forms.huffmanisd.netforms.huffmanisd.net/debate/Hargrave Core/Tohono... · Web viewThe Tohono O’odham Nation is a Native American nation that has existed in what is now eastern

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWS

ContentsNotes...........................................................................................................................................................4

1ac...............................................................................................................................................................5

Contention 1 is the Advantage................................................................................................................6

First impact is cultural degradation...................................................................................................11

Second impact is violence..................................................................................................................15

Contention 2 is Solvency........................................................................................................................19

Cards Taken Out recently..........................................................................................................................22

Cards to add for more time......................................................................................................................23

Case...........................................................................................................................................................27

Framing..................................................................................................................................................30

Impact Cards..........................................................................................................................................32

Culture...................................................................................................................................................36

More internal links............................................................................................................................41

Solvency.................................................................................................................................................42

Dope Solvency Advocate...................................................................................................................43

CBP is surveillance o/v.......................................................................................................................45

AT..........................................................................................................................................................46

Agent circumvention.........................................................................................................................47

CBP alt causes (CBP ev)......................................................................................................................48

Minute men.......................................................................................................................................49

Smokescreen.....................................................................................................................................50

State hurts natives.............................................................................................................................51

Still violence in the US.......................................................................................................................52

There’s a fence..................................................................................................................................53

TOPD $ tradeoff.................................................................................................................................54

TOPD circumvention..........................................................................................................................55

TOPD = border patrol (in a bad way).................................................................................................56

TOPD violence...................................................................................................................................57

T.................................................................................................................................................................58

T – domestic..........................................................................................................................................59

1

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSShort..................................................................................................................................................60

w/m US persons................................................................................................................................61

w/m US territory................................................................................................................................62

Double bind.......................................................................................................................................63

T – substantial.......................................................................................................................................64

2%......................................................................................................................................................65

Short..................................................................................................................................................67

AT: w/o material qualification...........................................................................................................68

T – Surveillance......................................................................................................................................69

w/m covert........................................................................................................................................71

DAs............................................................................................................................................................72

Terror.....................................................................................................................................................73

AT Bioterror.......................................................................................................................................77

Cyberterror........................................................................................................................................82

Trafficking/Border.................................................................................................................................85

Drugs.................................................................................................................................................86

CPs.............................................................................................................................................................89

Cards for all CPS.................................................................................................................................90

289.........................................................................................................................................................91

Consult the Natives................................................................................................................................93

TOPD surveillance..................................................................................................................................97

Ks.............................................................................................................................................................100

Coloniality............................................................................................................................................101

GBTL....................................................................................................................................................102

Post-2ac...........................................................................................................................................104

Neolib..................................................................................................................................................105

AT Fuchs 2ac....................................................................................................................................110

AT Wilkie 2ac...................................................................................................................................111

AT Wilkie 1ar...................................................................................................................................112

AT Wilkie 2ar...................................................................................................................................113

Nietzsche.............................................................................................................................................114

Sovereignty..........................................................................................................................................120

2

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSState....................................................................................................................................................123

Tuck and Yang......................................................................................................................................127

Wilderson............................................................................................................................................130

Theory.....................................................................................................................................................131

International Fiat Bad [0:32]............................................................................................................132

2AC Condo Bad [0:13]......................................................................................................................133

1AR CI [0:06]....................................................................................................................................134

1AR Ethics [0:22]..............................................................................................................................135

1AR Skew [0:20]...............................................................................................................................136

A2........................................................................................................................................................137

Severance Perms.............................................................................................................................138

CPs.......................................................................................................................................................139

2ac Consult CPs Bad [0:23]..............................................................................................................140

PICs Bad [0:19].................................................................................................................................141

Conditions CPs Bad [0:21]................................................................................................................142

No Solvency Advocate Bad [0:37]....................................................................................................143

Functional Compet Good [1:33].......................................................................................................144

6. Textual Doesn’t test exclusivity- The ban the plan CP wouldn’t compete because the aff could just write not into their perm text to prove lack of competetiveness.............................................144

7. More real world- Congressmen fight over how bills will function, not the words theyre written in 145

8. Predictable- The function of the CP is limited by normal means and the literature, if our ev. Says the CP competes, the aff should defend it...............................................................................145

9. Textual encourages vague plan writing. Affs would write their plan texts vague enough to interpret that any CP isn’t textually competitive.............................................................................145

10. Any CP can textually compete- you could literally rephrase the plan text and it would function the same in the real world.................................................................................................145

Textual Compet Good [0:15]...........................................................................................................146

1. Predictable- Plan is the focus of the debate. Text is most predictable because it is the only stable, distinct advocacy, argument changes everything else.........................................................146

2. Fairness- Functional competition is arbitrary, it can be derived from intent creating an unpredictable moving target...........................................................................................................146

3. Forces better plan writing—better for negative ground on all issues and better debate to avoid procedural and vagueness debates.................................................................................................146

3


NotesTHOMAS BROOKS ([email protected]) and CHARLES HORN ([email protected])

SWS

4

mailto:[email protected]


1acThe United States federal government should cease its border surveillance activities on the Tohono O’odham Nation.

5


Contention 1 is the Advantage The Tohono O’odham Nation is a Native American nation that has existed in what is now eastern Arizona and northern Mexico for thousands of years. Following the Mexican-American War, the US-Mexican border was redrawn though Tohono land without consulting the people.Kilpatrick, 14 (Kate. Reporter/Editor at Al Jazeera America. "U.S.-Mexico Border Wreaks Havoc on Lives of an Indigenous Desert Tribe." Aljazeera America. N.p., 25 May 2014. Web. 15 July 2015.)TB

For thousands of years, the Tohono O’odham (meaning “Desert People”) inhabited what is today southern Arizona and the northern state of Sonora in Mexico. But the O’odham were there long before either Mexico or the U.S. existed as nations. “We’ve always been here,” said Amy Juan, 28, a young activist on the reservation. “Nobody can argue that we weren’t here first. ” After the Mexican-American War, the international boundary between the U.S. and Mexico was drawn at the Gila River, just north of the O’odham ancestral lands . But the Gadsden Purchase in 1854 redrew the border right through O’odham territory. The O’odham were never consulted. “They just drew a line, and when they drew that line O’odham in Arizona became citizens or were considered part of the U.S., O’odham in Mexico of course were not,” said Carlos G. Veléz-Ibáñez, director of the School of Transborder Studies at Arizona State University. “Unlike some of our Canadian borders, you don’t have the opportunity of dual citizenship or being able to determine which country you’re a citizen of.” In the after math of 9/11, O’odham living on the U.S. reservation were forced to deal with the unintended consequences of a militarized border : Border Patrol agents harass and treat them as undocumented migrants on their sovereign land . Their desert landscape and wildlife get clobbered by migrants, traffickers and federal law enforcement . They return home to find cars stolen, houses ransacked by desperate migrants — migrants who far too often don’t survive the desert elements. It’s also not uncommon for tribal members to be lured by fast cash into working as coyotes or mules for the Mexican cartels, ending up in jail themselves.

For a century and a half, the USFG honored the Tohono’s sovereignty over their land. However, after 9/11, the US stationed Border Patrol agents all over the indigenous nation. Since then, the Tohono nation has become the frontline in America’s battle for border surveillance. Todd Miller, 11-1-2012, (Todd Miller has researched and written about U.S.-Mexican border issues for more than 10 years. He has worked on both sides of the border for BorderLinks in Tucson, Arizona, and Witness for Peace in Oaxaca, Mexico. He now writes on border and immigration issues for NACL, "Ground Zero: The Tohono O'odham Nation," https://nacla.org/blog/2012/11/2/ground-zero-tohono-oodham-nation)TB

According to Margo Cowan, former general council to the Tohono O’odham Nation, there was no Border Patrol presence on the Nation until

1993. Now, the Department of Homeland Security green-striped SUVs , trucks, cars, and vans are everywhere, at every turn. There are also ATVs, horse patrols, and Predator drones and Blackhawks and other “air assets” flying overhead. There are surveillance towers and scope trucks and a|||n||| Forward

6

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSOperating Base, which—as with U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan—are small, make-shift bases to facilitate “tactical operations” in remote regions. A Joint Task Force Substation that they have on the reservation is

supposedly a collaboration between Customs and Border Protection (CBP—Border Patrol's parent agency) and the Tohono O’odham Nation

Police Department, but looks more like a mini-Border Patrol station packed with a fleet of CBP vehicles and mobile surveillance trucks. Behind

the substation is a chain-linked caged-in area where people are held before agents hand them off to the non-labeled, white Wackenhut bus, as

everyone calls them (though Wackenhut has now changed its name to G4S), which will transport the captured migrants to Tucson for further

processing and maybe prison time. Mike Wilson, a Tohono O’odham man who puts out water in stations on the reservation

indefiance of the Nation’s legislative council, says that the Border Patrol on the Nation has become an “occupying army.”i An Amnesty International report entitled In Hostile Terrain, not only underscores the constant violations to undocumented people

traveling through this area, particularly death, but also how the border surveillance apparatus has impacted the O’odham people whose aboriginal

land extends well into Mexico and has been bisected by an international boundary they never wanted. Amnesty International documents a constant pattern of harrassment against the O’odham, including a pattern of physical and verbal abuse, who now have more federal officers on their “sovereign” nation than any other time in their long, painful history of colonization and forced-assimilation. The presence of Border Patrol on the Nation is buzzing, entrenched, and now apparently expanding . Now besides the flow of agents from Casa Grande and Tucson

stations, the Border Patrol has undertaken a massive expansion of the Ajo station, a 52,900 square-foot state-of-the-art facility. This greatly

contrasts with the many aging buildings in the economically-depressed area which previously relied on now barely-functioning mines, another

economic model that marginalized and exploited the Tohono O’odham, who were the lowest rung of a racially-segregated wage hierarchy (whites

were at the top). You can almost see the tailings of the former copper mine in Ajo (closed in 1985) from the Border Patrol station in Why, an

uneasy symbol of one economy replacing another.

As a result, Customs and Border Protection is currently restricting free movement across the Reservation, deporting those who are practicing their culture.Austin 91(Megan, Fall 1991, A CULTURE DIVIDED BY THE UNITED STATES-MEXICO BORDER: THE TOHONO O'ODHAM CLAIM FOR BORDER CROSSING RIGHTS, Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law [Vol. 8, No. 2], Accessed 7/14/15) CH

Although much of the O'odham traditional lands have been taken away, the Tohono O'odham people still have firm spiritual and familial roots in these lands. The border constructs an artificial barrier to the freedom of the Tohono O'odham people to traverse their lands , impairing their ability to collect foods and materials needed to sustain their culture and to visit family members and traditional sacred sites . Specifically, immigration laws prevent many O'odham people from entering the United States from Mexico. Pursuant to these laws, United States immigrations officers can exclude immigrants and non-immigrants for not possessing certain types of documentation such as passports and border identification cards. Immigrations officers can deport "aliens" who do not carry those forms of identification. 18 Using these laws, the United States can detain and deport the Tohono O'odham people who are simply travelling through their own lands, practicing migratory traditions essential to their religion, economy and culture. Customs regulations have a similar effect. United States Customs officials

7

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSmay prevent the Tohono O'odham people from bringing from one part of their land to another raw materials and goods essential for their spirituality , economy and traditional culture . 2

The exaggerated threat across the border in the name of national security is simply thinly veiled racism.Rivas, 6(Ofelia, Tohono born and activist fighting for cultural freedom, Immigration, Imperialism and Cultural Genocide: An interview with O’odham Activist Ofelia Rivas concerning the effects of a proposed wall on the US / Mexico border, The Solidarity Project, interviewed by Jeff Hendrix, http://www.tiamatpublications.com/docs/imperialism_interview_article.pdf, Accessed 7/15/15) CH

The “illegal immigration” problem became a problem on O’odham lands when the U nited St ates government redirected the flow of “illegal trafficking” from Texas and California and funneled the flow through O’odham lands, federal lands on the Untied States side and isolated O’odham communities and farms and ranches on the Mexican side. In the name of “national security ” the American system clamps down on “illegal immigration .” “Illegal immigration” from Mexico has now become an immense threat accrding to the government. The so-called “terrorist act” on America is propaganda; America was founded on terrorist acts upon Indigenous peoples of these lands. The truth of the matter is that most Americans live in denial of the criminal acts of genocide and massacre and forced assimilation of Indigenous peoples of these lands. The truth is the threat against national security is used as the basis for the increased “monitoring ” of the borders and “enforcement ” o f immigration laws and criminalization of humanitarian acts by the O’odham and other peoples. The real “problem” is racism and discrimination; the majority of the people coming from Mexico are brown skinned and poor.

The Border Patrols ever present presence makes the Nation a militarized land, filled with spotlights and weapons. This ILLEGAL occupation of the Tohono reservation means that the Tohono are always already considered illegal and stopped to ask for papers. This destroys heir right to move freely on their lands and destroys their cultural determinationSingleton 9(Sara, January 2009, PHD in political science, and associate professor at Western Washington U, Not our borders: Indigenous people and the struggle to maintain shared lives and cultures in post-9/11 North America, Border Policy Research Institute, http://www.wwu.edu/bpri/files/2009_Jan_WP_No_4.pdf, Accessed 7/13/15) CH

In 1848, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo established the boundary line between the U.S. and Mexico at the Gila River, which meant that the territories of the people known as the Tohono O’odham became part of Mexico. Five years later, the Gadsden Purchase established the southern boundary of the United States at its present location, and in so doing, bisected the territory of the Tohono O’odham. Today, the reservation is comprised of 2.8 million acres (about the size of Connecticut), abutting 75 miles of the Mexican border, and reaches across the border into northern Sonora, Mexico. The Tohono O’odham Nation has about 27,000 members, more than a thousand of whom live across the border in Mexico. About half of the 3 Between Texas and California, there are eight tribes with communities on both sides of the border: Kumeyaay, Cocopah, Tohono O’odham, Yaqui, Gila River Pima, Yavapai, Ysleta del Sur (Tira) and Kickapoo. Not our borders: Indigenous people and the struggle to maintain shared lives and

8

http://www.tiamatpublications.com/docs/imperialism_interview_article.pdf

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWScultures in post- 9/11 North America remaining tribal members live on the reservation. For the Tohono O’odham, the Yaqui and other native people of the region, the freedom to travel the many paths criss- cross ing the border has always been essentia l—to gather medicinal plants, to collect a type of clay used at childbirth, or to practice the annual round of ceremonies that sustain the traditional religion and culture. While at the time of treaties the Tohono O’odham were not granted dual citizenship nor given explicit permission to move freely across the border, cross-border travel for work, for socializing and for participation in religious ceremonies was an established and accepted practice for more than a century. In the mid-1980s that began to change, and by the mid-1990s, it began to change dramatically. Today, parts of the formerly quiet, isolated reservation have been transformed into an area bristling with weapons , new roads, spotlights and military surveillance vehicles . Beginning in the 1990s, a series of strategic decisions were made by federal agencies to clamp down on illegal entry at popular border crossing points— beginning in San Diego, California, with “Operation Gatekeeper” (1994), later spreading eastward with “Operation Safeguard” (1995) in central Arizona, and then “Operation Rio Grande” in the southernmost tip of Texas in 1998. Various reasons have been suggested for these successive waves of intense border security—to displace drug and human-trafficking from densely populated areas to less visible locations and to change behavior of would be crossers by re-channeling activity to areas with highly inhospitable conditions. The resulting “funnel effect” relocated vast amounts of illegal border-crossing activity to the Tohono O’odham nation where summer temperatures have been known to reach 130 degrees, water is scarce and the terrain difficult. The costs to the Tohono O’odham have been significant.

This is a blatant attack on the Tohono’s culture.Luna-Firebaugh 5 (Eileen, January 2005, Volume 19 Access to Justice: The Social Responsibility of Lawyers | Contemporary and Comparative Perspectives on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Washington University Journal of Law & Policy, ‘Att Hascu ‘Am O ‘I-oi? What Direction Should We Take?: The Desert People's Approach to the Militarization of the Border, Accessed 7/14/15) CH

The Tohono O’odham Nation has pursued a legislative approach for a number of years. On May 21, 1987, Representative Morris Udall (D-AZ) introduced House Bill 2506.56 This bill would have “provide[d] for establishment of a roll of the Tohono O’odham Indian people and clarif[ied] certain of their rights.”57 The bill empowered those on the new roll of the Tohono O’odham to pass freely across the U.S.-Mexico border and to live and work in the United States. The Reagan administration had serious misgivings about this bill. They wanted border-crossing privileges extended only to tribal members who were citizens of the United States, and a restriction of what services would be provided to Mexican O’odham while in the United States. The tribe agreed to compromise on these two clauses. A third clause became the sticking point. The federal government wanted the O’odham to cross only at official border crossings .58 While this may seem to be a minor point, for the O’odham it was an attack on who they are as a people and as a sovereign nation . The O’odham have been in the area since time immemorial. They have ancient migratory patterns and settlement sites that are important culturally and traditionally . Further, given the size of the Tohono O’odham reservation (roughly the size of Connecticut) this would require many Tohono O’odham to travel great distances to cross the border. The tribe is unwilling to give up these traditional crossing places on tribal land. When this dispute could not be resolved, the tribe requested that the sponsor of the bill pull it from consideration.59 This assertion of tribal sovereignty and commitment to tradition was to become a signpost of the struggle .

9

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSWe’ll isolate 2 impact scenarios:

10

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSFirst impact is cultural degradation

The best hope for the Tohono to remain culturally intact is to engage in self-determination of cultural values. Our continued illegal presence will result in the extinction of the tohono culture. Sovereignty cannot be separated from the people or culture, any infringement of their culture results in the total extinction of the Tohono.Wiessner, Law Professor at St Thomas University, 2007 (Siegfried, “Indigenous Sovereignty: A Reassessment in Light of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples”, Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, Volume 41, http://www.vanderbilt.edu/jotl/manage/wp-content/uploads/Wiessner_final_7.pdf, accessed July 13, 2015)TB

As law, in essence, ought to serve human beings, any effort to design a better law should be conceived as a response to human needs and aspirations. These vary from culture to culture , and they change over time. As Michael Reisman has explained, humans have a distinct need to create and ascribe meaning and value to immutable experiences of human existence : the trauma of birth, the discovery of the self as separate from others, the formation of gender or sexual identity, procreation, the death of loved ones, one’s own death, indeed, the mystery of it all. Each culture . . . records these experiences in ways that provide meaning , guidance and codes of rectitude that serve as compasses for the individual as he or she navigates the vicissitudes oflife.185 Thus, from the need to make sense of one’s individual and cultural experiences arise inner worlds , or each person’s inner reality . The international human rights system, as Reisman sees it, is concerned with protecting , for those who wish to maintain them, the integrity of the unique visions of these inner worlds , from appraisal and policing in terms of the cultural values of others. This must be, for these inner world cosmovisions, or introcosms, are the central, vital part of the individuality of each of us. This is, to borrow Holmes’ wonderful phrase, “where we live.” Respect for the other requires , above all, respect for the other’s inner world. 186 The cultures of indigenous peoples have been under attack and are seriously endangered . One final step is the death of their language. As George Steiner wrote in 1975: Today entire families of language survive only in the halting remembrances of aged, individual informants . . . or in the limbo of tape recordings. Almost at every moment in time, notably in the sphere of American Indian speech, some ancient and rich expression of articulate being is lapsing into irretrievable silence.187 Reisman concluded that political and economic self-determination in this context are important, “but it is the integrity of the inner worlds of peoples—their rectitude systems or their sense of spirituality— that is their distinctive humanity. Without an opportunity to determine, sustain, and develop that integrity, their humanity —and ours — is denied.”188 Similarly, the late Vine Deloria, Jr., revered leader of the U.S. indigenous revival, stated that indigenous sovereignty “consist[s] more of a continued cultural integrity than of political powers and to the degree that a nation loses its sense of cultural identity, to that degree it suffers a loss of sovereignty.”189 “Sovereignty,” explains another great Native American leader, Kirke Kickingbird, “cannot be separated from people or their culture.”190 In this vein, Taiaiake Alfred appeals for a process of “de-thinking” sovereignty. He states: Sovereignty . . . is a social creation. It is not an objective or natural phenomenon, but the result of choices made by men and women, indicative of a mindset located in, rather than a natural force creative of, a social and political order. The reification of

11

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSsovereignty in politics today is the result of a triumph of a particular set of ideas over others—no more natural to the world than any other man-made object.

Also, lack of mobility is causing the demise of the Tohono way of life. The result is legal cultural genocide.Rivas, 6(Ofelia, Tohono born and activist fighting for cultural freedom, Immigration, Imperialism and Cultural Genocide: An interview with O’odham Activist Ofelia Rivas concerning the effects of a proposed wall on the US / Mexico border, The Solidarity Project, interviewed by Jeff Hendrix, http://www.tiamatpublications.com/docs/imperialism_interview_article.pdf, Accessed 7/15/15) TB

The traditional Oodham culture mandated by the Creator, and taught by our Elder Brother I’itoi in our teachings, designated areas of most i m portance to the O’odham . These are areas of significant importance and th e overall sacredness of the entire original lands of the O’odham . All these areas have a si gnificant part of the Him ’ dag – the way of life of the O’odham . Some place m i ght be de sig n ated for the m e n or for the wom e n; 6 som e places m i ght hold special clay s for bi rth i ng cerem onies or death cerem onies. Som e place m i ght have special rites of pass age fo r m e di cine peop le. Som e place is where cerem onies are held. All these p l aces have songs and grow special herbs and m e dicines that the O’odham use. The significant dem i se of the O’odham cu lture begun at the com i ng of the foreign religions but the greatest i pact was the loss of mobility upon the land. The O’odham face restrictions to continue vital pilgrim a ge s to holy sites . We are required to carry document to travel on our lands . The dissecting of O’odham la nds also caused segregation and discrimination against the O’odham . Some O’odham didn’t see a problem in governm e nt handouts such as governm e nt food ra tions, governm e nt commodities, then finally governm e nt social aid. The trad itio nal O’odham saw this as dependence and laziness, but m o re im portantly it infringed upon the O’odham beliefs of taking care of the lands and living in harm ony. The O’odham today no longer gather m a ny desert foods to m a intain the balance in the environment. The food gathering involved singing special songs and conducting cerem onial dances and acknowledging our way of life, which is the balance of our lands. The United States governm ent a nd the estab lish m ent of the reservation do protect some of these areas, but the lands exposed to extensive degradation are the lands in Mexico. Towns and agricultural farm s now oc cupy m a ny of the sacred sites. An exam ple is the town of Sonoita in Sonora, Mexico that once was the village of Shon Oidag. The Mexican settlers bulldozed the burial sites of the O’ odham and build their hom e s on top of this area. The liv ing decedents were powerless to defen d this area, as after all they are just indios, a slang insu lt in Mex i co. Congres s recen tly approved a bill that in 2008 all people entering the U S w ill be required to have a passport. Many trad ition a l O ’ odham do not have birth records th at are required to obtain a passport. The sealing of the international boundary is the demise of the remaining O’odham way of life......legal cultural genocide. The Border Patrol presence also results in the destruction of significant cultural artifacts, removal is key.Leza 9 (Christina, Approved Dissertation for doctor of philosophy, Anthropology,5/29/09, DIVIDED NATIONS: POLICY, ACTIVISM AND INDIGENOUS IDENTITY ON THE U.S.-MEXICO BORDER, Arizona University, Accessed 7/16/15, http://arizona.openrepository.com/arizona/bitstream/10150/193815/1/azu_etd_10782_sip1_m.pdf) CH

In August 2006 a grassroots indigenous organization named the Alianza Indígena Sin Fronteras (Indigenous Alliance Without Borders), held a series of events in Tucson, Arizona to educate the public on indigenous border concerns, to join with other concerned members of southern border indigenous communities, and to strategize for united indigenous social action on the border. The first of these

12

http://arizona.openrepository.com/arizona/bitstream/10150/193815/1/azu_etd_10782_sip1_m.pdf


Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSevents was a press conference held in a Tucson public library. At this press conference, Yaqui ceremonial leaders spoke of ceremonial items being mishandled and confiscated by border officials. They spoke of the problems faced by ceremonial leaders and participants in crossing the border for ceremonial activities. Yaqui and O’odham community members spoke about the loss of language and ceremonial knowledge in communities on both sides of the international border, and the need to strengthen cultural and ceremonial ties across the international line . Dennis Manuel, a Tohono O’odham elder and community activist working to protect the O’odham sacred areas of Baboquivari peak, stated that Border Patrol stationed on O’odham lands were driving through O’odham sacred areas, causing damage to the land and cultural artifacts in these areas . In a workshop hosted by the Alianza Indígena on the following Saturday, executive director of the Kumeyaay Border Task Force in California, Louis Guassac, spoke against the Department of Homeland Security’s plans for border wall construction that would “plow through” Kumeyaay ancestral gravesites. The Tucson border indigenous community events organized in August 2006 marked the beginning of a campaign launched by the Alianza Indígena Sin Fronteras to organize indigenous community action in support of national policy guidelines that 10 would protect indigenous peoples’ “rights of mobility and passage,” as well as indigenous environmental and cultural resources. Over two years later, border wall construction from California to Texas continues. The Secure Fence and Real I.D. Acts continue to allow the waiving of environmental and cultural protection laws for border wall construction and other “border security” measures. Over sixty-nine O’odham ancestral graves have been unearthed and cultural artifacts disturbed for border wall construction, and O’odham activist Dennis Manuel reports rumored plans for a new Secure Border spy tower to be constructed in the Baboquivari sacred area. Yet, the Alianza Indígena Sin Fronteras and its community partners continue to advocate for the rights of border indigenous peoples, and to speak against the current policies in place to enforce the international border line that divides their communities

The inevitable conclusion of cultural infringement on the Tohono is social death and genocide.Short 10(Damien, PHD and director of human rights at London University, November 2010, THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RIGHTS, Cultural genocide and indigenous peoples: a sociological approach, accessed 7/14/15) CH

For those indigenous peoples fighting to retain or regain their lands they are fighting for their life as distinct peoples since, for them , their spirituality and cultural vitality is based in and on and with their lands. If we take this point seriously when this relationship is forcibly interrupted and breaks down we can only conclude that genocide is occurring. Indeed, when indigenous peoples, who have a physical, cultural and spiritual connection to their land , are forcibly dispossessed and estranged from their lands they invariably experience ‘social death’ and thus genocide . Furthermore, when indigenous lands are used by extractive industries the inherent corporate preference for externalising environmental costs can lead to physical, as well as cultural destruction. The tar sands project is a prime example of this.

13

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSThis outweighs all impacts.Short 10(Damien, PHD and director of human rights at London University, November 2010, THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RIGHTS, Cultural genocide and indigenous peoples: a sociological approach, accessed 7/14/15) CH

The second element of Lemkin’s prior formulation, vandalism — the destruction of culture — was now a technique of group destruction.42 Lemkin’s central ontological assertion here was that culture integrates human societies and consequently is a necessary pre-condition for the realisation of individual material needs. For Lemkin, culture is as vital to group life as individual physical well-being : So-called derived needs, are just as necessary to their existence as the basic physiological needs....These needs find expression in social institutions or, to use an anthropological term, the culture ethos. If the culture of a group is violently undermined, the group itself disintegrates and its members must either become absorbed in other cultures which is a wasteful and painful process or succumb to personal disorganization and, perhaps, physical destruction....(Thus) the destruction of cultural symbols is genocide...(It) ‘menaces the existence of the social group which exists by virtue of its common culture’.43 ‘This quotation gives us clues to Lemkin’s conception of genocide. He was more concerned with the loss of culture than the loss of life, ’44 as culture is the social fabric of a genus . Indeed, in Lemkin’s formulation, culture is the unit of collective memory, whereby the legacies of the dead can be kept alive and each cultural group has its own unique distinctive genius deserving of protectio n .45 National culture for Lemkin is an essential element of world culture and nations have a life of their own comparable to the life of an individual. On this point Lemkin wrote: The world represents only so much culture and intellectual vigour as are created by its component national groups. The destruction of a nation, therefore, results in the loss of its future contributions to the world. Moreover, such a destruction offends our feelings of morality and justice in much the same way as does the criminal killing of a human being: the crime in the one case as in the other is murder, though on a vastly greater scale.

14

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSSecond impact is violence

Border Patrol agents regularly commit acts of physical violence against Tohono people all through the reservation under the guise of looking for papers.Norrell, 14 (Brenda. Publisher of Censored News, news reporter of Native American news for 32 years, lived on Navajoland for 18 years. "Tohono O’odham Government and Police Corruption Perpetuates US Border Patrol Violence." Occupied Tucson Citizen. Censored News, 4 May 2014. Web. 15 July 2015. )TB

SAN MIGUEL, TOHONO O’ODHAM NATION — Mike Wilson, Tohono O’odham, said the US Border Patrol shot two Tohono O’odham at the border , one in the face. The Border Patrol claims O’odham side- swiped its vehicle in San Miguel, “The Gate,” on Tohono O’odham land at the US Mexico border. However, Wilson points out in the video below that the Tohono O’odham government, Tohono O’odham police, and US Border Patrol can not be trusted . Wilson said that neither the Tohono O’odham government nor police have taken steps to ensure the safety of O’odham when faced with the US Border Patrol . He said these human rights violations by the US Border Patrol inflicted on O’odham have been going on for more than 10 years and the Tohono O’odham Nation has done nothing to halt this. Further, Wilson expresses his concern over the Tohono O’odham Nation government’s efforts to disable the new district of Hia-Ced on the western portion of the Tohono O’odham Nation near Ajo, Arizona. He said even though the Tohono O’odham Nation initially approved of the new district, it is now doing everything in its power to ensure that the new district fails. Wilson has put out water for years for migrants, over the objections of the Tohono O’odham government, and his life-saving water containers were vandalized. Wilson’s water stations have been in the area of the Tohono O’odham Nations with one of the highest rates of death. Wilson has also aided humanitarian groups searching for the bodies of missing migrants on the Tohono O’odham Nation. Meanwhile, the Tohono O’odham Nation has been able to control and silence much of the mainstream media. The Tohono O’odham police have threatened and stalked O’odham human rights activists to silence them. Now, the US Homeland Security has given the US southern border contract to an Israeli company, Elbit Systems, which is also responsible for Apartheid security surrounding Palestine . Elbit Systems now has the contract to construct US spy towers on Tohono O’odham land. The Tohono O’odham Legislative Council approved the construction of the 15th spy tower on sovereign O’odham land, according to the May 7, 2013 resolution, despite O’odham protests over the militarization of their lands.

Such violent acts include invading the nation, ransacking Tohono homes, and assaulting the people, all in the name of border surveillance. The USFG’s militarized surveillance confines the Tohono to violence and subjugation.Miller 14 (Todd Miller has researched and written about U.S.-Mexican border issues for more than 10 years. He has worked on both sides of the border for BorderLinks in Tucson, Arizona, and Witness for Peace in Oaxaca, Mexico. He now writes on border and immigration issues for NACL, Todd Miller, 4-22-2014, "Tomgram: Todd Miller, The Creation of a Border Security State," Tomdispatch, http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175834/tomgram%3A_todd_miller,_the_creation_of_a_border_security_state/) GW

Before 9/11, there was little federal presence on the Tohono O’odham reservation. Since then, the expansion of the Border Patrol into Native American territory has been relentless. Now, Homeland

15

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSSecurity stations , filled with hundreds of agents (many hired in a 2007-2009 hiring binge), circle the reservation. But unlike bouncers at a club, they check people going out, not heading in. On every paved road leaving the reservation, their checkpoints form a second border. There, armed agents -- ever more of whom are veterans of America’s distant wars -- interrogate anyone who leaves. In addition, there are two “forward operating bases” on the reservation, which are meant to play the role -- facilitating tactical operations in remote regions -- that similar camps did in Afghanistan and Iraq. Now, thanks to the Elbit Systems contract, a new kind of border will continue to be added to this layering. Imagine part of the futuristic Phoenix exhibition hall leaving Border Expo with the goal of incorporating itself into the lands of a people who were living here before there was a “New World,” no less a United States or a Border Patrol. Though this is increasingly the reality from Brownsville, Texas, to San Diego, California, on Tohono O’odham land a post-9/11 war posture shades uncomfortably into the leftovers from a nineteenth century Indian war. Think of it as the place where the homeland security state meets its older compatriot, Manifest Destiny. On the gate at the entrance to her house, Tohono O’odham member Ofelia Rivas has put up a sign stating that the Border Patrol can’t enter without a warrant. It may be a fine sentiment, reflecting a right embodied in the U.S. Constitution, but in the eyes of the “law,” it’s ancient history. Only a mile from the international boundary, her house is well within the 25-mile zone in which the Border Patrol can enter anyone’s property without a warrant. These powers make the CBP a super-force in comparison to the local law enforcement outfits it collaborates with. Although CBP can enter property warrantlessly, it still needs a warrant to enter somebody’s dwelling. In the small community where Rivas lives, known as Ali Jegk, the agents have overstepped even its extra-constitutional bounds with “home invasions” (as people call them). Throughout the Tohono O’odham Nation, people complain about Homeland Security vehicles driving at high speeds and tailgating on the roads. They complain about blinding spotlights, vehicle pull-overs, and unexpected interrogations. The Border Patrol has pulled O’odham tribal members out of cars , pepper-sprayed them, and beaten them with batons. As local resident Joseph Flores told a Tucson television station, “It feels like we’re being watched all the time.” Another man commented, “I feel like I have no civil rights .” On the reservation, people speak not only about this new world of intense surveillance, but also about its raw impact on the Tohono O’odham people : violence and subjugation . Although the tribal legislative council has collaborated extensively with Border Patrol operations, Priscilla Lewis seemed to sum up the sentiments of many O’odham at an open hearing in 2011: “Too much harassment, following the wrong people, always stopping us, including and especially those who look like Mexicans when driving or walking in the desert... They have too much domination over us .” At her house, Ofelia Rivas tells me a story. One day, she was driving with Tohono O’odham elders towards the U.S.-Mexican border when a low-flying Blackhawk helicopter seemingly picked them up and began following them. Hanging out of the open helicopter doors were CBP gunmen, she said. When they crossed the border into Mexico, the helicopter tracked them through a forest of beautiful saguaro cacti while they headed for a ceremonial site, 25 miles south of the border. They were, of course, crossing what was a non-border to the O’odham, doing something they had done for thousands of years. Hearing, even feeling the vibration of the propellers, one of the elders said, “I guess we are going to die.” They laughed, Rivas added, as there was nothing else to do. They laughed real hard. Then, a mile or so into Mexico, the helicopter turned back. Americans may increasingly wonder whether NSA agents are scouring thei r meta- data, reading their personal emails, and the like. In the borderlands no imagination is necessary . The surveillance apparatus is in your face. The high-powered cameras are pointed at you ; the drones are above you; you’re stopped

16

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSregularly at checkpoints and interrogated . Too bad if you’re late for school, a meeting, or an appointment. And even worse, if your skin complexion, or the way you’re dressed, or anything about you sets off alarm bells, or there’s something that doesn’t smell quite right to the CBP’s dogs -- and such dogs are a commonplace in the region -- being a little late will be the least of your problems. As Rivas told me, a typical exchange on the reservation might involve an agent at a checkpoint asking an O’odham woman whether, as she claimed, she was really going to the grocery store -- and then demanding that she show him her grocery list. People on the reservation now often refer to what is happening as an armed “occupation.” Mike Wilson, an O’odham member who has tried to put gallon jugs of water along routes Mexican migrants might take through the reservation, speaks of the Border Patrol as an “occupying army.” It’s hardly surprising. Never before in the Nation’s history under Spain, Mexico, or the United States have so many armed agents been present on their land.

