CASE – TOHONO (SWS)

1NCArizona state police disregard federal directives – specifically on immigration, they’ll continue doing whatever they wantElizabeth Erwin 4/11 (“Arizona lawmakers want to ignore President Obama's executive orders”, Mar 11, 2015 6:27 PM, http://www.abc15.com/news/state/arizona-lawmakers-want-to-ignore-president-obamas-executive-orders, Accessed 7/16/15,) President Barack Obama has signed some big executive orders lately. They've impacted guns

and immigration , two issues Arizonans clearly care about. But the approach some lawmakers are taking to keep us from enforcing those rules has some questioning if the plan is even legal! "The legislature wants to prevent enforcement of executive orders and prevent enforcement of federal agency policy directives," said attorney David Abner with Knapp & Roberts Law Firm. House Bill 2368 says unless those orders have been voted on by Congress and signed into law, Arizona wouldn't have to follow them. "It's political grandstanding. There's nothing of substance to this. It's silly," Abner said. "Well, unfortunately, it's a waste of time, somewhat ridiculous. In fact very ridiculous," said House Minority Leader Bruce Wheeler. Wheeler voted against the bill. He said the priorities of what gets floor time doesn't match up with what Arizonans really need. "We ought to be addressing education and jobs. Instead we're addressing these extremist bills," Wheeler said. Abner said even if this bill is signed into law there's no way it would stand up in court. "If our state officials ignore federal law they run the risk of prosecution by federal authorities," Abner said. ABC15 reached out to the bill's sponsors today for comment. We have not heard back yet.

2NC No Solvency

Arizona will ignore the federal – it’s happening in the status quo with guns and immigration – that’s Erwin

No solvency – The Mexican government and boarder control are in cahootshttp://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2014/06/27/border-patrol-agents-would-not-surpise-me-if-cartels-rented-cover-by-mexican-military-helicopter-n1856546Katie Pavlich June 27 2014; “Update with Correction: Border Control Agents: Cartels May Have “Rented” Cover from Mexican Military Helicopter in Shooting incident” Pavlich is an editor at Townhall.com and New York Times Best Selling author.

"Mexican military are oftentimes working hand in glove with the cartels. The Mexican military has routinely crossed the border in areas that Border Patrol agents are actively tracking or seizing drug loads. Inevitably the Mexican military claim they got lost, that the border was not clearly marked, or in extreme cases fire on agents to cover their retreat," National Border Patrol Council Spokesman Shawn Moran exclusively tells Townhall. "Ajo, AZ Border Patrol agents have had several incidents like this over the years where they have taken shots from the Mexican military. The cartels' resources are nearly limitless and it would not surprise me if they "rented" the cover by the Mexican military helicopter in this incident."

A Border Patrol agent stationed in Arizona, who asked to remain anonymous, backed up Moran's statements saying the Mexican military regularly works with cartels on the border and has been doing so for years.

The Mexican government has apologized for the shooting, but has not explained why the helicopter was in the area.

Laundry list – The Tohono boarder is a key site for implosions on domestic securitySarah Singleton January 2009 Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science at Research institute at Western Washington University “Not our borders: Indigenous people and the struggle to maintain shared lives and cultures in post-9/11 North America”(http://www.wwu.edu/bpri/files/2009_Jan_WP_No_4.pdf)On the opposing side, government officials might argue that the interests of tribes must be overridden by the even stronger interest the public has in domestic security. Much of the 260 miles of the international border that abuts Indian reservations has been shown to be quite porous, and the result has been a concentration of border-related illegal activity. Many Indian reservations are currently grappling with crime rates that are nearly double those on non- Indian communities, with few obvious signs of success (Perry 2004). While no serious terrorism threats have been discovered on reservations, it seems likely that this is not because such threats have been thwarted, but rather that they have yet to be attempted. If we assume that discouraging terrorism and drug

trafficking or diminishing the numbers of immigrants that enter the U.S. illegally are, either individually or in combination, necessary, important public policy goals, then it is not hard to see why the idea of relaxing border crossing requirements to accommodate tribal preferences strikes many people as irrational. This lack of confidence in the tribal law enforcement capacities is no doubt part of what lies behind DHS’s apparent usurpation of the tribal role in ensuring domestic security.

Cartel DA – Cartels bring fear and drugs over to the north side of the borderAndrew O’Reilly ; August 12 2014 “Mexican Drug Cartel Violence Spreading To Rural US As Police Crack Down In Big Cities”http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2014/08/12/mexican-drug-cartel-violence-spreading-to-rural-us-as-police-crackdown-in-major/

A bloody, bullet-riddled body slumped inside of an SUV on a lonely stretch of road. Five people shot execution-style inside a sparsely furnished apartment. Drug disputes turning into violent kidnappings and brutal deaths.These stories have become commonplace in Nuevo León, Michoacán, Sinaloa and other Mexican states, but they’re not from Mexico. They’re from quiet areas in Minnesota, Oregon, South Carolina and across rest of the U.S. as Mexican drug cartels – and groups affiliated with them – move deeper into the country and bring with them their violent tactics.While most law enforcement agencies want to make clear that the level of violent crime currently embroiling Mexico is not likely to spread to the U.S. anytime soon, officials from both local and federal organizations say that the reach of that country’s feared drug cartels has spread north and with it, at least to some degree, so has the violence.“In recent years the DTO’s [drug trafficking organizations] have changed their tactics and become bolder,” Lt. Gerry Adcock of Oregon’s Marion County Sheriff’s Office told Fox News Latino. “The men and women involved in today’s [drug trafficking] kill or make other drug traffickers disappear without fear of consequence. I have personally investigated homicides and violent incidents directly related to DTO’s and have seen the destruction they have caused to families in our community.”One such case was the murder of Rogelio Hernández-Davalos, who was killed at point-blank range in the front seat of his Ford Expedition in January of 2012. The Marion County Sheriff’s Office investigation found that Hernández-Davalos, a native of Sinaloa, Mexico, was purportedly moving about 30 pounds of heroin every two weeks and is believed to have been executed by a Mexican cartel for either stealing from his bosses or attempting to branch off on his own.In the last few years, Oregon has become a hotspot for drug trafficking and cartel-related violence as traffickers use the Interstate-5 corridor to run drugs from California up to Washington State and even into Vancouver. Just like on the East Coast with the Interstate-95 corrider, these drug organizations are finding it easier to operate in more rural and suburban areas as law enforcement officials in major cities crack down on organized crime groups.“The main reason for moving to these areas is that the police in cities and along the

border have become much more sophisticated in fighting the cartels,” George W. Grayson, an expert on Mexico’s drug war and a politics professor at the College of William and Mary told FNL. “When you don’t deal with that type of crime day in and day out you’re not going to have the expertise in combatting the cartels.”Officials at the Drug Enforcement Administration said that the incursion of Mexican cartels and their proxy groups in the U.S. is nothing new. A Justice Department report from 2011 found that Mexican-based cartels were operating in more than 1,000 U.S. cities between 2009 and 2010 and have expanded from marijuana and cocaine trafficking to heroin and methamphetamine as well as taking part in human smuggling operations.Mexico’s Sinaloa cartel, the country’s largest and headed by the now incarcerated Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán, operates in every region of the U.S., according to statistics compiled by the National Drug Intelligence Center.“Mexican drug trafficking organizations have been in control of every major drug market in the U.S. for a long time,” DEA spokesman Rusty Payne told FNL.Payne added that the cartels try to keep the violence in the U.S. to a minimum to detract from any unwanted attention from law enforcement authorities.“The Mexican drug war has not spilled into the U.S.,” Payne said. “They’re not here to cause havoc. They know it’s bad for business and that they have to be well-behaved.”Well-behaved for cartels and gangs, however, is a relative term and for regions of the country not used to violent crime, a brazen act of gangland violence can send shockwaves through smaller communities and regions not traditionally thought of as strongholds of cartel activity.The Sinaloa Cartel allegedly hired members of the MS-13 street gang to carry out torture operations in Minnesota and a series of murders in Virginia have been attributed to drug cartel feuds. Authorities in rural Rockingham County, North Carolina said that 15 drug cartel associates have been arrested there in the last three years, including the arrest of two alleged cartel associates whose home was filled with 1,060 pounds of marijuana, more than $600,000 in cash and an AR-15 assault rifle.“A few years ago law enforcement didn’t see this as a problem for somewhere other than the border,” Rockingham County Sheriff Sam Page told FNL. “What happens at the border doesn’t stay at the border. It makes its way to my county pretty soon.”Violent crime related to the cartels may occur in the U.S., but most law enforcement officials and experts agree that the main worry for Americans is the drugs – not the violence – that the cartels bring with them. Still, many say that is something to be concerned about.“Every American needs to be concerned about drug trafficking organizations being in the U.S.,” Payne said, “and where they are and where the money goes.”

CASE – BORDERS (MM POLICY)

Cartels

1NCAlt cause- new drug cartel is causing chaosAcosta 15Alejandro Acosta, “Violent new drug cartel alarming authorities in Mexico”, CBS NEWS, http://www.cbsnews.com/news/violent-new-drug-cartel-alarming-authorities-in-mexico/, 05/03/15//SRawalGeneration was showing off its power with a spasm of violence that killed seven people and forced down a military helicopter in western Mexico, analysts said Saturday. Jalisco state was relatively calm the day

after gunmen set fire to cars, buses, banks and gasoline stations and trade gunfire with soldiers and police. The violence erupted after security forces launched a campaign against the cartel Friday. State authorities remained on alert in and around Jalisco's capital of Guadalajara, with heavy police patrols and fewer people than usual on the streets Saturday. Mexico's government is going head-on against the cartel, whose leader, Nemesio Oseguera Cervantes, alias "El Mencho," is one of the country's richest drug lords, trafficking to Europe, Asia, Australia and South Africa, said Jose Reveles, author of several books on drug trafficking. He said the government has had to act against the cartel, with the urgency intensifying when

gunmen for the cartel ambushed a state police convoy and killed 15 officers in April. "Everything points to an increase in violence because there hasn't been a cartel this strong in the state since the 1980s," Reveles said.

The Jalisco state prosecutor issued a statement on his Twitter account confirming a minor outburst of violence Saturday in the resort city of Puerto Vallarta, where two cars and a business were burned. "If the operatives continue, the same thing could happen all over again," prosecutor Luis

Carlos Najera said. The U.S. consulate in Guadalajara on Friday urged American citizens in the area to remain indoors. It said on its website Saturday

that the situation in the region was now "under control," but warned that clashes could flare up again. The federal Attorney General's Office also announced Saturday that it was turning over 10 people for prosecution in another cartel attack on police - the March 30 assassination attempt on an Jalisco state security official and his bodyguards.

The aff doesn’t stop the cartels – they have diverse sources of revenueVillagran 11 (Lauren, “Mexico’s crime groups grabbing lucrative market for pirated goods “, http://www.dallasnews.com/news/20110516-mexicos-crime-groups-grabbing-lucrative-market-for-pirated-goods.ece)Experts say criminal organizations have increasingly taken control of Mexico’s informal economy and, with it, its multibillion-dollar market for pirated movies, music, software and other goods — illegally producing, distributing and even exporting the latest Hollywood hits, music by popular Mexican artists, and computer programs. Criminal organizations now make only about half their money trafficking illegal drugs, said Edgardo Buscaglia, an expert on organized crime with Mexico’s

Autonomous Technological Institute, a leading university. The other half of their revenue, in the billions, comes from smuggling migrants, extortion, kidnappings and Mexico’s vast black market for pirated goods. The consequences are enormous, said Jorge Amigo Castañeda, director of the Mexican Institute of Industrial Property. The institute estimates that Mexico lost 480,000 jobs because of piracy and falsification in 2009, the latest year for which statistics are available. For example, the faking of brand-name apparel cost the clothing industry $9.5 billion. The footwear industry, which has seen 70 percent of businesses close in recent years, must compete with the 200 million pairs of counterfeited brand-name shoes that enter the country illegally each year. With intellectual property of all kinds at serious risk of piracy or falsification in Mexico, the country loses its competitive edge in attracting national and foreign investment, Amigo said. Mexico dropped six places to No. 66 in the World Economic Forum’s 2010-11 report on global competitiveness, falling behind Panama, Costa Rica and Uruguay. The hand of organized crime in piracy is evident, experts say. The cartel logos popping up on movies, music and software discs are “obviously not registered trademarks, but it’s their own brand,” according to a government official who asked not to be named for security reasons. “If someone from La Familia shows up, enters [a store] and sees that the discs don’t carry the butterfly, things are going to get ugly for the owners,” the official said.

“They are forcing stores to buy their discs.” Drug traffickers “get involved in piracy in the same way they get involved in the kidnapping of migrants,” said Gustavo Fondevila, an expert on piracy and criminal organizations with Mexico’s

CIDE think tank. “They’re looking for ways to diversify their criminal business.”

No impact to cartels

Fournier, 12 (Pierre, geopolitical analyst, National Bank Financial (a subsidiary of National Bank of Canada), 7/30/12, “POST-ELECTION MEXICO REMAINS A BUY,” http://c3352932.r32.cf0.rackcdn.com/pdf4100207b74a22c3c754fffc3d98edf42.pdf)Bottom line: Despite concerns about the newly elected government, continued drug cartel violence, and the wave of resource

nationalism sweeping much of Latin America, we reiterate our view that investors in Mexico and the Mexican markets will outperform. What “failed state”? In 2009-10, negative perceptions about Mexico hit an all-time high. A number of forecasters and think-tanks, including the U.S. Army’s Southern Command, predicted that Mexico was on the verge of becoming a “failed state”. In our initial country report on Mexico in March 2010 (Mexico: Too Strategic to Fail with Strong Long-Term Fundamentals”, NBF Geopolitical Research), we argued that “Mexico’s social, political and economic fundamentals are far stronger than what proponents of the ‘failed state’ thesis pretend ”. Since then, the Mexican economy has outperformed most Latin American economies, and the Mexican Bolsa (up 30.5%) has outperformed most other global stock markets. In this update, we reiterate our bullish view on Mexico. We believe that: (i) The rebound in economic growth after the 2009 recession is sustainable (ii) Drug violence does not represent an existential threat to the state and that it is likely to decrease (iii) The new government will follow through on its promises to reduce PEMEX’s stronghold on the oil sector (iv) Mining companies will continue to benefit from a favourable investment climate (v) The political system will become gradually more democratic and transparent going forward. The politics of Mexico: Endemic corruption or the consolidation of democracy? The election on July 1st of Enrique Pena Nieto of the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) – along with the strong showing of the PRI in congress (240 of 500 seats) – has been viewed with much scepticism. The PRI had ruled Mexico for 71 consecutive years, a period widely associated with corruption, cronyism and autocratic rule. In the short term, media headlines have been focused on the legal challenge which defeated Presidential candidate Manuel Lopez Obrador has filed with the Federal Electoral Institute (IFE). While Lopez Obrador – from the left-wing Democratic Revolution Party (PRD) – lost by more than three million votes (38.21% to 31.59%), he has formally accused the PRI of purchasing and manipulating millions of votes, and of overspending. Tens of thousands of Mexican youth have been demonstrating regularly in Mexico City to denounce the election and what they view as media bias in favour of the PRI candidate. In 2006, Lopez Obrador lost the Presidential election by 0.5%, and accusations of fraud and irregularities caused significant havoc in central Mexico. This time, however, the Federal Electoral Court’s impending ruling in September, which will likely validate Pena Nieto’s victory, is unlikely to create much disruption. The President-elect will be officially sworn in on Dec. 1st. More importantly, while a number of PRI officials will inevitably yearn for “the good old days”, Mexico’s democratic progression is unlikely to lose steam. The combined opposition – the PRD and the centre-right National Action Party (PAN), which took third place with 25.4% of the vote – holds a majority in congress. The PRI itself, which campaigned on a reformist platform, is also far less monolithic than in the past. Arguably, the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) is far more institutional than revolutionary, and the expectations should be for continuity and stability . Beyond the controversy surrounding the last two Presidential elections,

Mexico has achieved a successful transition from one-party rule to a credible multi-party system. Nonetheless, the new government faces a number of significant challenges. The federal government is far too dependent on oil revenues from Petróleos Mexicanos (PEMEX), and must broaden its meagre tax base, especially as the growth of the informal economy is responsible for 75% of the jobs created in the last decade. Local and state authorities are largely unaccountable for the money they spend, and along with the police and judiciary, are the source of pervasive corruption. Drug Violence: An existential threat? No challenge is greater than the violence and uncertainty resulting from the drug wars. With 55,000 dead since President Felipe Calderon (PAN) decided to declare war on the cartels in 2006 with the active support of the army, drug violence has monopolized global media coverage on Mexico. It has also cost the Mexican economy an estimated 1% of its GDP annually. While the cartels will remain a serious issue for the foreseeable future, they are unlikely to become an existential threat to the Mexican state and economy. The violence remains focused on northern border towns, and Michoacán and Guerrero states. The Central American nations of Belize, Guatemala and Honduras have double the murder rates of Mexico, and those of Brazil and Colombia are also higher. Drug-related homicides have dropped 19% in the 12 months ending June 2012. The President-elect has pledged to continue the war on the cartels, but has given no clear indications on his strategy. While negotiating an official truce is out of the question, it appears that a modus vivendi (an understanding) involving a less aggressive military posture in exchange for less cartel violence involving civilians could be sought and achieved. With the Sinaloa and Los Zetas cartels gradually eliminating their rivals, a reduction in violence between cartels and perhaps even a truce between the two top criminal gangs is also possible. Overall, the balance of risks favours a reduction of cartel violence rather than an increase .

2NC Alt Cause

Violence is increasing now and will continue for the forseeable future – the aff can’t resolve it – a new drug cartel called Generation is wreaking havoc in a display of power – means it’s not deterred by government action – that’s Acosta

The Mexican government can’t control themLeveille 15David Leveille, “A heavily armed 'paramilitary' cartel unleashes violence in Mexico's second-biggest city”, PRI WORLD, http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-05-08/heavily-armed-paramilitary-cartel-unleashes-violence-mexicos-second-biggest-city, 05/08/15He calls Jalisco New Generation a paramilitary organization that "has rocket launchers, grenade launchers and was even caught manufacturing its own assault rifles at a clandestine factory in Guadalajara last year." The group is also willing to challenge authorities "in almost warlike situations." Violence in Jalisco, one of Mexico's most economically important states, has become a huge challenge for Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto, who has pledged to bring peace to the country following

years of brutal drug gang violence. But Tucker says "there is very little confidence in the government's ability to ensure peace in the region," even with federal forces deployed in the state. A civic group called Paz GDL, or Peace Guadalajara, plans #CaminataPorLaPaz, a walk for peace to draw attention to the general breakdown of security in the city. A number of celebrities and athletes have expressed their support, including Real Madrid star Javier Hernandez, who was born and raised in Guadalajara.

2NC No Solvency

Drug cartels will remain powerful – they have lots of sources of income – that’s Villagran

Specifically, the drug trade brings in billions each yearHerald Tribune 15 (“Drug Cartels Make $64 Billion a Year from U.S., Mexican Says”, http://www.laht.com/article.asp?ArticleId=342471&CategoryId=14091)MEXICO CITY – Drug cartels currently take in $64.34 billion from their sales to users in the United States, Mexico’s public safety secretary said. Genaro Garcia Luna cited the figure during a speech Wednesday at the international forum organized

in the northern border metropolis of Ciudad Juarez by the OCDA, a federation of center-right parties in the Americas. The drugs that the –

mainly Mexican – cartels smuggle into the United States include marijuana, cocaine, heroin, methamphetamines and Ecstasy. Mexico produces substantial amounts of marijuana and crystal meth and smaller quantities of heroin. South America is the source of the cocaine that Mexican gangs smuggle into the United States. Garcia Luna said that organized criminal groups – in particular, the cartels – are a risk for public and national security in the hemisphere. He said that according to figures compiled by international entities, the production of

cocaine in Colombia, Peru and Bolivia has remained stable over the past nine years at an average of about 900 tons annually. He said that in 2007 the wholesale price of cocaine went from $2,198 per kilogram in Colombia to $12,500 when it arrived in Mexico, and from there rose to $97,400 per kilo in the United States and $101,490 in Europe. Garcia Luna acknowledged that Mexico now has a domestic drug problem and that Mexicans spend an average of $431 million per year on illegal drugs. The secretary said that the criminal organizations are taking advantage of the phenomenon of globalization to expand their activities through the opening up of the financial markets and

technological development. He also emphasized that organized crime is participating not only in the shipment of drugs but also in trafficking in weapons and migrants, smuggling other items, money laundering, vehicle theft, kidnappings-for-ransom and extortion. EFE

Relations

1NC

Relations are resilient- multiple areas of collaborationWood 13Dunan Wood, Director, Mexico Institute, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, “SECURITY COOPERATION IN MEXICO: EXAMINING THE NEXT STEPS IN THE U.S.-MEXICO SECURITY RELATIONSHIP”, http://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Wood_Testimony.pdf, 06/18/2013//SRawalHowever, we can point to a number of areas where we can expect fruitful collaboration. First, in the area of prevention and violence reduction, there is ample room for continued cooperation, similar to that which took place under Pillar IV of the Merida Initiative. The work of rebuilding communities, of investing in social programs, of engaging with civil society in crime prevention and in the justice system has attained significant success in places such as Baja California and the experience of

working with US agencies there provides a model for future efforts. Second, there is likely to be a receptive attitude from the Mexican authorities with regards to the issue of policing standards. As the process of unifying police commands across communities in the states of Mexico continues, and as police professionalization remains as key topic, there is much that the US has to offer. Third, the creation of the gendarmerie will likely involve the secondment or permanent transfer of military personnel into the new force. In order to avoid the pitfalls of having troops adopt a policing function, there will be a

need to train these individuals in policing, criminal justice and investigation techniques. Again, the US has significant and important experience in this area. Beyond these areas, counter- money laundering actions and intelligence gathering and sharing continue to provide potential areas for collaboration. Mexico’s new anti-money-laundering laws require immediate implementation – over the past 5 years, a mere 83 individuals were convicted of money laundering in Mexico, while we know that more than $10 billion is laundered a year within the country. The movement of money back from the United States is an issue that needs to be addressed and high level talks are needed on that issue. On intelligence sharing I perceive a more difficult road ahead. Trust issues and the absence of mutual understanding, combined with the centralization of power over security policy in the Interior Ministry, mean that the progress of the past 5 years is by no means guaranteed. At this point in time it is vital that we adopt a long-term perspective, that patience and good

judgment prevails, and that we do not burden the new relationship with the expectations of the old. Lastly, I have been asked to comment on the recent visit by President Obama to Mexico, to meet with President Peña Nieto. There can be little doubt that the visit was a huge success, both in terms of building a relationship with the Mexican president on a personal level, and in convincing the Mexican public that the relationship with the United States is a positive one. In particular, the speech given by the President at the National

Anthropological Museum received very favorable press and attention. On a more substantive level, the agreements between the two presidents on education and the economy have injected new vigor into bilateral affairs, helped greatly by the optimism over the prospects for immigration reform here in Washington. Already we are seeing benefits in terms of spill over into other areas – the upcoming Inter-Parliamentary Group meetings in Washington in the Fall, as well as the bilateral talks on energy scheduled for October, promise to further revitalize the relationship.

Economics, regional institutions, and democracy check Latin instabilityColl 12 (Alberto R., Professor of International Law – DePaul College of Law, Former Chairman of the Strategic Research Department – U.S. Naval War College, Former Dean – Center for Naval Warfare Studies, Former Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, “The Real Latin American Revolution”, Chicago Council on Global Affairs, 5-17, http://2012summits.org/commentaries/detail/coll_2) //RL

With the G8 gathering in Camp David and the NATO summit in Chicago, it is easy to lose sight of one of the key revolutions in global affairs over the past fifteen years: the rise of Latin America. Until not long ago,

Latin America was synonymous with instability , revolution, and economic stagnation. For much of the Cold War, two highly destructive forces dominated Latin American politics. One was the tendency of its powerful militaries to block any progressive reform by installing repressive regimes, many of which went on to commit appalling human rights atrocities in the name of fighting communism. The other was the penchant of Latin America’s elites for protectionism, populism, and revolution as panaceas for the region’s ills. The results were political conflict, massive poverty, and limited clout in global affairs. In the 1970s and 1980s, countries such as Mexico, Brazil, and Argentina were left behind by the likes of China, India, Taiwan, South Korea, and

Singapore, which had been backwaters only a few decades earlier. Today , Latin America is an economically dynamic region with a growing voice in international affairs. Symbolically enough, the June meeting of the G20 group of world economic powers will take place in Mexico, and three Latin American countries—Brazil, Mexico and Argentina—now count among its highly sought-after ranks. Elsewhere, the latest new member of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)—the mostly European and North American group of democracies committed to a free market economy—is Chile, invited to join in 2010 on the basis of its impressive economic performance and political stability. Several developments

help to explain Latin America’s resurgence . The first is political . With notable exceptions such as Venezuela and

parts of Central America, political institutions have matured and democratic practices have

strengthened. In most countries, the military has retreated from politics, ceding space to a vigorous

civil society . There were over thirty military coups in the region between 1975 and 1985. In the past decade there was only one (in Honduras).

Relations high now- increased trade and TPP negotiationsMcKeague 15Kezia Mckeague, 1-5-2015, "The Business That Builds North American Prosperity," US News & World Report, http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/2015/01/05/pena-nieto-obama-meeting-key-for-us-mexico-relations//SRawalAt a minimum, rebalancing in favor of economic opportunities has succeeded in positively changing the tone of the bilateral relationship in ways that tough security and migration challenges could not. As Obama acknowledged during a press conference prior to visiting Mexico in May 2013, “We’ve spent so much time on security issues between the United States and Mexico

that sometimes I think we forget this is a massive trading partner responsible for huge amounts of commerce and huge numbers of jobs on both sides of the border.” Both the U.S. and Mexican private sectors know the value of this relationship — not only trading products, but also designing and producing them together. More than $1 billion dollars’ worth of goods crosses the border every single day. The United States sells more to Mexico than it does to Brazil, Russia, India, and China combined. Moreover, it is estimated that 40 percent of the value of

final goods imported from Mexico consists of U.S. content, a much higher proportion than any other trading partner. Over the last two years, a veritable conveyor belt of cabinet secretaries between the two capitals has demonstrated the degree of interest in the trade and investment agenda. As the Peña Nieto administration pushed through landmark domestic reforms, from energy to telecommunications, the two governments established or reinforced existing bilateral mechanisms to provide strategic direction to joint economic-competitiveness initiatives. U.S. Vice President Biden launched the U.S.-Mexico High Level Economic Dialogue in September 2013 and will host the second iteration of the annual meeting tomorrow. Attended by several cabinet secretaries from both countries, the dialogue created a space for an ongoing conversation around three pillars: promoting competitiveness, boosting economic growth and innovation, and fostering cooperation at the regional and global levels. Other new bilateral dialogues focus on educational exchange and

entrepreneurship promotion. Mexico has also elevated economics on the trilateral agenda with Canada. At the most recent North American Leaders Summit hosted by Mexico one year ago and at subsequent ministerial gatherings, the three governments

have made substantial progress in areas such as commerce and energy. Most importantly, Mexico and Canada have been party to the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations since 2012, following intense lobbying by the pro-trade Mexican government. Once concluded, the Trans-Pacific Partnership will offer the best vehicle to upgrade the North

American Free Trade Agreement, now more than 20 years old. Such summits, meetings and negotiations amount to more than an overdose of acronyms. They are tackling nitty-gritty obstacles to the cross-border business that undergirds North American prosperity. It is this economic reality that lends importance to

Peña Nieto’s trip to Washington, the first foreign visit to the White House in the new year. As Mexico works to implement its reforms in 2015, the United States has a strategic opportunity to capitalize on the two countries’ increasingly unified and competitive economic space. Fortunately, the bilateral mechanisms created over the last two years have laid the foundation for continued

cooperation on the massive trade and investment agenda, though progress will require sustained senior-level

attention and close engagement with the private sector and civil society. Security concerns cannot be ignored and will only hurt the economic agenda if they are not addressed. Yet as security dominates the headlines following the Peña Nieto-Obama meeting, let’s not forget that the bilateral relationship is a stronger one thanks to the rebalancing that both countries have achieved.

2NC Relations Resilient

Bilateral efforts on education, the economy, and a better border relationship prove relations resilient – that’s Wood

No relations impact- this the end of their article – at most the Mexicans will get a little upset but there’s no militarization1AC Rueda 13Manuel Rueda, a foreign correspondent for five years, producing text, radio and TV reports about Latin America for North American media outlets. Currently, I am the Mexico correspondent for Fusion, a news channel for young Americans financed by Univision and ABC News. , “Mexico Slams U.S. Border Buildup Plan”, ABC News, http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/News/mexico-slams-us-immigration-reform-bills-proposed-border/story?id=19495974 , 6/23/13//SRawal "We have things we can shut down, too," said Meyer, who suggested that in retaliation, the Mexican government could make it harder for U.S companies to invest in the country, or cancel laws that enable U.S. citizens to buy property in Mexico. Meyer said that while those measures might have a small impact, they could "send a signal" to the U.S. government about Mexico's displeasure with the border fence. Sergio Aguayo, a lawyer and human rights activist, had a more moderate suggestion. He said the Mexican government should seriously lobby the U.S. congress and American society in general for policies that better suit the country's interests, just as Israel currently does through a robust lobbying presence in Washington. Aguayo said that when it comes to lobbying, Mexico has an advantage that Israel did not have: More than 30 million Mexican-Americans who already live in the U.S. and make up 10 percent of the country's population. That segment of the population, he added, tends to sympathize with Mexico's interests.

Relationship is resilient- their ev is hype over small issuesO’Neal 09Shannon K. O’Neal, senior fellow for Latin America Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, a nonpartisan foreign-policy think tank and membership organization, “US-Mexico relationship remains strong”, MARKETPLACE, http://www.marketplace.org/topics/world/us-mexico-relationship-remains-strong, 05/16/09//SRawalRyssdal: Give us a sense, would you, of the state of the economic relationship between the United States and Mexico. O'Neil: The economic relationship

with the U.S. and Mexico is really quite strong. Since NAFTA came into effect 15 years ago, trade between the two nations has tripled. And it's the most important trading relationship in many ways for both countries -- or particularly for states in the United States. So it's the third-largest trading partner for the United States and it's the second-largest destination of U.S. exports. So it's quite important. Ryssdal: And yet

all we've been hearing in the lead up to this trip by the president is: drug violence, the prospect of Mexico as a failed state, how NAFTA really hasn't worked out for Mexico. How do you explain that difference? O'Neil: You

know, U.S.-Mexico relations goes through its patterns. And as happens in many relationships, you focus on the complaints rather than the positives, at least in the discussion. So that's really what's happening here. We're focused on the violence -- which is really, and has increased in the last several months -- but in many ways, the real substance of the relationship and the positives fall by the wayside in those sound bytes.

2NC Instability !D

Strong economics and governance check the impact now – and Cold War empirics prove it’s non-unique – that’s Coll

No Latin American escalation Cárdenas 11 [Mauricio, senior fellow and director of the Latin America Initiative at the Brookings Institution, 3-17, “Think Again Latin America,” Foreign Policy, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/03/17/think_again_latin_america?page=full]

"Latin America is violent and dangerous." Yes, but not unstable . Latin American countries have among the world's highest rates of crime, murder, and kidnapping. Pockets of abnormal levels of violence have emerged in countries such as Colombia -- and more recently, in Mexico, Central America, and some large cities such as Caracas. With 140,000 homicides in 2010, it is understandable how Latin America got this reputation. Each of the countries in Central America's "Northern Triangle" (Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador) had more murders in 2010 than the entire European Union combined. Violence in Latin America is strongly related to poverty and inequality. When combined with the insatiable international appetite for the illegal drugs produced in the region, it's a noxious brew. As strongly argued by a number of prominent regional leaders -- including Brazil's former president, Fernando H. Cardoso, and Colombia's former president, Cesar Gaviria -- a strategy based on demand reduction, rather than supply, is the only way to reduce crime in Latin America. Although some fear the Mexican drug violence could spill over into the southern United States, Latin America poses little to no threat to international peace or stability . The major global security concerns today are the proliferation of nuclear weapons and terrorism. No country in the region is in possession of nuclear weapons -- nor has expressed an interest in having them. Latin American countries , on the whole,

do not have much history of engaging in cross-border wars . Despite the recent tensions on the Venezuela-Colombia border, it should be pointed out that Venezuela has never taken part in an international armed conflict. Ethnic and religious conflicts are very uncommon in Latin America. Although the region has not been immune to radical jihadist attacks -- the 1994 attack on a Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires, for instance -- they have been rare. Terrorist attacks on the civilian population have been limited to a large extent to the FARC organization in Colombia, a tactic which contributed in large part to the organization's loss of popular support.

