. It is in the U.S.’s interests to have Mexico think northward first, and then the other regions second, but the opposite is developing. The interconnectedness between both countries strongly conveys why the dialogue should revolve around bilateral trade and commerce agendas. For Mexico, 30 percent of GDP is dependent on exports, and 80 percent of exports are tagged to the U.S. Most importantly, one of ten Mexicans lives in the U.S., accounting for nearly 12 million Mexicans that consider the U.S. their current residence. Add in their descendants, and approximately 33 million Mexicans and Mexican-Americans reside in the U.S. Let’s put this figure in perspective: Venezuela has a population of 29 million; Greece, 11 million; and Canada, 34 million. Essentially we have a ‘country’ within a country—the beauty of America—but it must be embraced instead of shunned or ignored. Economically, it is a plus for Mexico, because there is a market for Mexican products; it is also a plus for the U.S. in many areas, including soft power, diversity, direct linkages to Mexico and Latin America. A cadre of American-born and educated human capital are able to cross cultures into Mexico and Latin America to conduct business and politics. The presidential election emphasized that Latinos in the U.S. are now a vital demographic when concerning local, Congressional, and Presidential elections. It makes practical sense for the U.S. (regardless of political party) to consider Mexico the front door to Central and South America. The most recent U.S. Census discovered that the Latino population in the United States: 1) now tops 50 million; 2) has accounted for more than half of America’s 23.7 million population increase in the last decade; 3) grew by 43 percent in the last decade; and 4) now accounts for about 1 out of 6 Americans. Latinos are now the largest minority group in the United States. These are extraordinary figures that should be leveraged into something positive. President Obama cannot respond by merely paying lip service to the Latino community. Latino voters have overwhelmingly backed President Obama for two elections now, but no favor is done with complete altruism. Surprisingly, during President Obama’s first term, there were 30 percent more deportations than during George W. Bush’s second term. Yet there is hope that President Obama will fix the broken system with a more humane approach, contrary to laws that are being pushed and backed by the Republican Party in Arizona, Georgia, and Alabama. Some may ask—what does this have to do with Mexico, or even Latin America? It is all about messages, and in the next four years the President must use the available tools to solidify relationships with its partners, paving the road for more trade and commerce, which ultimately will further strengthen the U.S. economy. What happens in the U.S. means a lot to many countries, and immigration is perhaps one of the most important matters in Mexico, Central, and South America. The U.S. must first focus on re-branding its relationship with Mexico. President Obama and Mexican President Peña Nieto need to formulate a new agenda between the two countries—one that resonates with the 21st century, linking the two countries economically; where the U.S. can envision Mexico as a vibrant emerging market in its own backyard. Obstacles do exist, like the current Mexican drug war and political corruption. But don’t India and China have corruption problems as well?
79 -Economic decline causes extinction
80 -Kemp 10 Geoffrey, Director of Regional Strategic Programs at The Nixon Center, served in the White House under Ronald Reagan, special assistant to the president for national security affairs and senior director for Near East and South Asian affairs on the National Security Council Staff, Former Director, Middle East Arms Control Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2010, The East Moves West: India, China, and Asia’s Growing Presence in the Middle East, pgs. 233-4
81 -The second scenario, called Mayhem and Chaos, is the opposite of the first scenario; everything that can go wrong does go wrong. Theworld economic situation weakensrather than strengthens, and India, China, and Japan suffer a major reduction in their growth rates, further weakening the global economy. As a result, energy demand falls and the price of fossil fuels plummets, leading to a financial crisis for the energy-producing states, which are forced to cut back dramatically on expansion programs and social welfare. That in turn leads to political unrest: and nurtures different radical groups, including, but not limited to, Islamic extremists. The internal stability of some countries is challenged, and there are more “failed states.” Most serious is the collapse of the democratic government in Pakistan and its takeover by Muslim extremists, who then take possession of a large number of nuclear weapons. The danger of war between India and Pakistan increases significantly. Iran, always worried about an extremist Pakistan, expands and weaponizes its nuclear program. That further enhances nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, with Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt joining Israel and Iran as nuclear states. Under these circumstances, the potential for nuclear terrorism increases, and the possibility of a nuclear terrorist attack in either the Western world or in the oil-producing states may lead to a further devastating collapse of the world economic market, with a tsunami-like impact on stability. In this scenario, major disruptions can be expected, with dire consequences for two-thirds of the planet’s population.
82 -
83 -Framing
84 -The Role of the Ballot is to Resist a Politics of Fear as constructed through Immigration
85 -As “Americans,” we conceal ourselves from global conflict, war, genocide, and violence behind our television screens – we look through one lens to develop a scholarship and “Truth” of what is actually occurring. In this process we subjugate what we are told – we integrate and process this information into our perspectives of the world. Specifically, the U.S.-Mexican border serves to constitute Mexicans as the, “dirty, foreign Other” through a politics of fear – political gestures based on this understanding are the event horizon for politics to come.
86 -Žižek, 07 - Slavoj Žižek is a Slovene philosopher and cultural critic. He is a senior researcher at the Institute for Sociology and Philosophy, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia, and a professor of philosophy and psychoanalysis at the European Graduate School (“Censorship Today: Violence, or ........ Ecology as a New Opium for the Masses”, Nov. 26, 2007, http://www.lacan.com/zizecology1.htm)
87 -Last but not least, new forms of apartheid, new Walls and slums. On September 11th, 2001, the Twin Towers were hit; twelve years earlier, on November 9th, 1989, the Berlin Wall fell. November 9th announced the "happy '90s," the Francis Fukuyama dream of the "end of history," the belief that liberal democracy had, in principle, won, that the search is over, that the advent of a global, liberal world community lurks just around the corner, that the obstacles to this ultra-Hollywood happy ending are merely empirical and contingent (local pockets of resistance where the leaders did not yet grasp that their time is over). In contrast to it, 9/11 is the main symbol of the forthcoming era in which new walls are emerging everywhere, between Israel and the West Bank, around the European Union, on the U.S.-Mexico border. So what if the new proletarian position is that of the inhabitants of slums in the new megalopolises? The explosive growth of slums in the last decades, especially in the Third World megalopolises from Mexico City and other Latin American capitals through Africa (Lagos, Chad) to India, China, Philippines and Indonesia, is perhaps the crucial geopolitical event of our times. It is effectively surprising how many features of slum dwellers fit the good old Marxist determination of the proletarian revolutionary subject: they are "free" in the double meaning of the word even more than the classic proletariat ("freed" from all substantial ties; dwelling in a free space, outside the police regulations of the state); they are a large collective, forcibly thrown together, "thrown" into a situation where they have to invent some mode of being-together, and simultaneously deprived of any support in traditional ways of life, in inherited religious or ethnic life-forms. While today's society is often characterized as the society of total control, slums are the territories within a state boundaries from which the state (partially, at least) withdrew its control, territories which function as white spots, blanks, in the official map of a state territory. Although they are de facto included into a state by the links of black economy, organized crime, religious groups, etc., the state control is nonetheless suspended there, they are domains outside the rule of law. In the map of Berlin from the times of the now defunct GDR, the are of West Berlin was left blank, a weird hole in the detailed structure of the big city; when Christa Wolf, the well-known East German half-dissident writer, took her small daughter to the East Berlin's high TV tower, from which one had a nice view over the prohibited West Berlin, the small girl shouted gladly: "Look, mother, it is not white over there, there are houses with people like here!" - as if discovering a prohibited slum Zone... This is why the "de-structured" masses, poor and deprived of everything, situated in a non-proletarized urban environment, constitute one of the principal horizons of the politics to come. If the principal task of the emancipatory politics of the XIXth century was to break the monopoly of the bourgeois liberals by way of politicizing the working class, and if the task of the XXth century was to politically awaken the immense rural population of Asia and Africa, the principal task of the XXIth century is to politicize - organize and discipline - the "de-structured masses" of slum-dwellers. Hugo Chavez's biggest achievement is the politicization (inclusion into the political life, social mobilization) of slum dwellers; in other countries, they mostly persist in apolitical inertia. It was this political mobilization of the slum dwellers which saved him against the US-sponsored coup: to the surprise of everyone, Chavez included, slum dwellers massively descended to the affluent city center, tipping the balance of power to his advantage. How do these four antagonisms relate to each other? There is a qualitative difference between the gap that separates the Excluded from the Included and the other three antagonisms, which designate three domains of what Hardt and Negri call "commons," the shared substance of our social being whose privatization is a violent act which should also be resisted with violent means, if necessary: the commons of culture, the immediately socialized forms of "cognitive" capital, primarily language, our means of communication and education (if Bill Gates were to be allowed monopoly, we would have reached the absurd situation in which a private individual would have literally owned the software texture our basic network of communication), but also the shared infrastructure of public transport, electricity, post, etc.; the commons of external nature threatened by pollution and exploitation (from oil to forests and natural habitat itself); the commons of internal nature (the biogenetic inheritance of humanity). What all these struggles share is the awareness of the destructive potentials, up to the self-annihilation of humanity itself, if the capitalist logic of enclosing these commons is allowed a free run. It is this reference to "commons" which justifies the resuscitation of the notion of Communism - or, to quote Alain Badiou: The communist hypothesis remains the good one, I do not see any other. If we have to abandon this hypothesis, then it is no longer worth doing anything at all in the field of collective action. Without the horizon of communism, without this Idea, there is nothing in the historical and political becoming of any interest to a philosopher. Let everyone bother about his own affairs, and let us stop talking about it. In this case, the rat-man is right, as is, by the way, the case with some ex-communists who are either avid of their rents or who lost courage. However, to hold on to the Idea, to the existence of this hypothesis, does not mean that we should retain its first form of presentation which was centered on property and State. In fact, what is imposed on us as a task, even as a philosophical obligation, is to help a new mode of existence of the hypothesis to deploy itself. So where do we stand today with regard to communism? The first step is to admit that the solution is not to limit the market and private property by direct interventions of the State and state ownership. The domain of State itself is also in its own way "private": private in the precise Kantian sense of the "private use of Reason" in State administrative and ideological apparatuses: The public use of one's reason must always be free, and it alone can bring about enlightenment among men. The private use of one's reason, on the other hand, may often be very narrowly restricted without particularly hindering the progress of enlightenment. By public use of one's reason I understand the use which a person makes of it as a scholar before the reading public. Private use I call that which one may make of it in a particular civil post or office which is entrusted to him. What one should add here, moving beyond Kant, is that there is a privileged social group which, on account of its lacking a determinate place in the "private" order of social hierarchy, directly stands for universality: it is only the reference to those Excluded, to those who dwell in the blanks of the State space, that enables true universality. There is nothing more "private" than a State community which perceives the Excluded as a threat and worries how to keep the Excluded at a proper distance. In other words, in the series of the four antagonisms, the one between the Included and the Excluded is the crucial one, the point of reference for the others; without it, all others lose their subversive edge: ecology turns into a "problem of sustainable development," intellectual property into a "complex legal challenge," biogenetics into an "ethical" issue. One can sincerely fight for ecology, defend a broader notion of intellectual property, oppose the copyrighting of genes, while not questioning the antagonism between the Included and the Excluded - even more, one can even formulate some of these struggles in the terms of the Included threatened by the polluting Excluded. In this way, we get no true universality, only "private" concerns in the Kantian sense of the term. Corporations like Whole Foods and Starbucks continue to enjoy favor among liberals even though they both engage in anti-union activities; the trick is that they sell products that contain the claim of being politically progressive acts in and of themselves. One buys coffee made with beans bought at above fair-market value, one drives a hybrid vehicle, one buys from companies that provide good benefits for their customers (according to the corporation's own standards), etc. Political action and consumption become fully merged. In short, without the antagonism between the Included and the Excluded, we may well find ourselves in a world in which Bill Gates is the greatest humanitarian fighting against poverty and diseases, and Rupert Murdoch the greatest environmentalist mobilizing hundreds of millions through his media empire. When politics is reduced to the "private" domain, it takes the form of the politics of FEAR - fear of losing one's particular identity, of being overwhelmed. Today's predominant mode of politics is post-political bio-politics - an awesome example of theoretical jargon which, however, can easily be unpacked: "post-political" is a politics which claims to leave behind old ideological struggles and, instead, focus on expert management and administration, while "bio-politics" designates the regulation of the security and welfare of human lives as its primal goal. It is clear how these two dimensions overlap: once one renounces big ideological causes, what remains is only the efficient administration of life... almost only that. That is to say, with the depoliticized, socially objective, expert administration and coordination of interests as the zero-level of politics, the only way to introduce passion into this field, to actively mobilize people, is through fear, a basic constituent of today's subjectivity.
88 -America is at a turning point. Trump’s election is an endorsement of politics of fear against the borderlands. This fear has no basis in reality and must be resisted. Parker ‘16
89 -Parker, Jennifer. Trump's immigration plan preys on fear, divides Americans, http://www.mcall.com/opinion/yourview/mc-trump-immigration-parker-yv-0909-20160908-story.html. September 8, 2016.
90 -Donald Trump's iron-fisted immigration plan of last week makes clear that he thinks immigrants, especially the unauthorized, are a major source of America's problems.
91 -Like all of Trump's divisive rhetoric in the past year, this plan stirs up fear, not confidence. It scapegoats rather than brings people together. And it blatantly disavows facts. It should give anyone living in the Lehigh Valley pause as immigrants and the diversity they bring have long been a source of our region's strength, not a drain on it.
92 -Trump's plan starts out with a horrible picture of unauthorized immigrants, one that does not compute with reality. Many of us know someone living in the shadows — a neighbor, a co-worker, a classmate, a family member. Most unauthorized immigrants are model residents, not murderers, terrorists or rapists, as Trump would have us believe.
