Changes for page Warren Okunlola Aff

Last modified by Administrator on 2017/08/29 03:41

From version < 262.1 >
edited by Nelson Okunlola
on 2017/04/12 23:21
To version < 295.1 >
edited by Nelson Okunlola
on 2017/04/13 01:17
< >
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Warren-Okunlola-Aff-NSDA District-Round1.docx
Author
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +XWiki.okunlolanelson@gmailcom
Size
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +50.7 KB
Content
Warren-Okunlola-Aff-NSDA District-Round5.docx
Author
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +XWiki.okunlolanelson@gmailcom
Size
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +56.9 KB
Content
Caselist.CitesClass[2]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -All debaters with awareness and access to the NDCA 16-17 LD Wiki, located at “hsld.debatecoaches.org”, must disclose all broken positions on said wiki at least 30 minutes before each round. All disclosure must occur on one’s own wiki page including the tags, citation, and first and last three words of each card.
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2017-03-08 03:47:56.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Any
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Any
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -32
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -1
Team
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Warren Okunlola Aff
Title
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -1 - Disclosure Theory
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -TFA State
Caselist.RoundClass[32]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2017-03-08 03:47:53.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Any
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Any
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -1
RoundReport
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Disclose or Lose
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -TFA State
Caselist.RoundClass[33]
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2017-03-09 20:32:58.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Akhil Gandra
OpenSource
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -https://hsld.debatecoaches.org/download/Warren/Okunlola+Aff/Warren-Okunlola-Aff-TFA%20State-Round1.docx
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Houston Lamar GS
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -1
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -TFA State
Caselist.CitesClass[14]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,56 @@
1 +===Framework===
2 +====I value morality as per evaluative ought in the resolution which is defined as used to express duty or moral obligation by Merriam Webster====
3 +https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ought
4 +====Ethics arise from the subject, always social and changed by surroundings and environment====
5 +**Butler 92**. Judith. 1992. "Continent Foundations: Feminism and the Question of "Postmodernism" Feminists Theorize the Political.
6 +In a sense, The subject is constituted through an exclusion and differentiation, perhaps a repression, that is subsequently concealed, covered over, by the effect of autonomy. In this sense, autonomy is the logical consequence of a disavowed dependency, which is to say that the autonomous subject can maintain the illusion of its autonomy insofar as it covers over the break out of which it is constituted. This dependency and this break are already Social relations, ones which precede and condition the formation of the subject. As a result, this is not a relation in which the subject finds itself, as one of the relations that forms it situation. The subject is constructed through acts of exclusion and differentiation that distinguish the subject from its constitutive outside, a domain of abjected alterity. There is no ontologically intact reflexivity to the subject which is then placed within a cultural context; that cultural context, as it were, is already there as the disarticulated process of that subject’s production, one that is concealed by the frame that would situate a ready-made subject in an external web of cultural relations. We may be tempted to think that to assume the subject in advance is necessary in order to safeguard the agency of the subject. But to claim that the subject is constituted is not to claim that it is determined; on the contrary, the constituted character of the subject is the very precondition of its agency. For what is it that enables a purposive and significant reconfiguration of cultural and political relations, if not a relation that can be turned against itself, reworked, resisted? Do we need to assume theoretically from the start a subject with agency before we can articulate the terms of a significant social and political task of transformation, resistance, radical democratization? If we do not offer in advance the theoretical guarantee of that agent, are we doomed to give up transformation and meaningful political practice? My suggestion is that agency belongs to a way of thinking about persons as instrumental actors who confront an external political field. But if we agree that politics and power exist already at the level at which the subject and its agency are articulated and made possible, then agency can be presumed only at the cost of refusing to inquire into its construction. Consider that "agency" has no formal existence or, if it does, it has no bearing on the question at hand. In a sense, The epistemological model that offers us a pregiven subject or agent is one that refuses to acknowledge that agency is always and only a political prerogative. As such, it seems crucial to question the conditions of its possibility, not to take it for granted as an a priori guarantee. We need instead to ask, what possibilities of mobilization that are produced on the basis of existing configurations of discourse and power? Where are the possibilities of reworking that very matrix of power by which we are constituted, of reconstituting the legacy of that constitution, and of working against each other those processes of regulation at can destabilize existing power regimes? For if the subject is constituted by power, that power does not cease at the moment the subject is constituted, for that subject is never fully constituted, but is subjected and produced time and again. That subject is neither a ground nor a product, but the permanent possibility of a certain resignifying process, one which gets detoured and stalled through other mechanisms of power, but which is power’s own possibility of being reworked. The subject is an accomplishment regulate and produced in advance. And is as such fully political; indeed, perhaps most political at the point in which it is claimed to be prior to politics itself.
7 +
8 +====Precariousness makes the subject invisible and makes ethics impossible, means resolving that comes first. They operate through frames.====
9 +**Butler 2**. Judith. Frames of War: When Is Life Grievable? London: Verso, 2009. Print.
10 +The precarity of life imposes an obligation upon us. We have to ask about the conditions under which it becomes possible to apprehend a life or set of lives as precarious, and those that make it less possible, or indeed impossible. Of course, it does not follow that if one apprehends a life as precarious one will resolve to protect that life or secure the conditions for its persistence and flourishing. It could be, as both Hegel and Klein point out in their different ways, that the apprehension of precariousness leads to a heightening of violence, an insight into the physical vulnerability of some set of others that incites the desire to destroy them. And yet, I want to argue that if we are to make broader social and political claims about rights of protection and entitlements to persistence and flourishing, we will first have to be supported by a new bodily ontology, one that implies the rethinking of precariousness, vulnerability, injurability, interdependency, exposure, bodily persistence, desire, work and the claims of language and social belonging. To refer to "ontology" in this regard is not to lay claim to a description of fundamental structures of being that are distinct from any and all social and political organization. On the contrary, none of these terms exist outside of their political organization and interpretation. The "being" of the body to which this ontology refers is one that is always given over to others, to norms, to social and political organizations that have developed historically in order to maximize precariousness for some and minimize precariousness for others. It is not possible first to define the ontology of the body and then to refer to the social significations the body assumes. Rather, To be a body is to be exposed to social crafting and form, and that is what makes the ontology of the body a social ontology. In other words, the body is exposed to socially and politically articulated forces as well as to claims of sociality-including language, work, and desire-that make possible the body's persisting and flourishing. The more or less existential conception of "precariousness" is thus linked with a more specifically political notion of "precarity." And it is the differential allocation of precarity that, in my view, forms the point of departure for both a rethinking of bodily ontology and for progressive or left politics in ways that continue to exceed and traverse the categories of identity.1 The epistemological capacity to apprehend a life is partially dependent on that life being produced according to norms that qualify it as a life or, indeed, as part of life. In This way, the normative production of ontology thus produces the epistemological problem of apprehending a life, and this in turn gives rise to the ethical problem of what it is to acknowledge or, indeed, to guard against injury and violence. Of course, we are talking about different modalities of "violence" at each level of this analysis, but that does not mean that they are all equivalent or that no distinctions between them need to be made. The "frames" that work to differentiate the lives we can apprehend from those we cannot (or that produce lives across a continuum of life) not only organize visual experience but also generate specific ontologies of the subject. Subjects are constituted through norms which, in their reiteration, produce and shift the terms through which subjects are recognized. These normative conditions for the production of the subject produce an historically contingent ontology, such that our very capacity to discern and name the "being" of the subject is dependent on norms that facilitate that recognition. At the same time, it would be a mistake to understand the operation of norms as deterministic. Normative schemes are interrupted by one another, they emerge and fade depending on broader operations of power, and very often come up against spectral versions of what it is they claim to know: thus, there are "subjects" who are not quite recognizable as subjects, and there are "lives" that are not quite—or, indeed, are never-recognized as lives. In what sense does life, then, always exceed the normative conditions ofits recognizability? To claim that it does so is not to say that "life" has as its essence a resistance to normativity, but only that each and every construction of life requires time to do its job, and that no job it does can overcome time itself. In other words, the job is never done "once and for all." This is a limit internal to normative construction itself, a function of its iterability and heterogeneity, without which it cannot exercise its crafting power, and which limits the finality of any of its effects.
11 +
12 +====Thus the standard is rendering life grievable====
13 +
14 +====Thus I affirm that the United States ought to limit the use of qualified immunity. I affirm the entire resolution – specifying a specific court case or intricate policy makes no sense – I defend disad ground but ld debate is about values – we will argue limiting qualified immunity is good and the neg can still read counterplans or disads to why it is bad – but they simply have to prove why the aff is a bad idea.====
15 +
16 +===Contention 1 is Disposability===
17 +====Analyzing the historical starting point of Qualified immunity is important – it was created as a response to systemic violence white officers committed against blacks in the civil war. This culture of "allowing" police violence had roots starting in the 19th century.====
18 +**Kirby 2000**. John D. Kirby, Qualified Immunity for Civil Rights Violations: Refining the Standard , 85 Cornell L. Rev. 461. 2000. http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr/vol85/iss4/11 HSLASC
19 +A. Constitutional Remedies The Qualified immunity doctrine grew out of the use of section 1983 and the Bivens doctrine by individuals seeking redress for violations of their constitutional rights.2' The Court's expansive reading of section 1983,22 and its announcement of a new cause of action in Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics,23 created the potential for a vast increase in personal liability for federal and state officials. The Court reacted to this new potential for liability by carving out pockets of immunity for certain classes of officials. 24 1. Section 1983 At its inception, section 198325 was specifically intended as a response to the systematic violence and injustice against southern blacks in the wake of the Civil War.26 The Act, written in broad terms, provides a remedy against "any person" who, under color of state law, deprives any person of "any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws .... 27
20 +
21 +====Specifically, black men and women experience oppressions that situate them as precarious or disposable through the interactions with the police. These killings and rulings
22 +A) create material injustices
23 +B.) feed the positive feedback loop of blackness = disposable====
24 +**Butler and Yancy 15**. Judith, George. January 12, 2015. What’s Wrong With ‘All Lives Matter’? The New York Times, The Opinion Pages, The Stone. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/01/12/whats-wrong-with-all-lives-matter/?'r=0. AKB.
25 +George Yancy: In your 2004 book, "Precarious Life: The Powers of Mourning and Violence," you wrote, "The question that preoccupies me in the light of recent global violence is, Who counts as human? Whose lives count as lives?" You wrote that about the post-9/11 world, but it appears to also apply to the racial situation here in the United States. In the wake of the recent killings of unarmed black men and women by police, and the failure to prosecute the killers, the message being sent to black communities is that they don’t matter, that they are "disposable." Posters reading "Black Lives Matter," "Hands Up. Don’t Shoot," "I Can’t Breathe," communicate~~s~~ the reality of a specific kind of racial vulnerability that black people experience on a daily basis. How does all this communicate to black people that their lives don’t matter? Judith Butler: Perhaps we can think about the phrase "black lives matter." What is implied by this statement, a statement that should be obviously true, but apparently is not? If black lives do not matter, then they are not really regarded as lives, since a life is supposed to matter. So what we see is that some lives matter more than others, that some lives matter so much that they need to be protected at all costs, and that other lives matter less, or not at all. And When that becomes the situation, then the lives that do not matter so much, or do not matter at all, can be killed or lost, can be exposed to conditions of destitution, and there is no concern, or even worse, that is regarded as the way it is supposed to be. The callous killing of Tamir Rice and the abandonment of his body on the street is an astonishing example of the police murdering someone considered disposable and fundamentally ungrievable. When we are taking about racism, and anti-black racism in the United States, we have to remember that Under slavery black lives were considered only a fraction of a human life, so the prevailing way of valuing lives assumed that some lives mattered more, were more human, more worthy, more deserving of life and freedom, where freedom meant minimally the freedom to move and thrive without being subjected to coercive force. But when and where did black lives ever really get free of coercive force? One reason the chant "Black Lives Matter" is so important is that it states the obvious but the obvious has not yet been historically realized. So it is a statement of outrage and a demand for equality, for the right to live free of constraint, but also a chant that links the history of slavery, of debt peonage, segregation, and a prison system geared toward the containment, neutralization and degradation of black lives, but also a ~~Now~~ police system~~s~~ that more and more easily and often can take away a black life in a flash all because some officer perceives a threat. So let us think about what this is: the perception of a threat. One man is leaving a store unarmed, but he is perceived as a threat. Another man is in a chokehold and states that he cannot breathe, and the chokehold is not relaxed, and the man dies because he is perceived as a threat. Mike Brown and Eric Garner. We can name them, but in the space of this interview, We cannot name all the black men and women whose lives are snuffed out all because a police officer perceives a threat, sees the threat in the person, sees the person as pure threat. Perceived as a threat even when unarmed or completely physically subdued, or lying in the ground, as Rodney King clearly was, or coming back home from a party on the train and having the audacity to say to a policeman that he was not doing anything wrong and should not be detained: Oscar Grant. We can see the videos and know what is obviously true, but it is also obviously true that police and the juries that support them obviously do not see what is obvious, or do not wish to see. So the police see a threat when there is no gun to see, or someone is subdued and crying out for his life, when they are moving away or cannot move. These figures are perceived as threats even when they do not threaten, when they have no weapon, and the video footage that shows precisely this is taken to be a ratification of the police’s perception. The perception is then ratified as a public perception at which point we not only must insist on the dignity of black lives, but name the racism that has become ratified as public perception. In fact, the point is not just that black lives can be disposed of so easily: they are targeted and hunted by a Police force that is becoming increasingly emboldened to wage its race war by every grand jury decision that ratifies the point of view of state violence. Justifying lethal violence in the name of self-defense is reserved for those who have a publicly recognized self to defend. But those whose lives are not considered to matter, whose lives are perceived as a threat to the life that embodies white privilege can be destroyed in the name of that life. That can only happen when a recurrent and institutionalized form of racism has become a way of seeing, entering into the presentation of visual evidence to justify hateful and unjustified and heartbreaking murder. So it is not just that black lives matter, though that must be said again and again. It is also that stand-your-ground and racist killings are becoming increasingly normalized, which is why intelligent forms of collective outrage have become obligatory.
26 +
27 +====Qualified immunity harms the groups and communities most victimized by police wrongdoing. ====
28 +**Crockford ’15** - Kade Crockford, "Militarization of Police and Racial Justice Gone Wrong: The Eurie Stamps Tragedy", ACLU, Speak Freely, 09/29/2015
29 +Duncan invokes the qualified immunity doctrine, which holds that police officers cannot be sued for conduct that doesn’t clearly violate the law, conduct which at the time appeared reasonable. By that theory, while the actions that preceded the shooting – taking the gun off safety, pointing it at Stamps – were clearly unconstitutional, as soon as Duncan (accidentally) pulled the trigger, he became immune from liability for his conduct. As my colleagues write in a friend-of-the-court brief, the defendant’s argument is dangerous and bizarre. It would, if accepted, produce a legal doctrine that provides incentive for police officers to injure or kill people they have subjected to unconstitutional police practices. It inoculates officers if, but only if, their unreasonable actions cause injury. As applied to the facts of this case, this rule means that an officer who unreasonably aims a firearm at a civilian’s head would incur liability if the civilian is not shot, but not if the firearm discharges and the civilian is killed. Other possibilities abound. For example, if an officer seeks to extract a confession by dangling a suspect over the ledge of a high-rise, the officer will be liable under if he later pulls the suspect back to safety. Yet, under the defendants’ rule, the officer will acquire immunity if his grip should fail and he accidentally – but as a consequence of his prior, intentional, and unreasonable conduct – the suspect to this death. A ruling accepting this argument would be terrible and absurd under any circumstances, but particularly given the climate of militarized policing in the United States today – a burden borne disproportionately by Americans with darker skin. Across the nation, police departments armed with military weapons and flash-bang "grenade" bombs barge into people’s homes in the early morning, simply to serve search warrants or arrest suspects. More often than not, these raids are conducted to look for drugs or someone suspected of selling them. An ACLU survey of departments throughout the nation found that 71 percent of the targets of these militarized raids are people of color. Moreover, as my colleagues argue in their brief, Black and Latino people are subjected to more police stops than whites, even when controlling for crime and other factors. Studies show that "race can influence the probability that the police will erroneously harm an innocent person during an encounter." Other studies "have extensively documented unconscious negative associations about people of color, including an association between Blacks and crime." Americans are more likely to think Black people holding innocuous objects are holding guns, and to erroneously "shoot" those Black people when given the opportunity. Subjected to more dangerous SWAT raids and police stops, and the targets of racist tropes about criminality and Blackness, people with darker skin are much more likely than whites to suffer the repercussions of unconstitutional policing. Therefore, a legal doctrine establishing that officers cannot be held liable for the final, accidental twitch in a string of unconstitutional actions would further endanger individuals and communities already bearing the brunt of disparate, aggressive policing. It’s our hope that the court will clearly rebuke the defense’s dangerous argument, sending an unmistakable message to police officers throughout the northeast: You will be held liable for your mistakes when the likelihood of making them is compounded by prior illegal actions. You cannot turn the safety off your gun and then illegally point it at someone, only to claim that the final act of shooting them was accidental and so absolves your prior conduct.
30 +
31 +====Police brutality is a common experience in communities of color.====
32 +**Coates 2015** - Ta-Nehisi Coates ~~Writer; Journalist; Educator; McArthur Fellow~~, Between the World and Me. New York: Spiegel and Grau (2015). p. 9
33 +I write you in your fifteenth year. I am writing you because this was the year you saw Eric Garner choked to death for selling cigarettes; because you know now that Renisha McBride was shot for seeking help, that John Crawford was shot down for browsing in a department store. And you have seen men in uniform drive by and murder Tamir Rice, a twelve-year-old child whom they were oath-bound to protect. And you have seen men in the same uniforms pummel Marlene Pinnock, someone’s grandmother, on the side of a road. And you know now, if you did not before, that the police departments of your country have been endowed with the authority to destroy your body. It does not matter if the destruction is the result of an unfortunate overreaction. It does not matter if it originates in a misunderstanding. It does not matter if the destruction springs from a foolish policy. Sell cigarettes without the proper authority and your body can be destroyed. Resent the people trying to entrap your body and it can be destroyed. Turn into a dark stairwell and your body can be destroyed. The destroyers will rarely be held accountable. Mostly they will receive pensions. And destruction is merely the superlative form of a dominion whose prerogatives include friskings, detainings, beatings, and humiliations. All of this is common to black people. And all of this is old for black people. No one is held responsible.
34 +
35 +
36 +===Contention 2 is Trauma===
37 +====THE 1AC IS KEY – police violence without accountability creates psychological, racial trauma within the black community ====
38 +**Turner and Richardson 16** ~~Erlanger A. Turner, PhD (Assistant Professor of Psychology, University of Houston-Downtown) and Jasmine Richardson, 7-14-2016, "Racial Trauma is Real: The Impact of Police Shootings on African Americans," Psychology Benefits Society, https://psychologybenefits.org/2016/07/14/racial-trauma-police-shootings-on-african-americans/ ~~
39 +There have been many changes within the criminal justice system as a means to deter crime and to keep citizens safe. However, research demonstrates that often times men of color are treated harshly which leads to negative perceptions of police officers. The recent shootings in Baton Rouge, Falcon Heights, and Dallas have exposed many individuals and their families to incidents of police brutality that reminds us that as a society work needs to be done to improve police and community relations. In light of these recent events, many people have witnessed these traumatic incidents through social media or participation in marches in their cities. The violence witnessed towards people of color from police continues to damage perceptions of law enforcement and further stereotype people of color negatively. In a study published in the American Journal of Public Health (Geller, Fagan, Tyler, and Link, 2014), the authors reported that 85 of the participants reported being stopped at least once in their lifetime and 78 had no history of criminal activity. What is more concerning is that the study also found that those who reported more intrusive police contact experienced increased trauma and anxiety symptoms. Furthermore, those who reported fair treatment during encounters with law enforcement had fewer symptoms of PTSD and anxiety. What is Racial Trauma? In addition to the mental health symptoms of individuals who have encounters with law enforcement, those who witness these events directly or indirectly may also be impacted negatively. In an attempt to capture how racism and discrimination negatively impacts the physical and mental health of people of color, many scholars have coined the term "racial trauma" or race-based traumatic stress. Racial trauma may result from racial harassment, witnessing racial violence, or experiencing institutional racism (Bryant-Davis, and Ocampo, 2006; Comas-Díaz, 2016). The trauma may result in experiencing symptoms of depression, anxiety, low self-esteem, feelings of humiliation, poor concentration, or irritability. .
40 +
41 +====AND – The brutal deaths of black people at the hands of police officers are replayed over and over by major mainstream news outlets and has detrimental psychological impacts on the lives black americans daily. This is especially true when police officers are let of the hook based on qualified immunity ====
42 +**Smith 10** ~~Walter Howard Smith, Jr., Ph.D. February 16, 2010. The Heinz Endowments. African American Men and Boys Advisory Board "The Impact of Racial Trauma on African Americans"~~
43 +Large-scale social events that traumatically impact thousands and millions of persons commonly occur in human life. Hurricanes, earthquakes, social upheavals, genocide, terrorist incidents, and war are dangerous events and require people to recover. Racism and other social biases describe social 4 conditions that of persons. Traumas related to race have three forms. African Americans experience specific events of danger related to race that overwhelm the nervous system and require us to recover. These dangers may be real or perceived discrimination, threats of harm and injury, police incidents, and humiliating and shaming events. The aggressors may be black or white. These events stand out in our memory and have long-term impact on our perception of ourselves and our social environments. As mentioned in the previous discussion, some African Americans are stronger after recovering from these events, and others have long-term declines in their ability to cope with future stresses and threats. A second way African Americans experience danger is witnessing harm and injury to other African Americans because of real or perceived racism. This secondary trauma is widely recognized in the child abuse treatment field and occurs to therapists that repeatedly experience the traumas of abused children. Repeatedly witnessing African Americans suffering on television news is painful, and for some triggers very strong emotion. For example, the Rodney King incident triggered very strong emotional reactions to a publically viewed altercation between police and an African American male. Of course, not every African American watching the incident on television is traumatized but some viewers experienced traumatic responses and needed to recover. A third way African Americans experience danger related to race is living in difficult social conditions because of poverty and race, and traumatic events occur because of these conditions. Segregation by race and social class is common in the United States, and very common in the Pittsburgh region. Living in black and poor neighborhoods increases one’s risk of experiencing traumatic events like community violence, police incidents, and domestic violence, and it increases the risk of experiencing secondary traumas in witnessing these dangers. These communities are socially isolated, monitored vigorously by police, have fewer resources for daily living (food stores, gasoline stations, hardware stores), and have high levels of exposure to drugs and alcohol. During a casual conversation, my cousin’s seventeen year-old son who lives in Homewood counted eleven friends who died from drug overdose or murder. He recounted each one without emotion, citing their names and how they died, recalling their funeral services. His numb, matter-of-fact manner of recounting his experiences was stunning and a clear indicator of trauma..
44 +
45 +====AND – Racial trauma is REAL. The idea of seeing your people constantly murdered with no accountability results in horrible impacts. It is also uniquely problematic since black people in racially segregated populations show poor responses to trauma that result in domestic violence and depression – limiting qualified immunity represents understanding the harms of allowing police officers to kill black people and the psychological effects of them getting away with it in the black community ====
46 +**Smith 2** ~~Walter Howard Smith, Jr., Ph.D. February 16, 2010. The Heinz Endowments. African American Men and Boys Advisory Board "The Impact of Racial Trauma on African Americans"~~
47 +Some persons will function better after recovery, some will return to their previous levels of functioning, and others will function poorly and have lower abilities to cope with future stresses and danger. However, increasing the total number of traumatic events in a person’s life and clustering several traumatic events into a small period will increase the risk of poor recovery. Poor responses to trauma are visible in large numbers of African Americans living in racially segregated neighborhoods. Some signs include: • Increase aggression – Street gangs, domestic violence, defiant behavior, and appearing tough and impenetrable are ways of coping with danger by attempting to control our physical and social environment • Increase vigilance and suspicion – Suspicion of social institutions (schools, agencies, government),avoiding eye contact, only trusting persons within our social and family relationship networks • Increase sensitivity to threat – Defensive postures, avoiding new situations, heightened sensitivity to being disrespected and shamed, and avoid taking risks • Increase psychological and physiological symptoms – Unresolved traumas increase chronic stress and decrease immune system functioning, shift brains to limbic system dominance, increase risks for depression and anxiety disorders, and disrupt child development and quality of emotional attachment in family and social relationships • Increase alcohol and drug usage – Drugs and alcohol are initially useful (real and perceived) in managing the pain and danger of unresolved traumas but become their own disease processes when dependency occurs • Narrowing sense of time – Persons living in a chronic state of danger do not develop a sense of future, do not have long-term goals, and frequently view dying as an expected outcome
48 +
49 +====A limit is key — It also still allows police a limited defense – the 1ac is not saying police are inherently bad but a limitation of their rights can reduce black racial trauma====
50 +**Hassel 09,** ~~Diana, EXCESSIVE REASONABLENESS, Professor, Roger Williams University School of Law, 2009, https://mckinneylaw.iu.edu/ilr/pdf/vol43p117.pdf~~
51 +The Court’s development of the qualified immunity doctrine has stretched the rationale underlying the defense to a breaking point. Instead of providing protection only to those government actors who violate the law unwittingly and reasonably, qualified immunity has metastasized into an almost absolute defense to all but the most outrageous conduct. The values of deterrence of unlawful behavior and compensation for civil rights victims have been overshadowed by the desire to protect government agents, particularly police officers, from almost all claims against them. The balance originally struck by the qualified immunity defense—protection for the innocent wrongdoer versus compensation for the victim—has gone awry. This Article focuses on the most significant feature of the imbalance that now exists in the qualified immunity doctrine: the Court’s insistence on applying the objective reasonableness standard of qualified immunity in conjunction with a duplicative underlying constitutional standard. This problem is most acute in excessive force claims. An apparent duplication of the objective reasonableness standard of the Fourth Amendment in excessive force cases and the same objective reasonableness standard in the qualified immunity doctrine has created a nearly impenetrable defense to excessive force claims. Despite critical scholarly commentary and the Supreme Court’s own attempts to quiet the controversy created by this excessive reasonableness, the problem remains unresolved. Meanwhile, far removed from the debate over doctrinal niceties, the operational problem of how to address the use of unjustified force by police officers persists. The current legal regime has largely failed in its attempt to control excessive police violence. At least in part that failure flows from the 8 difficulty faced by claimants under § 1983 to overcome the insulation from liability that defendants derive from both the Fourth Amendment requirements and the qualified immunity standard. Until the nearly insurmountable barrier to recovery created by excessive reasonableness is somehow relieved, civil actions based on the Fourth Amendment will not effectively deter police violence. Addressing the problem of police violence, providing balance to doctrine overly protective of defendants, and simplifying the procedural morass that qualified immunity has created in excessive force cases requires a radical modification of the doctrine. In excessive force cases, the doctrine should be modified to protect a defendant only when there has been a genuine change in the legal standard governing his actions—not merely an application of established doctrine to a somewhat new set of facts. Currently, qualified immunity prevents liability if the defendant’s actions do not violate clearly established law "of which a reasonable person would have known." Instead, the standard should be 9 that the defendant will be liable unless his actions violate a newly developed legal standard. In the excessive force context, the protection provided by the reasonableness standard of Fourth Amendment, in conjunction with this more limited defense based on a newly developed law, will provide ample protection for the reasonably mistaken officer and will make compensation for the victim possible.