In addition to direct acts of violence like assault, Tohono are systematically denied basic rights such as hospitals – this is a matter of life and death for any Tohono member that ever travels south of the border.Vanderpool, 3 (Tim Vanderpool, Special Contributer to the Christian Science Monitor, writer for Tuscon Weekly,4-30-2003, "A tribe's tale of three identities," Christian Science Monitor, http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0430/p02s02-usgn.html)TB

Born in Mexico, Antone is among 8,400 tribal members who grew up in remote, rustic villages along this international frontier without birth certificates or other documents. After serving with the US Marines and attending college, she returned to the reservation north of the border. Now she works as a counselor here in Sells, a dusty desert town that's home to the tribal government. But she still doesn't have US citizenship. Antone lives in a world that includes three nationalities: Mexican, American, and Tohono O'odham. "It gets confusing" she says. "But as O'odham , we' re all one people, and we have one land . " Now, freshmen Rep. Raul Grijalva (D) of Arizona wants to turn that concept into law. In a controversial move, he has introduced legislation that would grant US citizenship to all enrolled members of the tribe - including those living in Mexico. Supporters see the measure as a way to correct an "oversight" that was made more than 150 years ago. But critics see it as giving the O'odham a special privilege - and setting a dangerous precedent for immigration laws. The dilemma dates back to 1854, when the O'odham's ancestral homeland was halved by the Gadsden Purchase. Today, some 1,000 tribal members remain scattered among small villages in northern Mexico, while in the United States their reservation spans 4,500 square miles, including 60 miles of the US- Mexico border. No ID, no birth certificates Henry Ramon, vice chairman of the 25,000-member Tohono O'odham Nation, hopes Representative Grijalva's bill will correct a lingering injustice. "With our way of life here on the reservation, we don't always have documents," says Mr. Ramon. "We were born in our homes, and don't have [birth certificates ] ." Recent illegal immigration and security crackdowns on the border have increased the need for such documents: Not long ago, a group of O'odham traveling north from their Mexican homes for medical help on the reservation - services accorded them as registered tribal members - were summarily stopped at the border and detained for hours. Federal officials turned some back. Many reservation residents in the United States also lack the papers needed to travel back and forth, or even to prove they were born in this country. "My people have lived here since time immemorial," says Ramon. "But many O'odham right here on the reservation are considered illegal

17

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSaliens " because they lack documents. Records of birth and death, he says, "were just passed down by word-of-mouth, from generation to generation."

The continued attempts at assimilation and the violating of the Tohono’s rights is psychological warfare and genocide by the border patrol.Rivas, 6(Ofelia, Tohono born and activist fighting for cultural freedom, Immigration, Imperialism and Cultural Genocide: An interview with O’odham Activist Ofelia Rivas concerning the effects of a proposed wall on the US / Mexico border, The Solidarity Project, interviewed by Jeff Hendrix, http://www.tiamatpublications.com/docs/imperialism_interview_article.pdf, Accessed 7/15/15) CH

Prior to the 9-11 “attack on America,” Washington D.C. politicians toured the border along the reservation and declared that they were not responsible for the existing 3 cattle fence, stating that the Unites States government marked the border only with markers. (The tribe was seeking federal assistance to repair the cattle fence along the border due to cattle rustling and increase of drug trafficking). But now, after 9-11, the reservation is under the department of homeland security control, a police state , just like apartheid in South Africa. O’odham now have to carry documents to prove they are O’odham in order to move around on their own lands. The reservation is now closed off to the media and anyone voicing resistance against this situation face serious consequences such as harassment, arrest and a loss of public services from the tribal programs. One example of this harassment is my personal case. The non-O’odham tribal police in my mother’s village along the international border arrested m e . I was held in a police vehicle for an hour under interrogation by a policeman, while two border patrol vehicles blocked the entrance to my mother’s yard. I was told to cooperate or face five charges: failure to stop, failure to show I.D., interfering with the Border patrol and two counts of aggressive behavior toward an officer. I was un-handcuffed and told to get out of the vehicle countless times as different tribal police arrived. When one non-O’odham tribal police officer arrived he was told there was a little misunderstanding and it was resolved. This causes me to seriously question the governments’ motives, they are trying to outright pacify the O’odham. They violate every protected human right we have and ignore our specific indigenous aboriginal rights . They control O’odham lands through psychological warfare . One major “problem” that has not been discussed, is the unknown number of young O’odham incarcerated in federal and state prisons who have become victims of this “operation gatekeeper.” The O’odham reservation has 97 percent unemployment – young people have been forced into drug trafficking and human trafficking to buy their “American dream.” Many of these young people are given severe sentences and do not receive legal assistance from the tribal system. Many of these young people have never been arrested or committed any offenses but now sit in prison awaiting sentences. The young people returning from prison are forced into halfway houses and are not allowed to return home to their families, they completely lose all rights as citizens of the United States. This is a conspiracy to force the total assimilation of the O’odham and neutralize the O’odham lands. This psychological warfare on the O’odham is genocide, a genocide that many will not realize until generations to come.

18



Contention 2 is Solvency The problem is not one of lack of the right papers, it is one of continued oppression. The only solution is to remove the Border Patrol.Rivas 10

(Ofelia Rivas, Tohono born and activist fighting for cultural freedom , August 29, 2010, O'odham to National Guard: 'We do not want you on our lands', http://www.solidarity-project.org/, accessed 8/3/15) CH

We are not compliant people, we are people with great dignity and confidence. We are a people of endurance and have a long survival history. We are people that have lived here for thousands of years. We have our own language, we have our own culture and traditions. You are coming to my land, you may find me walking on my land, sitting on my land and just going about my daily life. I might be sitting on the mountain top, do not disturb me, I am praying the way my ancestors did for thousands of years. I might be out collecting what may be strange to you but it might be food to me or medicine for me. Sometimes I am going to the city to get a burger or watch a movie or just to resupply my kitchen and refrigerator. Some of us live very much like you do and some of us live very simple lives. Some of may not have computers or scanners or televisions or a vehicle but some of us do. The other thing is that some of us are light-skinned O'odham and some of us are darker-skinned O'odham. Some of us spend a lot of time indoors or outdoors. Sometimes my mother might be of a different Nation (refers to different tribal Nation) or sometimes our father is Spanish or we may have some European grandmother or grandfather. If you want to question who we are, we all have learned to carry our Tohono O'odham Nation Tribal I.D. Card . It is a federally-issued card which is recognized by the federal government which is your boss. This card identifies us and by law this is the only requirement needed to prove who we are. We do not have United States passports because most of us were born at home and do not have documents, but that does not make us "undocumented people . " Your boss, the Department of Homeland Security , and the government of the Tohono O'odham Nation have negotiated an agreement which is, our tribal I.D. card is our identification card and no other document is required. The O'odham, (the People) as we call ourselves, have been here to witness the eruption of volcanoes that formed the lands we live on. We have special places that hold our great-greatgreat-great-great great grandparents remains, our lands are a special and holy place to us. Some of us still make journeys to these places to pray. Some of these places hold holy objects that maintain specific parts of our beliefs. When you see us out on the land do not assume we are in the drug business or human smuggling business. Sometimes we are out on the land hunting for rabbits or deer or javelina to feed our families. We may be carrying a hunting weapon please do not harm me, my family loves me and depends on me. When you are out on our land, be mindful that you are visitor on our lands, be respectful, be courteous and do not harm anything. Sometimes you may see us gather all night long, dancing and sometimes we are crying loudly, do not approach us or disturb us in anyway, we are honoring a dead relative and preparing them for burial. Sometimes we are conducting a healing ceremony out on the land, do not approach us or disturb us. Sometimes we may be singing and dancing all night long, these are our ceremonies that we have conducted for thousands of years. We are not behaving in a suspicious nature, this is our way of life. As original people of the lands we honor everything on our lands and we regard all as a part of our sacred

19

http://www.solidarity-project.org/

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSlives, do not kill any plants and animals or people on our lands. Do not litter our lands with your trash. When we visit other peoples lands and cities and homes we do not litter or leave behind trash. We might be driving our cars, sometimes old, sometimes very new, do not try to run us off the roads or tailgate me. I value my life and my family, I might have a newborn in my car or my grandmother or my mother and father, my brothers and sister or my aunts and uncles or my friends. These are all important people to me and I do not want to see them hurt or dead. If I seem like I do not understand what you are saying, please call the Tohono O'odham Police and ask for an O'odham speaking officer to come and assist you. I might be laughing at you if you talk to me in English, I don't know what you are saying and I am laughing out of nervousness and fear because you are armed. If you are afraid of us and draw your weapons on me, I am more afraid of you because I am unarmed and my family is in the vehicle with me or they are in my house when you come into my house. Sometimes my house might be in poor condition but it is my home, it is my sanctuary, be respectful. Sometime there are elders in my house that are already afraid of armed people in our communities such as the border patrol and other federal agents. There are some people that do drug business or human smuggling business but we are not all doing that, we are not all criminals. Do not treat us like criminals . We might call you killers and murderers as you just came from killing people. To the O'odham you are a dangerous person, to walk onto our lands bringing fresh death on your person is very destructive to us as a people. You may have diseases we do not know, illnesses of your mind that you might inflict on us. Please do not approach us if you are afflicted with fresh death. Remember we do not want you on our lands, we did not invite you to our lands . Do remember that we have invited allies that will be witnessing your conduct on our lands and how you treat our people..

The militarization of Tohono lands is a result of increased surveillanceGoodman and Soto, 14 (Amy, American broadcast journalist, syndicated columnist, investigative reporter and author. Goodman's investigative journalism career includes coverage of the East Timor independence movement and Chevron Corporation's role in Nigeria; and Alex, member of the Tohono O’odham Nation and organizer with O’odham Solidarity Across Borders. He is also a member of the hip-hop duo, Shining Soul. "Caught in the Crossfire: U.S.-Mexico Border Militarization Threatens Way of Life for Native Tribe." Democracy Now! N.p., 14 Mar. 2014. Web. 04 Aug. 2015. <http://www.democracynow.org/2014/3/14/caught_in_the_crossfire_us_mexico>.)//TB

Well, currently, my community is in the middle of just the current push to militarize the border region. The Tohono O’odham people are —which translates to "desert people," are caught in the midst of colonial policies that are now militarizing our lands from just the amount of Border Patrol agents to checkpoints, to drones , to just the overall surveillance of our community. So, right now, you know, our way of life as O’odham are being affected , you know, from traditional practices to seeing family and friends, and just overall just being affected by the militarization.

20

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSThe Border Patrol illegally violate the sovereignty of the Tohono, and disrupt their culture with their abusive detentions and border regulation, when the surveillance is removed all of the abuse will be stopped.Leza 9 (Christina, Approved Dissertation for doctor of philosophy, Anthropology,5/29/09, DIVIDED NATIONS: POLICY, ACTIVISM AND INDIGENOUS IDENTITY THE U.S.-MEXICO BORDER, Arizona University, Accessed 7/16/15, http://arizona.openrepository.com/arizona/bitstream/10150/193815/1/azu_etd_10782_sip1_m.pdf) CH

Joseph Joaquin, an O’odham elder and Tohono O’odham Nation cultural resources specialist, states, “We were brought into this world for a purpose, to be the caretakers of this land.” Due to present border enforcement policies and procedures, however, “ancestors' graves are unvisited; relatives go years without seeing family; and fiestas, wakes, and ceremonial offerings go unattended . Elders, hampered from crossing for a number of reasons, fail to share traditional stories, and to pass on knowledge about the past, about plants and animals, and about caring for their desert home…” (Arietta 2004). Current border enforcement, therefore, severely disrupts the Tohono O’odham’s ability to fulfill their purpose and sustain the vitality of their community . Eileen Luna-Firebaugh (2005) argues that because border enforcement inhibits the right of O’odham people to move freely on Tohono O’odham traditional lands, “enhanced and restrictive border crossing procedures are an assault on indigenous sovereignty” and violate native religious freedoms guaranteed under federal Indian law. 26 and advocated through international human rights law. Many O’odham make an annual pilgrimage to Magdalena de Kino in Sonora to honor St. Francis Xavier, an indigenous Catholic pilgrimage also carried out by the Yaqui. O’odham have also traditionally traveled to Baboquivari, the sacred mountain on O’odham lands north of the U.S.-Mexico border where I’toi, the O’odham Creator, resides. Such visits are now impossible for Mexican O’odham who lack travel documentation required by U.S. officials to cross the border into Arizona. Any movement through the desert is also difficult for O’odham in the U.S. who are often approached by Border Patrol to prove their identities as U.S. citizens. Traditional medicine men on both sides of the border lacking required travel documents are limited in their ability to attend healing ceremonies (Norrell 2009). Even when O’odham medicine men do hold the appropriate paperwork, they must give over their medicinal bundles to Border Patrol for search , disrupting the healing ceremony, according to one Tohono O’odham traditional medicine man voicing his concerns at an Alianza meeting earlier this year. According to Tohono O’odham activist Mike Flores, O’odham ceremonies tha t require movement across the U.S.-Mexico border , like the O’odham deer hunting and salt gathering ceremonies, are constantly disrupted by border official questioning and detention. As Flores states, “To be detained for eight hours disrupts the whole ceremony.” Two members of the Baboquivari Defense Project, and 26 In reference to the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978. affiliated members of the Alianza Indígena, have also observed and spoken against Border Patrol presence in and damage to sacred areas of Baboquivari Peak.

21




Cards Taken Out recentlyIn order to commit these atrocities, Border Patrol agents separate the Tohono from their human and cultural identity.Miller 14 (Todd Miller has researched and written about U.S.-Mexican border issues for more than 10 years. He has worked on both sides of the border for BorderLinks in Tucson, Arizona, and Witness for Peace in Oaxaca, Mexico. He now writes on border and immigration issues for NACL, Todd Miller, 4-22-2014, "Tomgram: Todd Miller, The Creation of a Border Security State," Tomdispatch, http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175834/tomgram%3A_todd_miller,_the_creation_of_a_border_security_state/)TB

Between the unbridled enthusiasm of the vendors with their techno- optimistic “solutions” and the reality of border life in the Tohono O’odham Nation - - or for that matter just about anywhere along the 2,000-mile divide -- the chasm couldn’t be wider . On the reservation back in 2012, Longoria called in the GPS coordinates of the unknown dead woman, as so many agents have done in the past and will undoubtedly do in the years to come . Headquarters in Tucson contacted the Tohono O’odham tribal police. The agents waited in the baking heat by the motionless body. When the tribal police pulled up, they took her picture, as they have done with other corpses so many times before. They rolled her over and took another picture. Her body was, by now, deep purple on one side. The tribal police explained to Longoria that it was because the blood settles there. They brought out a plastic body bag. “ Pseudo- speciation ,” Longoria told me. That, he said, is how they deal with it . He talked about an interview he’d heard with a Vietnam vet on National Public Radio, who said that to deal with the dead in war, “ you have to take a person and change his genus. Give him a whole different category. You couldn’t stand looking at these bodies, so you detach yourself . You give them a different name that detracts from their humanness .” The tribal police worked with stoic faces. They lifted the body of this woman, whose past life, whose story, whose loved ones were now on another planet, onto a cart attached to an all-terrain vehicle and headed off down a bumpy dirt road with the body bouncing up and down.

This is an impact in and of itself – the result is domination, slavery, and every form of evil.Katz 97 (Katheryn D. Katz, prof. of law - Albany Law School, 1997, Albany Law Journal, |||edited for g-lang|||)

It is undeniable that throughout human history dominant and oppressive groups have committed unspeakable wrongs against those viewed as inferior. Once a person (or a people) has been characterized as sub-human, there appears to have been no limit to the cruelty that was or will be visited upon|||them||| him . For example, in almost all wars, hatred towards the enemy was inspired to justify the killing and wounding by separating the enemy from the human race , by casting them as unworthy of human status. This same rationalization has supported: genocide, chattel slavery, racial segregation, economic exploitation, caste and class systems, coerced sterilization of social misfits and undesirables, unprincipled medical experimentation, the subjugation of women, and the social Darwinists' theory justifying indifference to the poverty and misery of others.

22


Cards to add for more timeThe Border Patrol’s very presence on the land occupied by the Tohono is psychological warfare and their violence toward the natives constitutes genocide.Rivas, 6(Ofelia, Tohono born and activist fighting for cultural freedom, Immigration, Imperialism and Cultural Genocide: An interview with O’odham Activist Ofelia Rivas concerning the effects of a proposed wall on the US / Mexico border, The Solidarity Project, interviewed by Jeff Hendrix, http://www.tiamatpublications.com/docs/imperialism_interview_article.pdf, Accessed 7/15/15) CH


23


Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSIdentification Cards exist in the status quo, but the Border Patrol ignores them, continuing the constant harassment the Tohono face.Amnesty International 12

(Amnesty International,Amnesty International is a global movement of more than 3 million supporters, members and activists in more than 150 countries and territories who campaign to end grave abuses of human rights, 3-28-2012, "USA: In Hostile Terrain: Human rights violations in immigration enforcement in the US Southwest," Amnesty International USA, http://www.amnestyusa.org/research/reports/usa-in-hostile-terrain-human-rights-violations-in-immigration-enforcement-in-the-us-southwest, pp. 25) CH

“They usually ask to see my ID and where I am going. It’s almost the same questions every time. ‘Where are you from? What are you going to do?’ Sometimes they speak Spanish to me; sometimes they speak English. They will sometimes ask, ‘Are you Papago or O’odham? Are you Mexican?’ They never speak O’odham to me, but when I speak O’odham, they don’t know what to do. On some of the other ports of entry, they don’t recognize O’odham people. I recognize the work that they have to do, but they don’t respect the people and continually ask where we’re from. I’m tired of it. They have been here all of this time, they should understand us better. Some of the agents who are here regularly began to recognize me and treated me better, but others, those are the ones who don’t recognize my Tribal ID card and don’t let me in.” Sylvester Valenzuela, a citizen of the Tohono O’odham Nation, who was born in the USA but lives in Mexico. He has a Tribal ID card, which he uses to cross the border several times a week.85 Federally recognized Tribes such as the Tohono O’odham Nation in Arizona can issue their citizens with Tribal Identification Cards which are recognized as legitimate forms of identification that can be used for border crossing. The US government began working with Tribes to provide new, enhanced Tribal ID cards that contain microchips and can be used for crossing international land borders.86 However, there are concerns that some Tribal members may not qualify because, for example, they cannot provide a birth certificate.87 Even those individuals with Tribal ID cards may encounter problems as Border Patrol agents sometimes question the validity or do not accept Tribal ID as a valid form of documentation for crossing the border.8

Border surveillance is the problem—it constitutes its own surveillance stateMiller 13 (Todd, researched and written about U.S.-Mexican border issues for more than 10 years. He has worked on both sides of the border for BorderLinks in Tucson, Arizona, and Witness for Peace in Oaxaca, Mexico. He now writes on border and immigration issues for NACLA Report, “Surveillance Surge on the Border: How to Turn the US-Mexican Border into a War Zone,” http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/17513-surveillance-surge-on-the-border-how-to-turn-the-us-mexican-border-into-a-war-zone, //rck)

This “border surge,” a phrase coined by Senator Chuck Schumer, is also a surveillance surge. The Senate bill provides for the hiring

of almost 19,000 new Border Patrol agents, the building of 700 additional miles of walls, fences, and barriers, and an investment of billions of dollars in the latest surveillance technologies , including drones. In this,

the bill only continues in a post-9/11 tradition in which our southern divide has become an on-the-ground laboratory for the development of a surveillance state whose mission is already moving well beyond those borderlands. Calling this

“immigration reform” is like calling the N ational Security Agency’s expanding global surveillance system a domestic telecommunications upgrade. It’s really all about the country that the United States is becoming -- one of the police and the policed.

24

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/17513-surveillance-surge-on-the-border-how-to-turn-the-us-mexican-border-into-a-war-zone


http://www.amnestyusa.org/research/reports/usa-in-hostile-terrain-human-rights-violations-in-immigration-enforcement-in-the-us-southwest

http://www.amnestyusa.org/research/reports/usa-in-hostile-terrain-human-rights-violations-in-immigration-enforcement-in-the-us-southwest

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSBorder security has become an occupying army and checkpoints are a unique manifestation of violenceMiller 13 (Todd, researched and written about U.S.-Mexican border issues for more than 10 years. He has worked on both sides of the border for BorderLinks in Tucson, Arizona, and Witness for Peace in Oaxaca, Mexico. He now writes on border and immigration issues for NACLA Report, “Surveillance Surge on the Border: How to Turn the US-Mexican Border into a War Zone,” http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/17513-surveillance-surge-on-the-border-how-to-turn-the-us-mexican-border-into-a-war-zone, //rck)

As you walk, perhaps you step on implanted sensors, creating a beeping noise in some distant monitoring room. Meanwhile, green-striped

Border Patrol vehicles rush by constantly. On the U.S.-Mexican border, there are already more than 18,500 agents (and

approximately 2,300 more on the Canadian border). In counterterrorism mode, they are paid to be suspicious of everything and everybody . Some Homeland Security vehicles sport trailers carrying All Terrain Vehicles. Some have mounted surveillance cameras, others cages to detain captured migrants. Some borderlanders like Mike Wilson of the Tucson-based Border Action

Network, a member of the Tohono O’odham Nation (a Native American people and the original inhabitants of the Arizona

borderlands), call the border security operatives an “occupying army.” Checkpoints -- normally located 20-50 miles

from the international boundary -- serve as a second layer of border enforcement . Stopped at one of them , you will be interrogated by armed agents in green, most likely with drug-sniffing dogs. If you are near the international divide, it’s hard to avoid such checkpoints where you will be asked about your citizenship -- and much more if anything you say or do, or simply the way you look, raises suspicions. Even outside of the checkpoints, agents of the

Department of Homeland Security can pull you over for any reason -- without probable cause or a warrant -- and do what is termed a “routine search.” As a U.S. Border Patrol agent told journalist Margaret Regan, within a hundred miles of the international

divide, “ there's an asterisk on the Constitution .” Off-road forward operating bases offer further evidence of the battlefield atmosphere being created near the border. Such outposts became commonplace during the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, where they were meant to house U.S. soldiers deployed into remote areas. On the border, there are high-tech yet rudimentary camps that serve the same

purpose. They also signal how agents of the Department of Homeland Security are “gaining, maintaining, and expanding” into rural areas traversed by migrants and used by smugglers, though to this point never crossed by a known international terrorist.

Citizenship or laws mean nothing—CBP existence on the border constitutes violenceMiller 14 (Todd, researched and written about U.S.-Mexican border issues for more than 10 years. He has worked on both sides of the border for BorderLinks in Tucson, Arizona, and Witness for Peace in Oaxaca, Mexico. He now writes on border and immigration issues for NACLA Report, “Surveillance Surge on the Border: How to Turn the US-Mexican Border into a War Zone,” http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/17513-surveillance-surge-on-the-border-how-to-turn-the-us-mexican-border-into-a-war-zone, //rck)

Instead of acknowledging Garcia’s question, the agent orders him to produce some ID . Garcia pulls out his tribal membership

card. The agent looks from the photo to Garcia several times, making a point of his doubt and suspicion. “It’s me,”

Garcia says, now visibly impatient. “What is your citizenship?” the agent asks. Tohono O’odham ,” Garcia responds. This

could get good, I think to myself. But the agent doesn’t bite. He releases Garcia from his gaze and instructs me to state my citizenship. I tell him that I am a citizen of the United States. “And who is this friend?” the agent asks, again. But this time I sense more in his voice than

mere disbelief that we have a mutual friend. At first I can’t tell what it is, but his tone and mannerisms—simmering with aggression and suspicion —seem to be another example of what everyday life can be like for the Tohono O’odham Nation when the U.S. Border Patrol imposes its authority . And this is what I have come here to learn. Perhaps it is naive on my part to think that the agent would treat us better once he saw that Garcia was Tohono O’odham and that we are on his sovereign ancestral land. For one thing, even though I am a professional journalist, I am prohibited (by the Tohono O’odham Nation) from traveling off-road on the reservation without the accompaniment of a member of the nation. However, the agent does not treat us any better. If anything, his suspicion deepens. Racial profiling seems to be in play: a Native and non-Native out in the middle of nowhere, but so close to the border, need to be

examined closely. That the U.S. government recognizes the Tohono O’odham Nation as a “distinct,

25





Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSindependent political” community with a highly qualified sense of sovereignty seems to mean little to this

agent. He doesn’t appear to be aware that another body of laws, voted on by the O’odham and its legislative council, govern the land where he is standing. Or maybe it just doesn’t matter to him. According to the

U.S. government, the international border that exists on Native American land is at many points “vulnerable” to unauthorized entry. In the post-9/11 era, this sloppy, porous patch of border , in the government’s eyes , is a full-fledged national security threat . However, what I will learn is something that isn’t explicitly stated in publicly accessible government documents : it isn’t just the people who are searching for work or smuggling narcotics, but also the Tohono O’odham themselves who seem to be considered “foreign .” This “messy” but ancient world

of familial, social, political, economic, and spiritual cross-border community flies in the face of the black-and-white, good-and-bad nature

of border security. The tone of the federal agent’s voice makes everything crystal clear. He is in control, and he is just one of hundreds there to use borders, gates, guns, and a grid of global surveillance to enforce the hard fact that the U nited S tates of America trumps Tohono O’odham sovereignty and security —and anyone else’s for that matter— like it or not.

26


CaseThe Surveillance of the Border is an extension of the colonization that first assaulted the Tohono Hundreds of years ago.Redwood Curtain Copwatch no date (based in the north coast of California, is part of a larger movement of self organized CopWatch groups throughout the US. Our local efforts seek to intervene in the drastic rise of the presence, militarization, and violence of the police, and build support networks based on self-determination, caring, and concrete needs, “This Is O'odham Land: No Borders! Free Movement! Indigenous/Migrant Solidarity!,” http://redwoodcurtaincopwatch.net/node/446, //rck)

Movement Demands Autonomy: An O'odham Perspective on Border Controls and Immigration. We want to express as young O'odham, that we oppose the building and structure of a wall along the traditional O'odham territory, The concerns of the villages grow in fear of the on-going tactics that is plainly disguised as a 'part of the rules of conduct for testing

censors and technology', have now made the Tohono O'odham people walking targets and criminals in the eyes of the

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in our own homelands. As O'odham people, we face the ever growing crucial attacks on Homes, traditional routes, and Identity as indigenous people . The O'odham voice still goes underminded by tribal government and the right of passage through our routes have become a killing field and a battle ground . Department of Homeland Security (DHS) recent, unprecedented power to waive existing law along the borders of the

United States to construct a massive Border Wall and implementations of stricter border crossing regulations, undermines the Tribal Sovereignty, Indigenous Autonomy and Self-Determination of the many indigenous nations whose ancestral lands span into Mexico and Canada. The O'odham people, particularly the Tohono O'odham people,

of southern Arizona are one such indigenous nation once again caught in the middle of the United States Border Policies. Policies that have

disregard ed the history, voice and cultural impacts that any border wall will bring to all indigenous people whose

homeland will be further disconnected by the U.S. push to establish the 1,951 mile barrier on the U.S./Mexican Border, 75 miles of

which rest on Tohono O'odham Nation southern boundary. In my introductory analysis, I feel the need to state the history and connection the O'odham people have with their ancestral lands, Homeland Security's waiver power on the border and stricter policies and how such power has lead to the militarization of O'odham Jev'ed (O'odham lands). DHS power to waive existing laws to ensure the border wall will have negative implications on all Indigenous Nations whose land is separated by the

U.S./Mexican Border and represents the continuation, of the colonization of Indigenous people and land in the 21st Century.

The Notion of Sovereignty is not one that is western, and predates the colonizers.Cobb 6 (Amanda J Cobb, June 2006, American Studies Journal, Kansas University, pp. 118-119, Accessed 7/19/15, https://journals.ku.edu/index.php/amerstud/article/view/2956/2915) CH

At base, sovereignty is a nation's power to self-govern, to determine its own way of life, and to live that life—to whatever extent possible—free from interference. This is no different for tribal sovereignty, which by and large shares the attributes and characteristics of sovereignty as contextualized above. Native nations are culturally distinct peoples with recognizable governments and, in most cases, recognizable and defined territories. The sovereignty of Native nations is inherent and ancient. For Native nations within the boundaries of the United States, the underscoring of the inherent nature of

27

http://redwoodcurtaincopwatch.net/node/446

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSsovereignty is critical because of the colonial process—a process that continues to dramatically diminish our ability to fully exercise tribal sovereignty. As David Wilkins (Lumbee) and K. Tsianina Lomawaima (Creek/Cherokee) have argued, "Tribes existed before the United States of America, so theirs is a more mature sovereignty, predating the Constitution; in that sense, tribal sovereignty exists 'outside' the Constitution."15 Kidwell and Velie agree that sovereignty "is held to be an inherent right" but emphasize that "its political effect depends upon its recognition by other sovereigns."16 Inherency and recognition are characteristics of sovereignty for all nations; however, the recognition and respect necessary to exercise sovereignty fully has not been consistently accorded Native nations by other sovereigns, particularly the United States. In fact, "[f]rom 1775 to the present, federal and state intentions toward tribes have changed direction in various ways. One could argue that indeterminacy or inconsistency is the hallmark of the tribal federal relationship."17 Because of this inconsistency, Native nations must constantly endeavor to exercise their sovereignty "under negotiation with states, in federal courts, and with the Congress of the United States."18 That dynamic is virtually inescapable for tribal peoples on one level or another. The recognition and exercise of tribal sovereignty is complicated by the power imbalance between the United States and Native nations. The American nation-state is so powerful, so hegemonic, that its cloak of sovereignty becomes almost invisible. The United States is so used to looking through the lens of its own powerful sovereignty—and, importantly, to having that image reflected back to it by other nations—that the United States, including its citizens, too often cannot recognize that what is looked through is merely a lens. Too often, the United States falls into the trap of mistaking that lens for its eye. As Alfred has pointed out, "the Western view of power and human relationships is so thoroughly entrenched that it appears valid, objective, and natural."19 In other words, United States sovereignty has become normalized to such an extent that it rarely questions or is even conscious of any limit to its own sovereign power

The militarization of the border is a colonialist intrusion that infringes on native sovereignty

Rivas, 6(Ofelia, Tohono born and activist fighting for cultural freedom, Immigration, Imperialism and Cultural Genocide: An interview with O’odham Activist Ofelia Rivas concerning the effects of a proposed wall on the US / Mexico border, The Solidarity Project, interviewed by Jeff Hendrix, http://www.tiamatpublications.com/docs/imperialism_interview_article.pdf, Accessed 7/15/15) CH

Imperialism – lately this word has been re-entering debate and speech around the country. For the most part, these days, the word imperialism is being used to describe the actions of the United States government as it seeks to gain control over Middle Eastern governments and economies. The continuing occupation of Iraq by the United States is the best example of this neo-imperialism. But imperialism is not limited to lands across the oceans, and the United States government is currently engaged in the occupation of lands much closer to home. We must never forget that the very lands claimed by the government of the United States in North America are claimed by nothing other than the right of conquest. The U nited S tates government is a government of occupation here in North America and the lands that it continues to claim and occupy are in spirit still the autonomous territories of the indigenous tribes that existed here before the first European colonists stepped foot on the continent . Since 9/11 the United States government has ratcheted up its attacks against the indigenous residents of the United States. In southern Arizona, these attacks have come in the guise of border land defense . The traditional

28


Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSO’odham residents of southern Arizona have become the victims of a joint program carried out by the Department of Homeland Security and the Border Patrol to build a border wall across the entire 330 mile U.S / Mexico border, a 65 mile section of which will run along the southern edge of the Tohono O’odham reservation. This wall, if it is allowed to be built, will effectively cut in half the traditional territory of the O’odham and serve to disrupt traditional migration patterns and isolate O’odham villages that exist on opposite sides of the international border. To justify the building of this wall the government has once again used the fear of terrorism , as has become common since 9/11, to advance its fascistic imperialist interests. In a Time Magazine article dated September 20, 2004, entitled “Who left the door open” one can find a perfect example of the fear mongering about “terrorist threats” being used by the corporate media and government to justify the militarization of the border zone and the building of a border wall. Although the Time article does not specifically mention the proposed wall, it does mention the Tohono O’odham nation as being a specific weak spot in the border defense. The article states that “Law enforcement authorities believe the mass movement of illegals, wherever they are from, offers the perfect cover for terrorists seeking to enter the U.S…” Even the 9/11 commission chimes in on this absurd talking point in its report stating that: “two systemic weaknesses came together in our border system's inability to contribute to an effective defense against the 9/11 attacks: a lack of well-developed counter terrorism measures as a part of border security and an immigration system not able to deliver on 1 its basic commitments, much less support counter terrorism. These weaknesses have been reduced but are far from being overcome.” This last statement is especially ridiculous considering that none of the accused 9/11 hijackers crossed into the United States through its border with Mexico. Despite such evident absurdity, the government obviously feels that it can count on the ignorance and apathy of the American public to give it free reign as it moves to completely seal the border between the United States and Mexico. In fact, it seems that a small minority of deluded and frightened residents of this country have fallen for the government campaign of terrorist fear mongering and economic scapegoating of immigrants. The visible rise of racist vigilante groups such as the Minute Man project and Save our State are part of the very dangerous right wing consolidation of power taking place here in North America. It is essential for every resident of this land who does not agree with the racist nationalism being forced upon us in this country to rise up and stop this tide of fear based fascism before it is consolidated. Hundreds of thousands of migrants from the south have risen in a nationwide movement to resist this new wave of racism and fascistic demagoguery – now it is essential that the rest of us join them to resist the militarization of the U.S./Mexico border. It should go without saying that given the current trajectory of the Bush regime, a sealed border should be of grave concern to anyone living in North America – don’t forget that a sealed border can serve to keep people in just as well as it can serve to keep others out!

