Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[50]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[55]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[50]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2017-03-09 17:29:06.95
	1	+2017-03-09 17:29:06.0

Caselist.CitesClass[55]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,64 @@
	1	+Harms
	2	+Welcome to the housing renaissance- ordinances are the new Jim Crow as undocumented migrants face rising challenges towards adequate housing.
	3	+Lal 13 Lal, Prerna, You Cannot Live Here — Restrictive Housing Ordinances as the New Jim Crow (June 1, 2013)
	4	+Following the failure of comprehensive immigration reform in 2006 and 2007, local leaders in over a hundred municipalities considered ordinances to control immigration populations, particularly the growth of Latinos in their neighborhoods. These ordinances varied in aggression but the gist of these policies was to prohibit undocumented immigrants from renting in the jurisdiction, impose civil and monetary penalties for landlords who rented to undocumented immigrants, deny business licenses to those employers who hired undocumented immigrants, and adopt English as the official language (Oliveri, 2009; Romero, 2008). Varsanyi (2008) explains this proliferation of anti-immigrant ordinances by pointing to Immigrant-driven demographics, which has generated social and cultural changes that seem threatening to many people, and these perceived threats have resulted in legislation aimed at controlling or expelling new residents. Ramakrishnan and Wong (2007) contend that the rise in local immigration legislation is a result of Republican Party dominance at the local level since most of the jurisdictions adopting restrictive ordinances were not experiencing an influx of new immigrants. What is missing from these explanations is a sustained inquiry into the role of race in explaining state and local efforts to limit immigrants in their jurisdiction. I contend that the proliferation of local anti-immigrant restrictive housing ordinances in predominantly white residential areas was motivated by racial animus towards Latinos, and parallelsed Jim Crow era racial zoning laws and sundown towns.
	5	+At the heart of these ordinances is a drive to construct all immigrants as a threat to white suburban living- ordinances are just an excuse for racist sentiments.
	6	+Bono Marisa. “ Don't You Be My Neighbor: Restrictive Housing Ordinances as the New Jim Crow.” The Modern American, SummerFall, 2007, 29-38.
	7	+A closer examination of the reasons set forth by public officials to justify targeting undocumented immigrants, reveals that they are not only unfounded, but do not distinguish between undocumented immigrants and Latinos in general. Furthermore, localities do not avail themselves of alternative solutions that refrain from targeting subordinated groups of people. Put simply, in light of these considerations, the only conclusion a critical observer can reach is that these justifications are pretexts for racial exclusion. When Farmers Branch councilmember O’Hare stated publicly that it was necessary to protect property values,68 the city failed to offer any connection between immigration status and problems related to health, safety, welfare, or declining property values. Worse, Farmers Branch did not show that those problems even existed.69 Neither O’Hare nor other proponents of the ordinance pointed to any studies, reports, or statistics to support a correlation between immigration status and societal ills. In fact, at the same time as the touted increase in the Farmers Branch Latino population, the total number of criminal offenses in Farmers Branch declined – from 1,413 in 2003 to 1,306 in 2005.70 The Texas Educational Agency recently recognized schools in the Carrolton Farmers Branch School District for academic excellence in the 2004-2005 school year, an achievement those schools had not obtained in recently preceding years.71 Furthermore, O’Hare’s public comments did not distinguish between undocumented immigrants and Latinos. To explain fluctuations in property values, O’Hare reasoned that “what I would call less desirable people move into the neighborhoods, people who don’t value education, people who don't value taking care of their properties....”72 He claimed that retail operations cater to low-income and Spanish-speaking customers, leaving “no place for people with a good income to shop.”73 Yet, his statements again fail to discern between undocumented immigrants and Latinos in general.74 Similarly, the City of Escondido based its ordinance on findings that “the harboring of illegal aliens in dwelling units in the City, and crime committed by illegal aliens, harm the health, safety and welfare of legal residents in the City.”75 Unlike the City of Farmers Branch, Escondido relied on a June 2006 study by the National Latino Research Center at California State University San Marcos (hereafter “NLRC study”) addressing housing conditions in the Mission Park area of Escondido.76 The NLRC study, however, found that the causes for substandard housing in Escondido were the high costs of housing and the unavailability of affordable subsidized housing in Escondido – not the presence of “illegal aliens.”77 In Hazleton, Mayor Ray Barletta insisted “that illegal immigration leads to higher crime rates, contributes to overcrowded classrooms and failing schools, subjects our hospitals to fiscal hardship and legal