52 +
53 +===Contention 3 is Intersectionality===
54 +====Overpolicing of LGBTQ+ communities creates a lack of trust in the police which decreases trust, and hurts these communities.====
55 +**Mallory**, Christy, Amira Hasenbush, and Brad Sears. ~~Law and policy expert at UCLA school of law, specializing in policies impacts on LGBT people~~ "Discrimination and harassment by law enforcement officers in the LGBT community." The Williams Institute (20**15**).
56 + For decades, the LGBT community has been subjected to entrapment, discrimination, harassment, and violence by law enforcement. Recent research indicates that such mistreatment of LGB people, and especially transgender people, is still ongoing. Tensions between law enforcement and the LGBT community can hinder effective policing in several ways. First, when communities are persistently targeted, profiled and harassed by law enforcement, trust will be lost between the police and the communities they are supposed to protect. For example, a recent study asked gay and bisexual identified men to report how helpful they thought that police would be if called in response to an intimate partner violence incident involving gay or bisexual men. Forty percent of respondents indicated that they believed that contacting the police in such a situation would be unhelpful or very unhelpful, and 59 reported that police would be less helpful to gay or bisexual men experiencing intimate partner violence than to heterosexual women. 120 Second, lack of trust due to fear of discrimination, harassment, and violence likely discourages LGBT citizens from working in cooperation with law enforcement. Community willingness to engage with law enforcement is helpful to effective policing, which may seek to combat crime and improve the criminal justice system by involving the community in crime control strategies.
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-04-12 23:21:29.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Devan Jajal
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +ESD NH
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +42
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +1
Team
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Warren Okunlola Aff
Title
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +6 - Butler Affirmative - 1AC - University of Texas Round 1
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +University of Texas
Caselist.CitesClass[17]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,112 @@
1 +==1AC==
2 +
3 +===Framing===
4 +====The standard is maximizing expected well-being. Prefer====
5 +
6 +====1 States do and should act in a utilitarian manner.====
7 +**Woller 97** ~~Gary, Brigham Young University, "A Forum On The Role of Environmental Ethics in Restructuring Environmental Policy and Law for the Next Century", Policy Currents, 1997, WHS//NAO~~
8 +Moreover, virtually all public policies entail some redistribution of economic or political resources, such that one group's gains must come at another group's expense. Consequently, public policies in a democracy must be justified to the public, and especially to those who pay the costs of those policies. Such justification cannot simply be assumed by invoking some a priori higher-order moral principle. Appeals to a priori moral principles, such as environmental preservation, also often fail to acknowledge that public policies inevitably entail trade-offs among competing values. Thus since policymakers cannot justify inherent value conflicts to the public in any philosophical sense, and since public policies inherently imply winners and losers, the policymakers' duty to the public interest requires them to demonstrate that the redistributive effects and value trade-offs implied by their polices are somehow to the overall advantage of society. At the same time, deontologically based ~~other~~ ethical systems have severe practical limitations as a basis for public policy. It therefore follows that in a democracy, policymakers have an ethical duty to establish a plausible link between policy alternatives and the problems they address, and the public must be reasonably assured ~~reasonable assurance~~ that a policy will actually do something about an existing problem; this requires the means-end language and methodology of utilitarian ethics. Good intentions, lofty rhetoric, and moral piety are an insufficient, though perhaps at times a necessary, basis for public policy in a democracy.
9 +
10 +====2 You should default to util if I win defense on their standard—we naturally want to make the world better.====
11 +**Sinnott-Armstrong 14** ~~Walter, American philosopher. He specializes in ethics, epistemology, and more recently in neuroethics, the philosophy of law, and the philosophy of cognitive science, "Consequentialism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2014 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed), WHS//NAO~~
12 +Even if consequentialists can accommodate or explain away common moral intuitions, that might seem only to answer objections without yet giving any positive reason to accept consequentialism. However, most people begin with the presumption that we morally ought to make the world better when we can. The question then is only whether any moral constraints or moral options need to be added to the basic consequentialist factor in moral reasoning. (Kagan 1989, 1998) If no objection reveals any need for anything beyond consequences, then consequences alone seem to determine what is morally right or wrong, just as consequentialists claim.
13 +
14 +====3 The government has an obligation to guarantee everyone can exercise this right====
15 +**NESRI ’10** ~~National Economic and Social Rights Initiative, 2010. http://www.nesri.org/programs/what-is-the-human-right-to-housing WHS//NAO~~
16 +Everyone has a fundamental human right to housing, which ensures access to a safe, secure, habitable, and affordable home with freedom from forced eviction. It is the government’s obligation to guarantee that everyone can exercise this right to live in security, peace, and dignity. This right must be provided to all persons irrespective of income or access to economic resources. There are seven principles that are fundamental to the right to housing and are of particular relevance to the right to housing in the United States: Security of Tenure: Residents should possess a degree of security of tenure that guarantees protection against forced evictions, harassment, and other threats, including predatory redevelopment and displacement. -Availability of Services, Materials, Facilities, and Infrastructure: Housing must provide certain facilities essential for health, security, comfort, and nutrition. For instance, residents must have access to safe drinking water, heating and lighting, washing facilities, means of food storage, and sanitation. -Affordability: Housing costs should be at such a level that the attainment and satisfaction of other basic needs are not threatened or compromised. For instance, one should not have to choose between paying rent and buying food. -Habitability/Decent and Safe Home: Housing must provide residents adequate space that protects them from cold, damp, heat, rain, wind, or other threats to health; structural hazards; and disease. -Accessibility: Housing must be accessible to all, and disadvantaged and vulnerable groups must be accorded full access to housing resources.-Location: Housing should not be built on polluted sites, or in immediate proximity to pollution sources that threaten the right to health of residents. The physical safety of residents must be guaranteed, as well. Additionally, housing must be in a location which allows access to employment options, health-care services, schools, child-care centers, and other social facilities.-Cultural Adequacy: Housing and housing policies must guarantee the expression of cultural identity and diversity, including the preservation of cultural landmarks and institutions. Redevelopment or modernization programs must ensure that the cultural significance of housing and communities is not sacrificed.
17 +
18 +===Inherency===
19 +====Current housing is too expensive. Lack of affordable housing leads to homelessness. ====
20 +**NLCHP ‘15** ~~National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, "HUMAN RIGHT TO HOUSING REPORT CARD" 2015 https://www.nlchp.org/documents/Right'to'Housing'Report'Card'2015 WHS//NAO~~
21 +Over half of all American renters pay more than 30 of their income for housing. For extremely low income (ELI) households, the percentage paying more than half of their income in rent jumps to 75. This problem is caused in part by the lack of available, affordable housing for low-income renters. Average rents have increased for 23 straight quarters, and were 15.2 higher in 2014 than in 2009. On top of the existing gap in availability of affordable units, the supply of low-cost rental units has declined since 2007.106 While ELI renter households may qualify for federal and local subsidy programs, demand for these programs far exceeds the supply: there is only enough funding for one in four eligible renters to receive assistance. 107 The remaining threefourths of eligible ELI households desperately in need of housing find themselves on multi-year waiting lists, or find that waiting lists for affordable housing in their area are closed altogether.108 While the affordable housing stock declines each year and more families and individuals are unstably housed, the rental market for higher-income households continues to grow, foreclosed homes stand vacant, and abandoned government-owned properties remain empty.109 Lack of affordable housing is a primary cause of homelessness, and the ongoing crisis has led to an increase in the numbers of homeless persons. While HUD’s point-in-time count of homeless persons living in shelters and public places has decreased over the past four years, this number is almost certainly a significant undercount of homelessness. It does not include people living doubled up with family or friends; this number increased by 9.4 to 7.4 million people in 2011, and remained stable during 2012. Moreover, close to 1.4 million school children were homeless during the 2013-2014 school year—and almost 2.5 million children overall were homeless in 2013. The school numbers represent an 8 increase since the previous year, and have almost doubled since the beginning of the economic crisis in 2007.
22 +
23 +===Advantage 1 is International Law===
24 +====US commitment to international law requires a right to housing- multiple contracts. ====
25 +**Fasanelli 1** ~~Antonia Fasanelli ~~Chair Commission on Homelessness and Poverty~~ August 2013. American Bar Association Adopted by the House of Delegates. August 12-13. WHS//NAO~~
26 +The U.S. commitment to the human right to housing was reaffirmed in its signature to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) in 1977. The ICESCR was submitted to the Senate for ratification in late 1978, with an ABA resolution endorsing ratification in early 1979.10 The ICESCR codifies the right to housing in Article 11, which states, "~~t~~he States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing... The States Parties will take appropriate steps to ensure the realization of this right."11 Although the Senate has yet to ratify the treaty, law professor David Weissbrodt notes signing a covenant indicates that "the United States accepts the responsibility to refrain from acts calculated to frustrate the objects of the treaty."12 The U.S. has also already ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (both with endorsement from the ABA), both of which recognize the right to be free from discrimination, including in housing.13
27 +
28 +====This is the make of break issue- the international community sees US commitment as necessarily key. ====
29 +**Fasanelli 1** ~~Antonia Fasanelli ~~Chair Commission on Homelessness and Poverty~~ August 2013. American Bar Association Adopted by the House of Delegates. August 12-13. WHS//NAO~~
30 +Moreover, the international community has increasingly taken note of America’s failure to uphold the right to housing. In 2006, the UN Human Rights Committee expressed concern about the disparate racial impact of homelessness in the U.S. and called for "adequate and adequately implemented policies, to ensure the cessation of this form of racial discrimination."17 In 2008, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination again recognized racial disparities in housing and ongoing segregation in the U.S.18 Since then, numerous U.N. experts, on official missions to the U.S., have addressed U.S. violations of the human right to housing and related rights.19
31 +
32 +====Domestic intervention key to shaping international norms- not affirming relinquishes power to other nations and makes America influence less important. ====
33 +**Fasanelli 1** ~~Antonia Fasanelli ~~Chair Commission on Homelessness and Poverty~~ August 2013. American Bar Association Adopted by the House of Delegates. August 12-13. WHS//NAO~~
34 +The U.S. has a strong tradition of promoting affordable, accessible housing, but programs have been under-funded and under-implemented. Moreover, while the human rights framework demands progressive implementation of the right to housing, and prohibits retrogressive policies, over the past 30 years there has been a significant disinvestment in public and subsidized housing at the federal level.32 Recent years have seen innovations such as the Rental Assistance Demonstration and Choice Neighborhoods Initiative, which attempt to "do more with less" while preserving important rights and protections for lowincome residents, but these programs still fail to meet the need in communities.33 Furthermore, many long-term contracts for affordable housing built under the Section 8 program during the 1960’s are now coming to term, threatening a further loss of affordable units.34 The contours of the human right to adequate housing continue to be developed at the international level by the CESCR and other U.N. experts, and at the regional level by regional human rights bodies, in response to ever-changing conditions. The U.S. should always seek to be a leader in applying these developing standards to its policies.
35 +
36 +====Independently- following ilaw is key to international consensus and deliberation. ====
37 +**Thiele** ~~Bret Thiele. JD. May 2002. The Human Right to Adequate Housing: A Tool for Promoting and Protecting Individual and community Health. 92(5): 712-715. American Journal of Public Health. WHS//NAO~~
38 +There are other reasons to use international human rights law as a model for national legislation. For example, reliance on international law to inform domestic law will result in greater consistency across domestic legal systems with respect to universally recognized human rights. Furthermore, states that turn to international law for guidance benefit from the process by which international law is derived. This process often takes a "best practices" approach. International law is influenced by a variety of ideas stemming from diverse legal, political, economic, and cultural traditions. The process of codifying norms into international law reflects the acceptance of those ideas that have been deemed by the international community to be not only "best practices" but also universally applicable. It is therefore important for states to turn to international human rights law to inform their domestic legislation and policy, including legislation and policy designed to protect and improve the health of their respective populations. The international human right to adequate housing should thus be implemented through domestic law.
39 +
40 +
41 +====Effective international law solves every impact—US commitment uniquely key. ====
42 +**IEER 2:** ~~Institute for Energy and Environmental Research and the Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy. Rule of Power or Rule of Law? An Assessment of U.S. Policies and Actions Regarding Security-Related Treaties. May 2002. http://www.ieer.org/reports/treaties/execsumm.pdf WHS//NAO~~
43 +The evolution of international law since World War II is largely a response to the demands of states and individuals living within a global society with a deeply integrated world economy. In this global society, the repercussions of the actions of states, non-state actors, and individuals are not confined within borders, whether we look to greenhouse gas accumulations, nuclear testing, the danger of accidental nuclear war, or the vast massacres of civilians that have taken place over the course of the last hundred years and still continue. Multilateral agreements increasingly have been a primary instrument employed by states to meet extremely serious challenges of this kind, for several reasons. They clearly and publicly embody a set of universally applicable expectations, including prohibited and required practices and policies. In other words, they articulate global norms, such as the protection of human rights and the prohibitions of genocide and use of weapons of mass destruction. They establish predictability and accountability in addressing a given issue. States are able to accumulate expertise and confidence by participating in the structured system offered by a treaty. However, influential U.S. policymakers are resistant to the idea of a treaty-based international legal system because they fear infringement on U.S. sovereignty and they claim to lack confidence in compliance and enforcement mechanisms. This approach has dangerous practical27 implications for international cooperation and compliance with norms. U.S. treaty partners do not enter into treaties expecting that they are only political commitments by the United States that can be overridden based on U.S. interests. When a powerful and influential state like the United States is seen to treat~~s~~ its legal obligations as a matter of convenience or of national interest alone, other states will see this as a justification to relax or withdraw from their own commitments. If the United States wants to require another state to live up to its treaty obligations, it may find that the state has followed the U.S. example and opted out of compliance.
44 +
45 +**Johansen ‘6 elaborates** Johansen, Robert C. 2006. ~~Professor of Political Science at the University of Notre Dame and Senior Fellow at the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies~~. The Impact of US Policy toward the International Criminal Court on the Prevention of Genocide, War Crimes, and Crimes Against Humanity. Human Rights Quarterly. ProjectMuse.
46 +Double standards undermine law enforcement and peoples’ willing compliance with the law, especially in a decentralized international legal system. A legal fabric torn by exemptions for a major actor is a weakened fabric, less able to deter future infractions and more likely to instill hatred and outrage against the inequities imposed by the United States. US denial of reciprocal rights for others also interferes with building a strong worldwide coalition to increase compliance with international norms against terrorism and to stop terrorist acts that are crimes against humanity
47 +
48 +====The only alternative to international law is genocide and nuclear war====
49 +**Shaw ‘1:** Shaw, Martin ~~Professor of International Relations and Politics at the University of Sussex~~. "The unfinished global revolution: intellectuals and the new politics of international relations." October 3, 2001. http://www.martinshaw.org/unfinished.pdf WHS/NAO
50 +The new politics of international relations require us, therefore, to go beyond the anti-imperialism of the intellectual left as well as of the semi-anarchist traditions of the academic discipline. We need to recognize three fundamental truths. First, in the twenty-first century people struggling for democratic liberties across the non- Western world are likely to make constant demands on our solidarity. Courageous academics, students and other intellectuals will be in the forefront of these movements. They deserve the unstinting support of intellectuals in the West. Second, the old international thinking in which democratic movements are seen as purely internal to states no longer carries conviction—despite the lingering nostalgia for it on both the American right and the anti-American left. The idea that global principles can and should be enforced worldwide is firmly established in the minds of hundreds of millions of people. This consciousness will become a powerful force in the coming decades. Third, global state-formation is a fact. International institutions are being extended, and (like it or not) they have a symbiotic relation with the major centre of state power, the increasingly internationalized Western conglomerate. The success of the global-democratic revolutionary wave depends first on how well it is consolidated in each national context—but second, on how thoroughly it is embedded in international networks of power, at the centre of which, inescapably, is the West. From these political fundamentals, strategic propositions can be derived. First, democratic movements cannot regard non-governmental organizations and civil society as ends in themselves. They must aim to civilize local states, rendering them open, accountable and pluralistic, and curtail the arbitrary and violent exercise of power. Second, democratizing local states is not a separate task from integrating them into global and often Western-centred networks. Reproducing isolated local centres of power carries with it classic dangers of states as centres of war. Embedding global norms and integrating new state centres with global institutional frameworks are essential to the control of violence. (To put this another way: the proliferation of purely national democracies is not a recipe for peace.) Third, while the global revolution cannot do without the West and the UN, neither can it rely on them unconditionally. We need these power networks, but we need to tame them too, to make their messy bureaucracies enormously more accountable and sensitive to the needs of society worldwide. This will involve the kind of ‘cosmopolitan democracy’ argued for by David Held. It will also require us to advance a global social-democratic agenda, to address the literally catastrophic scale of world social inequalities. This is not a separate problem: social and economic reform is an essential ingredient of alternatives to warlike and genocidal power; these feed off and reinforce corrupt and criminal political economies. Fourth, if we need the global-Western state, if we want to democratize it and make its institutions friendlier to global peace and justice, we cannot be indifferent to its strategic debates. It matters to develop international political interventions, legal institutions and robust peacekeeping as strategic alternatives to bombing our way through zones of crisis. It matters that international intervention supports pluralist structures, rather than ratifying Bosnia-style apartheid. As political intellectuals in the West, we need to have our eyes on the ball at our feet, but we also need to raise them to the horizon. We need to grasp the historic drama that is transforming worldwide relationships between people and state, as well as between state and state. We need to think about how the turbulence of the global revolution can be consolidated in democratic, pluralist, international networks of both social relations and state authority. We cannot be simply optimistic about this prospect. Sadly, it will require repeated violent political crises to push Western and other governments towards the required restructuring of world institutions. What I have outlined is a huge challenge; but the alternative is to see the global revolution splutter into partial defeat, or degenerate into new genocidal wars—perhaps even nuclear conflicts. The practical challenge for all concerned citizens, and the theoretical and analytical challenges
51 +
52 +===Advantage 2 is Crime===
53 +====Cities often have policies that criminalize the homeless; ====
54 +**Bauman et. al 15** ~~Bauman, Tristia, Jeremy Rosen, Eric Tars, Janelle Fernandez, Christian Robin, Eugene Sowa, Michael Maskin, Cheryl Cortemeglia, and Hannah Nicholes. "No Safe Place: The Criminalization of Homelessness in U.S. Cities." National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty. National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, 2015. Web. 18 July 2016. https://www.nlchp.org/documents/No'Safe'Place WHS//NAO~~
55 +Homelessness is caused by a severe shortage of affordable housing. Over 12.8 of the nation’s supply of low income housing has been permanently lost since 2001, resulting in large part, from a decrease in funding for federally subsidized housing since the 1970s. The shortage of affordable housing is particularly difficult for extremely low-income renters who, in the wake of the foreclosure crisis, are competing for fewer and fewer affordable units. In many American cities there are fewer emergency shelter beds than homeless people. There are fewer available shelter beds than homeless people in major cities across the nation. In some places, the gap between available space and human need is significant, leaving hundreds or, in some cases, thousands of people with no choice but to struggle for survival in outdoor, public places. Despite a lack of affordable housing and shelter space, many cities have chosen to criminally punish people living on the street for doing what any human being must do to survive. The Law Center surveyed 187 cities and assessed the number and type of municipal codes that criminalize the life-sustaining behaviors of homeless people. The results of our research show that the criminalization of necessary human activities is all too common in cities across the country. Prevalence of laws that criminalize homelessness: • Laws prohibiting "camping"1 in public o 34 of cities impose city-wide bans on camping in public. o 57 of cities prohibit camping in particular public places. • Laws prohibiting sleeping in public o 18 of cities impose city-wide bans on sleeping in public. o 27 of cities prohibit sleeping in particular public places, such as in public parks. 1 Laws that criminalize camping in public are written broadly to include an array of living arrangements, including simply sleeping outdoors. • Laws prohibiting begging in public o 24 of cities impose city-wide bans on begging in public. o 76 of cities prohibit begging in particular public places. • Laws prohibiting loitering, loafing, and vagrancy o 33 of cities make it illegal to loiter in public throughout an entire city. o 65 of cities prohibit the activity in particular public places. • Laws prohibiting sitting or lying down in public o 53 of cities prohibit sitting or lying down in particular public places. • Laws prohibiting sleeping in vehicles o 43 of cities prohibit sleeping in vehicles. • Laws prohibiting food sharing o 9 of cities prohibit sharing food with homeless people
56 +
57 +====Homelessness is directly correlated to increasing crime.====
58 +**Roberts 13** (CEO of PATH Partners "Could Housing the Homeless Solve Crime", August 13, 2013 WHS//NAO)
59 +In Britain, experts believe 20 of their "rough sleepers" (people who are homeless) have committed a crime. The conclusion, however, is that these crimes are usually acts of survival or ways for people to get off the streets. Prostitution, shoplifting, or theft are certainly illegal, but they are acts that some people on the streets perform to try and improve their situations. But there are certainly hardcore, violent criminals on the streets, too. The problem is that our communities have become so numb to homelessness that we allow homeless encampments to be scattered in the hills, beaches, rivers, and parks, so that these havens of homelessness become places where violent criminals can blend in and hide. Most of the time, homelessness is not the source of crime in an area, but the places where people experiencing homelessness gather could become havens of crime. Both crime against innocent people living on the streets and crime against innocent people who are already housed. The real solution is to eliminate these encampments of homelessness by helping people get housed. So, could ending homelessness reduce crime in our neighborhoods? Yes. When there is no more homelessness, there will be no more crimes against people who are homeless. When there is no more homelessness, people living on the streets will no longer have to break laws to try and get off the streets.
60 +
61 +====This creates a new ending cycle of incarceration ====
62 +**Roman 16 ** ~~Courtney S. Hardingcharding roman, Ph.D. in sociology and justice, law, and society from the American University. 11-29-2016, "Identifying Discrete Subgroups of Chronically Homeless Frequent Utilizers of Jail and Public Mental Health Services," No Publication, http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0093854816680838~~
63 +Finally, although it is often individuals with mental illness who are most in need of housing when released from incarceration, these individuals have been labeled "hard to house" or "hard to serve" as the complexity of their problems (e.g., health, mental health, substance abuse, victimization) requires the resources of multiple agencies and comprehensive (expensive) solutions (Burt and Anderson, 2005; McNiel, Binder, and Robinson, 2005). Furthermore, there is little accountability across domains for providing housing to individuals recently released from jail (Roman and Travis, 2006). This leaves many vulnerable individuals homeless and in need of treatment during the time of reentry. Being homeless soon after release from jail has been shown to increase one’s chances of reincarceration, especially for those with a serious mental illness (Metraux and Culhane, 2004). The link between homelessness and incarceration is mediated by factors related to mental health and substance abuse, as well as socioeconomic disadvantage (Greenberg and Rosenheck, 2008). Preventing homelessness among individuals with complex health and mental issues at the time of release from jail is therefore a means of reducing repeat justice system involvement, poor health outcomes, and long-term housing instability. These findings highlight the importance of incorporating systems that address homelessness into the discussion of cross-system integration. They also implicate homelessness as a potentially important factor to incorporate into any comprehensive picture of complex patients in the criminal justice system.