93 -Nearly every study that has examined the hard data shows the same two facts: When unauthorized immigration goes up, violent crime goes down, and immigrants have lower rates of crime and incarceration than the native born. Trump also ignores the fact that unauthorized immigration is a declining problem in the U.S., not a rising one. According to Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, more Mexicans are returning home rather than coming, and our border is more secure than it ever has been.
94 -The central feature of Trump's plan (besides the border wall) is a $300 billion mass deportation operation. It would triple Immigration and Customs Enforcement and round up millions in a hyped-up law enforcement climate that seems eerily close to Operation Wetback of the 1950s. The effects could be devastating for children and families.
95 -According to the Pew Research Center, in 2012, 7 percent of school students had at least one unauthorized parent. Most of these students (about 80 percent) are citizens (they were born in the U.S.). Breaking up families is inhumane and could have a cascading effect on communities at large.
96 -Perhaps more disturbing is Trump's proposal to do away with amnesty, even for our country's 1.8 million Dreamers, some of whom live in the Lehigh Valley. Dreamers are young undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as children, through no fault of their own. They know no other home besides the U.S. They attend U.S. schools, speak English, identify as American, and often serve in the U.S. military. Yet they struggle through life without full legal status.
97 -The term Dreamers came from the DREAM Act (Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act), a bill first introduced in Congress in 2001 to provide undocumented youth with a path to resident status and eventual citizenship. It did not pass but Dreamers continue to hope for a better future. Until four years ago, Dreamers lived under constant fear of deportation and were unable to legally work. A program, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, was enacted in 2012 to provide temporary relief by protecting these children from deportation and granting them permission to work for two-year renewable periods. Trump threatens to end DACA and turn Dreamers' lives into nightmares. This is insidious.
98 -Trump's plan, in general, shows ignorance of immigration law, stoking crisis where it doesn't exist. "Extreme vetting" is a fancy term Trump made up for policies that are already in place. The U.S. has the most rigorous and lengthiest vetting process in the world and is equipped to do its part in providing relief to families ravaged by war and terror in Syria.
99 -Lehigh Valley officials have already successfully resettled Syrian refugee families, who join an established Syrian population that has been a vital part of the area's rich social and economic tapestry for over a century. But Trump aims to scare us to death, literally. He tells us to "lock your doors" when Syrian refugees come to town. In so doing, he turns terror victims into perpetrators and calls for suspicion rather than empathy.
100 -We know from history that when fear sets in, suspicion spreads to whole ethnic and religious groups — to anyone who looks like, seems like or identifies with that target group. This is not the foundation we need for making America great.
101 -Debate is unique forum where debaters practice becoming policy makers. Resisting oppression in debate is key to legal advocacy in the real world and later in life. Joyner 99
102 - (Christopher Professor of International Law in the Government Department at Georgetown University, Spring, 5 ILSA J Int'l and Comp L 377
103 -
104 -Use of the debate can be an effective pedagogical tool for education in the social sciences. Debates, like other role-playing simulations, help students understand different perspectives on a policy issue by adopting a perspective as their own. But, unlike other simulation games, debates do not require that a student participate directly in order to realize the benefit of the game. Instead of developing policy alternatives and experiencing the consequences of different choices in a traditional role-playing game, debates present the alternatives and consequences in a formal, rhetorical fashion before a judgmental audience. Having the class audience serve as jury helps each student develop a well-thought-out opinion on the issue by providing contrasting facts and views and enabling audience members to pose challenges to each debating team. These debates ask undergraduate students to examine the international legal implications of various United States foreign policy actions. Their chief tasks are to assess the aims of the policy in question, determine their relevance to United States national interests, ascertain what legal principles are involved, and conclude how the United States policy in question squares with relevant principles of international law. Debate questions are formulated as resolutions, along the lines of: "Resolved: The United States should deny most-favored-nation status to China on human rights grounds;" or "Resolved: The United States should resort to military force to ensure inspection of Iraq's possible nuclear, chemical and biological weapons facilities;" or "Resolved: The United States' invasion of Grenada in 1983 was a lawful use of force;" or "Resolved: The United States should kill Saddam Hussein." In addressing both sides of these legal propositions, the student debaters must consult the vast literature of international law, especially the nearly 100 professional law-school-sponsored international law journals now being published in the United States. This literature furnishes an incredibly rich body of legal analysis that often treats topics affecting United States foreign policy, as well as other more esoteric international legal subjects. Although most of these journals are accessible in good law schools, they are largely unknown to the political science community specializing in international relations, much less to the average undergraduate. By assessing the role of international law in United States foreign policy- making, students realize that United States actions do not always measure up to international legal expectations; that at times, international legal strictures get compromised for the sake of perceived national interests, and that concepts and principles of international law, like domestic law, can be interpreted and twisted in order to justify United States policy in various international circumstances. In this way, the debate format gives students the benefits ascribed to simulations and other action learning techniques, in that it makes them become actively engaged with their subjects, and not be mere passive consumers. Rather than spectators, students become legal advocates, observing, reacting to, and structuring political and legal perceptions to fit the merits of their case. The debate exercises carry several specific educational objectives. First, students on each team must work together to refine a cogent argument that compellingly asserts their legal position on a foreign policy issue confronting the United States. In this way, they gain greater insight into the real-world legal dilemmas faced by policy makers. Second, as they work with other members of their team, they realize the complexities of applying and implementing international law, and the difficulty of bridging the gaps between United States policy and international legal principles, either by reworking the former or creatively reinterpreting the latter. Finally, research for the debatesforces students to become familiarized with contemporary issues on the United States foreign policy agenda and the role that international law plays in formulating and executing these policies. The debate thus becomes an excellent vehicle for pushing students beyond stale arguments over principles into the real world of policy analysis, political critique, and legal defense.
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2016-11-20 15:57:56.721
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Everyone
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -No One
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -3
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -8
Team
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Loyola Namkung Aff
Title
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Borders AC
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Glenbrooks
Caselist.RoundClass[0]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -0
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2016-11-19 02:51:26.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -NA
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -NA
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -1
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Glenbrooks
Caselist.RoundClass[1]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -0
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2016-11-19 02:58:41.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -NA
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -NA
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -1
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Glenbrooks
Caselist.RoundClass[2]
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2016-11-20 15:56:01.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -No One
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Everyone
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -9
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Glenbrooks
Caselist.RoundClass[3]
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2016-11-20 15:57:55.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Everyone
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -No One
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -8
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Glenbrooks
Caselist.CitesClass[3]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,2 @@
1 +Feel free to contact me through Facebook or through email: josephnamkung@lhsla.org.
2 +Anything on my wiki or my teammmates' wikis is fair game.
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2016-11-20 16:28:37.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +NA
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +NA
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +5
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +1
Team
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Loyola Namkung Aff
Title
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Disclosure Info
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Glenbrooks
Caselist.CitesClass[4]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,103 @@
1 +Inherency
2 +US Border Patrol is out of control. Border agents abuse their power and refuse to follow legal procedures. Turck ’15.
3 +Mary Turck “US Border Patrol is out of control” April 1, 2015 2:00AM ET. http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/4/us-border-patrol-is-out-of-control.html
4 +On March 20, the Michigan Attorney General's Public Integrity Unit charged two U.S. Border Patrol agents with theft and misconduct while on duty. The two agents allegedly stole from a home while executing an agency-authorized search warrant. The case exemplifies the type of unchecked abuse and corruption that has become so rampant within the U.S. Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
5 +From 2010 to 2014 CBP agents shot and killed 28 people. Other charges against CBP agents included drug trafficking, theft, assaults, kidnapping and rape. Investigative reports from multiple sources paint a picture of a law enforcement agency that is out of control. Even worse, most of its victims are people who cannot fight back — undocumented immigrants and refugees with limited or no access to U.S. courts.
6 +Report after report recounts tales of unchecked abuse of power. Agents frequently respond to cross-border rock throwing with deadly force. Sometimes CBP officers step into the path of moving cars to justify shooting the drivers as a “response to deadly force.” The agency has refused to ban either practice, disregarding recommendations from a report that it commissioned. Other kinds of corruption also plague the agency. A 2011 internal study by the CBP found that the agency’s disciplinary system “does not foster timely discipline or exoneration.”
7 +The story of failure traces back to 2001. After 9/11, any legislation to protect U.S. borders sailed through Congress. Need more agents? Done. More money? Done. Lawmakers were eager to support border enforcement. In 2003, they merged the previously understaffed Border Patrol with Customs enforcement and Department of Agriculture inspectors to create the CBP. The new agency now has more than 60,000 employees, a $12.4 billion annual budget and a reputation for corruption and abuse. On average, at least one agent is arrested daily for misconduct, according to Politico Magazine’s Garrett M. Graff.
8 +What happened was predictable. But no one bothered to consult law enforcement experts. Effective law enforcement requires high standards, careful screening of candidates for criminal backgrounds and for psychological fitness, and intensive training by experienced officers. The rush to fill a lot of vacant positions meant inadequate screening and skimping on training.
9 +“Illegal entry is now less than a third of what it was in the year 2000, and it’s at its lowest level since the 1970s,” Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson said in October. The estimated number of undocumented immigrants in the United States has dropped by more than a million since 2006. Yet throwing money at CBP remains a way for Congress to boast of protecting borders and getting tough on immigration. The agency continues to grow, with 2,000 new jobs listed in 2014.
10 +“From an integrity issue, you can’t grow a law enforcement agency that quickly,” Robert Bonner, the former federal judge who headed up CBP’s reorganization, told Politico last year. Not only did the old Border Patrol more than double in size, it also merged employees from customs, immigration and agricultural inspectors.
11 +CBP’s record on corruption and abuse is appalling. The Center for Investigative Reporting (CIR) has documented cases of excessive force, drug smuggling, theft and numerous other abuses. “Between 5 and 10 percent of border agents and officers are actively corrupt or were at some point in their career,” James F. Tomscheck, the former CBP chief of internal affairs, told CIR in August.
12 +A 2011 CBP internal study of employee integrity questioned whether the problems could be attributed to the surge in hiring, but acknowledged the severity of the problem. The report attributed the spike in cases of abuse to lack of psychological assessments and ethical training for officers.
13 +CBP’s problems start at the top. While Congress was happy to appropriate money for enforcement and more officers, it balked at confirming CBP commissioners, leaving the agency without a confirmed commissioner for five years. The current commissioner, R. Gil Kerlikowske, was confirmed in March 2014. But his authority was undercut from the very beginning.
14 +Graff’s article tells the story of a CBP agent who arrested, kidnapped and raped three women from Honduras, and tried to kill two of them. This happened in March 2014, just days after Kerlikowske’s confirmation. The commissioner’s statement condemning the kidnapping and rape was stalled for two days while he argued with senior CBP officials.
15 +An agent under his command committed a heinous act. When FBI agents approached the suspect’s apartment, where one of the victims was naked and tied to a chair, the CBP agent shot and killed himself. Yet Kerlikowske’s subordinates prevented him from immediately denouncing the crime.
16 +CBP’s defensiveness and disregard for the law appear pervasive. While only a small number of its agents commit violent or criminal acts, indifference to immigrants' legal rights seems to be standard practice across the agency.
17 +Border Patrol agents are required by law to ask whether a person they detain is afraid to return home. If migrants express fear of return, the law requires agents to refer them for a “credible fear” screening by an asylum officer, who can assess eligibility. The law requires referral precisely because CBP agents are not qualified to make eligibility determinations.
18 +In case after case, migrants report that CBP agents refused to allow them to tell their stories to an asylum officer. Instead, they tell people fleeing gang violence, rape and persecution that they have no rights.
19 +From excessive force and shootings to peremptory denial of access to asylum, the CBP violates the laws it is charged with upholding. Reform is imperative. It should begin with implementation of the recommendations of the 2013 study conducted by the Police Executive Research Forum, ranging from training to prohibition of use of deadly force unless officers’ lives are actually threatened.
20 +Death and suffering on the border is increasing with each passing day. Johnson 07
21 +Dean and Mabie-Apallas, Professor of Public Interest Law and Chicana/o Studies, “Opening the Floodgates”, New York University Publication)
22 +As of March 2006, the CRLAF California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation attributed more than 3,000 deaths to a single southern California border operation known as Operation Gatekeeper.97 Numerous other operations have been put into place in the U.S.-Mexico border region. All have had similar deadly impacts. Despite the death toll, the U.S. government continues to pursue enforcement operations with great vigor. Indeed, Congress consistently enacts proposals designed to bolster border enforcement, with such proposals often representing the only items of political consensus when it comes to immigration reform. Operation Gatekeeper demonstrates the U.S. government’s callous indifference to the human suffering caused by its aggressive border enforcement policy. In the words of one informed commentator, “the real tragedy of Operation Gatekeeper . . . is the direct link . . . to the staggering rise in the number of deaths among border crossers. The U.S. government has forced these crossers to attempt entry in areas plagued by extreme weather conditions and rugged terrain that the U.S. government knows to present mortal danger.”98 In planning Operation Gatekeeper, the U.S. government knew that its strategy would risk many lives but proceeded nonetheless. As another observer concludes, “Operation Gatekeeper, as an enforcement immigration policy financed and politically supported by the U.S. government, flagrantly violates international human rights because this policy was deliberately formulated to maximize the physical risks of Mexican migrant workers, thereby ensuring that hundreds of them would die.”99 Apparently, the government and rationalized the deaths of migrants as collateral damage in the “war” on illegal immigration. Even before the 1990s, the Border Patrol had a reputation for committing human rights abuses against immigrants and U.S. citizens of Mexican ancestry.100 Created to police the U.S.-Mexican border, the Border Patrol has historically been plagued by reports of brutality, shootings, beatings, and killings.101 Amnesty International, American Friends Service Committee, and Human Rights Watch have all issued reports documenting recent human rights abuses by the
23 +
24 +
25 +
26 +Plan
27 +Plan text: The Supreme Court of the United States will overturn the Fifth Circuit Court's decision on Hernandez v. Mesa
28 +Krent and Revesz 15
29 +Krent, Stephanie and Revesz, Joshua as Counsel for Pelinttitioner. (Both are J.D. candidates for Yale Law School) “Morris Tyler Moot Court of Appeals at Yale JESUS C. HERNANDEZ, ET AL. Petitioners, v. JESUS MESA, JR. Respondent” ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT BRIEF FOR PETITIONERS.November 2015, https://www.law.yale.edu/system/files/brief_3.pdf BS
30 +Considering the Fourth Amendment’s extraterritoriality in light of Boumediene reveals¶ that Mesa’s use of excessive force across the Paso Del Norte border is subject to the Fourth¶ Amendment’s reasonableness requirement. Hernández seeks the protection of a fundamental¶right, the freedom from unlawful restraint. His status as a civilian and his connection to the El¶ Paso-Juárez community similarly weigh in favor of extraterritoriality. The United States has¶exertedcontinuous, substantial control both overthe locationin El Paso where Mesa firedhis¶ weapon, and in the Rio Grande culvert where Hernández died. This case involves no national¶security concerns, and foreign relations with Mexico would be improved, not hurt, by application¶ of the Fourth Amendment to Mesa’s actions. For these reasons, the Court should reverse the¶Fifth Circuit and apply the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness standard to Mesa’sactions.