Empirically denied – they’ve survived much worseHartzell 2k (Caroline A., 4/1/2000, Middle Atlantic Council of Latin American Studies Latin American Essays, “Latin America's civil wars: conflict resolution and institutional change.” http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-28765765_ITM) //RL

Latin America has been the site of fourteen civil wars during the post-World War II era, thirteen of which

now have ended. Although not as civil war-prone as some other areas of the world, Latin America has endured some extremely violent and destabilizing intrastate conflicts. (2) The region's experiences with civil wars and their

resolution thus may prove instructive for other parts of the world in which such conflicts continue to rage. By examining Latin America's civil wars in some depth not only might we better understand the circumstances under which such conflicts are ended but also the institutional outcomes to which they give rise. More specifically, this paper focuses on the following central questions regarding Latin America's civil wars: Has the resolution of these conflicts produced significant institutional change in the countries in which they were fought? What is the nature of the institutional change that has taken place in the wake of these civil wars? What are the factors that are responsible for shaping post-war institutional change?

2NC Relations High Now

Diplomatic agreements like TPP cement strong US-Mexico relations for the foreseeable future – that’s McKeague from January

Relations high now- leaders cooperating on trade, education, and innovation – prefer the president of MexicoPEÑA NIETO 2015 Enrique PeñA Nieto, President of Mexico, 1-6-2015, "Why the U.S.-Mexico Relationship Matters," POLITICO Magazine, http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/us-mexico-relationship-enrique-pea-nieto-113980.html#.VbGW-bNViko//SRawalOur countries have an intense economic relationship that is spread over a myriad of areas. Since the beginning of my

administration, I have worked with President Barack Obama to create bilateral mechanisms that harness the full potential of our relationship. We are already seeing concrete results from the High Level Economic Dialogue (HLED), the Mexico-U.S. Bilateral Forum on Higher Education, Innovation and Research (FOBESII), the Mexico-U.S. Entrepreneurship and Innovation Council (MUSEIC) and the 21st Century Border Action Plan of 2014. We are steadfast in our belief that the continuous promotion of bilateral trade is a win-win situation for both our countries. Mexico is the third largest

trading partner of the U.S., just behind China and Canada. Total bilateral trade between us amounted to more than $500 billion during 2013. Our exports to the U.S. have increased significantly since NAFTA entered into force, with roughly 80 percent of

them coming to this country. Meanwhile, U.S. exports to Mexico in 2013 were $226 billion, up 443 percent since 1993. In fact, Mexico buys more U.S. goods than all of the BRICS combined—and nearly as much as the entire European Union. Moreover, 5.9 million U.S. jobs depend on trade with Mexico. Even Mexican exports benefit the American economy: 40 percent of the value of Mexican exports to the U.S. contains American inputs. By 2020, Mexico will have the capacity to build one in every four vehicles in North

America, up from one in six in 2012. Additionally, Mexico has begun to invest in high technology exports; we have become the leading exporter of flat screen televisions in the world, the fourth largest computer exporter and a growing pioneer in the aerospace industry. We are interlinked.

CASE – BORDERS (MM CRITICAL)

Racialized Violence

1NCTHEY CAN’T SOLVE THE VIOLENCE PEOPLE FACE ONCE THEY’RE IN THE COUNTRY- DON’T SAY “ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS”Jimenez 08Cristina Jimenez, co-founder and Managing Director of the United We Dream Network, “Exploited: The Plot of the Undocumented Worker”, ALTERNET, http://www.alternet.org/story/94703/exploited%3A_the_plight_of_the_undocumented_worker, 08/11/08//SRawalWe all know that undocumented workers are vulnerable to abuse and exploitation, but under this

administration, the abuses and violations of human, labor and civil rights have become obscenely worse. A recent clear example: Iowa's meatpacking plant raid. Much has been written about the unjust and abusive meansused by the Justice Department and Homeland Security to deport these workers and their families. But a recent finding reported by the New York Times is even more

upsetting- Agriprocessors, the raided meatpacking plant, hired undocumented immigrants as young as 13. Among the 389 detained, more than 20 workers were found to be under-age. But

this is not all. The young immigrants declared that they were exploited, mistreated, beaten, and abused. Some of them worked 17 hours a day, six days a week. And if you think they were making some money

by getting paid overtime, you are wrong. Overtime was rarely paid. As soon as they come to the United States, undocumented workers start desperately seeking for job opportunities to sustain and provide a better life for their families-the very reason for migrating. And of course,

employers are more than happy to take advantage of the availability of this vulnerable and desperate pool of workers. Conveniently, employers create low-quality jobs that immigrants are forced to take because their immigration status prevents them from getting or demanding good jobs. While working, undocumented workers endure unfair treatment and wages because they fear being fired or reported to immigration. The existence of this under class of workers affects working class Americans

more than we think. Undocumented workers' lack of rights and vulnerable situation in the workplace enables employers to drag down labor standards, leaving fewer decent jobs available and forcing all workers regardless of citizenship or immigration status to either accept the same low quality conditions and wages or be excluded from labor sectors that mainly hire undocumented workers. This labor dynamic is evident at Agriprocessors, the nation's largest kosher plant.

Lack of accountability and judicial lenience mean there’s no enforcement mechanism for Border Patrol restrictions – abuses will continueOrtega and O’Dell 13 (Bob Ortega is a senior reporter for the Arizona Republic covering the border, Homeland Security and other matters, Rob O’Dell is a senior investigative reporter and computer-assisted reporter at The Arizona Republic specializing in using data to drive investigative reporting, “Deadly border agent incidents cloaked in silence”, The Arizona Republic, December 16th, 2013, http://www.azcentral.com/news/politics/articles/20131212arizona-border-patrol-deadly-force-investigation.html?nclick_check=1) //RLA ghost is haunting Nogales.¶ His face stares out from shop windows. It is plastered on handbills and painted on walls under the shadow of the U.S.-Mexican border fence here. Candles and doves are stenciled onto steel posts of the fence itself in his memory, each a promise not to forget the night, 14 months ago, when teenager Jose Antonio Elena Rodriguez was shot 10 times in the back and head by one or more Border Patrol agents firing through the fence into Mexico. ¶ Similar specters haunt other border towns in Arizona, Texas and California, with the families of the dead charging that Border Patrol agents time and again have killed Mexicans and U.S. citizens with impunity. ¶ An Arizona Republic investigation has found Border Patrol

agents who use deadly force face few, if any, public repercussions, even in cases in which

the justification for the shooting seems dubious. ¶ Since 2005, on-duty Border Patrol agents and Customs and Border Protection officers have killed at least 42 people, including at least 13 Americans. ¶ These deaths, all but four of which occurred along or near the southwest border, vary from strongly justifiable to highly questionable. CBP officials say agents who use excessive force are disciplined. But they won’t say who, when, or what discipline, with the exception of a short administrative leave . In none of the 42 deaths is any agent or officer

publicly known to have faced consequences — not from the Border Patrol, not from Customs

and Border Protection or Homeland Security, not from the Department of Justice, and not,

ultimately, from criminal or civil courts. ¶ Internal discipline is a black hole. There have been no publicly disclosed repercussions — even when, as has happened at least three times, agents shot unarmed teenagers in the back. ¶ That appearance of a lack of accountability has

been fed by a culture of secrecy about agents’ use of deadly force. ¶ CBP leaders refuse to release their policies, calling them law-enforcement sensitive. They won’t disclose the names of agents who use deadly force. They won’t say, in any instance, whether deadly force was justified. The lack of transparency goes against the “best practices” that national police organizations recommend for dealing with deadly-force incidents. ¶ The Republic found the vast majority of Border Patrol agents and Customs and Border Protection officers respond to conflict with restraint. Even when facing potentially deadly force, most agents and officers don’t turn to their firearms. But agents who killed mostly did so under circumstances virtually identical to hundreds of encounters that other agents resolved without lethal force and without serious injuries to either side. ¶ In the last four years, rock-throwing incidents accounted for eight of the 24 instances in which agents killed people. The Border Patrol considers rocks deadly weapons that justify lethal force, even though it is rare for agents to be injured in “rockings,” as they call them, and even though, as agents’ reports showed, several less-lethal long-distance weapons are highly effective against rock-throwers, The Republic found. ¶ The vast majority of rockings take place in a few, well-known, mostly urban spots along the border. But the Border Patrol doesn’t require agents working in those areas to carry or use less-lethal alternatives.¶ And when agents use deadly force, investigations by CBP and the FBI can take

years to be released, yet can be perfunctory, and are typically opaque. ¶ The Republic reviewed nearly 1,600 use-of-force cases by the Border Patrol and CBP between 2010 and May 2012 — some 12,000 pages of documents that it took the agency nearly a year to release. The Republic also examined many other documents relating to use-of-force deaths and use of firearms by agents since 2005. (CBP includes both Border Patrol agents, who work between ports of entry, and Customs and Border Protection officers, who work at ports of entry.) ¶ The investigation offers the most comprehensive look to date into the use of force by CBP and the Border Patrol, which, with roughly 43,000 agents and officers, comprise the country’s largest law-enforcement body.¶ Border Patrol agents do face dangers. Of the 22 who died in the line of duty in the last nine years, most died in vehicle or training accidents. Four died in direct conflicts with aggressors – including one case in which Border Patrol agents fired on one another.¶ Of the 42 use-of-force fatalities, some — such as the five cases in which agents shot and killed people who fired at them first — provoked little dispute.¶ But in nine of the 24 use-of-force deaths since 2010, agents’ accounts were contradicted by other witnesses or by other law-enforcement officers. In three cases, widely distributed videos conflicted with agents’ reports of what

happened.¶ In reviewing these incidents, The Republic filed more than 120 Freedom of Information Act and public-records requests (and many appeals) with six federal departments or agencies and seven states.¶ Often, records were heavily redacted and incomplete. For example, The Republic documented, through other sources, four deaths at the hands of agents that were not included in CBP’s nearly 1,600 use-of-force incident reports. In many reports, the information is so incomplete that it’s impossible to determine what happened.¶ Because of that lack of transparency, it can be difficult to determine the truth when agents’ accounts differ from witnesses.¶ Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General, in a recent report requested by members of Congress, found that many agents don’t understand their use-of-force policy. Before the report was publicly released, DHS and CBP officials blacked out recommendations that agents being assaulted with rocks should respond with less-lethal alternatives.¶ Border

Patrol Chief Michael Fisher insisted agents will continue to use deadly force against rock

throwers, because rocks are potentially deadly weapons.Extremists and private citizens use deadly force against brown people anyway – the plan can’t preventJenkins 2/10 (Jack, Senior Religion Reporter for ThinkProgress, “What It’s Really Like To Cross The U.S.-Mexico Border”, ThinkProgress, February 10th, 2015, http://thinkprogress.org/immigration/2015/02/10/3617896/dehydration-scorpions-vigilantes-really-like-cross-border/) //RL

Even if a traveler is fortunate enough to beat the elements and escape nature’s wrath, there

is still another, far more dangerous threat to evade: other humans.Pausing for a moment during our walk across the Jacumba, Morones stooped to pick up an empty, broken water jug.Morones points out a gash in a water jug, possibly sliced open by anti-immigration activists.CREDIT: JACK JENKINS/THINKPROGRESSMorones points out a gash in a water jug, possibly sliced open by anti-immigration activists.“These holes are from an animal, probably a coyote,” he said, holding up the jug and pointing to various tooth-sized punctures near the lid. He then drew his finger across a long, slender gash that stretched along the middle of the jug. “But this might be from something else — a knife. We find empty water bottles out here with gashes like this … Minutemen will come and slice them open.”He added that people will sometimes write chilling messages on busted jugs, such as “kill

these people.”The so-called Minutemen, originally formed in 2005, are a loose collection of armed anti-immigration activists who see migrants as a threat to American society and regularly patrol the border looking to intercept crossers. Led by political activist James “Jim” Gilchrist and named after the Minutemen of the American Revolution, the group’s website says it is dedicated to “protecting” the border by running “volunteer scout patrols” and “offering assistance” to Border Patrol agents.Although members of Minutemen groups have not yet been found guilty of committing

violence against border crossers, their vehement anti-immigrant stance has caused clashes

with immigrants and Hispanics living in the United States . In 2011, Shawna Forde, founder of Minutemen American Defense, was found guilty of breaking into the home of 29-year-old Raul

Flores and murdering him and his 9-year-old daughter. Forde, who was given the death penalty, explained that she had planned to rob Flores to fund her militia group. She justified the act by saying that she thought Flores — who, like his daughter and wife, held American citizenship — was a drug dealer.Minutemen activities have lulled over the years, but Gilchrist recently tried to rally thousands of vigilantes to capture the droves of Latin American children who came across the border this past year — a radical move that came with the blessing of some Texas state lawmaker s. The Minutemen Project has since announced plans for its largest effort to date, a robust gathering of gun-toting anti-immigrant activists codenamed “Operation Normandy” scheduled for May 1, 2015 — the anniversary of the famous American invasion of France during World War II. Organizers plan to assemble thousands of armed individuals and “militias” along the border, where they will encourage participants to “make their stand” against any immigrants they see cross.The Jacumba desertThe Jacumba desert.But while the Minutemen are currently more of an existential threat to migrants — their alleged sabotage of water supplies, if true, constitute an indirect attack on the livelihood of migrants — people crossing the border do face real violence at the hands of those who live along the wall. Ranchers often encounter immigrants crossing their land, for example, and some have been known to respond to trespassers with deadly force. In 2009, one rancher reportedly held 11 immigrants at gunpoint and threatened to set his dog loose on them, and another shot 2 men on his property in 2011 because he thought they were border crossers. Some ranchers have even organized teams of people to hunt for immigrants, although most insist their intention is only to stop them and alert Border Patrol, not hurt people.

2NC Exploitation

Lack of rights and oversight prompt undocumented worker exploitation – lowered wages and bad working conditions turn the case because undocumented immigrants are stripped of their rights – that’s JiminezAgribusinesses get away with exploitation of undocumented immigrantsWalshe 13Sadhbh Walshe, “Field work's dirty secret: agribusiness exploitation of undocumented labor”, THE GUARDIAN,http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/31/agribusiness-exploitation-undocumented-labor, 1/31/13//SRawal While we don't yet know how this will all play out, at least there will be a path. For one group of immigrants, however – the farm workers who sustain

our food supply – there is reason to fear that what awaits them is not a path to citizenship, but their cemented status as indentured servants. Most farm work in America is performed by immigrants, most of whom are undocumented and therefore exploitable. The big agribusinesses that hire these immigrants will tell you that they need an unfettered supply of cheap foreign labor, because they cannot find Americans willing to do these jobs. When you consider what these jobs entail – hours of backbreaking work in terrible and often dangerous conditions, subsistence wages with little or no time off,

and none of the protections or perks that most of us enjoy (like paid sick days, for instance) – it's hard to see why anyone with other options would subject themselves to a life that is barely a step above slavery. In the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan signed a bill into law which introduced some protections for these imported serfs, under what has become known as the guest-worker program. These protections include a minimum wage guarantee, housing that meets an acceptable standard for the duration of the contract, and a guarantee that the worker be paid three-quarters of their full pay should should a season end early. Most employers would be delighted to get away with all this: being able to hire low-wage workers at will, without the hassle of paying disability insurance or other niceties. But agribusinesses find the guest-worker program's pitiful protections such a burden that they have mounted a relentless campaign to undermine them,

and for the most part, work around them anyway; they hire undocumented workers instead. According to a report compiled by Eric Ruark (pdf), the director of research at the Federation for American Immigration Reform (Fair), as of 2006, only 27% of workers hired by agribusinesses are American citizens, 21% are green card holders, around

1% are part of the guest worker program … and a whopping 51% are unauthorized immigrants. It's agriculture's worst kept

secret that farm owners routinely break the law by hiring undocumented workers, but the crime receives tacit approval from lawmakers sympathetic to the plight of major agribusinesses, which seem to consider cheap labor their right. In South Carolina, for instance, lawmakers passed their version of Arizona's draconian bill, and have mandated that employers use an e-verify system to check the immigration status of employees. Farm workers, however, were exempted from verification. The agribusiness sector has gotten away with exploitative and illegal practices because of ridiculous threats, like the suggestion that should the supply of cheap labor dry up in the US, they will outsource our food production to China. This idle threat is based on the absurd notion that if they have to pay workers higher wages, somehow there will be fewer people willing to do the jobs. The other scare tactic is spreading talk that if they have to increase their expenditure on labor, those costs will have to be passed on to the American consumer.

2NC Border Patrol Circumvention

Lack of accountability and prosecution allow the Border Patrol to continue abuses – empirically proven – that’s Ortega and O’Dell

Abuses continue – prefer recent evRestrepo 3/12 (Catalina Restrepo is the Legal Assistant at the Legal Action Center for Immigration Impact, “Documenting Ongoing Border Patrol Abuses”, Immigration Impact, March 12th, 2015, http://immigrationimpact.com/2015/03/12/documenting-ongoing-border-patrol-abuses/) //RLSadly, this case is not unique, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) – of which the Border Patrol is a part – is no stranger to controversy. There have been several reports and

articles detailing the abuse of authority by agents, their disregard for the rights of immigrants

and U.S. citizens, and the lack of accountability. The website Hold CBP Accountable catalogs many complaints and lawsuits against CBP from across the country, in an effort to demand accountability and transparency from one of the fastest growing agencies in the United States.¶

The website includes cases detailing a range of abuses – from confiscation of property to use of excessive force – all of which have had and continue to have very real and life-altering consequences for the victims. Here are a few of the accounts of abuse: ¶ A woman in CBP custody tripped and injured her arm. CBP brought her to the hospital, where she underwent two surgeries and was given pain medication that made her extremely sleepy. While recovering, a CBP agent guarded her hospital room, and her legs were restrained in the bed. She woke to find the CBP agent sexually abusing her, and she was not able to push him away with only one free hand. ¶ Border Patrol agents ignored the cries for help of a detained pregnant minor who began to have abdominal pain while in CBP custody. Agents refused to take her to the hospital and insisted that she remain seated even though she was in so much pain that she needed to lie down. Agents continued to ignore her even after her water broke and she began to bleed. She was eventually taken to the hospital by another agent, but she lost her baby.¶

Anastacio Hernandez-Rojas suffered a heart attack and died after CBP agents beat him and shot him repeatedly with a Taser. Cell phone videos taken by witnesses show Hernandez-Rojas on the ground surrounded by agents and calling for help. Eight agents and four supervisors are named as defendants in the lawsuit.

2NC Civilian Circumvention

Much of the violence against people crossing the US-Mexico border comes from racist vigilantes – they will continue post-aff because they hate brown people – that’s Jenkins – prefer recency – it’s from February

Fears of property damage and crime prompt racialized hunts for brown people by white people at the border – the aff can’t resolve their motivationsZabludovsky 14 (Karla, Latin America correspondent for Newsweek, “Hunting Humans: The Americans Taking Immigration Into Their Own Hands”, Newsweek, July 23rd, 2014, http://www.newsweek.com/2014/08/01/texan-ranchers-hunt-daily-illegal-immigrants-260489.html) //RLThe migrants who make it as far as Brooks County tend to be adults, since minors who cross

the border will often give themselves up to U.S. authorities, trusting that they will not be

immediately deported. Ranchers in Brooks County complain of property damage and trash

left behind by the migrants, referred to more often than not around here as “illegals” or

“wetbacks.” ¶ One day in early July, two men and two women from Guatemala who looked to be in their late teens were spotted and reported to the Border Patrol. Their eyes were sunken, their skin scorched by the relentless sun that had worn them down as they walked for three days in 100-degree heat. When the agents arrived, the four looked resigned, walking over and sitting down in the small triangle of shade offered by the Border Patrol SUV. Three more migrants emerged from the brush and joined the group.¶ Down the road, a woman sauntered near the entrance of a ranch, her military green T-shirt hugging her plump curves and blending into the background. B.J., as the 53-year-old requested to be called, manages several large ranches in Brooks County, population 7,237. She said she had seen the migrants walking by on the highway and notified the Border Patrol.¶ “I will do everything in my power to send them back,” she said, sitting down at a wooden picnic table next to the main house. A pair of handcuffs hung next to a fireplace nearby. Behind B.J. were two dozen half-empty bottles of alcohol and a sign that read, “When life gives you lemons…break out the Tequila and salt.”¶

Ranchers like B.J. see themselves as the first line of defense against migrants. Before calling “the boys,” as she refers to the Border Patrol agents who make up the vast majority of her social circle, B.J. goes on a “manhunt.” ¶ “It’s a cat-and-mouse game,” says B.J. with a grin, driving through ranch trails. Her Heckler & Koch P2000 pistol rests in the cup holder next to her right knee. She starts by looking for footprints—they are most noticeable on the sand tracks she has set up next to the trails that she smooths by dragging tires. When she sees a fresh set, she speeds through the trails, finds the migrants, chases after them until they tire out, corners them and then yells, “Pa’bajo!”—Spanish for down. ¶ “You can’t tell me this isn’t fun,” she said, chewing dipping tobacco and spitting its juice out into an empty plastic water bottle. “More fun than shopping and looking at sights.” As she came up to a yellow road sign that read, “Caution,” she pointed out the figures of running people she had drawn on it to make her friends laugh.¶

What if the migrants resist when she corners them? She smiles and says that is one question

too many.

Minutemen groups are increasing patrol activities on the borderJenkins 15Jack Jenkins, 2-10-15, "What It’s Really Like To Cross The U.S.-Mexico Border," ThinkProgress, http://thinkprogress.org/immigration/2015/02/10/3617896/dehydration-scorpions-vigilantes-really-like-cross-border//SRawal“These holes are from an animal, probably a coyote,” he said, holding up the jug and pointing to various tooth-sized punctures near the lid. He then

drew his finger across a long, slender gash that stretched along the middle of the jug. “But this might be from something else — a knife. We find empty water bottles out here with gashes like this … Minutemen will come and slice them open.” He added that people will sometimes write chilling messages on busted jugs, such as “kill these people.” The so-called Minutemen, originally formed in 2005, are a loose collection of armed anti-immigration activists who see migrants as a threat to American society and regularly patrol the border looking to intercept crossers. Led by

political activist James “Jim” Gilchrist and named after the Minutemen of the American Revolution, the group’s website says it is dedicated to “protecting” the border by running “volunteer scout patrols” and “offering assistance” to Border Patrol agents. Although members of Minutemen groups have not yet been found guilty of committing violence against border crossers, their vehement anti-immigrant stance has caused clashes with immigrants and Hispanics living in the United States. In 2011, Shawna Forde, founder of Minutemen American Defense, was found guilty of breaking into the home of 29-year-old Raul Flores and murdering him and his 9-year-old daughter. Forde, who was given the death penalty, explained that she had planned to rob Flores to fund her militia group. She justified the act by saying that she thought Flores — who, like his daughter and wife, held American citizenship —

was a drug dealer. Minutemen activities have lulled over the years, but Gilchrist recently tried to rally thousands of vigilantes to capture the droves of Latin American children who came across the border this past year — a radical move that came with the blessing of some Texas state lawmakers. The Minutemen Project has since announced plans for its largest effort to date, a robust gathering of gun-toting anti-immigrant activists codenamed “Operation Normandy” scheduled for May 1, 2015 — the anniversary of the famous American invasion of France during World War II. Organizers plan to assemble thousands of armed individuals and “militias” along the border, where they will encourage participants to “make their stand” against any immigrants they see cross.

Plan will be circumvented- vigilante groups and Obama’s executive resourcesDean 14Jake Dean, 8-2-2014, "Vigilante groups patrol the US-Mexico border," World Socialist Web Site, https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/08/02/vigi-a02.html//SRawalRight-wing groups such as Oathkeepers, Three Percenters and Patriots are reported to have set up camps in the Texas desert in reaction to a wave of child immigrants from Central America. The groups are reportedly conducting military operations and going on daily hunts for “illegals.” It is also reported that the Minutemen Project has begun recruiting volunteers to “guard” the US southern border. While these groups are small in number, they are capable of causing great harm and danger to those who are taking the perilous journey to cross the US-Mexico border in the hopes of seeking a better life in the US. They are equipped with semi-automatic weapons, camouflage and advanced tactical gear, and have a history of violence. The appearance of these groups is part of a campaign by both Democrats and Republicans aimed at victimizing immigrants and promoting chauvinism, while militarizing the border. Just last week, Texas Governor Rick Perry ordered the deployment of 1,000 National Guard troops along the border until an additional 3,000 border patrol agents can be permanently hired and deployed. Deployment of drones and National Guard troops has been welcomed from the Democratic Party. Obama has said that he has no “philosophical objections” to the deployment of the National Guard and has supported the expanded use of drones. In a press conference yesterday, Obama attacked the Republicans for failing to pass an immigration reform bill that was passed in the Senate, a bill that will effectively militarize the border and make it easier to deport children. During the speech, Obama implied that he may be forced to use his executive authority. “I’m going to have to act alone, because we don’t have enough resources.” The only

difference between the Democrats and Republicans is that of a tactical nature; they both agree that the only solution is a military one. Texas Democrat State Senator Leticia Van de Putte criticized the vigilante groups, stating that “pointing guns at children solves nothing.” Yet, that is exactly what the Democrats hope to achieve, a surge of militarization along the southern border. She further added, “The presence of these outside independent militia groups does nothing to secure the border; it only creates an unsafe situation for law enforcement officials that are protecting.” Although the right-wing vigilante groups officially claim that their only role is to give additional support to Border Patrol agents about possible drug cartels that are smuggling illegal drugs, they are in fact serving as an auxiliary force of the US state—that is, seeking to take “law and order” into their own hand

War on Terror

1NC

The Islamophobic War on Terror is deeply ingrained in American society – it affects every level of the brown and Muslim experience in America, not just surveillance policy – the aff cannot resolve itAli 12 (Yaser, J.D., University of California, Berkeley, 2012, “Shariah and Citizenship—How Islamophobia Is Creating a Second-Class Citizenry in America” California Law Review, August 1st, 2012, http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4176&context=californialawreview) //RL1. A Discursive Shift in Islamophobic Rhetoric¶ There was a clear discursive shift in Islamophobic discourse after 9/11. ¶ What was previously considered unacceptable speech now permeated the ¶ discourse. During this time, pundits and public officials construed the ¶ stereotypical Muslim male—personifying all the Orientalist tropes and ¶ characteristics Lewis and Huntington described in the 1990s—as the primary ¶ threat to American security .97¶ The

discursive shift transcended political affiliation. One prominent¶ conservative columnist, Ann Coulter, wrote on September 12, 2001, “We ¶ should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to ¶ Christianity. We weren’t punctilious about locating and punishing only ¶ Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed ¶ civilians. That’s war. And this is war.”98 Richard Cohen, writing in the¶ Washington Post one month after 9/11, added:¶ One hundred percent of the terrorists involved in the Sept. 11 mass¶ murder were Arabs. Their accomplices, if any, were probably Arabs¶ too, or at least Muslims. Ethnicity and religion are the very basis of¶ their movement. It hardly makes sense, therefore, to ignore that fact¶ and, say, give Swedish au pair girls heading to the United States the¶ same scrutiny as Arab men coming from the Middle East.99¶ Politicians, too, appeared to be competing as to who could look strongest ¶ on national defense. Attorney General John Ashcroft, one of the most ¶ vociferous critics of Islam in public office at the time, stated, “Islam is a ¶ religion in which God requires you to send your son to die for him. Christianity ¶ is a faith in which God sends his son to die for you.”100 In a speech to the U.S.¶ Conference of Mayors, he stated: “Let the terrorists among us be warned: if you¶ overstay your visa—even by one day—we will arrest you. If you violate a local¶ law, you will be put in jail and kept in custody as long as possible. We will use¶ 96. In one particularly troubling Gallup Poll shortly after 9/11, one-third of respondents¶ supported such drastic measures as the internment of Arab Americans or the special surveillance of¶ Arabs living in the United States. See Jeffrey M. Jones, The Impact of the Attacks on America:¶

Americans Believe Country Already at War, Accept Increased Security Measures, GALLUP (Sept. 25,¶ 2001), http://www.gallup.com/poll/4894/impact-attacks-america.aspx.¶ 97. See, e.g., Sahar F. Aziz, Sticks and Stones, the Words That Hurt: Entrenched Stereotypes¶ Eight Years After 9/11, 13 N.Y.CITY L. REV. 33, 37–39, 42–43 (2009).¶ 98. AM.-ARAB ANTI-DISCRIMINATION COMM., supra note 38, at 124.¶ 99. Id. Such perverse statements were not limited to the far right wing, but were increasing in ¶ frequency throughout mainstream media. See id. (“Those who take the Koran seriously are taught to ¶ hate the Christian and the Jew; lands taken from Islam must be recaptured. And to the Islamist, dying ¶ in a jihad is the only way one can be assured of Allah’s forgiveness and eternal salvation.” (quoting¶ Chuck Coleson, Evangelizing for Evil in Our Prisons, WALL ST.J., June 24, 2002, at A16)).¶ 100. Id. at 128. ¶ 05-Ali (Do Not Delete) 7/29/2012 12:19:06 AM¶ 1044 CALIFORNIA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 100:1027¶ every available statute. We will seek every prosecutorial advantage.”101 Senator ¶ Saxby Chambliss, a Republican Senator from Georgia,

went even further, ¶ stating that homeland security would be improved by turning the sheriff loose ¶ to “arrest every Muslim that comes across the state line.”102 ¶ Perhaps the most notorious and destructive comment was President ¶ Bush’s description of the War on Terror as a “crusade,”103 a statement that ¶ outraged Muslims around the world and led to intense damage control efforts ¶ on the part of the White House.1 04 Although it was conceivably just

an illadvised ¶ and unintentional statement by the President, the comment nonetheless ¶

suggested that the collective enemy was Islam ; and further, to some Muslims, it¶ engendered strong notions of the Middle Ages, when Christian armies¶ embarked on numerous battles with an expressed goal of conquering Muslim¶ lands.105¶ Professor Victor Romero describes how the underlying rhetoric after 9/11 ¶ was reminiscent of that used toward the Japanese Americans after the attack on ¶ Pearl Harbor. 106 He cites a quote from General DeWitt, the chief enforcer of the¶ internment camps:¶ Further evidence of the Commanding General’s attitude toward¶

individuals of Japanese ancestry is revealed in his voluntary testimony¶ on April 13, 1943, in San Francisco before the House Naval Affairs¶ Subcommittee to Investigate Congested Areas: . . . “I don’t want any ¶ of them (persons of Japanese ancestry) here. They are a dangerous ¶ element. There is no way to determine their loyalty. The west coast¶ contains too many vital installations essential to the defense of the¶ 101. John Ashcroft, U.S. Att’y Gen., Prepared Remarks for the U.S. Mayors Conference,¶ September 11, 2001: Attack on America (Oct. 25, 2001), available at http://avalon.law.yale.edu/¶ sept11/doj_brief020.asp. Of course, although Ashcroft’s address was targeted towards “terrorists,” the¶ bulk of the detentions and deportations instituted after 9/11 disproportionately targeted American¶ Muslims. See infra Part I.B.2.¶ 102. AM.-ARAB ANTI-DISCRIMINATION COMM., supra note 38, at 128–29. The report also¶ includes similar statements made by several other elected members of Congress as well. “If I see ¶ someone come in that’s got a diaper on his head, and a fan belt wrapped around that diaper on his ¶ head, that guy needs to be pulled over.” Id. at 128 (quoting Representative John Cooksey of¶ Louisiana).¶ 103. Ron Suskind, Faith, Certainty and the Presidency of George W. Bush, N.Y. TIMES MAG.,¶ Oct. 17, 2004, at 44. In a press conference regarding homeland security policies, Bush responded,¶ “This is a new kind of—a new kind of evil. And we understand. And the American people are ¶ beginning to understand. This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while.” Id.¶ 104. White House Press Secretary Ari Fleisher stated two days later, “I think what the president¶ was saying was—had no intended consequences for anybody, Muslim or otherwise, other than to say¶ that this is a broad cause that he is calling on America and the nations around the world to join. . . . [As¶ to] any connotations that would upset any of our partners, or anybody else in the world, the president¶ would regret if anything like that was conveyed.” Id. (quoting Fleisher).¶

105. Peter Ford, Europe Cringes at Bush “Crusade” Against Terrorists, CHRISTIAN SCI.¶ MONITOR (Sept. 19, 2001), http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0919/p12s2-woeu.html.¶ 106. See Victor C. Romero, Proxies for Loyalty in Constitutional Immigration Law:¶ Citizenship and Race After September 11, 52 DEPAUL L. REV. 871, 877 (2003) (citing United States v.¶ Korematsu, 323 U.S. 214, 236 n.2 (1944) (Murphy, J., dissenting)). ¶ 05-Ali (Do Not Delete) 7/29/2012 12:19:06 AM¶

