Verbatim 4.6 - wcdebate.com · Web viewBrian Doherty, Senior editor for Reason magazine, March 9, 2015, “ ... According to Sam Zamarripa, president of the Board of Directors of

West Coast Publishing Surveillance 2015 OCTOBER Page 1

War on Drugs Surveillance AFF....................................................................................................................5

***Civil Liberties Adv***.........................................................................................................................6

Civil Liberties Adv.................................................................................................................................7

Civil Liberties Adv— General Link........................................................................................................8

Civil Liberties Adv—Racism..................................................................................................................9

Civil Liberties Adv—Root Cause.........................................................................................................10

Civil Liberties Adv—A/T WOT Alt Cause.............................................................................................11

Civil Liberties Adv—Impact................................................................................................................12

***War on Drugs Bad Adv***...............................................................................................................13

War on Drugs Adv—Losing Now/ Must Shift Approach.....................................................................14

War on Drugs Adv—Losing Now/ Must Shift Approach.....................................................................15

War on Drugs Adv—Surveillance Bad................................................................................................16

War on Drugs Adv—Economy...........................................................................................................17

War on Drugs Adv—Tyranny.............................................................................................................18

War on Drugs Adv—Racism/ Classism...............................................................................................19

War on Drugs Adv—Racist.................................................................................................................20

***Prisons Adv***................................................................................................................................21

Prisons Adv—WOD Overcrowding.................................................................................................22



Prisons Adv—Unconstitutional Conditions........................................................................................25

Prisons Adv—School-to-Prison Pipeline.............................................................................................26

Prisons Adv—Overcrowding Impact..................................................................................................27

Prisons Adv—Overcrowding Impact..................................................................................................28

***A/T Legalize Marijuana CP***.........................................................................................................29

No Solvency—War on Drugs Int. Links...............................................................................................30

Turn—More Drugs in the US.............................................................................................................31

***Other Cards***................................................................................................................................32

Solvency.............................................................................................................................................33

Inherency...........................................................................................................................................34

A/T Drug Surveillance Disad...............................................................................................................35

ICE Raids AFF (Immigration and Customs Enforcement)...........................................................................36

1AC....................................................................................................................................................37

We’re a small non-profit. Please don’t share this file with those who have not paid including via dropbox, google drive, the web, printed copies, email, etc. Visit us at www.wcdebate.com

http://www.wcdebate.com/


1AC....................................................................................................................................................39

1AC....................................................................................................................................................40

1AC....................................................................................................................................................42

Harms Ext. – Warrantless Searches...................................................................................................43

Consent Fails......................................................................................................................................44

Terrorism Advantage Ext...................................................................................................................45

Solvency Extension............................................................................................................................46

Solvency – Warrants Key...................................................................................................................47

A2: Politics – Bipart Turn...................................................................................................................48

A2: Race Consciousness K – Forefronting Race bad..........................................................................49

A2: Race Consciousness K – Law Good.............................................................................................50

A2: Race Consciousness K – Racial Categories bad...........................................................................51

A2: Race Consciousness K – A2: Whiteness.....................................................................................53

A2: Topicality “Surveillance” T...........................................................................................................54

War on Drugs NEG.....................................................................................................................................56

***Topicality***...................................................................................................................................57

Topicality Shell...................................................................................................................................58

Block Ext............................................................................................................................................59

***End Prohibition CP***.....................................................................................................................60

Solvency—1NC..................................................................................................................................61

Solvency—General............................................................................................................................62

Solvency—Prisons Adv—Overcrowding.............................................................................................63

Solvency—Cartels/ Violence/ Prisons................................................................................................64

***Prisons Adv Answers***..................................................................................................................65

No Inherency—Overcrowding Addressed Now.................................................................................66

Won’t Solve Overpopulation.............................................................................................................67

Won’t Solve Overpopulation.............................................................................................................68

Alt Causes to Overcrowding...............................................................................................................69



A/T “Marijuana Related Crime”.........................................................................................................72

A/T “Marijuana Related Crime”.........................................................................................................73

***War on Drugs Adv Answers***........................................................................................................74




Winnable—U.S..................................................................................................................................75

Winnable—Mexico............................................................................................................................76

War on Drugs= Law Enforcement Funding........................................................................................77

War on Drugs Not Racist....................................................................................................................78



Turn—Drug Use Destroys Minority Communities..............................................................................81

Turn—Laundry List of Benefits..........................................................................................................82

Marijuana is Addictive/ Bad for Health..............................................................................................83

Drug Use Causes Crime......................................................................................................................84

***Civil Liberties Adv Answers***........................................................................................................85

No Solvency.......................................................................................................................................86

Civil Liberties Alt Cause—Freedom Act..............................................................................................87

Civil Liberties Alt Cause—Laundry List...............................................................................................88

Civil Liberties Alt Cause—Obama.......................................................................................................89

Civil Liberties Alt Cause—Obama.......................................................................................................90

Impact Defense—Life O/W Liberty....................................................................................................91

Impact Defense—Life O/W Liberty....................................................................................................92

***Generic Disad Links***....................................................................................................................93

Link—Crime.......................................................................................................................................94

Link—Crime.......................................................................................................................................95

Link—Crime.......................................................................................................................................96

Link—War on Drugs...........................................................................................................................97

Link—War on Drugs...........................................................................................................................98

Link—War on Drugs...........................................................................................................................99

Link—War on Drugs.........................................................................................................................100

***Other Neg Cards***......................................................................................................................101

Inherency—Bulk Phone Records/ Wiretapping...............................................................................102

Drug Surveillance Effective..............................................................................................................103

Drug Surveillance Effective..............................................................................................................104

ICE Raids NEG (Immigration and Customs Enforcement)........................................................................105

§ 287(g) CP.......................................................................................................................................106

Supreme Court CP solvency.............................................................................................................107




Last Resort CP Solvency...................................................................................................................108

Ban Raids CP - Solvency...................................................................................................................109

Funding Conditions CP - Solvency....................................................................................................111

Warrant + Consent CP - Solvency....................................................................................................112

Race Consciousness K......................................................................................................................113

Race Consciousness K......................................................................................................................115

Race Consciousness K – USFG/ICE Links..........................................................................................116

Race Consciousness K – Colorblind Policies Bad..............................................................................118

Race Consciousness K – Colorblind Policies Bad..............................................................................120

Race Consciousness K – Reformism bad / Alternative solvency......................................................121

Race Consciousness K – Alternative Solvency..................................................................................122

Politics Links.....................................................................................................................................123

Solvency/Harms Answers - Status Quo Solves.................................................................................124

Solvency/Harms Answers - Status Quo Solves.................................................................................126

Solvency/Harms Answers – A2: Early morning raids........................................................................127

Solvency/Harms Answers – Internal ICE mismanagement..............................................................128

A2: Terrorism..................................................................................................................................130

A2: Terrorism..................................................................................................................................131




Drone Surveillance Solvency Extensions AFF




Federal action is keyFederal legislation solves. We can do the plan in cooperation with state actionKurt W. Smith, an assistant professor of Environmental Management at Methodist University in Fayetteville, North Carolina, 2015, “Drone Technology: Benefits, Risks, and Legal Considerations,” Seattle Journal of Environmental Law, http://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1053&context=sjel, ACC. 9-25-2015

The potential of privacy intrusion by drones is real and should be addressed at the federal level with a broad approach that would restrict drones from using gathered images of people without written permission. States could then implement more restrictive rules based on local and regional preferences. But all fifty states should provide some relief from the potential of privacy intrusion, and to increase confidence in the use of drones for public good and commercial enterprise. This would, in effect, create a kind of cooperative federalism with the federal government, providing a baseline of protection against privacy intrusion and interference with commercial aviation, and states providing nuance that would reflect local and regional preferences.

Federal legislation is essential to secure privacy and 1st Amendment concernsRobert Gruber, a litigation associate at Greenberg Traurig, LLP, 2015, “Commercial Drones and Privacy: Can We Trust States with “Drone Federalism”?, Richmond Journal of Law & Technology, 21:4, http://jolt.richmond.edu/v21i4/article14.pdf, ACC. 9-25-2015

Even if privacy is traditionally within the states’ domain, Congress also has a pedigree of privacy laws. Existing federal privacy laws are sectoral, carving out a particular privacy issue; several answer questions about the relationship between privacy and technology. For example, federal laws address telephone and electronic communications, standards for the electronic exchange of health care information, and the privacy of children’s personal information online. An act outlining baseline privacy policies for commercial UAS would not be out of place on such a list. In addition, Congress’ passing of the FMRA could suggest a greater appreciation for the social and economic benefits of commercial UAV operations than many states currently have. The FMRA predicated the FAA’s continuing funding on efforts to integrate drones into the national airspace. The impetus is there for bipartisan support of a drone-friendly Act: having invested in the UAS industry’s economic future, it is unlikely Congress would enjoy seeing the market flounder on state laws (once the FAA lives up to its part of the bargain). Finally, that federal legislation is more costly and often requires greater deliberation may in fact translate into better results than those currently being achieved by the states. While the extent of the First Amendment right to record is far from clear, Congress could establish baseline privacy-related rules that would prevent an act from being categorically stricken. And some privacy interests can be vindicated without implicating the First Amendment at all, as by enacting transparency requirements.




The FAA should immediately implement drone regulationsMarjorie Cohn, professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, former president of the National Lawyers Guild, and deputy secretary general of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers, September 2, 2015, “One Day Soon, That Drone Overhead May Be Pointing a Taser at You,” TruthDig, http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/09/02/one-day-soon-drone-overhead-may-be-pointing-taser-you, , ACC. 9-25-2015

The Federal Aviation Administration issued proposed regulations on drone use earlier this year. Drones would not be allowed to fly over people unless they are directly involved with the flight. The rules would apply to drones that weigh 55 pounds or less. Drone flights could take place only during the daytime. They would be limited to an altitude of 500 feet and speeds of 100 mph. And they could not fly near airports or restricted airspace. The operator would have to maintain eye contact with the drone at all times. It could take years for these regulations to be implemented. Meanwhile, the FAA has reported 700 near misses between airplanes and drones in U.S. airspace so far this year. Some of the drones have been flying at high altitudes—10,000 feet or more.



http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/09/02/one-day-soon-drone-overhead-may-be-pointing-taser-you

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/09/02/one-day-soon-drone-overhead-may-be-pointing-taser-you

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/cohn_drones_watching_you_20150901


Federal action is keyState action is inconsistent and contains too many loopholes. Federal guidelines are essential to prevent warrantless data collectionCandice Bernd, assistant editor/reporter with Truthout, February 24, 2015, “Proposed Rules Regulating Domestic Drone Use Lack Police Warrant Requirement”, Truth-out.org, http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/29250-proposed-rules-regulating-domestic-drone-use-lack-police-warrant-requirement#, ACC. 9-27-2015

A crucial element that is missing from the White House order and proposed FAA rules, according to Guliani: a warrant requirement for law enforcement officials seeking to deploy domestic drones for surveillance purposes. "The fact that [the memo] leaves that to the discretion of each agency could be a concern down the line if the agency decides not to adopt that requirement," Guliani said. Many state, federal agencies and corporations are already using domestic drones, with more than 80 law enforcement agencies having applied for a special "Certificate of Authorization" from the FAA to use UAS since 2008. While the White House directive is aimed at addressing federal agencies, many states are still grappling with how to regulate the use of domestic drones. More than a dozen states have enacted legislation regulating domestic drone use, while more than half of all states have introduced legislation regarding domestic drones, with a majority of those bills as well as already-enacted legislation requiring law enforcement agencies to obtain a probable cause warrant before a drone can be deployed. But in the states that have enacted legislation, the laws vary widely and establish inconsistent standards. States such as Texas, for example, restrict domestic drone use, but the legislation contains so many exemptions for law enforcement agencies the ACLU have called it "an outlier" in terms of protecting privacy. Meanwhile states such as Florida, Oregon, Illinois, Montana and Tennessee require a warrant for law enforcement use in nearly all cases. "That there are states that have looked at, and have adopted that warrant requirement, makes the omission in the presidential memo even more obvious," Guliani said. With no national legislation regulating domestic drone use, inconsistent and varying standards by which law enforcement agencies and corporations can deploy UAS in states, and the glaring omission of a warrant requirement at this point in the White House's guidelines, a dangerous loophole remains present in which law enforcement agencies, and potentially corporations, in only a couple of years, can deploy UAS in masse to conduct surveillance on civilians who have not been charged with any crime.




Federal action is keyCurrent federal action is insufficient to protect privacy. Congressional action is key to privacy, consistency and transparencyDeirdre Fulton, staff writer at Common Dreams, February 15, 2015, “Surveillance, Privacy Concerns Raised as FAA Gives Domestic Drones a Nod”, Common Dreams, http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/02/15/surveillance-privacy-concerns-raised-faa-gives-domestic-drones-nod, ACC. 9-25-2015

Domestic non-military drone use took one step closer to widespread implementation on Sunday, as the Federal Aviation Administration issued proposed regulations for small unmanned aircraft systems in the U.S. According to an FAA press release, the rule would limit flights to daylight and visual-line-of-sight operations. It also addresses height restrictions, operator certification, aircraft registration and marking, and operational limits. In a blow to Google

and Amazon, it does not permit drone delivery. Also on Sunday, the White House issued an Executive Order requiring every federal agency to develop "a framework regarding privacy, accountability, and transparency for commercial and private [Unmanned Aircraft Systems] use" within 90 days and with an eye toward protecting personal privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties. "Together, the FAA regulations and the White House order provide some basic rules of the sky that will govern who can fly drones in the United

States and under what conditions, while attempting to prevent aviation disasters and unrestrained government surveillance," the Washington Post declared. But civil liberties experts warned that the FAA rules and presidential memo leave the door open for invasions of privacy by the government and corporations. "The proposed rules do absolutely nothing to address privacy, except perhaps require some identifying markings displayed in the 'largest practicable manner' such that you may be able to identify who owns the drone that is spying on you," Ryan Calo wrote at Forbes. "I was on the conference call announcing the new rules and the Secretary of

Transportation mentioned the importance of privacy and civil liberties, but this commitment is not reflected in the proposed rules." The Center for Democracy and Technology called on Congress to raise the bar on domestic drone standards. "Drones have the potential for significant societal, scientific, and economic benefits, but also pose new and intrusive privacy problems," CDT senior counsel Harley Geiger said in a press statement. "The White House’s memo requires government agencies to enhance transparency and develop clear rules to protect the privacy of Americans. This is an important and welcome step in advancing drone technology, while

protecting civil liberties." Still, he added, "the White House memo itself does not establish strong privacy and transparency drone standards for agencies, leaving it up to the agencies to develop these standards . Because the memo’s requirements are not specific, the drone policies the agencies set for themselves will be key to how individuals’ privacy is actually protected.

Congress still has a role to play in setting strong privacy and transparency standards for drone use."



http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/02/15/surveillance-privacy-concerns-raised-faa-gives-domestic-drones-nod

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/02/15/surveillance-privacy-concerns-raised-faa-gives-domestic-drones-nod


Pass Amended DAPTACongress should pass DAPTA to protect privacyBen Jenkins, University of Kentucky College of Law, January 2014, “Watching the Watchmen: Drone Privacy and the Need for Oversight”, http://law-apache.uky.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/9-Jenkins.pdf, ACC. 9-27-2015

This note argues that in order to safeguard Americans’ privacy against government drone surveillance in an actively growing field, Congress should implement legislation that provides a framework for protection while allowing for industry growth and innovation. Although several bills are pending, it is uncertain if or when those bills will pass. While it would be a large step towards ensuring privacy protection from drone surveillance if the proposed bills pass, there is still room for improvement. Even the most promising bill, the Drone Aircraft Privacy and Transparency Act of 2013 (DAPTA), fails to provide a process for ongoing oversight of drone operators to ensure transparency and continued compliance with the Act’s privacy protections. DAPTA and other pending legislation should be amended to charge a single agency with responsibility for drone privacy oversight, including audits to make sure drone operators comply with privacy regulations. Operators should be required to submit ongoing reports of their data collection, retention, and disposal procedures to the agency, and these reports should be gathered and submitted to Congress annually. Proper legislative action would ensure that the constitutional right to privacy is not overrun by rapidly growing technologies, diminishing privacy norms, and heightened security interests. With proper privacy protections in place, society could be more receptive to increased use, development, and application of drones in daily life. Part I of this Note provides background on drones: their nature, use, technology, and the current Fourth Amendment jurisprudence relevant to such. Part II explains why drones present a unique threat to privacy and addresses current shortfalls in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence and in legislative efforts to address privacy concerns connected with their widespread use. Part III suggests amendments to proposed legislation to address shortfalls therein, concluding that proper anticipatory action and ongoing oversight are necessary to ensure that police technology does not erode the minimum expectations of privacy guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment.



http://law-apache.uky.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/9-Jenkins.pdf


An amended version of DAPTA provides all the necessary privacy safeguardsBen Jenkins, University of Kentucky College of Law, January 2014, “Watching the Watchmen: Drone Privacy and the Need for Oversight”, http://law-apache.uky.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/9-Jenkins.pdf, ACC. 9-27-2015

Future federal regulation should be written to provide baseline privacy protections against government drone usage without being over–inclusive so as to stifle industry growth and its attendant economic benefits. Most important to this legislation are provisions that provide for transparency between the government operator and the public. Proposed solutions include operators supplying updated statements about the nature of the data being collected (e.g., purpose of surveillance, duration of surveillance, incidental data collected), a general statement of when and where such surveillance data will be collected, and this data subsequently being published to a website for public notice and review. Almost just as important is oversight through external audit procedures, which would work as a check on malfeasance. DAPTA includes several of the safeguards necessary in any legislation to protect privacy but could be improved to address several shortcomings. With the following improvements, DAPTA could stand as a solid legislative framework to protect privacy standards and still allow for industry growth.

DAPTA allows the drones industry to flourish while protecting privacyBen Jenkins, University of Kentucky College of Law, January 2014, “Watching the Watchmen: Drone Privacy and the Need for Oversight”, http://law-apache.uky.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/9-Jenkins.pdf, ACC. 9-27-2015

Growth in the market for government and commercial drone use could result in worldwide expenditures of $89.1 billion over the next decade. For better or for worse, drones will soon be everywhere. Current law is unprepared to protect Americans’ privacy from what will be a drone’s ever–watchful “eye in the sky.” However, a proper balance must be struck between privacy concerns and stifling growth and technological advancement in a fledgling drone industry. Federal legislation could offer a solution, and an amended DAPTA could provide a decent model. In order for us to realize the full potential of drones we must address privacy issues right from the start. If Congress allays concerns before there is a problem, the drone boom will be met by a social and political climate more receptive to drones and their potential for positive results. The time to address drone privacy is now. “[T]he technologies are still visible. In 10 years, they’ll be small, they’ll be everywhere, it’ll be too late.” As the law stands now, citizens are left asking themselves “who watch the watchmen?”






Pass Amended DAPTAThe amended DAPTA prevents unauthorized data collection and fosters transparencyPhyllis B. Sumner, King & Spalding Privacy & Information Security Practice Group, et al., February 4, 2014, “Unmanned Aircraft and Privacy Law: A Technological Leap Into A Legal Gap,” King & Spalding Client Alter, http://documents.jdsupra.com/b916f0ba-2bfe-4534-b615-4b88b95568af.pdf, ACC. 9-27-2015

Congress is also considering legislation on privacy law and drones. For example, the Drone Aircraft Privacy and Transparency Act, or DAPTA, offered by Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA), would amend the Federal Aviation Administration Modernization and Reform Act to bar the FAA from providing drone permits unless the license application “includes a data collection statement that explains who will operate the drone, where the drone will be flown, what kind of data will be collected, how that data will be used, whether the information will be sold to third parties, and the period for which the information will be retained.” The DAPTA would additionally require the “FAA [to] create a publicly available website that lists all approved licenses and includes the data collection and data minimization statements, any data security breaches suffered by a licensee, and the times and locations of drone flights.”

DAPTA restrict law enforcement use, except in emergenciesPhyllis B. Sumner, King & Spalding Privacy & Information Security Practice Group, et al., February 4, 2014, “Unmanned Aircraft and Privacy Law: A Technological Leap Into A Legal Gap,” King & Spalding Client Alter, http://documents.jdsupra.com/b916f0ba-2bfe-4534-b615-4b88b95568af.pdf, ACC. 9-27-2015

The DAPTA would also restrict the use of drones by law enforcement, requiring law enforcement organizations to “include an additional data minimization statement that explains how they will minimize the collection and retention of data unrelated to the investigation of a crime.” The DAPTA would require law enforcement officers to obtain a warrant before using surveillance drones, except in emergencies. Exceptions to this warrant requirement would include cases where officers believe there is imminent risk of death or serious physical injury, and where the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has determined that there is “credible” evidence of a terror attack.



http://documents.jdsupra.com/b916f0ba-2bfe-4534-b615-4b88b95568af.pdf

http://documents.jdsupra.com/b916f0ba-2bfe-4534-b615-4b88b95568af.pdf


Amend FAA Modernization Act of 2012Amending the FAA Modernization Act of 2012 resolves privacy concerns and commerce questionsTimothy T. Takahashi, Professor of Practice – Aerospace Engineering, School for Engineering of Matter, Transport and Energy, Arizona State University, 2015, “The Rise of the Drones,” Albany Government Law Review, 8:1, http://www.albanygovernmentlawreview.org/Articles/Vol08_1/8.1.063-Takahashi.pdf, ACC. 9-25-2015

Our nation’s Congress and President Obama should amend the FAA Modernization Act of 2012 to require the FAA to implement comprehensive airworthiness regulations for drones. Drone manufacturers should prove their basic designs airworthy just as manned aircraft manufacturers must Drone repair should be performed by certified mechanics, just as manned aircraft repair must. Drone operations should be flown by certified pilots, just as manned aircraft must. Like manned aircraft, drones should “not wander about in the sky like vagrant clouds. They [should] move only by federal permission, subject to federal inspection, in the hands of federally certified personnel and under an intricate system of federal commands.” Our nation’s Congress and President Obama should amend the FAA Modernization Act of 2012 to better delineate what is and is not public airspace for use in interstate commerce. Presently, airspace less than 1200 feet above ground level (Class G airspace) exists in Tenth Amendment limbo. While aircraft operations are permissible in class G airspace, the government may fine those who fly below 500 feet above ground level. Additionally, common law trespass violations may occur in these instances where aircraft is flown below 500 feet. As with the Pirker controversy, “Tacocopter” will definitely bring interstate commerce within 500 feet of the ground. Since the economic viability of drones and crucial Fourth Amendment jurisprudence depend upon the precise definition of lawful airspace, clarity is needed. Our nation’s Congress and President Obama should also pass and sign new legislation that gives the FAA the statutory authority to implement a proper Federal privacy policy for robotic as well as manned aircraft. The “Certificate-of-Waiver-or-Authorization” process should give way to a general set of comprehensive airworthiness regulations for drones, as drones should be safe. Thus, the laws under consideration in our state houses represent a step in the right direction. The acceptable bounds of police use of drones with and without a warrant should be clearly delineated. State legislatures should not stop there; they should clearly spell out what level of remote sensing technology may or may not be legally employed on a private or commercial drone. State houses should also delineate what sorts of airspace violation comprise a formal trespass. Voyeur laws should be amended to go beyond boudoir and bedroom to discourage public stalking by drone.



http://www.albanygovernmentlawreview.org/Articles/Vol08_1/8.1.063-Takahashi.pdf


Drones Registry SolvesA national drone registryKurt W. Smith, an assistant professor of Environmental Management at Methodist University in Fayetteville, North Carolina, 2015, “Drone Technology: Benefits, Risks, and Legal Considerations,” Seattle Journal of Environmental Law, http://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1053&context=sjel, ACC. 9-25-2015

Regarding the issue of national security, a drone registry should be created that would allow manufacturers to keep record of every drone’s ownership and location. It may be possible to sell these devices with tracking technology installed similar to that of our cell phones. It may also be possible to install a kill switch in them, should one be identified in the wrong place or engaged in a wrong activity. Registration of drones and even permitting of drone use under four hundred feet should be undertaken by individual states, relieving the FAA of exhaustive and often regressive rulemaking on this promising technology. Registry and permitting information should be shared seamlessly with both the FAA and Homeland Security.




Executive Order Solvency Extensions 12333 AFF




Congressional Action KeyWe should reign in surveillance from Executive Order 12333Naomi LaChance, Staff Writer, July 21, 2014, “Should Executive Order 12333 Be Repealed?,” US News & World Report, http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2014/07/21/should-the-reagan-era-nsa-executive-order-12333-be-repealed?int=9c8308, ACC. 9-27-2015

A former State Department official has raised awareness about a Reagan-era practice that permits spying on U.S. citizens with little oversight. In an op-ed for the Washington Post, John Napier Tye writes that Executive Order 12333 should raise red flags for Americans concerned about the boundaries of surveillance. "Even after all the reforms President Obama has announced," Tye writes, "some intelligence practices remain so secret, even from members of Congress, that there is no opportunity for our democracy to change them." Executive Order 12333 was approved in 1981. It permits government intelligence agencies to monitor certain content without a court order or warrant . Metadata, the digital trail that reveals users' locations and certain actions, may also be monitored.