residents to substandard quality of care, and destroys our neighborhoods and diminishes our overall quality of life.”78 Yet, he has also publicly admitted that he does not know how many “illegal aliens” live, work, or attend school in the city, or how many Hazleton crimes have been committed by “illegal immigrants,” legal residents, or citizens.79 Furthermore, according to statistics compiled by the Pennsylvania State Police Uniform Crime Reporting System, there has been a reduction of total arrests in Hazleton over the past five years, including a reduction in serious crimes such as rapes, robberies, homicides, and assaults.80 Under Hazleton’s violent crime index (VCI), undocumented immigrants committed no violent crime until 2006, when three such cases were reported out of 1,397.81 Barletta also claimed that Hazleton’s budget was “buckling under the strain of illegal immigrants,” but admitted that he was unaware how many undocumented workers contributed to the city’s budget by paying taxes.82 In 2000, Hazleton had a $1.2 million deficit, in stark contrast to the surplus it enjoys today.83 The town also saw its largest increase in property values last year.84 Its net assets are up 18, and its bond rating is AAA.85 Amidst the baseless assertions about immigrants, legal alternatives exist that would more directly address the tribulations claimed by public officials. For example, it is not clear why a city, without evidence showing the cause-and-effect between blight-like overcrowding and a certain class of residents, would not pursue remedies that did not target that group of residents. Where concerns about property values arise, a city could enforce stricter penalties for landlords who were not keeping their buildings up to code. Where the occurrence of crime is shown to be increasing, a city could fund community watch programs in appropriate areas, if not train and hire additional police officers. There are myriad alternative solutions to these alleged societal woes. Yet none are being utilized by cities that turn to restrictive housing ordinances. Thus, municipalities with restrictive housing ordinances fail to show a connection between the presence of immigrant populations and alleged societal harms. They also ignore less restrictive solutions that would more directly address those harms to the extent that they actually exist. Moreover, municipalities that pass restrictive housing ordinances simultaneously incur overwhelming legal and economic costs that they are often unable to afford. For example, after Riverside, New Jersey, passed a restrictive ordinance in the fall of 2006, thousands of Latinos fled the community, creating a forceful blow to the local economy. Local businesses floundered, and many were forced to close.86 By the time Riverside voted to rescind the ordinance a year later, it had already spent $82,000 in attorney’s fees fending off a legal challenge to its law.87 It is likely that Riverside would have spent many times that amount had it seen the challenge through to conclusion. Thus, the record of these cities reveals the intent behind the legal exclusion of the undocumented. In short, local governments’ willingness to engage in certain behavior – ignoring the variety of obvious legal solutions, willingly incurring staggering economic and legal costs, and simultaneously admitting to the nonexistence of evidence that linkings predominantly Latino undocumented immigrant populations to threatened safety or welfare – speaks for itself. The intent behind exclusionary ordinances is to use immigration status as a pretext for the racial exclusion of Latinos.
	8	+It’s only going to get worse under Donald Trump’s attempts to “Make America Great Again”. Ben Carson, for example don’t even believe in the anti-discrimination laws that exist in the squo.
	9	+Williams 2-1 Jumaane D. Williams (Deputy leader, New York City Council), Ben Carson is dangerous for HUD. He got the job anyway because Trump has normalized incompetence, Quartz, 2/1/2017. https://qz.com/899568/donald-trumps-cabinet-confirmations-ben-carsons-hud-secretary-confirmation-is-a-dangerous-normalization-of-incompetence/
	10	+One example is his opposition on a HUD staple: the fair housing rule. This country has a long history of systematically denying housing to black and brown Americans. Indeed, US president Donald Trump and his father have also been accused of housing discrimination. The Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing program exists to address these issues by requiring local communities to examine patterns of income and racial discrimination in housing. Yet Carson believes these types of preventive measures against discrimination are “mandated social-engineering schemes.” Further, he believes it is not the role of the government to “legislate racial equality,” which in his words can be “downright dangerous.” Another cause for major concern is Caron’s belief that poverty is a choice. HUD oversees federal rental assistance programs that serve more than five million of the country’s lowest-income families. The agency is also provides federal government funding for the nation’s public housing developments. A great number of these families live in New York, including the country’s largest public housing system.
	11	+The root of the justifications lies in a loophole in federal policy- currently, even through the Fair Housing Act would render ordinances unconstitutional, they are permitted under the guise of state rights.