31 +Solvency
32 +Qualified immunity protects corrupt, murderous border patrol agents. Eslinger15
33 +Eslinger, Bonnie. "Family Of Mexican Teen Slain By US Border Agent Seeks Cert." Law360. 24 Jul 2015. Web. 1 Nov 2016. DMK
34 +Law360, Los Angeles (July 24, 2015, 4:54 PM EDT) ~-~- The family of a Mexican teenager fatally shot in Mexico by an American border patrol agent standing across the U.S. border is urging the U.S. Supreme Court to review a Fifth Circuit decision holding that the agent had qualified immunity and couldn’t be sued. The family of Sergio Adrian Hernandez Guereca filed the cert petition Thursday, asking the court to overturn the Fifth Circuit’s April rulingthat it couldn’t sue under the Fourth Amendment because Hernandez was a Mexican citizen, on Mexican soil and had no “significant voluntary connection” to the U.S. The court found that the border patrol agent’s actions did not violate Hernandez’s Fifth Amendment due process rights but agreed with Hernandez’ family that any right he had as a foreign national would not have been clear to the federal agent at the time of the shooting. Robert C. Hilliard, an attorney for the Hernandez family, told Law360 on Friday that the time was right for the high court to weigh in on the issue because rulings in federal courts on border patrol shootings in various states have differed. If Hernandez had been an American teen, the border patrol agent, Jesus Mesa Jr., would not be immune from civil suit, Hilliard said. “The Supreme Court has got to put this to rest,” Hilliard said. “Anywhere a law enforcement officer wrongly shoots an individual, that individual should have a constitutionally protected right to pursue civil remedies.” A functionalist rather than formalist approach should govern the extraterritorial application of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unjustified deadly force, the lawyers argued in the July 23 petition. “May qualified immunity be granted or denied based on facts — such as the victim’s legal status — unknown to the officer at the time of the incident?” the petition states. While standing in Texas, Mesa shot the unarmed Hernandez twice in June 2010 after detaining one of Hernandez’s friends near the border fence. Mesa had claimed someone from the Mexican side of the border threw rocks at him. In a series of cases, the family filed suits against Mesa, his supervisors and the U.S. government, claiming assault, negligence and use of excessive force. According to the petition, the Supreme Court’s Boumediene v. Bush decision, which found detainees at Guantanamo Bay have a constitutional right to habeas corpus, applied to Hernandez’s situation and showed the teen’s rights were violated, the first part of a test to determine qualified immunity. The Fifth Circuit held that the Boumediene case was limited to its specific factual circumstances. “If left standing, the Fifth Circuit’s decision will create a unique no-man’s land — a law-free zone in which U.S. agents can kill innocent civilians with impunity,” the petition states. Representatives for the government and Mesa could not be reached Friday for comment. Hernandez’s family is represented by Steve D. Shadowen of Hilliard andShadowen LLP, Robert C. Hilliard of Hilliard Munoz Gonzales LLP and Cristobal M. Galindo PC. The government is represented by Acting Assistant Attorney General Joyce R. Branda, Acting U.S. Attorney Richard L. Durbin Jr. and Civil Division attorneys Mark B. Stern and Henry C. Whitaker. Mesa is represented by Randolph J. Ortega and Louis E. Lopez Jr. of Ortega McGlashan Perez and Hicks PLLC. The cases are Jesus C. Hernandez et al. v. United States of America, case number 11-50792, Jesus C. Hernandez et al. v. Jesus Mesa Jr., case number 12-50217, and Jesus C. Hernandez et al. v. Ramiro Cordero et al., case number 12-50301, in the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Fifth Circuit.
35 +Overturning Mesa v. Hernandez is key to holding border patrol agents accountable.
36 +Wells 15
37 +Wells, Marc. (Wells is contributor for WSWB)"World Socialist Web Site." US Appeals Court Grants Immunity to Border Patrol Agent Who Killed Mexican Teenager -.N.p., 1 May 2015. Web. 03 Nov. 2016. https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/05/01/immi-m01.html. DMK
38 +The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit unanimously granted“qualifiedimmunity” last Friday to a border patrol agent standing on US territory who shot an unarmed 15-year-old boy in the face near the Mexican border. The ruling further erodes basic constitutional rights and strengthens the arbitrary powers of the police, especially at the border.¶ The lawsuit arose from the shooting of a 15-year-old Mexican boy, Sergio Adrián Hernández Güereca, on June 7, 2010, near the Paso del Norte Bridge in Texas. According to Sergio’s parents, the boy was playing with his friends running up and down a cement culvert standing between the US and Mexico when agent Jesus Mesa Jr. arrived on the scene and detained one of Sergio’s friends.¶ As the boy retreated beneath the pillars of the Paso del Norte Bridge to observe, agent Mesa fired two shots, one of which struck Sergio in the face. Agent Mesa alleged that he responded to the boy throwing rocks.¶ The officer was not charged with murder or any other crime. Instead, as is common practice in American law enforcement agencies, the officer received paid administrative leave (i.e., a paid vacation) before he resumed his normal duties.¶ Last Friday’s ruling affirms most of a previous decision last June by a three-judge panel of the court. The plaintiffs had filed the lawsuit alleging, among other things, that the shooting violated Sergio’s Fourth Amendment right not to be subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures, including excessive force, as well as his and Fifth Amendment right not to bedeprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Both amendments are part of the Bill of Rights.¶ The Obama administration vigorously defended the border patrol agent, asserting that he was entitled to “qualified immunity.” The government’s position exposes the true content of its immigration policy. While Obama postures as sympathetic to the plight of immigrants, his government treats them with contempt—as “aliens” with absolutely no rights, not even the right to live.¶ The unanimous decision by the Fifth Circuit was the culmination of five years of litigation by the victim’s parents. The Fifth Circuit held that the plaintiffs “fail to allege a violation of the Fourth Amendment.” According to the ruling, Sergio “had no ‘significant voluntary connection’ to the United States.” Moreover, he “was on Mexican soil at the time he was shot,” and therefore “cannot assert a claim under the Fourth Amendment.”¶ The Fifth Circuit also held that the plaintiffs could not sue under the Alien Tort Statute, a section of US Code that has traditionally allowed foreign citizens to seek remedy in US courts in cases of human rights violations occurring outside the US, because the US did not “consent” to be sued.¶ Finally, although the court was split on whether agent Mesa’s conduct might violate the Fifth Amendment, it ruled that “the Fifth Amendment right asserted by the plaintiffs was not clearly established at the time of the complained-of incident,” since “the person injured by a US official standing on US soil is an alien who had no significant voluntary connection to, and was not in, the United States when the incident occurred.”¶Since the right was allegedly not “clearly established,” the Fifth Circuit ruled that the agent was entitled to “qualified immunity.” Qualified immunity is a reactionary and pseudo-legal doctrine that has no basis in the Constitution. However, it is increasingly being used throughout the judiciary to shield killer cops from legal accountability.¶ In this case, the invocation of “qualified immunity” is absurd on its face. The Fifth Amendment, which has been the supreme law of the United States since 1791, is perfectly clear. It provides that no person “shall be deprived of life … without due process of law.”¶ The deadly implication of the Fifth Circuit’s ruling is that it is no longer “clearly established” that US border patrol agents cannot open fire on unarmed children on the Mexican side of the border. Instead, with respect to shootings at the border, the decision practically proclaims that it is “open season.”¶A year ago, the American Civil Liberties Union reported that since 2010, at least 28 civilians “died following an encounter with US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) personnel.” All but one died as the result of the use of force. Around a third of the victims were children.¶ In 2012, 16-year-old Jose Antonio Elena Rodriguez met his brother for a snack in Nogales, Sonora, Mexico, near the border when he was killed by CBP agents. Ten bullets entered the back of his head, eight bullets struck him as he was already on the ground and two of the agents were alleged to have shot at least 14 times.¶ No charges were filed and no explanation was given for such a horrific and barbaric event, except a perfunctory explanation that children were throwing rocks behind a 60-foot tall fence.¶In the context of an intensified persecution and criminalization of undocumented immigrants, the Fifth Circuit’s ruling marks a further step in the escalation of authoritarian measures aimed at dismantling democratic rule.
39 +Aff would eliminate qualified immunity for border patrol agents and allow people a way to seek compensation through civil suits
40 +Kennis 16
41 +Kennis, Andrew. (Assistant Professor of Journalism at The University of Texas at El Paso) "Supreme Court to Decide Fate of Case That Challenges Cross-Border Killings by US Agents | VICE News." VICE News RSS.N.p., 30 Mar. 2016. Web. 06 Nov. 2016. https://news.vice.com/article/supreme-court-cross-border-killing-patrol-agent-usa-mexico. BS
42 +One of the cases, the shooting of the 15-year-old boy, led to a lawsuit— Hernández v. Mesa — that is now before the US Supreme Court, which is due to decide by April 1 whether to postpone the case, fully consider it, or throw it out altogether. At the same time, several other cases are moving through the courts, including another civil suit that is similar to the one being considered by the Supreme Court and the first criminal case ever to be prosecuted for a cross-border shooting.¶ If the Supreme Court either rejects the case, or if it upholds the last appellate court ruling in the government's favor, Mexican families will not have the right to sue the government for civil rights violations of deceased relatives who have been victims of cross-border killings at the hands of Border Patrol agents.¶ However, if Mexican families win either or both of the civil cases, they will gain Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights, including the chance to sue Border Patrol agents who kill or seriously injure their family members. Thiscould result incompensatory damages via the constitutional and civil rights they will have gained.¶ The Hernández v. Mesa case got to the Supreme Court after the notoriously conservative Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over all of Texas and many border areas, ruled against the families. The government argues that this is a case where "qualified immunity" applies to the agent responsible for the shooting. This means that in order to successfully sue a government official, you have to show a violation of clearly established law. The Fifth Circuit agreed, reasoning that it is not clearly established by law that the US Constitution applies to a Mexican national killed in Mexico.¶ ¶ Lawyers representing the families argue that this argument circumvents the obvious.¶ "You don't need a court decision to say that it is wrong to kill an unarmed 15-year-old boy," says Steve Shadowen, one of the lawyers representing the Hernández family.¶ "It's common sense and decency that you get judicial review when it comes to police killings of unarmed children," he added.¶Shadowen also stressed that at the time Hernández was shot, the officer didn't know whether the boy was a US or a Mexican national.
43 +
44 +
45 +
46 +
47 +
48 +
49 +Impacts
50 +
51 +Nativism
52 +QI reinforces territorial notions of sovereign control that cause nativism. Moore and Moore 14
53 +
54 +Moore, Guinevere E., and Robert T. Moore. "Extraterritorial Application of the Fifth Amendment: A Need for Expanded Constitutional Protections, The." . Mary's LJ 46 (2014): 1.
55 +There exists an almost universal acceptance that when there is a deprivation of life, even by state actors who were acting within their official capacity, there must be an effective remedy.179 Here, the only effective remedy is the ability to bring suit before a U.S. federal court, as that is the only court that would have jurisdiction over all of the parties.180 If the United States will not allow for such an action to be brought, then it denies the check on governmental power that the Constitution provides, and the United States violates its duty at international law.181 Furthermore, if the United States refuses extradition, then the United States is also in violation of the principle of aut dedere, aut iudicare, which is a state’s duty under international law to either give the individual up for extradition or try the individual itself.182 Guilt or innocence of the agent is irrelevant at this point as that is for a jury to decide.183 First, however, the parties have to be able to bring the matter before a competent domestic court. That right to have adequate due process is enshrined in the Constitution and is now accepted widely at international law.184 If the United States denies that right to due process in this instance, it will pave the way for the U.S.–Mexico border to become a place where the government acts without legal constraint—the very thing that Justice Kennedy warned of in Boumediene. 185 It will also set a dangerous precedent at international law, where states may act as they choose and potentially violate fundamental human rights with impunity so long as the violation occurs in a territory that is not under sovereign control of the state.186
56 +The difference between police officers and border patrol is tied to the idea of borders. MyPursuit ’16.
57 +MyPursuit. "The Differences Between a Border Patrol and a Police Officer Career." MyPursuit.n.d. Web. 1 Nov 2016.