Congress should raise legal barriers to surveillance from Executive Order 12333John Napier Tye, served as section chief for Internet freedom in the State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor from January 2011 to April 2014, July 18, 2014, “Meet Executive Order 12333: The Reagan rule that lets the NSA spy on Americans,” Washington Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/meet-executive-order-12333-the-reagan-rule-that-lets-the-nsa-spy-on-americans/2014/07/18/93d2ac22-0b93-11e4-b8e5-d0de80767fc2_story.html, ACC. 9-27-2015

Executive Order 12333 contains nothing to prevent the NSA from collecting and storing all such communications — content as well as metadata — provided that such collection occurs outside the United States in the course of a lawful foreign intelligence investigation. No warrant or court approval is required, and such collection never need be reported to Congress. None of the reforms that Obama announced earlier this year will affect such collection. Without any legal barriers to such collection, U.S. persons must increasingly rely on the affected companies to implement security measures to keep their communications private. The executive order does not require the NSA to notify or obtain consent of a company before collecting its users’ data. The attorney general, rather than a court, must approve “minimization procedures” for handling the data of U.S. persons that is collected under 12333, to protect their rights. I do not know the details of those procedures. But the director of national intelligence recently declassified a document (United States Signals Intelligence Directive 18) showing that U.S. agencies may retain such data for five years.



http://www.dni.gov/files/documents/1118/CLEANEDFinal%20USSID%20SP0018.pdf

http://fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12333-2008.pdf

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/meet-executive-order-12333-the-reagan-rule-that-lets-the-nsa-spy-on-americans/2014/07/18/93d2ac22-0b93-11e4-b8e5-d0de80767fc2_story.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/meet-executive-order-12333-the-reagan-rule-that-lets-the-nsa-spy-on-americans/2014/07/18/93d2ac22-0b93-11e4-b8e5-d0de80767fc2_story.html

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2014/07/21/should-the-reagan-era-nsa-executive-order-12333-be-repealed?int=9c8308

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2014/07/21/should-the-reagan-era-nsa-executive-order-12333-be-repealed?int=9c8308

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/06/primer-executive-order-12333-mass-surveillance-starlet

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/01/17/everything-you-need-to-know-about-obamas-nsa-reforms-in-plain-english/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/01/17/everything-you-need-to-know-about-obamas-nsa-reforms-in-plain-english/


War on Drugs Surveillance AFF




***Civil Liberties Adv***




Civil Liberties Adv Expansive surveillance is always in tension with protecting Civil Liberties John Surico, Writer for Vice, March 26, 2015, “Is the FBI Getting Better at Preventing Terrorist Attacks?,” Vice, Accessed July 3, 2015, http://www.vice.com/read/is-the-fbi-getting-better-at-preventing-terrorist-attacks-326

Turns out the FBI has made some strides, but there's still a lot of work to do when it comes to warding off terrorist attacks while simultaneously addressing civil liberties concerns in the Edward Snowden era. "Many of the findings and recommendations in this report will not be new to the FBI. The bureau is already taking steps to address them," the co-authors wrote. "In 2015, however, the FBI faces an increasingly

complicated and dangerous global threat environment that will demand an accelerated commitment to reform." The report conjures up this image of an omnipresent enemy that is constantly taking different shapes and forms , whether it's an ISIS-affiliated hacker or a young teenager in Boston who's been exposed to anti-American sentiment on YouTube. "Everything is moving faster," the co-authors wrote. To match this pace, the report argues, the FBI needs to step up its game. Prescriptions include hiring more linguists for operations at the local and state levels and better communication with the

Department of Justice's National Security Division. The report simultaneously criticized "passive resistors," or officials who are dragging their feet on important measures, and argued that "visionary leadership" is needed "more than ever." The authors examined five major cases of national security threats, including the Boston Marathon bombing in April 2013 and a thwarted plot by al Qaeda to attack New York City's subways in 2009. In all five cases, the 9/11 Review Commission found that the FBI's use of informants failed; for example, in the months leading up to the Boston Marathon, the report faulted the bureau for not being aware that Tamerlan Tsarnaev angrily interrupted two separate events at the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center. To Daniel Byman, a professor at Georgetown University, fellow at the Brookings Institute, and staff member

on the original 9/11 Commission back in '04,"deep, fundamental problems" with strategic analysis persist in the intelligence community. "They have small problems, and tend to treat them like big problems," he explained. But before 9/11, no system existed for these new threats. According to Byman, the FBI is now more plugged into local communities, but he argued that that a Cold-War mentality lingers. "For the FBI, it involves a very different culture, with characters they're not

used to working with," he told me. "And it takes a long time to change these cultures.... It takes new resources for all sorts of paradigms, and requires new training to deal with this stuff." In the context of the Boston Marathon, the report mentioned "the civil liberties sensitivities of source networks within religious institutions," perhaps a nod to the notorious NYPD surveillance of Muslim mosques in the tri-state area. The authors suggested the FBI employ common sense, gathering its intelligence from actual humans living in any given area rather than using informants on the inside. Basically, someone in the

Cambridge Muslim community should've been hit up for information on Tsarnaev. But how that would happen without an added dose of racial profiling or targeted surveillance is left unclear. That's the hardest part of the report to swallow: the co-authors seem to teeter back and forth between advocating borderline-unconstitutional surveillance and the protection of civil liberties. To wit: the Patriot Act is mentioned eight times in the report, and the co-authors argue that the 2001 legislation is "essential" in America's counter-terrorism strategy. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, an integral part of Snowden's NSA leaks, is mentioned ten times.



http://www.vice.com/read/end-muslim-spying-program-kelly-bratton-de-blasio-surveillance

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-adapts-to-face-terrorism-threats-but-still-faces-challenges-report-finds/2015/03/25/9af5d042-d2d5-11e4-8fce-3941fc548f1c_story.html?hpid=z1

http://www.vice.com/read/the-future-of-terrorism-114


Civil Liberties Adv— General Link The War on Drugs perpetuates the erosion of civil liberties through pervasive government surveillance. Police must actively seek out wrongdoers Jay Stanley, Senior Policy Analyst, ACLU Speech, Privacy & Technology Project, April 8, 2015, “Why the War on Drugs is So Bad For Privacy,” ACLU, Accessed June 23, 2015, https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-future/why-war-drugs-so-bad-privacy

In 2011, for the 50th anniversary of Richard Nixon's declaration of America's "War on Drugs," I wrote a roundup of some of the ways in which

the War on Drugs has eroded privacy. Yesterday's news about the DEA's enormous program to collect Americans' call records is a hell of an addition to the list. But with the DEA story fresh in the headlines, it's important to remember a key point about why the drug war has been so corrosive of privacy: drug use is a victimless crime. Why does that make it so bad for privacy? Think about it: with an ordinary crime, you have a victim who goes running to the police to tell them about the wrongdoing that has taken place . They have been assaulted, or stolen from, or otherwise wronged, and are hopping mad, and look to the police for justice. If the crime is murder, then the

victim's loved ones will do the same. While police might engage in a certain amount of patrolling, for the most part reports of crime come to them. But when there's no victim, how are the police supposed to find out when the law has been broken? The only way for police to fight victimless crime is to proactively search out wrongdoing: insert themselves into people's lives, monitor their behavior, search their cars, etc. The enforcement of drug laws thus relies disproportionately on surveillance, eavesdropping, and searches of private places and effects. This (and misguided judges) is the reason that the failed War on Drugs has generated so much bad law around privacy and the Fourth Amendment in particular.



http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/04/07/dea-bulk-telephone-surveillance-operation/70808616/

https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/war-drugs-and-surveillance-society

https://www.aclu.org/bio/jay-stanley


Civil Liberties Adv—Racism War on Drug surveillance is racist in its disproportionate targeting of minorities Brian Macaulay, Writer for The Fix, a drug and alcohol addiction treatment organization, August, 25, 2014, “Big Brother Is Watching You: Paranoia, Surveillance, and the Drug War,” The Fix, Accessed June 23, 2015, http://www.thefix.com/content/surveillance-stingray-police-state-Brian-Macaulay2039

What level and quality of discretion do local police use in the application of technology that blurs the lines between surveillance and searches, as well as that between legal methods and constitutional protections? Evidence of police attitudes toward these issues, and their ability to police themselves might be seen in their handling of more traditional, low tech conflicts over civil rights in the drug war. According to Jason Williamson, a

colleague of Wessler’s and attorney for the ACLU’s Criminal Law Reform Project, decades old problems of unconstitutional police tactics show no sign of going away. Chief among these is the long criticized implication of racial bias in drug arrests. “No matter where you look, in any state in the country, across counties, rural and urban, big cities and small towns—you see the same levels of disturbing disparities,” Williamson says. Last summer the project published a report titled The War on Marijuana in Black and White, which presented startling findings about how police enforce the nation’s prohibition on the drug. According to the

report, while their use of the drug occurs in the same proportions, black Americans are almost four times more likely to be arrested than whites. “This is true even in jurisdictions where the number of arrests may be going down,” says Williamson, “the disparities remain the same.” Williamson stands behind the data’s strength because of

the drug studied, pointing out that while racial bias likely exists in the enforcement of other low level drug crimes, “[Marijuana] is the one drug where we have solid data that whites are using at the same rate.”

Where does new technology fit in? It has served only to highlight the racial bias problem, Williams says.

“There’s a lot of talk around the country by police departments about predictive policing… …they believe they are able to do this because they have much more sophisticated technology to track where policing is happening and crimes are being committed.” This process creates data that shows in hard numbers what those like

Williams already know—police focus is disproportionately in neighborhoods of color. Williams believes this can aid those seeking reform through litigation, and points to the case of Floyd, et al v. City of New York, wherein plaintiffs used available data to demonstrate that 90% of those targeted by the city’s stop-and-frisk program (which subjects citizens in public to physical searches, when deemed suspicious by police) were black or Latino.



http://www.thefix.com/content/brian-macaulay

https://www.aclu.org/criminal-law-reform/war-marijuana-black-and-white-report


Civil Liberties Adv—Root Cause War on Drugs surveillance was the blueprint for surveillance in the War on Terror. The War on Drugs is the lynchpin and founding logic that must be combated Patrick G. Eddington, A policy analyst in Homeland Security and Civil Liberties at the Cato Institute, and an assistant professor in the Security Studies Program at Georgetown University, April 9, 2015, “Mass Surveillance: From the War on Drugs to the War on Terror,” CATO, Accessed June 23, 2015, http://www.cato.org/blog/mass-surveillance-war-drugs-war-terror

At first glance, the USA Today headline seemed like many others in the nearly two years since Edward Snowden’s explosive revelations: U.S. secretly tracked billions of calls for decades . And while the program essentials were the same —the secret

collection of the telephone metadata of every American– there were two key differences between this story and the hundreds before it on this topic. The offending government entity was the Drug Enforcement Administration, and the warrantless surveillance program was launched during the first Bush administration. Justice Department officials told Reuters that, “All of the information has been deleted.” “The agency is no longer collecting bulk telephony metadata from U.S. service providers.” However, DoJ provided no actual proof of the alleged data destruction, and the DoJ Inspector General only recently began an inquiry into the program. While it now seems fairly clear that the DEA’s “USTO” metadata collection program served as a model for the NSA telephony metadata program conducted under Sec. 215 of the PATRIOT Act, what is also clear is that Americans are now confronting a government surveillance apparatus that is truly vast. As Ryan Gallagher of The Intercept noted, this particular DEA mass surveillance program is just one of several undertaken by the agency over the past three decades.



https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/04/08/dea-surveillance-phone-records-crisscross-nsa/

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1698394-2015-02-23.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/08/us-usa-dea-lawsuit-idUSKBN0MZ1F720150408




Civil Liberties Adv—A/T WOT Alt Cause Surveillance is disproportionately used and abused in instances of the War on Drugs as opposed to the War on Drugs Doug Mataconis, Staff writer for Outside the Beltway and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law, November 6, 2014, “Most PATRIOT Act ‘Sneak And Peek’ Warrants Used In War On Drugs, Not War On Terror,” OTB, Accessed June 23, 2015, http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/most-patriot-act-sneak-and-peek-warrants-used-in-war-on-drugs-not-war-on-terror/

A new study by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, though, reveals that the majority of such warrants are granted in cases that have absolutely nothing to do with terrorism: A closer look at the number of sneak and peek warrants issued (a reporting requirement imposed by Congress) shows this is simply not the case. The last publicly available

report about sneak and peek warrants was released in 2010; however, the Administrative Office of the US Courts has finally released reports from 2011 , 2012 , and 2013 . What do the reports reveal? Two things: 1) there has been an enormous increase in the use of sneak and peek warrants and 2) they are rarely used for terrorism cases.

First, the numbers: Law enforcement made 47 sneak-and-peek searches nationwide from September 2001 to April 2003. The 2010 report reveals 3,970 total requests were processed. Within three years that number jumped to

11,129. That’s an increase of over 7,000 requests. Exactly what privacy advocates argued in 2001 is happening: sneak and peak warrants are not just being used in exceptional circumstances—which was their original intent—but as an everyday investigative tool. Second, the uses: Out of the 3,970 total requests from October 1, 2009 to September 30, 2010, 3,034 were for narcotics cases and only 37 for terrorism cases (about .9%). Since then, the numbers get worse. The 2011 report reveals a total of 6,775 requests. 5,093 were used for drugs, while only 31 (or .5%) were used for terrorism cases . The 2012 report follows a similar pattern: Only .6%, or 58 requests, dealt with terrorism cases. The 2013 report confirms the incredibly low numbers. Out of 11,129 reports only 51,

or .5%, of requests were used for terrorism. The majority of requests were overwhelmingly for narcotics cases, which tapped out at 9,401 requests.



https://www.eff.org/document/2010-delayed-notice-sneak-and-peek-report

https://w2.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism/20011031_eff_usa_patriot_analysis.php




https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/10/peekaboo-i-see-you-government-uses-authority-meant-terrorism-other-uses

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/10/peekaboo-i-see-you-government-uses-authority-meant-terrorism-other-uses


Civil Liberties Adv—Impact The War on Drugs fuels a brutal imperialistic agenda around the world—the aff addresses global systemic violence Nathan Goodman, Writer for Students for Liberty, September 5, 2014, “The Empire and the Drug War,” Students For Liberty, Accessed June 23, 2015, http://studentsforliberty.org/blog/2014/09/05/the-empire-and-the-drug-war/

America’s drug war is obviously imperialistic when it involves state financed violence abroad, but it also brings military power and tactics home to American streets. For example, police militarization is fueled by the Department of Defense’s 1033 program, which “has provided $4.3 billion in free military equipment to local police.” This military equipment is largely used to build paramilitary SWAT teams, and a recent report from the ACLU finds that

62% of SWAT raids targeted drugs. The extraordinarily broad surveillance powers the US government has claimed for its “War on Terror” are also largely used to fight the war on drugs. The PATRIOT Act allows the government to conduct “sneak and peek” searches, searching a person’s property without notifying them. In 2011, the ACLU reported that less than 1% of these searches were used for terrorism cases. The

ACLU reported that, “This abusive “anti-terrorism tool” is really being used to fight the war on drugs (76 percent) and to investigate other crimes that have nothing to do with protecting national security.” In their quest to control what individuals put in their bodies, the United States government has waged an outright war on innocent people around the world. The drug war means brutal violence around the world, militarized police at home, and the shredding of civil liberties . For these reasons and more, Students For Liberty is actively working to end the drug war. To learn more about our End the Drug War campaign, click here.



http://endthedrugwar.org/

http://jonathanturley.org/2014/06/26/aclu-62-percent-of-swat-team-raids-were-searches-for-drugs/

http://studentsforliberty.org/blog/2014/09/05/the-empire-and-the-drug-war/




http://studentsforliberty.org/blog/author/ngoodman/

https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/tool-governments-war-privacy-absolutely-its-war-terror-not-so-much

http://www.propublica.org/article/the-best-reporting-on-the-federal-push-to-militarize-local-police


***War on Drugs Bad Adv***




War on Drugs Adv—Losing Now/ Must Shift Approach The War on Drugs is a losing effort—we should shift strategies to a health based approach as opposed to a criminal approach Tim Dick, Columnist for the Sydney Morning Herald, April 7, 2015, “Lose prohibition to help win war on drugs,” Sydney Morning Herald, Accessed June 23, 2015, http://www.smh.com.au/comment/lose-prohibition-to-help-win-war-on-drugs-20150406-1meqoe.html

One thing is clear from the current strategy in the war on drugs: prohibition is a ruinously expensive failure. As former AFP commissioner Mick Palmer wrote in 2012: "The reality is that, contrary to frequent assertions, drug law enforcement has had little impact on the Australian drug market. This is true in most countries in the world. In Australia, the police are better resourced than ever, better trained than ever, more effective than ever and yet their impact on the drug

trade, on any objective assessment, has been minimal." The intention of prohibition – making drug consumers criminals – is to stop consumption, but it doesn't work. Because it doesn't, prohibition effectively protects the criminal cartels which deal drugs: no tax, no costly safety standards, no workers' compensation for those in your distribution network. Those dealers who get caught are usually mules or street-level addicts. Prohibition fills prisons with them and clogs the courts and does 10-fifths of bugger all to reduce addiction. Yet it is so embedded in the political culture of Australia, the US, and international law, that we ignore sensible and proven alternative ways to reduce the harm to users while bankrupting the murderous criminal syndicates who supply them. Portugal decriminalised personal possession over a decade ago. It's still illegal but the sanctions aren't criminal. The reforms came with better treatment, so conclusions are only valid for the whole package. What is clear, is there was no explosion in drug use. The rates of continued and problematic drug use dropped. Deaths because of drug use dropped from 80 in 2001 to 16 in 2012, a report compiled by Transform said. Drug use in Portugal remains below the European average. Plenty of other places have effectively decriminalised possession of

small amounts of cannabis for some people, including NSW, South Australia and the ACT. In some South American countries, laws banning possession have been struck down as unconstitutional. The recent moves in Uruguay, Colorado and Washington state to not just decriminalise but legalise one drug, cannabis, show the radical but sensible way forward. The law changed in Colorado on January 1, 2014, so it's too soon to draw many long-term

conclusions, but crime rates and traffic fatalities have both decreased slightly. That may have nothing to do with

legalisation. However, the fears of both increasing as everyone got baked haven't been realised. Australia should

ditch the obsession with prohibition and at least try to fight the war on drugs properly: as a health issue, not a legal one.



http://www.smh.com.au/comment/by/Tim-Dick


War on Drugs Adv—Losing Now/ Must Shift Approach Can’t win the drug war in its current form—need to shift strategies to a new approachThe Inquiry, A broadcast on the BBC, March 18, 2015, “Has the war on drugs been lost?,” The Inquiry, Accessed July 3, 2015, http://www.bbc.com/news/health-31922609

Across the world, drug laws are being relaxed, from Uruguay to Portugal, Jamaica and the Czech Republic. Does this mean the war on drugs has been lost? The BBC World Service's The Inquiry hears from four expert

witnesses, including a former Colombian president and a drugs prosecutor turned defence lawyer. Bonny Klapper: The legal approach must change dramatically After many years prosecuting drugs offences as an Assistant US Attorney, growing frustration with the approach inspired Bonny Klapper to become a defence attorney. "About 10 years into my career, it really hit me that the people I was prosecuting were not just drug traffickers. They were mothers, they were fathers, and I really began to take an interest in why these individuals got involved in drug trafficking." One Colombian drug runner had a big impact: "At 14 he had a choice: go work in the emerald mines, or do something else. So he started in the emerald mines, and it was a horrible experience. And then he was offered the chance to work as a

driver for one of the leaders of the Norte Valle Cartel. He started as a driver, and ultimately rose up through the ranks. "In countries like Colombia, sometimes if you want to support your family - and you don't come from a wealthy family or you're not highly educated - drugs is the only path that you have to get yourself out of poverty." She

noticed other problems back in the US at the other end of the chain: "[We] would prosecute money remitter houses in Queens that were sending drug money to Colombia. We prosecuted one, we shut it down, and the next day another one opened up in the same location. Or we prosecuted very high level traffickers, either in the US or in Colombia, and once they were extradited, someone else came in to take their place. "We've shifted the problem from Colombia to Mexico. Now all of Central America is inundated because the traffickers got sophisticated, and they're moving through Guatemala and Honduras, and those countries are turning into narco states." She argues the approach to drugs users is equally flawed: "The prison system is a disaster. There's virtually no rehabilitation. Locking up low level individuals who have drug problems or who have limited other options is not effective, because they go to jail, they come out, they get involved with drugs again, and they go right back to it. "I have nothing but praise for the law enforcement agents I've

worked with [but] so many of them have said to me 'we're fighting a war that can't be won the way we're fighting it'. "The war itself is at a draw. And I believe that draw will be maintained indefinitely unless there's a dramatic change in our approach to drugs and drug trafficking."



http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p029399x


War on Drugs Adv—Surveillance Bad War on Drug surveillance destroys our personal freedoms and is entirely ineffective Conor Friedersdorf, Staff writer at The Atlantic, January 27, 2015, “The DEA Is Spying on Millions of Cars All Over the U.S.,” The Atlantic, Accessed July 3, 2015, http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/01/the-dea-is-spying-on-millions-of-cars/384864/

Once again, Americans face a tradeoff between liberty and security. On one hand, the Drug Enforcement Administration has been building "a database to track in real time the movement of vehicles around the U.S., a secret domestic intelligence-gathering program that scans and stores hundreds of millions of records." If you drive in populated areas your movements have very likely been tracked. On the other hand, the result is that illegal drugs are no longer sold on U.S. streets, the price of getting high is too high for most to pay, and international drug cartels are all but gone, as are overdose deaths and street gangs that profit from narcotics. I kid, of course—not about the huge imposition on the privacy of innocents that the federal government is perpetrating with a license plate tracking program run by the DEA, which is real, so much as the notion that the DEA

will achieve success with it. The DEA will obviously continue to lose the War on Drugs. We've traded our freedom to drive around without being tracked for next to nothing. Those who would cede essential liberty for the promise of security may deserve neither, but ceding it for the promise of a drug-free America is just delusional. The federal government could imprison every recreational drug user in America and it still couldn't win the drug war because, among other things, the federal government can't even prevent heavy drug use within the federal prison system. Even if the DEA spied on millions of Americans' phone calls it still wouldn't be able to win the War on Drugs, which I know because the DEA was also doing exactly that .



http://www.wsj.com/articles/justice-department-kept-secret-telephone-database-1421427624

http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-spies-on-millions-of-cars-1422314779


War on Drugs Adv—Economy The War on Drugs hurts the US economy by diverting resources. Only the aff’s change in approach solves Arts & Humanities Academy Investigative Reports, Fall 2014-2015 Interdisciplinary Project, Yearlong research project on the War on Drugs, January 17, 2015, “The War on Drugs is an Economic Disaster,” Arts & Humanities Academy, Accessed July 3, 2015, https://ahaseniorproject2015.wordpress.com/2015/01/17/the-war-on-drugs-is-an-economic-disaster/

If the War on Drugs had taken a different path, this country would be very different today. There has been very little focus by the government towards rehabilitation. Some estimates show that for each dollar invested in rehabilitation centers five to seven dollars are saved in reduced crime . Many people believe

that for the War on Drugs to end, the United States police force must stop headhunting to incarcerating non violent criminals and make a paradigm shift toward rehabilitation instead of incarceration. Individuals

who support this argument conclude that if the government wants to save the millions of dollars being wasted and put that money towards education, health care, scientific research, or anything productive for our country than we must shift the War on Drugs onto a completely new track and stop overcrowding our prisons.



https://ahaseniorproject2015.wordpress.com/


War on Drugs Adv—Tyranny The War on Drugs is a tenant of an inherently tyrannical government—the plan is a recognition of the failures of squo policy and a step in the right direction Jacob G. Hornberger, Founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation, JD, and adjunct professor at the University of Dallas, March 4, 2015, “Would a Bigger Police State Win the Drug War?,” FFF, Accessed July 3, 2015, http://fff.org/2015/03/04/bigger-police-state-win-drug-war/

Most everyone would agree that China is not a free society. It is ruled by a brutal communist regime, one that has absolutely no regard for civil liberties and such criminal-justice principles as due process of law, trial by jury, right to counsel, and habeas

corpus. When the state wants to go after someone, there are no institutional barriers that stand in its way. China has something else: the war on drugs, the same war that the U.S. government has been waging for decades. According to an article in the New York Times, despite a fierce, unrelenting war waged against drugs, drug use in China remains as big a problem as ever. Why is that important to Americans? Two reasons. One, it shows that drug laws are part and parcel of tyrannical regimes. It is only in genuinely free societies that people are free to ingest any substance they want without being punished by the state for it. In other words, the United States has the same type of governmental program as the brutal and tyrannical communist regime in China.

Two, the China experience shows Americans that no matter how much more the federal government were to crack down in the war on drugs, it wouldn’t make any difference whatsoever. People would continue to

ingest drugs, even while a large percentage of them were being incarcerated or otherwise punished. In other words, if the U.S. government were to impose the same type of totalitarian police state as China as part of the war on drugs, it would destroy freedom without achieving the desired result.



http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/25/world/despite-a-crackdown-use-of-illegal-drugs-in-china-continues-unabated.html?_r=0http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/25/world/despite-a-crackdown-use-of-illegal-drugs-in-china-continues-unabated.html?_r=0

http://fff.org/author/jacob-hornberger-2/


War on Drugs Adv—Racism/ Classism The application of the War on Drugs is both racist and classist. The plan addresses this racial inequality Brian Doherty, Senior editor for Reason magazine, March 9, 2015, “Yes, the Drug War is in Practice Deliberately Racist and Classist,” Reason, Accessed July 3, 2015, http://reason.com/blog/2015/03/09/yes-the-drug-war-is-in-practice-delibera

An interesting video interview from Brave New Films features former Drug Enforcement Administration agent and federal marshal Matthew Fogg, speaking from his experience about the class and race aspects of how the drug war is fought. An excerpt from what he said on camera: "When...we were setting up all of our drug and gun and addiction task force determining what cities we were going to hit, I would notice that most of the time it always appeared to be urban areas. That’s when I asked the question, well, don’t they sell drugs out in Potomac and Springfield,

and places like that? Maybe you all think they don’t, but statistics show they use more drugs out in those areas than anywhere. The special agent in charge, he says “You know, if we go out there and start messing with those folks, they know judges, they know lawyers, they know politicians. You start locking their kids up, somebody’s going to jerk our chain.” He said they’re going to call us on it, and before you know it, they’re going to shut us down, and

there goes your overtime. What I began to see is that the drug war is totally about race. If we were locking up everybody, white and black, for doing the same drugs, they would have done the same thing they did with prohibition. They would have outlawed it. They would have said, “Let’s stop this craziness. You’re not putting my son in jail. My daughter isn’t going to jail.” The phenomenon Fogg discusses is more ultimately about class than race, but the two are interlinked in America so thoroughly that's an understandable conflation.



http://reason.com/blog/2015/03/09/yes-the-drug-war-is-in-practice-delibera

http://reason.com/blog/2015/03/09/yes-the-drug-war-is-in-practice-delibera

http://reason.com/people/brian-doherty/all


War on Drugs Adv—Racist The War on Drugs is racist—minorities are disproportionately targeted Michael Owens, Artist and social activist, June 17, 2015, “Why Prisons Are Full of Minorities,” Michael Owens, Accessed July 5, 2015, http://www.michaeloart.com/why-prisons-are-full-of-minorities/

Blacks are targeted by the Drug War. Arrests for drugs are big business in our legal system. And a direct line to prison. Half of all arrests are for drugs. And half of those are for marijuana . Check this out. Black and white use marijuana at the same rate. But, according to the ACLU a Black person is 3.7 times more likely to be arrested for possession of marijuana than a white person. The ACLU says there are states were a Black person is

six times more likely to be arrested for marijuana than a white. Still think the War on Drugs isn’t racist? Between 1980 and 2000 the U.S. Black drug arrest rate exploded from 6.5 to 29.1 per 1,000 persons. During the same period, the white drug arrest rate barely rose from 3.5 to 4.6 per 1,000 persons. The Drug War has succeeded in sending hundreds of thousands of blacks to prison. A lot of Americans land in jail and prison because of our much tougher drug laws. And our drug sentences are much longer than other countries. Drug offenses get you an average sentence of just seven months in France. In England it’s 12 months. In the U.S. 23 months,

almost two years, is average. Prison sentences have gotten longer in general. Particularly for for people of color.

Since 1990. The average sentence for property crimes has grown 24 percent. And time for drug crimes has gone up 36 percent. Our federal prison system is full of minorities. Blacks and Latinos make up nearly 75 percent of people in federal prison for drug offenses.




