Changes for page Westwood Myneni Aff

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

From version < 44.1 >
edited by Saket Myneni
on 2016/12/03 15:40
To version < 13.1 >
edited by Saket Myneni
on 2016/10/06 04:02
< >
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Caselist.CitesClass[0]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Email me at skmyneni@gmail.com for specifics and round strat. I reserve the right to read anything on teammates' wikis.
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2016-10-14 04:35:22.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -idk
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -idk
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -0
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Finals
Team
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Westwood Myneni Aff
Title
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Disclosure
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -all
Caselist.CitesClass[2]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Countries will prohibit the production of nuclear power in the Southern Caucuses.
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2016-10-22 16:11:03.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Idk
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Idk
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -3
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -5
Team
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Westwood Myneni Aff
Title
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -SepOct- Armenia Text
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Marks
Caselist.CitesClass[5]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,92 +1,0 @@
1 -=Structural Violence 1AC=
2 -
3 -====I value morality as per the evaluative term "ought" in the resolution, which is defined as "used to express duty or moral obligation". By Merriam-Webster.====
4 -
5 -====The standard is minimizing oppression====
6 -
7 -====Structural violence is based in moral exclusion which is flawed because exclusion is based on arbitrarily perceived difference.====
8 -**Winter and Leighton 01**. Winter, D. D., and Dana C. Leighton." Structural violence." Peace, conflict and violence: Peace psychology for the 21st century (2001): 99-101.
9 -Finally, to recognize the operation of structural violence forces us to ask questions about
10 -AND
11 -local cultures, will be our most surefooted path to building lasting peace.
12 -
13 -====Theories that can~’t create material change in the real world are counter-productive and threaten actual solutions to oppression.====
14 -**Curry 14.** Tommy J. "The Cost of a Thing: A Kingian Reformulation of a Living Wage Argument in the 21st Century" (2014) Victory Briefs, p. 55-56 Assistant Professor, Department of Philosophy, Texas AandM
15 -Despite the pronouncement of debate as an activity and intellectual exercise pointing to the real
16 -AND
17 -used to currently justify the living wages in under our contemporary moral parameters.
18 -
19 -==Contention 1 is Police Violence==
20 -
21 -====Police brutality exacerbates racial divisions====
22 -**Panwala 3**
23 -Asit S. Panwala (Assistant District Attorney, Felony Cases, Bronx County District Attorney~’s Office; B.A., Berkeley; J.D., NYU). "The Failure of Local and Federal Prosecutors to Curb Police Brutality." Fordham Urban Law Journal, Volume 30, Issue 2 (2003) Article 7. http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=207926context=ulj
24 -Although police departments across the country have attempted to ameliorate the hostility between police officers
25 -AND
26 -law, especially when the racial dynamics of police brutality are considered.7
27 -
28 -
29 -====Queer bodies are also more likely to be victims of police violence. ====
30 -**Meyer 15 **(Doug Meyer, "Violence Against Queer People: Race, Class, Gender, and the Persistence of Anti-LGBT Discrimination", Professor of Women, Gender, and Sexuality at the University of Virginia, 2015)
31 -In this sense, Kevin~’s interpretation of the officers~’ behavior seems accu¬rate, as he
32 -AND
33 -with respect" by police officers than when she was perceived as transgender.
34 -
35 -====Stronger civil liability is key to restore trust in the police force====
36 -**De Stefan 16**
37 -Lindsey De Stefan (J.D. Candidate, 2017, Seton Hall University School of Law). ""No Man Is Above the Law and No Man Is Below It:" How Qualified Immunity Reform Could Create Accountability and Curb Widespread Police Misconduct" (2016). Law School Student Scholarship. Paper 850. JDN. http://scholarship.shu.edu/student_scholarship/850
38 -
39 -Unfortunately, while the FBI plans to improve its system for gathering information about the
40 -AND
41 -of the stringent immunity afforded to police officers could take effect relatively quickly.
42 -
43 -==Contention 2 is Misconduct==
44 -
45 -====Misconduct leads to a cycle of corruption and low trust in government====
46 -**Panwala 3**
47 -Asit S. Panwala (Assistant District Attorney, Felony Cases, Bronx County District Attorney~’s Office; B.A., Berkeley; J.D., NYU). "The Failure of Local and Federal Prosecutors to Curb Police Brutality." Fordham Urban Law Journal, Volume 30, Issue 2 (2003) Article 7. http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=207926context=ulj
48 -
49 -The criminal, a marginalized member of society, is in many ways the perfect
50 -AND
51 -officers~~ to abuse their authority in other ways, including corruption." 9
52 -
53 -
54 -====Limiting qualified immunity is key to hold police accountable====
55 -**Wright 15**
56 -Sam Wright (Public Interest Lawyer). "Want to Fight Police Misconduct? Reform Qualified Immunity." Above the Law. 3 November 2015. http://abovethelaw.com/2015/11/want-to-fight-police-misconduct-reform-qualified-immunity/
57 -In order to truly hold police accountable for bad acts, civilians must be able
58 -AND
59 -want to see justice done, we should push to make it happen.
60 -
61 -====Civil liability is the best starting point for challenging police misconduct more broadly====
62 -**De Stefan 16**
63 -Lindsey De Stefan (J.D. Candidate, 2017, Seton Hall University School of Law). ""No Man Is Above the Law and No Man Is Below It:" How Qualified Immunity Reform Could Create Accountability and Curb Widespread Police Misconduct" (2016). Law School Student Scholarship. Paper 850. http://scholarship.shu.edu/student_scholarship/850
64 -
65 -In recent months, it has been impossible to ignore the overwhelming presence of police
66 -AND
67 -in decreasing the overall incidence of police misconduct in the United States.
68 -
69 -====Single cases can create a domino effect, justifying more serious future offenses====
70 -**Leong 6**
71 -Nancy Leong (Research Scholar, Georgetown University Law Center; J.D., Stanford Law School, 2006). "The Saucier Qualified Immunity Experiment: An Empirical Analysis." (2009). Faculty Publications. Paper 66. http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=106326context=facpubs
72 -One might expect that the Supreme Court would be less concerned about the implications of
73 -AND
74 -thus correctly held in Pearson that sequencing take place at the court~’s discretion.
75 -
76 -==Contention 3 is Police Effectiveness==
77 -
78 -====Trust in police plays a larger role in reducing crime than deterrence====
79 -**Tyler et al. 15**
80 -Tom R. Tyler (Yale Law School and Yale University), Phillip Atiba Goff (University of California, Los Angeles), and Robert J. MacCoun (Stanford Law School). "The Impact of Psychological Science on Policing in the United States: Procedural Justice, Legitimacy, and Effective Law Enforcement." Psychological Science in the Public Interest (Volume 16, Number 3). 2 November 2015. http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/publications/policing.html
81 -
82 -In the past few decades, law enforcement has primarily used a deterrence model to
83 -AND
84 -by reporting crimes, identifying criminals, and acting as witnesses during trials.
85 -
86 -====Studies show increased accountability improves police effectiveness====
87 -**Schwartz 15**
88 -Joanna Schwartz (Law Professor at UCLA); interview with Paul Rosenberg (California-based writer/activist, senior editor for Random Lengths News, and a columnist for Al Jazeera English). "We must make the police pay: When cops go too far, they must feel the pain too." Salon. 9 May 2015. http://www.salon.com/2015/05/09/we_must_make_the_police_pay_when_cops_go_too_far_they_must_feel_the_pain_too/
89 -
90 -But beyond that issue of strengthening police accountability, there needs to be a much
91 -AND
92 -these horrible events that have been in the media over the past year.
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2016-12-02 23:38:01.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Neel Kattamandu
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Woodlands Ms
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -6
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -1
Team
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Westwood Myneni Aff
Title
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -NovDec- Stacked Aff
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -UT
Caselist.CitesClass[6]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,90 +1,0 @@
1 -====The role of the ballot is to vote for the debater that presents the best governmental policy option – key to out of round advocacy skills.====
2 -Nixon 2K (Themba-Nixon, Makani. Executive Director of The Praxis Project, a nonprofit organization helping communities use media and policy advocacy to advance health equity and justice~~, "Changing the Rules: What Public Policy Means for Organizing" Colorlines 3.2, 2000)
3 -
4 -Getting It in
5 -AND
6 -making it so.
7 -
8 -====I value morality, as per the evaluative term, ~’ought~’ in the resolution.====
9 -
10 -
11 -====The standard is minimizing suffering.====
12 -
13 -
14 -====We ground our existence through experience. Practical reason is arbitrary, meaning sentience is the only non-arbitrary source of normativity. Pain is universally bad and pleasure is universally good. ====
15 -Thomas **Nagel ~’86** ~~"The View From Nowhere", 1986~~ //AG
16 -I shall defend
17 -AND
18 -the appearances here.