58 +Since quite some time, when humans started living in bordered communities, the need to safeguard the territories has been recognized and practiced by many people. Various forms of land safety and guard have been opted for and some of them have been very successful. These days, most countries rely on Border Security Force to protect their boundaries and Border Patrol to monitor these boundaries. Border Patrol is the uniformed common law enforcement arm of the security forces, responsible for patrolling the international land borders and coastal waters. They resist illegal entries and smuggling across the border. Members of this force work 24 hours in all conditions of land and weather. The primary requirement to be a member of the Border Force is to be a recognized citizen of the country. The person involved in any criminal act is not eligible to join this force. He also ought to have a driver’s license at the time of appointment and be less than 40 years of age. Along with written examination and interview, the candidate also undergoes medical examination, drug testing and physical fitness tests. His background is also thoroughly investigated. On selection, new member is hired at various levels depending upon his academic qualification and experience. His salary is equal to any other Federal Law Enforcement Personnel, ranging from $36,000 to $47,000. There is also an opportunity to earn overtime pay. A uniform allowance of up to $1500 is also permissible under the law. Other constituents of the package accorded to him include life insurance, health insurance, liberal retirement benefits and a thrift savings plan. Border Patrol is responsible for the safety of the borders, but within borders, Police Officers safeguard the citizens. In contrast to border patrol officers, the police officers may be employed by the Federal, state or municipal government and is responsible for enforcing federal and state laws along with municipal ordinances. They also help maintain peace in the community by keeping a check on anti-social elements. A uniformed pro-active patrolling within the jurisdiction helps them control criminal activity and attend public calls for service. They keep a documented record of their activities. The duties of a police officer are not limited to those mentioned above.
59 +Geography is socially constructed, and reinforces nativism.
60 +Tuathail 1998 -Department of Geography,Virginia Polytechnic Institute Gearóid Ó Re-Thinking Geopolitics: Towards a Critical Geopolitics. Introductory chapter co-authored with Simon Dalby to Rethinking Geopolitics, Routledge, 1-15.
61 +
62 +Critical geopolitics bears witness to the irredeemable plurality of space and the multiplicity of possible political constructions of space. Thus, and this is the second argument characterizing critical geopolitics, it pays particular attention to the boundary-drawing practices and performances that characterize the everyday life of states. In contrast to conventional geography and geopolitics, both the material borders at the edge of the state and the conceptual borders designating this as a boundarybetween a secure inside and an anarchic outside are objects of investigation. Critical geopolitics is not about 'the outside' of the state but about the very construction of boundaries of 'inside' and 'outside,' 'here' and 'there,' the 'domestic' and the 'foreign' (Walker 1993). As Campbell (1992) has argued, the study of foreign policy involves more than the study of conventional inter-state relations. States are not prior to the inter-state system but perpetually constituted by their performances in relationship to an outside against which they define themselves. Foreign policy involves the making of the 'foreign' as an identity and space against which a domestic self is evoked and realized. "The construction of the 'foreign' is made possible by practices that also constitute the 'domestic.' In other words, foreign policy is a 'specific sort of boundary-producing political performance'" (Campbell 1992, 69 quoting Ashley; original emphasis). In describing the struggle between the Soviet Union and the United States as "not simply geopolitical" Campbell (1992, 26) himself does not radicalize the notion of geopolitics but his argument implicitly suggests how territorial geopolitics is contextualized and sustained by a more pervasive cultural geo-politics, in other words (following Campbell's 1992, 76 capitalized distinction between "foreign policy" and "Foreign Policy") that a primary and pervasive foreign policy geo-politics makes the secondary, specialist and conventionally understood Foreign Policy Geopolitics of elites possible.
63 +Nativism drives racism. Alcoff
64 +Alcoff, Linda Martin. (a philosopher at the City University of New York who specializes in epistemology, feminism, race theory and existentialism.) "LATINOS BEYOND THE BINARY." Alcoff.com. n.d. Web. 2 Nov 2016.
65 +The discrimination against Latinos (among others, especially Asian Americans and now Arab and Muslim Americans) has also operated very strongly on the basis of nativism. We might think of nativism as a fourth axis of racism that targets immigrants. Nativism is distinct, though often related to, a general xenophobia, ethnic chauvinism or dislike of foreigners because it adds a racialized construction of the group in question as inassimilabledue to inherent characteristics. Thus, in the U.S. today there is ethnic chauvinism against numerous groups, but not all of these experience racialization. Consider the French, who have been the target of a publicly sanctioned derogation that is not based on attributions of innate inferiority. All immigrant groups are not racialized in the sense of universalizing negative values onto a group that is demarcated on the basis of visible features, nor subject to the essentializing of their cultural characteristics as static. Russian and Eastern European immigrants are not the targets of random identity-based violence or national scapegoating to "explain" economic downturns. European immigrants are not tagged as inassimilable cultural inferiors nor is their difference racialized in the way that some Latinos, Arabs, and Asian Americans experience. Thus nativism today takes a decidedly racialized form, different from earlier periods in U.S. history when, for example, German immigrants were shunned, German street names were changed, and frankfurters were renamed hot dogs. The target of nativism today is a racialized other who threatens the imaginary identity of the U.S. nation to an extent no European culture probably can, given that that imaginary identity is centrally European based. A cultural amalgamation of European and Latin elements that might occur naturally as Latino numbers in the U.S. rise strikes many people with horror.8 Nativism's racialized attributions encourages people to turn a blind eye to the injustices that happen to "non-Native" peoples, such as those profiled as terrorists or those standing on the corner day-labor meat markets or those trying to cross borders. It puts non-native groups outside the pale of peer group conventions of tolerance, respect and civil rights. On this view, the problem with Latinosis not just that they are seen as foreign but that their cultural background makes them ineluctably foreign, both incapable of and unmotivated toward assimilation to the superior, mainstream, white Anglo culture. Debates over bilingualism thus invoke the specter of a concerted resistance to assimilation rather than language rights, and the public celebration of nationally specific holidays, such as "Puerto Rican Day" or Mexican Independence Day, and even the presence of ethnic-specific cuisines can come to signify a threat to the imagined community of Anglo nationalism. Despite the fact that Mexican-Americans have been living within the current U.S. borders for longer than most Anglo-Americans, they are all too often seen as squatters on U.S. soil, interlopers who "belong" elsewhere. This has nothing to do with claims to native inclusion and everything to do with cultural racism.9 Anti-Latino racism mobilizes very specific narratives involving history and culture as well as accounts of racial hierarchies and the effects of race-mixing to portray all Latinos negatively. Thus, the color axis is only one of the axes that need to be understood as pivotal in racist ideologies. Racism can and has operated through a variety of physical features, cultural characteristics and origins, and status as "native" or "non-native" to exclude groups from engendering empathic identification, or from deserving social inclusion and political representation. These multiple axes produce a mechanism for the classification and delimitation of subsets of people that then justifies discrimination and exclusion. Numerous groups experience more than one axis of racism, including African Americans who are derided for a variety of physical features as well as geographical origin. But my argument in this section as been that to understand anti-Latino racism we especially need an attentiveness to these multiple axes, since all four come into play against Latinos. Thus, we need an expanded analysis of racism and an attentiveness to the specific forms it can take in regard to different groups, rather than continuing to accept the idea that it operates in basically one way, with one axis, that is differentially distributed among various groups. In its over-simplification of racisms, the black-white binary inhibits our ability to accurately describe and understand current social realities, in some cases eclipsing the severity as well as the complexity of the problem. And any foreshortened understanding of the problems reduces the possibility of effective solutions as well as the possibility of making common cause.
66 +You have an apriori obligation to resist racism. It comes precludes and outweighs all other impacts.
67 +Memmi 2k Albert (Profesor Emeritus of Sociology at the University of Paris) RACISM translated by Steve Martinot pp. 163-165
68 +The struggle against racism will be long, difficult, without intermission, without remission, probably never achieved, yet for this very reason, it is a struggle to be undertaken without surcease and without concessions. One cannot be indulgent toward racism. One cannot even let the monster in the house, especially not in a mask. To give it merely a foothold means to augment the bestial part in us and in other people which is to diminish what is human. To accept the racist universe to the slightest degree is to endorse fear, injustice, and violence. It is to accept the persistence of the dark history in which we still largely live. It is to agree that the outsider will always be a possible victim (and which person man is not themself himself an outsider relative to someone else?). Racism illustrates in sum, the inevitable negativity of the condition of the dominated; that is it illuminates in a certain sense the entire human condition. The anti-racist struggle, difficult though it is, and always in question, is nevertheless one of the prologues to the ultimate passage from animality to humanity. In that sense, we cannot fail to rise to the racist challenge. However, it remains true that one’s moral conduct only emerges from a choice: one has to want it. It is a choice among other choices, and always debatable in its foundations and its consequences. Let us say, broadly speaking, that the choice to conduct oneself morally is the condition for the establishment of a human order for which racism is the very negation. This is almost a redundancy. One cannot found a moral order, let alone a legislative order, on racism because racism signifies the exclusion of the other and his or her subjection to violence and domination. From an ethical point of view, if one can deploy a little religious language, racism is “the truly capital sin.”fn22 It is not an accident that almost all of humanity’s spiritual traditions counsel respect for the weak, for orphans, widows, or strangers. It is not just a question of theoretical counsel respect for the weak, for orphans, widows or strangers. It is not just a question of theoretical morality and disinterested commandments. Such unanimity in the safeguarding of the other suggests the real utility of such sentiments. All things considered, we have an interest in banishing injustice, because injustice engenders violence and death. Of course, this is debatable. There are those who think that if one is strong enough, the assault on and oppression of others is permissible. But no one is ever sure of remaining the strongest. One day, perhaps, the roles will be reversed. All unjust society contains within itself the seeds of its own death. It is probably smarter to treat others with respect so that they treat you with respect. “Recall,” says the bible, “that you were once a stranger in Egypt,” which means both that you ought to respect the stranger because you were a stranger yourself and that you risk becoming once again someday. It is an ethical and a practical appeal – indeed, it is a contract, however implicit it might be. In short, the refusal of racism is the condition for all theoretical and practical morality. Because, in the end, the ethical choice commands the political choice. A just society must be a society accepted by all. If this contractual principle is not accepted, then only conflict, violence, and destruction will be our lot. If it is accepted, we can hope someday to live in peace. True, it is a wager, but the stakes are irresistible.
69 +
70 +Econ
71 +Aff would strengthen relations with Mexico
72 +Krent and Revesz 15
73 +Krent, Stephanie and Revesz, Joshua as Counsel for Pelinttitioner. (Both are J.D. candidates for Yale Law School) “Morris Tyler Moot Court of Appeals at Yale JESUS C. HERNANDEZ, ET AL. Petitioners, v. JESUS MESA, JR. Respondent” ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT BRIEF FOR PETITIONERS. November 2015, https://www.law.yale.edu/system/files/brief_3.pdf BS
74 +b. The diplomatic relationship between the United States andMexico further supports¶extraterritorialapplication. In determining the extraterritorial reach of constitutional provisions,¶ this Court has taken caution to avoid upsetting diplomatic relationships. See United States v.¶ Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 278 (1990) (Kennedy, J., concurring) (noting the need to¶ cooperate with Mexican officials). Mesa remained in the United States while he used excessive¶force across the Paso del Norte border, killing Hernández. He remains outside the jurisdiction of¶Mexico; thus his actions, as in Boumediene, “are answerable to no othersovereign.” Hernandez,¶ 757 F.3d at 271 (citing Boumediene, 553 U.S. at 770). Likely for these reasons, Mexico has¶indicated its supportof the extension of the Fourth Amendmentstotheborder zone in this case.¶ See Hernandez, 785 F.3d at 133 (Dennis, J., concurring); see also Swartz, 4:14-CV-02251-RCC,¶ slip op. at 15 (noting same in an excessive force case on the Nogales border zone). To decline application of the Fourth Amendments for practical reasons would undermine the U.S.-Mexico relationship so crucial to maintaining security at the border.¶ Hernández’s status and his connection to the U.S.-controlled Paso del Norte border zone,¶ the importance of the right he seeks to vindicate, and the importance of ensuring strong¶ diplomatic relationships between Mexico and the United States all weigh in favor ofapplication.¶ In short, there is nothing that suggests the Fourth Amendment should not apply to the actions of¶ an American federal officer, standing in the United States, and using unprovoked, excessive¶ force against a foreign national standing in a U.S.-controlled border zone. To the contrary, every ¶ 24¶factorthat this Court has emphasized in determining the reach of fundamental constitutional¶ rights points toward its application. The opinion of the Fifth Circuit should be reversed.
75 +US-Mexico relations are the backbone of the Mexican economy - key to the US and global economies.