***Prisons Adv***




Prisons Adv—WOD Overcrowding The War on Drugs is the main cause of prison overcrowdingKathleen Miles, Writer for Huffington Post, March 10, 2014, "Just How Much The War On Drugs Impacts Our Overcrowded Prisons, In One Chart," Huffington Post, Accessed July 5, 2014, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/10/war-on-drugs-prisons-infographic_n_4914884.html

America's prisons are dangerously overcrowded, and the war on drugs is mainly to blame. Over 50 percent of inmates currently in federal prison are there for drug offenses , according to an infographic recently

released by the Federal Bureau of Prisons (see chart below). That percentage has risen fairly consistently over decades, all the way from 16 percent in 1970. The second-largest category, immigration-related crimes, accounts for 10.6 percent of inmates. This means that people convicted of two broad categories of nonviolent crimes -- drugs and immigration -- make up over 60 percent of the U.S. prison population. And what was the drug of choice for those convicted of drug offenses? Marijuana, according to the U.S. Sentencing Commission (see chart below).



http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/section6.pdf

http://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_offenses.jsp

http://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_offenses.jsp


Prisons Adv—WOD Overcrowding The War on Drugs steadily fills prisons Lucy Steigerwald, Writer for the Daily Beast, March 9, 2015, “For-Profit Prisons Are Bad, But the Drug War Is the Problem,” Daily Beast, Accessed July 6, 2015, http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/09/for-profit-prisons-are-bad-but-the-drug-war-is-the-problem.html

The U.S. prison population began to explode after Ronald Reagan and an obsequious Congress decided to militarize the war on drugs. Suddenly narcotics were Public Enemy No. 1. The drug war created millions of criminals. Harsh mandatory minimum laws kept them behind bars longer. A federal civil asset forfeiture program directly incentivized law enforcement agencies to prioritize drug crimes, guaranteeing a steady supply of arrests. Between 1980 and 2011, the state and federal prison population increased from 316,000 to 1.5 million—with another 700,000 in jails . (Jails are usually locally run, and their populations consist of individuals serving under a year, or who are waiting for sentencing.)



http://www.thedailybeast.com/contributors/lucy-steigerwald.html


Prisons Adv—WOD Overcrowding The War on Drugs is a major pretext to packing prisons full of inmates Zeeshan Aleem, Politics staff writer at Policy Mic, February 13, 2015, “America Has the Largest Prison Population in the World, But Not for the Reason You Think,” Policy Mic, Accessed July 6, 2015, http://mic.com/articles/110458/america-has-the-largest-prison-population-in-the-world-but-not-for-the-reason-you-think

Central to the new scrutiny over America's incarceration system is the war on drugs . Alexander posits that the

political and the criminal justice systems have used drug possession as a pretext for hollowing out the nation's black communities and filling up its prisons. Advocates for drug policy reform link staggeringly punitive sentencing practices for drug possession to the explosion of the country's prison population, which has multiplied five times over since former President Ronald Reagan took office in 1980. Among progressives,

the standard solution to fixing mass incarceration is ending the war on drugs.



http://mic.com/profiles/177870/zeeshan-aleem

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/08/drug-war-mass-incarceration_n_3034310.html


Prisons Adv—Unconstitutional Conditions Conditions created by prison overcrowding are unconstitutional, they are a form of torture Sara Mayeux, Writer for Newsweek, March 22, 2015, “The Unconstitutional Horrors of Prison Overcrowding,” Newsweek, Accessed July 6, 2015, http://www.newsweek.com/unconstitutional-horrors-prison-overcrowding-315640

Nevertheless, Simon is right to identify Plata as a harbinger of significant change in the politics of punishment. Justice Kennedy's opinion named every California prisoner as a "potential victim" of unconstitutional treatment; he lamented that "many more will die or needlessly suffer" without an end to chronic overcrowding. After decades of zero-sum political formulas pitting criminals against victims, the nation's highest court was now allowing that these categories are not mutually exclusive. Even the prison guards' union seemed to agree. In a 2007 appearance, the president of the California Correctional Peace Officers Association (CCPOA)

lambasted "the prison-industrial complex," unwittingly invoking a term popularized by prison abolitionists. The next year, he hired a parolee to work at the union's headquarters and, when members complained, responded with an

email reminder that prisoners "are the brothers and sisters, the nephews and nieces, the children and grandchildren of people from all walks of life." In The Toughest Beat, his definitive history of the union, sociologist Joshua

Page concludes that these overtures represented a cosmetic attempt to deflect growing criticism, not a genuine change in the organization's philosophy. Even so, the fact that the CCPOA must now play defense signals a dramatic shift in the political climate since the 1990s.



http://www.newsweek.com/unconstitutional-horrors-prison-overcrowding-315640

http://www.newsweek.com/unconstitutional-horrors-prison-overcrowding-315640


Prisons Adv—School-to-Prison Pipeline The school-to-prison pipe is both real and racist. The same racism in the criminal justice system is being reflected in the Frederick Reese, Lead staff writer for Mint Press News, September 22, 2014, “Who’s Getting Caught In The “School-to-Prison” Pipeline? And Why?,” Mint Press News, Accessed July 6, 2015, http://www.mintpressnews.com/whos-getting-caught-school-prison-pipeline/196812/

The U.S. prison population is disproportionately black. The same racial disparity can be seen in the students who are punished in the nation’s schools. The connection between these two phenomena are stronger -- and more insidious -- than many may understand. A crisis continues to unfold in the United States’ prisons, where the prison population is vastly disproportionate to the country’s general population demographics. Per 2013 data from the U.S. Census Bureau, blacks represented 13.2 percent of the U.S. population, yet,

according to the Sentencing Project, blacks represented 38 percent of all individuals in federal or state prisons, as of 2011. This imbalance has manifest at a time when for-profit prisons are posting record profits and announcing their expansion into other segments of the post-judicial corrections portfolio. For example, as reported by the Wall Street Journal , Corrections Corporation of America — the nation’s largest for-profit prison operator — has responded to calls coming from some states regarding the high cost of long-term housing of inmates by announcing expansions of the company’s prison rehabilitation, drug counseling and prisoner re-entry programs.



http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/inc_Facts%20About%20Prisons.pdf

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

http://www.mintpressnews.com/author/frederick-reese/

http://www.mintpressnews.com/whos-getting-caught-school-prison-pipeline/196812/

http://online.wsj.com/articles/prison-firm-cca-seeks-to-reduce-number-of-repeat-offenders-1410561176

http://online.wsj.com/articles/prison-firm-cca-seeks-to-reduce-number-of-repeat-offenders-1410561176


Prisons Adv—Overcrowding Impact Overcrowded prisons have terrible psychological effects on inmates—inhumane conditions Harshit Manaktala,Writer for Career Toran, June 25, 2015, “Psychological Effects of Overcrowding in Prisons,” Career Toran, Accessed July 3, 2015, http://careertoran.com/psychological-effects-of-overcrowding-in-prisons/

At the outset of this short article focussing briefly on correctional psychology it is very important to understand as to how the inmates interact

inside the detainment facilities and the psychological effects of overcrowding and congestion inside jails. The expanding prisoner populace inside the jails diminishes the individual, physical and mental space accessible to a detainee and often leads to higher rates of physical ailment, socially troublesome conduct and passionate misery and emotional distress. Despite the fact that the present jail conditions have enhanced significantly from numerous points of view the restorative framework as it exists today is as yet attempting to adapt to a percentage of the

same issues experienced in the past. Such stuffed jails, are uncomfortable and make trouble not only in adjustments but also lead to disruptive results when the detainees who leave the correctional facility begins testing in the free world with their awful encounters. Despite the fact that, I approach this theme as a student of psychology and a great part of the dialogue in the article is with respect to enhancing the state of prisoners living in packed conditions I don’t

hold complete sensitivity towards hard core criminals. The general conviction is that such prisoners are hazardous, lawbreakers, killers and rapist and consequently, we ought not to complain or grumble if they are being ill-treated. Taking a gander at the act they have committed they merit such treatment and is not the person to receive any kindness. In the meantime it can’t be denied that the courts in India are overflowed with the cases and it is

realized that the larger part of detainees are either under trails or those picked as helpers by the jail authorities. WHY OVERCROWDING:- The issue concerning congestion needs consideration on the grounds that the correctional institutions or prisons are compelled to accommodate for a greater number of detainees than their genuine limit. The Shah Committee Report observed that the actual population of the prisoners far exceeded the space that prisoners were designed to hold.

According to the report of Seraikela Jail in Bihar in EPW, 1978 : “Due to overcrowding, a number of prisoners have to spend the nights actually sitting up. The prisoners are invariably very poor people; but the food is so rotten that they find it revolting…..Quite often the prisoners are ordered to lap up the dal which overflows on to the floor. For vegetable the prisoners are fed with wild grass and roots…. A glass of water was found to have no less than one inch of mud at the bottom… . For 400 to 800 prisoners, there are just eight latrines. The prisoners therefore defecate at the drains. In winter, six of them have to huddle under one blanket. Tuber-cular prisoners sleep with the as yet un-diseased ones.”[1] LIFE OF INMATES IN

OVERCROWDED SETTING Overcrowding may have severe immediate and aberrant health risks to the prison population. Researches also suggests that crowding in prisons generates stress as a result of which the generated behaviour tries to cope with it by any available means.



http://careertoran.com/psychological-effects-of-overcrowding-in-prisons/#_ftn1

http://careertoran.com/author/harshit/

http://careertoran.com/psychological-effects-of-overcrowding-in-prisons/


Prisons Adv—Overcrowding Impact Current prison overcrowding is a form of cruel and unusual punishment Leon Neyfakh, Staff writer for Slate Magazine, March 18, 2015, “Are Overcrowded Prisons Unconstitutional?,” March 18, 2015, http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2015/03/mass_incarceration_will_the_federal_courts_finally_stand_up_and_say_prison.html

The ongoing effort to address America’s mass incarceration problem has thus far focused on lawmaking. There are bills working their way through legislatures around the country that would reduce the severity of drug sentences, allow certain inmates to leave prison early by completing rehabilitation programs, and allow judges to be more lenient in doling out punishment. Advocates for reform have placed far less emphasis on the potential role of the appellate courts—institutions that have a long history of identifying systemic problems in American society and using

their legal authority to force change, from Brown v. Board of Education to Gideon v. Wainwright. For the most part, the judges presiding over the country’s appellate courts have lately been staying away from issues stemming from mass incarceration, only rarely hearing civil rights cases brought by prisoners and ruling in their favor even less often. But according to one legal scholar, University of California–Berkeley professor Jonathan Simon, there is reason to think that’s about to change—that after almost three decades of reticence on the awful prison conditions that have resulted from overcrowding, federal judges might be on the verge of an awakening of conscience. Simon is author of the book Mass Incarceration on Trial, in which he tells

the story of a 2011 Supreme Court case that resulted in California’s prison system being forced to address the fact that its facilities were being stretched so thin that they constituted a violation of the “cruel and unusual punishment” provision of the Eighth Amendment. Simon argues that the court’s decision in the case, Brown v. Plata, could mark the beginning of a new era in American jurisprudence—one in which the concept of “human dignity” becomes a legal weapon with which to hold prisons accountable for their treatment of inmates, and courts are emboldened to use their powers to compel state investment in prison health care and, where necessary, impose population caps.



http://www.amazon.com/dp/1595587691/?tag=slatmaga-20

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2015/03/mass_incarceration_will_the_federal_courts_finally_stand_up_and_say_prison.html

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2015/03/mass_incarceration_will_the_federal_courts_finally_stand_up_and_say_prison.html


***A/T Legalize Marijuana CP***




No Solvency—War on Drugs Int. Links The CP is too small in scope, it focuses on marijuana as a lynchpin but ignores the larger issues surrounding the War on DrugsChris Osterndorf, Writer for the Daily Dot news outlet, May 14, 2015, “3 reasons it's time to end the War on Drugs,” Daily Dot, Accessed July 3, 2015, http://www.dailydot.com/opinion/ending-war-on-drugs-marijuana-legalization/

Morgan Freeman likes pot . And increasingly, so does the rest of America. Medical marijuana legislation just passed in the Pennsylvania Senate and with legalization efforts ramping up around the country , it’s becoming clear that support for state-sanctioned pot use is on the rise . The U.S. does not view marijuana the way it

used to, and although it may be years before the country’s shifting viewpoints begin to take effect on a federal level, it now seems all too likely that sometime within the next decade or two, legalization will be the law of the land. The only problem around the current pot debate is that it stops with pot. To be sure, marijuana is a unique drug, worthy of a

separate conversation. But just as the legalization campaign has revealed how very little we actually know about pot, it has also revealed how little we know about all drugs in general . That pervasive misunderstanding of drugs has continued to be fueled by one thing: the government’s ongoing war on drugs. The war on drugs has gotten plenty of attention in pop culture over the past few years, from big Hollywood movies like Traffic, to

critically acclaimed TV shows like The Wire, to thoughtful documentaries like The House I Live In. And while the style of these efforts has not always been similar, the message remains the same: The war on drugs is terrible. Not only has the war on drugs negatively affected the country in more insidious ways, like fueling the war on terror, but the obvious racism inherent in its policies have directly impacted the violence in areas likeFerguson, Mo. Going forward, there can be only one solution: ending the war on drugs. There are about a thousand reasons to do so , but here are three to start.



http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119121/ferguson-missouri-and-war-drugs-how-two-are-connected

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/01/19/the-fight-for-civil-rights-long-after-selma/start-a-revolution-against-the-war-on-drugs

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2125653/?ref_=nv_sr_1

http://www.dailydot.com/tags/the-wire/

http://www.dailydot.com/tags/television

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0181865/?ref_=nv_sr_1

http://www.dailydot.com/authors/chris-osterndorf/

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/04/same-surveillance-state-different-war/389988/

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/04/same-surveillance-state-different-war/389988/

http://www.dailydot.com/opinion/dare-ineffective-research-kids-drugs/

http://www.dailydot.com/politics/fox-news-poll-legalization-marijuana-poll/

http://www.dailydot.com/politics/texas-marijuana-legalization-bill-david-simpson/

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/elections/2015/05/11/prosecutor-deters-ok-legalizing-pot/27133443/

http://www.eastbayexpress.com/LegalizationNation/archives/2015/05/06/fifth-california-legalization-2016-measure-filed

https://www.leafly.com/news/headlines/leafly-cannabis-legalization-update-5-11-2015

http://www.dailydot.com/tags/legalization/

http://www.pennlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/05/medical_marijuana_heads_to_pa.html

http://www.dailydot.com/tags/marijuana/

http://www.dailydot.com/politics/morgan-freeman-marijuana-legalization/


Turn—More Drugs in the US The CP causes a greater influx of hard drugs into the US—cartels will compensate for lower marijuana prices by trafficking harder drugs Don Winslow, Writer for CNN, June 28, 2015, “America's war on drugs is empowering Mexico's drug cartels,” CNN, Accessed July 3, 2015, http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/28/opinions/winslow-drug-war-folly/

You know what drug isn't coming across in such great volume any more? Marijuana. Seizures of marijuana at the border are down almost 40% since several states in the U.S. have legalized it , The

Washington Post reported. Mexican marijuana traffickers will tell you that it's not worth it anymore -- they can't compete with the domestic American price and quality. The wholesale price of Mexican marijuana has dropped from $100

a kilogram to $25. Growers in Durango and Sinaloa have stopped planting the crop. So we're winning the war on marijuana along the border -- costing the violent sociopaths of the cartels millions of dollars -- by legalizing it. That's the good news. The bad news is that the cartels have responded to this loss by shipping more coke, meth and especially heroin. The heroin epidemic in the Northeast is mostly supplied by the Sinaloa cartel , by far the dominant drug

trafficking organization in Mexico today. Addicts who were using prescription opiates are turning to Mexican heroin because it's cheaper.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/losing-marijuana-business-mexican-cartels-push-heroin-and-meth/2015/01/11/91fe44ce-8532-11e4-abcf-5a3d7b3b20b8_story.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/losing-marijuana-business-mexican-cartels-push-heroin-and-meth/2015/01/11/91fe44ce-8532-11e4-abcf-5a3d7b3b20b8_story.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/20/nyregion/new-york-is-a-hub-in-a-surging-heroin-trade.html?_r=0

http://www.insightcrime.org/news-analysis/mexico-sinaloa-cartel-dominates-nyc-heroin-trade


***Other Cards***




Solvency Surveillance is a key tool in the War on Terror, without expansive and evasive surveillance, the WOT cannot be executed Ilya Somin, Professor of Law at George Mason University School of Law and writer for the Volokh Conspiracy—an online analysis outlet of law professors, August 10, 2013, “Using NSA Surveillance Data in the War on Drugs,” The Volokh Conspiracy, Accessed July 4, 2015, http://volokh.com/2013/08/10/using-nsa-surveillance-data-in-the-war-on-drugs/

On Monday, Reuters reported that the Special Operations Division, a secretive unit of the Drug Enforcement Administration is using NSA electronic surveillance data in the War on Drugs, and then deceiving judges and defense lawyers about the source of the evidence when it is used in criminal trials. As various experts

quoted by Reuters point out, such deception is a violation of elementary due process. Julian Sanchez of the Cato Institute

has a good post discussing some of the other risks of this kind of “mission creep”: This should serve as a crucial reminder that you can’t build a massive architecture of surveillance “just for terrorism” and expect it to remain limited to that function: once the apparatus exists, there will inevitably be incredible pressure from other interests within government to expand its use. Once the data is already begin collected , after all, it seems a waste not to exploit its full potential. And indeed, we’ve seen again and again how—mostly because there just aren’t

all that many terrorists out there—powers and programs justified by the need to fight the War on Terror end up getting coopted for the War on Drugs, from the Patriot Act’s “Sneak and Peek” searches (used almost

exclusively in drug rather than terror investigations) to federally funded “fusion centers.” Such expansive use of surveillance data

beyond national security purposes has already occurred in France. In the United States, as Sanchez notes, the New York Times recently reported that many domestic agencies are clamoring to use NSA data for their own purposes : The recent disclosures of agency activities by its former contractor Edward J. Snowden have led to widespread criticism that its surveillance

operations go too far and have prompted lawmakers in Washington to talk of reining them in. But out of public view, the intelligence community has been agitated in recent years for the opposite reason: frustrated officials outside the security agency say the spy tools are not used widely enough.



http://volokh.com/2013/07/05/frances-nsa-like-electronic-surveillance-program/

http://www.cato.org/blog/nsa-keeping-us-safe-dope-pedddlers

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE97409R20130805

http://volokh.com/

http://volokh.com/author/ilya/

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/04/us/other-agencies-clamor-for-data-nsa-compiles.html?pagewanted=all&_r=2&

http://www.cato.org/multimedia/daily-podcast/truth-about-fusion-centers


Inherency Obama is pushing for more funding to expand the War on DrugsTracie Mauriello, Writer for the Pittsburg Post Gazette, February 6, 2015, “Obama seeks more funding to fight war on drugs,” Pittsburg Post Gazette, Accessed July 5, 2015, http://www.post-gazette.com/news/nation/2015/02/06/Obama-asks-Congress-for-more-funding-to-fight-war-on-drugs/stories/201502060156

President Ronald Reagan wanted people to just say no. Three decades later, President Barack Obama wants to give them the tools. He is asking Congress for $133 million in new funding to fight heroin and prescription drug abuse. The initiative emphasizes help to drug users, which is as important as combating the supply side by going after sellers, said David Hickton, U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania, who joined an administration press call Thursday to explain the president’s call for new drug policies. “Even with the enhanced law enforcement efforts underway here and in other districts we cannot prosecute our way out of this problem,” he said. “We need to be as vigilant at attacking the demand part of this problem as we are attacking the supply side.” He said it’s important to recognize that drug addiction is an illness and that drug traffickers are preying on sick people.




A/T Drug Surveillance Disad Drug surveillance programs are not effective—no risk of the disad Nicholas Cowdery, Adjunct Professor of Law at UNSW, and Alex Wodak, Emeritus Consultant, St Vincent's Hospital, Sydney, December 1, 2014, “Drug surveillance operations an abject failure,” Sydney Morning Herald, Accessed July 6, 2015, http://www.smh.com.au/comment/drug-surveillance-operations-an-abject-failure-20141130-11ucdp.html

Drug arrests and the rare fatalities at dance parties and music festivals are major media stories. Community concerns about drugs ensure that politicians and police leaders are keen to be seen to be doing something. Intensive police operations fit the bill. But do they actually reduce drug use or drug harms? Uniformed police turn up at these events in huge numbers to conduct very visible surveillance with drug detection dogs. Often undercover police circulate inside and outside the venues. These operations usually find some illicit drugs so a small number of attendees are charged. News media dutifully and uncritically reproduce police press releases where senior police confidently claim that the operations were effective. These assertions are never substantiated

and rarely questioned. During surveillance operations only in a tiny minority of searches find any drugs .

Interpreting signals from the dogs, police officers often think drugs are present when there are none. Very many people who have drugs at these events are not detected. These operations achieve little and too often they are counter-productive. NSW passed laws in 2001 to allow police to use dogs for public surveillance with the intention of catching more drug traffickers. In 2006, the NSW Ombudsman reviewed the program and found that successful prosecutions for supply were achieved in just 19 of 10211 searches. Given the scale of the NSW drug market it is an abject failure.




ICE Raids AFF (Immigration and Customs Enforcement)




1AC Observation One: The Status QuoA. ICE frequently engages in warrantless home raids that violate the Constitution Bess Chiu, Cardozo Immigration Justice Clinic, et al., 2009, “Constitution on ICE: A Report on Immigration Home Raid Operations,”

http://cw.routledge.com/textbooks/9780415996945/human-rights/cardozo.pdf, ACC. 9-27-2015

During the last two years of the Bush Administration, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) vastly expanded its use of home raid operations as a method to locate and apprehend individuals suspected of civil immigration law violations. These home raids generally involve teams of heavily armed ICE agents making predawn tactical entries into homes, purportedly to apprehend some high priority target believed to be residing therein. ICE has admitted that these are warrantless raids and, therefore, that any entries into homes require the informed consent of residents. However, frequent accounts in the media and in legal filings have told a similar story of constitutional violations occurring during ICE home raids — a story that includes ICE agents breaking into homes and seizing all occupants without legal basis.

B. Warrantless home raids violate constitutional rights and represent coercive state power. ICE should only do home raids with judicial warrantsKatherine Evans, JD, New York University School of Law, September 2012, “The ICE storm in U.S. homes: An urgent call for policy change,” NYU Review of Law and Social Change, 33:561, https://socialchangenyu.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/homes.pdf, ACC. 9-27-2015

This attitude is troubling to say the least. The government should not be testing the line of what is permissible by intruding into a private home and seizing of all of its occupants. An individual has an interest in pushing the bounds of the law in order to have more space to act free from government interference. The state's interest is only the aggressive enforcement of administrative law, which is insufficient to justify the government's practice of pushing, if not crossing, the limits of the Constitution. Instead, the government should ensure that its actions conform to the law. The absence of effective constraints on ICE's practices in the form of the exclusionary rule does not change the analysis. ICE's current policy in home raids erodes the government's credibility because it disrespects constitutional rights the Executive is charged to protect. The editorial board of the New York Times discussed the question of why ICE's current practice is wrong, regardless of the legal consequences, in an editorial on the "war on illegal immigration." It wrote: "The true cost is to the national identity: the sense of who we are and what we value. It will hit us once the enforcement fever breaks, when we look at what has been done and no longer recognize the country that did it.” A government policy requiring federal agents, without warrants, to force or manipulate their way into private homes, to search the premises, and to interrogate residents does not respect the country's founding principles of individual liberty and protection from the coercive power of the state.



http://cw.routledge.com/textbooks/9780415996945/human-rights/cardozo.pdf


C. Settlements did nothing to change ICE. They only shift focus to consentLatino Voices, Huffington Post Staff Writer, April 5, 2013, “ICE Settlement For $1 Million Requires New Guidelines For Warrantless Home Raids,” Huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/05/ice-settlement-for-1-mill_n_3022803.html, ACC. 9-27-2015

Immigration and Customs Enforcement is forking out $1 million and changing its policies after reaching a settlement Thursday with 22 Latino victims of warrantless home raids. The settlement requires ICE to come up with new rules within two months to avoid further abuses resulting from home raids. ICE officers inspecting homes without a warrant must now request consent to enter a private residence in a language understood by the resident and may not surround homes without permission. “Immigrants across the country can stand up and cheer for what has been accomplished by this settlement,” said President of Latino Justice PRLDEF, “No longer will ICE agents have free rein to invade the homes of immigrants, especially Latino immigrants, and be as abusive as they want without any worry that they might be reprimanded.”




1AC D. Consent means nothing. ICE agents use fear and intimidation to force consentDavid A. Super, Professor, Georgetown University Law Center, November, 2013, “A New New Property,” Columbia Law Review, 113 Colum. L. Rev. 1773, http://columbialawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Super.pdf, ACC. 9-28-2015

In 1996, Congress passed two major laws restricting immigration: the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA). This legislation largely eliminated the grounds on which the hardship to immigrants' family members could be considered. ICE increased enforcement action massively, arresting almost 20,000 undocumented immigrants in the U.S. interior during 2006. In particular, between 2002 and 2006 the number of workplace arrests increased more than sevenfold; ICE then almost equaled its 2006 total in just the first ten months of 2007. ICE also increased the frequency of raids at immigrants' homes. Agents often appear at an immigrant family's door without a warrant and demand admission, counting on immigrants' fear to lead them to " consent" to a search with no legal basis.

Plan: The United States federal government should require that all ICE home raids be conducted under judicial warrants.

ADVANTAGE ONE: TerrorismA. ICE misconduct in home raids undermines support for local law enforcementBess Chiu, Cardozo Immigration Justice Clinic, et al., 2009, “Constitution on ICE: A Report on Immigration Home Raid Operations,”


The constitutional violations during ICE home raids are, of course, most directly harmful to the people whose homes are invaded and whose rights are violated, but the costs of ICE misconduct in its home raid operations reach far beyond those individuals. ICE’s home raid misconduct also undermines the traditional crime fighting mission of local law enforcement agencies. In immigrant communities, local police are increasingly perceived as in cahoots with ICE agents carrying out home raids. This is in part because of actual cooperation between many police agencies and ICE, often in the form of detailing local officers to accompany ICE agents on home raid operations. However, even in circumstances where no local police are actually involved, ICE agents often identify themselves as “police” presumably because they suspect residents are more likely to cooperate with local police than with ICE. Because of the actual and perceived cooperation between local police agencies and ICE agents conducting home raids, ICE misconduct during those raids threatens to taint local officers’ relationships with immigrant communities.





1AC B. Cooperation with communities are essential to prevent future terrorist attacksICAP (International Association of Chiefs of Police), 2014, “Using Community Policing to Counter Violent Extremism,” http://www.theiacp.org/Portals/0/documents/pdfs/Final%20Key%20Principles%20Guide.pdf, ACC. 10-1-2015

Community policing approaches have been adapted to address a broad range of concerns. Besides traditional crime issues, community policing has been used to address diverse issues such as gangs and gang violence, civic engagement, and community awareness. Community policing’s broad approach encompasses greater emphasis on proactive and preventive policing. Applying the same community policing principles that have helped reduce general crime, violence, and social disorder to terrorism and violent extremism can also aid in preventing future attacks. Building partnerships with public and private community stakeholders, interacting with residents and community leaders, sharing information, and investigating reports of suspicious or unusual behavior are all components of community policing that are easily transferable to terrorism prevention and countering violent extremism. Interacting with residents and other community stakeholders can help law enforcement identify and engage citizen groups as partners to address community grievances that may lead to violent extremism. Building trusting relationships based on interaction and collaboration may also lead to increased reporting of suspicious activity as well as sharing of information, target hardening, and improved coordination. Especially in a time of shrinking budgets and increasing expectations for law enforcement agencies, one of the most beneficial aspects of community policing is the principle of leveraging the strength of communities and their members. Community members are an important force multiplier. They can help identify, prevent, and eliminate terrorist ideologies and behaviors before violence occurs. The importance of individual community members is embodied in the Nationwide Suspicious Activity Reporting (SAR) Initiative (NSI), which encourages individuals to take an active role in reporting any type of suspicious or criminal activity to authorities. During his 2011 State of the Union address, President Barack Obama called on American law enforcement and their communities to continue to work together to stop homegrown violent extremists before their plans become operational: “Thanks to our intelligence and law enforcement professionals, we’re disrupting plots and securing our cities and skies. And as extremists try to inspire acts of violence within our borders, we are responding with the strength of our communities…” By empowering communities to take an active role in ensuring their safety, law enforcement is well positioned to take a central role in preventing terrorism and countering violent extremism.



http://www.theiacp.org/Portals/0/documents/pdfs/Final%20Key%20Principles%20Guide.pdf



C. Terrorism risks all-out U.S.-Russian nuclear warAnthony Barrett, Carnegie Mellon Engineering and Public Policy PhD, 2013, “Analyzing and Reducing the Risks of Inadvertent Nuclear War Between the United States and Russia,” Science & Global Security: The Technical Basis for Arms Control, Disarmament, and Nonproliferation Initiatives, Volume 21, Issue 2, http://scienceandglobalsecurity.org/archive/sgs21barrett.pdf, ACC. 10-1-2015

Many people believe that with the end of the Cold War and with improved relations between the United States and Russia, the risk of East-West nuclear war was significantly reduced. However, it also has been argued that inadvertent nuclear war between the United States and Russia has continued to present a substantial risk. While the United States and Russia are not actively threatening each other with war, they have remained ready to launch nuclear missiles in response to indications of attack. False indicators of nuclear attack could be caused in several ways. First, a wide range of events have already been mistakenly interpreted as indicators of attack, including weather phenomena, a faulty computer chip, wild animal activity, and control-room training tapes loaded at the wrong time. Second, terrorist groups or other actors might cause attacks on either the United States or Russia that resemble some kind of nuclear attack by the other nation by actions such as exploding a stolen or improvised nuclear bomb, especially if such an event occurs during a crisis between the United States and Russia. A variety of nuclear terrorism scenarios are possible. Al Qaeda has sought to obtain or construct nuclear weapons and to use them against the United States. Other methods could involve attempts to circumvent nuclear weapon launch control safeguards or exploit holes in their security. It has long been argued that the probability of inadvertent nuclear war is significantly higher during U.S.–Russian crisis conditions, with the Cuban Missile Crisis being a prime historical example. It is possible that U.S.–Russian relations will significantly deteriorate in the future, increasing nuclear tensions. There are a variety of ways for a third party to raise tensions between the United States and Russia, making one or both nations more likely to misinterpret events as attacks.




1AC OBSERVATION TWO: SolvencyA. Congress should force ICE to make major reforms in line with the 4th AmendmentMarissa B. Litwin, J.D., Seton Hall University School of Law, May 2011, “The Decentralization of Immigration Law: The Mischief of § 287(g),” Seton Hall Law Review, 41 Seton Hall L. Rev. 399, http://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1377&context=shlr, ACC. 9-28-2015

While undocumented immigration is most certainly a problem unto itself and in need of substantial reform, it does not justify unregulated and unconstitutional conduct that not only broadly targets undocumented immigrants, but also reaches well beyond the undocumented population. If Congress does not force ICE to change its approach to state and local enforcement of immigration, egregious violations of the Fourth Amendment are sure to continue. In light of the number and nature of egregious violations that continue to occur in immigration-law enforcement, major legislative reform is necessary.