29


Framing Prioritize structural violence in your impact calculus: it’s the only thing that certainly exists and that we can certainly change.Taylor, ‘09 (Janelle S. , Prof. of Anthropology, Univ. of Washington, http://depts.washing...er/taylor.shtml, Explaining Difference: Culture, Structural Violence, and Medical Anthropology)TBStructure sounds like a neutral term “ it sounds like something that is just there, unquestionable, part of the way the world is. By juxtaposing this with the word violence, however, Farmers concept of structural violence forces our attention to the forms of suffering and injustice that are deeply embedded in the ordinary , taken-for-granted patterns of the way the world is. From this follow some important and very challenging insights. First, the same structures that render life predictable, secure, comfortable and pleasant for some of us, also mar the lives of others through poverty, insecurity, ill-health and violence . Second, these structures are neither natural nor neutral, but are instead the outcome of long histories of political, economic, and social struggle . Third, being nothing more (and nothing less!) than patterns of collective social action, these structures can and should be changed. Structural violence thus encourages us to look for differences within large-scale social structures “ differences of power, wealth, privilege and health that are unjust and unacceptable. By the same token, structural violence encourages us to look for connections between what might be falsely perceived separate and distinct social worlds. Structural violence also encourages an attitude of moral outrage and critical engagement , in situations where the automatic response might be to passive ly accept systematic inequalities.

Without absolute side constraints against violating human dignity such as the affirmative, utilitarianism becomes a justification for slavery, torture, and murder.Clifford, 11 (Professor of Philosophy @ Mississippi State University, Michael, Spring, “MORAL LITERACY”, Volume 11, Issue 2, https://webprod1.uvu.edu/ethics/seac/Clifford_Moral_Literacy.pdf, Accessed 7-6-13, TB)

As for fairness of application, here the waters are muddy. On the one hand, utilitarianism prides itself on fairness, since everyone’s happiness (i.e. pleasure/pain) must be taken into account when determining what will produce the gr eatest happiness. Fairness is part of the very justification of utilitarianism in that it assumes, correctly I think, that everyone wants to be happy; thus it is incumbent upon any ethics to promote this, as far as is possible. In fact, it was this “democratic” aspect of utilitarianism which prompted James Mill to champion it as a model for political and social reform. On the other hand, one of the most enduring criticisms of utilitarianism , especially the sort advocated by Bentham, is that it may require us to trample upon individual rights if it will increase the pleasure of the majority . An example I like to use in my courses to illustrate this is black slavery in Mississippi. There was a time when Mississippi had more millionaires per capita than any other state in the union. Of course, it achieved th at distinction t hrough the institution of slavery , the evidence of which can still be seen in Rhode Island, where the estates of former cotton barons line the shores of Newport. Now Mississippi is among the poor est state in the nation. Suppose some savvy economic consultant suggested that we could bring prosperity back to the South by reinstating the institution of slavery. The population of African- Americans being only about th irty percent, the majority would certainly have their happiness increased. Of course, we would immediately object that such happiness would be achieved by the most atrocious

30

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSviolation of individual rights. What can the utilitarian say to this? Even Ja mes Mill’s son, John Stuart, was very concerned about this troublesome possibility. He advocated a form of utilitarianism in which we are obligated to promote the “higher pleasures” of justice and equality. However, Mill would not allow an appeal to individual rights, because he did not believe that such rights exist . His defense of individual freedoms in On Liberty is not based on the idea that human beings have rights, but because of the good consequences for society that comes from such a recognition. “I regard utility as the ultimate appeal on all ethical questions,” says Mill. 14 If this is the case, then a utilitarian, even one as enlightened as Mill, must entertain the possibility that the greatest happiness could only be bought at the expense of individual freedoms. 15 Whether or not you believe in individual rights, whether or not you are convinced by arguments one way or another about the metaphysical grounds of rights, we can all appreciate the idea that any ethics should recognize the fundamental dignity of human|||s||| beings. This is precisely what worries critics of utilitarianism, that it may require us to violate that dignity, for some at least, if doin g so will promote the greatest happiness. But to violate human dignity is to ignore or to misunderstand the very point of ethics . For the deontologist, such as Kant, we have a duty not to violate human dignity, even if it causes us pain, even if the consequences fail to maximize the overall happiness. The inviolate character of human dignity is expressed most practically by the idea that we have certain basic rights (whatever the source of rights are, whether natural or by convention). John Locke defined rights as “prima facie entitlements,” which means that anyone who would restrict my rights bears the burden of proving that there are good reasons for doing so. For example, the right to private property is sometimes trumped by the principle of eminent domain, provided that I too sta nd to gain by seizure of my land. My right to free speech is limited by the harm it might cause by, say, shouting “fire!” in a crowded theatre. There are times when we feel justified in limiting or abrogating certain positive rights for the common good, but even here no social outcome justifies torture, slavery, murder, or any action which violates my fundamental human dignity. Deontological ethics assumes there to be a line that cannot be crossed , regardless of the consequences. Thus, Kant’s type of ethics would seem to fair best with respect to the fairness of application criterion beca use it requires, as intrinsic to the Categorical Imperative itself, that we treat all persons , at all times, as ends and not merely as means to an end. This is not due to any good benefits that may stem from doing so; in fact, respecting the dignity of others may actually diminish overall pleasure. But we have a duty to do so, regardless, because reason demands it. It demands it because to do otherwise is irrational given the requirements of the Categorical Imperative, which are (arguably) three:

Even if we should evaluate consequences, there should be absolute side constraints on deliberately harming innocent people. <still gotta cut it>Fried, 94 (Professor of law @ Harvard, Charles, Absolutism and its Consequentialist Critics, ed. Haber, p. 74)

31


Impact Cards

The violating of the Tohono’s rights is psychological warfare and genocide by the border patrol.Rivas, 6(Ofelia, Tohono born and activist fighting for cultural freedom, Immigration, Imperialism and Cultural Genocide: An interview with O’odham Activist Ofelia Rivas concerning the effects of a proposed wall on the US / Mexico border, The Solidarity Project, interviewed by Jeff Hendrix, http://www.tiamatpublications.com/docs/imperialism_interview_article.pdf, Accessed 7/15/15) CH


32


Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSThe continued subjugation of the native dehumanizes and dooms the indigenous people to genocide, decolonization must occur to solve. Be skeptical of any movements that do not start with ridding the state of colonial opression Razack 14 (Sherene Razack, Professor of Sociology and Equity Studies at the University of Toronto, 10-7-2014, "Sherene Razack on Our Settler Legacy," Possible Canadas, http://possiblecanadas.ca/en/sherene-razack-canadas-settler-legacy-2/) CH

The growing, institutionalized dehumanization towards specific groups. It’s as though society is evolving based on the principle that human life doesn’t matter. Every morning, I read about 10 things that make me think we’re growing increasingly distant from each other. It begins with race and becomes a structure that invades everything. White people routinely dehumanize Indigenous people. I’m talking of a spectrum of violent acts, like police officers who drive a man out of the city and leave him to freeze to death. The principle that this person’s life is not worth as much as yours is both an everyday act and a state practice. Look at the “tough on crime” initiatives that conservatives love. What kind of cruelty and disregard for human life do these kinds of policies come out of? I always think about how dominant subjects make themselves dominant. You’re not born that way. I tell my class, “No one is born White.” You have to learn it and you have to keep performing it every day. People don’t easily believe in their own superiority or that others are lower forms of humanity. They have to convince themselves, and they’re terribly haunted by it. The Settlers had to learn that Indigenous people were inferior, were savages. But it was a very hard lesson to learn, because for one thing, they’re not. Indigenous people had a lot of knowledge about this place and clearly had a developed society. Because we have to be taught not to recognize the humanity of others, maybe we can interrupt this process. We have to learn that the colonial project that is Canada is not viable, because it is not structured on the principle of a common humanity. We could look at all the instances where spectacular meanness and repression have not produced anything good, moments when Canada was tempted to be extremely vicious to Indigenous peoples. If that principle structures your country, which is what structures this country, then it’s almost like you can’t go anywhere good from there. We can’t move into recognizing the humanity of refugees or other people if our day-to-day life is intensely structured by the inhumanity with which we have treated Aboriginal people . Almost everything we do came out of that colonial moment when we tried to figure out how to steal the land. We have to confront this colonial paradigm before we can open the way to Others.

This dehumanization is how the extermination of the natives ensues, only by portraying the native body as lesser can the colonizer justify the continuous oppression. Gordimer 3

(Nadine Gordimer, 2003, Introduction of The Colonizer and the Colonized, by Albert Memmi, http://atlasarts.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Albert-Memmi-The-Colonizer-and-the-Colonized.pdf, pp. 22-24) CH

*we don’t endorse gendered language

33

http://atlasarts.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Albert-Memmi-The-Colonizer-and-the-Colonized.pdf

http://atlasarts.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Albert-Memmi-The-Colonizer-and-the-Colonized.pdf

http://possiblecanadas.ca/en/sherene-razack-canadas-settler-legacy-2/

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSMemmi has strikingly described the sequence of steps that leads them to "self-absolution." Conservatism brings about the selection of

mediocre men. How can an elite of usurpers, aware of their mediocrity, establish their privileges? By one means only: debasing the colonized to exalt themselves, denying ' the title of humanity to the natives, and defining them as simply absences of qualities-animals, not humans. This does not prove hard to do, for the system deprives them of everything. Colonialist practice has engraved the colonialist idea into things themselves; it is the movement of things that designates colonizer and colonized alike. Thus oppression justifies itself through oppression: the oppressors produce and maintain by force the evils that render the oppressed, in their eyes, more and more like what they would have to be like to deserve their fate . The colonizer can only exonerate himself in the systematic pursuit of the "dehumanization" of the colonized by identifying himself a little more each day with the colonialist apparatus . Terror and exploitation dehumanize, and

the exploiter · authorizes himself with that dehumanization to carry his exploitation· further. The engine of colonialism turns in a circle; it is impossible to distinguish between its praxis and objective necessity. Moments of colonialism, they sometimes

condition one another and sometimes blend. Oppression means, first of all, the oppressor's hatred for the oppressed. There exists a solitary limit to this venture of destructiveness, and that is colonialism itself. Here the colonizer encounters a contradiction of his own: "Were the colonized to disappear, so would colonization-with the colonizer." There would be no more subproletariat, no more over-exploitation. The usual forms of capitalistic exploitation would reassert themselves, and prices and wages would fall into line with those of the mother country. This would spell ruin. The system wills simultaneously the death and the multiplication of its victims. Any transformation would be fatal to the system. Whether the colonized are assimilated or massacred, the cost of labor will rise. The onerous engine suspends between life and death, and always closer to death, those who are compelled to drive it. A petrified ideology devotes itself to regarding human beings as talking beasts. But it does so in vain, for the colonizers must recognize them first, even to give them the harshest or most insulting of orders. And since the colonizers cannot constantiy supervise the colonized, the colonizers must resolve to trust them. No one can treat a man like a dog without first regarding him as a man. The impossible dehumanization of the oppressed, on the other side of the coin,

becomes the alienation of the oppressor. It is the oppressor himself who restores, with his slightest gesture, the humanity he seeks to destroy; and, since he denies humanity in others, he regards it everywhere as his enemy. To handle this, the colonizer must assume the opaque rigidity and imperviousness of stone. In short, he must dehumanize himself, as well.

The Border Patrol’s very presence on the land occupied by the Tohono is psychological warfare and their violence toward the natives constitutes genocide.Rivas, 6(Ofelia, Tohono born and activist fighting for cultural freedom, Immigration, Imperialism and Cultural Genocide: An interview with O’odham Activist Ofelia Rivas concerning the effects of a proposed wall on the US / Mexico border, The Solidarity Project, interviewed by Jeff Hendrix, http://www.tiamatpublications.com/docs/imperialism_interview_article.pdf, Accessed 7/15/15) CH

Prior to the 9-11 “attack on America,” Washington D.C. politicians toured the border along the reservation and declared that they were not responsible for the existing 3 cattle fence, stating that the Unites States government marked the border only with markers. (The tribe was seeking federal assistance to repair the cattle fence along the border due to cattle rustling and increase of drug trafficking). But now, after 9-11, the reservation is under the department of homeland security control, a police state , just like apartheid in South Africa. O’odham now have to carry documents to prove they are O’odham in order to move around on their own lands. The reservation is now closed off to the media and anyone voicing resistance against this situation face serious consequences such as harassment, arrest and a loss of public services from the tribal programs. One example of this harassment is my personal case. The non-O’odham tribal police in my mother’s village along the international border arrested m e . I was held in a police vehicle for an hour under interrogation by a policeman, while two border patrol vehicles blocked the entrance to my mother’s yard. I was told to cooperate or face five

34


Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWScharges: failure to stop, failure to show I.D., interfering with the Border patrol and two counts of aggressive behavior toward an officer. I was un-handcuffed and told to get out of the vehicle countless times as different tribal police arrived. When one non-O’odham tribal police officer arrived he was told there was a little misunderstanding and it was resolved. This causes me to seriously question the governments’ motives, they are trying to outright pacify the O’odham. They violate every protected human right we have and ignore our specific indigenous aboriginal rights . They control O’odham lands through psychological warfare . One major “problem” that has not been discussed, is the unknown number of young O’odham incarcerated in federal and state prisons who have become victims of this “operation gatekeeper.” The O’odham reservation has 97 percent unemployment – young people have been forced into drug trafficking and human trafficking to buy their “American dream.” Many of these young people are given severe sentences and do not receive legal assistance from the tribal system. Many of these young people have never been arrested or committed any offenses but now sit in prison awaiting sentences. The young people returning from prison are forced into halfway houses and are not allowed to return home to their families, they completely lose all rights as citizens of the United States. This is a conspiracy to force the total assimilation of the O’odham and neutralize the O’odham lands. This psychological warfare on the O’odham is genocide, a genocide that many will not realize until generations to come.

35


Culture The Border Patrol illegally violate the sovereignty of the Tohono, and disrupt their culture with their abusive detentions and border regulationLeza 9 (Christina, Approved Dissertation for doctor of philosophy, Anthropology,5/29/09, DIVIDED NATIONS: POLICY, ACTIVISM AND INDIGENOUS IDENTITY ON THE U.S.-MEXICO BORDER, Arizona University, Accessed 7/16/15, http://arizona.openrepository.com/arizona/bitstream/10150/193815/1/azu_etd_10782_sip1_m.pdf) CH

Joseph Joaquin, an O’odham elder and Tohono O’odham Nation cultural resources specialist, states, “We were brought into this world for a purpose, to be the caretakers of this land.” Due to present border enforcement policies and procedures, however, “ancestors' graves are unvisited; relatives go years without seeing family; and fiestas, wakes, and ceremonial offerings go unattended . Elders, hampered from crossing for a number of reasons, fail to share traditional stories, and to pass on knowledge about the past, about plants and animals, and about caring for their desert home…” (Arietta 2004). Current border enforcement, therefore, severely disrupts the Tohono O’odham’s ability to fulfill their purpose and sustain the vitality of their community . Eileen Luna-Firebaugh (2005) argues that because border enforcement inhibits the right of O’odham people to move freely on Tohono O’odham traditional lands, “enhanced and restrictive border crossing procedures are an assault on indigenous sovereignty” and violate native religious freedoms guaranteed under federal Indian law. 26 and advocated through international human rights law. Many O’odham make an annual pilgrimage to Magdalena de Kino in Sonora to honor St. Francis Xavier, an indigenous Catholic pilgrimage also carried out by the Yaqui. O’odham have also traditionally traveled to Baboquivari, the sacred mountain on O’odham lands north of the U.S.-Mexico border where I’toi, the O’odham Creator, resides. Such visits are now impossible for Mexican O’odham who lack travel documentation required by U.S. officials to cross the border into Arizona. Any movement through the desert is also difficult for O’odham in the U.S. who are often approached by Border Patrol to prove their identities as U.S. citizens. Traditional medicine men on both sides of the border lacking required travel documents are limited in their ability to attend healing ceremonies (Norrell 2009). Even when O’odham medicine men do hold the appropriate paperwork, they must give over their medicinal bundles to Border Patrol for search , disrupting the healing ceremony, according to one Tohono O’odham traditional medicine man voicing his concerns at an Alianza meeting earlier this year. According to Tohono O’odham activist Mike Flores, O’odham ceremonies that require movement across the U.S.-Mexico border, like the O’odham deer hunting and salt gathering ceremonies, are constantly disrupted by border official questioning and detention. As Flores states, “To be detained for eight hours disrupts the whole ceremony.” Two members of the Baboquivari Defense Project, and 26 In reference to the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978. affiliated members of the Alianza Indígena, have also observed and spoken against Border Patrol presence in and damage to sacred areas of Baboquivari Peak.

Freeing border travel allows for the Tohono to maintain their culture.Austin 91(Megan, Fall 1991, A CULTURE DIVIDED BY THE UNITED STATES-MEXICO BORDER: THE TOHONO O'ODHAM CLAIM FOR BORDER CROSSING RIGHTS, Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law [Vol. 8, No. 2], Accessed 7/14/15) CH

36



Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSThis note discusses the sources of the right of the Tohono O'odham Indians to cross the international border separating the United States and Mexico. The first section of this note provides an historical background of O'odham traditional lands, including the effect on the Tohono O'odham people of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and the Gadsden Purchase which established the international border. The effects of Spanish colonization, Mexican independence from Spain and the establishment of the border significantly changed the lands and the patterns of life of the O'odham people. The Tohono O'odham Tribe seeks legislation which will recognize the rights of the O'odham in Mexico and members of the Tohono O'odham Tribe to pass freely through out their traditional lands without regard to the border and the restrictions imposed by immigration and customs laws. Border crossing rights are necessary to the Tohono O'odham peoples' freedom to sustain and develop their culture .

Border Crossing K2 culture.Austin 91(Megan, Fall 1991, A CULTURE DIVIDED BY THE UNITED STATES-MEXICO BORDER: THE TOHONO O'ODHAM CLAIM FOR BORDER CROSSING RIGHTS, Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law [Vol. 8, No. 2], Accessed 7/14/15) CH

Although much of the O'odham traditional lands have been taken away, the Tohono O'odham people still have firm spiritual and familial roots in these lands. The border constructs an artificial barrier to the freedom of the Tohono O'odham people to traverse their lands, impairing their ability to collect foods and materials needed to sustain their culture and to visit family members and traditional sacred sites . Specifically, immigration laws prevent many O'odham people from entering the United States from Mexico. Pursuant to these laws, United States immigrations officers can exclude immigrants and non-immigrants for not possessing certain types of documentation such as passports and border identification cards. Immigrations officers can deport "aliens" who do not carry those forms of identification. 18 Using these laws, the United States can detain and deport the Tohono O'odham people who are simply travelling through their own lands, practicing migratory traditions essential to their religion, economy and culture. Customs regulations have a similar effect. United States Customs officials may prevent the Tohono O'odham people from bringing from one part of their land to another raw materials and goods essential for their spirituality , economy and traditional culture . 2

The Tohono nation is a First nation that lies squarely on Arizona’s border with Mexico. It has been part of Tohono culture to move back and forth between what is now known (by the West) as the US-Mexico border.Cowan, 3 (Margo, Margo is an immigration attorney and a former general counsel to the tohono, Native Americans and the U.S.-Mexico Border, In Defense of the Alien Vol. 26, accessed 7/13/15) TB

The Odham Nation is the second largest federally recognized American Indian nation in the U nited S tates. It has a federal trust land base in excess Of the size Of the State Of Connecticut in the United States and about that much land in the Republic Of Mexico. It sits squarely on the border Of Ari- zona and Mexico , a bit west Of Tucson and a bit south Of Phcx.nix. There are people and their legends are fascinating with regard to their creation. The first historical fact that you need to know is that when the Spaniards and the Mexicans came north into the great Sonoran Desert the Tohono U dham

37

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSwelcomed them and taught them how to survive. Everybody but Tohono O'dham people find the desert to be very inhospitable and very difficult to comprehend. Tohono Udham people find the desert, Of course, to be beautiful and magnificent. When American pio- neers came west and south they also were welcomed by Tohono O'dham Indians and they were taught how to survive in the great Sonoran Desert. Now, Tohono O'dham people want you to know that because they find it pretty ironic that today members Of their nation are being arrested and incarcerated and prosecuted and deported and having their vehicles seized from their own lands. So that is really for them where the historical story begins. In 1853 the Tohono (Ydham Nation had a full-blown system of government . They had a System Of courts, a judicial branch, they had a very developed executive branch, they had a very developed legislative branch of government reaching down to the village level, with village councils that sent people up the line to participate in their legislature. And then, the u nited S tates and Mexico , these two interlopers that had come into the lands Of the Tbhono O' dharn Nation, sat down and decided to buy and sell Tohono CYdham land and create a border, a nation-state border, and for some odd reason they didn't invite the government of the Tohono Odham Nation to the table and I bet there's nobody in this room that can imagine what that reaWn is. But those Indians weren't invited to the table. The lands Of the Tohono CYdham Nation were divided right down the middle . Elders will tell you that the heart of the Tohono CYdham Nation was pierced in a formal way . That before that these strangers had come and they were welcomed and they left, but then, in 1853, these strangers came and actually had the audacity to sit down and say they could buy and sell mother earth, which can't be bought and sold, and create the nation-state border The next historical fact that you need to know is that in 1937, really beginning in 1936, the United States in her ultimate wisdom had the idea that the U.S. needed to organin the various Indian nations. And, of course, Tohono O'dham people will sort of step back and smile at this because they were already very well organized, and had been for ever and ever, but the United States sent out enumerators who went around and created what was called a base roll. And the base roll is the legal document that serves as the justification for recognition of the Tohono Od- ham Nation as a federally recognized nation by the United States. Those enumerators when they got down to the border — you are in the middle Of the desert, close your eyes and imagine you are in the middle of the desert; there are no fences and there are no signs Mexico and U.S. and any of that — kept going and those enumerators actually went all the way to Caborca in Mexico, which is about an hour south Of the U.S. / Mexican border, and enumerated as many unauthorized Tohono CYdhams as they could find and, based on that original census, the U.S. recognized the Tohono O'd- ham Nation as an American Indian nation. There were ceremonies and pictures of the chairman at the time shaking hands with the representatives for the United States who were then in the Department Of War. That was how they decided to relate to Native Americans in that era and you will be surprised to know that the chairman at the time representing the Tohono CYdham Nation shaking hands with these officials, U.S. officials, today would be an illegal alien and 48 percent of the Indians on that original base roll today would be illegal aliens because they were born on O'd- ham lands south Of the border. so, that's another important historical fact that we need to understand and appreciate in order to understand the situation today.

38

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSThe Identification system required by the Border Patrol projects western customs and beliefs onto the Tohono people, ignoring their customs.Vanderpool, 3 (Tim Vanderpool, Special Contributer to the Christian Science Monitor, writer for Tuscon Weekly,4-30-2003, "A tribe's tale of three identities," Christian Science Monitor, http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0430/p02s02-usgn.html) CH

Born in Mexico, Antone is among 8,400 tribal members who grew up in remote, rustic villages along this international frontier without birth certificates or other documents. After serving with the US Marines and attending college, she returned to the reservation north of the border. Now she works as a counselor here in Sells, a dusty desert town that's home to the tribal government. But she still doesn't have US citizenship. Antone lives in a world that includes three nationalities: Mexican, American, and Tohono O'odham. "It gets confusing" she says. "But as O'odham , we're all one people, and we have one land." Now, freshmen Rep. Raul Grijalva (D) of Arizona wants to turn that concept into law. In a controversial move, he has introduced legislation that would grant US citizenship to all enrolled members of the tribe - including those living in Mexico. Supporters see the measure as a way to correct an "oversight" that was made more than 150 years ago. But critics see it as giving the O'odham a special privilege - and setting a dangerous precedent for immigration laws. The dilemma dates back to 1854, when the O'odham's ancestral homeland was halved by the Gadsden Purchase. Today, some 1,000 tribal members remain scattered among small villages in northern Mexico, while in the United States their reservation spans 4,500 square miles, including 60 miles of the US- Mexico border. No ID, no birth certificates Henry Ramon, vice chairman of the 25,000-member Tohono O'odham Nation, hopes Representative Grijalva's bill will correct a lingering injustice. "With our way of life here on the reservation, we don't always have documents , " says Mr. Ramon. "We were born in our homes, and don't have [birth certificates]." Recent illegal immigration and security crackdowns on the border have increased the need for such documents: Not long ago, a group of O'odham traveling north from their Mexican homes for medical help on the reservation - services accorded them as registered tribal members - were summarily stopped at the border and detained for hours. Federal officials turned some back. Many reservation residents in the United States also lack the papers needed to travel back and forth , or even to prove they were born in this country . "My people have lived here since time immemorial," says Ramon. "But many O'odham right here on the reservation are considered illegal aliens" because they lack documents. Records of birth and death, he says, "were just passed down by word-of-mouth, from generation to generation."

The Border Patrol regulation of the border has a significant impact on the culture of the Tohono people. The people are better served without them.Luna-Firebaugh 5 (Eileen, January 2005, Volume 19 Access to Justice: The Social Responsibility of Lawyers | Contemporary and Comparative Perspectives on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Washington University Journal of Law & Policy, ‘Att Hascu ‘Am O ‘I-oi? What Direction Should We Take?: The Desert People's Approach to the Militarization of the Border, Accessed 7/14/15) CH

The Tohono O’odham Nation has pursued a legislative approach for a number of years. On May 21, 1987, Representative Morris Udall (D-AZ) introduced House Bill 2506.56 This bill would have “provide[d]

39

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0430/p02s02-usgn.html

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSfor establishment of a roll of the Tohono O’odham Indian people and clarif[ied] certain of their rights.”57 The bill empowered those on the new roll of the Tohono O’odham to pass freely across the U.S.-Mexico border and to live and work in the United States. The Reagan administration had serious misgivings about this bill. They wanted border-crossing privileges extended only to tribal members who were citizens of the United States, and a restriction of what services would be provided to Mexican O’odham while in the United States. The tribe agreed to compromise on these two clauses. A third clause became the sticking point. The federal government wanted the O’odham to cross only at official border crossings.58 While this may seem to be a minor point, for the O’odham it was an attack on who they are as a people and as a sovereign nation. The O’odham have been in the area since time immemorial. They have ancient migratory patterns and settlement sites that are important culturally and traditionally. Further, given the size of the Tohono O’odham reservation (roughly the size of Connecticut) this would require many Tohono O’odham to travel great distances to cross the border. The tribe is unwilling to give up these traditional crossing places on tribal land. When this dispute could not be resolved, the tribe requested that the sponsor of the bill pull it from consideration.59 This assertion of tribal sovereignty and commitment to tradition was to become a signpost of the struggle.

The Border Patrols denying the Tohono of their culture leads to social death and genocide.Short 10(Damien, PHD and director of human rights at London University, November 2010, THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RIGHTS, Cultural genocide and indigenous peoples: a sociological approach, accessed 7/14/15) CH

For those indigenous peoples fighting to retain or regain their lands they are fighting for their life as distinct peoples since, for them, their spirituality and cultural vitality is based in and on and with their lands. If we take this point seriously when this relationship is forcibly interrupted and breaks down we can only conclude that genocide is occurring. Indeed, when indigenous peoples, who have a physical, cultural and spiritual connection to their land, are forcibly dispossessed and estranged from their lands they invariably experience ‘social death’ and thus genocide. Furthermore, when indigenous lands are used by extractive industries the inherent corporate preference for externalising environmental costs can lead to physical, as well as cultural destruction. The tar sands project is a prime example of this.

40

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSMore internal links

The Border Patrol restricts culture and destroys artifactsLeza 9 (Christina, Approved Dissertation for doctor of philosophy, Anthropology,5/29/09, DIVIDED NATIONS: POLICY, ACTIVISM AND INDIGENOUS IDENTITY ON THE U.S.-MEXICO BORDER, Arizona University, Accessed 7/16/15, http://arizona.openrepository.com/arizona/bitstream/10150/193815/1/azu_etd_10782_sip1_m.pdf) CH

In August 2006 a grassroots indigenous organization named the Alianza Indígena Sin Fronteras (Indigenous Alliance Without Borders), held a series of events in Tucson, Arizona to educate the public on indigenous border concerns, to join with other concerned members of southern border indigenous communities, and to strategize for united indigenous social action on the border. The first of these events was a press conference held in a Tucson public library. At this press conference, Yaqui ceremonial leaders spoke of ceremonial items being mishandled and confiscated by border officials. They spoke of the problems faced by ceremonial leaders and participants in crossing the border for ceremonial activities. Yaqui and O’odham community members spoke about the loss of language and ceremonial knowledge in communities on both sides of the international border, and the need to strengthen cultural and ceremonial ties across the international line . Dennis Manuel, a Tohono O’odham elder and community activist working to protect the O’odham sacred areas of Baboquivari peak, stated that Border Patrol stationed on O’odham lands were driving through O’odham sacred areas, causing damage to the land and cultural artifacts in these areas . In a workshop hosted by the Alianza Indígena on the following Saturday, executive director of the Kumeyaay Border Task Force in California, Louis Guassac, spoke against the Department of Homeland Security’s plans for border wall construction that would “plow through” Kumeyaay ancestral gravesites. The Tucson border indigenous community events organized in August 2006 marked the beginning of a campaign launched by the Alianza Indígena Sin Fronteras to organize indigenous community action in support of national policy guidelines that 10 would protect indigenous peoples’ “rights of mobility and passage,” as well as indigenous environmental and cultural resources. Over two years later, border wall construction from California to Texas continues. The Secure Fence and Real I.D. Acts continue to allow the waiving of environmental and cultural protection laws for border wall construction and other “border security” measures. Over sixty-nine O’odham ancestral graves have been unearthed and cultural artifacts disturbed for border wall construction, and O’odham activist Dennis Manuel reports rumored plans for a new Secure Border spy tower to be constructed in the Baboquivari sacred area. Yet, the Alianza Indígena Sin Fronteras and its community partners continue to advocate for the rights of border indigenous peoples, and to speak against the current policies in place to enforce the international border line that divides their communities

41




Solvency

42

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSDope Solvency Advocate

The problem is not one of lack of the right papers, it is one of continued oppression. The only solution is to remove the Border Patrol.Rivas 10

(Ofelia Rivas, Tohono born and activist fighting for cultural freedom , August 29, 2010, O'odham to National Guard: 'We do not want you on our lands', http://www.solidarity-project.org/, accessed 8/3/15) CH

We are not compliant people, we are people with great dignity and confidence. We are a people of endurance and have a long survival history. We are people that have lived here for thousands of years. We have our own language, we have our own culture and traditions. You are coming to my land, you may find me walking on my land, sitting on my land and just going about my daily life. I might be sitting on the mountain top, do not disturb me, I am praying the way my ancestors did for thousands of years. I might be out collecting what may be strange to you but it might be food to me or medicine for me. Sometimes I am going to the city to get a burger or watch a movie or just to resupply my kitchen and refrigerator. Some of us live very much like you do and some of us live very simple lives. Some of may not have computers or scanners or televisions or a vehicle but some of us do. The other thing is that some of us are light-skinned O'odham and some of us are darker-skinned O'odham. Some of us spend a lot of time indoors or outdoors. Sometimes my mother might be of a different Nation (refers to different tribal Nation) or sometimes our father is Spanish or we may have some European grandmother or grandfather. If you want to question who we are, we all have learned to carry our Tohono O'odham Nation Tribal I.D. Card. It is a federally-issued card which is recognized by the federal government which is your boss. This card identifies us and by law this is the only requirement needed to prove who we are. We do not have United States passports because most of us were born at home and do not have documents, but that does not make us "undocumented people." Your boss, the Department of Homeland Security, and the government of the Tohono O'odham Nation have negotiated an agreement which is, our tribal I.D. card is our identification card and no other document is required. The O'odham, (the People) as we call ourselves, have been here to witness the eruption of volcanoes that formed the lands we live on. We have special places that hold our great-greatgreat-great-great great grandparents remains, our lands are a special and holy place to us. Some of us still make journeys to these places to pray. Some of these places hold holy objects that maintain specific parts of our beliefs. When you see us out on the land do not assume we are in the drug business or human smuggling business. Sometimes we are out on the land hunting for rabbits or deer or javelina to feed our families. We may be carrying a hunting weapon please do not harm me, my family loves me and depends on me. When you are out on our land, be mindful that you are visitor on our lands, be respectful, be courteous and do not harm anything. Sometimes you may see us gather all night long, dancing and sometimes we are crying loudly, do not approach us or disturb us in anyway, we are honoring a dead relative and preparing them for burial. Sometimes we are conducting a healing ceremony out on the land, do not approach us or disturb us. Sometimes we may be singing and dancing all night long, these are our ceremonies that we have conducted for thousands of years. We are not behaving in a suspicious nature, this is our way of life. As original people of the lands we honor everything on our lands and we regard all as a part of our sacred lives, do not kill any plants and animals or people on our lands. Do not litter our lands with your trash.

