USF Debate 2010-2011 File Name
Gonzo 1/35
USCIS COUNTERPLAN FILE
USCIS COunterplan File ........................................................................................................................................................................... 1
Notes on the File ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 2
USCIS Counterplan 1NC 1/2 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 3
USCIS Counterplan 1NC 2/2 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 4
USCIS Counterplan 1NC 2/2!.................................................................................................................................................................... 5
USCIS Counterplan – Solvency (In the U.S.) ............................................................................................................................................ 6
USCIS Counterplan – Solvency (Out of the U.S.) ..................................................................................................................................... 7
USCIS Counterplan – Solvency (Out of the U.S.) ..................................................................................................................................... 8
USCIS Counterplan – Solvency (Humanitarian Parole) ............................................................................................................................ 9
USCIS Counterplan – Solvency (Public Benefit Parole) ......................................................................................................................... 10
USCIS Counterplan – Solvency (Employment Visas/H-1Bs) ................................................................................................................. 11
USCIS Counterplan – Solvency (Trafficking/Adoption/Childs) ............................................................................................................. 12
USCIS Counterplan – Net Benefit (USCIS Dodges Congress) ............................................................................................................... 14
USCIS Counterplan – Net Benefit (Politics 1NC) ................................................................................................................................... 15
USCIS Counterplan – Net Benefit (Politics 1NC*) ................................................................................................................................. 16
USCIS Counterplan – Net Benefit (Riders Fiat Interp) ........................................................................................................................... 17
USCIS Counterplan – Net Benefit (Riders Link ext and New Impact) ................................................................................................... 18
USCIS Counterplan – Net Benefit (Riders Disease Impact) .................................................................................................................... 19
USCIS Counterplan – Net Benefit (Biometrics Link Cards) ................................................................................................................... 20
USCIS Counterplan – Net Benefit (Biometrics Trafficking Link) .......................................................................................................... 21
USCIS Counterplan – Net Benefit (Biometrics Cyber Terror !) .............................................................................................................. 22
USCIS Counterplan – Net Benefit (State Department Focus) ................................................................................................................. 23
USCIS Counterplan – AT: Slow .............................................................................................................................................................. 24
USCIS Counterplan – AT: Only Congress .............................................................................................................................................. 26
USCIS Counterplan – AT: Delegation Answers ...................................................................................................................................... 27
USCIS Counterplan – AT: Kills SOP ...................................................................................................................................................... 28
USCIS Counterplan – AT: There Aren‘t Visas Available ....................................................................................................................... 29
USCIs Counterplan – AT: Congressional/Courts Rollback ..................................................................................................................... 30
USCIS Counterplan – AT: Perm do Both ................................................................................................................................................ 31
USCIS Counterplan – AT: Perm do Both* .............................................................................................................................................. 32
USCIS Counterplan – AT: Perm Do the Counterplan ............................................................................................................................. 33
USCIS Counterplan – AT: Condo Bad .................................................................................................................................................... 34
USCIS Counterplan – AT: Agent Counterplans Bad ............................................................................................................................... 35
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011 File Name
Gonzo 2/35
NOTES ON THE FILE
So its an agent counterplan that is plan plus. So it isn‘t textually plan plus, so they can‘t just perm do the counterplan to get out of it.
They also can‘t perm do the counterplan based on agent because it adds something to the plan.
Basically, the actor is USCIS, and they do the plan by paroling people into the country, basically arbitrarily letting them in legally and
then letting them stay without having to apply for a visa (or for amnesty affs, just letting them stay). Realistically, the USCIS wouldn‘t
do this, but because we have negative fiat, we can pretend they‘ll break the rules.
So how the net benefits work is you have to prove reasons why Congress is bad. This is done via politics disads and also the rider‘s
disad, which is in the second page of the shell to the counterplan.
Politics is its own thing, but the rider‘s disad is an internal net benefit (so its not another off case argument). It basically says that
when the bill goes through Congress, an amendment will be made to the plan to get key votes in the senate and those specific
provisions that will be amended in are protectionist and will spark a global trade war.
[VERY IMPORTANT NOTE!!!!!!! PAY ATTENTION!!!!!!!: DO NOT READ ANY OF THE PAGES
MARKED IN THE HEADER‘S WITH ASTERISKS (the ones marked ―Parole Counterplan – AT: Perm do
Both*‖ and ―Parole Counterplan – Net Benefit (Politics 1NC*)‖) USE THE OTHER PAGES THAT SAY THE
SAME THINGS WITHOUT THE ASTERISKS. THOSE PAGES ARE FOR DAVID AND I TO DO
SNEAKY SHIT YOU GUYS WON‘T BE ABLE TO EXPLAIN]
OTHER IMPORTANT NOTE! Kristen, the 1NC page with the ! at the back is for you
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011 File Name
Gonzo 3/35
USCIS COUNTERPLAN 1NC 1/2
The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services should _____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________ by use of the parole process outlined in section 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act,
without conditions and grant those persons all necessary employment and travel authorization.
Contention 1 is Competition – The counterplan competes through net benefits.
Contention 2 is Solvency –
Counterplan solves all of the case and avoids Congressional debates on immigration
Endelman and Mehta ‘10 (Gary Endelman, practices immigration law at BP America Inc, serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Immigration Daily, and Cyrus D. Mehta, nationally recognized in the
field of immigration law. He represents corporations and individuals from around the world in business and employment immigration, family immigration, consular matters, naturalization, federal court litigation and asylum.
He also advises lawyers on ethical issues. Based on 18 years of experience in immigration law, He is also an Adjunct Professor of Law at Brooklyn Law School where he teaches a course, Immigration and Work, Chair of the
American Immigration Lawyers Association‘s (AILA) National Pro Bono Committee and Co-Chair of the AILA-NY Chapter Pro Bono Committe COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM THROUGH EXECUTIVE
FIAT, April 25, 2010, http://cyrusmehta.blogspot.com/2010/04/comprehensive-immigration-reform.html)
The central assumption of immigration advocates is that only Congress can ameliorate the immigration crisis. Whether it is
inadequate quota numbers - both family and employment, or the absence of options for "other worker" temporary visas, or
anything else, it has long been presumed that only Congress can remedy the situation. This article by Gary Endelman and Cyrus
Mehta questions the "only Congress can solve this" supposition. The article argues that there is ample room in the Immigration and
Nationality Act, for the Executive Branch, acting alone and without Congress, to take decisive curative action. The key is to
separate permanent residency from the two critical benefits that flow there from - legal work authorization and ability to travel.
Both of these benefits can be made available, by Executive fiat, to millions of immigrants - both present and future, immediately,
without any act of Congress. Once these benefits are in hand, Congress can grant permanent residency and citizenship, when the time
is propitious, without being held hostage by the anti-immigrationists. This article explores how the once-unthinkable can be achieved
lawfully through the enlightened use of President Obama's and Secretary Napolitano's inherent discretionary authority under the
current statutory regime. We urge all those involved in immigration advocacy to take a close look at the intellectual ammunition in
this article to chart a new path to the promised land of immigration benefits.[Ed. note ends here] "Two roads diverged in a wood, and
I--I took the one less traveled by, And that has made all the difference." Robert Frost: The Road Not Taken (1915) America should not
wait for Congress to solve most of its major immigration problems. While we do need new law, what we need even more than that,
perhaps far more, is a new vision, a willingness to examine existing law from a novel perspective. Given renewed political will, the
Executive can take sweeping action on its own initiative. Action no longer should take a back seat to the endless controversy over
comprehensive immigration reform. Congress is back in session and, like the return of spring, we wait in transfixed anticipation for
this year's great debate over comprehensive immigration reform. When the cherry blossoms return to Washington, so does CIR. Both
sides are digging in, dusting off old arguments, reviewing past tactics, and vying for the heart, soul and support of the new
Administration. It has now become accepted folk wisdom to assume that only Congress can solve our immigration woes and then only
through the mechanism of CIR. So deeply is this believed, that it has become an article of faith embraced by friend and foe alike, so
secure that it no longer needs explicit expression. The corollary of such a credo is that nothing can be done unless everything is done,
that the nation is powerless to take more limited measures that do not require legislative consensus. That means we can do nothing to
bring the undocumented in from the shadows, nothing to alleviate the economic pain caused by the lack of H-1B numbers, nothing to
give hope to essential workers, nothing to get around the lifetime exclusion resulting from membership in the Other Worker Gulag,
nothing to regulate future migration flows or make sense out of past ones, nothing to unite families now separated by shameful quotas
that make a mockery out of our stated national commitment to family values, nothing to stay the sword of the 3/10 year bar- nothing at
all about anything we care about. Why? Why are we as a nation impotent, fated to stand silent and mute while all around us the need
for action becomes ever more imperative? Because Congress cannot act. Because CIR has proved so difficult to achieve. Because
no one can agree on what divides us. Is there a better way? We believe there is and we hope that, at the end of our essay, you will
share that belief and act upon it so that America's immigration policy will no longer be waiting for Godot, in thrall to an illusion of
CIR that may never come and does not have to. Now we can begin.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011 File Name
Gonzo 4/35
USCIS COUNTERPLAN 1NC 2/2
Contention 3 is the Net Benefit
A. Labor protectionism will get attached to the plan – that breaks our WTO commitments under GATS sparking a trade war
Stuart Anderson 6/30 (executive director of the National Foundation for American Policy, a nonpartisan research group based in Arlington, Va.) 2010: Trade And
Immigration Are Not Separate Issues. http://www.forbes.com/2010/06/30/trade-immigration-h1b-opionions-contributors-stuart-anderson.html
As President Barack Obama attempts to jumpstart immigration legislation, a new controversy is brewing. The reason is many people assume trade and immigration are separate issues. They‘re
not. Even in the U.S. Congress and at federal agencies, few officials realize that under a trade pact signed by the U.S. government in 1994, the U.S. risks trade retaliation if it fails to admit,
within certain limitations, high-skilled foreign nationals to work in America. This 1994 trade pact stands like a roadblock on the highway for members of Congress who seek to enact new curbs
Under the General Agreement on Trade in Services
on foreign-born professionals, researchers and scientists. Will influential U.S. senators attempt to run it?
(GATS), the U.S. agreed to admit at least 65,000 foreign nationals on skilled temporary visas known as H-1Bs. Those admitted must be
paid the higher of the prevailing or actual wage paid to similar U.S. workers. The treaty also allows the U.S. to require employers to recruit U.S. workers and not lay off Americans in the same
job within 90 days of hiring individuals on H-1B visas. In addition, the U.S. government agreed to allow foreign companies to transfer into America from abroad executives, managers and
individuals with specialized knowledge on L-1 visas. International students earn one-half to two-thirds of advanced degrees from U.S. universities in key technology fields. And individuals
who earn their degrees abroad are also important contributors to U.S. growth and innovation. Despite this, some U.S. legislators want to prevent skilled professionals from working in America.
The controversy over these treaty commitments has not come to a head for only one reason--restrictive immigration measures against highly skilled foreign nationals have yet to become law.
Sanders. I-Vt., recently attempted to attach his anti-immigration bill, S. 2804, as an amendment to tax
But that could change. Sen. Bernard
legislation. The Sanders bill goes well beyond the job-specific layoff restrictions in the U.S. commitments under the GATS. It would
prohibit any new work visa (and even the termination of existing ones) if during the previous 12 months a company filed a layoff notice under the Worker Adjustment
and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act. For larger companies, closing down an unprofitable facility with 50 or more employees can easily trigger such a notice. Sens.
Richard Durbin, D-Ill., and Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, have also produced legislation, S. 887, which would institute a variety of
changes to H-1B and L-1 visa law. It would require a higher wage to be paid to H-1B and L-1 visa holders than under current law, issue new rules on H-1Bs and layoffs, and
prohibit new H-1B and L-1 visas for employers with more than 50 percent of their workforce in H-1B or L-1 status. Now that comprehensive immigration reform appears dead in Congress, it
is more likely that Sens. Sanders, Durbin and Grassley will attempt to attach their immigration bills to other pieces of legislation.