	12	+Batson 08 Todd D. Batson, No Vacancy: Why Immigrant Housing Ordinances Violate FHA and Section 1981, 74 Brook. L. Rev. (2008). Available at: http://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/blr/vol74/iss1/5
	13	+The United States has always faced immigration challenges. After the Pilgrims established the first U.S. colony in New England,2 an ensuing immigration stream grew the U.S. population to over 300 million people within 386 years.3 This population growth has increased the demands for social services and the costs required to maintain infrastructure.4 As one response to these rising costs and other immigration concerns, state and municipal governments have enacted local laws to regulate immigrant housing.'
	14	+Yet while Congress has exclusive power to regulate immigration, there is no per se federal preemption of every state and municipal immigration law.6 Rather, federal immigration laws only preempt those state and municipal laws that specify which immigrants may enter the United States and the conditions under which those immigrants may remain.7 In Villas at Parkside Partners v. City of Farmers Branch,' the Northern District of Texas enjoined a municipal
	15	+ordinance that regulated immigrant housing.9 The court held that federal authority preempted the municipal ordinance because the ordinance enacted a locally prescribed framework to determine which immigrants could rent apartments. ° However, the court suggested that it would affirm an ordinance that deferred to federal immigration standards." Such deference is problematic because while border communities might prioritize immigration concerns, regulation of immigrant housing is a national problem that requires a uniform, federal approach. 2 It directly implicates political functions involving foreign affairs and relations, 3 an area where federal courts typically defer to the Executive Branch.
	16	+Plan
	17	+Plan Text: The United States Federal Government should remove all restricting housing ordinances and end all legal administrations that curtail immigrant access to housing by expanding the jurisdiction of the Fair Housing Act to apply to states’ obligations to protect immigrants.
	18	+Batson 08 Todd D. Batson, No Vacancy: Why Immigrant Housing Ordinances Violate FHA and Section 1981, 74 Brook. L. Rev. (2008). Available at: http://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/blr/vol74/iss1/5
	19	+
	20	+State and municipal governments may neither slam their front doors shut, nor gate-keep their communities by determining which immigrants may enter and remain. 7 4 Unlawful immigration does impose costs on state and municipal governments, and border communities may very well bear those costs disproportionately. However, exporting immigration costs to neighboring communities is no solution.'75 Rather, state and municipal governments should coalesce around a unified plan and lobby Congress to address the immigration problem comprehensively. A comprehensive regulatory framework would avoid inconsistent regulation from state and local governments. The framework would be more likely to provide tenants and property owners notice of their legal obligations, and would provide adequate and meaningful review. Congress has the power to articulate a standard of scrutiny that addresses equal protection concerns for immigrants. A federal statute, moreover, would represent the cooperation and contributions of the nation as a whole. Since immigration policies directly implicate political functions involving foreign affairs and relations,'76 a nationally accountable Congress is the appropriate body to address these concerns. Congress may take longer to act than state and municipal governments would like. Thus, in the interim, state and municipal communities are likely to elect at least some politicians running "tough on immigration" campaigns. These politicians are likely to encourage state and municipal regulations of immigrant housing. Yet this Note has discussed the legal deficiencies with local regulations.'77 Because of these legal deficiencies, local residents must challenge immigrant housing ordinances under FHA and Section 1981 V' In the end, a comprehensive, well-reasoned approach to immigration will best address the national problem, while ensuring that the United States' doors to the "tempest-tost"'79 remain open.
	21	+Advantage 1 is Cultural Shift
	22	+Rejecting immigration restrictions transforms landscapes by re-shaping social values through disruption of racial narratives and contestation of political norms.
	23	+Lal 13 Lal, Prerna, You Cannot Live Here — Restrictive Housing Ordinances as the New Jim Crow (June 1, 2013)
	24	+A great influx of Latino immigration has transformed how place and race is lived in America. Latino immigrants challenge the black/white binary that has long shaped U.S. race relations, and their continued migration to suburbs will likely play a transformative role in changing the urban/suburban landscape (Price, 2012). While many Latinos continue to face concentrated poverty and live in highly segregated areas (Logan Prerna Lal 17 2010; Massey, 2007), mass migration can radically transform both the city and suburban landscape. As immigrant workers continue to increase in the American workforce over the next few decades, both cities and suburbs will become new spaces of political contestation. As Latinos move from cities to suburbs, they can expand labor market and cultural networks, and help to integrate newly arriving immigrants into both the urban and suburban landscape.