43

http://www.solidarity-project.org/

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSWhen we visit other peoples lands and cities and homes we do not litter or leave behind trash. We might be driving our cars, sometimes old, sometimes very new, do not try to run us off the roads or tailgate me. I value my life and my family, I might have a newborn in my car or my grandmother or my mother and father, my brothers and sister or my aunts and uncles or my friends. These are all important people to me and I do not want to see them hurt or dead. If I seem like I do not understand what you are saying, please call the Tohono O'odham Police and ask for an O'odham speaking officer to come and assist you. I might be laughing at you if you talk to me in English, I don't know what you are saying and I am laughing out of nervousness and fear because you are armed. If you are afraid of us and draw your weapons on me, I am more afraid of you because I am unarmed and my family is in the vehicle with me or they are in my house when you come into my house. Sometimes my house might be in poor condition but it is my home, it is my sanctuary, be respectful. Sometime there are elders in my house that are already afraid of armed people in our communities such as the border patrol and other federal agents. There are some people that do drug business or human smuggling business but we are not all doing that, we are not all criminals. Do not treat us like criminals. We might call you killers and murderers as you just came from killing people. To the O'odham you are a dangerous person, to walk onto our lands bringing fresh death on your person is very destructive to us as a people. You may have diseases we do not know, illnesses of your mind that you might inflict on us. Please do not approach us if you are afflicted with fresh death. Remember we do not want you on our lands, we did not invite you to our lands . Do remember that we have invited allies that will be witnessing your conduct on our lands and how you treat our people..

44

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSCBP is surveillance o/v

1. The 1ac CBP ev indicates that everything the border patrol does is either directly surveillance or is impossible to do without surveillanceMeans we solve - either the border patrol would leave the reservation because they had no purpose there, or they would stay on the reservation and not be able to do anything because everything they could do would be qualified as surveillance activities.

45


AT

46

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSAgent circumvention

1. Agents have no incentive to circumvent – they treat the natives the way they do because of high stress and job insecurity.Browne, no date (Clayton. "The Employee Turnover for the Border Patrol." Work. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 July 2015.)TB

Overview Most Border Patrol agents have difficult, stressful, and occasionally physically dangerous jobs . New hires must complete rigorous training of up to three months at Border Patrol Academy before they start work in the field. All Border Patrol Academy graduates must serve at least two years on the Mexican border and many are assigned to remote rural areas with relatively few recreational amenities. Border Patrol agents are expected to work long hours, including nights, and deal with highly stressful situations . Employee Retention Problems The Border Patrol has had issues with employee retention as least as far back as 2001. Turnover has been as high as 30 percent among Border Patrol employees during their first 18 months . Experts say many leave due to stress, relatively low pay and long hours. Given the length of time required for extensive background checks and training,hire new agents quickly is difficult, thus adding to the conditions that spur turnover in the first place. Culture Shock The reasons for the high turnover rate among Border Patrol agents are complex, but include high stress, long hours, perception of poor administrative support, and culture shock . A 2008 story by the Associated Press says that Mike Fisher, at the time a sector chief of the Border Patrol in San Diego, faced "culture shock" from working on the Texas-Mexico border.

2. Border Patrol agents would be removed from Tohono land as a result of the plan – circumvention would be unlikely, and officially impossible. A vanguard, off-duty Border Patrol agent could be arrested by tribal police.3. <Crawford’s card about being held accountable for the actions of others>

47

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSCBP alt causes (CBP ev)

Let’s examine each alt cause:1. Following up leads – how do you get the lead without surveillance?2. Responding to electronic sensors – sensors are surveillance. Post-plan there will be no sensors to respond to3. Interpreting and following tracks – you can only find the tracks through surveillance4. Maintaining checkpoints – you can only know where to put the checkpoint based on surveillance. Also, the checking itself is surveillance5. conducting city patrol – patrolling is surveillance. Even if you don’t buy that, the endpoint is to find someone to surveil.6. anti-smuggling investigations – without surveillance, there is no starting point for an investigation.

48

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSMinute men

1. The minute men have disbanded.Goodwin, 12 (Liz. Liz Goodwin. Ledecky Fellow. Liz Goodwin '08, returning to her Texas roots, writes about immigration and politics for Yahoo News. "The End of the Minutemen: Tea Party Absorbs the Border-watching Movement." The Lookout. Yahoo!, 16 Apr. 2012. Web. 30 July 2015. <http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/end-minutemen-tea-party-absorbs-border-watching-movement-173424401.html>.)//TB

Back in 2004, Jim Gilchrist, a retired Marine and the founder of the California Minutemen Project, emailed a few dozen friends and family suggesting that concerned civilians personally combat illegal immigration by traveling to the Arizona border with him. Gilchrist lives in Orange County, Calif., but the Arizona border was the most heavily trafficked and sparsely patrolled. That email reached thousands of people and touched a nerve. Hundreds showed up in April 2005 to patrol the border. Some of them brought floppy hats, lawn chairs, binoculars and American flags. Others toted guns and protest signs. The group banned neo-Nazis from attending, though some came anyway. A movement was born. Gilchrist estimates he did 4,000 radio and TV interviews over the next five years as his group's membership swelled and the media attention exploded. "It was just literally overwhelming," he said. But today, the once-thriving Minutemen anti-illegal immigration fraternity has all but died out . No one knows exactly why the groups fizzled so quickly, but researchers and former border-watching leaders say infighting and bad press have taken a toll. At the same time, the tea party movement started to rise, which usurped members and stole the groups' thunder.

2. Their own (Jenkins) ev indicates vigilantes are doing lots of bad stuff in the squo, means the impact is inevitable

49

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2005/summer/arizona-showdown?page=0,2

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSSmokescreen

1. The case is a DA to this argument. Since they don’t propose an alternative, your choice is really to either end the violence visited upon the Tohono or to let it continue. 2. The burden is on them to prove that other indigenous movements will specifically see the Tohono case as a victory for all natives.

50

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSState hurts natives

See State K

51

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSStill violence in the US

1. They can’t solve this violence either – at least we’re a step in the right direction.2. Racialized attitudes toward natives probably can’t be solved through policy action, means we’re the best alternative3. We solve the violence on sovereign Tohono land. That’s what Tohono themselves have shown that they overwhelmingly care about – that’s 1ac miller.4. don’t evaluate this as a solvency deficit – we never claimed to solve for it

52

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSThere’s a fence

NahKilpatrick, 14 (Kate. Reporter/Editor at Al Jazeera America. "U.S.-Mexico Border Wreaks Havoc on Lives of an Indigenous Desert Tribe." Aljazeera America. N.p., 25 May 2014. Web. 15 July 2015.)TB

When the border fence was erected — to this day just concrete vehicle barriers connected by chicken wire — it didn’t stop O’odham from crossing between the countries.

53

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSTOPD $ tradeoff

1. Money for the Tohono not zero-sum – if they want the money, they can ask the USFG2. Their ev is talking about the Tohono in the status quo. That means impact is inevitable.3. they concede short ev and katz ev - indicates loss of culture should be prioritized over loss of education or even life. Culture is a social fabric that allows the dead to be kept alive. Without culture all impx are terminally NUq. Means case definitely o/w the turn4. At the beginning of their ev it assumes that TOPD will want to keep stringent border security – the plan advocates an end to border surveillance activities on Tohono land.

54

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSTOPD circumvention

1. Make them isolate an incentive the tribal police would have to circumvent the law if they’re gonna make this argument2. There is no evidence of the tribal police restricting border access or assaulting Tohono tribal members, so we still garner 100% solvency3. The Tohono people control the tribal police – they can change it. The Tohono have no power over border patrol.

55

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSTOPD = border patrol (in a bad way)

1. The TOPD only monitors the 160 known ILLEGAL crossing sites on the border – it does not monitor the legal sites, like where the Tohono culturally cross the border.2. The TOPD is investigating deaths on the border – it’s unlikely they would prioritize a Tohono culturally crossing the border over one of the 62 deaths in 2005 aloneJoint hearing before United states government house of representatives subcommittee on immigration border security and claims and subcommittee on crime, terrorism and homeland security committee on the judiciary , Outgunned and outmanned : local law enforcement confronts violence along the southern border, march 2cnd 2006,

TOPD Provides primary border security law enforcement services in addition to public safety with in the nation itself. There are at least 160 know illegal crossing sites along the nation 75 mile shared border with Mexico , in 36 location , and there are no barriers at all thus TOPD officers travel in excess of 200 miles per shift or a yearly total of 48,00 miles. On average, each TOPD officer spends 60% of his or her time working on border related issues, decreasing the amount of time spent on public safety and threatening not only our members but threatening the safety of the united states as well. Daily confrontation with UDAS require the Nation’s Police Officers to possess weaponry and protective equipment to ensure the safety of their own lives as well as the safety of the tribal community. TOPD is the first in line to confront these individuals, which often

include criminal and possible terrorists. In addition to apprehending the UDAs the TOPD officers investigate crimes committed by IDAs. Including homicides and unattended deaths . In 2005 alone, TOPD investigated 62 deaths.

56

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSTOPD violence

1. This evidence talks about SQUO cooption of the TOPD by the border patrol. It doesn’t apply, unless they can prove that TOPD is being mind-controlled2. They say financial incentive to abuse – if the US passes the plan, they would be unlikely to continue paying off tribal officials.

57


T

58


T – domestic

59

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSShort

1. w/m – <SEE BELOW>2. A. c/I - Domestic is in a country's own territoryAmerican Heritage 14 The American Heritage® Roget's Thesaurus. Copyright © 2013, 2014 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/domestic

domestic adjective

1. Of or relating to the family or household:

familial, family, home, homely, household.

2. Trained or bred to live with and be of use to people:

tame.

3. Of, from, or within a country's own territory : home, internal, national, native.

B. another c/I do the neg’s interpretation and allow the aff in this instance – as long as we can prove that we’re reasonably topical, we garner all the advantages of the neg’s interp and allow one more aff that they can easily be prepared for

3. Pref our interp – it actually requires the neg to prepare for FEWER affs4. StandardsLimits: Prefer breadth, we gain more topic education about large issues in the status quo, border surveillance, nsa surveillance and othersReasonability: Competing interps lead to a race to bottom, prefer reasonabilityPredictability: Ours is a core aff, it’s on the wiki, this is one you should be prepared for.Ground: Generics solve any lost ground Fairness: Potential abuse isn’t a voter, make them prove they have suffered in this roundEducation: Best for education, we learn about more issues while still keeping it adequately limited.

60

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/domestic

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSw/m US persons

Indigenous people are US citizensBureau of Indian Affairs( Accessed 7-13-2015, "Indian Affairs,", http://www.bia.gov/FAQs/)CH

Yes. As early as 1817, U.S. citizenship had been conferred by special treaty upon specific groups of Indian people. American citizenship was also conveyed by statutes, naturalization proceedings, and by service in the Armed Forces with an honorable discharge in World War I. In 1924, Congress extended American citizenship to all other American Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States. American Indians and Alaska Natives are citizens of the United States and of the individual states, counties, cities, and towns where they reside. They can also become citizens of their tribes or villages as enrolled tribal members.

Current Tohono are citizens by descentCowan, 3 (Margo, Margo is an immigration attorney and a former general counsel to the tohono, Native Americans and the U.S.-Mexico Border, In Defense of the Alien Vol. 26, accessed 7/13/15) CH

When the United States recognized the Tohono O'dham Nation as a federally recognized American Indian nation, they had to approve the constitution. And the constitution of the nation says to be a Tohono O'd ham member you either have to have 50 percent blood Tohono O'dham or you have to be a direct linear descendant of the original base role. And so that was the setting that allows today members born in Mexico who can prove they are original descendants of the original base role to be recognized as federally recognized American Indians. Now, two things happened in the 1990s that really I guess brought the Tohono O'dham Nation into the context of problems that communities around the border had been facing for a very long time. The first was all of the border policies to close off the ports and to force people into areas away from the ports and prior to - it took a few years - those initiatives you heard began in the early '90s, mid '90s. It took a few years, really until 1995 or 1996, and then you begin to see hundreds in the beginning and today you see 2,000 undocumented people on any given day, nonmembers, on the lands of Tohono O'dham Nation crossing up. But it's sort of it seems to me as a funnel. A funnel of death, for me that is how I view it. When people are forced away from the ports and forced into very dangerous areas where there are not communities for them to go into - and I think that is the purpose of the policy - then it's no longer a law enforcement situation it's a search and rescue situation. And so you went from a situation where there were no undocumented people besides undocumented Tohono O'dham on the lands of the Tohono O'dham Nation in the '90s and before, to today where there are 2,000 undocumented people in distress - people in distress. Where people run out of the desert and flag down your car and walk into your office and beg for food, and just a terrible, terrible situation. What that means is in the words of the vice-chairman of the Tohono O'dham Nation - the nation's land has become a war-zone and now they are occupied by the Border Patrol and Customs and DEA and Tohono O'dham people who are dark-skinned and elders who don't speak English all of a sudden had been asked for documents and if you can't produce documents we are going to arrest you and deport you and seize your vehicle and we are not really - we don't really have time to distinguish whether or not you are a U.S. citizen or a Tohono O'dham member from the other side.

61

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSw/m US territory

Indigenous land is United States territory.BIA, no date (Bureau of Indian Affairs, www.bia.gov/FAQs/, no date. Accessed 28 July 2015.)TB

A federal Indian reservation is an area of land reserved for a tribe or tribes under treaty or other agreement with the United States , executive order, or federal statute or administrative action as permanent tribal homelands, and where the federal government holds title to the land in trust on behalf of the tribe.

62

http://www.bia.gov/FAQs/

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSDouble bind

<BTW, IF YOU WIN T, YOU WIN THIS ARG>1. They say border patrol will adjust – plan still solves beatings within the land by removing CBP and culture by allowing Tohono to cross the border2. If the border patrol would form a border on the Northern end of the reservation that shields the link to politics because the border enforcement would still be there.

63


T – substantial

64

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWS2%

1. We meet – we are 2% in the context of Tohono border patrol, Tohono policing, and probably border patrol

2. counterinterpsA. first c/I Substantial means socially or materially importantChristine Lindberg, 2 0 07 ( M a n a g i n g E d i t o r ) , O X F O R D C O L L E G E DICTIONARY, 2nd

Ed., 07, 1369. (NY: Sparks Publishing) Substantial: Important in material or social terms

All 1ac evidence indicates that the 1ac is both socially key (in terms of culture) and materially important (in terms of violence)B. second c/I - Substantially is a relative term, depends on contextWords and Phrases 64 (Vol. 40, p. 816)

The word “ substantially” is a relative term and should be interpreted in accordance with the context of claim in which it is used. Moss v. Patterson Ballagh Corp. D.C.Cal., 80 P.Supp. C10, 637.

This means either they give a definition in the context of surveillance or their interp is not only super limiting, but also super arbitrary3. prefer our counterinterps – they allow for education about social issues in the context of policy as opposed to only strict policy education. This is as topical as we can get without occluding discussions of race or natives.4. Their interp is bad – 2 reasonsA. Substantially cannot be determined by percentage tests – it obscure the complexity of policy optionsLeo ‘8 (Kevin Leo** J.D. Candidate, Spring 2008, Hastings College of the Law. Hastings Business Law Journal Spring, 2008 4 Hastings Bus. L.J. 297 LEXIS)

In contrast, the court in Haswell v. United States held that spending over sixteen percent of an organization's time on lobbying was substantial. n83 The court found that applying a strict percentage test to determine whether activities are substantial would be inappropriate, since [*308] such a test "obscures the complexity of balancing the organization's activities in relation to its objectives and circumstances in the context of the totality of the organization." n84

65

http://www.lexisnexis.com.www2.lib.ku.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.156249.8509902761&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1253667274610&returnToKey=20_T7405211855&parent=docview

http://www.lexisnexis.com.www2.lib.ku.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.156249.8509902761&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1253667274610&returnToKey=20_T7405211855&parent=docview

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSB. Their evidence is in the context of taxation of charitable contributions. This only lends credence to the argument that competing interps of substantially especially are totally arbitrary5. StandardsLimits: Prefer breadth, we gain more topic education about large social issues in the status quo, like Islamophobia, natives, and also policy options that are materially importantReasonability: Competing interps lead to a race to bottom, prefer reasonability.Predictability: Ours is a core aff, it’s on the wiki, this is one you should be prepared for.Ground: Generics solve any lost ground Fairness: Potential abuse isn’t a voter, make them prove they have suffered in this round. There’s always a ridiculous aff that’s legit under an interpretation – you can’t force us to defend thatEducation: Best for education, we learn about more issues while still keeping it adequately limited.

66

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSShort

1. We meet - <SEE BELOW>

2. A. c/I Substantial means socially or materially importantChristine Lindberg, 2 0 07 ( M a n a g i n g E d i t o r ) , O X F O R D C O L L E G E DICTIONARY, 2nd

Ed., 07, 1369. (NY: Sparks Publishing) Substantial: Important in material or social terms

All 1ac evidence indicates that the 1ac is both socially key (in terms of culture) and materially important (in terms of violence)B. another c/I - do the neg’s interpretation and allow the aff in this instance – as long as we can prove that we’re reasonably topical, we garner all the advantages of the neg’s interp and allow one more aff that they can easily be prepared for3. prefer our interp – allows for education about social issues in the context of policy as opposed to only strict policy education. This is as topical as we can get without occluding discussions of natives.4. StandardsLimits: Prefer breadth, we gain more topic education about large social issues in the status quo, like Islamophobia, natives, and also policy options that are materially importantReasonability: Competing interps lead to a race to bottom, prefer reasonabilityPredictability: Ours is a core aff, it’s on the wiki, this is one you should be prepared for.Ground: Generics solve any lost ground Fairness: Potential abuse isn’t a voter, make them prove they have suffered in this roundEducation: Best for education, we learn about more issues while still keeping it adequately limited.

67

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSAT: w/o material qualification

w/m – since nothing is without material qualification, we’ll assume they mean in the context of Tohono border surveillance. In that case, we’re w/o material qualification.Comparative evidence indicts their definitionJustice Berdon, 8-24-99, Supreme Court of Connecticut, 250 Conn. 334; 736 A.2d 824; 1999 Conn. LEXIS 303

In addition, the plain meaning of "substantially" does not support the defendant's arguments. Black's Law Dictionary (6th Ed. 1990) defines "substantially" as "essentially; without material qualification ; in the main . . . in a substantial manner." Likewise, "substantial" is defined as, "of real worth and importance; of considerable value; valuable. Belonging to substance; actually existing; real; not seeming or imaginary; not illusive; solid; true; veritable. . . . Synonymous with material." (Citations omitted.) Id. Thus, the requirement of a "substantial" association creates a threshold far below the exclusive or complete association argued by the defendant.

68


T – Surveillance

1. We meet A. A significant amount of CBP resources are devoted to surveillanceMiller 12 (11-1-2012, Todd Miller has researched and written about U.S.-Mexican border issues for more than 10 years. He has worked on both sides of the border for BorderLinks in Tucson, Arizona, and Witness for Peace in Oaxaca, Mexico. He now writes on border and immigration issues for NACL, "Ground Zero: The Tohono O'odham Nation," https://nacla.org/blog/2012/11/2/ground-zero-tohono-oodham-nation TB)

In human terms, this is where the long-term strategy behind the Border Patrol ’s “prevention through deterrence” regime leads. After all, in recent years, it has militarized vast swaths of the 2,000-mile U.S.- Mexican border . Along it, there are now 12,000 implanted motion sensors and 651 miles of walls or other barriers. Far more than $100 billion has been spent on this project since 9/11. The majority of these resources are focused on urban areas where people without papers traditionally crossed. Now, border crossers tend to avoid such high concentrations of surveillance and the patrolling agents that go with it. They skirt those areas on foot, ending up in desolate, dangerous, mountainous places like this one on the sparsely populated Tohono O’odham reservation, an area the size of Connecticut. The Border Patrol’s intense armed surveillance regime is meant to push people into places so remote and potentially deadly that they will decide not to cross the border at all.

B. Extend Miller 12 – The CBP surveills the Tohono with surveillance trucks and watch towers.

C. Extend CBP no date, everything the CBP does is surveillance or a direct result of surveillance

2. Counter Interpretation - All agree surveillance is watching over to exert power or controlHuey 9 (Laura Huey, prof of sociology, University of Western Ontario, 2009 Surveillance: Power, Problems, and Politics, Sean P. Hier and Josh Greenberg, eds p 221-2)

Among the various definitions and understandings of surveillance, there nevertheless remains common terrain . In the simplest sense – the act of watching over – surveillance encompasses activities that may be socially desirable. We might refer to the image of the nurse who keeps close watch over the ailing patient (Martin 1993) or even the police detective who watches the suspect in order to gather evidence or to prevent the commission of a crime (Marx 1988). In its more complex forms, the term carries nasty connotations (Martin

69

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWS1993) – hence the frequent use of the mataphors of Orwell's Big Brother or Bentham's panopticon. Whether viewed as beneficial to society or detrimental to individual privacy, surveillance is about power and its manifestation in the world . The nurse who systematically collects the patient's vital signs uses this information to make decisions concerning the patient's well-being – a benevolent exercise of power. In contrast, the systematic collection of data on particular ethnic groups to target their members for increased observation by law enforcement can only be understood as power negatively manifested. I want to be explicit on this point: however a person is situated in relation to the exercise of power, understanding surveillance as the expression of power is necessary for understanding the politics of surveillance and, in particular, the beliefs and values of those who oppose its use and spread.

3. Prefer our interpretation – it’s the only one that includes critical affs on the topic: Foucault/bioptix, TSA trans, policing the colored line, etc.4. StandardsLimits: Prefer breadth, we gain more topic education about large social issues in the status quo, like Islamophobia, natives, and also policy options that are materially importantReasonability: Competing interps lead to a race to bottom, prefer reasonabilityPredictability: Ours is a core aff, it’s on the wiki, this is one you should be prepared for.Ground: Generics solve any lost ground Fairness: Potential abuse isn’t a voter, make them prove they have suffered in this roundEducation: Best for education, we learn about more issues while still keeping it adequately limited.

70

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSw/m covert

Extend 1ac miller 12 – Tohono are constantly surveilled. That’s the word used. The Tohono never know when they are being surveilled, i.e. when the CBP drone is right above their head.

71


DAs

72


Terror 1. Turn – the USFG uses the excuse of terrorism to oppress native populations and force nationalism against us.


Imperialism – lately this word has been re-entering debate and speech around the country. For the most part, these days, the word imperialism is being used to describe the actions of the United States government as it seeks to gain control over Middle Eastern governments and economies. The continuing occupation of Iraq by the United States is the best example of this neo-imperialism. But imperialism is not limited to lands across the oceans, and the United States government is currently engaged in the occupation of lands much closer to home. We must never forget that the very lands claimed by the government of the United States in North America are claimed by nothing other than the right of conquest. The U nited S tates government is a government of occupation here in North America and the lands that it continues to claim and occupy are in spirit still the autonomous territories of the indigenous tribes that existed here before the first European colonists stepped foot on the continent . Since 9/11 the United States government has ratcheted up its attacks against the indigenous residents of the United States. In southern Arizona, these attacks have come in the guise of border land defense . The traditional O’odham residents of southern Arizona have become the victims of a joint program carried out by the Department of Homeland Security and the Border Patrol to build a border wall across the entire 330 mile U.S / Mexico border, a 65 mile section of which will run along the southern edge of the Tohono O’odham reservation. This wall, if it is allowed to be built, will effectively cut in half the traditional territory of the O’odham and serve to disrupt traditional migration patterns and isolate O’odham villages that exist on opposite sides of the international border. To justify the building of this wall the government has once again used the fear of terrorism , as has become common since 9/11, to advance its fascistic imperialist interests. In a Time Magazine article dated September 20, 2004, entitled “Who left the door open” one can find a perfect example of the fear mongering about “terrorist threats” being used by the corporate media and government to justify the militarization of the border zone and the building of a border wall. Although the Time article does not specifically mention the proposed wall, it does mention the Tohono O’odham nation as being a specific weak spot in the border defense. The article states that “Law enforcement authorities believe the mass movement of illegals, wherever they are from, offers the perfect cover for terrorists seeking to enter the U.S…” Even the 9/11 commission chimes in on this absurd talking point in its report stating that: “two systemic weaknesses came together in our border system's inability to contribute to an effective defense against the 9/11 attacks: a lack of well-developed counter terrorism measures as a part of border security and an immigration system not able to deliver on 1 its basic commitments, much less support counter terrorism. These weaknesses have been reduced but are far from being overcome.” This last statement is especially ridiculous considering that none of the accused 9/11 hijackers crossed into the United States through its border with Mexico. Despite such evident absurdity, the government obviously feels that it can count on the

73


Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSignorance and apathy of the American public to give it free reign as it moves to completely seal the border between the United States and Mexico. In fact, it seems that a small minority of deluded and frightened residents of this country have fallen for the government campaign of terrorist fear mongering and economic scapegoating of immigrants. The visible rise of racist vigilante groups such as the Minute Man project and Save our State are part of the very dangerous right wing consolidation of power taking place here in North America. It is essential for every resident of this land who does not agree with the racist nationalism being forced upon us in this country to rise up and stop this tide of fear based fascism before it is consolidated. Hundreds of thousands of migrants from the south have risen in a nationwide movement to resist this new wave of racism and fascistic demagoguery – now it is essential that the rest of us join them to resist the militarization of the U.S./Mexico border. It should go without saying that given the current trajectory of the Bush regime, a sealed border should be of grave concern to anyone living in North America – don’t forget that a sealed border can serve to keep people in just as well as it can serve to keep others out!

4. short ev indicates loss of culture should be prioritized over loss of life. Culture is a social fabric that allows the dead to be kept alive. Without culture all impx are terminally NUq. Means case definitely o/w the da5. katz ev indicates border patrol’s discriminatory practices dehumanize and cause every form of evil – means case o/w6. There is a low likelihood of terrorists crossing through the border and virtually zero chance of them launching attacks on US soil.Steller, 14 (Tim. "Steller: Cross-border Terrorism Isn't the Realistic Threat." Arizona Daily Star. N.p., 9 Sept. 2014. Web. 17 July 2015. <http%3A%2F%2Ftucson.com%2Fnews%2Flocal%2Fcolumn%2Fsteller-cross-border-terrorism-isn-t-the-realistic-threat%2Farticle_877cd11c-d35b-566d-8b2d-f8b43c2f1fd8.html>.)TB

As each new terrorist threat arises — Hamas, al-Qaida, al-Shabab — the alarm is raised again. Now it’s Islamic State’s turn: Texas Gov. Rick Perry and others have worried aloud that members of Islamic State have already crossed the U.S.-Mexico border or are preparing an attack from Mexico’s border region. “Islamic terrorist groups are operating in the Mexican border city of Ciudad Juarez and planning to attack the United States with car bombs or other vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices,” the group Judicial Watch reported Aug. 29, citing “high-level” sources. The alarm quickly spread, especially with tomorrow’s anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks approaching. It’s possible, of course, for such an attack to occur, but as with so many such perceived threats, it’s unlikely . To the extent that border problems pose a realistic threat to someplace like Tucson and Southern Arizona, it’s much more likely to be realized in an incident like the outrageous attack that occurred four days after the Judicial Watch piece was published. That day, a 16-year-old Tucson boy was kidnapped and held for ransom before being rescued by Tucson police the next day. Of the five people arrested so far (a sixth is on the loose), three were previously deported from the United States but managed to find their way back here. If you want to worry about the Mexican border, that’s the wiser place to focus your fear, not on Middle East terrorist groups. It’s not just me saying this. Listen to people like Tony Coulson, who retired in 2010 after crucial, post-9/11 years as head of the D rug E nforcement A dministration ’s Tucson office . “ Our

74

https://www.facebook.com/notes/tucson-police-department/kidnappers-arrested-after-holding-teen-for-ransom/10152316287148531

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/08/29/online-posts-show-isis-eyeing-mexican-border-says-law-enforcment-bulletin/

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2014/08/feds-isis-on-us-border/

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/08/21/rick-perry-its-possible-isis-has-crossed-southern-border/

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSvulnerability to terrorist activity has nothing to do with the border ,” Coulson told me Tuesday. A smuggling organization that brings in a terrorist would be causing itself tremendous , unnecessary risk , he said. Still, the attraction of combining fears of the border and of terrorism is clear. A significant number of people who try to cross the border illegally from Mexico make it across, even now. Therefore, foreign terrorists who want to hurt the United States could try to get smuggled across to achieve their aims. The concern goes back, at least, to 1986. An Arizona Daily Star story that year said Cochise County Attorney Alan Polley told a U.S. Senate subcommittee that local officials needed help preventing cross-border terrorism. An FBI official told the same panel there was no significant threat of terrorism at the border. What happened in the intervening decades? Essentially, nothing. A few people have crossed the Mexican border, legally or illegally, and worked here to help fund Hamas or other terrorist groups abroad. None has crossed illegally and launched terrorist attacks here.

7. Border already porous now – link NUq8. The vast majority of terror attacks in the US are from people legally in the nation. There’s no reason to fear a terrorist crossing the border.McCombs and Steller, 11 (Brady and Tim. Contributors to the Arizona Daily Star. "Border Seen as Unlikely Terrorist Crossing Point." Arizona Daily Star. 07 June 2011. Web. 26 July 2015. <http://tucson.com/news/local/border/border-seen-as-unlikely-terrorist-crossing-point/article_ed932aa2-9d2a-54f1-b930-85f5d4cce9a8.html)TB

Over the last two decades, almost all of the known international terrorists arrested in the U nited S tates have come on legal visas or were allowed to come in without a visa , said Alden, of the Council on Foreign Relations. "These are people that come on airplanes," said Alden, author of "The Closing of the American Border," which explains how the U.S. revised visa and border policies in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. The 19 people involved in the Sept. 11 attacks entered the country on legal visas . And over the last four to five years , the terrorist plots have increasingly involved people already in the United States - citizens and legal residents , he said. "The notion of the (Southwest) border as the line that protects us from terrorism has really gone out of the window in the last several years," Alden said. Not only is the U.S. side of the border heavily guarded, but the Mexican government makes an extraordinary effort to prevent terrorists from coming through its country. For instance, Mexico shares real-time information with the U.S. about airline passengers arriving in Mexico to make sure they don't include potential terrorists, Alden said.

9. Border Patrol catches less than half of crossers – link NUqYork, 13 (Byron. Byron York is an American columnist for the Washington Examiner, Fox News contributor, and author who lives in Washington, D.C. "What Is the Real Number of Illegal Border Crossings?" Human Events. 29 May 2013. Web. 26 July 2015. <http://humanevents.com/2013/05/29/what-is-the-real-number-of-illegal-border-crossings/)TB

No, they can’t. To find some of the answers that Homeland Security won’t provide, the authors looked to other data — interviews with people who have tried to cross the border illegally; analysis of people who have been caught attempting to cross multiple times; and what is called “known flow,” that is, the

75

http://tucson.com/star-story-on-terrorism-and-the-border/pdf_9056b150-cf5b-11e0-8b8a-001cc4c03286.html

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSactual observations by the Border Patrol of people trying to cross into the United States. Putting together all the evidence, what they found is that U.S. authorities are catch ing somewhere between 40 percent and 55 percent of the people who try to cross the border illegally . That’s more than in the past, when the Border Patrol had less manpower, but it’s still just somewhere around half, or even less.

76

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSAT Bioterror

No impact – their ev ignores the vast bioterror preparedness infrastructure already in place in the US.Inglesby, 14 (Tom. Thomas V. Inglesby, MD, is the director and chief executive officer of the UPMC Center for Health Security. "Bioterrorism: Assessing the Threat." UPMC Center for Health Security. 11 Feb. 2014. Web. 26 July 2015. <http://www.upmchealthsecurity.org/our-work/testimony/bioterrorism-assessing-the-threat>.)TB

In the last 10 years, progress in preparedness has been made in a number of areas. There are now a cadre of government officials , public health experts, doctors, nurses and scientists who have become knowledgeable and skilled in thinking through and planning for biological terrorism . That community of experts in and out of government didn't exist in 2001. There are also a series of major biopreparedness programs across the US government, some of which I will cite here. HHS/ ASPR has funded hospital preparedness programs around the country and runs valuable programs like the National Disaster Medical System. NIH has a basic research program for biodefense. BARDA has developed a number of medications and vaccines that could be critical in future bio responses . CDC has funded state and local public health agencies to prepare for bioterror ism (among other crises and disasters), and it oversees laboratory research in this area, manages a strategic national stockpile of medications for use in an emergency, and has an Emergency Operations Center that is a model for other health agencies around the world. DHS has created a risk assessment and threat characterization process to help guide planning. FDA has created an office that deals explicitly with the regulation and approval of products to be used only in the event of bioterror ism, pandemics, or other urgencies or emergencies. The DOD and DOS have important programs dedicated to addressing the issue overseas through science and technology as well as cooperative threat reduction . Taken together, these efforts, combined with the substantial hard work of state and local public health agencies, hospitals, emergency management, and civic organizations, have put the country on a better footing in its ability to respond to major biothreats.