19 -
20 -==Plan==
21 -
22 -====Plan Text: Countries should prohibit the production of Floating Nuclear Power Plants in the OSPAR region. I reserve the right to clarify anything about the plan in cx.====
23 -
24 -
25 -====Floating Nuclear Power Plants are specifically bad in the arctic – high risk of accidents and annihilation of marine ecosystems.====
26 -**KIMO 11 **(KIMO International (Kommunenes Internasjonale Miljøorganisasjon) a local authorities international environmental organization designed to give municipalities a political voice at regional, EU and international level. Greenpeace International is an independent global campaigning organization that acts to change attitudes and behavior, to protect and conserve the environment and to promote peace. "Concerns on Floating and Submerged Nuclear Power Plants," The OSPAR Commission. Deep Sea Research Part B. Oceanographic Literature Review 31.12. 2011. http://www.nuclearpolicy.info/docs/news/KIMO_OSPAR_Sellafield_FNPP.pdf) //WW JA 8/26/16
27 -*** OSPAR is basically the Arctic region.
28 -Recent developments in
29 -AND
30 -OSPAR Maritime region.
31 -
32 -==The Advantage is Environmental Damage==
33 -
34 -===Two Internal Link Scenarios===
35 -
36 -
37 -====1 – Warming====
38 -
39 -====We~’re on track to solve warming in the status-quo.====
40 -**Khomami 16.** Nadia Khomami is a news reporter at the Guardian. She also writes features on music, politics and popular culture. You can follow her on Twitter. , 9-3-2016, "G20 summit: US and China ratify Paris climate change agreement," Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2016/sep/03/g20-summit-obama-to-make-climate-change-announcement-as-may-heads-to-china-live //RS
41 -The US has
42 -AND
43 -later in September."
44 -
45 -====FNPPs erode the Arctic environment.====
46 -**Nikitin 04** (Alexandr Konstantinovich Nikitin is a retired first rank captain and a former nuclear installations safety inspector for the Russian Ministry of Defense (1987-1992). He is an author of multiple publications concerning the problems of radiation safety in the northern seas. Vladimir Mikhailovich Desyatov is a trained shipbuilding engineer. He has also been a representative of the President of Russia in the Khabarovsk region Igor Victorovich Forofontov is the coordinator of the Greenpeace nuclear campaign in Russia. He graduated from the physics faculty of Leningrad State University. Yevgeney Yakovlevic Simonov is a senior engineer and chief of shift at the Obninsk Nuclear Power Plant (NPP), a nuclear operator on board the 900 series nuclear submarines and one of the heads of laboratory involved in the technical expert review of NPP project documentation. Ilya Borisovich Kolton was a scientific collaborator in the Kurchatov Institute within the technological-scientific centre of GosAtomNadzor. Alexey Vladimirovich Yablokov is a corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Science. He is a former environmental adviser to the Russian President and former chairman of the governmental commission on sea-dumping of radioactive wastes. Vladimir Mikhailovich Kuznetsov is a former head (1986-1993) of the Russian Federal Inspectorate for Nuclear and Radiation Safety~’s (GosAtomNadzor) department for supervision and inspection of nuclear and radiation safety at atomic engineering installations. "FLOATING NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS IN RUSSIA: A THREAT TO THE ARCTIC, WORLD OCEANS AND NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY," Green Cross Russia Third edition Edited and published by "Agenstwo Rakurs Production" Ltd Moscow, 2004 ISBN 2004. http://www.greencross.ch/uploads/media/gc_fnpp_book.pdf) //TruLe
47 -*** IRG – Inert Radioactive Gases***
48 -When normal operating
49 -AND
50 -a vent pipe.
51 -
52 -====2 – Oil spills====
53 -
54 -====FNPPs will be used to power oil rigs – the impact is major oil spills and annihilation of marine ecosystems.====
55 -**Hunziker 15.** (Robert Hunziker. "Drilling and Nuclear Power in the Arctic", Counter Punch, 6-10-2015, http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/06/10/drilling-and-nuclear-power-in-the-arctic/)//DM Accessed 9-8-2016
56 -Not only that,
57 -AND
58 -of U.S. agencies.
59 -
60 -===Impacts===
61 -
62 -====Arctic oil spills and warming cause planetary extinction – the Arctic is a keystone ecosystem. ====
63 -WWF 10 (World Wildlife Fund, "Drilling for Oil in the Arctic: Too Soon, Too Risky" 12/1/10, http://assets.worldwildlife.org/publications/393/files/original/Drilling_for_Oil_in_the_Arctic_Too_Soon_Too_Risky.pdf?1345753131)//WL
64 -The Arctic and the subarctic regions surrounding it are important for many reasons. One
65 -AND
66 -of any credible and tested means of responding effectively to a major spill.
67 -
68 -====Deep sea biodiversity loss risks extinction ====
69 -**Danovaro 8 **~~Professor Roberto Danovaro, Scitizen.Com, February 12, 2008. "Deep-Sea Biodiversity Conservation Needed to Avoid Ecosystem Collapse". http://scitizen.com/stories/Biodiversity/2008/02/Deep-Sea-Biodiversity-Conservation-Needed-to-Avoid-Ecosystem-Collapse/~~
70 -The exploration of
71 -AND
72 -on the planet.
73 -
74 -====Biodiversity loss and warming destroy Arctic indigenous communities.====
75 -**Stepien 14** (Adam Stepien is a researcher at the Arctic Centre, University of Lapland, Finland. "Arctic Indigenous Peoples, Climate Change Impacts, and Adaptation," E-International Relations. April 10, 2014. http://www.e-ir.info/2014/04/10/arctic-indigenous-peoples-climate-change-impacts-and-adaptation/) //WW JA 8/27/16
76 -Identified impacts are
77 -AND
78 -vector-borne diseases.
79 -
80 -====Russia is shifting to renewables in the status-quo regardless of the plan.====
81 -**Breyer 15.** Christian Breyer, Professor, 12-30-2015, "Russia can become one of the most energy-competitive areas based on renewables," LUT, http://www.lut.fi/web/en/news/-/asset_publisher/lGh4SAywhcPu/content/russia-can-become-one-of-the-most-energy-competitive-areas-based-on-renewables //RS
82 -A fully renewable
83 -AND
84 -America and Finland.
85 -
86 -====Russian FNPPs are located in seismic hotspots. Earthquake related devastation is inevitable.====
87 -**Andreyev 11** (Alexandr Konstantinovich Nikitin is a retired first rank captain and a former nuclear installations safety inspector for the Russian Ministry of Defense (1987-1992). He is an author of multiple publications concerning the problems of radiation safety in the northern seas. Leonid Andreyev is a Doctor of Economics and an economics expert for the Bellona Foundation. "Floating nuclear power plants," The Bellona Foundation. 2011. http://bellona.no/assets/sites/4/Floating-nuclear-power-plants.pdf) //WW JA 8/26/16
88 -In terms of
89 -AND
90 -will be unavoidable.
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2016-12-02 23:38:37.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Travis Fife
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Evanston HS
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -7
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -1
Team
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Westwood Myneni Aff
Title
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -SepOct- 1AC FNPP
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -St Marks
Caselist.CitesClass[7]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,45 +1,0 @@
1 -Part 1 is The Fence
2 -Qualified immunity gives the US Border Patrol a shield under which it brutally tortures and kills Mexicans.