64 +
65 +====Prison is the worst impact. It is dehumanizing and strips citizens of their subjectivity====
66 +**Rodriguez 7 bracketed for clarity** ~~Dylan Rodriguez, University of California, Riverside .AMERICAN GLOBALITY AND THE U. S. PRISON REGIME: STATE VIOLENCE AND WHITE SUPREMACY FROM ABU GHRAIB TO STOCKTON TO BAGONG DIWA. Kritika Kultura, Issue 9, November 2007 49 WHS//NAO~~
67 +We might imagine the U.S. prison, not as a discrete institution or reified place, but rather as ~~is~~ an abstracted site—a prototype—of organized punishment and (social, civil, and biological) death. I begin this section with two points of departure, in an attempt to initially provoke a conceptualization of the American prison regime that focuses on the intertwining of two structural logics: 1) white supremacy as a historical modality of social (dis)organization, and 2) the capacity of allegedly "local" or "domestic" U.S. social formations to circulate, militarize, and mobilize across global geographies. The emergence of the American prison industrial complex since the 1970s is generally addressed as a problem of the "American nation," and until recently has largely been situated by academic scholars, progressive activists, and imprisoned intellectuals within the domains of the domestic social formation. Yet, even the concise definition of the prison industrial complex penned in 2001 by U.S. political prisoner Linda Evans (released in 2001) and activist Eve Goldberg facilitates an inquiry that pushes past parochial geographies of the U.S. national form: "Like the military/industrial complex, the prison industrial complex is an interweaving of private business and government interests. Its twofold purpose is ~~for~~ profit and social control. Its public rationale is the fight against crime" (Evans and Goldberg). Beyond the strictures of conventional criminological approaches to the U.S. prison apparatus, Evans and Goldberg are suggesting ~~There is~~ an organic connection between the architecture of the prison industrial complex and the structuring forces of neoliberalism and globalization: the socioeconomic transformations of U.S. capital, alongside contemporary elaborations of the U.S. racist state in the post-Civil Rights moment, simultaneously a.) fabricate~~s~~ populations vulnerable to criminalization (black, brown, ~~and~~ poor, and generically redundant to the contemporary economic organization of the U.S.); b.) withdraw state social services for people most in need of resources for social and biological reproduction; c.) militarize and juridically empower the policing and criminal justice apparatuses in unprecedented ways while amplifying their fundamentally punitive institutional demeanours; and d.) generate a dynamic statecraft, public discourse, and popular culture of policing and imprisonment that organize a grammar of social necessity and ideological consent around the emergence and expansion of the prison industrial complex. Here we must remember that among the millions of people held captive by the U.S. state in prisons, jails, youth prisons, and immigration detention, people of African descent are imprisoned at rates astronomically high relative to their proportion of the national population (exceeding 400 of their national demographic proportion), and at rates dwarfing those of white Americans (see Gershowitz). Native Americans repeat this pattern, although their smaller demographic numbers often obscure their heightened criminalization by the U.S. state. Latinos, Latinas, and other racialized brown people are increasingly targeted in ways that directly derive from, and expand, the historical structures of white supremacist policing and imprisonment that target Black and indigenous people, in part through the specificities of migrant/immigrant policing and criminalization. Despite composing the national majority of the U.S. population, white Americans compose less than half of the incarcerated U.S. population. Black, Brown, and indigenous peoples constitute upwards of 60 held captive. For the unfamiliar, a few other facts assist in laying bare the accelerated nature of this massive state-sanctioned project: 1 Between 1972 and 2003, the imprisoned (jail and prison) population in the U.S. increased more than 600; for the five decades prior to the 1970s, the incarcerated population had remained relatively stable, hovering between 100,000-200,000. 2 The U.S. boasts of the highest rate of incarceration in the world, at 702 per 100,000 in the general population; this rate is between 500 and 800 that of comparable industrialized nations. 3 African Americans are incarcerated at nearly six times the rate of whites (2,290 per 100,000 versus 412 per 100,000), while Hispanics are incarcerated at nearly double the rate of whites (742 per 100,000). 4 According to one of the most rigorous criminological studies to date (examining the period 1980-1996), the imprisonment increase does not derive from objective changes in the commission of crimes, but rather is almost entirely owed to politically formed changes in sentencing and criminal justice policy (see Gershowitz). Thus, as the U.S. prison, jail, INS/Homeland Security detainee and incarcerated youth population approaches and surpasses the 2.5 million mark (as of this writing), the quantitative evidence refracts the prison’s qualitative transformation into a fundamental organ of state reproduction and civic ordering. Variable, overlapping, and mutually constituting white supremacist regimes have in fact been fundamental to the formation and movements of the United States, from racial chattel slavery and frontier genocide to recent and current modes of neoliberal land displacement and (domestic-to-global) warfare. Without exception, these regimes have been differently entangled with the state’s changing paradigms, strategies, and technologies of human incarceration and punishment (to follow the prior examples: the plantation, the reservation, the neoliberal sweatshop, and the domestic-to-global prison). The historical nature of these entanglements is widely acknowledged, although explanations of the structuring relations of force tend to either isolate or historically compartmentalize the complexities of historical white supremacy. For the theoretical purposes of this essay, white supremacy may be understood as a logic of social organization that produces regimented, institutionalized, and militarized conceptions of hierarchized "human" difference, enforced through coercions and violences that are structured by genocidal possibility (including physical extermination and curtailment of people’s collective capacities to socially, culturally, or biologically reproduce). As a historical vernacular and philosophical apparatus of domination, white supremacy is simultaneously premised on and consistently innovating universalized conceptions of the white (European and euroamerican) "human" vis-à-vis the rigorous production, penal discipline, and frequent social, political, and biological neutralization or extermination of the (non-white) sub- or non-human. To consider white supremacy as essential to American social formation (rather than a freakish or extremist deviation from it) facilitates a discussion of the modalities through which this material logic of violence overdetermines the social, political, economic, and cultural structures that compose American globality and constitute the common sense that is organic to its ordering.
68 +
69 +===Advantage 3 is Sex Trafficking===
70 +====Homeless youth are at risk for sex trafficking.====
71 +**Clawson et al ’09** ~~Heather J. Clawson, Nicole Dutch, Amy Solomon, and Lisa Goldblatt Grace, 8-30-2009, "Human Trafficking Into and Within the United States: A Review of the Literature," ASPE, https://aspe.hhs.gov/basic-report/human-trafficking-and-within-united-states-review-literature~~#Other WHS//NAO~~
72 +According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Uniform Crime Reports (2006), across the United States 36,402 boys and 47,472 girls younger than age 18 were picked up by law enforcement and identified as runaways.  Girls who run from their homes, group homes, foster homes, or treatment centers, are at great risk of being targeted by a pimp (or trafficker) and becoming exploited.  Research consistently confirms the correlation between running away and becoming exploited through prostitution.  Researchers have found that the majority of prostituted women had been runaways; for example, 96 percent in San Francisco (Silbert and Pines, 1982), 72 percent in Boston (Norton-Hawk, 2002) and 56 percent in Chicago (Raphael and Shapiro, 2002).  Among prostituted youth (both boys and girls), up to 77 percent report having run away at least once (Seng, 1989). Experts have reported that within 48 hours of running away, an adolescent is likely to be approached to participate in prostitution or another form of commercial sexual exploitation (Spangenberg, 2001); however, no definitive published research substantiates this claim. Like girls, boys exploited through prostitution are most often runaways or throwaways (Flowers, 2001; Lankenau et al., 2005; Moxley-Goldsmith, 2005). For example, one study found that two-thirds of males exploited through prostitution had run away from home prior to becoming involved (Allen, 1980). While many of the factors leading to a young person leaving home are similar for boys and girls, it is estimated that between 40 and 50 percent of boys exploited through prostitution had been thrown out of their homes because of sexual identity issues (Earls and David, 1989; Seattle Commission on Children and Youth, 1986). Approximately 2535 percent of prostituted boys self-identify as gay, bisexual, or transgender/transsexual (Estes and Weiner, 2001). Further, regardless of the boys self-identification, at least 95 percent of all prostitution engaged in by boys is provided to adult men (Estes and Weiner, 2001). Regardless of their sex, when minors leave their homes, it is to protect themselves, often because they view living on the streets as either less dangerous or no more dangerous than staying at home (Hyde, 2005; Martinez, 2006). Once on the street, homeless youth are at risk for being victimized because they lack the funds, interpersonal and job skills, and support systems necessary to survive on their own (Martinez, 2006). Having often come from chaotic families, runaways tend to lack strategies for problem solving, conflict resolution, and meeting basic needs such as food, clothing, and shelter (Martinez, 2006; Robertson and Toro, 1999; Whitbeck, Hoyt, and Yoder, 1999). Some minors turn to substance abuse, crime, and survival sex to meet their basic needs (Greene, Ennett, and Ringwald, 1999; Riley, Greif, Caplan, and MacAulay, 2004; Robertson and Toro, 1999). Furthermore, exposure to the dangers of the street makes them more visible and vulnerable to traffickers, and their risky lifestyles and routines put them at greater risk of being victimized (Kipke, Simon, Montgomery, Unger, and Iversen, 1997; MacLean, Embry, and Cauce, 1999; Tyler, Cauce, and Whitbeck, 2004). Most runaway/throwaway youth are likely to run to and congregate in urban areas, so it is not surprising that there is general consensus that a greater percentage of minors are exploited in the U.S. sex industry in urban areas, though they may be brought from suburban and rural areas (Flowers, 2001). However, an increase in minor arrests in suburban counties/areas and rural areas has experts speculating that the increase is indicative of an expansion of prostitution beyond city limits (Flowers, 2001). While these data are somewhat outdated, anecdotal evidence from service providers indicates that this trend continues (A. Adams, personal communication, March 2006; N. Hotaling, personal communication, June 2006). However, further research is needed to determine whether the increase in suburban arrests is due to better identification or an actual increase in incidence. WHAT ARE THE NEEDS OF VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING? NEEDS OF INTERNATIONAL VICTIMS An examination of the services provided to international victims of human trafficking (adults and children) reveals emergency, short-term, and long-term needs (Caliber Associates, 2007; Clawson, Small, Go, and Myles, 2004). Some victims initially may present to a service provider with basic needs for safety, housing, food, and clothing. In fact, the need for safe and secure housing and overall support and advocacy are primary needs for virtually all victims of trafficking. Needs of International Victims Emergency Safety, housing, food/clothing Short-term/Long-term Legal assistance Advocacy (emotional/moral support) Housing Medical care (including dental) Mental health services/trauma recovery Transportation Education Job training/employment Reunification/repatriation These basic needs often are accompanied by an immediate need for legal assistance/representation to handle issues related to immigration status, provide legal representation that may be required in an ongoing investigation and prosecution of the trafficking case, or provide counsel in a civil lawsuit against the trafficker or in a potential custody case (Caliber Associates, 2007; Florida University Center for Advancement of Human Rights, 2003). Interviews with service providers and NGOs reveal that beyond these common immediate needs, the needs of victims are as diverse as the countries from which the victims originate. Additionally, during the course of working with victims, their needs are likely to change (Caliber Associates, 2007). A needs assessment conducted with service providers working with victims of human trafficking identified a broad range of victims needs, including emergency, transitional, and permanent housing; food/clothing; medical services (including dental care); advocacy (moral/emotional support), legal services; transportation; and information/referral services (e.g., rights as a victim of human trafficking, available services) (Clawson et al., 2004). For international victims, more often than not, there is a need for language assistance, often requiring an interpreter/translator to help the victim communicate with first responders and those trying to provide assistance. Only after these immediate needs have been met can a victim benefit from treatment for depression, trauma, re-traumatization, and other issues (Misra, Connolly, Klynman, and Majeed, 2006). Addressing the symptoms exhibited by victims of human trafficking is critical to their long-term recovery. Victims of human trafficking have been described as exhibiting symptoms and needs for service similar to torture victims, victims of domestic violence/sexual assault, battered immigrant women, migrant workers, refugees, and asylum seekers (Clawson et al., 2004). Like torture victims, victims of human trafficking (both sex and labor trafficking) often experience post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depressive disorder, other anxiety disorders, and substance abuse (De Jong, et al, 2001; Shrestha, Sharma, Van Ommeren, Regmi, Makaju, et al., 1998). Specific symptoms exhibited by victims can include nightmares, difficulty concentrating, becoming easily upset, and having difficulty relaxing. Victims can frequently feel sad or angry, have difficulty thinking, experience feelings of hopelessness, and demonstrate sleep disorders. The trauma itself also may manifest as physical symptoms, such as headaches, chest pain, shaking, sweating, and dizziness (Center for Victims of Torture). Beyond trauma-recovery services, long-term service needs include permanent housing, legal assistance, job training, job placement, education, family reunification (within the United States), and repatriation (in some cases). For some victims, in particular victims of labor trafficking, the victim may have a need for long-term medical care to address physical disabilities resulting from the abuse and/or harsh labor conditions under which the person was forced to work (Bales, 2004; Caliber Associates, 2007). Based on research on the needs of unaccompanied refugee minors, minor international trafficking victims may experience depression and feelings of isolation, but given their culture, they may not know how to express or describe what they are feeling. They may display psychosomatic symptoms; experience high levels of anxiety (especially if language obstacles and cultural differences exist between the minor and the caregiver); experience survivor guilt (victims feel they do not deserve to be alive and in a safe place when friends, siblings, or other family members are suffering); exhibit behavioral problems, including aggression; and question their ethnic identity (Ryan, 1997). Intensive case management and medical, mental health, and social services are important for responding to the needs of these children. Additionally, educating and training foster care families about the dynamics of human trafficking, the needs of victims, and the symptoms of trauma are also needed to ensure appropriate placement for children in need of homes. Given the complex needs of international victims of human trafficking, it is not surprising that providers report working with clients for more than a year and often for several years, frequently on an intermittent basis. This makes sustained progress challenging (Caliber Associates, 2007; Clawson et al., 2004). NEEDS OF DOMESTIC VICTIMS Information specifically documenting the needs of victims of human trafficking is limited and has focused primarily on international victims. However, research on prostitution and on homeless and runaway youth can provide some insights about the needs of domestic trafficking victims and can help increase understanding about the similarities and differences across the victim types. Needs of Minor Domestic Victims Emergency Safety, housing, food/clothing Short-term/Long-term Legal assistance Intensive case management Medical care Alcohol and substance abuse counseling/treatment Mental health counseling Life skills training Education Job training/employment Family reunification Girls and women escaping prostitution report housing (both transitional and long-term) as an urgent need (Commercial Sexual Exploitation Resource Institute, 1998). Substance abuse treatment and mental health counseling are also common needs among this population. The use of substances and subsequent drug addiction is well documented among homeless youth exploited through prostitution. One study found that more than 75 percent of these youth abuse alcohol or drugs, while virtually all admit to some level of use (Yates, Mackenzie, Pennbridge, and Swofford, 1991). These rates were notably higher than among homeless youth not exploited through prostitution (R. Lloyd, personal communication, May 2007). While it is important to note that a significant percentage of girls enter prostitution with no history of drug or alcohol abuse (Farley and Kelly, 2000), some studies suggest that girls who become exploited through prostitution are likely to have begun using substances at an earlier age than their at-risk peers who do not become exploited in this way (Inciardi, Pottieger, Forney, Chitwood, and McBride. 1991; Nadon, Koverola, and Schludermann, 1998). Substance abuse is also a rampant problem among the male population. For example, one study found that 77 percent of the boys exploited through prostitution were regular users of marijuana (Harlan et al., 1981). Another study found that 42 percent of the prostituted boys could be classified as heavy drinkers or alcoholics and 29 percent were regular users of hard drugs (Allen, 1980). In 1989, the County of Los Angeles found that of all the runaway youth, both boys and girls, seeking medical assistance, 75 percent of those exploited through prostitution had a substance abuse problem compared with 36 percent of those youth not being prostituted (Klain, 1999). Both girls and boys also present with medical needs. Females trafficked in the sex trade have increased risk of cervical cancer and chronic hepatitis as well as HIV (Farley et al., 2003), thus requiring immediate and potentially long-term medical care. Boys are at particularly high risk of contracting HIV due to high rates of unprotected anal sex with adult men as well as frequent intravenous drug use (Flowers, 2001). Rates of mental health problems are similar between girls and boys, though girls have been studied far more extensively (Flowers, 2001; Klain, 1999; Lankenau et al., 2005; Moxley-Goldsmith, 2005). Adolescent girls suffer severe emotional and physical consequences as a result of domestic trafficking. Survivors of prostitution demonstrate a high rate of dissociative disorders, self-destructive behaviors (including cutting), suicide attempts, and clinical depression (Farley, 2003; Farley and Kelly, 2000; Giobbe, 1993; Lloyd, 2005; Nixon et al., 2002). Additionally, as a result of the chronic trauma, prostituted girls often develop symptoms congruent with PTSD. One international study of prostituted children and adults, including male prostitutes, in five countries found that almost three-fourths met the diagnostic criteria for PTSD (Farley, Barel, Kiremire, and Sezquin, 1998; Silbert and Pines, 1981). The clinical manifestations of PTSD can limit an individuals ability to function effectively, decreasing the likelihood that he or she can take advantage of available resources and possibly minimizing any likelihood of leaving prostitution (Valera, Sawyer, and Schiraldi, 2001). As with all victims of human trafficking, adolescent girls may display symptoms of Stockholm syndrome, otherwise most frequently seen among prisoners of war and torture victims (Graham and Wish, 1994). As a means of emotional and physical survival, the captive (the girl) identifies with her captor. She expresses extreme gratitude over the smallest acts of kindness or mercy (e.g., he does not beat her today), denial over the extent of violence and injury, rooting for her pimp, hypervigilence regarding his needs, and the perception that anyone trying to persecute him or help her escape is the enemy. She may lash out at law enforcement or anyone else attempting to help her exit, and insist that she is fine and happy in her current situation. Further, the manifestations of her trauma may make her reticent to trust those outside the Life who state they are trying to help her (Friedman, 2005; Raphael, 2004). While presented here as separate needs or conditions, recognition of co-occurring disorders among adolescent victims of trafficking and the need for integrated treatment approaches, specifically for trauma, substance abuse, and mental health disorders, has gained momentum over the past 510 years (Austin, Macgowan, and Wagner, 2005; Battjes et al., 2004; Dasinger, Shane, and Martinovich, 2004; Dennis et al., 2002, 2004; Godley, Jones, Funk, Ives, and Passetti, 2004; Robbins, Bachrach, and Scapocznik, 2002). A number of studies indicate high rates of co-occurring disorders among adolescents. In one clinical study of youth in the mental health system, for example, about half had a co-occurring substance abuse disorder (Greenbaum, Foster-Johnson, and Petrilla, 1996). In the substance abuse system, estimates are even higher that as many as 7590 percent of drug abusing adolescents having a co-morbid mental health disorder (Eisen, Youngman, Grob, and Dill, 1992; Grella, Hser, Joshia, and Rounds-Bryant, 2001). Mood disorders (especially depression and anxiety), conduct disorders, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder are most often cited as co-occurring with substance abuse disorders in adolescents (Crowley and Riggs, 1995; Wise, Cuffe, and Fischer, 2001). Given the high documented rates of co-morbidity in substance abusing clinical populations, Grella et al. (2001, p. 391) concluded that adolescent drug treatment programs should assume that co-morbidity among their patients is the norm, rather than the exception.** **The needs of homeless and runaway youth parallel the needs of victims of human trafficking (international and domestic). These include the need for food, clothing, and housing; medical care; alcohol and substance abuse counseling and treatment; mental health services; education and employment assistance; and legal assistance (Robertson and Toro, 1999). In two studies, homeless youth reported wanting assistance with life skills training (Aviles and Helfrich, 2004; DeRosa et al., 1999). Other important service needs are assessment and treatment for exposure to trauma (Dalton and Pakenham, 2002; Steele and OKeefe, 2001) and risk of suicide (Martinez, 2006).
73 +
74 +====Human trafficking is dehumanizing to its victims.====
75 +**Rocha ’12 **~~Priscila Rocha, 2012, "OUR BACKYARD SLAVE TRADE: THE RESULT OF OHIO'S FAILURE TO ENACT COMPREHENSIVE STATE-LEVEL HUMAN-SEX-TRAFFICKING LEGISLATION", Cleveland State University Journal of Law and Health, http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic/ WHS//NAO~~
76 +Human trafficking is a lucrative business in which traffickers reap substantial profits from the dehumanization of victims. It ranks as the second largest illegal enterprise in the world, following the illegal sale of drugs. n63 The figures help explain why traffickers are compelled to continue treating human beings as commodities. The International Labour Organization (ILO) estimates that global profits from ~~*391~~ forced commercial sex exploitation generate $ 33.9 billion U.S. dollars per year. n64 Profits from global commercial sex exploitation, in which victims are trafficked, generate approximately $ 27.8 billion U.S. dollars per year. n65 Industrialized nations account for forty-nine percent of annual global profits derived from human trafficking. n66 Traffickers in industrialized nations receive approximately $ 67,200 of profits per victim (or $ 5600 per month). n67 The figures indicate that human trafficking is currently a business opportunity that is simply too profitable to for traffickers to ignore. Until the law imposes penalties for human trafficking substantial enough to hurt traffickers' bottom line profits, they will continue to enslave victims, viewing penalties as a mere business cost.
77 +
78 +====Providing a safe place to stay for homeless youth would solve for sex trafficking.====
79 +Jayne **Bigelsen ’13** ~~Director Anti-Human Trafficking Initiatives, Covenant House New York~~, 5-2013, "Homelessness, Survival Sex and Human Trafficking: As Experienced by the Youth of Covenant House New York", http://www.endhomelessness.org/page/-/files/Covenant20House20Fordham20University20Trafficking20Report.pdf WHS//NAO~~
80 +For those who are committed to eradicating domestic trafficking, the contributing factors outlined in this report offer a roadmap to trafficking prevention. As stated above, 48 of the participants who reported engaging in commercial sex activity explained that a lack of a safe place to sleep was a main reason for their initial entry into prostitution or other commercial sex. The participants described how pimps in New York City are well aware that the youth shelters are full and use that to their advantage by alerting homeless young people to the no vacancy status and offering them a place to stay in lieu of sleeping on the streets. Therefore, every time a shelter bed for a homeless youth is lost to budget cuts, pimps are able to operate with greater success. Advocates, policy makers and the public at large must work collaboratively to make sure that pimps and other traffickers have no such advantage by working toward the goal of ensuring that every homeless youth who wants a safe place to sleep has access to shelter and services.
81 +
82 +====A combination of homelessness and sex trafficking culminates in massive substance abuse====
83 +**Leal et al. 09** ~~Leal, Daniel, Marc Galanter, Helen Dermatis, and Laurence Westreich. "Correlates of Protracted Homelessness in a Sample of Dually Diagnosed Psychiatric Inpatients." Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 16.2 (1999): 143-47. National Coalition for the Homeless. National Coalition for the Homeless, July 2009. Web. 18 July 2016. http://www.nationalhomeless.org/factsheets/addiction.pdf WHS//NAO~~
84 +Although obtaining an accurate, recent count is difficult, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (2003) estimates, 38 of homeless people were dependent on alcohol and 26 abused other drugs. Alcohol abuse is more common in older generations, while drug abuse is more common in homeless youth and young adults (Didenko and Pankratz, 2007). Substance abuse is much more common among homeless people than in the general population. According to the 2006 National Household Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), 15 of people above the age of 12 reported using drugs within the past year and only 8 reported using drugs within the past month. RELATIONSHIP TO HOMELESSNESS Substance abuse is often a cause of homelessness. Addictive disorders disrupt relationships with family and friends and often cause people to lose their jobs. For people who are already struggling to pay their bills, the onset or exacerbation of an addiction may cause them to lose their housing. A 2008 survey by the United States Conference of Mayors asked 25 cities for their top three causes of homelessness. Substance abuse was the single largest cause of homelessness for single adults (reported by 68 of cities). Substance abuse was also mentioned by 12 of cities as one of the top three causes of homelessness for families. According to Didenko and Pankratz (2007), two-thirds of homeless people report that drugs and/or alcohol were a major reason for their becoming homeless. In many situations, however, substance abuse is a result of homelessness rather than a cause. People who are homeless often turn to drugs and alcohol to cope with their situations. They use substances in an attempt to attain temporary relief from their problems. In reality, however, substance dependence only exacerbates their problems and decreases their ability to achieve employment stability and get off the streets. Additionally, some people may view drug and alcohol use as necessary to be accepted among the homeless community (Didenko and Pankratz, 2007). Breaking an addiction is difficult for anyone, especially for substance abusers who are homeless. To begin with, motivation to stop using substances may be poor. For many homeless people, survival is more important than personal growth and development, and finding food and shelter take a higher priority than drug counseling. Many homeless people have also become estranged from their families and friends. Without a social support network, recovering from a substance addiction is very difficult. Even if they do break their addictions, homeless people may have difficulty remaining sober while living on the str eets where substances are so widely used (Fisher and Roget, 2009). Unfortunately, many treatment programs focus on abstinence only programming, which is less effective than harm-reduction strategies and does not address the possibility of relapse (National Health Care for the Homeless Council, 2007). For many homeless people, substance abuse co-occurs with mental illness. Often, people with untreated mental illnesses use street drugs as an inappropriate form of self-medication. Homeless people with both substance disorders and mental illness experience additional obstacles to recovery, such as increased risk for violence and victimization and frequent cycling between the streets, jails, and emergency rooms (Fisher and Roget, 2009). Sadly, these people are often unable to find treatment facilities that will help them. Many programs for homeless people with mental illnesses do not accept people with substance abuse disorders, and many programs for homeless substance abusers do not treat people with mental illnesses
85 +
86 +
87 +===Plan===
88 +====Resolved: The United States ought to guarantee the right to housing. I reserve the right to clarify in Cross ex. ====
89 +**Fasanelli 5 is the solvency advocate** ~~Antonia Fasanelli ~~Chair Commission on Homelessness and Poverty~~ August 2013. American Bar Association Adopted by the House of Delegates. August 12-13. WHS//NAO~~
90 +Implementing the human right to adequate housing In implementing the human right to adequate housing, the American Bar Association calls upon federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial governments to (1) Implement policies promoting the human right to adequate housing for all including veterans, people with disabilities, older persons, families, single individuals, and unaccompanied youth, which, at minimum, includes: a. Affordability, habitability, and accessibility; b. Provision of security of tenure, access to services, materials, facilities, and infrastructure; c. Location proximate to employment, health care, schools, and other social facilities; d. Provision of housing in areas that do not threaten occupants’ health; and e. Protection of cultural identity or diversity The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), which oversees implementation of the ICESCR, lists seven elements required for housing to be considered adequate including legal security of tenure; availability of services, materials, facilities, and infrastructure; affordability; habitability; accessibility; location near employment options, healthcare facilities, schools, child care centers, and other social facilities; and cultural adequacy in housing design.21 This framework recognizes that each of these elements is interdependent with each other. Adequate housing requires more than four walls and a roof; it requires adequate community resources, supportive legal and policy frameworks, effective access to justice, and a participatory and transparent democratic system to maintain all aspects of the right. It also recognizes that enjoyment of the right to housing is a standard relative to the availability of resources in a given country; here in the U.S., in what remains the wealthiest country in the world, we can and must do more.22
91 +
92 +===Solvency===
93 +====Plan is feasible and saves more money in the long run====
94 +**Fasanelli 6** ~~Antonia Fasanelli ~~Chair Commission on Homelessness and Poverty~~ August 2013. American Bar Association Adopted by the House of Delegates. August 12-13. WHS//NAO~~
95 +In addition to viewing housing expenditures as obligatory, legislators must also consider the fiscal benefits of adequately meeting low-income housing needs. In a 2004 study by the Lewin Group on the costs of serving homeless individuals in nine cities across the U.S., several cities found supportive housing to be cheaper than housing homeless individuals in shelters.51 That same year, the Congressional Budget Office estimated the cost of a Section 8 Housing Certificate to be $7,028, approximately $8,000 less than the cost of an emergency shelter bed funded by HUD’s Emergency Shelter Grants program.52 A collaborative effort of service and medical providers in San Diego, Project 25, has documented a $7 million dollar savings to tax payers through reduced emergency care and jail costs by providing permanent housing to 35 homeless individuals, a 70 reduction.53 Scotland, France, and South Africa all show that the progressive implementation of the right to housing through legislation and case law is possible where the political will exists. Scotland’s Homeless Act of 2003 progressively expanded the right to be immediately housed and the right to long-term, supportive housing for as long as it is needed, starting with target populations, but available to all in need as of 2012. The law also includes a private right of action and requires jurisdictions to plan for development of adequate affordable housing supplies.54 France created similar legislation in 2007 in response to public pressure and a decision of the European Committee on Social Rights under the European Social Charter.55 South Africa’s constitutional right to housing protects even those squatting in informal settlements, requiring the provision of adequate alternative housing before families and individuals can be evicted.56 This law has been enforced in local communities to even require rebuilding housing that has been torn down.57 While not yet perfect, these countries are proving that progressively implementing the right to housing is both economically feasible and judicially manageable
96 +
97 +====Any skepticism should be discounted- it’s a question of spending money properly.====
98 +**Hartman** ~~Chester Hartman. The Case for a Right to Housing. Housing Policy Debate. Volume 9, Issue 2. Poverty and Race Research Action Council. WHS//NAO~~
99 +But given that government budgetary outlays must be far higher than current levels if the National Housing Goal is to become a reality, is the money there? That, I submit, is not a fiscal question but a political one. We do not have any wholly reliable estimates of what realizing a right to decent, affordable housing would cost, but a recent approach can offer an order-of-magnitude estimate. For example, the detailed 10-year program put forth by the Institute for Policy Studies’ Working Group on Housing (1989) has a first-year price tag of between $29 and $88 billion (in 1989 dollars), depending on what mixture of its differently priced elements is chosen; over its life, required outlays are reduced annually. While the figure sounds high, such expenditures represent a tiny percentage of the current federal budget. Funding B-2 bombers (‘‘that notorious lemon’’ ~~Lewis 1995~~ unrequested by the Pentagon), at $1.4 billion each, at a time when the possibility of large-scale wars is at its lowest in the century, is but one illustration of politicized budgetary choices that reveal no shortage of financial resources. The above figure appears to be in line with the amount of subsidy the government grants under the mortgage interest deduction. According to U.S. Congress (1997) Joint Committee on Taxation estimates, the mortgage interest deduction alone will amount to $232.6 billion over the period between fiscal years 1998 and 2002. For the same five-year period, the deduction of property taxes on owner-occupied residences is estimated to cost $89.9 billion, and exclusion of capital gains on the sale of principal residences is estimated at $29.6 billion. In sum, it’s not that we don’t have the money to fund a right to housing; rather, it’s how we choose to spend it.