76 +Diplomatic Courier 2/24/13 “U.S.-Mexico Relations: Love Thy Neighbor” Global Affairs, http://www.diplomaticourier.com/news/regions/latin-america/1331-us-mexico-relations-love-thy-neighbor
77 +It is not common knowledge that Mexico is the United States’ third largest trading partner, behind Canada and China. Every day, at least a billion dollars of goods flows across the border. Yet, Mexico is frequently negatively caricaturized, primarily with images of migrants illegally crossing the border into the U.S. and stealing U.S. jobs. Instead of viewing Mexico as a valuable partner that can benefit the U.S. in many facets, it is perceived as a liability, a region that cultivates corruption and violence and is the root of the current U.S. immigration ‘problem’ that has spurred controversial rogue measures like Arizona’s SB 1070. In matters of foreign policy, Mexico is an afterthought—our attention and resources are diverted to the Middle East or to grand strategies based on ‘pivoting’ our geopolitical and economical capacity towards Asia. With the U.S. economy performing at a snail-like pace, an emphasis on exports has re-emerged, but the bulk of the exporting narrative revolves around Asia. This is unfortunate, because our neighbor to the south has quietly positioned itself to be the next jewel in the emerging markets portfolio. For example, Market Watch (a Wall Street Journal subsidiary) recently published a bullish article on Mexico with the following headline: “Mexico: Investor’s New China”. The Economist published an opinion piece titled “The Global Mexican: Mexico is open for business”, highlighting Mexican companies that are investing locally and in the U.S. and arguing that Mexico is fertile ground for more investment, especially in the manufacturing sector. And according to The Financial Times, BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) are no longer the flavor of the month; Mexico is now taking over that distinction. In essence, immigration and the drug trade will no longer anchor the relationship between the U.S. and Mexico; instead, economics, finance, trade, and commerce will dictate the terms between the neighboring countries. However, in order to move forward, undoubtedly the elephant in the room must be addressed promptly. Immigration—although the topic is polarizing, it is imperative that President Obama tackles this issue steadfastly and in the most bi-partisan manner possible. It can be seen as one-sided that the onus is on the U.S., while Mexico gets carte blanche in its contradictory policy with their border patrol methods towards Central American migrants entering through Guatemala. True, but when you are world’s super power, not all is fair in love and war. Fortifying borders, beefing up security, creating walls that divide the two countries that mimic uncomfortable parallels between Israel and Palestine should not be the main focus. With the world becoming more flat, the emphasis in tackling the immigration quagmire should be trade and commerce. Engagement, interaction, and the exchange of ideas should be the picture we want to paint. We should not foster the argument that an open border policy and a global business paradigm will compromise American jobs and bite into our distinctive American competitiveness. The reason Mexicans cross the border illegally into the U.S. is because of one desire: opportunity. If Mexico develops a lasting robust economy, Mexicans will no longer desire to come to the U.S. in such droves. According to Nelson Balido, President of the Border Trade Alliance, this already occurring: “Mexico’s economy has, for the most part, weathered the worst of the economic downturn, meaning that more young Mexicans can reasonably seek and find work in their patria rather than heading north.” A strong American economy is extremely favorable for Mexico. Turn the tables a bit, and ponder what it means for the U.S. when a Mexican economy is robust and stable—more export possibilities for the U.S.; more investment from the U.S. to Mexico, and vice versa, creating a win-win situation. Less need for Mexicans to leave their homeland and look for jobs in the U.S. Sounds familiar? The characteristics of many vibrant emerging markets such as China, Indonesia, Brazil, and India, are occurring right next door. Why go East when we can venture South? Or perhaps, approach both simultaneously. According to a Nomura Equity Research report, Mexico in the next decade will surpass Brazil in being Latin America’s largest economy. When comparing Mexico on a GDP per capita basis, Mexico happens to be less developed than Argentina, Chile, and Brazil. This might sound negative, but in actuality it should be music to investors’ ears: more catching up for Mexico, meaning more investment and business activity. Moreover, Mexico’s economy is highly interconnected with the U.S. economy. Currently, Mexico sends almost 80 percent of its exports to the U.S., and roughly 50 percent of its imports are from the U.S. Manufacturing costs in Mexico are once again competitive compared to China. Ten years ago, China’s labor costs were four times cheaper than Mexico, but with labor wages in China inflating, Mexico now has a comparative advantage because its proximity to the U.S. Shipping cargo across the Pacific can be more expensive and arduous, versus trucking cargo from northern Mexico and delivering to Wisconsin in a matter of days. However if the U.S. administration continues to close the borders, the exchange of commerce between Mexico and the U.S. will suffer due to setbacks of just getting goods to cross the border. Luckily, NAFTA is already in place, but both parties (and Canada) can do more to cut red tape and streamline the movement of trade and commerce. Currently, Mexico is entering a perfect demographic storm. It has a young and growing population, which is expected to last for several decades. Mexico is no longer only looking north for economic advancement, as many of their multinational companies, such as Bimbo and Cemex, are currently doing business in Latin America and Spain. Mexico’s stock market is currently in talks to integrate their stock exchange with the MILA group—the established stock exchanges between Colombia, Peru, and Chile. The U.S. must act soon before it arrives at the party too late. It is in the U.S.’s interests to have Mexico think northward first, and then the other regions second, but the opposite is developing. The interconnectedness between both countries strongly conveys why the dialogue should revolve around bilateral trade and commerce agendas. For Mexico, 30 percent of GDP is dependent on exports, and 80 percent of exports are tagged to the U.S. Most importantly, one of ten Mexicans lives in the U.S., accounting for nearly 12 million Mexicans that consider the U.S. their current residence. Add in their descendants, and approximately 33 million Mexicans and Mexican-Americans reside in the U.S. Let’s put this figure in perspective: Venezuela has a population of 29 million; Greece, 11 million; and Canada, 34 million. Essentially we have a ‘country’ within a country—the beauty of America—but it must be embraced instead of shunned or ignored. Economically, it is a plus for Mexico, because there is a market for Mexican products; it is also a plus for the U.S. in many areas, including soft power, diversity, direct linkages to Mexico and Latin America. A cadre of American-born and educated human capital are able to cross cultures into Mexico and Latin America to conduct business and politics. The presidential election emphasized that Latinos in the U.S. are now a vital demographic when concerning local, Congressional, and Presidential elections. It makes practical sense for the U.S. (regardless of political party) to consider Mexico the front door to Central and South America. The most recent U.S. Census discovered that the Latino population in the United States: 1) now tops 50 million; 2) has accounted for more than half of America’s 23.7 million population increase in the last decade; 3) grew by 43 percent in the last decade; and 4) now accounts for about 1 out of 6 Americans. Latinos are now the largest minority group in the United States. These are extraordinary figures that should be leveraged into something positive. President Obama cannot respond by merely paying lip service to the Latino community. Latino voters have overwhelmingly backed President Obama for two elections now, but no favor is done with complete altruism. Surprisingly, during President Obama’s first term, there were 30 percent more deportations than during George W. Bush’s second term. Yet there is hope that President Obama will fix the broken system with a more humane approach, contrary to laws that are being pushed and backed by the Republican Party in Arizona, Georgia, and Alabama. Some may ask—what does this have to do with Mexico, or even Latin America? It is all about messages, and in the next four years the President must use the available tools to solidify relationships with its partners, paving the road for more trade and commerce, which ultimately will further strengthen the U.S. economy. What happens in the U.S. means a lot to many countries, and immigration is perhaps one of the most important matters in Mexico, Central, and South America. The U.S. must first focus on re-branding its relationship with Mexico. President Obama and Mexican President Peña Nieto need to formulate a new agenda between the two countries—one that resonates with the 21st century, linking the two countries economically; where the U.S. can envision Mexico as a vibrant emerging market in its own backyard. Obstacles do exist, like the current Mexican drug war and political corruption. But don’t India and China have corruption problems as well?
78 +Economic decline causes extinction
79 +Kemp 10 Geoffrey, Director of Regional Strategic Programs at The Nixon Center, served in the White House under Ronald Reagan, special assistant to the president for national security affairs and senior director for Near East and South Asian affairs on the National Security Council Staff, Former Director, Middle East Arms Control Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2010, The East Moves West: India, China, and Asia’s Growing Presence in the Middle East, pgs. 233-4
80 +The second scenario, called Mayhem and Chaos, is the opposite of the first scenario; everything that can go wrong does go wrong. Theworld economic situation weakensrather than strengthens, and India, China, and Japan suffer a major reduction in their growth rates, further weakening the global economy. As a result, energy demand falls and the price of fossil fuels plummets, leading to a financial crisis for the energy-producing states, which are forced to cut back dramatically on expansion programs and social welfare. That in turn leads to political unrest: and nurtures different radical groups, including, but not limited to, Islamic extremists. The internal stability of some countries is challenged, and there are more “failed states.” Most serious is the collapse of the democratic government in Pakistan and its takeover by Muslim extremists, who then take possession of a large number of nuclear weapons. The danger of war between India and Pakistan increases significantly. Iran, always worried about an extremist Pakistan, expands and weaponizes its nuclear program. That further enhances nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, with Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt joining Israel and Iran as nuclear states. Under these circumstances, the potential for nuclear terrorism increases, and the possibility of a nuclear terrorist attack in either the Western world or in the oil-producing states may lead to a further devastating collapse of the world economic market, with a tsunami-like impact on stability. In this scenario, major disruptions can be expected, with dire consequences for two-thirds of the planet’s population.
81 +
82 +Framing
83 +The Role of the Ballot is to Resist a Politics of Fear as constructed through Immigration
84 +As “Americans,” we conceal ourselves from global conflict, war, genocide, and violence behind our television screens – we look through one lens to develop a scholarship and “Truth” of what is actually occurring. In this process we subjugate what we are told – we integrate and process this information into our perspectives of the world. Specifically, the U.S.-Mexican border serves to constitute Mexicans as the, “dirty, foreign Other” through a politics of fear – political gestures based on this understanding are the event horizon for politics to come.
85 +Žižek, 07 - Slavoj Žižek is a Slovene philosopher and cultural critic. He is a senior researcher at the Institute for Sociology and Philosophy, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia, and a professor of philosophy and psychoanalysis at the European Graduate School (“Censorship Today: Violence, or ........ Ecology as a New Opium for the Masses”, Nov. 26, 2007, http://www.lacan.com/zizecology1.htm)
86 +Last but not least, new forms of apartheid, new Walls and slums. On September 11th, 2001, the Twin Towers were hit; twelve years earlier, on November 9th, 1989, the Berlin Wall fell. November 9th announced the "happy '90s," the Francis Fukuyama dream of the "end of history," the belief that liberal democracy had, in principle, won, that the search is over, that the advent of a global, liberal world community lurks just around the corner, that the obstacles to this ultra-Hollywood happy ending are merely empirical and contingent (local pockets of resistance where the leaders did not yet grasp that their time is over). In contrast to it, 9/11 is the main symbol of the forthcoming era in which new walls are emerging everywhere, between Israel and the West Bank, around the European Union, on the U.S.-Mexico border. So what if the new proletarian position is that of the inhabitants of slums in the new megalopolises? The explosive growth of slums in the last decades, especially in the Third World megalopolises from Mexico City and other Latin American capitals through Africa (Lagos, Chad) to India, China, Philippines and Indonesia, is perhaps the crucial geopolitical event of our times. It is effectively surprising how many features of slum dwellers fit the good old Marxist determination of the proletarian revolutionary subject: they are "free" in the double meaning of the word even more than the classic proletariat ("freed" from all substantial ties; dwelling in a free space, outside the police regulations of the state); they are a large collective, forcibly thrown together, "thrown" into a situation where they have to invent some mode of being-together, and simultaneously deprived of any support in traditional ways of life, in inherited religious or ethnic life-forms. While today's society is often characterized as the society of total control, slums are the territories within a state boundaries from which the state (partially, at least) withdrew its control, territories which function as white spots, blanks, in the official map of a state territory. Although they are de facto included into a state by the links of black economy, organized crime, religious groups, etc., the state control is nonetheless suspended there, they are domains outside the rule of law. In the map of Berlin from the times of the now defunct GDR, the are of West Berlin was left blank, a weird hole in the detailed structure of the big city; when Christa Wolf, the well-known East German half-dissident writer, took her small daughter to the East Berlin's high TV tower, from which one had a nice view over the prohibited West Berlin, the small girl shouted gladly: "Look, mother, it is not white over there, there are houses with people like here!" - as if discovering a prohibited slum Zone... This is why the "de-structured" masses, poor and deprived of everything, situated in a non-proletarized urban environment, constitute one of the principal horizons of the politics to come. If the principal task of the emancipatory politics of the XIXth century was to break the monopoly of the bourgeois liberals by way of politicizing the working class, and if the task of the XXth century was to politically awaken the immense rural population of Asia and Africa, the principal task of the XXIth century is to politicize - organize and discipline - the "de-structured masses" of slum-dwellers. Hugo Chavez's biggest achievement is the politicization (inclusion into the political life, social mobilization) of slum dwellers; in other countries, they mostly persist in apolitical inertia. It was this political mobilization of the slum dwellers which saved him against the US-sponsored coup: to the surprise of everyone, Chavez included, slum dwellers massively descended to the affluent city center, tipping the balance of power to his advantage. How do these four antagonisms relate to each other? There is a qualitative difference between the gap that separates the Excluded from the Included and the other three antagonisms, which designate three domains of what Hardt and Negri call "commons," the shared substance of our social being whose privatization is a violent act which should also be resisted with violent means, if necessary: the commons of culture, the immediately socialized forms of "cognitive" capital, primarily language, our means of communication and education (if Bill Gates were to be allowed monopoly, we would have reached the absurd situation in which a private individual would have literally owned the software texture our basic network of communication), but also the shared infrastructure of public transport, electricity, post, etc.; the commons of external nature threatened by pollution and exploitation (from oil to forests and natural habitat itself); the commons of internal nature (the biogenetic inheritance of humanity). What all these struggles share is the awareness of the destructive potentials, up to the self-annihilation of humanity itself, if the capitalist logic of enclosing these commons is allowed a free run. It is this reference to "commons" which justifies the resuscitation of the notion of Communism - or, to quote Alain Badiou: The communist hypothesis remains the good one, I do not see any other. If we have to abandon this hypothesis, then it is no longer worth doing anything at all in the field of collective action. Without the horizon of communism, without this Idea, there is nothing in the historical and political becoming of any interest to a philosopher. Let everyone bother about his own affairs, and let us stop talking about it. In this case, the rat-man is right, as is, by the way, the case with some ex-communists who are either avid of their rents or who lost courage. However, to hold on to the Idea, to the existence of this hypothesis, does not mean that we should retain its first form of presentation which was centered on property and State. In fact, what is imposed on us as a task, even as a philosophical obligation, is to help a new mode of existence of the hypothesis to deploy itself. So where do we stand today with regard to communism? The first step is to admit that the solution is not to limit the market and private property by direct interventions of the State and state ownership. The domain of State itself is also in its own way "private": private in the precise Kantian sense of the "private use of Reason" in State administrative and ideological apparatuses: The public use of one's reason must always be free, and it alone can bring about enlightenment among men. The private use of one's reason, on the other hand, may often be very narrowly restricted without particularly hindering the progress of enlightenment. By public use of one's reason I understand the use which a person makes of it as a scholar before the reading public. Private use I call that which one may make of it in a particular civil post or office which is entrusted to him. What one should add here, moving beyond Kant, is that there is a privileged social group which, on account of its lacking a determinate place in the "private" order of social hierarchy, directly stands for universality: it is only the reference to those Excluded, to those who dwell in the blanks of the State space, that enables true universality. There is nothing more "private" than a State community which perceives the Excluded as a threat and worries how to keep the Excluded at a proper distance. In other words, in the series of the four antagonisms, the one between the Included and the Excluded is the crucial one, the point of reference for the others; without it, all others lose their subversive edge: ecology turns into a "problem of sustainable development," intellectual property into a "complex legal challenge," biogenetics into an "ethical" issue. One can sincerely fight for ecology, defend a broader notion of intellectual property, oppose the copyrighting of genes, while not questioning the antagonism between the Included and the Excluded - even more, one can even formulate some of these struggles in the terms of the Included threatened by the polluting Excluded. In this way, we get no true universality, only "private" concerns in the Kantian sense of the term. Corporations like Whole Foods and Starbucks continue to enjoy favor among liberals even though they both engage in anti-union activities; the trick is that they sell products that contain the claim of being politically progressive acts in and of themselves. One buys coffee made with beans bought at above fair-market value, one drives a hybrid vehicle, one buys from companies that provide good benefits for their customers (according to the corporation's own standards), etc. Political action and consumption become fully merged. In short, without the antagonism between the Included and the Excluded, we may well find ourselves in a world in which Bill Gates is the greatest humanitarian fighting against poverty and diseases, and Rupert Murdoch the greatest environmentalist mobilizing hundreds of millions through his media empire. When politics is reduced to the "private" domain, it takes the form of the politics of FEAR - fear of losing one's particular identity, of being overwhelmed. Today's predominant mode of politics is post-political bio-politics - an awesome example of theoretical jargon which, however, can easily be unpacked: "post-political" is a politics which claims to leave behind old ideological struggles and, instead, focus on expert management and administration, while "bio-politics" designates the regulation of the security and welfare of human lives as its primal goal. It is clear how these two dimensions overlap: once one renounces big ideological causes, what remains is only the efficient administration of life... almost only that. That is to say, with the depoliticized, socially objective, expert administration and coordination of interests as the zero-level of politics, the only way to introduce passion into this field, to actively mobilize people, is through fear, a basic constituent of today's subjectivity.