Durbin and Grassley already convinced Sens. Harry Reid, D-Nev., Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., and Robert Menendez, D-N.J., to include these portions of their bill in a
Democratic document released in May 2010 outlining immigration reform proposals. A new legal analysis released by my organization, the National Foundation for
American Policy (NFAP), found key provisions of both the Durbin-Grassley bill and the Sanders legislation would violate U.S. commitments under the General Agreement on Trade in
Services. In addition, the study found attempts to raise the current $1,500 training/education fee employers pay to hire H-1B visa holders could also violate the GATS. Trade lawyers at the
Washington, D.C.-based law firm of Jochum Shore & Trossevin, PC, performed the analysis. The legal analysis took no position on whether such proposed legislative changes constitute sound
passing such legislation would be highly vulnerable to challenge from World Trade
immigration policy. But it does conclude that
Organization members whose companies use H-1B or L-1 visas to perform services in the U.S. Such a challenge, if successful,
could lead to retaliation against U.S. exporters and harm America‘s reputation on trade issues. This has alarmed business groups. "The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is
very concerned that provisions in proposed immigration reform bills may violate international trade agreements," said Randel K. Johnson, senior vice president of labor, immigration and
employee benefits, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, who participated in a press briefing discussing the legal analysis. Under U.S. trade commitments, market access includes allowing employers
to hire individuals from another nation to work and provide services in America. If a World Trade Organization (WTO) member believes that another member is violating a U.S. commitment
under the GATS commitments, then the complaining member may use the WTO dispute settlement mechanism. If the measure is found inconsistent with the GATS, the Dispute Settlement
Body will recommend that the member bring its measure into conformity. If the member fails to bring the measure into conformity with the GATS, the complainant may seek authority to
retaliate against the other party. Sen. Grassley‘s office responded to the study by saying, "Sen. Grassley considers each bill to be consistent with existing U.S. commitments under the General
Agreement on Trade in Services." And that "Sen. Grassley will continue fighting for American workers in this time of unacceptably high unemployment, and he will do so in a manner
consistent with our international obligations." With any luck, members of Congress will try to pass legislation that strengthens America‘s competitiveness by keeping the door open to highly
Attempts to restrict such skilled individuals will undermine efforts to compete in the global
skilled professionals, scientists and researchers.
economy and risk a trade war at a time when the United States and its global partners can least afford it.
B. Free trade solves Nuclear War
Copley News Service, 99 (December 1)
For decades, many children in America and other countries went to bed fearing annihilation by nuclear war. The specter of nuclear winter freezing the life out of
planet Earth seemed very real. Activists protesting the World Trade Organization's meeting in Seattle apparently have forgotten that threat. The truth is that
nations join together in groups like the WTO not just to further their own prosperity, but also to forestall conflict with other nations. In a way, our planet
has traded in the threat of a worldwide nuclear war for the benefit of cooperative global economics. Some Seattle protesters clearly fancy themselves to
be in the mold of nuclear disarmament or anti-Vietnam War protesters of decades past. But they're not. They're special-interest activists, whether the cause is
environmental, labor or paranoia about global government. Actually, most of the demonstrators in Seattle are very much unlike yesterday's peace activists, such as
Beatle John Lennon or philosopher Bertrand Russell, the father of the nuclear disarmament movement, both of whom urged people and nations to work together rather
than strive against each other. These and other war protesters would probably approve of 135 WTO nations sitting down peacefully to discuss economic issues that in
the past might have been settled by bullets and bombs. As long as nations are trading peacefully, and their economies are built on exports to other
countries, they have a major disincentive to wage war . That's why bringing China, a budding superpower, into the WTO is so important. As exports to
the United States and the rest of the world feed Chinese prosperity, and that prosperity increases demand for the goods we produce, the threat of hostility diminishes.
Many anti-trade protesters in Seattle claim that only multinational corporations benefit from global trade, and that it's the everyday wage earners who get hurt. That's
just plain wrong. First of all, it's not the military-industrial complex benefiting. It's U.S. companies that make high-tech goods. And those companies provide a growing
number of jobs for Americans. In San Diego, many people have good jobs at Qualcomm, Solar Turbines and other companies for whom overseas markets are essential.
In Seattle, many of the 100,000 people who work at Boeing would lose their livelihoods without world trade. Foreign trade today accounts for 30 percent of our gross
domestic product. That's a lot of jobs for everyday workers. Growing global prosperity has helped counter the specter of nuclear winter.
Nations of the world are learning to live and work together, like the singers of anti-war songs once imagined. Those who care about world peace
shouldn't be protesting world trade. They should be celebrating it.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011 File Name
Gonzo 5/35
USCIS COUNTERPLAN 1NC 2/2!
Contention 3 is the net benefit
Biometric national ID cards will be attached to the plan as a means of border security and immigrant validation
Declan McCullagh, chief political correspondent for CNET, ―Senators push Obama for biometric national ID card‖ 2010
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20000758-38.html
Schumer and Graham pitched the idea to President Obama during a private meeting Thursday at the White House. Graham said
afterward that Obama "welcomed" their proposal for a new ID card law; the White House said in a statement that the senators'
plan was "promising." This push for a national ID is part of what the senators say is a necessary overhaul of immigration law,
including additional border security, more temporary workers, and a form of amnesty for illegal immigrants already in the United
States. It comes just two days before a rally in Washington, D.C. sponsored by groups including the AFL-CIO, Farmworker Justice,
and the National Council of La Raza that also calls for amnesty. Linking national ID cards to immigration reform is a popular
idea in Washington political circles. After all, if every U.S. citizen has a biometric-equipped cards, the thinking goes, it's easy to
order employers not to give a job to someone without one.
National ID reinstates a colonial logic that justifies genocide and human rights abuses
Jim Fussell, Prevent Genocide International, ―Group Classification on National ID Cards as a Factor in Genocide and Ethnic
Cleansing‖ 2001
http://www.preventgenocide.org/prevent/removing-facilitating-factors/IDcards/
The role played by group classification on national identity cards in crimes of genocide in Rwanda and in Nazi Germany
should trouble all persons concerned with prevention of genocide. In Nazi Germany in July 1938, only a few months before
Kristallnacht, the infamous "J-stamp" was introduced on ID cards and later on passports. The use of specially marked "J-stamp" ID
cards by Nazi Germany preceded the yellow Star of David badges. In Norway, where yellow cloth badges were not introduced, the
stamped ID card was used in the identification of more than 750 Jews deported to death camps in Poland. (1) Ethnic
classification on ID Cards in Rwanda instituted by the Belgian colonial government and retained after independence, was central in
shaping, defining and perpetuating ethnic identity. Once the 1994 genocide in Rwanda began, an ID card with the designation "Tutsi"
spelled a death sentence at any roadblock. (2) No other factor was more significant in facilitating the speed and magnitude of the
100 days of mass killing in Rwanda. National ID cards of all kinds are controversial. In recent years in the United States, Britain,
Canada and Australia proposals for introducing national ID cards and registry systems have raised debate about governmental control
and privacy issues. Classification of ethnic, racial or religious groups on ID cards, however, is a distinctively different issue. Group
classification on ID cards or other official personal documents (passports, residence permits, etc.) force a person to be affiliated
with a governmentally-defined group and expose persons to profiling and human rights abuses based upon their group identity. In
times of crisis such classifications facilitate the targeting of persons on the basis of group affiliation, making individuals readily
identifiable for possible detention, deportation, or death.
Genocidal mentality leads to extinction
Joel Diamond, Professor of Physiology at the Medical School of the University of California, Los Angeles THE THIRD
CHIMPANZEE, 92, p. 277
While our first association to the world ―genocide‖ is likely to be the killings in Nazi concentration camps, those were not even
the largest-scale genocide of this century. The Tasmanians and hundreds of other peoples were modern targets of successful
smaller extermination campaigns. Numerous peoples scattered throughout the world are potential targets in the near future. Yet
genocide is such a painful subject that either we‘d rather not think about it at all, or else we‘d like to believe that nice
people don‘t commit genocide only Nazis do. But our refusal to think about it has consequences we‘ve done little to halt the
numerous episodes of genocide since World War II, and we‘re not alert to where it may happen next. Together with our
destruction of our own environmental resources, our genocidal tendencies coupled to nuclear weapons now constitute the
two most likely means by which the human species may reverse all its progress virtually overnight.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011 File Name
Gonzo 6/35
USCIS COUNTERPLAN – SOLVENCY (IN THE U.S.)
USCIS may change the residence status of anyone currently living in the United States
USCIS 2008: USCIS‘ Role in the Visa Process.
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=71f24d6c52c99110VgnVCM1000
004718190aRCRD&vgnextchannel=68439c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCRD
While there are many different categories and means by which a person may become a permanent resident, there are two ways a
person is actually granted permanent residence. The first is by being issued an immigrant visa overseas from DOS, and then being
admitted to the United States with that visa. The second is by being granted Adjustment of Status by USCIS or the Executive Office
of Immigration Review (EOIR).[1] The adjustment option is limited to people already in the United States when they become
eligible for an immigrant visa or otherwise become eligible for adjustment of status.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011 File Name
Gonzo 7/35
USCIS COUNTERPLAN – SOLVENCY (OUT OF THE U.S.)
Nothing stops USCIS from just letting in people through the parole process
Endelman and Mehta ‗10 (Gary Endelman, practices immigration law at BP America Inc, serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of
Immigration Daily, and Cyrus D. Mehta, nationally recognized in the field of immigration law. He represents corporations and
individuals from around the world in business and employment immigration, family immigration, consular matters, naturalization,
federal court litigation and asylum. He also advises lawyers on ethical issues. Based on 18 years of experience in immigration law, He
is also an Adjunct Professor of Law at Brooklyn Law School where he teaches a course, Immigration and Work, Chair of the
American Immigration Lawyers Association‘s (AILA) National Pro Bono Committee and Co-Chair of the AILA-NY Chapter Pro
Bono Committe COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM THROUGH EXECUTIVE FIAT, April 25, 2010,
http://cyrusmehta.blogspot.com/2010/04/comprehensive-immigration-reform.html)
For instance, there is nothing that would bar the USCIS from allowing the beneficiary of an approved employment based I-140 or family based I-130
petition, and derivative family members, to obtain an employment authorization document (EAD) and parole. The Executive, under INA § 212(d)(5), has the
authority to grant parole for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefits. The crisis in the priority dates where beneficiaries of petitions may need to
wait for green cards in excess of 30 years may qualify for invoking § 212(d)(5) under ―urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefits.‖ Similarly, the
authors credit David Isaacson who pointed out that the Executive has the authority to grant EAD under INA §274A(h)(3), which defines the term ―unauthorized alien‖
as one who is not ―(A) an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, or (B) authorized to be so employed by this Act or by the Attorney General‖ (emphasis
added). Under sub paragraph (B), the USCIS may grant an EAD to people who are adversely impacted by the tyranny of priority dates. Likewise, the beneficiary of
an I-130 or I-140 petition who is outside the U.S. can also be paroled into the U.S. before the priority date becomes current. The principal and the
applicable derivatives would enjoy permission to work and travel regardless of whether they remained in nonimmigrant visa status . Even
those who are undocumented or out of status, but are beneficiaries of approved I-130 and I-140 petitions, can be granted employment authorization and parole. The
retroactive grant of parole may also alleviate those who are subject to the three or ten year bars since INA § 212(a)(9)(B)(ii) defines ―unlawful presence‖ as someone
who is here ―without being admitted or paroled.‖ Parole, therefore, eliminates the accrual of unlawful presence. While parole does not constitute an
admission, one conceptual difficulty is whether parole can be granted to an individual who is already admitted on a nonimmigrant visa but has overstayed. Since parole
is not considered admission, it can be granted more readily to one who entered without inspection . On the other hand, it is possible for the
Executive to rescind the grant of admission under INA §212(d)(5), and instead, replace it with the grant parole. As an example, an individual who
was admitted in B-2 status and is the beneficiary of an I-130 petition but whose B-2 status has expired can be required to report to the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS). who can retroactively rescind the grant of admission in B-2 status and instead be granted parole retroactively.
USCIS can parole any visa applicants into the US from anywhere, even from in the U.S.
Denise A. Vanison et. al (Director of Policy and Strategy USCIS) 2010: Administrative Alternatives to Comprehensive Immigration Reform.
http://www.numbersusa.com/content/files/ExecutiveMemo.pdf
USCIS has the discretionary authority under section 212(d)(5)(A) of the Act to parole into the U.S. on a case-by-case basis for
―urgent humanitarian reasons‖ or ―significant public benefit‖ any applicant for admission. Section 235(a)(1) of the Act
provides that an alien present in the U.S. who has not been admitted shall be deemed an applicant for admission. Granting parole to
aliens in the U.S. who have not been admitted or paroled is commonly referred to as ―parole-in-place‖ (PIP).