	25	+Independent of anything else, the 1AC leads to a spillover effect- rights based approach to housing is key to spurring more positive policy reform,
	26	+Adams 08, Kristen David (Professor of Law, Stetson University College of Law). "Do we need a right to housing." Nev. LJ 9 (2008): 275.
	27	+Rights are more powerful than goals, policies, commitments, and other non-rights. One illustration of this truth is that the United States has recognized a commitment to “a decent home and a suitable living environment for every American family” dating back to 1949.162 This resolution came from President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s 1944 State of the Union Address, in which he urged the adoption of a “Second Bill of Rights” that would include a right to housing.163 Congress officially adopted Roosevelt’s housing goal in 1949.164 Thus, a commitment to housing for all persons in the United States is not an entirely new concept, but creating an affirmative right to housing would take Congress’ previous commitment to a whole new level and require that it be met. The 1949 commitment lacked specific goals that would have made it enforceable and meaningful.165 Currently, the United States falls far short of providing housing to every family in America who needs it; instead, only about one-fourth of those who qualify for housing assistance actually receive it.166 The 1949 commitment can therefore be seen as an example of why affordable housing goals are not sufficient. Instead, rights are required.167 Rights, unlike goals, tend to provide the level of specificity needed to motivate follow through. Unlike goals, rights also create grounds for litigation if no follow through is forthcoming.168 In addition to having greater power than non-rights, rights create legitimacy for programs to enforce those rights.169 Having a right to housing should put the brakes on continual budget cuts for housing programs i
	28	+
	29	+n the legislative appropriations process.170 Making housing a right may also motivate increased construction of affordable housing.171
	30	+Redlining’s impacts still affect Latino and black communities today. Housing ordinances perpetuates mass income inequality. There is a historical obligation to reject racist ordinances.
	31	+Boak 16 For minorities, pain is severe decade after housing peaked By JOSH BOAK Jun. 20, 2016 2:47 PM EDT bigstory.ap.org/article/b8ceee210bb344e68bebe95ab73faf5a/10-years-after-housing-bubble-damage-lingers-minorities
	32	+The problem is most pronounced among minorities who already had lower ownership rates before the bubble. Actions such as "redlining" — which for decades denied loans to minorities — excluded black neighborhoods from government-backed mortgages. This made it harder for minorities to buy even as the U.S. economy surged after World War II and overall home ownership rates climbed. Many minority homeowners who bought or refinanced during the bubble eventually became trapped by predatory mortgages, some requiring no money down and monthly payments that eventually ballooned.
	33	+Advantage 2 is Legal Spillover
	34	+The 1AC would provide strong legal backing for potential lawsuits, setting a legal precedent in favor of immigrants.
	35	+Batson 08 Todd D. Batson, No Vacancy: Why Immigrant Housing Ordinances Violate FHA and Section 1981, 74 Brook. L. Rev. (2008). Available at: http://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/blr/vol74/iss1/5
	36	+
	37	+CHALLENGING IMMIGRANT HOUSING ORDINANCES IS MOST PRACTICAL UNDER THE FAIR HOUSING ACT AND SECTION 1981 This Note argues that because of the legal deficiencies with immigrant housing ordinances, 4 the most practical challenges to them arise under FHA and Section 1981. FHA prohibits housing practices that have a discriminatory effect on parties because of race, color, or national origin."' Thus, while an equal protection challenge requires proof of discriminatory intent,"' courts have interpreted FHA more broadly." 7 Additionally, Section 1981 prohibits parties from restricting any person's right to enter a contract because of race, ethnicity, or national origin.2 8 As a result, Section 1981 prohibits any state or municipal law that forbids a property owner or manager from entering leases with unlawful immigrants." 9 This Note argues that in comparison to a preemption, due process or equal protection challenge, plaintiffs face a lower bar to establish wrongdoing under FHA and Section 1981. It follows that the most practical means to challenge these immigrant housing ordinances are FHA and Section 1981. By doing so, plaintiffs can defeat local piecemeal efforts to regulate immigrant housing and thereby encourage a uniform, national approach to a common problem.