87 +America is at a turning point. Trump’s election is an endorsement of politics of fear against the borderlands. This fear has no basis in reality and must be resisted. Parker ‘16
88 +Parker, Jennifer. Trump's immigration plan preys on fear, divides Americans, http://www.mcall.com/opinion/yourview/mc-trump-immigration-parker-yv-0909-20160908-story.html. September 8, 2016.
89 +Donald Trump's iron-fisted immigration plan of last week makes clear that he thinks immigrants, especially the unauthorized, are a major source of America's problems.
90 +Like all of Trump's divisive rhetoric in the past year, this plan stirs up fear, not confidence. It scapegoats rather than brings people together. And it blatantly disavows facts. It should give anyone living in the Lehigh Valley pause as immigrants and the diversity they bring have long been a source of our region's strength, not a drain on it.
91 +Trump's plan starts out with a horrible picture of unauthorized immigrants, one that does not compute with reality. Many of us know someone living in the shadows — a neighbor, a co-worker, a classmate, a family member. Most unauthorized immigrants are model residents, not murderers, terrorists or rapists, as Trump would have us believe.
92 +Nearly every study that has examined the hard data shows the same two facts: When unauthorized immigration goes up, violent crime goes down, and immigrants have lower rates of crime and incarceration than the native born. Trump also ignores the fact that unauthorized immigration is a declining problem in the U.S., not a rising one. According to Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, more Mexicans are returning home rather than coming, and our border is more secure than it ever has been.
93 +The central feature of Trump's plan (besides the border wall) is a $300 billion mass deportation operation. It would triple Immigration and Customs Enforcement and round up millions in a hyped-up law enforcement climate that seems eerily close to Operation Wetback of the 1950s. The effects could be devastating for children and families.
94 +According to the Pew Research Center, in 2012, 7 percent of school students had at least one unauthorized parent. Most of these students (about 80 percent) are citizens (they were born in the U.S.). Breaking up families is inhumane and could have a cascading effect on communities at large.
95 +Perhaps more disturbing is Trump's proposal to do away with amnesty, even for our country's 1.8 million Dreamers, some of whom live in the Lehigh Valley. Dreamers are young undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as children, through no fault of their own. They know no other home besides the U.S. They attend U.S. schools, speak English, identify as American, and often serve in the U.S. military. Yet they struggle through life without full legal status.
96 +The term Dreamers came from the DREAM Act (Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act), a bill first introduced in Congress in 2001 to provide undocumented youth with a path to resident status and eventual citizenship. It did not pass but Dreamers continue to hope for a better future. Until four years ago, Dreamers lived under constant fear of deportation and were unable to legally work. A program, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, was enacted in 2012 to provide temporary relief by protecting these children from deportation and granting them permission to work for two-year renewable periods. Trump threatens to end DACA and turn Dreamers' lives into nightmares. This is insidious.
97 +Trump's plan, in general, shows ignorance of immigration law, stoking crisis where it doesn't exist. "Extreme vetting" is a fancy term Trump made up for policies that are already in place. The U.S. has the most rigorous and lengthiest vetting process in the world and is equipped to do its part in providing relief to families ravaged by war and terror in Syria.
98 +Lehigh Valley officials have already successfully resettled Syrian refugee families, who join an established Syrian population that has been a vital part of the area's rich social and economic tapestry for over a century. But Trump aims to scare us to death, literally. He tells us to "lock your doors" when Syrian refugees come to town. In so doing, he turns terror victims into perpetrators and calls for suspicion rather than empathy.
99 +We know from history that when fear sets in, suspicion spreads to whole ethnic and religious groups — to anyone who looks like, seems like or identifies with that target group. This is not the foundation we need for making America great.
100 +Debate is unique forum where debaters practice becoming policy makers. Resisting oppression in debate is key to legal advocacy in the real world and later in life. Joyner 99
101 + (Christopher Professor of International Law in the Government Department at Georgetown University, Spring, 5 ILSA J Int'l and Comp L 377
102 +
103 +Use of the debate can be an effective pedagogical tool for education in the social sciences. Debates, like other role-playing simulations, help students understand different perspectives on a policy issue by adopting a perspective as their own. But, unlike other simulation games, debates do not require that a student participate directly in order to realize the benefit of the game. Instead of developing policy alternatives and experiencing the consequences of different choices in a traditional role-playing game, debates present the alternatives and consequences in a formal, rhetorical fashion before a judgmental audience. Having the class audience serve as jury helps each student develop a well-thought-out opinion on the issue by providing contrasting facts and views and enabling audience members to pose challenges to each debating team. These debates ask undergraduate students to examine the international legal implications of various United States foreign policy actions. Their chief tasks are to assess the aims of the policy in question, determine their relevance to United States national interests, ascertain what legal principles are involved, and conclude how the United States policy in question squares with relevant principles of international law. Debate questions are formulated as resolutions, along the lines of: "Resolved: The United States should deny most-favored-nation status to China on human rights grounds;" or "Resolved: The United States should resort to military force to ensure inspection of Iraq's possible nuclear, chemical and biological weapons facilities;" or "Resolved: The United States' invasion of Grenada in 1983 was a lawful use of force;" or "Resolved: The United States should kill Saddam Hussein." In addressing both sides of these legal propositions, the student debaters must consult the vast literature of international law, especially the nearly 100 professional law-school-sponsored international law journals now being published in the United States. This literature furnishes an incredibly rich body of legal analysis that often treats topics affecting United States foreign policy, as well as other more esoteric international legal subjects. Although most of these journals are accessible in good law schools, they are largely unknown to the political science community specializing in international relations, much less to the average undergraduate. By assessing the role of international law in United States foreign policy- making, students realize that United States actions do not always measure up to international legal expectations; that at times, international legal strictures get compromised for the sake of perceived national interests, and that concepts and principles of international law, like domestic law, can be interpreted and twisted in order to justify United States policy in various international circumstances. In this way, the debate format gives students the benefits ascribed to simulations and other action learning techniques, in that it makes them become actively engaged with their subjects, and not be mere passive consumers. Rather than spectators, students become legal advocates, observing, reacting to, and structuring political and legal perceptions to fit the merits of their case. The debate exercises carry several specific educational objectives. First, students on each team must work together to refine a cogent argument that compellingly asserts their legal position on a foreign policy issue confronting the United States. In this way, they gain greater insight into the real-world legal dilemmas faced by policy makers. Second, as they work with other members of their team, they realize the complexities of applying and implementing international law, and the difficulty of bridging the gaps between United States policy and international legal principles, either by reworking the former or creatively reinterpreting the latter. Finally, research for the debatesforces students to become familiarized with contemporary issues on the United States foreign policy agenda and the role that international law plays in formulating and executing these policies. The debate thus becomes an excellent vehicle for pushing students beyond stale arguments over principles into the real world of policy analysis, political critique, and legal defense.
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2016-11-30 23:59:33.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Everyone
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +No One
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +7
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +8
Team
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Loyola Namkung Aff
Title
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Borders AC 4
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Glenbrooks
Caselist.CitesClass[5]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,34 @@
1 +Ending racism must take priority over other goals because racism makes all other values impossible – it warps equality, justice and morality.
2 +Lipsitz 2000 - Professor at Department of Ethnic Studies at University of California, (George, October 2000, “The White 2K Problem” (for Cultural Values ISSN 1362-5179 Volume 4 Number 4 pp.518-524)
3 +The persistence of residential segregation, educational inequality, environmental racism, and employment discrimination makes a mockery of the promises of fairness and equality inscribed within civil rights laws. It means that members of aggrieved racial groups experience their racial identities through impediments to the accumulation of assets that appreciate in value. People of color confront disproportionate obstacles to acquiring education, marketable skills, and job training. They face unparalleled exposure to health risks. Their racial identities confine them to the segments of the labor market where it is most difficult to bargain over wages and working conditions. They face the targeted scrutiny, discipline, and brutality of law enforcement officials intent on restricting their mobility and their cultural and political expressions. People of color in the U.S. are not so much disadvantaged as much as taken advantage of. At the same time, their unearned disadvantages structure unearned advantages for whites.
4 +The ROB goes to whoever best challenges racism, this is a prerequisite to any moral theories.
5 +Albert Memmi 2k, Professor Emeritus of Sociology @ U of Paris, Naiteire, Racism, Translated by Steve Martinot, p. 163-165
6 +The struggle against racism will be long, difficult, without intermission, without remission, probably never achieved. Yet, for this very reason, it is a struggle to be undertaken without surcease and without concessions. One cannot be indulgent toward racism; one must not even let the monster in the house, especially not in a mask. To give it merely a foothold means to augment the bestial part in us and in other people, which is to diminish what is human. To accept the racist universe to the slightest degree is to endorse fear, injustice, and violence. It is to accept the persistence of the dark history in which we still largely live. it is to agree that the outsider will always be a possible victim (and which person man is not themselves himself an outsider relative to someone else?. Racism illustrates, in sum, the inevitable negativity of the condition of the dominated that is, it illuminates in a certain sense the entire human condition. The anti-racist struggle, difficult though it is, and always in question, is nevertheless one of the prologues to the ultimate passage from animosity to humanity. In that sense, we cannot fail to rise to the racist challenge. However, it remains true that one’s moral conduct only emerges from a choice: one has to want it. It is a choice among other choices, and always debatable in its foundations and its consequences. Let us say, broadly speaking, that the choice to conduct oneself morally is the condition for the establishment of a human order, for which racism is the very negation. This is almost a redundancy. One cannot found a moral order, let alone a legislative order, on racism, because racism signifies the exclusion of the other, and his or her subjection to violence and domination. From an ethical point of view, if one can deploy a little religious language, racism is ‘the truly capital sin. It is not an accident that almost all of humanity’s spiritual traditions counsels respect for the weak, for orphans, widows, or strangers. It is not just a question of theoretical morality and disinterested commandments. Such unanimity in the safeguarding of the other suggests the real utility of such sentiments. All things considered, we have an interest in banishing injustice, because injustice engenders violence and death. Of course, this is debatable. There are those who think that if one is strong enough, the assault on and oppression of others is permissible. Bur no one is ever sure of remaining the strongest. One day, perhaps, the roles will be reversed. All unjust society contains within itself the seeds of its own death. It is probably smarter to treat others with respect so that they treat you with respect. “Recall.” says the Bible, “that you were once a stranger in Egypt,” which means both that you ought to respect the stranger because you were a stranger yourself and that you risk becoming one again someday. It is an ethical and a practical appeal—indeed, it is a contract, however implicit it might be. In short, the refusal of racism is the condition for all theoretical and practical morality because, in the end, the ethical choice commands the political choice, a just society must be a society accepted by all. If this contractual principle is not accepted, then only conflict, violence, and destruction will be our lot.