No impact to bioterrorism—attack won’t happen because no resources

Burton and Stewart 08 (Fred, Scott, 7/30/08, Stratfor Global Intelligence, “Busting the Anthrax Myth,” Fred is the VP of Stratfor, former deputy chief of counterterrorism at the Diplomatic Security Service, former counterterrorism agent with the US State Department, Scott is the VP of tactical analysis at Stratfor, former special agent with the US State Department involve din terrorism investigations, lead State Department investigator assigned to investigate 9/11, https://www.stratfor.com/node/154114, 7/16/15, SM)

We must admit to being among those who do not perceive the threat of bioterrorism to be as significant as that posed by a nuclear strike. To be fair, it must be noted that we also do not see strikes using chemical or radiological weapons rising to the threshold of a true weapon of mass destruction either. The successful destonation of a nuclear weapon in an American city would be far more devastating than any of these other forms of attack.∂ In fact, based on the past history of nonstate actors conducting attacks using biological weapons, we remain skeptical that a nonstate actor could conduct a biological weapons strike capable of creating as many casualties as a large strike using conventional explosives —

77

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSsuch as the October 2002 Bali bombings that resulted in 202 deaths or the March 2004 train bombings in Madrid that killed 191.∂ We do not disagree with Runge's statements that actors such as al Qaeda have demonstrated an interest in biological weapons. There is ample evidence that al Qaeda has a rudimentary biological weapons capability. However, there is a huge chasm of capability that separates intent and a rudimentary bio logical weapons program from a biological weapons program that is capable of killing hundreds of thousands of people.∂ Misconceptions About Biological Weapons∂ There are many misconceptions involving biological weapons. The three most common are that they are easy to obtain, that they are easy to deploy effectively, and that, when used, they always cause massive casualties.∂ While it is certainly true that there are many different types of actors who can easily gain access to rudimentary biological agents, there are far fewer actors who can actually isolate virulent strains of the agents, weaponize them and then effectively employ these agents in a manner that will realistically pose a significant threat of causing mass casualties. While organisms such as anthrax are present in the environment and are not difficult to obtain, more highly virulent strains of these tend to be far more difficult to locate, isolate and replicate. Such efforts require highly skilled individuals and sophisticated laboratory equipment.∂ Even incredibly deadly biological substances such as ricin and botulinum toxin are difficult to use in mass attacks. This difficulty arises when one attempts to take a rudimentary biological substance and then convert it into a weaponized form — a form that is potent enough to be deadly and yet readily dispersed. Even if this weaponization hurdle can be overcome, once developed, the weaponized agent must then be integrated with a weapons system that can effectively take large quantities of the agent and evenly distribute it in lethal doses to the intended targets.∂ During the past several decades in the era of modern terrorism, bio logical weapons have been used very infrequently and with very little success . This fact alone serves to highlight the gap between the biological warfare misconceptions and reality. Militant groups desperately want to kill people and are constantly seeking new innovations that will allow them to kill larger numbers of people. Certainly if biological weapons were as easily obtained, as easily weaponized and as effective at producing mass casualties as commonly portrayed, militant groups would have used them far more frequently than they have.∂ Militant groups are generally adaptive and responsive to failure. If something works, they will use it. If it does not, they will seek more effective means of achieving their deadly goals. A good example of this was the rise and fall of the use of chlorine in militant attacks in Iraq.∂ Anthrax∂ As noted by Runge, the spore-forming bacterium Bacillus anthracis is readily available in nature and can be deadly if inhaled, if ingested or if it comes into contact with a person's skin. What constitutes a deadly dose of inhalation anthrax has not been precisely quantified, but is estimated to be somewhere between 8,000 and 50,000 spores. One gram of weaponized anthrax, such as that contained in the letters mailed to U.S. Sens. Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy in October 2001, can contain up to one trillion spores — enough to cause somewhere between 20 and 100 million deaths. The letters mailed to Daschle and Leahy reportedly contained about one gram each for a total estimated quantity of two grams of anthrax spores: enough to have theoretically killed between 40 and 200 million people. The U.S. Census Bureau estimates that the current population of the United States is 304.7 million. In a worst-case scenario, the letters mailed to Daschle and Leahy theoretically contained enough anthrax spores to kill nearly two-thirds of the U.S. population.∂ Yet, in spite of their incredibly deadly potential, those letters (along with an estimated five other anthrax letters mailed in a prior wave to media outlets such as the New York Post and the major television networks) killed only five people; another 22 victims were infected by the spores but recovered after receiving medical treatment. This difference between the theoretical number of fatal

78

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSvictims — hundreds of millions — and the actual number of victims — five — highlights the challenges in effectively distributing even a highly virulent and weaponized strain of an organism to a large number of potential victims.∂ To summarize: obtaining a biological agent is fairly simple. Isolating a virulent strain and then weaponizing that strain is somewhat more difficult. But the key to biological warfare — effectively distributing a weaponized agent to the intended target — is the really difficult part of the process. Anyone planning a biological attack against a large target such as a city needs to be concerned about a host of factors such as dilution, wind velocity and direction, particle size and weight, the susceptibility of the disease to ultraviolet light, heat, dryness or even rain. Small-scale localized attacks such as the 2001 anthrax letters or the 1984 salmonella attack undertaken by the Bhagwan Shri Rajneesh cult are far easier to commit.∂ It is also important to remember that anthrax is not some sort of untreatable super disease. While anthrax does form hardy spores that can remain inert for a period of time, the disease is not easily transmitted from person to person, and therefore is unlikely to create an epidemic outside of the area targeted by the attack. Anthrax infections can be treated by the use of readily available antibiotics. The spores' incubation period also permits time for early treatment if the attack is noticed.∂ The deadliest known anthrax incident in recent years occurred in 1979 when an accidental release of aerosolized spores from a Soviet biological weapons facility in Sverdlovsk affected some 94 people — reportedly killing 68 of them. This facility was one of dozens of laboratories that were part of the Soviet Union's massive and well-funded biological weapons program, one that employed thousands of the country's brightest scientists. In fact, it was the largest biological weapons program in history.∂ Perhaps the largest attempt by a nonstate actor to cause mass casualties using anthrax was the series of attacks conducted in 1993 by the Japanese cult group Aum Shinrikyo in Tokyo.∂ In the late 1980s, Aum's team of trained scientists spent millions of dollars to develop a series of state-of-the-art biological weapons research and production laboratories. The group experimented with botulinum toxin, anthrax, cholera and Q fever and even tried to acquire the Ebola virus. The group hoped to produce enough biological agent to trigger a global Armageddon. Its first attempts at unleashing mega-death on the world involved the use of botulinum toxin. In April 1990, the group used a fleet of three trucks equipped with aerosol sprayers to release liquid botulinum toxin on targets that included the Imperial Palace, the National Diet of Japan, the U.S. Embassy in Tokyo, two U.S. naval bases and the airport in Narita. In spite of the massive quantities of toxin released, there were no mass casualties, and, in fact, nobody outside of the cult was even aware the attacks had taken place.∂ When the botulinum operations failed to produce results, Aum's scientists went back to the drawing board and retooled their biological weapons facilities to produce anthrax. By mid-1993, they were ready to launch attacks involving anthrax; between June and August of 1993, the group sprayed thousands of gallons of aerosolized liquid anthrax in Tokyo. This time, Aum not only employed its fleet of sprayer trucks but also used aerosol sprayers mounted on the roof of their headquarters to disperse a cloud of aerosolized anthrax over the city. Again, the attacks produced no results and were not even noticed. It was only after the group's successful 1995 subway attacks using sarin nerve agent that a Japanese government investigation discovered that the 1990 and 1993 biological attacks had occurred.∂ Biological Weapons Production∂ Aum Shinrikyo's team of highly trained scientists worked under ideal conditions in a first-world country with a virtually unlimited budget. They were able to travel the world in search of deadly organisms and even received technical advice from former Soviet scientists. The team worked in large, modern laboratory facilities to produce substantial quantities of biological weapons. They were able to operate these facilities inside industrial parks and openly order the large quantities of laboratory

79

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSequipment they required. Yet, in spite of the millions of dollars the group spent on its biological weapons program — and the lack of any meaningful interference from the Japanese government — Aum still experienced problems in creating virulent biological agents and also found it difficult to dispense those agents effectively.∂ Today, al Qaeda finds itself operating in a very different environment than that experienced by Aum Shinrikyo in 1993. At that time, nobody was looking for Aum or its biological and chemical weapons program. By contrast, since the Sept. 11 attacks, the United States and its allies have actively pursued al Qaeda leaders and sought to dismantle and defang the organization. The United States and its allies have focused a considerable amount of resources in tracking and disassembling al Qaeda's chemical and biological warfare efforts. The al Qaeda network has had millions of dollars of its assets seized in a number of countries, and it no longer has the safe haven of Afghanistan from which to operate. The chemical and biological facilities the group established in the 1990s in Afghanistan — such as the Deronta training camp, where cyanide and other toxins were used to kill dogs, and a crude anthrax production facility in Kandahar — have been found and destroyed by U.S. troops.∂ Operating in the badlands along the Pakistani-Afghan border, al Qaeda cannot easily build large modern factories capable of producing large quantities of agents or toxins. Such fixed facilities are expensive and consume a lot of resources. Even if al Qaeda had the spare capacity to invest in such facilities, the fixed nature of them means that they could be compromised and quickly destroyed by the United States.∂ If al Qaeda could somehow create and hide a fixed biological weapons facility in Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas or North-West Frontier Province, it would still face the daunting task of transporting large quantities of biological agents from the Pakistani badlands to targets in the United States or Europe. Al Qaeda operatives certainly can create and transport small quantities of these compounds, but not enough to wreak the kind of massive damage it desires.∂ Al Qaeda's lead chemical and biological weapons expert, Midhat Mursi al-Sayid Umar, also known as Abu Khabab al-Masri, was reportedly killed on July 28, 2008, by a U.S. missile strike on his home in Pakistan. Al-Sayid, who had a $5 million dollar bounty on his head, was initially reported to have been one of those killed in the January 2006 strike in Damadola. If he was indeed killed, his death should be another significant blow to the group's biological warfare efforts.

No risk of bioterrorism—success too unreliable

Keller 13 (Rebecca, 3/7/13, Stratfor Global Intelligence, “Bioterrorism and the Pandemic Potential,” Rebecca is a science and technology analyst @ Stratfor, holds a bachelor’s degree in biochemistry from Washington University, https://www.stratfor.com/weekly/bioterrorism-and-pandemic-potential, 7/16/16, SM)

The use of the pathogen as a biological weapon requires an assessment of whether a non-state actor would have the capabilities to isolate the virulent strain, then weaponize and distribute it. Stratfor has long held the position that while terrorist organizations may have rudimentary capabilities regarding bio logical weapons, the likelihood of a successful attack is very low . ∂ Given that the laboratory version of H5N1 — or any influenza virus, for that matter — is a contagious pathogen, there would be two possible modes that a non-state actor would have to instigate an attack. The virus could be refined and then aerosolized and released into a populated area, or an individual could be infected with the virus and sent to freely circulate within a population.∂ There are severe constraints that make success using either of these methods unlikely. The technology needed to refine and aerosolize a pathogen for a

80

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSbiological attack i s beyond the capability of most non-state actors . Even if they were able to develop a weapon , other factors such as wind patterns and humidity can render an attack ineffective . Using a human carrier is a less expensive method, but it requires that the biological agent be a contagion. Additionally, in order to infect the large number of people necessary to start an outbreak, the infected carrier must be mobile while contagious, something that is doubtful with a serious disease like small pox. The carrier also cannot be visibly ill because that would limit the necessary human contact.

81

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSCyberterror

No cyberterrorism impact—threats exaggerated

Quigley, Burns, and Stallard 15

(Kevin, Calvin, Kristen, 3/26/15, Government Information Quarterly, “‘Cyber Gurus’: A rhetorical analysis of the language of cybersecurity specialists and the implications for security policy and critical infrastructure protection,” http://cryptome.org/2015/05/cyber-gurus.pdf, 7/16/16, SM)

While these are four prevalent types of cybersecurity issues, there is∂ evidence to suggest that the threat is exaggerated and oversimplified for∂ some. Many note the lack of empirical evidence to support the widespread∂ fear of cyber-terror ism and cyber-warfare, for instance∂ (Cavelty, 2007; Hansen & Nissenbaum, 2009; Lewis, 2003; Rid, 2013;∂ Stohl, 2007).∂ According to Stohl (2007), there is little vulnerability in critical infrastructure ∂ that could lead to violence or fatalities . Secondly, there are few ∂ actors who would be interested in or capable of exploiting such vulnerabilities .∂ Thirdly, and in relation to cyber-terrorism in particular, the∂ expenses necessary to carry out cyber-attacks are greater than traditional∂ forms of terrorism , limiting the utility of cyber-attacks compared∂ to other available measures (Stohl, 2007). Instead, technology is most∂ often used by terrorists to provide information, solicit financial support,∂ network with like-minded terrorists, recruit, and gather information; in other words, “terrorist groups are simply exploiting modern tools to∂ accomplish the same goals they sought in the past” (Stohl, 2007, p. 230).

No cyberterrorism—technological complexity, not enough fear created

Covert 15

(Edwin, 1/13/15, InfoSec Institute, “Cyber Terrorism: Complexities and Consequences,” Edwin is a cybersecurity professional and works for Booz Allen Hamilton, http://resources.infosecinstitute.com/cyber-terrorism-complexities-consequences/, 7/17/15, SM)

While a terrorist using the Internet to bring down the critical infrastructures the United States relies on makes an outstanding Hollywood plot, there are flaws in the execution of this storyline as an actual terrorist strategy. Conway (2011) calls out three limitations on using cyber-related activities for terrorists: Technological complexity, image, and accident (Against Cyberterrorism, 2011, p. 27).∂ Each is important to consider. While critical infrastructures may make a tempting target and threat actor capabilities are certainly increasing (Nyugan, 2013), it is a complicated process to attack something of that magnitude . It is precisely the interconnectedness of these two disparate parts that make them a target, however.∂ Nyugan (2013) calls them cyber-physical systems (CPS): “A physical system monitored or controlled by computers. Such systems include, for example, electrical grids, antilock brake systems, or a network of nuclear centrifuges” (p. 1084).∂ In Verton’s (2003) imaginary narrative, the target of the Russian hackers, the SCADA system, is a CPS. However, Lewis (2002) argues the relationship between vulnerabilities in critical infrastructures (such as MAE-East) and computer network attacks is not a clear cut as first thought (p. 1). It is not simply a matter of having a computer attached to a SCADA system and thus the system is can now be turned off and society goes in a free fall of panic and explosions and mass chaos.∂ The first idea Conway (2011) posits reduces to the notion that information technology is difficult

82

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSin most cases. There are reasons it takes veritable armies of engineers and analysts to make these complex systems interact and function as intended. However, there are a limited number of terrorists with the necessary computer skills to conduct a successful attack (pp. 27-28).∂ Immediately the argument turns to hiring external assistance from actual computer hackers (as most journalists and Hollywood scriptwriters do). Conway (2011) dismisses that idea, correctly, as a significant compromise of operational security (p. 28).∂ The US Department of Defense as defines operational security, or OPSEC:∂ A process of identifying critical information and analyzing friendly actions attendant to military operations and other activities to: identify those actions that can be observed by adversary intelligence systems; determine indicators and vulnerabilities that adversary intelligence systems might obtain that could be interpreted or pieced together to derive critical information in time to be useful to adversaries, and determine which of these represent an unacceptable risk; then select and execute countermeasures that eliminate the risk to friendly actions and operations or reduce it to an acceptable level (US Department of Defense, 2012).∂ In the context of this paper, letting outside profit-motivated technicians into the planning and execution phase of a terrorist plot would be risky for conservative-minded individuals such a religious terrorists (Hoffman, 2006). As the number of people who are aware of a plot increases, the potential number of people who can leak operational details of the plot increases exponentially.∂ It is for this reason Verton’s (2003) scenario is most improbable.∂ The second concern Conway (2011) notes is one of audience. Recalling the definition of terrorist put forth by Hoffman (2006), terrorists need to generate publicity to achieve their goals : they need to create a climate of fear through violence or the threat of violence. Simply attacking something and having no one notice it is not an operational success for a terrorist . Terrorists need to have their grievances known (Nacos, 2000, p. 176).∂ The terrorist act needs to be witnessed, such as the planes crashing into the World Trade Center or the hostage taking in Munich. in order to generate the necessary level of discourse to affect the goals the terrorist has in mind. Unfortunately, injecting code into a DNS server or shutting down Amazon .com does not generate the required intensity of chaos modern terrorists require (Conway, Against Cyberterrorism, 2011, p. 28).∂ This leads to Conway’s (2011) third point: the accident. The United States relies heavily on computer and information systems. However, if a system goes offline in today’s world, users are just as likely to suspect a system failure or accident as anything else is (p. 28).

No cyberterrorism threat—easy to prevent, they’re using the Internet only for promotional purposes

Cluley 14

(Graham, 10/20/14, The State of Security, “GCHQ Spokesperson Says Cyber Terrorism Is ‘Not a Concern’,” former employee of Sophos, McAfee, Dr. Solomon’s, inducted into the InfoSecurity Europe Hall of Fame, http://www.tripwire.com/state-of-security/security-data-protection/gchq-spokesperson-says-cyber-terrorism-is-not-a-concern/, 7/17/15, SM)

Yes, a terrorist could launch a denial-of-service attack, or write a piece of malware, or hack into a sensitive system, just as easily as the next (non-terrorist), but there is no reason to believe that an attack launched by a terrorist living in his secret HQ in the mountain caves of Afghanistan would be any harder to stop than the hundreds of thousands of other attacks launched each day . ∂ That’s not to say that launching an Internet attack wouldn’t have attractive aspects for those behind a terror campaign. Put

83

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSbluntly, it’s a heck lot easier (and less physically dangerous) to write a Trojan horse to infect a computer on the other side of the world, than to drive a lorry loaded up with Semtex outside a government building’s front door.∂ Furthermore, terrorists are often interested in making headlines, to focus the world’s attention on what they believe to be their plight. If innocent people die during a terrorist action that certainly does help you make the newspapers, but it’s very bad for public relations, and is going to make it a lot harder to convince others to sympathise with your campaign.∂ The good news about pretty much all Internet attacks, of course, is that they don’t involve the loss of life. Any damage done is unlikely to leave individuals maimed or bleeding, but can still bloody the nose of a government that should have been better protected or potentially disrupt economies.∂ But still, such terrorist-initiated Internet attacks should be no harder to protect against than the financially-motivated and hacktivist attacks that organisations defend themselves against every day. ∂ So, when a journalist asks me if I think cyber terrorism is a big concern, I tend to shrug and say “Not that much” and ask them to consider why Al Qaeda, for instance, never bothered to launch a serious Internet attack in the 13 years since September 11.∂ After all, if it is something for us all to fear – why wouldn’t they have done it already?∂ So, I was pleased to have my views supported last week – from a perhaps surprising source.∂ GCHQ, the UK intelligence agency which has become no stranger to controversy following the revelations of NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, appears to agree that cyber terrorism is not a concern. Or at least that’s what they’re saying behind closed doors, according to SC Magazine.∂ Part of SC Magazine story on cyber terrorism∂ The report quoted an unnamed GCHQ spokesperson at a CSARN (City Security And Resilience Networks) forum held last week in London, debunking the threat posed by cyber terrorists:∂ “Quite frankly we don’t see cyber terrorism. It hasn’t occurred…but we have to guard against it. For those of you thinking about strategic threats, terrorism is not [a concern] at this point in time,” although he added that the agency was ‘very concerned’ on a possible attack at the time of the 2012 London Olympics.∂ ∂ He said that while it is clear that terrorism groups – such as ISIS and Al-Qaeda – are technically-adept, there’s been no sign of them venturing to cyber beyond promotional purposes .∂ ∂ “For some reason, there doesn’t seem intent to use destructive cyber capability. It’s clearly a theoretical threat. We’ve not seen – and we were very worried around London Olympics – but we’ve never seen it. We’ll continue to keep an eye on it.”∂ In a time when the potential threat posed by terrorism is often used as an excuse for covert surveillance by intelligence agencies, such as GCHQ, and the UK government raising the “threat level” to “Severe” at the end of August due to conflict in Iraq and Syria, one has to wonder if the spokesperson quoted was speaking entirely “on-message.”

84


Trafficking/Border

85

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSDrugs

1. CBP fails and was sued for their inefficiencies to solve immigration and drug problemsFeliz 15 (Wendy Feliz is the Director of Communications at the American Immigration Council. Prior to joining the Council, Ms. Feliz served as Director of Development at New America Media, after having worked at the Open Society Institute, and public radio station WAMU 88.5 as the Manager of Foundation Relations and Public Information, March 16, http://immigrationimpact.com/2015/03/16/challenging-cbps-failure-to-respond-to-foia-requests/, //rck)

A class action lawsuit was recently filed by three immigration attorneys and eleven noncitizens challenging U.S. Customs and

Border Protection’s (CBP) nationwide practice of failing to respond to requests for case information under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in a timely manner. Brown et al. v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection alleges that routine and excessive delays are unjustified from CBP, the agency with the largest budget within the Department of Homeland Security. FOIA gives an individual the right to access information

that the federal government possesses about him or her within 20 business days of making the request. CBP routinely fails to provide requested documents within 20 days, but instead takes months—and in many cases more than a year—to provide

documents. The result is plaintiffs and others like them are forced to delay filing applications for lawful permanent residence and other types of immigration benefits—including benefits which would provide relief from removal proceedings—while they wait for necessary documents from their own case files. The lawsuit—filed by the Law Offices of Stacy Tolchin, Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild, and the American Immigration Council on Friday, March 13, in federal court in San Francisco

—seeks to remedy CBP’s system-wide failures in its management of FOIA requests. The Center for Effective Government also recently noted this troubling trend at CBP. In their just-released second annual analysis of 15 agencies who receive the highest number of FOIA requests they found “The Department of Homeland Security, which encompasses CBP, was among three government entities that received a D-plus.”

Part of the reason for the low score was “the agency closed only 37 percent of simple requests within the required 20 days. It also had the third-largest request backlog and the second-lowest rate of fully-granted requests.”

2. Turn – the war on drugs has been a miserable failure. Removing Border Patrol from the Tohono land could only lessen the negative effects of the war on drugs like excessive spending, increased drug abuse, prison overcrowding, etc.AP 10 (Associated Press. "War on Drugs Unsuccessful, Drug Czar Says." CBSNews. CBS Interactive, 13 May 2010. Web. 18 July 2015. <http://www.cbsnews.com/news/war-on-drugs-unsuccessful-drug-czar-says/>.)TB

"This nation faces a major crisis in terms of the increasing use of drugs, particularly among our young people," Mr. Nixon said as he signed the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act. The following year, he said: "Public enemy No. 1 in the United States is drug abuse . In order to fight and defeat this enemy, it is necessary to wage a new, all-out offensive." His first drug-fighting budget was $100 million. Now it's $15.1 billion , 31 times Mr. Nixon's amount even when adjusted for inflation . Using Freedom of Information Act requests, archival records, federal budgets and dozens of interviews with leaders and analysts, the AP tracked where that money went, and found that the U nited S tates repeatedly increased budgets for programs that did little to stop the flow of drugs . In 40 years, taxpayers spent more than: • $20 billion to fight the drug gangs in their home countries. In Colombia, for example, the United States spent more than $6 billion, while coca cultivation increased and trafficking moved to Mexico - and the violence along with it. • $33 billion in marketing "Just Say No"-style messages to America's youth and other prevention programs. High school students report the same rates of illegal drug use as they did in 1970, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says drug overdoses have "risen steadily" since the early 1970s to more than 20,000 last year. • $49 billion for law

86

http://www.cdc.gov/

http://immigrationimpact.com/2015/03/16/challenging-cbps-failure-to-respond-to-foia-requests/

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSenforcement along America's borders to cut off the flow of illegal drugs. This year, 25 million Americans will snort, swallow, inject and smoke illicit drugs, about 10 million more than in 1970, with the bulk of those drugs imported from Mexico. • $121 billion to arrest more than 37 million nonviolent drug offenders, about 10 million of them for possession of marijuana. Studies show that jail time tends to increase drug abuse. • $450 billion to lock those people up in federal prisons alone. Last year, half of all federal prisoners in the U.S. were serving sentences for drug offenses. At the same time, drug abuse is costing the nation in other ways. The Justice Department estimates the consequences of drug abuse - " an overburdened justice system , a strained health care system, lost productivity, and environmental destruction" - cost the U nited S tates $215 billion a year . Harvard University economist Jeffrey Miron says the only sure thing taxpayers get for more spending on police and soldiers is more homicides. "Current policy is not having an effect of reducing drug use," Miron said, "but it's costing the public a fortune."

3. short ev indicates loss of culture should be prioritized over loss of life. Culture is a social fabric that allows the dead to be kept alive. Without culture all impx are terminally NUq. Means case definitely o/w the da4. katz ev indicates border patrol’s discriminatory practices dehumanize and cause every form of evil – means case o/w5. NUq – a lot of weed already goes through Tohono land.Mizzi, 14 (Shannon. "A Forgotten Front in the Drug & Border Fights: Tribal Reservations." By Shannon Mizzi. 26 Sept. 2014. Web. 27 July 2015.)TB

The Tohono O’odham reservation consists largely of mountains and desert — inhospitable terrain that is difficult to patrol, much to the delight of drug smugglers. Though the reservation’s size accounts for less than four percent of the total length of U.S.-Mexico border, between five and 10 percent of all marijuana produced in Mexico is transported through Tohono O’odham territory , according to Revels & Cummings. The U.S . government has designated the reservation as a “ High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area,” with the amount of narcotics seized on the territory drastically increasing over the last 15 years . In 2008, roughly 201,000 pounds of marijuana was seized on the res; in 2009, marijuana seizures rose to 319,000 pounds.

6. Logically the border patrol would form a border around the northern end of the Tohono territory. Cartels wouldn’t see any more financial opportunity if they couldn’t enter the US.7. Prioritize structural violence in your impact calculus: it’s the only thing that certainly exists and that we can certainly change. The fact that the USFG sanctions the destruction of the Tohono is the biggest impact in the debateTaylor, ‘09 (Janelle S. , Prof. of Anthropology, Univ. of Washington, http://depts.washing...er/taylor.shtml, Explaining Difference: Culture, Structural Violence, and Medical Anthropology)TBStructure sounds like a neutral term “ it sounds like something that is just there, unquestionable, part of the way the world is. By juxtaposing this with the word violence, however, Farmers concept of structural

87

http://www.justice.gov/dea/ops/hidta.shtml


Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSviolence forces our attention to the forms of suffering and injustice that are deeply embedded in the ordinary , taken-for-granted patterns of the way the world is. From this follow some important and very challenging insights. First, the same structures that render life predictable, secure, comfortable and pleasant for some of us, also mar the lives of others through poverty, insecurity, ill-health and violence . Second, these structures are neither natural nor neutral, but are instead the outcome of long histories of political, economic, and social struggle . Third, being nothing more (and nothing less!) than patterns of collective social action, these structures can and should be changed. Structural violence thus encourages us to look for differences within large-scale social structures “ differences of power, wealth, privilege and health that are unjust and unacceptable. By the same token, structural violence encourages us to look for connections between what might be falsely perceived separate and distinct social worlds. Structural violence also encourages an attitude of moral outrage and critical engagement , in situations where the automatic response might be to passive ly accept systematic inequalities.

88


CPs

89

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSCards for all CPS

No other solutions, only a full rejection solves the impacts of the 1ACRedwood Curtain Copwatch no date (based in the north coast of California, is part of a larger movement of self organized CopWatch groups throughout the US. Our local efforts seek to intervene in the drastic rise of the presence, militarization, and violence of the police, and build support networks based on self-determination, caring, and concrete needs, Author is a Tohono Activist that wishes to remain anonymous, “This Is O'odham Land: No Borders! Free Movement! Indigenous/Migrant Solidarity!,” http://redwoodcurtaincopwatch.net/node/446) CH

DHS's push to militarized our lands , and tribal government's cooperation in doing so not just shows how tribal sovereignty in the border region does not really exist , but shows how the voice and concerns of the O'odham people have been disregarded by both federally backed institutions . Regardless of how you see the immigration issue, the O'odham are stuck in policies that have been created not by them, but by the bigger ever-existing colonial system where borders are established to maintain capital flow. The U.S.'s objectives in its war with Mexico and James Gadsden purchase in the 1800's are no different to what the U.S. Border policies is today, to ensure capital at expense of indigenous displacement. If people were informed about the history of the border, and why it was established, it

would then put today's struggle in perspective. The O'odham people are now in the shadows of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which leads to the bigger struggle of globalization. I feel, the basic principals of these policies and the history of its oppression to the many other indigenous nations worldwide , must be told to show the colonial nature that each embodies. The O'odham people must be informed of “why” migrants cross and “why” O'odham land is now a corridor for migration and drug smuggling . If TON took a broader

approach with the immigration issue, it would not be a issue of migration, but a issue of globalization. TON is in a unique position to publicly critique these issue, but decides not to due to the colonial framework of tribal nations and the United States (ward/guardian relationship). The Defenders of Wildlife v. Chertoff case reflects the importance that the U.S. holds in their global economic agenda of

globalization by justifying the Border Walls in their courts, and the expense of the displacement of all people. It shows that justice in our lands will not come from the courts because they represent the colonial power. The same arguments that the courts offered in the Marshall Trilogy that stated they have no choice to rule the way they did because the policies of the United States mandated them to do so, is just as alive today . National Security is the guise today. But for the O'odham, it has ushered in a apartheid-like tribal nation, where tribal government operates in a confined colonial system which offers only colonial solutions to the many migrants who journey to this country for surviva l. In conclusion, I felt the need to provide the history of the O'odham and the Border was important because it shows the continuation of colonization and puts the struggle in perspective for people who are unaware of the O'odham. In my travels, as a Tohono O'odham, I find myself meeting many who have no idea of our connection to our traditional land. This connection has long been under attacked since the days of the Spanish, and the United States endorsement of globalization policies is now attacking our O'odham Him'dag. The need to understand the Defenders of Wildlife v. Chertoff case is

important because it shows the politics of the colonial rule. Politics that put the O'odham voice behind their security and capital. Militarization now is the state of my lands, and judicial system is not the answer. I wrote this to educate my fellow O'odham, and those who stand in solidarity with us, so we can construct ideas thats may, or may not work in their system. Hopefully, this understanding of the issue will lead to a bigger debate. Not just the same colonial one that is offered by them.

90



289 1. Papers don’t solve because infringement still occurs.Leza 9 (Christina, Approved Dissertation for doctor of philosophy, Anthropology,5/29/09, DIVIDED NATIONS: POLICY, ACTIVISM AND INDIGENOUS IDENTITY ON THE U.S.-MEXICO BORDER, Arizona University, Accessed 7/16/15, http://arizona.openrepository.com/arizona/bitstream/10150/193815/1/azu_etd_10782_sip1_m.pdf) CH

Joseph Joaquin, an O’odham elder and Tohono O’odham Nation cultural resources specialist, states, “We were brought into this world for a purpose, to be the caretakers of this land.” Due to present border enforcement policies and procedures, however, “ancestors' graves are unvisited; relatives go years without seeing family; and fiestas, wakes, and ceremonial offerings go unattended . Elders, hampered from crossing for a number of reasons, fail to share traditional stories, and to pass on knowledge about the past, about plants and animals, and about caring for their desert home…” (Arietta 2004). Current border enforcement, therefore, severely disrupts the Tohono O’odham’s ability to fulfill their purpose and sustain the vitality of their community . Eileen Luna-Firebaugh (2005) argues that because border enforcement inhibits the right of O’odham people to move freely on Tohono O’odham traditional lands, “enhanced and restrictive border crossing procedures are an assault on indigenous sovereignty” and violate native religious freedoms guaranteed under federal Indian law. 26 and advocated through international human rights law. Many O’odham make an annual pilgrimage to Magdalena de Kino in Sonora to honor St. Francis Xavier, an indigenous Catholic pilgrimage also carried out by the Yaqui. O’odham have also traditionally traveled to Baboquivari, the sacred mountain on O’odham lands north of the U.S.-Mexico border where I’toi, the O’odham Creator, resides. Such visits are now impossible for Mexican O’odham who lack travel documentation required by U.S. officials to cross the border into Arizona. Any movement through the desert is also difficult for O’odham in the U.S. who are often approached by Border Patrol to prove their identities as U.S. citizens. Traditional medicine men on both sides of the border lacking required travel documents are limited in their ability to attend healing ceremonies (Norrell 2009). Even when O’odham medicine men do hold the appropriate paperwork, they must give over their medicinal bundles to Border Patrol for search , disrupting the healing ceremony, according to one Tohono O’odham traditional medicine man voicing his concerns at an Alianza meeting earlier this year. According to Tohono O’odham activist Mike Flores, O’odham ceremonies that require movement across the U.S.-Mexico border, like the O’odham deer hunting and salt gathering ceremonies, are constantly disrupted by border official questioning and detention. As Flores states, “To be detained for eight hours disrupts the whole ceremony.” Two members of the Baboquivari Defense Project, and 26 In reference to the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978. affiliated members of the Alianza Indígena, have also observed and spoken against Border Patrol presence in and damage to sacred areas of Baboquivari Peak.

91



Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWS2. Perm, remove all border patrol and extend section 289 to the natives3. Extend LEZA 9, multiple internal links. More then just crossing the border also the destruction of artifacts, which the cp can never solve, only a full removal can actually do anything. 4. Cant solve for the physical violence visited by the tohono, also is a form of physcological violence described by RIVAS 95. Their card says that the tribes condition severely decreased after extending 289Expansion of the liberal “aboriginal right” concept to free movement is demonstrated by Congress’ treatment of the Texas Band of Kickapoo Indians; this group was divided by the U.S.-Mexican border, creating essentially a rightless, landless tribe.173 Although granted a year-to-year parole status by Congress in the 1950s,174 living conditions of the tribe decreased so dramatically that Congress ultimately intervened to offer health and educational assistance in conjunction with the Mexican government.1756. Let me quote the 1ac rivas evWe are requ ired to carry docum ent to travel on our lands . The di ssecting of O’odham la nds also caused segregation and discrim i nation against the

Ofelia Rivas is a Tohono tribe member, this means they solve 0% of the cae, so weigh the case vs the net benefit

92


Consult the Natives NOTES: Cross X, ask who is consulted, make them say the tribal government

1. Consult Counterplans are illegitimate and a voting issue:A) Infinitely regressive: they could consult anyone—making the AFF burden impossible.B) Moving target: the effect of the counterplan changes with the answer the tribes give—making this undebatable.2. The tribe’s decision would be meaningless – they’re not given time to decideRuscavage-Barz, 7 (Samantha, Samantha M. Ruscavage-Barz is a J.D. candidate at the University of New Mexico School of Law graduating in May 2008. Dr. Ruscavage-Barz has a Ph.D. in Anthropology (Archaeology specialization) and worked as an archaeologist for federal and state government, and also in the private sector, before entering law school. http://lawschool.unm.edu/nrj/volumes/47/4/08_ruscavage_barz_efficacy.pdf. The Efficacy of State Law in Protecting Native American Sacred Places: A Case Study of the Paseo Del Norte Extension, Natural Resources Journal. Fall 2007, Acessed 26 July 2015)TB

The City made its final appearance at the December 2005 CPRC meeting to present a progress report on its consultations with the Jicarilla Apache Nation , whose representatives also attended the meeting and provided comments on the mixed results of the tribal consultation process. A tribal representative voiced her concern with the December 21 deadline for completion of consultation, which the Tribe believed rendered consultations "'meaningless'" because it left little to no time to consider alternatives to relocating the petroglyphs and the City was unwilling to compromise with respect to modifying the extension alignment. n113

3. Perm do the aff and consult the natives. Our ev indicates that the natives want the plan, so functionally the perm is the same as the CP4. Consultation will fail – tribes like the Tohono lack resources to send a representative to advocate for them. Even if consultation succeeds, it will be conducted in a non-native way, turns the CP.USCCR, 4 (U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. September, 2004. Broken Promises: Evaluating the Native American Health Care System, http://www.fofweb.com/History/MainPrintPage.asp?iPin=ind6648&DataType=Indian&WinType=Free.)TB

While the tribal consultation policy calls for effective and meaningful participation of tribes and individual Native Americans, the policy lacks a measure to assess the effectiveness and meaningfulness of the tribal consultation and participation. Tribes vary in size, resources , health needs, and expertise in health policies. While larger tribes with more resources hire representatives and experts to study the impact of IHS policy on their tribes and to best present their views, some of the small tribes lack the

93

http://www.fofweb.com/History/MainPrintPage.asp?iPin=ind6648&DataType=Indian&WinType=Free

http://www.fofweb.com/History/MainPrintPage.asp?iPin=ind6648&DataType=Indian&WinType=Free

http://lawschool.unm.edu/nrj/volumes/47/4/08_ruscavage_barz_efficacy.pdf

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSresources and expertise necessary to re present their issues and concerns . [236] One tribal representative stated that while IHS frequently "invites" tribes to consultative meetings and sessions, unless travel is fully funded, many small tribes and some large ones cannot afford to send representatives . [237] A nother tribal representative expressed the frustration that tribal consultation is often "one-sided" and structured in a "non-Native" way, without respect to the Native culture. [238] According to one tribal representative, the sheer number of tribes nationally can create logistical difficulty in tribal consultation. [239] Another tribal representative added that while IHS is better at considering tribal views than other federal agencies, IHS tribal consultation does not equate to responsiveness. [240] He stated that because of distance and revenue, small tribes have a disadvantage when it comes to consultation.

5. Solvency deficit – If natives say no, they solve a very small percentage of the aff – physical violence will still exist AND Tohono still won’t be able to access their cultural sites.6. Perm do the aff then the CP – the USFG does NOT belong on native lands – that is undebateable. The most important this is that we leave the places we don’t belong. If the Tohono want us back, that’s up to them.Umich, no date (University of Michigan. “Claiming Native American Land.” A Unit of the Arts of Citizenship Program at Umich. No date. http://www.umich.edu/~bhlumrec/programs_centers/artsofcitizenshipprogram/www.artsofcitizenship.umich.edu/sos/topics/native/claiming.html)//TB

Perhaps nothing illustrates the sentiments in Will E. Hampton's Poem, The Indian more effectively than the long history of how Native Americans lost their land . Before the arrival of Columbus to the American continent, Native Americans roamed freely across not only all of Michigan, but the rest of the United States as well. But from the moment Americans first ventured into Michigan the U. S. government endeavored to obtain native land . As early as 1807, when the first treaty was signed, the government began forcing native chiefs to sign treaties that ceded parts of their land for white settlement . This process lasted well into the twentieth century, and Native American land claims across the country, including some in Michigan, have still not been settled. One of the most significant events in the early history of land relations was the War of 1812. When the War of 1812 ended in 1815, tribal chiefs were forced to sign treaties with the U. S. government giving up significant amounts of land . These treaties promised to return those parts of Native American land that had been seized during the war. However, America broke this treaty, and no land was ever returned.

7. Tradeoff DA – consultation gets bogged down in legal semantics, killing indigenous activism.Rodríguez-Garavito, 10 (César. "Ethnicity.gov: Global Governance, Indigenous Peoples, and the Right to Prior Consultation in Social Minefields." Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 18.1 (2011): 263-305. Web. 1 Aug. 2015. <http://burawoy.berkeley.edu/Public%20Sociology,%20Live/Rodriguez.Global%20Governance.pdf>.)

94

http://www.umich.edu/~bhlumrec/programs_centers/artsofcitizenshipprogram/www.artsofcitizenship.umich.edu/sos/topics/images/hampton.gif

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSThereafter, the phrase repeated in the presentation is “prior consultation.” Its effect is magnified because it is one of the few Spanish terms—along with others, such as Corte Constitucional (Constitutional Court), sentencia (ruling), and gobierno (government)—that sprinkle the remarks of participants who only speak Embera. At this point, it is clear that the talk has turned into a legal memo randum . The speaker, a leader who has braved death sentences from the paramilitaries and the guerillas for nearly a decade to defend his people, stumbles uncertainly into the terrain of legal procedure : how to prove the dam has caused harm to Embera communities; which court to bring a new case before in order to suspend the government and the company’s plans to enlarge the dam; what is the status of the last legal action presented by the nongovernmental organization (NGO) that represents them; who is the indigenous people’s legal representative in the approaching prior consultation procedure; how to make use during these ensuing procedures of the Constitutional Court’s judgment6 and the report by the ILO committee, 7which both condemned the Colombian government for authorizing the construction of the Urrá dam without consulting the Embera. These legal artifacts —the succession of procedural deadlines, the architecture of laws and decisions, the affirmation of equality between parties to a case—are precisely what generate the illusion of order , and in turn, make us forget for a moment that we are in the heart of the chaos . Thereafter, we get stuck in a long discussion about prior consultation’s technicalities, as if death squads were not patrolling just a few kilometers away , as if the territory were not littered with landmines, as if all of the few families in attendance did not have some member who had been assassinated or forcibly displaced, as if we had not crossed paths along the river with speedboats that were driven by fully armed soldiers, who play cat and mouse with the settlers that transport coca downriver.

8. Consultation doesn’t solve the net benefit – limited leverage makes it impossible for indigenous people to preserve their culture.Rodríguez-Garavito, 10 (César. "Ethnicity.gov: Global Governance, Indigenous Peoples, and the Right to Prior Consultation in Social Minefields." Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 18.1 (2011): 263-305. Web. 1 Aug. 2015. <http://burawoy.berkeley.edu/Public%20Sociology,%20Live/Rodriguez.Global%20Governance.pdf>.)

In the absence of strict procedural standards and effective monitoring mechanisms and sanctions, the version of FPIC endorsed in multilateral bank directives and

TNC codes of conduct embodies the two principal limitations of the governance paradigm mentioned earlier. On the one hand, the lack of procedural guarantees to mitigate the profound power asymmetries among indigenous communities , corporations, and states render consultation a form of participation in which indigenous peoples have limited negotiating leverage and even more limited decision-making power . On the other hand, the absence of effective and functional monitoring and sanctioning mechanisms is reminiscent of the preference for self-regulation inherent in governance’s approach, which accounts for the ineffectiveness of operational policies and voluntary standards recognizing the duty to consult indigenous peoples. Similar limitations are apparent in the version of consultation incorporated into

legislation in the majority of states that have ratified Convention 169.87 As a result, this dominant version of FPIC and this interpretation of

Convention 169 are central pieces of what Hale calls “neoliberal multiculturalism,” which is the legal regime that recognizes cultural rights, but denies, de facto or de jure, “the assertion of control over resources necessary for those rights to be realized.”88 It is the type of multiculturalism and consultation that is today prevalent even in those Latin American

countries that have joined the wave of multicultural constitutionalism and ethno-development, without addressing the structural causes of indigenous peoples’ exclusion or establishing forms of participation with decision-making power .89

95

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWS9. The aff solves any future disadvantages of state interevention on Tohono territory, o/w the net benefit.10. No net benefit – the Tohono HAVE been consulted, just not by the USFG. Their ev gives no reason why USFG consultation is key. The 1ac cites Tohono and they overwhelmingly support the plan.11. The CP delays the inevitable “yes” vote to remove the border patrol from the land. This is used by the state as a colonial tool. The consultation only serves to push back the ceasing of border surveillance until the issue is out of people’s minds – turns the net benefit12. Consulting Tohono Tribal Government is a terrible idea, it has historically not represented what the tribe wants as a whole.Redwood Curtain Copwatch no date (based in the north coast of California, is part of a larger movement of self organized CopWatch groups throughout the US. Our local efforts seek to intervene in the drastic rise of the presence, militarization, and violence of the police, and build support networks based on self-determination, caring, and concrete needs, Author is a Tohono Activist that wishes to remain anonymous, “This Is O'odham Land: No Borders! Free Movement! Indigenous/Migrant Solidarity!,” http://redwoodcurtaincopwatch.net/node/446) CH

Congress mandated that Border Patrol secure the borders and enabled their jurisdiction to override local, state and tribal jurisdiction. Agents would now patrol the sovereign nation of Tohono O'odham, with or without the permission from the Tohono O'odham Nation tribal government (TON). I like to note, TON is the BIA recognized governing body of the Tohono O'odham people , that was established by the Indian Recognition Act of 1934 (IRA). Since its conception, the legitimacy of this body has been called into question by the the traditional people of the community. Many Traditional O'odham and parts of the community feel that TON decisions do not speak for the community as a whole. Congresses border mandates would now reflect such disconnect with TON and “its” members. TON lack of effort to enforce sovereignty, or realization that they don't really have any sovereign rights under IRA would would soon come to light with the O'odham peoples struggle to maintain autonomy in its everyday affairs. The split between TON and the traditional O'odham is not new, but would sadly play out in the struggles to come. True sovereignty over Tohono O'odham lands would not allow the many negative policies to come. But regardless of sovereignty, or lack of it, Congresses approvals of evaluated enforcement greatly attacked the Tohono O'odham people's autonomy of free movement and right to culture. Indigenous people along the border were feeling the effects of Congress's Plenary Power to impose its jurisdiction over their BIA tribal nation government and their inherit autonomy of as indigenous people

96



TOPD surveillance 1. Their Singleton ev says that the government needs to provide “public recognition and support” for the Tohono. The CP does this in no way shape or form, means the Multiculturalism DA is moot.2. Nowhere in the Singleton ev does it specify the Tohono as specifically k2 solve for all native culture.3. The CP makes no sense – it can’t be “its” as in the USFG’s surveillance if it is under the control of the Tohono. Means PDB solves the entirety of the aff and the net benefits – curtail federal government surveillance and ramp up the Tohono Tribal Police surveillance of the border4. Solvency deficit – doesn’t solve sovereignty at all. If the Tohono are still going to be restricted from crossing the border, it doesn’t matter if it’s by the border patrol or by the Tohono Tribal Police – they still can’t access their culture5. Immigration DA is NUqA. Border porous now B. Border Patrol catches less than half of crossers York, 13 (Byron. Byron York is an American columnist for the Washington Examiner, Fox News contributor, and author who lives in Washington, D.C. "What Is the Real Number of Illegal Border Crossings?" Human Events. 29 May 2013. Web. 26 July 2015. <http://humanevents.com/2013/05/29/what-is-the-real-number-of-illegal-border-crossings/)TB

No, they can’t. To find some of the answers that Homeland Security won’t provide, the authors looked to other data — interviews with people who have tried to cross the border illegally; analysis of people who have been caught attempting to cross multiple times; and what is called “known flow,” that is, the actual observations by the Border Patrol of people trying to cross into the United States. Putting together all the evidence, what they found is that U.S. authorities are catch ing somewhere between 40 percent and 55 percent of the people who try to cross the border illegally . That’s more than in the past, when the Border Patrol had less manpower, but it’s still just somewhere around half, or even less.

C. Trafficking NUq – a lot of weed already goes through Tohono land.Mizzi, 14 (Shannon. "A Forgotten Front in the Drug & Border Fights: Tribal Reservations." By Shannon Mizzi. 26 Sept. 2014. Web. 27 July 2015.)TB

The Tohono O’odham reservation consists largely of mountains and desert — inhospitable terrain that is difficult to patrol, much to the delight of drug smugglers. Though the reservation’s size accounts for less than four percent of the total length of U.S.-Mexico border, between five and 10 percent of all marijuana produced in Mexico is transported through Tohono O’odham territory , according to Revels & Cummings. The U.S . government has designated the reservation as a “ High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area,” with the amount of narcotics seized on the territory drastically increasing over the last 15 years .

97



Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSIn 2008, roughly 201,000 pounds of marijuana was seized on the res; in 2009, marijuana seizures rose to 319,000 pounds.

6. Immigration impact NUqA. short ev indicates loss of culture should be prioritized over loss of life. Culture is a social fabric that allows the dead to be kept alive. Without culture all impx are terminally NUq. Means case definitely o/w the daB. katz ev indicates border patrol’s discriminatory practices dehumanize and cause every form of evil – means case o/w7. Immigration DA turn – the USFG uses the excuse of terrorism to oppress native populations and force nationalism against us.


Imperialism – lately this word has been re-entering debate and speech around the country. For the most part, these days, the word imperialism is being used to describe the actions of the United States government as it seeks to gain control over Middle Eastern governments and economies. The continuing occupation of Iraq by the United States is the best example of this neo-imperialism. But imperialism is not limited to lands across the oceans, and the United States government is currently engaged in the occupation of lands much closer to home. We must never forget that the very lands claimed by the government of the United States in North America are claimed by nothing other than the right of conquest. The U nited S tates government is a government of occupation here in North America and the lands that it continues to claim and occupy are in spirit still the autonomous territories of the indigenous tribes that existed here before the first European colonists stepped foot on the continent . Since 9/11 the United States government has ratcheted up its attacks against the indigenous residents of the United States. In southern Arizona, these attacks have come in the guise of border land defense . The traditional O’odham residents of southern Arizona have become the victims of a joint program carried out by the Department of Homeland Security and the Border Patrol to build a border wall across the entire 330 mile U.S / Mexico border, a 65 mile section of which will run along the southern edge of the Tohono O’odham reservation. This wall, if it is allowed to be built, will effectively cut in half the traditional territory of the O’odham and serve to disrupt traditional migration patterns and isolate O’odham villages that exist on opposite sides of the international border. To justify the building of this wall the government has once again used the fear of terrorism , as has become common since 9/11, to advance its fascistic imperialist interests. In a Time Magazine article dated September 20, 2004, entitled “Who left the door open” one can find a perfect example of the fear mongering about “terrorist threats” being used by the corporate media and government to justify the militarization of the border zone and the building of a border wall. Although the Time article does not specifically mention the proposed wall, it does mention the Tohono O’odham nation as being a specific weak spot in the border defense. The article states that “Law enforcement authorities believe the mass movement of illegals, wherever they are from, offers the perfect cover for terrorists seeking to enter the U.S…” Even the 9/11 commission

98


Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSchimes in on this absurd talking point in its report stating that: “two systemic weaknesses came together in our border system's inability to contribute to an effective defense against the 9/11 attacks: a lack of well-developed counter terrorism measures as a part of border security and an immigration system not able to deliver on 1 its basic commitments, much less support counter terrorism. These weaknesses have been reduced but are far from being overcome.” This last statement is especially ridiculous considering that none of the accused 9/11 hijackers crossed into the United States through its border with Mexico. Despite such evident absurdity, the government obviously feels that it can count on the ignorance and apathy of the American public to give it free reign as it moves to completely seal the border between the United States and Mexico. In fact, it seems that a small minority of deluded and frightened residents of this country have fallen for the government campaign of terrorist fear mongering and economic scapegoating of immigrants. The visible rise of racist vigilante groups such as the Minute Man project and Save our State are part of the very dangerous right wing consolidation of power taking place here in North America. It is essential for every resident of this land who does not agree with the racist nationalism being forced upon us in this country to rise up and stop this tide of fear based fascism before it is consolidated. Hundreds of thousands of migrants from the south have risen in a nationwide movement to resist this new wave of racism and fascistic demagoguery – now it is essential that the rest of us join them to resist the militarization of the U.S./Mexico border. It should go without saying that given the current trajectory of the Bush regime, a sealed border should be of grave concern to anyone living in North America – don’t forget that a sealed border can serve to keep people in just as well as it can serve to keep others out!

8. Their second singleton ev assumes they solve for local autonomy – they don’t, means they don’t solve the aff

99


Ks

100


Coloniality 1. Perm do both – the aff is negative state action, so the two are not mutually exclusiveAlso, pitting liberatory movements against each other is horrible, we should acknowledge that both movements are reasons why colonial nature is bad, and it isn't a matter of choosing which rejection of colonialism comes first, it's about rejecting colonialism all together.2. Perm do the aff and the alt in all other instances – double-bind: EITHER doing the alternative will be strong enough to overcome the residual links to one instance of the plan, OR it will be too weak to overcome the status quo.3. No link – they have to prove that other indigenous movements will be pacified specifically in the instance of the Tohono expelling CBP from their territory4. The alt only reinforces existing structures of domination.Katz 2k (Adam, University of Hartford, Postmodernism and the politics of “culture”, 2000, pgs. 146-47)

However, the transition from one mode of transformation to another — what should be the fundamental task of cultural studies — is left unconceptualized and is implicitly understood as a kind of additive or cumulative spread of local democratic sites until society as a whole is transformed. What this overlooks , of course, is the way in which , as long as global economic and political structures remain unchanged and unchallenged, local emancipations can only be redistributions— redistributions that actually support existing social relations by merely shifting the greater burdens onto others who are less capable of achieving their own local emancipation .

101


GBTL 1. Perm do both – pitting liberatory movements against each other is horrible, we should acknowledge that both movements are reasons why colonial nature is bad, and it isn't a matter of choosing which rejection of colonialism comes first, it's about rejecting colonialism all together.2. The alt only reinforces existing structures of domination.Katz 2k (Adam, University of Hartford, Postmodernism and the politics of “culture”, 2000, pgs. 146-47)


3. it’s a link of omission or, worst case scenario, status quo links harder. Means you still vote affirmative.4. Turn – your movement is counterproductive. Right wing backlash will erase any progress in indigenous movements.

Bradford, 5 (William is a Chiricahua Apache and Associate professor of Law at the Indiana University School of Law. “Beyond Reparations”, Ohio State Law Journal, 2005, HeinOnline)TB*JAR = Justice as Restoration = GBTL*

Still, while JAR is the most normatively attractive of the three theoretical clusters, JAR theory is not the final stop on the theoretical journey to justice for Indians . JAR theory is susceptible to criticism on several grounds. As compelling as the argument that non-Indian land owners are obligated to vacate their entitlements in favor of the descendants of their Indian predecessors-in-title may be, principles of equity, as JAS theory is quick to assert, should proscribe the wholescale evacuation of millions of acres of land and the forced relocation of innocent and newly-homeless non-Indians to places uncertain. Even if equity alone is not sufficient to counsel prudence, the prospect that non-Indians threatened in the security of their property interests might organize to induce political action resulting in further abridgement of Indian resources and rights must be accounted for in any theory of Indian justice . If the only remedy for a past injustice is a present injustice, a perpetual cycle of bloody conflict over land is inevitable 341 However, the most radical of JAR theorists are practically oblivious to the broad externalities the restorative clement of their philosophy might spawn: despite warnings that it is now much too late to give back Manhattan, some insist that nothing short of the dissolution of the U.S. will suffice if we are to take seriously. . . morality and justice. If politics is the art of the

102

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSpossible, a theory that insists on the dismemberment of the modem-day U.S. or other forms of radical social surgery is too fantastic to be given serious consideration as a political proposal.

5. Perm – Do the plan and give back all the land that Indigenous people never signed away in treaties.Basing indigenous land rights on treaty claims k2 unite international native struggle and all legal struggles everyhere– their author.Churchill 93 (Ward, Struggle of the Land, 1993, pgs. 5-4)TB

Today a lot of people question the necessity and utility of centralized nation-state governances and economics. They find the status quo to be increasingly absurd and are seeking alternatives to the values and patterns of consumption presently dominating not only North America, but the rest of the planet as well. The living reality of Native North America, and the bioregionally determined redefinition of polity it represents, offers the model for an alternative arrangement. And, if Leopold Kohr and the Basques say such a naturally grounded structure could work in Europe, why not here? It is obviously important that everyone learn as much as possible about American Indian realities , rather than the self-serving junk they usually teach in school. The second important aspect of the map is the legal basis for protecting the environment and its inhabitants it points up. The native struggle in North America today can only be properly understood as a pursuit of the recovery of land rights which are guaranteed through treaties . What Indians ask-what we really expect from those who claim to be our friends and allies is respect and support for these treaty rights . What does this mean? Well, it starts with advocating that Indians regain use of and jurisdiction over what the treaties define as being our lands. It means direct support to Indian efforts to recover these lands, but not governmental attempts to “compensate ” us with money for lands we never agreed to sell . This, in turn, means that those indigenous governments which traditionally held regulatory and enforcement power within Indian Country-not the more modern and otherwise non-traditional tribal councils imposed upon Indians by the federal government under the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934-should have the right to resume their activities now. By extension, this would mean that much land which is currently taxed, regulated, strip mined, militarized, drowned by hydroelectric generation or overirrigation, and nuked by the U.S. and Canadian governments would no longer be under their control or jurisdiction any longer. Surely, this is a prospect which all progressive and socially conscious people can embrace. What is perhaps most important about I ndian treaty rights is the power of the documents at issue to clarify matters which would otherwise be consigned by nation- state apologists to the realm of "opinion" and "interpretation." The treaties lay things out clearly, and they are instruments of international law . In this sense, the violation of the treaty rights of any given people represents a plain transgression against the rights of all people, everywhere . This can be a potent weapon in the organization of struggles for justice and sanity in every corner of the globe. And it should be appreciated as such by those who champion causes ranging from protection of the environment to universal human rights.

103

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSPost-2ac

Giving back the land all at once only incites a riot among the far right to even further curb indigenous rights. Gradual movements like the affirmative are the only ways to ever achieve solvency.Churchill 93 (Ward, Struggle of the Land, 1993, pgs. 414-15)TB

In part, uncomfortable as it may be to admit, this is because even the most progressive elements of the North American immigrant population share a perceived commonality of interest with the more reactionary segments . This takes the form of a mutual insistence upon an imagined "right" to possess native property , me rely because they are here, and because they desire it. The Great Fear is, within any settler -state, that if indigenous land rights are ever openly acknowledged , and native people therefore begin to recover some significant portion of their land, the immigrants will correspondingly be dispossessed of that which they have come to consider 376 "theirs" (most notably, individual homes, small farms, ranches and the like) . Tellingly , every major Indian land recovery initiative in the U nited S tates during the second half of the twentieth century - the Western Shos hone, those in Maine, the Black Hills , the Oneida claims in New York St ate are prime examples - has been met by a propaganda bar rage from right-wing organizations ranging from the K u K lux K lan to the John Birch Society to the Republican Party warning individual non- Indian property holders of exactly this "peril."3 6

104


Neolib

1. The world is structurally improving—newest and best data, impact is non uniqueBeauchamp 13 [“5 Reasons Why 2013 Was The Best Year In Human, Zack, Reporter/Blogger for ThinkProgress.org. He previously contributed to Andrew Sullivan’s The Dish at Newsweek/Daily Beast, and has also written for Foreign Policy and Tablet magazines. Zack holds B.A.s in Philosophy and Political Science from Brown University and an M.Sc in International Relations from the London School of Economics. He grew up in Washington, DC.History”,http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/12/11/3036671/2013-certainly-year-human-history/#]Between the brutal civil war in Syria, the government shutdown and all of the deadly dysfunction it represents, the NSA spying revelations, and massive inequality, it’d be easy to for you

to enter 2014 thinking the last year has been an awful one. But you’d be wrong. We have every reason to believe that 2013 was, in fact, the best year on the planet for humankind. Contrary to what you might have heard, virtually all of the most important forces that determine what make people’s lives good — the things that determine how long they live, and whether they live happily and freely — are trending in an extremely happy direction. While it’s possible that this progress could be reversed by something like runaway climate change, the effects will have to be dramatic to overcome the extraordinary and growing progress we’ve made in making the world a better place. Here’s the five big reasons why. 1. Fewer people are dying young, and more are living longer. The greatest story in recent human history is the simplest: we’re winning the

fight against death. “There is not a single country in the world where infant or child mortality today is not lower than it was in 1950,” writes Angus Deaton, a Princeton economist who works

on global health issues. The most up-to-date numbers on global health, the 2013 World Health Organization

(WHO) statistical compendium, confirm Deaton’s estimation. Between 1990 and 2010, the percentage of children who died before their fifth birthday dropped by almost half. Measles deaths declined by 71 percent, and both tuberculosis and maternal deaths by half again. HIV, that modern plague, is

also being held back, with deaths from AIDS-related illnesses down by 24 percent since 2005. In short, fewer people are dying untimely deaths. And that’s not only true in rich countries: life expectancy has gone up between 1990 and 2011 in every WHO income bracket . The gains are even more dramatic if you take the long view: global life expectancy was 47 in the early 1950s, but had risen to 70 — a 50 percent jump — by 2011. For even more perspective, the average Briton in 1850 — when the British Empire had reached its apex — was 40. The average person today should expect to live almost twice as long as the average citizen of the world’s wealthiest and most powerful country in 1850. In real terms, this means millions of fewer dead adults and children a year, millions fewer people who spend their lives suffering the pains and unfreedoms imposed by illness, and millions more people spending their twilight years with loved ones. And the trends are all positive — “progress has accelerated in recent years in many countries with the highest rates of mortality,” as the WHO rather bloodlessly put it. What’s going on? Obviously, it’s fairly complicated, but the most important drivers have been technological and political innovation. The Enlightenment-era advances in the scientific method got people doing high-quality research, which brought us modern medicine and the information technologies that allow us to spread medical breakthroughs around the world at increasingly faster rates. Scientific discoveries also fueled the Industrial Revolution and the birth of modern capitalism, giving us more resources to devote to large-scale application of live-saving technologies. And the global spread of liberal democracy made governments accountable to citizens, forcing them to attend to their health needs or pay the electoral price. We’ll see the enormously beneficial impact of these two forces, technology and democracy, repeatedly throughout this list, which should tell you something about the foundations of human progress. But when talking about improvements in health, we shouldn’t neglect foreign aid. Nations donating huge amounts of money out of an altruistic interest in the welfare of foreigners is historically unprecedented, and while not all aid has been helpful, health aid has been a huge boon. Even Deaton, who wrote one of 2013′s harshest assessments of foreign aid, believes “the case for assistance to fight disease such as HIV/AIDS or smallpox is strong.” That’s because these programs have demonstrably saved lives — the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), a 2003 program pushed by President Bush, paid for anti-retroviral treatment for over 5.1 million people in the poor countries hardest-hit by the

AIDS epidemic. So we’re outracing the Four Horseman, extending our lives faster than pestilence, war, famine, and death can take them. That alone should be enough to say the world is getting better. 2. Fewer people suffer from extreme poverty, and the world is

getting happier. There are fewer people in abject penury than at any other point in human history, and middle class people enjoy their highest standard of living ever. We haven’t come close to solving poverty: a number of African countries in particular have chronic problems generating growth, a nut foreign aid hasn’t yet cracked. So this isn’t a call for complacency

about poverty any more than acknowledging victories over disease is an argument against tackling malaria. But make no mistake: as a whole, the world is much richer in 2013 than it was before. 721 million fewer people lived in extreme poverty ($1.25 a day) in 2010 than in 1981, according to a new World Bank study from October. That’s astounding — a decline from 40 to about 14 percent of the world’s

105

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSpopulation suffering from abject want. And poverty rates are declining in every national income bracket: even in low income countries, the percentage of people living in extreme poverty ($1.25 a day in 2005 dollars) a day gone

down from 63 in 1981 to 44 in 2010. We can be fairly confident that these trends are continuing. For one thing,

they survived the Great Recession in 2008. For another, the decline in poverty has been fueled by global economic growth, which looks to be continuing: global GDP grew by 2.3 percent in 2012, a number that’ll rise to 2.9 percent in 2013 according to IMF projections. The bulk of the recent decline in poverty comes form India and China — about 80 percent from China *alone*. Chinese economic and social reform, a delayed reaction to the mass slaughter and starvation of Mao’s Cultural Revolution, has been the engine of poverty’s global decline. If you subtract China, there are actually more poor people today than there were in 1981 (population growth trumping the percentage declines in poverty). But we shouldn’t discount China. If what we care about is fewer people suffering the misery of poverty, then it shouldn’t matter what nation the less-poor people call home. Chinese growth should be celebrated, not shunted aside. The poor haven’t been the only people benefitting from global growth. Middle class people have access to an ever-greater stock of life-improving goods. Televisions and refrigerators, once luxury goods, are now comparatively cheap and commonplace. That’s why large-percentage improvements in a nation’s GDP appear to correlate strongly with higher levels of happiness among the nation’s citizens; people like having things that make their lives easier and more worry-free. Global economic growth in the past five decades has dramatically reduced poverty and made people around the world happier. Once again, we’re better off. 3. War is becoming rarer and less

deadly. APTOPIX Mideast Libya CREDIT: AP Photo/ Manu Brabo Another massive conflict could overturn the global progress against disease and poverty. But it appears war, too, may be losing its fangs. Steven Pinker’s 2011 book The Better Angels Of Our Nature is the gold standard in this debate. Pinker brought a treasure trove of data to bear on the question of whether the world has gotten more peaceful, and found that, in the long arc of human history, both war and other forms of violence (the death penalty, for instance) are on a centuries-long downward slope. Pinker summarizes his argument here if you don’t own the book. Most eye-popping are the numbers for the past 50 years;

Pinker finds that “the worldwide rate of death from interstate and civil war combined has juddered downward…from almost 300 per 100,000 world population during World War II, to almost 30 during the Korean War, to the low teens during the era of the Vietnam War, to single digits in the 1970s and 1980s, to less than 1 in the twenty-first century .” Here’s what that looks like graphed: Pinker CREDIT: Steven Pinker/The Wall Street Journal So it looks like the smallest percentage of

humans alive since World War II, and in all likelihood in human history, are living through the horrors of war. Did 2013 give us any reason to believe that Pinker and the other scholars who agree with him have been proven wrong? Probably not. The academic debate over the decline of war really exploded in 2013, but the “declinist” thesis has fared pretty well. Challenges to Pinker’s conclusion that battle deaths have gone down over time have not withstood scrutiny. The most compelling critique, a new paper by Bear F. Braumoeller, argues that if you control for the larger number of countries in the last 50 years, war happens at roughly the same rates as it has historically. There are lots of things you might say about Braumoeller’s argument, and I’ve asked Pinker for his two cents (update: Pinker’s response here). But most importantly, if battle deaths per 100,000 people really has declined, then his argument doesn’t mean very much. If (percentage-wise) fewer people are dying from war, then what we call “war” now is a lot less deadly than “war” used to be. Braumoeller suggests population growth and improvements in battle medicine explain the decline, but that’s not convincing: tell me with a straight face that the only differences in deadliness between World War II, Vietnam, and the wars you see today is that there are more people and better doctors. There’s a more rigorous way of putting that: today, we see many more civil wars than we do wars between nations. The former tend to be less deadly than the latter. That’s why the other major challenge to Pinker’s thesis in 2013, the deepening of the Syrian civil war, isn’t likely to upset the overall trend. Syria’s war is an unimaginable tragedy, one responsible for the rare, depressing increase in battle deaths from 2011 to 2012. However, the overall 2011-2012 trend “fits well with the observed long-term decline in battle deaths,” according to researchers at the authoritative Uppsala Conflict Data Program, because the uptick is not enough to suggest an overall change in trend. We should expect something similar when the 2013 numbers are published. Why are smaller and smaller percentages of people being exposed to the horrors of war? There are lots of reasons one could point to, but two of the biggest ones are the spread of democracy and humans getting, for lack of a better word, better. That democracies never, or almost never, go to war with each other is not seriously in dispute: the statistical evidence is ridiculously strong. While some argue that the “democratic peace,” as it’s called, is caused by things other than democracy itself, there’s good experimental evidence that democratic leaders and citizens just don’t want to fight each other. Since 1950, democracy has spread around the world like wildfire. There were only a handful of democracies after World War II, but that grew to roughly 40 percent of all by the end of the Cold War. Today, a comfortable majority — about 60 percent — of all states are democracies. This freer world is also a safer one. Second — and this is Pinker’s preferred explanation — people have developed strategies for dealing with war’s causes and consequences. “Human ingenuity and experience have gradually been brought to bear,” Pinker writes, “just as they have chipped away at hunger and disease.” A series of human inventions, things like U.N. peacekeeping operations, which nowadays are very successful at reducing violence, have given us a

set of social tools increasingly well suited to reducing the harm caused by armed conflict. War’s decline isn’t accidental, in other words. It’s by design.

4. Rates of murder and other violent crimes are in free-fall . Britain Unrest CREDIT: Akira Suemori/AP Photos Pinker’s trend against violence isn’t limited just to war. It seems likes crimes, both of the sort states commit against their citizens and citizens commit against each other, are also on the decline. Take a few examples. Slavery, once commonly sanctioned by governments, is illegal everywhere on earth. The use of torture as legal punishment has gone down dramatically. The European murder rate fell 35-fold from the Middle Ages to the beginning of the 20th century (check out this amazing 2003 paper from Michael Eisner, who dredged up medieval

records to estimate European homicide rates in the swords-and-chivalry era, if you don’t believe me). The decline has been especially marked in recent years. Though homicide crime rates climbed back up from their historic lows between the 1970s and 1990s, reversing progress made since the late 19th century, they have collapsed worldwide in the 21st century. 557,000 people were murdered in 2001 — almost three times as many as were killed in war that year. In 2008, that number was 289,000, and the homicide rate has been declining in 75 percent of nations since then. Statistics from around the developed world, where numbers are particularly reliable, show that it’s not just homicide that’s on the wane: it’s almost all violent crime. US government numbers show that violent crime in the United States declined from a peak of about 750 crimes per 100,000 Americans to under 450 by 2009. G7 as a whole countries show huge declines in homicide, robbery, and vehicle theft. So even in countries that aren’t at poor or at war, most people’s lives are getting safer and more secure. Why? We know it’s not incarceration. While the United States and Britain have dramatically increased their prison populations, others, like Canada, the Netherlands, and Estonia, reduced their incarceration rates and saw similar declines in violent crime. Same thing state-to-state in the United States; New York imprisoned fewer people and saw the fastest crime decline in the country. The Economist’s deep dive into the explanations for crime’s collapse provides a few answers. Globally, police have gotten better at working with communities and targeting areas with the most crime. They’ve also gotten new toys, like DNA testing, that make it easier to catch criminals. The crack epidemic in the United States and its heroin twin in Europe have both slowed down dramatically. Rapid gentrification has made inner-city crime harder. And the increasing cheapness of “luxury” goods like iPods and DVD players has reduced incentives for crime on both the supply and demand sides: stealing a DVD player isn’t as profitable, and it’s easier for a would-be thief to buy one in the first place. But there’s one explanation The Economist dismissed that strikes me as hugely important: the abolition of lead gasoline. Kevin Drum at Mother Jones wrote what’s universally acknowledged to be the definitive argument for the lead/crime link, and it’s incredibly compelling. We know for a fact that lead exposure damages people’s brains and can potentially be fatal; that’s why an international campaign to ban leaded gasoline started around 1970. Today, leaded gasoline is almost unheard of — it’s banned in 175 countries, and there’s been a decline in lead blood levels by about 90 percent. Drum marshals a wealth of evidence that the parts of the brain damaged by lead are the same ones that check people’s aggressive impulses. Moreover, the timing matches up: crime shot up in the mid-to-late-20th century as cars spread around the world, and started to decline in the 70s as the anti-lead campaign was succeeding. Here’s close the relationship is, using data from the United States: Lead_Crime_325 Now, non-homicide violent crime appears to have ticked up in 2012, based on U.S. government surveys of victims of crime, but it’s very possible that’s just a blip: the official Department of Justice report says up-front that “the apparent increase in the rate of violent crimes reported to police from 2011 to 2012 was not statistically significant.” So we have no reason to believe crime is

making a come back, and every reason to believe the historical decline in criminal violence is here to stay. 5. There’s less racism, sexism, and other forms of discrimination in the world . Nelson Mandela CREDIT: Theana Calitz/AP Images Racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, homophobia, and other forms of discrimination remain, without a doubt, extraordinarily powerful forces. The statistical and experimental evidence is overwhelming — this irrefutable proof of widespread discrimination against African-Americans, for instance, should put the “racism is dead” fantasy to bed. Yet the need to combat discrimination denial shouldn’t blind us to the good news. Over the centuries, humanity has made extraordinary progress in taming its hate for and ill-treatment of other humans on the basis of difference alone. Indeed, it is very likely that we live in the least discriminatory era in the history of modern civilization. It’s not a huge prize given how bad the past had been, but there are still gains worth celebrating. Go back 150 years in time and the point should be obvious. Take four prominent groups in 1860: African-Americans were in chains, European Jews were routinely massacred in the ghettos and shtetls they were confined to, women around the world were denied the opportunity to work outside the home and made almost entirely subordinate to their husbands, and LGBT people were invisible. The improvements in each

of these group’s statuses today, both in the United States and internationally, are incontestable. On closer look, we have reason to believe the happy trends are likely to continue. Take racial discrimination. In 2000, Harvard sociologist Lawrence Bobo penned a comprehensive assessment of the data on racial attitudes in the United States. He found a “national consensus” on the ideals of racial

106

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSequality and integration. “A nation once comfortable as a deliberately segregationist and racially discriminatory society has not only abandoned that view,” Bobo writes, “but now overtly positively endorses the goals of racial integration and equal treatment. There is no sign whatsoever of retreat from this ideal, despite events that many thought would call it into

question. The magnitude, steadiness, and breadth of this change should be lost on no one.” The norm against overt racism has gone global . In her book on the international anti-apartheid movement in the 1980s, Syracuse’s Audie Klotz says flatly that “the illegitimacy of white minority rule led to South Africa’s persistent diplomatic, cultural, and economic isolation.” The belief that racial discrimination could not be tolerated had become so widespread, Klotz argues, that it united the globe — including governments that had strategic interests in supporting South Africa’s whites — in opposition to apartheid. In 2011, 91 percent of respondents in a sample of 21 diverse countries said that equal treatment of people of different races or ethnicities was important to them. Racism obviously survived both American and South African apartheid, albeit in more subtle, insidious forms. “The death of Jim Crow racism has left us in an uncomfortable place,” Bobo writes, “a state of laissez-faire racism” where racial discrimination and disparities still exist, but support for the kind of aggressive government policies needed to address them is racially polarized. But there’s reason to hope that’ll change as well: two massive studies of the political views of younger Americans by my TP Ideas colleagues, John Halpin and Ruy Teixeira, found that millenials were significantly more racially tolerant and supportive of government action to address racial disparities than the generations that preceded them. Though I’m not aware of any similar research of on a global scale, it’s hard not to imagine they’d find similar results, suggesting that we should have hope that the power of racial prejudice may be waning. The story about gender discrimination is very similar: after the feminist movement’s enormous victories in the 20th century, structural sexism still shapes the world in profound ways, but the cause of gender equality is making progress. In 2011, 86 percent of people in a diverse 21 country sample said that equal treatment on the basis of gender was an important value. The U.N.’s Human Development Report’s Gender Inequality Index — a comprehensive study of reproductive health, social empowerment, and labor market equity — saw a 20 percent decline in observable gender inequalities from 1995 to 2011. IMF data show consistent global declines in wage disparities between genders, labor force participation, and educational attainment around the world. While enormous inequality remains, 2013 is looking to be the worst year for sexism in history. Finally, we’ve made astonishing progress on sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination — largely in the past 15 years. At the beginning of 2003, zero Americans lived in marriage equality states; by the end of 2013, 38 percent of Americans will. Article 13 of the European Community Treaty bans discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, and, in 2011, the UN Human Rights Council passed a resolution committing the council to documenting and exposing discrimination on orientation or identity grounds around the world. The public opinion trends are positive worldwide: all of the major shifts from 2007 to 2013 in Pew’s “acceptance of homosexuality” poll were towards greater tolerance, and young people everywhere are more open to equality for LGBT individuals than their older peers. best_year_graphics-04 Once

again, these victories are partial and by no means inevitable . Racism, sexism, homophobia, and other forms of discrimination aren’t just “going away” on their own. They’re losing their hold on us because people are working to change other people’s minds and because governments are

passing laws aimed at promoting equality. Positive trends don’t mean the problems are close to solved, and certainly aren’t excuses for sitting on our hands. That’s true of everything on this list. The fact that fewer people are dying from war and disease doesn’t lessen the moral imperative to do something about those that are; the fact that people are getting richer and safer in their homes isn’t an excuse for doing

more to address poverty and crime. But too often, the worst parts about the world are treated as inevitable, the prospect of radical victory over pain and suffering dismissed as utopian fantasy. The overwhelming force of the evidence shows that to be false. As best we can tell, the reason humanity is getting better is because humans have decided to make the world a better place. We consciously chose to develop lifesaving medicine and build freer political systems; we’ve passed laws against workplace discrimination and poisoning children’s minds with lead. So far, these choices have more than paid off. It’s up to us to make sure they continue to.

2. Perm do the plan, education already solved by the reading of the 1NC

3. The neg’s description of a global trajectory towards neoliberalism is de-politicizing and epistemologically flawed – they ignore or subsume contrary empirical evidence, and underestimate the power of representative democracy to constrain influence of economic elites – reject their overwrought impact claims and use the permutation to deploy the state against economic inequality Barnett 10(Clive Barnett, Faculty of Social Sciences @ The Open University, “Publics and Markets: What’s wrong with Neoliberalism?”, The Handbook of Social Geography, edited by Susan Smith, Sallie Marston, Rachel Pain, and John Paul Jones III. London and New York: Sage)In theories of neoliberalism and neoliberalization, the theoretical preference for very high levels of abstraction is associated with a tendency to make a geographical virtue out of the consistent failure to theorize the state as anything other than a functional attribute of the reproductive requirements of capital. Particular state-formations and patterns of political contention are acknowledged only as local, territorialized, contextual factors that help to explain how the universalizing trajectory of neoliberalism, orchestrated from the centre and organised through global networks, nonetheless always generate ‘hybrid’ assemblages of neoliberalism.¶ This style of theorizing makes it almost impossible to gainsay the highly generalised claims about neoliberalism as an ideolog y and neoliberalization as a state-led project by referring to empirical evidence that might seem to

107

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWScontradict these grand concepts. For example, it is almost taken-for-granted that the hegemony of neoliberalism is manifest in the reduction of state expenditures on welfare in face of external pressures of neoliberal globalization. Empirical evidence for welfare state decline is, in fact, far from conclusive. Welfare regimes have actually proved highly resilient in terms of both funding and provisioning (see Taylor-Gooby 2001). At the same time, the extent to which open market economies foster rather than menace high-levels of national welfare provision is also hotly debated (Taylor-Gooby 2003). In both cases, the idea of any straightforward shift from state to market seems a little simplistic (Clarke 2003). But from the perspective of geography’s meta-theories of neoliberalization, all of this is so much grist to the contextualizing mill. Contrary evidence can be easily incorporated into these theories precisely because they layer levels of conceptual abstraction onto scales of contextual articulation .¶ Presenting differential state-formation as a contextual variable is related to a much broader displacement of political action in general to a lower level of conceptual abstraction in theories of neoliberalism. One aspect of this is the persistent treatment of a broad range of social movement activity as primarily a secondary response to processes of neoliberalization. But more fundamentally, Marxist political-economies of neoliberalism pay almost no attention , at a conceptual level, to the causal significance of the institutional and organisational forms that shape political action (Hay 2004). This is indicative of a broader failure to think through how distinctive forms of contemporary democratic politics shape pathways of economic development and capital accumulation. Theories of neoliberalism take for granted the capacity of states to implement particular policies in order to put in place the regulatory conditions for particular accumulation strategies. This overlooks the degree to which the time-space constitution of democratic politics in liberal democracies serve as “substantial impediments to the achievement of neo-liberal goals” (Johnston and Glasmeier 2007, 15). Given the territorialization of party support and the territorialized organization of electoral politics, liberal democracy generates strong pressures that militate against wholly flexible and open labour markets, sustain subsidies and protectionist measures, and support the promotion of investment in particular locations. In theories of neoliberalism, processes of free market reform in the USA and UK since the 1980s are considered models of more general tendential logics. But these examples might be quite specific outcomes of the balance of political forces in those polities when compared to the patterns of welfare reform and tax policy in European countries (Prasad 2005; see also Glyn 2007).¶

Taking into account the ways in which state action is constrained by the time-space constitution of electoral, representative democracy is particularly relevant for understanding why relatively wealthy, advanced industrial economies do not conform to the tendential logic predicted by political-economy theories of neoliberalization. These same constraints might be operative elsewhere too. It is routine to suggest that neoliberalism is ‘imposed’ on developing economies externally, through the Washington Consensus promulgated by the IMF, World Bank, and WTO. However, Stokes (2002) argues that patterns of neoliberalization in

108

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSLatin America in the 1980s and 1990s can be explained in large part by analysis of the dynamics between electoral campaigning, party mobilisation, mandate and accountability as they played themselves out in periods of democratic transition and consolidation. In her account of ‘neoliberalism by surprise’, democratic governance, party competition, electoral accountability, and responsiveness to constituents’ interests all play crucial roles in explaining whether, how, and why neoliberal policies are adopted.¶ Strictly speaking, these sorts of considerations do not need to disturb the secure conceptual vantage-point offered by political-economy theorizations of neoliberalism. This paradigm is, as already suggested, internally attuned to recognize the variety and hybridity of neoliberalisms, and is able to ascribe this to the necessary articulation of generic neoliberal ideology, circulated globally, with territorialized logics operative at ‘lower’ geographical scales. Whether or not one finds this convincing comes down to a decision between different styles of theory. Political-economy approaches seek after high-level abstractions in order to identify fundamental features of phenomena (the logic of capital accumulation in Harvey, the capitalist state in Jessop, neoliberal ideology in Peck and Tickell). These abstract imperatives are then mapped empirically through a kind of deductive cascade, where they bump into other phenomena, like states, or racial formations, or gender relations. Because of their distinctive ontological features (e.g. their institutional qualities, their territorial qualities, their discursive qualities, and their identity-based qualities), these phenomena have never been amenable to the same sort of explanatory rationalism that allows the dynamics of capital accumulation to be defined so purely.¶ The effect of these theorizations is to de-politicize politics . If the dominant logic of state action can always be discerned from understanding the logic of capital accumulation and the balance of class forces, then that is really all one ever needs to really know (Clarke 2004a). T his de-politicization of politics ‘out there’ is an effect of the inflation of the political force ascribed to the academic work of critique: analysis of politics is reduced to a matter of understanding how a logic already known in advance is differentially enacted, so that the critical task of such analysis can be presented as a political act of exposing naturalized forms as social constructs.

4. Perm Do both5. Root cause of Capitalism is oppression of indigenous people, no way the alt can solve.Grande 4(Sandy Grande, associate professor of education at Connecticut College, January 1, 2004, Red pedagogy, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, page 51) CH

The history of federal Indian law clearly demonstrates that it was not indigenous peoples who “divided up democracy” but rather democracy that divided them. Indigenous peoples and their political organizations predate both capitalism and (whitestream) democracy’s advent on this continent. Thus, contrary to the assertions of revolutionary theorists, capitalist (exploitative) modes of production are not predicated on the exploitation of free (slave) labor but rather , first and foremost, premised on the annihilation of tribalism. The privileging and distinguishing of “class struggle” and concomitant assertion

109

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSof capitalism as the totality underestimates the overarching nature of decolonization- a totality that places capitalism, patriarchy, white supremacy, and Western Christianity in radical contingency. This tension alone necessitates an indigenous reenvisioning of the precepts of revolutionary theory, bringing them into alignment with the realities of indigenous struggle.

6. Perm do the plan and the alt in all other instances.double-bind: EITHER doing the alternative will be strong enough to overcome the residual links to one instance of the plan, OR it will be too weak to overcome the status quo.

110

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSAT Fuchs 2ac

No link – we don’t care about privacy at all. Privacy probably isn’t even the endpoint of the aff.

111

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSAT Wilkie 2ac

No link – wilkie ev is about opening the border in the context ofA. Opening the entire border andB. Opening the border with the enpoint of incorporating people into the neoliberal economyThe case of the Tohono has nothing to do with this. The affA. Only opens an 80 mile stretch of the border andB. The aff’s only intention is to allow the Tohono to go to their cultural sites that exist on the opposite side of the border

112

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSAT Wilkie 1ar

Extend the 2ac work on wilkie1. It’s only and 80 mile stretch of the border, not k2 cap2. Link NUq, tons of border crossings in the squo3. Not specific in the context of the Tohono – they only are crossing for cultural reasons4. Link NUq – Tohono could cross the border pre-9/115. Link NUq – Jay treaty allows tribes on the US-Canada border to cross

113

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSAT Wilkie 2ar

Five conceded 1ar answers to the wilkie link coming out of the 2nr means you can’t vote on the K:1. We’re only opening up an 80 mile stretch of the border – this isn’t some mass incorporation of people into the neoliberal economy that their ev suggests.2. Even in the squo border crossings are inordinately high on the reservation. Means the DA is NUq.3. This comes with the evidence vagueness – they don’t take into account the fact that we’re only opening this stretch of the border to the Tohono so that they can access cultural sites SOUTH of the border. Their ev assumes we’re trying to get people from less-developed countries and incorporate them into our American neoliberal economy.4. Pre-9/11, Tohono were allowed to cross the border – that’s 1ac Kilpatrick ev - yet we’re not all extinct – empirics clearly flow aff.5. Jay Treaty allows Canadian tribes to cross the border for cultural reasons – more evidence supporting that the link is NUq.

114


Nietzsche 1. Perm do the aff and the alt in all other instances – solves ressentiment and still lets us liberate the Tohono – all we need is to win 1% risk of solvency and you vote aff2. Perm do both – Nietzsche’s philosophy is personal and not meant for large scales like nation-states. Since we are not actually suggesting that a policy be passed, we can both affirm our entire lives and discuss the implications of the USFG passing a certain plan.Grayson Bodenheimer 14, Sociologist at Appalachian State University and has one published research paper in the areas of history and philosophy that were presented at the National Conference of Undergraduate Research, “’With All Winds Straight Ahead:’ The Influence of the World Wars on the Understanding of Friedrich Nietzsche” Appalachian State University http://www.ncurproceedings.org/ojs/index.php/NCUR2014/article/download/1094/538 BFHFueling the flame that grew into the philosophy that became known as Existentialism, Friedrich Nietzsche¶ introduced into the world a new form of thought outside of the realm of logic and reason. However, unlike his ¶ Existentialist predecessor Søren Kierkegaard, Nietzsche did not believe that Christian values should define human¶ existence. Instead, Nietzsche focused on man himself and his own individual will. One of the first times that¶ Nietzsche’s ideas captured the international spotlight was during World War I – though not in the way that he would¶ have hoped for. The chaos and destruction of World War I in 1914 presented America with a view of Germans as¶ immoral and power-hungry, and a depiction of Nietzsche as “the apostle of German ruthlessness and barbarism.”1¶ In¶ Germany itself, however, the growing nationalistic and anti-Semitic crowds found inspiration from his works, taking¶ many of his most radical ideas to heart. These two interpretations of Nietzsche’s works are remarkably similar, yet¶ they yield completely different applications of his philosophy. Germany’s National Socialists, commonly known as¶ the Nazis, used Nietzsche’s most radical ideas to justify their views on war, the extermination of non-Aryan peoples,¶ and the conquest of Europe and, eventually, the world. The Americans did not believe that Nietzsche could justify¶ the Nazis' behavior, but they perceived him as an inspiration and his works as a foundation of Nazi ideology.¶ Although some would argue that Nietzsche's belief in perspectivism could bolster the claim that either of these ¶ interpretations might be viable, neither the Nazi Germans nor the Americans were correct. Nietzsche’s philosophy is ¶ not applicable on a large scale, such as that of the nation-state; rather, it is a personal philosophy, which no ¶ government can dictate. This leads both interpretations to be incorrect; while Nietzsche’s works were used as a¶ justification of Nazi behavior and likely even a foundation for early Nazism, this understanding of his work is an ¶ invalid misconception, purposefully misconstrued by Nazis and Americans as propaganda to be used for their own ¶ philosophies.

115

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWS3. Case is a DA to the alt and a net benefit to the perm—in any sense this K is an impact turn to the aff, the aff is an impact turn to this K. Even if ethics aren’t GENERALLY good, they don’t have evidence saying the right to cross a border is bad—the alternative can never result in that – it’s a DA, plain and simple.4. No link – their args assume we attempt to solve all suffering, which doesn’t assume survival strategies, which view small acts as significant – we don’t believe in panaceas 5. No link – dealing with injustices doesn’t cause ressentimentBickford, 97 (Susan. "Anti-Anti-Identity Politics: Feminism, Democracy, and the Complexities of Citizenship." Hypatia 12.4 (1997): 111-31. Web. 2 Aug. 2015.)//TB

Anger, as Lorde theorizes it, is very different from Nietzschean ressentiment . Anger is indeed reactive; it is a response to injustice s, like racism. It is a specific kind of reaction, though; Lorde distinguishes anger from hatred, the latter being marked by a craving for the

destruction and elimination of others. By contrast, “anger is a grief of distortions between peers, and its object is change”

(1984, 129). Unlike ressentiment , then, anger's reactive character does not “reiterate impotence ” or constrain the ability to act.16 Anger is energy directed toward another in an attempt to create a relationship between subjects that is not “distorted ” (made unjust) by hierarchies of power and the way subjects work within those hierarchies. If those hierarchies are to be changed through political interaction, then recreating the relationship between subjects is a central step. To recognize anger as a possible force in that reconstruction is to recognize the specificity of the creatures who engage with one another; it neither requires us to deny ourselves nor prevents our connecting with others . But materializing the possibility of relation and change that anger carries with it depends both on our own actions and on the responses of others.

The uses of anger require creativity, as Lorde makes clear in characterizing the “symphony of anger”: “And I say symphony rather than cacophonybecause we have had to learn to orchestrate those furies so that they do not tear us apart. We have had to learn to move through them and use them for strength and force and insight within our daily lives” (1984,129). But we also have to learn how to hear anger , how not to treat it as destructive , offputting, guilt-inducing . As Lorde points out, it is not the anger of Black women that is corroding the world we live in (1984, 133). It is not the anger of other women that will destroy us but our refusals to stand still, to listen to its rhythms, to learn within it…. The angers between women will not kill us if we can articulate them with precision, if we listen to the content of what is said with at least as much intensity as we

defend ourselves against the manner of saying. (1984, 130-31) The political uses of anger require creative action on both sides: articulating with precision, listening with intensity. We are responsible, then, for how we speak and how we hear each other. Lorde's analysis of anger provides a possible way of rethinking “resentment.” But it is important to recognize that the public passion of anger is not always or automatically used in the service of democratic or progressive aims. The anger and hatred behind “ethnic cleansing” or militant militias reveals in the most disturbing way how this all-too-human emotion can lead to the deepest inhumanity. Anger can indeed tear citizens apart, and lead them to tear others

apart. There is no one meaning inherent in the political expression of feeling, whether anger or suffering. The question would seem to be not how to rid politics of anger, but whether and how we can create conditions in which anger is put to the service of a just world . This is relevant to the contemporary leftist abhorrence of claims of “victimhood” and suffering. As long as some people are oppressed, claims about suffering are relevant in public discourse . Let me suggest an alternative way of hearing these claims. A claim of victimhood is not automatically an assertion of powerlessness or innocence; it is an assertion about the exercise of unjust power . It is a protest against certain relations of power and an assertion of alternative ones, for to speak against the exercise of

unjust power-to speak against being victimized—is to say that I am a peer, a rightful participant in the argument about the just and the unjust, in the collective exercise of power . Claims about suffering , as well as claims made in anger, can be attempts to enact democratic political relationships . Both are part of the languages of citizenship . What I am suggesting is that this conception of democratic citizenship

requires, as part of its conditions for realization, a practice of political listening. Such listening is best

116

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSunderstood not as an attempt to get at an “authentic” meaning, but as participation in the construction of meaning . And I think we democratic theorists need to begin to imagine supple institutional spaces that might support such interaction and foster and sustain coalition politics . 17 Enacting these relationships, speaking and listening to these languages of citizenship, is not particularly easy. If anger is “loaded with information and energy” (Lorde 1984, 127), we may justifiably fear its intensity and the intensity of our own response. Hence the necessity for courage, which has been connected to citizenship for centuries of political thought, although usually in ways that emphasized virility and battle strength. I have argued elsewhere (Bickford 1996) that Anzaldua, Lorde, and others point to the necessity for a feminist reworking of courage and give us the resources to begin that transfiguration.18 Fearlessness, as Lorde says, is a luxury we do not have, and need not wait for. We can learn to work and speak when we are afraid in the same way we have learned to work and speak when we are tired. For we have been socialized to respect fear more than our own needs for language and definition, and while we wait in silence for the final luxury of fearlessness,

the weight ofthat silence will choke us. (1984, 44) An ethic of courage is thus an ethic oriented toward political action, not psychological pain . Yet it takes seriously the psychological state, for that is what necessitates the exercise of courage. Implicit in this understanding of courage is the recognition that we “can sit down and weep, and still be counted as warriors” (Rich 1986, 25); the articulation of suffering is not incompatible with the daring exercise of citizenship . Such courage— the courage to act, to take responsibility for the world and ourselves, despite risk— is a necessary quality for radical democratic politics and theory in a context of difference and inequality.19 As citizens, we need to foster the courage necessary to take the risks of political action. But we also need to learn to recognize its exercise. This involves reconceptualizing political identity as active, and thus reinterpreting identity claims. Suffering and citizenship are not antithetical; they are only made so in a context in which others hear claims of oppression solely as assertions of powerlessness. A conception of citizenship adequate to the world in which we live must recognize both the infuriating reality of oppression, and the continual exercise of courage with which citizens meet that oppression. It must recognize, in other words, that claims of inequality and oppression are articulated by political actors. As Lorde says—and I end, in tribute, with her words—“I am not only a casualty, I am also a warrior” (1984, 41).

6. Nietzsche hated indigenous people – he justified the colonization by saying Aryans are the superior race.Santaniello, 94 (Weaver. Nietzsche, God, and the Jews: His Critique of Judeo-Christianity in Relation to the Nazi Myth. Albany: State U of New York, 1994. 105-06. Print.)//TB

When contrasting slave and noble morality in the first essay, Nietzsche traces the origin of the word good to the self-identification of the warrior-aristocracy. He describes this aristocracy as the Aryans, who were the conquerors of inferior indigenous people of Europe, as well as elsewhere ("One may be quite justified in continuing to fear the blond beast at the core Of all noble In contrast, the inferior indigenous people who were conquered by this race are characterized by coloring, a shortness of skull, "perhaps even in the intellectual and social instinct . The Greek noble class, the "rich," the "pos- sessors" (which is the meaning of arya) applied to themselves the term good (warriors) and also defined themselves in terms of character traits, regarding themselves as the true (esrhlos). Greece exemplifies the noble-aristocracy. Judea became the exemplar of the priestly-slave nation after its conquest by other empires, and Christianity inherits this work of Judea in constructing a morality Of revenge against the conquerors. Originally, Nietzsche holds, good and bad were terms for different social classes.

7. Ressentiment good – solves democracy and multiculturalism. Their alt fails to resolve the K.Coulthard, 7 (Glen S. "Subjects of Empire: Indigenous Peoples and the ‘Politics of Recognition’ in Canada." Contemp Polit Theory Contemporary Political Theory 6.4 (2007): 437-60. Web. 2 Aug. 2015. <http://chrr.info/files/1Coulthard_Subjects_of_Empire.pdf>.)//TB

Ressentiment is not jealous: It is not necessary to maintain consistency of political message across time and context. Ressentiment can be cultivated via the assignment of blame to political enemies while

117

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSsimultaneous speaking of a politics of reconciliation , bipartisanship, and aisle-crossing. Ronald Reagan coupled an insouciant optimism and personal charm with deft demonization of evil empires, welfare queens, and their fellow travelers. Left politicians misunderstand the Rightist criticism of “flip-flopping” because they take the

critic to literally mean what he or she says. The Rightists do not mean this, and they know it. The flip-flopping of one’s political allies is as meaningless as the flip- flopping of one’s foes is evidence of hypocrisy, weakness, indecisiveness, etc. Thus one sees plenty of politicians who play to opposite registers (resentment now, reconciliation later) and who are not punished; the ones who are, like John Kerry, are punished not for 25 flip-flopping but for

being too dull-witted to understand the nature of the game they are playing. Ressentiment should be cultivated at the most general level possible, though without ruling out the use of specifics: Personalized narratives of woe are crucial to the refinement of ressentiment, but this should not be taken as license to “go specific” at all costs. In particular, examples of particular people should be used carefully, as the most important element of the exemplar is that a general audience be able to their own story mirrored in the spectacle of misery being displayed before them. While there are numerous possible foci for such a generalized ressentiment, the corporation and the government agencies beholden to corporate capitalism still seems the most likely and most fruitful

targets of opportunity. It is crucial, however, to maintain the rhetoric of equality of opportunity and the defense of the small businessman amidst the critique of the corporation. If this seems like an impossible feat, consider that it is no more inherently difficult than Reagan’s rhetorical evisceration of “Big Government” while simultaneously creating the creating the largest American federal government in history. Of course there was a contradiction at the heart of his program – but does identifying this as a debating point have any real effect? Ressentiment is inevitable as long as consumer capitalism holds sway, according to the theorists most prized by the Left, so we had better make our peace with her : This is not to reify ressentiment, as I have stated before, but it is to say that the Left more so than the Right has reason to utilize ressentiment with a good conscience. It is from the Left that 26 we hear the narrative of capitalism as a ressentiment-

producing engine of amazing power (Connolly 1988; Brown 1993), and unless capitalism is about to pass from the scene, which seems wishful thinking of the most extreme nature, the Left should be harnessing the energy

of this current rather than simply criticizing it. There are many filaments that comprise the fiber of the American Left, but whether indebted to the theories of Marx, Nietzsche, or Rawls , most of these strands implicitly link their political programs to the ressentiment-producing apparatuses of contemporary society . Indeed, Wendy Brown implies that ressentiment is responsible for “welfare-state liberalism” as such in the form of “attenuations of the unmitigated license of the rich and powerful on behalf of the ‘disadvantaged’” (Brown 1993, 400). Perhaps I am being unfair here to Brown, but it sounds as if the welfare state is a rather tawdry achievement. While I have no interest in further propping up the status quo, it seems worth noting that ressentiment’s acknowledged role in the creation of liberal democracy, here scoffed at by Brown, is no small thing. Ressentiment is patient , but not infinitely so. If, as Melissa Lane observes in her study of Plato’s Statesman, a sense of timing is the sine qua non of the political ruler (Lane 1998), then we must be

sensitive to the kairos, the right moment for the deployment of a ressentiment-filled rhetoric. It would be difficult to imagine a more

opportune moment than the present recession for cultivating a sense of working-class victimage, yet, oddly enough, it is the Right rather than the Left which has been carrying the banner of anti- finance capital. How is this possible? When one is the party in power in the United States it is difficult to govern without the consent of the barons of Wall Street, and the 27 Democrats must be particularly solicitous of the favor of the financial elites since a collapsing Dow Jones, ever skittish of “statist” Democratic interference, is prone to regard even the mildest brand of Democratic populism as the equivalent of the October Revolution. Democratic elites have felt it necessary to go the extra mile around a horse as shy as this

118

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSone, and coupled with the particular friendships and connections between Obama and his economic advisors, who read like a who’s who of Goldman Sachs alums, and it is easy to understand why it is Glenn Beck rather than Barack Obama who has taken up the populist mantle. That said, opportunities like this do not come along often, and pivotal electoral moments can reshape the political landscape for decades. The crucial question to ask is how the needs of the resentful many can be squared with the need to placate corporate power (i.e. to prevent stock markets from crashing, capital

fleeing overseas, international economic sanctions, etc.). Populists from South America to Europe have found multiple answers to this question, so the dilemma is not an insoluble one. But in order to address this tension the Left must first give up its utopian hope that the Beloved Community is around the corner, and that all that is needed to get there is one final psychological purge. The

resentful are going to be here for a long time to come, as Brown and Connolly ably demonstrate, so Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and

their successors must begin to think more creatively about how to combine the politics of hope with the politics of blame. After Ressentiment In closing I would suggest that my praise of ressentiment is also in line with the more deliberatively conceived multiculturalism of the Left than is the current puritanical disdain . As Monique Deveaux argues, it is a failure of political imagination when we 28 fixate on liberal principles as preconditions to multicultural dialogue, and in particular it is necessary to move toward a deeper level of intercultural respect rather than mere toleration (Deveaux 2000).10 But if it is appropriate to go beyond simply tolerating non- liberal peoples abroad and in immigrant communities, if we must go beyond toleration to do justice to the rich tradition of cultural pluralism, then perhaps we can also open our hearts and minds to the possibility that the ressentiment-suffused need to be heard out as well.

Perhaps rather than demonizing ressentiment as a toxin to politics, as the worst of the worst for subjects whom we purport to free, we must accept that ressentiment is for many inseparable from their conception of their own freedom . Perhaps rather than pitying these poor fools, in ways that we would never pity a plural wife

in the global South, we should ponder whether ressentiment as a precondition of subjectivity is as much a gift as a curse. And are we so sure , after all, we late Nietzscheans, that our crusade against ressentiment is not itself suffused with ressentiment? Is not itself fully in the grips of it? How would we know if it were or weren’t? Perhaps we are, in our own way, as spiteful, vain, petty, weak, subjected, enraged against the past, capitalized, consumerized, unfree, as those we purport to want to free from the chains of slave morality. Perhaps it is ourselves that we need to give a break to, that we need to get over, when we first look to purge the other of ressentiment. Perhaps we all swim in this current, perhaps we are all Ressentiment’s children, and perhaps that is OK – even

to the extreme of the using ressentiment unconsciously in the effort to rid the world of ressentiment. Though just in saying so I wouldn’t expect that to do much to overturn Ressentiment’s reign. No, she is far too puissant for that. But we do not need to rage against the weakness in others because we fear the dependence and weakness in ourselves . As Vetlesen puts it, defending Amery: “ Against Nietzsche, who despised victims because he saw them as weak, as losers in life’s struggles, Amery upholds the dignity of having been forced by circumstances beyond one’s control into that position, thus reminding Nietzsche that as humans we are essentially relational beings, dependent, not self-sufficient. In hailing the strong and despising the weak, in denying that vulnerability is a basic ineluctably given human condition, a condition from which not only the role of victim springs but that of the morally responsible agent too, Nietzsche fails to be the provocateur he loves to believe he is: He sides with the complacent majority and so helps reinforce the existential and moral loneliness felt by Amery, the individual victim who speaks up precisely in that capacity” (Vetlesen 2006, 43). Perhaps we can begin to see how we have been

using the weak, the viewers of Glenn Beck and others, as the targets for our need to find blameworthy agents. And that too is fine. The trouble comes when we think we’ve gone beyond Ressentiment when in fact we’re just listening to her whisperings without realizing

it. We think that we can well and truly look down on the Rush Limbaughs, these destroyers of civilization, because they are possessed by something that we are above. And far be it from me to suggest that we should not resent, should not blame; I merely suggest we direct our blame toward more useful ends than where it is currently located.

119

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWS8. Any chance of solvency means you vote affirmative. If we can resolve the impacts of the case, there’s no ressentiment.

120


Sovereignty 1. White sovereignty and indigenous sovereignty are different. They kritik white sovereignty, which means no link.Forsythe, 12 (Ruth. "Understanding Indigenous Sovereignty." Independent Australia. 9 Feb. 2012. Web. 26 July 2015.)TB

“Aboriginal Sovereignty is not about power over others. We don’t want to be like the system, to govern over men (Government ) and end up sit ting around table like white-fellas . What the elders want is for there to be true protocol in the Law . There has been a breaking of the three laws of refraining from lying, stealing and killing, given to us by the three brothers. The shame is every community has broken these Laws. The key to sovereignty is maintaining our culture . Traditional life is about the custodian’s role of caretakers of the rocky outcrops, desert plains and sacred mystical waterways that belong to the people of the Seven Wonders of the World ”.