The counterplan empirically works-There were paroles just last year
Endelman and Mehta ‘10 (Gary Endelman, practices immigration law at BP America Inc, serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Immigration Daily, and Cyrus D. Mehta, nationally recognized in the
field of immigration law. He represents corporations and individuals from around the world in business and employment immigration, family immigration, consular matters, naturalization, federal court litigation and asylum.
He also advises lawyers on ethical issues. Based on 18 years of experience in immigration law, He is also an Adjunct Professor of Law at Brooklyn Law School where he teaches a course, Immigration and Work, Chair of the
American Immigration Lawyers Association‘s (AILA) National Pro Bono Committee and Co-Chair of the AILA-NY Chapter Pro Bono Committe COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM THROUGH EXECUTIVE
FIAT, April 25, 2010, http://cyrusmehta.blogspot.com/2010/04/comprehensive-immigration-reform.html)
Even more recently, on November 30, 2009, USCIS announced in a press release that certain affected persons in the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) would be granted parole under INA § 212 (d)(5). The Consolidated Natural Resource Act of 2008 (CNRA) extends most
As of this date, foreign nationals in the CNMI will be considered
provisions of the United States immigration law to the CNMI beginning on November 28, 2009.
present in the United States and subject to U.S. law. In order to avoid their removal from the CNMI, the grant of parole will place
individual members of CNMI groups in lawful status under the United States immigration law and permit employment authorization.
Parole status will also allow for the issuance of advance parole when the individual seeks to depart the CNMI for a foreign destination.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011 File Name
Gonzo 8/35
USCIS COUNTERPLAN – SOLVENCY (OUT OF THE U.S.)
Parole authority allows the executive to grant work authorization regardless of visa status – solves quota and eligibility
limitations
Endelman and Mehta ‘10 (Gary Endelman, practices immigration law at BP America Inc, serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Immigration Daily, and Cyrus D. Mehta, nationally recognized in the
field of immigration law. He represents corporations and individuals from around the world in business and employment immigration, family immigration, consular matters, naturalization, federal court litigation and asylum.
He also advises lawyers on ethical issues. Based on 18 years of experience in immigration law, He is also an Adjunct Professor of Law at Brooklyn Law School where he teaches a course, Immigration and Work, Chair of the
American Immigration Lawyers Association‘s (AILA) National Pro Bono Committee and Co-Chair of the AILA-NY Chapter Pro Bono Committe COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM THROUGH EXECUTIVE
FIAT, April 25, 2010, http://cyrusmehta.blogspot.com/2010/04/comprehensive-immigration-reform.html)
Dinesh Shenoy made a huge first step but it was only a first step. Is action by Congress the only, or even the best, way to break the
priority date stranglehold on US immigration policy? The authors do not think so. Amendment of INA Section 245 is unlikely since
action by Congress, even in the best of times, takes time. When Congress finds such time, legalization and other priority items (like
recapture of unused visas) will absorb it. Beyond this, is it necessary to relax the rules on adjustment of status? What do potential
immigrants really want for themselves and their spouses? The ability to work in the United States on a long-term basis and travel back
home for vacation and/or family emergency. Can they only do that as adjustment applicants? Is there another way? The authors think
there is. While INA Section 245 conditions adjustment of status on having a current priority date and meeting various conditions,9
there would be prohibition anywhere that would bar USCIS from allowing the beneficiary of an approved I-140 or I-130 petition to
apply for an employment authorization document (EAD) and advance parole. No action by Congress would be required; executive fiat
suffices. For those who want some comfort in finding a statutory basis, the government could rely on its parole authority under INA
Section 212(d)(5) to grant such interim benefits either for "urgent humanitarian reasons" or "significant public benefit.10 There is
nothing in 8 CFR Section 212.5 that would prohibit the DHS from granting parole for this reason on the grounds that the continued
presence of I-140 or I-130 beneficiaries provide a significant public benefit. Since such parole is not a legal admission,11 there is no
separation of powers argument since the Executive is not trying to change existing grounds of admission or create any new ones.
Moreover, Congress appears to have provided the government with broad authority to provide work authorization to just about any
non-citizen.12
USCIS can parole anyone into the country – multiple means
USCIS No Date: Parolee. http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?
vgnextoid=50e6136d2035f010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCRD&vgnextchannel=b328194d3e88d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCRD
A parolee is an alien, appearing to be inadmissible to the inspecting officer, allowed into the United States for urgent humanitarian reasons
or when that alien‘s entry is determined to be for significant public benefit . Parole does not constitute a formal admission to the United States and
confers temporary status only, requiring parolees to leave when the conditions supporting their parole cease to exist. Types of parolees include: Deferred inspection:
authorized at the port upon alien‘s arrival; may be conferred by an immigration inspector when aliens appear at a port of entry with documentation, but after preliminary
examination, some question remains about their admissibility which can best be answered at their point of destination. Advance parole: authorized at an USCIS District
office in advance of alien‘s arrival; may be issued to aliens residing in the United States in other than lawful permanent resident status who have an unexpected need to
travel and return, and whose conditions of stay do not otherwise allow for readmission to the United States if they depart. Port-of-entry parole: authorized at the port
upon alien‘s arrival; applies to a wide variety of situations and is used at the discretion of the supervisory immigration inspector, usually to allow short periods of entry.
Examples include allowing aliens who could not be issued the necessary documentation within the required time period, or who were otherwise inadmissible, to attend a
funeral and permitting the entry of emergency workers, such as fire fighters, to assist with an emergency. Humanitarian parole: authorized at USCIS
headquarters or overseas District Offices for "urgent humanitarian reasons" specified in the law. It is used in cases of medical
emergency and comparable situations. Significant Public Benefit Parole: authorized at USCIS headquarters Office of International
Affairs for "significant public benefit" specified in the law. It is generally used for aliens who enter to take part in legal proceedings when there is a benefit to
the government. These requests must be submitted by a law enforcement agency. Overseas parole: authorized at an USCIS District or suboffice while
the alien is still overseas; designed to constitute long-term admission to the United States. In recent years, most of the aliens USCIS has processed
through overseas parole have arrived under special legislation or international migration agreements.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011 File Name
Gonzo 9/35
USCIS COUNTERPLAN – SOLVENCY (HUMANITARIAN PAROLE)
USCIS can parole into the country for humanitarian reasons
Major Kenneth Bacso, Judge Advocate, US Army, Senior Defense Counsel, US Army Trial Defense Service. "Don't Worry, We'll
Take Care of You: Immigration of Local Nationals Assisting the United States in Overseas Contingency Operations," Army Law, 38,
2010
B. Humanitarian Parole
When an "urgent humanitarian reason" exists to justify allowing a foreign national into the United States, the Department of
Homeland Security may authorize the foreign national's entry by humanitarian parole. (54) For example, aliens with serious medical
conditions facing deportation may be released from detention and granted entry into the United States under the theory of
humanitarian parole. (55) Similarly, juveniles in detention may be released to an adult relative for humanitarian reasons. (56)
A typical humanitarian parole in an overseas contingency operation may involve a local national in need of acute medical care he
cannot receive in his own country. (57) Allowing him entry into the United States for medical attention can be strategically
advantageous to deployed units because it may build good will among the local population or generate positive media coverage. (58)
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011 File Name
Gonzo 10/35
USCIS COUNTERPLAN – SOLVENCY (PUBLIC BENEFIT PAROLE)
USCIS can parole into the country for significant public benefit
Major Kenneth Bacso, Judge Advocate, US Army, Senior Defense Counsel, US Army Trial Defense Service. "Don't Worry, We'll
Take Care of You: Immigration of Local Nationals Assisting the United States in Overseas Contingency Operations," Army Law, 38,
2010
C. Significant Public Benefit Parole Another basis for parole exists when a local national has provided or will provide a significant
public benefit to the United States. (59) For example, law enforcement may arrange parole for key witnesses, necessary for trial, who
would not otherwise be able to enter the United States. (60) In these cases, the sponsoring agency is responsible for all needs of the
parolee while he is physically present in the United States, including his security, travel, food, and lodging. (61) The Department of
Defense (DoD) maintains "a small program to process and staff carefully selected applicants eligible for" significant public benefit
parole. (62) Once identified, the cases of selected applicants are forwarded to the Department of Homeland Security for approval or
disapproval. (63) The Firas al-Qaisi case is a typical example of significant public benefit parole involving the DoD where the parolee
has provided a prior benefit to the United States. (64) Al-Qaisi had developed a reputation as a tough prosecutor in Iraq and was
known to have a close relationship with the United States. Subsequently, al-Qaisi was arrested and tortured by sectarian Iraqi police.
(65) The United States intervened to secure his release from Iraqi custody, and he was initially sent to Baghdad's International Zone
for protection. (66) However, the danger to al-Qaisi was so great he could not return home or even remain in Iraq. (67) With the
support of the Commander of the Multi-National Force-Iraq, General David Petraeus, Firas al-Qaisi and his pregnant wife were
granted significant public benefit parole to the United States. (68) In this case, significant public benefit parole was used to provide
temporary and urgent security to an individual who had provided significant assistance to the United States in the past. The actual
process and procedures for DoD's use of parole are subject to the discretion of the officials processing the application. Nevertheless, as
a general matter, all parole applications require approval "from the nominator's chain of command." (69) Applications also require
evidence of the significant public benefit the individual provided. (70) In many cases, the evidence will include records of the
individual's association with the United States and the "imminent, documented danger" that resulted from that individual's association.
(71) Most significantly, when acting as a sponsor, DoD must appoint an individual located in the United States, affiliated with the
DoD, to host the parolee. (72) This person will be responsible for monitoring the parolee and ensuring that the parolee has a support
network in place to provide basic needs, such as shelter, food, and health care. (73) Identifying an individual willing to assume this
responsibility can be one of the most difficult and time-consuming tasks associated with the parole process. Nevertheless, when the
chain of command is supportive, when there is a documented and imminent threat, and when there is a host in the United States
willing to sponsor a parolee, the significant public benefit parole program can be a robust mechanism for protecting local nationals
who have been of assistance to the United States. It is important, however, for the judge advocate to keep in mind that parole is
temporary. (74) Parole may quickly get an individual to safety, but it is not a long-term solution.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011 File Name
Gonzo 11/35
USCIS COUNTERPLAN – SOLVENCY (EMPLOYMENT VISAS/H-1BS)
Endelman and Mehta ‘10 (Gary Endelman, practices immigration law at BP America Inc, serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Immigration Daily, and Cyrus D. Mehta, nationally recognized in the
field of immigration law. He represents corporations and individuals from around the world in business and employment immigration, family immigration, consular matters, naturalization, federal court litigation and asylum.
He also advises lawyers on ethical issues. Based on 18 years of experience in immigration law, He is also an Adjunct Professor of Law at Brooklyn Law School where he teaches a course, Immigration and Work, Chair of the
American Immigration Lawyers Association‘s (AILA) National Pro Bono Committee and Co-Chair of the AILA-NY Chapter Pro Bono Committe COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM THROUGH EXECUTIVE
FIAT, April 25, 2010, http://cyrusmehta.blogspot.com/2010/04/comprehensive-immigration-reform.html)
It is undeniably true that more EAD and Parole benefits will be of limited value to retrogressed non-citizens from India and China who
are already in the US in the employment-based second and third preferences. After all, most have an H-1B and can extend under
Section 106(a) or Section 104(c) of AC 21, but as noted previously, some may still not be able to take advantage of AC 21. The EAD
in itself will not have a portability benefit. The foreign national will still need to intend to work for the sponsoring employer even if
he/she is using the EAD for open market employment. This reservation, valid as it undoubtedly is, focuses only on those already here.