	38	+Congress enacted FHA13° to provide fair housing throughout the nation and to prohibit all public and private racial discrimination in the sale and rental of real property. 3' The reach of FHA is broad, covering most dwellings and protecting any person seeking to rent or purchase a dwelling, regardless of immigration status.'32 While there is a limited exemption for single-family homes, the exemption does not extend to apartment complexes."' Thus, apartment complex owners and managers must comply with FHA provisions. Immigrant housing ordinances injure both tenants and property owners, and both groups have standing to challenge the ordinances under FHA.'34 The ordinances harm tenants because they disparately impact minority renters. Further, the ordinances infringe on tenants' rights to enjoy a diverse community.'35 They harm property owners and managers, in contrast, because they are too vague.'36 Property owners and managers lack sufficient notice and guidance regarding their new legal obligations.'37 Thus, in an effort to comply with local regulations, they may incidentally violate federal laws. Property owners and managers face a basic dilemma: they may abide by federal laws and risk violating local ordinances, or they may abide by local ordinances and risk violating federal laws.
	39	+Winning lawsuits can be a massive leg-up for marginalized communities stuck in poverty- between 1990 and 2001 that lead to over 150 million dollars in recovery.
	40	+Wiki n.d. Housing discrimination (United States), From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_discrimination_(United_States)
	41	+The federal government has passed other initiatives in addition to the Fair Housing Act of 1968. The Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974 and Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 helped with discrimination in mortgage lending and lenders' problems with credit needs.12 The Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 was passed to give the federal government the power to enforce the original Fair Housing Act to correct past problems with enforcement.13 The amendment established a system of administrative law judges to hear cases brought to them by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development and to levy fines.14 Because of the relationship between housing discrimination cases and private agencies, the federal government passed the two initiatives. The Fair Housing Assistance Program of 1984 was passed to assist public agencies with processing complaints, and the Fair Housing Initiatives program of 1986 supported private and public fair housing agencies in their activities, such as auditing.13 Between 1990 and 2001 these two programs have resulted in over one thousand housing discrimination lawsuits and over $155 million in financial recovery.13 However, the lawsuits and financial recoveries generated from fair housing discrimination cases only scratches the surface of all instances of discrimination. Silverman and Patterson concluded that the underfunding and poor implementation of federal, state and local policies designed to address housing discrimination results in less than 1 of all instances of discrimination being addressed.15 Moreover, they found that local nonprofits and administrators responsible for enforcing fair housing laws had a tendency to downplay discrimination based on family status and race when designing implementation strategies.16
	42	+The 1AC causes a social change that moves people onto the side of immigrants.
	43	+David Schultz, Vice President, Minnesota Civil Liberties Union and Stephen E. Gottlieb, Cleveland-Marshall School of Law, “Legal Functionalism and Social Change: A Reassessment of Rosenberg’s The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring About Social Change?” JOURNAL OF LAW AND POLICY v. 12, Winter 1996, p. 63+.
	44	+Further, since law imposes social costs  n90 and affects incentives,  n91 the decision itself, without extra-judicial assistance, raised new obstacles to segregation.  n92 What once was a nearly costless behavior suddenly entailed increased litigation costs, fines, and injunctions; the threat of executive action against segregation now was increasingly real; and it now was likely that other related behaviors also would be similarly burdened.
	45	+Independent of victory, case studies prove that litigation spurs legislation.
	46	+Richard A. L. Gambitta, Chair of the Political Science and Geography Department, University of Texas-San Antonio, GOVERNING THROUGH THE COURTS, ed. Gambitta, May, and Foster, 1981, p. 275-276.
	47	+Similar to the aftermath of the “winning” litiation in Serrano and Robinson, the losing litigation in Rodriguez was followed by positive, though limited, policy reform and relative equalization. How did the Rodriguez litigaton contribute to the policy reform and expenditure change? I suggest, in ways similar to Serrano and Robinson. The litigation process performed a legislative agenda-setting function. All three cases contributed to setting a legislative agenda that otherwise would not have 276 transpired. Additionally, the litigation processes bolstered the political positions of the advocates of change, though the policy outcomes were tempered by, as they are always subject to and at least partially determined by, the inherent compromises of the majoritarian processes and institutions (Casper, 1972; Clune, 1979; Horowitz, 1977; Lehn, 1978; Scheingold, 1974).
	48	+Framework
	49	+The standard is rejecting structural oppression.
	50	+The nature of governments necessitates pragmatic policy.