3 -Kennis 16. (Andrew Kennis. Andrew Kennis is an international journalist, a higher education pedagogue and an academic researcher specializing in Digital Journalism Studies, Communication Policy Studies, Global Media, Political Communication, Political Economy and International Communications. Dr. Kennis was recently appointed as a Visiting Assistant Professor at the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM), where he will teach several courses, including a graduate seminar analyzing the news media and the drug war. He recently completed his third year as an Assistant Professor at the University of Texas, El Paso (UTEP), where he undertook research on and taught courses in journalism studies and practice, global media and the drug war. While publishing peer-reviewed, scholarly research and completing grant-funded studies, Dr. Kennis still continues to practice journalism from many corners of the globe. As a researcher, Dr. Kennis has published in peer review journals ranging across three different disciplines (communications, political science and technology studies). He has won top conference paper awards and presented his work in both the United States and abroad (London, Tokyo, Vancouver and Mexico City). University-level courses Dr. Kennis has designed and taught have included "Multimedia Writing," "Investigative and Public Affairs Reporting," "Digital Media and Globalization," “Global Media, Money and Power," "Media and the Drug War," "Media and Democracy," “Politics and the Media,” and other classes in political science, policy studies and society and technology studies. As a journalist, Dr. Kennis has practiced online-based / convergence reporting, investigative and print reporting, citizen journalism, and online-based and traditional radio throughout the last fifteen years. He has reported from locations based in four continents and over twenty countries across the globe, including on-the-scene reporting from the El Paso / Ciudad Juarez border corridor, Brazil, Colombia, Israel and the Occupied Territories, Japan, Venezuela, Taiwan, Guatemala and Mexico. Dr. Kennis served as the border correspondent for teleSUR's English division and has also published in a variety of news sources, including The Christian Science Monitor, Al Jazeera English, teleSUR English, Proceso (Mexico), Time Out, emeequis (Mexico). His work has resulted in invited on-air expert appearances on both live international television and radio broadcasts. “Supreme Court to Decide Fate of Case That Challenges Cross-Border Killings by US Agents”. 03/30/16. https://news.vice.com/article/supreme-court-cross-border-killing-patrol-agent-usa-mexico) TruLe
4 -Sergio Adrián Hernández was a slender 15-year-old boy who loved soccer and aspired to be a police officer when he was shot through his left eye by Jesus Mesa Jr., a US Border Patrol agent, on June 6, 2010 in Ciudad Juárez. Guillermo Arevalo Pedroza, a longtime construction worker, was in the midst of a family barbecue picnic and birthday celebration on September 3, 2012 when he was shot by the Border Patrol. The 37-year-old Arevalo bled to death in his 10-year-old daughter's arms in Nuevo Laredo, just across the border from Laredo, Texas. José Antonio Elena Rodríguez was taking an evening walk to pick up a hot dog at a local food stand when he was hit by at least 12 rounds from a Border Patrol agent's .40 caliber pistol. The 16-year-old died on October 10, 2012 in Nogales near the Arizona border. Juan Pablo Santillan was collecting firewood on July 7, 2012 with his brother when he was killed in Nogales. His brother said the man behind the gun responded to an appeal for help by yelling "Let the dog die."
5 -All these victims were Mexican nationals who were unarmed and, according to background checks, only one had a criminal record. All the deaths occurred in border towns in Mexico. Most importantly, they were among the seven people killed on Mexican soil since 2010 by Border Patrol agents who fired their weapons from the US side of the border. Based on more than 13,000 documents worth of data coming from Border Patrol reports, records from the Mexican foreign ministry, news accounts compiled by the Southern Border Coalition, and an investigation by the Arizona Republic, Border Patrol agents have killed at least 52 people since 2004, including 15 US citizens, with 30 of those fatalities occurring since 2010, including the seven cross-border cases. Now the families of these victims, their lawyers and advocacy groups, have joined together to force a decision with important implications for border politics, as well as their respective quest for justice. One of the cases, the shooting of the 15-year-old boy, led to a lawsuit— Hernández v. Mesa— that is now before the US Supreme Court, which is due to decide by April 1 whether to postpone the case, fully consider it, or throw it out altogether. At the same time, several other cases are moving through the courts, including another civil suit that is similar to the one being considered by the Supreme Court and the first criminal case ever to be prosecuted for a cross-border shooting. If the Supreme Court either rejects the case, or if it upholds the last appellate court ruling in the government's favor, Mexican families will not have the right to sue the government for civil rights violations of deceased relatives who have been victims of cross-border killings at the hands of Border Patrol agents. However, if Mexican families win either or both of the civil cases, they will gain Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights, including the chance to sue Border Patrol agents who kill or seriously injure their family members. This could result in compensatory damages via the constitutional and civil rights they will have gained. The Hernández v. Mesa case got to the Supreme Court after the notoriously conservative Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over all of Texas and many border areas, ruled against the families. The government argues that this is a case where "qualified immunity" applies to the agent responsible for the shooting. This means that in order to successfully sue a government official, you have to show a violation of clearly established law. The Fifth Circuit agreed, reasoning that it is not clearly established by law that the US Constitution applies to a Mexican national killed in Mexico. Lawyers representing the families argue that this argument circumvents the obvious. "You don't need a court decision to say that it is wrong to kill an unarmed 15-year-old boy," says Steve Shadowen, one of the lawyers representing the Hernández family. "It's common sense and decency that you get judicial review when it comes to police killings of unarmed children," he added. Shadowen also stressed that at the time Hernández was shot, the officer didn't know whether the boy was a US or a Mexican national. Federal agencies — Border Patrol is part of US Customs and Border Protection (CBP), which is part of the Department of Homeland Security — have tended to justify cross-border killings on the grounds that Border Patrol agents only shot because they were in danger from the victims throwing rocks at them. Lawyers for the families of shooting victims have dismissed this argument, as have US government officials in other contexts. When Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, she criticized Egyptian security forces for using deadly force against stone-throwing protesters shortly before the fall of the US-supported Hosni Mubarak regime. At the international level, United Nations Commissions on Human Rights, civil rights groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union, and human rights groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have issued condemnations against fatal force being used against rock throwers. The so-called "rockers" defense was used in the case of Hernández, though now there are serious doubts about whether the teen ever even threw a stone before he was killed on the Mexican side of the Rio Grande. James Tomsheck, a former CBP internal affairs director turned whistleblower, recently wrote in a deposition for the Supreme Court case that he saw three different videotapes of the murder of Hernández, and they all confirmed that the teenager did not throw any rocks at Mesa. Related: 'It's an American Problem': Meet the Militias Patrolling the US Border Tomsheck also recalled the assessment of a senior FBI official who stated that if the Border Patrol were a municipal police agency, its excessive use of force would have resulted in it being put into "federal receivership," similar to what has happened in Ferguson, Albuquerque, and other cities with troubled police departments where the Department of Justice has intervened by launching civil rights probes. The 52 people killed by Border Patrol agents since 2004 include several unarmed men who were beaten to death, a Mexican citizen who died after he was forced to drink concentrated liquid methamphetamine, and other civilians who were shot, pepper-sprayed, or shocked with stun guns. Some frontier watchers say Border Patrol violence is linked to less stringent recruiting standards and poor training amid a push to militarize the border that goes back several administrations. The efforts first began in the mid-90s, but accelerated dramatically after George W. Bush signed the 2006 Secure Fence Act, which led to more than 600 miles of fencing and additional funding for staff and surveillance. Funding increases continued under the Obama administration, which has deported more people than in any other previous administration. "This The means by which potentially hired Border Patrol personnel have been screened has led to a significant percentage who are unfit to carry a gun and a badge," said Chris Rickerd, a staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union who has long monitored the lack of punishments registered against the Border Patrol. "It is the largest law enforcement agency in the country, but doesn't nearly have the commensurate oversight and accountability it needs." It is rare for CBP to even release the names of agents involved in shootings or the identities of their victims, and, until recently, there had never been a criminal charge filed against any Border Patrol agent involved in a fatal cross-border shooting. Last September, CPB agent Lonnie Swartz was charged with second-degree murder for killing 16-year-old José Antonio Elena Rodríguez. Swartz shot the teenager at least 10 times from the US side of the border while Elena Rodríguez was taking a nighttime stroll down International Avenue in Nogales, Mexico in 2012. Luis Parra, a Nogales and Tucson, Arizona-based lawyer, is representing the family of Elena Rodríguez. "There has never been a cross-border homicide case, ever," he said. "It is unique." Parra maintains that the government is contradicting itself by charging one of its officers with murder while also taking the position that "qualified immunity" applies to civil cases related to cross-border shootings. Parra added that his client's citizenship is irrelevant. "There was a boy that was shot with 10 bullets in his own country and he was not committing any crimes," he said. "What gives them the right to spray 10 bullets into a boy in his own country?" For more than a half-decade, grieving Mexican families who have lost relatives to Border Patrol shootings have had to contend with contradictory legal decisions that have given them both victories and defeats on the path to the Supreme Court. "Maybe, just maybe because of the death of my son, all of this mess will change," Araceli Rodríguez Salazar told VICE News. "I don't want any other parents to suffer in the manner in which I have." Rodríguez is the mother of José Antonio Elena Rodríguez, the 16-year-old who was shot unarmed in Nogales, and whose case is currently being considered in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Guillermo Arevalo Pedroza, the unarmed construction worker killed by the Border Patrol in 2012, was "a happy person, a playful father and a family man. He liked to play and watch soccer," his widow Nora Isabel Lam told VICE News. "Nobody expected it and I never thought they were going to kill my husband," she said. "I am not sure if the case will be considered but I simply pray that good news will come out this when all is said and done." Whether Border Patrol agents will ultimately be held accountable for cross-border shootings depends on the pending Supreme Court case regarding the killing of 15-year-old Sergio Adrián Hernández. Prior to their case reaching the high court, the Hernández family had a string of ups and downs in the courtroom. In 2012, a lower court judge acknowledged that the case involved the "wrongful taking of life," but ultimately ruled that it should be dismissed because "the victim was not a US citizen and incurred the injury in Mexico." A partial panel of the Fifth Circuit Court reversed the decision in 2014, resulting in an unexpected and significant victory for the Hernández family. But even that gain was short-lived — the full court reversed the decision after an appeal by the Obama administration. Now, the Hernández family awaits word on whether its own appeal will be heard from the Supreme Court. The court has until Friday to decide which direction it wants to go with a case that has seen a flurry of contradictory rulings. Robert Hilliard, a lawyer for the Hernández family based in Corpus Christi, Texas, will handle oral arguments in the case if the justices decide to hear it. He has never argued a case in front of the Supreme Court, but his colleagues told VICE News that he has been known to "bring courtrooms to tears." Shadowen, another Hernández family attorney and Hilliard's colleague, said he thinks it is unlikely to be thrown out, in large part because the justices decided late last year to send the case to Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., the government's legal expert and adviser, for consideration. Although Verrilli wrote in opposition to the Mexican families on behalf of the federal government, Shadowen said that it's a less important indicator than the fact that most cases sent to the solicitor general for an opinion end up being fully considered by the Supreme Court. In light of the recent death of Justice Antonin Scalia, however, some believe that the most likely decision will be a delay. Parra, the Elena Rodríguez lawyer, said that this could also give more importance to his pending case before the Ninth Circuit since it could come to trial before the Supreme Court decides anything on the Hernández case. Lower courts have ruled favorably for Elena Rodríguez, which could be significant going forward depending on the outcome of the separate Supreme Court case. Hilliard nevertheless remains optimistic about his chances. He told VICE News that, at the end of the day, "You can't have a free killing zone or a place where law enforcement agents are allowed to shoot and murder innocent Mexican nationals without civil recourse." In spite of Hilliard's optimism, the question remains: Will border immunity in terms of cross-border killings continue to survive without any legal recourse for Mexican victims? Nothing less than that question is what is at stake this week in light of the pending decision to be taken by the Supreme Court.
6 -The Border Patrol systematically uses the legal system as a tool to hide their violence and to absolve themselves of any responsibility.
7 -Bennett 15. Brian Bennett, 6-15-2015, "Border Patrol absolves itself in dozens of cases of lethal force," La Times, http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-border-patrol-shootings-20150615-story.html//AD
8 -A U.S. Border Patrol agent who killed an unarmed 15-year-old Mexican boy by shooting him in the face after a rock-throwing incident on a border bridge to El Paso in 2010 was recently cleared of wrongdoing by the agency's internal affairs office. So was a Border Patrol agent who shot and killed a 17-year-old Mexican who threw rocks from the Mexican side of the border fence near Nogales, Ariz., in 2011. Internal affairs also cleared an agent who shot and killed a 19-year-old U.S. citizen as he climbed over a border fence into Mexico near Douglas, Ariz., in 2011. Agents said the man was seeking to flee after driving a narcotics-laden truck into a Border Patrol vehicle. In all, an internal investigation of 67 shooting incidents, which left 19 people dead, absolved agents of criminal misconduct in all but three cases, which are still pending. The review was completed last month. None of the agents involved has been charged with a crime, said Anthony Triplett, who helped direct the review at the office of internal affairs for U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the parent agency of the Border Patrol. Only two agents faced disciplinary action. Both received oral reprimands. Criminal charges are still possible in the three pending cases, officials said. Prosecutors in the Justice Department's civil rights division have been investigating those lethal shootings, all from 2012, since they occurred. The agents in those three cases are still conducting armed patrols on the border, officials said. Critics along the Southwest border and in Mexico long have argued that the Border Patrol, the federal government's largest law enforcement force, operates with little transparency or accountability in cases involving purported abuses. The agency's broad approval of its own record in scores of shooting cases, despite vows by the Obama administration to crack down on agents who use excessive force, is unlikely to change that perception. "We are deeply disappointed" with the lack of action, said Juanita Molina, executive director of Border Action Network, a human rights organization based in Tucson. "When you have someone throwing rocks and someone responding with lethal force, it is just not proportional." "Turning the page doesn't mean burying the past," said Chris Rickerd, a border security expert at the American Civil Liberties Union in Washington. "There is no assurance to border residents that agents who have used excessive, improper lethal force aren't on the job in their communities." Administration officials say they are determined to restore public trust in the Border Patrol despite its tradition of closing ranks around its paramilitary culture. Last month, Customs and Border Protection made it possible for people to file written complaints against officers in Spanish for the first time. The move came after pressure from activists who said the Border Patrol deliberately made it difficult to file complaints. Unlike domestic police departments, the 21,000-member Border Patrol released almost no public information about shootings, including the outcome of its investigations, until recently. That practice has started to ease slightly as supervisors have been granted more latitude from headquarters to describe individual incidents. The internal affairs review was started in July after an earlier study of the same 67 shooting cases by an independent group of law enforcement experts found a pattern of agents firing in frustration at people throwing rocks from across the border, as well as agents deliberately stepping in front of cars apparently to justify shooting at the drivers. That study by the Police Executive Research Forum, a nonprofit research and policy organization in Washington, criticized the Border Patrol for a "lack of diligence" in investigating its deadly incidents. The Border Patrol did not give a copy to Congress until the Los Angeles Times Washington Bureau disclosed its contents in February 2014. In response, R. Gil Kerlikowske, commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, ordered new limits on when Border Patrol agents were permitted to fire their weapons and revamped weapons training. He also removed the longtime head of internal affairs and created an internal panel to review incidents of deadly force. He also tapped an FBI agent, Mark Morgan, to temporarily lead the office of internal affairs and to review the 67 cases, which date from January 2010 to October 2012. Before he returned to the FBI in December, Morgan had helped identify cases with gaps, a lack of witness statements or other discrepancies. Sixty-three cases were subsequently cleared. Three others are with the Justice Department. Disciplinary action is still possible in the final case. Last Monday, Kerlikowske named a new head of internal affairs. Matthew Klein spent 26 years in the police department that serves Washington, D.C., and he oversaw deadly force investigations when the department was following a federal mandate to improve its treatment of citizens. In an interview, Klein said he wanted the Justice Department to decide more quickly whether to bring charges in border shootings. "We would prefer a faster resolution," Klein said. He said he would bring up the three pending cases with Justice Department lawyers. Until recently, internal affairs officers were not permitted to begin criminal investigations of Customs and Border Protection officers and agents. Jeh Johnson, secretary of Homeland Security, expanded their authority last year, and Klein said the new powers should allow them to investigate "more completely." Janet Napolitano, who headed Homeland Security from 2009 to 2013, said Friday that she sought to take on the spate of border shootings during her tenure. She expressed frustration that some of the cases were still pending. "I think part of it was just the civil rights division is only so big and it can take that long," said Napolitano, who now heads the University of California system. "I would say that ideally, yes, those cases would move more quickly." Napolitano would not discuss specific lethal-force cases because she is a defendant in multiple lawsuits brought by families of people killed by Border Patrol agents. The three cases still under investigation at the Justice Department involve three Mexican men who were shot and killed from across the border. In one, Border Patrol agents repeatedly shot at Juan Pablo Perez Santillan, 30, as he stood watch for a group of migrants crossing the Rio Grande illegally near Brownsville, Texas, in July 2012. According to a lawsuit his family filed in U.S. District Court in Texas, an agent used a high-power scope on his rifle to aim at Perez Santillan and fired at least five times, hitting him in the chest. After Perez Santillan's brother Damien pleaded for help, one agent shouted back, "Que se muera el perro," meaning "Let the dog die," the lawsuit states. He died at a hospital. Two months later, a Border Patrol agent in an airboat shot and killed Guillermo are valo Pedraza, 37, in a park across the Rio Grande from L are do, Texas. The agent later said he had been pelted with rocks from shore. Witnesses told the Los Angeles Times last year that are valo was at a family barbecue. That October, an agent in Nogales, Ariz., shot through a border fence after a rock-throwing incident and killed Jose Antonio Elena Rodriguez, 16. The official incident report says the agent fired 15 times. The official autopsy says Rodriguez was hit eight times in the back.
9 -Qualified Immunity is used to commit racialized genocide at the border.
10 -Dunn 01. Dunn, Timothy J. “Border Militarization Via Drug And Immigration enforcement: Human Rights Implications.” Social Justice, vol. 28, no. 2 (84), 2001, pp. 7–30. www.jstor.org/stable/29768073.AD
11 -Military collaboration with the Border Patrol in the U.S.-Mexico border region on drug and immigration enforcement has been extensive and enduring. The military's geographic focus extends beyond the border and it now works with a plethora of police bodies throughout the U.S. on drug enforcement. Such ongoing military involvement in domestic police matters is unique in post-Reconstruction U.S. history. The more militaristic elements of that collaboration and support, however, have focused primarily on the border. Such support gave rise to the tragic killing in 1997 of a U.S. citizen by a Marine during a border-area ground surveillance mission conducted for the Border Patrol. Since then, military collabo? ration has lessened somewhat in practice, but has changed little at the level of formal policy. The door remains open to a return to the use of armed ground troops. Moreover, military support for border policing may expand in the future. Despite the significant human rights implications, neither the military, the Border Patrol, nor policymakers appear to have given them much consideration. What are the human rights implications of military involvement in policing, at the border and beyond? Among the theoretical principles guiding such a discussion is the significance of human rights for nation-state conduct. For Turner (1993: 178, 182), "the point about the concept of human rights is that they are extra governmental and have traditionally been used to counteract the repressive capacity of states...." He proposes that institutions are often responsible for human rights violations, an outcome attributable in part to the bureaucratization process. Dunn Sjoberg and Vaughan (1993:145-146) argue that bureaucracy tends to undermine the human rights of the "truly disadvantaged" through a process of "social triage" that includes the sacrifice of their general well-being and dignity, as well as the occasional use of repression. It becomes more "efficient" to write off the rights and well-being of the most subordinated groups, because to really address their needs would entail profound societal reforms and "sacrifices" on the part of elites (Sjoberg, 1996). Thus, institutions and bureaucratic power structures threaten the rights, dignity, and well-being of people, especially subordinated groups. The military and Border Patrol are bureaucratic entities, and their law enforcement efforts target subordinated groups: working-poor undocumented immigrants, and poor, low-level drug couriers ("mules"). In the borderlands, this generally means people with a Latino/a appearance, especially Mexicans and Mexican Americans. Consequently, increased border enforcement efforts tend to "sacrifice" the human rights of members of those groups (at least more so than those of other groups). The Border Patrol's troubled human rights record in the region reflects this pattern (e.g., Human Rights Watch, 1995; DLEMP, 1992; Dunn, 1996: 83-91; 1999a: Chapter 6; 1999b). The military is responsible for the most severe human rights abuse related to border enforcement to date, the killing of a Mexican American teenager in Redford, Texas. In this instance of (probably unintentional) repression, military conduct was replete with gross misunderstandings by soldiers and their unwarranted escalation of the use of force. The inappropriate matching of military troops against nonmilitary threats (more properly, social problems) illustrates the danger bound up in border enforcement, because they are trained to respond with deadly force to perceived threats, regardless of the objective situation. As Lawrence Korb, a former assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration, stated shortly after the Redford incident, "the military, to put it bluntly, is trained to vaporize, not Mirandize" (Holt, 1997c). The institutional forces involved had as little regard for respecting human rights as they did with reading one's rights. Even the less severe forms of military collaboration in border policing have negative implications for the status of human rights. For instance, much of the military training and intelligence support offered by JTF-6 seems inappropriate for civilian police bodies. This is because military interrogation techniques, raids, and intelligence activities are typically not designed or conducted with a concern for the U.S. legal system's requirements for safeguarding suspects' rights, but rather aim to eliminate or neutralize an enemy threat. Even elements of the military recognize this. Part of the fallout from the 1993 Waco tragedy is that the Special Forces Command has since 1996 refused to provide police with training in some of the most extreme military tactics. Another danger is the spread of militarization related to antidrug enforcement from the Southwest border to interior areas. My "spectrum of border militarization" could be used to examine interior areas, for the border experience appears to be a vanguard of a larger process of military/police collaboration. Ground troops have been restricted mainly to border areas, but elsewhere other types of military support for police agencies, such as training in military operational and intelligence tactics, could lead police to adopt ever-more military tactics. (Kraska, 1997, has documented this with regard to the flourishing of police paramilitary units.) The blurring of lines between the police and the military has long been associated with human rights problems, especially in developing countries. Moreover, once military collaboration has developed with the Border Patrol and other police bodies, limiting it to features on the less militaristic end of the continuum has proved difficult, apart from the few actions explicitly prohibited by law (i.e., military troops conducting arrests, searches, or seizures). The tendency seems to be gradual escalation, one quite removed from public consciousness, let alone debate. The Redford tragedy, an illustration of the human rights danger of that evolution, spurred a relatively brief period of public debate and a partial inhibition of the escalation in the militarization of border enforcement. Human rights concerns are by default "sacrificed" in favor of ever-greater drug and immigration enforcement, and perhaps a future "homeland defense" mission for the military that exceeds physical threats. When illegal immigration and drugs are cast principally as security matters, human rights become a secondary concern. Debate could bring to light that the drug issue would be better viewed as a public health problem than a security threat. Scholars have yet to theorize the human rights implications and significance of the trend toward enhanced military collaboration with police border enforcement. The border is a contemporary proving ground for the militarization of law enforcement. Largely out of public view, subordinate groups have been targeted in this peripheral region on a broader scale than anywhere else in contemporary U.S. history. An insidious form of "mission creep," this expansion of militarism is consistent with the state's intensified and punitive wars against crime and drugs. Collaboration between the state's main corporal bureaucratic power structures does not auger well for the vulnerable human rights of subordinated groups, mainly those of Hispanic appearance in the borderlands. Given the importance of human rights as a building block for a decent, democratic society, it would be a grave error if policymakers were to continue to neglect them; their security may even hang in the balance. Beyond making human rights a central consideration in all law enforcement measures, several reforms could address this ominous development. Democratic accountability for JTF-6 and other military bodies engaged in domestic policing could be fostered by requiring regular, detailed, public reporting on their activities and the establishment of a mechanism for public, external oversight and investigation. Another positive step would be to prohibit the most coercive and severe forms of military support for police bodies. An example would be the U.S. Special Forces Command's refusal to allow its troops to provide training to police in several extremely coercive military tactics; such restrictions could be generalized to all U.S. military units. Ultimately, the best course would be to abolish JTF-6 and to sever most or all military ties to domestic police agencies. Recent history in Latin America and other developing regions demonstrates that such collaboration invariably imperils human rights and democracy itself. Beyond these reforms, serious policy attention is needed to address the larger underlying economic, social, political, and cultural dimensions on both sides of the border that drive so much of the cross-border flow of immigrants and drugs. Failure to do so will likely fan the mania for border enforcement and endanger human rights.
12 -Part 2 is The Resistance
13 -Plan text: The Supreme Court of the United States should limit qualified immunity for Border Patrol Agents. To clarify the Supreme Court should rule in favor of Hernandez in the ongoing Hernandez V. Mesa court case. I reserve the right to clarify in cx.
14 -
15 -The plan sets a precedent that holds Border Patrol agents accountable.
16 -TNAP 10/21 (The Tucson News Associated Press frequently writes articles on local and national news related to the Tucson area. “Appeals court considers claim against agent in fatal cross-border shooting,” Tucson.com. October 21, 2016. http://tucson.com/news/local/border/appeals-court-considers-claim-against-agent-in-fatal-cross-border/article_fe6f3ae8-97bc-11e6-9d7f-bb001c158b16.html) WW JA 11/4/16
17 -Allowing a Border Patrol agent to escape trial for shooting a Mexican teen through the border fence in Nogales would expose area residents to the same danger, an attorney for the teen's mother told federal judges Friday. Lee Gelernt, of the American Civil Liberties Union, contends Lonnie Swartz should be forced to answer the wrongful death claim filed by the mother of 16-year-old Jose Antonio Elena Rodriguez. He acknowledged that the boy was not in the United States when shot, nor had he just fled over the fence. In fact, there was no evidence the boy had ever even been in this country or that he wanted to live in this country. But Gelernt told the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that's legally irrelevant. “We don't think that you need to want to live in the U.S. to not be shot across the border,” he said. Potentially more significant, Gelernt warned the three-judge panel that allowing Swartz — and anyone else who fires shots across the border — to escape civil liability in a cross-border shooting is bad policy. He pointed out that the boy was walking along Calle Internacional, a major street in Nogales, Son., which runs parallel and adjacent to the border fence. “This is a community that has to walk along this street all the time,” Gelernt said. He said they should not have to have some contact with the United States, like asking for health care benefits, to have legal standing and legal protections. “They're just saying that they don't want to be shot when they walk to the store or go to the doctor along the border which it's inescapable that they have to do,” Gelernt said. “They cannot be asked to have to assume the risk of being shot every time they walk along the main thoroughfare.” Swartz has separately been charged with second degree murder, with that case pending before a federal judge in Tucson. But Swartz, who is on administrative leave, is trying to get the indictment dismissed. And Gelernt said even if Swartz is convicted, that is not the same as giving civil relief to the boy's family. The judges are not expected to rule any time soon. The U.S. Supreme Court earlier this month agreed to hear a similar case out of Texas where a Border Patrol agent in 2010 shot and killed a Mexican teen playing in a culvert that separates El Paso from Juarez. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last year the parents cannot pursue their claim against Jesus Mesa Jr. because the boy, Sergio Hernandez, was a Mexican citizen “who was on Mexican soil at the time he was shot.” Appellate Judge Milan Smith Jr. said his court will be bound by whatever the Supreme Court rules. But Smith pointed out that there are still only eight justices on the high court. The U.S. Senate has refused to consider the nomination of Merrick Garland by President Obama. And Smith said if the high court splits 4-4 on that Texas case, there will be no precedent set, freeing the 9th Circuit to reach its own conclusion.
18 -The plan is key to accountability and spills over – we catalyze institutional reform.
19 -De Stefan 16. (Lindsey De Stefan is a former lawyer for Maceri and da Costa LLC and currently works for Seton Hall Law Review, 2017, " “No Man Is Above the Law and No Man Is Below It:” How Qualified Immunity Reform Could Create Accountability and Curb Widespread Police Misconduct," Law School Student Scholarship, http://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1861andamp;context=student_scholarship) RS
20 -Irrespective of whether there has been an increase in the incidence of brutality or whether the nation is merely recognizing what has been an ongoing reality for many U.S. citizens, the existence of a problem is now inescapably obvious. The solution, however, is decidedly less clear. Perhaps none of the aforementioned proposals are the right answer. Alternatively, and more likely, maybe they are all the answer—at least partially and in combination with a number of other considerations. It is improbable that a single factor can be deemed the sole cause of widespread police misconduct. Of course, an elaborate problem with multiple dimensions will require an equally multifaceted solution. In fact, any adequate resolution will likely require the cooperation of many individuals and entities across various disciplines and industries.13 But no matter how winding, every path to change must begin with a single step. And the most logical place to begin is by reforming the stringent protection from civil liability enjoyed by law enforcement officers alleged to have violated individual constitutional rights. This Comment will explore how judicial amendment of the qualified immunity doctrine— specifically as it is applied to law enforcement officers—could serve as a catalyst to begin to rein in police misconduct. Part II will describe the general history of the most significant statutory provision in this context, Section 1983, and the expansion of constitutional torts that occurred in the mid-twentieth century. Part III focuses on the judicial development of qualified immunity in the Supreme Court and explains the status of the doctrine today. Part IV discusses some of the most significant practical problems with the modern qualified immunity jurisprudence and its application. Part V goes on to analyze the recent spotlight on police use of force. Finally, Part VI proposes that judicial amendment of qualified immunity application will serve as an effective first step in decreasing the overall incidence of police misconduct in the United States.
21 -They continue:
22 -By beginning to mend the qualified immunity doctrine in these ways, the Court will allow more civil suits for the vindication of constitutional rights to succeed. This will help to reduce the public mentality—strengthened by recent events—that cops get away with everything, in every regard. Civil suits avoid subjecting law enforcement to any criminal liability that, because of recent events, many laypersons believe is warranted. While this may be true in select circumstances, reality demonstrates that criminal charges are highly unlikely to stick against a police officer. But allowing more civil suits to go forward will serve as an important reminder to both civilians and law enforcement that the police are not above the law, and that they are held accountable for their wrongdoings. In turn, this accountability will begin to heal the relationship between law enforcement and communities by serving as the first step on what will surely be a long path to rebuilding the trust that is so crucial.
23 -Action must be grounded in anti-militarist epistemology – our literal reading of this aff is key to rupture dominant nationalist framing of the border.
24 -Chávez 12 (Karma R. Chávez is an associate professor of rhetoric, politics, and culture at University of Wisconsin-Madison. Ph.D. Arizona State University, 2007. M.A. University of Alabama, 2003. M.A. University of Alabama, 2002. “Border Interventions: The need to Shift from a Rhetoric of Security to a Rhetoric of Militarization,” 2012) JA 11/24/15
25 -Scholars of rhetoric and performance have opened important terrains in the study of immigration and borders pertaining to subjects such as citizenship, media representation, and migrant identity (Cisneros, “(Re)Bordering the Civic imaginary”; DeChaine, “Bordering the Civic imaginary”; McKinnon; o no and Sloop; Shi). Though a number of scholars in other academic disciplines within the humanities and social sciences have written about border militarization (e.g., Andreas, “Redrawing the Line”; Dunn, Militarization of the US Mexico Border; nevins), in reviewing rhetoric and communication scholarship pertaining to immigration and borders, with the exception of a few passing mentions (Demo, “Afterimage” and “Sovereignty Discourse; Carrillo Rowe; DeChaine, “Bordering the Civic imaginary”; o no and Sloop), an engagement with the rhetoric of border militarization is virtually nonexistent. instead, in post–September 11, 2001, US America, where the dominant border rhetorics emerge from the so- called War on Terror, discourses of “border security” and “national security” are the parlance of the day for rhetoric scholars (e.g., Dunmire, “9/11 Changed Everything” and “Preempting the future”; Gales; i vie; i vie and Giner; Mirrlees; o no; Rojecki; Ross). Though many of these analyses offer rigorous critiques of the way security discourses manifest and perpetuate troubling imaginaries of safety and privacy, the problem with the emphasis scholars place on analyses of the rhetoric of security is that it enables state apparatuses and conservative ideology to dictate the framing of discussion and debate. Ono and Sloop argue that discourses construct borders, and I would extend this to say that discourse constitutes the way immigration, generally, is understood. If scholars use the state’s conservative ideographs— their ideological building blocks—to talk about matters of public interest (McGee, “‘ ideograph’”), conservative ideology continues to frame the broader debate in people’s minds. This in turn suggests that the public may be more willing to support problematic state policy and action, for no other terms exist by which to understand important issues. The issue of framing is especially dire in relation to the US- Mexico border, which has, in the eyes of many politicians, pundits, and citizens alike become the greatest source for insecurity in the national imaginary. The discourse of national security intertwines with the War on Terror, the threat of drug smuggling, and the invasion of “illegal aliens” so that militarization of regions of the US- Mexico border seems natural and warranted in order to protect citizens from these supposed threats. Moreover, as scholars increasingly note, “everyday militarization” aptly describes the ways in which “ordinary people” accept the beliefs of militarism and militarization in such a way that upholds state military and militarization policy (Bernazzoli and f lint). Caren Kaplan quips in an essay on how the popularity of technology like Global Positioning Satellites (GPS) can lead to militarized consumers and citizens: “ for most people in the United States, war is almost always everywhere” (693). feminist scholars such as Cynthia Enloe have long called attention to the way that militarization seeps into ordinary lives as a regular part of public discourse (Enloe, Does Khaki Become You?, Globalization and Militarism, Maneuvers ). Because military discourse pervades the everyday, its further expansion in myriad forms proves for many to be commonplace instead of worrisome. Importantly, militarization of the US- Mexico border has not occurred in response to the War on Terror; instead, it has been in the US government’s plan at least since the Reagan administration, and has virtually nothing to do with the events of September 11, 2001 (Dunn, Militarization of the US Mexico Border ). As one example, the immigration and naturalization Services’ ( in S’s) four- phase “Southwest Border Strategy,” implemented post- NAFTA in 1994, strategically planned to militarize the US- Mexico border in order to allegedly deter clandestine crossings (Stana and Rezmovic). The events of September 11, 2001, provided a convenient rationale to heighten these strategies, which had been in motion for decades; yet, a context of “everyday militarization” coupled with the rhetoric of security has obfuscated an urgent need to focus on the devastation of border militarization on border crossers and communities specifically, and privacy and civil liberties more generally. Gordon Mitchell suggests that rhetoric scholars who study social movements should also enable movement with their work. This chapter will demonstrate the need for border rhetoric scholars to turn the discourse of security toward a discourse of militarization in the hopes of making a civic intervention into the broader national debate. If more people understood how militarization works and the careful way that the rhetoric of security disguises its material impacts, it is likely that the US government would be forced to be more accountable to its people, and rhetoric scholars should lead this charge. I begin this argument by first defining militarization and briefly tracing the increase in border militarization, specifically on the US-Mexico border since the mid- to late 1 980s. Next, I outline the severity of the consequences such militarization has had for border communities and border crossers, and what this means for residents of the United States more broadly. I then argue why the language of militarization is so crucial through a brief analysis of Secure Border Initiative Monthly, or SBI Monthly, produced by the Secure Border initiative (SB i ) Program Management o ff ice (PM o ) and designed to provide news and information on the SB i and the now- defunct SB i net, two major programs of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to augment “border security.” These newsletters evidence the ease with which undocumented migration and terrorism are conflated, similarly to how undocumented migration and drug trafficking were conflated.
26 -Anti-militarist knowledge production precedes T/Theory:
27 -1 Militarism controls education – it has seeped into the debate space and corrupted our epistemology.
28 -2 The 1AC appeals to social fairness i.e. the inclusion of minorities in political discourse – outweighs any trivial versions of fairness in the game of debate.
29 -3 No impact to theory – people won’t stop being abusive after this round, but the classroom should be a focal point of resistance – militarism manifests itself in the debate space by silencing deviant viewpoints and rigorously conditioning students to accept the culture of war.
30 -Part 3 is The Mechanism
31 -The role of the ballot is to vote for the debater that best ruptures the ideology of militarization that has infected the public sphere. Resistance to the police state is a prior question.
32 -Giroux 04. (Henry A. Giroux is an American and Canadian scholar and cultural critic. One of the founding theorists of critical pedagogy in the United States, he is best known for his pioneering work in public pedagogy, cultural studies, youth studies, higher education, media studies, and critical theory. “War on Terror The Militarising of Public Space and Culture in the United States”, Third Text, Vol. 18, Issue 4, 2004. http://www.henryagiroux.com/online_articles/Third20Text202004-war20on20terror.pdf) JA 11/26/15
33 -As militarisation spreads its influence both at home and abroad, a culture of fear is mobilised in order to put into place a massive police state intent on controlling and manipulating public speech while making each individual a terrorist suspect subject to surveillance, fingerprinting, and other forms of ‘electronic tattooing’. But the increasing danger of militarisation is also evident in the attempt by the corporate/military/ media complex to create those ideological and pedagogical conditions in which people either become convinced that the power of the commanding institutions of the state should no longer held accountable or believe that they are powerless to challenge the new reign of state terrorism. And as militarisation spreads its values and power throughout American society and the globe, it works to eliminate those public spaces necessary for imagining an inclusive democratic global society. Militarisation and the culture of fear that legitimises it have redefined the very nature of the political, and in so doing have devalued speech and agency as central categories of democratic public life. And it is precisely as a particular ideology and cultural politics that militarisation has to be opposed. As the forces of militarisation are ratcheted up within multiple spaces in the body politic, they increasingly begin to produce the political currency of what begins to look like proto-fascism in the United States. To expose and resist such an ideology should be one of the primary responsibilityies of intellectuals, activists, parents, youth, community members, and others concerned about the fate of democracy on a global scale. Working both within and outside traditional public spheres, artists, community activists, writers, and educators can expose the ideology of militarisation in all its diversity and how it risks turning the United States into a military state while at the same time undermining crucial social programmes, constitutional liberties, and valuable public spaces. According to Arundhati Roy, this new politics of resistance demands: Fighting to win back the minds and hearts of people. . . . It means keeping an eagle eye on public institutions and demanding accountability. It means putting your ear to the ground and listening to the whispering of the truly powerless. It means giving a forum to the myriad voices from the hundreds of resistance movements across the country which are speaking about real things – about bonded labor, marital rape, sexual preferences, women’s wages, uranium dumping, unsustainable mining, weavers’ woes, farmers’ suicides. It means fighting displacement and dispossession and the relentless, everyday violence of abject poverty. Fighting it also means not allowing your newspaper columns and prime-time TV spots to be hijacked by their spurious passions and their staged theatrics, which are designed to divert attention from everything else.42Progressives everywhere have to reinvent the possibility of an engaged politics and real strategies of resistance. This suggests not only working through traditional spheres of political contestation, such as elections or union struggles or various means of education. Collective struggle must combine the tasks of a radical public pedagogy with massive acts of nonviolent, collective disobedience. Such acts can serve to educate, mobilise, and remind people of the importance of struggles that change both ideas and relations of power. By making militarisation visible through the force of words and peaceful resistance, politics can become both meaningful and possible as a contested site through which people can challenge both locally and through international alliances the obscene accumulation of power symptomatic of the increasing militarisation of public space that is spreading both throughout the US and across the globe. Arundhati Roy is right in her incessant and courageous call to globalise dissent but if dissent is to work it must have a focus that cuts across empires, nation states, and local spaces, to the heart of a clear and present danger posed to democracy and social justice. Challenging militarisation in all of its expressions is a direct strike at the heart of a policy that has exceeded democracy and now formed a dreadful pact with a creeping and dangerous authoritarianism. We find ourselves in the midst of a war globally, not simply a war against terrorism but also a war against democratic solidarity in which a democratic future both at home and abroad stands in the balance.
34 -Debates over qualified immunity require a focus on consequences.
35 -Chen 97. Alan Chen is a leading national expert in free speech doctrine and theory, 1997, " THE BURDENS OF QUALIFIED IMMUNITY: SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND THE ROLE OF FACTS IN CONSTITUTIONAL TORT LAW," The American University Law Review, http://www.americanuniversitylawreview.org/pdfs/47/47-1/chen.pdf RS
36 -In the modem constitutional era, the Court defines the scope of substantive constitutional law by articulating balancing tests-broad, open-ended standards that define the scope of most individual constitutional rights. 267 Rather than providing a set of bright-line rules divining predetermined results for particular types of government conduct or regulation, balancing tests identify general criteria for constitutional decisionmaking, but leave great discretion to the decisionmaker to apply these criteria to the individual circumstances of each case.' When it creates balancing tests, the Court instructs lower courts to explicitly "weigh" individual rights (e.g., privacy, equality, speech) against governmental interests (e.g., public health, social welfare, social order) .26 The balancing metaphor symbolizes the evaluation of the relative substantive importance of these often competing values. Balancing tests, like all legal standards, necessitate individualized, context-specific determinations of constitutional rights because the quantum of interests may vary substantially from case to case, even under the same constitutional provision. In each case, the decisionmaker determines the outcome by evaluating which interest or value is "weightier.”
37 -Pure critique is useless without concrete solutions and moving away from the state dooms the left’s critique to failure – must work within the state without being statist
38 -Connolly 08. (William, Professor of Political Science at John Hopkins, Capitalism and Christianity, American Style, page numbers are at the bottom of the card.)
39 -Before turning to possible strategies to promote these objectives, we need to face an objection posed by one segment of the left: "Don't you depend a lot upon the state, when it must be viewed as the enemy?" My response is threefold. First, there is no way to take on global warming without engaging the state in the effort as well as international agencies, and global warming is a key danger of this epoch. Second, it is less the state itself and more its existing subsidies and priorities that are at issue. If you were to oppose both the market and the state you might reduce the democratic left to pure critique, with no presentation of positive possibilities and strategies. But critique is always important and never enough, as the left has begun to rediscover and as the American right has known for forty years. Third, although one must acknowledge the issues of cumbersome state bureaucracy, corporate cronyism, and state corruption, all three increased radically when the evangelical-capitalist resonance machine achieved hegemony, and they will get worse unless eco-egalitarians and still enter the fray at the interceded levels of micropolitics, microeconomic experiments, and the state. It is unwise to act as if the state must always be what it has become. Challenging the media is critical in this respect, making it become a watchdog of corporations, the state, religious movements, and the multiple imbrications between them. My view, as becomes clear in the next few pages, is that no interim agenda on the left can proceed far without finding expression in state policy, and state policy must draw inspiration from microeconomic experiments initially launched outside its canopy: microeconomic experiments and creative state policies must inform each other. We thus seek to include the state without becoming statist. Those who invest hope in revolutionary overthrow may oppose such a combination. I suspect that revolution, were it to occur, would undermine rather than vitalize democratic culture.29
40 -Inequality creates flawed epistemic conclusions, making normative decision making impossible.
41 -Medina 11. Medina, J. (2011). Toward a Foucaultian Epistemology of Resistance: Counter-Memory, Epistemic Friction, and Guerrilla Pluralism. Foucault Studies, 1(12), 9–35
42 -Foucault invites us to pay attention to the past and ongoing epistemic battles among competing power/knowledge frameworks that try to control a given field. Different fields—or domains of discursive interaction—contain particular discursive regimes with their particular ways of producing knowledge. In the battle among power/ knowledge frameworks, some come on top and become dominant while others are displaced and become subjugated. Foucault’s methodology offers a way of exploiting that vibrant plurality of epistemic perspectives which always contains some bodies of experiences and memories that are erased or hidden in the hegemonic mainstream frameworks that become hegemonic after prevailing in sustained epistemic battles. What Foucault calls subjugated knowledges3 are forms of experiencing and remembering that are pushed to the margins and rendered unqualified and unworthy of epistemic respect by prevailing and hegemonic discourses. Subjugated knowledges remain invisible to mainstream perspectives; they have a precarious subterranean existence that renders them unnoticed by most people and impossible to detect by those whose perspective has already internalized certain epistemic exclusions. And with the invisibility of subjugated knowledges, certain possibilities for resistance and subversion go unnoticed. The critical and emancipatory potential of Foucaultian genealogy resides in challenging established practices of remembering and forgetting by excavating subjugated bodies of experiences and memories, bringing to the fore the perspectives that culturally hegemonic practices have foreclosed. The critical task of the scholar and the activist is to resurrect subjugated knowledges—that is, to revive hidden or forgotten bodies of experiences and memories—and to help produce insurrections of subjugated knowledges.4 In order to be critical and to have transformative effects, genealogical investigations should aim at these insurrections, which are critical interventions that disrupt and interrogate epistemic hegemonies and mainstream perspectives (e.g. official histories, standard interpretations, ossified exclusionary meanings, etc). Such insurrections involve the difficult labor of mobilizing scattered, marginalized publics and of tapping into the critical potential of their dejected experiences and memories. An epistemic insurrection requires a collaborative relation between genealogical scholars/activists and the subjects whose experiences and memories have been subjugated: those subjects by themselves may not be able to destabilize the epistemic status quo until they are given a voice at the epistemic table (i.e. in the production of knowledge), that is, until room is made for their marginalized perspective to exert resistance, until past epistemic battles are reopened and established frameworks become open to contestation.
43 -Particularism is good—root cause claims and focus on overarching structures ignore application to material injustice.
44 -Gregory Fernando Pappas 16 Texas AandM University “The Pragmatists’ Approach to Injustice”, The Pluralist Volume 11, Number 1, Spring 2016, BE
45 -The pragmatists’ approach should be distinguished from nonideal theories whose starting point seems to be the injustices of society at large that have a history and persist through time, where the task of political philosophy is to detect and diagnose the presence of these historical injustices in particular situations of injustice. For example, critical theory today has inherited an approach to social philosophy characteristic of the European tradition that goes back to Rousseau, Marx, Weber, Freud, Marcuse, and others. Accord- ing to Roberto Frega, this tradition takes society to be “intrinsically sick” with a malaise that requires adopting a critical historical stance in order to understand how the systematic sickness affects present social situations. In other words, this approach assumes that¶ a philosophical critique of specific social situations can be accomplished only under the assumption of a broader and full blown critique of soci- ety in its entirety: as a critique of capitalism, of modernity, of western civilization, of rationality itself. The idea of social pathology becomes intelligible only against the background of a philosophy of history or of an anthropology of decline, according to which the distortions of actual social life are but the inevitable consequence of longstanding historical processes. (“Between Pragmatism and Critical Theory” 63)¶ However, this particular approach to injustice is not limited to critical theory. It is present in those Latin American and African American political philosophies that have used and transformed the critical intellectual tools of ¶ critical theory to deal with the problems of injustice in the Americas. For instance, Charles W. Mills claims that the starting point and alternative to the abstractions of ideal theory that masked injustices is to diagnose and rectify a history of an illness—the legacy of white supremacy in our actual society.11 The critical task of revealing this illness is achieved by adopting a historical perspective where the injustices of today are part of a larger historical narrative about the development of modern societies that goes back to how Europeans have progressively dehumanized or subordinated others. Similary, radical feminists as well as Third World scholars, as reaction to the hege- monic Eurocentric paradigms that disguise injustices under the assumption of a universal or objective point of view, have stressed how our knowledge is always situated. This may seem congenial with pragmatism except the locus of the knower and of injustices is often described as power structures located in “global hierarchies” and a “world-system” and not situations.12¶ Pragmatism only questions that we live in History or a “World-System” (as a totality or abstract context) but not that we are in history (lowercase): in a present situation continuous with others where the past weighs heavily in our memories, bodies, habits, structures, and communities. It also does not deny the importance of power structures and seeing the connections be- tween injustices through time, but there is a difference between (a) inquiring into present situations of injustice in order to detect, diagnose, and cure an injustice (a social pathology) across history, and (b) inquiring into the his- tory of a systematic injustice in order to facilitate inquiry into the present unique, context-bound injustice. To capture the legacy of the past on present injustices, we must study history but also seek present evidence of the weight of the past on the present injustice.¶ If injustice is an illness, then the pragmatists’ approach takes as its main focus diagnosing and treating the particular present illness, that is, the particular situation-bound injustice and not a global “social pathology” or some single transhistorical source of injustice. The diagnosis of a particular injustice is not always dependent on adopting a broader critical standpoint of society in its entirety, but even when it is, we must be careful to not forget that such standpoints are useful only for understanding the present evil. The concepts and categories “white supremacy” and “colonialism” can be great tools that can be of planetary significance. One could even argue that they pick out much larger areas of people’s lives and injustices than the categories of class and gender, but in spite of their reach and explanatory theoretical value, they are nothing more than tools to make reference to and ameliorate particular injustices experienced (suffered) in the midst of a particular and unique re- lationship in a situation. No doubt many, but not all, problems of injustice are a consequence of being a member of a group in history, but even in these cases, we cannot a priori assume that injustices are homogeneously equal for all members of that group. Why is this important? The possible pluralism and therefore complexity of a problem of injustice does not always stop at the level of being a member of a historical group or even a member of many groups, as insisted on by intersectional analysis. There may be unique cir- cumstances to particular countries, towns, neighborhoods, institutions, and ultimately situations that we must be open to in a context-sensitive inquiry. If an empirical inquiry is committed to capturing and ameliorating all of the harms in situations of injustice in their raw pretheoretical complexity, then this requires that we try to begin with and return to the concrete, particular, and unique experiences of injustice.¶ Pragmatism agrees with Sally Haslanger’s concern about Charles Mills’s view. She writes: “The goal is not just a theory that is historical (v. ahistori- cal), but is sensitive to historical particularity, i.e., that resists grand causal narratives purporting to give an account of how domination has come about and is perpetuated everywhere and at all times” (1). For “the forces that cause and sustain domination vary tremendously context by context, and there isn’t necessarily a single causal explanation; a theoretical framework that is useful as a basis for political intervention must be highly sensitive to the details of the particular social context” (1).13¶ Although each situation is unique, there are commonalities among the cases that permit inquiry about common causes. We can “formulate tentative general principles from investigation of similar individual cases, and then . . . check the generalizations by applying them to still further cases” (Dewey, Lectures in China 53). But Dewey insists that the focus should be on the indi- vidual case, and was critical of how so many sociopolitical theories are prone to starting and remaining at the level of “sweeping generalizations.” He states that they “fail to focus on the concrete problems which arise in experience, allowing such problems to be buried under their sweeping generalizations” (Lectures in China 53).¶ The lesson pragmatism provides for nonideal theory today is that it must be careful to not reify any injustice as some single historical force for which particular injustice problems are its manifestation or evidence for its exis- tence. Pragmatism welcomes the wisdom and resources of nonideal theories that are historically grounded on actual injustices, but it issues a warning about how they should be understood and implemented. It is, for example, sympathetic to the critical resources found in critical race theory, but with an important qualification. It understands Derrick Bell’s valuable criticism as context-specific to patterns in the practice of American law. Through his inquiry into particular cases and civil rights policies at a particular time and place, Bell learned and proposed certain general principles such as the one of “interest convergence,” that is, “whites will promote racial advantages for blacks only when they also promote white self-interest.”14 But, for pragma- tism, these principles are nothing more than historically grounded tools to use in present problematic situations that call for our analysis, such as deliberation in establishing public policies or making sense of some concrete injustice. The principles are falsifiable and open to revision as we face situation-specific injustices. In testing their adequacy, we need to consider their function in making us see aspects of injustices we would not otherwise appreciate.15
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2016-12-03 15:40:49.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Brian Lee
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Lake Travis BO
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -8
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -4
Team
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Westwood Myneni Aff
Title
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -NovDec- Border Police
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -UT
Caselist.RoundClass[0]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -0
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2016-10-14 04:35:20.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -idk
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -idk
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Finals
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -all
Caselist.RoundClass[3]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2016-10-22 16:11:01.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Idk
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Idk
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -5
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Marks
Caselist.RoundClass[6]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -5
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2016-12-02 23:37:54.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Neel Kattamandu
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Woodlands Ms
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -1
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -UT
Caselist.RoundClass[7]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -6
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2016-12-02 23:38:35.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Travis Fife
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Evanston HS
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -1
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -St Marks
Caselist.RoundClass[8]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -7
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2016-12-03 15:40:46.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Brian Lee
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Lake Travis BO
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -4
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -UT

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)