It speaks solely to past migration flows not to future ones. For future flows, this will supplement the H-1B by giving employers of
foreign nationals another option. No longer will the constant controversy over the H-1B quota discredit all employment-based
immigration in the eyes of its critics and, most importantly, in the court of public opinion. No longer will this one dispute suck all the
oxygen out of our national immigration debate. Beyond that, it is manifestly not true to argue that all of our immigration needs can be
solved with more H1B numbers. This will not work for those who are not H1B material. It will not work for those with essential skills
but find themselves in the "Other Worker" backlog under INA Section 203(b)(3)(iii) with no hope of getting the green card any time
soon. It will not eliminate the need to legalize the undocumented. If anything, allowing non-citizens with approved I-140/ I-130
petitions to receive EADs and Parole will serve to reduce the size of the permanently undocumented in America many of whom do not
leave for fear they will be unable to return. The Executive would not be granting the undocumented legal status for that is what only
Congress can do. But, like adjustment of status itself, the Executive certainly can create a period of stay that permits the
undocumented to remain here.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011 File Name
Gonzo 12/35
USCIS COUNTERPLAN – SOLVENCY (VISA OVERSTAY)
Parole can be exchanged for a visa for anyone who has overstayed a visa
Endelman and Mehta ‘10 (Gary Endelman, practices immigration law at BP America Inc, serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Immigration Daily, and Cyrus D. Mehta, nationally recognized in the
field of immigration law. He represents corporations and individuals from around the world in business and employment immigration, family immigration, consular matters, naturalization, federal court litigation and asylum.
He also advises lawyers on ethical issues. Based on 18 years of experience in immigration law, He is also an Adjunct Professor of Law at Brooklyn Law School where he teaches a course, Immigration and Work, Chair of the
American Immigration Lawyers Association‘s (AILA) National Pro Bono Committee and Co-Chair of the AILA-NY Chapter Pro Bono Committe COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM THROUGH EXECUTIVE
FIAT, April 25, 2010, http://cyrusmehta.blogspot.com/2010/04/comprehensive-immigration-reform.html)
While parole does not constitute an admission, one conceptual difficulty is whether parole can be granted to an individual who is
already admitted on a nonimmigrant visa but has overstayed. Since parole is not considered admission, it can be granted more readily
to one who entered without inspection. On the other hand, it is possible for the Executive to rescind the grant of admission under INA
§212(d)(5), and instead, replace it with the grant parole. As an example, an individual who was admitted in B-2 status and is the
beneficiary of an I-130 petition but whose B-2 status has expired can be required to report to the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS). who can retroactively rescind the grant of admission in B-2 status and instead be granted parole retroactively.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011 File Name
Gonzo 13/35
USCIS COUNTERPLAN – SOLVENCY (TRAFFICKING/ADOPTION/CHILDS)
USCIS has authority over minors, adoption, trafficking and elder abuse
Denise A. Vanison et. al (Director of Policy and Strategy USCIS) 2010: Administrative Alternatives to Comprehensive Immigration
Reform. http://www.numbersusa.com/content/files/ExecutiveMemo.pdf
These rules would help regularize the immigration status of minors in foster care or in the process of being adopted. They would
further clarify the derivative family members for whom a victim of human trafficking can petition, implement provisions allowing
such individuals to enter the U.S. based on the danger of retaliation, and establish procedures for victims of elder abuse to seek relief.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011 File Name
Gonzo 14/35
USCIS COUNTERPLAN – NET BENEFIT (USCIS DODGES CONGRESS)
USCIS can enact immigration reforms bypassing legislative action and politics
Denise A. Vanison et. al (Director of Policy and Strategy USCIS) 2010: Administrative Alternatives to Comprehensive Immigration
Reform. http://www.numbersusa.com/content/files/ExecutiveMemo.pdf
In the absence of Comprehensive Immigration Reform, USCIS can extend benefits and/or protections to many individuals or groups
By issuing new guidance and regulation, exercising discretion with regard to parole-in-place, deferred action and the issuance of
Notices to Appear (NTA), and adopting significant process improvements . To promote family unity, USCIS could reinterpret two 1990 General
Counsel Opinions regarding the ability of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) applicants who entered the United States (U.S.) without inspection to adjust or change
status. This would enable thousands of individuals in TPS status to become lawful permanent residents. Similarly, where non-TPS applicants have been deemed
inadmissible under section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (―the Act‖) for having entered without inspection, USCIS could grant ―parole-in-
place‖ (PIP) in exercise of discretion to create a basis for adjustment in the U.S. To foster economic growth, USCIS could work more aggressively with the Department
of Commerce (DOC) to complement important economic initiatives such as Invest in America. By establishing a working group with the DOC, USCIS should consider
creative ways to make the EB-5 program more accessible to foreign investors and to administer it. For workers in the U.S. whose occupations require frequent travel, or
who are seeking permanent residence, USCIS could also build on a regulation issued by the former INS that, among other things, relieved H and L non-immigrants with
pending adjustment applications from having to secure advance parole before departing the U.S. Expanding this ―dual intent‖ concept to cover other long-term non-
immigrants, including F, O, TN, P, and E visa holders would enable these workers to maintain valid nonimmigrant status and travel overseas without advance parole
while their adjustment applications are pending. They would also be allowed to maintain their nonimmigrant status if USCIS denies their adjustment applications. The
agency could also consider extending employment authorization to the dependent spouses of certain skilled workers. For example, USCIS could allow employment
authorization for H-4 dependent spouses of H-1B principals are also applicants for lawful permanent residence and have extended their nonimmigrant status under the
provisions of AC21. Finally, the agency should afford workers admitted to the U.S. in nonimmigrant status a reasonable period of time to conclude their affairs and
depart after expiration of their authorized period of employment, performance, training, or vocational activity. The current 10-day ―grace period‖ is insufficient. USCIS
could amend its regulations to permit longer periods ranging from 45-90 days depending on employment category and overall time spent working in the U.S. Where no
relief appears available based on an applicant‘s employment and/or family circumstances, but removal is not in the public interest, USCIS could grant deferred action.
This would permit individuals for whom relief may become available in the future to live and work in the U.S. without fear of removal. A corollary to this exercise of
agency discretion is for USCIS to issue Notices to Appear (NTAs) strategically, rather than across the board. If relief is potentially available in removal for an applicant
without any significant negative immigration or criminal history, USCIS could avoid using its limited resources to issue an NTA. Finally, for applicants who have
requested relief for USCIS, whether in-country or abroad, and whose applications require a waiver of inadmissibility, USCIS could issue guidance or a regulation
lessening the ―extreme hardship‖ standard. This would encourage many more spouses, sons and daughters of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents to seek relief
without fear of removal. It would also increase the likelihood that such relief would be granted. II. Options The following options – used alone or in
combination – have the potential to result in meaningful immigration reform absent legislative action. Each requires the development
of specific written guidance and/or regulatory language, implementation protocols, outreach and training within USCIS and
coordination among Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and immigration components.
Parole gets around congressional passage of reform
India Tribune 2010: Administrative alternatives to comprehensive immigration reform - Part II.
Comments: This is very good news. Presently, a person, who entered without inspection such as border crossing without visa, cannot
adjust status as a permanent resident in the US even if he is married to a US citizen. If he leaves the country to apply for an immigrant
visa at the consulate, he will be denied the immigrant visa and subject to 3/10 years bar. A person, who is paroled in the US, is
considered having legally entered the US and, therefore, he or she can adjust status in the US based upon an immigrant visa petition
filed by US citizen spouse or parent. USCIS proposed policy to treat EWI as parolee would permit thousands of people to apply for
adjustment of status. If the proposal is implemented and not challenged in the court, such persons may not wait for the passage of
Comprehensive Immigration Reform.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011 File Name
Gonzo 15/35
USCIS COUNTERPLAN – NET BENEFIT (POLITICS 1NC)
Counterplan avoids politics – executive action would be bipartisan in this instance
Lawrence ‗10 (Stewart J, is a Washington, DC-based public policy analyst and writes frequently on immigration and Latino affairs,
He is also founder and managing director of Puentes & Associates, Inc., a bilingual survey research and communications firm,
September 2, Immigration: the case for executive orders, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/sep/02/us-
immigration-obama-executive)
Executive action is risky. But it's far less risky, politically, than convening a "lame-duck" session of congress, as some Democrats like
senate majority leader Harry Reid (Democrat, Nevada) now propose, to try to ram through the Dream Act or other broader
immigration measures, much as they did with healthcare reform. Most outgoing Democrats aren't going to play ball, especially if they
have to vote to expand enforcement. And even those who survive the mid-terms still have to face the voters in 2012. Supporting
legalisation in a GOP-controlled congress could well cost them their seats. As president, Obama is uniquely placed to step in and
exercise Solomon-like leadership on behalf of Democrats and Republicans alike. Recent polls show that a majority of voters –
including a majority of GOP voters – support expanded enforcement coupled with some kind of legalisation. At a time when the
public discourse on immigration is degenerating into near-hysteria, and congress remains paralyzed, even-handed executive action can
point the country forward. It sends a powerful signal to voters that the president still has the courage to stick his neck out, even when a
nervous and recalcitrant congress, including members of his own party, won't. The entire country – Democrats, Republicans and
independents alike – would stand up and cheer.
CP avoids politics and solves the aff
Jenks, 2010 (Rosemary, ―What the ‗Amnesty memo‘ means,‖ National Review Online, July 30,
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/242187/what-amnesty-memo-means-rosemary-jenks)
Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker Nancy Pelosi are facing a dilemma: Although they publicly bemoan the fact that
Republicans won‘t help them pass an unpopular amnesty . . . er, comprehensive immigration-reform bill, they don‘t want to force
vulnerable Democrats to vote on amnesty this close to the November elections — especially not with unemployment at 9.5 percent.
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa) may have uncovered the answer to their dilemma yesterday: an internal U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services memo (reported here on NRO) that outlines steps the Obama administration can take ―in the absence of
Comprehensive Immigration Reform‖ — that is, lawfully enacted amnesty — to ―reduce the threat of removal for certain individuals
present in the United States without authorization.‖ The four authors of the memo, titled ―Administrative Alternatives to
Comprehensive Immigration Reform,‖ are political appointees USCIS chief of policy and strategy Denise Vanison (a former
immigration attorney and partner at Patton Boggs) and USCIS chief counsel Roxana Bacon (former general counsel for the American
Immigration Lawyers Association), and two career employees of USCIS director Alejandro Mayorkas, another Obama appointee. The
U.S. Constitution gives Congress — and only Congress — the authority to decide federal immigration law, but the Obama
administration has come up with an extensive list of ways to ensure that a majority of the illegal aliens in the United States are allowed
to remain here. Here are just three examples of the outrageous proposals in the memo: USCIS could grant ―parole-in-place,‖ which
comes with a work permit and the ability to obtain a green card, to certain classes of aliens who entered the country illegally. Such
classes would include those who entered as minors and those who ―have lived for many years in the U.S.‖ A nice reward for those
who have successfully violated the law for the longest period of time. For those who overstay their visas, the memo recommends
granting ―deferred action,‖ which means that deportation is deferred indefinitely and the illegal alien can apply for a work permit. The
memo suggests two particular categories of illegal aliens for deferred action: those who might benefit if Congress were to pass the
DREAM Act amnesty (of which there are 2.1 million, according to the Migration Policy Institute) and those ―who have resided in the
U.S. since 1996 (or as of a different date designed to move forward the Registry provision now limited to entries before January 1,
1972).‖ The ―Registry provision‖ referred to is an actual federal law, not that it matters to the memo‘s authors. To make sure no illegal
alien is left behind, the memo suggests that DHS could simply stop issuing ―Notices to Appear‖ (the document that starts the removal
process for illegal aliens) unless the alien has a ―significant negative immigration or criminal history.‖ Apparently, violating
immigration law once or twice is acceptable. These folks wouldn‘t be able to apply for a work permit, but since the Obama
administration isn‘t conducting worksite enforcement against illegal aliens much anymore, that shouldn‘t matter. No wonder Reid,
Pelosi, and Obama seem content to avoid a legislative battle over immigration; the Department of Homeland Security is hard at work
on ways to implement its own amnesty.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011 File Name
Gonzo 16/35
USCIS COUNTERPLAN – NET BENEFIT (POLITICS 1NC*)
Obama will take all of the political heat from UNILATERAL USCIS and DHS actions right now –the CP solves politics, but
the perm would shield the link and still result in the impacts
Lynda Waddington 8/24/10: Conservative groups launch cohesive attack on immigration memo. http://iowaindependent.com/41775/conservative-groups-launch-cohesive-attack-on-immigration-memo
A coalition of conservative organizations wants U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley and other Republicans to know that they support calls for
increased scrutiny of administrative immigration rules, even if those involved say the discussions are nothing new. Grassley and six
additional GOP senators sent letters to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security in June and again in July to request additional information
on a leaked internal memo that the Congressmen believed pointed to ―a large-scale, de facto amnesty program‖ based on discretionary
authority vested in Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. Despite clarification by a top attorney at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
that the information contained in the memo was nothing new , and represented concepts that had been under consideration for years, a coalition of 18
conservative groups lashed out at the Obama administration Monday in an attempt to solidify claims that the White House is bent on launching an amnesty program
for individuals who have entered the country illegally. Their letter to President Barack Obama called the perceived power grab an ―abuse of power‖
that would ―feed public cynicism.‖ ―The Obama administration‘s secret memo from USCIS amounts to a smoking gun ,‖ said Conlin Hanna,
president of conservative group Let Freedom Ring. ―Then the New York Times broke the story that this administration has unilaterally declared de
facto amnesty for certain illegal aliens. This end-run amnesty is wholly unacceptable to the American people.‖ The jointly-authored
letter ―strongly urged‖ the Obama administration to refrain from using executive power ―to effectively legalize significant
numbers of illegal aliens.‖ The groups distributed the letter, which also points to ―abuses of the legislative process‖ during the national debate on health care reform, Monday to the
National Press Club. ―That unelected bureaucrats would even set forth this array of power-grabbing administrative de facto amnesty options
demands the President‘s assurance,‖ said Roy Beck, who represents the immigration crack-down group NumbersUSA. ―We know the President wants to give
all illegal aliens an amnesty. But as long as Congress refuses to give him the amnesty, the public deserves a promise from the
President that his administrative won‘t deprive Congress of its exclusive authority to set immigration policy.‖
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011 File Name
Gonzo 17/35
USCIS COUNTERPLAN – NET BENEFIT (RIDERS FIAT INTERP)
Our interpretation of fiat is that plan passes through normal means – this is that the plan goes through the legislative process
allowing for any and all necessary amendments to get the bill through as long as it doesn‘t remove any part of the plan.
