Blake Invitational 1 Kamiak nb aff

PIC Deportations

CP: Plea bargaining ought to be abolished in all cases regarding sexual assault except for those involving deportation sentences against noncitizen defendants.

The net benefit is deportations.

Plea bargains are increasingly being used as a tool to protect immigrants from forced deportation

Morefield 17: Scott Morefield, July 8th, 2017. “To Avoid Deportation, Some Prosecutors are Offering Special Deals Available Only to Non-Citizens”. http://www.bizpacreview.com/2017/07/08/avoid-deportation-prosecutors-offering-special-deals-available-non-citizens-511419. RW

In an effort to protect immigrants who might otherwise be lawfully returned to their home countries for crimes committed in the United States, an increasing number of liberal district attorneys are fighting the law an entirely different way – by offering lesser plea deals that won’t trigger deportation proceedings. According to a Wall Street Journal report by Corrine Ramey, advocates of the practice see it as a way to protect noncitizens from the consequences of an unfair law. The rest of us, including U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, understand that the underlying result ends up treating citizens and noncitizens unequally under the law. One of the at least six East and West coast prosecutors engaged in the practice, Acting Brooklyn District Attorney Eric Gonzalez, considers himself a promoter of public safety because “I saw what were, in my opinion, many miscarriages of justice.” Gonzalez’s office has even brought on two immigration attorneys to conduct staff training on ways to lower the impact convictions have on immigration status. In Santa Clara County, District Attorney Jeff Rosen says the policy’s critics have subsided as people get used to it. For Rosen, a Haitian man convicted of possessing crack cocaine who is now unable to return to the United States serves as an inspiration. Now, instead of a criminal possession charge like a regular citizen would get, a green-card holder might plea to a lesser charge like trespassing, which wouldn’t trigger immigration actions. Jeff Sessions said of the practice: “It troubles me that we’ve seen district attorneys openly brag about not charging cases appropriately under the laws of our country, so that provides an opportunity for individuals not to be convicted of a crime that might lead to deportation.” Judicial Watch’s Tom Fitton considers the policies “dangerous and potentially unconstitutional.” “You don’t give people special treatment for prosecutorial decisions based on country of origin or immigration status,” said Fitton. “The logic here is American citizens might be prosecuted more harshly for the same crimes.” Largely only practiced in key California districts, such as San Francisco, until recently, the practice has now spread to other places including Baltimore, where Attorney’s Office employees were told back in April to take immigration consequences into account when they prosecute low-level crimes which are nonviolent. Manhattan is also considering implementing the policy: “I submit today that if two New Yorkers commit the same low-level violation, and the practical consequence for one of the New Yorkers is a ticket or a couple of days in jail, while the consequence for the other New Yorker is to be taken from her family and shipped off to a foreign country, that is not equal justice under law,” argues District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. In Santa Clara County, 300 to 400 pleas or sentences are modified every year, which amounts to around 1 percent of cases. How about treating all people the same, like the Constitution says we’re supposed to do, and letting the chips fall where they may?

Trump’s deportation agenda is aggressively racist and ensures massive rights violations

Hernandez 17: Kelly Lytle Hernandez, February 26th, 2017. The Conversation. “America’s Mass Deportation System is Rooted in Racism”. https://theconversation.com/americas-mass-deportation-system-is-rooted-in-racism-73426. RW

Over time, Congress and the courts placed several limits on what is allowable in immigration control. For example, the 1965 Immigration Reform Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of “race, gender, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.” And several court rulings have added a measure of constitutional protections to deportation proceedings and detention conditions. But, in recent weeks, Trump and his advisers have tapped into the foundational architecture of U.S. immigration control to argue that the president’s executive orders on immigration control are “unreviewable” by the courts. As Trump’s senior advisor Stephen Miller put it: The president’s executive powers over immigration control “will not be questioned.” On Feb. 9, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit turned down the administration’s “unreviewable” argument regarding the so-called Muslim ban. But Trump’s immigration enforcement order still stands. This includes a provision that subjects even those unauthorized immigrants who are simply suspected of crime to immediate removal. It also denies many of the immigrants who unlawfully cross our borders the due process protections recently added to deportation proceedings. If implemented as promised – that is, with a focus on “bad hombres” and the U.S.-Mexico border – Trump’s immigration plan will exacerbate the already disproportionate impact of U.S. immigration control on Latino immigrants, namely Mexicans and Central Americans. U.S. immigration may no longer target Chinese immigrants, but it remains one of the most highly racialized police projects within the United States. Trump’s executive orders are pulling U.S. immigration control back to its roots, absolute and racial. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit pushed back against this interpretation, affirming the reviewability of the seven-country ban. But the decisions made during the Chinese exclusion era are likely to protect many of the president’s other orders from judicial review. That is, unless we overturn the settler mentality of U.S. immigration control.