7 +Institutional structures of domination create everyday holocausts—you should reject singular focused impacts in favor of working against the ongoing extinctions of people of color. Omolade 89
8 +1989, Barbara Omolade is a historian of black women for the past twenty years and an organizer in both the women’s and civil rights/black power movements, “We Speak for the Planet” in “Rocking the ship of state : toward a feminist peace politics”, pp. 172-176
9 +Recent efforts by Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and President Ronald Reagan to limit nuclear testing, stockpiling, and weaponry, while still protecting their own arsenals and selling arms to countries and factions around the world, vividly demonstrate how "peace" can become an abstract concept within a culture of war. Many peace activists are similarly blind to the constant wars and threats of war being waged against people of color and the planet by those who march for "peace" and by those they march against. These pacifists, like Gorbachev and Reagan, frequently want people of color to fear what they fear and define peace as they define it. They are unmindful that our lands and peoples have already been and are being destroyed as part of the "final solution" of the "color line." It is difficult to persuade the remnants of Native American tribes, the starving of African deserts, and the victims of the Cambodian "killing fields" that nuclear war is the major danger to human life on the planet and that only a nuclear "winter" embodies fear and futurelessness for humanity. The peace movement suffers greatly from its lack of a historical and holistic perspective, practice, and vision that include the voices and experiences of people of color; the movement's goals and messages have therefore been easily coopted and expropriated by world leaders who share the same culture of racial dominance and arrogance. The peace movement's racist blinders have divorced peace from freedom, from feminism, from education reform, from legal rights, from human rights, from international alliances and friendships, from national liberation, from the particular (for example, black female, Native American male) and the general (human being). Nevertheless, social movements such as the civil rights-black power movement in the United States have always demanded peace with justice, with liberation, and with social and economic reconstruction and cultural freedom at home and abroad. The integration of our past and our present holocausts and our struggle to define our own lives and have our basic needs met are at the core of the inseparable struggles for world peace and social betterment. The Achilles heel of the organized peace movement in this country has always been its whiteness. In this multi-racial and racist society, no allwhite movement can have the strength to bring about basic changes. It is axiomatic that basic changes do not occur in any society unless the people who are oppressed move to make them occur. In our society it is people of color who are the most oppressed. Indeed our entire history teaches us that when people of color have organized and struggled-most especially, because of their particular history, Black people-have moved in a more humane direction as a society, toward a better life for all people.1 Western man's whiteness, imagination, enlightened science, and movements toward peace have developed from a culture and history mobilized against women of color. The political advancements of white men have grown directly from the devastation and holocaust of people of color and our lands. This technological and material progress has been in direct proportion to the undevelopment of women of color. Yet the dayto- day survival, political struggles, and rising up of women of color, especially black women in the United States, reveal both complex resistance to holocaust and undevelopment and often conflicted responses to the military and war. The Holocausts Women of color are survivors of and remain casualties of holocausts, and we are direct victims of war-that is, of open armed conflict between countries or between factions within the same country. But women of color were not soldiers, nor did we trade animal pelts or slaves to the white man for guns, nor did we sell or lease our lands to the white man for wealth. Most men and women of color resisted and fought back, were slaughtered, enslaved, and force marched into plantation labor camps to serve the white masters of war and to build their empires and war machines. People of color were and are victims of holocausts-that is, of great and widespread destruction, usually by fire. The world as we knew and created it was destroyed in a continual scorched earth policy of the white man. The experience of Jews and other Europeans under the Nazis can teach us the value of understanding the totality of destructive intent, the extensiveness of torture, and the demonical apparatus of war aimed at the human spirit. A Jewish father pushed his daughter from the lines of certain death at Auschwitz and said, "You will be a remembrance-You tell the story. You survive." She lived. He died. Many have criticized the Jews for forcing non-Jews to remember the 6 million Jews who died under the Nazis and for etching the names Auschwitz and Buchenwald, Terezin and Warsaw in our minds. Yet as women of color, we, too, are "remembrances" of all the holocausts against the people of the world. We must remember the names of concentration camps such as Jesus, Justice, Brotherhood, and Integrity, ships that carried millions of African men, women, and children chained and brutalized across the ocean to the "New World." We must remember the Arawaks, the Taino, the Chickasaw, the Choctaw, the Narragansett, the Montauk, the Delaware, and the other Native American names of thousands of U.S. towns that stand for tribes of people who are no more. We must remember the holocausts visited against the Hawaiians, the aboriginal peoples of Australia, the Pacific Island peoples, and the women and children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We must remember the slaughter of men and women at Sharpeville, the children of Soweto, and the men of Attica. We must never, ever, forget the children disfigured, the men maimed, and the women broken in our holocausts-we must remember the names, the numbers, the faces, and the stories and teach them to our children and our children's children so the world can never forget our suffering and our courage. Whereas the particularity of the Jewish holocaust under the Nazis is over, our holocausts continue. We are the madres locos (crazy mothers) in the Argentinian square silently demanding news of our missing kin from the fascists who rule. We are the children of El Salvador who see our mothers and fathers shot in front of our eyes. We are the Palestinian and Lebanese women and children overrun by Israeli, Lebanese, and U.S. soldiers. We are the women and children of the bantustans and refugee camps and the prisoners of Robbin Island. We are the starving in the Sahel, the poor in Brazil, the sterilized in Puerto Rico. We are the brothers and sisters of Grenada who carry the seeds of the New Jewel Movement in our hearts, not daring to speak of it with our lipsyet. Our holocaust is South Africa ruled by men who loved Adolf Hitler, who have developed the Nazi techniques of terror to more sophisticated levels. Passes replace the Nazi badges and stars. Skin color is the ultimate badge of persecution. Forced removals of women, children, and the elderly-the "useless appendages of South Africa"-into barren, arid bantustans without resources for survival have replaced the need for concentration camps. Black sex-segregated barracks and cells attached to work sites achieve two objectives: The work camps destroy black family and community life, a presumed source of resistance, and attempt to create human automatons whose purpose is to serve the South African state's drive toward wealth and hegemony. Like other fascist regimes, South Africa disallows any democratic rights to black people; they are denied the right to vote, to dissent, to peaceful assembly, to free speech, and to political representation. The regime has all the typical Nazi-like political apparatus: house arrests of dissenters such as Winnie Mandela; prison murder of protestors such as Stephen Biko; penal colonies such as Robbin Island. Black people, especially children, are routinely arrested without cause, detained without limits, and confronted with the economic and social disparities of a nation built around racial separation. Legally and economically, South African apartheid is structural and institutionalized racial war. The Organization of African Unity's regional intergovernmental meeting in 1984 in Tanzania was called to review and appraise the achievements of the United Nations Decade for Women. The meeting considered South Africa's racist apartheid regime a peace issue. The "regime is an affront to the dignity of all Africans on the continent and a stark reminder of the absence of equality and peace, representing the worst form of institutionalized oppression and strife." Pacifists such as Martin Luther King, Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi who have used nonviolent resistance charged that those who used violence to obtain justice were just as evil as their oppressors. Yet all successful revolutionary movements have used organized violence. This is especially true of national liberation movements that have obtained state power and reorganized the institutions of their nations for the benefit of the people. If men and women in South Africa do not use organized violence, they could remain in the permanent violent state of the slave. Could it be that pacifism and nonviolence cannot become a way of life for the oppressed? Are they only tactics with specific and limited use for protecting people from further violence? For most people in the developing communities and the developing world consistent nonviolence is a luxury; it presumes that those who have and use nonviolent weapons will refrain from using them long enough for nonviolent resisters to win political battles. To survive, peoples in developing countries must use a varied repertoire of issues, tactics, and approaches. Sometimes arms are needed to defeat apartheid and defend freedom in South Africa; sometimes nonviolent demonstrations for justice are the appropriate strategy for protesting the shooting of black teenagers by a white man, such as happened in New York City. Peace is not merely an absence of 'conflict that enables white middleclass comfort, nor is it simply resistance to nuclear war and war machinery. The litany of "you will be blown up, too" directed by a white man to a black woman obscures the permanency and institutionalization of war, the violence and holocaust that people of color face daily. Unfortunately, the holocaust does not only refer to the mass murder of Jews, Christians, and atheists during the Nazi regime; it also refers to the permanent institutionalization of war that is part of every fascist and racist regime. The holocaust lives. It is a threat to world peace as pervasive and thorough as nuclear war.
10 +
11 +Advantage 1: Racism
12 +Racism and racist tension is rampant on college campuses. Jaschik 16
13 +Scott Jaschik, editor and co-founder of Inside Higher Ed 9/26/16 “Epidemic of Racist Incidents” https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/09/26/campuses-see-flurry-racist-incidents-and-protests-against-racism
14 +A year ago, racial incidents and lingering tensions on many campuses turned into protests in October that spread nationally in November. This year, incidents have multiplied at the very beginning of the academic year. And so have protests. Some of the incidents are closely tied to campus issues. But many reflect the protest movement ~-~- which extends well beyond campuses ~-~- against police shootings of unarmed black men. Many students are joining that movement, and in particular the calls of some not to stand during the playing of the national anthem before athletic events. And some of the racist incidents involve attacks on Black Lives Matter, frequently invoking the name of the movement along with racist images.
15 +
16 +Restricting speech is the wrong way to go; it anonymizes oppression. ACLU
17 +ACLU n.d. “Hate Speech on Campus” https://www.aclu.org/other/hate-speech-campus JN
18 +Many universities, under pressure to respond to the concerns of those who are the objects of hate, have adopted codes or policies prohibiting speech that offends any group based on race, gender, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation. That's the wrong response, well-meaning or not. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects speech no matter how offensive its content. Speech codes adopted by government-financed state colleges and universities amount to government censorship, in violation of the Constitution. And the ACLU believes that all campuses should adhere to First Amendment principles because academic freedom is a bedrock of education in a free society. How much we value the right of free speech is put to its severest test when the speaker is someone we disagree with most. Speech that deeply offends our morality or is hostile to our way of life warrants the same constitutional protection as other speech because the right of free speech is indivisible: When one of us is denied this right, all of us are denied. Since its founding in 1920, the ACLU has fought for the free expression of all ideas, popular or unpopular. That's the constitutional mandate. Where racist, sexist and homophobic speech is concerned, the ACLU believes that more speech ~-~- not less ~-~- is the best revenge. This is particularly true at universities, whose mission is to facilitate learning through open debate and study, and to enlighten. Speech codes are not the way to go on campuses, where all views are entitled to be heard, explored, supported or refuted. Besides, when hate is out in the open, people can see the problem. Then they can organize effectively to counter bad attitudes, possibly change them, and forge solidarity against the forces of intolerance. College administrators may find speech codes attractive as a quick fix, but as one critic put it: "Verbal purity is not social change." Codes that punish bigoted speech treat only the symptom: The problem itself is bigotry. The ACLU believes that instead of opting for gestures that only appear to cure the disease, universities have to do the hard work of recruitment to increase faculty and student diversity; counseling to raise awareness about bigotry and its history, and changing curricula to institutionalize more inclusive approaches to all subject matter.
19 +Sacrificing free speech rights creates more racism. Sanchez 15
20 +Dan Sanchez, Managing Editor of FEE.org. 11/19/15 “Why Only Free Speech Gives Safe Space to the Oppressed” http://theantimedia.org/why-only-free-speech-gives-safe-space-to-the-oppressed/ JN
21 +Many campus activists have lashed out in frustration at “free speech purism,” which they regard as misplaced in the context of institutionalized oppression. But it is extremely short-sighted to sacrifice universal principle on the altar of identity politics for the sake of marginalized groups. Once you accept the infringement of universal rights as an acceptable political weapon, it will be wielded more effectively by oppressors against the oppressed (cops against blacks, Israeli occupiers against Palestinians, etc.), and not the other way around. Authoritarian restriction is a game much better suited for the mighty than for the marginalized. If you replace the power of principle with the principle of power, it is the relatively powerless who will get the worst of it.
22 +
23 +Solvency
24 +Plan text: Public Colleges and Universties ought to not restrict any constitutionally protected speech
25 +Free speech is important on campuses. FIRE
26 +https://www.thefire.org/about-us/mission/
27 +Freedom of speech is a fundamental American freedom and a human right, and there’s no place that this right should be more valued and protected than America’s colleges and universities. A university exists to educate students and advance the frontiers of human knowledge, and does so by acting as a “marketplace of ideas” where ideas compete. The intellectual vitality of a university depends on this competition—something that cannot happen properly when students or faculty members fear punishment for expressing views that might be unpopular with the public at large or disfavored by university administrators. Nevertheless, freedom of speech is under continuous threat at many of America’s campuses, pushed aside in favor of politics, comfort, or simply a desire to avoid controversy. As a result, speech codes dictating what may or may not be said, “free speech zones” confining free speech to tiny areas of campus, and administrative attempts to punish or repress speech on a case-by-case basis are common today in academia.
28 +
29 +Suppressing racist speech is counterproductive; we must be able to confront and challenge racist ideologies to defeat them. The Australian 16
30 +Brendan O’Neill 8/22/16 “Allowing Racists Right to Free Speech Airs This Evil to Scrutiny” http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/brendan-oneill/allowing-racists-right-to-free-speech-airs-this-evil-to-scrutiny/news-story/fc6bef5aaf593d5ea6b2b0571e0db41c
31 +The truth is anti-racists should be at the front of the fight against 18C — for the simple reason that if you want to defeat ¬racism, as I do, then you must ¬insist racists have full freedom of speech so we can see and know their ideology, and confront it before the public. Leftie rads people who love 18C’s suppression of racist speech are failing in their first duty as anti-racists: to shine a light on racism and do battle with it in the full glare of public life.