Their Interpretation of Fiat is bad for debate
1. Not real world
a. Assuming legislation isn‘t up for amendment ignores the bill making process altogether which eliminates the basis
for debate
b. this undermines all debate arguments there would be nothing to debate about if no one contested policies
c. This is abusive – gets rid of literature base for all neg arguments
2. Destroys education – we must debate about the political process
3. It‘s abusive – Fiat means we must debate whether the plan should be done—we can‘t debate that without examining what it
would take to pass the plan. There interpretation means we wouldn‘t get things as basic as spending disads.
4. Unpredictable – The neg should be able to assume the aff will defend the political implications of the plan – that‘s key to
clash
5. Voter for reasons above
6. The Aff interpretation of Fiat is another link
a. if its instantaneously passed Senators would attach anything they wanted to the plan to get quick votes
b. This would piss off congress and cause further delay
c. They‘re going to try to get out of this by saying no really the plan is immediate and doesn‘t even involve a vote—
that proves abuse and that their view of fiat kills clash
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011 File Name
Gonzo 18/35
USCIS COUNTERPLAN – NET BENEFIT (RIDERS LINK EXT AND NEW IMPACT)
Grassley‘s bill will be attached to the plan – that kills the U.S. IT sector
Rami Fakhoury 10/20/2010: Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR) Appears Unlikely to Pass in the 2009-10 Congress, but
Restrictive Amendments Still Present a Threat. http://www.ilw.com/articles/2010,1020-fakhoury.shtm
In the present environment of high U.S. economic insecurity and structural unemployment, legislation dealing with immigration issues presents perhaps
a greater risk than potential benefit to many businesses. The threat of further restriction on H-1B is very real. Even with prospects for CIR
fading, particularly in the Senate, industry still needs to take proactive measures to protect the non-immigrant programs they depend upon to globally recruit and hire
world-class workers. While some effort has gone into trying to craft compromise legislation, both the Senate and the House are presently considering
extremely restrictive measures, proposed legislation that pose existential threats to the international IT consulting industry. The House
and the draft Senate CIR Bill mirror the most severe legislative restrictions sought by the perennial H-1B and L-1 Visa Reform Act,
reintroduced in April 2009 by Sen. Dick Durbin (IL) and Sen. Chuck Grassley (IA). That piece of legislation, and the House CIR Bill
that resembles it, would basically wipe out the global IT consulting industry in the United States. Many analysts worry that these Bills
would kill hundreds of U.S. affiliates of firms in the global IT consulting field that utilize international workforces along with several
service industries that support them. This sector has already been under severe stress, and has struggled trying to adapt to increasingly
restrictive U.S. administrative and enforcement measures intended to force the genie of IT industry outsourcing back into the bottle.
While these restrictive measures have achieved substantial results in reducing L-1 and H-1B utilization, the pace of off-shoring during this recession has not slackened.
Contrary to H-1B critics, the two are not directly related. What has in fact happened is that as the regulatory environment in the U.S. has driven up the costs and
compliance risks of doing business here, global companies have simply moved more of their operations, and jobs, offshore. As has happened for several Congressional
sessions, Senators Durbin and Grassley reintroduced their H-1B and L-1 Visa Reform Act of 2009, S. 887. That bill includes the following provisions: U.S. employers
who want to hire an H-1B worker would first have to carry out a labor market test to recruit a qualified American worker. Employers would be prohibited from hiring
additional H-1B and L-1 workers if more than 50% of their employees are H-1B and L-1 visa holders. Employers would be prohibited from hiring H-1B visa holders if
a U.S. worker might be displaced or a U.S. worker had been laid off. Employers would be prohibited from using ―H-1B only‖ ads. Employers would be prohibited from
hiring additional H-1B and L-1 workers if more than 50% of their employees are H-1B and L-1 visa holders. Authorizes DOL to initiate investigations without a
complaint and without the Labor Secretary‘s personal authorization, as is at present the case. Authorizes DOL to review the Labor Condition Attestations attached to H-
1B applications for fraud; present law allows only a review for completeness and accuracy. Authorizes DOL to conduct random audits of any company that uses the H-
1B program, not just ―H-1B dependent firms‖ and those found to be ‗willful violators‖. Requires DOL to conduct annual audits of larger H-1B dependent companies.
U.S technology gains from H-1B visa holders are key to long term IT growth which is key for sustained U.S. Economic Growth
Masters and Ruthizer, 00 (Suzette and Ted, CATO Institute, March 3, ―The H-1B Straitjacket Why Congress Should Repeal the Cap
on Foreign-Born Highly Skilled Workers,‖ http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbp/tbp-007.pdf)
Information technology companies depend on H-1B professionals to compete in a rapidly changing marketplace . In 1995 about one-quarter
of H-1B professionals were in IT-related fields. Not surprisingly, by 1997 approximately half of the H-1Bs were in ITrelated fields.16 Several aspects of the way the IT
industry functions account for its particular need for H-1B professionals. First, quick turnaround time inevitably drives employers to hire
professionals who already possess the needed technical skills and experience and can work productively at once. Second, product
proliferation creates demand, which changes suddenly and often, for specialized knowledge and skills. Combined, those pressures
produce the need for ―the right worker, with the right skills, at the right time.‖17 Because of those constraints, if there is no readily available U.S. worker, the H-1B
professional becomes critical to continued economic growth. Yet, despite the demonstrated contributions of those workers to America‘s welfare, the Clinton
administration and some members of Congress have gone out of their way to make it difficult, and sometimes impossible, to hire H-1B professionals.
Global nuclear war
Walter Russell Mead, Henry A. Kissinger Senior Fellow for U.S. Foreign Policy, 2-4-09, ―Only Makes You Stronger,‖
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=571cbbb9-2887-4d81-8542-92e83915f5f8&p=2
So far, such half-hearted experiments not only have failed to work; they have left the societies that have tried them in a progressively worse position, farther behind the
front-runners as time goes by. Argentina has lost ground to Chile; Russian development has fallen farther behind that of the Baltic states and Central Europe.
Frequently, the crisis has weakened the power of the merchants, industrialists, financiers, and professionals who want to develop a liberal capitalist society integrated
into the world. Crisis can also strengthen the hand of religious extremists, populist radicals, or authoritarian traditionalists who are
determined to resist liberal capitalist society for a variety of reasons. Meanwhile, the companies and banks based in these societies are often less
established and more vulnerable to the consequences of a financial crisis than more established firms in wealthier societies. As a result, developing countries and
countries where capitalism has relatively recent and shallow roots tend to suffer greater economic and political damage when crisis strikes--as, inevitably, it does. And,
consequently, financial crises often reinforce rather than challenge the global distribution of power and wealth. This may be happening yet again. None of which
means that we can just sit back and enjoy the recession. History may suggest that financial crises actually help capitalist great powers
maintain their leads--but it has other, less reassuring messages as well. If financial crises have been a normal part of life during the 300-
year rise of the liberal capitalist system under the Anglophone powers, so has war. The wars of the League of Augsburg and the Spanish Succession; the Seven Years
War; the American Revolution; the Napoleonic Wars; the two World Wars; the cold war: The list of wars is almost as long as the list of financial crises.
Bad economic times can breed wars. Europe was a pretty peaceful place in 1928, but the Depression poisoned German public opinion
and helped bring Adolf Hitler to power. If the current crisis turns into a depression, what rough beasts might start slouching toward Moscow,
Karachi, Beijing, or New Delhi to be born? The United States may not, yet, decline, but, if we can't get the world economy back on track, we
may still have to fight.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011 File Name
Gonzo 19/35
USCIS COUNTERPLAN – NET BENEFIT (RIDERS DISEASE IMPACT)
B. Independently, Congressional action that defies WTO rules threaten to bring down the credibility of the WTO
Robert Z. Lawrence (Professor of International Trade and Investment at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, ―The United
States and the WTO Dispute Settlement System,‖ COUNCIL ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS SPECIAL REPORT), March 2007, p. 3,
http://www.cfr.org/publication/12871/united_states_and_the_wto_dispute_settlement_system.html.
The United States likes to think of itself as a nation that abides by its treaties and commitments. Successive U.S. administrations have
taken the obligations implied by international agreements seriously: They have opted out of parts of many agreements for fear that
compliance would be contrary to U.S. interests, and have refused outright to sign some treaties on the grounds of potential legal
exposure. But U.S. behavior toward the World Trade Organization is different; in this case, the United States has been quite willing to
accept binding multilateral rules. Yet, the United States has also been repeatedly judged to be in violation of its WTO commitments by
the organization‘s dispute settlement panels, and although some violations could be ascribed to uncertainties about the meaning of the
rules, the United States is also guilty of disregarding the rules deliberately. Opinion in Congress sometimes encourages this behavior;
legislators are less likely to question the legitimacy of U.S. conduct than to question the WTO‘s authority to pass judgment over the
United States. Moreover, these tensions are likely to escalate if the Doha Round of global trade negotiations breaks down. If the
diplomatic route to market access is blocked, trading partners will seek access to U.S. consumers by bringing more cases before the
WTO‘s tribunals. A surge in such cases could increase resentment of the WTO in the United States, weakening America‘s
commitment to its traditional postwar role as the bulwark of the international trading system. This would be unfortunate, because even
without changes in the behavior of its trading partners, the rules of the WTO improve the performance of the U.S. economy.
C. WTO credibility solves disease- international markets key
Countryman, 2k9 (Phillip, graduated from the Indiana School of Medicine, and member of the Indiana Academy of Family
Physicians and the Marion County Medical Society. Also served as president of Hoosier Family Health. ―International Trade and
World Health Policy: Helping People reach their full Potential‖. International Law Review, pace. Nexis//TS)
We shall not finally defeat AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria or any of the other infectious diseases that plague the developing world until we have also won
the battle for safe drinking water, sanitation and basic health care ... . The best cure for all these ills is economic growth and broad-
based development. n360 The potential effect that trade has on reducing poverty in societies is the key to addressing better health through international trade
policy. Trade policy seeks to open up global economies to nations all over the world, which has the effect of improving economic conditions in some of
the poorest nations. Considering that the improvement of economic conditions is the central policy of the WTO, it is no stretch to infer that poverty reduction is at
the heart of the free trade philosophy. If this is in fact an accepted precept that free trade's goal is a reduction in poverty, it follows then, that improved health outcomes
are a necessary side effect. Even if improved health outcomes are not a central driving force of trade and economic policy, it should be no surprise that improved health
status is also associated with favorable economic conditions. Where population-based health is good, there is also a more vigorous and productive work force. It
therefore makes sound economic sense to attempt to ensure that basic health measures are provided within populations that are being utilized to increase economic
output. The solution to poverty is complex, but it involves policy development at both national and international levels. A key way of improving the economic status of
societies, which will in turn positively affect the health of populations, is to provide effective mechanisms through trade policy that recognize the importance not only
of expanding the global economy, but also the importance of health. Only when there is a combination of greater awareness of and action in the international
community and the WTO concerning the link between poverty, health, and trade, will goals aimed at reducing poverty and improving global health
actually be met.