2012] SHARIAH AND CITIZENSHIP 1045¶ country to allow any Japanese on this coast . . . . The danger of the¶ Japanese was, and is now—if they are permitted to come back—¶ espionage and sabotage. It makes no difference whether he is an¶ American citizen, he is still a Japanese. American citizenship does not¶ necessarily determine loyalty . . . . But we must worry about the¶

Japanese all the time until he is wiped off the map. Sabotage and¶ espionage will make problems as long as he is allowed in this¶ area . . . .¶ 107¶ As described above, the language employed by General DeWitt was ¶ indeed strikingly similar to that used against American Muslims after 9/11. As¶ a result of this framing, the average “Muslim” in America was presumptively¶

considered disloyal and a threat, irrespective of his or her formal citizenship¶ status. In fact, according to one poll, less than half of the respondents during¶ the period shortly after 9/11 believed that American Muslims were loyal to the¶ United States.108 In one particularly troubling Gallup Poll shortly after 9/11,¶ one-third of respondents supported such drastic measures as the internment of¶ Arab Americans or the special surveillance of Arabs living in the United¶ States.109 This biased public perception was no doubt a necessary precursor to¶ the large-scale encroachment on civil liberties that targeted American Muslims¶ in the following months and years.¶ 2. Ramifications for the Muslim Community¶ The repercussions of such

statements were severe in both the private and ¶ public spheres. Muslims were cast as disloyal outsiders and noncitizens. Under ¶ the broad umbrella of “national security policy,” the government ¶ institutionalized numerous civil liberties violations, including intrusive airport ¶ inspections, increased FBI surveillance and warrantless wiretapping, the use of ¶ agents

provocateurs in mosques, and, in some cases, even torture and ¶ suspension of habeas

corpus right s .110 Within two months of 9/11, law¶ enforcement officials detained more than 1200 individuals in dragnet searches,¶ most of whom were from the Middle East, South Asia, and North Africa.111 In¶ 2004 alone, the FBI initiated a campaign to interview 5000 Muslim men to¶

obtain leads on terrorist attacks.112 The government detained countless others as¶ 107. Id.¶ 108. JOHN L. ESPOSITO & DALIA MOGAHED, WHO SPEAKS FOR ISLAM? WHAT A BILLION¶ MUSLIMS REALLY THINK 155 (2007).¶ 109. See Jones, supra note 96.¶ 110. COLE & DEMPSEY,supra note 27, at 107.¶ 111. Aziz, supra note 97, at 40 (citing Ahmad, supra note 24, at 1269).¶ 112. Id. at 40–41 (citing Susan M. Akram & Maritza Karmely, Immigration and Constitutional¶ Consequences of Post-9/11 Policies Involving Arabs and Muslims in the United States: Is Alienage a¶ Distinction Without a Difference?, 38 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 609, 636 (2005)). ¶ 05-Ali (Do Not Delete) 7/29/2012 12:19:06 AM¶ 1046 CALIFORNIA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 100:1027¶ “material witnesses,” but neither the exact number nor the names of such ¶ persons have been revealed—again for national security purposes.113¶ Similarly, whereas before 9/11 President Bush and Attorney General ¶ Ashcroft publicly denounced racial profiling tactics,114 their positions quickly ¶ changed after 9/11.115 Public sentiment on the issue followed suit, with over ¶ half of Americans polled approving racial profiling at airports nearly two ¶ weeks after the attacks .116¶

The government—seizing on the public endorsement of discriminatory ¶ policies toward

Muslims at the time—implemented four distinct practices of ¶ targeting people who appeared

“Muslim”: profiling airline passengers, secret ¶ arrests, the institution of new race-based immigration policies, and selective ¶ enforcement of generally applicable immigration laws.117 Airlines frequently¶ removed Muslim passengers from flights without cause—even removing one of¶ President Bush’s Secret Service agents because he looked Muslim.118 Professor¶ Muneer Ahmad cites two particularly egregious examples of profiling. The first¶ involved a United Airlines pilot refusing to fly a U.S. citizen of Egyptian origin¶ out of Tampa, Florida, because his name was “Mohammad,” and the second ¶ was a situation in Austin, Texas, where passengers applauded as two Pakistani ¶ men were removed from a flight .119¶ 113. Ahmad, supra note 24, at 1270–71 (citing David Cole, Enemy Aliens, 54 STAN. L. REV.¶ 953, 960–61 (2002)).¶ 114. George W. Bush, President of the United States, Remarks to the NAACP National¶ Convention (July 9, 2001), available at http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/¶ 2001/07/20010709-8.html (stating emphatically, “[Racial profiling is] wrong, and it must be ended in¶ America.”).¶

115. See DAVID COLE, ENEMY ALIENS: DOUBLE STANDARDS AND CONSTITUTIONAL¶ FREEDOMS IN THE WAR ON TERRORISM 47–55 (2003) (arguing that the actions taken by the former¶

President and the former Attorney General after the 9/11 attacks demonstrate their willingness to¶ engage in racial profiling); see also Sharon L. Davies, Profiling Terror, 1 OHIO ST.J. CRIM. L. 45, 46–¶ 50 (2003) (arguing that the actions taken by the Justice Department demonstrate their use of racial¶ profiling tactics post-9/11).¶ 116. See Daniel Eisenberg, Airline Security: How Safe Can We Get?, TIME, Sept. 24, 2001, at¶ 88 (citing a TIME/CNN poll in which over half of respondents felt it was acceptable to profile on the¶ basis of race, age, or gender); Nicole Davis, The Slippery Slope of Racial Profiling, COLORLINES, Dec.¶ 15, 2001, at 2 (commenting on how Arab Americans begrudgingly accepted racial profiling in the¶ immediate aftermath of 9/11). Professor Jonathon Turley of George Washington University Law¶ School summarized the predominant national opinion at the time in an NPR interview, stating, “There ¶ are 40 million people that travel by air in this country. We cannot stop each one of them and make an ¶ individualized determination of risk. We have to develop some type of profile. The fact is profiling is a ¶ legitimate statistical device. And it’s a device that we may have to use if we’re going to have a ¶ meaningful security process at these airports.” Morning Edition: Use of Profiling to Discover WouldBe¶ Terrorists (NPR radio broadcast Feb. 12, 2002), transcript available at LEXIS (transcripts).¶ 117. Ahmad, supra note 24, at 1269.¶ 118. Ken Ellingwood & Nicholas Riccardi, After the Attack; Racial Profiling; Arab Americans¶ Enduring Hard Stares of Other Fliers; Backlash: They Say They Have Become Victims of Profiling,¶ L.A. TIMES, Sept. 20, 2001, at A1.¶ 119. See Ahmad, supra note 24, at 1270 (citing Sasha Polakow-Suransky, Flying While Brown,¶ AM. PROSPECT, Nov. 19, 2001, at 14–15 and Jonathan Osborne, Passenger Ejections Seen as¶

Profiling, AUSTIN AM.-STATESMAN, Sept. 29, 2011, at A1). ¶ 05-Ali (Do Not Delete) 7/29/2012 12:19:06 AM¶ 2012] SHARIAH AND CITIZENSHIP 1047¶ The government also instituted the National Security Entry-Exit ¶ Registration System (“NSEERS”), which required immigrants from twenty-six ¶ countries—all but one of which were Muslim countries—to register in a special ¶ program and be subjected to fingerprinting upon entry into the country; it also ¶ instituted annual reregistration requirements.120 Muslim immigrants were¶ further targeted through the Alien Absconder Initiative of 2002, by which the¶ government allegedly sought to identify and deport 315,000 undocumented¶ aliens who had ignored judicial paperwork.121 Despite the general nature of the ¶ legislation and the fact that most of the “absconders” were Latin American, the ¶ government instead specifically began by targeting 6000 men from Muslim ¶ countries.122¶ Similarly, the passage of the PATRIOT Act granted even more unbridled ¶

discretion to federal officials, allowing them to detain noncitizens who were ¶ suspected of

terrorism for up to a week without formal charges .123 There is no ¶ evidence that the individuals detained in any of these initiatives were actually ¶ linked to terrorism, but, rather, their detention was based simply on the ¶ perceived disloyalty and “otherness” of Muslims .124 Finally, the government’s¶ “immigration-plus” profiling protocols such as NSEERS and INS Special¶ Registration “conflate[d] nationality with religion and target[ed] immigrants¶ from nations with sizable Muslim populations for selective enforcement of¶ immigration laws.”125¶

The reliance on Muslim identity, or Muslim racialization, throughout ¶ these four practices mirrored the racialization of the Japanese during World ¶ War II. While the stereotypes of the violent and threatening Muslim were ¶ prevalent even before 9/11—just as in the case of the Japanese—it was during ¶ this phase that the government began collectively and systematically treating ¶ the group as disloyal. At least as far as the national security realm was ¶ concerned, American Muslims were viewed as presumptively disloyal ¶ noncitizens who were not entitled to the rights of citizenship.¶ 120. Id. at 1274.¶ 121. Id. at 1275.¶ 122. Id. at 1275 & n.59; see Memorandum from the Deputy Attorney General to All U.S.¶ Attorneys and All Members of the Anti-Terrorism Task Forces (Nov. 9, 2001).¶ 123. Kevin R. Johnson, The End of “Civil Rights” as

We Know It?: Immigration and Civil¶ Rights in the New Millennium, 49 UCLA L.REV. 1481, 1482 (2002).¶ 124. Id.¶ 125. Karen C. Tumlin, Suspect First: How Terrorism Policy Is Reshaping Immigration¶ Policy, 92 CALIF. L. REV. 1173, 1184 (2004); see also Mustafa Bayoumi, Racing Religion, in¶ AMERICAN STUDIES: AN ANTHOLOGY 99–108 (Janice A. Radway et al. eds., 2009) (describing the¶ racialization of Muslims in the context of the NSEERS special registration program and its¶ discriminatory implementation towards individuals from Muslims countries). ¶

05-Ali (Do Not Delete) 7/29/2012 12:19:06 AM¶ 1048 CALIFORNIA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 100:1027¶

3. Private Sphere Intrusions¶ Violence against Muslims in the private sphere also increased ¶

precipitously after 9/11. Although most of these crimes invariably went ¶ unreported, over

1000 incidents were reported within the two months ¶ immediately following 9/11. 126 As many as nineteen people were murdered in¶ violence related to the attacks, many of which Professor Ahmad classifies as¶ “crimes of passion.”127 Ahmad posits that these private crimes stem from the ¶ same bias, or perhaps even as a logical result, from the government’s ¶ institutionalized racial profiling policies—the stereotyped “otherness” of the ¶ Muslim.128 The perpetrators in these hate crimes, Ahmad argues, did not act ¶ with malice aforethought or a callous heart, but, rather, they had visceral ¶ reactions to the perceived “threat” of this foreign and disloyal “Muslim.”129 In ¶ their eyes, all Muslims were assumed to have some relationship or involvement ¶ with terrorism, and all people who appeared to look Muslim—whether they ¶ happened to be or not—were considered Muslim.130 Thus without formally¶ endorsing such violence, the State nonetheless sanctioned some of its key¶ premises through its own nefarious racial profiling policies that relied on the¶ same flawed logic.¶ The sharp discursive shift in the

tone of Islamophobia, as well as the ¶ government policies and unsanctioned practices

targeting American Muslims ¶ during this period, actually began to affect a change in the

theoretical ¶ conception of the Muslim as a “citizen.” In her influential 2002 work, The¶ Citizen and the Terrorist, Professor Leti Volpp described how American ¶ Muslims and Arabs may formally have been U.S. citizens, but, in practice, they ¶ were being construed as noncitizens or, at best, as a second-class group of ¶ citizens.131 She describes this notion of citizenship as identity through the ¶ concept of inclusion, positing that despite their actual legal status, “those who ¶ appear ‘Middle Eastern, Arab, or Muslim’ . . . are interpellated as antithetical to ¶ the citizen’s sense of identity.”132 This interpellation functions as an ideological¶ state apparatus and must be distinguished from, for example, the government or¶ 126. Ahmad, supra note 24, at 1266.¶ 127. Id. at 1266, 1302 (citing Robert Hanashiro, Hate Crimes Born out of Tragedy Create¶ Victims, USA TODAY (Sept. 11, 2002), http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2002-9-11-mesa_x.¶ htm; Robert E. Pierre, Victims of Hate, Now Feeling Forgotten, WASH. POST, Sept. 14, 2002, at A1;¶ Jim Walsh, Roque Guilty in Sikh Murder; Insanity Defense Fails; Jury to Decide on Death Penalty,¶ ARIZ. REPUBLIC, Oct. 1, 2003, at 1).¶ 128. Ahmad, supra note 24, at 1306–07 (framing the violent phenomena as a manifestation of¶ the perpetrators’ desire to protect their and their nation’s honor, with misogynistic undertones).¶ Professor Volpp also refers to this phenomenon as “extralegal racial profiling.” Volpp supra, note 22,¶ at 1580.¶ 129. Ahmad, supra note 24, at 1307–08.¶ 130. Id. at 1311.¶ 131. See Volpp, supra note 22. I use Professor Bosniak’s definition of second-class citizen¶

described above. See supra note 19.¶ 132. Volpp, supra note 22, at 1594. ¶ 05-Ali (Do Not Delete) 7/29/2012 12:19:06 AM¶ 2012] SHARIAH AND CITIZENSHIP 1049¶ a state actor directly assailing the rights of Muslim citizens.133 Interpellation¶ constitutes an individual as a subject and shapes our reality of the individual—a¶ reality that is then acknowledged by the community and even

the subject¶ herself.134 Thus, Volpp argues that after 9/11, as a result of being interpellated¶ as the “other,” Muslims were excluded from the informal feeling of collective¶ membership and group solidarity, as well as the formal exercise of some of the¶ legal rights that are recognized as privileges of inclusion.135¶ In sum, in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, Muslims were stripped of ¶ their citizenship as identity. This bias led to a rapid increase in private-sphere ¶ violence against those who appeared to be Muslim. At the same time, the ¶ government used this justification to initiate a number of stark and intrusive ¶ encroachments on the civil rights and liberties of American Muslims. It must be ¶ reiterated that the ostensible purpose of the legislation authorizing these ¶ policies was, in almost all cases, framed around national security. In other ¶ words, there was de facto targeting of Muslims under the proffered justification ¶ that security needs at the time trumped individual liberties, rather than de jure ¶ targeting of Muslims because they were no longer considered to be citizens. ¶ Although the “Muslim-looking person” was racialized as an entity that people ¶ should fear and guard against, the key distinction between this phase and the ¶ following one is that in the third phase there is an organized movement ¶ advocating that the State should explicitly deprive American Muslims of their ¶ citizenship rights simply because they are Muslim. ¶ C . The

Present-Day Incarnation of Islamophobia and the Threat It Poses to the ¶ Fundamental Rights

of Citizenship ¶ One would assume that anti-Muslim sentiment reached its high water ¶ mark after 9/11. To the contrary, however, it has increased dramatically in the ¶ third phase of Islamophobia, which began during President Obama’s 2008 ¶ campaign. If Volpp’s contentions about Muslims’ being relegated to secondclass ¶ citizenship were true in 2002, then today that distinction has crystallized ¶ even furthe r.136 Whereas a vast majority of the incursions in the second phase¶ occurred under the umbrella of national security, Islamophobia has now¶ evolved beyond simply encouraging profiling and other surveillance techniques¶ aimed at Muslims under the professed interests of national security. An¶ institutionalized version of Islamophobia in this third phase now focuses on the¶ 133. Id. at 1593–95. Volpp acknowledges, however, that not having citizenship as identity¶ means that people will consequently be deprived of citizenship as rights or political activity, though¶ this is not as clear as it is in the third phase of Islamophobia described later.¶ 134. Id.¶ 135. Id.¶ 136. See Pew Forum on Religion & Pub. Life, Public Remains Conflicted over Islam, PEW¶ RES. CENTER (Aug. 24, 2010), http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1706/poll-americans-views-of-muslimsobject-to-new-york-islamic-center-islam-violence¶ (showing that the favorability rating of American¶ Muslims among the general public had dropped 11 points since 2005). ¶ 05-Ali (Do Not Delete) 7/29/2012 12:19:06 AM¶ 1050 CALIFORNIA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 100:1027¶ “creeping threat of Shariah” and, in the process, more explicitly threatens the¶ foundational conceptions of citizenship described by Professor Bosniak.137¶ Further, while citizens enjoy some fundamental level of respect for their¶ individual beliefs and practices, this is no longer the case with regard to¶ Muslims, both in journalism and politics today.138 Whereas it is widely¶ recognized as socially unacceptable to be openly disparaging toward minority¶ groups, the privilege reflected in that norm is increasingly denied to¶ Muslims.139 In this third phase of Islamophobia, mainstream discourse now ¶ explicitly challenges the notion that American Muslims deserve the same ¶ liberal notions of rights that other citizens enjoy. ¶ One might surmise that since the contours of this phase cannot easily be ¶ demarcated, the third phase is in fact a difference in degree rather than in kind. ¶ It is true that unlike the transition from the first to the second phase, there is no ¶ single demonstrable event or tipping point that represents the transition from ¶ the second to third period; however, there was a gradual progression that ¶ increased in intensity since the presidential campaign of 2008 when the term ¶ “Muslim” was actually converted into a slur, as

political opponents “accused” ¶ then-Senator Obama of secretly being a Muslim. 140¶ The suggestion that a Muslim citizen would be less suited for office¶ represents the deep-seated fear and mistrust of Muslims in the American¶ consciousness. President Obama’s opponents recognized this fact and knew¶ that it would be a powerful tool for discrediting him.141 Yet what was perhaps¶ 137. See infra Part II for a further explication of Bosniak’s four discourses of citizenship and¶ how they apply to American Muslims in this third phase.¶ 138. See M.J. Rosenberg, The “New” Rhetoric of Islamophobia, AL JAZEERA (Jan. 13, 2011,¶ 12:42 PM), http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/01/201111074425968803.html (citing¶

statements made by popular commentators in various media outlets disparaging the spread of Islam in¶ the Western society, as well as the actions of Representative Peter King); see also WAJAHAT ALI ET¶ AL., CTR. FOR AM. PROGRESS, FEAR. INC.: THE ROOTS OF THE ISLAMOPHOBIA NETWORK IN¶ AMERICA (2011), available at http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/08/pdf/islamophobia.pdf;¶ Max Blumenthal, A Nation Against Islam: America’s New Crusade, OPENDEMOCRACY (Jan. 13,¶ 2011), http://www.opendemocracy.net/max-blumenthal/nation-against-islam-americas-new-crusade.¶

Blumenthal and Ali chronicle the Islamohobia infrastructure—including pundits, bloggers, and think¶ tanks—which are perpetuating “exaggerate[d] threats of ‘creeping Sharia,’ Islamic domination of the¶ West, and purported obligatory calls to violence against all non-Muslims by the Koran.” WAJAHAT¶ ALI ET AL., supra, at 2.¶ 139. See, e.g., Robert Wright, Islamophobia and Homophobia, N.Y. TIMES OPINIONATOR¶ (Oct. 26, 2010, 9:00 PM), http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/26/islamophobia-andhomophobia.¶ Wright argues that making slurs against homosexuals would carry greater political costs¶ compared to remarks made against Muslims. Wright evaluated journalist Juan Williams’s statements¶ about how he gets scared when he sees people wearing “Muslim garb” on a plane. Williams was fired¶

from his position at NPR for those comments, but he subsequently received a $2 million contract with¶ Fox News the following day. Wright argued that although Williams probably would have been fired¶ had he made such statements about gays, it is highly unlikely that he would have been rewarded with a¶ lucrative employment contract immediately thereafter.¶ 140. Elliott, supra note 30.¶ 141. See Pew Forum on Religion & Pub. Life, Growing Number of Americans Say Obama Is a¶ Muslim, PEW RES. CTR. (Aug. 19, 2010), http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1701/poll-obama-muslim-¶ 05-Ali (Do Not Delete) 7/29/2012 12:19:06 AM¶ 2012] SHARIAH AND CITIZENSHIP 1051¶ most striking about the “allegations” was not the partisan claims themselves,¶ but the responses that President Obama and other government leaders offered.¶ Obama felt compelled to reject the “accusations,” doing his best to distance¶ himself from the Muslim community and choosing not to make any campaign¶ stops in mosques or meet with any Muslim organizations during the campaign¶ (despite making numerous stops at churches and synagogues).142 President¶ Obama did not state, that although he was not a Muslim, there was nothing ¶ wrong with Muslims per se. Instead, he reiterated the bias by referring to the ¶ accusations on his website as a “smear .”143 Further, during one campaign rally,¶ his aides asked two young Muslim women dressed in headscarves to exit the¶ stage area where he would be speaking.144 Arguably, the pervasiveness of such¶

insidious discourse from the President helped normalize the notion to the public¶ that American Muslims are not “citizens,” but indeed “others.”145

2NC No Solvency

Immigration surveillance is only one product of the new American Islamophobia – the affirmative cannot resolve terror talk by outlawing one of its many impacts – it is too deeply ingrained – that’s Ali

Here’s more ev:Ali 12 (Yaser, J.D., University of California, Berkeley, 2012, “Shariah and Citizenship—How Islamophobia Is Creating a Second-Class Citizenry in America” California Law Review, August 1st, 2012, http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4176&context=californialawreview) //RL“They came first for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up because I ¶ wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak ¶ up because I wasn’t a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t ¶ speak up because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for me and by that time no ¶ one was left to speak up. ”245¶ Today Islamophobia

has colored the “prism through which Muslims are ¶ viewed. ”246 It has created a social environment in which Muslims are cast as¶ second-class citizens whose citizenship is neither protected nor respected in¶ society. The discourse surrounding the “threat of Shariah” in this third phase of ¶ Islamophobia pervades all other rational discourses on the subject and ¶

challenges American Muslims’ notions of citizenship as rights, identity, and ¶ political activity;

indeed the only dimension of citizenship that remains is ¶ formal legal status. ¶ As Pastor Niemöller’s famous quote illustrates, history has repeatedly ¶ shown us the consequences of remaining silent in the face of such hatred and ¶ bigotry. More than a decade has passed since the 9/11 attacks, and we must ¶ collectively reflect on how we arrived at this juncture and what changes we ¶ must make . I propose a number of policies for systematically responding to the¶

campaign of Islamophobia.

CASE – VIRTUAL WALL (KS)

The Line

1NC

FRAMING ISSUE: The affirmative claims impacts off of resolving entire systems of biopolitical control – if we win any risk of alternative causality they don’t get solvency and presume neg. 2 important implications:

1. Gut check – if you don’t think solving one instance of surveillance will topple the biopolitical regime, you don’t give them their harms

2. No new arguments – the aff got 8 minutes to frame the case and framed it badly. That’s not our fault – don’t let them change what the advocacy is because that would moot our 1NC and be a voter for fairness and education.

2NC

If we win a risk that any part of their internal link chain has an alternative cause, you do not grant them solvency.

OFFCASE – TOHONO (SWS)

Visas CP

1NCThe United States federal government should extend section 289 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to all Native American people in the United States and Mexico.This right is explicitly granted to other Native groups at the US-Mexico border and denied to the Tohono O’odhamNickels 1 (Bryan Nickels is a Notes & Comments Editor for the Boston College International and Comparative Law Review, “NATIVE AMERICAN FREE PASSAGE RIGHTS UNDER THE 1794 JAY TREATY: SURVIVAL UNDER UNITED STATES STATUTORY LAW AND CANADIAN COMMON LAW”, Boston College, 2001, http://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/schools/law/lawreviews/journals/bciclr/24_2/04_TXT.htm) //RLIn at least one instance, there has been a Congressional indication of intent not only to extend wardship over other Indians within U.S. borders, but also to extend the right of free movement to a group that traditionally did not inhabit the lands now bifurcated by the U.S.-Mexico border.172 Expansion of the liberal “aboriginal right” concept to free movement is demonstrated by Congress’ treatment of the Texas Band of Kickapoo Indians; this group was divided by the U.S.-Mexican border, creating essentially a rightless, landless tribe.173 Although granted a year-to-year parole status by Congress in the 1950s,174 living conditions

of the tribe decreased so dramatically that Congress ultimately intervened to offer health and educational assistance in conjunction with the Mexican government.175 Most importantly, Congress extended the benefits of Section 289 to the band: “[n]otwithstanding the Immigration and Nationality Act, all members of the Band shall be entitled to freely pass and repass the borders of the United States and to live and work in the United States.”176 Like [*PG335]the C.F.R. relating to Canadian Indians, this language awards the band the statutory presumption of lawful permanent resident (LPR) status.177 While the Texas Kickapoo are granted free passage rights, members of the Tohono O’odham tribe in Arizona are subject to

the same admission and deportation requirements as Mexican nationals simply for travel

across their own traditional lands. 178¶ Complete discussion of free passage rights for native groups situated on the U.S.-Mexican border is beyond the scope of this Note. However, two excellent articles have been written on the subject, one from an aboriginal rights perspective,179 the other from a human rights perspective.180CP solves culture – their 1AC author specifies border crossing legislation as the key internal link1AC Austin 91(Megan, Fall 1991, A CULTURE DIVIDED BY THE UNITED STATES-MEXICO BORDER: THE TOHONO O'ODHAM CLAIM FOR BORDER CROSSING RIGHTS, Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law [Vol. 8, No. 2], Accessed 7/14/15) CHThe Tohono O'odham Tribe suffers fundamental human rights violations under current policies governing the international border between the United States and Mexico. The survival of this indigenous culture depends upon its ability to pass through traditional lands freely, to collect raw materials for traditional foods and crafts and to visit religious sites and family members. Current policies and laws of the United States deny the Tohono O'odham these rights. Border crossing legislation will help to eliminate these abuses. However, in order to be effective, the legislation must allow the Tohono O'odham people to participate in decisions

regarding regulation of the border. The goal of the Tohono O'odham Tribe is to protect its culture and assure its continued existence. Approaching the Tohono O'odham claim for border crossing rights as a claim for basic

human rights places indigenous groups within the scope of international principles. The new movements of intemational law focus on the unique claims of indigenous groups , which amount not to secession, but to a level of autonomy which permits the survival of their cultures . Guided by these fundamental international principles, the U nited S tates and neighboring nations must recognize the right of the Tohono O'odham to keep their culture alive .

2NC Solvency

The INA empirically guarantees Native peoples on the US-Mexico border safe passage – that’s Nickels - and that’s the key internal link to solving all their impacts – that’s Austin from the 1AC Solvency contention

CP Solves – Canada and the Jay Treaty proveUS Embassy in Canada 9 (United States Embassy in Ottawa, last cited date in past tense 2009, “Entering the U.S.: First Nations and Native Americans, http://canada.usembassy.gov/visas/information-for-canadians/first-nations-and-native-americans.html) //RLThe Jay Treaty¶ The Jay Treaty, signed in 1794 between Great Britain and the United States, provided that American Indians could travel freely across the international boundary. The United States has codified this obligation in the provisions of Section 289 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) as amended. Native Indians born in Canada are therefore entitled to enter the United States for the purpose of employment, study, retirement, investing, and/or immigration. ¶ Qualifying as an American Indian born in Canada¶ In order to qualify under Section 289 of the INA, eligible persons must provide evidence of their American Indian background to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Customs and Border Protection (DHS/CBP) officer at the intended Port of Entry. The documentation must be sufficient to

show the bearer has at least fifty percent of American Indian race. Such a person may then

be admitted without a visa. ¶ Generally such evidence would include either an identification card from the Ministry of Indian and Northern Affairs or a written statement from an official of the tribe from which you or your ancestors originate, substantiated by documentary evidence (tribe records and civil long form birth certificate bearing names of parents). Such a statement would be on the tribe's official letterhead and should explicitly state what percentage American Indian blood you or your parents possess, based on official documents/records. You should also provide photograph identification, such as a driver's license or passport.¶ The INA does not distinguish between "treaty" and "non-treaty" or "status" and "non-status" Indians as determined by Canadian law. The only relevant factor is whether the individual has at least 50% American Indian blood. Similarly, letters or identification cards from Metis associations generally cannot be accepted, as the Metis are not an Indian Tribe. If such identification helps to establish that an individual is at least 50% American Indian, however, it can also be included with other conclusive evidence¶ Documentation Requirements¶ The Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI) is the implementation plan for Section 7209 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorist Protection Act of 2004. It requires generally that all travelers into the United States must be documented with a passport or other WHTI designated document. The first phase began in January, 2007 and affected those entering by air.

T – Surveillance

1NCInterpretation – surveillance must be covert Baker 5 – MA, CPP, CPO(Brian, “Surveillance: Concepts and Practices for Fraud, Security and Crime Investigation,” http://www.ifpo.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/surveillance.pdf)Surveillance is defined as covert observations of places and persons for the purpose of obtaining ∂ information (Dempsey, 2003). The term covert infers that the operative conducting the ∂ surveillance is discreet and secretive . Surveillance that maintains a concealed, hidden, undetected∂ nature clearly has the greatest chance of success because the subject of the surveillance will act∂ or perform naturally. Remaining undetected during covert surveillance work often involves∂ physical fatigue, mental stress, and very challenging situations. Physical discomfort is an∂ unfortunate reality for investigators, which varies from stinging perspiration in summer to hard∂ shivers during the winter.Violation- the CBP does a lot more than surveillanceUS CBPUS Customs and Border Patrol, “Along US Borders”, http://www.cbp.gov/border-security/along-us-borders//SRawalOne of the most important activities of a Border Patrol agent is line watch. This involves the detection, prevention and apprehension of terrorists, undocumented aliens and smugglers of aliens at or near the land border by maintaining surveillance from a covert position, following up leads, responding to electronic sensor television systems, aircraft sightings, and interpreting and following tracks, marks and other physical evidence. Some of the major activities are traffic check, traffic observation, city patrol, transportation check, administrative, intelligence, and anti-smuggling activities.

Reasons to prefer – a) Limits—allowing the ending of public surveillance explodes the limits of

the topic by allowing affirmatives that deal with programs that known surveillance like detention facilities

b) Ground—key to neg ground like terrorism and politics disads T is a voter- Limits- They justify doing many things outside of surveillance which expands the research too much. This kills clash and productive debate because the negative can’t effectively prepare for those many affirmatives.

2nc Covert ExtensionsMust be covertIJ 98(Info Justice, OPERATIONS, SURVEILLANCE AND STAKEOUT PART 1, http://www.infojustice.com/samples/12%20Operations,%20Surveillance%20And%20Stakeout%20Part%201.html)Surveillance is defined as the systematic observation of persons, places, or things to obtain information. Surveillance is carried out without the knowledge of those under surveillance and is concerned primarily with people.Even the broadest definition doesn’t include information provided with consentPounder 9 – PhD, Director, Amberhawk Training and Amberhawk Associates(Chris, “NINE PRINCIPLES FOR ASSESSING WHETHER PRIVACY IS PROTECTED IN A SURVEILLANCE SOCIETY,” Scholar)This paper uses the term "surveillance" in its widest sense to include data sharing and the revealing of identity information in the absence of consent of the individual concerned . It argues that the current debate about the nature of a "surveillance society" needs a new structural framework that allows the benefits of surveillance and the risks to individual privacy to be properly balanced.

2nc Most CommonSurveillance is most often covert Glancy 12 – Professor of Law, Santa Clara University Law School. B.A. Wellesley College, J.D. Harvard Law SchoolDorothy, SYMPOSIUM ARTICLE: PRIVACY IN AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES, Santa Clara Law Review, 2012, Lexis Surveillance is a relatively modern idea. Even the word, "surveillance," is fairly new to the English language. It was borrowed from the French by the British at the turn of the nineteenth century to refer to looking over an area, usually from a high place, for strategic information about a battlefield or prospective confrontation. n92 Early in the twentieth century, surveillance usually suggested use of technology to enhance human abilities to see over wide distances to collect comprehensive information about an adversary. n93 Since then, [*1208] the word, "surveillance," has been used in a wide variety of careful-watching contexts from medical surveillance of diseases and immune responses, to physical stakeouts of crime suspects, to mass-scale electronic and network surveillance for gathering intelligence or for seeking evidence of anomalous or criminal behavior. Surveillance is also a psychological technique used to affect human behavior through pervasive monitoring of activities and areas to discourage people from violating rules or laws. Although surveillance most often means covert collection of information, it can also refer to overt watching aimed at modifying the behavior of those watched. An example of overt surveillance is red-light cameras. These devices are often prominently placed as ever-present watchers at intersections so that drivers are deterred from entering intersections while the stoplight is red. n94 One purpose of overt surveillance is to affect the behavior of those being watched, to assure that individual behavior conforms to societal norms. If an autonomous vehicle user were informed that his or her vehicle continuously reports its speed to law enforcement authorities, that user would be more likely to direct the vehicle to conform to the speed limit, rather than exercise personal autonomy in deciding not to conform. n95 Similarly, autonomous vehicles could overtly monitor the behavior of vehicle users so that instances of user activities such as smoking or drinking alcohol are sensed and recorded.