100 +
101 +====The plan solves empirics prove====
102 +~~Carol **Off and Jeff** Douglas, 5-14-20**15**, "Medicine Hat becomes the first city in Canada to eliminate homelessness," CBC News, http://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-thursday-edition-1.3074402/medicine-hat-becomes-the-first-city-in-canada-to-eliminate-homelessness-1.3074742 WHS//NAO~~
103 +Medicine Hat, a city in southern Alberta, pledged in 2009 to put an end to homelessness. Now they say they've fulfilled their promise. No one in the city spends more than 10 days in an emergency shelter or on the streets. If you've got no place to go, they'll simply provide you with housing. "We're pretty much able to meet that standard today. Even quicker, actually, sometimes," Mayor Ted Clugston tells As It Happens host Carol Off. Housing is tight in Medicine Hat. Frequent flooding in the past few years didn't help matters. With money chipped in by the province, the city built many new homes. Ted Clugston is the mayor of Medicine Hat, Alberta. Clugston admits that when the project began in 2009, when he was an alderman, he was an active opponent of the plan. "I even said some dumb things like, 'Why should they have granite countertops when I don't,'" he says. "However, I've come around to realize that this makes financial sense."
104 +
105 +====Housing is widely available in the United States.====
106 +**Loha 11** (Leader of Amnesty International "How Bad is The Homeless Problem?" 2011 WHS//NAO)
107 +Since 2007, banks have foreclosed around eight million homes. It is estimated that another eight to ten million homes will be foreclosed before the financial crisis is over. This approach to resolving one part of the financial crisis means many, many families are living without adequate and secure housing. In addition, approximately 3.5 million people in the U.S. are homeless, many of them veterans. It is worth noting that, at the same time, there are 18.5 million vacant homes in the country.
108 +
109 +===Underview===
110 +====Root cause explanations of international politics don’t exist – methodological pluralism is necessary to reclaim IR as emancipatory praxis and avoid endless political violence.====
111 +**Bleiker 14** – ~~6/17, Roland, Professor of International Relations at the University of Queensland, "International Theory Between Reification and Self-Reflective Critique," International Studies Review, Volume 16, Issue 2, pages 325–327 WHS//NAO~~
112 +This book is part of an increasing trend of scholarly works that have embraced poststructural critique but want to ground it in more positive political foundations, while retaining a reluctance to return to the positivist tendencies that implicitly underpin much of constructivist research. The path that Daniel Levine has carved out is innovative, sophisticated, and convincing. A superb scholarly achievement. For Levine, the key challenge in international relations (IR) scholarship is what he calls "unchecked reification": the widespread and dangerous process of forgetting "the distinction between theoretical concepts and the real-world things they mean to describe or to which they refer" (p. 15). The dangers are real, Levine stresses, because IR deals with some of the most difficult issues, from genocides to war. Upholding one subjective position without critical scrutiny can thus have far-reaching consequences. Following Theodor Adorno—who is the key theoretical influence on this book—Levine takes a post-positive position and assumes that the world cannot be known outside of our human perceptions and the values that are inevitably intertwined with them. His ultimate goal is to overcome reification, or, to be more precise, to recognize it as an inevitable aspect of thought so that its dangerous consequences can be mitigated. Levine proceeds in three stages: First he reviews several decades of IR theories to resurrect critical moments when scholars displayed an acute awareness of the dangers of reification. He refreshingly breaks down distinctions between conventional and progressive scholarship, for he detects self-reflective and critical moments in scholars that are usually associated with straightforward positivist positions (such as E.H. Carr, Hans Morgenthau, or Graham Allison). But Levine also shows how these moments of self-reflexivity never lasted long and were driven out by the compulsion to offer systematic and scientific knowledge. The second stage of Levine's inquiry outlines why IR scholars regularly closed down critique. Here, he points to a range of factors and phenomena, from peer review processes to the speed at which academics are meant to publish. And here too, he eschews conventional wisdom, showing that work conducted in the wake of the third debate, while explicitly post-positivist and critiquing the reifying tendencies of existing IR scholarship, often lacked critical self-awareness. As a result, Levine believes that many of the respective authors failed to appreciate sufficiently that "reification is a consequence of all thinking including itself" (p. 68). The third objective of Levine's book is also the most interesting one. Here, he outlines the path toward what he calls "sustainable critique": a form of self-reflection that can counter the dangers of reification. Critique, for him, is not just something that is directed outwards, against particular theories or theorists. It is also inward-oriented, ongoing, and sensitive to the "limitations of thought itself" (p. 12). The challenges that such a sustainable critique faces are formidable. Two stand out: First, if the natural tendency to forget the origins and values of our concepts are as strong as Levine and other Adorno-inspired theorists believe they are, then how can we actually recognize our own reifying tendencies? Are we not all inevitably and subconsciously caught in a web of meanings from which we cannot escape? Second, if one constantly questions one's own perspective, does one not fall into a relativism that loses the ability to establish the kind of stable foundations that are necessary for political action? Adorno has, of course, been critiqued as relentlessly negative, even by his second-generation Frankfurt School successors (from Jürgen Habermas to his IR interpreters, such as Andrew Linklater and Ken Booth). The response that Levine has to these two sets of legitimate criticisms are, in my view, both convincing and useful at a practical level. He starts off with depicting reification not as a flaw that is meant to be expunged, but as an a priori condition for scholarship. The challenge then is not to let it go unchecked. Methodological pluralism lies at the heart of Levine's sustainable critique. He borrows from what Adorno calls a "constellation": an attempt to juxtapose, rather than integrate, different perspectives. It is in this spirit that Levine advocates multiple methods to understand the same event or phenomena. He writes of the need to validate "multiple and mutually incompatible ways of seeing" (p. 63, see also pp. 101–102). In this model, a scholar oscillates back and forth between different methods and paradigms, trying to understand the event in question from multiple perspectives. No single method can ever adequately represent the event or should gain the upper hand. But each should, in a way, recognize and capture details or perspectives that the others cannot (p. 102). In practical terms, this means combining a range of methods even when—or, rather, precisely when—they are deemed incompatible. They can range from poststructual deconstruction to the tools pioneered and championed by positivist social sciences. The benefit of such a methodological polyphony is not just the opportunity to bring out nuances and new perspectives. Once the false hope of a smooth synthesis has been abandoned, the very incompatibility of the respective perspectives can then be used to identify the reifying tendencies in each of them. For Levine, this is how reification may be "checked at the source" and this is how a "critically reflexive moment might thus be rendered sustainable" (p. 103). It is in this sense that Levine's approach is not really post-foundational but, rather, an attempt to "balance foundationalisms against one another" (p. 14). There are strong parallels here with arguments advanced by assemblage thinking and complexity theory—links that could have been explored in more detail.
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-04-13 00:28:06.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Matthew Chandler
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Winston Churchill BR
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +45
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +5
Team
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Warren Okunlola Aff
Title
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +12 - Util Affirmative Version 2 - 1AC - NSDA District Round 5
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +NSDA District
Caselist.CitesClass[18]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,83 @@
1 +==1AC==
2 +
3 +===Framing===
4 +====The standard is maximizing expected well-being. Prefer====
5 +
6 +====1 States do and should act in a utilitarian manner.====
7 +**Woller 97** ~~Gary, Brigham Young University, "A Forum On The Role of Environmental Ethics in Restructuring Environmental Policy and Law for the Next Century", Policy Currents, 1997, WHS//NAO~~
8 +Moreover, virtually all public policies entail some redistribution of economic or political resources, such that one group's gains must come at another group's expense. Consequently, public policies in a democracy must be justified to the public, and especially to those who pay the costs of those policies. Such justification cannot simply be assumed by invoking some a priori higher-order moral principle. Appeals to a priori moral principles, such as environmental preservation, also often fail to acknowledge that public policies inevitably entail trade-offs among competing values. Thus since policymakers cannot justify inherent value conflicts to the public in any philosophical sense, and since public policies inherently imply winners and losers, the policymakers' duty to the public interest requires them to demonstrate that the redistributive effects and value trade-offs implied by their polices are somehow to the overall advantage of society. At the same time, deontologically based ~~other~~ ethical systems have severe practical limitations as a basis for public policy. It therefore follows that in a democracy, policymakers have an ethical duty to establish a plausible link between policy alternatives and the problems they address, and the public must be reasonably assured ~~reasonable assurance~~ that a policy will actually do something about an existing problem; this requires the means-end language and methodology of utilitarian ethics. Good intentions, lofty rhetoric, and moral piety are an insufficient, though perhaps at times a necessary, basis for public policy in a democracy.
9 +
10 +====2 You should default to util if I win defense on their standard—we naturally want to make the world better.====
11 +**Sinnott-Armstrong 14** ~~Walter, American philosopher. He specializes in ethics, epistemology, and more recently in neuroethics, the philosophy of law, and the philosophy of cognitive science, "Consequentialism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2014 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed), WHS//NAO~~
12 +Even if consequentialists can accommodate or explain away common moral intuitions, that might seem only to answer objections without yet giving any positive reason to accept consequentialism. However, most people begin with the presumption that we morally ought to make the world better when we can. The question then is only whether any moral constraints or moral options need to be added to the basic consequentialist factor in moral reasoning. (Kagan 1989, 1998) If no objection reveals any need for anything beyond consequences, then consequences alone seem to determine what is morally right or wrong, just as consequentialists claim.
13 +
14 +====3 The government has an obligation to guarantee everyone can exercise this right====
15 +**NESRI ’10** ~~National Economic and Social Rights Initiative, 2010. http://www.nesri.org/programs/what-is-the-human-right-to-housing WHS//NAO~~
16 +Everyone has a fundamental human right to housing, which ensures access to a safe, secure, habitable, and affordable home with freedom from forced eviction. It is the government’s obligation to guarantee that everyone can exercise this right to live in security, peace, and dignity. This right must be provided to all persons irrespective of income or access to economic resources. There are seven principles that are fundamental to the right to housing and are of particular relevance to the right to housing in the United States: Security of Tenure: Residents should possess a degree of security of tenure that guarantees protection against forced evictions, harassment, and other threats, including predatory redevelopment and displacement. -Availability of Services, Materials, Facilities, and Infrastructure: Housing must provide certain facilities essential for health, security, comfort, and nutrition. For instance, residents must have access to safe drinking water, heating and lighting, washing facilities, means of food storage, and sanitation. -Affordability: Housing costs should be at such a level that the attainment and satisfaction of other basic needs are not threatened or compromised. For instance, one should not have to choose between paying rent and buying food. -Habitability/Decent and Safe Home: Housing must provide residents adequate space that protects them from cold, damp, heat, rain, wind, or other threats to health; structural hazards; and disease. -Accessibility: Housing must be accessible to all, and disadvantaged and vulnerable groups must be accorded full access to housing resources.-Location: Housing should not be built on polluted sites, or in immediate proximity to pollution sources that threaten the right to health of residents. The physical safety of residents must be guaranteed, as well. Additionally, housing must be in a location which allows access to employment options, health-care services, schools, child-care centers, and other social facilities.-Cultural Adequacy: Housing and housing policies must guarantee the expression of cultural identity and diversity, including the preservation of cultural landmarks and institutions. Redevelopment or modernization programs must ensure that the cultural significance of housing and communities is not sacrificed.
17 +
18 +===Contention 1 is International Law===
19 +====US commitment to international law requires a right to housing- multiple contracts. ====
20 +**Fasanelli 1** ~~Antonia Fasanelli ~~Chair Commission on Homelessness and Poverty~~ August 2013. American Bar Association Adopted by the House of Delegates. August 12-13. WHS//NAO~~
21 +The U.S. commitment to the human right to housing was reaffirmed in its signature to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) in 1977. The ICESCR was submitted to the Senate for ratification in late 1978, with an ABA resolution endorsing ratification in early 1979.10 The ICESCR codifies the right to housing in Article 11, which states, "~~t~~he States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing... The States Parties will take appropriate steps to ensure the realization of this right."11 Although the Senate has yet to ratify the treaty, law professor David Weissbrodt notes signing a covenant indicates that "the United States accepts the responsibility to refrain from acts calculated to frustrate the objects of the treaty."12 The U.S. has also already ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (both with endorsement from the ABA), both of which recognize the right to be free from discrimination, including in housing.13
22 +
23 +====This is the make of break issue- the international community sees US commitment as necessarily key. ====
24 +**Fasanelli 1** ~~Antonia Fasanelli ~~Chair Commission on Homelessness and Poverty~~ August 2013. American Bar Association Adopted by the House of Delegates. August 12-13. WHS//NAO~~
25 +Moreover, the international community has increasingly taken note of America’s failure to uphold the right to housing. In 2006, the UN Human Rights Committee expressed concern about the disparate racial impact of homelessness in the U.S. and called for "adequate and adequately implemented policies, to ensure the cessation of this form of racial discrimination."17 In 2008, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination again recognized racial disparities in housing and ongoing segregation in the U.S.18 Since then, numerous U.N. experts, on official missions to the U.S., have addressed U.S. violations of the human right to housing and related rights.19
26 +
27 +====Domestic intervention key to shaping international norms- not affirming relinquishes power to other nations and makes America influence less important. ====
28 +**Fasanelli 1** ~~Antonia Fasanelli ~~Chair Commission on Homelessness and Poverty~~ August 2013. American Bar Association Adopted by the House of Delegates. August 12-13. WHS//NAO~~
29 +The U.S. has a strong tradition of promoting affordable, accessible housing, but programs have been under-funded and under-implemented. Moreover, while the human rights framework demands progressive implementation of the right to housing, and prohibits retrogressive policies, over the past 30 years there has been a significant disinvestment in public and subsidized housing at the federal level.32 Recent years have seen innovations such as the Rental Assistance Demonstration and Choice Neighborhoods Initiative, which attempt to "do more with less" while preserving important rights and protections for lowincome residents, but these programs still fail to meet the need in communities.33 Furthermore, many long-term contracts for affordable housing built under the Section 8 program during the 1960’s are now coming to term, threatening a further loss of affordable units.34 The contours of the human right to adequate housing continue to be developed at the international level by the CESCR and other U.N. experts, and at the regional level by regional human rights bodies, in response to ever-changing conditions. The U.S. should always seek to be a leader in applying these developing standards to its policies.
30 +
31 +====Independently- following ilaw is key to international consensus and deliberation. ====
32 +**Thiele** ~~Bret Thiele. JD. May 2002. The Human Right to Adequate Housing: A Tool for Promoting and Protecting Individual and community Health. 92(5): 712-715. American Journal of Public Health. WHS//NAO~~
33 +There are other reasons to use international human rights law as a model for national legislation. For example, reliance on international law to inform domestic law will result in greater consistency across domestic legal systems with respect to universally recognized human rights. Furthermore, states that turn to international law for guidance benefit from the process by which international law is derived. This process often takes a "best practices" approach. International law is influenced by a variety of ideas stemming from diverse legal, political, economic, and cultural traditions. The process of codifying norms into international law reflects the acceptance of those ideas that have been deemed by the international community to be not only "best practices" but also universally applicable. It is therefore important for states to turn to international human rights law to inform their domestic legislation and policy, including legislation and policy designed to protect and improve the health of their respective populations. The international human right to adequate housing should thus be implemented through domestic law.
34 +
35 +
36 +====Effective international law solves every impact—US commitment uniquely key. ====
37 +**IEER 2:** ~~Institute for Energy and Environmental Research and the Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy. Rule of Power or Rule of Law? An Assessment of U.S. Policies and Actions Regarding Security-Related Treaties. May 2002. http://www.ieer.org/reports/treaties/execsumm.pdf WHS//NAO~~
38 +The evolution of international law since World War II is largely a response to the demands of states and individuals living within a global society with a deeply integrated world economy. In this global society, the repercussions of the actions of states, non-state actors, and individuals are not confined within borders, whether we look to greenhouse gas accumulations, nuclear testing, the danger of accidental nuclear war, or the vast massacres of civilians that have taken place over the course of the last hundred years and still continue. Multilateral agreements increasingly have been a primary instrument employed by states to meet extremely serious challenges of this kind, for several reasons. They clearly and publicly embody a set of universally applicable expectations, including prohibited and required practices and policies. In other words, they articulate global norms, such as the protection of human rights and the prohibitions of genocide and use of weapons of mass destruction. They establish predictability and accountability in addressing a given issue. States are able to accumulate expertise and confidence by participating in the structured system offered by a treaty. However, influential U.S. policymakers are resistant to the idea of a treaty-based international legal system because they fear infringement on U.S. sovereignty and they claim to lack confidence in compliance and enforcement mechanisms. This approach has dangerous practical27 implications for international cooperation and compliance with norms. U.S. treaty partners do not enter into treaties expecting that they are only political commitments by the United States that can be overridden based on U.S. interests. When a powerful and influential state like the United States is seen to treat~~s~~ its legal obligations as a matter of convenience or of national interest alone, other states will see this as a justification to relax or withdraw from their own commitments. If the United States wants to require another state to live up to its treaty obligations, it may find that the state has followed the U.S. example and opted out of compliance.
39 +
40 +**Johansen ‘6 elaborates** Johansen, Robert C. 2006. ~~Professor of Political Science at the University of Notre Dame and Senior Fellow at the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies~~. The Impact of US Policy toward the International Criminal Court on the Prevention of Genocide, War Crimes, and Crimes Against Humanity. Human Rights Quarterly. ProjectMuse.
41 +Double standards undermine law enforcement and peoples’ willing compliance with the law, especially in a decentralized international legal system. A legal fabric torn by exemptions for a major actor is a weakened fabric, less able to deter future infractions and more likely to instill hatred and outrage against the inequities imposed by the United States. US denial of reciprocal rights for others also interferes with building a strong worldwide coalition to increase compliance with international norms against terrorism and to stop terrorist acts that are crimes against humanity
42 +
43 +====The only alternative to international law is genocide and nuclear war====
44 +**Shaw ‘1:** Shaw, Martin ~~Professor of International Relations and Politics at the University of Sussex~~. "The unfinished global revolution: intellectuals and the new politics of international relations." October 3, 2001. http://www.martinshaw.org/unfinished.pdf WHS/NAO
45 +The new politics of international relations require us, therefore, to go beyond the anti-imperialism of the intellectual left as well as of the semi-anarchist traditions of the academic discipline. We need to recognize three fundamental truths. First, in the twenty-first century people struggling for democratic liberties across the non- Western world are likely to make constant demands on our solidarity. Courageous academics, students and other intellectuals will be in the forefront of these movements. They deserve the unstinting support of intellectuals in the West. Second, the old international thinking in which democratic movements are seen as purely internal to states no longer carries conviction—despite the lingering nostalgia for it on both the American right and the anti-American left. The idea that global principles can and should be enforced worldwide is firmly established in the minds of hundreds of millions of people. This consciousness will become a powerful force in the coming decades. Third, global state-formation is a fact. International institutions are being extended, and (like it or not) they have a symbiotic relation with the major centre of state power, the increasingly internationalized Western conglomerate. The success of the global-democratic revolutionary wave depends first on how well it is consolidated in each national context—but second, on how thoroughly it is embedded in international networks of power, at the centre of which, inescapably, is the West. From these political fundamentals, strategic propositions can be derived. First, democratic movements cannot regard non-governmental organizations and civil society as ends in themselves. They must aim to civilize local states, rendering them open, accountable and pluralistic, and curtail the arbitrary and violent exercise of power. Second, democratizing local states is not a separate task from integrating them into global and often Western-centred networks. Reproducing isolated local centres of power carries with it classic dangers of states as centres of war. Embedding global norms and integrating new state centres with global institutional frameworks are essential to the control of violence. (To put this another way: the proliferation of purely national democracies is not a recipe for peace.) Third, while the global revolution cannot do without the West and the UN, neither can it rely on them unconditionally. We need these power networks, but we need to tame them too, to make their messy bureaucracies enormously more accountable and sensitive to the needs of society worldwide. This will involve the kind of ‘cosmopolitan democracy’ argued for by David Held. It will also require us to advance a global social-democratic agenda, to address the literally catastrophic scale of world social inequalities. This is not a separate problem: social and economic reform is an essential ingredient of alternatives to warlike and genocidal power; these feed off and reinforce corrupt and criminal political economies. Fourth, if we need the global-Western state, if we want to democratize it and make its institutions friendlier to global peace and justice, we cannot be indifferent to its strategic debates. It matters to develop international political interventions, legal institutions and robust peacekeeping as strategic alternatives to bombing our way through zones of crisis. It matters that international intervention supports pluralist structures, rather than ratifying Bosnia-style apartheid. As political intellectuals in the West, we need to have our eyes on the ball at our feet, but we also need to raise them to the horizon. We need to grasp the historic drama that is transforming worldwide relationships between people and state, as well as between state and state. We need to think about how the turbulence of the global revolution can be consolidated in democratic, pluralist, international networks of both social relations and state authority. We cannot be simply optimistic about this prospect. Sadly, it will require repeated violent political crises to push Western and other governments towards the required restructuring of world institutions. What I have outlined is a huge challenge; but the alternative is to see the global revolution splutter into partial defeat, or degenerate into new genocidal wars—perhaps even nuclear conflicts. The practical challenge for all concerned citizens, and the theoretical and analytical challenges
46 +
47 +===Contention 2 is Crime===
48 +====Cities often have policies that criminalize the homeless; ====
49 +**Bauman et. al 15** ~~Bauman, Tristia, Jeremy Rosen, Eric Tars, Janelle Fernandez, Christian Robin, Eugene Sowa, Michael Maskin, Cheryl Cortemeglia, and Hannah Nicholes. "No Safe Place: The Criminalization of Homelessness in U.S. Cities." National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty. National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, 2015. Web. 18 July 2016. https://www.nlchp.org/documents/No'Safe'Place WHS//NAO~~
50 +Homelessness is caused by a severe shortage of affordable housing. Over 12.8 of the nation’s supply of low income housing has been permanently lost since 2001, resulting in large part, from a decrease in funding for federally subsidized housing since the 1970s. The shortage of affordable housing is particularly difficult for extremely low-income renters who, in the wake of the foreclosure crisis, are competing for fewer and fewer affordable units. In many American cities there are fewer emergency shelter beds than homeless people. There are fewer available shelter beds than homeless people in major cities across the nation. In some places, the gap between available space and human need is significant, leaving hundreds or, in some cases, thousands of people with no choice but to struggle for survival in outdoor, public places. Despite a lack of affordable housing and shelter space, many cities have chosen to criminally punish people living on the street for doing what any human being must do to survive. The Law Center surveyed 187 cities and assessed the number and type of municipal codes that criminalize the life-sustaining behaviors of homeless people. The results of our research show that the criminalization of necessary human activities is all too common in cities across the country. Prevalence of laws that criminalize homelessness: • Laws prohibiting "camping"1 in public o 34 of cities impose city-wide bans on camping in public. o 57 of cities prohibit camping in particular public places. • Laws prohibiting sleeping in public o 18 of cities impose city-wide bans on sleeping in public. o 27 of cities prohibit sleeping in particular public places, such as in public parks. 1 Laws that criminalize camping in public are written broadly to include an array of living arrangements, including simply sleeping outdoors. • Laws prohibiting begging in public o 24 of cities impose city-wide bans on begging in public. o 76 of cities prohibit begging in particular public places. • Laws prohibiting loitering, loafing, and vagrancy o 33 of cities make it illegal to loiter in public throughout an entire city. o 65 of cities prohibit the activity in particular public places. • Laws prohibiting sitting or lying down in public o 53 of cities prohibit sitting or lying down in particular public places. • Laws prohibiting sleeping in vehicles o 43 of cities prohibit sleeping in vehicles. • Laws prohibiting food sharing o 9 of cities prohibit sharing food with homeless people
51 +
52 +====Homelessness is directly correlated to increasing crime.====
53 +**Roberts 13** (CEO of PATH Partners "Could Housing the Homeless Solve Crime", August 13, 2013 WHS//NAO)
54 +In Britain, experts believe 20 of their "rough sleepers" (people who are homeless) have committed a crime. The conclusion, however, is that these crimes are usually acts of survival or ways for people to get off the streets. Prostitution, shoplifting, or theft are certainly illegal, but they are acts that some people on the streets perform to try and improve their situations. But there are certainly hardcore, violent criminals on the streets, too. The problem is that our communities have become so numb to homelessness that we allow homeless encampments to be scattered in the hills, beaches, rivers, and parks, so that these havens of homelessness become places where violent criminals can blend in and hide. Most of the time, homelessness is not the source of crime in an area, but the places where people experiencing homelessness gather could become havens of crime. Both crime against innocent people living on the streets and crime against innocent people who are already housed. The real solution is to eliminate these encampments of homelessness by helping people get housed. So, could ending homelessness reduce crime in our neighborhoods? Yes. When there is no more homelessness, there will be no more crimes against people who are homeless. When there is no more homelessness, people living on the streets will no longer have to break laws to try and get off the streets.