D. Diseases cause extinction
South China Morning Post, 1996 (1/4, l/n)
Despite the importance of the discovery of the "facilitating" cell, it is not what Dr Ben-Abraham wants to talk about. There is a much more pressing medical crisis at
hand - one he believes the world must be alerted to: the possibility of a virus deadlier than HIV. If this makes Dr Ben-Abraham sound like a prophet of doom, then he
makes no apology for it. AIDS, the Ebola outbreak which killed more than 100 people in Africa last year, the flu epidemic that has now affected 200,000 in the former
Soviet Union - they are all, according to Dr Ben-Abraham, the "tip of the iceberg". Two decades of intensive study and research in the field of virology have convinced
him of one thing: in place of natural and man-made disasters or nuclear warfare, humanity could face extinction because of a single virus, deadlier than HIV. "An
airborne virus is a lively, complex and dangerous organism," he said. "It can come from a rare animal or from anywhere and can mutate
constantly. If there is no cure, it affects one person and then there is a chain reaction and it is unstoppable. It is a tragedy waiting to
happen."That may sound like a far-fetched plot for a Hollywood film, but Dr Ben -Abraham said history has already proven his theory. Fifteen years ago, few could
have predicted the impact of AIDS on the world . Ebola has had sporadic outbreaks over the past 20 years and the only way the deadly virus - which turns internal
organs into liquid - could be contained was because it was killed before it had a chance to spread. Imagine, he says, if it was closer to home: an outbreak of that scale in
London, New York or Hong Kong. It could happen anytime in the next 20 years - theoretically, it could happen tomorrow. The shock of the AIDS epidemic has
prompted virus experts to admit "that something new is indeed happening and that the threat of a deadly viral outbreak is imminent", said Joshua Lederberg of the
Rockefeller University in New York, at a recent conference. He added that the problem was "very serious and is getting worse". Dr Ben- Abraham said: "Nature isn't
benign. The survival of the human species is not a preordained evolutionary programme. Abundant sources of genetic variation exist for viruses to learn
how to mutate and evade the immune system." He cites the 1968 Hong Kong flu outbreak as an example of how viruses have outsmarted human intelligence.
And as new "mega-cities" are being developed in the Third World and rainforests are destroyed, disease-carrying animals and insects are forced into areas of human
habitation. "This raises the very real possibility that lethal, mysterious viruses would, for the first time, infect humanity at a large scale
and imperil the survival of the human race," he said.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011 File Name
Gonzo 20/35
USCIS COUNTERPLAN – NET BENEFIT (BIOMETRICS LINK CARDS)
Obama will push National ID cards as part of immigration reform
Washington Post, Senators draft plan to rework U.S. immigration policy, 2010
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/18/AR2010031803762_pf.html
Sens. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) announced the building blocks Thursday for a new push in
Congress to overhaul the nation's immigration laws, outlining a plan to require U.S. citizens and legal immigrants to obtain a new
high-tech Social Security card tied to their fingerprints or other biometric identifiers and to create a system to bring in temporary
workers as the U.S. economy demands. The immigration "blueprint," outlined in an opinion column posted on The Washington Post's
Web site, drew an immediate vow of support from President Obama, who urged Congress "to act at the earliest possible opportunity."
"I . . . pledge to do everything in my power to forge a bipartisan consensus on this important issue so we can continue to move forward
on comprehensive immigration reform," Obama said in a statement released by the White House. Obama congratulated Schumer and
Graham on what he called "a promising, bipartisan framework which can and should be the basis for moving forward."
National ID cards will be attached to the plan – there‘s bipartisan consensus
Jim Harper, CATO Institute, ―Electronic Employment Eligibility Verification: Franz Kafka's Solution to Illegal Immigration‖ 2008
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9256
In last summer's debate over immigration reform, Congress treated a national electronic employment eligibility verification (EEV)
system as a matter of near consensus. Intended to strengthen internal enforcement of the immigration laws, electronic EEV is an
Internet-based employee vetting system that the federal government would require every employer to use. Broad immigration reform
failed before Congress thoroughly considered national EEV, but the lines of debate have been drawn. Advocates in Congress will try
to attach a nationwide worker registration system to any immigration bill Congress considers, and the Bush administration recently
announced steps to promote such a system.
They‘re pushing for it to be attached to all visa regulations
Bill Leonard, Society for Human Resource Management, Biometric Identity Card Called Essential to Immigration Reform, 2010
http://www.shrm.org/Publications/HRNews/Pages/BiometricEssentialReform.aspx
Any immigration proposal that includes a pathway-to-citizenship program and new visa rules will have to include a provision for a
biometric identity card, according to Graham. ―Our framework remains a work in progress. Senator Schumer and I have explored
some ideas on how we could effectively move forward on this issue,‖ Graham told reporters after meeting with the president. ―This
includes living up to the commitment to secure our nation‘s borders, pushing to move our nation toward a biometric Social Security
card to ensure illegal workers cannot get jobs, creation of a temporary worker program and a rational plan to deal with the millions of
illegal immigrants already in the United States.‖
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011 File Name
Gonzo 21/35
USCIS COUNTERPLAN – NET BENEFIT (BIOMETRICS TRAFFICKING LINK)
Trafficking is inherently a border security issue which is the main reason why Schumer and Graham are pushing national id –
that‘s our 1NC McCullagh evidence
Here‘s more evidence that trafficking is perceived as a border security debate
Peter Marcus, Denver Daily News, ―Border-security measure backed‖ 8-13-10
http://www.thedenverdailynews.com/article.php?aID=9587
President Obama is expected to sign the legislation, which his administration has called for as part of an effort to combat drug
smuggling, human trafficking and other organized crime activity along the southwestern border. The House backed the legislation
earlier this week during a rare pause from its six-week August recess. Udall, D-Colo., backed and co-sponsored the legislation as a
compromise that takes a step in the direction of immigration reform. ―This bill targets resources at fighting the most dangerous
criminals, including human traffickers and those who attempt to smuggle weapons, drugs and money across our borders and it does so
without adding to our deficit,‖ Udall said in a statement yesterday. ―But, while I was pleased to co-sponsor this bill, it‘s critical that
Congress realize that crime at the border is part of a larger crisis in our immigration system.‖
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011 File Name
Gonzo 22/35
USCIS COUNTERPLAN – NET BENEFIT (BIOMETRICS CYBER TERROR !)
National ID increases the risk of cyber-terrorism
Paul Vigay, computer consultant and free-lance journalist, ― Ten Reasons why you should Refuse and Boycott National ID Cards‖
2009 http://www.vigay.com/misc/idcards.html
In order for ID cards to be effective, they need to be checked and verified against a national computer database containing verified
information. The government's track record of managing even small scale computer projects is extremely poor. Not only is it
impossible to ensure the security and safety of the data stored, but it will be a prime target for just about every hacker and terrorist in
the world - after all, who gains access to the data has immense power over your life and freedom. And, just imagine what could
potentially happen if hackers got in and changed some of the data held on you.... They can also be used for government classification
of different social groups or ethnic origins and in some cases have been known to used to aid ethnic cleansing. As mentioned above,
there is no such thing as a secure online computer database. The only guaranteed safe way of protecting data is not to make it available
online. This defeats the object of an ID card scheme because police and other agencies (in themselves another unknown) need access
to the central database in order to verify the data on your card. Because of the perceived power and control any unauthorised hacker
could obtain from the data stored, increased likelihood of identify theft will occur. Not only that, but because the public have a
manipulated opinion that ID cards are somehow secure, anyone stealing data from the central database can effectively steal your
details and pass themselves off as you - people are less likely to believe your innocence because of the (false) belief that ID cards are
secure. Thus, you'll have a harder job to prove your identity should someone fraudulently commit a crime or offence with an ID card
with YOUR data on it. Because the government are manipulating the media and people's understanding of the level of security offered
by such a scheme, people will erroneously assume that ID cards represent some higher form of ID verification than existing systems.
In effect though, they provide less security than existing systems. However, because the public will falsely believe them to offer
higher security, criminals, terrorists and identity smugglers will be able to command more power and higher prices for fake cards.
Crime will rise. As already mentioned, there is no such thing as a 100% secure computer database system - unless it is isolated and
disconnected from other network systems - which defeats the object of having a central database to verify cards against. Hackers are
always leading the battle of computer security. Just look at previous security flaws - the encryption code for DVDs was cracked within
a day of protected movies being released, anti-copying technology on CDs has not only been cracked but has proven to be unreliable
even on authenticated players. Satellite TV 'Sky' cards have been hacked. Even phone cards have been compromised. I'm sure you've
heard the stories of politicians having their phones eavesdropped or messages leaked. Banks and online ecommerce sites have been
compromised and customer records stolen. Examining history, it's clear that industry has more resources, funding and expertise than
government, yet computers are still hacked. The chances of a government system being secure are extremely low.
Cyber-terrorism causes accidental launch
Stephen Cimbala, professor of political science at the Pennsylvania State University Delaware County Campus, Summer 1999, Armed
Forces & Society: An Interdisciplinary Journal
The nuclear shadow over the information age remains significant. The essence of information warfare is in subtlety and deception: the manipulation of uncertainty. The
essence of nuclear deterrence lies in the credible and certain threat of retaliation backed by an information environment accepted and trusted by both sides in a partly
competitive, partly conflictual relationship. Nuclear assets may themselves become the targets of cyberwarriors. Triumphalism about the
RMA in high technology conventional weapons overlooks asymmetrical strategies that might appeal to U.S. opponents. Among
these might be the reciprocal use of information warfare to deny U.S. access in time of need to a timely nuclear response or to a
credible nuclear threat. But even more problematic is the potential collision course between intentional information warfare and unintended side effects when cyberwar
is waged against a nuclear armed state, especially one with a non-Western culture. Neither the status of nuclear forces in the new world order, nor all of the military
implications of the information revolution, are apparent now. There are reasons to suppose that the strategies and technologies of information warfare will develop
along one track, whereas efforts to control nuclear weapons spread and to establish the safety and security of existing nuclear arsenals will involve a different
community of specialists and attentive publics. Nevertheless, there are sufficient grounds to be concerned that a too successful menu of information
strategies may contribute to a failure of nuclear deterrence in the form of accidental/inadvertent war or escalation. Unplanned
interactions between infowarriors and deterrers could have unfortunate byproducts.
Nuclear war
Lachlan Forrow, MD, et al, ―Accidental Nuclear War – A Post-Cold War Assessment‖, New England Journal of Medicine, 1998, iis-
db.stanford.edu/pubs/20625/acciden_nuke_war.pdf
The direct toll that would result from an accidental nuclear attack of the type described above would dwarf all prior accidents in
history. Furthermore, such an attack, even if accidental, might prompt a retaliatory response resulting in an all-out nuclear exchange.
The World Health Organization has estimated that this would result in billions of direct and indirect casualties worldwide.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011 File Name
Gonzo 23/35
USCIS COUNTERPLAN – NET BENEFIT (STATE DEPARTMENT FOCUS)
USCIS is part of DHS – means state department does nothing
DHS No Date: Department Subcomponents and Agencies. http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/
Homeland Security leverages resources within federal, state, and local governments, coordinating the transition of multiple agencies
and programs into a single, integrated agency focused on protecting the American people and their homeland. More than 87,000 different governmental
jurisdictions at the federal, state, and local level have homeland security responsibilities. The comprehensive national strategy seeks to develop a complementary system
connecting all levels of government without duplicating effort. Homeland Security is truly a ―national mission.‖
The following list contains the major components that currently make up the Department of Homeland Security.
Department Components
The Directorate for National Protection and Programs works to advance the Department's risk-reduction mission. Reducing risk requires an integrated approach that
encompasses both physical and virtual threats and their associated human elements.
The Directorate for Science and Technology is the primary research and development arm of the Department. It provides federal, state and local officials with the
technology and capabilities to protect the homeland.
The Directorate for Management is responsible for Department budgets and appropriations, expenditure of funds, accounting and finance, procurement; human
resources, information technology systems, facilities and equipment, and the identification and tracking of performance measurements.