T – Domestic

1NC

First, Interpretation: Domestic surveillance is surveillance within national bordersAvilez et al 14 Marie Avilez et al, Carnegie Mellon University December 10, 2014 Ethics, History, and Public Policy Senior Capstone Project Security and Social Dimensions of City Surveillance Policyhttp://www.cmu.edu/hss/ehpp/documents/2014-City-Surveillance-Policy.pdf

Domestic surveillance – collection of information about the activities of private individuals/organizations by a government entity within national borders; this can be carried out by federal, state and/or local officials

Violation- the border BHC No DateUnited States- Mexico Border Health Commission, a binational health commission in July 2000 with the signing of an agreement by the Secretary of Health and Human Services of the United States and the Secretary of Health of México. On December 21, 2004, the Commission was designated as a Public International Organization by Executive Order of the President, “Border Relation”, http://www.borderhealth.org/border_region.php//SRawal

The U nited S tates- México border region is defined as the area of land being 100 kilometers (62.5

miles) north and south of the international boundary (La Paz Agreement). It stretches approximately 2000 miles from the southern tip of Texas to California. The population for this expanse of land is estimated to be approximately 12 million inhabitants. This population is expected to double by the year 2025. The combined population of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California is 61,637,146 (2000 Census). The estimated combined population of the six Mexican border states in 1990 was 12,246,991. Two of the ten fastest-growing metropolitan areas in the United States - Laredo and McAllen - are located on the Texas-México border. Additionally, there are 154 Native American tribes totaling 881,070 Native Americans living in the 4 U.S. border states. In the actual border region, there are approximately 25 Native American Nations.

Second, Domestic surveillance is surveillance of US persons

Small 8 MATTHEW L. SMALL. United States Air Force Academy 2008 Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress, Presidential Fellows Program paper "His Eyes are Watching You: Domestic Surveillance, Civil Liberties and Executive Power during Times of National Crisis" http://cspc.nonprofitsoapbox.com/storage/documents/Fellows2008/Small.pdf

Before one can make any sort of assessment of domestic surveillance policies, it is first necessary to narrow the scope of the term “domestic surveillance.” Domestic surveillance is a subset of intelligence gathering. Intelligence, as it is to be understood in this context, is “information that meets the stated or understood needs of policy makers and has been collected, processed and narrowed to meet those needs” (Lowenthal 2006, 2). In essence, domestic surveillance is a means to an end; the end being intelligence. The intelligence community best understands domestic surveillance as the acquisition of nonpublic information concerning U nited S tates persons (Executive Order 12333 (3.4) (i)). With this definition domestic surveillance remains an overly broad concept. This paper’s analysis, in terms of President Bush’s policies, focuses on electronic surveillance; specifically, wiretapping phone lines and obtaining caller information from phone companies. Section f of the USA Patriot Act of 2001 defines electronic surveillance as:

Violation- Undocumented people are not US personsJackson et al 9 Brian A. Jackson, Darcy Noricks, and Benjamin W. Goldsmith, RAND Corporation

The Challenge of Domestic Intelligence in a Free Society RAND 2009 BRIAN A. JACKSON, EDITORhttp://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2009/RAND_MG804.pdf

3 Federal law and executive order define a U.S. person as “a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, an unincorporated association with a substantial number of members who are citizens of the U.S. or are aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence, or a corporation that is incorporated in the U.S.” (NSA, undated).

Although this definition would therefore allow information to be gathered on U.S. persons located abroad, our objective was to examine the creation of a domestic intelligence organization that would focus on—and whose activities would center around—individuals and organizations located inside the United States . Though such an agency might receive information about U.S. persons that was collected abroad by other intelligence agencies, it would not collect that information itself.

T is a voter-

They explode limits—

First, Allowing the surveillance of non-US persons means they open the debate to immigration. This is a whole new literature base which is large enough to be a topic in itself.

Second, They open the topic outside of our borders which means they justify any aff which cooperates with other countries and transnational agreements the decrease surveillance—this massively expands the topic and makes for unproductive debate

SFO K

1NCSpeaking to the suffering of other bodies denies them humanityAlcoff 89Linda Alcoff, ”The Problem of Speaking for Others”, last date cited 1989, http://www.alcoff.com/content/speaothers.html//SRawalThe recognition that there is a problem in speaking for others has followed from the widespread acceptance of two claims. First, there has been a growing awareness that where one speaks from affects both the meaning and truth of what one says, and thus that one cannot assume an ability to transcend her location. In other words,

a speaker's location (which I take here to refer to her social location or social identity) has an epistemically significant impact on that speaker's claims, and can serve either to authorize or dis-authorize one's speech. The creation of Women's Studies and African American Studies departments were founded on this very belief: that both the study of and the advocacy for the oppressed must come to be done principally by the oppressed themselves, and that we must finally acknowledge that systematic divergences in social location between speakers and those spoken for will have a significant effect on the content of what is said. The unspoken premise here is simply that a speaker's location is epistemically salient. I shall explore this issue further in the next section. The

second claim holds that not only is location epistemically salient, but certain privileged locations are discursively dangerous. In particular, the practice of privileged persons speaking for or on behalf of less privileged persons has actually resulted (in many cases) in increasing or reenforcing the oppression of the group spoken for. This was part of the argument made against Anne Cameron's speaking for Native women: Cameron's intentions were never in question, but the effects of her writing were argued to be harmful to the needs of Native authors because it is Cameron rather than they who will be listened to and whose books will be bought by readers interested in Native women. Persons from dominant groups who speak for others are often treated as authenticating presences that confer legitimacy and credibility on the demands of subjugated speakers; such speaking for others does

nothing to disrupt the discursive hierarchies that operate in public spaces. For this reason, the work of privileged authors who speak on behalf of the oppressed is becoming increasingly criticized by members of those oppressed groups themselves.

AT: we’re speaking ABOUT them not forSpeaking ABOUT others always results in speaking FOR them and constructing their subject positions—they are intertwinedAlcoff 89Linda Alcoff, ”The Problem of Speaking for Others”, last date cited 1989, http://www.alcoff.com/content/speaothers.html//SRawalIn the examples used above, there may appear to be a conflation between the issue of speaking for others and the issue of speaking about others. This conflation was intentional on my part, because it is difficult to distinguish speaking about from speaking for in all cases. There is an ambiguity in the two phrases: when one is

speaking for another one may be describing their situation and thus also speaking about them. In fact, it may be impossible to speak for another without simultaneously conferring information about them. Similarly, when one is speaking about another, or simply trying to describe their situation or some aspect of it, one may also be speaking in place of them, i.e. speaking for them. One may be speaking about another as an advocate or a

messenger if the person cannot speak for herself. Thus I would maintain that if the practice of speaking for others is problematic, so too must be the practice of speaking about others.8 This is partly the case because of what has been called the "crisis of representation." For in both the practice of speaking for as well as

the practice of speaking about others, I am engaging in the act of representing the other's needs, goals, situation, and in fact, who they are, based on my own situated interpretation. In post-structuralist terms,

I am participating in the construction of their subject-positions rather than simply discovering their true selves. Once we pose it as a problem of representation, we see that, not only are speaking for and speaking about analytically close,

so too are the practices of speaking for others and speaking for myself. For, in speaking for myself, I am also representing my self in a certain way, as occupying a specific subject-position, having certain characteristics and not others, and so on. In speaking for myself, I (momentarily) create my self---just as much as when I speak for others I create them as a public, discursive self, a self which is more unified than any subjective experience can support. And this public self will in most cases have an effect on the self experienced as interiority.

Tuck & Yang LinksAll of the following could potentially work

RecognitionThe AFF’s politics of recognition ties reinscribes oppression by tying subjecthood to sufferingTuck and Yang 14 [Eve, & K.W., 2014, “R-Words: Refusing Research.” In n D. Paris & M. T. Winn (Eds.) Humanizing research: Decolonizing qualitative inquiry with youth and communities (pp. 223-248). Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage Publications. Pp. 228]The costs of a politics of recognition that is rooted in naming pain have been¶ critiqued by recent decolonizing and feminist scholars (Hartman, 1997, 2007;¶ Tuck, 2009). In Scenes of Subjection, Sadiya Hartman (1997) discusses how recognizing¶ the personhood of slaves enhanced the power of the Southern slaveowning¶ class. Supplicating narratives of former slaves were deployed effectively¶ by abolitionists, mainly White, well-to-do, Northern women, to generate portraits¶ of abuse that ergo recognize slaves as human (Hartman, 2007). In response, new¶ laws afforded minimal standards of existence, “making personhood coterminous¶ with injury” (Hartman, 1997, p. 93), while simultaneously authorizing necessary¶ violence to suppress slave agency. The slave emerges as a legal person only when¶ seen as criminal or “a violated body in need of limited forms of protection ”¶ (p. 55). Recognition “humanizes” the slave, but is predicated upon her or his¶ abjection. You are in pain, therefore you are. “[T]he recognition of humanity¶ require[s] the event of excessive violence, cruelty beyond the limits of the¶ socially tolerable, in order to acknowledge and protect the slave’s person” (p. 55).¶ Furthermore, Hartman describes how slave-as-victim as human accordingly¶ establishes slave-as-agent as criminal. Applying Hartman’s analysis, we note how¶ the agency of Margaret Garner or Nat Turner can only be viewed as outsider¶ violence that humane society must reject while simultaneously upholding the¶ legitimated violence of the state to punish such outsider violence. Hartman asks,¶ “Is it possible that such recognition effectively forecloses agency as the object of¶ punishment . . . Or is this limited conferral of humanity merely a reinscription of¶ subjugation and pained existence?” (p. 55).The affirmative attempts to historicize the action of the subaltern by rendering it into a recognizable people. This project of academic integration obliterates the subaltern.Spivak 5 [Gayatri, Prof. Comparative Literature and Society @ Columbia, 2005, “Scattered speculations on the subaltern and the popular,” Postcolonial Studies Vol 8 No 4, p. 476]Subaltern is to popular as gender is to sex, class to poverty, state to nation.¶ One word inclines to reasonableness, the other to cathexis / occupation ¶ through desire. ‘Popular’ divides between descriptive

(as in presidential or TV¶ ratings), evaluative (not ‘high’, both a positive and a negative value,¶ dependent on your ‘politics’), and

contains ‘people’, a word with immense¶ range, from ‘just anyone’, to the ‘masses’ (both a positive and a negative¶ political

value, depending on your politics). The reasonable and rarefied¶ definition of the word subaltern that interests me is: to be removed from all ¶ lines of social mobility. The disciplinary interest of literary criticism is in the singular and the¶

unverifiable. In ‘Can the Subaltern Speak?’ it was the peculiar and singular¶ subalternity of the young Bhubaneswari Bhaduri that

seemed of interest.1¶ Her story was my mother Sivani Chakravorty’s testimony. The question of¶ veridicality / of the evidentiary status of testimony, sometimes taken for ¶ granted in unexamined oral history / has to be thought of here. ¶ Gilles Deleuze’s notion of singularity is both complex and simple. In its¶ simplest form, the

singular is not the particular because it is an unrepeatable¶ difference that is, on the other hand, repeated / not as an example of

a¶ universal but as an instance of a collection of repetitions. Singularity is life as¶ pure immanence, what will be, of this life, as life.

As the name Bhubaneswari¶ Bhaduri became a teaching text, it took on this imperative / repeat as¶ singular /, as does literature.2

If the thinking of subalternity is taken in the general sense, its lack of access¶ to mobility may be a version of singularity. Subalternity cannot be generalised¶ according to hegemonic logic. That is what makes it subaltern. Yet it is a¶ category and therefore repeatable. Since the general sense is always mired in¶ narrow senses, any differentiations between subalternity and the popular¶ must thus concern itself with singular cases and thus contravene the¶ philosophical purity of Deleuze’s thought.3 The starting point of a singular itinerary of the word ‘subaltern’ can be¶ Antonio Gramsci’s ‘Southern Question’ rather than his more general¶ discussions of the subaltern. I believe that was the basic starting point of¶ the South Asian Subaltern Studies collective / Gramsci, a Communist,¶ thinking beyond capital logic in terms of unequal development. Subsequently, Partha Chatterjee developed a nuanced reading of both Gramsci and¶ Foucault.4 It is from ‘Some Aspects of the Southern Question’, then, that we can move¶ into Ranajit Guha’s ‘On Some Aspects of the Historiography of Colonial¶ India’.5 ‘Subaltern’ in the early Guha was the name

of a space of difference.¶ And the word was indistinguishable from ‘people’. Although Guha seems to¶ be saying that the words

‘people’ and ‘subaltern’ are interchangeable, I think¶ this is not a substantive point for him. At least in their early work, the ¶ members of the Subaltern Studies collective would not quarrel with the ¶ notion that the word ‘subaltern’ and the idea of the ‘popular’ do not inhabit a ¶ continuous space. Yet their failure to make this distinction has led to a certain ¶ relaxing of the word ‘subaltern’ that has undermined its usefulness. The slide ¶ into the ‘popular’ may be part of this. Subalternity is a position without identity. It is somewhat like the strict¶ understanding of class. Class is not a cultural origin, it is a sense

of economic¶ collectivity, of social relations of formation as the basis of action. Gender is¶ not lived sexual difference. It is a sense

of the collective social negotiation of¶ sexual differences as the basis of action. ‘Race’ is not originary; it assumes¶ racism.

Subalternity is where social lines of mobility, being elsewhere, do not ¶ permit the formation of a recognisable basis of action. The early subalternists¶ looked at examples where subalternity was brought to crisis, as a

basis for¶ militancy was formed. Even then colonial and nationalist historiography did ¶ not recognise it as such. Could the subaltern speak, then? Could it have its ¶ insurgency recognised by the official historians? Even when, strictly speaking,¶ they had burst the outlines of subalternity? This last is important. Neither the ¶ groups celebrated by the early subalternists nor Bhubaneswari Bhaduri, in so ¶ far as they had burst their bonds into resistance, were in the position of ¶ subalternity. No one can say ‘I am a subaltern’

in whatever language. And¶ subaltern studies will not reduce itself to the historical

recounting of the ¶ details of the practice of disenfranchised groups and remain a study of

the ¶ subaltern.

SufferingResearch is used to commodify pain narratives and damage representations to reproduce oppression with the justification of the academyTuck and Yang 14 [Eve, & K.W., 2014, “R-Words: Refusing Research.” In n D. Paris & M. T. Winn (Eds.) Humanizing research: Decolonizing qualitative inquiry with youth and communities https://faculty.newpaltz.edu/evetuck/files/2013/12/Tuck-and-Yang-R-Words_Refusing-Research.pdf]Urban communities, and other disenfranchised communities. Damage-centered researchers may operate, even benevolently, within a theory of change in which harm must be recorded or proven in order to convince an outside adjudicator that reparations are deserved. These reparations presumably take the form of additional resources, settlements, affirmative actions, and other material, political, and sovereign adjustments. Eve has described this theory of change as both colonial and flawed, because it relies upon Western notions of power as scarce and concentrated, and because it requires disenfranchised communities to posi-tion themselves as both singularly defective and powerless to make change (2010). Finally, Eve has observed that “won” reparations rarely become reality, and that in many cases, communities are left with a narrative that tells them that they are broken.Similarly, at the center of the analysis in this chapter is a concern with the fixation social science research has exhibited in eliciting pain stories from com-munities that are not White, not wealthy, and not straight. Academe’s demon-strated fascination with telling and retelling narratives of pain is troubling, both for its voyeurism and for its consumptive implacability. Imagining “itself to be a voice, and in some disciplinary iterations, the voice of the colonised” (Simpson, 2007, p. 67, emphasis in the original) is not just a rare historical occurrence in

anthropology and related fields. We observe that much of the work of the academy is to reproduce stories of oppression in its own voice. At first, this may read as an intolerant condemnation of the academy, one that refuses to forgive past blunders and see how things have changed in recent decades. However, it is our view that while many individual scholars have cho-sen to pursue other lines of inquiry than the pain narratives typical of their disciplines, novice researchers emerge from doctoral programs eager to launch pain-based inquiry projects because they believe that such approaches embody what it means to do social science. The collection of pain narratives and the theories of change that champion the value of such narratives are so prevalent in the social sciences that one might surmise that they are indeed what the academy is about. In her examination of the symbolic violence of the academy, bell hooks (1990) portrays the core message from the academy to those on the margins as thus: No need to hear your voice when I can talk about you better than you can speak about yourself. No need to hear your voice. Only tell me about your pain. I want to know your story. And then I will tell it back to you in a new way. Tell it back to you in such a way that it has become mine, my own. Re-writing you I write myself anew. I am still author, authority. I am still colonizer the speaking subject and you are now at the center of my talk. (p. 343) Hooks’s words resonate with our observation of how much of social science research is concerned with providing recognition to the presumed voiceless, a recognition that is enamored with knowing through pain. Further, this passage describes the ways in which the researcher’s voice is constituted by, legitimated by, animated by the voices on the margins. The researcher-self is made anew by telling back the story of the marginalized/subaltern subject. Hooks works to untangle the almost imperceptible differences between forces that silence and forces that seemingly liberate by inviting those on the margins to speak, to tell their stories. Yet the forces that invite those on the margins to speak also say, “Do not speak in a voice of resistance. Only speak from that space in the margin that is a sign of deprivation, a wound, an unfulfilled longing. Only speak your pain” (hooks, 1990, p. 343).

Research is used to commodify pain narratives- a refusal to enagage in research is necessaryTuck and Yang 14 [Eve, & K.W., 2014, “R-Words: Refusing Research.” In n D. Paris & M. T. Winn (Eds.) Humanizing research: Decolonizing qualitative inquiry with youth and communities https://faculty.newpaltz.edu/evetuck/files/2013/12/Tuck-and-Yang-R-Words_Refusing-Research.pdf] Research is a dirty word among many Native communities (Tuhiwai Smith,1999), and arguably, also among ghettoized

(Kelley, 1997), Orientalized(Said, 1978), and other communities of overstudied Others. The ethicalstandards of the academic industrial complex are a recent development, and likeso many post–civil rights reforms, do not always do enough to

ensure that socialscience research is deeply ethical, meaningful, or useful for the individual or com-munity being researched. Social science often works to collect stories of pain andhumiliation in the lives of those being researched for commodification. However,these same stories of pain and humiliation are part of the collective wisdom thatoften informs the writings of researchers who attempt to position their intellectualwork as decolonization. Indeed, to refute the crime, we may need to name

it. Howdo we learn from and respect the wisdom and desires in the stories that we (over)hear, while refusing to portray/betray them to the spectacle of the settler colonialgaze? How do we develop an ethics for research that differentiates between power—which deserves a denuding, indeed petrifying scrutiny—and people? Atthe same time, as fraught as research is in its complicity with power, it is one ofthe last places for legitimated inquiry. It is at least still a space that proclaims tocare about curiosity. In this essay, we theorize refusal not just as a “no,” but as atype of investigation into “what you need to know and what I refuse to write in”(Simpson, 2007, p. 72). Therefore, we present a refusal to do research, or a refusalwithin research, as a way of thinking about humanizing researchers. We have organized this chapter into four portions. In the first three sections,we lay out three axioms of social science research. Following the work of EveKosofsky Sedgwick (1990), we use the exposition of these axioms to articulateotherwise implicit, methodological, definitional, self-evident groundings (p. 12)of our arguments and observations of refusal. The axioms are: (I) The subalterncan speak, but is only invited to speak her/our pain; (II) there are some forms of knowledge that the academy doesn’t deserve; and (III) research may not be theintervention that is needed. We realize that these axioms may not appear self-evident to everyone, yet asserting them as apparent allows us to proceed towardthe often unquestioned limits of research. Indeed, “in dealing with an open-secret structure, it’s only by being shameless about risking the obvious that wehappen into the vicinity of the transformative” (Sedgwick, 1990, p. 22). In thefourth section of the chapter, we theorize refusal in earnest, exploring ideas thatare still forming.Our thinking and writing in this essay is informed by our readings of postco-lonial literatures and critical literatures on settler colonialism. We locate much ofour analysis inside/in relation to the discourse of settler colonialism, the particu-lar shape of colonial domination in the United States and elsewhere, includingCanada, New Zealand, and Australia. Settler colonialism can be differentiatedfrom what one might call exogenous colonialism in that the colonizers arrive at a place (“discovering” it) and make it a permanent home (claiming it). The perma-nence of settler colonialism makes it a structure, not just an event (Wolfe, 1999).The settler colonial nation-state is dependent on destroying and erasingIndigenous inhabitants in order to clear them from valuable land. The settlercolonial structure also requires the enslavement and labor of bodies that have been stolen from their homelands and transported in order to labor the land stolenfrom Indigenous people. Settler colonialism refers to a triad relationship, betweenthe White settler (who is valued for his leadership and innovative mind), the dis-appeared Indigenous peoples (whose land is valued, so they and their claims to itmust be extinguished), and the chattel slaves (whose bodies are valuable butownable, abusable, and murderable). We believe that this triad is the basis of theformation of Whiteness in settler colonial nation-states, and that the interplay oferasure, bodies, land, and violence is characteristic of the permanence of settlercolonial structures.Under coloniality, Descartes’ formulation, cognito ergo sum (“I think, thereforeI am”) transforms into ego conquiro (“I conquer, therefore I am”; Dussel, 1985;Maldonado-Torres, 2007; Ndlvou-Gatsheni, 2011). Nelson Maldonado-Torres(2009) expounds on this relationship of the conqueror’s sense-of-self to hisknowledge-of-others (“I know her, therefore I am me”). Knowledge of self/Others became the philosophical justification for the acquisition of bodies and territo-ries, and the rule over them. Thus the right to conquer is intimately connected tothe right to know (“I know, therefore I conquer, therefore I am”). Maldonado-Torres (2009) explains that for Levi Strauss, the self/Other knowledge paradigmis the methodological rule for the birth of ethnology as a science (pp. 3–4). Settler colonial knowledge is premised on frontiers; conquest, then, is an exerciseof the felt entitlement to transgress these limits. Refusal, and stances of refusal inresearch, are attempts to place limits on conquest and the colonization of knowl-edge by marking what is off limits, what is not up for grabs or discussion, what issacred, and what can’t be known. To speak of limits in such a way makes some liberal thinkers uncomfortable, andmay, to them, seem dangerous. When access to information, to knowledge, to theintellectual commons is controlled by the people who generate that information[participants in a research study], it can be seen as a violation of shared standards of justice and truth. (Simpson, 2007, p. 74) By forwarding a framework of refusal within (and to) research in this chapter, weare not simply prescribing limits to social science research. We are making visibleinvisibilized limits, containments, and seizures that research already stakes out.

OvercomingThe attempt to overcome the conditions of modernity, the founding original violences which constitutes our current epistemologies is the logic of settler colonialism. It operates on a fetishization of woundedness.Tuck and Yang 14 [Eve, & K.W., 2014, “R-Words: Refusing Research.” In n D. Paris & M. T. Winn (Eds.) Humanizing research: Decolonizing qualitative inquiry with youth and communities (pp. 223-248). Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage Publications. Pp. 228-9]As numerous scholars have denoted, many social science disciplines emerged¶ from the need to provide justifications for social

hierarchies undergirded by¶ White supremacy and manifest destiny (see also Gould, 1981; Selden, 1999;¶ Tuck & Guishard,

forthcoming). Wolfe (1999) has explored how the contoured¶ logic of settler colonialism (p. 5) can be mapped onto the

microactivities of¶ anthropology; Guthrie (1976) traces the roots of psychology to the need to “scientifically”¶ prove the

supremacy of the White mind. The origins of many social¶ science disciplines in maintaining logics of domination, while sometimes¶ addressed in graduate schools, are regularly thought to be just errant or

inauspicious¶ beginnings—much like the ways in which the genocide of Indigenous ¶ peoples that afforded the founding of the Unites States has been reduced to an ¶ unfortunate byproduct of the birthing of a new and great nation. Such amnesia ¶ is required in settler colonial societies , argues

Lorenzo Veracini, because settler colonialism is “characterized by a persistent drive to supersede the conditions of ¶ its operation,” (2011, p. 3); that is, to make itself invisible, natural, without origin ¶ (and without end), and inevitable. Social science disciplines have inherited ¶ the persistent drive to supersede the conditions of their operations from settler ¶ colonial logic , and it is this drive, a kind of

unquestioning push forward, and not¶ the origins of the disciplines that we attend to now. We are struck by the pervasive silence on questions regarding the contemporary ¶ rationale(s) for social science research.

Though a variety of ethical and¶ procedural protocols require researchers to compose statements regarding the¶ objectives or

purposes of a particular project, such protocols do not prompt ¶ reflection upon the underlying beliefs about knowledge and change that too often¶ go unexplored or unacknowledged. The rationale for conducting social

science¶ research that collects pain narratives seems to be self-evident for many scholars,¶ but when looked at more closely, the

rationales may be unconsidered, and somewhat¶ flimsy. Like a maritime archaeological site, such rationales might be best¶

examined in situ, for fear of deterioration if extracted. Why do researchers collect ¶ pain narratives? Why does the academy want them? An initial and partial answer is because settler colonial ideology believes that,¶ in

fiction author Sherril Jaffe’s words, “scars make your body more interesting,” ¶ (1996, p. 58). Jaffe’s work of short,

short of fiction bearing that sentiment as title¶ captures the exquisite crossing of wounds and curiosity and pleasure. Settler ¶ colonial ideology, constituted by its conscription of others, holds the wounded ¶ body as more engrossing than the body that is not wounded (though the person ¶ with a wounded body does not politically or materially benefit for being more ¶ engrossing). In settler colonial logic, pain is more compelling than privilege, ¶ scars more enthralling than the body unmarked by experience. In settler colonial ¶ ideology, pain is evidence of authenticity, of the verifiability of a lived life. ¶ Academe, formed and informed by settler colonial ideology, has developed the ¶ same palate for pain. Emerging and established social science researchers set out ¶ to document the problems faced by communities, and often in doing so, recirculate ¶ common tropes of dysfunction, abuse, and neglect.

Tohono Surveillance CPPlan: The USFG should place its border surveillance technology and personnel along the Tohono border under the control of the Tohono nation.

Multiculturalism DA – The Affs attempt to wish away the harms of the political system by removing surveillance at the Tohono border risks extinction of the Tohono cultureSarah Singleton January 2009 Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science at Research institute at Western Washington University “Not our borders: Indigenous people and the struggle to maintain shared lives and cultures in post-9/11 North America”(http://www.wwu.edu/bpri/files/2009_Jan_WP_No_4.pdf)

Conversely, the multiculturalism model argues that simply protecting basic legal and political rights is insufficient—that in order to fulfill its obligation to demonstrate “equal concern” for all people, government must provide support for and in some sense endorse the distinct cultures of minority groups. In what to some people, at least, is its most persuasive version, the multiculturalist model is linked to freedom and autonomy. The basic argument is that freedom involves individuals making choices about the sort of lives they wish to lead, and that their ability to make meaningful choices presupposes an array of choices that arise from, and are made intelligible by, the societal culture within which one identifies (Kymlicka 1995). Thus it is governments’ obligation to provide some level of public recognition and support for minority cultures, and, in some circumstances, to waive certain legal requirement and/or grant categorical exceptions to policies that run counter to cultural practices and beliefs.

Proponents of the multiculturalist position argue that failing to undertake such measures is both wrong (in the sense that it violates the obligations that governments have toward their citizens); and furthermore would likely lead to the continuing erasure of distinct minority cultures. Opponents claim that multiculturalist policies may exacerbate existing tensions between groups in society while at the same time misdirecting efforts away from the more important project of greater economic and social equality between all people (Barry 2001).10

Immigration DA – The Tohono border has become a key sight to illegal immigration Ned Norris, June 17 2004 Jr. Chairwoman, Tohono O'Odham Nation “The Testimony of Ned Norris, Jr. Chairwoman, Tohono O'Odham Nation”http://www.usborderpatrol.com/Border_Patrol704_X.htm

Again, without the benefit of consulting with US, federal border security policy was developed focusing on closing down what were considered to be key points of entry

along the U.S. southern border. This policy was implemented by extensively increasing manpower and resources at ports of entry and located at popular entry points such as San Diego (CA), Yuma (AZ), and El Paso (TX). Rather than preventing illegal immigration into America, this policy created a funnel effect causing the flow of undocumented immigrants, drug traffickers, and other illegal activity to shift to other less regulated spots on the border.

Consequently, because of the lack of border security resources and attention to the Nation, illegal immigration through our Reservation has become a prime avenue of choice for undocumented immigrants and drug trafficking activities traveling into the United States. This has created urgent challenges to protect against possible terrorists coming through a very vulnerable location on our Reservation.

Although the Nation has neither the sufficient manpower nor the resources to adequately address this crisis, we continue to be the first line of defense in protecting America's homeland security interests in this highly volatile and dangerous region.