55 +
56 +====This creates a new ending cycle of incarceration ====
57 +**Roman 16 ** ~~Courtney S. Hardingcharding roman, Ph.D. in sociology and justice, law, and society from the American University. 11-29-2016, "Identifying Discrete Subgroups of Chronically Homeless Frequent Utilizers of Jail and Public Mental Health Services," No Publication, http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0093854816680838~~
58 +Finally, although it is often individuals with mental illness who are most in need of housing when released from incarceration, these individuals have been labeled "hard to house" or "hard to serve" as the complexity of their problems (e.g., health, mental health, substance abuse, victimization) requires the resources of multiple agencies and comprehensive (expensive) solutions (Burt and Anderson, 2005; McNiel, Binder, and Robinson, 2005). Furthermore, there is little accountability across domains for providing housing to individuals recently released from jail (Roman and Travis, 2006). This leaves many vulnerable individuals homeless and in need of treatment during the time of reentry. Being homeless soon after release from jail has been shown to increase one’s chances of reincarceration, especially for those with a serious mental illness (Metraux and Culhane, 2004). The link between homelessness and incarceration is mediated by factors related to mental health and substance abuse, as well as socioeconomic disadvantage (Greenberg and Rosenheck, 2008). Preventing homelessness among individuals with complex health and mental issues at the time of release from jail is therefore a means of reducing repeat justice system involvement, poor health outcomes, and long-term housing instability. These findings highlight the importance of incorporating systems that address homelessness into the discussion of cross-system integration. They also implicate homelessness as a potentially important factor to incorporate into any comprehensive picture of complex patients in the criminal justice system.
59 +
60 +====Prison is the worst impact. It is dehumanizing and strips citizens of their subjectivity====
61 +**Rodriguez 7 bracketed for clarity** ~~Dylan Rodriguez, University of California, Riverside .AMERICAN GLOBALITY AND THE U. S. PRISON REGIME: STATE VIOLENCE AND WHITE SUPREMACY FROM ABU GHRAIB TO STOCKTON TO BAGONG DIWA. Kritika Kultura, Issue 9, November 2007 49 WHS//NAO~~
62 +We might imagine the U.S. prison, not as a discrete institution or reified place, but rather as ~~is~~ an abstracted site—a prototype—of organized punishment and (social, civil, and biological) death. I begin this section with two points of departure, in an attempt to initially provoke a conceptualization of the American prison regime that focuses on the intertwining of two structural logics: 1) white supremacy as a historical modality of social (dis)organization, and 2) the capacity of allegedly "local" or "domestic" U.S. social formations to circulate, militarize, and mobilize across global geographies. The emergence of the American prison industrial complex since the 1970s is generally addressed as a problem of the "American nation," and until recently has largely been situated by academic scholars, progressive activists, and imprisoned intellectuals within the domains of the domestic social formation. Yet, even the concise definition of the prison industrial complex penned in 2001 by U.S. political prisoner Linda Evans (released in 2001) and activist Eve Goldberg facilitates an inquiry that pushes past parochial geographies of the U.S. national form: "Like the military/industrial complex, the prison industrial complex is an interweaving of private business and government interests. Its twofold purpose is ~~for~~ profit and social control. Its public rationale is the fight against crime" (Evans and Goldberg). Beyond the strictures of conventional criminological approaches to the U.S. prison apparatus, Evans and Goldberg are suggesting ~~There is~~ an organic connection between the architecture of the prison industrial complex and the structuring forces of neoliberalism and globalization: the socioeconomic transformations of U.S. capital, alongside contemporary elaborations of the U.S. racist state in the post-Civil Rights moment, simultaneously a.) fabricate~~s~~ populations vulnerable to criminalization (black, brown, ~~and~~ poor, and generically redundant to the contemporary economic organization of the U.S.); b.) withdraw state social services for people most in need of resources for social and biological reproduction; c.) militarize and juridically empower the policing and criminal justice apparatuses in unprecedented ways while amplifying their fundamentally punitive institutional demeanours; and d.) generate a dynamic statecraft, public discourse, and popular culture of policing and imprisonment that organize a grammar of social necessity and ideological consent around the emergence and expansion of the prison industrial complex. Here we must remember that among the millions of people held captive by the U.S. state in prisons, jails, youth prisons, and immigration detention, people of African descent are imprisoned at rates astronomically high relative to their proportion of the national population (exceeding 400 of their national demographic proportion), and at rates dwarfing those of white Americans (see Gershowitz). Native Americans repeat this pattern, although their smaller demographic numbers often obscure their heightened criminalization by the U.S. state. Latinos, Latinas, and other racialized brown people are increasingly targeted in ways that directly derive from, and expand, the historical structures of white supremacist policing and imprisonment that target Black and indigenous people, in part through the specificities of migrant/immigrant policing and criminalization. Despite composing the national majority of the U.S. population, white Americans compose less than half of the incarcerated U.S. population. Black, Brown, and indigenous peoples constitute upwards of 60 held captive. For the unfamiliar, a few other facts assist in laying bare the accelerated nature of this massive state-sanctioned project: 1 Between 1972 and 2003, the imprisoned (jail and prison) population in the U.S. increased more than 600; for the five decades prior to the 1970s, the incarcerated population had remained relatively stable, hovering between 100,000-200,000. 2 The U.S. boasts of the highest rate of incarceration in the world, at 702 per 100,000 in the general population; this rate is between 500 and 800 that of comparable industrialized nations. 3 African Americans are incarcerated at nearly six times the rate of whites (2,290 per 100,000 versus 412 per 100,000), while Hispanics are incarcerated at nearly double the rate of whites (742 per 100,000). 4 According to one of the most rigorous criminological studies to date (examining the period 1980-1996), the imprisonment increase does not derive from objective changes in the commission of crimes, but rather is almost entirely owed to politically formed changes in sentencing and criminal justice policy (see Gershowitz). Thus, as the U.S. prison, jail, INS/Homeland Security detainee and incarcerated youth population approaches and surpasses the 2.5 million mark (as of this writing), the quantitative evidence refracts the prison’s qualitative transformation into a fundamental organ of state reproduction and civic ordering. Variable, overlapping, and mutually constituting white supremacist regimes have in fact been fundamental to the formation and movements of the United States, from racial chattel slavery and frontier genocide to recent and current modes of neoliberal land displacement and (domestic-to-global) warfare. Without exception, these regimes have been differently entangled with the state’s changing paradigms, strategies, and technologies of human incarceration and punishment (to follow the prior examples: the plantation, the reservation, the neoliberal sweatshop, and the domestic-to-global prison). The historical nature of these entanglements is widely acknowledged, although explanations of the structuring relations of force tend to either isolate or historically compartmentalize the complexities of historical white supremacy. For the theoretical purposes of this essay, white supremacy may be understood as a logic of social organization that produces regimented, institutionalized, and militarized conceptions of hierarchized "human" difference, enforced through coercions and violences that are structured by genocidal possibility (including physical extermination and curtailment of people’s collective capacities to socially, culturally, or biologically reproduce). As a historical vernacular and philosophical apparatus of domination, white supremacy is simultaneously premised on and consistently innovating universalized conceptions of the white (European and euroamerican) "human" vis-à-vis the rigorous production, penal discipline, and frequent social, political, and biological neutralization or extermination of the (non-white) sub- or non-human. To consider white supremacy as essential to American social formation (rather than a freakish or extremist deviation from it) facilitates a discussion of the modalities through which this material logic of violence overdetermines the social, political, economic, and cultural structures that compose American globality and constitute the common sense that is organic to its ordering.
63 +
64 +===Contention 3 is Sex Trafficking===
65 +====Homeless youth are at risk for sex trafficking.====
66 +**Clawson et al ’09** ~~Heather J. Clawson, Nicole Dutch, Amy Solomon, and Lisa Goldblatt Grace, 8-30-2009, "Human Trafficking Into and Within the United States: A Review of the Literature," ASPE, https://aspe.hhs.gov/basic-report/human-trafficking-and-within-united-states-review-literature~~#Other WHS//NAO~~
67 +According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Uniform Crime Reports (2006), across the United States 36,402 boys and 47,472 girls younger than age 18 were picked up by law enforcement and identified as runaways.  Girls who run from their homes, group homes, foster homes, or treatment centers, are at great risk of being targeted by a pimp (or trafficker) and becoming exploited.  Research consistently confirms the correlation between running away and becoming exploited through prostitution.  Researchers have found that the majority of prostituted women had been runaways; for example, 96 percent in San Francisco (Silbert and Pines, 1982), 72 percent in Boston (Norton-Hawk, 2002) and 56 percent in Chicago (Raphael and Shapiro, 2002).  Among prostituted youth (both boys and girls), up to 77 percent report having run away at least once (Seng, 1989). Experts have reported that within 48 hours of running away, an adolescent is likely to be approached to participate in prostitution or another form of commercial sexual exploitation (Spangenberg, 2001); however, no definitive published research substantiates this claim. Like girls, boys exploited through prostitution are most often runaways or throwaways (Flowers, 2001; Lankenau et al., 2005; Moxley-Goldsmith, 2005). For example, one study found that two-thirds of males exploited through prostitution had run away from home prior to becoming involved (Allen, 1980). While many of the factors leading to a young person leaving home are similar for boys and girls, it is estimated that between 40 and 50 percent of boys exploited through prostitution had been thrown out of their homes because of sexual identity issues (Earls and David, 1989; Seattle Commission on Children and Youth, 1986). Approximately 2535 percent of prostituted boys self-identify as gay, bisexual, or transgender/transsexual (Estes and Weiner, 2001). Further, regardless of the boys self-identification, at least 95 percent of all prostitution engaged in by boys is provided to adult men (Estes and Weiner, 2001). Regardless of their sex, when minors leave their homes, it is to protect themselves, often because they view living on the streets as either less dangerous or no more dangerous than staying at home (Hyde, 2005; Martinez, 2006). Once on the street, homeless youth are at risk for being victimized because they lack the funds, interpersonal and job skills, and support systems necessary to survive on their own (Martinez, 2006). Having often come from chaotic families, runaways tend to lack strategies for problem solving, conflict resolution, and meeting basic needs such as food, clothing, and shelter (Martinez, 2006; Robertson and Toro, 1999; Whitbeck, Hoyt, and Yoder, 1999). Some minors turn to substance abuse, crime, and survival sex to meet their basic needs (Greene, Ennett, and Ringwald, 1999; Riley, Greif, Caplan, and MacAulay, 2004; Robertson and Toro, 1999). Furthermore, exposure to the dangers of the street makes them more visible and vulnerable to traffickers, and their risky lifestyles and routines put them at greater risk of being victimized (Kipke, Simon, Montgomery, Unger, and Iversen, 1997; MacLean, Embry, and Cauce, 1999; Tyler, Cauce, and Whitbeck, 2004). Most runaway/throwaway youth are likely to run to and congregate in urban areas, so it is not surprising that there is general consensus that a greater percentage of minors are exploited in the U.S. sex industry in urban areas, though they may be brought from suburban and rural areas (Flowers, 2001). However, an increase in minor arrests in suburban counties/areas and rural areas has experts speculating that the increase is indicative of an expansion of prostitution beyond city limits (Flowers, 2001). While these data are somewhat outdated, anecdotal evidence from service providers indicates that this trend continues (A. Adams, personal communication, March 2006; N. Hotaling, personal communication, June 2006). However, further research is needed to determine whether the increase in suburban arrests is due to better identification or an actual increase in incidence. WHAT ARE THE NEEDS OF VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING? NEEDS OF INTERNATIONAL VICTIMS An examination of the services provided to international victims of human trafficking (adults and children) reveals emergency, short-term, and long-term needs (Caliber Associates, 2007; Clawson, Small, Go, and Myles, 2004). Some victims initially may present to a service provider with basic needs for safety, housing, food, and clothing. In fact, the need for safe and secure housing and overall support and advocacy are primary needs for virtually all victims of trafficking. Needs of International Victims Emergency Safety, housing, food/clothing Short-term/Long-term Legal assistance Advocacy (emotional/moral support) Housing Medical care (including dental) Mental health services/trauma recovery Transportation Education Job training/employment Reunification/repatriation These basic needs often are accompanied by an immediate need for legal assistance/representation to handle issues related to immigration status, provide legal representation that may be required in an ongoing investigation and prosecution of the trafficking case, or provide counsel in a civil lawsuit against the trafficker or in a potential custody case (Caliber Associates, 2007; Florida University Center for Advancement of Human Rights, 2003). Interviews with service providers and NGOs reveal that beyond these common immediate needs, the needs of victims are as diverse as the countries from which the victims originate. Additionally, during the course of working with victims, their needs are likely to change (Caliber Associates, 2007). A needs assessment conducted with service providers working with victims of human trafficking identified a broad range of victims needs, including emergency, transitional, and permanent housing; food/clothing; medical services (including dental care); advocacy (moral/emotional support), legal services; transportation; and information/referral services (e.g., rights as a victim of human trafficking, available services) (Clawson et al., 2004). For international victims, more often than not, there is a need for language assistance, often requiring an interpreter/translator to help the victim communicate with first responders and those trying to provide assistance. Only after these immediate needs have been met can a victim benefit from treatment for depression, trauma, re-traumatization, and other issues (Misra, Connolly, Klynman, and Majeed, 2006). Addressing the symptoms exhibited by victims of human trafficking is critical to their long-term recovery. Victims of human trafficking have been described as exhibiting symptoms and needs for service similar to torture victims, victims of domestic violence/sexual assault, battered immigrant women, migrant workers, refugees, and asylum seekers (Clawson et al., 2004). Like torture victims, victims of human trafficking (both sex and labor trafficking) often experience post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depressive disorder, other anxiety disorders, and substance abuse (De Jong, et al, 2001; Shrestha, Sharma, Van Ommeren, Regmi, Makaju, et al., 1998). Specific symptoms exhibited by victims can include nightmares, difficulty concentrating, becoming easily upset, and having difficulty relaxing. Victims can frequently feel sad or angry, have difficulty thinking, experience feelings of hopelessness, and demonstrate sleep disorders. The trauma itself also may manifest as physical symptoms, such as headaches, chest pain, shaking, sweating, and dizziness (Center for Victims of Torture). Beyond trauma-recovery services, long-term service needs include permanent housing, legal assistance, job training, job placement, education, family reunification (within the United States), and repatriation (in some cases). For some victims, in particular victims of labor trafficking, the victim may have a need for long-term medical care to address physical disabilities resulting from the abuse and/or harsh labor conditions under which the person was forced to work (Bales, 2004; Caliber Associates, 2007). Based on research on the needs of unaccompanied refugee minors, minor international trafficking victims may experience depression and feelings of isolation, but given their culture, they may not know how to express or describe what they are feeling. They may display psychosomatic symptoms; experience high levels of anxiety (especially if language obstacles and cultural differences exist between the minor and the caregiver); experience survivor guilt (victims feel they do not deserve to be alive and in a safe place when friends, siblings, or other family members are suffering); exhibit behavioral problems, including aggression; and question their ethnic identity (Ryan, 1997). Intensive case management and medical, mental health, and social services are important for responding to the needs of these children. Additionally, educating and training foster care families about the dynamics of human trafficking, the needs of victims, and the symptoms of trauma are also needed to ensure appropriate placement for children in need of homes. Given the complex needs of international victims of human trafficking, it is not surprising that providers report working with clients for more than a year and often for several years, frequently on an intermittent basis. This makes sustained progress challenging (Caliber Associates, 2007; Clawson et al., 2004). NEEDS OF DOMESTIC VICTIMS Information specifically documenting the needs of victims of human trafficking is limited and has focused primarily on international victims. However, research on prostitution and on homeless and runaway youth can provide some insights about the needs of domestic trafficking victims and can help increase understanding about the similarities and differences across the victim types. Needs of Minor Domestic Victims Emergency Safety, housing, food/clothing Short-term/Long-term Legal assistance Intensive case management Medical care Alcohol and substance abuse counseling/treatment Mental health counseling Life skills training Education Job training/employment Family reunification Girls and women escaping prostitution report housing (both transitional and long-term) as an urgent need (Commercial Sexual Exploitation Resource Institute, 1998). Substance abuse treatment and mental health counseling are also common needs among this population. The use of substances and subsequent drug addiction is well documented among homeless youth exploited through prostitution. One study found that more than 75 percent of these youth abuse alcohol or drugs, while virtually all admit to some level of use (Yates, Mackenzie, Pennbridge, and Swofford, 1991). These rates were notably higher than among homeless youth not exploited through prostitution (R. Lloyd, personal communication, May 2007). While it is important to note that a significant percentage of girls enter prostitution with no history of drug or alcohol abuse (Farley and Kelly, 2000), some studies suggest that girls who become exploited through prostitution are likely to have begun using substances at an earlier age than their at-risk peers who do not become exploited in this way (Inciardi, Pottieger, Forney, Chitwood, and McBride. 1991; Nadon, Koverola, and Schludermann, 1998). Substance abuse is also a rampant problem among the male population. For example, one study found that 77 percent of the boys exploited through prostitution were regular users of marijuana (Harlan et al., 1981). Another study found that 42 percent of the prostituted boys could be classified as heavy drinkers or alcoholics and 29 percent were regular users of hard drugs (Allen, 1980). In 1989, the County of Los Angeles found that of all the runaway youth, both boys and girls, seeking medical assistance, 75 percent of those exploited through prostitution had a substance abuse problem compared with 36 percent of those youth not being prostituted (Klain, 1999). Both girls and boys also present with medical needs. Females trafficked in the sex trade have increased risk of cervical cancer and chronic hepatitis as well as HIV (Farley et al., 2003), thus requiring immediate and potentially long-term medical care. Boys are at particularly high risk of contracting HIV due to high rates of unprotected anal sex with adult men as well as frequent intravenous drug use (Flowers, 2001). Rates of mental health problems are similar between girls and boys, though girls have been studied far more extensively (Flowers, 2001; Klain, 1999; Lankenau et al., 2005; Moxley-Goldsmith, 2005). Adolescent girls suffer severe emotional and physical consequences as a result of domestic trafficking. Survivors of prostitution demonstrate a high rate of dissociative disorders, self-destructive behaviors (including cutting), suicide attempts, and clinical depression (Farley, 2003; Farley and Kelly, 2000; Giobbe, 1993; Lloyd, 2005; Nixon et al., 2002). Additionally, as a result of the chronic trauma, prostituted girls often develop symptoms congruent with PTSD. One international study of prostituted children and adults, including male prostitutes, in five countries found that almost three-fourths met the diagnostic criteria for PTSD (Farley, Barel, Kiremire, and Sezquin, 1998; Silbert and Pines, 1981). The clinical manifestations of PTSD can limit an individuals ability to function effectively, decreasing the likelihood that he or she can take advantage of available resources and possibly minimizing any likelihood of leaving prostitution (Valera, Sawyer, and Schiraldi, 2001). As with all victims of human trafficking, adolescent girls may display symptoms of Stockholm syndrome, otherwise most frequently seen among prisoners of war and torture victims (Graham and Wish, 1994). As a means of emotional and physical survival, the captive (the girl) identifies with her captor. She expresses extreme gratitude over the smallest acts of kindness or mercy (e.g., he does not beat her today), denial over the extent of violence and injury, rooting for her pimp, hypervigilence regarding his needs, and the perception that anyone trying to persecute him or help her escape is the enemy. She may lash out at law enforcement or anyone else attempting to help her exit, and insist that she is fine and happy in her current situation. Further, the manifestations of her trauma may make her reticent to trust those outside the Life who state they are trying to help her (Friedman, 2005; Raphael, 2004). While presented here as separate needs or conditions, recognition of co-occurring disorders among adolescent victims of trafficking and the need for integrated treatment approaches, specifically for trauma, substance abuse, and mental health disorders, has gained momentum over the past 510 years (Austin, Macgowan, and Wagner, 2005; Battjes et al., 2004; Dasinger, Shane, and Martinovich, 2004; Dennis et al., 2002, 2004; Godley, Jones, Funk, Ives, and Passetti, 2004; Robbins, Bachrach, and Scapocznik, 2002). A number of studies indicate high rates of co-occurring disorders among adolescents. In one clinical study of youth in the mental health system, for example, about half had a co-occurring substance abuse disorder (Greenbaum, Foster-Johnson, and Petrilla, 1996). In the substance abuse system, estimates are even higher that as many as 7590 percent of drug abusing adolescents having a co-morbid mental health disorder (Eisen, Youngman, Grob, and Dill, 1992; Grella, Hser, Joshia, and Rounds-Bryant, 2001). Mood disorders (especially depression and anxiety), conduct disorders, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder are most often cited as co-occurring with substance abuse disorders in adolescents (Crowley and Riggs, 1995; Wise, Cuffe, and Fischer, 2001). Given the high documented rates of co-morbidity in substance abusing clinical populations, Grella et al. (2001, p. 391) concluded that adolescent drug treatment programs should assume that co-morbidity among their patients is the norm, rather than the exception.** **The needs of homeless and runaway youth parallel the needs of victims of human trafficking (international and domestic). These include the need for food, clothing, and housing; medical care; alcohol and substance abuse counseling and treatment; mental health services; education and employment assistance; and legal assistance (Robertson and Toro, 1999). In two studies, homeless youth reported wanting assistance with life skills training (Aviles and Helfrich, 2004; DeRosa et al., 1999). Other important service needs are assessment and treatment for exposure to trauma (Dalton and Pakenham, 2002; Steele and OKeefe, 2001) and risk of suicide (Martinez, 2006).
68 +
69 +====Human trafficking is dehumanizing to its victims.====
70 +**Rocha ’12 **~~Priscila Rocha, 2012, "OUR BACKYARD SLAVE TRADE: THE RESULT OF OHIO'S FAILURE TO ENACT COMPREHENSIVE STATE-LEVEL HUMAN-SEX-TRAFFICKING LEGISLATION", Cleveland State University Journal of Law and Health, http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic/ WHS//NAO~~
71 +Human trafficking is a lucrative business in which traffickers reap substantial profits from the dehumanization of victims. It ranks as the second largest illegal enterprise in the world, following the illegal sale of drugs. n63 The figures help explain why traffickers are compelled to continue treating human beings as commodities. The International Labour Organization (ILO) estimates that global profits from ~~*391~~ forced commercial sex exploitation generate $ 33.9 billion U.S. dollars per year. n64 Profits from global commercial sex exploitation, in which victims are trafficked, generate approximately $ 27.8 billion U.S. dollars per year. n65 Industrialized nations account for forty-nine percent of annual global profits derived from human trafficking. n66 Traffickers in industrialized nations receive approximately $ 67,200 of profits per victim (or $ 5600 per month). n67 The figures indicate that human trafficking is currently a business opportunity that is simply too profitable to for traffickers to ignore. Until the law imposes penalties for human trafficking substantial enough to hurt traffickers' bottom line profits, they will continue to enslave victims, viewing penalties as a mere business cost.
72 +
73 +====Providing a safe place to stay for homeless youth would solve for sex trafficking.====
74 +Jayne **Bigelsen ’13** ~~Director Anti-Human Trafficking Initiatives, Covenant House New York~~, 5-2013, "Homelessness, Survival Sex and Human Trafficking: As Experienced by the Youth of Covenant House New York", http://www.endhomelessness.org/page/-/files/Covenant20House20Fordham20University20Trafficking20Report.pdf WHS//NAO~~
75 +For those who are committed to eradicating domestic trafficking, the contributing factors outlined in this report offer a roadmap to trafficking prevention. As stated above, 48 of the participants who reported engaging in commercial sex activity explained that a lack of a safe place to sleep was a main reason for their initial entry into prostitution or other commercial sex. The participants described how pimps in New York City are well aware that the youth shelters are full and use that to their advantage by alerting homeless young people to the no vacancy status and offering them a place to stay in lieu of sleeping on the streets. Therefore, every time a shelter bed for a homeless youth is lost to budget cuts, pimps are able to operate with greater success. Advocates, policy makers and the public at large must work collaboratively to make sure that pimps and other traffickers have no such advantage by working toward the goal of ensuring that every homeless youth who wants a safe place to sleep has access to shelter and services.