The Office of Policy is the primary policy formulation and coordination component for the Department of Homeland Security. It provides a centralized, coordinated
focus to the development of Department-wide, long-range planning to protect the United States.
The Office of Health Affairs coordinates all medical activities of the Department of Homeland Security to ensure appropriate preparation for and response to incidents
having medical significance.
The Office of Intelligence and Analysis is responsible for using information and intelligence from multiple sources to identify and assess current and future threats to
the United States.
The Office of Operations Coordination and Planning is responsible for monitoring the security of the United States on a daily basis and coordinating activities within
the Department and with governors, Homeland Security Advisors, law enforcement partners, and critical infrastructure operators in all 50 states and more than 50 major
urban areas nationwide.
The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center provides career-long training to law enforcement professionals to help them fulfill their responsibilities safely and
proficiently.
The Domestic Nuclear Detection Office works to enhance the nuclear detection efforts of federal, state, territorial, tribal, and local governments, and the private sector
and to ensure a coordinated response to such threats.
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) protects the nation's transportation systems to ensure freedom of movement for people and commerce.
United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is responsible for protecting our nation‘s borders in order to prevent terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering
the United States, while facilitating the flow of legitimate trade and travel.
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services is responsible for the administration of immigration and naturalization
adjudication functions and establishing immigration services policies and priorities.
United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the largest investigative arm of the Department of Homeland Security, is responsible for identifying and
shutting down vulnerabilities in the nation‘s border, economic, transportation and infrastructure security.
The United States Coast Guard protects the public, the environment, and U.S. economic interests—in the nation‘s ports and waterways, along the coast, on international
waters, or in any maritime region as required to support national security.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) prepares the nation for hazards, manages Federal response and recovery efforts following any national incident,
and administers the National Flood Insurance Program.
The United States Secret Service protects the President and other high-level officials and investigates counterfeiting and other financial crimes, including financial
institution fraud, identity theft, computer fraud; and computer-based attacks on our nation‘s financial, banking, and telecommunications infrastructure.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011 File Name
Gonzo 24/35
USCIS COUNTERPLAN – AT: SLOW
Parole process is quick – refugees prove
Major Kenneth Bacso, Judge Advocate, US Army, Senior Defense Counsel, US Army Trial Defense Service. "Don't Worry, We'll
Take Care of You: Immigration of Local Nationals Assisting the United States in Overseas Contingency Operations," Army Law, 38,
2010
While refugee resettlement and asylum are relatively common in the context of immigration, parole is a relatively unfamiliar concept.
Nevertheless, parole can be a useful tool for judge advocates assisting local nationals in imminent danger because it can allow
individuals to gain physical presence in the United States very quickly. (46)
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011 File Name
Gonzo 25/35
USCIS COUNTERPLAN – AT: THIS CP IS DUMB
Actually, we have empirical examples of parole use – now is no different
Endelman and Mehta ‘10 (Gary Endelman, practices immigration law at BP America Inc, serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Immigration Daily, and
Cyrus D. Mehta, nationally recognized in the field of immigration law. He represents corporations and individuals from around the world in business and employment
immigration, family immigration, consular matters, naturalization, federal court litigation and asylum. He also advises lawyers on ethical issues. Based on 18 years of
experience in immigration law, He is also an Adjunct Professor of Law at Brooklyn Law School where he teaches a course, Immigration and Work, Chair of the
American Immigration Lawyers Association‘s (AILA) National Pro Bono Committee and Co-Chair of the AILA-NY Chapter Pro Bono Committe COMPREHENSIVE
IMMIGRATION REFORM THROUGH EXECUTIVE FIAT, April 25, 2010, http://cyrusmehta.blogspot.com/2010/04/comprehensive-immigration-reform.html)
The Executive‘s use of parole, sua sponte, in such an expansive and aggressive fashion is hardly unique in post-World War II
American history. The rescue of Hungarian refugees after the abortive 1956 uprising or the Vietnamese refugees at various points of
that conflict comes readily to mind.75 While these were dramatic examples of international crises, the immigration situation in
America today, though more mundane, is no less of a humanitarian emergency with human costs that are every bit as high and damage
to the national interest no less long lasting. Even those who are in removal proceedings or have already been ordered removed, and are
beneficiaries of approved petitions, will need not wait an eternity for Congress to come to the rescue.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011 File Name
Gonzo 26/35
USCIS COUNTERPLAN – AT: ONLY CONGRESS
It‘s competitive – executive parole authority is distinct from Congressional visa authority – and it avoids Congressional
backlash
Endelman and Mehta ‘10 (Gary Endelman, practices immigration law at BP America Inc, serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Immigration Daily, and
Cyrus D. Mehta, nationally recognized in the field of immigration law. He represents corporations and individuals from around the world in business and employment
immigration, family immigration, consular matters, naturalization, federal court litigation and asylum. He also advises lawyers on ethical issues. Based on 18 years of
experience in immigration law, He is also an Adjunct Professor of Law at Brooklyn Law School where he teaches a course, Immigration and Work, Chair of the
American Immigration Lawyers Association‘s (AILA) National Pro Bono Committee and Co-Chair of the AILA-NY Chapter Pro Bono Committe COMPREHENSIVE
IMMIGRATION REFORM THROUGH EXECUTIVE FIAT, April 25, 2010, http://cyrusmehta.blogspot.com/2010/04/comprehensive-immigration-reform.html)
There are those who argue that only Congress can make immigration policy in this fundamental way and this reservation is both
serious and worthy of deep respect. Yet, we have a dysfunctional Congress that is or appears to be incapable or unwilling to reach
consensus on immigration. Do we as a society simply throw up our hands and do nothing, allowing a bad situation to become worse or
do we use this challenge as an opportunity to create something better through temporary and targeted executive action that Congress
can either overturn or accept at a later date? There are several examples of administrative action to create new immigration policy in
the face of Congressional inaction in recent years. In the STEM OPT regulation, the USCIS openly admitted that granting an
additional 17 months of employment authorization was a regulatory response to an inadequate H1B quota. When they limited the
validity of a labor certification of 180 days, the US Department of Labor did so on their own without the fig leaf of legislative
authorization.17 Remember when the AAO handed down the decision in New York State Department of Transportation,18 thus
effectively repealing the national interest waiver statute for several years until the relaxation came?19 Finally, under the Cuban
Adjustment Act of 1996, even if the Cuban national entered without inspection, the former INS Commissioner Doris Meissner
clarified that the Service could use its authority under the humanitarian and significant public benefit criteria in Section 212(d)(5) to
parole Cubans who had entered without inspection under the fiction that the individual would surrender to the government, which in
turn would release or parole him or her, and thus render them eligible for adjustment of status under the CAA.20 Did Congress tell
them they could do that? All of these actions, and many others not singled out, had profound effect but depended solely upon the
imaginative exercise of executive authority yet consonant with a proper respect for separation of powers. So we can do so here.
Those who do not think so ignore at their own peril and ours the fundamental distinction between making policy, which only Congress
can do, and implementing tactical adjustments, which the Executive is uniquely suited to do. This is why only Congress can create a
legal status while the Attorney General can authorize a period of stay. This is why only Congress can enlarge the EB quota but the
Executive can allow adjustment applications without a quota expansion so long as final approval is not forthcoming. This is why only
Congress sets visa limits while the Executive can grant parole. This is why only Congress sets work visa law but the Executive can
issue EADs. To suggest that Congress must act in both a long and short term context is to ignore the historic and legitimate differences
between the two branches of government. If Congress wants to overturn such executive action, it can do so. Likewise, if it supports the
President, it can stay its hand. Either way, Congress is expressing its will, whether through positive action in the form of legislation or
negative action in the form of silent acquiescence. Both action and its absence are authentic manifestations of congressional intent and
expressions of congressional authority. In reality, we all know that there are 40 votes in the Senate to uphold such regulatory initiative.
Congress will be more than content to allow the President to take the lead and solve what it has manifestly been powerless to solve-
how to regulate both past and future migration flows; how to solve the growing unskilled worker backlog; how to ameliorate the
gratuitous cruelty of the 3/10 year bars; how to reduce the size of the undocumented population who may already working here and
contributing to the exchequer and how to satisfy the hungry manpower needs of employers once the dark cloud of recession lifts
without creating a single new immigrant visa. When has so much come from so little? We do not say that CIR can be cast aside for
there are many people who will never be the beneficiary of an I-140 or I-130. Ours is a far more modest proposal. We seek only to
broaden the debate and widen the national conversation. Now is the time for what Franklin Roosevelt rightly called "persistent, bold
experimentation." We must not wait for Congress to act. However important CIR remains, it is not the only way.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011 File Name
Gonzo 27/35
USCIS COUNTERPLAN – AT: DELEGATION ANSWERS
Delegation isn‘t needed – the Executive can use informal power to affect immigration policy with powers it already has
Cox and Rdoriguez, 2009 (Adam B., Professor of Law at the University of Chicago Law School, and Cristina M., Professor of Law
at New York University School of Law, ―The President and immigration law,‖ The Yale Law Journal, 119:458)
These alternative theories - one emphasizing immigration's exceptional position within the constitutional structure, the other its
ordinary place in administrative law - raise the question of which account better fits the historical contours of the relationship between
the President and Congress. Outside the courts, the relationship between the President and Congress has been defined by Congress's
dramatic expansion of federal immigration law over the course of the twentieth century through the creation of a complex, rule-bound
legal code, which has given rise to a comprehensive regulatory [*462] system. This central development might seem to suggest that
the President has little power to decide what we will refer to in this Article as immigration policy's core question: what types of
noncitizens, and how many, should be admitted to and permitted to reside in the United States? n8 This assumption amounts to
conventional wisdom today. Our major contribution in this Article is to show that, in reality, the President has historically possessed
tremendous power over core immigrant screening policy through three channels: through claims of inherent executive authority;
through formal mechanisms of congressional delegation; and through what we call de facto delegation. We consider two major events
in twentieth-century immigration history as examples of the inherent authority and formal delegation models: the creation and
implementation of the temporary worker program of the Bracero era and the response to the Cuban and Haitian refugee crises of the
1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. n9 The history of the Bracero Program reveals two important facts: the Roosevelt Administration
commenced the World War II-era guest worker program without first seeking explicit congressional authorization; and when the
temporary authorization that Congress eventually provided expired, the Truman Administration ignored that expiration and continued
to operate the program. This historical episode thus provides provocative evidence that the possibility of inherent executive authority
over migration has existed in practice and is not limited to a few old Supreme Court opinions. The Caribbean refugee crises highlight
the President's use of explicitly delegated screening authority in the form of "emergency" and "parole" powers. Though several
presidents used these delegated powers to manage the refugee flows, they also made claims to inherent authority, in ways that
sometimes appeared to ignore or circumvent the limitations that Congress had placed on the executive through delegation. n10
[*463] Though both of these sources of authority still play important roles in defining the scope of executive control over core
policy, we argue that a third paradigm of de facto delegation captures much of the immigration separation of powers today. Over the
twentieth century, Congress developed a detailed, rule-bound immigration code. n11 This code would seem, at first glance, to reflect a
world in which Congress sets immigrant screening priorities, thus depriving the President of discretion over core policy - and so goes
the conventional account. We show, by contrast, that this detailed code has had the counterintuitive consequence of delegating
tremendous authority to the President to set immigration screening policy by making a huge fraction of noncitizens deportable at the
option of the Executive. Congress, de facto, has delegated screening authority to the Executive in two ways. First, Congress's radical
expansion of the grounds of deportation has rendered a large fraction of legal immigrants deportable. Second, the combination of
stringent admissions restrictions established by Congress and lax border enforcement policy by the Executive effectively has given the
Executive primary control over a large unauthorized population within the United States. In the last two decades that population has
grown dramatically, such that today one-third of all resident noncitizens are deportable at the option of the President - a fact that
functionally gives the President the power to exert control over the number and types of immigrants inside the United States. [*464]
The President thus has far more screening power than is often recognized. n12 This conclusion has at least two important implications.
First, it shows that the inauguration of a new President can bring with it remarkable changes in immigration policy. Commentators and
scholars have speculated a great deal about what Barack Obama's election means for comprehensive immigration reform. Our work
underscores that Obama has the power to overhaul the immigration screening system even in the absence of congressional action.