Allowing for local autonomy is key to preserving the Tohono culture Sarah Singleton January 2009 Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science at Research institute at Western Washington University “Not our borders: Indigenous people and the struggle to maintain shared lives and cultures in post-9/11 North America”(http://www.wwu.edu/bpri/files/2009_Jan_WP_No_4.pdf)Yet it is here that current government policy is most mistaken. As has been demonstrated in locations all over the world, the maintenance of social order and law enforcement requires adequate funding—either internally or from higher levels of government—and support from the community. Failing to fund tribal law enforcement agencies and train tribal personnel in the implementation of homeland security initiatives and then using inadequate capacity as a reason to deny tribes’ own efforts to balance security with cultural needs clearly is a case of blaming the victim. A more reasonable, equitable and workable approach would first focus on compensating tribes for damages that have occurred as the unintended consequences of new border security regimes, and then on making significant investments in building tribes’ own capacities to respond to security threats, cross-border drug trade, etc. Rather than interpreting signs of inefficiency or inadequacy as a mandate to step in and take over, DHS should reflect on the failures of such efforts in the past and attempt to engage tribal communities. A variety of models are already functioning where responsibility for policy in a particular area is shared between federal and tribal governments. In fact, both the U.S. Department of Defense and the U.S. Department of Justice have institutionalized programs that create processes for collaboration and coordination with tribes. Many states have similar programs. There is solid evidence to indicate that heightened responsibility or sovereignty is a necessary condition of better performance and accountability on Indian reservations (Cornell and Kalt, undated). The justification for such initiatives does not require an endorsement of the entire package of

multiculturalist arguments, although it would acknowledge that social identity and indigenous culture are important to people and worthy of protection by government. In this case, (although perhaps not in others) most of what I term culture-sensitive costs could be addressed without changing underlying assumptions about impartiality and equal treatment under the law. Government agencies could respect local autonomy and benefit from local knowledge by allowing tribes to devise, by whatever means they chose, a border security regime that would function in such a way as to meet national standards. ¶ In closing, on behalf of the Tohono O'odham Nation, I appreciate the opportunity to present this statement to the Committee and respectfully request the Committee's favorable consideration of the Nation's proposed amendment. Proposed Amendment to S. 2295 to establish a Tohono O'odham Nation pilot border project. Amend Title I to add at the end thereof a new Section 108: SEC. 108. ESTABLISHING PILOT BORDER PREPAREDNESS PROGRAM ON TRIBAL LANDS-- (a) PURPOSE. To establish a pilot program to enhance the capability of Tribal governments as first responders upon Tribal lands on or near the international borders of the United States with effective aerial and ground surveillance technologies, integrated communications systems and equipment, health and bioterror monitoring mechanisms, and personnel training, and facilitate the coordination by Tribal governments of their responses with those of federal, state, and local governments to threats and hazards to the defense and security of the United States. (b) INITIAL PILOT PROGRAM TO PROVIDE BORDER PREPAREDNESS ASSISTANCE. The Secretary shall establish a pilot program to provide assistance to the Tohono O'odham Nation, a federally recognized Indian Tribal government, that will enhance the capability of this economically distressed Tribe carry out on a demonstration basis the purposes described in subsection (a) and to assist in the effective enforcement of Federal, State and Tribal law against all national security hazards arising from the Tribe's proximity to the international border with Mexico. (c) EXPANDED PILOT PROGRAM TO PROVIDE BORDER PREPAREDNESS ASSISTANCE.Upon transmission of the report required in subsection (i), the Secretary shall establish an expanded pilot program to add up to 4 federally recognized Indian Tribal governments, in addition to the Tohono O'odham Nation, to assist in the effective enforcement of Federal, State and Tribal law against all national security hazards arising from their proximity to the international borders of the United States. (d) ADMINISTRATION OF ASSISTANCE. For each of fiscal years 2005, 2006 and 2007, the Secretary shall provide funds and other assistance to the Tribal governments under this section pursuant to flexible grant or contract authorities consistent with the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, as amended (25 U.S.C. 450b et seq.), and the Tribal governments shall administer this assistance only in accordance with the requirements of that Act. “(e) USES OF ASSISTANCE. Assistance provided to Tribal governments under this section shall be used consistent with the purposes of subsection (a) and in a manner that develops prototype inter-governmental agreements with Federal, Tribal, State, regional and local governments on strategies designed to coordinate and enhance efforts to defend against hazards to the security of the United States. (f) AUTHORIZATION OF FUNDS. For each fiscal year, in providing assistance under subsection (b), the Secretary shall make directly available to the Tohono O'odham Nation such sums as may be necessary to demonstrate the potential worth of such a pilot program. For each fiscal year, in providing assistance under subsection (c), the Secretary shall make directly available to the Tribal governments such sums as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of (a). (g) REPORTING REQUIREMENTS. Not later than 1 year and 30 days after implementing the pilot program under subsection (b), the Tohono O'odham Nation shall submit a report to the Secretary of Homeland Security which sets out the accomplishments achieved and obstacles

encountered. (h) REPORT TO CONGRESS. Not later than 1 year and 90 days after implementing the pilot program under subsection (b), the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to the Senate Committees on Indian Affairs and on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, and to the House Committees on Science, on Homeland Security, and on Resources,a report describing the implementation of the pilot tribal lands program and any recommendations for improving and expanding the pilot program to other Tribal governments.¶

http://www.usborderpatrol.com/Border_Patrol704_X.htm¶ Again, without the benefit of consulting with us, federal border security policy was developed focusing on closing down what were considered to be key points of entry along the U.S. southern border . This policy was implemented by extensively increasing manpower and resources at ports of entry and located at popular entry points such as San Diego (CA), Yuma (AZ), and El Paso (TX). Rather than preventing illegal into America, this policy created a funnel effect causing the flow of undocumented immigrants, drug traffickers, and other illegal activity to shift to other less regulated spots on the border. ¶ Consequently, because of the lack of border security resources and attention to the Nation, illegal immigration through our Reservation has become a prime avenue of choice for undocumented immigrants and drug trafficking activities traveling into the United States. This has created urgent challenges to protect against possible terrorists coming through a very vulnerable location on our Reservation. ¶ Although the Nation has neither the sufficient manpower nor the resources to adequately address this crisis, we continue to be the first line of defense in protecting America's homeland security interests in this highly volatile and dangerous region¶ http://www.usborderpatrol.com/Border_¶ The Tohono O’odham Nation (pronounced TOHN-oh AUTH-um) is a sovereign government and federally recognized Indian nation that claims 25,000 members. Their reservation — established in 1917 — is the second largest in the U.S. and spans 2.8 million acres, about the size of Connecticut. The southern boundary includes 75 miles of the U.S.-Mexico international border.¶ Estimates vary on how many Tohono O’odham live in Mexico, and the tribal government refused to comment on the topic. The Tohono O’odham Community College website states that about 1,800 enrolled Tohono O’odham reside in Mexico. According to the 2000 national census and subsequent report by Mexico’s National Commission for the Development of Indigenous Peoples, 363 O’odham were living in Sonora, Mexico. However, that tally included only families in which someone in the household spoke the O’odham language, ñiok, which has been almost entirely replaced by Spanish.¶ When the Tohono O’odham reservation was created, said Veléz-Ibáñez, it was a distinctive land base that O’odham had control over even though it was held in trust by the U.S. government. ¶ “In Mexico that didn’t happen at all. In Mexico they were at the mercy of the Mexican government,” he said. O’odham in Mexico had no special rights or recognition, and throughout the 20th century Mexican ranchers encroached on their land. (It wasn’t until after the Zapatista movement sprang out of the forests in Chiapas in 1996 that Mexico’s federal government officially recognized parcels of indigenous lands.)¶ Veléz-Ibáñez said the special relationship between the U.S. and native people beginning early on provided O’odham in the U.S. opportunities for education, economic development, housing subsidies, work and training programs — and health care — not available to O’odham in Mexico.¶ “The Indian health service is not

a Cadillac program,” he explained, “but it’s still much better than what O’odham in Mexico had.”¶ When the border fence was erected — to this day just concrete vehicle barriers connected by chicken wire — it didn’t stop O’odham from crossing between the countries.¶ “The border meant not a thing to me,” said Henry Jose, a Navy veteran whose story was included in “It Is Not Our Fault,” a collection of testimonies from O’odham on both sides of the border used to make a case to Congress for citizenship for all O’odham. (The book was published in 2001, shortly before 9/11 changed the immigration debate drastically.) “The border is between the white people and the Mexicans but not us O’odham. These are Indian lands, O’odham lands.”¶ “We used to go back and forth freely,” confirmed Jose Garcia, lieutenant governor of the Sonoran O’odham who serves as a liaison between their traditional leaders and the Tohono O’odham Nation. These days Garcia, 72, splits his time between Arizona, where he owns La Indita restaurant in downtown Tucson, and Magdalena de Kino in Sonora, Mexico, where he advocates for the Mexican O’odham. Garcia’s grandparents were born on the U.S. side and migrated to Mexico. “So I look at Sonora and I look at the Nation as one for me,” Garcia said.¶ However, especially after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Customs and Border Protection — and the Department of Homeland Security it operates under — saw it much differently.¶ "Agents across a number of Homeland Security, Justice and Defense agencies have all been placed on alert and instructed to aggressively work all possible leads and sources concerning this imminent terrorist threat," Judicial Watch stated on its website.¶ The Texas law enforcement bulletin cites suspected fighters from the terrorist group previously known as ISIS and based in Syria and Iraq as eyeing a border crossing.¶ “The identities of persons operating these accounts cannot be independently verified; however the accounts were selected for monitoring based on several indications that they have been used by actual ISIS militants for propaganda purposes and collectively reach tens of thousands of followers,” states the bulletin. “One account was verified as belonging to an individual located in Mosul, Iraq.”¶ Some 32 Twitter and Facebook posts monitored by law enforcement over one recent week reflected interest in the southern border, according to the bulletin. The messages, which were forwarded thousands of times, included calls for jihadists to cross over from Mexico to carry out attacks and even alluded to a recent video by U.S. activist James O’Keefe, who was recorded coming across the Rio Grande valley in an Usama bin Laden costume.¶ The bulletin details numerous “calls for border infiltration” on social media, including one from a militant confirmed to be in Mosul, Iraq who explicitly beckons the “Islamic State to send a special force to America across the border with Mexico.” ¶ “This Twitter account holder, who is the administrator of an ISIS propaganda trading group, stated that the time was right for such an action because ‘the US-Mexican border is now open large numbers of people crossing,’” the bulletin said.¶ Another message sent out via Twitter suggested that Islamic State fighters have already entered the U.S. via the border, warning that, as a result, “Americans in for ruin (sic).”¶

The Texas DPS bulletin comes on the heels of a federal Department of Homeland Security and Department of Justice Joint Intelligence bulletin dated August 22, a copy of which was also obtained by FoxNews.com.That bulletin, entitled “Online Reaction but No Known Credible Homeland Threats from ISIL and Its Supporters Following US Air Strikes,”addresses potential threats to the Homeland in response to recent US air strikes on the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) targets in Iraq and the murder of journalist James Foley.¶ This bulletin notes that while the FBI and DHS are unaware of specific credible threats against the U.S. from homegrown violent extremists, ISIL or other violent extremist groups overseas “we continue to assess that

violent extremists who support ISIL have demonstrated the capability to attempt attacks on US targets overseas with little-to-no warning.”¶ The report also says that “because of the individualized nature of the radicalization process—it is difficult to predict triggers that will contribute to [homegrown violent extremists] attempting acts of violence…lone offenders present law enforcement with limited opportunities to detect and disrupt plots, which frequently involve simple plotting against targets of opportunity.”¶ “This Twitter account holder, who is the administrator of an ISIS propaganda trading group, stated that the time was right for such an action because ‘the US-Mexican border is now open large numbers of people crossing,’” the bulletin said.¶ Another message sent out via Twitter suggested that Islamic State fighters have already entered the U.S. via the border, warning that, as a result, “Americans in for ruin (sic).”¶ The Texas DPS bulletin comes on the heels of a federal Department of Homeland Security and Department of Justice Joint Intelligence bulletin dated August 22, a copy of which was also obtained by FoxNews.com.That bulletin, entitled “Online Reaction but No Known Credible Homeland Threats from ISIL and Its Supporters Following US Air Strikes,”addresses potential threats to the Homeland in response to recent US air strikes on the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) targets in Iraq and the murder of journalist James Foley.¶ This bulletin notes that while the FBI and DHS are unaware of specific credible threats against the U.S. from homegrown violent extremists, ISIL or other violent extremist groups overseas “we continue to assess that violent extremists who support ISIL have demonstrated the capability to attempt attacks on US targets overseas with little-to-no warning.”¶ The report also says that “because of the individualized nature of the radicalization process—it is difficult to predict triggers that will contribute to [homegrown violent extremists] attempting acts of violence…lone offenders present law enforcement with limited opportunities to detect and disrupt plots, which frequently involve simple plotting against targets of opportunity.”¶

Politics LinksObama will fight for border control- Recent meeting provesWolfgang 14 (Ben Wolfgang: Covers the White House for The Washington Times, “Obama: I’ve fought against activists who believe there should be open borders”, The Washington Times, 12/9/2014, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/dec/9/obama-ive-fought-against-activists-open-borders/, Accessed: 7/17/15, RRR)Critics say President Obama went too far with his executive action granting amnesty to more than 4 million illegal immigrants — but behind the scenes, the

president said he’s pushed back against those who believe the U.S. should have an open border

with Mexico .¶ At a town-hall meeting in Nashville on Tuesday, Mr . Obama defended the idea of a strong U.S-Mexico

border and said he’s had heated debates with activists who want that border to disappear. ¶ “There have been times, honestly, I’ve had arguments with immigration rights activists who say, effectively, ‘There shouldn’t be any rules. These are good people. Why should we have any enforcement like this?’ My response is, ‘In the eyes of God, everybody is equal … I don’t make any claims my child is superior to anybody else’s child. But I’m the

president of the United States, and nation states have borders,’” the president said. “ If we had no system of enforcing our borders and our laws, I promise you, everybody would try to come here. ” ¶ Mr. Obama added that it would be fundamentally unfair to erase the nation’s southern border . ¶ “Sometimes it’s just an accident that one person lives in a country that has a border with the U.S. and another person — in Somalia, it’s a lot harder to get here,” he said.

Obama will fight the plan – Currently increasing funding for border surveillanceKnauth 14 (Dietrich Knauth, “Obama Seeks $39M In Drone Funding For Border Surveillance”, Law360, 7/9/2014, http://www.law360.com/articles/555799/obama-seeks-39m-in-drone-funding-for-border-surveillance, Accessed: 7/17/15, RRR)Law360, New York (July 9, 2014, 5:08 PM ET) -- The Obama administration on Tuesday requested $39 million for aerial surveillance, including unmanned aircraft operations , as part of an effort to stop an influx of refugee children from crossing the U.S.'s southern border.The administration has called on Congress to provide $3.7 billion in emergency funding, spread out among the U.S. Departments of Homeland Security, Justice, Health and Human Services and State, to combat what it called a “humanitarian crisis.”

The White House said that children, both accompanied and on their own, are fleeing Central America in alarming numbers and that as a result, it needs more border surveillance and security , as well as a surge in enforcement personnel, from immigration judges to asylum officers.The DHS would get a significant portion of the president's request, with $1.1 billion going to Immigration and Customs Enforcement and $433 million going to Customs and Border Protection. The CBP's share includes $39.4 million to increase air surveillance capabilities that would support 16,526 additional flight hours for border surveillance and 16 additional crews for unmanned aerial systems to improve detection and interdiction of illegal activity, according to a White House fact sheet.

Schumer supports systematic border surveillance and militarizationOn The Issues 14 (On The Issues, "Charles Schumer on Immigration", www.ontheissues.org/International/Charles_Schumer_Immigration.htm, 12/14/2014, sr)What changes to our current immigration policy do you support? A: I support further securing our borders; prohibiting hiring of undocumented immigrants by requiring job applicants to present a secure Social Security card; creating jobs by attracting the world's best and brightest to America, and keeping them here; requiring undocumented immigrants to register with the government, pay taxes, and earn legal [status or face deportation.] Establishes specified benchmarks which must be met before

the guest worker and legalization programs may be initiated: operational control of the border with Mexico; Border Patrol increases ; border barriers , including vehicle barriers, fencing, radar, and aerial vehicles; detention capacity for illegal aliens apprehended crossing the US-Mexico border; workplace enforcement, including an electronic employment verification system; and Z-visa alien processing. Within 18 months, achieves operational control over U.S. land and maritime borders, including:

systematic border surveillance through more effective use of personnel and technology; and

physical infrastructure enhancements to prevent unlawful border entry Defines "operational

control" as the prevention of all unlawful U.S. entries, including entries by terrorists, other

unlawful aliens, narcotics, and other contraband.

Terror DA

1NC UQ + Link

Border Patrol is stretched thin now – it must be expanded, not curtailed, in order to prevent the threat of Islamic terrorism – and specifically ISIS poses a threat to the US through MexicoChiaramonte 14 (Perry Chiaramonte is a reporter for FoxNews.com, “Border crisis could provide cover to ISIS operatives, say experts” Fox News, July 7th, 2014, http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/07/07/isis-could-take-advantage-weakened-us-border-for-terrorist-attack/) //RLThe border crisis could be the perfect opportunity for Islamic terrorists looking to sneak

sleeper cells into the U.S., say experts. ¶ Patrols on the Mexican border have been stretched

to the breaking point in recent weeks by a tidal wave of immigrants from Central America. Among the estimated 60,000 people who have streamed across is a small percentage of what agents term "Special Interest Aliens," or SIAs. Terrorism experts say airport security is effective at keeping dangerous jihadists out, but the border breakdown could be America's Achilles heel - providing an entry point for groups like ISIS. ¶ “It's impossible to say that ISIS will soon be active on our border, but some groups will be,” said retired Army Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, a security and defense analyst and Fox News contributor. “The one thing that all of the squabbling jihadi groups in the Middle East and North Africa have in common is that they want to strike the U.S., both for what they view as vengeance and because, in terrorist circles, striking the U.S. is how you confirm that you're a major player.” ¶ “If you pay the cartels enough, they will sneak you across or assist in getting anything you want across the border." ¶ - Shawn Moran, vice president and spokesperson for the Border Patrol Council¶ It’s long been known that a percentage, albeit small, of illegals caught sneaking across from Mexico hail from terror-sponsoring states. And some of the Islamic terror groups have ties to Latin American drug cartels and gangs, including MS-13. The combination of terrorists' desire to infiltrate the border and gangs' know-how could prove dangerous to American security, say experts. ¶ “It’s obviously a concern,” Shawn Moran, vice president and spokesperson for the Border Patrol Council, told FoxNews.com. “If you pay the cartels enough, they will sneak you across or assist in getting anything you want across the border.¶ “It’s definitely a nightmare

scenario if they use the borders, north or south, to cross and conduct a terrorist attack, ” Moran added.¶ Texas Gov. Rick Perry said the record wave of illegal immigrants includes record numbers of SIAs.¶ “We have record high numbers of other than Mexicans being apprehended at the border,” Perry told Fox News. “These are people that are coming from states like Syria that have substantial connections back to terrorist regimes and terrorist operations. So we're seeing record, historic high numbers of these individuals being apprehended.”

2NC UQISIS plans a nuclear strike on the US through Mexico in the next 10 months - and specifically such a WMD terrorist attack would have drastic effects on the US economySlavo 5/26 (Marc, journalist, http://www.infowars.com/report-terrorist-nuke-attack-may-be-carried-out-inside-the-united-states-in-next-12-months/) //RLWith nuclear material having been stolen on multiple occasions in Mexico, and close terrorist

ties to intelligence organizations in the middle east, it appears that if an organization was

committed to acquiring nuclear material they could do so . Finding the scientists to build such a weapon, whether dirty or actual, wouldn’t be all that difficult. Moreover, smuggling such a device into the U.S. is possible, as evidenced by a 2011 report which confirms that at least one nuclear weapon of mass destruction was seized as it entered the United States. ¶ According to a report from Zero Hedge, such a plan may be in the works over the next twelve months, as the

Islamic State claims it may be actively pursuing a nuclear weapon intended for detonation

on American soil. ¶ Three weeks after the first supposed attack by Islamic State supporters in the US, in which two ISIS “soldiers” wounded a security guard before they were killed in Garland, Texas, the time has come to raise the fear stakes. ¶ In an article posted in the terrorist group’s English-language online magazine Dabiq (which as can be see below seems to have gotten its design cues straight from Madison Avenue and is just missing glossy pages filled with ‘scratch and sniff’ perfume ads ) ISIS claimed that it has enoughmoney to buy a nuclear

weapon from Pakistan and “carry out an attack inside the United States next year.” ¶ In the

article, the ISIS columnist said the weapon could be smuggled into the United States via its

southern border with Mexico. ¶ Curiously, the author of the piece is John Cantlie, a British photojournalist who was abducted by ISIS in 2012 and has been held hostage by the organization ever since; he has appeared in several videos since his kidnapping and criticized Western powers.¶ As the Telegraph notes, “Mr Cantlie, whose fellow journalist hostages have all either been released or beheaded, has appeared in the group’s propaganda videos and written previous pieces. In his latest work, presumed to be written under pressure but in his hall-mark style combining hyperbole, metaphor and sarcasm, he says that President Obama’s policies for containing Isil have demonstrably failed and increased the risk to America.”¶ Cantlie describes the following “hypothetical” scenario in Dabiq :¶ Let me throw a hypothetical operation onto the table. The Islamic State has billions of dollars in the bank, so they call on their wilayah in Pakistan to purchase a nuclear device through weapons dealers with links to corrupt officials in the region. ¶ The weapon is then transported overland until it makes it to Libya, where the muj?hid?n move it south to Nigeria. Drug shipments from Columbia bound for Europe pass through West Africa, so moving other types of contraband from East to West is just as possible. ¶ The nuke and accompanying mujahadin arrive on the shorelines of South America and are transported through the porous borders of Central America before arriving in Mexico and up to the border with the United States. ¶ From there it’s just a quick hop through a

smuggling tunnel and hey presto, they’re mingling with another 12 million “illegal” aliens in

America with a nuclear bomb in the trunk of their car. ¶ Cantlie continues:¶ Perhaps such a

scenario is far-fetched but it’s the sum of all fears for Western intelligence agencies and it’s infinitely more possible today than it was just one year ago. And if not a nuke, what about a few thousand tons of ammonium nitrate explosive? ¶ That’s easy enough to make. The Islamic

State make no secret of the fact they have every intention of attacking America on its home

soil and they’re not going to mince about with two muj?hid?n taking down a dozen casualties

if it originates from the Caliphate. They’ll be looking to do something big, something that would make any past operation look like a squirrel shoot, and the more groups that pledge allegiance the more possible it becomes to pull off something truly epic.¶ Remember, all of this has happened in less than a year. How more dangerous will be the lines of communication and supply a year on from today? If the West completely failed to spot the emergence of the Islamic State and then the allies who so quickly pledged allegiance to it from around the world, what else of massive significance are they going to miss next? ¶ One can, of course, debate just how much the West “failed to spot the emergence of ISIS” considering it was not only the CIA which initially trainedthe terrorist organization in Jordan in 2012, but according to recently declassified Pentagon documents, the US was well aware the outcome its attempt to overthrow Syria’s Assad would have on the region, in the process “creating” ISIS, aka al Qaeda 2.0.¶ In other words, even the “hypothetical operation” involving a nuclear attack on US soil

would implicitly have the blessing of the US government. Which, considering the way the

stock market surges every time the US economy deteriorates further on its way towards

recession, probably means that a mushroom cloud appearing in some major US metropolitan

area is just what the E-mini algos would need to send the S&P500 limit up .¶ Source: Zero Hedge¶ We have definitive confirmation via declassified documents that the Islamic State is a creation of the U.S. Department of Defense and Central Intelligence Agency, and their influence across the middle east was predicted well in advance of anyone ever having heard the name ISIS or ISIL. We also know that false flag operations, such as the German Reichstag fire of 1933, are often used by governments (or rogue elements within a government) to implement changes to existing political and social paradigms.¶ It could be that this nuclear threat is a psychological operation designed to elicit fear in the populace so that they go along willingly with legislative actions like the Patriot Act which further erode individual rights in the name of protecting us from terrorism, or to justify large scale military operations on U.S. soil, including but not limited to this summer’s Jade Helm exercises.¶ Or, certainly within the realm of possibility, is the notion that at some point a rogue terror element, the origination and loyalty of which makes absolutely no difference in the end, is planning on detonating a nuclear device on U.S. soil.¶

Perhaps this is one reason for why the elite are rapidly investing in secret hideaways. Perhaps they know it’s time to start exiting large metropolitan areas ahead of whatever is coming. Perhaps it all starts with a bang and a mushroom cloud, soon followed by panic, riots, looting, and of course, the unprecedented domestic military response that would be necessitated by a widespread breakdown of civil order.¶ We can only speculate, but the fact is that another large-scale attack on U.S. soil would usher in a new era in the Land of the Free.¶ Admittedly, we have delved deep into the rabbit hole of conspiracy theory, but we leave the reader the following quote to consider within the context of this current threat:¶ The process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor. ¶ Project for a New American Century, 2000 (PDF Link)¶ Signed by Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, et. al.¶ At the very least the American

people are being psychologically conditioned to accept their own enslavement. At worst, an

event such as this would be used to plunge the world into the next great war.

2NC LinkTerrorists use lax border security to get to the US from Mexico – ISIS is just 8 miles from the borderChasmar 4/14 (Jessica, continuous news writer for The Washington Times, covering topics on culture and politics, “Islamic State operating in Mexico just 8 miles from U.S. border: report”, The Washington Times, April 14th, 2015, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/14/islamic-state-operating-in-mexico-just-8-miles-fro/) //RL

The Islamic State terror group is operating a camp in the northern Mexican state of

Chihuahua, just eight miles from the U.S. border, Judicial Watch reported Tuesday. ¶ Citing sources that include a “Mexican Army field grade officer and a Mexican Federal Police Inspector,” the conservative watchdog group reported that the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, is organizing only a few miles from El Paso, Texas, in the Anapra neighborhood of Juárez and in Puerto Palomas. ¶ Judicial Watch sources said that “coyotes” working for the notorious Juarez Cartel are smuggling Islamic State terrorists across the U.S. border between the New Mexico cities of Santa Teresa and Sunland Park, as well as “through the porous border between Acala and Fort Hancock, Texas.” ¶ “These specific areas were targeted for

exploitation by ISIS because of their understaffed municipal and county police forces, and the

relative safe-havens the areas provide for the unchecked large-scale drug smuggling that was

already ongoing,” Judicial Watch reported. ¶ Mexican intelligence sources say the Islamic State intends to exploit the railways and airport facilities in the vicinity of Santa Teresa, New Mexico. ¶ “The sources also say that ISIS has ‘spotters’ located in the East Potrillo Mountains of New Mexico (largely managed by the Bureau of Land Management) to assist with terrorist border crossing operations,” Judicial Watch reported. “ISIS is conducting reconnaissance of regional universities; the White Sands Missile Range; government facilities in Alamogordo, NM; Ft. Bliss; and the electrical power facilities near Anapra and Chaparral, NM.”

OFFCASE – BORDERS (MM POLICY)

T - SurveillanceInterpretation – surveillance must be covert Baker 5 – MA, CPP, CPO(Brian, “Surveillance: Concepts and Practices for Fraud, Security and Crime Investigation,” http://www.ifpo.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/surveillance.pdf)Surveillance is defined as covert observations of places and persons for the purpose of obtaining ∂ information (Dempsey, 2003). The term covert infers that the operative conducting the ∂ surveillance is discreet and secretive . Surveillance that maintains a concealed, hidden, undetected∂ nature clearly has the greatest chance of success because the subject of the surveillance will act∂ or perform naturally. Remaining undetected during covert surveillance work often involves∂ physical fatigue, mental stress, and very challenging situations. Physical discomfort is an∂ unfortunate reality for investigators, which varies from stinging perspiration in summer to hard∂ shivers during the winter.Violation- the CBP does a lot more than surveillanceUS CBPUS Customs and Border Patrol, “Along US Borders”, http://www.cbp.gov/border-security/along-us-borders//SRawalOne of the most important activities of a Border Patrol agent is line watch. This involves the detection, prevention and apprehension of terrorists, undocumented aliens and smugglers of aliens at or near the land border by maintaining surveillance from a covert position, following up leads, responding to electronic sensor television systems, aircraft sightings, and interpreting and following tracks, marks and other physical evidence. Some of the major activities are traffic check, traffic observation, city patrol, transportation check, administrative, intelligence, and anti-smuggling activities.

Reasons to prefer – a) Limits—allowing the ending of public surveillance explodes the limits of

the topic by allowing affirmatives that deal with programs that known surveillance like detention facilities

b) Ground—key to neg ground like terrorism and politics disads T is a voter- Limits- They justify doing many things outside of surveillance which expands the research too much. This kills clash and productive debate because the negative can’t effectively prepare for those many affirmatives.

Relations Adv CPNote: They decrease surveillance because they have a card that says that federal money is used to surveillance rather than ports of entry and sufficient infrastructure to have good trading. The CP basically goes around their internal link (stopping all border surveillance) and solves the advantage w/o linking to ptx.Text: The United States federal government should substantially increase its transportation infrastructure investment at United States’ ports-of-entry along the official US-Mexico border.

Cross apply their Crawford ’13 evidence from the 1NC – Surveillance infrastructure is the only thing stopping effective border infrastructure in the status-quo, the CP diverts funds directly to border transportation infrastructure

Their trade cards are wrong – it’s only a question of border infrastructure PEÑA NIETO 2015 /ENRIQUE, The President of Mexico, January 06 2015, “Why the U.S.-Mexico Relationship Matters”, http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/us-mexico-relationship-enrique-pea-nieto-113980.html#.Va-yhni4lao/ FranzyTo ensure the prosperity of our border we have worked together to improve security and

facilitate trade. Every minute, nearly a million dollars worth of products cross our land border. Additionally, our countries have begun several infrastructure projects to make the border region a catalyst for growth and innovation. These projects include the San Diego-Tijuana airport pedestrian bridge, the railway crossing at Matamoros-Brownsville, and six new inspection booths at the Nogales port of entry. We have also reduced average waiting times at the San Ysidro-Chaparral crossing on the California-Baja California border from 3.5 hours to

half-an-hour.Our commitment to education has allowed us to take advantage of the synergies built through FOBESII and between our initiatives “Proyecta 100,000” and “100,000 Strong in the Americas.” Last year, we launched the webpage Mobilitas, a platform to help students find educational opportunities in both countries. Furthermore, 23 cooperation agreements have been signed between Mexican and American states and universities. Altogether, we were able to reach our 2014 goal: 27,000 Mexican students are attending almost 200 universities across the U.S.The United States and Mexico have recognized that the challenges and opportunities we face on immigration should be addressed from a broad regional perspective and based upon the principle of shared responsibility. Consequently, we are committed to working with our neighbors in Central America to foster development and prosperity in that region.Over 34 million people of Mexican origin live in the U.S., 22.9 million of whom were born here. Mexican-Americans are socially and economically active members of their communities, and they maintain a strong binational identity. These communities are pillars of the relationship between our countries and will help us build a more prosperous shared future.My government applauds President Obama’s recently announced Immigration Accountability Executive Action, which acknowledges the positive economic and social impact of Mexican immigrants to their communities in the U.S. Furthermore, these measures will allow immigrants to increase their contributions to American society and live without fear of being

separated from their families. My administration will continue to work with the U.S. government by providing services and consular assistance in order to improve the well-being of the Mexican community in this country. In order to raise living standards in Mexico—

which will discourage undocumented immigration—my government has embarked upon a

transformational path. We have sought to enhance my country’s competitiveness,

strengthen the rights of the Mexican people and consolidate our democracy.

More solvency evidenceLee & Wilson ‘12 /Erik Lee serves as Associate Director at the North American Center for Transborder Studies (NACTS) at Arizona State University, Christopher Wilson is Deputy Director of the Mexico Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, where he leads the Institute’s research and programming on regional economic integration and U.S.-Mexico border affairs., June 2012, The State of Trade, Competitiveness and Economic Well-being in the U.S.-Mexico Border Region/A key component of how the U.S.-Mexico border functions to facilitate trade has to do with transportation planning because in its absence infrastructure investments on one side of the border or in one region can simply feed traffic into a bottleneck in another area. This process is largely managed by the Joint Working Committee, a binational entity comprised of representatives from the two countries’ transportation agencies, the State Department, Mexico’s Foreign Ministry, other federal agencies and state departments of transportation, but as border communities felt themselves increasingly affected by decisions made in Washington and Mexico City, their insistence in being included in these discussions led to the regional border master plan process, in which state DOTs lead stakeholder discussions on border infrastructure priorities. While this process makes sense from a U.S. perspective (in the absence of a national transportation plan, state DOTs essentially manage and spend federal transportation dollars), this process is somewhat of a mismatch for Mexico’s more centralized political system. The system seems to work better in certain cross-border communities, as is seen with California and Baja California’s award-winning master plan.There is no simple answer to the complex challenge of coordinating border planning and management, but a few key ingredients for success can be identified. First, border stakeholders need to be at the table—border experts in Washington and Mexico City are no substitute for those living the implications of policy on a daily basis. Nonetheless, a strong federal role is important. Border communities often work together, but they also compete to attract federal resources and trade flows. The federal agencies are well placed to analyze and balance competing needs, especially in dialogue with border communities. Finally, and hopefully obviously, cross-border collaboration is vital. To strengthen regional competitiveness and security, we need regional coordination.

Cartels Adv CP

1NCText: The United States Federal Government should legalize marijuana in the United States.

Marijuana prohibition drives cartel violence – Legalization is keyArmentano 9 /Paul, Deputy Director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, an expert in the field of marijuana policy, health, and pharmacology, has served as a consultant for Health Canada and the Canadian Public Health Association, "How to End Mexico's Deadly Drug War", 1/18/09, The Foundation for Economic Education, http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/how-to-end-mexicos-deadly-drug-war/ FranzyThe U.S. Office of Drug Control Policy (more commonly known as the drug czar’s office) says more than 60 percent of the profits reaped by Mexican drug lords are derived from the exportation and sale of cannabis to the American market. To anyone who has studied the marijuana issue, this figure should come as no surprise. An estimated 100 million Americans age 12 or older—or about 43 percent of the country—admit to having tried pot, a higher percentage, according to the World Health Organization, than any o ther country on the planet. Twenty-five million Americans admit (on government surveys, no less) to smoking marijuana during the past year, and 15 million say that they indulge regularly. This high demand, combined with the drug’s artificially inflated black-market value (pot possession has been illegal under federal law since 1937), now makes cannabis America’s top cash crop.In fact, according to a 2007 analysis by George Mason University professor Jon Gettman, the annual retail value of the U.S. marijuana market is some $113 billion.How much of this goes directly to Mexican cartels is difficult to quantify, but no doubt the percentage is significant. Government officials estimate that approximately half the

marijuana consumed in the United States originates from outside its borders, and they have

identified Mexico as far and away America’s largest pot provider. Because Mexican-grown marijuana tends to fetch lower prices on the black market than domestically grown weed (a result attributed largely to lower production costs—the Mexican variety tends to be grown outdoors, while an increasing percentage of American-grown pot is produced hydroponically indoors), it remains consistently popular among U.S. consumers, particularly in a down

economy. As a result, U.S. law officials now report that some Mexican cartels are moving to the United States to set up shop permanently. A Congressional Research Service report says low-level cartel members are now establishing clandestine growing operations inside the United States (thus eliminating the need to cross the border), as well as partnering with domestic gangs and other criminal enterprises. A March 23 New York Times story speculated that Mexican drug gangs or their affiliates are now active in some 230 U.S. cities, extending from Tucson, Arizona, to Anchorage, Alaska.In short, America’s multibillion-dollar demand for pot is fueling the Mexican drug trade and much of the turf battles and carnage associated with it.Same Old “Solutions”So what are the administration’s plans to quell the cartels’ growing influence and surging violence? Troublingly, the White House appears intent on recycling the very strategies that gave rise to Mexico’s infamous drug lords in the first place.

In March the administration requested $700 million from Congress to “bolster existing efforts by Washington and Mexican President Felipe Calderón’s administration to fight violent trafficking in drugs . . . into the United States.” These efforts, as described by the Los Angeles Times, include: “vowing to send U.S. money, manpower, and technology to the southwestern border” and “reducing illegal flows (of drugs) in both directions across the border.” The administration also announced that it intends to clamp down on the U.S. demand for illicit drugs by increasing funding for drug treatment and drug courts.There are three primary problems with this strategy.First, marijuana production is a lucrative business that attracts criminal entrepreneurs precisely because it is a black-market (and highly sought after) commodity. As long as pot remains federally prohibited its retail price to the consumer will remain artificially high, and its production and distribution will attract criminal enterprises willing to turn to violence (rather than the judicial system) to maintain their slice of the multi-billion-dollar pie.Second, the United States is already spending more money on illicit-drug law enforcement, drug treatment, and drug courts than at any time in our history. FBI data show that domestic marijuana arrests have increased from under 300,000 annually in 1991 to over 800,000 today. Police seizures of marijuana have also risen dramatically in recent years, as has the amount of taxpayer dollars federal officials have spent on so-called “educational efforts” to discourage the drug’s use. (For example, since the late 1990s Congress has appropriated well over a billion dollars in anti-pot public service announcements alone.) Yet despite these combined efforts to discourage demand, Americans use more pot than anyone else in the world.Third, law enforcement’s recent attempts to crack down on the cartels’ marijuana distribution rings, particularly new efforts launched by the Calderón administration in Mexico, are driving the unprecedented wave in Mexican violence—not abating it. The New York Times states: “A crackdown begun more than two years ago by President Felipe Calderón, coupled with feuds over turf and control of the organizations, has set off an unprecedented wave of killings in Mexico. . . . Many of the victims were tortured. Beheadings have become common.” Because of this escalating violence, Mexico now ranks behind only Pakistan and Iran as the administration’s top international security concern.Despite the rising death toll, drug war hawks at the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) remain adamant that the United States’ and Mexico’s “supply side” strategies are in fact successful. “Our view is that the violence we have been seeing is a signpost of the success our very courageous Mexican counterparts are having,” acting DEA administrator Michele Lionhart said recently. “The cartels are acting out like caged animals, because they are caged animals.” President Obama also appears to share this view. After visiting with the Calderón government in April, he told CNN he intended to “beef up” security on the border. When asked whether the administration would consider alternative strategies, such as potentially liberalizing pot’s criminal classification, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano replied that such an option “is not on the table.”A New RemedyBy contrast the Calderón administration appears open to the idea of legalizing marijuana—or at least reducing criminal sanctions on the possession of small quantities of drugs—as a way to stem the tide of violence. Last spring Mexican lawmakers made the possession of personal-use quantities of cannabis and other illicit substances a noncriminal offense. And in April Mexico’s ambassador to the United States, Arturo Sarukhan, told CBS’s Face the Nation that legalizing the marijuana trade was a legitimate option for both the Mexican and U.S. governments. “[T]hose who would suggest that some of these measures [legalization] be looked at understand the dynamics of the drug trade,” Sarukhan said.

Former Mexican President Vicente Fox recently echoed Sarukhan’s remarks, as did a commission of former Latin American presidents. “I believe it’s time to open the debate over legalizing drugs,” Fox told CNN in May. “It can’t be that the only way [to try to control illicit drug use] is for the state to use force.”Writing recently on CNN.com, Harvard economist and Freeman contributor Jeffrey Miron said

that ending drug prohibition—on both sides of the border—is the only realistic and viable

way to put a permanent stop to the rising power and violence associated with Mexico’s drug

traffickers. “Prohibition creates violence because it drives the drug market underground,” he

wrote. “This means buyers and sellers cannot resolve their disputes with lawsuits, arbitration

or advertising, so they resort to violence instead. . . . The only way to reduce violence,

therefore, is to legalize drugs.”

Allows US to take down Cartelslegalization weakens the cartels sufficiently to allow current operations to succeedGrillo 12 /Ioan, author, journalist, writer and TV producer based in Mexico City, has reported on Mexico and Latin American since 2001, "Hit Mexico's Cartels With Legalization", 11/1/12, NYT, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/opinion/hit-mexicos-cartels-with-legalization.html/ FranzyMarijuana is just one of the drugs that the cartels traffic. Chemicals such as crystal meth may be too venomous to ever be legalized. But cannabis is a cash crop that provides huge profits to

criminal armies, paying for assassins and guns south of the Rio Grande. The scale of the

Mexican marijuana business was illustrated by a mammoth 120-hectare plantation busted

last year in Baja California. It had a sophisticated irrigation system, sleeping quarters for 60

workers and could produce 120 metric tons of cannabis per harvest.Again, nobody knows exactly how much the whole Mexico-U.S. marijuana trade is worth, with estimates ranging from $2 billion to $20 billion annually. But even if you believe the lowest numbers, legal marijuana would take billions of dollars a year away from organized crime. This would inflict more financial damage than soldiers or drug agents have managed in years

and substantially weaken cartels.It is also argued that Mexican gangsters have expanded to a portfolio of crimes that includes kidnapping, extortion, human smuggling and theft from oil pipelines. This is a terrifying truth. But this does not take away from the fact that the marijuana trade provides the crime groups with major resources. That they are committing crimes such as kidnapping, which have a horrific effect on innocent people, makes cutting off their financing all the more urgent.The cartels will not disappear overnight. U.S. agents and the Mexican police need to continue battling hit squads that wield rocket-propelled grenades and belt-driven machine guns. Killers who hack off heads still have to be locked away. Mexico needs to clean up corruption among the police and build a valid justice system. And young men in the barrios have to be given a better option than signing up as killers. All these tasks will be easier if the flow of money to the cartels is dramatically slowed down. Do we really want to hand them another trillion dollars over the next three decades?

Takes away Cartel revenue streamLegalization solves cartel violence and strengthReisenwitz 2014 /Cathy, Aug 11th, Cathy Reisenwitz is a Young Voices Associate and a D.C.-based writer and political commentator. She is Editor-in-Chief of a news and politics blog and her writing has appeared in Forbes, the Chicago Tribune, Reason magazine, Talking Points Memo, the Washington Examiner and the Daily Caller, US Marijuana Legalization Already Weakening Mexican Cartels, Violence Expected to Decline, http://townhall.com/columnists/cathyreisenwitz/2014/08/11/us-marijuana-legalization-already-weakening-mexican-cartels-violence-expected-to-decline-n1876088/page/full/ FranzyAmerica’s first foray into rolling back prohibition 2.0 is barely underway, and already

marijuana prices have dropped low enough to convince some cartel farmers in Mexico to

abandon the crop . Mere months after two US states legalized marijuana sales, five Nobel

Prize-winning economists released a UN report recommending that countries end their war

on drugs . It would seem they were onto something. But in order to further decrease drug-trade violence in so-called producer states, the US first needs to legalize marijuana, but then also the US must stop using the UN to pressure producer countries into supply-based drug prohibition.Latin America is the largest global exporter of cannabis and cocaine. In 2011 the DOJ’s now-shuttered National Drug Intelligence Center found that the top cartels controlled the majority of drug trade in marijuana, heroin, and methamphetamine in over 1,000 US cities.Research into black markets shows that producer countries experience more violence than consumer countries. In essence, the global war on drugs is a UN scheme to shrug drug war costs off rich countries’ shoulders and onto poor Latin American countries, with horrifyingly violent results. Much of the recent child migrant crisis is a direct result of children fleeing cartel violence and conscription into criminal gangs.When drug prices are high, cartels will step up and produce. By keeping demand for cannabis

and cocaine high, but supply low, the US in essence forced the Latin America economy to

revolve around drugs. Under prohibition, there is no more profitable export. And of course violence proliferates in illegal industries. So in countries where the dominant export is illegal, violence will be endemic.That’s exactly what the five economists found.Every single one of the 20 cities with the highest murder rates in the world are in Latin America. Half of the top 10 global kidnapping hotspots are Latin American countries. Time magazine reports that the violence in the murder capital of the world, San Pedro Sula, Honduras, is due to the influx of Mexican drug cartels that funnel U.S.-bound drugs through the country. The

cartels are also responsible for an increase in “atrocious crimes” like decapitation, usually

used against rival gangs.Ending the Drug Wars describes drug prohibition as “a transfer of the costs of the drug problem from consumer to producer and transit countries.” It references a report called Drugs and Democracy: Toward a Paradigm Shift by the Latin American Commission on Drugs and Democracy, headed by former Latin American presidents Fernando Henrique Cardoso, Cesar

Gaviria and Ernesto Zedillo found that Latin America’s willingness to cave to first-world pressure has had horrific results, including:A rise in organized crime caused both by the international narcotics trade and by the growing control exercised by criminal groups over domestic markets and territoriesA growth in unacceptable levels of drug-related violence affecting the whole of society and, in particular, the poor and the youngThe criminalization of politics and the politicization of crime, as well as the proliferation of the linkages between them, as reflected in the infiltration of democratic institutions by organized crimeThe corruption of public servants, the judicial system, governments, the political system and, especially the police forces in charge of enforcing law and ordersThe 200-percent growth rate of the illegal drug market between 1994 and 2008 explains roughly 25 percent of the current homicide rate in Colombia, according to recent research . That means Colombia sees about 3,800 more homicides per year on average associated with the war on drugs.But when drug prices drop, the cartels will move onto other schemes. VICE News asked retired federal agent Terry Nelson whether legalization was hurting the cartels. “The cartels are criminal organizations that were making as much as 35-40 percent of their income from marijuana,” Nelson said, “They aren’t able to move as much cannabis inside the US now.”America, the United Kingdom and other wealthy states are epicenters of demand. Not only do demand states prohibit drug production and sales within their borders, but have traditionally used the UN to bully producer countries to do the same through moves such as the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances of 1988 or the US annual certification process.And for what? The report points out that worldwide drug prohibition has succeeded in raising prices on illicit drugs. This may have impacted rates of use in consumer nations. Even if higher prices suppress demand, for which there’s little evidence, there is simply no way to look at the worldwide cost of prohibition as being worth that possible outcome.“There is now a new willingness among certain states, particularly in Latin America, to be vocal about the inherent problems within the system and to try to extricate themselves from the global drug war quagmires,” according to Ending the Drug Wars.Ending the Drug Wars acknowledges the “microeconomic contradictions inherent in the supply-centric model of control.” It calls out the UN for trying to “enforce a uniform set of prohibitionist oriented policies often at the expense of other, arguably more effective policies that incorporate broad frameworks of public health and illicit market management.”However, the ultimately unresolvable problem with prohibition is that:In a world where demand remains relatively constant, suppressing supply can have short-run price effects. However, in a footloose industry like illicit drugs, these price increases incentivise a new rise in supply, via shifting commodity supply chains. This then feeds back into lower prices and an eventual return to a market equilibrium similar to that which existed prior to the supply-reduction intervention.Fixing this problem might be the most exciting part about ending America’s war on cannabis.

Prices will continue to drop as American growth flourishes. Get ready for cheap, high-quality

weed. And as prices drop and the supply side moves into the white market,cartels will get

out of the game. And just as ending alcohol prohibition greatly diminished the size, influence,

and brutality of organized crime, so will legalizing weed diminish the size, influence, and brutality of Mexican cartels.

Politics LinksObama will fight for border control- Recent meeting provesWolfgang 14 (Ben Wolfgang: Covers the White House for The Washington Times, “Obama: I’ve fought against activists who believe there should be open borders”, The Washington Times, 12/9/2014, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/dec/9/obama-ive-fought-against-activists-open-borders/, Accessed: 7/17/15, RRR)Critics say President Obama went too far with his executive action granting amnesty to more than 4 million illegal immigrants — but behind the scenes, the

president said he’s pushed back against those who believe the U.S. should have an open border

with Mexico .¶ At a town-hall meeting in Nashville on Tuesday, Mr . Obama defended the idea of a strong U.S-Mexico

border and said he’s had heated debates with activists who want that border to disappear. ¶ “There have been times, honestly, I’ve had arguments with immigration rights activists who say, effectively, ‘There shouldn’t be any rules. These are good people. Why should we have any enforcement like this?’ My response is, ‘In the eyes of God, everybody is equal … I don’t make any claims my child is superior to anybody else’s child. But I’m the

president of the United States, and nation states have borders,’” the president said. “ If we had no system of enforcing our borders and our laws, I promise you, everybody would try to come here. ” ¶ Mr. Obama added that it would be fundamentally unfair to erase the nation’s southern border . ¶ “Sometimes it’s just an accident that one person lives in a country that has a border with the U.S. and another person — in Somalia, it’s a lot harder to get here,” he said.

Obama will fight the plan – Currently increasing funding for border surveillanceKnauth 14 (Dietrich Knauth, “Obama Seeks $39M In Drone Funding For Border Surveillance”, Law360, 7/9/2014, http://www.law360.com/articles/555799/obama-seeks-39m-in-drone-funding-for-border-surveillance, Accessed: 7/17/15, RRR)Law360, New York (July 9, 2014, 5:08 PM ET) -- The Obama administration on Tuesday requested $39 million for aerial surveillance, including unmanned aircraft operations , as part of an effort to stop an influx of refugee children from crossing the U.S.'s southern border.The administration has called on Congress to provide $3.7 billion in emergency funding, spread out among the U.S. Departments of Homeland Security, Justice, Health and Human Services and State, to combat what it called a “humanitarian crisis.”

The White House said that children, both accompanied and on their own, are fleeing Central America in alarming numbers and that as a result, it needs more border surveillance and security , as well as a surge in enforcement personnel, from immigration judges to asylum officers.The DHS would get a significant portion of the president's request, with $1.1 billion going to Immigration and Customs Enforcement and $433 million going to Customs and Border Protection. The CBP's share includes $39.4 million to increase air surveillance capabilities that would support 16,526 additional flight hours for border surveillance and 16 additional crews for unmanned aerial systems to improve detection and interdiction of illegal activity, according to a White House fact sheet.

Schumer supports systematic border surveillance and militarizationOn The Issues 14 (On The Issues, "Charles Schumer on Immigration", www.ontheissues.org/International/Charles_Schumer_Immigration.htm, 12/14/2014, sr)What changes to our current immigration policy do you support? A: I support further securing our borders; prohibiting hiring of undocumented immigrants by requiring job applicants to present a secure Social Security card; creating jobs by attracting the world's best and brightest to America, and keeping them here; requiring undocumented immigrants to register with the government, pay taxes, and earn legal [status or face deportation.] Establishes specified benchmarks which must be met before

the guest worker and legalization programs may be initiated: operational control of the border with Mexico; Border Patrol increases ; border barriers , including vehicle barriers, fencing, radar, and aerial vehicles; detention capacity for illegal aliens apprehended crossing the US-Mexico border; workplace enforcement, including an electronic employment verification system; and Z-visa alien processing. Within 18 months, achieves operational control over U.S. land and maritime borders, including:

systematic border surveillance through more effective use of personnel and technology; and

physical infrastructure enhancements to prevent unlawful border entry Defines "operational

control" as the prevention of all unlawful U.S. entries, including entries by terrorists, other

unlawful aliens, narcotics, and other contraband.

Terror DA

1NC UQ + Link

Border Patrol is stretched thin now – it must be expanded, not curtailed, in order to prevent the threat of Islamic terrorism – and specifically ISIS poses a threat to the US through MexicoChiaramonte 14 (Perry Chiaramonte is a reporter for FoxNews.com, “Border crisis could provide cover to ISIS operatives, say experts” Fox News, July 7th, 2014, http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/07/07/isis-could-take-advantage-weakened-us-border-for-terrorist-attack/) //RLThe border crisis could be the perfect opportunity for Islamic terrorists looking to sneak

sleeper cells into the U.S., say experts. ¶ Patrols on the Mexican border have been stretched

to the breaking point in recent weeks by a tidal wave of immigrants from Central America. Among the estimated 60,000 people who have streamed across is a small percentage of what agents term "Special Interest Aliens," or SIAs. Terrorism experts say airport security is effective at keeping dangerous jihadists out, but the border breakdown could be America's Achilles heel - providing an entry point for groups like ISIS. ¶ “It's impossible to say that ISIS will soon be active on our border, but some groups will be,” said retired Army Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, a security and defense analyst and Fox News contributor. “The one thing that all of the squabbling jihadi groups in the Middle East and North Africa have in common is that they want to strike the U.S., both for what they view as vengeance and because, in terrorist circles, striking the U.S. is how you confirm that you're a major player.” ¶ “If you pay the cartels enough, they will sneak you across or assist in getting anything you want across the border." ¶ - Shawn Moran, vice president and spokesperson for the Border Patrol Council¶ It’s long been known that a percentage, albeit small, of illegals caught sneaking across from Mexico hail from terror-sponsoring states. And some of the Islamic terror groups have ties to Latin American drug cartels and gangs, including MS-13. The combination of terrorists' desire to infiltrate the border and gangs' know-how could prove dangerous to American security, say experts. ¶ “It’s obviously a concern,” Shawn Moran, vice president and spokesperson for the Border Patrol Council, told FoxNews.com. “If you pay the cartels enough, they will sneak you across or assist in getting anything you want across the border.¶ “It’s definitely a nightmare

scenario if they use the borders, north or south, to cross and conduct a terrorist attack, ” Moran added.¶ Texas Gov. Rick Perry said the record wave of illegal immigrants includes record numbers of SIAs.¶ “We have record high numbers of other than Mexicans being apprehended at the border,” Perry told Fox News. “These are people that are coming from states like Syria that have substantial connections back to terrorist regimes and terrorist operations. So we're seeing record, historic high numbers of these individuals being apprehended.”

2NC UQISIS plans a nuclear strike on the US through Mexico in the next 10 months - and specifically such a WMD terrorist attack would have drastic effects on the US economySlavo 5/26 (Marc, journalist, http://www.infowars.com/report-terrorist-nuke-attack-may-be-carried-out-inside-the-united-states-in-next-12-months/) //RLWith nuclear material having been stolen on multiple occasions in Mexico, and close terrorist

ties to intelligence organizations in the middle east, it appears that if an organization was

committed to acquiring nuclear material they could do so . Finding the scientists to build such a weapon, whether dirty or actual, wouldn’t be all that difficult. Moreover, smuggling such a device into the U.S. is possible, as evidenced by a 2011 report which confirms that at least one nuclear weapon of mass destruction was seized as it entered the United States. ¶ According to a report from Zero Hedge, such a plan may be in the works over the next twelve months, as the

Islamic State claims it may be actively pursuing a nuclear weapon intended for detonation

on American soil. ¶ Three weeks after the first supposed attack by Islamic State supporters in the US, in which two ISIS “soldiers” wounded a security guard before they were killed in Garland, Texas, the time has come to raise the fear stakes. ¶ In an article posted in the terrorist group’s English-language online magazine Dabiq (which as can be see below seems to have gotten its design cues straight from Madison Avenue and is just missing glossy pages filled with ‘scratch and sniff’ perfume ads ) ISIS claimed that it has enoughmoney to buy a nuclear

weapon from Pakistan and “carry out an attack inside the United States next year.” ¶ In the

article, the ISIS columnist said the weapon could be smuggled into the United States via its

southern border with Mexico. ¶ Curiously, the author of the piece is John Cantlie, a British photojournalist who was abducted by ISIS in 2012 and has been held hostage by the organization ever since; he has appeared in several videos since his kidnapping and criticized Western powers.¶ As the Telegraph notes, “Mr Cantlie, whose fellow journalist hostages have all either been released or beheaded, has appeared in the group’s propaganda videos and written previous pieces. In his latest work, presumed to be written under pressure but in his hall-mark style combining hyperbole, metaphor and sarcasm, he says that President Obama’s policies for containing Isil have demonstrably failed and increased the risk to America.”¶ Cantlie describes the following “hypothetical” scenario in Dabiq :¶ Let me throw a hypothetical operation onto the table. The Islamic State has billions of dollars in the bank, so they call on their wilayah in Pakistan to purchase a nuclear device through weapons dealers with links to corrupt officials in the region. ¶ The weapon is then transported overland until it makes it to Libya, where the muj?hid?n move it south to Nigeria. Drug shipments from Columbia bound for Europe pass through West Africa, so moving other types of contraband from East to West is just as possible. ¶ The nuke and accompanying mujahadin arrive on the shorelines of South America and are transported through the porous borders of Central America before arriving in Mexico and up to the border with the United States. ¶ From there it’s just a quick hop through a

smuggling tunnel and hey presto, they’re mingling with another 12 million “illegal” aliens in

America with a nuclear bomb in the trunk of their car. ¶ Cantlie continues:¶ Perhaps such a

scenario is far-fetched but it’s the sum of all fears for Western intelligence agencies and it’s infinitely more possible today than it was just one year ago. And if not a nuke, what about a few thousand tons of ammonium nitrate explosive? ¶ That’s easy enough to make. The Islamic

State make no secret of the fact they have every intention of attacking America on its home

soil and they’re not going to mince about with two muj?hid?n taking down a dozen casualties

if it originates from the Caliphate. They’ll be looking to do something big, something that would make any past operation look like a squirrel shoot, and the more groups that pledge allegiance the more possible it becomes to pull off something truly epic.¶ Remember, all of this has happened in less than a year. How more dangerous will be the lines of communication and supply a year on from today? If the West completely failed to spot the emergence of the Islamic State and then the allies who so quickly pledged allegiance to it from around the world, what else of massive significance are they going to miss next? ¶ One can, of course, debate just how much the West “failed to spot the emergence of ISIS” considering it was not only the CIA which initially trainedthe terrorist organization in Jordan in 2012, but according to recently declassified Pentagon documents, the US was well aware the outcome its attempt to overthrow Syria’s Assad would have on the region, in the process “creating” ISIS, aka al Qaeda 2.0.¶ In other words, even the “hypothetical operation” involving a nuclear attack on US soil

would implicitly have the blessing of the US government. Which, considering the way the

stock market surges every time the US economy deteriorates further on its way towards

recession, probably means that a mushroom cloud appearing in some major US metropolitan

area is just what the E-mini algos would need to send the S&P500 limit up .¶ Source: Zero Hedge¶ We have definitive confirmation via declassified documents that the Islamic State is a creation of the U.S. Department of Defense and Central Intelligence Agency, and their influence across the middle east was predicted well in advance of anyone ever having heard the name ISIS or ISIL. We also know that false flag operations, such as the German Reichstag fire of 1933, are often used by governments (or rogue elements within a government) to implement changes to existing political and social paradigms.¶ It could be that this nuclear threat is a psychological operation designed to elicit fear in the populace so that they go along willingly with legislative actions like the Patriot Act which further erode individual rights in the name of protecting us from terrorism, or to justify large scale military operations on U.S. soil, including but not limited to this summer’s Jade Helm exercises.¶ Or, certainly within the realm of possibility, is the notion that at some point a rogue terror element, the origination and loyalty of which makes absolutely no difference in the end, is planning on detonating a nuclear device on U.S. soil.¶

Perhaps this is one reason for why the elite are rapidly investing in secret hideaways. Perhaps they know it’s time to start exiting large metropolitan areas ahead of whatever is coming. Perhaps it all starts with a bang and a mushroom cloud, soon followed by panic, riots, looting, and of course, the unprecedented domestic military response that would be necessitated by a widespread breakdown of civil order.¶ We can only speculate, but the fact is that another large-scale attack on U.S. soil would usher in a new era in the Land of the Free.¶ Admittedly, we have delved deep into the rabbit hole of conspiracy theory, but we leave the reader the following quote to consider within the context of this current threat:¶ The process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor. ¶ Project for a New American Century, 2000 (PDF Link)¶ Signed by Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, et. al.¶ At the very least the American

people are being psychologically conditioned to accept their own enslavement. At worst, an

event such as this would be used to plunge the world into the next great war.

2NC LinkTerrorists use lax border security to get to the US from Mexico – ISIS is just 8 miles from the borderChasmar 4/14 (Jessica, continuous news writer for The Washington Times, covering topics on culture and politics, “Islamic State operating in Mexico just 8 miles from U.S. border: report”, The Washington Times, April 14th, 2015, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/14/islamic-state-operating-in-mexico-just-8-miles-fro/) //RL

The Islamic State terror group is operating a camp in the northern Mexican state of

Chihuahua, just eight miles from the U.S. border, Judicial Watch reported Tuesday. ¶ Citing sources that include a “Mexican Army field grade officer and a Mexican Federal Police Inspector,” the conservative watchdog group reported that the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, is organizing only a few miles from El Paso, Texas, in the Anapra neighborhood of Juárez and in Puerto Palomas. ¶ Judicial Watch sources said that “coyotes” working for the notorious Juarez Cartel are smuggling Islamic State terrorists across the U.S. border between the New Mexico cities of Santa Teresa and Sunland Park, as well as “through the porous border between Acala and Fort Hancock, Texas.” ¶ “These specific areas were targeted for

exploitation by ISIS because of their understaffed municipal and county police forces, and the

relative safe-havens the areas provide for the unchecked large-scale drug smuggling that was

already ongoing,” Judicial Watch reported. ¶ Mexican intelligence sources say the Islamic State intends to exploit the railways and airport facilities in the vicinity of Santa Teresa, New Mexico. ¶ “The sources also say that ISIS has ‘spotters’ located in the East Potrillo Mountains of New Mexico (largely managed by the Bureau of Land Management) to assist with terrorist border crossing operations,” Judicial Watch reported. “ISIS is conducting reconnaissance of regional universities; the White Sands Missile Range; government facilities in Alamogordo, NM; Ft. Bliss; and the electrical power facilities near Anapra and Chaparral, NM.”

T – Domestic

1NC

First, Interpretation: Domestic surveillance is surveillance within national bordersAvilez et al 14 Marie Avilez et al, Carnegie Mellon University December 10, 2014 Ethics, History, and Public Policy Senior Capstone Project Security and Social Dimensions of City Surveillance Policyhttp://www.cmu.edu/hss/ehpp/documents/2014-City-Surveillance-Policy.pdf

Domestic surveillance – collection of information about the activities of private individuals/organizations by a government entity within national borders; this can be carried out by federal, state and/or local officials

Violation- the border BHC No DateUnited States- Mexico Border Health Commission, a binational health commission in July 2000 with the signing of an agreement by the Secretary of Health and Human Services of the United States and the Secretary of Health of México. On December 21, 2004, the Commission was designated as a Public International Organization by Executive Order of the President, “Border Relation”, http://www.borderhealth.org/border_region.php//SRawal

The U nited S tates- México border region is defined as the area of land being 100 kilometers (62.5

miles) north and south of the international boundary (La Paz Agreement). It stretches approximately 2000 miles from the southern tip of Texas to California. The population for this expanse of land is estimated to be approximately 12 million inhabitants. This population is expected to double by the year 2025. The combined population of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California is 61,637,146 (2000 Census). The estimated combined population of the six Mexican border states in 1990 was 12,246,991. Two of the ten fastest-growing metropolitan areas in the United States - Laredo and McAllen - are located on the Texas-México border. Additionally, there are 154 Native American tribes totaling 881,070 Native Americans living in the 4 U.S. border states. In the actual border region, there are approximately 25 Native American Nations.

Second, Domestic surveillance is surveillance of US persons

Small 8 MATTHEW L. SMALL. United States Air Force Academy 2008 Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress, Presidential Fellows Program paper "His Eyes are Watching You: Domestic Surveillance, Civil Liberties and Executive Power during Times of National Crisis" http://cspc.nonprofitsoapbox.com/storage/documents/Fellows2008/Small.pdf

Before one can make any sort of assessment of domestic surveillance policies, it is first necessary to narrow the scope of the term “domestic surveillance.” Domestic surveillance is a subset of intelligence gathering. Intelligence, as it is to be understood in this context, is “information that meets the stated or understood needs of policy makers and has been collected, processed and narrowed to meet those needs” (Lowenthal 2006, 2). In essence, domestic surveillance is a means to an end; the end being intelligence. The intelligence community best understands domestic surveillance as the acquisition of nonpublic information concerning U nited S tates persons (Executive Order 12333 (3.4) (i)). With this definition domestic surveillance remains an overly broad concept. This paper’s analysis, in terms of President Bush’s policies, focuses on electronic surveillance; specifically, wiretapping phone lines and obtaining caller information from phone companies. Section f of the USA Patriot Act of 2001 defines electronic surveillance as:

Violation- Undocumented people are not US personsJackson et al 9 Brian A. Jackson, Darcy Noricks, and Benjamin W. Goldsmith, RAND Corporation

The Challenge of Domestic Intelligence in a Free Society RAND 2009 BRIAN A. JACKSON, EDITORhttp://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2009/RAND_MG804.pdf

3 Federal law and executive order define a U.S. person as “a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, an unincorporated association with a substantial number of members who are citizens of the U.S. or are aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence, or a corporation that is incorporated in the U.S.” (NSA, undated).

Although this definition would therefore allow information to be gathered on U.S. persons located abroad, our objective was to examine the creation of a domestic intelligence organization that would focus on—and whose activities would center around—individuals and organizations located inside the United States . Though such an agency might receive information about U.S. persons that was collected abroad by other intelligence agencies, it would not collect that information itself.

T is a voter-

They explode limits—

First, Allowing the surveillance of non-US persons means they open the debate to immigration. This is a whole new literature base which is large enough to be a topic in itself.

Second, They open the topic outside of our borders which means they justify any aff which cooperates with other countries and transnational agreements the decrease surveillance—this massively expands the topic and makes for unproductive debate

OFFCASE – BORDERS (MM CRITICAL)

T - Domestic

1NC

1. Domestic is within a countryYourDictionary 15 YourDictionary definition and usage example. Copyright © 2015 by LoveToKnow Corphttp://www.yourdictionary.com/domestic

domestic [dō mes′tik, də-]adjective Domestic is defined as something related to the home or family, something occurring within a country, an animal that has been tamed, or a person who is fond of the tasks of running a home. Family relations are an example of domestic relations. Terrorism that occurs within your own country is referred to as domestic terrorism. A dog that is kept as a house pet is an example of a domestic animal. A woman who likes to cook and clean and bake is an example of someone who is domestic.

2. Violation – the border is not domesticBHC No Date

United States- Mexico Border Health Commission, a binational health commission in July 2000 with the signing of an agreement by the Secretary of Health and Human Services of the United States and the Secretary of Health of México. On December 21, 2004, the Commission was designated as a Public International Organization by Executive Order of the President, “Border Relation”, http://www.borderhealth.org/border_region.php//SRawalThe U nited S tates- México border region is defined as the area of land being 100 kilometers (62.5

miles) north and south of the international boundary (La Paz Agreement). It stretches approximately 2000 miles from the southern tip of Texas to California. The population for this expanse of land is estimated to be approximately 12 million inhabitants. This population is expected to double by the year 2025. The combined population of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California is 61,637,146 (2000 Census). The estimated combined population of the six Mexican border states in 1990 was 12,246,991. Two of the ten fastest-growing metropolitan areas in the United States - Laredo and McAllen - are located on the Texas-México border. Additionally, there are 154 Native American tribes totaling 881,070 Native Americans living in the 4 U.S. border states. In the actual border region, there are approximately 25 Native American Nations.

T is a voter-

They explode limits—

They open the topic outside of our borders which means they justify any aff which cooperates with other countries and transnational agreements the decrease surveillance—this massively expands the topic and makes for unproductive debate

2NC

Domestic is in a country's territoryAmerican Heritage 14 The American Heritage® Roget's Thesaurus. Copyright © 2013, 2014 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.http://www.thefreedictionary.com/domestic

domestic adjective1. Of or relating to the family or household:familial, family, home, homely, household.2. Trained or bred to live with and be of use to people:tame.3. Of, from, or within a country's own territory: home, internal, national, native.

T – Surveillance

1NCInterpretation – surveillance must be covert Baker 5 – MA, CPP, CPO(Brian, “Surveillance: Concepts and Practices for Fraud, Security and Crime Investigation,” http://www.ifpo.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/surveillance.pdf)Surveillance is defined as covert observations of places and persons for the purpose of obtaining ∂ information (Dempsey, 2003). The term covert infers that the operative conducting the ∂ surveillance is discreet and secretive . Surveillance that maintains a concealed, hidden, undetected∂ nature clearly has the greatest chance of success because the subject of the surveillance will act∂ or perform naturally. Remaining undetected during covert surveillance work often involves∂ physical fatigue, mental stress, and very challenging situations. Physical discomfort is an∂ unfortunate reality for investigators, which varies from stinging perspiration in summer to hard∂ shivers during the winter.Violation- the CBP does a lot more than surveillanceUS CBPUS Customs and Border Patrol, “Along US Borders”, http://www.cbp.gov/border-security/along-us-borders//SRawalOne of the most important activities of a Border Patrol agent is line watch. This involves the detection, prevention and apprehension of terrorists, undocumented aliens and smugglers of aliens at or near the land border by maintaining surveillance from a covert position, following up leads, responding to electronic sensor television systems, aircraft sightings, and interpreting and following tracks, marks and other physical evidence. Some of the major activities are traffic check, traffic observation, city patrol, transportation check, administrative, intelligence, and anti-smuggling activities.

Reasons to prefer – c) Limits—allowing the ending of public surveillance explodes the limits of

the topic by allowing affirmatives that deal with programs that known surveillance like detention facilities

d) Ground—key to neg ground like terrorism and politics disads T is a voter- Limits- They justify doing many things outside of surveillance which expands the research too much. This kills clash and productive debate because the negative can’t effectively prepare for those many affirmatives.