B. The current policy undermines ICE effectiveness. ICE should change its policy of using administrative warrants to judicial warrants for all home raids. This forces the agency to refocus enforcement teamsBess Chiu, Cardozo Immigration Justice Clinic, et al., 2009, “Constitution on ICE: A Report on Immigration Home Raid Operations,”


2. ICE should obtain judicial warrants in advance of any home raid. Federal courts possess authority to issue search and/or arrest warrants for ICE home raids. ICE’s practice of using administrative warrants for home raids is, therefore, a policy decision presumably driven by administrative convenience, not law. Unfortunately, this convenience appears to have contributed to ICE’s failure to devote adequate resources to intelligence gathering. By using administrative warrants, ICE is not required to demonstrate to a neutral magistrate its probable cause to arrest a target and its basis for believing that the target will be at a given residence. Too often, this has led ICE to identify target residences based on insufficient intelligence — leading to intrusions into innocent residents’ homes and to ICE’s failure to capture targets. The procedures for obtaining a judicial warrant would be a healthy incentive for ICE to refocus its interior enforcement teams on appropriate intelligence gathering on high priority dangerous targets. In a related arena, DHS Secretary Napolitano has recently issued guidelines directing ICE agents to increase their use of judicial warrants in worksite enforcement operations as part of an attempt to impose “high investigative standards.” Having recognized the power of judicial oversight to heighten investigative standards, Secretary Napolitano should extend that same logic and guidance to home raid operations. Obtaining judicial warrants would certainly impose some additional burden on ICE; however, it is a burden that virtually every other law enforcement agency in the nation is faced with and overcomes with relative ease. If ICE limits its use of home raids as suggested above, and refocuses its interior enforcement teams toward locating and arresting truly dangerous targets, it should have abundant resources to properly investigate its targets and obtain judicial warrants. Such warrants would not only incentivize appropriate pre-raid investigations but would also eliminate many of the problematic issues set forth in this report.





Harms Ext. – Warrantless Searches

ICE agents routinely engage in unconstitutional searches and unlawful forceBess Chiu, Cardozo Immigration Justice Clinic, et al., 2009, “Constitution on ICE: A Report on Immigration Home Raid Operations,”


Starting in 2006, a growing body of evidence has arisen which suggests that many ICE agents have failed to routinely observe constitutional requirements in carrying out ICE home raid operations. Citizens and non-citizens alike are protected by the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. However, frequent accounts in the media and in legal filings have told a similar story of Fourth Amendment violations occurring during ICE home raids. From these accounts, the picture that emerges of a typical home raid depicts a team of heavily armed ICE agents approaching a private residence in the pre-dawn hours, purportedly seeking an individual target believed to have committed some civil immigration violation. Agents, armed only with administrative warrants, which do not grant them legal authority to enter private dwellings, then push their way in when residents answer the door, enter through unlocked doors or windows or, in some cases, physically break into homes. Once inside, agents immediately seize and interrogate all occupants, often in excess of their legal authority and even after they have located and apprehended their target — though in the large majority of cases, no target is apprehended. While these abuses are by no means universal, accounts of such behavior have occurred with sufficient frequency to warrant this inquiry.





Consent Fails ICE has proven it will violate consent requirementsLindsay Kee, ACLU of Tennessee, October 21, 2011, "We Don't Need a Warrant, We're ICE,” ACLU, https://www.aclu.org/blog/speakeasy/we-dont-need-warrant-were-ice, ACC. 9-27-2015

On the night of October 20, 2010, Angel Escobar and Jorge Sarmiento were in their beds in their small, two-bedroom apartment in the Clairmont complex in Nashville. Several roomates and friends were in other rooms. The doors and windows were all shut and locked. Suddenly there was a loud banging at the door and voices shouting "Police!" and "Policia!" When no one answered, the agents tried to force the door open. Scared, occupants hid. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents began hitting objects against the bedroom windows, trying to break in. Without a search warrant and without consent, the ICE agents eventually knocked in the front door and shattered a window, shouting racial slurs and storming into the bedrooms, holding guns to some people’s heads. When asked if they had a warrant, one agent reportedly said, "We don't need a warrant, we're ICE," and, gesturing to his genitals, "the warrant is coming out of my balls." The Fourth Amendment strictly prohibits warrantless intrusions into private homes and the Constitution's protections apply to both citizens and non-citizens alike. In the absence of a judicially authorized warrant, there must be voluntary and knowing consent; ICE officers forcing themselves into someone's home does not constitute consent.

ICE will continue to lie about consent for home raidsNathan Treadwell, J.D., City University of New York School of Law, 2011, “Fugitive Operations and the Fourth Amendment: Representing Immigrants Arrested in Warrantless Home Raids,” North Carolina Law Review, Vol. 89, http://www.nclawreview.org/documents/89/2/treadwell.pdf, ACC. 9-28-2015

Warrantless home raids have become a key element of contemporary immigration enforcement, a source of thousands of arrests and deportations for civil immigration violations. The number of raids by ICE Fugitive Operations Teams (“FOTs”) has grown dramatically in recent years. Home raids have become increasingly controversial; they are the subject of considerable public and legislative anger for the disruptions they cause to immigrant families and communities. They have come under judicial scrutiny as well, since absent extenuating circumstances or the consent of residents, warrantless home invasions are illegal, a violation of the Fourth Amendment guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure. ICE contends that its agents do not enter homes without first obtaining the consent of a resident; in contrast, immigrants and their advocates have charged that agents routinely force their way in, sometimes threatening residents in the process. Other authors have addressed the factual dispute over how frequently Fourth Amendment violations occur in interior immigration enforcement. This Article will address what legal consequences should flow from a Fourth Amendment violation if one is shown to underlie evidence introduced in a proceeding to deport a noncitizen. This Article sets out a litigation theory for the defense of undocumented immigrants facing deportation after warrantless home raids—a theory that calls for evidentiary suppression for constitutional and regulatory violations.



http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1756957#%23



Terrorism Advantage Ext. Warrantless military-style raids turn communities against law enforcement. Only the plan solvesBill Ong Hing, Professor of Law at University of California, Fall 2009, “Institutional Racism, ICE Raids, and Immigration Reform,” University of San Francisco Law Review, Vol. 44, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1525578, ACC. 10-1-2015

E. Damage to Communities ICE raids and increased enforcement have caused severe social and civic damage and major setbacks for many communities. In Iowa, communities had developed several successful initiatives designed to stimulate the assimilation of immigrants into the fabric of the communities where they resided. Great progress toward integration and understanding had taken place in Marshalltown. But the ICE raid undid much of that progress. The raid had given some members of the community “a justification for discriminating against all immigrants, documented or not.” Raids also hurt local economies. Jorge Avellanada, city council member and a business leader in Chelsea, Massachusetts, told the Commission that the raids resulted in a thirty percent decline in sales due in part to the fear that workers had about going to work, shopping, or going about their normal business. The negative ramifications of the raids on communities manifest themselves in other ways. Increased enforcement and high profile military-style raids have resulted in the immigrant community being afraid to report abuse or crime for fear of being turned over to ICE.

Strong relations with immigrant communities are crucial to fight terrorismICAP (International Association of Chiefs of Police), 2014, “Using Community Policing to Counter Violent Extremism,” http://www.theiacp.org/Portals/0/documents/pdfs/Final%20Key%20Principles%20Guide.pdf, ACC. 10-1-2015

Engaging Immigrant Communities through Community Policing Law enforcement agencies nationwide have used community policing principles to build bridges with immigrant communities that may be wary of law enforcement because of past experiences in their home country. Law enforcement agencies have also used these principles, and continue to use them today, to demonstrate their commitment to balancing the needs of protecting their communities while also protecting individuals from hate crimes and civil rights and liberties violations. However, groups that share, or have been perceived to share, the national background or religions of the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks may still be hesitant to share tips and may be cautious about partnering with law enforcement .This hesitancy can only be overcome by building trusting relationships, being transparent, and communicating with community members, regardless of their citizenship or immigration status. The principles of community policing extend beyond the residents of a specific community and encompass working in partnership with other government agencies, public and private stakeholders, and faith- and community-based organizations. For example, enhanced information exchange between local, state, tribal, and federal law enforcement and homeland security partners; improved partnerships between federal, state, and local officials; information sharing between law enforcement and private entities; and, advances in communications technology and interoperable databases, can all be used to address terrorism and violent extremism . Using interoperable databases and sharing information with nonprofits and the private sector provides law enforcement with additional opportunities to prevent violent attacks by extremist individuals and groups.






Solvency Extension Warrantless raids violate the 4th amendment and consent rules are ignored. This is accompanied by excessive displays of forceNathan Treadwell, J.D., City University of New York School of Law, 2011, “Fugitive Operations and the Fourth Amendment: Representing Immigrants Arrested in Warrantless Home Raids,” North Carolina Law Review, Vol. 89, http://www.nclawreview.org/documents/89/2/treadwell.pdf, ACC. 9-28-2015

While any law enforcement entry into the home is likely to seem threatening to residents, the accounts of ICE enforcement operations indicate that the agency uses excessive displays of force. The Fourth Amendment governs the use of force during arrests; suffice it to say that officers may not lightly threaten to use tear gas against a suspect’s home, hold an unarmed and cooperating person at gunpoint against a car, or kick down a door with guns drawn. The New York Times reported that in 2008, ICE agents used guns to threaten a nine year-old and his parents after entering while his mother was showering. The same article cited an immigration judge’s finding that agents forced a resident to stand in a common area in his underwear while they continued their warrantless search of his house. ICE’s forced entries are not merely technical violations of the warrant requirement. They are sometimes violent, intrusive and humiliating—in short, they offend the values underlying the Fourth Amendment. Home raids have grown far more frequent in recent years; for the past several years, they have been a major component of ICE enforcement activity. ICE’s behavior—the violent entries, the threats, the disregard for personal privacy or peace of mind—has become lawless. Evidence now abounds that officers frequently enter without consent—that they threaten or intimidate residents, make misrepresentations of authority, push their way through open doors, or simply enter without waiting to speak to a resident at all. With no valid warrants, no exigent circumstances, and often no valid consent, one major plank of ICE’s interior enforcement efforts depends on routine violations of a core constitutional guarantee.






Solvency – Warrants Key Pre-dawn or nighttime raids should only be done with judicial warrantsBess Chiu, Cardozo Immigration Justice Clinic, et al., 2009, “Constitution on ICE: A Report on Immigration Home Raid Operations,”


Tactical pre-dawn or nighttime home raids should only be conducted with judicial warrants. As ICE regulations explain, “in order to enter a residence [without a judicial warrant], someone who has authority to do so must grant informed consent.” Tactical pre-dawn or nighttime home entries, conducted by heavily armed seven member teams, with residents who often do not speak English and are unfamiliar with American legal norms, are simply not consistent with obtaining informed consent. Acquiescence to authority is not consent. Accordingly, tactical pre-dawn or nighttime home raids should only be conducted with judicial warrants.





A2: Politics – Bipart Turn Reducing home raids is a bipartisan issueNathan Treadwell, J.D., City University of New York School of Law, 2011, “Fugitive Operations and the Fourth Amendment: Representing Immigrants Arrested in Warrantless Home Raids,” North Carolina Law Review, Vol. 89, http://www.nclawreview.org/documents/89/2/treadwell.pdf, ACC. 9-28-2015

Home raids are lawless for a reason: the condition of “illegality” pushes immigrants to the margins of American life, and presenting home raids in constitutional terms can emphasize immigrants’ humanity. While the Warrant Clause enshrines a vision of privacy rights rooted in a particular culture and a different era, the popular and official response to home raids shows that those rights resonate deeply today—that they carry profound meaning for Americans across the political spectrum.






A2: Race Consciousness K – Forefronting Race bad Forefronting race leads us down a rabbit hole of conflicting agendas and sustains the status quo. The Michael Brown case proves this devolves into the black-white binaryKareem Abdul-Jabbar, Guest Columnist, August 17, 2014, “The Coming Race War Won’t Be About Race,” TIME, ttp://time.com/3132635/ferguson-coming-race-war-class-warfare/, ACC. 10-1-2015

By focusing on just the racial aspect, the discussion becomes about whether Michael Brown’s death—or that of the other three unarmed black men who were killed by police in the U.S. within that month—is about discrimination or about police justification. Then we’ll argue about whether there isn’t just as much black-against-white racism in the U.S. as there is white-against-black. (Yes, there is. But, in general, white-against-black economically impacts the future of the black community. Black-against-white has almost no measurable social impact.) Then we’ll start debating whether or not the police in America are themselves an endangered minority who are also discriminated against based on their color—blue. (Yes, they are. There are many factors to consider before condemning police, including political pressures, inadequate training, and arcane policies.) Then we’ll question whether blacks are more often shot because they more often commit crimes. (In fact, studies show that blacks are targeted more often in some cities, like New York City. It’s difficult to get a bigger national picture because studies are woefully inadequate. The Department of Justice study shows that in the U.S. between 2003 and 2009, among arrest-related deaths there’s very little difference among blacks, whites, or Latinos. However, the study doesn’t tell us how many were unarmed.) This fist-shaking of everyone’s racial agenda distracts America from the larger issue that the targets of police overreaction are based less on skin color and more on an even worse Ebola-level affliction: being poor. Of course, to many in America, being a person of color is synonymous with being poor, and being poor is synonymous with being a criminal. Ironically, this misperception is true even among the poor. And that’s how the status quo wants it.



http://time.com/author/kareem-abdul-jabbar/


A2: Race Consciousness K – Law Good We should not reject the law outright. It has symbolic power to create norms for positive social changeSharona Hoffman, Case Western University School of Law, 2004, "Is There A Place for Race As a Legal Concept," Faculty Publications, Paper 227, http://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1226&context=faculty_publications, ACC. 10-1-2015

In addition to controlling human behavior through rules and sanctions, the law has symbolic meaning and conveys social messages. Revisions in the law can induce people to change their fundamental beliefs, at least in part because human beings crave social approval and thus strive to conform to public norms. The public statements made by the law can, therefore, be even more powerful than its threat of sanctions in influencing behavior. Some scholars refer to this phenomenon as the "expressive" function or power of the law. Consequently, for example, environmental protection laws can mold human attitudes towards natural resources. Laws that prohibit littering can shape human behavior even if they are not accompanied by vigorous enforcement activity. Similarly, statutes governing cigarette smoking in public places, alcohol consumption by minors, and seatbelt use can shift societal norms and promote social advancement through their symbolic power.




A2: Race Consciousness K – Racial Categories bad Legal mandates based on “race” foster a destructive ideology that leads to massive human rights violationsSharona Hoffman, Case Western University School of Law, 2004, "Is There A Place for Race As a Legal Concept," Faculty Publications, Paper 227, http://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1226&context=faculty_publications, ACC. 10-1-2015

By extension, the terminology that the law utilizes in classifying particular populations can have significant implications. As previously discussed, notions of "race," reinforced by legal mandates, have historically engendered the belief that human beings are divided into subspecies, some of which are superior to others. This misconception has led to countless human rights violations. Still today some individuals are developing so called "scientific" evidence concerning the moral and intellectual deficiencies of particular "racial" groups in order to advance political agendas.

Racial categories are rooted in a biopolitical subjectivity that turns people into objectsWard Connerly, Chair of the American Civil Rights Institute and University of California Regent, 2001, “Towards a twenty-first century vision of race: Why we should get rid of the boxes altogether,” http://www.geneseo.edu/~bennett/GuestEditorial.html, ACC. 10-1-2015

Whenever race is invoked, it is about power. Whether it was the imposition of the "one-drop" rule on the children of Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemmings, or India’s caste system, race is always about power. To preserve its power, the group establishing the classification system uses a readily identifiable characteristic to separate those with power from those without power. In nearly all cases, skin color, a.k.a. race, is the easiest characteristic to use. By grouping all individuals by race, no one needs to consider people as individuals. Racial classifications turn human beings into mere objects. The classification system reduces people on both sides to the stereotypes created by the system. It simplifies the calculus of individual evaluation by defining away the gray areas. The most venal, lazy sycophant on the right side is, by definition, morally superior to the most caring, hard working person on the wrong side of the system. In America, whites designed and enforced the "one-drop" rule as the governing racial classification system. This "rule" has dominated race relations in America for our entire history. It relegates to the status of blacks anyone with just one drop of black blood. Anyone with "any known African black ancestry" is black. Thus, people like Olympic decathlete Dan O’Brien and Lena Horne, whose skin color is not readily identifiable as "black," are and were black, and subject to the same abuse that someone obviously black may face. The "one-drop" rule has served various purposes in American history. Slave owners used this rule to insure that the children of their slave mistresses would also be slaves. Public opinion leaders in the South used it to denigrate all black people, and thereby defend slavery. The authors and enforcers of the Jim Crow system used it to define who could sit at the front of a bus, eat at Woolworth’s or vote. Equal employment officers in the public and private sectors use it to determine who is eligible for extra points in awarding of contracts, admissions programs and hiring. Today, the "one-drop" rule is the government’s guide for determining who is eligible for various racial preference programs.



http://www.geneseo.edu/~bennett/GuestEditorial.html


“Race” categories are socially constructed and lead to bad legal decisionsSharona Hoffman, Case Western University School of Law, 2004, "Is There A Place for Race As a Legal Concept," Faculty Publications, Paper 227, http://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1226&context=faculty_publications, ACC. 10-1-2015

It is in the field of law that the concept of "race" has mattered most and has been treated with the greatest confusion and inconsistency. One commentator recently argued that many historical legal actors have always considered "race" to be a social construct and legal fiction. Nevertheless, throughout history, legislatures, courts, and administrative agencies have struggled to classify individuals by "race" and to establish bright-line "racial" categories.




A2: Race Consciousness K – A2: Whiteness Critiques of whiteness inevitably devolve into comparing oppressions, which is an intellectual dead endMaulana Karenga PhD, was one of the scholars who pressed for Black studies in the late 60's and early 70s, founder of Kwanzaa, and currently professor and chair of the Black studies department at California State University-Long Beach, May 13, 1999, “Whiteness Studies: Deceptive or Welcome Discourse?,” Black Issues, http://diverseeducation.com/article/139/, ACC. 10-1-2015

Closely related to this conceptual misadventure, Whiteness studies might also revive the Hegelian doctrine of the master's struggle for recognition as master as a kind of social and moral equivalency of the enslaved person's struggle for recognition as a human being. Again, such studies must be careful not to suggest such social or moral equivalence with the peoples' of color ongoing struggle against White supremacy and for human freedom and human flourishing. Otherwise, Whiteness studies again deteriorates into a problematic comparative study of the oppression of people of color and Whites which cannot be sustained intellectually or morally.

How we talk about racism matters. Their monolithic notions of whiteness turn it into an intellectual fetish that reifies the same structures of oppressionSara Ahmed, University of London Race and Cultural studies reader, 2004, "Declarations of Whiteness: The Non-Performativity of Anti-Racism," Borderlands, Vol 3 No 2, http://www.borderlands.net.au/vol3no2_2004/ahmed_declarations.htm, ACC. 10-1-20153. Whiteness studies is after all deeply invested in producing anti-racist forms of knowledge and pedagogy. In other words, whiteness studies seeks to make whiteness visible insofar as that visibility is seen as contesting the forms of white privilege, which rests on the unmarked and the unremarkable ‘fact’ of being white. But in reading the texts that gather together in the emergence of a field, we can detect an anxiety about the status or function of this anti-racism. The anxiety is first an anxiety about what it means to transform whiteness studies into a field. If whiteness becomes a field of study, then there is clearly a risk that whiteness itself will be transformed into an object. Or if whiteness assumes integrity as an object of study, as being ‘something’ that we can track or follow across time and space, then whiteness would become a fetish, cut off from histories of production and circulation. Richard Dyer for instance admits to being disturbed by the very idea of what he calls white studies: ‘My blood runs cold at the thought that talking about whiteness could lead to the development of something called ‘White Studies’ (1997, 10). Or as Fine, Weis, Powell and Wong explain: ‘we worry that in our desire to create spaces to speak, intellectually or empirically, about whiteness, we may have reified whiteness as a fixed category of experience; that we have allowed it to be treated as a monolith, in the singular, as an "essential something"’ (1997, xi). 4. The risk of transforming whiteness into ‘an essential something’ might be a necessary risk, for sure. We have to choose whether it’s a risk worth taking. But the risk does not exist independently of other risks. The anxiety about transforming whiteness into ‘an essential something’ gets stuck to other anxieties about what whiteness studies might do. One of these anxieties is that whiteness studies will sustain whiteness at the centre of intellectual inquiry, however haunted by absence, lack and emptiness. As Ruth Frankenburg asks ‘ why talk about whiteness, given the risk that by undertaking intellectual work on whiteness one might contribute to processes of recentering rather than decentering it, as well as reifying the term, and its "inhabitants"’ (1997, 1).




A2: Topicality “Surveillance” T We must reduce surveillance. ICE raids rely on racial profiling and white supremacyBill Ong Hing, Professor of Law at University of California, Fall 2009, “Institutional Racism, ICE Raids, and Immigration Reform,” University of San Francisco Law Review, Vol. 44, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1525578, ACC. 10-1-2015

The United Food and Commercial Workers (“UFCW”) Commission heard repeated testimony about racial profiling. Witnesses testified that workers who appeared to be of Latino national origin or minorities were singled out by ICE and subjected to the greatest scrutiny . John Bowen, General Counsel for UFCW Local 7, said “race was, almost without question, the sole criteria for harsher interrogations” to which the workers were subjected at the Greeley,

Colorado plant. Fidencio Sandoval, a U.S. citizen and Swift worker at the Grand Island, Nebraska, plant, recounted how he was treated differently by ICE agents because he appeared to be Latino: When they said all the U.S. citizens come over to this place, I went up there and I stood right by my boss. My boss showed his driver’s license and then he was free to go. I showed my driver’s license and my voting registration card and that was not enough. [The ICE agent] said, no, you need either your passport or citizenship certificate.46 Eventually, he was able to produce his documents, after his sister was able to go to his home, “break the window from my kitchen and go straight to my closet and get my citizen certificate.” Other U.S. citizen coworkers were not as fortunate. Those who did not have a way to prove their citizenship were arrested and taken to Camp Dodge, located nearly 300 miles from Grand Island. Manuel Verdinez was one of those U.S. citizen workers from the Marshalltown plant who was detained, arrested, handcuffed, and taken into custody. “I said I was a U.S. citizen, and then the [ICE] agent started scratching my ID. The agent . . . said they could not find my status. They put plastic cuffs around my wrists and put all of my belongings into a plastic bag.” After twelve hours in detention, “they found my record . . . and said they had made a mistake. Then [the ICE agent] finally took off my handcuffs . . . [t]hey called a cab for me and I had to pay $90 for the cab ride back.” ICE raids and increased enforcement are poisoning communities, spawning scores of state and local anti-immigrant laws and ordinances that target Latinos. All of this increases discrimination. According to Sam Zamarripa, president of the Board of Directors of the Georgia Association of Latino Elected

Officials and a former State Senator in Georgia, these policies are led and advanced by white supremacist organizations .

Immigration surveillance is conducted through electronic and physical means by local police cooperation and racial profilingErik Camayd-Freixas, Ph.D., Spanish Interpreter for Federal Courts, and Professor of Spanish & Director of Translation & Interpretation Program at Florida International University, “US Immigration Reform and Its Global Impact: Lessons from the Postville Raid,” p. 192

The imposition of a “national security” agenda at the neighborhood level, via local police surveillance

and denunciations by social militants, has always been the trademark of totalitarian regimes. Now this old recipe has been enhanced by a network of databases, telecommunications, and electronic methods of surveillance, detection, and enforcement, linking national, state, and community intelligence, to enable the systematic persecution of a profiled population. Through the combination of ICE’s DRO, FOT, 287(g),

and Secure Communities programs, racially profiled Latinos are routinely ambushed on their way to church, to pick their kids up from school, traveling

by car, train, or bus, going to and from work, or when their homes are invaded. They are arrested without a warrant and detained indefinitely without a hearing. Over 20 million people, including not only undocumented immigrants, but also their US-citizen and legal resident families, now live in fear of violent arrest, incarceration, and deportation under the brazen dictates of a technocratic police state. It is the constant fear that every time they say goodbye to their loved ones could be the last.




ICE uses 24-hour surveillanceAndre F. Puglie, Staff Writer, July 8, 2015, “Immigration News Latest: ICE Opts for 'Alternatives to Detention,' Immigrants Face 24-Hour Surveillance,” Latin Post, http://www.latinpost.com/articles/64757/20150708/immigration-news-latest-ice-opts-alternatives-detention-immigrants-face-24.htm, ACC. 10-1-2015

Undocumented immigrants who have entered the U.S. since last year face more scrutiny than many criminals. According to the Boston Globe, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the second largest criminal investigative agency of the federal government's U.S. Department of Homeland Security, is subjecting many of the newest arrivals to 24-hour surveillance that includes GPS ankle bracelets. The monitoring system, which immigration officials stated is cheaper than detention, could dramatically expand next year, the newspaper noted.



https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=newssearch&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB0QqQIoADAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bostonglobe.com%2Fmetro%2F2015%2F07%2F02%2Fasylum-seekers-often-monitored-immigration-more-strictly-than-criminals%2FPZ7HOpIWQJdBVhI0vU0MAL%2Fstory.html&ei=zSqdVdyRIYru-QHk84T4BA&usg=AFQjCNFpYQjh4WUt6oDefYHZdYBtS5ArXA&sig2=5zu9cTxZX9xaXV_zTWBttA&bvm=bv.96952980,d.cWw

http://www.latinpost.com/articles/64757/20150708/immigration-news-latest-ice-opts-alternatives-detention-immigrants-face-24.htm

http://www.latinpost.com/articles/64757/20150708/immigration-news-latest-ice-opts-alternatives-detention-immigrants-face-24.htm


War on Drugs NEG

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially curtail its domestic surveillance.




***Topicality***




Topicality Shell A. Interpretation—“Curtail” refers to authority and ability to conduct surveillance

Frederick Reese, Lead staff writer for Mint Press News, July 25, 2013, “House Legislation To Curtail NSA Fails By Narrow Margin,” Mint Press News, Accessed July 5, 2015, http://www.mintpressnews.com/congress-is-actually-talking-about-defunding-the-nsa-and-curtailing-surveillance/165881/

The Amash amendment to the annual defense appropriations bill narrowly has failed in the House of Representatives by a vote of 205 in favor

versus 217 against, reports the Guardian. The legislation, which would have curtailed the National Security Agency’s ability to operate secret “dragnet” surveillance, had been proposed by Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.), and reportedly was defeated by a vote that saw both parties highly split. Original story, “Congress Is Actually Talking About Defunding The NSA And Curtailing

Surveillance,” published July 24: Less than two months after the disclosure of secret National Security Agency surveillance programs, a new fight on the issue is taking shape in the U.S. House. At issue is a controversial amendment — introduced by Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.), supported by a bipartisan coalition, and set for a vote of the

full House — that would require the NSA to place limits on the information it collects in its surveillance operations. Amash’s proposal would force the NSA to attest, when seeking a warrant from the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, that it would gather information only on individuals that are under investigation. “Blanket” surveillance would not be allowed. The amendment would be added to an annual defense spending bill.

B. Violation—the plan curtails the government’s justification for surveillance, but not the legal authority to surveil

C. Reasons to prefer—our interpretation fairly limits the topic. Allowing affirmatives that deal with mere justifications after the fact, and not curtailing legal authority, explodes the limits of the topic and destroys the Neg’s ability to get stable link ground

D. Topicality is a voting issue for fairness and competitive equity



http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/25/nsa-surveillance-amash-amendment-narrow-defeat

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/25/nsa-surveillance-amash-amendment-narrow-defeat

http://www.mintpressnews.com/author/frederick-reese/

http://www.mintpressnews.com/congress-is-actually-talking-about-defunding-the-nsa-and-curtailing-surveillance/165881/

http://amendments-rules.house.gov/amendments/AMASH_018_xml2718131717181718.pdf


Block Ext. A topical affirmative must curtail surveillance, which means to place limits on the legal authority to conduct surveillance, not after-the-fact justifications Geoff Dyer, Writer for Financial Times, June 3, 2015, “Surveillance bill fails to curtail bulk of NSA activities,” Financial Times, Accessed July 5, 2015, http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/39089cc6-097f-11e5-b643-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3f8Irrtvu

The passage of the first bill since 9/11 to curtail government surveillance represents a dramatic shift in the politics surrounding terrorism in the US, but a much less significant change in the way the intelligence community actually operates. The USA Freedom Act , which has been comfortably approved by both the

Senate and the House, bars the government from collecting the phone records of millions of US citizens , a

programme which became the focus of public fears about overbearing electronic surveillance. The surveillance legislation reform still leaves the US intelligence community with formidable legal powers and tools to collect data and other online information for terrorism-related investigations, however. Despite the tidal wave of revelations and

public anger towards the National Security Agency following the 2013 leaks by Edward Snowden, congressional efforts to rein in the agency have so far not curtailed the bulk of its activities.



http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/7bc294fa-ff33-11e4-84b2-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3bvUxMR19

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/8802e578-f4d2-11e4-abb5-00144feab7de.html#axzz3bvUxMR19

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/ffeb2cd4-0946-11e5-8534-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3bvUxMR19


***End Prohibition CP***




Solvency—1NC We don’t have to legalize all drugs—specific legalizations are key to lower incarceration rates, boost the economy, and ensure fair treatment of people Paul Szoldra, Writer for Business Insider, May 8, 2014, “Nobel-Prize Winning Economists: The War On Drugs Is A Catastrophic 'Billion-Dollar Failure',” Business Insider, Accessed July 5, 2015, http://www.businessinsider.com/economists-war-on-drugs-2014-5

Five Nobel-Prize winning economists have signed onto an academic report published Tuesday in the London School of Economics calling for an end to the "war on drugs," calling it a "global failure." The report , titled

"Ending the Drug Wars," points to a failure to stem the flow of drugs around the world in addition to other negative effects, including violence in Afghanistan and Latin America, t he explosion of drug-related incarceration in the United States, and an HIV epidemic in Russia , Al Jazeera reports. Far from winning the fight, the

report says the United Nations' "one-size-fits-all approach" has instead created a $300 billion black market. "It is time to end the 'war on drugs' and massively redirect resources towards effective evidence-based policies underpinned by rigorous economic analysis," the authors write in the forward of the report. "The pursuit of a militarized and enforcement-led global 'war on drugs' strategy has produced enormous negative outcomes and collateral damage." Signatories include Nobel Prize winners Kenneth Arrow (1972), Christopher Pissarides (2010), Thomas Schelling (2005) Vernon Smith (2002) and Oliver Williamson (2009), as well as George Shultz, former Secretary of State under President Reagan, British Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, and former NATO and EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana. Among recommendations offered

to the U.S. specifically, Ernest Drucker writes that mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenders should be ended and blanket amnesty should be offered for drug offenders already behind bars. "The rapid rise in incarceration in the U.S. and several other countries ... " Drucker writes, has "impacted those imprisoned but also their families and communities." While it does call for an end to the "war," the report does not call for legalization of all drugs — instead the authors ask for "rigorously monitored" experiments with legalization with a focus on public health and a minimization of the illegal drug trade as keys to solving the problem.



http://www.businessinsider.com/%22It%20is%20time%20to%20end%20the%20'war%20on%20drugs'%20and%20massively%20redirect%20resources%20towards%20effective%20evidence-based%20policies%20undered%20by%20rigorous%20economic%20analysis,%22%20the%20authors%20said%20in%20a%20foreword%20to%20the%20report.%20%20%22The%20pursuit%20of%20a%20militarised%20and%20enforcement-led%20global%20'war%20on%20drugs'%20strategy%20has%20produced%20enormous%20negative%20outcomes%20and%20collateral%20damage.%22

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-the-war-on-drugs-changed-americas-prison-population-2014-4

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-the-war-on-drugs-changed-americas-prison-population-2014-4

http://www.fylrr.com/archives.php?doc=EndingDrugWarsFINAL.pdf

http://www.fylrr.com/archives.php?doc=EndingDrugWarsFINAL.pdf


Solvency—General Only the CP solves the War on Drugs and prison overcrowding internal links—we must end the War on Drugs in order to “win” it Medium, Organization that writes about various social issues, Accessed July 5, 2015, “How We Can Still Win the War on Drugs,” Medium, Accessed July 5, 2015, https://medium.com/the-real-edition/how-we-can-still-win-the-war-on-drugs-1de8f495afd2

The biggest concern of this idea is that it may create more users and my response to that is, “Good.” Word of mouth is God, it has been the root

of religious prosperity for thousands of years and has proven to be the most powerful form of marketing in a capitalist system. We can change the economic structure of the war on drugs. If more people are using recreational drugs in a responsible way and no one’s life is destroyed because of them then that would be more successful . It wouldn’t be like tobacco and alcohol with tons of different brands competing with advertisements everywhere from billboards to Hollywood

love scenes. There should be no traditional advertisements anywhere for any addictive substance, only for the treatment, education of effects, or publication of uses. Instead, we have an overpopulated prison system that offers hardly any rehabilitation and a drug policy that is responsible for a global civil war. Necessity is the mother of invention and perhaps that’s what the war on drugs has given our war-torn world during a time when society was

not ready for recreational drugs. Our sciences, treatment, and research methods have evolved greatly since we first began experimenting with prohibition. Psychology, the science of the mind has come a very long way since the barbarous

practices which coincided with the beginning of prohibitions. All war is shameful but none so much as the war on drugs; more than anything it’s a war between every government of the world and their poor people. Drugs are not for the poor but they can heal mental poverty. This is the only way that we (the United States) can win the war on drugs. Ushering drugs into our social constructs will bring about change and understanding like the ending of any war. But whether or not we heal the moral, social, and political scars left behind from the war’s aftermath will be largely up to how the government uses the profits generated from the sale of these substances. I believe that this may be the best opportunity to simultaneously reform our entire system of incarceration and rehabilitation. The privatization of prisons predicts the end of the American dream, it’s time to wake up.




Solvency—Prisons Adv—Overcrowding Ending large parts of the war on drugs would relieve pressure on the prison system—solves the aff’s overcrowding internal links American Civil Liberties Union, American organization dedicated to protecting civil liberty, Accessed June 23, 2015, “Against Drug Prohibition,” ACLU, Accessed June 23, 2015, https://www.aclu.org/against-drug-prohibition

After decades of criminal prohibition and intensive law enforcement efforts to rid the country of illegal drugs, violent traffickers still endanger life in our cities, a steady stream of drug offenders still pours into our jails and prisons, and tons of cocaine, heroin and marijuana still cross our borders unimpeded. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) opposes criminal prohibition of drugs. Not only is prohibition a proven failure as a drug control strategy, but it subjects otherwise law-abiding citizens to arrest, prosecution and imprisonment for what they do in private. In trying to enforce the drug laws, the government violates the fundamental rights of privacy and personal autonomy that are guaranteed by our Constitution. The ACLU believes that unless they do harm to others, people should not be punished -- even if they do harm to themselves. There are better ways to control drug use, ways that will ultimately lead to a healthier, freer and less crime-ridden society.




Solvency—Cartels/ Violence/ Prisons Legalizing marijuana curbs violence, undercuts the strength of cartels, and prevents people from needlessly going to prisonTanya Golash-Boza, Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of California, Merced, December 14, 2014, “Who is Winning the War on Drugs?,” Counter Punch, Accessed July 3, 2015, http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/12/12/who-is-winning-the-war-on-drugs/

If the War on Drugs is being lost, why does it continue? Who is winning the War on Drugs? According to this

provocative video, at least three groups are winning: the cartels, the banks, and arms manufacturers. The cartels are clearly winning . They are raking in billions of dollars a year, due to the illegalization of drugs. If drugs were not illegal, the cartels would lose one of their primary cash flows. In fact, marijuana legalization in several states has already cut into their profits. The price of a kilogram of marijuana in Mexico plummeted from $90 in 2012 to $40 – cutting into cartel profits. The cartels are responsible for thousands of killings every year in Mexico and the funds

they use to run their organizations come primarily from producing and selling illegal drugs to the United States. Transnational banks are also winning . Prior to being discovered, Mexican drug traffickers were depositing hundreds of thousands of dollars every day into HSBC accounts. HSBC laundered billions of dollars in drug trafficking proceeds before being forced to pay $2 billionin fines. U.S. authorities decided the bank was too big to prosecute criminally. HSBC may no longer be laundering

money, but it is likely that other banks are now profiting off of this billion-dollar business. Weapons dealers are also winning . The majority of guns used to kill people in Mexico are made in the United States. According to the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, over 90 percent of all weapons confiscated in Mexico came from the United States – bringing in tremendous profits for arms manufacturers and dealers. Antonio Santana Maestro’s promising life was cut short because of this War on Drugs. It falls upon us in the United States to demand accountability from the U.S. government. It falls upon us to work towards the legalization of drugs, which is the only way to end this War on Drugs. Legalization of marijuana in Colorado and Washington has cut into the profits of cartels. Legalization of small quantities of all drugs in Portugal has cut drug abuse in half. Ending the War on Drugs won’t save Antonio Santana Maestro or any of the other 42

students. It won’t save any of the hundreds of thousands of lives that have already been lost. But, it is the only way to bring a halt to this cycle of violence.



http://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/dec/14/hsbc-money-laundering-fine-management

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/dec/11/hsbc-bank-us-money-laundering

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/dec/14/hsbc-money-laundering-fine-management

http://mic.com/articles/105510/11-months-after-marijuana-legalization-here-s-what-s-happening-to-mexican-cartels?utm_source=huffingtonpost.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=pubexchange_facebook

http://share.ajplus.net/shared/2929

http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/12/12/who-is-winning-the-war-on-drugs/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/07/05/ten-years-after-decriminalization-drug-abuse-down-by-half-in-portugal/

http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/Chapter%201-Drug%20Trafficking%20Organizations%20and%20Counter-Drug%20Strategies%20in%20the%20U.S.-Mexico%20Context.pdf

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/03/made-in-the-usa-the-role-of-american-guns-in-mexican-violence/274103/



http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/11/mexico-protests-usculpability.html




***Prisons Adv Answers***




No Inherency—Overcrowding Addressed Now Many of the worst offending states are taking steps to address prison overcrowding nowRebekah L. Stratton, Writing for Prison Fellowship—a religious prison outreach program, September 18, 2014, “States Work to Correct Prison Overcrowding,” Prison Fellowship, Accessed July 5, 2015, http://www.prisonfellowship.org/2014/09/states-work-to-correct-prison-overcrowding/

In recent years, California’s prisons have seen intense overcrowding — to the point that federal judges ruled the quality of life in violation of prisoners’ civil rights. In 2011, Governor Brown introduced a reduction plan that included moving prisoners with nonviolent charges to county jails and probation centers. Now, with two more years to get the population down to 112,100, California is looking into additional methods for reduction, such as good-behavior incentives for prisoners that could lead to early release and parole. Time.com interviewed five criminal justice experts to see

what lessons California could learn from the experiences of other states as it continues on its mission. Here’s a quick look at what

the experts had to say. State: Texas Lesson: Invest in health solutions How: In 2003, Texas began addressing the issue of over-incarceration within the state. Texas put hundreds of millions of dollars toward helping prisoners with substance abuse disorders and mental illnesses through in-prison and separate treatment options. Texas expanded drug courts and accountability programming, and people who took part in these programs were almost eight times less likely to be re-incarcerated than those who did not. As a result of this focus on health, incarceration rates and violent crime dropped, saving taxpayers $2 billion.

State: Mississippi Lesson: Explore alternatives to incarceration How: Time.com reports that Mississippi has the second highest incarceration rate in the country. This year, Mississippi passed reform that would reduce incarceration for low-level offenses by implementing alternatives to prison. Mississippi is also looking into stronger programming for former prisoners to prevent them from returning to old patterns that originally led them to prison. Here are their three steps: Make successful reentry a priority. Build supporters of alternatives to prison

among many sectors of society: education, health, economy. Create safer and healthier environments for prisoners. State: Washington

Lesson: Focus on rehabilitation How: The state of Washington zeroed in on programming to help rehabilitate those caught up in a life of crime and started viewing prison as a last resort. Washington found that cognitive-behavioral programs in prisons can reduce the number of ex-prisoners returning to prison by an average of 6.3 percent. A RAND study showed that prisoners who participate in education programs are 43-percent less at risk of returning to prison after release. Every dollar spent on these programs turned into $4 to $5 of savings for taxpayers.



http://time.com/3387374/california-prisons/

http://time.com/3387374/california-prisons/


Won’t Solve Overpopulation The plan is a drop in the bucket, it won’t reduce prison populations in any meaningful wayLeon Neyfakh, Writer for Slate magazine and professor at Fordham Law School, February 7, 2014, “Why Are So Many Americans in Prison?,” Slate, Accessed July 3, 2015, http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2015/02/mass_incarceration_a_provocative_new_theory_for_why_so_many_americans_are.single.html

The reason it’s important to get it right is that if we’re trying to reduce the prison population, we want to make sure we do it correctly—and if you focus on the wrong thing, you won’t solve the problem. So if you think it’s the war on drugs, you might think, ‘OK, if we just decriminalize drugs, that will solve the problem.’ And, you know, it’s true that if we shift away from punishment to treatment that could be a huge improvement. But just letting people out of prison—decarcerating drug offenders—will not reduce the prison population by as much as people think. If you released every person in prison on a drug charge today, our state prison population would drop from about 1.5 million to 1.2 million. So we’d still be the world’s largest incarcerating country; we’d still have an enormous prison population. And if we focused on cutting back sentence lengths, maybe that would weaken DAs’ bargaining power at plea bargaining, but since people aren’t serving the massively long sentences anyway, it probably won’t have that big an effect on prison population either.




Won’t Solve Overpopulation The War on Drugs doesn’t fill up prisons and does not disproportionately target minorities—the numbers don’t support these claims David W. Murray, Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute, and John P. Walters, Chief Operating Officer at the Hudson Institute,December 16, 2014, “Drug enforcement is not racist,” NY Post, Accessed July 3, 2015, http://nypost.com/2014/12/16/drug-enforcement-is-not-racist/

Mayor de Blasio seems to believe that law enforcement doesn’t so much protect minority communities as harm them. His administration’s latest effort will have the NYPD reduce enforcement of marijuana laws — a move toward legalization

under the banner of social justice. The push for marijuana legalization begins with the claim that the drug is essentially benign or even beneficial. It follows that arresting people for using marijuana is unjust, with possession arrests damaging lives, filling prisons and wasting police resources. Worse, the enforcement of marijuana laws causes the disproportionate arrest and incarceration of African-American males and represents an assault on civil rights, if not a “war” on communities of color. The claims are wrong: Actual risk of arrest while using marijuana is stunningly low. Roughly 5 percent of US arrests in a given year are for marijuana

possession. We calculate about one arrest for marijuana possession for every 34,000 joints smoked. Drug arrests simply aren’t a significant portion of law-enforcement activity, and possession arrests for marijuana certainly don’t fill our prisons. A 2008 study by the Bureau of Justice Statistics found that fewer than 0.3 percent of those incarcerated in state prison (which is where most US inmates are incarcerated) are there for simple marijuana-possession offenses — and many of those have just “pled down” from more serious offenses. Are African-Americans targeted victims of the drug laws? No — race is not the driver of “disparate impact.”



http://nypost.com/2014/12/16/drug-enforcement-is-not-racist/


http://www.hudson.org/experts/559-john-p-walters

http://www.hudson.org/experts/1004-david-w-murray

http://hudson.org/research/10811-why-are-there-so-few-arrests-for-marijuana-violations-

http://hudson.org/research/10811-why-are-there-so-few-arrests-for-marijuana-violations-


Alt Causes to Overcrowding Drugs are only part of the equation to prison overcrowding—lots of other factors play a role Janell Blanco, Writer for Study.com—an educational research organization, June 6, 2015, “Prison Overcrowding: Statistics, Causes & Effects,” Study.com, Accessed July 5, 2015, http://study.com/academy/lesson/prison-overcrowding-statistics-causes-effects.html

There are several causes for prison overcrowding. One occurs when offenders are released and then commit another crime only to become incarcerated again. The offenders also may have committed a new crime that was

recently established by the penal code. The addition of criminal offenses to the penal code means that offenders can be sentenced for new crimes. Inmates may also be sent back to prison for failure to complete community service. Another cause for the overcrowding is tougher sentences. Offenders are receiving longer sentences for their crimes. They are facing harsher penalties for certain kinds of crimes, such as those involving drugs. Once in prison, many offenders are also spending more time incarcerated, and many states have theTruth in Sentencing Act, which requires that offenders serve the majority of their time incarcerated. The offenders are not given the option for parole and are not allowed credits for good time. Credit for good time would give offenders the opportunity to reduce their sentences. For every day they had good behavior, a certain amount of time would be reduced from their time they were sentenced to be incarcerated.




Alt Causes to Overcrowding There’s lots of reasons prisons are overcrowded, the aff doesn’t address them all United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime, United Nations organization, April 17, 2015, “Crime Congress highlights 'epidemic' prison overcrowding,” https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/frontpage/2015/April/crime-congress-highlights-epidemic-prison-overcrowding.html

"Prison overcrowding can be considered a symptom of a malfunctioning justice system", noted Piera Barzano,

Senior Regional Advisor of the Justice Section at UNODC. "The problems of overcrowding have to be dealt with by the prison administration, although the solutions are seldom within their reach." Ms. Barzano noted several reinforcing reasons that may lead to prison overcrowding, including causes not confined to the limits of criminal justice but that extend to other spheres of State responsibility such as welfare policy, access to health services, education, and employment.




Alt Causes to Overcrowding Drugs are not the primary cause of prison overcrowding Criminology and Criminal Justice Online, Portland State University’s Criminology and Criminal Justice Online program, March 28, 2015, “The Problem of Prison Overcrowding Must Be Addressed,” CCJO, Accessed July 5, 2015, http://online.ccj.pdx.edu/resources/news-articles/the-problem-of-prison-overcrowding-must-be-addressed/

Scope of the Problem. What causes overcrowding? – Researchers have determined that some of the causes of prison overcrowding are harsher penalties for criminal activities, changes to laws that make new actions illegal, high recidivism rates and needed improvements to the penal system . The most recent statistics compiled by

the Bureau of Justice Statistics show that at the end of 2013, there were almost 1,600,000 inmates in federal and state prisons in the United States. Adding in inmates in local jails brings the total to more than 2,200,000 . Adding in people on parole and probation brings the total number of individuals under the supervision of the adult correctional system in the United States to almost 6,900,000, which comes out to 2.8 percent of the U.S. population, or one in 35 adults.



http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/p13pr.cfm

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cpus13.pdf


A/T “Marijuana Related Crime” Don’t buy the affirmative’s hype—most people aren’t in jail for simple marijuana possession but harsher drug related crimes David Evans, Writer for Parents Opposed to Pot, March 30, 2015, “The Truth About Prisons and Marijuana,” POP, Accessed July 5, 2015, http://www.poppot.org/2015/03/30/setting-the-record-straight-about-prisons-marijuana/

Drug legalization advocates claim that prisons are overflowing with people convicted for only simple possession of marijuana. This claim is aggressively pushed by groups seeking to relax or abolish marijuana laws. A more accurate view is that the vast majority of inmates in prison for marijuana have been found guilty of more than simple possession. They were convicted for drug trafficking, or for marijuana possession along with other offenses. Many of those in prison for marijuana entered a guilty plea to a marijuana charge in order to avoid a more serious charge. In the US, just 1.6 percent of the state inmate population were held for offenses involving only marijuana, and less than one percent of all state prisoners (0.7 percent) were incarcerated with marijuana possession as the only charge. An even smaller fraction of state prisoners were first time offenders (0.3 percent). The numbers on the US federal prisons are similar . In 2001, the overwhelming majority of offenders sentenced for marijuana crimes were convicted for trafficking and only 63 served time for simple possession.




A/T “Marijuana Related Crime” Marijuana possession is a drop in the bucket for prison incarcerations David W. Murray, Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute, and John P. Walters, Chief Operating Officer at the Hudson Institute, November 19, 2014, “Why Are There So Few Arrests for Marijuana Violations?,” http://www.hudson.org/research/10811-why-are-there-so-few-arrests-for-marijuana-violations-

A common criticism of laws against marijuana use and/or possession is that there are a disproportionately large number of marijuana arrests. In 2013, there were roughly 609,000 people arrested for marijuana

possession, according to the FBI’s 2013 Uniform Crime Reports, the most recent year for which data is available. To many, this fact stands as an indictment of marijuana laws, under the presumption that the number of arrests is excessive, and hence must represent an injustice. Further, the number of arrests is often mustered on behalf of the campaign to legalize marijuana—the logic being that the sheer magnitude of the arrest figures represents a failure of public policy which legalization would correct. Moreover, the presumed excessive number of marijuana arrests is seen as an argument that police resources are being misdirected towards a drug that does little harm, at the

expense of policing responses to drugs thought to be more dangerous, such as heroin or cocaine. Lastly, the arrest figures feed into the assumption of many that marijuana arrests are disproportionately responsible for filling prisons with drug offenders, particularly low-level and non-violent ones. This is seen as an indictment of the drug war, and is said to

represent an irresponsible expenditure of not only money but also criminal justice resources. If only marijuana use were legal, the argument goes, this threat to public well-being—wasted police resources, needlessly overcrowded prisons, and injustice against innocent marijuana users—would be avoided. Under this argument, the laws against marijuana use pose the greatest harm to society, greater than the impact of the drug itself. Do data actually support this position? In 2013, there were 11.3 million total arrests, 13.3 percent of which (totaling 1.5 million

arrests) were for drug abuse violations.2 Most drug abuse violations were marijuana related offenses—marijuana possession arrests were 40.6 percent of all drug abuse violations and a little more than 5 percent of all annual arrests. These arrests are simply not a significant portion of law enforcement activity. Let’s focus on the drug possession offenses (though the conclusions would not be affected materially by incorporating drug trafficking

offenses). Not only are possession arrests the largest category of drug violations, they represent the class of offenses most affected by legalization proposals. What about drug offenses for non-marijuana violations? In contrast to marijuana possession arrests (40.6 percent of all drug violations), possession arrests for the “dangerous drugs”—heroin and cocaine—were 16.4 percent of all drug violations. Note that arrests for heroin and cocaine constitute just 2.1 percent of all annual arrests.



http://www.hudson.org/research/10811-why-are-there-so-few-arrests-for-marijuana-violations-#footNote2




***War on Drugs Adv Answers***




Winnable—U.S. The War on Drugs is winnable—need to cut off supply through the borders and increase penalties Tim Priest, Writer for the Daily Telegraph, December 2, 2014, “Here’s how we can win the war on drugs,” Daily Telegraph, Accessed July 3, 2015, http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/heres-how-we-can-win-the-war-on-drugs/story-fni0cwl5-1227141263118

FOR more than five years now, I’ve thought we as a nation have lost the war on drugs — not because it is unwinnable, but because governments, state and federal, have lost the resolve to fight on. The fight against illegal drugs can be won if two issues are addressed. Firstly, our borders have to be protected at all costs, and that is beginning to take shape under Minister for Immigration and Border Protection Scott Morrison. There is still room for improvement, but border security is light years ahead of what it was under the Rudd-Gillard governments. The second issue involves reverting back to attacking the demand for drugs, not just the supply. For over a decade, social scientists and wayward academics have convinced governments to treat drug addiction as a medical

problem, not a crime problem. Illegal drugs are just that — illegal. The consumption and supply of drugs is illegal. By virtually decriminalising drug use, we have empowered not only the pro-drug lobby but also the drug cartels to supply even more drugs because consumption has gone through the roof. We need to adopt the approach that has made Sweden one of the lowest illegal drug-consuming nations. That approach is a nationwide zero tolerance approach to drug use as well as supply. The police in Sweden have the power to detain and drug test anyone they suspect of being under the influence of drugs. If they test positive, they are charged and placed before the courts. What usually follows is compulsory rehabilitation in a state-run drug facility that can last from two to six months. Re-offending addicts , who

are a minority, are usually punished with prison. There are no ambiguities in Sweden’s drug laws . As a result,

Sweden is the model nation for a drug-free society. Its drug consumption rates are a fraction of those in Spain and Germany, and what follows is low crime rates. What a surprise!




Winnable—Mexico The War on Drugs is not isolated, it requires a multinational approach, but it’s winnable Alejandro Poire, Writer for Americas Quarterly, Accessed July 3, 2015, “Can Mexico win the war against drugs?,” Americas Quarterly, Accessed July 3, 2015, http://www.americasquarterly.org/node/2989

Can Mexico win the war against drugs? Yes Success in Mexico's fight against drugs can’t be measured like a game of baseball, in which you simply add up the score at the end of nine innings. It’s a war with many fronts, and it requires a much different perspective. Drug trafficking is only one element of the larger problem: the

reach of organized crime into every facet of our national life and economy. Mexico has chalked up major victories—and will continue to do so, thanks to its multi-track approach that focuses not just on eliminating drug trafficking, but on building stronger law enforcement institutions and reinforcing our social fabric. That would not have been possible without the engagement of both government and civil society . Thanks to the leadership of President Felipe Calderón and the work of groups such as Asociación Alto al Secuestro, led by Isabel Miranda de Wallace, andMéxico SOS,

headed by Alejandro Martí, we have come a long way. In recent decades, the drug traffickers’ criminal business model has changed, and Mexico is bearing the brunt. Before, the primary goal of drug traffickers was securing an uninterrupted flow of drugs into the United States. But the sealing of cocaine trafficking routes through the Caribbean, the increased security on the U.S. border after 9/11, the mismanagement of Mexico’s economy from the 1970s through the 1990s, and the lack of professionalization in municipal and state police departments—among other factors—have led drug traffickers to seek control of a large variety of unlawful activities as a means of

enhancing their earnings and competitive position in the criminal market. The end of the Assault Weapons Ban in the U.S. in 2004 has made this change all the more threatening to Mexico’s security. Addressing this escalation of crime and insecurity required not only a plan for domestic action, but also recognition of the transnational dimension of the problem. That recognition has been the key to our comprehensive, multifaceted approach.




War on Drugs= Law Enforcement Funding The War on Drugs allows mass asset seizures which fund important law enforcement efforts—the plan would gut that funding WAJR Radio, American news radio station, July 1, 2015, “IRS Investigator: Can’t Give Up War on Drugs,” WAJR Radio, Accessed July 3, 2015, http://wajr.com/irs-investigator-cant-give-up-war-on-drugs/

Less than two weeks ago, property seized by the Mountain State Drug and Violent Crime Task Force was auctioned off at the Bridgeport Conference Center. This process is part of an ongoing effort to combat drug issues in the North

Central West Virginia area. Property legally seized can then be sold by the government. The money raised then goes back to the Task Force, which was likely around $250,000. “The Task Force is controlled by a Control Board,” said Jeff James, a Special Agent in the Criminal Investigation’s Division of the IRS , while

appearing on the MetroNews-affiliated “The Mike Queen Show” on the AJR News Network. “It would be up to the Control Board to determine within the guidelines how they would spend the money.” James said that the Task Force operates on the front lines, and their contributions allow the Criminal Investigation Division of the IRS to work on investigations that may involve financial expertise. “The work that they do on a daily basis is just absolutely amazing,” he said. “And we would never be able to do what we do without the Task Force officers.” The IRS plays a role in more than just drug investigations though. They’ve played a role in solving some large crimes in U.S. history according to James. “Regardless of what kind of a crime it may be–whether it’s some sort of healthcare fraud or pension fraud or bankruptcy fraud, drugs, whatever it may be–we lend our assistance in those investigations,” he said. West Virginia has the highest rate of drug overdose deaths in the

United States, and that’s why James says the “War on Drugs” can’t end. “I’m not sure how successful we are as far as winning the fight, but I can tell you we can’t give up the fight,” he said.




War on Drugs Not Racist The War on Drugs isn’t racist—the statistics show that black people commit more drug related crime. Executing the drug war isn’t racist, it’s practicalRoger Clegg, Writer for the National Review, April 27, 2015 “No, the War on Drugs Is Not ‘Forcing Black Men Out of Society’,” National Review, Accessed July 4, 2015, http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/417539/no-war-drugs-not-forcing-black-men-out-society-roger-clegg

The New York Times had a long editorial-screed over the weekend titled “Forcing Black Men Out of Society.” It’s a predictable lament: The racist war on drugs has unfairly imprisoned large numbers of black men, and this has made it harder for them to get jobs when they get out, and it has made it impossible for black women to marry and so they instead have children out of wedlock. What’s more, the fact that so many blacks go to prison reinforces racist stereotypes, so that African Americans can’t get jobs even when they don’t have a criminal record, and even face racism when they are still children by the way they are disciplined in

schools. “Deindustrialization” helped pave the way for all this, presumably because it was the difficulty of finding honest work that led so many African Americans to choose a life of crime. The Times concludes by suggesting — as I said, it’s all very predictable — that racism is also to blame for “the many grievous cases of unarmed black men and boys who were shot dead by the police — now routinely captured on video.” The solution? Well, the Times doesn’t say, but since it all stems from the war on drugs (“nonviolent drug

offenses”), then I guess if drugs were legalized then racism would end, employment would skyrocket, and out-of-wedlock birthrates would plummet. This is all nonsense, a combination of bad facts and bad logic. Reasonable people can differ about whether the war on drugs has been a good idea and what can be done to improve law-enforcement policies in this area, but to suggest that it was racist in conception and has been systematically waged in a racially discriminatory way is simply false . If the government had announced that it had no problem with people selling heroin and crack in the ghetto, would that have been welcomed by African Americans?

Have the police turned a blind eye to the trafficking in “white drugs,” like methamphetamine and prescription opioids? If a disproportionate number of those arrested for drug crimes are black, it is because a disproportionate number of drug criminals are black. It is not true that all groups use illegal drugs at the same rate, and in any event it is not for using drugs but for selling them that people are typically sent to prison. And the charges of racial bias these days are generally limited to drug-law enforcement, since even extremists acknowledge that “black men do have much higher rates of violent crime [than whites].” And the overwhelming majority of those in prison are not there for drug crimes.



http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/417539/no-war-drugs-not-forcing-black-men-out-society-roger-clegg

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/417539/no-war-drugs-not-forcing-black-men-out-society-roger-clegg


War on Drugs Not Racist The War on Drugs isn’t racist, it just reflects criminality that plagues minority communities Jason Riley, An editorial board member of the Wall Street Journal, July 17, 2014, “Is The War On Drugs Racist?,” The Federalist, Accessed June 23, 2015, http://thefederalist.com/2014/07/17/is-the-war-on-drugs-racist/

Liberal elites would have us deny what black ghetto residents know to be the truth. These communities aren’t dangerous because of racist cops or judges or sentencing guidelines. They’re dangerous mainly due to black criminals preying on black victims. Nor is the racial disparity in prison inmates explained by the enforcement of drug laws. In 2006 blacks were 37.5 percent of the 1,274,600 people in state prisons, which house 88 percent of

the nation’s prison population, explained Heather Mac Donald of the Manhattan Institute. “If you remove drug prisoners from that population, the percentage of black prisoners drops to 37 percent—half of a percentage point, hardly a significant difference.” It’s true that drug prosecutions have risen markedly over the past thirty years. Drug offenders were 6.4 percent of state prison inmates in 1979 but had jumped to 20 percent by 2004. “Even so,” wrote Mac

Donald, “violent and property offenders continue to dominate the ranks: in 2004, 52 percent of state prisoners were serving time for violence and 21 percent for property crimes, for a combined total over three and a half times that of state drug offenders.” Drug-war critics like to focus on federal prisons, where drug offenders

climbed from 25 percent of the inmate population in 1980 to 47.6 percent in 2006. “But the federal system held just 12.3 percent of the nation’s prisoners in 2006,” noted Mac Donald. “So much for the claim that blacks are disproportionately imprisoned because of the war on drugs.” The black inmate population reflects black criminality, not a racist criminal justice system, which currently is being run by one black man (Attorney General Holder) who reports to another (the president). Black crime rates are vastly higher than white crime rates. And it’s hard to see how wishing away this reality, inventing con¬spiracy theories to explain it, or calling those who point it out “racist” will help improve the situation.



http://thefederalist.com/2014/07/17/is-the-war-on-drugs-racist/

http://thefederalist.com/2014/07/17/is-the-war-on-drugs-racist/

http://thefederalist.com/author/jasonriley/


War on Drugs Not Racist War on Drugs isn’t racist, disproportionate impact stems from disproportionate amount of policing and crime in certain areas David W. Murray, Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute, and John P. Walters, Chief Operating Officer at the Hudson Institute,December 16, 2014, “Drug enforcement is not racist,” NY Post, Accessed July 3, 2015, http://nypost.com/2014/12/16/drug-enforcement-is-not-racist/

Are African-Americans targeted victims of the drug laws? No — race is not the driver of “disparate impact.” First, African-American drug-use rates are likely higher than most studies assume: Researchers usually rely on surveys of drug use, but such surveys undercount dropouts, the homeless and the imprisoned — populations in which African-Americans are disproportionately represented and drug use is high. Second, African-Americans are arrested for drug trafficking more often than whites — crimes that more commonly lead to prison time. Third, African-American drug use often occurs in areas with intensive policing, such as urban street corners, which means that the risk of arrest for African-Americans is higher than for whites, whose use of drugs is typically less conspicuous. Fourth, it’s not just drug-related crime where we see racial disproportions in arrests and incarcerations: The same is true for almost all crimes.

Eliminating drug-law enforcement would change little. In short, Vanita Gupta, the acting assistant attorney general for the Justice

Department’s Civil Rights Division, is simply wrong to say that the “war on drugs has been a war on communities of color” — unless she’s willing to argue that virtually all efforts to combat crime are wars on communities of color. That is, the disproportions of arrests, incarcerations and victimization that afflict many African-American communities are a direct consequence of the disproportionate crime (and

devastating suffering from crime) that plagues those communities .







http://www.hudson.org/research/10839-illegal-drugs-and-civil-rights

https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/40-year-war-drugs-its-not-fair-and-its-not-working


Turn—Drug Use Destroys Minority Communities Fighting the War on Drugs is key to prevent drugs from destroying minority communities, the facts don’t support a racial bias in the War on Drugs David W. Murray, Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute, and John P. Walters, Chief Operating Officer at the Hudson Institute, December 2, 2014, “Illegal Drugs and Civil Rights,” Hudson Institute, Accessed July 5, 2015, http://www.hudson.org/research/10839-illegal-drugs-and-civil-rights

No definitive conclusion can be reached regarding the strictly social science dimensions of the arrest and incarceration differential for African Americans as a function of the drug laws . That said, the following

circumstantial features of the situation can explain a great deal of the observed facts. African Americans drug use rates, once one accounts for differential undercounts in standard surveys, are higher than commonly assessed. Disproportions in the type of drug offense (such as a preponderance of trafficking charges) and the differential circumstances of the drug offense (urban, conspicuous, in high crime areas under intensified policing) further explain features of the difference in outcomes. The drug laws are not a distinct arena within the criminal justice system where racial differentials in outcomes (arrests or incarcerations) are found—the problem is general, and not a function of drug laws, per se. African American neighborhoods are particularly victimized by drug use and trafficking, which compound the impact of poverty and social vulnerability. The attribute of racial identity does not appear to be the major variable driving the disparate impact of the laws.






Turn—Laundry List of Benefits Executing the War on Drugs is beneficial—creates a regulatory framework and deterrent system for using and trafficking drugs Health Research Funding, Health and medical organization, July 17, 2014, “War On Drugs Pros And Cons,” HRF, Accessed July 5, 2015, http://healthresearchfunding.org/war-drugs-pros-cons/

Pros of War on Drugs. Given that the campaign is already executed in different countries, you should be aware of the basic benefits that this campaign is able to provide. These benefits are as follow: 1. Crimes done by drug addicts will lessen. Since the distribution is highly prohibited, the number of crimes committed by drug addicts will decrease. This will also help in decreasing the crimes that are related to drug usage. 2. There is a possibility that a particular place will turn into a drug free area. This is one of the main goals of the campaign is the only one that is sure to give much advantage to neighborhoods especially when they want to keep a particular place free from drug addicted people. 3. Pushers and users are sure to be penalized. Since a country will have a strict implementation of the campaign, the main benefit of this is making sure that all manufacturers, pushers and users will be penalized accordingly.




Marijuana is Addictive/ Bad for Health Ending the War on Drugs is wrong—it would allow more people to use marijuana which is addictive and bad for health National Institute on Drug Abuse, US government organization that studies drug abuse, December 16, 2014, “Marijuana,” Drug Abuse.gov, Accessed July 5, 2015, http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/marijuana/marijuana-addictive

Yes, marijuana can be addictive. Over time, overstimulation of the endocannabinoid system by marijuana use can cause changes in the brain that lead to addiction , a condition in which a person cannot stop using a

drug even though it interferes with many aspects of his or her life. It is estimated that 9 percent of people who use marijuana will become dependent on it. The number goes up to about 17 percent in those who start using young (in their teens) and to 25 to 50 percent among daily users. According to the 2013 NSDUH, marijuana accounted for 4.2 million of the estimated 6.9 million Americans dependent on or abusing illicit drugs. Marijuana addiction is linked to a mild withdrawal syndrome. Frequent marijuana users often report irritability, mood and sleep difficulties, decreased appetite, cravings, restlessness, and/or various forms of physical discomfort that peak within the first week after quitting and last up to 2 weeks.




Drug Use Causes Crime Drug use causes more crime—hurts the community and everyone in it Bridllington Free Press, news organization, March 28, 2015, “Drug abuse causes crime,” Bridllington Free Press, Accessed July 5, 2015, http://www.bridlingtonfreepress.co.uk/news/local/drug-abuse-causes-crime-1-7177242

The majority of theft related crime in Bridlington can be attributed to drug and alcohol abuse, according to outgoing Inspector Grant Taylor. Mr Taylor made the point at a Bridlington Town Council meeting, in response to a question from

South Ward councillor James Carder. Councillor Carder had asked Inspector Taylor whether he thought unemployment was a main contributing factor to theft related crimes. Inspector Taylor replied: “If you could get rid of drugs and obviously alcohol dependence, theft related crime would absolutely plummet. So it is more linked to addiction than it is to unemployment.”




***Civil Liberties Adv Answers***




No Solvency The plan is unable to address the most egregious instances of Civil Liberties abuses. We are backsliding on almost all the progress we’ve made in recent decades Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern, Writers for Slate Magazine, December 29, 2014, “The 10 Worst Civil Liberties Violations of 2014,” Slate, Accessed July 5, 2015, http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/12/civil_liberties_violations_of_2014_civil_forfeiture_grand_juries_religion.html

The world may not actually be falling apart —but it feels like America is. From police brutality and botched executions to voter suppression and election corruption, 2014 was a terrible year for civil liberties in the United States. Protests were quelled by military-grade weapons in scenes worthy of a banana republic, and the divide between the rich and the poor in the freedom and justice they are afforded is Dickensian in its scope. While the country has evolved on marriage equality, it often appears to be backtracking on just about every other advance we have made, from the racial and gender progress of the 1960s to the most basic principles of the criminal justice system . Below, we’ve listed the top 10 civil liberties

nightmares of 2014 in no particular order. Here’s hoping this list is harder to put together next year. 10. The Supreme Court adds more sectarian religion to our lives. In Town of Greece v. Galloway, the Supreme Court’s five conservatives ruled that legislative sessions in town council meetings can open with explicitly sectarian prayers. Almost immediately, town boards beganinviting Christians to speak at their meetings while excluding speakers of minority faiths (and, naturally, atheists). In short order the Gallowaymajority’s gauzy vision of pluralistic civic tolerance began to look a lot more like a governmental endorsement of Christianity at the expense of minority religions. Increasingly, to the conservatives of the Roberts court,

“religious liberty” means the freedom of religious majorities to push their religious beliefs on the rest of us. Speaking of which … 9. The Supreme Court invites our corporate bosses to takes away our birth control. In the court’s Hobby Lobby decision, the same five conservatives ruled that “closely held corporations” had a religious right to deny female employees certain forms of birth control, if those employers believe the device or method causes abortions. It matters not at all whether the device or method in fact causes abortions. Writing for the court, Justice Samuel Alito downplayed the notion that women’s health and autonomy are “compelling interests,” leaving female employees’ intensely private health care

choices at the mercy of their bosses. Alito reasoned that employees could rely on the government’s birth control accommodation granted to religious hospitals and colleges — then the court immediately suggested that the accommodation might be against the law, too.



http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2014/07/after_hobby_lobby_mucullen_and_harris_v_quinn_the_men_of_the_supreme_court.html

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2014/07/after_hobby_lobby_mucullen_and_harris_v_quinn_the_men_of_the_supreme_court.html

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/05/town_of_greece_v_galloway_roanoke_virginia_already_seeing_the_effects_of.html

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/08/the_town_of_greece_s_new_prayer_policy_atheists_need_not_apply.html

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/05/town_of_greece_v_galloway_roanoke_virginia_already_seeing_the_effects_of.html

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/07/wheaton_college_injunction_the_supreme_court_just_sneakily_reversed_itself.html

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_breakfast_table/features/2014/scotus_roundup/supreme_court_hobby_lobby_decision_where_was_antonin_scalia.html

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2014/12/the_world_is_not_falling_apart_the_trend_lines_reveal_an_increasingly_peaceful.html


Civil Liberties Alt Cause—Freedom Act The Freedom Act is a much worse violation of Civil Liberties the plan does not addressPravda, Russian news organization, April 6, 2015, “USA Freedom Act takes attacks on civil liberties to whole new level,” Pravda, Accessed July 5, 2015, http://english.pravda.ru/news/world/04-06-2015/130880-usa_freedom_act-0/

The US Senate passed the USA Freedom Act several days after key regulations of the USA Patriot Act were to expire. The Freedom Act is said to be a reform of the unconstitutional and recently-ruled illegal bulk collection of Americans' telecommunications. As a matter of fact, the USA Freedom Act takes attacks on civil liberties in the United States to a whole new level . 1) The recent decision of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that the bulk collection of American citizens' telecommunications information was not authorized by the USA PATRIOT Act means that as of this afternoon, the bulk collection of American citizens' telecommunications information was an illegal act. The government was breaking the law each time it grabbed our metadata. The moment the FREEDOM is signed by President Obama that same activity will become legal. How is making an unconstitutional and illegal act into a legal one a benefit to civil liberties? 2) The FREEDOM Act turns private telecommunications companies into agents of state security. They will be required to store our personal information and hand it over to state security organs upon demand. How do we know this development is a step in the wrong direction? It is reportedly the brainchild of Gen. Keith B. Alexander, the NSA director at the time! According to press reports, this was but a public relations move to deflect criticism of the bulk collection program.

Alexander "saw the move as a way for Obama to respond to public criticism without losing programs the NSA deemed more essential," reports Homeland Security News. The FREEDOM Act turns private telecommunications companies into depositories of "pre-crime" data for future use of state security agencies. It is a classic authoritarian move for the state to co-opt and subsume the private sector . Once the

FREEDOM Act is signed, Americans' telecommunications information will be retained by the telecommunications companies for the use of state security agencies in potential future investigations . In

other words, an individual under no suspicion of any crime and thus deserving full Fourth and Fifth Amendment protection will nevertheless find himself providing evidence against his future self should that person ever fall under suspicion. That is not jurisprudence in a free society.



http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/21-12-2011/120035-civil_liberties-0/

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/21-12-2011/120035-civil_liberties-0/


Civil Liberties Alt Cause—Laundry List Civil Liberties are under assault in virtually all aspects of life—the plan can’t solve all the alt causes Richard Eskow, Writer for AlterNet and political analyst, October 27, 2014, “So Long, Liberty: 10 Ways Americans Have Lost Their Rights.” AlterNet, Accessed July 5, 2015, http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/so-long-liberty-10-ways-americans-have-lost-their-rights

Our most fundamental rights—to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness—are under assault. But the adversary is Big Wealth, not Big Government, as conservatives like to claim. Consider: Life? The differences in life expectancy between wealthier and lower-income Americans are increasing, not decreasing. Liberty? Digital corporations are assaulting our privacy, while banks trap us in indebtedness that approaches indentured servitude. The shrunken ranks of working Americans are being robbed of their essential liberties – including the right to use the bathroom. The pursuit of happiness? Social mobility in the United States is dead. Career choices are increasingly limited. As for working hard and earning more, consider this:

Between 1969 and 2008 the average US income went up by $11,684. How much of that went to the top 10? All of it. Income for the remaining 90 percent actually went down. These changes didn't just happen. Wealthy individuals and corporations made it happen – and they're still at it. Meanwhile, Corporate America's wholesale theft of your individual liberties has been rebranded as a fight for … the corporation's individual liberty. Corey Robin notes in the Nation that this conservative appeal to “economic freedom” has been met by Democrats who present themselves as “new Victorians,” standing for “responsibilities over rights, safety over freedom, constraint rather than counterculture.” Not only is this politically and

emotionally unappealing, it's demonstrably wrong. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary's definition of a “right” is “something to which one has a just claim: as the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled.” Definitions of “liberty” include “the power to do as one pleases,” “freedom from arbitrary or despotic control,” “the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges,” and “the power of choice.” Is that how you feel when you're dealing with your bank? While the Right portrays popularly elected government as a faceless oppressor, large corporations and ultra-wealthy individuals – what we're calling “Big Wealth” -- are trampling on our individual rights and liberties every day. We should be fighting for “economic freedom,” as Corey Robin notes, and explaining how Big Wealth is crushing other fundamental liberties as well.



http://www.thenation.com/article/159748/reclaiming-politics-freedom

http://www.alternet.org/authors/richard-eskow


Civil Liberties Alt Cause—Obama Obama’s administration ensures loss of Civil Liberties—laundry list of questionable practices Kevin Vecchione, Freelance journalist writing for the Daily Kos, December 28, 2014, “Obama's Attack On Civil Liberties,” Daily Kos, Accessed July 5, 2015, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/12/28/1354455/-Obama-s-Attack-On-Civil-Liberties#

When President Obama took Office almost six years ago, he entered the presidency with promises of Government accountability and transparency. Since then, President Obama has presided over a Justice Department that has brought more charges against reporters and than any other presidency in recent memory. [I]n his latest crusade against Civil Liberties, New York Times investigative journalist James Risen, was subpoenaed to testify, under

threat of imprisonment, on the identity of his confidential source in the CIA. Mr. Risen, who has remained firm in his insistence on

protecting the identity of his source, reported in his book, "State of War" about an alleged attempt by the CIA to sabotage the Iranian Nuclear program. Instead the CIA botched the supposed operation. Such failed programs that go beyond the scope of information collection, have become a hallmark of the CIA in an era of bloated National Security Budgets, that have become embarrassingly problematic ever since the World Trade Center attacks on September 11, 2001. Time and again, in the face of National Security agencies gone rogue, President Obama has told the public that government oversight of such agencies would increase, promising more accountability and more transparency. Yet the Justice Department has continued its crusade against whistle-blowers and investigative journalists with the last six years filled with case after case of Civil Liberty Violations, secrecy, and question dodging that has come to define the Obama Presidency.



http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/12/28/1354455/-Obama-s-Attack-On-Civil-Liberties




Civil Liberties Alt Cause—Obama Obama’s Civil Liberties record is even worse than Bush’s—the plan can’t address thatMint Press News Desk, American news organization, June 8, 2015, “John Cusack: Obama Is “Worse Than Bush” On Civil Liberties, Whistleblowers, Drones,” Mint News Press, Accessed July 5, 2015, http://www.mintpressnews.com/john-cusack-obama-is-worse-than-bush-on-civil-liberties-whistleblowers-drones/206333/

As part of the publicity tour for his new film “Love & Mercy,” actor John Cusack spoke out against Barack Obama’s record on civil liberties and human rights. While Obama was a Hollywood darling during his first campaign, Cusack is one of several celebrities to criticize the president in recent days. In an interview with the Daily Beast, published on

Thursday, Marlow Stern asked Cusack about Obama’s record , in light of a poll showing that the president’s approval rating is now below that of President George W. Bush . Cusack responded: “Obama has certainly extended and hardened the cement on a lot of Bush’s post-9/11 Terror Inc. policies, so he’s very similar to Bush in every way that way. … [W]hen you talk about drones, the American Empire, the NSA, civil liberties, attacks on journalism and whistleblowers, he’s as bad or worse than Bush. He hasn’t started as many wars, but he’s extended the ones we had, and I don’t even think Dick Cheney or Richard Nixon would say the president has the right to unilaterally decide whom he can kill around the world.”



http://www.mintpressnews.com/john-cusack-obama-is-worse-than-bush-on-civil-liberties-whistleblowers-drones/206333/

http://www.mintpressnews.com/author/mmuhawesh/

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/03/politics/obama-approval-rating-cnn-poll/

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/03/politics/obama-approval-rating-cnn-poll/

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/04/john-cusack-talks-love-mercy-drug-trips-and-how-obama-is-worse-than-bush.html


Impact Defense—Life O/W Liberty Civil Liberties don’t come first—liberty only matters if one is alive to enjoy itJeremy Diamond, Writer for CNN, May 19, 2015, “Chris Christie: 'You can't enjoy your civil liberties if you're in a coffin',” CNN, Accessed July 5, 2015, http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/19/politics/chris-christie-intelligence-civil-liberties/

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie stressed Monday the need for increased funding and support to beef up the U.S.'s intelligence capabilities to prevent terror attacks, putting it this way: "You can't enjoy your civil liberties if you're in a coffin." Christie's comments came as lawmakers on Capitol Hill are raising civil liberties and national security concerns as provisions of the Patriot Act authorizing bulk data collection on millions of Americans are set to expire at the end of the month. And Christie, who is considering running for the Republican presidential

nomination, is clearly aligned with the national security hawks loathe to lose any intelligence tools. "We have taken for granted, everybody, nearly 14 years of not attack in this country on a major scale. And we should not take that for granted," Christie told an audience at a town hall forum in New Hampshire. "The thing that's demoralizing to me is that there are I think so many sectors in our country who haven't forgotten 9/11. Everyone will remember 9/11, but have forgotten what 9/11 felt

like." And while "all these people are talking about liberty," Christie said the 9/11 terror attacks truly stole Americans' liberty. "We acted differently, we conducted our lives differently. We were reticent. We were scared to do things as a people. That's a stealing of our liberty too," Christie said.



http://www.cnn.com/profiles/jeremy-diamond


Impact Defense—Life O/W Liberty The most fundamental right is the right to live—the affirmative’s Civil Liberties focus ignores Lamont Colucci, Associate professor of politics at Ripon College, former Fulbright scholar to the Diplomatic Academy of Vienna, June 18, 2013, “10 Reasons the War on Terror Must Continue,” US News & World Report, Accessed July 5, 2015, http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/2013/06/18/10-reasons-the-global-war-on-terror-must-continue

Twelve years after 9/11 we still vigorously debate whether or not Osama Bin Laden should have been captured or should have received a criminal trial. Terrorists are not criminals, they are not soldiers (as

defined by the Geneva Convention) and they are not states, regardless of their appearance. The definition for terrorism is

not "one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist," a phrase that is the refuge of scoundrels. Terrorists are those who are motivated by political goals and use violence to instill fear, primarily against non-combatants. If the west fails to fully understand this, and wallows in a false narcissistic debate about criminality versus the laws of war, the west is defeated before it begins. 4) The most basic human right in the War on Terror is to live. We in the west have obsessed over the rights of detainees and terrorists. We have forgotten that the real destroyers of human rights were the evildoers who have killed thousands of men, women and children. They have killed them in the Twin Towers, cafes and school buses. I was once struck by an impassioned speech by Professor Asa

Kasher, Chair of the Ethics and Philosophy at Tel Aviv University, at a conference on counterterrorism . At

one salient point he said, "For citizens to be able to enjoy all human rights, they need to be alive."



http://www.usnews.com/topics/author/lamont_colucci


***Generic Disad Links***




Link—Crime Drug crime surveillance spills over to help prevent other crimes—massive infrastructure helps intel gathering for other law enforcement organizations Kate Wheeling, Writer for the Pacific Standard magazine—news about politics, law, and the economy, January 27, 2015, “Why Is the DEA Tracking License Plates?,” Pacific Standard magazine, Accessed July 6, 2015, http://www.psmag.com/nature-and-technology/the-dea-is-tracking-license-plates

A license plate tracking program run by the Drug Enforcement Administration, which was publicly launched to

combat drug-related crimes along the borders, has been privately expanded throughout the United States. The Wall

Street Journal reports that the database program, which began in 2008, initially tracked cars only in border states to monitor the movement of drug money and contraband. Now, states throughout the U.S. are feeding information into the system: The DEA program collects data about vehicle movements, including time, direction and location, from high-tech cameras placed strategically on major highways. Many devices also record visual images of drivers and passengers, which are sometimes clear enough for investigators to confirm identities, according to DEA documents and people familiar with the program. The documents show that the DEA also uses license-plate readers operated by state, local and federal law-enforcement agencies to feed into its own network and create a far-reaching, constantly updating database of electronic eyes scanning traffic on the roads to steer police toward suspects.



http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-spies-on-millions-of-cars-1422314779

http://www.psmag.com/nature-and-technology/the-dea-is-tracking-license-plates


Link—Crime Drug surveillance contributes to a national network of intel gathering that helps prevent crime and track down criminals Devlin Barrett, Staff reporter for The Wall Street Journal, January 26, 2015, “U.S. Spies on Millions of Drivers,” WSJ, Accessed July 6, 2015, http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-spies-on-millions-of-cars-1422314779

The Justice Department has been building a national database to track in real time the movement of vehicles around the U.S., a secret domestic intelligence-gathering program that scans and stores hundreds of millions of records about motorists, according to current and former officials and government documents. The primary goal of the license-plate tracking program, run by the Drug Enforcement Administration, is to seize cars, cash and other assets to combat drug trafficking, according to one government document. But the database’s use has expanded to hunt for vehicles associated with numerous other potential crimes, from kidnappings to killings to rape suspects, say people familiar with the matter. Officials have publicly said that they track vehicles near the border with Mexico to help fight drug cartels. What hasn’t been previously disclosed is

that the DEA has spent years working to expand the database “throughout the United States,’’ according to one email reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.




Link—Crime Even if drug surveillance isn’t legally justified, it’s effective at catching criminals Adrienne LaFrance, Writer for The Atlantic, April 8, 2015, “How Mass Surveillance During the Drug War Helped Justify Spying on Citizens,” Government Executive, Accessed June 13, 2015, http://www.govexec.com/management/2015/04/how-mass-surveillance-during-drug-war-helped-justify-spying-citizens/109654/

"It has been apparent for a long time in both the law enforcement and intelligence worlds that there is a tremendous value and need to collect certain metadata to support legitimate investigations," USA Today

quoted George Terwilliger III, the former deputy attorney general, as having said. Legitimacy, though, is a matter of debate. The government apparently took painstaking measures to keep its actions secret. The DEA was careful to keep the data it gathered out of criminal prosecutions so the program could continue without the public knowing about it. The DEA trained its agents to conceal from judges and defense lawyers the source of their intelligence.




Link—War on Drugs Drug surveillance has historically been a successful and essential tool in the War on DrugsBrad Heath, Writer for USA Today, April 8, 2015, “U.S. secretly tracked billions of calls for decades,” USA Today, Accessed June 14, 2015, http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/04/07/dea-bulk-telephone-surveillance-operation/70808616/

For more than two decades, the Justice Department and the Drug Enforcement Administration amassed logs of virtually all telephone calls from the USA to as many as 116 countries linked to drug trafficking, current and former officials involved with the operation said. The targeted countries changed over time but included Canada, Mexico and most of Central

and South America. Federal investigators used the call records to track drug cartels' distribution networks in the USA, allowing agents to detect previously unknown trafficking rings and money handlers. They also used the records to help rule out foreign ties to the bombing in 1995 of a federal building in Oklahoma City and to identify U.S. suspects in a wide range of other investigations . The Justice Department revealed in January

that the DEA had collected data about calls to "designated foreign countries." But the history and vast scale of that operation have not been disclosed until now. The now-discontinued operation, carried out by the DEA's intelligence arm, was the government's first known effort to gather data on Americans in bulk, sweeping up records of telephone calls made by millions of U.S. citizens regardless of whether they were suspected of a crime. It was a model for the massive phone surveillance system the NSA launched to identify terrorists after the Sept. 11 attacks. That dragnet drew sharp criticism that the government had intruded too deeply into Americans' privacy after former NSA contractor Edward Snowden leaked it to the news media two years ago. More than a dozen current and former law enforcement and intelligence officials described the details of the Justice Department operation to USA TODAY. Most did so on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss

the intelligence program, part of which remains classified. The DEA program did not intercept the content of Americans' calls, but the records — which numbers were dialed and when — allowed agents to map suspects' communications and link them to troves of other police and intelligence data . At first, the drug agency did so with

help from military computers and intelligence analysts. That data collection was "one of the most important and effective Federal drug law enforcement initiatives," the Justice Department said in a 1998 letter to Sprint asking the telecom giant to turn over its call records. The previously undisclosed letter was signed by the head of the department's Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Section, MaryLee Warren, who wrote that the operation had "been approved at the highest levels of Federal law enforcement authority," including then-Attorney General Janet Reno and her deputy, Eric Holder.



https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1719876-database.html#document/p2/a212333

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/01/16/phone-database-justice/21868063/

http://www.usatoday.com/staff/679/brad-heath/


Link—War on Drugs Surveillance is key to win the War on Drugs, the plan strikes a major blow to those efforts National Criminal Justice Reference Service, A federally funded resource offering justice and drug-related information to support research and policy, Accessed June 13, 2015, “IV. A Comprehensive Approach 6. Shielding U.S. Borders from the Drug Threat,” National Criminal Justice Reference Service, Accessed June 13, 2015, https://www.ncjrs.gov/ondcppubs/publications/policy/99ndcs/iv-f.html

Technology is an essential component in the effort to prevent drug smuggling across our borders and via

passenger and commercial transportation systems. Technology can help stop drugs while facilitating legal commerce. Automated targeting systems can analyze databases to assess the likelihood that a particular individual, vehicle, or container is carrying drugs. Non-intrusive inspection devices can detect drugs; X-ray systems inspect the inside of cars, trucks, or containers while high energy neutron interrogation systems measure the density of tires, fuel tanks, panels, and cargo. Technology can also prevent trafficking in unoccupied spaces. The Immigration and Naturalization Service's Integrated Surveillance Information System/Remote Video

Surveillance (ISIS/RVS) project, for example, is improving the Border Patrol's effectiveness between ports of entries along the Southwest border. This initiative will increase inspection capabilities at all vulnerable ports of entry.




Link—War on Drugs Surveillance, under the justification of the War on Drugs, is used to fight crimeRod Bastanmehr, Writer for AlterNet, August 5, 2013, “DEA Using NSA Surveillance to Crack Down on Drug Crimes?, Alter Net, Accessed June 13, 2015, http://www.alternet.org/dea-using-nsa-surveillance-crack-down-drug-crimes

Reuters reports that the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration is sending surveillance information obtained by government agencies, including the NSA, to law enforcement around the country. A Special Operations Division "is funneling information from intelligence intercepts, wiretaps, informants and a massive database of telephone records to authorities across the nation to help them launch criminal investigations of Americans." The documents show that law enforcement agents were also directed to hide the origins of the

information. Federal agents were trained to "recreate" the investigative trail in an effort to essentially cover up where the information originated, leading many to view the raids as a direct violation of the Constitutional right to a fair trial.



http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/08/05/secretive-drug-enforcement-agency-dea-unit-told-to-cover-up-massive-spy-program-used-to-investigate-americans/

http://alternet.org/

http://www.alternet.org/authors/rod-bastanmehr


Link—War on Drugs Surveillance is used routinely with the justification of War on Drugs Privacy SOS, “Sunlight on Surveillance” Project is run by the Massachusetts chapter of the ACLU, October 14, 2014, “Police are using a powerful surveillance tool to fight the war on drugs, not terrorism,” Privacy SOS, Accessed June 14, 2015, https://privacysos.org/node/1554

Mission Creep: Warrantless Spying and the War on Drugs To the Tacoma Police Department’s credit, it turned over specific information to Phil Mocek revealing each time the department or a law enforcement partner used the Harris Corporation cell phone spying equipment between April 2009 and June 2014. Law enforcement used the device 179 times during that period, with an explosion of deployments during the first six months of 2014. While in March 2013 the police department told the city’s Board of Contracts and Awards that it needed to upgrade its Stingray

equipment in order to provide “enhanced technological capabilities” to its explosives response team, the department’s use of the technology spiked sharply in the first half of 2014 in cases that overwhelmingly revolved around drugs, not bombs. In fact, law enforcement in and around Tacoma used the Stingray device to spy on people during drug investigations more times in the first half of 2014 than they did in every type of investigation during each of the previous five years. Police in Tacoma justified the procurement of an extremely invasive and costly

surveillance technology by talking about “homeland security” and emergency response to bombings, but most recently have deployed the tool overwhelmingly in routine drug war investigations.




***Other Neg Cards***




Inherency—Bulk Phone Records/ Wiretapping The US government doesn’t use collect or store bulk phone records under the justification of fighting the War on Drugs anymore Mattathias Scwartz, Writer for the New Yorker, January 23, 2015, “Who Can Control N.S.A. Surveillance?,” The New Yorker, Accessed June 14, 2015, http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/can-control-n-s-surveillance

When Obama and Congress talk about N.S.A. reform, they’re mostly talking about Section 215. But what other classified surveillance programs are out there? The difficulty of answering this question was made clear last week,

when the Drug Enforcement Administration revealed in a court filing that it had maintained a database of calls made from U.S. phone numbers to and from overseas callers. The D.E.A. held the database under a law ostensibly related to administrative subpoenas, not metadata, and used it in criminal drug-trafficking investigations, not counterterrorism activities. Despite the apparent lack of a connection to terrorism, all the D.E.A. needed to search the database was a “reasonable articulable suspicion,” a lower standard of evidence than probable cause that is most often associated with counterterrorism and counterintelligence programs. According to the D.E.A. filings, the program was suspended in September, 2013. All of the information that was contained in the database has since been deleted , a D.E.A. spokesperson told the Times.




Drug Surveillance Effective Drug surveillance can effectively stop dangerous traffickers Boston Police Department, Police department in an American city on the Northeast, December 15, 2010, “Effective Drug Surveillance Leads to Arrests of Four for Trafficking,” Boston Police Department, Accessed July 5, 2015, http://bpdnews.com/blog/2010/12/15/effective-drug-surveillance-leads-to-arrests-of-four-for-trafficking

Yesterday evening around 8PM, officers from the District E-13 (Jamaica Plain) arrested suspects, Boris A. Peguero-Arrendell, 24 of Jamaica Plain, Manuel E. Zapata-Pinales, 20 of Manchester, NH, Ismael Travieso, Jr., 22 of Roxbury and Manuel Zapata, 48 of Manchester,

NH and charged them with Trafficking Class A Drugs (100-199 grams) and Trafficking Class A Drugs (100-199 grams) within 1,000’ of a School Zone. In addition, suspect Travieso was charged with having Altered License or Registration. Officers initially started the investigation that lead to the eventual arrests by conducting surveillance in the area of 1890

Columbus Avenue. While there, officers observed a pick-up truck bearing New Hampshire registration with two occupants with pull into the lot of the Walgreen’s and park there while appearing to make phone calls. Officers’ attention was drawn to this car based on past arrests in this lot and knowledge that it is often used as a meeting location for drug transactions. Officers continued to monitor this location and a short while later observed an Audi with two occupants pull into the lot and stop close to the pick-up truck. At this time, the operator of the truck got out of the truck, had a brief conversation with the occupants of the Audi after which the truck followed the Audi out of the lot driving

on Washington Street toward Forest Hills Station. Officers continued their surveillance of the cars as they traveled through a number of streets finally coming to a stop in front of 1 Cliffmount Street where the Audi pulled up to the right and the truck parked in front of it. At this point, the driver of the pick-up truck later identified as Manuel Zapata got out of the truck and jogged to the rear door of the Audi and get in. The passenger of the pick-up truck later identified as Manuel E. Zapata-Pinales then got out of the truck and got in the Audi also. After a few minutes suspect Zapata then got out of the back seat of the Audi and go to the side of the pick-up truck.



http://bpdnews.com/blog/2010/12/15/effective-drug-surveillance-leads-to-arrests-of-four-for-trafficking




Drug Surveillance Effective Drug crime surveillance forces traffickers to adopt less efficient methods thus reducing their profits and crime they commit Center for Problem-Oriented Policing, Organization that writes about policing in democratic societies, Accessed July 5, 2015, “How CCTV Aims to Prevent Crime,” Center for Problem-Oriented Policing, Accessed July 5, 2015, http://www.popcenter.org/responses/video_surveillance/3

A CCTV system may also force the criminal fraternity to be more imaginative and to diversify operations.

For example, researchers reported that in a London drug market the presence of cameras encouraged the drug market to move to a system where orders were taken by mobile phone and then delivered, and as such "increase the speed and ingenuity of the drug transaction". This is an example of tactical displacement, where

offenders change their modus operandi to continue the same criminal acts. Even though this particular introduction of CCTV may not be seen as an unqualified success, that the CCTV system forced a change in behavior is positive. CCTV is likely to have forced drug dealers to adopt a less effective way of conducting business, resulting in a net reduction in crime. A second concern is the possibility of a negative public response to the cameras' existence. In one survey, one-third of respondents felt that one purpose of CCTV was "to spy on people"22. In other surveys, some city managers were reluctant to advertise the cameras or have overt CCTV systems for fear they would make shoppers and consumers more fearful. In other words, it is hoped that most citizens will feel safer under the watchful eye of the cameras, but CCTV may have the reverse

effect on some people. Remember that the primary crime prevention mechanism appears to work by increasing a perception of risk in the offender. With their reluctance to advertise the system, some city managers may be

inadvertently reducing the cameras' effectiveness. By failing to advertise the cameras' presence, fewer offenders will be aware of the system and so will not perceive an increase in risk. On the whole, however, the public appears to be strongly in favor of a properly managed surveillance system for public areas.



http://www.popcenter.org/Responses/video_surveillance/endnotes/#endnote22


ICE Raids NEG (Immigration and Customs Enforcement)




§ 287(g) CP

Text: Congress should enact regulations on ICE requiring them to create accountability measures, better training and more detailed oversight of § 287(g) agreements. The CP solves racial profiling, improves community relations with law enforcement and secures 4th Amendment rightsMarissa B. Litwin, J.D., Seton Hall University School of Law, May 2011, “The Decentralization of Immigration Law: The Mischief of § 287(g),” Seton Hall Law Review, 41 Seton Hall L. Rev. 399, http://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1377&context=shlr, ACC. 9-28-2015

ICE must furthermore ensure that participating law-enforcement agencies do not continue to racially profile. Rather than targeting individuals who may appear to be immigrants based on their race, § 287(g) officers should be trained to focus on criminal suspects and to target those high-risk individuals only. Racial profiling hinders the principal objectives of § 287(g) by diverting resources from criminals who pose threats to national security and public safety. Moreover, it causes community distrust in police and creates an adversarial system in which individuals fear cooperating with law-enforcement agents. Congress must require ICE to take precautions in drafting § 287(g) agreements that will enable law-enforcement agencies to effectively police. The creation of accountability measures, more specified training, and more detailed oversight; the reduction in cost and elimination of financial incentives to make arrests; and a no-racial profiling policy would all create a § 287(g) system in which communities would be more likely to cooperate with police. Furthermore, placing stronger regulation on § 287(g) programs would bring the legislation into compliance with the U.S. Constitution. No longer would the federal government delegate away so much enforcement authority that causes § 287(g) programs to rise to the level of impermissible state regulation. Rather, the § 287(g) program could function as a valid exercise of the federal government's delegation power, and it would cease to violate the doctrine of non-delegable duties.




Supreme Court CP solvency The Supreme Court should rule on warrantless raids as unconstitutionalNathan Treadwell, J.D., City University of New York School of Law, 2011, “Fugitive Operations and the Fourth Amendment: Representing Immigrants Arrested in Warrantless Home Raids,” North Carolina Law Review, Vol. 89, http://www.nclawreview.org/documents/89/2/treadwell.pdf, ACC. 9-28-2015

Though the Supreme Court has weakened the utility of the Fourth Amendment in preventing unlawful immigration enforcement activities, suppression remains a valuable, if underutilized, tool for protecting the rights of immigrants. Warrantless entry is a tactic at sharp odds with American legal tradition; as such, it is uniquely vulnerable to constitutional challenge. This work discusses many of the questions, pitfalls, and possibilities that arise for advocates seeking evidentiary suppression in immigration proceedings. It was written in the hope of encouraging more advocates to contest violations of their clients’ basic constitutional rights.

The Supreme Court should apply the 4th amendment to warrantless home raidsBess Chiu, Cardozo Immigration Justice Clinic, et al., 2009, “Constitution on ICE: A Report on Immigration Home Raid Operations,”


The Supreme Court has held that “physical entry of a home is the chief evil against which the wording of the Fourth Amendment is directed.” In the absence of consent from an adult resident, or exigent circumstances, a search conducted without a judicial warrant issued by an impartial magistrate is presumed to be in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. Administrative warrants do not authorize agents to enter homes without consent because they are not issued by impartial magistrates. Outside of the home, government agents are generally empowered to make warrantless arrests when they have probable cause to believe an individual has committed an arrestable offense. However, even where probable cause exists to make an arrest, government agents may not enter a home without a judicial warrant. The nature of the arrest — criminal vs. civil-immigration — has no bearing on the constitutional protections applied to the home. In addition, the Fourth Amendment restricts the power of police to seize people for investigatory purposes or to search a home without consent. The Constitution requires that an officer have “reasonable suspicion” that an individual is engaged in unlawful activity before the officer can seize the person, even for brief questioning, and generally requires a judicial warrant to search a home. There is an exception to this rule when an officer, lawfully present inside a home, needs to search the home or briefly seize an individual to ensure the safety of the officer. In addition, agents can never rely solely on the racial or ethnic appearance or the limited English proficiency of an individual to justify a seizure. These constitutional requirements should govern ICE’s conduct in home raids. When an ICE agent enters a home without consent, armed only with an administrative warrant, it is a constitutional violation that goes to the heart of the Fourth Amendment. Further, even if an ICE agent is lawfully in a dwelling, he generally violates the Constitution if he searches the home without consent (or beyond the scope of the consent) or if he seizes an occupant without a reasonable suspicion that the individual is engaged in unlawful conduct.







Last Resort CP Solvency ICE should use home raids only as a last resortBess Chiu, Cardozo Immigration Justice Clinic, et al., 2009, “Constitution on ICE: A Report on Immigration Home Raid Operations,”


Home raids should be used as a tactic of last resort, and then only to make criminal arrests or civil arrests for targets who pose a real risk to national security or who have violent criminal records. DHS Secretary Napolitano has repeatedly emphasized her intention to focus ICE’s limited enforcement resources on apprehending the narrow class of immigrants who pose a real danger to the public. Home raids are extremely resource intensive and, as currently employed, an inefficient use of scarce internal enforcement resources. In addition, home raid operations carry with them several significant costs, including: physical danger to residents and officers, costs to local community policing efforts, significant privacy intrusions for residents, and potential legal liability for the agencies involved. In light of these factors and in light of the record of abuses during home raid operations outlined in this report, sound policing policy dictates that home raids should be a tactic of last resort reserved for truly high priority targets.





Ban Raids CP - Solvency The Department of Justice should direct ICE to end all home raids (or ICE should do the plan)Katherine Evans, JD, New York University School of Law, September 2012, “The ICE storm in U.S. homes: An urgent call for policy change,” NYU Review of Law and Social Change, 33:561, https://socialchangenyu.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/homes.pdf, ACC. 9-27-2015

The above discussion illustrates the immense costs of home raids to the integrity of the Constitution and the values of our society. The most

appropriate policy response is to stop conducting home raids altogether. The INS once had a policy against investigations at homes because the Department of Justice had concluded that "private dwellings must be afforded the most stringent Fourth Amendment protection." ICE should return to this policy. While these raids result in arrests of individuals without lawful status, their lack of status is only discovered after a series of privacy invasions and mistreatment by federal officials. The aggressive state action and ensuing degradation of victims is not justified by the routine enforcement of administrative law, especially when one takes into account that nearly half of all arrests are of individuals with no criminal history who do not represent a danger to society. Immigration law can be enforced at the borders, through applications for immigration benefits, and through employers where the privacy interests at stake are not as great and where there are better structures in place to assure that a person's constitutional rights are protected. It is doubtful that home raids would produce any results if ICE abandoned its manipulative tactics for gaining entry and its practice of searching homes and seizing their occupants. Residents would likely deny entry or refuse to produce identification. The new administration should put an end to a policy that depends on constitutionally-suspect tactics in order to be effective.




ICE raids enact severe psychological trauma on children. The plan does not solve as long as raids continue. This is a net-benefit the plan cannot solveBill Ong Hing, Professor of Law at University of California, Fall 2009, “Institutional Racism, ICE Raids, and Immigration Reform,” University of San Francisco Law Review, Vol. 44, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1525578, ACC. 10-1-2015

Family separation and the special damage to children have been particularly tragic consequences of the ICE raids. Most of the children impacted by raids were U.S. citizens and most were very young— about two-thirds were under ten and about one-third were under age five. In three sites studied by the National Council of La Raza, researchers found that “families and relatives scramble[d] to rearrange care, children spent at least one night without a parent, often in the care of a relative or non-relative babysitter, in some cases neighbors and in some cases even landlords; some children were cared for by extended families for weeks and months.” Families directly affected by the raid also suffered economic hardship and financial instability that “creates conditions that are detrimental to children’s development.” The National Council of La Raza study also analyzed the emotional and mental side effects upon children. While the long-term effects of the raids are still unraveling, psychologists have already observed and are concerned about long-term depression and other mental illness in family members. The report found that younger children translated the temporary parental absence as abandonment. One parent reported that her child feared that her father “love[s] money more than he loves me.” According to Dr. Amaro Laria, Director of the Lucero Latino Mental Health Training Program at the Massachusetts School of Professional Psychology and faculty of the psychiatry department at Harvard Medical School, “[o]ne of the most well established facts in mental health is that abrupt separation of children from their parents, particularly their mothers, are among the most severely traumatic experiences that a child can undergo.” He testified that in the case of the raid, the “traumatic separations [were] perpetrated and sanctioned by our nation’s law enforcement agencies, ironically in the name of protecting citizens.” In his opinion, ICE had engaged in terrorism against these families and children. Dr. Laria told the Commission about a young girl, Deanna, who said, “she wanted to kill herself because her mother had abandoned her.” Dr. Laria also testified about a girl who called 911 looking for her mother and a young “desperate father, who, after his wife was imprisoned, had to rush their infant daughter to the emergency room with severe dehydration because she hadn’t been breastfed for days.”




Funding Conditions CP - Solvency Congress should condition ICE funding on making the changes of the planKatherine Evans, JD, New York University School of Law, September 2012, “The ICE storm in U.S. homes: An urgent call for policy change,” NYU Review of Law and Social Change, 33:561, https://socialchangenyu.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/homes.pdf, ACC. 9-27-2015

Congress can also change the current policy through attaching conditions to the monies it appropriates to ICE's Fugitive Operations Teams. The budget for this program has grown from $9 million in 2003, its first year of operation, to more than $218 million in fiscal year 2008." ICE has sold this program and its budget increases to Congress by emphasizing the program's focus on arresting noncitizens with criminal convictions. However, the number of collateral arrests generated by the program was not revealed until February 2009. Congress can make the agency's receipt of additional funds contingent upon a change in its enforcement methods and priorities.




Warrant + Consent CP - Solvency Requiring ICE to obtain a judicial warrant in conjunction with informed consent protects privacy rights and improve ICE effectivenessKatherine Evans, JD, New York University School of Law, September 2012, “The ICE storm in U.S. homes: An urgent call for policy change,” NYU Review of Law and Social Change, 33:561, https://socialchangenyu.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/homes.pdf, ACC. 9-27-2015

In the absence of consent, ICE agents should be required to have a judicially-authorized arrest warrant. A modified warrant requirement would follow the Camara Court's holding with respect to administrative home searches. ICE agents could use a prior order of deportation or an order to appear at a Detention and Removal Office to show grounds to arrest an individual, but agents should also have to show facts that support probable cause that the individual resides in the home they want to enter. This is similar to the requirement for a search warrant to arrest an individual on criminal charges in the home of a third party. An arrest warrant would authorize agents to search the home only to the extent necessary to find the individual named in the warrant and conduct a protective sweep as confined by Buie. The warrant should not give ICE agents authority to search the home generally or seize its occupants. Agents typically have no legitimate basis to believe that the home's other occupants are in violation of immigration laws before they enter a home and question the residents. An ex-ante showing is a key part of the protection afforded by the warrant requirement. The combination of requiring ICE officers to inform individuals of their right to refuse entry and to possess a judicial arrest warrant for entry in the absence of consent would reflect a better balance between the privacy rights of individuals in their own homes and the need to enforce immigration laws. These requirements would also mitigate the problem of ICE targeting homes based on outdated and inaccurate information.




Race Consciousness K A. The 1AC takes a rule-of-law perspective that is colorblind. Their reforms do nothing to change the system for peoples of color. Only recognizing and confronting the institutional racism at the root of the Affirmative’s harms challenges institutional racismBill Ong Hing, Professor of Law at University of California, Fall 2009, “Institutional Racism, ICE Raids, and Immigration Reform,” University of San Francisco Law Review, Vol. 44, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1525578, ACC. 10-1-2015

The construction of the U.S. immigration policy and enforcement regime has resulted in a framework that victimizes Latin and Asian immigrants. These immigrants of color end up being the subject of ICE raids. They are the ones who comprise the immigration visa backlogs. They are the ones that attempt to traverse the hostile southwest border. Their victimization has been institutionalized. Any complaint about immigrants, fiscal or social, can be voiced in non-racial, rule-of-law terms because the institution has masked the racialization with laws and operations that are couched in nonracial terms. Anti-immigrant pundits are shielded from charges of racism by labeling their targets “law breakers” or “unassimilable.” Deportation, detention, and exclusion at the border can be declared race-neutral by the DHS because the system has already been molded by decades of racialized refinement. Officials are simply “enforcing the laws.” Like white privilege, institutionalized racism generally goes unrecognized by those who are not negatively impacted. We should know better. The cards are stacked against immigrants of color. The immigration law and enforcement traps are set through a militarized border and an anachronistic visa system. It is no surprise that Latin and Asian immigrants are the victims of those traps. They have been set up by the vestiges of blatantly racist Asian exclusion laws, a border history of labor recruitment like the Bracero Program, Supreme Court deference to enforcement, and border militarization that laid the groundwork for current laws and enforcement policies.




The Alternative is to take a race conscious approach to immigration policy and ICE raids.B. Discussions of race should be at the forefront of immigration debates. Race inherently influences policymakingKevin R. Johnson, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Professor of Law, University of California, Davis School of Law, 2000, “Race matters: Immigration law and policy scholarship,” 2000 U. Ill. L. Rev. 525, University of Illinois Law Review, https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/228223733_Race_Matters_Immigration_Law_and_Policy_Scholarship_Law_in_the_Ivory_Tower_and_the_Legal_Indifference_of_the_Race_Critique, ACC. 10-1-2015

One palpable result of the two separate discourses goes far to demonstrate the need for mutual engagement. Race immigration scholarship often goes ignored in the mainstream scholarship. This is understandable at some level because it proves difficult to fit a broad race critique into doctrinal analysis, especially if one does not consider race to significantly influence immigration law and policy. Even assuming that this may be true, the answer is not to ignore the damning charges of the race scholars but to take them seriously, whether through refutation, agreement, or otherwise. At a minimum, we should acknowledge the relevance of race, perhaps at an unconscious level, to immigration law and policymaking. As it stands, however, majority scholars tend to marginalize, downplay, or ignore race scholarship on immigration law.



https://www.researchgate.net/%20publication/




Race Consciousness K C. Challenging racism requires deliberate efforts in every instance. Race and racism should be at the forefront of this discussion. The USFG is not necessary. Every individual must act within institutional spaces like debate to challenge racism explicitlyTim Wise, international lecturer and anti-racist essayist, June 18, 2010, “Colorblind Ambition: The Rise of Post Racial Politics and the Retreat from Racial Equity,” http://www.timwise.org/2010/06/colorblind-ambition-the-rise-of-post-racial-politics-and-the-retreat-from-racial-equity/, ACC. 10-1-2015

The research in this area is clear: only by recognizing the extent to which we have been conditioned to internalize racial biases can we hope to check and interrupt discriminatory behaviors. According to the best available evidence, when we make race salient, and raise the specter of possible racism (in a jury deliberation, job interview process, or other settings) we are actually more careful to act fairly and deliberately, and take special pains not to discriminate. Studies have found , for instance, that large numbers of whites (and even large numbers of people of color) have deep-seated implicit biases against blacks and in favor of whites. Because these are often held subconsciously they are difficult if not impossible to notice or interrupt unless one has been trained to think about them, excavate them and challenge them. But this necessitates , quite obviously, a race-conscious, not colorblind or race-neutral approach. The good news is, when we call out racial biases in society and ourselves, we can in fact reduce the likelihood of acting on the basis of those biases. Anti-racism, in other words, takes practice. It takes deliberate efforts to check ourselves at every possible turn: as teachers in the classroom, employers during a job interview, police officers on the street, loan officers at the bank, and as parents in our homes. And many of the things we can do to practice this color-conscious approach take no special government effort: rather, they are things we can do, each of us, individually and collectively in the institutional spaces where we operate each day. Among these, we can have open conversations with our children about racism and discrimination, past and present; we can make having experience in multiracial settings, and having a proven commitment to racial equity in the workplace or school a bona fide qualification requirement for jobs or slots in colleges. After all, in a twenty-first century in which the nation will become increasingly of color, whites who are either uncomfortable in cross-racial settings or inadequately committed to equity will become professional liabilities for institutions, actually impeding their ability to function.




Race Consciousness K – USFG/ICE Links The political process is not self-correcting, but saturated with institutional racism. The Affirmative’s reform of ICE enforcement is a colorblind approach that leads to serial policy failure. Only a race conscious approach can confront antiblacknessBill Ong Hing, Professor of Law at University of California, Fall 2009, “Institutional Racism, ICE Raids, and Immigration Reform,” University of San Francisco Law Review, Vol. 44, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1525578, ACC. 10-1-2015

This Article contends that the evolution of immigration laws and the manner in which immigration laws operate have institutionalized bias against Latino immigrants—Mexicans in particular—and Asian immigrants. This has occurred through laws that initially manifested racist intent and/or impact, amendments that perpetuated that racism, and enforcement strategies and legal interpretations reinforcing the racism. Racism has been institutionalized in our immigration laws and enforcement policies. Kwame Ture (a.k.a. Stokely Carmichael) coined the phrase “institutional racism” in the 1960s. He recognized it was important to distinguish personal bias from institutional bias, which is generally long-term and grounded more in inertia than in intent. Institutional racism has come to describe societal patterns that impose oppressive or otherwise negative conditions against identifiable groups on the basis of race or ethnicity. In the United States, institutional racism resulted from the social caste system of slavery and racial segregation. Much of its basic structure still stands to this day. By understanding the fundamental principles of institutionalized racism we begin to see the application of the concept beyond the conventional black-white paradigm. Institutional racism embodies discriminating against certain groups of people through the use of biased laws or practices. Structures and social arrangements become accepted, operate, and are manipulated in such a way as to support or acquiesce in acts of racism. Institutional racism can be subtle and less visible, but is no less destructive than individual acts of racism. Charles Lawrence’s discussion of unconscious racism also is relevant. Lawrence teaches us that the source of much racism lies in the unconscious mind. Individuals raised in a racist culture unknowingly absorb attitudes and stereotypes that influence behavior in subtle, but pernicious ways. “Unconscious prejudice . . . is not subject to self-correction within the political process.” The forces of racism have become embodied in U.S. immigration laws. As these laws are enforced, they are accepted as common practice, in spite of their racial effects. We may not like particular laws or enforcement policies because of their harshness or their violations of human dignity or civil rights, but many of us do not sense the inherent racism because we are not cognizant of the dominant racial framework. Understanding the evolution of U.S. immigration laws and enforcement provides us with a better awareness of the institutional racism that controls those policies. This Part focuses on the evolution of immigration laws and enforcement policies. The history begins with slavery. Forced African labor migration set the stage for the Mexicans and the Chinese. This Part reviews the history of Mexican migration, the enforcement of the southwest border, and the sea change to enforcement through employer sanctions enacted in 1986.




The immigration system is institutionally racist. We should fashion our resistance to ICE policies around race consciousnessBill Ong Hing, Professor of Law at University of California, Fall 2009, “Institutional Racism, ICE Raids, and Immigration Reform,” University of San Francisco Law Review, Vol. 44, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1525578, ACC. 10-1-2015

The seemingly neutral logic that flows from an institutionally racist immigration system need not carry the day. We should not be left to object to ICE raids, border enforcement, and even criminal alien enforcement solely on non-racial terms. Understanding these operations from an institutionalized racial perspective provides another basis for arguing that our system of immigration laws and enforcement policies must be overhauled in order to address the menacing vestiges of racism within that system.




Race Consciousness K – Colorblind Policies Bad Colorblind legal reforms make the problem worse by denying institutional racism and creating psychological distance between “good” and “bad” white people. Both leave the system unchallengedMeghan A. Burke, PhD., Professor in the department of sociology at Illinois Wesleyan University, July 24, 2013, “Colorblindness vs. Race-Consciousness—An American Ambivalence,” The Society Pages, http://thesocietypages.org/specials/colorblindness-vs-race-consciousness/, ACC. 10-1-2015

Such is the state of race and race relations in the contemporary United States. Racial diversity makes many people both proud and anxious. This ambivalence is no accident. We live in a society with deep racial inequalities and pervasive color-blind ideals. If we do not claim a critical racial consciousness—one that provides few easy answers but still has the clarity and focus to ask the difficult questions, especially those with a sharp focus on inequalities and privilege—the situation will only worsen. In my research, I find that one of the biggest barriers to racial clarity and change is color-blind ideology—ways of talking and thinking that affirm our belief in individualism without recognizing the many remaining barriers to equality. While these are noble goals, ignoring the barriers is of little help in achieving the ideals. For example, in our K–12 curriculum, few learn about the legacies of racial inequality, and even fewer learn about the myriad forms of contemporary racism, often subtle and coded, that perpetuate inequity. We learn instead about the successes of the Civil Rights Movement, and we gain what is often a surface-level multiculturalism, celebrating and affirming difference while avoiding acknowledgments of privilege and racism. We enact laws that formally guarantee a platform of equality and consider any “real” problems fixed. Granted, most of us can look around and see stark racial inequalities—deeply segregated neighborhoods, wealth patterned by race, unequal schools—but when all we know are the successes of the past and the grit of our own hard work, the playing field still looks level. Color-blind ideologies are problematic because they specifically remove racism , past or present, as explanatory factors for disparities. If we believe that the problem is not institutional racism, and that racism is something that only bad people harbor in their hearts and beliefs, then we can shake our heads at the fact of inequality and still uphold the system as-is. Inequality stands outside us, while we go about our day merely trying to do the right thing: valuing diversity in the abstract, claiming our own cultural heritages in ways that make us feel good, and tacitly avoiding blame or responsibility for persistent racial rifts.



http://thesocietypages.org/specials/colorblindness-vs-race-consciousness/

http://thesocietypages.org/specials/colorblindness-vs-race-consciousness/


Colorblind approaches undermine the ability of others to challenge racism and fosters internalized oppressionTim Wise, international lecturer and anti-racist essayist, August 17, 2010, “With Friends Like These, Who Needs Glenn Beck? Racism and White Privilege on the Liberal-Left,” http://www.timwise.org/2010/08/with-friends-like-these-who-needs-glenn-beck-racism-and-white-privilege-on-the-liberal-left/, ACC. 10-1-2015

Indeed, to be colorblind in the face of profound racial disparities can encourage the mindset that whatever disparities exist must be the fault of those on the bottom. As parents, for example, if we do not discuss racism and discrimination with our children — and white parents, including liberal ones, show a serious hesitance to do this — they will grow up without the critical context needed to process the glaring racial inequities they can see with their own eyes quite clearly. So, white children may well come to conclude that the reason blacks, Latinos, and American Indian folks are so much more likely to be poor, and live in “less desirable” neighborhoods or communities is because there is something wrong with them. They must not try hard enough to succeed. If colorblindness encourages us to ignore color and its consequences, as it must almost by definition, then we are left with explanations for inequity that are not only conservative in nature, but racist too. For children of color, colorblindness, no matter the liberality behind it, can lead them to be ill-prepared for discrimination when and if it occurs in their lives. It can also lead them to internalize the blame for the inequities they too can see, and to conclude that black and brown folks have less than whites , on average, because they deserve less . Although many liberal and progressive parents think colorblind child-rearing is the way to raise antiracist children, the best and most recent research on the matter completely debunks this popular notion.



http://www.timwise.org/2010/08/with-friends-like-these-who-needs-glenn-beck-racism-and-white-privilege-on-the-liberal-left/

http://www.timwise.org/2010/08/with-friends-like-these-who-needs-glenn-beck-racism-and-white-privilege-on-the-liberal-left/


Race Consciousness K – Colorblind Policies Bad Race-neutral policies worsen racial disparities for 3 reasons: Universalist white denial, rationalizing and right fill-inTim Wise, international lecturer and anti-racist essayist, June 18, 2010, “Colorblind Ambition: The Rise of Post Racial Politics and the Retreat from Racial Equity,” http://www.timwise.org/2010/06/colorblind-ambition-the-rise-of-post-racial-politics-and-the-retreat-from-racial-equity/, ACC. 10-1-2015

In fact, by refusing to talk openly about the race-specific causes of racial disparities, those who adhere to post-racial liberalism may actually worsen the extent of those disparities. First, the rhetoric of racial transcendence and the public policy agenda of colorblind universalism tend to further the already-ingrained problem of white denial. After all, if we don’t talk about a problem, it becomes easier to assume it isn’t a problem any longer. Considering how prevalent denial of racism already is among white Americans (and has been in every generation, truth be told), intensifying this “see no evil” approach can only serve to limit the extent to which we are able to do much about the reality of discrimination. Secondly, the refusal to talk openly about racism can lead Americans to increasingly rationalize the disparities that continue to exist. So, for instance, even a young child can readily observe substantial disparities in the United States, which play out across racial lines. They can see that where people tend to live, where they tend to go to school, and what kinds of jobs they tend to have, often have a distinct racial cast to them. If the society in which these children live is actively discussing and seeking to remedy the reasons for those disparities, including discrimination in the present and the inertia of past injustice, then those children can develop a fairly nuanced understanding of how things got to be the way they are, and how we might solve the problem. But if we are actively de-emphasizing the discussion of racism and discrimination — in other words, if we are stripping away the context necessary to understand the phenomena those children are observing — young people will likely grow up assuming that inequity is “just the way things are,” or worse, that the disparities must be due to some people just being “better” than others. In short, post-racial liberalism in the name of colorblindness can enhance racially-biased thinking: the ultimate irony. Finally, since the right continues to hammer racialized themes in their attacks against progressive public policy, the decision by erstwhile liberals to avoid discussing race only serves as a form of unilateral disarmament in the face of conservative race-based bullying. If the right continues to accuse the President, for instance, of only pushing health care as a form of reparations for slavery (as Glenn Beck has said), or of “hating white people” (Beck again), or of being “more an African colonial despot” than an American (as Rush Limbaugh has proclaimed) it is doubtful that his decision to avoid discussing race will help him much. The right will continue to push buttons of white racial resentment, no matter what Obama does. To not push back, or worse, to deny as he has the obvious — that much of the intense hatred for his agenda is due to racial bias — only makes the president appear weak. In this sense, post-racial liberalism isn’t even astute politics.




Race Consciousness K – Reformism bad / Alternative solvency Immigration reforms fail. Only a structural approach to institutional racism of race consciousness can solveBill Ong Hing, Professor of Law at University of California, Fall 2009, “Institutional Racism, ICE Raids, and Immigration Reform,” University of San Francisco Law Review, Vol. 44, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1525578, ACC. 10-1-2015

Understanding that the nation’s laws and enforcement policies resulted from institutionalized racism lends a wholly separate rationale for immigration reform. Establishing a case of intentional discrimination under the challenging standards required by the Supreme Court in racial discrimination cases would be difficult. Yet when serious negative racial effects of laws and policies are evident, even if unintended or unconscious, then right thinking policy makers and leaders can be motivated to do the right thing, legislatively and administratively, for moral and practical reasons. Contemplating creative ways to remedy the damage is appropriate. In facing structural racism, Anne Kubisch encourages us to be bold: “Though the structural approach may seem ‘too big,’ we ignore it at our peril and end up placing unrealistic expectations on narrow, programmatic, bandaid-like solutions. Instead, we must be ambitious and creative about strategies. . . .” The premise that reform is needed to rectify the effects of institutional racism challenges us to come up with innovative solutions. Because institutions are not race-neutral, dismantling structural racism requires us to be race-conscious in our solutions, not colorblind. In the visa context, we could take a page from the diversity program that was extended to Irish and many other western European immigrants in the 1980s and 1990s and create an affirmative action effort to finally give fair and equitable treatment to immigrants of color.




Race Consciousness K – Alternative Solvency Colorblindness is an excuse to maintain the racialized status quo. Only race-conscious policies can create real changeJerome McCristal Culp, Jr., Professor of Law and Director of the John M. Olin Program in Law and Economics, Duke University, April 1994, “Colorblind remedies and the intersectionality of oppression,” delivered as a lecture at the Critical Race Theory Colloquium at New York University School of Law, New York University Law Review, 69 N.Y.U.L. Rev. 162, http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1230&context=faculty_scholarship, ACC. 10-1-2015

This Essay argues that the colorblind principle is not a moral requirement, but rather a policy argument resting on several invalid assumptions. In particular, I want to advance the seditious idea that we will not change the racial present until we adopt an effective program of race-conscious policies, for only race-conscious policies can alter the racial status quo in this country. I contend that the argument for colorblindness ultimately argues in favor of a racialized status quo that leaves black people and other racial minorities in an unequal position. By the phrase "racial status quo," I mean the economic reality that African Americans are twice as likely to be unemployed and are more likely to be fired than are white Americans. They are also less likely to be employed in positions that provide status or higher income. Despite the many antidiscrimination laws passed since 1964, black Americans still earn substantially less income than whites. Indeed, even in pure market transactions where the race of the purchaser would not seem to matter - such as the purchase of an automobile - there is significant evidence that it does: black purchasers are treated very differently than are white purchasers by sales staff.



http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1230&context=faculty_scholarship

http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1230&context=faculty_scholarship


Politics Links The plan takes a soft stance on enforcement, which sparks political backlashStephen Dinan, Staff Writer, April 14, 2015, "Sarah Saldana, ICE chief, takes heat over agency’s record," Washington Times, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/14/sarah-saldana-ice-chief-takes-heat-over-agencys-re/?page=all, ACC. 10-1-2015

The administration released dozens of convicted illegal immigrant murderers and rapists back onto the streets last year, even as it began to hold more women and children, according to the latest statistics that have President Obama and his immigration team taking fire from all sides in the debate. Republicans said releasing murderers and rapists, as well as thousands of drunken-drivers, drug users, burglars and thieves is the latest step for an administration bent on ignoring enforcement, confronting Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director Sarah Saldana over her agency’s record. The 30,558 criminal aliens released into the community by ICE in 2014 had amassed 250 homicide convictions, 186 kidnappings and 373 sexual assaults, according to agency statistics put into the official records of the House Judiciary Committee. “The nonsensical actions of this administration demonstrate its lack of desire to enforce the law even against unlawful aliens convicted of serious crimes,” said Rep. Robert W. Goodlatte, Virginia Republican and chairman of the committee. Even as she was accused of releasing serious criminals, Ms. Saldana faced charges from the political left that she was treating noncriminal refugees too harshly. Illegal immigrant mothers who have fled Central America as part of the latest surge of border-jumpers said they and their children are being subject to poor treatment and deserve to be set free.

Absent comprehensive immigration reform, the plan is politically unpopular Ming H. Chen, Associate Professor, University of Colorado Law School, March 9, 2012, Where You Stand Depends on Where You Sit: Bureaucratic Incorporation of Immigrants in Federal Workplace Agencies (). Berkeley Journal of Employment and Labor Law, 2012; U of Colorado Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 12-03. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2019181, ACC. 10-1-2015

Notwithstanding President Obama’s re-election in 2012, immigration scholars in the legal academy have been exceedingly pessimistic about the federal government’s commitment to undocumented workers’ rights over the last decade. A majority of the criticisms focus on the need for comprehensive immigration reform in Congress. A considerable number of these critiques focus on Hoffman as case law limiting the protective remedies of undocumented workers against employers who exploit the most vulnerable among their labor force. The minority of legal scholars who seriously consider agency actions contend that such actions are insufficient and inadequate, even if well-intended. Immigration scholars have especially expressed dismay about the deleterious effects of White House policies relying on the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) worksite enforcement actions as a strategy for immigration control and the inability of workplace agencies to counter these actions. The criticisms extend across Republican and Democratic administrations.



http://ssrn.com/abstract=2019181

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/14/sarah-saldana-ice-chief-takes-heat-over-agencys-re/?page=all

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/14/sarah-saldana-ice-chief-takes-heat-over-agencys-re/?page=all


Solvency/Harms Answers - Status Quo Solves Recent court decision will deter future warrantless raidsThe American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), July 27, 2015, “ACLU Announces Settlement in Lawsuit Over Warrantless Raid By US Immigration Agents and Nashville Police,” http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2015/07/27/aclu-announces-settlement-lawsuit-over-warrantless-raid-us-immigration-agents, ACC. 9-27-2015

The American Civil Liberties Union announced a settlement in a federal lawsuit filed on behalf of victims of a warrantless raid in Nashville, Tennessee, by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and Metropolitan Nashville Police Department officers. ICE and MNPD agreed to pay $310,000 to settle all claims, and ICE granted the noncitizen plaintiffs deferred action status for seven years. The case, Escobar v. Gaines, stemmed from a 2010 raid in which armed ICE and MNPD agents in full SWAT gear descended upon an apartment complex at night that was home to mostly Latino residents. The lawsuit alleged that agents and police stormed into and searched homes without a single warrant or consent, shouted racial slurs, and held guns to some people's heads. Residents were detained without any reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe they had engaged in any criminal activity, and no one was ever charged with a criminal violation as a result of the raid. The ACLU's Immigrants’ Rights Project, ACLU of Tennessee, and firms of Ozment Law and Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym, Ltd. brought the lawsuit on behalf of numerous residents, including U.S. citizens. "A person should never have to go through what we did," said Marvin Benjamin Lopez Raxcaco, one of the plaintiffs. "It was terrifying, and hopefully this settlement will stop this from happening to others in the future." Plaintiffs sued ICE and MNPD for, among other things, conspiracy to violate their rights to be free from unlawful searches and seizures, and discriminatory conduct. "This settlement sends a strong message to law enforcement across Tennessee and nationwide that the Constitution demands all people be treated fairly under the law, regardless of their skin color," said ACLU attorney Andre Segura. "Agents cannot trample the Constitution because of their stereotypes and assumptions about someone's immigration status."




The status quo solves. Courts have forced ICE to adopt new regulations requiring warrantsManuel E. Avendaño, Staff Writer for El Diario La Prensa, April 9, 2013, “ICE Agrees to New Regulations in Warrantless Raid Settlement,” The Crime Report, http://www.thecrimereport.org/news/inside-criminal-justice/2013-04-ice-agrees-to-new-regulations-in-warrantless-raid-se, ACC. 9-28-2015

Twenty-two Latinos will receive compensation for damages from a settlement with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as a result of illegal raids the agency carried out on Long Island in 2006 and 2007. The $1 million settlement also requires ICE to adopt new regulations nationally that will prevent their agents from entering private homes without a search warrant. The lawsuit, known as Adriana Aguilar et al. v. ICE, was filed on behalf of 22 New Yorkers including men, women, children, citizens, permanent legal residents, and others. It was brought to court as a result of violent early morning raids conducted by immigration authorities; knocking doors and demanding entry to homes in front of frightened occupants. The raids took place in Suffolk and Nassau Counties on Long Island, and also in the town of Mount Kisco in Westchester County. “Immigrants across the country can stand up and cheer for what has been accomplished by this settlement,” said Juan Cartagena, president of Latino Justice PRLDEF. “No longer will ICE agents have free rein to invade the homes of immigrants, especially Latino immigrants, and be as abusive as they want without any worry that they might be reprimanded.”




Solvency/Harms Answers - Status Quo Solves The government is already cracking down on ICE, which is an ineffective agencyClaudia Torrens, Staff Writer, March 10, 2015, “Immigration officials see danger as local cooperation wanes,” Washington Times, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/10/immigration-officials-laws-limiting-detainers-risk/?page=all, ACC. 10-1-2015

Mayor Bill de Blasio signed the legislation that limited cooperation with ICE in November. The law bars cooperation with detainers unless there’s a federal warrant and the person is on the terrorist watch list or committed a serious crime in the past five years. From October 2013 through September 2014, the New York City Police Department received 2,635 immigration detainers. Of those, it held 196 individuals. The city says no ICE detainers have been honored this year. New York City Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito, who proposed the limitations, said ICE officials for years “cast a dragnet at Rikers Island” that resulted in unnecessary deportations. “In addition to being unfair, ICE’s policies were an offense to the rule of law and yet another symptom of our broken immigration system,” Mark-Viverito said in a statement. In California, only immigrants illegally in the United States who have been convicted of a serious offense are eligible for the 48-hour hold. David Marin, deputy field office director for Enforcement and Removal Operations in Los Angeles, said that of the seven counties that form the Los Angeles area of operation only two honor detainers that meet those standards. More than one-fourth of the people arrested by ICE in the Los Angeles area last week had recently been released onto the street by local authorities despite ICE detainer requests. Fifty-nine of the 218 individuals detained by ICE during the enforcement action had been the subject of immigration detainers, said ICE spokeswoman Virginia Kice. The issue is not black-and-white, says Muzaffar Chishti, New York director of the Migration Policy Institute. “My feeling is that, at some level, both (sides) are right”, said Chishti. “This is a classic case of where you stand on issues depends on where you sit. The concerns and the priorities of the city and police are very different from the concerns and priorities of the federal government.”



http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/10/immigration-officials-laws-limiting-detainers-risk/?page=all,



Solvency/Harms Answers – A2: Early morning raids ICE doesn’t do early morning raids anymorePeter W. Schroth, Attorney, Connecticut and New York, and Linda L. Foster, Attorney, New York, 2014, “Perspectives on Migration and Law in the United States,” The American Journal of Comparative Law, 62 Am. J. Comp. L. 1, 62(-1):1-36, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276214224_Perspectives_on_Migration_and_Law_in_the_United_States, ACC. 9-28-2015

Home raids by ICE agents have been restricted somewhat, but continue to be directed against people subject to removal orders, although other undocumented persons are usually swept in. Until recently, early morning raids were conducted using shock, violence and intimidation, often involving entering the home without consent or a warrant. After such a series of raids in 2006 and 2007, fifteen victims, seven of whom were U.S. citizens, filed suit in federal court, seeking damages and an order prohibiting ICE from conducting home raids until the agency develops clear guidelines to end unlawful entries. The matter ended with a settlement, which approved damages of $ 1 million, including $ 36,000 for each of the fifteen plaintiffs, as well as an order requiring restrictions on how and when ICE agents can enter private homes.




Solvency/Harms Answers – Internal ICE mismanagement 4th Amendment violations are due to internal ICE mismanagementMarissa B. Litwin, J.D., Seton Hall University School of Law, May 2011, “The Decentralization of Immigration Law: The Mischief of § 287(g),” Seton Hall Law Review, 41 Seton Hall L. Rev. 399, http://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1377&context=shlr, ACC. 9-28-2015

As a result of inadequate training, accountability, and oversight measures in the § 287(g) program, warrantless entry into the home has become a major source of egregious Fourth Amendment violations in recent immigration enforcement. The Fourth Amendment and subsequent case law establish high levels of protection over privacy of the home. The Supreme Court has declared that "physical entry of a home is the chief evil against which the wording of the Fourth Amendment is directed." A Fourth Amendment violation is presumed to occur if officers enter or search a home without consent from an adult resident of the home, a judicial warrant from an impartial magistrate judge, or exigent circumstances. Thus, warrantless entry - no matter if probable cause is present or not - constitutes a Fourth Amendment violation in the context of both criminal and civil-immigration enforcement. Despite constitutional requirements, numerous stories have surfaced that agents are unlawfully entering the homes of suspected immigrants.

The problems with home raids are an internal ICE management and training issuesBess Chiu, Cardozo Immigration Justice Clinic, et al., 2009, “Constitution on ICE: A Report on Immigration Home Raid Operations,”


Finally, ICE official policy has been crystal clear for some time that officers cannot enter or search homes without judicial warrants or consent and may not seize persons without a reasonable suspicion that the person is illegally in the United States. However, notwithstanding these clear official policies, the evidence indicates that ICE agents are not routinely observing these agency policies. This type of disconnect between agency policy and practice is likely indicative of management, training and oversight failures by ICE supervisors and officials.





Federal agencies just change their names to avoid reforms. ICE is no differentGabrielle Hollingsworth, LegalMatch Legal Writer and Attorney at Law, April 16, 2014, “INS Reorganization,” http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/ins-reorganization.html, ACC. 10-1-2015

“INS” is an acronym for the Immigration and Naturalization Service, a U.S. agency that was dismantled in 2003. The law that formed the INS was the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA). As a response to the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center, the Patriot Act made major changes to the INA in 2001. The feeling existed that the INS no longer met the needs of a society under threat of terrorism. What Replaced the INS? Among the changes included creating the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS), a computerized system to keep track of foreign students living in the US. Other changes included the 2002 Homeland Security Act and the 2002 Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act. These amendments mandated, for reasons of national security, that a number of federal agencies be created, renamed, and reorganized. On March 1, 2003, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) was dismantled and reorganized into the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Within the DHS there are three new agencies: the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). The USCIS absorbed the former INS office administration and immigration services. ICE, the main enforcement arm of the DHS, absorbed the former U.S. Customs investigators, the Federal Protective Service, and the Federal Air Marshal Service. And CBP absorbed the former INS and Customs Inspectors, the Department of Agriculture, and the Border Patrol. As a result of these changes, the U.S. immigration agencies are now more “enforcement-oriented,” meaning that they aim to help increase the security of the U.S., while protecting U.S. citizens from terrorism within their borders.



http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/ins-reorganization.html


A2: Terrorism Latino and immigrant populations hate law enforcement now and don’t want to share information. Raids are irrelevantNik Theodore, PhD, Professor at UIC Department of Urban Planning and Policy, May 2013, “Insecure Communities: Latino Perceptions of Police Involvement in Immigration Enforcement,” http://www.policylink.org/sites/default/files/INSECURE_COMMUNITIES_REPORT_FINAL.PDF, ACC. 10-1-2015

This report presents findings from a survey of Latinos regarding their perceptions of law enforcement authorities in light of the greater involvement of police in immigration enforcement. Lake Research Partners designed and administered a randomized telephone survey of 2,004 Latinos living in the counties of Cook (Chicago), Harris (Houston), Los Angeles, and Maricopa (Phoenix). The survey was designed to assess the impact of police involvement in immigration enforcement on Latinos’ perceptions of public safety and their willingness to contact the police when crimes have been committed. The survey was conducted in English and Spanish by professional interviewers during the period November 17 to December 10, 2012. Survey results indicate that the increased involvement of police in immigration enforcement has significantly heightened the fears many Latinos have of the police, contributing to their social isolation and exacerbating their mistrust of law enforcement authorities. Key findings include: • 44 percent of Latinos surveyed reported they are less likely to contact police officers if they have been the victim of a crime because they fear that police officers will use this interaction as an opportunity to inquire into their immigration status or that of people they know. • 45 percent of Latinos stated that they are less likely to voluntarily offer information about crimes, and 45 percent are less likely to report a crime because they are afraid the police will ask them or people they know about their immigration status. • 70 percent of undocumented immigrants reported they are less likely to contact law enforcement authorities if they were victims of a crime. • Fear of police contact is not confined to immigrants. For example, 28 percent of US-born Latinos said they are less likely to contact police officers if they have been the victim of a crime because they fear that police officers will use this interaction as an opportunity to inquire into their immigration status or that of people they know. • 38 percent of Latinos reported they feel like they are under more suspicion now that local law enforcement authorities have become involved in immigration enforcement. This figure includes 26 percent of US-born respondents, 40 percent of foreign-born respondents, and 58 percent of undocumented immigrant respondents. • When asked how often police officers stop Latinos without good reason or cause, 62 percent said very or somewhat often, including 58 percent of US-born respondents, 64 percent of foreign-born respondents, and 78 percent of undocumented immigrant respondents.



http://www.policylink.org/sites/default/files/INSECURE_COMMUNITIES_REPORT_FINAL.PDF


A2: Terrorism No one trusts the police and communities don’t want cooperation or trustDean Obeidallah, Staff Writer, August 20, 2014, “Michael Brown, Gaza, and Muslim Americans,” The Daily Beast, http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/20/michael-brown-gaza-and-muslim-americans.html, ACC. 10-1-2015

The Muslim-American community of which I’m part hasn’t been great in standing up with and for African Americans. A lack of empathy and racism are the main culprits. What makes this especially astonishing is that 30 percent of the Muslim-American population is African-American. You would think that there would be natural alliances, but that hasn’t been the case. At least not up until now. The shooting of Michael Brown and the heavy-handed response by the police that followed has struck a nerve among Muslims. It has motivated American-Muslim leaders to speak out publicly in ways we hadn’t seen before on police misconduct directed against African Americans. Why? A few reasons. But one that can’t be discounted is Gaza. More specifically, young Palestinians who commented on Twitter about the shooting of Michael Brown drew direct connections between the two. For example, Inas Safadi, a Palestinian living in Gaza, tweeted: “Revolution of #Ferguson, can’t be prouder of these people who won’t let their son’s blood go for nothing #MikeBrown.” Another tweeted a photo of himself holding a sign that read, “The Palestinian people know what means to be shot while unarmed for your ethnicity” #Ferguson #justice.” Other Palestinians, including a doctor, even offered advice via Twitter to the protesters in Ferguson on how to deal with the tear gas being fired at them based on their own experiences with Israeli security forces. Comments included, “Don’t keep much distance from the police, if you’re close to them they can’t tear gas. To #Ferguson from #Palestine.” Another tweeted: “Always make sure to run against the wind/to keep calm when you’re teargased, the pain will pass, don’t rub your eyes! #Ferguson Solidarity.” The support by Palestinians for Brown and the protesters is not surprising. Oppressed people often stand together in solidarity. That’s why it has amazed me and so many other Muslim Americans that we don’t see broad support in our community for the broader struggles of African Americans. Instead, I have personally heard, from Muslim friends who are black, tales of racism directed toward them by other Muslims, such as being made to feel unwelcome when visiting a new mosque or not having more leadership positions in national Muslim organizations. A growing number of Muslim Americans are pushing back against this type of racism. One is Margari Aziza Hill, an African-American Muslim who serves as programming director of the Muslim Anti-Racism Collaborative. Hill told me that after Trayvon Martin was shot in 2012, she called on her fellow Muslims to take a stand demanding justice but was met with silence.



http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/20/michael-brown-gaza-and-muslim-americans.html

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/20/michael-brown-gaza-and-muslim-americans.html


Cooperation with ICE is low now and local officials will not helpClaudia Torrens, Staff Writer, March 10, 2015, “Immigration officials see danger as local cooperation wanes,” Washington Times, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/10/immigration-officials-laws-limiting-detainers-risk/?page=all, ACC. 10-1-2015

Diminished local cooperation is putting federal immigration officers in dangerous situations as they track down foreign-born criminals, Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials say. They say that more of their officers are out on the streets, eating up resources, because cities and states have passed legislation that limits many of the detention requests issued by immigration authorities. For years, ICE has issued the detainers to local and state law enforcement agencies, asking them to hold immigrants for up to 48 hours after they were scheduled for release from jail. Most detainees are then either taken into federal custody to face an immigration judge or be deported. But more than 300 counties and cities, plus California, Connecticut, Illinois, Rhode Island and the District of Columbia, have chosen to release immigrants, claiming too many people who have committed low-level offenses or no crime at all were being deported and unnecessarily separated from their families. Courts have said that honoring detainers without probable cause could result in a civil rights offense. ICE insists that its priorities have changed and it is only focused on foreign-born criminals who are a threat to society. It deported nearly 316,000 people in fiscal year 2014. In the first eight months of 2014, immigration officers filed roughly 105,000 requests for local enforcement agencies to hold immigrants, but local agencies declined 8,800 of the requests, according to data provided by immigration authorities.





Documents

Verbatim 4.6 - wcdebate.com · Web viewBrian Doherty, Senior editor for Reason magazine, March 9, 2015, “ ... According to Sam Zamarripa, president of the Board of Directors of