Though we doubt very much that he will claim inherent executive authority to restructure our family admissions policy or create a
large-scale guest worker program, de facto delegation makes it possible for him, without having to resort to the legislative process, to
alter significantly the composition of the immigrant labor force, to permit immigrants with minor criminal convictions to stay rather
than removing them, and so on.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011 File Name
Gonzo 28/35
USCIS COUNTERPLAN – AT: KILLS SOP
Doesn‘t kill SOP – they already have the power because congress gave it to them in the INA
Endelman and Mehta ‘10 (Gary Endelman, practices immigration law at BP America Inc, serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Immigration Daily, and
Cyrus D. Mehta, nationally recognized in the field of immigration law. He represents corporations and individuals from around the world in business and employment
immigration, family immigration, consular matters, naturalization, federal court litigation and asylum. He also advises lawyers on ethical issues. Based on 18 years of
experience in immigration law, He is also an Adjunct Professor of Law at Brooklyn Law School where he teaches a course, Immigration and Work, Chair of the
American Immigration Lawyers Association‘s (AILA) National Pro Bono Committee and Co-Chair of the AILA-NY Chapter Pro Bono Committe COMPREHENSIVE
IMMIGRATION REFORM THROUGH EXECUTIVE FIAT, April 25, 2010, http://cyrusmehta.blogspot.com/2010/04/comprehensive-immigration-reform.html)
No Violation of Separation of Powers
While some may argue that there is no express Congressional authorization for the Executive to enact such measures, the President
may act within a ―twilight zone‖ in which he may have concurrent authority with Congress. See Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v.
Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 635 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring). Unlike Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer, where the Supreme
Court held that the President could not seize a steel mill to resolve a labor dispute without Congressional authorization, the Executive
under our proposal is well acting within Congressional authorization. In his famous concurring opinion, Justice Jackson reminded us
that, however meritorious, separation of powers itself was not without limit: ―While the Constitution diffuses power the better to
secure liberty, it also contemplates that practice will integrate the dispersed powers into a workable government. It enjoins upon its
branches separateness but interdependence, autonomy but reciprocity.‖ Id. at 635. Although President Truman did not have
authorization to seize the mill to prosecute the Korean War, Justice Jackson laid a three-pronged test to determine whether the
President violated the Separation of Powers clause. First, where the President has express or implied authorization by Congress, his
authority would be at its maximum. Second, where the President acts in the absence of congressional authority or a denial of authority,
the President may still act constitutionally within a ―twilight zone‖ in which he may have concurrent authority with Congress, or in
which its distribution is uncertain. Under the second prong, Congressional inertia may enable, if not invite, measures of independent
presidential authority. Finally, under the third prong, where the President acts in a way that is incompatible with an express or implied
will of Congress, the President‘s power is at its lowest and is vulnerable to being unconstitutional. Under our proposal, the President is
likely acting under either prong one or two of Justice Jackson‘s tripartite test. We have shown that INA § 212(d)(5), which Congress
enacted, authorizes the Executive to grant interim benefits for ―urgent humanitarian reasons‖ or ―significant public benefits.‖
Moreover, INA § 274A(h)(3)(B) provides authority to the Executive to grant employment authorization. Even if such authority is
implied and not express, Congress has not overtly prohibited its exertion but displayed a passive acquiescence that reinforces its
constitutional legitimacy. Operating in Justice Jackson‘s ―twilight zone,‖ such constructive ambiguity creates the opportunity for
reform through Executive initiative. From this, we must conclude that, had Congress not enacted INA § 212(d)(5), the President could
not act by fiat to broaden or diversify its application beyond the adjustment context. In terms of EAD issuance, Congress has rarely
spoken on this except via INA § 274A(h)(3)(B), so that many instances of EAD issuance are purely an act of executive discretion
justified by that one statutory provision. Furthermore, INA § 103(3) confers powers on the Secretary of Homeland Security to
―establish such regulations, prescribe such forms or bonds, reports, entries and other papers; issue such instructions; and perform such
other acts as he deems necessary for carrying out his authority under the provisions of this Act.‖
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011 File Name
Gonzo 29/35
USCIS COUNTERPLAN – AT: THERE AREN’T VISAS AVAILABLE
USCIS has authority
Endelman and Mehta ‗10 (Gary Endelman, practices immigration law at BP America Inc, serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Immigration Daily, and Cyrus D. Mehta, nationally recognized in the
field of immigration law. He represents corporations and individuals from around the world in business and employment immigration, family immigration, consular matters, naturalization, federal court litigation and asylum.
He also advises lawyers on ethical issues. Based on 18 years of experience in immigration law, He is also an Adjunct Professor of Law at Brooklyn Law School where he teaches a course, Immigration and Work, Chair of the
American Immigration Lawyers Association‘s (AILA) National Pro Bono Committee and Co-Chair of the AILA-NY Chapter Pro Bono Committee, PROPOSALS FOR AGENCY ACTION TO AMELIORATE THE
PRIORITY DATES CRISIS, March 09, 2010, http://www.cyrusmehta.com/news.aspx?SubIdx=ocyrus20103925436)
First, even if INA § 245(a)(3) states that an adjustment of status application can only be filed if a visa number is immediately
available, the USCIS has the flexibility to interpret this provision broadly since Congress did not define when a case is ―filed,‖ leaving
it to the informed exercise of agency discretion. The term ―immediately available‖ need not be limited by a current priority date
according to the visa bulletin. Instead, just like the State Department for the past 25 years has started processing an application for an
immigrant visa prior to the priority date becoming current, the USCIS too could create a ―provisional filing date‖ many years in
advance of the priority date becoming current that would allow the adjustment application to be submitted but not approved. This
would result in the applicant obtaining all of the benefits of such a filing, such as interim work and travel benefits along with the
ability to exercise occupational mobility under INA § 204(j).
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011 File Name
Gonzo 30/35
USCIS COUNTERPLAN – AT: CONGRESSIONAL/COURTS ROLLBACK
1. Fiat solves – its durable.
2. Under the Administrative Procedure Act, agencies have the authority to act and bypass congress for ―good cause‖
DHS 2008: Extending Period of Optional Practical Training by 17-Months for F-1 Nonimmigrant Students with STEM Degrees and
Expanding CapGap Relief for All F-1 Students with Pending H-1B Petitions. http://www.bradreese.com/dhs-f-1-ruling.pdf
III. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS A. Administrative Procedure Act To avoid a loss of skilled students through the next round
of H-1B filings in April 2008, DHS is implementing this initiative as an interim final rule without first providing notice and the
opportunity for public comment under the "good cause" exception found under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) at 5 U.S.C.
553@). The APA provides that an agency may dispense with notice and comment rulemaking procedures when an agency, for "good
cause," finds that those procedures are "impracticable, unn-, or contrary to the public interest." &g 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). The exception
excuses notice and comment, however, in emergency situations, or where "the delay created by the notice and comment requirements
would result in serious damage to important interests." Woods Psvchiatric Institute v. United Sta*, 20 C1. Ct. 324,333 (1990),
&&I925 F.2d 1454 (Fed. Cir. 1991); see also National Fed'n of Fed. Em~loveesv . National Treasurv E ~ D ~ o v ~ ~ SUnion, 671
F.2d 607,611 @.C. Cir. 1982).
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011 File Name
Gonzo 31/35
USCIS COUNTERPLAN – AT: PERM DO BOTH
1. Links to politics – congress still acts to pass the plan, drains political capital. Won‘t shield the link because getting
congressional votes for the plan would use up a ton of political capital regardless of whether or not the counterplan
was being done at the same time.
2. Links to the riders disad – perm still results in legislation that Durbin, Grassley and Sanders can attach their bill to.
3. No net benefit to the permutation – counterplan alone is enough to solve their advantages.
4. Counterplan is mutually exclusive – creating two different new mechanisms for people to get into the country creates
visa confusion – that kills solvency.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011 File Name
Gonzo 32/35
USCIS COUNTERPLAN – AT: PERM DO BOTH*
1. Perm shields the link to reverse politics – our Waddington evidence says that if the USCIS takes unilateral action, Obama
will get blamed, but the perm has congress work with the president, meaning they lose the net benefit.
2. No outstanding reason to vote for the permutation – the counterplan solves all of the advantages of the plan alone.
3. Congressional Winners win – political leadership in tough fights builds capital
Singer 9 (Jonathan, My Direct Democracy, ―By Expending Capital, Obama Grows His Capital‖, 3-3-9,
http://www.mydd.com/story/2009/3/3/191825/0428)
From the latest NBC News-Wall Street Journal survey: Despite the country's struggling economy and vocal opposition to some of his policies, President Obama's
favorability rating is at an all-time high. Two-thirds feel hopeful about his leadership and six in 10 approve of the job he's doing in the White House. "What is
amazing here is how much political capital Obama has spent in the first six weeks," said Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart, who conducted this survey with
Republican pollster Bill McInturff. "And against that, he stands at the end of this six weeks with as much or more capital in the bank." Peter Hart gets at a key
point. Some believe that political capital is finite, that it can be used up. To an extent that's true. But it's important to note, too,
that political capital can be regenerated -- and, specifically, that when a President expends a great deal of capital on a measure
that was difficult to enact and then succeeds, he can build up more capital. Indeed, that appears to be what is happening with
Barack Obama, who went to the mat to pass the stimulus package out of the gate, got it passed despite near-unanimous
opposition of the Republicans on Capitol Hill, and is being rewarded by the American public as a result. Take a look at the numbers.
President Obama now has a 68 percent favorable rating in the NBC-WSJ poll, his highest ever showing in the survey. Nearly half of those surveyed (47 percent)
view him very positively. Obama's Democratic Party earns a respectable 49 percent favorable rating. The Republican Party, however, is in the toilet, with its
worst ever showing in the history of the NBC-WSJ poll, 26 percent favorable. On the question of blame for the partisanship in Washington, 56 percent place the
onus on the Bush administration and another 41 percent place it on Congressional Republicans. Yet just 24 percent blame Congressional Democrats, and a mere
11 percent blame the Obama administration. So at this point, with President Obama seemingly benefiting from his ambitious actions and the Republicans sinking
further and further as a result of their knee-jerked opposition to that agenda, there appears to be no reason not to push forward on anything from universal
healthcare to energy reform to ending the war in Iraq.
[insert plan popular]
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011 File Name
Gonzo 33/35
USCIS COUNTERPLAN – AT: PERM DO THE COUNTERPLAN
1. Perm severs out of the actor of the plan – voting issue.
a. Moving target- the affirmative can change any part of their plan to avoid any negative argument – skews fairness
b. Argumentative Irresponsibility – justifies them just running away from our best arguments.
c. Not real world- legislators and lawyers aren‘t allowed to eliminate parts of their cases or bills because someone
objects to them – kills education
Its not justified – we added a plank to the counterplan completely intrinsic to the plan – also a voting issue – the same reasons
they shouldn‘t be allowed sever their plan apply for why they can‘t add to it.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011 File Name
Gonzo 34/35
USCIS COUNTERPLAN – AT: CONDO BAD
1. Neg flex – key to neg strat – we have to have choices about what to go for, otherwise the aff can load down all of their
arguments on one point
2. Best policy option – we have to be able to determine whether or not an advocacy is good or bad and then be allowed to
kick it
3. Most real world – all arguments are conditional
4. Dispo doesn‘t solve – they‘ll only concentrate on turning the counterplans and not contest our disads and win on case
outweighs – this destroys eductation
5. Multiple Perms check multiple advocacies – its much more work to have to answer multiple perms than counterplans
6. Turn 2AC strat – we force them to strategically pick and choose their best arguments – leads to greater education
7. Its predictable – nearly every break round of the NDT saw at least two conditional advocacies – they should be ready
to have this debate
8. Reject the argument not the team – the punishment paradigm rewards theory over substance which leads to a world
where teams will only go for theory – this decreases education, and they can‘t prove a reason why we jacked their
strat on other positions
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011 File Name
Gonzo 35/35
USCIS COUNTERPLAN – AT: AGENT COUNTERPLANS BAD
Agent counterplans are good –
1. Key to neg ground and flex- list topics make neg ground stale
2. Debate is about the best policy option – Forcing them to defend their agent is key
3. This isn‘t just an agent counterplan – we alter the solvency mechanism from visas to parole – proves no abuse and
gives the aff disads to our mechanism.
4. Immigration topic makes agent counterplans legitimate – different agencies serve different functions and
distinguishing the mechanisms of each is core negative ground and key to topic education.
5. Reject the arg not the team. Lit checks - proves it‘s not infinitely regressive and that its predictable.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells