Anda di halaman 1dari 34

T – “Legal Immigration”

A) Interpretation – Legal immigration is LPR status
Cheng et al 2004 – Economist at the Social Security Administration (“A STOCHASTIC MODEL
Total immigration is defined here as legal immigration minus legal emigration plus net other immigration. Each component is
modeled separately.
1. Legal Immigration
Legal immigration is defined as persons lawfully admitted for permanent residence into the
United States.7 The level of legal immigration largely depends on legislation which basically serves to define and establish limits for
certain categories of immigrants. The Immigration Act of 1990, which is currently the legislation in
force, establishes limits for three classes of immigrants: family-sponsored preferences,
employment-based preferences, and diversity immigrants. However, no numerical limits currently exist for
immediate relatives of U.S. citizens.
Historical data for legal U.S. immigration for years 1901 through 2002 are from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.8 Legal
immigration averaged nearly one million per year from 1900 through 1914, then decreased substantially to about 23,000 in 1933.
Since the mid-1940s, legal immigration increased steadily to over one million in 2002.
An ARMA(4,1) equation was selected and parameters were estimated using the entire range of historical data. The R-squared value
was 0.92. Figure II.2 presents the actual and fitted values. The modified equation is: (3) In this equation, IMt represents the annual
level of legal immigration in year t; represents the projected level of legal immigration from the TR04II in year t; imt represents the
deviation of the annual level of legal immigration from the TR04II value in year t; and εt represents the random error in year t.
2. Legal Emigration
Legal emigration is defined as the number of persons who lawfully leave the United States, and are no longer considered to be a part
of the Social Security program. Although annual emigration data are not collected in the United States, the U.S. Census Bureau
estimates that the level of emigration for the past century roughly totaled one-fourth of the level of legal immigration.
Using the Census estimates as an approximate guide, the parameters of Equation (3) are multiplied by one-fourth.9 The modified
equation is: (4)
In this equation, EMt represents the annual level of legal emigration in year t; represents the projected annual level of legal
emigration from the TR04II in year t; emt represents the deviation of the annual level of legal emigration from the TR04II value in
year t; and εt represents the random error in year t.
3. Net Other Immigration
Net other immigration is defined as the annual flow of persons into the United States minus
the annual flow of persons out of the United States who do not meet the above definition of
legal immigration or legal emigration. Thus, net other immigration includes unauthorized persons
and those not seeking permanent residence.

B) Violation – the plan doesn’t reduce restrictions on LPR

C) Explodes limits and destroys neg ground – temporary migration explodes the
neg research burden. Best core neg generics designed to test the necessity of
permanent immigration.

D) T is a voting issue – tells the neg what they should and shouldn’t have to be
prepared to debate
Legal Immigration are those with Permanent Resident status
Feere 12
(Jon Feere is the Legal Policy Analyst at the Center for Immigration Studies. Language in the
Immigration Debate,, date accessed: 07-13-18,
Illegal aliens and their advocates have been at the forefront of a movement that seeks to abolish the use of accurate legal language
in journalism and the judicial system. The activists are demanding that journalists and judges use activist language when describing
illegal aliens and illegal immigration generally. Many organizations have been pushing the agenda, including the National Association
of Hispanic Journalists, the Arizona Hispanic Bar Association, and illegal alien journalist and admitted fraudster Jose Antonio Vargas,
who is calling the Associated Press and the New York Times his "two main targets". So far, both the AP and the Times have not
completely given in to the demands. In fact, the AP has drawn a line in the sand. After months of pressure from activist groups,
Associated Press stylebook co-editor Dave Minthorn last year explained in a memo: Undocumented might imply that illegal
immigration is simply a matter of not having one's papers in order. It may be used to minimize what could be a violation of the law
— evading controls at a border or living in a country without legal permission. So we advise against using the term on our own. If an
authority uses it, and we quote the authority, that's different. But as a blanket synonym for illegal immigrant? No, it's usually
imprecise or inaccurate. As I recently explained to a journalist writing on this topic, it is very important for people to
use legally accurate language when talking about legal matters . I pointed out that a legal immigrant who
loses his wallet becomes "undocumented". Mr. Minthorn would seem to agree. The Associated Press continued to lay down the law
this week, clearly tiring of the activist demands: Terms like "undocumented" and "unauthorized" can make a person's illegal
presence in the country appear to be a matter of minor paperwork. Many illegal immigrants aren't "undocumented" at all; they may
have a birth certificate and passport from their home country, plus a U.S. driver's license, Social Security card, or school ID. What
they lack is the fundamental right to be in the United States. Without that right, their presence is illegal. Some say the word is
inaccurate, because depending on the situation, they may be violating only civil, not criminal law. But both are laws, and violating
any law is an illegal act (we do not say "criminal immigrant"). Finally, there's the concern that "illegal immigrant" offends a person's
dignity by suggesting his very existence is illegal. We don't read the term this way. We refer routinely to illegal loggers, illegal miners,
illegal vendors, and so forth. Our language simply means that a person is logging, mining, selling, etc., in violation of the law — just
as illegal immigrants have immigrated in violation of the law. That's some powerful stuff. And it's accurate. The AP's updated
definition of "illegal immigrant" is now: Used to describe someone who has entered a country illegally or who resides in a country in
criminal or civil violation of immigration law. Acceptable variations include living in the country without legal permission. Use of
these terms, as with any terms implying illegalities, must be based on reliable information about a person's true status. Unless
quoting someone, AP does not use the terms illegal alien, an illegal, illegals, or the term undocumented. While it is good to see that
the Associated Press has not fully embraced activist language, the news source still gets it wrong by advising against use of the
legally accurate term "illegal alien". When asked by the American Journalism Review whether it makes a difference to use the term
"illegal alien" as opposed to "illegal immigrant", linguist Jennifer Sclafani — a supporter of activist language — responded, "Yes,
absolutely it does. No matter which way you look at it, an alien is always an outsider." And that is the correct way of looking at
immigration. Those who are here on tourist visas, for example, are legal aliens. Those who entered illegally
are illegal aliens. In both instances, they are aliens — i.e. "outsiders" — who are not part of the American citizenry. This is a basic
legal and logical fact. The
word "immigrant" should be reserved for those who — as defined by
Merriam-Webster — come to a country for "permanent residence". In other words, the term "legal
immigrant" or "immigrant" should only be used where the individual is entering the United
States on a permanent basis and has received a green card. In fact, the official USCIS glossary
defines "immigrant" as someone who has been "admitted to the United States as a lawful
permanent resident". If he later acquires U.S. citizenship he becomes a citizen and is no longer an immigrant. Neither
temporary legal aliens nor illegal aliens are permanent residents. By supporting the term "illegal immigrant"
the Associated Press has arguably endorsed use of an oxymoron. Certainly this analysis is based on a tight, legal reading of the
terminology; colloquially, people use the terms "illegal immigrant" and "illegal alien" interchangeably. Furthermore, federal agencies
and courts are not entirely consistent in their use of language. This is partly attributable to the fact that immigration law — both in
Congress and federal agencies — has been amended many times over the past century on a piecemeal basis. For example, judges
often refer to all non-citizens (even green card holders) as "aliens" as a result of federal law. Yet green cards — which used to be
called Alien Registration Cards — are now called Permanent Resident Cards, suggesting that these individuals are more
appropriately considered immigrants rather than aliens. (And illustrating the inconsistency further is the fact that green cards have
not always been colored green!) Nevertheless, journalists should not use this as an excuse to use imprecise language in their writing.

Legal immigrants and nonimmigrants are distinct

Smith & Edmonston 1997 – James P. Smith of Rand and Barry Edmonston, Study Directors
of the Panel on the Demographic and Economic Impacts of Immigration Committee on
Population and Committee on National Statistics Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences
and Education National Research Council (The New Americans: Economic, Demographic, and
Fiscal Effects of Immigration (1997) Chapter: 2 Background to Contemporary U.S. Immigration,, date accessed: 07-13-18, MZP)
For clarity's sake we first define a few terms that will be used in this volume. Immigration and emigration generally refer to
movements of people into and out of the United States. Foreign-born persons who enter the United States for residence are
immigrants;1 residents of the United States, whether native- or foreign-born, who leave the country to settle elsewhere are
emigrants. Net migration is the difference between the two. If the number of people entering the United States exceeds the number
who leave, net migration will be positive and immigration will contribute to America's population growth. A distinction is made
between legal and illegal (or undocumented) immigrants. Among those who intend to reside permanently in this
country, legal immigrants apply for and receive permanent resident visas, "green cards" allowing them to
live here indefinitely. Although illegal immigrants are often lumped together as if they formed one homogeneous group,
people become illegal immigrants in three ways. The first way is by entering the country illegally; they enter without inspection and
at some place other than a lawful point of entry, usually across a land border. The second way is by staying beyond the authorized
period after their legal entry, as some foreign students do. And the third way is by violating the terms of their legal entry; tourists
become illegal immigrants by taking jobs here. Most people who enter the United States legally do not intend to
become permanent residents. These people, referred to as nonimmigrants by the Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS), are authorized to stay in the United States for a specified length of time. The
types of visas granted reflect the purpose of the visit to the United States, of which tourism is by far the most dominant. In addition,
foreign students may study in the United States for several years; foreign diplomats and foreign members of the staffs of
international organizations also have nonimmigrant status. This report largely ignores nonimmigrants, except when pertinent to its
focus on the economic and demographic consequences of immigration.2 1 The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) has a
more restricted use of the term "immigrant." In INS usage, an immigrant is an alien admitted to the United States
as a lawful permanent resident. Under the INS definition, such undocumented aliens or foreign students
on a temporary entrance visa are not immigrants, even though they may be enumerated in the decennial
census and included in federal government surveys. We note in this report when there a different usage for the term
"immigrant." 2 Although we do not explicitly address this group, nonimmigrants are indirectly included to some extent in our report
because they are included in census data, pay taxes, influence public opinion polls, and constitute a stock of persons who may
become illegal immigrants. Page 22 Suggested Citation:"2 Background to Contemporary U.S. Immigration." National Research
Council. 1997. The New Americans: Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5779. × Add a note to your bookmark Finally, refugees and asylees are a special group of foreign
residents who have fled their own countries because of a fear of persecution. The distinction between these two groups is that
refugees apply for admission to an Immigration and Naturalization Service official outside the United States (think of Cubans seeking
to flee Castro's Cuba), whereas asylees seek protection within the United States or at a port of entry (think of a defector from a
foreign ballet company on tour in this country). Refugees and asylees are generally admitted to the United States as
nonimmigrants, although their status may be adjusted later. Although these are useful formal definitions, much of
the evidence presented in this volume is based on data compiled by the Bureau of the Census, which frequently do not permit
distinctions based on these terms of law. For example, the Census Bureau typically presents information on foreign-born persons
without regard to their immigrant status. Many foreign-born persons enumerated in the decennial census are immigrants, but some
are nonimmigrants and some are illegal immigrants. Census data also do not designate the visa status at the time of arrival in the
United States, so we do not know whether a person may have entered the United States as a legal immigrant, as a refugee, or as a
nonimmigrant who subsequently adjusted his or her status to permanent resident.

Legal Immigration is permanent residence

SSA 13 (Social Security Administration federal report on legal immigration)
The term legal immigration refers to persons lawfully admitted for permanent
residence in the United States. These individuals are referred to as legal permanent residents (LPRs).
Many individuals are admitted to the country legally but on a temporary basis.
These individuals are included as other immigrants and are discussed in the following sections of this paper.
No Temporary Visas
Temporary visa-holders are not legal immigrants under federal law
SJI 13 (State Justice Institute was established as a federal bureau dealing with courts and immigration)
The law provides for a variety of categories of aliens that are eligible for visas
to legally enter the United States
on a temporary basis for a limited period of time. These visa holders are classified as
non-immigrants under Federal immigration law. Eligible aliens include vacationers, students, certain
classes of temporary workers, and a variety of specialized categories. The authorized length of stay is specified in the visa. The alien
may have to take certain actions to maintain the status.

Temporary visas and refugee programs are pathways to immigration, not

legal immigration itself
Massey and Malone 02 (Douglas Massey and Nolan Malone research for the NCBI
Contrary to widespread beliefs, most legal immigrants to the United States are not arriving for the first time when they
receive their visa for permanent residence. The large majority have been here before in one guise or
another, following one of six basic pathways to legal immigration: illegal border crossers
(21% of all immigrants), visa abusers (11%), non-resident visitors (15%), non-resident workers
(4%), students and exchange visitors (6%), and refugees/asylees (11%), although the precise
mix varies from country to country and region to region. Together immigrants in these
categories comprise about two-thirds of all new immigrants to the United States, meaning that
only one-third are really new arrivals at the point they receive their green card.

Any temporary residents do not fall under the category of legal immigration
(Office of the Chief Actuary Social Security Administration, 05-31-13,, “THE
FOR THE 2013 TRUSTEES REPORT”, date accessed: 07-10-18, MZP)
3.2 Legal Immigration The term legal immigration refers to persons lawfully admitted for permanent residence
in the United States. These individuals are referred to as legal permanent residents (LPRs). Many
individuals are admitted to the country legally but on a temporary basis. These individuals are included as
other immigrants and are discussed in the following sections of this paper.

Foreign nationals with temporary stays in the U.S. are

USCIS, no date
(USCIS no date, "Glossary," USCIS,, date
accessed: 07-11-18)
Nonimmigrant A foreign national who is admitted to the United States for a specific temporary period of time. There are clear
conditions on their stay. There are a large variety of nonimmigrant categories, and each exists for a specific purpose and has specific
terms and conditions. Nonimmigrant classifications include: Foreign government officials; Visitors for business and for pleasure;
Foreign nationals in transit through the United States; Treaty traders and investors; Students; International representatives;
Temporary workers and trainees; Representatives of foreign information media; Exchange visitors; Fiancé(e)s of U.S. citizens;
Intracompany transferees; NATO officials; and Religious workers. Most nonimmigrants can be accompanied or joined by spouses and
unmarried minor (or dependent) children.
No Asylum

Seeking asylum is unauthorized, not legal, immigration

Hamlin 14 (Rebecca Hamlin, Oxford Scholarship Online, Assistant Professor of Legal Studies, PhD, Political Science & MA,
Political Science, University of California, Berkeley; BA, University of Chicago,
Despite major differences in how refugee claims are processed after asylum seekers reach the United States, Canada,
and Australia, policies governing asylum seekers’ access to receiving states have converged with one another in multiple
important ways during the past few decades. Contemporary policymakers in all three states have reconceptualized and
recategorized asylum seekers as unauthorized migrants, introducing successively more elaborate and creative
techniques for restricting access to their territories. In each country, a regime of deterrence has taken shape, the origins of which
predate the renewed emphasis on border control and national security that was sparked by the terrorist attacks on the United
States in September 2001. Those events only served to fuel the worldwide trend toward restriction that had already arisen. The
result of this regime of deterrence is that asylum
policy has been subsumed under national security concerns and
the prevention of illegal migration. In all three countries, asylum seekers have been conceptually
separated from refugees and thus have lost their insulation from the domestic politics of immigration control.

Legal immigrants are different from people who adjust their status and asylees
Yakushko ‘09
(Oksana Yakushko, 2009, “Xenophobia: Understanding the Roots and Consequences of Negative
Attitudes toward Immigrants”, University of Nebraska- Lincoln,,
date accessed: 07-14-18, MZP)
Legal immigration refers to the process by which noncitizens are granted legal permanent residence or a
“green card” by the federal government of the United States. Legal permanent residence includes the
right to remain in the country indefinitely, to be gainfully employed, and to seek the benefits of U.S.
citizenship through naturalization, although it does not include the right to vote (Mulder et al., 2001). A
distinction is made between legal immigrants who are new arrivees to the United States versus those who
are termed adjustees (i.e., their immigrant status was adjusted while they were in the United States) or
asylees (i.e., those Xe n o p h o b i a: Ro o t s a n d Co n s e q u e nce s 39 who claimed that it was
impossible for them to return to their native countries because of wars or political persecution) (Perry,
Vandervate, Auman, & Morris, 2001). One of the most common ways of receiving legal status in the
United States is through family-sponsored immigrant visas, which are granted to individuals who seek to
become citizens or residents of the United States through family connections to U.S. citizens or legal
residents (Mulder et al., 2001). Besides having a family member sponsor, another avenue for immigration
is commonly referred to as the “brain drain” method (Simon, 2001). U.S. immigration policies allow for
legal immigrant status to be granted to those who are deemed to be “persons of extraordinary ability” or
to those who have advanced training or skills in occupations that are important for the U.S. labor market
(e.g., engineers, nurses). Companies or agencies can sponsor such individuals in gaining legal immigrant
status. In 2002, approximately 175,000 out of 362,000 permanent resident documents were granted for
“employment-based” reasons (U.S. Census Bureau, 2005). One of the more recent developments in U.S.
immigration policy was designed to create more equal opportunities for individuals of various countries to
legally emigrate to the United States. Each year, the Diversity Lottery Program makes 55,000 immigrant
visas available for a fee to people who come from countries with low rates of immigration to the United
States (U.S. Department of Justice, 2002).
No U Visas

U Visas only grant nonimmigrant status

USCIS18 (The USCIS Legal Resources section provides information on laws, regulations
and other authorities, including interpretations and policies that USCIS and other
immigration-related components of the Department of Homeland Security follow. Green Card
for a Victim of a Crime (U Nonimmigrant)| January 30, 2018

T nonimmigrant status is a temporary immigration benefit that enables certain victims of a

severe form of human trafficking to remain in the United States for up to 4 years if they have
assisted law enforcement in an investigation or prosecution of human trafficking. T
nonimmigrant status is also available for certain qualifying family members of trafficking
victims. T nonimmigrants are eligible for employment authorization and certain federal and
state benefits and services. T nonimmigrants who qualify may also be able to adjust their
status and become lawful permanent residents (obtain a Green Card).
No T Visas

T Visas only grant nonimmigrant status

USCIS18 (The USCIS Legal Resources section provides information on laws, regulations
and other authorities, including interpretations and policies that USCIS and other
immigration-related components of the Department of Homeland Security follow. Green Card
for a Victim of a Crime (U Nonimmigrant)| January 30, 2018

T nonimmigrant status is a temporary immigration benefit that enables certain victims of a

severe form of human trafficking to remain in the United States for up to 4 years if they have
assisted law enforcement in an investigation or prosecution of human trafficking. T
nonimmigrant status is also available for certain qualifying family members of trafficking
victims. T nonimmigrants are eligible for employment authorization and certain federal and
state benefits and services. T nonimmigrants who qualify may also be able to adjust their
status and become lawful permanent residents (obtain a Green Card).
No Enforcement
Enforcement is distinct from restriction
Hankin and Sandman 09 (Stephen Hankin Education: Dickinson College (B.A., 1966); Washington College of
Law of American University, graduated as salutatorian (J.D., 1969) as the recipient of the American Jurisprudence Award for
Constitutional Law and Distinguished Achievement by International Academy of Trial Lawyers; Admitted to the Bar, New
Jersey (1969); United States District Court, District of New Jersey (1969); United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals (1993);
United States District Court, District of Columbia (1971); United States Supreme Court (1979); Member, American, New Jersey
and Atlantic County Bar Associations. Starting in 1969, Mr. Hankin's career has been as varied as it has been lengthy and has
included trial co-counseling with famed F. Lee Bailey and trials in Florida and North Carolina.)
Deed restrictions embrace a variety of controls such as permissible uses, aesthetics, density limitations, setback and other bulk
restrictions. Attorneys typically are confronted with such covenants when representing a disgruntled neighbor threatening
to seek or avoid enforcement. A burdened property owner may wish to test the enforceability of a covenant even when
there is no dispute. Generally, New Jersey courts will not hesitate to enforce deed restrictions even when, as a
result, structures must be removed. Blaine vs Ritger, 211 N.J. Super. 644 (App. Div.), certif. den., 105 N.J. 546 (1986) (beachfront
home ordered removed over contention of laches). However,
since a deed restriction constitutes an
agreement, grounds may be available to preclude enforcement. Weinstein vs Swartz, 3 N.J. 80 (1950). Of
course, like any claim or affirmative defense, the burden of proof rests upon the party asserting it. Italian Fisherman, Inc. vs
Commerce Union Assur. Co., 215 N.J. Super. 278, 283 (App. Div. 1987). This Article briefly touches upon
various grounds
which practitioners should explore when faced with the need to prevent the enforcement of
a deed restriction.

Enforcement verifies compliance with restrictions – it is not a restriction

ECHA no date (The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) is the driving force among regulatory authorities in
implementing the EU's groundbreaking chemicals legislation for the benefit of human health and the environment as well as
for innovation and competitiveness.)
What is enforcement?
Enforcement of REACH and CLP means, generally, a range of actions that national authorities
initiate to verify the compliance of the duty holders with REACH and CLP Regulations. For
example, this includes checking whether the substance has been registered or pre-registered or
verifying the presence and correctness of the Safety Data Sheets.

Enforcement of a rule is different from the rule itself

Black’s Law Dictionary No Date (Black's Law is the most widely used law dictionary in the United States.
It was founded by Henry Campbell Black. It is the reference of choice for terms in legal briefs and court opinions and has been
cited as a secondary legal authority in many U.S. Supreme Court cases.)
Making sure a rule or standard or court order or policy is properly followed.
Only Entry
Immigration is the act of entering a country- banning citizenship is not a
restriction on legal immigration since they’ve already immigrated
Isadore ’07
(Eric L’Heureux Isadore, 2007, “Is Immigration Still Exclusionary a Federal Power - A Preemption
Analysis on Legislation by Hazelton”, Villanova Law Review,, date
accessed: 07-14-18, MZP)
An immigrant is defined as "A person who arrives in a country to settle there permanently." BLACK'S LAw DICTIONARY 765 (8th ed.
2004). Immigration is defined as "[t]he act of entering a country with the intention of settling there permanently." Id.;
see also De Canas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351, 355 (1976) (defining regulation of immigration as determination of who is permitted to be
admitted into United States and whether or not person is permitted to remain).
T – “Restrictions”
1NC – Only Quota

A) Interpretation – Restrictions are limits on the rate of legal entry – everything

else is regulation
Micallef 2013 – René Mario Micallef is a Pontifical Gregorian University, Department of Moral
Theology (Gates Fair on All Sides: Christian Reflections on Establishing Ethical and Sustainable
Border Policies and Citizenship Laws in a "Globalised" World, Boston College Electronic Thesis or
Dissertation, 2013) bhb What Does “Regulation” Mean?
To be sure, the documents also speak of “regulating migration”62. It is important to understand what CST means by this expression.
On the local level, “regulating
migration” means designing generous and realistic laws which allow
people to enter one´s country in an orderly and legal manner so as to avoid discrimination, employment
in the informal economy and the concentration of immigrants in poor and crime-prone ghetto neighbourhoods. On the international
level, which is deemed the most appropriate level for regulating asylum and migration, this means establishing fair and reasonable
agreements among sending, transit and receiving countries to ensure that the rights of migrants are respected, and that migrants do
not have to resort to illegal channels and traffickers to enter countries which can support them and need their labour.
More generally, international “regulation” in CST means signing and ratifying without undue geographical restrictions documents
like: (1) the Refugee Convention (1951) and the Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (1967); (2) international agreements
which offer subsidiary protection to forced migrants not considered refugees by (1); (3) the covenants associated with the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (1948); (4) The International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and
Members of Their Families (1990). For example, several documents insist that receiving countries should urgently ratify the latter
convention (cf. EM 6, M2007, USMX-SNL 77 and Caritas Europa et al. (2006b)) but no migrant-receiving state in Western Europe or
North America has done so until now, nor have other important receiving countries, such as Australia, the Arab states of the Persian
Gulf, India and South Africa. “Regulation”, in this sense, is
not the same as “restriction”, which is often a
knee-jerk reaction to rates of immigration perceived as excessive ; restriction is often disproportionate and
forces many immigrants, needed by the economy, into precisely those shady situations that proper regulation seeks to avoid63.
*****INSERT FOOTNOTE***** 63 Exsul Familia says that “there would be very great benefits from international regulations in
favour of emigration and immigration” (§111 in Baggio and Pettenà 2009), referring to an address given in Rome by Pius XII on the
2nd July 1951 to the members of an International Catholic Congress for the Improvement of Rural Living Conditions. The accent here
is on regulations in favour of migrants, not in favour of states or receiving communities; Pius XII was inviting the international
community to deal effectively with the problem of statelessness and to ensure that the human rights of migrants are respected. To
appreciate this, we should remember that the Refugee Convention was adopted that same month on the 28th July, and that the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights had been adopted a year and a half before, on the 10th December, 1948. Neither does
Vatican II take a position in favour of the right of states to restrict immigration. Although EM 21 states that “the Council recognized
the right of the public authorities, in a particular context, to regulate the flow of migration (cf. GS 87)”, this statement could be
misleading. The “particular context” was the movement of country dwellers to the cities in the same country, transitum ruricolarum
ad urbes; the text in Latin makes no reference to (cross-border) migration or sovereignty. The other
major Church
documents on migration before the papacy of John Paul II, namely De Pastorali Migratorum Cura (1969) and The Church and
Human Mobility (1978, May) do not speak of “regulation” of migration in terms of restriction, or the
closing of borders. *****END FOOTNOTE***** If we were to reduce this to a slogan, we would say that the Catholics have
been crying, at least since the 1950s: “No to unilateral restriction! Yes to multilateral regulation!” That cry has not changed, but has
become muffled in more recent Church documents, while, ironically, more and more experts and reports are adopting precisely this
position, and implying that what Pius XII was saying 60 years ago was not only morally right, but also politically prudent to maintain
the rule of law and sustain economic growth64. *****INSERT FOOTNOTE***** 64 Current authors use the term “management”
instead of regulation, given that “regulation” tends to be confused with restriction. For instance, John Salt´s
(2005, 41) Report to the Council of Europe concludes as follows: “First, management rather than control is now the name of the
game. There is a recognition by individual states and by intergovernmental organisations that international migration cannot be
controlled, in the sense that countries can turn the taps of movement on or off at their borders. In reality they were never able to do
that anyway. Second, there is an acceptance that migration is generally a positive phenomenon and that the prime purpose of
management is to ensure an all-round positive outcome. Third, migration management strategies require a comprehensive
approach that takes in the complete spectrum of movement and deals with both legal and illegal moves. […] Fourth, countries can
no longer act alone. Cooperation is vital, both with European neighbours and with countries further afield.” *****END
Restrictive “migration reduction” policies, such as those introduced by the US in the 1920s on the
basis of the “findings” of the Dillingham Commission65, have been very harshly criticized by the Catholic Church. Pius XII, in his 1952
Christmas Address (AAS 45 [1953]: 41-24), attacks the “nude calculus” — at the time mostly based on Malthusian arguments — that
gives rise to the policies which wealthy nations use to shut the door in the face of people who
have a right (and duty) to migrate66. Pope Pius considers immigration restriction akin to state-imposed birth
control. He claims that recipient countries often go as far as “mechanizing consciences” by manipulating public opinion so that “the
natural right of the individual to be unhampered in immigration or emigration is not recognised or, in practice, is nullified under the
pretext of a common good which is falsely understood or falsely applied, but sanctioned and made mandatory by
legislative or administrative measures” (ibid.).

B) Violation – the plan doesn’t address numerical limitations

C) Explodes limits and destroys neg ground – admissibility and beneficiary
eligibility create thousands of additional possible cases. Best core neg generics
designed to test the necessity of increasing the overall amount of new

D) T is a voting issue – tells the neg what they should and shouldn’t have to be
prepared to debate
1NC – Quota + Admissibility

A) Interpretation – Only quotas and admissibility requirements are

Tasoff 2016 – Certified Specialist in Immigration Law (“Immigration Law After Trump”
Quantitative and Qualitative Restrictions on Legal Immigration There are two barriers stopping
the masses from legally immigrating to the U.S. First there are quantitative restrictions, quotas,
which limit the number of people who can come to the U.S. in any one category of eligibility or from a specific country. Second,
there are qualitative restrictions – people that Congress has determined should not be
allowed to live here due to a myriad of reasons ranging from criminal convictions and health issues to
membership in terrorist organizations. Although there are waivers for some grounds, most require a showing of extreme hardship to
a close U.S. citizen or LPR relative.

B) Violation – the plan doesn’t address numerical limitations or admissibility

C) Explodes limits and destroys neg ground – beneficiary eligibility creates

hundreds of additional possible cases. Best core neg generics designed to test
the quantitative and qualitative restrictions.
D) T is a voting issue – tells the neg what they should and shouldn’t have to be
prepared to debate
2NC – Restrictions Distinct From Regulations
Restriction is distinct from regulation
Hamer 85 Thomas Hamer Prof at Stockholm University, Center for Research in International Migration and Ethnicity,
European Immigration Policy: A Comparative Study, p.p. 7-8
Regulation of immigration is the oldest, the most obvious, and according to some people the only aspect of immigration
policy. Immigration regulation refers to the rules and procedures governing the selection and
admission of foreign citizens. It also includes such regulations which control foreign citizens (aliens) once
they visit or take residence in the receiving country, including control of their employment.
Deportation also falls under these regulations. Employers may be allowed to recruit foreign
labor on their own, or labor transfer agreements may be entered into by the state and official information and
recruitment bureaux be opened abroad. All this, of course, is a part of immigration regulation and must be
included along with measures taken to restrict immigration or to stop it completely. The free movements
of peoples, such as occur in the common labor markets of the EEC and Nordic areas, are also an aspect of immigration regulation;
even though in these two cases policymakers have decided that certain kinds of immigration should not be regulated.

Restrict means to restrain, which is different from dictating a policy

Wikidiff18 (Restrict vs Regulate - What's the difference?| July 14, 2018
Restrict is a related term of regulate. As verbs the difference between restrict and regulate is
that restrict is to restrain within bounds; to limit; to confine; as, to restrict worlds to a particular
meaning; to restrict a patient to a certain diet while regulate is to dictate policy.
Restrict – Confine Within Limits

Restriction is to confine within limits

Chambers Dictionary no date (The Chambers Dictionary is an etymological widely-used dictionary)
restrict re-strikt, vt to limit; to confine within limits; to limit circulation or disclosure of for security reasons. –
adj restrict’ed – adv restrict’edly. – nrestric’tion.

Quotas against specific groups are restrictions

Kumerow 14 Alexandra L. Kummerow MA Rochester Institute of Technology Department of School
PsychologyKummerow, Alexandra L., "Immigration Restriction Then, Immigration Restriction Now; The Politics of IQ" (2014). Thesis.
Rochester Institute of Technology.
In 1920 The Emergency Quota Act was put into place and reduced the number of immigrants entering the United States
from over 800,000 individuals to approximately 300,000 individuals by enforcing the use of quotas. The quota was set at 3% of the
number of residents from that same country already living in the United States (Emergency Quota Act, 1921 United States
Government). This act greatly reduced
the number of non- northern European immigrants and led to
further legal revisions of the quota system. Furthermore it greatly reduced the number of
persons entering the country who were physically or mentally disabled (Boody, 1926). The
Immigration Act of 1924 was put into place and more strictly limited the number of immigrants that moved to the United States to
2% of the population already living in the country for the next three years. Therefore, further restrictions of
Southern and Eastern Europeans were implemented. Immigrants from Western Europe fell roughly 19%
while immigration from Italy fell 90%. Total number of immigrants at this time went from 300,000 to approximately 150,000 people.
The percentage formula was to be set in place for three years, and after that amount of time would reduce immigration to a mere
150,000 people total (Immigration Act, 1924). Preferences were given to people who had relatives living in the states and could
document a “sponsor.” This ensured that non-English speaking people coming to the United States would have a place to go, as well
a support system to make sure they learned the national language and found jobs. Preferences were implemented for unmarried
children, parents and spouses of United States residents as well as immigrants who were 21 years old and had specific skills. The
1924 act also implemented the use of visas issued by the national immigration department and mandated that no alien should be
permitted to enter the country without one. Mainly, this
act controlled “undesirable” immigration by
establishing a quota system and banning specific origins such as Japan, China, France,
Korea, India, Burma and Indochina. People from these countries were not eligible for naturalization and the act
forbade further immigration of any persons ineligible to be naturalized. Favored countries included Germany, Britain and Ireland, as
they had the highest quotas. Quotas
were also determined for each specific class of physical or
mental defect (Boody, 1926). There were 9 classes of restricted people, which included: insane, criminal, feebleminded,
dependent, epileptic, deaf, blind, deformed or those with Tuberculosis (Boody, 1926 pg. 36). Quotas from the 1924 act remained in
place with few alterations until the Immigration Nationality Act of 1965 was implemented.

Quotas are considered restrictions on entry to a country

Dawson, ‘12
(Laura Ritchie Dawson, 05-24-12,
2435.2012.00739.x, “Labour Mobility and the WTO: The Limits of GATS Mode 4”, date accessed:
07-10-18, MZP)
A number of other barriers also impede Mode 4 access, particularly for developing countries seeking access for lower‐skilled
workers (Mwai, 2004). These include: 1 Economic needs tests (ENTs), meaning that entry is conditional on local job vacancies. 2
Quotas and other quantitative restrictions on entry. 3 Nationality, residence or establishment requirements in the
host country. 4 Barriers to professional certification in the host country.

Immigration Restrictions include caps on certain groups

Digital History 2016 (Digital History is a program from the University of Houston)
Gradually during the late 19th and early 20th century, the
United States imposed additional restrictions
on immigration. In 1882, excluded people were likely to become public charges. It subsequently prohibited
the immigration of contract laborers (1885) and illiterates (1917), and all Asian
immigrants (except for Filipinos, who were U.S. nationals) (1917). Other acts restricted the
entry of certain criminals, people who were considered immoral, those suffering from certain diseases, and paupers. Under the
Gentlemen's Agreement of 1907-1908, the Japanese government agreed to limit passports issued to Japanese in order to permit
wives to enter the United States; and in 1917, the United States barred all Asian immigrants except for Filipinos, who were U.S.
nationals. Intolerance
toward immigrants from southern and eastern Europe resulted in
the Immigration Act of 1924, which placed a numerical cap on immigration and
instituted a deliberately discriminatory system of national quotas. In 1965, the United States
adopted a new immigration law which ended the quota system.

Immigration Restriction includes quotas

Pew 15 (9/28/15, Pew Research Center Study on Immigration Law)
Fifty years ago, the U.S. enacted a sweeping immigration law, the Immigration and Nationality Act, which replaced longstanding
national origin quotas that favored Northern Europe with a new system allocating more visas to people from other countries around
the world and giving increased priority to close relatives of U.S. residents. Just prior to passage of the 1965 law, residents
only three countries—Ireland, Germany and the United Kingdom—were entitled to
nearly 70% of the quota visas available to enter the U.S. (U.S. Department of Justice, 1965).4 Today,
immigration to the U.S. is dominated by people born in Asia and Latin America, with immigrants from all of Europe accounting for
only 10% of recent arrivals. The
1965 law undid national origin quotas enacted in the 1920s,
which were written into laws that imposed the first numerical limits on
immigration. Those laws were the culmination of steadily tightening federal
restrictions on immigration that began in the late 1800s with prohibitions or
restrictions on certain types of immigrants, such as convicts, in addition to a ban on Chinese migrants and
later virtually all Asian migrants.
Restrictions include admissibility requirements
Ngai 03 (Mae Ngai, Law and History Review, Vol. 21, No. 1 (Spring, 2003), pp. 69-107 Published by: American Society for Legal
History Stable URL:
In 1875 Congress legislated the first federalrestrictions on entry when it banned persons
convicted of "crimes involving moral turpitude" and prostitutes (a provision aimed at barring
Chinese women from entry). During the 1880s the number of excludable classes grew to comprise the
mentally retarded, contract laborers, persons with "dangerous and loath- some
contagious disease," paupers, polygamists, and the "feebleminded" and "insane," as
well as Chinese laborers. The litany of excludable classes articulated concern over the admission of real and potential
public charg- es as well as late nineteenth-century beliefs, derived from Social Darwin- ism and criminal anthropology, that the
national body had to be protected from the contaminants of social degeneracy.6
Legal Immigration
C/I – Nonimmigrant/Refugee/Asylum

Legal Immigration includes LPRs, nonimmigrant status, refugees,

asylees, and parole status
Office of the Federal Register National Archives and Records Administration,
(OFRNARA, 01-01-
e&q&f=false, “Code of Federal Regulations: 1985-1999”, date accessed: 07-10-18, MZP)
(c) Definitions-(1) Legal Immigration Status. For purposes of section 245(c)(2) of the Act, the term "legal immigration
status" is limited to individuals who are: (i) In lawful permanent resident status; (ii) Admitted in
nonimmigrant status as defined in section 101(a)(15) of the Act, or whose nonimmigrant status has been
extended in accordance with Part 214 of this chapter; (iii) In refugee status under section 207 of the Act, such status
not having been revoked; (iv) In asylee status under section 208 of the Act, such status not having been revoked;
or (v) In parole status which has not expired.
Nonimmigrant Visas
Temporary Visas are part of legal immigration and lead to permanent
Krikorian 01 (3/1/01, Mark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies)
Temporary Immigration A consideration of legal immigration policy must also include
"nonimmigrant," or temporary, visas, since they are the source of much of permanent
immigration (in 1998, about half of the green card recipients were already living in the
United States). In FY 1996, 25 million non-immigrants were admitted. Though most went home (19 million came as tourists,
3.8 million as business travelers), hundreds of thousands of people use nonimmigrant visas as a
prelude to permanent immigration, even though they formally affirm to our visa officers that they have no such
intent. The main types of temporary visas that lead to permanent immigration are F
visas (students who, together with their families, numbered about 460,000 in FY 1996), H visas (temporary workers and
trainees: 280,000), and J visas (exchange visitors: 256,000). To end the practice of using temporary visas for permanent
immigration, long-term nonimmigrant visas (good for more than six months) should be made available only to those countries
whose nationals do not adjust from temporary visitor to permanent immigrant. This would be modeled on the Visa-Waiver Pilot
Program, which allows short-term visa-entry to people from countries whose nationals do not end up overstaying their visas and
becoming illegal immigrants.

Legal Immigration includes both permanent and temporary

residents of the U.S.
Wasem ‘12
Ruth Ellen Wasem, 01-12-12, “Overview of Immigration Issues in the
112th Congress”, Federation of American Scientists, , date accessed: 07-12-18)
Legal Immigration The scope of legal immigration includes permanent admissions (e.g., employment-based, familybased
immigrants) and temporary admissions (e.g., guest workers, foreign students). There are some foreign nationals admitted
temporarily in a conditional status who may be on a path to permanent residence. The challenge inherent in reforming the system
of legal immigration is balancing the hopes of employers to increase the supply of legally present foreign workers, the longings of
families to re-unite and live together, and a widely shared wish among the various stakeholders to improve the policies governing
legal immigration into the country.
Asylum is LPR

Asylum status is LPR

Rivera, ’18
( Jose Rivera 18, 7-5-2018, "What Is Legal Immigration?," Legal Match Law Dictionary,, date accessed: 07-11-
What Is Legal Immigration? Legal immigration refers to instances where a non-citizen alien is in the country
legally under permanent resident status (i.e. green card holder). Permanent resident status may be granted to certain
classes of aliens and is considered a main step towards permanent U.S. citizenship. Most green card holders start off with a more
temporary visa, then have their residency status changed after being in the country for some time. How Can a Person Become a
Legal Immigrant? Permanent resident status may be granted in a number of ways. There are several avenues for obtaining
lawful permanent resident status (LPR status), including: Family-based visas Employment visas Fiancé or
marriage-based avenues Asylum and Refugee status Various other humanitarian programs There are various
requirements that must be met when applying for these types of visas and immigration avenues. The person must also maintain
other requirements over time, such as good conduct and ongoing employment with the sponsoring company (for employment
C/I Legal Barriers

Restrictions are limits on a law

Law.Com, no date
(, no date,,
“restriction” , date accessed: 07-12-18, MZP)
restriction n. any limitation on activity, by statute, regulation or contract provision. In multi-unit real
estate developments, condominium and cooperative housing projects managed by homeowners'
associations or similar organizations, such organizations are usually required by state law to impose
restrictions on use. Thus, the restrictions are part of the "covenants, conditions and restrictions" intended
to enhance the use of common facilities and property which are recorded and incorporated into the title
of each owner.

A restriction is a limitation or rule that can’t be broken

Black’s Law Dictionary No Date (Black's Law is the most widely used law dictionary in the United States.
It was founded by Henry Campbell Black. It is the reference of choice for terms in legal briefs and court opinions and has been
cited as a secondary legal authority in many U.S. Supreme Court cases.)
Any limitations that cannot be exceeded and rules that can’t be broken unless in the case of an
W/M – Illegal Status

Illegality is a restriction
Ngai 03 (Mae Ngai, Law and History Review, Vol. 21, No. 1 (Spring, 2003), pp. 69-107 Published by: American Society for Legal
History Stable URL:
This shift in the principal categories of deportation
engendered new ways of thinking about illegal
immigration. First, legal and illegal status became, in effect, abstract constructions, having less to
do with experience than with numbers and paper. Legal status now rested on being in the right place in the queue-if a country has a
quota of N, immigrant N is legal but immi- grant N+1 is illegal20-and having the proper documentation, the prized "proper visa."
These were not absolute, of course, as preference catego- ries privileged certain family relations and qualitative indices for exclusion
remained in force. However, the qualitative aspects of admission were ren- dered less visible as they were absorbed by the visa
application process, which after 1924 took place at United States consular offices abroad. In addition to overseeing the distribution
of quota slots, U.S. consuls deter- mined the desirability of both quota and non-quota prospective migrants according to the
submission of a "dossier," questionnaire and interview, and medical certification.21 In 1924 the Immigration Service terminated
med- ical line inspection at Ellis Island because medical exclusions were deter- mined abroad. Thus, upon arrival, immigrants' visas
were inspected, not their bodies. The system shifted to a different, more abstract register, which privileged formal status over all
else. It is this system that created what we today call the "undocumented immigrant." Theillegal alien that is
abstractly defined is thus something of a spec- ter, a body stripped of individual personage,
whose very presence is trou- bling, wrong. Moreover, this body stripped of personage has
no rights. It is no coincidence that the regime of immigration restriction emerged with
World War I. The war, by simultaneously destroying the geopolitical sta- bility of Europe
and solidifying the nation-state system, also created mil- lions of refugees and stateless
persons, as well as denationalized and de- naturalized persons during the postwar period.22 Recalling Hannah Arendt,
philosopher Giorgio Agamben tells us, "In the system of the nation-state, the so-called sacred and inalienable rights of man show
themselves to lack every protection and reality at the moment in which they can no longer take the form of rights belonging to
citizens of a state." Certainly the illegal alien appears in the same historical moment and in the same juridical no-man's- land that
was created when the war loosened the links between birth and nation, human being and citizen
W/M – Medical Status

Restrictions include medical requirements

FAIR No Date (Fair is the Federation for American Immigration Reform)
Restrictions for medical and moral conditions Added to the exclusion list were illiterates,
persons of psychopathic inferiority, men as well as women entering for immoral
purposes, alcoholics, stowaways, and vagrants. A bill increased the head tax on immigrants, and added
people with physical or mental defects or tuberculosis and children unaccompanied
by parents to the exclusion list. Japanese immigration became restricted
Reduce means to lower something, not to end it
Wiktionary No Date
As verbs the difference between reduce and eliminate is that reduce is to bring down
the size, quantity, quality, value or intensity of something; to diminish, to lower, to
impair while eliminate is
to completely destroy (something) so that it no longer exists

Elimination is a form of reduction

Morton 12 (BA Melbourne University, Workshop on management)
58. The term “reduce” includes eliminate i.e. someone can reduce some-thing to