76 +
77 +====A combination of homelessness and sex trafficking culminates in massive substance abuse====
78 +**Leal et al. 09** ~~Leal, Daniel, Marc Galanter, Helen Dermatis, and Laurence Westreich. "Correlates of Protracted Homelessness in a Sample of Dually Diagnosed Psychiatric Inpatients." Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 16.2 (1999): 143-47. National Coalition for the Homeless. National Coalition for the Homeless, July 2009. Web. 18 July 2016. http://www.nationalhomeless.org/factsheets/addiction.pdf WHS//NAO~~
79 +Although obtaining an accurate, recent count is difficult, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (2003) estimates, 38 of homeless people were dependent on alcohol and 26 abused other drugs. Alcohol abuse is more common in older generations, while drug abuse is more common in homeless youth and young adults (Didenko and Pankratz, 2007). Substance abuse is much more common among homeless people than in the general population. According to the 2006 National Household Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), 15 of people above the age of 12 reported using drugs within the past year and only 8 reported using drugs within the past month. RELATIONSHIP TO HOMELESSNESS Substance abuse is often a cause of homelessness. Addictive disorders disrupt relationships with family and friends and often cause people to lose their jobs. For people who are already struggling to pay their bills, the onset or exacerbation of an addiction may cause them to lose their housing. A 2008 survey by the United States Conference of Mayors asked 25 cities for their top three causes of homelessness. Substance abuse was the single largest cause of homelessness for single adults (reported by 68 of cities). Substance abuse was also mentioned by 12 of cities as one of the top three causes of homelessness for families. According to Didenko and Pankratz (2007), two-thirds of homeless people report that drugs and/or alcohol were a major reason for their becoming homeless. In many situations, however, substance abuse is a result of homelessness rather than a cause. People who are homeless often turn to drugs and alcohol to cope with their situations. They use substances in an attempt to attain temporary relief from their problems. In reality, however, substance dependence only exacerbates their problems and decreases their ability to achieve employment stability and get off the streets. Additionally, some people may view drug and alcohol use as necessary to be accepted among the homeless community (Didenko and Pankratz, 2007). Breaking an addiction is difficult for anyone, especially for substance abusers who are homeless. To begin with, motivation to stop using substances may be poor. For many homeless people, survival is more important than personal growth and development, and finding food and shelter take a higher priority than drug counseling. Many homeless people have also become estranged from their families and friends. Without a social support network, recovering from a substance addiction is very difficult. Even if they do break their addictions, homeless people may have difficulty remaining sober while living on the str eets where substances are so widely used (Fisher and Roget, 2009). Unfortunately, many treatment programs focus on abstinence only programming, which is less effective than harm-reduction strategies and does not address the possibility of relapse (National Health Care for the Homeless Council, 2007). For many homeless people, substance abuse co-occurs with mental illness. Often, people with untreated mental illnesses use street drugs as an inappropriate form of self-medication. Homeless people with both substance disorders and mental illness experience additional obstacles to recovery, such as increased risk for violence and victimization and frequent cycling between the streets, jails, and emergency rooms (Fisher and Roget, 2009). Sadly, these people are often unable to find treatment facilities that will help them. Many programs for homeless people with mental illnesses do not accept people with substance abuse disorders, and many programs for homeless substance abusers do not treat people with mental illnesses
80 +
81 +====The aff is feasible and saves more money in the long run====
82 +**Fasanelli 6** ~~Antonia Fasanelli ~~Chair Commission on Homelessness and Poverty~~ August 2013. American Bar Association Adopted by the House of Delegates. August 12-13. WHS//NAO~~
83 +In addition to viewing housing expenditures as obligatory, legislators must also consider the fiscal benefits of adequately meeting low-income housing needs. In a 2004 study by the Lewin Group on the costs of serving homeless individuals in nine cities across the U.S., several cities found supportive housing to be cheaper than housing homeless individuals in shelters.51 That same year, the Congressional Budget Office estimated the cost of a Section 8 Housing Certificate to be $7,028, approximately $8,000 less than the cost of an emergency shelter bed funded by HUD’s Emergency Shelter Grants program.52 A collaborative effort of service and medical providers in San Diego, Project 25, has documented a $7 million dollar savings to tax payers through reduced emergency care and jail costs by providing permanent housing to 35 homeless individuals, a 70 reduction.53 Scotland, France, and South Africa all show that the progressive implementation of the right to housing through legislation and case law is possible where the political will exists. Scotland’s Homeless Act of 2003 progressively expanded the right to be immediately housed and the right to long-term, supportive housing for as long as it is needed, starting with target populations, but available to all in need as of 2012. The law also includes a private right of action and requires jurisdictions to plan for development of adequate affordable housing supplies.54 France created similar legislation in 2007 in response to public pressure and a decision of the European Committee on Social Rights under the European Social Charter.55 South Africa’s constitutional right to housing protects even those squatting in informal settlements, requiring the provision of adequate alternative housing before families and individuals can be evicted.56 This law has been enforced in local communities to even require rebuilding housing that has been torn down.57 While not yet perfect, these countries are proving that progressively implementing the right to housing is both economically feasible and judicially manageable
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-04-13 00:28:34.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Yesenia Robles
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +James Madison JM
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +46
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +1
Team
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Warren Okunlola Aff
Title
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +11 - Util Affirmative - 1AC - NSDA District Round 1
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +NSDA District
Caselist.CitesClass[19]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,76 @@
1 +==1AC==
2 +===Part 1 is Framing ===
3 +
4 +====1st- difference is inevitable, in distinguishing between the ethical and a-ethical we concede some notion of difference ====
5 +
6 +====2nd- knowledge production is never neutral, rather, it’s the product of higharchies. These higharchies are, however, fluid; they are open to change. This is because the way we understand knowlage and higharchies is intersubjective- I understand who I am as a product of power relations ====
7 +
8 +====3rd Certain power relations are normatively bad- violence and abjection occurs when a higharchy becomes compulsory or exclusionary when it becomes stratified and nears the inability to change while forcing moral exclusion onto the non-subject. This denies the abject the ability to participate in moral agency. The way we restore agency is through resistance inside the frame ====
9 +**O'Rourke '05** ~~Michael, Professor, Department of Philosophy @ Michigan State University, "Queer Theory's Loss and the Work of Mourning Jacques Derrida" Rhizomes Issue 10 Spring 2005, accessed 3/9/16 www.rhizomes.net/issue10/orourke.htm WHS//NAO~~
10 +hat "every sign can be cited, put between quotation marks; thereby, it can break with every given context, and engender infinitely new contexts in an absolutely nonsaturable fashion" ~~78~~. Because a subject is the product of compulsory normative frames which need to be constituted over and over again, agency is made possible and efficacious precisely because interpellation sometimes fails. The subject cannot and does not establish a distance between him/herself ~~ themselves~~ and these disciplinary regimes but subverts these codes from within. It is from inside these normative frames that spaces for resistance, for recitation are opened up ~~79~~. In an interview with William Connolly Butler says: "Under conditions in which gender has been constrained, in which certain sexual and gender minorities have felt their lives to be 'impossible', unviable, unlivable, then 'becoming possible' is a most certain political achievement" ~~80~~. Ten years after Gender Trouble and anticipating her more recent work on the human, livability, and bare life, Butler stresses that those who barely count as human, the abject, operate within the compulsory norms of heterosexuality, defying the "tacit and violent presumption that human life only appears as livable under the description of heterosexuality". In language reminiscent of both Agamben and Derrida she concludes "that lives foreclosed now take themselves to be 'possible' strikes me as a political good under conditions in which a certain heightened norm of compulsory heterosexuality works to make non-compliant lives into those which are impossible" ~~81~~. ~~14~~ To grossly oversimplify the argument put forward in Gender Trouble, Bodies that Matter, and later in Excitable Speech ~~82~~ (where she again draws on Derridean theories of iterability and re-markation to open up a theory of insurrectionary speech and discursive agency) Butler is trying to account for the ways in which "remainder" subjectivities are produced in specific historico-cultural situations as abjected, produced, as Hardt says, as by-products of the violent exclusions that secure normative identities. She says about this ethico-political project: There is an 'outside' to what is constructed by discourse, but this is not an absolute 'outside', an ontological thereness that exceeds or counters the boundaries of discourse; as a constitutive 'outside', it is that which can only be thought-when it can-in relation to that discourse, at and as its most tenuous borders., a process without an event" ~~136~~. If, however, the queer theory-to come were always undecidable, unanticipatable, aporetic, incalculable, im-possible, like "the shudder of an arrow of which it is still not known where and how far it will go" ~~137~~ then "those who are the future are on their way, now, even if these arrivants have not yet arrived: their present is not present, it is not in current affairs, but they are coming, they are arrivants because they are going to come" ~~138~~, Derrida tells us. ~~37~~ Queer Theory, as Sedgwick has shown recently, is endless suspicion and mistrust ~~139~~. But it is a mistrust which believes in reparative gestures, places its faith in the future, the l'avenir, in what is always yet to-come. The more queer theory provokes, the more it has faith in the impossible, the more it has a future. Indeed, Queer Theory is the future, a theory of the future. ~~38~~ The future of Queer Theory after Jacques Derrida and the messianic twist: viens, oui, oui.
11 +
12 +====Thus, the normative duty becomes to make the impossible possible and to reduce violence within higharchies, and the role of the ballot should be to deconstruct violent highachies. Judith Butler explains that this entails rejecting compulsory heterosexuality====
13 +**O'Rourke 2** ~~Michael, Professor, Department of Philosophy @ Michigan State University, "Queer Theory's Loss and the Work of Mourning Jacques Derrida" Rhizomes Issue 10 Spring 2005, accessed 3/9/16 www.rhizomes.net/issue10/orourke.htm WHS//NAO~~
14 +The subject cannot and does not establish a distance between him/herself and these disciplinary regimes but subverts these codes from within. It is from inside these normative frames that spaces for resistance, for recitation are opened up ~~79~~. In an interview with William Connolly Butler says: "Under conditions in which gender has been constrained, in which certain sexual and gender minorities have felt their lives to be 'impossible', unviable, unlivable, then 'becoming possible' is a most certain political achievement" ~~80~~. Ten years after Gender Trouble and anticipating her more recent work on the human, livability, and bare life, Butler stresses that those who barely count as human, the abject, operate within the compulsory norms of heterosexuality, defying the "tacit and violent presumption that human life only appears as livable under the description of heterosexuality". In language reminiscent of both Agamben and Derrida she concludes "
15 +
16 +====However, simply stating a power relation is bad is not sufficient- we must also create a method that allows us to deconstruct it. ====
17 +
18 +====This is especially important within educational spaces; the judge endorses a frame of knowlage that is always already a product of power relations. Thus the role of the judge is to be a derridian deconstructor. this entails both disrupting higharchies and striving towards better models of power relations ====
19 +
20 +====Michael explains- we should invoke the category of sexuality within our social frame while contesting the concepts that form our current understanding====
21 +**O'Rourke 3** ~~Michael, Professor, Department of Philosophy @ Michigan State University, "Queer Theory's Loss and the Work of Mourning Jacques Derrida" Rhizomes Issue 10 Spring 2005, accessed 3/9/16 www.rhizomes.net/issue10/orourke.htm WHS//NAO~~
22 +they say and from the claims they make. Their texts have a spiralling structure and these performative in(ter)ventions allow for an infinite openness and welcome to the radically other, the tout autre, the radically foreign ~~70~~. Both are theorists of the avenir, the future to-come. Butler's Queer Theory, like Derrida's deconstruction, events, invents, intervenes, is always to-come ~~71~~. While Butler is cautious about abandoning identity she argues throughout her oeuvre for the theoretical and political necessity for a creative aporetics, that is, for the necessity to " learn a double movement: to invoke the category, and hence provisionally to institute an identity and at the same time to open the category as a site of permanent political contest" ~~72~~. In keeping with Derrida's recent 'ethico-political turn' Butler's writing has a relentlessly dual focus: calling for concrete, responsive action to specific political situations in the present while preserving the possibility, indeed necessity, of a reinscribed future. Her work matters crucially to a queer Derrida ~~73~~ but in this article I want to pass quickly through her idea of performativity as it is borrowed from Derrida ~~74~~ and on to her theory of mourning before circling back to her messianicity ~~75~~. Butler's Performativity ~~13~~ In Gender Trouble, considered by many to be the founding (if there is such a thing) text of Queer Theory ~~76~~, Butler first outlined her theory of gender as performance and gender performativity. Three years later she wrote Bodies that Matter: On the Discursive Limits of 'Sex' as a corrective to some of the (mis)applications of her ideas of drag and parodic resignification. To reduce performativity to performance was for her "a mistake" and in Bodies That Matter she draws on Foucault's work on discursive formation, Derrida on speech act theory and iterability, and Sedgwick on queer performativity to fashion her idea of performativity "not as a singular or deliberate 'act', but, rather, as the reiterative and citational practice by which discourse produces the effects that it names" ~~77~~. This is most clearly dependent on Derrida's claim in "Signature, Event, Context" t
23 +
24 +===Part 2 is offense===
25 +====Mandatory monogamy functions to discipline specific bodies in relation to one another and larger systems of power, imposing legal and social constraints upon connection. This constructs specific notions of proper and improper existence along lines of social, cultural, and economic subjugation. ====
26 +**Robinson 97** ~~Victoria. "My baby just cares for me: Feminism, heterosexuality and non‐monogamy." Journal of Gender Studies 6.2 (1997): 143-157~~
27 +For some, especially radical feminists the main concern is not so much how women's sex lives are affected by gender inequalities but, more generally, how Heterosexuality as it is currently institutionalised constrains women in most aspects of their lives .... For others, there is a much greater emphasis on how sexual relations are determined through inequalities in the social sphere, limiting personal pleasures (and pains) and desires. For example, Lynne Segal, in her book Straight Sex: Rethinking the Politics of Pleasure,concluded by saying: 'Straight feminists, like gay men and lesbians, have everything to gain from asserting our non-coercive desire to fuck if, when, how and as we choose' (Segal 1994: 318). (Richardson, 1996, p. 12) Combining an awareness of heterosexuality both as constraint and as enabling possible agency and desire, this analysis of heterosexual monogamy and non-monogamy suggests that for women, the decision as to whether or not to be in heterosexual relationships can be an act of political choice, constituting women's agency as sexual actors. This choice is one which must be seen to be informed and limited by such factors as 'race', class and age. It is also crucial to recognise, that such agency occurs within the framework of a dominant, institutionalised 'compulsory' heterosexuality (see Rich, 1980, and Cameron, 1992, for a discussion of the compulsory nature of heterosexuality). I also recognise as 0958-9236/97/020143-15 © 1997 Carfax Publishing Ltd Downloaded by ~~McGill University Library~~ at 05:00 29 July 2012 144 Victoria Robinson Jackson (1995a) does, that: 'I do not view heterosexuality as simply a sexual institution' (p. 139). Theoretical attention on heterosexuality's connection to social theory, social policy and domestic life for example, is currently in progress (see Richardson, 1996). I do not wish to claim the feminist moral highground for non-monogamy (I recognise women are in monogamous relationships for a variety of reasons, ranging from economic, social and psychological dependence, to the desire to create an equal partnership), but in this article I argue that Institutionalised monogamy has not served women's best interests. It privileges the interests of both men and capitalism, operating as it does through the mechanisms of exclusivity, possessiveness and jealousy, all filtered through the rose-tinted lens of romance. (For a fuller discussion of romance, see Jackson, 1993.) This of course has been theorised previously, but I want to connect this to a consideration of non-monogamous relationships which allows us to look at such issues in an explicit and self-reflective way, in the context of the 1990s. It could be argued that, non-monogamy can (potentially) allow for a radical re-working of gendered power relationships (even if such a re-working is fraught with contradiction and contestation) and reveals, as Campbell (1987) has defined it, heterosexuality as a political problematic. Although both monogamous and non-monogamous relationships may not involve sexual relations, my definition of monogamy for this argument, refers to an exclusive sexual relationship between a woman and a man, whilst non-monogamy refers to a woman being involved in parallel, plural sexual relationships. Relationships can also be characterised by emotional or economic factors. Rosa (1994) asserts that monogamy is also 'enforced by cultural products (the media), economic restraints (tax incentives, the high cost of single Monogamy allows policy makers to fit us into neat, well-defined categories which don't allow for the complexity and realities of the diverse ways in which human beings relate. Those who don't conform to the stereotypes, for example lesbian families or single mothers, can be discriminated against in terms of Welfare Benefits, media stereotyping and the legal system. We do not have to be non-monogamous to be affected by a monogamous ideal which underpins the social and economic system. There are many types of non-monogamous arrangements or variations on monogamy, ranging from swinging, communal living, serial monogamy, polygamy, polyandry, and so-called 'open marriages' where affairs are, to different degrees, tolerated. It is important to distinguish non-monogamous relationships which are explicitly critical of monogamy, from discussions in the popular sphere on affairs and infidelity, which often confuse the two. A recent Guardian article (1995) concerned with the morality of infidelity, linked affairs to dishonesty and betrayal, and included in this context discussions with those who had an honest open-relationship, therefore condoning the popular stereotype of all non-monogamous relationships as being the same. I am chiefly concerned with a more political conception of monogamy and non-monogamous relationships which allows for a consideration of gendered power relations. I will therefore examine theoretical definitions of monogamy specifically highlighting contemporary feminist debates which reflect on the 1960s and 1970s. Jealousy as an emotion will be explored in the context of monogamy and non-monogamous alterna- tives, and both 'commonsense' assumptions about monogamy and current feminist theorising on heterosexuality will be critiqued. Critiques of Monogamy It is important first to consider monogamy as an institution. Feminist writers and others such as Engels have critiqued monogamy from a number of standpoints. In addition to arguing that Monogamy rests on a key capitalist principle—the ownership of property, (the property here being women and through them the lines of inheritance are maintained), it is asserted that men also benefit from women's over-investment in one man both emotionally and physically. Monogamous love has been seen to be the process through which monogamy operates: Monogamous love, eulogized in our society, is the tool by which woman are controlled. The familiar idealised pattern of falling in love and living with the man of our dreams for ever and ever (we hope) has infiltrated our thinking. It is no accident that 'love is blind' and leads women into an irrational loss of control. It leads us to making men the centre of our world, re-directing our energies and severing ties with others in an all-consuming fashion. (Tsoulis, 1987, p. 25) My Baby Just Cares for Me 145 Downloaded by ~~McGill University Library~~ at 05:00 29 July 2012 146 Victoria Robinson Underpinning this idealisation of monogamy is the biologically essentialist belief that men are naturally more sexual than women and monogamy serves the interests of society by channeling and constraining what Roger Scruton has called 'the unbridled phallus'. Women on the other hand are supposedly more monogamous by nature because of their reproductive capacity and need to acquire the protection—financial or otherwise—from a mate for themselves and their children. Historically, this critique and dissatisfaction with
28 +
29 +====And, persecution against polyamouous and other non-monogamous dynamics is a violent higharchy ====
30 +**Tweedy ’11** ~~Ann Tweedy, POLYAMORY AS A SEXUAL ORIENTATION , 79 U. Cin.L. Rev.(2011) Available at: http://scholarship.law.uc.edu/uclr/vol79/iss4/5 WHS//NAO~~
31 +Published cases explicitly discussing polyamory appear to be few and far between. While these cases generally portray polyamory in a negative light, they are too few in number to warrant a conclusion, on their own, that polyamory constitutes an organizing principle of inequality.178 There is, however, a wealth of law pertaining to non- monogamy that demonstrates that, unlike the smoking/non-smoking distinction, the monogamy/non-monogamy distinction does have significant impact upon modes of power, institutional structures, and social dynamics. While non-monogamy is not synonymous with polyamory,179 it is nevertheless a sine qua non of polyamory as well as the practice that appears to drive most of the prejudice against polyamorists.180 Moreover, polyamorists have overtly embraced nonmonogamy in a way that many others who engage in non-monogamous actions have not. For instance, while there may be good reasons to decriminalize adultery even when practiced in its traditional form,181 the traditional adulterer, who commits to a monogamous relationship with a spouse and then secretly engages in a sexual relationship with a third person, is acquiescing to the societal framework of monogamy in a way that the polyamorist is not. By lying and sneaking around to engage in the relationship with a third party, the traditional adulterer could be said to tacitly acquiesce in the societal view that his or her additional relationship is wrong or at least socially unacceptable. Moreover, by hiding his or her actions, such a person attempts to have this illicit relationship without facing any social consequences for it (and while harming the other party to the monogamous relationship). Finally, at the very least, the prototypical adulterer is not challenging the framework of monogamy, but instead, by continuing to live under a pledge of monogamy, he or she overtly supports the framework, while secretly falling short of, or violating, it. By contrast, polyamorists have rejected the framework and consciously attempt to live outside of it. Because polyamorists explicitly embrace non-monogamy and, at a minimum, let everyone with whom they enter a romantic relationship know of this preference, polyamorists are uniquely likely to be subject to discrimination, including de jure discrimination against nonmonogamists,
32 +
33 +====And, in the context of squo housing, bigamy and cohabitation laws enforce this higharchy
34 +**Jess ’16** written on November 16 by Jess, http://thelawandyourlegalrights.com/2009/11/16/bigamy-illegal-marriages-and-their-consequences/, Bigamy and its legal consequences ====
35 +In the United States, laws relating to the marriage relationship are created by and litigated in the individual states. In all of the states, it is illegal to willfully and knowingly enter into a second marriage while being validly married to another person. This crime is listed as Bigamy in all of the states. In California, Bigamy is defined in section 281 of the Penal Code. California law does not require any particular type of marriage ceremony for either marriage as long as it was valid where entered into. Even common law marriages (those created by cohabiting for a specified period of time), which cannot be created in California, can be used for Bigamy prosecutions if the marriage was valid where entered into. California does recognize common law marriages lawfully entered into in other states. Cohabitation of the spouses is not required, only a valid marriage. And, even if the marriages were entered into outside of California, cohabitation in California is enough to constitute bigamy. If the first marriage is voided or nullified prior to the second marriage, bigamy has not been committed. But a voidable marriage which has not been voided in court will justify a bigamy prosecution. A defective divorce results in a continuing marriage and it is no defense to bigamy that the person believed that the divorce was valid. A good faith belief that the divorce was valid will sometimes persuade a prosecutor not to file bigamy charges. But erroneous legal advice, mistake or ignorance of the law is not a defense to the crime of bigamy. A valid divorce or annulment of the first marriage after entering into to second marriage does not eliminate the crime of bigamy. Under California law, a second marriage is not considered Bigamy if the first spouse is absent for five consecutive years without being known to be alive to the other spouse. And, immigrants visiting temporarily in this country will not be charged with Bigamy if married to more than one spouse if the laws of their country permit it. The U. S. Supreme Court has ruled that people who practice bigamy as part of their religion are still guilty of a crime. People facing bigamy charges sometimes try to get their first marriage annulled by the courts since this means that it never existed. Marriages can be annulled if: Either spouse was a minor and legal consent was not obtained; Either spouse was of unsound mind; Either spouse is physically unable to consummate the marriage; The marriage was procured through force or fraud; The marriage constitutes incest because of an unlawful familial relationship. In California, the penalty for committing bigamy includes a fine of up to $10,000 and incarceration in either a county jail or state prison. A person who knowingly marries a married person can be fined not less than $5,000 or be incarcerated in state prison. Immigrants convicted of bigamy can be deported. Bigamous marriages also created many legal and social problems for the second marriage partner and children of that marriage.
36 +
37 +====U.S Legal Continues====
38 +**US Legal** Continues Prosecution and Punishment http://bigamy.uslegal.com/prosecution-and-punishment/
39 +However, a state can enlarge the crime of bigamy in certain cases to include~~s~~ cohabitation within the state in addition to marriage outside of the state. Two conditions must be satisfied for enlarging the offences to certain class of cases: there must be a marriage outside the state after a divorce was granted and during the six months period before the decree becomes final; and the offending parties must return to the state and cohabit with each other during said prohibited period~~iv~~. In many jurisdictions, bigamy is expanded to prohibit bigamous cohabitation, in cases where marriage or the cohabitation may support prosecution. Even so, bigamy generally contemplates a marriage ceremony rather than a continuing relationship~~v~~. Thus it can be concluded that the celebration of a second marriage completes the offense of bigamy. The state of celebration of the marriage exercises exclusive jurisdiction over the offense. A state can penalize the further act of cohabitation within its borders following the bigamous union. Statutes punishing further cohabitation do not punish the foreign offense but confirm the sovereignty of the forum state. The purpose of punishing the cohabitation of a man and woman begun under a bigamous marriage is to protect good morals and to punish indecency~~vi~~ - See more at: http://bigamy.uslegal.com/prosecution-and-punishment/~~#sthash.clohR2oK.dpuf
40 +
41 +====And, this can support a life sentence in prison. This perfectly exemplifies abjection- if you can rot in prison for loving too many people, you are probably a non-subject====
42 +Jonathan **Turley** USA Today, Adultery, in many states, is still a crime, 4/25/2010 3:29 PM http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-04-26-column26'ST'N.htm
43 +About two dozen states still have criminal adultery provisions. While prosecutions remain rare, they do occur. And beyond the criminal realm, these provisions can be cited in divorce proceedings, custody disputes, employment cases and even to bar people from serving on juries. Though someone such asTiger Woods might not be prosecuted, these laws could be cited in any divorce proceedings to show not just infidelity but also possible criminality in his lifestyle. When the Puritans came to this land, they left a country where the English treated adultery as largely a civil and personal matter. The Puritans wanted to create a society where moral dictates were enforced by harsh corporal punishments. Nathaniel Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter accurately portrayed colonial America under such criminal lawm s enforcing religious values. There was extensive entanglement between church and state, with adulterers punished for their immorality. In 1644, Mary Latham and James Britton were hanged for their adultery in Massachusetts. Ironically, England at the time was far more tolerant of adultery as a personal matter. Most of these early laws were framed in sexist terms: protecting a husband's exclusive "rights" over his wife as virtual property. Besides death, other punishments included branding, whipping and a variety of shaming punishments. Civil libertarians have long opposed adultery laws as a version of the "tyranny of the majority" over the values of citizens. Many thought this debate was closed after the 2003 decision of the Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas, which struck a Texas statute criminalizing consensual sodomy. They underestimated the political resistance to the idea of making infidelity a purely civil matter. In Minnesota, for example, state Sen. Ellen Anderson in December made the modest suggestion that the state repeal laws that make it illegal for a married woman to cheat on her husband and make it a crime for single women to have sex at all. The response of the Minnesota Family Council (MFC) was to call for the law not to be repealed but strengthened. Make it a crime for men, too, the group argued. Tom Prichard, MFC's president, said these laws are essentialbecause "they send a message. ... When you are dealing with a marriage, it's not just a private activity or a private institution. It's a very public institution. It has enormous consequences for the rest of society." The law is still on the books. Likewise, when the Illinois legislature last year made a comprehensive set of changes to update the state's laws, it notably kept the criminal provisions for adultery and fornication. In addition to roughly half of the states, adultery remains a criminal offense in the military, where prosecutions occur regularly. In these state and federal systems, adults who cheat on their spouses are still deemed presumptive criminals and face the potential of a criminal charge. Just a year after the Lawrence decision, John R. Bushey Jr., then 66, the town attorney for Luray, Va., was prosecuted for adultery and agreed to a plea bargain of community service. A year later, Lucius James Penn, then 29, was charged with adultery in Fargo, N.D. In 2007, a Michigan appellate court ruled that adultery can still support a life sentence in that state.
44 +
45 +====Specifically, squo housing codes normalize compulsory heterosexism- both unmarried couples as well as various queer lifestyles are rendered abject in pursuit of normalization ====
46 +**Unmarried Equality**, http://www.unmarried.org/housing/, How does the law permit marital status discrimination in housing?