	51	+Martin Rhonheimer. “The Political Ethos of Constitutional Democracy and the Place of Natural Law in Public Reason: Rawls's "Political Liberalism" Revisited” http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1364andcontext=ajj
	52	+“It is a fundamental feature of political philosophy to be part of practical philosophy. Political philosophy belongs to ethics, which is practical, for it both reflects on practical knowledge and aims at action. Therefore, it is not only normative, but must consider the concrete conditions of realization. The rationale of political institutions and action must be understood as embedded in concrete cultural and, therefore, historical contexts and as meeting with problems that only in these contexts are understandable. A normative political philosophy which would abstract from the conditions of realizability would be trying to establish norms for realizing the "idea of the good" or of "the just" (as Plato, in fact, tried to do in his Republic). Such a purely metaphysical view, however, is doomed to failure. As a theory of political praxis, political philosophy must include in its reflection the concrete historical context, historical experiences and the corresponding knowledge of the proper logic of the political. 4 Briefly: political philosophy is not metaphysics, which contemplates the necessary order of being, but practical philosophy, which deals with partly contingent matters and aims at action. Moreover, unlike moral norms in general-natural law included-which rule the actions of a person-"my acting" and pursuing the good-the logic of the political is characterized by acts like framing institutions
	53	+
	54	+and establishing legal rules by which not only personal actions but the actions of a multitude of persons are regulated by the coercive force of state power, and by which a part of citizens exercises power over others. Political actions are, thus, both actions of the whole of the body politic and referring to the whole of the community of citizens. 5 Unless we wish to espouse a platonic view according to which some persons are by nature rulers while others are by nature subjects, we will stick to the Aristotelian differentiation between the "domestic" and the "political" kind of rule 6: unlike domestic rule, which is over people with a common interest and harmoniously striving after the same good and, therefore, according to Aristotle is essentially "despotic," political rule is exercised over free persons who represent a plurality of interests and pursue, in the common context of the polis, different goods. The exercise of such political rule, therefore, needs justification and is continuously in search of consent among those who are ruled, but who potentially at the same time are also the rulers. Thus, unlike individual ethics, which is concerned with the goodness, fulfillment and flourishing of human persons, political ethics and philosophy-as a conception of political action and the political, that is, the common good -must be right from the beginning, and even on the level of basic principles, prudential in a specific way: it is a principled kind of prudence, based on the specific subject matter of the political, that guides actions-e.g., lawmaking—chosen for, and in many cases in behalf of, a multitude of free persons the results of which are enforced by means of the coercive apparatus of what we nowadays call "the state." This principled kind of political prudence and its inherent logic of specifically political justification constitute "public reason." “
	55	+This means that a) you reject abstract ethical theories—at the end of the day, no one cares whether they willed a contradiction or not, but rather the government concerns itself with outcomes of its actions, and b) absent of the neg explaining why they link to political philosophy, you default my framework.
	56	+Governments have an obligation to reject forms of structural oppression—it prevents voices from being heard and comes first under any framework.
	57	+WINTER AND LEIGHTON – D. D. Winter and Dana Leighton. “STRUCTURAL VIOLENCE SECTION INTRODUCTION”. 6/1/99 http://sites.saumag.edu/danaleighton/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2015/09/SVintro-2.pdf
	58	+“Finally, to recognize the operation of structural violence forces us to ask questions about how and why we tolerate it, questions which often have painful answers for the privileged elite who unconsciously support it. A final question of this section is how and why we allow ourselves to be so oblivious to structural violence. Susan Opotow offers an intriguing set of answers, in her article Social Injustice. She argues that our normal perceptual/cognitive processes divide people into in-groups and out-groups. Those outside our group lie outside our scope of justice. Injustice that would be instantaneously confronted if it occurred to someone we love or know is barely noticed if it occurs to strangers or those who are invisible or irrelevant. We do not seem to be able to open our minds and our hearts to everyone, so we draw conceptual lines between those who are in and out of our moral circle. Those who fall outside are morally excluded, and become either invisible, or demeaned in some way so that we do not have to acknowledge the injustice they suffer. Moral exclusion is a human failing, but Opotow argues convincingly that it is an outcome of everyday social cognition. To reduce its nefarious effects, we must be vigilant in noticing and listening to oppressed, invisible, outsiders. Inclusionary thinking can be fostered by relationships, communication, and appreciation of diversity. Like Opotow, all the authors in this section point out that structural violence is not inevitable if we become aware of its operation, and build systematic ways to mitigate its effects. Learning about structural violence may be discouraging, overwhelming, or maddening, but these papers encourage us to step beyond guilt and anger, and begin to think about how to reduce structural violence. “
	59	+Prefer this because ethics can’t be grounded in ideal theory. Dreaming of a nonexistent perfect world does nothing to actually create change, it just leaves content with the flawed status quo.
	60	+Charles Mills 05. “Ideal Theory” as Ideology. 2005. http://www.douglasficek.com/teaching/phi-102/mills.pdf RC
	61	+“I suggest that this spontaneous reaction, far from being philosophically naïve or jejune, is in fact the correct one. If we start from what is presumably the uncontroversial premise that the ultimate point of ethics is to guide our actions and make ourselves better people and the world a better place, then ideal theory the framework above will not only be unhelpful, but will in certain respects be deeply antithetical to the proper goal of theoretical ethics as an enterprise. In modeling humans, human capacities, human interaction, human institutions, and human society on ideal-as-idealized-models, in never exploring how deeply different this is from ideal-as-descriptive-models, we are abstracting away from realities crucial to our comprehension of the actual workings of injustice in human interactions and social institutions, and thereby guaranteeing that the ideal-as-idealized-model will never be achieved. It is no accident that historically subordinated groups have always been deeply skeptical of ideal theory, generally see its glittering ideals as remote and unhelpful, and are attracted to nonideal theory, or what significantly overlaps it, “naturalized” theory. In the same essay cited above, Jaggar identifies a “unity of feminist ethics in at least one dimension,” a naturalism “characteristic, though not definitive, of it” (Jaggar 2000, 453). Marxism no longer has the appeal it once did as a theory of oppression, but it was famous for emphasizing, as in The German Ideology, the importance of descending from the idealizing abstractions of the Young Hegelians to a focus on “real, active men,” not “men as narrated, thought of, imagined, conceived,” but “as they actually are,” in (class) relations of domination (Marx and Engels 1976, 35–36). And certainly black Americans, and others of the racially oppressed, have always operated on the assumption that the natural and most illuminating starting point is the actual conditions of nonwhites, and the discrepancy between them and the vaunted American ideals. Thus Frederick Douglass’s classic 1852 speech, “What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July?” points out the obvious, that the inspiring principles of freedom and independence associated with the celebration are not equally extended to black slaves: “I am not included within the pale of this glorious anniversary! Your high independence only reveals the immeasurable distance between us. . . . The rich inheritance of justice, liberty, prosperity and independence, bequeathed by your fathers, is shared by you, not by me. . . . This Fourth July is yours, not mine. You may rejoice, I must mourn” (1996, 116, emphasis in original). So given this convergence in gender, class, and race theory on the need to make theoretically central the existence and functioning of the actual non-ideal structures that obstruct the realization of the ideal, what defensible arguments for abstracting away from these realities could there be?”
	62	+Failing to adopt a non-ideal theory allows for use to ignore hypocrisy in our own philosophy.
	63	+Charles Mills 05. “Ideal Theory” as Ideology. 2005. http://www.douglasficek.com/teaching/phi-102/mills.pdf RC
	64	+“Or consider a (today) far more respectable ideal, that of autonomy. This notion has been central to ethical theory for hundreds of years, and is, of course, famously most developed in Kant’s writings. But recent work in feminist theory has raised questions as to whether it is an attractive ideal at all, or just a reflection of male privilege. Human beings are dependent upon others for a long time before they can become adult, and if they live to old age, are likely to be dependent upon others for many of their latter years. But traditionally, this work has been done by women, and so it has been invisible or taken for granted, not theorized. Some feminist ethicists have argued for the simple abandonment of autonomy as an attractive value, but others have suggested that it can be redeemed once it is reconceptualized to take account of this necessarily inter- relational aspect (MacKenzie and Stoljar, 2000). So the point is that idealization here obfuscates the reality of care giving that makes any achievement of autonomy possible in the first place, and only through nonideal theory are we sensitized to the need to balance this value against other values, and rethink it. Somewhat similarly, think of the traditional left critique of a liberal concept of freedom that focuses simply on the absence of juridical barriers, and ignores the many ways in which economic constraints can make working-class liberties largely nominal rather than substantive.”

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2017-03-09 17:29:08.892

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+idk

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Flower Mound LA

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+50

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+1

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Strake Jesuit Chen Aff

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+MA - 1AC - Immigration Ordinances Plan

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+TFA