2. Sovereignty is not a western notion. It predates the colonizers.Cobb 6 (Amanda J Cobb, June 2006, American Studies Journal, Kansas University, pp. 118-119, Accessed 7/19/15, https://journals.ku.edu/index.php/amerstud/article/view/2956/2915) CH

At base, sovereignty is a nation's power to self-govern, to determine its own way of life, and to live that life—to whatever extent possible—free from interference. This is no different for tribal sovereignty, which by and large shares the attributes and characteristics of sovereignty as contextualized above. Native nations are culturally distinct peoples with recognizable governments and, in most cases, recognizable and defined territories . The sovereignty of Native nations is inherent and ancient. For Native nations within the boundaries of the United States, the underscoring of the inherent nature of sovereignty is critical because of the colonial process —a process that continues to dramatically diminish our ability to fully exercise tribal sovereignty. As David Wilkins (Lumbee) and K. Tsianina Lomawaima (Creek/Cherokee) have argued, "Tribes existed before the U nited S tates of America, so theirs is a more mature sovereignty , predating the Constitution; in that sense, tribal sovereignty exists 'outside' the Constitution."15 Kidwell and Velie agree that sovereignty "is held to be an inherent right " but emphasize that "its political effect depends upon its recognition by other sovereigns."16 Inherency and recognition are characteristics of sovereignty for all nations; however, the recognition and respect necessary to exercise sovereignty fully has not been consistently accorded Native nations by other sovereigns , particularly the United States. In fact, "[f]rom 1775 to the present, federal and state intentions toward tribes have changed direction in various ways. One could argue that indeterminacy or inconsistency is the hallmark of the tribal federal relationship."17 Because of this inconsistency, Native nations must constantly endeavor to exercise their sovereignty "under negotiation with states, in federal courts, and with the Congress of the United States."18 That dynamic is virtually inescapable for tribal peoples on one level or another. The recognition and exercise of tribal sovereignty is complicated by the power imbalance between the United States and Native nations. The American nation-state is so powerful, so hegemonic, that its cloak of sovereignty becomes almost invisible. The United States is so used to looking through the lens of its own powerful sovereignty—and, importantly, to having that image reflected back to it by other nations—that the United States, including its citizens, too often cannot

121

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSrecognize that what is looked through is merely a lens. Too often, the United States falls into the trap of mistaking that lens for its eye. As Alfred has pointed out, "the Western view of power and human relationships is so thoroughly entrenched that it appears valid, objective, and natural."19 In other words, United States sovereignty has become normalized to such an extent that it rarely questions or is even conscious of any limit to its own sovereign power

3. Perm sever the reps – all the aff is saying is that we probably shouldn’t be assaulting natives.4. Perm do both – this would function as doing the aff without mentioning sovereignty.5. Sovereignty good – helps make concrete political change on behalf of natives.D'Errico, 2k (Peter. Peter d’Errico is a consulting attorney on indigenous issues. He was a staff attorney in Dinebeiina Nahiilna Be Agaditahe Navajo Legal Services from 1968 – 1970, and taught Legal Studies at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, until 2002."SOVEREIGNTY." A Brief History in the Context of U.S. "Indian Law" 2000. Web. 26 July 2015.)TB

The concept of sovereignty , however convoluted and contradictory, remains an important part of federal Indian law. Tribal councils established under the Indian Reorganization Act are regarded as vehicles of "tribal sovereignty"; they

act as governments and not just as corporations, though they are often limited by federal funding and authority. Indian hunting and fishing rights have been protected against state and local regulation, though an ultimate authority has been reserved outside the realm of tribal sovereignty. Indian nations are regarded as immune from suit without their consent, under the doctrine of " sovereign immunity, " yet their power over

non-members of the particular nation is sometimes severely limited. In short, the idea that i ndigenous nations have at their roots some aspect of their original , pre-colonial status as independent nations operate s -- sometimes directly and sometimes by implication -- throughout federal Indian law today. This idea is accompanied by the colonial legacy of superior authority claimed over indigenous nations by the federal government. Both these ideas have been part of federal Indian law from its inception, and are the reason why Chief Justice Marshall could say, in formulating the foundations of this law in the Cherokee Nation case, "The condition of the Indians in relation to the United States is perhaps unlike that of any other two people in existence."

6. Discussing sovereignty is specifically k2 awareness of native issues. The alternative is silence, papering over discussion of indigenous peoples, turns the k.LaForme, no date (Henry, Member of the Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation, aboriginal judge. INDIAN SOVEREIGNTY: WHAT DOES IT MEAN?, no date)TB

Sovereignty to most Indians is synonymous with the term, “self-government.” And, until sovereignty was the term used, rather than “self government,” nobody other than Indians ever really cared about the issue . That is, few Canadians ever really wondered what went on within Indian Reserves or how Indians actually made decisions , or what laws applied on Reserves. Few people cared whether Indian Band Councils (those governing bodies of Indian Bands established and auspicated in accordance with the Indian Act and defined by Section 2(1) of the Indian Act) could borrow money like municipalities, or how Indians made decisions about their children's education, etc . Indeed, most people never wondered if Indians even had a government , let alone how it was established or how it functioned. Now, however, because the term which is often currently applied is “sovereignty” rather than “self-government,” the ranks of those who are curious about Indians has grown ten fold . Today

122

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSpeople want to know “what does it mean” “what will it look like” “will it protect minority rights” “will murder be allowed” and, “will it be a haven where fleeing criminals can escape prosecution?” And the reason many people want to know is so they can decide whether or not they will “allow” Indians the privilege of being “granted” the ability to exercise such rights.

7. We don’t defend the western notion of seovereignty – we defend indigenous sovereignty, or self-determination.Gilio-Whitaker, 13 (Dina. Research Associate at CWIS, Freelance Writer and Indigenous Studies Scholar, MA University of New Mexico, American Studies, BA University of New Mexico, Native American Studies. "Indian Self-Determination and Sovereignty." Indian Country Today Media Network.com. 17 Jan. 2013. Web. 26 July 2015. http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/opinion/indian-self-determination-and-sovereignty-147025)TB

In general there’s a huge difference between what the federal government means when it talks about Indian sovereignty and self-determination and the kind tribal nations mean . Although it can be said that the concepts probably vary from tribe to tribe, self-determination for Indian people overall is representative of the state of political independence that existed prior to colonization. The process of colonization has given a new meaning to the idea of self-determination for the colonized, and the process of decolonizing the relationships between tribes and the United States is, at least in part , about how we define the terms of “sovereignty” and “self-determination.” Self-determination and sovereignty have become concepts that colonizing states have defined for the colonized, and indigenous peoples worldwide have pushed back against those limiting and self-serving definitions, which is why it took 22 years to pass the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Self-determination and sovereignty for indigenous peoples is seen by colonizing states (especially the US) as “aspirational ,” that which doesn’t really exist but may (or may not) at some point in the future. There is, however, an important difference between the concepts of self-determination and sovereignty, reflected in a growing and sophisticated body of academic literature by Native scholars. For example, we find that the roots of the concept of sovereignty (and the modern nation-state) are in feudal European monarchies, characterized by hierarchical power structures with profound religious overtones. Because these kinds of governing structures were typically foreign to indigenous peoples, sovereignty is said to be an inappropriate concept for Indian nations. Self-determination , on the other hand, is as the name implies the ability to be self-determining independent of an outside power . The problem is that in the context of a colonial relationship such as the one between the United States and tribal nations, self-determination is reduced to the ability of a tribal nation to be merely self-governing . There’s nothing innately wrong with tribes being allowed to govern themselves (as they have always done), but it leaves unaddressed a whole host of other problems that the colonial relationship presents, embodied in the system of domestic law that tribal nations are unconsentingly subjugated to, complete with its doctrines of discovery, plenary power, domestic dependent nationhood and trust. It is still a paternalistic relationship with tribes generally thought of as incapable , if not undeserving of the type of self-determination reserved for nation-states —despite their centuries-long histories of foreign relations with outside and international actors.

123

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/opinion/indian-self-determination-and-sovereignty-147025

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/opinion/indian-self-determination-and-sovereignty-147025


State 1. The aff is the only reasonable solution. Totally discarding hope for the state is irrational. Gitlin 5—Todd Gitlin, formerly served as professor of sociology and director of the mass communications program at the University of California, Berkeley, and then a professor of culture, journalism and sociology at New York University, now a professor of journalism and sociology and chair of the Ph.D. program in Communications at Columbia University, a long-time political activist from the Left, 2005, (“The Intellectuals and the Flag,” Available Online at http://bit.ly/1HA6rz7, Accessed on 7/17/15)CK

So two Manichaeisms squared off. Both were faith based, inclined to be impervious toward evidence, and tilted toward moral absolutism. One proceeded from the premise that U.S. power was always benign, the other from the premise that it was always pernicious . One justified empire—if not necessarily by that name—on the ground that the alternatives were worse; the other saw empire every time the United States wielded power. But these two polar tendencies are not the only options . There is, at least embryonically, a patriotic left that stands , as Michael Tomasky has put it, “between Cheney and Chomsky.”5 It disputes U.S. policies, strategies, and tactics—vociferously. But it criticizes from the inside out, without discarding the hope , if not of redemption, at least of improvement. It looks to its intellectuals for, among other things, scrutiny of the conflicts among the powers, the chinks in the armor, the embryonic and waning forces, paradoxes of unintended consequences, the sense immured in the nonsense, and vice versa. It believes in security—the nation’s physical security as much as its economic security . It does not consider security to be somebody else’s business. When it deplores conditions that are deplorable, it makes it plain, in substance and tone, that the critic shares membership with the criticized. It acknowledges—and wrestles with—the dualities of America: the liberty and arrogance twinned, the bullying and tolerance, myopia and energy, standardization and variety, ignorance and inventiveness, the awful dark heart of darkness and the self-reforming zeal. It does not labor under the illusion that the world would be benign but for U.S. power or that capitalism is uniformly the most damaging economic system ever. It lives inside, with an indignation born of family feeling. Its anger is intimate.

2. Perm do the aff and the alt in all other instancesdouble-bind: EITHER doing the alternative will be strong enough to overcome the residual links to one instance of the plan, OR it will be too weak to overcome the status quo.3. They cede the political – the alt never snowballs into real change. Means zero alt solvency.Chandler 4 –David Chandler, Senior Lecturer in International Relations at the Center for Democracy, University of Westminster, 2004 (“Millennium,” Available online at http://www.davidchandler.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Millennium-Building-GCS-published.pdf, accessed on 7/17/15)CK

124

http://www.davidchandler.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Millennium-Building-GCS-published.pdf

http://www.davidchandler.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Millennium-Building-GCS-published.pdf

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSThe struggle for individual ethical and political autonomy, the claim for the recognition of separate ‘political spaces’ and for the ‘incommunicability’ of political causes, demonstrates the limits of the radical claims for the normative project of global civil society ‘from below’. The rejection of the formal political sphere , as a way of mediating between the individual and the social, leaves political struggles isolated from any shared framework of meaning or from any formal processes of democratic accountability . This article should not be read as a defence of some nostalgic vision of the past, neither does it assert that the key problem with radical global civil society approaches is their rejection of formal engagement in existing political institutions and practices. The point being made here is that the rejection of state-based processes , which force the individual to engage with and account for the views of other members of society, is a reflection of a broader problem— an unwillingness to engage in political contestation . Advocates of global civil society ‘from below’ would rather hide behind the views of someone else, legitimising their views as the prior moral claims of others—the courtly advocates—or putting themselves in harm’s way and leading by inarticulate example, rather than engaging in a public debate. The unwillingness of radical activists to engage with their own society reflects the attenuation of political community rather than its expansion. Regardless of the effectiveness of radical lobbying and calls for recognition, this rejection of social engagement can only further legitimise the narrowing of the political sphere to a small circle of unaccountable elites . If the only alternative to the political ‘game’ is to threaten to ‘take our ball home’—the anti-politics of rejectionism — the powers that be can sleep peacefully in their beds.

4. Turn – rejection of the state doesn’t do anything but reinforce the power of right-wing forces in the US political sphere. They need to affirm pragmatic alternative to prevent the failure of their movement. This card reks the kPasha 96 (July-Sept. 1996, Mustapha Kamal, Professor and Chair of the Department of Politics and International Relations at the University of Aberdeen, “Security as Hegemony”, Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 283-302)TB

An attack on the postcolonial state as the author of violence and its drive to produce a modern citizenry may seem cathartic , without producing the semblance of an alternative vision of a new political community or fresh forms of life among existing political communities. Central to this critique is an assault on the state and other modern institutions said to disrupt some putatively natural flow of history. Tradition, on this logic, is uprooted to make room for grafted social forms; modernity gives birth to an intolerant and insolent Leviathan, a repository of violence and instrumental rationality's finest speci- men. Civil society - a realm of humaneness, vitality, creativity, and harmony - is superseded, then torn asunder through the tyranny of state-building. The attack on the institution of the state appears to substitute teleology for ontology. In the Third World context, especially, the rise of the modern state has been coterminous with the negation of past histories , cultures, identities, and above all with violence. The stubborn quest to construct the state as the fount of modernity has subverted extant communities and alternative forms of social organization. The more durable consequence of this project is in the

125

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSrealm of the political imaginary: the constrictions it has afforded; the denials of alternative futures. The postcolonial state , however, has also grown to become more heterodox - to become more than simply modernity's reckless agent against hapless nativism. The state is also seen as an expression of greater capacities against want, hunger, and injustice ; as an escape from the arbitrariness of communities established on narrower rules of inclusion/exclusion; as identity removed somewhat from capri- cious attachments. No doubt, the modern state has undermined traditional values of tolerance and pluralism, subjecting indigenous society to Western-centered rationality. But tradition can also conceal particularism and oppression of another kind. Even the most elastic interpretation of universality cannot find virtue in attachments re- furbished by hatred, exclusivity, or religious bigotry. A negation of the state is no guarantee that a bridge to universality can be built . Perhaps the task is to rethink modernity, not to seek refuge in a blind celebration of tradition. Outside, the state continues to inflict a self-producing "security dilemma"; inside, it has stunted the emergence of more humane forms of political expression. But there are always sites of resistance that can be recovered and sustained. A rejection of the state as a superfluous leftover of modernity that continues to straitjacket the South Asian imagination must be linked to the project of creating an ethical and humane order based on a restructuring of the state system that privileges the mighty and the rich over the weak and the poor. 74 Recognizing the constrictions of the modern Third World state, a reconstruction of state-society relations inside the state appears to be a more fruitful avenue than wishing the state away, only to be swallowed by Western-centered globalization and its powerful institutions.A recognition of the patent failure of other institutions either to deliver the social good or to procure more just distributional rewards in the global political economy may provide a sobering reassessment of the role of the state. An appreciation of the scale of human tragedy accompanying the collapse of the state in many local contexts may also provide important points of entry into rethinking the one-sided onslaught on the state. Nowhere are these costs borne more heavily than in the postcolonial, so-called Third World , where time-space compression has rendered societal processes more savage and less capable of ad- justing to rhythms dictated by globalization

5. Perm do both – only politics solves the kGrossberg 92 (Lawrence, Professor of Communications at the University of Illinois, We Gotta Get Out of This Place, p. 390-391)TB

But this would mean that the Left could not remain outside of the systems of governance. It has sometimes to work with, against and within bureaucratic systems of governance. Consider the case of Amnesty International, an immesely effective organization when its major strategy was (similar to that of the Right) exerting pressure directly on the bureaucracies of specific governments. In recent years (marked by the recent rock tour), it has apparently redirected its energy and resources,

seeking new members (who may not be committed to actually doing anything; memebership becomes little more than a statement of ideological support for a position that few are likely to oppose) and public visibility. In

stark contrast, the most effective struggle on the Left in recent times has been the dramatic (and, one hopes continuing) dismantling of apartheid in South Africa . It was accomplished by mobilizing popular pressure on the institutions and bureaucracies of economic and governmental institutions and it depended on a highly sophisticated organizational structure. The Left too often thinks that it can end racism and sexism and classism by changing people's attitudes and everyday practices (e.g. the 1990 Black boycott of Korean stores in

New York). Unfortunately, while such struggles may be extremely visible, they are often less effective than 126

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSattempts to move the institutions (e.g.,banks, taxing structures, distributors) which have put the economic realtions of black and immigrant populations in place and which condition people's everyday practices. The Left needs institutions which can operate within the system of governance, understanding that such institutions are the mediating structures by which power is actively realized . It is often by directing

opposition against specific institutions that power can be challenged. The Left assumed for some time now that, since it has so little access to the apparatuses of agency, its only alternative is to seek a public voice in the media through tactical protests. The Left does in fact need more visibility, but it also needs greater access to the entire range of apparatuses of decision making power . Otherwise the Left has nothing but its own self-righteousness. It is not individuals who have produced starvation and the other social disgraces of our world , although it is individuals who must take responsibility for eliminating them. But to do so, they must act with organizations , and within the systems of organizations which in fact have the capacity (as well as responsibility ) to fight them .

6. The alt forces economic and social responsibility on the Tohono, when it’s the USFG’s responsibility to fix the problems they caused in the first place. Perm do the aff then the alt solves this.Katz 2k (Adam, University of Hartford, Postmodernism and the politics of “culture”, 2000, pgs. 146-47)


7. It’s negative state action, another reason perm solves

127


Tuck and Yang 1. Perm do the aff and the alt in all other instances 2. Not speaking for other reflects blame and maintains the oppression of others – speaking for other is necessary and goodLaura Sells, Instructor of Speech Communication at Louisiana State University, 1997, “On Feminist Civility: Retrieving the Political in the Feminist Public Forum”

In her recent article, "The Problems of Speaking For Others," Linda Alcoff points out the ways in which this retreat rhetoric has actually become an evasion of political responsibility . Alcoff's arguments are rich and their

implications are many, but one implication is relevant to a vital feminist public forum. The retreat from speaking for others politically dangerous because it erodes public discourse. First, the retreat response presumes that we can, indeed, "retreat to a discrete location and make singular claims that are disentangled from other's locations." Alcoff calls this a "false ontological configuration" in which we ignore how our social locations are always already implicated in the locations of

others. The position of " not speaking for others " thus becomes an alibi that allows individuals to avoid responsibility and accountability for their effects on others. The retreat, then, is actually a withdrawal to an individualist realm, a move that reproduces an individualist ideology and privatizes the politics of experience. As she points out, this move creates a protected form of speech in which the individual is above critique because she is not making claims about others . This protection also gives the speaker immunity from having to be "true" to the experiences and needs of others . As a form of protected speech, then, " not speaking for others" short-circuits public debate by disallowing critique and avoiding responsibility to the other . Second, the retreat response undercuts the possibility of political efficacy. Alcoff illustrates this point with a list of people --Steven Biko, Edward Said, Rigoberta Menchu-- who have indeed spoken for others with significant political impact. As she bluntly puts it, both collective action and coalition necessitate speaking for others.

3. Education is a prerequisiteMarimba Ani, 1994, Yurugu: An African-centered Critique of European Cultural Thought and Behavior, p. 1-2

This study of Europe is an intentionally aggressive polemic. It is an assault upon the European paradigm; a repudiation of its essence. It is initiated with the intention

of contributing to the process of demystification necessary for those of us who would liberate ourselves from European intellectual imperialism. Europe's political domination of Africa and much of the "non-European" world has been accompanied by a

relentless cultural and psychological rape and by devastating econ omic exploitation . But what has compelled me to

write this book is the conviction that beneath this deadly onslaught lies a stultifying intellectual mystification that prevents Europe's political victims from thinking in a manner that would lead to authentic self-determination. Intellectual decolonization is a prerequisite for the creation of successful political decolonization and cultural reconstruction strategies. Europe's political imperialistic success can be accredited not so much to superior military might, as to the weapon of culture: The former ensures more immediate control but requires continual physical force for the maintenance of power, while the latter succeeds In long-lasting dominance that enlists the cooperation of its victims (i.e., pacification of the will). The

secret Europeans discovered early in their history is that culture carries rules for thinking, and that if you could impose your culture on your victims you could limit the creativity of their vision, destroying their ability to act with will and intent and in their own interest. The truth is that we are all " intellectuals ," all

128

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSpotential visionaries. / This book discusses the evolution of that process of imposition, as well as the characteristics of cultural beings who find it

necessary to impose their will on others. It is not a simple process to explain, since the tools we need in order to dissect it have been taken from us through colonial miseducation . 1 It is necessary to begin, therefore, with a painful

weaning from the very epistemological assumptions that strangle us . The weaning takes patience and commitment, but the liberation of our minds is well worth the struggle. / My chosen field is African-Centered cultural science — the reconstruction of a revolutionary African culture. I teach Pan-African studies. The experience convinces me more and more, however, that teaching

Pan-African studies well means teaching European studies simultaneously. To be truly liberated, African people must come to know the nature of European thought and behavior in order to understand the effect that Europe has had on our ability to think victoriously. We must be able to separate our thought from European thought , so as to visualize a future that is not dominated by Europe. This is demanded by an African-centered view because we are Africans, and

because the future towards which Europe leads us is genocidal.

4. Inaction DA– pushing the struggle onto indigenous peoples encourages inaction in the face of atrocity.

Wanzer 12 (Assistant Professor of Communication Studies at the University of Iowa in Iowa City) 2012 (Darrel, “Delinking Rhetoric, or Revisiting Mcgee’s Fragmentation Thesis Through Decoloniality” Rhetoric and Public Affairs Page 654)//TBIn short, I would submit that we all (regardless of whether we are interested in discursive con/texts explicitly marked by colonialism or imperialism) must seek to become decolonial rhetoricians. Rather than be “at the service” of Continental philosophy as so many in our ranks seem to be, we should adopt a decolonial attitude that aids in “shifting the geography of reason, by unveiling and enacting geopolitics and body-politics of knowledge” by putting our disciplinary tools in rhetoric “at the service of the problem being addressed.” It is not enough, however, to leave this task to scholars of color. Such a move is dangerous insofar as it continues to relegate these important questions to the margins of the discipline while constructing a fıction of “inclusion” that remains authorized by the hubris of zero point epistemology.45 We who are colonized or function in some way Otherwise cannot be the only ones leading the charge to delink rhetoric from modern/coloniality. An ethic of decolonial love requires those who benefıt most from the epistemic violence of the West to renounce their privilege, give the gift of hearing, and engage in forms of praxis that can more productively negotiate the borderlands between inside and outside, in thought and in being. We need not, as I have shown with McGee, throw out the baby with the bathwater; however, it is crucial that rhetoricians begin to take the decolonial option seriously if we wish to do more than perpetuate “a permanent state of exception”46 that dehumanizes people of color and maintains the hubris of a totalizing and exclusionary episteme.

5. Perm do both solves best. People regardless of race need to advocate for natives. However, at the same time we should progressively incorporate actual natives into academia.Newns, 14 (Lucinda. London Metropolitan University, Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities (FSSH), Adjunct. "Speaking for Others: Tensions in Post-colonial Studies." Times Higher Education. N.p., 16 July 2014. Web. 30 July 2015. <https://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/comment/opinion/speaking-for-others-tensions-in-post-colonial-studies/2014501.article>.)//TB

129

http://londonmet.academia.edu/Departments/Faculty_of_Social_Sciences_and_Humanities_FSSH_

http://londonmet.academia.edu/

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSIt is often said that “impostor syndrome” is a common experience among PhD students, but does my whiteness make me an impostor in some academic spaces for reasons beyond my novice status ? My partner, who is not

white, has joked that I should bring him along to academic events as a way to increase my “street cred”. Yet the issue goes far beyond a question of academic credibility (or lack of it) to one of institutional power structures around race and the question of who gets to (or should be able to) speak about black experience . Put in the context of debates around the question “Why isn’t my professor black?”, there is the possibility that my appointment to a permanent academic post (should I be lucky enough to obtain one) could be a result of the very hegemonic structures that my work and politics purport to resist. I can take some comfort in arguments such as

those put forward by the post-colonial feminist scholar Trinh T. Minh-ha, who asserts that “the understanding of difference is a shared responsibility, which requires a minimum willingness to reach out to the unknown ” – in other words, that r esisting racial hierarchies should not be the job of only those who experience racism . My presence at these events and the fact that my research addresses racial power structures as a central concern could be cited as evidence of my willingness to “reach out to the unknown” and forge networks of resistance across racial and ethnic lines , but the uneasiness remains – and with good reason. A recent article on the Media Diversified website describes a controversy that overtook the 1992 international conference Women in Africa and in the African Diaspora, held in Nigeria. It centred on the question of whether white women should be able to present papers on black women’s experiences, those opposing arguing that the sessions should be a safe space away from white women whose collective complicity with racial discrimination is well documented. Similar debates are nowadays played out on social media, particularly Twitter, where white feminists are frequently called out for a lack of attention to their/our own privileged positions. As the author of the Media Diversified article rightly points out, the anger exhibited at the conference and in the so-called “toxic wars” on Twitter has an important history that must be acknowledged. We must remain on guard for those times when “solidarity” is actually tantamount to erasure (as the hashtag #solidarityisforwhitewomen draws attention to). We often see literature as outside this kind of identity politics, and teaching literature (as opposed to something such as, say, sociology) somehow avoids the question of whether I personally have lived experience of the topic at hand. Perhaps this is because when we read literature we are to a certain extent always brought into a world not our own. But English is also one of the areas in the UK that is the most whitewashed. At an event at Soas, University of London earlier this year, Joan Anim-Adoo, professor of Caribbean literature and culture at Goldsmiths, pointed out that despite a surge in course offerings in “post-colonial literature”, English literature has been particularly resistant to letting “others” in – both on its bookshelves and in its academic departments. This is in contrast to the US, where African American literature has a more prominent place in American literary history. This difference between the UK and the US has a lot to do with England’s colonial past and the central role that English literature played in shoring up “Englishness” abroad, but it also has to do with the continuing perception in the UK that non-white populations are newcomers,

making them seem like “add-ons” to the established canon of “Great English Literature”. And in times of austerity, such perceived “ addons” are always the first to be under threat . At academic events on race , my whiteness seems to be the proverbial elephant in the room . However, at literature conferences, even those aimed at “post-colonial” themes, the prevailing whiteness of the delegates guards against any such “uncomfortable” encounters. This discrepancy is evidence of the depth of the problem. If we can’t connect the dots between the resistant theories we spout in our papers and the bodies in the room , then we are doing our own research a disservice . This has not been an attempt to offer any easy solutions to the issues I highlight, but is rather about starting a conversation that needs to be had alongside all the others that stem from the question “Why isn’t my professor

black?”. This unease I feel is something that I want to hold on to but not to keep to myself any more. I hope that these thoughts will be shared, debated and contested beyond my own limited experience.

130

https://twitter.com/hashtag/solidarityisforwhitewomen?src=hash


Wilderson 1. Aff is a disad to the alt –rejection of the aff leaves a government unpunished for the deaths of thousands of indigenous and cultural genocideThis only fuels the desire of the government to wage invisible wars for their own self security – means their war impacts are inevitable.Also means the alt fails - even in a world outside of desire, structural hierarchy and bordered thinking is inevitable and corrupts all analysis done through a nihilistic lens

131


Theory

132

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSInternational Fiat Bad [0:32]

International CPs are illegitimate—

1. Shifts focus of debate from whether or not the plan should happen to arbitrary decisions on who should do the plan—this destroys education. 2. No real world applications—policymakers can’t just assume other countries will enact the plan in real life. 3. The CP artificially inflates the net benefit—international DAs mean we can still talk about international actors.4. Moots the 1AC—disregards 8 minutes of affirmative speech time—the aff’s only offense is their case and the neg steals this.5. Unpredictable—there’s an infinite number of international actors—it’s impossible to research all of them. 6. Kills aff ground—debating against the CP is debating against the aff—it forces the aff to debate against itself. 7. Interpretation: The neg cannot have foreign states as actors to provide reciprocity.

133

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWS2AC Condo Bad [0:13]

Condo is bad and a voting issue—A. Ethical Coherence—their interp precludes ABSOLUTE and UNCONITIONAL responsibility to the Other—that’s the key advantage to the aff

B. 2AC Time and Strat skew—risks the rope-a-dope and disincentivizes offenseCounter interpretation—they get ONE UNconditional option or the Status Quo

134

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWS1AR CI [0:06]

Conditionality is bad—The negative gets ONE unconditional option or the status quoThis HAS to be a voting issue because rejecting the argument IS WHAT CONDITIONALITY IS.

135

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWS1AR Ethics [0:22]

Ethical Coherence—the whole value of the aff is that it takes an ABSOLUTE, and thus UNCONDITIONAL responsibility toward the Other. Advocacy skills are uniquely key here—you should incentivize 1NC CONSISTANCY so we’ll become effective advocates for material change—that’s the most real world and is the ONLY portable skill.[Outweighs/turns their best source of offense]This is an impact turn to all their NEG FLEX arguments—empirics prove teams don’t need multiple condo worlds and using TRICKS to discourage ethical responsibility is a massive DA to their interp.

136

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWS1AR Skew [0:20]

The 1NC irreparably skewed the most important aff speech and our only chance for offense—A. Strategy—we can’t read addons to answer the K because the CP would solve them—disincentivizes substantive offense and even prevents us from straight turning DAs—internal link turns 2AC skillsB. Time—negative flexability means the 2AC needs to prepare for a virtually infinite number of possible block combinations—exascerbates time disparities and makes the 2AC impossible. [Outweighs/turns their best source of offense]

137


A2

138

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSSeverance Perms

1. [Explain why your perm isn’t severance]2. Severance perms are a still a test of competitiveness and not an advocacy of the affirmative.3. Key to aff ground – all perms other than “do both” would be severance and that’s unfair to the aff because they’re key to checking back unpredictable cp’s/k’s.4. They’re reciprocal – neg gets to run pics, severance perms are key to checking this.5. Err aff on theory -- neg gets the block and can control the outcome of the debate by strategically picking certain arguments.6. Not a voter – reject the argument and not the team

139


CPs

140

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWS2ac Consult CPs Bad [0:23]

Consult counterplans are illegitimate – 1. they are plan plus and steal the entirety of aff ground by adding an extra

condition or action to the plan 2. Conditional fiat – we don’t know whether the neg will defend “yes” or “no”

which reduces our ability to generate offense which justifies severance perms3. Timeframe fiat – the counterplan implements the plan later than the

affirmative which allows them to spike out of disad links by delaying – makes timeframe perms reciprocal

4. Infinite regression – the negative could consult any country they wanted5. Voting issue for fairness, predictability and ground

141

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSPICs Bad [0:19]

1. Destroy significance of 1AC: pics refocus the debate on the tiny difference between the plan and a slightly different cp

2. Undermines education- allows generic agent CP’s to be run respectively. It would be more educational if the neg had to clash with the substance of specific aff cases

3. Trivializes debate-if the neg can cp with part of the aff plan, then they could virtually capture 100% of the plan. Debate focused now on narrow procedural question rather than distinct policies

142

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSConditions CPs Bad [0:21]

Conditioning fiat is a voter—A. Ethics first—CP distracts from our overall ethical model—doesn’t matter how it’s enactedB. Predictability—we could research all lit relevant to our aff without ever reading about this alternate process—bad for researchC. Infinitely regressive—infinite number of possible conditions and we can’t get offense vs all of themD. Artificially competitive—only competes on things they’ve arbitrarily added to the planCI—the neg gets these arguments as DAs and/or needs a prescriptive solvency advocate in the context of our aff

143

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSNo Solvency Advocate Bad [0:37]

Destroys educationUnpredictable texts – without a solvency advocate, the neg can fiat anything which kills real world education because they can just create an artificial counterplan which is bad for debate because they fiat competitiveness. Not real world – the cp would never be presented before congress if no one agreed it was a good idea.Ground – Moving target – without a stable plan text the neg can always shift advocacies by the 2NR which kills aff strategy from the 2AC. Steals aff answers – we can’t indict their solvency evidence because there is none specific to their counterplan which is key to impact calc and determining whether the counterplan solves.Not reciprocal – aff is forced to present a plan steeped in the literature base of the resolution. Not forcing the neg to present a counterplan with a solvency advocate is unfair to the aff.Err aff on theory – neg gets the block and can control the outcome of the debate by strategically picking certain arguments.Voter for fairness, education, and ground.

144

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSFunctional Compet Good [1:33]

Counterplans should be functionally competitive

Our interp is that the net benefit to the CP must be predicated off of the result of the plan – turns and o/w edu

Textual competition in which the nb is are bad – it allows for word pics

a. Aff strat- We have to debate against our own plan- this makes it impossible to make strategic 2AC decisions-moots the 1AC and 8 minutes of our speech time.

b. Critical Thinking- We never will learn anything new if we debate the same plan over and over

d. Infinite regression- They justify infinite number of net benefits and word PICs

1. Stops the neg from stealing the entirety of the aff- for the neg to be functionally competitive, they cannot steal the 1ac, making sure that the 1ac stays un-mooted

2. Most real-world- bills aren’t amended to change punctuation, they are amended to change the function

3. Limited number of CPs- the CP must compete based on a function of the plan.

4. Ground- There is always offence on how the function of the CP differs from the function of the plan

5. Functional competition is better than the alternative-a. Textual competition destroys debate

i. STRAT SKEW: Textual comp. allows for the 1ac to get mootedThey can pic out of the word THE and make us lose every time – worse lit base

b. EDUCATION DESTRUCTION: Textual competition turns the topic of the debate to grammar, rather than the res.

Grammar is a worse standard – less real world bc policymakers can alter typos in bills and there is no impact

c. NO COMPETITION IS STUPID AND DESTROYS DEBATE- TURNS THE TOPIC OF THE DEBATE AWAY FROM THE RESOLUTION AND EDUCATION ON THE YEAR’S TOPIC.

6. Textual Doesn’t test exclusivity- The ban the plan CP wouldn’t compete because the aff could just write not into their perm text to prove lack of competetiveness

145

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWS7. More real world- Congressmen fight over how bills will function, not the words theyre

written in

8. Predictable- The function of the CP is limited by normal means and the literature, if our ev. Says the CP competes, the aff should defend it

9. Textual encourages vague plan writing. Affs would write their plan texts vague enough to interpret that any CP isn’t textually competitive

10. Any CP can textually compete- you could literally rephrase the plan text and it would function the same in the real world.

146

Tohono Affirmative – DDI 2015 SWSTextual Compet Good [0:15]

1. Predictable- Plan is the focus of the debate. Text is most predictable because it is the only stable, distinct advocacy, argument changes everything else

2. Fairness- Functional competition is arbitrary, it can be derived from intent creating an unpredictable moving target.

3. Forces better plan writing—better for negative ground on all issues and better debate to avoid procedural and vagueness debates.

147

Documents

forms.huffmanisd.netforms.huffmanisd.net/debate/Hargrave Core/Tohono... · Web viewThe Tohono O’odham Nation is a Native American nation that has existed in what is now eastern