Mass deportation tanks the economy and spills over to cause global downturn

Soergel 17: Andrew Soergel, March 10th, 2017. Economy Reporter. “The Hidden Cost of Deportations”. U.S. News. https://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2017-03-10/mass-deportations-could-hurt-the-economy. RW

Though only a little more than a month into his tenure as commander-in-chief, President Donald Trump has made quick work of directives and executive orders aimed at curbing immigration into the U.S. – both legal and otherwise. Only days after being sworn in as America's 45th president, Trump signed an executive orderdesigned to "deploy all lawful means to secure the nation's southern border, to prevent further illegal immigration into the United States and to repatriate illegal aliens swiftly, consistently and humanely." READ: DHS Cites Big Drop in Illegal Migration Additional efforts to restrict travel from certain Muslim-majority countries and to rein in the issuance of H-1B visas to skilled immigrants have peppered Trump's opening days in the White House – effectively stymieing options for those entering the U.S. None of Trump's immigration actions to this point veer very far from what he promised out on the campaign trail, when he at times advocated for a complete removal of all 11 million residents believed to be living in the U.S. without legal status. The president appears to have backed off of this all-or-nothing strategy, saying in a November interview with "60 Minutes" that he hopes to "get the people that are criminal and have criminal records – gang members, drug dealers" out of the country first and to then "make a determination" on law-abiding immigrants without legal status "after the border is secure and after everything gets normalized." But he estimated he could still end up deporting between 2 million and 3 million immigrants – a move that would not be insignificant to the U.S. labor market. For comparison's sake, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement estimates it deported a little more than 240,000 people in fiscal year 2016. Over the past eight fiscal years, ICE estimates fewer than 2,750,000 people were deported. "The rhetoric suggests a deportation uptick. … I don't think we're going to be talking about mass deportations, but the momentum will likely shift over time," says Andrew Selee, executive vice president of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. "Clearly, they will get somewhere by simply increasing the discretion that officers have to arrest people, to detain people. They should be able to increase the number somewhat." But Selee questioned Trump's 2 million to 3 million benchmark, noting the numbers appears to have come from a 2013 Department of Homeland Security report indicating there were "1.9 million removable criminal aliens … in the United States today." That tally includes green card holders and those who are in the country both legally and illegally. Selee notes that Trump "can deport people of legal residency who commit criminal offenses." But "if you're talking about just going after unauthorized, you're talking about 800,000" people, he said. And if you're looking to specifically target those without legal status who have committed felonies – the "bad dudes" Trump has railed against – the number to be deported is believed to be just 300,000, according to the Migration Policy Institute. "I think there's an actual limit to the number of people who can be deported over time, because there aren't enough agents and there aren't enough immigration judges," Selee says. "The reality is that once you take out immigration specific offenses, immigrants commit many fewer crimes, obviously, because these are often people who don't want to draw attention to themselves." But estimates of the immediate economic impact of deportation upticks vary. The Center for American Progress estimates "a policy of mass deportation would immediately reduce the nation's GDP by 1.4 percent, and ultimately by 2.6 percent, and reduce cumulative GDP over 10 years by $4.7 trillion." OPINION: Donald Trump's Global War on Tourism Still, workers who are in the country without legal status are unevenly spread across occupations, with the group representing 26 percent of farming labor and another 15 percent of construction workers, according to Pew. Considering agriculture products serve as significant exports for the U.S. economy and homebuilding and road and bridge repair depend on construction worker availability, both industries are expected to suffer in the event of widespread deportation. "The situation with our labor continues to get worse because of the slowdown in foreign workers coming over here to work in the United States," says Tom Nassif, the president and CEO of Western Growers farming advocacy group who briefly served in an advisory capacity to Trump during campaign season. "We're hoping that agriculture is a low priority when it comes to enforcement and when it comes to the immigration laws." Indeed, Pew estimates there are slightly more than 11 million people living in the U.S. without legal status. That's down from the 2007 peak of 12.2 million, driven primarily by a drop in such immigrants from Mexico. In 2014, Pew estimates there were 5.8 million Mexicans in the U.S. without legal status. Back in 2009, that number was 6.4 million. "We've already seen a wave of Mexicans coming back to Mexico. Not as many Central Americans yet, but Mexicans started coming back about 10 years ago to Mexico, mostly voluntarily," Selee says. "They felt the Mexican economy was doing better." And with fewer immigrants coming into the U.S. to work fields, Nassif says "we're basically exporting agriculture jobs, because we don't have a sufficient labor supply." "Believe me, those people who've been working for us have been invaluable for us to harvest our crops," Nassif says. "If you shut down our ability to harvest our crops, you send more and more of our jobs to other countries. And that's something I don't think the president wants to see happen." Nassif says he spoke briefly with then-candidate Trump back in 2016 and discussed, among other things, "what do you do with those who are here illegally." "Even though they pay state and federal taxes and pay into Social Security, which they'll never see, there has to be a penalty. That can be a number of things. It could be a probationary period. It could be a fine," he says, though he noted that straight deportation was not a desirable outcome for the agriculture industry. Meanwhile, Julie Taylor, the executive director of the National Farm Worker Ministry, says more readily available H-2A visas and possible paths to citizenship for law-abiding immigrants would go a long way toward helping agriculture workers who she says have at times been taken advantage of with threats of deportation. "In some ways, employers have relied on what's been cheap labor for them, and in some cases they have exploited those individuals with issues of wage theft and stuff like that with the threat of deportation," she says. "But now, when it seems like perhaps they won't have the human power to bring in their crops, they're concerned about it. There's a little bit of a dichotomy there." But Taylor and Nassif note the contribuions of immigrants in the country without legal status extend beyond the agriculture sphere. The Social Security Administration. for example, estimated in 2010 that these immigrants and their employers paid $12 billion into the trust funds that finance the Social Security system. "Thus, our projections suggest that the presence of unauthorized workers in the United States has, on average, a positive effect on the financial status of the Social Security program," the report said. A separate report from the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, however, estimated "illegal aliens pay in about $7 billion per year into the Social Security Trust Fund." That same study projected immigrants without legal status were ultimately a net drain on government resources and that their presence in the U.S. costs federal, state and local governments $113 billion each year. Still, deportation efforts don't come free of charge. The American Action Forum in 2015 estimated the federal government "would have to spend roughly $400 billion to $600 billion to address the 11.2 million undocumented immigrants and prevent future unlawful entry into the United States." Deportation costs alone were estimated to cost between $103.9 billion and $303.7 billion. Selee also says the U.S. would lose out on "micro-businesses" and small business start-ups often founded by immigrants if deportation efforts increase significantly. "There are a lot of people who move into entrepreneurial niches in the American economy who might not have done so in Mexico or Central America," Selee says. "It doesn't mean that everyone's starting Google. A lot of people, including people who can't work legally, are starting their own little micro shops. It's the whole range." And although he says it's often looked over, Selee notes more aggressive deportation efforts would throw an influx of potential workers into already stressed economies in Mexico and Central America – potentially exacerbating downturns abroad. "There's a lot of fear in Mexico and Central America about labor markets that are already pressured having more people looking for work. There's a lot of concern about students coming in who need places at universities," Selee says. "There's a lot of fear about how increased deportations to Mexico and Central America would disrupt the economy and impact the school system."

Decline causes Trump diversionary war

Foster 16: Dennis M. Foster, Washington Post. December 19th, 2016. “Would President Trump Go to War to Divert Attention From Problems At Home?” http://inhomelandsecurity.com/would-president-trump-go-to-war-to-divert-attention-from-problems-at-home/. RW