47 +Housing Marital status discrimination in housing is widespread and legal – and completely unfair. UE calls on Congress to amend the Federal Fair Housing Act to prohibit discrimination on the basis of marital status. UE calls on the states (especially Missouri) to enforce their existing laws against marital status discrimination, and to repeal any laws that prohibit cohabitation. How does the law permit marital status discrimination in housing? The Federal Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of ‘familial status’, which pertains to the presence of children under age 18, but is silent on marital status. About half of U.S. states explicitly prohibit marital status discrimination in housing, but about half the states are silent on it. In these states (unless there are stronger local laws), a landlord can legally refuse to rent to an unmarried couple. In these states, a town can decree that unmarried families, roommates or extended families cannot live certain neighborhoods. State laws prohibiting cohabitation typically use words like lewd and lascivious, public scandal, disgrace, "crime against public morals and decency." These laws were written generations ago, and no longer reflect citizen’s values. Nonetheless, in these states a cohabiting different-sex couple can be charged with a crime, fined and imprisoned! True life examples of marital status discrimination in housing Great News! Missouri town prevented from evicting unmarried families! These laws are not enforced consistently, and are often ignored. Most landlords probably don’t discriminate, even if they are allowed to. We haven’t heard of anyone being imprisoned for cohabiting. However, discrimination does happen, and when it does, it hurts! In 2006, Olivia Shelltrack, Fondrey Loving and their three children were denied an occupancy permit when they moved into a five-bedroom house because Ms. Shelltrack and Mr. Loving are not married. In Black Jack, anyone moving into a single-family home must apply for an occupancy permit. The city prohibits more than three people from living together unless they are related by "blood, marriage or adoption." The city threatened to evict the Shelltrack-Loving family. After several months, under media spotlights and facing a lawsuit by the ACLU, the city amended its zoning law. In 2004, shortly after starting her job as a sheriff’s dispatcher in North Carolina, Debora Hobbs was given this unfair ultimatum: either marry her partner, or move out of the house he lived in, or lose her job. The ACLU took her case to court. The good news is that, in 2006, the court finally found the state’s cohabitation ban to be unconstitutional. The bad news is that, by the end of 2007, no legislative action has yet been taken to repeal the law. In 1998, Dorian Solot and Marshall Miller were looking for an apartment in the Boston area. They inquired about a listing only to have the landlord make it clear that he would not rent to unmarried couples. They later found that the landlord’s inquiry into their marital status was illegal, but they couldn’t find any organization that would help them. This was one of the experiences that galvanized Dorian and Marshall to create the Alternatives to Marriage Project. Which states need to change their laws? Florida, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia have anti-cohabitation laws on their books (although NC’s has been declared unconstitutional by a state court and should not be enforced). The following states do not prohibit marital status discrimination in housing: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, North Carolina, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wyoming. *It’s not clear whether Alaska prohibits marital status discrimination in housing. What You Can Do Do you live in a municipality that forbids unmarried folks from living together? Find out at Municode.com, a searchable website of municipal codes. If you find restrictions on unmarried cohabitation where you live, please let us know. Write letters to your elected officials. Tell Congress to amend the Federal Fair Housing Act to prohibit discrimination on the basis of marital status. Tell your governor and state representatives to prohibit marital status discrimination. Tell your governor and state representatives to repeal any anti-cohabitation laws.
48 +
49 +===Part 3 for is solvency===
50 +====Thus the plan: The United States Federal Government should amend the Federal Fair Housing Act to prohibit housing discrimination on the basis of marital status, require that states enforce their existing laws against marital status discrimination, and repeal any state or federal laws that prohibit cohabitation.====
51 +
52 +====We will clarify in cx====
53 +
54 +====AND, affirmations of polyamory in the public sphere is key to capture the deconstruction potential of polyamory as a relationship model- it creates a public discourse while striving towards an ideal of broader queerness====
55 +**Twedy ’11** ~~Ann Tweedy, POLYAMORY AS A SEXUAL ORIENTATION , 79 U. Cin.L. Rev.(2011) Available at: http://scholarship.law.uc.edu/uclr/vol79/iss4/5 WHS//NAO~~
56 +Earlier and make other essentialist-sounding statements about their identities such as "~~m~~onogamy is just not my nature."94 The legal scholar Elizabeth Emens has characterized such discourse as a "minoritizing strand in contemporary writings"95 on polyamory, thus suggesting that the minoritizing way of looking at polyamory is not the norm within the community. Other evidence, which is limited in geographical scope, appears to confirm this view,96 although a very significant minority (thirty-six percent) of polyamorous bisexuals in one study reported that they had never preferred monogamy at any point in their lives.97 For at least the subset of polyamorists described above, then, there is support for placing their poly identities on the most embedded end of the scale. Their experiences of understanding, from an early age, that they wanted types of relationships that differed from the societal norm are at least somewhat reminiscent of the classic homosexual experience of growing up knowing that one lacks the societally-prescribed interest in the opposite sex, although arguably wanting multiple relationships rather than one is less radical than wanting a relationship with someone of the same sex. Additionally, some poly activists, such as Rambukkana, have described polyamory as an identity, although not necessarily an essentialist one.98 He understands polyamory, like bisexuality, to occupy a "liminial position."99 In the case of polyamory, that liminal position is one "caught between underground radicalism and public discourse" as well as between "queer and straight discourses of desire" and "forms of relationship."100 For Rambukkana, polyamory is part of his identity as "a sex radical," and he considers his "ideological and political orientation towards sex" to be queer.101 However, though he believes, through his polyamory, he is "queering the concept of love or partnership," at the same time he does not view this as enough to make him "queer," a label he sees as reserved for homosexual desire.102 Rambukkana notes that his practice of polyamory is shaped by the experiences he had once he and his partner decided to have an open relationship.103 He also describes polyamory ~~is~~ as "a form~~~~ of sexuality," advocates that those polyamorists "who can afford to have the label ‘polyamorous’ linked to ~~their~~ identities" do so, and, finally, states that, "~~a~~s a straight, out polyamorist, ~~he is~~ exercising ~~his~~ existential right to self-name and forge a subject position for ~~himself~~ and for those like" him.104 Although Rambukkana does not explicitly label polyamory as a constructed identity, his descriptions seem to indicate that understanding. He speaks of the difficulty of polyamory’s liminal position, noting that this position is at least part of what makes polyamory a "particularly difficult social mantle~~~~ to take on"105 and describes the alienation one risks in "com~~ing~~ out of the poly closet."106 This language suggests that avowing polyamory, like other disfavored identities, can have oppressive social consequences, which are presumably constructed, but entrenched in society.
57 +
58 +====Especially true of compulsory heterosexuality- we challenge gender, sexual, and relationship binaries, disrupting both specific manifestations of compulsion and the root cause====
59 +**Barker,** Meg (2005). This is my partner, and this is my. . . partner’s partner: Constructing a polyamorous identity in a monogamous world. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 18(1), pp. 75–88.
60 +Elsewhere (Barker, 2003a), I have elaborated the dominant construction of sexuality in Western culture, as reflected and perpetuated in endless Hollywood movies, pop sonzgs and self-help books (Potts, 1998 and Crawford, 2004). Three key elements of this are that sexual relationships should be (a) between a man and a woman, (b) monogamous, and (c) with the man active and the woman passive. As Richardson (1998) argues, this version of heterosexuality is ‘constructed as a coherent, natural, fixed and stable category; as universal and monolithic’ (p. 2). Those who position themselves outside of it run the risk of being problematised and demonised by our society, seen as abnormal or even criminal (Rubin, 1989). Queer theorists have explored how those in the ~~LGBT~~ lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities may be threatening since they can be seen as ‘disturbing and troubling heterosexuality’ (Jackson, 2003, p. 70). The same may be said of those in the polyamorous communities. Polyamory contests the ideal of the monogamous relationship (b), and in some cases the idea that relationships should be between only two people (a). Even now, most accepted psychological theories propose ‘natural’ human development as the process of forging a monogamous partnership with someone of the opposite sex and starting a ‘biological’ family. However, some past theorists have questioned this. Engels (1951) considered monogamy a restrictive state reflective of the ownership of goods and people inherent in capitalism, with women being degraded and reduced to servants, slaves to male lusts, and instruments for the production of children (Stelboum, 1999). Robinson (1997) argues that the challenging of monogamy as the dominant institution is one important avenue for women to explore in order to radically re-work gendered power relationships within heterosexuality. Therefore, polyamory may have the potential also to question the heterosexual ideal of the active man and the passive woman (c). When combined with the notion that it is possible to love more than just one gender, as was the case for most of the participants in my research, polyamory also presents the potential for challenging the idea that people are only attracted to members of the ‘opposite sex’ (a). It challenges this in a more overt and explicit way than monogamous bisexuality since polyamory makes it possible for people to have relationships with people of different genders simultaneously. This troubles the male/female and straight/gay binary constructs at the root of compulsory heterosexuality (Rich, 1980; Jackson, 2003)
61 +
62 +===Underview===
63 +====Presume aff====
64 +
65 +====And- we solve best: federal legislation is key to reverse a lack of legal clarity====
66 +**Pizer**, Jennifer C., et al. "Evidence of persistent and pervasive workplace discrimination against LGBT people: The need for federal legislation prohibiting discrimination and providing for equal employment benefits." Loy. LAL Rev. 45 (2011): 715.
67 +Despite these legal developments and changes in public opinion toward LGBT people since ENDA was first introduced, consideration of the best available data and analysis of current law lead us to conclude that the need still exists for a federal law prohibiting sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination such as ENDA that requires equal access to employee benefits. Our survey of social science research and other evidence of discrimination in Part II shows that employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and/or gender identity continues, with harmful effects for both employees and employers. In Part III, we find that the incompleteness, inconsistency, and lack of clarity of the existing legal protections have resulted in a system that is more confusing and less effective than would be possible with an explicit federal statute prohibiting sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination.
68 +
69 +====And, for the first time ever, we are 100 topical. Heres a literature example ====
70 +**BUDLENDER** JUSTICIABILITY OF THE RIGHT TO HOUSING - THE SOUTH AFRICAN EXPERIENCE GEOFF BUDLENDER Legal Resources Centre, Cape Town, https://docs.escr-net.org/usr'doc/budlender'housing'ms.pdf
71 +The leading South African case on the right to housing - in fact our landmark case on social and economic rights generally - is Government of the Republic of South Africa and others v Grootboom and others.3 I will refer later to the case in more detail. At this stage, it may be helpful to set out the Constitutional Court’s explanation of how the three parts of sec 26 of our Constitution are connected with each other. Section 26(1) delineates the general scope of the right: everyone has the right of access to adequate housing. Section 26(2) speaks to the positive obligations imposed upon the state. And sec 26(3) spells out aspects of the negative right, by prohibiting arbitrary evictions.4 This analysis is important because it explains that sec 26(1) creates a general right. The content of the right is not limited to the duties in sec 26(2) or the prohibitions in sec 26(3): they are simply manifestations of the general right set out in 26(1). To what extent, then, is the right to housing justiciable? The obligation to ‘respect’ the right to housing The obligation to ‘respect’ the right, requires the state to refrain from interfering directly or indirectly with the enjoyment of the right.5 In the words of the Constitutional Court, ‘Although the subsection ~~sec 26(1)~~ does not expressly say so, there is, at the very least, a negative obligation placed upon the state and all other entities and persons to desist from preventing or impairing the right of access to housing.’6 The obligation to ‘respect’ a right is of particular significance where the individual already enjoys the right to some extent, and there is a threat to remove it. In its General Comment 12, issued in 1999, the UN Committee explained the duty to ‘respect’ rights of access as follows, in relation to the right to food: ‘The obligation to respect existing access to adequate food requires State parties not to take any measures that result in preventing such access.’ In similar vein, Liebenberg has written that a violation of the duty to ‘respect’ a right ‘arises when the state, through legislative or administrative conduct, deprives people of the access they enjoy to socio-economic rights’.8 ThisapproachwasfollowedbytheHighCourtinamatterinvolvingalocalcouncil’s terminationofwater supplytoablockofflats.9 TheCourtheldthatthisamountedtoafailureto‘respect’theright(ofcontinuing access) to water, that this was prima facie in breach of the obligations of the local council (which was part of the state), and that accordingly there was an onus on the council to justify it in a manner consistent with the Constitution. One can readily contemplate two sorts of situations in which the state may act in breach of the obligation to ‘respect’ the right to housing, resulting in a justiciable dispute. First, a statute may permit procedurally or substantively unfair evictions. In that event, the validity of the law may be challenged; alternatively it may be contended that the law is to be interpreted in a manner which does not lead to a breach of the right to housing. In essence, this is what happened in the celebrated Olga Tellis case in the Supreme Court of India.10 Section 26(3) of the Constitution expressly gives effect to this meaning of ‘protect’: ‘No law may permit arbitrary evictions’. A law is ‘arbitrary’ when it does not provide sufficient reason for the eviction, or is procedurally unfair.11 Secondly, the state (or a private party)12 may bring proceedings for the eviction of persons who will be left homeless if they are evicted. In that event, a court will have regard to the obligation on the state13 to 8 9 10 11 12 13 Liebenberg ‘Socio-economic rights’ in Chaskalson and others (eds) Constitutional Law of South Africa at 41-28 Residents of Bon Vista Mansions v Southern Metropolitan Local Council 2002 (6) BCLR 625 (W) Tellis and others v Bombay Municipal Corporation and others ~~1987~~ LRC (Const) 351 First National Bank v Commissioner for SARS; first National Bank v Minister of Finance 2002 (7) BCLR 663 (CC) at ~~100~~ The passage I have quoted from Grootboom is particularly interesting because it clearly places a negative duty upon non-state actors as well as upon the state. The ‘horizontal’ application of the Bill of Rights, in relations between private individuals, is expressly contemplated by sec 8(2) of the Constitution. Whether a provision in the Bill of Rights binds natural or juristic persons, and if so the extent to which this happens, depends upon the nature of the right and the nature of the duty imposed by the right. However, in the paper I focus on the question of justiciable obligations on the state. The courts are part of the state, and are bound by the Bill of Rights: sec 8(1). This helps to avoid the tortuous US ‘state action’ doctrine, with all of its inconsistencies.v3 ‘respect’ the right to housing, in deciding whether to order an eviction, and if so, when and under what circumstances the eviction may take place. A court may for example stay the eviction to a stipulated date, in order to enable the evictees to find another place where they can live. A court may also order an eviction conditional upon the state’s first finding another place where the evictees may settle. An example of the potential reach of the duty to ‘respect’ is found in a case presently before our High Court.14 A firm of attorneys in a small town obtained judgments on behalf of their clients against poor debtors, in respect of very small amounts of money. They then had the debtors’ houses sold in execution, and themselves bought the houses at the sale, at knock-down prices. This became a very lucrative practice for the attorneys concerned. The consequence has been that poor people have been rendered homeless as aresultoftriflingdebts. InthiscaseitiscontendedthattherelevantsectionoftheMagistrate’sCourts Act,15 which permits the sale in execution of immovable property where less invasive means are available of satisfying the debt, is inconsistent with the obligation on the state to ‘respect’ the right to housing. The argument may or may not be sustained:16 but there can be no doubt that it raises a justiciable issue. The obligation to ‘respect’ the right to housing creates classically justiciable negative duties.
72 +
73 +
74 +====AND— the state can be used to address heteronormativity- ontrols a stronger IL into solvency which outweighs. ====
75 +**Chambers and Carver 8 ** Samuel A. Chambers is Senior Lecturer in Politics at Swansea University, and Terrell Carver is Professor of Political Theory at the University of Bristol, UK, 2008 ("Part III: The Politics of Heteronormativity," Judith Butler and Political Theory: Troubling Politics, Published by Routledge Press, ISBN: 0-203-93744-9, pg. 156-157
76 +Finally, heteronormativity can also be subverted at the level of public policy. The trend in recent years, particularly in the US, has been to make heteronormativity more explicit by writing it into the law, where it previously was not mentioned (and for potentially subversive countertrends, see Carver 2007). The Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and the dozens of state DOMAs all serve to codify the presumption of heteronormativity by announcing it plainly. In one sense, this is a dramatic setback in the struggle for equal civil rights for lesbian and gay citizens – a fact that should not be downplayed. Nevertheless, in the politics of norms the very effort required to defend heteronormativity outwardly suggests a certain weakening of the norm. And legislators across the US have made it clear that they see themselves as responding to an imminent threat. This threat is certainly not, as those legislators would have it, against the 'sacred institution of marriage', but it may well be a threat to heteronormativity, to the easy presumption of heterosexuality. Perhaps the legalisation of gay marriage will prove subversive on this front, if and when it happens. Perhaps it will not (Warner 1999). However, and in any event, from within the theory of subversion that we have articulated here, the most subversive move of all would come, on the level of national public policy, in simply eliminating state-sactioned marriage altogether.
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-04-13 00:48:38.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Akhil Gandra
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Houston Lamar GS
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +47
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +1
Team
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Warren Okunlola Aff
Title
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +13 - Polyamory Affirmative - 1AC - TFA State Round 1
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +TFA State
Caselist.CitesClass[20]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,107 @@
1 +==1ac==
2 +
3 +===Part 1 They don’t care about us===
4 +
5 +==== "JESUS WAS BLACK, RONALD REAGAN WAS THE DEVIL, AND THE GOVERNMENT IS LYING ABOUT 9/11". No seriously if he wasn’t anti-christ he sure as hell was anti-black. Thanks for ruining the lives of millions of black folks ronald====
6 +**Leavitt ’12** ~~Adrien, Seattle University School of Law Degree Name J.D., Magna Cum Laude. Attorney in Seattle Washingtion "Queering Jury Nullification: Using Jury Nullification as a Tool to Fight Against the Criminalization of Queer and Transgender People." Seattle Journal for Social Justice 10.2 (2012): 2. WHS//NAO~~
7 +Currently, over 2.4 million people are imprisoned in the United States: more than seven times the number imprisoned in 1971.100 The staggering increase over the last forty years is not a result of a sudden skyrocketing in crime; rather, it is due to a drastic expansion in what is considered criminal conduct, paired with draconian increases in punishment, and fueled by a private business sector with an enormous stake in the continued growth of prisons.101 Beginning in the 1970s, the "War on Drugs" and other "tough on crime" policies institutionalized racialized constructions of crime and, as a result, prisons became even more disproportionately filled with people of color.102 For example, as a result of President Richard M. Nixon’s infamous "War on Drugs," the government implemented "mandatory minimums," that established compulsory sentences for specific offenses without regard for any circumstances specific to the defendant.103 Most notably, mandatory minimums resulted in extraordinarily disproportionate sentencing for convictions involving crack cocaine as compared to those involving powder cocaine: a person convicted for selling crack cocaine was subject to the same sentence as a person dealing one hundred times more powder cocaine.104 This discrepancy had profound racial implications: African Americans comprised over 80 percent of crack cocaine convictions.105 Enacted in the same era, the "Truth in Sentencing" policy required that every person convicted of a criminal offense serve a minimum portion of the sentence before being eligible for parole.106 The primary effect of this policy was to automatically lengthen the amount of time people are in prison.107 Taken together, the "War on Drugs" and "Truth in Sentencing" policies exponentially increased the number of people imprisoned, particularly black people.108 However, the racially disproportionate impact of imprisonment did not begin in the 1970s—it dates back to the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment.
8 +Although the use of prisons in the United States pre-dated the abolition of slavery, in the years following abolition, prisons expanded as a new system to subordinate newly freed blacks.109 After the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery and involuntary servitude with one critical exception—the Thirteenth Amendment allows for the use of slavery and involuntary servitude as punishment for a crime110—the South quickly enacted a new system of laws to control former slaves.111 These laws, referred to as the Black Codes, were laws under which only black people could be convicted, and their statutory text often borrowed from the newly outlawed slave laws.112 In conjunction with the critical exception in the Thirteenth Amendment, the Black Codes, and, later, Jim Crow laws, continued the control and subordination of black people despite the technical abolition of slavery.113 Furthermore, a convict lease system114 grew out of the influx of former slaves into the prison system.115 This system forced black prisoners to work, often in abhorrent conditions not much better than those that accompanied slavery.116 Thus, the composition of the prisons changed drastically: before the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment prisoners were almost exclusively white, but within a short period of time the majority were black. This racialized construction of crime—described by Fredrick Douglass as the tendency to "impute crime to color" and born out of the period directly following the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment—is deeply ingrained in America’s criminal legal system and remains a driving force behind imprisonment today.118 In the post-slavery period after the Civil War, the prison system experienced a boom and a dramatic shift in those targeted for imprisonment.119 Beginning in the 1960s, the United States underwent a period of great social unrest, which included an unpopular war, widespread social movements by black Americans and other subordinated groups, and a sharp downturn in the US economy.120 These factors caused a collective moral panic over both crime and the fate of the economy, which explosively collided.121 Ultimately, prisons emerged as the solution.122 During this time, the government began its "War on Drugs" and enacted "tough on crime" laws that exponentially increased the number of people swept up into the criminal legal system.123 Although the government’s law and order policies facially omitted any overtly racist or racialized language, they invoked coded racist imagery linking criminal behavior with black conduct and criminals as blacks.124 This racialized construction of crime dates back to the Black Codes and draws strength from today’s racist perception of crime and those who commit it.125 As author and professor Angela Davis described in her transformative book, Are Prisons Obsolete?, "race has always played a central role in constructing presumptions of criminality."126 As a result of this historic and continuous racialized construction of crime, the extraordinarily negative consequences of mass incarceration primarily ~~fell~~ disproportionately on the black community.127 One in every three young black men is under the jurisdiction of the criminal legal system, either because he is in prison, on probation or parole, or awaiting trial.128 While a young white man has a 6 percent chance of going to prison, a young black man has a 32 percent chance.129 Blacks are significantly more likely to be targeted by the police, searched, and arrested than whites and, as a result, are disproportionately represented in prison to a great degree.130 This is particularly true in cases involving drug charges.131 Although blacks represent only 14 percent of monthly drug users, they account for more than 56 percent of those incarcerated for drug use.132 Moreover, among criminal defendants convicted of drug offenses, blacks are more than ten times more likely than whites to be sent to prison.133 Ultimately, the violence experienced by those in prison is infused back into their communities, creating a vicious, haunting cycle that is disproportionately borne by the black community.
9 +
10 +
11 +====And they didn’t stop there, the government literally wanted to make life hell for black folks. The next step was to pass eviction policies that evicted entire families for any drug related activity====
12 +**Weil '91** ~~Lisa, A graduate of Greeley Public Schools, the University of Colorado, and the Yale Law School, Lisa has been a public interest attorney and political consultant. (1991) "Drug-Related Evictions in Public Housing: Congress' Addiction to a Quick Fix," Yale Law and Policy Review: Vol. 9: Iss. 1, Article 9. Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/ylpr/vol9/iss1/9 WHS//NAO~~
13 +In 1988, a time of high budget deficits and low tolerance for drugs, Congress embraced the latter approach: evicting tenants. In the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, Congress enacted a provision (the "drug-related eviction provision") requiring Public Housing Authorities (PHAs) to include in their leases a condition that explicitly makes any drug-related activity-use, possession, or trafficking-grounds for eviction.' The provision allows PHAs to** **evict entire families, regardless of whether the drug-related activity was engaged in by tenants, their family members, or even their guests.** Since 1988, Congress has repeatedly reaffirmed its commitment to facilitating and expediting evictions under the drug-related eviction provision.4 Likewise, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), under the direction of Secretary Jack Kemp, has proved a zealous and effective ally in congressional efforts to promote and simplify the use of evictions as the primary weapon in the war against drugs in public housing. 5 For Congress, focusing on evictions as a cure-all for troubled public housing complexes is politically inviting. Members of Congress can take a "tough" stand on drugs, seemingly at no direct cost to the taxpayer. Closer scrutiny, however, reveals that **the eviction policy provides merely a cosmetic fix** and tough rhetoric in an area where only substantial and well-targeted resources can be effective. While few would question a statute giving PHAs authority to evict drug dealers, the drug-related eviction provision, as currently written and implemented, goes much further. Well-intentioned though it may be, **the provision is **unwise, unjust, unnecessary and insufficient. It is **unwise, because it conflicts with other important housing and public welfare goals; unjust**, in its potentially **arbitrary enforcement and** its **vicarious punishment of innocent** family **members**; unnecessary, in that the goals of the policy could be met through more appropriate, less arbitrary means; and insufficient, because it cannot, on its own, meet the overwhelming and complex crises facing beleaguered public housing developments.**
14 +
15 +
16 +
17 +
18 +
19 +====No seriously they only care about punishing black folks====
20 +**Weil 3** ~~Lisa, A graduate of Greeley Public Schools, the University of Colorado, and the Yale Law School, Lisa has been a public interest attorney and political consultant. (1991) "Drug-Related Evictions in Public Housing: Congress' Addiction to a Quick Fix," Yale Law and Policy Review: Vol. 9: Iss. 1, Article 9. Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/ylpr/vol9/iss1/9 WHS//NAO~~
21 +The degree to which the drug-related eviction provision changed the practices of local PHAs is somewhat unclear, since PHAs already possessed the means to evict. The 1988 provision, some might argue, did not confer on PHAs any new rights. The drug-related eviction provision, however, did encourage PHAs to move beyond evicting resident drug dealers who posed a direct threat to the safety of public housing. The provision gave federal sanction to the eviction of not only drug dealers, but also drug users and even the relatives and guests of individuals involved with drugs in any way. By mandating that the expansive drug-related eviction provision be included in all PHA leases, Congress expressed a clear intent not merely to allow, but to promote evictions from public housing on the basis of virtually any connection to drugs. Administrative action to curtail the availability of grievance hearings for tenants facing evictions intensified the impact of the. drug-related eviction provision.' In March 1989, Secretary Kemp began using a provision of the "lease and grievance" statute that allows HUD to waive the grievance procedures requirement for jurisdictions where state and local courts provide due process protection that HUD deemed adequate.26 HUD granted waivers to thirty states in 1989, and ten more in 1990.27 Freed from the time-consuming administrative requirements of grievance procedures, and given the explicit right to evict for any drug-related activity, PHAs gained significant new latitude in evicting tenants.28 The congressional and administrative intent to promote and expedite the evictions of drug dealers, users, and their families was temporarily derailed by the passage of section 404 of the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1989.29 Unbeknownst to most members of Congress,30 that section stated that the Secretary of HUD could exercise his authority to waive for a state or locality the pre-eviction grievance procedure only "as long as evictions of a household member involved in drug-related criminal activity shall not affect the right of any other household member who is not involved in such activity to continue tenancy."" If Congressional intent to allow the eviction of innocent family members had not been made clear by the passage of the drug-related eviction provision in the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, that failure was soon rectified. Through a noncontroversial provision of the Departments of Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act of 1990, Congress repealed section 404, only four months after its enactment.32 The federal government's punitive response to the public housing drug crisis has not been limited to the drug-related eviction provision and expedited eviction procedures. For example, the Legal Services Corporation has taken steps to limit the availability of legal representation for eviction targets,33 and HUD has taken advantage of a provision in the Anti-Drug Abuse Act that permits federal agents to seize leases of public housing units believed to be used for drug manufacturing or dealing.34 These actions illustrate a federal proclivity for addressing the drug crisis by increasing penalties and reducing procedural protections rather than by addressing the root causes of the problem. The congressional and administrative ardor for "tough" and inexpensive anti-drug strategies has greatly surpassed the government's willingness to invest adequate funds in more comprehensive and compassionate programs designed to rid public housing of drugs. Congress has authorized spending for anti-drug programs for public housing, but as Section III C of this Current Topic explains, even with significant annual increases, these funding levels are inadequate. 3 Ultimately, the current congressional penchant for removing "bad" tenants, while doing little to improve the safety and quality of the housing complexes, will prove counterproductive to the goal of creating safe and decent public housing.
22 +
23 +
24 +
25 +====The system has been rigged from the jump. White middle class families get rehab, we get evicted and incarcerated====
26 +**Weil 4** ~~Lisa, A graduate of Greeley Public Schools, the University of Colorado, and the Yale Law School, Lisa has been a public interest attorney and political consultant. (1991) "Drug-Related Evictions in Public Housing: Congress' Addiction to a Quick Fix," Yale Law and Policy Review: Vol. 9: Iss. 1, Article 9. Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/ylpr/vol9/iss1/9 WHS//NAO~~
27 +Unlike drug dealing, drug use usually poses little direct threat to the health and safety of public housing complexes.67 Because it serves no housingrelated goals, the rationale underlying the eviction of drug users seems to be almost purely punishment. Consequently, PHAs' discretionary enforcement authority under the drug-related eviction provision is particularly inappropriate where only drug use is involved. The penalty of eviction for the infraction of drug use, or for the status of being a drug addict, seems to be inordinately out of proportion to the "crime."6 Although one might argue that counseling and treatment would constitute a more rational and humane response to drug abuse, the statutory language of the drug-related eviction provision indicates a clear legislative intent to allow PHAs to place users and dealers in the same category of "unfit tenants." Eviction for drug use also raises concerns about equity across economic class lines. While simple possession or use of a small quantity of cocaine could result in homelessness for an entire public housing family, the same offense might result only in judicially mandated drug treatment for a middle class individual prosecuted under criminal laws. Under the McCollum Amendment, which was included in the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, any person 'convicted of any Federal or State offense involving the possession of a controlled substance' shall, at the discretion of the court: (1) be ineligible for federal benefits for one year; (2) be required to 'successfully complete an approved drug treatment program. . .'; (3) 'be required to perform appropriate community service;' or (4) any combination of the above clauses.' Thus, an individual convicted of possession in a criminal proceeding could be sentenced under the McCollum amendment to drug treatment and community service, while a similarly situated public housing resident, who may have been trying to enter a drug treatment program, could be "sentenced" by a PHA to homelessness.70 Because the penalty of eviction is so severe, and the potential for random and discriminatory enforcement is immense, the right of PHAs to terminate leases because of mere drug use or possession should be abolished. Absent the political will to eliminate that clause from PHA leases, strict guidelines should be promulgated delineating procedures for determining which drug users will be penalized, and in what manner.
28 +
29 +
30 +
31 +===Part 2 is the vicious cycle===
32 +
33 +====Black youth are disproportionately policed and surveilled leading to eviction at all costs====
34 +**Weil 5** ~~Lisa, A graduate of Greeley Public Schools, the University of Colorado, and the Yale Law School, Lisa has been a public interest attorney and political consultant. (1991) "Drug-Related Evictions in Public Housing: Congress' Addiction to a Quick Fix," Yale Law and Policy Review: Vol. 9: Iss. 1, Article 9. Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/ylpr/vol9/iss1/9 WHS//NAO~~
35 +**In reality, **it is the rare** case **where** an **eviction affects only individuals directly involved in drug**-related **activity**.7 1 The more prevalent and difficult case arises where a family member or guest has engaged in criminal activity, and **innocent family members must pay the price of eviction** for that transgression. As noted above, many eviction proponents consider family responsibility to be a key component of a successful eviction policy.72 However, the legal and policy issues raised by **the eviction of entire families make** this "**vicarious liability**" **the most problematic aspect of the** drug-related **eviction provision**. The arbitrary nature and harsh consequences of enforcement of the provision by PHAs becomes most apparent where the rights of innocent family members are concerned. The "crime" for which PHAs evict family members is not "drug-related activity." Rather, the failure to control a family member, or, worse yet, th**e mere relation to an alleged criminal serves as sufficient grounds for eviction under current law.7**3 Moreover, **families may face eviction** simply **because they were unable to prevent a guest **or relative **involved in drug-**related activity **from entering** and remaining **in the** public **hous**ing unit. In the absence of bona fide efforts by the PHA to improve public housing security, **this** penalty **is** particularly **unfair**. Furthermore, were the criminal justice system not so overworked and jails not so overcrowded, **individual** family **members involved in drug-related crime could be "removed**" through the punishments imposed by the criminal system, **rather** **than** through the eviction of **entire families.** Under current law, **even the incarceration of** a guest or family member **involved** with drugs **does not ensure that a PHA will not** attempt to **evict innocent family members-even though no further threat** of drug-related activity **exists**. The story of Charlene Goodman, a resident of public housing in Wilmington, Delaware, is a case in point. **Despite Goodman's** best **efforts to keep her children away from drugs, her** seventeen year old **son was charged with selling** cocaine **miles away from their apartment**, near other PHA-managed housing. Although her son was confined to a juvenile facility, the Wilmington **PHA took Goodman to** housing **court**, where she fought successfully for her family to remain in her apartment.74 Her feelings afterward crystallize the issue: "I felt like I was being prosecuted for something someone else did .... I didn't break any law. "**
36 +
37 +
38 +====Couple impacts here ====
39 +
40 +====First is Natal Alienation. Just as slave transactions separated mothers from children, forced eviction does this, forcing mothers to kick their children out on the streets====
41 +Austin '02 ~~Regina, William A. Schnader Professor of Law at the University of Pennyslvania JD - Penn Law - '73 BA - University of Rochester - '70 "''Step on a Crack, Break Your Mother 's Back'': Poor Moms, Myths of Authority, and Drug-Related Evictions from Public Housing" University of Pennsylvania Law School Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository 1-1-2002 http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty'scholarship/625 WHS//NAO~~
42 +Other mothers have defied the exclusionary thrust of the federal eviction campaign and tried to keep their families intact. A New York Times article described a mother who lived in the Henry Jackson Houses in the Bronx and "fought" for her 21-year-old son: After he was arrested for possessing several vials of crack, she was ordered to vacate the apartment unless she agrees to exclude him. She yearns to try to keep him off the streets that she fears will swallow him whole. "They're not giving him a chance to straighten out his life," she said. "They're pushing him right back into trouble, right?"58 Similarly, Rosa Valcarce!'s landlord sued to evict her after two of her children were arrested for selling drugs in and in front of the building and she allowed the younger of the two, a seventeen-year-old son, to return to her apartment after his incarceration.59 Ms. Valcarcel was described as a senior citizen who resided with seven of her grandchildren.60 In explaining her behavior, she testified, "I couldn't just let him go into the street just like that."6I The trial court concluded that she was an objectionable tenant because she condoned her children's illegal activity on the rental premises and harbored them after becoming aware of their criminality.62 This decision was reversed on appeal, primarily because the children who had engaged in criminal behavior did not reside in the apartment at the time of trial. 63 The federal eviction campaign is an assault on the beliefs of women like Mary Harris and Rosa Valcarcel regarding the responsibilities of mothers to their children. The campaign aims to control the behavior of the stereotypical welfare mother who is full of excuses for her progeny and always ready to overlook their shortcomings where drugs are concerned, out of an abundance of misguided maternalism. Consider how the trial court gently chided Mrs. Harris for requiring that Mary, Jr. conform to strict, traditional sexual mores as a condition to staying in her home, while failing to impose such prerequisites regarding drugs. To compensate for the women's indulgences and forbearance, the state has created a taboo that is meant to be more powerful than any the women themselves would create. In conditioning the entitlement to public housing upon the expulsion of the drug offender, the state as white patriarch is forcing the infusion of masculine values into the governance of poor minority female-headed families. Just as in slave times when commercial transactions separated mothers from their children, here too '"kinship' loses meaning since it is subject to termination in the name of property relations."64
43 +
44 +
45 +
46 +====Second, is the homelessness from successful forced evictions these has great affects on the children of these household====
47 +**Weil 6** ~~Lisa, A graduate of Greeley Public Schools, the University of Colorado, and the Yale Law School, Lisa has been a public interest attorney and political consultant. (1991) "Drug-Related Evictions in Public Housing: Congress' Addiction to a Quick Fix," Yale Law and Policy Review: Vol. 9: Iss. 1, Article 9. Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/ylpr/vol9/iss1/9 WHS//NAO~~
48 +The damage to innocent children provides a final and compelling criticism of the vicarious liability component of the drug-related eviction provision. Although it is often a parent or older sibling who is involved in drug use or dealing, it is the child who suffers most from an eviction. The experience of the daughter of a crack addict living in Potomac Gardens in Washington, D.C., provides insight as to the hardships that may confront children of users under strict enforcement of the lease provision: I'm not being as much neglected as I was .... I really didn't mind my mother using crack, but I didn't like all the company that was coming in there. My mother did give me money, she did send me to the store, and I did eat every night. It wasn't like I was being abused or nothing like that.... I don't ever want to try any kind of drugs. I have a good chance of being what I want to be because a lot of people tell me I'm bright and I believe it. 9 This child has already paid a serious price for her mother's addiction. Additionally sentencing her to homelessness or separating her from her mother and placing her in an overworked foster care system could be devastating. Some positive intervention-particularly drug treatment-might provide a more beneficial form of state action in the long run. The practical benefit, fairness, and legality of the vicarious liability portion of the drug-related lease provision are dubious. If Congress is unwilling to repeal the drug-related provision or to amend the lease provision to require proof of a threat to the safety and health of the housing project, it must restrict the reach of vicarious liability. In line with the holdings in Hodess and Montford, HUD and individual PHAs should adopt standards that allow eviction actions against only those families who are aware of the drug-related activity of a family member, but who neither attempt to prevent further activity nor cooperate in efforts to exclude that individual from their housing unit.
49 +
50 +
51 +====Homelessness destroys educational opportunities for youth leads to never ending cycle of poverty and drug use====
52 +**APA no date** ~~American Psychological Association, Effects of Poverty, Hunger and Homelessness on Children and Youth, http://www.apa.org/pi/families/poverty.aspx WHS//NAO~~
53 +Homelessness has particularly adverse effects on children and youth including hunger, poor physical and mental health, and missed educational opportunities. Homeless children lack stability in their lives with 97 having moved at least once on an annual basis, which leads to disruptions in schooling and negatively impacts academic achievement. Schooling for homeless children is often interrupted and delayed, with homeless children twice as likely to have a learning disability, repeat a grade or to be suspended from school.
54 +
55 +
56 +
57 +====Third is Gang Violence. Being kicked out on the streets forces you to resort to joining gangs to find a home or a new family. This locks them in the cycle of crime, drug, and gang violence====
58 +
59 +
60 +
61 +
62 +====Fourth is incarceration. From getting snitched on by their mothers, to the tough on crime policies, to getting thrown out on the street, these men are at high rates of spending their lives in slavery, I mean prison====
63 +
64 +
65 +
66 +====Prison is modern-day slavery, it’s the worst impact, it is dehumanizing and strips citizens of their subjectivity====
67 +**Khalek 11** ~~Rania Khalek (independent journalist living in the Washington, DC, area) "21st-Century Slaves: How Corporations Exploit Prison Labor" July 21st 2011 Alternet http://www.alternet.org/story/151732/21st-century'slaves3A'how'corporations'exploit'prison'labor WHS//NAO~~
68 +The exploitation of prison labor is by no means a new phenomenon. Jaron Browne, an organizer with People Organized to Win Employment Rights (POWER), maps out how the exploitation of prison labor in America is rooted in slavery. The abolition of slavery dealt a devastating economic blow to the South following the loss of free labor after the Civil War. So in the late 19th century, "an extensive prison system was created in the South in order to maintain the racial and economic relationship of slavery," a mechanism responsible for re-enslaving black workers. Browne describes Louisiana’s famous Angola Prison to illustrate the intentional transformation from slave to inmate: "In 1880, this 8000-acre family plantation was purchased by the state of Louisiana and converted into a prison. Slave quarters became cell units. Now expanded to 18,000 acres, the Angola plantation is tilled by prisoners working the land—a chilling picture of modern day chattel slavery." The abolition of slavery quickly gave rise to the Black Codes and Convict Leasing, which together worked wonders at perpetuating African American servitude by exploiting a loophole in the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution, which reads: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." The Black Codes were a set of laws that "criminalized legal activity for African Americans" and provided a pretext for the arrest and mass imprisonment of newly freed blacks, which caused the rate of African Americans prisoners to "surpass whites for the first time", according to Randall G. Sheldon in the Black Commentator. Convict leasing involved leasing out prisoners to private companies that paid the state a certain fee in return. Convicts worked for the companies during the day outside the prison and returned to their cells at night. The system provided revenue for the state and profits for plantation owners and wasn’t abolished until the 1930s. Unfortunately, convict leasing was quickly replaced with equally despicable state-run chain gangs. Once again, stories of vicious abuse created enough public anger to abolish chain gangs by the 1950s. Nevertheless, the systems of prisoner exploitation never actually disappeared. Today’s corporations can lease factories in prisons, as well as lease prisoners out to their factories. In many cases, private corporations are running prisons-for-profit, further incentivizing their stake in locking people up. The government is profiting as well, by running prison factories that operate as "multibillion-dollar industries in every state, and throughout the federal prison system," where prisoners are contracted out to major corporations by the state.
69 +
70 +
71 +====And prison is uniquely bad because it creates a never ending cycle of violence. Remember when I mentioned fathers in the 1AC? Me neither because the system as locked up black fathers which causes repetitive violence====
72 +
73 +====~~1~~ violence from prison is infused back into community creating a culture of violence====
74 +
75 +====~~2~~ Prisons don’t rehabiliate, so individuals return back to their drug using habits====
76 +
77 +====~~3~~ Employees don’t higher felons so they have to result back to selling drugs====
78 +
79 +====~~4~~ Lack of father figure in African American families lead youth into crime and drugs====
80 +
81 +====~~5~~ Lack of a home means individual have to return back to drug dealing====
82 +
83 +
84 +=Plan=
85 +
86 +====Text
87 +Resolved: The United States federal government ought to guarantee the right to housing by amending its drug eviction policy to first offer treatments before eviction and taking precautionary methods to prevent entire families from being evicted by evicting the perpetrator and not the entire family.
88 +
89 +I reserve the right to clarify in cross ex====
90 +**Weil 7** ~~Lisa, A graduate of Greeley Public Schools, the University of Colorado, and the Yale Law School, Lisa has been a public interest attorney and political consultant. (1991) "Drug-Related Evictions in Public Housing: Congress' Addiction to a Quick Fix," Yale Law and Policy Review: Vol. 9: Iss. 1, Article 9. Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/ylpr/vol9/iss1/9 WHS//NAO~~
91 +Using evictions to identify and punish criminal drug-related activity is neither within the proper scope of PHA discretionary authority nor the most efficient use of PHA resources. For that reason, Congress should eliminate drug-related activity as grounds for eviction in PHA leases. In the absence of the drug-related eviction provision, the goal of "cleaning up public housing" could still be achieved by allowing and encouraging PHAs to evict individuals on the basis of housing-related (rather than drug-related) grounds. Failing congressional will to eliminate the drug-related eviction provision altogether, Congress should amend that provision explicitly to allow PHAs to evict for drug-related activity only when that drug-related activity threatens the health and safety of other tenants. This constraint would curb abuses of discretion, particularly with respect to the eviction of drug users. Further, in order to better safeguard the rights of innocent family members, the statute should be altered to allow families to remain in public housing if efforts are made to exclude the offending individual. B. Proposed Administrative Changes Because the political climate of intolerance for drugs has not changed significantly since 1988, it is unlikely Congress will retreat from the "tough" stand it took in the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988.90 Nonetheless, in order to preserve the rights and interests of public housing residents, the sweeping discretion afforded PHAs by that law must be restricted. Congress should, by statute or more informal means, require HUD to promulgate guidelines to constrain PHA discretion in enforcing the drug-related eviction provision. If the political climate prevents even that, HUD should adopt guidelines on its own initiative. In adopting such guidelines, HUD should make clear to residents the circumstances under which they may be evicted, and give adequate warning to those who are slated for eviction. Guidelines should also provide an opportunity to remedy the situation that has led to the decision to evict. The rules should also be drafted to encourage family and individual responsibility without jeopardizing the well-being of innocent third-parties and without unduly punishing drug addicts, who have lost their ability to choose whether to use drugs. In short, the guidelines should promote evictions as "a management tool, not a weapon against drugs."" l Below are the basic principles upon which the guidelines should rest. 1. Appropriate grounds for evicting an individual. An eviction should proceed against a public housing tenant only when: (1) police have arrested that tenant for drug trafficking and have collected evidence of that crime; (2) no innocent family members will be evicted; and (3) the drug dealing is of such a nature that the dealer can be evicted because of a non-drug-related infraction of the lease, such as threatening the health and safety of other tenants, using the housing unit for a purpose other than as a residence, or earning an income that surpasses eligibility requirements. 2. Appropriate grounds for evicting an entire family. When a PHA becomes aware of alleged drug dealing by a public housing resident, the PHA should be required to confront the family and individual with the allegation before initiating an eviction proceeding against them. Options such as counseling and drug treatment should be considered at this time.92 If the criminal behavior continues, the PHA should have authority to exclude the individual from the unit and from the public housing grounds. If the individual continues to return to the housing unit, the family may be evicted, but only if: (1) the family has been uncooperative in excluding the individual;9 " and (2) the PHA has taken substantial steps to improve project security, such as providing secure buildings and identification cards, and assisting tenants, where appropriate, in obtaining a restraining order on the individual.94 If the family has attempted, albeit unsuccessfully, to exclude the individual, a PHA should have the option to commence an eviction action against the entire family, only if the PHA can show that: (1) the presence of the offending individual is a continuing threat to the health and safety of the project; and (2) the eviction of the family will, in fact, prevent the individual from returning to the public housing grounds. 3. Appropriate grounds for evicting users. PHAs should not be allowed to evict users, addicts, and their families solely because of drug use. If the PHA is concerned about an individual's drug use, the PHA should, before commencing an eviction action, consult with the family and develop a plan for drug treatment and counseling. If no such treatment is available, no eviction should be allowed. Efforts should be made to gain the cooperation of community organizations in working with affected families. 4. Creating guidelines specific to each PHA. In order to minimize the potential for arbitrary enforcement of lease provisions and to give residents the fullest possible understanding of their rights and responsibilities as tenants, each PHA should be required to tailor its policy and procedures for evictions to its own unique circumstances, taking into account the local availability of treatment, counseling, and other community resources. The PHA should be required to involve tenants, tenant organizations, legal services lawyers, and other housing advocates in developing the local policy. 5. Providing adequate notice of eviction policies. PHAs should be required to provide meaningful notice to tenants of their rights and responsibilities under the PHAs' eviction policies. The notice should be clear, concise, easily understood, and available in English, Spanish, and any other language appropriate to specific PHAs.
92 +
93 +
94 +====The plan solves, it allows families to be safer and not be devastated from minor transgression and culminates in a paradigm shift away from the punishment model to the rehabilitation model====
95 +
96 +=Framing=
97 +
98 +====The standard is mitigating structural violence.====
99 +
100 +====1~~ Structural violence is based in moral exclusion, it pervades our cognitive processes and encourages us to ignore differences in identity. ====
101 +**Winter and Leighton 99** ~~Deborah DuNann Winter and Dana C. Leighton. Winter~|~~Psychologist that specializes in Social Psych, Counseling Psych, Historical and Contemporary Issues, Peace Psychology. Leighton: PhD graduate student in the Psychology Department at the University of Arkansas. Knowledgable in the fields of social psychology, peace psychology, and justice and intergroup responses to transgressions of justice~~ "Peace, conflict, and violence: Peace psychology in the 21st century." Pg 4-5~~
102 +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. All the authors in this section note that the same structures (such as global communication and normal social cognition) which feed structural violence, can also be used to empower citizens to reduce it. In the long run, reducing structural violence by reclaiming neighborhoods, demanding social justice and living wages, providing prenatal care, alleviating sexism, and celebrating local cultures, will be our most surefooted path to building lasting peace.
103 +
104 +
105 +====2~~ Debate should surround material consequences—ideal theories ignore the concrete nature of the world and legitimize oppression.====
106 +**Curry 14** ~~Dr. Tommy J; "The Cost of a Thing: A Kingian Reformulation of a Living Wage Argument in the 21st Century", Victory Briefs, 2014~~
107 +Despite the pronouncement of debate as an activity and intellectual exercise pointing to the real world consequences of dialogue, thinking, and (personal) politics when addressing issues of racism, sexism, economic disparity, global conflicts, and death, many of the discussions concerning these ongoing challenges to humanity are fixed to a paradigm which sees the adjudication of material disparities and sociological realities as the conquest of one ideal theory over the other. In "Ideal Theory as Ideology," Charles Mills outlines the problem contemporary theoretical-performance styles in policy debate and value-weighing in Lincoln-Douglass are confronted with in their attempts to get at the concrete problems in our societies. At the outset, Mills concedes that "ideal theory applies to moral theory as a whole (at least to normative ethics as against metaethics); ~~s~~ince ethics deals by definition with normative/prescriptive/evaluative issues, ~~it is set~~ against factual/descriptive issues." At the most general level, the conceptual chasm between what emerges as actual problems in the world (e.g.: racism, sexism, poverty, disease, etc.) and how we frame such problems theoretically—the assumptions and shared ideologies we depend upon for our problems to be heard and accepted as a worthy "problem" by an audience—is the most obvious call for an anti-ethical paradigm, since such a paradigm insists on the actual as the basis of what can be considered normatively. Mills, however, describes this chasm as a problem of an ideal-as-descriptive model which argues that for any actual-empirical-observable social phenomenon (P), an ideal of (P) is necessarily a representation of that phenomenon. In the idealization of a social phenomenon (P), one "necessarily has to abstract away from certain features" of (P) that is observed before abstraction occurs. ¶ This gap between what is actual (in the world), and what is represented by theories and politics of debaters proposed in rounds threatens any real discussions about the concrete nature of oppression and the racist economic structures which necessitate tangible policies and reorienting changes in our value orientations.
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-04-13 01:17:57.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Jenn Melin
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Strake CL
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +48
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +6
Team
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Warren Okunlola Aff
Title
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +14 - Crack Mothers Affirmative - 1AC - TFA State Round 6
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +TFA State
Caselist.CitesClass[21]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,3 @@
1 +====Rights are fundamental aspects of life that do not require funding, unlike entitlements====
2 +**Vincenton**, Froi. "Rights Versus Entitlements." THE VINCENTON POST. N.p., 16 Jan. 20**12**. Web. 05 July 2016. JZ
3 +Now the fundamental categories of rights are the right to life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness. Your right to life includes you right to build your own home, to feed yourself, to get education provided you pay for it, to see a doctor, etc. Your right to property means you’re entitled to the fruits of your labor; that you have a right to keep your savings and/or invest the same. Your right to liberty includes your right to travel, to change residence, to be free from undue government surveillance, to due process, to counsel, etc. Rights are NOT limited by government’s budgetary constraints. They don’t depend on the availability or non-availability of public funds. TO MAKE MY POINTS A LOT CLEARER: Rights do NOT require state’s positive action. Entitlements do. As to rights, the only duty of the government is to BACK OFF. Examples of entitlements: Food stamp that requires government’s action to raise taxes, to regulate, and to give handouts to people. Rights do not require state budget. Entitlements do. I gave examples above. Rights do NOT impose any form of obligation on others. Entitlements do. A good example is socialized health care or the RH bill. Socialized health care imposes obligations on certain sectors (e.g., employers, health care providers, etc.) to serve the welfare of the poor. The state may force doctors and businesses. Rights ought to be protected by the government. Take note the word PROTECT. Your right to life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness are being protected by the BILL OF RIGHTS. Entitlements are welfare provisions. How can a government protect a poor man’s right to food if it violates the right of another man? Rights are NOT entitlements. NO one is entitled to the products and wealth of others.
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-04-13 01:17:57.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Jenn Melin
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Strake CL
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +48
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +6
Team
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Warren Okunlola Aff
Title
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +14 - Crack Mothers Affirmative - 1AR - Topicality - Negative Rights - TFA State Round 6
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +TFA State
Caselist.RoundClass[42]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +14
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-04-12 23:21:27.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Devan Jajal
OpenSource
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +https://hsld.debatecoaches.org/download/Warren/Okunlola+Aff/Warren-Okunlola-Aff-University%20of%20Texas-Round1.docx
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +ESD NH
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +1
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +University of Texas
Caselist.RoundClass[45]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +17
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-04-13 00:28:04.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Matthew Chandler
OpenSource
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +https://hsld.debatecoaches.org/download/Warren/Okunlola+Aff/Warren-Okunlola-Aff-NSDA%20District-Round5.docx
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Winston Churchill BR
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +5
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +NSDA District
Caselist.RoundClass[46]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +18
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-04-13 00:28:32.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Yesenia Robles
OpenSource
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +https://hsld.debatecoaches.org/download/Warren/Okunlola+Aff/Warren-Okunlola-Aff-NSDA%20District-Round1.docx
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +James Madison JM
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +1
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +NSDA District
Caselist.RoundClass[47]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +19
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-04-13 00:48:30.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Akhil Gandra
OpenSource
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +https://hsld.debatecoaches.org/download/Warren/Okunlola+Aff/Warren-Okunlola-Aff-TFA%20State-Round1.docx
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Houston Lamar GS
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +1
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +TFA State
Caselist.RoundClass[48]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +20,21
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-04-13 01:17:54.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Jenn Melin
OpenSource
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +https://hsld.debatecoaches.org/download/Warren/Okunlola+Aff/Warren-Okunlola-Aff-TFA%20State-Round6.docx
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Strake CL
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +6
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +TFA State

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)