2nc Covert ExtensionsMust be covertIJ 98(Info Justice, OPERATIONS, SURVEILLANCE AND STAKEOUT PART 1, http://www.infojustice.com/samples/12%20Operations,%20Surveillance%20And%20Stakeout%20Part%201.html)Surveillance is defined as the systematic observation of persons, places, or things to obtain information. Surveillance is carried out without the knowledge of those under surveillance and is concerned primarily with people.Even the broadest definition doesn’t include information provided with consentPounder 9 – PhD, Director, Amberhawk Training and Amberhawk Associates(Chris, “NINE PRINCIPLES FOR ASSESSING WHETHER PRIVACY IS PROTECTED IN A SURVEILLANCE SOCIETY,” Scholar)This paper uses the term "surveillance" in its widest sense to include data sharing and the revealing of identity information in the absence of consent of the individual concerned . It argues that the current debate about the nature of a "surveillance society" needs a new structural framework that allows the benefits of surveillance and the risks to individual privacy to be properly balanced.

2nc Most CommonSurveillance is most often covert Glancy 12 – Professor of Law, Santa Clara University Law School. B.A. Wellesley College, J.D. Harvard Law SchoolDorothy, SYMPOSIUM ARTICLE: PRIVACY IN AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES, Santa Clara Law Review, 2012, Lexis Surveillance is a relatively modern idea. Even the word, "surveillance," is fairly new to the English language. It was borrowed from the French by the British at the turn of the nineteenth century to refer to looking over an area, usually from a high place, for strategic information about a battlefield or prospective confrontation. n92 Early in the twentieth century, surveillance usually suggested use of technology to enhance human abilities to see over wide distances to collect comprehensive information about an adversary. n93 Since then, [*1208] the word, "surveillance," has been used in a wide variety of careful-watching contexts from medical surveillance of diseases and immune responses, to physical stakeouts of crime suspects, to mass-scale electronic and network surveillance for gathering intelligence or for seeking evidence of anomalous or criminal behavior. Surveillance is also a psychological technique used to affect human behavior through pervasive monitoring of activities and areas to discourage people from violating rules or laws. Although surveillance most often means covert collection of information, it can also refer to overt watching aimed at modifying the behavior of those watched. An example of overt surveillance is red-light cameras. These devices are often prominently placed as ever-present watchers at intersections so that drivers are deterred from entering intersections while the stoplight is red. n94 One purpose of overt surveillance is to affect the behavior of those being watched, to assure that individual behavior conforms to societal norms. If an autonomous vehicle user were informed that his or her vehicle continuously reports its speed to law enforcement authorities, that user would be more likely to direct the vehicle to conform to the speed limit, rather than exercise personal autonomy in deciding not to conform. n95 Similarly, autonomous vehicles could overtly monitor the behavior of vehicle users so that instances of user activities such as smoking or drinking alcohol are sensed and recorded.

Politics LinksObama will fight for border control- Recent meeting provesWolfgang 14 (Ben Wolfgang: Covers the White House for The Washington Times, “Obama: I’ve fought against activists who believe there should be open borders”, The Washington Times, 12/9/2014, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/dec/9/obama-ive-fought-against-activists-open-borders/, Accessed: 7/17/15, RRR)Critics say President Obama went too far with his executive action granting amnesty to more than 4 million illegal immigrants — but behind the scenes, the

president said he’s pushed back against those who believe the U.S. should have an open border

with Mexico .¶ At a town-hall meeting in Nashville on Tuesday, Mr . Obama defended the idea of a strong U.S-Mexico

border and said he’s had heated debates with activists who want that border to disappear. ¶ “There have been times, honestly, I’ve had arguments with immigration rights activists who say, effectively, ‘There shouldn’t be any rules. These are good people. Why should we have any enforcement like this?’ My response is, ‘In the eyes of God, everybody is equal … I don’t make any claims my child is superior to anybody else’s child. But I’m the

president of the United States, and nation states have borders,’” the president said. “ If we had no system of enforcing our borders and our laws, I promise you, everybody would try to come here. ” ¶ Mr. Obama added that it would be fundamentally unfair to erase the nation’s southern border . ¶ “Sometimes it’s just an accident that one person lives in a country that has a border with the U.S. and another person — in Somalia, it’s a lot harder to get here,” he said.

Obama will fight the plan – Currently increasing funding for border surveillanceKnauth 14 (Dietrich Knauth, “Obama Seeks $39M In Drone Funding For Border Surveillance”, Law360, 7/9/2014, http://www.law360.com/articles/555799/obama-seeks-39m-in-drone-funding-for-border-surveillance, Accessed: 7/17/15, RRR)Law360, New York (July 9, 2014, 5:08 PM ET) -- The Obama administration on Tuesday requested $39 million for aerial surveillance, including unmanned aircraft operations , as part of an effort to stop an influx of refugee children from crossing the U.S.'s southern border.The administration has called on Congress to provide $3.7 billion in emergency funding, spread out among the U.S. Departments of Homeland Security, Justice, Health and Human Services and State, to combat what it called a “humanitarian crisis.”

The White House said that children, both accompanied and on their own, are fleeing Central America in alarming numbers and that as a result, it needs more border surveillance and security , as well as a surge in enforcement personnel, from immigration judges to asylum officers.The DHS would get a significant portion of the president's request, with $1.1 billion going to Immigration and Customs Enforcement and $433 million going to Customs and Border Protection. The CBP's share includes $39.4 million to increase air surveillance capabilities that would support 16,526 additional flight hours for border surveillance and 16 additional crews for unmanned aerial systems to improve detection and interdiction of illegal activity, according to a White House fact sheet.

Schumer supports systematic border surveillance and militarizationOn The Issues 14 (On The Issues, "Charles Schumer on Immigration", www.ontheissues.org/International/Charles_Schumer_Immigration.htm, 12/14/2014, sr)What changes to our current immigration policy do you support? A: I support further securing our borders; prohibiting hiring of undocumented immigrants by requiring job applicants to present a secure Social Security card; creating jobs by attracting the world's best and brightest to America, and keeping them here; requiring undocumented immigrants to register with the government, pay taxes, and earn legal [status or face deportation.] Establishes specified benchmarks which must be met before

the guest worker and legalization programs may be initiated: operational control of the border with Mexico; Border Patrol increases ; border barriers , including vehicle barriers, fencing, radar, and aerial vehicles; detention capacity for illegal aliens apprehended crossing the US-Mexico border; workplace enforcement, including an electronic employment verification system; and Z-visa alien processing. Within 18 months, achieves operational control over U.S. land and maritime borders, including:

systematic border surveillance through more effective use of personnel and technology; and

physical infrastructure enhancements to prevent unlawful border entry Defines "operational

control" as the prevention of all unlawful U.S. entries, including entries by terrorists, other

unlawful aliens, narcotics, and other contraband.

Terror DA

1NC UQ + Link

Border Patrol is stretched thin now – it must be expanded, not curtailed, in order to prevent the threat of Islamic terrorism – and specifically ISIS poses a threat to the US through MexicoChiaramonte 14 (Perry Chiaramonte is a reporter for FoxNews.com, “Border crisis could provide cover to ISIS operatives, say experts” Fox News, July 7th, 2014, http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/07/07/isis-could-take-advantage-weakened-us-border-for-terrorist-attack/) //RLThe border crisis could be the perfect opportunity for Islamic terrorists looking to sneak

sleeper cells into the U.S., say experts. ¶ Patrols on the Mexican border have been stretched

to the breaking point in recent weeks by a tidal wave of immigrants from Central America. Among the estimated 60,000 people who have streamed across is a small percentage of what agents term "Special Interest Aliens," or SIAs. Terrorism experts say airport security is effective at keeping dangerous jihadists out, but the border breakdown could be America's Achilles heel - providing an entry point for groups like ISIS. ¶ “It's impossible to say that ISIS will soon be active on our border, but some groups will be,” said retired Army Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, a security and defense analyst and Fox News contributor. “The one thing that all of the squabbling jihadi groups in the Middle East and North Africa have in common is that they want to strike the U.S., both for what they view as vengeance and because, in terrorist circles, striking the U.S. is how you confirm that you're a major player.” ¶ “If you pay the cartels enough, they will sneak you across or assist in getting anything you want across the border." ¶ - Shawn Moran, vice president and spokesperson for the Border Patrol Council¶ It’s long been known that a percentage, albeit small, of illegals caught sneaking across from Mexico hail from terror-sponsoring states. And some of the Islamic terror groups have ties to Latin American drug cartels and gangs, including MS-13. The combination of terrorists' desire to infiltrate the border and gangs' know-how could prove dangerous to American security, say experts. ¶ “It’s obviously a concern,” Shawn Moran, vice president and spokesperson for the Border Patrol Council, told FoxNews.com. “If you pay the cartels enough, they will sneak you across or assist in getting anything you want across the border.¶ “It’s definitely a nightmare

scenario if they use the borders, north or south, to cross and conduct a terrorist attack, ” Moran added.¶ Texas Gov. Rick Perry said the record wave of illegal immigrants includes record numbers of SIAs.¶ “We have record high numbers of other than Mexicans being apprehended at the border,” Perry told Fox News. “These are people that are coming from states like Syria that have substantial connections back to terrorist regimes and terrorist operations. So we're seeing record, historic high numbers of these individuals being apprehended.”

2NC UQISIS plans a nuclear strike on the US through Mexico in the next 10 months - and specifically such a WMD terrorist attack would have drastic effects on the US economySlavo 5/26 (Marc, journalist, http://www.infowars.com/report-terrorist-nuke-attack-may-be-carried-out-inside-the-united-states-in-next-12-months/) //RLWith nuclear material having been stolen on multiple occasions in Mexico, and close terrorist

ties to intelligence organizations in the middle east, it appears that if an organization was

committed to acquiring nuclear material they could do so . Finding the scientists to build such a weapon, whether dirty or actual, wouldn’t be all that difficult. Moreover, smuggling such a device into the U.S. is possible, as evidenced by a 2011 report which confirms that at least one nuclear weapon of mass destruction was seized as it entered the United States. ¶ According to a report from Zero Hedge, such a plan may be in the works over the next twelve months, as the

Islamic State claims it may be actively pursuing a nuclear weapon intended for detonation

on American soil. ¶ Three weeks after the first supposed attack by Islamic State supporters in the US, in which two ISIS “soldiers” wounded a security guard before they were killed in Garland, Texas, the time has come to raise the fear stakes. ¶ In an article posted in the terrorist group’s English-language online magazine Dabiq (which as can be see below seems to have gotten its design cues straight from Madison Avenue and is just missing glossy pages filled with ‘scratch and sniff’ perfume ads ) ISIS claimed that it has enoughmoney to buy a nuclear

weapon from Pakistan and “carry out an attack inside the United States next year.” ¶ In the

article, the ISIS columnist said the weapon could be smuggled into the United States via its

southern border with Mexico. ¶ Curiously, the author of the piece is John Cantlie, a British photojournalist who was abducted by ISIS in 2012 and has been held hostage by the organization ever since; he has appeared in several videos since his kidnapping and criticized Western powers.¶ As the Telegraph notes, “Mr Cantlie, whose fellow journalist hostages have all either been released or beheaded, has appeared in the group’s propaganda videos and written previous pieces. In his latest work, presumed to be written under pressure but in his hall-mark style combining hyperbole, metaphor and sarcasm, he says that President Obama’s policies for containing Isil have demonstrably failed and increased the risk to America.”¶ Cantlie describes the following “hypothetical” scenario in Dabiq :¶ Let me throw a hypothetical operation onto the table. The Islamic State has billions of dollars in the bank, so they call on their wilayah in Pakistan to purchase a nuclear device through weapons dealers with links to corrupt officials in the region. ¶ The weapon is then transported overland until it makes it to Libya, where the muj?hid?n move it south to Nigeria. Drug shipments from Columbia bound for Europe pass through West Africa, so moving other types of contraband from East to West is just as possible. ¶ The nuke and accompanying mujahadin arrive on the shorelines of South America and are transported through the porous borders of Central America before arriving in Mexico and up to the border with the United States. ¶ From there it’s just a quick hop through a

smuggling tunnel and hey presto, they’re mingling with another 12 million “illegal” aliens in

America with a nuclear bomb in the trunk of their car. ¶ Cantlie continues:¶ Perhaps such a

scenario is far-fetched but it’s the sum of all fears for Western intelligence agencies and it’s infinitely more possible today than it was just one year ago. And if not a nuke, what about a few thousand tons of ammonium nitrate explosive? ¶ That’s easy enough to make. The Islamic

State make no secret of the fact they have every intention of attacking America on its home

soil and they’re not going to mince about with two muj?hid?n taking down a dozen casualties

if it originates from the Caliphate. They’ll be looking to do something big, something that would make any past operation look like a squirrel shoot, and the more groups that pledge allegiance the more possible it becomes to pull off something truly epic.¶ Remember, all of this has happened in less than a year. How more dangerous will be the lines of communication and supply a year on from today? If the West completely failed to spot the emergence of the Islamic State and then the allies who so quickly pledged allegiance to it from around the world, what else of massive significance are they going to miss next? ¶ One can, of course, debate just how much the West “failed to spot the emergence of ISIS” considering it was not only the CIA which initially trainedthe terrorist organization in Jordan in 2012, but according to recently declassified Pentagon documents, the US was well aware the outcome its attempt to overthrow Syria’s Assad would have on the region, in the process “creating” ISIS, aka al Qaeda 2.0.¶ In other words, even the “hypothetical operation” involving a nuclear attack on US soil

would implicitly have the blessing of the US government. Which, considering the way the

stock market surges every time the US economy deteriorates further on its way towards

recession, probably means that a mushroom cloud appearing in some major US metropolitan

area is just what the E-mini algos would need to send the S&P500 limit up .¶ Source: Zero Hedge¶ We have definitive confirmation via declassified documents that the Islamic State is a creation of the U.S. Department of Defense and Central Intelligence Agency, and their influence across the middle east was predicted well in advance of anyone ever having heard the name ISIS or ISIL. We also know that false flag operations, such as the German Reichstag fire of 1933, are often used by governments (or rogue elements within a government) to implement changes to existing political and social paradigms.¶ It could be that this nuclear threat is a psychological operation designed to elicit fear in the populace so that they go along willingly with legislative actions like the Patriot Act which further erode individual rights in the name of protecting us from terrorism, or to justify large scale military operations on U.S. soil, including but not limited to this summer’s Jade Helm exercises.¶ Or, certainly within the realm of possibility, is the notion that at some point a rogue terror element, the origination and loyalty of which makes absolutely no difference in the end, is planning on detonating a nuclear device on U.S. soil.¶

Perhaps this is one reason for why the elite are rapidly investing in secret hideaways. Perhaps they know it’s time to start exiting large metropolitan areas ahead of whatever is coming. Perhaps it all starts with a bang and a mushroom cloud, soon followed by panic, riots, looting, and of course, the unprecedented domestic military response that would be necessitated by a widespread breakdown of civil order.¶ We can only speculate, but the fact is that another large-scale attack on U.S. soil would usher in a new era in the Land of the Free.¶ Admittedly, we have delved deep into the rabbit hole of conspiracy theory, but we leave the reader the following quote to consider within the context of this current threat:¶ The process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor. ¶ Project for a New American Century, 2000 (PDF Link)¶ Signed by Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, et. al.¶ At the very least the American

people are being psychologically conditioned to accept their own enslavement. At worst, an

event such as this would be used to plunge the world into the next great war.

2NC LinkTerrorists use lax border security to get to the US from Mexico – ISIS is just 8 miles from the borderChasmar 4/14 (Jessica, continuous news writer for The Washington Times, covering topics on culture and politics, “Islamic State operating in Mexico just 8 miles from U.S. border: report”, The Washington Times, April 14th, 2015, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/14/islamic-state-operating-in-mexico-just-8-miles-fro/) //RL

The Islamic State terror group is operating a camp in the northern Mexican state of

Chihuahua, just eight miles from the U.S. border, Judicial Watch reported Tuesday. ¶ Citing sources that include a “Mexican Army field grade officer and a Mexican Federal Police Inspector,” the conservative watchdog group reported that the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, is organizing only a few miles from El Paso, Texas, in the Anapra neighborhood of Juárez and in Puerto Palomas. ¶ Judicial Watch sources said that “coyotes” working for the notorious Juarez Cartel are smuggling Islamic State terrorists across the U.S. border between the New Mexico cities of Santa Teresa and Sunland Park, as well as “through the porous border between Acala and Fort Hancock, Texas.” ¶ “These specific areas were targeted for

exploitation by ISIS because of their understaffed municipal and county police forces, and the

relative safe-havens the areas provide for the unchecked large-scale drug smuggling that was

already ongoing,” Judicial Watch reported. ¶ Mexican intelligence sources say the Islamic State intends to exploit the railways and airport facilities in the vicinity of Santa Teresa, New Mexico. ¶ “The sources also say that ISIS has ‘spotters’ located in the East Potrillo Mountains of New Mexico (largely managed by the Bureau of Land Management) to assist with terrorist border crossing operations,” Judicial Watch reported. “ISIS is conducting reconnaissance of regional universities; the White Sands Missile Range; government facilities in Alamogordo, NM; Ft. Bliss; and the electrical power facilities near Anapra and Chaparral, NM.”

T – Domestic

1NC

First, Interpretation: Domestic surveillance is surveillance within national bordersAvilez et al 14 Marie Avilez et al, Carnegie Mellon University December 10, 2014 Ethics, History, and Public Policy Senior Capstone Project Security and Social Dimensions of City Surveillance Policyhttp://www.cmu.edu/hss/ehpp/documents/2014-City-Surveillance-Policy.pdf

Domestic surveillance – collection of information about the activities of private individuals/organizations by a government entity within national borders; this can be carried out by federal, state and/or local officials

Violation- the border BHC No DateUnited States- Mexico Border Health Commission, a binational health commission in July 2000 with the signing of an agreement by the Secretary of Health and Human Services of the United States and the Secretary of Health of México. On December 21, 2004, the Commission was designated as a Public International Organization by Executive Order of the President, “Border Relation”, http://www.borderhealth.org/border_region.php//SRawal

The U nited S tates- México border region is defined as the area of land being 100 kilometers (62.5

miles) north and south of the international boundary (La Paz Agreement). It stretches approximately 2000 miles from the southern tip of Texas to California. The population for this expanse of land is estimated to be approximately 12 million inhabitants. This population is expected to double by the year 2025. The combined population of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California is 61,637,146 (2000 Census). The estimated combined population of the six Mexican border states in 1990 was 12,246,991. Two of the ten fastest-growing metropolitan areas in the United States - Laredo and McAllen - are located on the Texas-México border. Additionally, there are 154 Native American tribes totaling 881,070 Native Americans living in the 4 U.S. border states. In the actual border region, there are approximately 25 Native American Nations.

Second, Domestic surveillance is surveillance of US persons

Small 8 MATTHEW L. SMALL. United States Air Force Academy 2008 Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress, Presidential Fellows Program paper "His Eyes are Watching You: Domestic Surveillance, Civil Liberties and Executive Power during Times of National Crisis" http://cspc.nonprofitsoapbox.com/storage/documents/Fellows2008/Small.pdf

Before one can make any sort of assessment of domestic surveillance policies, it is first necessary to narrow the scope of the term “domestic surveillance.” Domestic surveillance is a subset of intelligence gathering. Intelligence, as it is to be understood in this context, is “information that meets the stated or understood needs of policy makers and has been collected, processed and narrowed to meet those needs” (Lowenthal 2006, 2). In essence, domestic surveillance is a means to an end; the end being intelligence. The intelligence community best understands domestic surveillance as the acquisition of nonpublic information concerning U nited S tates persons (Executive Order 12333 (3.4) (i)). With this definition domestic surveillance remains an overly broad concept. This paper’s analysis, in terms of President Bush’s policies, focuses on electronic surveillance; specifically, wiretapping phone lines and obtaining caller information from phone companies. Section f of the USA Patriot Act of 2001 defines electronic surveillance as:

Violation- Undocumented people are not US personsJackson et al 9 Brian A. Jackson, Darcy Noricks, and Benjamin W. Goldsmith, RAND Corporation

The Challenge of Domestic Intelligence in a Free Society RAND 2009 BRIAN A. JACKSON, EDITORhttp://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2009/RAND_MG804.pdf

3 Federal law and executive order define a U.S. person as “a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, an unincorporated association with a substantial number of members who are citizens of the U.S. or are aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence, or a corporation that is incorporated in the U.S.” (NSA, undated).

Although this definition would therefore allow information to be gathered on U.S. persons located abroad, our objective was to examine the creation of a domestic intelligence organization that would focus on—and whose activities would center around—individuals and organizations located inside the United States . Though such an agency might receive information about U.S. persons that was collected abroad by other intelligence agencies, it would not collect that information itself.

T is a voter-

They explode limits—

First, Allowing the surveillance of non-US persons means they open the debate to immigration. This is a whole new literature base which is large enough to be a topic in itself.

Second, They open the topic outside of our borders which means they justify any aff which cooperates with other countries and transnational agreements the decrease surveillance—this massively expands the topic and makes for unproductive debate

OFFCASE – VIRTUAL WALL (KS)

Politics LinksObama will fight for border control- Recent meeting provesWolfgang 14 (Ben Wolfgang: Covers the White House for The Washington Times, “Obama: I’ve fought against activists who believe there should be open borders”, The Washington Times, 12/9/2014, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/dec/9/obama-ive-fought-against-activists-open-borders/, Accessed: 7/17/15, RRR)Critics say President Obama went too far with his executive action granting amnesty to more than 4 million illegal immigrants — but behind the scenes, the

president said he’s pushed back against those who believe the U.S. should have an open border

with Mexico .¶ At a town-hall meeting in Nashville on Tuesday, Mr . Obama defended the idea of a strong U.S-Mexico

border and said he’s had heated debates with activists who want that border to disappear. ¶ “There have been times, honestly, I’ve had arguments with immigration rights activists who say, effectively, ‘There shouldn’t be any rules. These are good people. Why should we have any enforcement like this?’ My response is, ‘In the eyes of God, everybody is equal … I don’t make any claims my child is superior to anybody else’s child. But I’m the

president of the United States, and nation states have borders,’” the president said. “ If we had no system of enforcing our borders and our laws, I promise you, everybody would try to come here. ” ¶ Mr. Obama added that it would be fundamentally unfair to erase the nation’s southern border . ¶ “Sometimes it’s just an accident that one person lives in a country that has a border with the U.S. and another person — in Somalia, it’s a lot harder to get here,” he said.

Obama will fight the plan – Currently increasing funding for border surveillanceKnauth 14 (Dietrich Knauth, “Obama Seeks $39M In Drone Funding For Border Surveillance”, Law360, 7/9/2014, http://www.law360.com/articles/555799/obama-seeks-39m-in-drone-funding-for-border-surveillance, Accessed: 7/17/15, RRR)Law360, New York (July 9, 2014, 5:08 PM ET) -- The Obama administration on Tuesday requested $39 million for aerial surveillance, including unmanned aircraft operations , as part of an effort to stop an influx of refugee children from crossing the U.S.'s southern border.The administration has called on Congress to provide $3.7 billion in emergency funding, spread out among the U.S. Departments of Homeland Security, Justice, Health and Human Services and State, to combat what it called a “humanitarian crisis.”

The White House said that children, both accompanied and on their own, are fleeing Central America in alarming numbers and that as a result, it needs more border surveillance and security , as well as a surge in enforcement personnel, from immigration judges to asylum officers.The DHS would get a significant portion of the president's request, with $1.1 billion going to Immigration and Customs Enforcement and $433 million going to Customs and Border Protection. The CBP's share includes $39.4 million to increase air surveillance capabilities that would support 16,526 additional flight hours for border surveillance and 16 additional crews for unmanned aerial systems to improve detection and interdiction of illegal activity, according to a White House fact sheet.

Schumer supports systematic border surveillance and militarizationOn The Issues 14 (On The Issues, "Charles Schumer on Immigration", www.ontheissues.org/International/Charles_Schumer_Immigration.htm, 12/14/2014, sr)What changes to our current immigration policy do you support? A: I support further securing our borders; prohibiting hiring of undocumented immigrants by requiring job applicants to present a secure Social Security card; creating jobs by attracting the world's best and brightest to America, and keeping them here; requiring undocumented immigrants to register with the government, pay taxes, and earn legal [status or face deportation.] Establishes specified benchmarks which must be met before

the guest worker and legalization programs may be initiated: operational control of the border with Mexico; Border Patrol increases ; border barriers , including vehicle barriers, fencing, radar, and aerial vehicles; detention capacity for illegal aliens apprehended crossing the US-Mexico border; workplace enforcement, including an electronic employment verification system; and Z-visa alien processing. Within 18 months, achieves operational control over U.S. land and maritime borders, including:

systematic border surveillance through more effective use of personnel and technology; and

physical infrastructure enhancements to prevent unlawful border entry Defines "operational

control" as the prevention of all unlawful U.S. entries, including entries by terrorists, other

unlawful aliens, narcotics, and other contraband.

Terror DA

1NC UQ + Link

Border Patrol is stretched thin now – it must be expanded, not curtailed, in order to prevent the threat of Islamic terrorism – and specifically ISIS poses a threat to the US through MexicoChiaramonte 14 (Perry Chiaramonte is a reporter for FoxNews.com, “Border crisis could provide cover to ISIS operatives, say experts” Fox News, July 7th, 2014, http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/07/07/isis-could-take-advantage-weakened-us-border-for-terrorist-attack/) //RLThe border crisis could be the perfect opportunity for Islamic terrorists looking to sneak

sleeper cells into the U.S., say experts. ¶ Patrols on the Mexican border have been stretched

to the breaking point in recent weeks by a tidal wave of immigrants from Central America. Among the estimated 60,000 people who have streamed across is a small percentage of what agents term "Special Interest Aliens," or SIAs. Terrorism experts say airport security is effective at keeping dangerous jihadists out, but the border breakdown could be America's Achilles heel - providing an entry point for groups like ISIS. ¶ “It's impossible to say that ISIS will soon be active on our border, but some groups will be,” said retired Army Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, a security and defense analyst and Fox News contributor. “The one thing that all of the squabbling jihadi groups in the Middle East and North Africa have in common is that they want to strike the U.S., both for what they view as vengeance and because, in terrorist circles, striking the U.S. is how you confirm that you're a major player.” ¶ “If you pay the cartels enough, they will sneak you across or assist in getting anything you want across the border." ¶ - Shawn Moran, vice president and spokesperson for the Border Patrol Council¶ It’s long been known that a percentage, albeit small, of illegals caught sneaking across from Mexico hail from terror-sponsoring states. And some of the Islamic terror groups have ties to Latin American drug cartels and gangs, including MS-13. The combination of terrorists' desire to infiltrate the border and gangs' know-how could prove dangerous to American security, say experts. ¶ “It’s obviously a concern,” Shawn Moran, vice president and spokesperson for the Border Patrol Council, told FoxNews.com. “If you pay the cartels enough, they will sneak you across or assist in getting anything you want across the border.¶ “It’s definitely a nightmare

scenario if they use the borders, north or south, to cross and conduct a terrorist attack, ” Moran added.¶ Texas Gov. Rick Perry said the record wave of illegal immigrants includes record numbers of SIAs.¶ “We have record high numbers of other than Mexicans being apprehended at the border,” Perry told Fox News. “These are people that are coming from states like Syria that have substantial connections back to terrorist regimes and terrorist operations. So we're seeing record, historic high numbers of these individuals being apprehended.”

2NC UQISIS plans a nuclear strike on the US through Mexico in the next 10 months - and specifically such a WMD terrorist attack would have drastic effects on the US economySlavo 5/26 (Marc, journalist, http://www.infowars.com/report-terrorist-nuke-attack-may-be-carried-out-inside-the-united-states-in-next-12-months/) //RLWith nuclear material having been stolen on multiple occasions in Mexico, and close terrorist

ties to intelligence organizations in the middle east, it appears that if an organization was

committed to acquiring nuclear material they could do so . Finding the scientists to build such a weapon, whether dirty or actual, wouldn’t be all that difficult. Moreover, smuggling such a device into the U.S. is possible, as evidenced by a 2011 report which confirms that at least one nuclear weapon of mass destruction was seized as it entered the United States. ¶ According to a report from Zero Hedge, such a plan may be in the works over the next twelve months, as the

Islamic State claims it may be actively pursuing a nuclear weapon intended for detonation

on American soil. ¶ Three weeks after the first supposed attack by Islamic State supporters in the US, in which two ISIS “soldiers” wounded a security guard before they were killed in Garland, Texas, the time has come to raise the fear stakes. ¶ In an article posted in the terrorist group’s English-language online magazine Dabiq (which as can be see below seems to have gotten its design cues straight from Madison Avenue and is just missing glossy pages filled with ‘scratch and sniff’ perfume ads ) ISIS claimed that it has enoughmoney to buy a nuclear

weapon from Pakistan and “carry out an attack inside the United States next year.” ¶ In the

article, the ISIS columnist said the weapon could be smuggled into the United States via its

southern border with Mexico. ¶ Curiously, the author of the piece is John Cantlie, a British photojournalist who was abducted by ISIS in 2012 and has been held hostage by the organization ever since; he has appeared in several videos since his kidnapping and criticized Western powers.¶ As the Telegraph notes, “Mr Cantlie, whose fellow journalist hostages have all either been released or beheaded, has appeared in the group’s propaganda videos and written previous pieces. In his latest work, presumed to be written under pressure but in his hall-mark style combining hyperbole, metaphor and sarcasm, he says that President Obama’s policies for containing Isil have demonstrably failed and increased the risk to America.”¶ Cantlie describes the following “hypothetical” scenario in Dabiq :¶ Let me throw a hypothetical operation onto the table. The Islamic State has billions of dollars in the bank, so they call on their wilayah in Pakistan to purchase a nuclear device through weapons dealers with links to corrupt officials in the region. ¶ The weapon is then transported overland until it makes it to Libya, where the muj?hid?n move it south to Nigeria. Drug shipments from Columbia bound for Europe pass through West Africa, so moving other types of contraband from East to West is just as possible. ¶ The nuke and accompanying mujahadin arrive on the shorelines of South America and are transported through the porous borders of Central America before arriving in Mexico and up to the border with the United States. ¶ From there it’s just a quick hop through a

smuggling tunnel and hey presto, they’re mingling with another 12 million “illegal” aliens in

America with a nuclear bomb in the trunk of their car. ¶ Cantlie continues:¶ Perhaps such a

scenario is far-fetched but it’s the sum of all fears for Western intelligence agencies and it’s infinitely more possible today than it was just one year ago. And if not a nuke, what about a few thousand tons of ammonium nitrate explosive? ¶ That’s easy enough to make. The Islamic

State make no secret of the fact they have every intention of attacking America on its home

soil and they’re not going to mince about with two muj?hid?n taking down a dozen casualties

if it originates from the Caliphate. They’ll be looking to do something big, something that would make any past operation look like a squirrel shoot, and the more groups that pledge allegiance the more possible it becomes to pull off something truly epic.¶ Remember, all of this has happened in less than a year. How more dangerous will be the lines of communication and supply a year on from today? If the West completely failed to spot the emergence of the Islamic State and then the allies who so quickly pledged allegiance to it from around the world, what else of massive significance are they going to miss next? ¶ One can, of course, debate just how much the West “failed to spot the emergence of ISIS” considering it was not only the CIA which initially trainedthe terrorist organization in Jordan in 2012, but according to recently declassified Pentagon documents, the US was well aware the outcome its attempt to overthrow Syria’s Assad would have on the region, in the process “creating” ISIS, aka al Qaeda 2.0.¶ In other words, even the “hypothetical operation” involving a nuclear attack on US soil

would implicitly have the blessing of the US government. Which, considering the way the

stock market surges every time the US economy deteriorates further on its way towards

recession, probably means that a mushroom cloud appearing in some major US metropolitan

area is just what the E-mini algos would need to send the S&P500 limit up .¶ Source: Zero Hedge¶ We have definitive confirmation via declassified documents that the Islamic State is a creation of the U.S. Department of Defense and Central Intelligence Agency, and their influence across the middle east was predicted well in advance of anyone ever having heard the name ISIS or ISIL. We also know that false flag operations, such as the German Reichstag fire of 1933, are often used by governments (or rogue elements within a government) to implement changes to existing political and social paradigms.¶ It could be that this nuclear threat is a psychological operation designed to elicit fear in the populace so that they go along willingly with legislative actions like the Patriot Act which further erode individual rights in the name of protecting us from terrorism, or to justify large scale military operations on U.S. soil, including but not limited to this summer’s Jade Helm exercises.¶ Or, certainly within the realm of possibility, is the notion that at some point a rogue terror element, the origination and loyalty of which makes absolutely no difference in the end, is planning on detonating a nuclear device on U.S. soil.¶

Perhaps this is one reason for why the elite are rapidly investing in secret hideaways. Perhaps they know it’s time to start exiting large metropolitan areas ahead of whatever is coming. Perhaps it all starts with a bang and a mushroom cloud, soon followed by panic, riots, looting, and of course, the unprecedented domestic military response that would be necessitated by a widespread breakdown of civil order.¶ We can only speculate, but the fact is that another large-scale attack on U.S. soil would usher in a new era in the Land of the Free.¶ Admittedly, we have delved deep into the rabbit hole of conspiracy theory, but we leave the reader the following quote to consider within the context of this current threat:¶ The process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor. ¶ Project for a New American Century, 2000 (PDF Link)¶ Signed by Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, et. al.¶ At the very least the American

people are being psychologically conditioned to accept their own enslavement. At worst, an

event such as this would be used to plunge the world into the next great war.