If the U.S. economy tanks, should we expect Donald Trump to engage in a diversionary war? Since the age of Machiavelli, analysts have expected world leaders to launch international conflicts to deflect popular attention away from problems at home. By stirring up feelings of patriotism, leaders might escape the political costs of scandal, unpopularity — or a poorly performing economy. One often-cited example of diversionary war in modern times is Argentina’s 1982 invasion of the Falklands, which several (though not all) political scientists attribute to the junta’s desire to divert the people’s attention from a disastrous economy. In a 2014 article, Jonathan Keller and I argued that whether U.S. presidents engage in diversionary conflicts depends in part on their psychological traits — how they frame the world, process information and develop plans of action. Certain traits predispose leaders to more belligerent behavior. Do words translate into foreign policy action? One way to identify these traits is content analyses of leaders’ rhetoric. The more leaders use certain types of verbal constructs, the more likely they are to possess traits that lead them to use military force. For one, conceptually simplistic leaders view the world in “black and white” terms; they develop unsophisticated solutions to problems and are largely insensitive to risks. Similarly, distrustful leaders tend to exaggerate threats and rely on aggression to deal with threats. Distrustful leaders typically favor military action and are confident in their ability to wield it effectively. Thus, when faced with politically damaging problems that are hard to solve — such as a faltering economy — leaders who are both distrustful and simplistic are less likely to put together complex, direct responses. Instead, they develop simplistic but risky “solutions” that divert popular attention from the problem, utilizing the tools with which they are most comfortable and confident (military force). Based on our analysis of the rhetoric of previous U.S. presidents, we found that presidents whose language appeared more simplistic and distrustful, such as Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower and George W. Bush, were more likely to use force abroad in times of rising inflation and unemployment. By contrast, John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton, whose rhetoric pegged them as more complex and trusting, were less likely to do so. What about Donald Trump? Since Donald Trump’s election, many commentators have expressed concern about how he will react to new challenges and whether he might make quick recourse to military action. For example, the Guardian’s George Monbiot has argued that political realities will stymie Trump’s agenda, especially his promises regarding the economy. Then, rather than risk disappointing his base, Trump might try to rally public opinion to his side via military action. I sampled Trump’s campaign rhetoric, analyzing 71,446 words across 24 events from January 2015 to December 2016. Using a program for measuring leadership traits in rhetoric, I estimated what Trump’s words may tell us about his level of distrust and conceptual complexity. The graph below shows Trump’s level of distrust compared to previous presidents. As a candidate, Trump also scored second-lowest among presidents in conceptual complexity. Compared to earlier presidents, he used more words and phrases that indicate less willingness to see multiple dimensions or ambiguities in the decision-making environment. These include words and phrases like “absolutely,” “greatest” and “without a doubt.” A possible implication for military action I took these data on Trump and plugged them into the statistical model that we developed to predict major uses of force by the United States from 1953 to 2000. For a president of average distrust and conceptual complexity, an economic downturn only weakly predicts an increase in the use of force. But the model would predict that a president with Trump’s numbers would respond to even a minor economic downturn with an increase in the use of force. For example, were the misery index (aggregate inflation and unemployment) equal to 12 — about where it stood in October 2011 — the model predicts a president with Trump’s psychological traits would initiate more than one major conflict per quarter. Of course, predictions from such a model come with a lot of uncertainty. By necessity, any measures of a president’s traits are imperfect. And we do not know whether there will be an economic downturn. Moreover, campaigning is not governing, and the responsibilities of the Oval Office might moderate Donald Trump. The psychologist Philip Tetlock has found that presidents often become more conceptually complex once they enter office. Nevertheless, this analysis suggests some cause for concern about the international ramifications of an economic downturn with a President Trump in the White House.

Death controls the internal link to every moral value and impact

Jonas 96: (Hans, Former Alvin Johnson Prof. Phil. – New School for Social Research and Former Eric Voegelin Visiting Prof. – U. Munich, “Morality and Mortality: A Search for the Good After Auschwitz”, p. 111-112)

With this look ahead at an ethics for the future, we are touching at the same time upon the question of the future of freedom. The unavoidable discussion of this question seems to give rise to misunderstandings. My dire prognosis that not only our material standard of living but also our democratic freedoms would fall victim to the growing pressure of a worldwide ecological crisis, until finally there would remain only some form of tyranny that would try to save the situation, has led to the accusation that I am defending dictatorship as a solution to our problems. I shall ignore here what is a confusion between warning and recommendation. But I have indeed said that such a tyranny would still be better than total ruin; thus, I have ethically accepted it as an alternative. I must now defend this standpoint, which I continue to support, before the court that I myself have created with the main argument of this essay. For are we not contradicting ourselves in prizing physical survival at the price of freedom? Did we not say that freedom was the condition of our capacity for responsibility—and that this capacity was a reason for the survival of humankind?; By tolerating tyranny as an alternative to physical annihilation are we not violating the principle we established: that the How of existence must not take precedence over its Why? Yet we can make a terrible concession to the primacy of physical survival in the conviction that the ontological capacity for freedom, inseparable as it is from man's being, cannot really be extinguished, only temporarily banished from the public realm. This conviction can be supported by experience we are all familiar with. We have seen that even in the most totalitarian societies the urge for freedom on the part of some individuals cannot be extinguished, and this renews our faith in human beings. Given this faith, we have reason to hope that, as long as there are human beings who survive, the image of God will continue to exist along with them and will wait in concealment for its new hour. With that hope—which in this particular case takes precedence over fear—it is permissible, for the sake of physical survival, to accept if need be a temporary absence of freedom in the external affairs of humanity. This is, I want to emphasize, a worst-case scenario, and it is the foremost task of responsibility at this particular moment in world history to prevent it from happening. This is in fact one of the noblest of duties (and at the same time one concerning self-preservation), on the part of the imperative of responsibility to avert future coercion that would lead to lack of freedom by acting freely in the present, thus preserving as much as possible the ability of future generations to assume responsibility. But more than that is involved. At stake is the preservation of Earth's entire miracle of creation, of which our human existence is a part and before which human reverently bows, even without philosophical "grounding." Here too faith may precede and reason follow; it is faith that longs for this preservation of the Earth (fides quaerens intellectum), and reason comes as best it can to faith's aid with arguments, not knowing or even asking how much depends on its success or failure in determining what action to take. With this confession of faith we come to the end of our essay on ontology.

T Topic

Interpretation: the aff must defend abolishing plea bargaining through the passage of a policy in the United States criminal justice system

Dictionary.com defines Abolition as: The act of abolishing : the abolition of war. 2. the state of being abolished; annulment; abrogation: the abolition of unjust laws; the abolition of unfair taxes. 3. the legal prohibition and ending of slavery, especially of slavery of blacks in the U.S.

Net Benefits:

Legal Education

2. Argumentative Stasis

3. Institutional Engagement

4. Limits

5. TVA

Theory ASPEC

Interpretation: the aff must specify the actor or group of actors that implements the aff advocacy with a delineated text in the 1AC.

Sigalow 15: Martin (debate coach at Lake Highland) “Topic Analysis” Victory Briefs, January/February 2016 LD Brief December 10th 2015 JW

Still, a government ban can come from different places. I can think of at least four that are used in debate on occasion. First, and most obviously, a legal ban can come from the legislative branch, i.e. Congress. This would take the form of a law formally passed and ratified. Second, a legal ban can come from the executive branch, in the form of an executive order. It is unclear exactly how much power presidents have to do whatever they want through legislative orders, but this could be part of it. Third, a legal ban can come from the judicial branch, which would just be the Supreme Court. This would take the form of the Court overruling a previous decision, or passing judgment on some case and using as its justification as something that affects handgun ownership. Fourth, a legal ban can come from a confluence of state and local government bans.

the standard is weighing ground

analytics

Theory Plans Bad

Interpretation: the affirmative may not defend the abolition of a certain type or instance of plea bargaining, they must defend the abolition of all plea bargaining in the United States criminal justice system.

Violation: the plan only abolishes plea bargaining in sexual violence cases

Standards:

Neg ground

2. Limits

3. Topical Version

Theory_All

Interpretation: the affirmative must only defend making national service compulsory, they cannot defend changing the way the military operates.

Interpretation: at least an hour before the round begins, debaters must disclose all broken positions (including ACs, NCs, DAs, CPs and Ks) on the NDCA LD 2016-2017 wiki under their own name, school, and correct side with cites, tags, the first three and the last three words of all cards read.

Interpretation: when debaters disclose cards read for positions (including NCs, ACs, Ks, CPs, and DAs), they must disclose the full tag for each piece of evidence.

Interpretation: debaters may not break new affirmatives without first disclosing them on the NDCA wiki at least 30 minutes before the round

Interpretation: the aff must read a delineated standard text for each of their frameworks that clarifies how to weigh offense under that framework.