32 +Free speech is key to ending oppression and racism. Morrissey 16
33 +Anna S. Morrissey, J.D. Candidate, May 2016, Loyola University Chicago School of Law. 2016 “Free Speech in the Quad: Why First Amendment Oppression is Not the Path to Racial Justice” http://www.luc.edu/media/lucedu/law/centers/childlaw/childed/pdfs/2016/Morrissey.pdf JN
34 +“Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and . . . inflict great pain. . . . we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a Nation we have chosen a different course—to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.”40 These student activists across the country reflect First Amendment values and traditions to their core.41 For that, they deserve applause. These activists have been organizing politically, speaking out, holding rallies, and using the First Amendment to stand up, communicate and demand equal justice.42 But the end they seek runs contrary to their purpose. Curtailing freedom of speech in any manner would place limits on those that challenge the status quo – a dangerous precedent for any free society. It is a mistake to suppress speech in the name of equality. “Free speech and association are tools for the minority, whoever they are at a given moment.”43 The First Amendment empowers individuals. It empowers individuals to “express their views, to dissent from majority policies, and to organize politically to advance their interests.”44 Free speech protected Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X, Susan B. Anthony, and many other civil rights activists.45 “The last thing a minority group should seek is the suppression of free expression.”“Speech that severely offends an individual’s morality or is hostile to an individual’s way of life warrants the same constitutional protection as other speech because the right of free speech is indivisible: When one of us is denied this right, all of us are denied.”49 Justice Harlan recognized that in interpreting the Constitution, the Supreme Court must strike a balance between “liberty of the individual” and “the demands of organized society.” 50 The touchstone of the First Amendment, and any of free society, is freedom of expression – no matter if the government or others may disagree. It allows for individual freedom of mind, and places an important check on those in power.51 First Amendment oppression would set a dangerous precedent and is not the answer to any social intolerance. “Freedom for the thought that we hate” is often important to the discovery of truth, because sometimes viewpoints change.52 Free speech and freedom of association are the tools that empower a minority – tools that must not be diminished.53 Ideas in vogue today may not be in vogue tomorrow. Therefore, we must “be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe.”
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-01-14 19:38:09.0
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +8
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +1
Team
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Loyola Namkung Aff
Title
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +JF16 Race v1
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Harvard Westlake
Caselist.RoundClass[4]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2016-11-20 16:26:51.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +NA
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +NA
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +1
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Glenbrooks
Caselist.RoundClass[5]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +3
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2016-11-20 16:28:36.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +NA
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +NA
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +1
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Glenbrooks
Caselist.RoundClass[6]
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2016-11-30 23:58:56.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Everyone
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +No One
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +8
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Glenbrooks
Caselist.RoundClass[7]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +4
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2016-11-30 23:59:31.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Everyone
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +No One
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +8
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Glenbrooks
Caselist.RoundClass[8]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +5
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-01-14 19:38:07.0
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +1
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Harvard Westlake
Caselist.RoundClass[9]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +6
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-02-12 01:01:10.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Everyone
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Someone
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +1
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Somewhere

Schools

Aberdeen Central (SD)
Acton-Boxborough (MA)
Albany (CA)
Albuquerque Academy (NM)
Alief Taylor (TX)
American Heritage Boca Delray (FL)
American Heritage Plantation (FL)
Anderson (TX)
Annie Wright (WA)
Apple Valley (MN)
Appleton East (WI)
Arbor View (NV)
Arcadia (CA)
Archbishop Mitty (CA)
Ardrey Kell (NC)
Ashland (OR)
Athens (TX)
Bainbridge (WA)
Bakersfield (CA)
Barbers Hill (TX)
Barrington (IL)
BASIS Mesa (AZ)
BASIS Scottsdale (AZ)
BASIS Silicon (CA)
Beckman (CA)
Bellarmine (CA)
Benjamin Franklin (LA)
Benjamin N Cardozo (NY)
Bentonville (AR)
Bergen County (NJ)
Bettendorf (IA)
Bingham (UT)
Blue Valley Southwest (KS)
Brentwood (CA)
Brentwood Middle (CA)
Bridgewater-Raritan (NJ)
Bronx Science (NY)
Brophy College Prep (AZ)
Brown (KY)
Byram Hills (NY)
Byron Nelson (TX)
Cabot (AR)
Calhoun Homeschool (TX)
Cambridge Rindge (MA)
Canyon Crest (CA)
Canyon Springs (NV)
Cape Fear Academy (NC)
Carmel Valley Independent (CA)
Carpe Diem (NJ)
Cedar Park (TX)
Cedar Ridge (TX)
Centennial (ID)
Centennial (TX)
Center For Talented Youth (MD)
Cerritos (CA)
Chaminade (CA)
Chandler (AZ)
Chandler Prep (AZ)
Chaparral (AZ)
Charles E Smith (MD)
Cherokee (OK)
Christ Episcopal (LA)
Christopher Columbus (FL)
Cinco Ranch (TX)
Citrus Valley (CA)
Claremont (CA)
Clark (NV)
Clark (TX)
Clear Brook (TX)
Clements (TX)
Clovis North (CA)
College Prep (CA)
Collegiate (NY)
Colleyville Heritage (TX)
Concord Carlisle (MA)
Concordia Lutheran (TX)
Connally (TX)
Coral Glades (FL)
Coral Science (NV)
Coral Springs (FL)
Coppell (TX)
Copper Hills (UT)
Corona Del Sol (AZ)
Crandall (TX)
Crossroads (CA)
Cupertino (CA)
Cy-Fair (TX)
Cypress Bay (FL)
Cypress Falls (TX)
Cypress Lakes (TX)
Cypress Ridge (TX)
Cypress Springs (TX)
Cypress Woods (TX)
Dallastown (PA)
Davis (CA)
Delbarton (NJ)
Derby (KS)
Des Moines Roosevelt (IA)
Desert Vista (AZ)
Diamond Bar (CA)
Dobson (AZ)
Dougherty Valley (CA)
Dowling Catholic (IA)
Dripping Springs (TX)
Dulles (TX)
duPont Manual (KY)
Dwyer (FL)
Eagle (ID)
Eastside Catholic (WA)
Edgemont (NY)
Edina (MN)
Edmond North (OK)
Edmond Santa Fe (OK)
El Cerrito (CA)
Elkins (TX)
Enloe (NC)
Episcopal (TX)
Evanston (IL)
Evergreen Valley (CA)
Ferris (TX)
Flintridge Sacred Heart (CA)
Flower Mound (TX)
Fordham Prep (NY)
Fort Lauderdale (FL)
Fort Walton Beach (FL)
Freehold Township (NJ)
Fremont (NE)
Frontier (MO)
Gabrielino (CA)
Garland (TX)
George Ranch (TX)
Georgetown Day (DC)
Gig Harbor (WA)
Gilmour (OH)
Glenbrook South (IL)
Gonzaga Prep (WA)
Grand Junction (CO)
Grapevine (TX)
Green Valley (NV)
Greenhill (TX)
Guyer (TX)
Hamilton (AZ)
Hamilton (MT)
Harker (CA)
Harmony (TX)
Harrison (NY)
Harvard Westlake (CA)
Hawken (OH)
Head Royce (CA)
Hebron (TX)
Heights (MD)
Hendrick Hudson (NY)
Henry Grady (GA)
Highland (UT)
Highland (ID)
Hockaday (TX)
Holy Cross (LA)
Homewood Flossmoor (IL)
Hopkins (MN)
Houston Homeschool (TX)
Hunter College (NY)
Hutchinson (KS)
Immaculate Heart (CA)
Independent (All)
Interlake (WA)
Isidore Newman (LA)
Jack C Hays (TX)
James Bowie (TX)
Jefferson City (MO)
Jersey Village (TX)
John Marshall (CA)
Juan Diego (UT)
Jupiter (FL)
Kapaun Mount Carmel (KS)
Kamiak (WA)
Katy Taylor (TX)
Keller (TX)
Kempner (TX)
Kent Denver (CO)
King (FL)
Kingwood (TX)
Kinkaid (TX)
Klein (TX)
Klein Oak (TX)
Kudos College (CA)
La Canada (CA)
La Costa Canyon (CA)
La Jolla (CA)
La Reina (CA)
Lafayette (MO)
Lake Highland (FL)
Lake Travis (TX)
Lakeville North (MN)
Lakeville South (MN)
Lamar (TX)
LAMP (AL)
Law Magnet (TX)
Langham Creek (TX)
Lansing (KS)
LaSalle College (PA)
Lawrence Free State (KS)
Layton (UT)
Leland (CA)
Leucadia Independent (CA)
Lexington (MA)
Liberty Christian (TX)
Lincoln (OR)
Lincoln (NE)
Lincoln East (NE)
Lindale (TX)
Livingston (NJ)
Logan (UT)
Lone Peak (UT)
Los Altos (CA)
Los Osos (CA)
Lovejoy (TX)
Loyola (CA)
Loyola Blakefield (MA)
Lynbrook (CA)
Maeser Prep (UT)
Mannford (OK)
Marcus (TX)
Marlborough (CA)
McClintock (AZ)
McDowell (PA)
McNeil (TX)
Meadows (NV)
Memorial (TX)
Millard North (NE)
Millard South (NE)
Millard West (NE)
Millburn (NJ)
Milpitas (CA)
Miramonte (CA)
Mission San Jose (CA)
Monsignor Kelly (TX)
Monta Vista (CA)
Montclair Kimberley (NJ)
Montgomery (TX)
Monticello (NY)
Montville Township (NJ)
Morris Hills (NJ)
Mountain Brook (AL)
Mountain Pointe (AZ)
Mountain View (CA)
Mountain View (AZ)
Murphy Middle (TX)
NCSSM (NC)
New Orleans Jesuit (LA)
New Trier (IL)
Newark Science (NJ)
Newburgh Free Academy (NY)
Newport (WA)
North Allegheny (PA)
North Crowley (TX)
North Hollywood (CA)
Northland Christian (TX)
Northwood (CA)
Notre Dame (CA)
Nueva (CA)
Oak Hall (FL)
Oakwood (CA)
Okoboji (IA)
Oxbridge (FL)
Oxford (CA)
Pacific Ridge (CA)
Palm Beach Gardens (FL)
Palo Alto Independent (CA)
Palos Verdes Peninsula (CA)
Park Crossing (AL)
Peak to Peak (CO)
Pembroke Pines (FL)
Pennsbury (PA)
Phillips Academy Andover (MA)
Phoenix Country Day (AZ)
Pine Crest (FL)
Pingry (NJ)
Pittsburgh Central Catholic (PA)
Plano East (TX)
Polytechnic (CA)
Presentation (CA)
Princeton (NJ)
Prosper (TX)
Quarry Lane (CA)
Raisbeck-Aviation (WA)
Rancho Bernardo (CA)
Randolph (NJ)
Reagan (TX)
Richardson (TX)
Ridge (NJ)
Ridge Point (TX)
Riverside (SC)
Robert Vela (TX)
Rosemount (MN)
Roseville (MN)
Round Rock (TX)
Rowland Hall (UT)
Royse City (TX)
Ruston (LA)
Sacred Heart (MA)
Sacred Heart (MS)
Sage Hill (CA)
Sage Ridge (NV)
Salado (TX)
Salpointe Catholic (AZ)
Sammamish (WA)
San Dieguito (CA)
San Marino (CA)
SandHoke (NC)
Santa Monica (CA)
Sarasota (FL)
Saratoga (CA)
Scarsdale (NY)
Servite (CA)
Seven Lakes (TX)
Shawnee Mission East (KS)
Shawnee Mission Northwest (KS)
Shawnee Mission South (KS)
Shawnee Mission West (KS)
Sky View (UT)
Skyline (UT)
Smithson Valley (TX)
Southlake Carroll (TX)
Sprague (OR)
St Agnes (TX)
St Andrews (MS)
St Francis (CA)
St James (AL)
St Johns (TX)
St Louis Park (MN)
St Margarets (CA)
St Marys Hall (TX)
St Thomas (MN)
St Thomas (TX)
Stephen F Austin (TX)
Stoneman Douglas (FL)
Stony Point (TX)
Strake Jesuit (TX)
Stratford (TX)
Stratford Independent (CA)
Stuyvesant (NY)
Success Academy (NY)
Sunnyslope (AZ)
Sunset (OR)
Syosset (NY)
Tahoma (WA)
Talley (AZ)
Texas Academy of Math and Science (TX)
Thomas Jefferson (VA)
Thompkins (TX)
Timber Creek (FL)
Timothy Christian (NJ)
Tom C Clark (TX)
Tompkins (TX)
Torrey Pines (CA)
Travis (TX)
Trinity (KY)
Trinity Prep (FL)
Trinity Valley (TX)
Truman (PA)
Turlock (CA)
Union (OK)
Unionville (PA)
University High (CA)
University School (OH)
University (FL)
Upper Arlington (OH)
Upper Dublin (PA)
Valley (IA)
Valor Christian (CO)
Vashon (WA)
Ventura (CA)
Veritas Prep (AZ)
Vestavia Hills (AL)
Vincentian (PA)
Walla Walla (WA)
Walt Whitman (MD)
Warren (TX)
Wenatchee (WA)
West (UT)
West Ranch (CA)
Westford (MA)
Westlake (TX)
Westview (OR)
Westwood (TX)
Whitefish Bay (WI)
Whitney (CA)
Wilson (DC)
Winston Churchill (TX)
Winter Springs (FL)
Woodlands (TX)
Woodlands College Park (TX)
Wren (SC)
Yucca Valley (CA)