2NC LinkTerrorists use lax border security to get to the US from Mexico – ISIS is just 8 miles from the borderChasmar 4/14 (Jessica, continuous news writer for The Washington Times, covering topics on culture and politics, “Islamic State operating in Mexico just 8 miles from U.S. border: report”, The Washington Times, April 14th, 2015, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/14/islamic-state-operating-in-mexico-just-8-miles-fro/) //RL

The Islamic State terror group is operating a camp in the northern Mexican state of

Chihuahua, just eight miles from the U.S. border, Judicial Watch reported Tuesday. ¶ Citing sources that include a “Mexican Army field grade officer and a Mexican Federal Police Inspector,” the conservative watchdog group reported that the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, is organizing only a few miles from El Paso, Texas, in the Anapra neighborhood of Juárez and in Puerto Palomas. ¶ Judicial Watch sources said that “coyotes” working for the notorious Juarez Cartel are smuggling Islamic State terrorists across the U.S. border between the New Mexico cities of Santa Teresa and Sunland Park, as well as “through the porous border between Acala and Fort Hancock, Texas.” ¶ “These specific areas were targeted for

exploitation by ISIS because of their understaffed municipal and county police forces, and the

relative safe-havens the areas provide for the unchecked large-scale drug smuggling that was

already ongoing,” Judicial Watch reported. ¶ Mexican intelligence sources say the Islamic State intends to exploit the railways and airport facilities in the vicinity of Santa Teresa, New Mexico. ¶ “The sources also say that ISIS has ‘spotters’ located in the East Potrillo Mountains of New Mexico (largely managed by the Bureau of Land Management) to assist with terrorist border crossing operations,” Judicial Watch reported. “ISIS is conducting reconnaissance of regional universities; the White Sands Missile Range; government facilities in Alamogordo, NM; Ft. Bliss; and the electrical power facilities near Anapra and Chaparral, NM.”

T – Domestic

1NC

First, Interpretation: Domestic surveillance is surveillance within national bordersAvilez et al 14 Marie Avilez et al, Carnegie Mellon University December 10, 2014 Ethics, History, and Public Policy Senior Capstone Project Security and Social Dimensions of City Surveillance Policyhttp://www.cmu.edu/hss/ehpp/documents/2014-City-Surveillance-Policy.pdf

Domestic surveillance – collection of information about the activities of private individuals/organizations by a government entity within national borders; this can be carried out by federal, state and/or local officials

Violation- the border BHC No DateUnited States- Mexico Border Health Commission, a binational health commission in July 2000 with the signing of an agreement by the Secretary of Health and Human Services of the United States and the Secretary of Health of México. On December 21, 2004, the Commission was designated as a Public International Organization by Executive Order of the President, “Border Relation”, http://www.borderhealth.org/border_region.php//SRawal

The U nited S tates- México border region is defined as the area of land being 100 kilometers (62.5

miles) north and south of the international boundary (La Paz Agreement). It stretches approximately 2000 miles from the southern tip of Texas to California. The population for this expanse of land is estimated to be approximately 12 million inhabitants. This population is expected to double by the year 2025. The combined population of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California is 61,637,146 (2000 Census). The estimated combined population of the six Mexican border states in 1990 was 12,246,991. Two of the ten fastest-growing metropolitan areas in the United States - Laredo and McAllen - are located on the Texas-México border. Additionally, there are 154 Native American tribes totaling 881,070 Native Americans living in the 4 U.S. border states. In the actual border region, there are approximately 25 Native American Nations.

Second, Domestic surveillance is surveillance of US persons

Small 8 MATTHEW L. SMALL. United States Air Force Academy 2008 Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress, Presidential Fellows Program paper "His Eyes are Watching You: Domestic Surveillance, Civil Liberties and Executive Power during Times of National Crisis" http://cspc.nonprofitsoapbox.com/storage/documents/Fellows2008/Small.pdf

Before one can make any sort of assessment of domestic surveillance policies, it is first necessary to narrow the scope of the term “domestic surveillance.” Domestic surveillance is a subset of intelligence gathering. Intelligence, as it is to be understood in this context, is “information that meets the stated or understood needs of policy makers and has been collected, processed and narrowed to meet those needs” (Lowenthal 2006, 2). In essence, domestic surveillance is a means to an end; the end being intelligence. The intelligence community best understands domestic surveillance as the acquisition of nonpublic information concerning U nited S tates persons (Executive Order 12333 (3.4) (i)). With this definition domestic surveillance remains an overly broad concept. This paper’s analysis, in terms of President Bush’s policies, focuses on electronic surveillance; specifically, wiretapping phone lines and obtaining caller information from phone companies. Section f of the USA Patriot Act of 2001 defines electronic surveillance as:

Violation- Undocumented people are not US personsJackson et al 9 Brian A. Jackson, Darcy Noricks, and Benjamin W. Goldsmith, RAND Corporation

The Challenge of Domestic Intelligence in a Free Society RAND 2009 BRIAN A. JACKSON, EDITORhttp://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2009/RAND_MG804.pdf

3 Federal law and executive order define a U.S. person as “a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, an unincorporated association with a substantial number of members who are citizens of the U.S. or are aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence, or a corporation that is incorporated in the U.S.” (NSA, undated).

Although this definition would therefore allow information to be gathered on U.S. persons located abroad, our objective was to examine the creation of a domestic intelligence organization that would focus on—and whose activities would center around—individuals and organizations located inside the United States . Though such an agency might receive information about U.S. persons that was collected abroad by other intelligence agencies, it would not collect that information itself.

T is a voter-

They explode limits—

First, Allowing the surveillance of non-US persons means they open the debate to immigration. This is a whole new literature base which is large enough to be a topic in itself.

Second, They open the topic outside of our borders which means they justify any aff which cooperates with other countries and transnational agreements the decrease surveillance—this massively expands the topic and makes for unproductive debate

SFO K

1NCSpeaking to the suffering of other bodies denies them humanityAlcoff 89Linda Alcoff, ”The Problem of Speaking for Others”, last date cited 1989, http://www.alcoff.com/content/speaothers.html//SRawalThe recognition that there is a problem in speaking for others has followed from the widespread acceptance of two claims. First, there has been a growing awareness that where one speaks from affects both the meaning and truth of what one says, and thus that one cannot assume an ability to transcend her location. In other words,

a speaker's location (which I take here to refer to her social location or social identity) has an epistemically significant impact on that speaker's claims, and can serve either to authorize or dis-authorize one's speech. The creation of Women's Studies and African American Studies departments were founded on this very belief: that both the study of and the advocacy for the oppressed must come to be done principally by the oppressed themselves, and that we must finally acknowledge that systematic divergences in social location between speakers and those spoken for will have a significant effect on the content of what is said. The unspoken premise here is simply that a speaker's location is epistemically salient. I shall explore this issue further in the next section. The

second claim holds that not only is location epistemically salient, but certain privileged locations are discursively dangerous. In particular, the practice of privileged persons speaking for or on behalf of less privileged persons has actually resulted (in many cases) in increasing or reenforcing the oppression of the group spoken for. This was part of the argument made against Anne Cameron's speaking for Native women: Cameron's intentions were never in question, but the effects of her writing were argued to be harmful to the needs of Native authors because it is Cameron rather than they who will be listened to and whose books will be bought by readers interested in Native women. Persons from dominant groups who speak for others are often treated as authenticating presences that confer legitimacy and credibility on the demands of subjugated speakers; such speaking for others does

nothing to disrupt the discursive hierarchies that operate in public spaces. For this reason, the work of privileged authors who speak on behalf of the oppressed is becoming increasingly criticized by members of those oppressed groups themselves.

AT: we’re speaking ABOUT them not forSpeaking ABOUT others always results in speaking FOR them and constructing their subject positions—they are intertwinedAlcoff 89Linda Alcoff, ”The Problem of Speaking for Others”, last date cited 1989, http://www.alcoff.com/content/speaothers.html//SRawalIn the examples used above, there may appear to be a conflation between the issue of speaking for others and the issue of speaking about others. This conflation was intentional on my part, because it is difficult to distinguish speaking about from speaking for in all cases. There is an ambiguity in the two phrases: when one is

speaking for another one may be describing their situation and thus also speaking about them. In fact, it may be impossible to speak for another without simultaneously conferring information about them. Similarly, when one is speaking about another, or simply trying to describe their situation or some aspect of it, one may also be speaking in place of them, i.e. speaking for them. One may be speaking about another as an advocate or a

messenger if the person cannot speak for herself. Thus I would maintain that if the practice of speaking for others is problematic, so too must be the practice of speaking about others.8 This is partly the case because of what has been called the "crisis of representation." For in both the practice of speaking for as well as

the practice of speaking about others, I am engaging in the act of representing the other's needs, goals, situation, and in fact, who they are, based on my own situated interpretation. In post-structuralist terms,

I am participating in the construction of their subject-positions rather than simply discovering their true selves. Once we pose it as a problem of representation, we see that, not only are speaking for and speaking about analytically close,

so too are the practices of speaking for others and speaking for myself. For, in speaking for myself, I am also representing my self in a certain way, as occupying a specific subject-position, having certain characteristics and not others, and so on. In speaking for myself, I (momentarily) create my self---just as much as when I speak for others I create them as a public, discursive self, a self which is more unified than any subjective experience can support. And this public self will in most cases have an effect on the self experienced as interiority.

Tuck & YangAll of the following could potentially work

RecognitionThe AFF’s politics of recognition ties reinscribes oppression by tying subjecthood to sufferingTuck and Yang 14 [Eve, & K.W., 2014, “R-Words: Refusing Research.” In n D. Paris & M. T. Winn (Eds.) Humanizing research: Decolonizing qualitative inquiry with youth and communities (pp. 223-248). Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage Publications. Pp. 228]The costs of a politics of recognition that is rooted in naming pain have been¶ critiqued by recent decolonizing and feminist scholars (Hartman, 1997, 2007;¶ Tuck, 2009). In Scenes of Subjection, Sadiya Hartman (1997) discusses how recognizing¶ the personhood of slaves enhanced the power of the Southern slaveowning¶ class. Supplicating narratives of former slaves were deployed effectively¶ by abolitionists, mainly White, well-to-do, Northern women, to generate portraits¶ of abuse that ergo recognize slaves as human (Hartman, 2007). In response, new¶ laws afforded minimal standards of existence, “making personhood coterminous¶ with injury” (Hartman, 1997, p. 93), while simultaneously authorizing necessary¶ violence to suppress slave agency. The slave emerges as a legal person only when¶ seen as criminal or “a violated body in need of limited forms of protection ”¶ (p. 55). Recognition “humanizes” the slave, but is predicated upon her or his¶ abjection. You are in pain, therefore you are. “[T]he recognition of humanity¶ require[s] the event of excessive violence, cruelty beyond the limits of the¶ socially tolerable, in order to acknowledge and protect the slave’s person” (p. 55).¶ Furthermore, Hartman describes how slave-as-victim as human accordingly¶ establishes slave-as-agent as criminal. Applying Hartman’s analysis, we note how¶ the agency of Margaret Garner or Nat Turner can only be viewed as outsider¶ violence that humane society must reject while simultaneously upholding the¶ legitimated violence of the state to punish such outsider violence. Hartman asks,¶ “Is it possible that such recognition effectively forecloses agency as the object of¶ punishment . . . Or is this limited conferral of humanity merely a reinscription of¶ subjugation and pained existence?” (p. 55).The affirmative attempts to historicize the action of the subaltern by rendering it into a recognizable people. This project of academic integration obliterates the subaltern.Spivak 5 [Gayatri, Prof. Comparative Literature and Society @ Columbia, 2005, “Scattered speculations on the subaltern and the popular,” Postcolonial Studies Vol 8 No 4, p. 476]Subaltern is to popular as gender is to sex, class to poverty, state to nation.¶ One word inclines to reasonableness, the other to cathexis / occupation ¶ through desire. ‘Popular’ divides between descriptive

(as in presidential or TV¶ ratings), evaluative (not ‘high’, both a positive and a negative value,¶ dependent on your ‘politics’), and

contains ‘people’, a word with immense¶ range, from ‘just anyone’, to the ‘masses’ (both a positive and a negative¶ political

value, depending on your politics). The reasonable and rarefied¶ definition of the word subaltern that interests me is: to be removed from all ¶ lines of social mobility. The disciplinary interest of literary criticism is in the singular and the¶

unverifiable. In ‘Can the Subaltern Speak?’ it was the peculiar and singular¶ subalternity of the young Bhubaneswari Bhaduri that

seemed of interest.1¶ Her story was my mother Sivani Chakravorty’s testimony. The question of¶ veridicality / of the evidentiary status of testimony, sometimes taken for ¶ granted in unexamined oral history / has to be thought of here. ¶ Gilles Deleuze’s notion of singularity is both complex and simple. In its¶ simplest form, the

singular is not the particular because it is an unrepeatable¶ difference that is, on the other hand, repeated / not as an example of

a¶ universal but as an instance of a collection of repetitions. Singularity is life as¶ pure immanence, what will be, of this life, as life.

As the name Bhubaneswari¶ Bhaduri became a teaching text, it took on this imperative / repeat as¶ singular /, as does literature.2

If the thinking of subalternity is taken in the general sense, its lack of access¶ to mobility may be a version of singularity. Subalternity cannot be generalised¶ according to hegemonic logic. That is what makes it subaltern. Yet it is a¶ category and therefore repeatable. Since the general sense is always mired in¶ narrow senses, any differentiations between subalternity and the popular¶ must thus concern itself with singular cases and thus contravene the¶ philosophical purity of Deleuze’s thought.3 The starting point of a singular itinerary of the word ‘subaltern’ can be¶ Antonio Gramsci’s ‘Southern Question’ rather than his more general¶ discussions of the subaltern. I believe that was the basic starting point of¶ the South Asian Subaltern Studies collective / Gramsci, a Communist,¶ thinking beyond capital logic in terms of unequal development. Subsequently, Partha Chatterjee developed a nuanced reading of both Gramsci and¶ Foucault.4 It is from ‘Some Aspects of the Southern Question’, then, that we can move¶ into Ranajit Guha’s ‘On Some Aspects of the Historiography of Colonial¶ India’.5 ‘Subaltern’ in the early Guha was the name

of a space of difference.¶ And the word was indistinguishable from ‘people’. Although Guha seems to¶ be saying that the words

‘people’ and ‘subaltern’ are interchangeable, I think¶ this is not a substantive point for him. At least in their early work, the ¶ members of the Subaltern Studies collective would not quarrel with the ¶ notion that the word ‘subaltern’ and the idea of the ‘popular’ do not inhabit a ¶ continuous space. Yet their failure to make this distinction has led to a certain ¶ relaxing of the word ‘subaltern’ that has undermined its usefulness. The slide ¶ into the ‘popular’ may be part of this. Subalternity is a position without identity. It is somewhat like the strict¶ understanding of class. Class is not a cultural origin, it is a sense

of economic¶ collectivity, of social relations of formation as the basis of action. Gender is¶ not lived sexual difference. It is a sense

of the collective social negotiation of¶ sexual differences as the basis of action. ‘Race’ is not originary; it assumes¶ racism.

Subalternity is where social lines of mobility, being elsewhere, do not ¶ permit the formation of a recognisable basis of action. The early subalternists¶ looked at examples where subalternity was brought to crisis, as a

basis for¶ militancy was formed. Even then colonial and nationalist historiography did ¶ not recognise it as such. Could the subaltern speak, then? Could it have its ¶ insurgency recognised by the official historians? Even when, strictly speaking,¶ they had burst the outlines of subalternity? This last is important. Neither the ¶ groups celebrated by the early subalternists nor Bhubaneswari Bhaduri, in so ¶ far as they had burst their bonds into resistance, were in the position of ¶ subalternity. No one can say ‘I am a subaltern’

in whatever language. And¶ subaltern studies will not reduce itself to the historical

recounting of the ¶ details of the practice of disenfranchised groups and remain a study of

the ¶ subaltern.

SufferingResearch is used to commodify pain narratives and damage representations to reproduce oppression with the justification of the academyTuck and Yang 14 [Eve, & K.W., 2014, “R-Words: Refusing Research.” In n D. Paris & M. T. Winn (Eds.) Humanizing research: Decolonizing qualitative inquiry with youth and communities https://faculty.newpaltz.edu/evetuck/files/2013/12/Tuck-and-Yang-R-Words_Refusing-Research.pdf]Urban communities, and other disenfranchised communities. Damage-centered researchers may operate, even benevolently, within a theory of change in which harm must be recorded or proven in order to convince an outside adjudicator that reparations are deserved. These reparations presumably take the form of additional resources, settlements, affirmative actions, and other material, political, and sovereign adjustments. Eve has described this theory of change as both colonial and flawed, because it relies upon Western notions of power as scarce and concentrated, and because it requires disenfranchised communities to posi-tion themselves as both singularly defective and powerless to make change (2010). Finally, Eve has observed that “won” reparations rarely become reality, and that in many cases, communities are left with a narrative that tells them that they are broken.Similarly, at the center of the analysis in this chapter is a concern with the fixation social science research has exhibited in eliciting pain stories from com-munities that are not White, not wealthy, and not straight. Academe’s demon-strated fascination with telling and retelling narratives of pain is troubling, both for its voyeurism and for its consumptive implacability. Imagining “itself to be a voice, and in some disciplinary iterations, the voice of the colonised” (Simpson, 2007, p. 67, emphasis in the original) is not just a rare historical occurrence in

anthropology and related fields. We observe that much of the work of the academy is to reproduce stories of oppression in its own voice. At first, this may read as an intolerant condemnation of the academy, one that refuses to forgive past blunders and see how things have changed in recent decades. However, it is our view that while many individual scholars have cho-sen to pursue other lines of inquiry than the pain narratives typical of their disciplines, novice researchers emerge from doctoral programs eager to launch pain-based inquiry projects because they believe that such approaches embody what it means to do social science. The collection of pain narratives and the theories of change that champion the value of such narratives are so prevalent in the social sciences that one might surmise that they are indeed what the academy is about. In her examination of the symbolic violence of the academy, bell hooks (1990) portrays the core message from the academy to those on the margins as thus: No need to hear your voice when I can talk about you better than you can speak about yourself. No need to hear your voice. Only tell me about your pain. I want to know your story. And then I will tell it back to you in a new way. Tell it back to you in such a way that it has become mine, my own. Re-writing you I write myself anew. I am still author, authority. I am still colonizer the speaking subject and you are now at the center of my talk. (p. 343) Hooks’s words resonate with our observation of how much of social science research is concerned with providing recognition to the presumed voiceless, a recognition that is enamored with knowing through pain. Further, this passage describes the ways in which the researcher’s voice is constituted by, legitimated by, animated by the voices on the margins. The researcher-self is made anew by telling back the story of the marginalized/subaltern subject. Hooks works to untangle the almost imperceptible differences between forces that silence and forces that seemingly liberate by inviting those on the margins to speak, to tell their stories. Yet the forces that invite those on the margins to speak also say, “Do not speak in a voice of resistance. Only speak from that space in the margin that is a sign of deprivation, a wound, an unfulfilled longing. Only speak your pain” (hooks, 1990, p. 343).

Research is used to commodify pain narratives- a refusal to enagage in research is necessaryTuck and Yang 14 [Eve, & K.W., 2014, “R-Words: Refusing Research.” In n D. Paris & M. T. Winn (Eds.) Humanizing research: Decolonizing qualitative inquiry with youth and communities https://faculty.newpaltz.edu/evetuck/files/2013/12/Tuck-and-Yang-R-Words_Refusing-Research.pdf] Research is a dirty word among many Native communities (Tuhiwai Smith,1999), and arguably, also among ghettoized

(Kelley, 1997), Orientalized(Said, 1978), and other communities of overstudied Others. The ethicalstandards of the academic industrial complex are a recent development, and likeso many post–civil rights reforms, do not always do enough to

ensure that socialscience research is deeply ethical, meaningful, or useful for the individual or com-munity being researched. Social science often works to collect stories of pain andhumiliation in the lives of those being researched for commodification. However,these same stories of pain and humiliation are part of the collective wisdom thatoften informs the writings of researchers who attempt to position their intellectualwork as decolonization. Indeed, to refute the crime, we may need to name

it. Howdo we learn from and respect the wisdom and desires in the stories that we (over)hear, while refusing to portray/betray them to the spectacle of the settler colonialgaze? How do we develop an ethics for research that differentiates between power—which deserves a denuding, indeed petrifying scrutiny—and people? Atthe same time, as fraught as research is in its complicity with power, it is one ofthe last places for legitimated inquiry. It is at least still a space that proclaims tocare about curiosity. In this essay, we theorize refusal not just as a “no,” but as atype of investigation into “what you need to know and what I refuse to write in”(Simpson, 2007, p. 72). Therefore, we present a refusal to do research, or a refusalwithin research, as a way of thinking about humanizing researchers. We have organized this chapter into four portions. In the first three sections,we lay out three axioms of social science research. Following the work of EveKosofsky Sedgwick (1990), we use the exposition of these axioms to articulateotherwise implicit, methodological, definitional, self-evident groundings (p. 12)of our arguments and observations of refusal. The axioms are: (I) The subalterncan speak, but is only invited to speak her/our pain; (II) there are some forms of knowledge that the academy doesn’t deserve; and (III) research may not be theintervention that is needed. We realize that these axioms may not appear self-evident to everyone, yet asserting them as apparent allows us to proceed towardthe often unquestioned limits of research. Indeed, “in dealing with an open-secret structure, it’s only by being shameless about risking the obvious that wehappen into the vicinity of the transformative” (Sedgwick, 1990, p. 22). In thefourth section of the chapter, we theorize refusal in earnest, exploring ideas thatare still forming.Our thinking and writing in this essay is informed by our readings of postco-lonial literatures and critical literatures on settler colonialism. We locate much ofour analysis inside/in relation to the discourse of settler colonialism, the particu-lar shape of colonial domination in the United States and elsewhere, includingCanada, New Zealand, and Australia. Settler colonialism can be differentiatedfrom what one might call exogenous colonialism in that the colonizers arrive at a place (“discovering” it) and make it a permanent home (claiming it). The perma-nence of settler colonialism makes it a structure, not just an event (Wolfe, 1999).The settler colonial nation-state is dependent on destroying and erasingIndigenous inhabitants in order to clear them from valuable land. The settlercolonial structure also requires the enslavement and labor of bodies that have been stolen from their homelands and transported in order to labor the land stolenfrom Indigenous people. Settler colonialism refers to a triad relationship, betweenthe White settler (who is valued for his leadership and innovative mind), the dis-appeared Indigenous peoples (whose land is valued, so they and their claims to itmust be extinguished), and the chattel slaves (whose bodies are valuable butownable, abusable, and murderable). We believe that this triad is the basis of theformation of Whiteness in settler colonial nation-states, and that the interplay oferasure, bodies, land, and violence is characteristic of the permanence of settlercolonial structures.Under coloniality, Descartes’ formulation, cognito ergo sum (“I think, thereforeI am”) transforms into ego conquiro (“I conquer, therefore I am”; Dussel, 1985;Maldonado-Torres, 2007; Ndlvou-Gatsheni, 2011). Nelson Maldonado-Torres(2009) expounds on this relationship of the conqueror’s sense-of-self to hisknowledge-of-others (“I know her, therefore I am me”). Knowledge of self/Others became the philosophical justification for the acquisition of bodies and territo-ries, and the rule over them. Thus the right to conquer is intimately connected tothe right to know (“I know, therefore I conquer, therefore I am”). Maldonado-Torres (2009) explains that for Levi Strauss, the self/Other knowledge paradigmis the methodological rule for the birth of ethnology as a science (pp. 3–4). Settler colonial knowledge is premised on frontiers; conquest, then, is an exerciseof the felt entitlement to transgress these limits. Refusal, and stances of refusal inresearch, are attempts to place limits on conquest and the colonization of knowl-edge by marking what is off limits, what is not up for grabs or discussion, what issacred, and what can’t be known. To speak of limits in such a way makes some liberal thinkers uncomfortable, andmay, to them, seem dangerous. When access to information, to knowledge, to theintellectual commons is controlled by the people who generate that information[participants in a research study], it can be seen as a violation of shared standards of justice and truth. (Simpson, 2007, p. 74) By forwarding a framework of refusal within (and to) research in this chapter, weare not simply prescribing limits to social science research. We are making visibleinvisibilized limits, containments, and seizures that research already stakes out.

OvercomingThe attempt to overcome the conditions of modernity, the founding original violences which constitutes our current epistemologies is the logic of settler colonialism. It operates on a fetishization of woundedness.Tuck and Yang 14 [Eve, & K.W., 2014, “R-Words: Refusing Research.” In n D. Paris & M. T. Winn (Eds.) Humanizing research: Decolonizing qualitative inquiry with youth and communities (pp. 223-248). Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage Publications. Pp. 228-9]As numerous scholars have denoted, many social science disciplines emerged¶ from the need to provide justifications for social

hierarchies undergirded by¶ White supremacy and manifest destiny (see also Gould, 1981; Selden, 1999;¶ Tuck & Guishard,

forthcoming). Wolfe (1999) has explored how the contoured¶ logic of settler colonialism (p. 5) can be mapped onto the

microactivities of¶ anthropology; Guthrie (1976) traces the roots of psychology to the need to “scientifically”¶ prove the

supremacy of the White mind. The origins of many social¶ science disciplines in maintaining logics of domination, while sometimes¶ addressed in graduate schools, are regularly thought to be just errant or

inauspicious¶ beginnings—much like the ways in which the genocide of Indigenous ¶ peoples that afforded the founding of the Unites States has been reduced to an ¶ unfortunate byproduct of the birthing of a new and great nation. Such amnesia ¶ is required in settler colonial societies , argues

Lorenzo Veracini, because settler colonialism is “characterized by a persistent drive to supersede the conditions of ¶ its operation,” (2011, p. 3); that is, to make itself invisible, natural, without origin ¶ (and without end), and inevitable. Social science disciplines have inherited ¶ the persistent drive to supersede the conditions of their operations from settler ¶ colonial logic , and it is this drive, a kind of

unquestioning push forward, and not¶ the origins of the disciplines that we attend to now. We are struck by the pervasive silence on questions regarding the contemporary ¶ rationale(s) for social science research.

Though a variety of ethical and¶ procedural protocols require researchers to compose statements regarding the¶ objectives or

purposes of a particular project, such protocols do not prompt ¶ reflection upon the underlying beliefs about knowledge and change that too often¶ go unexplored or unacknowledged. The rationale for conducting social

science¶ research that collects pain narratives seems to be self-evident for many scholars,¶ but when looked at more closely, the

rationales may be unconsidered, and somewhat¶ flimsy. Like a maritime archaeological site, such rationales might be best¶

examined in situ, for fear of deterioration if extracted. Why do researchers collect ¶ pain narratives? Why does the academy want them? An initial and partial answer is because settler colonial ideology believes that,¶ in

fiction author Sherril Jaffe’s words, “scars make your body more interesting,” ¶ (1996, p. 58). Jaffe’s work of short,

short of fiction bearing that sentiment as title¶ captures the exquisite crossing of wounds and curiosity and pleasure. Settler ¶ colonial ideology, constituted by its conscription of others, holds the wounded ¶ body as more engrossing than the body that is not wounded (though the person ¶ with a wounded body does not politically or materially benefit for being more ¶ engrossing). In settler colonial logic, pain is more compelling than privilege, ¶ scars more enthralling than the body unmarked by experience. In settler colonial ¶ ideology, pain is evidence of authenticity, of the verifiability of a lived life. ¶ Academe, formed and informed by settler colonial ideology, has developed the ¶ same palate for pain. Emerging and established social science researchers set out ¶ to document the problems faced by communities, and often in doing so, recirculate ¶ common tropes of dysfunction, abuse, and neglect.

MISCAFF CARDJAMES JAY CARAFANO • 7/13/14 (“Immigrants ignore U.S. immigration laws because Obama won't enforce them”, June 13th, 2014, http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/immigrants-ignore-u.s.-immigration-laws-because-obama-wont-enforce-them/article/2550787, Accessed 7/16/15, EHS MSK)Today, the flood of unaccompanied minors illegally crossing the border makes Napolitano's declaration look foolish. Last year, the Department of Health and Human Services reported it had custody of about 2,000 minors who had entered illegally, without a parent. This year more than 52,000 unaccompanied children have been apprehended at the South Texas border alone. Why the dramatic upsurge? It comes following the president's 2012 declaration that his administration would defer, virtually automatically, deportation of minors unlawfully present in the U.S. Over the last year, “coyotes” have been using that promise as a marketing tool for their people smuggling business. Coupling this announcement with disastrous policies towards El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala -- the three countries from which most of these children come -- Obama has done much to undermine all the enforcement measures that had stemmed the tide of illegal migration. Now Washington has stepped in with three proposals to solve the problem. First, the president has asked for $3.8 billion in “emergency” spending. That's a laughable request intended mostly as a sound bite for the White House to claim it is doing something. Little of the money would go toward making the border more secure. A lot would go to hiring immigration judges -- a two-year process that hardly qualifies as emergency spending . If there are legitimate additional needs Congress should just address them in the

annual appropriations bill. Second, some want to cut foreign aid to punish El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala. But, Congress has to be careful not to gut programs that help those nations battle the gangs and cartels that have made life there so difficult. Indeed, by withholding security assistance funds over the last few years, Washington has inadvertently fueled the problems many Central Americans seek to flee. Third, there is a move to amend current law to allow for expedited removal of minors from countries that are noncontiguous with the United States. If done right, that policy change would actually help over the long-term. Even under expedited removal, U.S. officials must fully consider a child’s safety in their decision-making. After all, once the U.S. takes custody of a minor, it’s responsible for that child. Today's border crisis offers an important lesson: When an administration ignores the law or

only pretends to enforce it, no one pretends to obey it. The consequences are self-evident.

AFF CARDPEÑA NIETO 2015 /ENRIQUE, The President of Mexico, January 06 2015, “Why the U.S.-Mexico Relationship Matters”, http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/us-mexico-relationship-enrique-pea-nieto-113980.html#.Va-yhni4lao/ FranzyTo ensure the prosperity of our border we have worked together to improve security and

facilitate trade. Every minute, nearly a million dollars worth of products cross our land border. Additionally, our countries have begun several infrastructure projects to make the

border region a catalyst for growth and innovation. These projects include the San Diego-Tijuana airport pedestrian bridge, the railway crossing at Matamoros-Brownsville, and six new inspection booths at the Nogales port of entry. We have also reduced average waiting times at the San Ysidro-Chaparral crossing on the California-Baja California border from 3.5 hours to half-an-hour.Our commitment to education has allowed us to take advantage of the synergies built through FOBESII and between our initiatives “Proyecta 100,000” and “100,000 Strong in the Americas.” Last year, we launched the webpage Mobilitas, a platform to help students find educational opportunities in both countries. Furthermore, 23 cooperation agreements have been signed between Mexican and American states and universities. Altogether, we were able to reach our 2014 goal: 27,000 Mexican students are attending almost 200 universities across the U.S.The United States and Mexico have recognized that the challenges and opportunities we face on immigration should be addressed from a broad regional perspective and based upon the principle of shared responsibility. Consequently, we are committed to working with our neighbors in Central America to foster development and prosperity in that region.Over 34 million people of Mexican origin live in the U.S., 22.9 million of whom were born here. Mexican-Americans are socially and economically active members of their communities, and they maintain a strong binational identity. These communities are pillars of the relationship between our countries and will help us build a more prosperous shared future.My government applauds President Obama’s recently announced Immigration Accountability Executive Action, which acknowledges the positive economic and social impact of Mexican immigrants to their communities in the U.S. Furthermore, these measures will allow immigrants to increase their contributions to American society and live without fear of being separated from their families. My administration will continue to work with the U.S. government by providing services and consular assistance in order to improve the well-being of the Mexican community in this country. In order to raise living standards in Mexico—

which will discourage undocumented immigration—my government has embarked upon a

transformational path. We have sought to enhance my country’s competitiveness,

strengthen the rights of the Mexican people and consolidate our democracy.