Anda di halaman 1dari 524

**Topicality Things

Core of the Topic – Brain Drain
Brain drain is central to debates about immigration
Sabharwal 13 (Meghna Sabharwal, Public affairs school of economic political and policy sciences the university of Texas at Dallas, 23 Sep
2013, Introduction: Immigration and Its Impact on Human Capital Development, Pages 293-296 ,

All papers in this special issue showcase the importance of institutional policies and government priorities
towards immigration. More importantly, all the papers tackle the vital issue of human capital
development within the migration debate. Even as scholarship on immigration grows, studies in the field
are mostly implanted in the economics debate; political and bureaucratic structures and their impact on
immigration policies are less discussed. Furthermore, comparative work that showcases the convergence
and divergence in immigration policies across various nations remains restrictive. The articles all deal with
immigration and its impacts on human capital development both for the sending and receiving countries
in a comparative context covering six of the seven continents (Asia, South America, North America,
Europe, Australia and Africa). In a global world, immigration clearly emerges as an area of interest to
governments and policy makers alike as they strive to meet their human capital needs.
2AC - Regulations
Regulations CAN be substantial restrictions especially in the age of Trump
O'Brien 18 – Quoting Todd Schulte, president of, an immigration reform group launched by
tech leaders, Sara O’Brain is a writer covering tech culture and startups for CNN Tech. She frequently
writes about topics including online harassment, H-1B visas, and technology's role in alleviating or
exacerbating social issues.(7-17-2018, "Visa policy change will make it easier for Trump administration
to deny applications," CNN=#fakenews)
changes/index.html //pleb

"It is the newest in a series of moves by the administration to substantially restrict legal
immigration by making it more difficult, expensive and bureaucratic for the applicants while allowing
the government to easily deny claims for people who should be coming here -- or who are here and
stuck in a broken visa system -- and strengthening our country," Schulte told CNN.

Regulations are substantial restrictions

Sternberg 4 -- Mark R. von Sternberg is Senior Attorney at Catholic Legal immigration Network, Inc./Catholic
Charities Archdiocese of New York, where he concentrates on litigation before the Immigration Courts and the
Board of Immigration Appeals. Since January 1999, Mr. von Sternberg has served as an adjunct faculty member at
Pace University School of Law where he teaches general immigration and comparative refugee law. Since August
2003, Mr. von Sternberg has also been an adjunct professor at St. John's University Law School where he co-
teaches an immigration rights clinic. Mr. von Sternberg received a J.D. degree from Vanderbilt University School of
Law in 1973 and an LL.M. degree (in international legal studies) from New York University School of Law in 1984.
Mr. von Sternberg has lectured in law schools and at professional associations regarding immigration matters and
has written extensively, particularly in the areas of refugee law, international humanitarian law, and human rights.
In 2002, he received the AILA Pro Bono Award., (--2004, "Immigration and Nationality Law"38 Int'L Law. 415, Lexis)

In place of NSEERS, the United States has begun formulating the United States Visitor and Immigrant
Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) program, which was announced by the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) Secretary Tom Ridge in April 2003. 6Link to the text of the note US-VISIT entails the
collection of vital information, including biographic details and data concerning criminal, immigration,
and security-related matters, of non-citizens seeking admission to the United States. Correspondingly,
the Department of State has adopted regulations which substantially restrict the conditions upon which
non-immigrants may have a personal consular interview waived prior to admission to the United States.
The new regulations are expected to engender substantial delays. New regulations were also adopted in
2003 to clarify the distribution of responsibilities among the federal agencies charged under the
Homeland Security Act with administering U.S. immigration laws.
2AC - Caps
Numerical caps are a substantial restriction
Goring 2k -- Darlene C. Goring, Assistant Professor of Law, University of Kentucky College of Law.
B.B.A., Howard University; J.D. and LL.M., Northwestern University School of Law., (--2000, "In Service
To America: Naturalization Of Undocumented Alien Veterans, "31 Seton Hall L. Rev. 400, Lexis) //pleb

The INA also provides additional preference categories for aliens seeking to immigrate who do not
qualify as immediate relatives. See INA 201(a), 8 U.S.C. 1151(a) (1994). There are, however, numerical
limits imposed on these categories that substantially restrict the number of immigration visas
allocated annually to qualified immigrants. Depending on the country of origin, such limited allocations
result in lengthy waiting periods before immigration visas become available. The numerical visa
limitations found in INA 201(a) apply to three visa preference categories: family-sponsored immigrants,
employment-based immigrants, and diversity immigrants. The maximum annual allocation of visas for
these categories is 491,900, world-wide family sponsored preference limit is 226,000; world-wide
employment-based preference limit is at least 140,000, and the world-wide limit for diversity preference
limit is 55,000. Bureau of Consular Affairs, U.S. Dep't of State, Visa Bulletin: Immigration Numbers for
Nov. 2000, available at bulletin.html (last visited Nov. 6, 2000).
2AC – 17%
Substantially is an increase of at least 17%
Gelatt and Meyers (Julia Gelatt, Deborah W. Meyers, "Legal Immigration to United States Increased
Substantially in FY 2005", The Migration Policy Institute is an independent, nonpartisan, and nonprofit
think tank dedicated to the study of the movement of people worldwide. The institute provides analysis,
development, and evaluation of migration and refugee policies at the local, national, and international
levels, xx-xx-xxxx, accessed 7-25-2018,
united-states-increased-substantially-fy-2005 (download)) //AL

Legal Immigration to United States Increased Substantially in FY 2005 New data released by the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) show that in Fiscal Year (FY) 2005: ƒ Lawful permanent
immigration grew by 17 percent from FY 2004. ƒ The number of people who adjusted their status to
lawful permanent residence increased 26 percent, explaining much of the overall growth. ƒ The level of
newly arriving lawful permanent residents remained relatively steady. ƒ Refugee admissions rose slightly
from FY 2004, but remained below pre-9/11 levels. ƒ The level of temporary visitors rebounded to near
pre-9/11 levels. ƒ Naturalizations increased by almost 13 percent from FY 2004.
2AC - Empirics
The Quota Law of 1921 is the first substantial restriction – excludes anything empiric
before 1921
South-Western 2004 (South-Western University, "South-Western: Immigration", South-Western
University, 1-12-2004, accessed 7-25-2018,

There were no substantial restrictions on immigration into the U.S. until the passage of the Quota Law
of 1921. This law set quotas on the number of immigrants based upon the country of origin. The Quota
Law primarily restricted immigration from eastern and southern Europe. The Immigration and
Nationality Act Amendments of 1965 (and subsequent amendments) eliminated the country-specific
quota system and instead established a limit on the maximum number of immigrants allowed into the
U.S. Under this Act, preferential treatment is given to those who immigrate for the purpose of family
reunification. Those possessing exceptional skills are also given priority. No limit, however, is placed
upon the number of political refugees allowed to immigrate to the U.S. (The definition of a political
refugee, however, is narrowly defined and has sometimes been quite controversial.)
1NC – Congress
Restrictions must be actions from Congress – its both the legislative and enforcement
Cardozo 1915 - Benjamin Cardozo, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States,
1915("THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Appellant, v. CLARENCE A. CRANE, Respondent,” 108
N.E. 427 Court of Appeals of the State of New York, 2-25-1915, Available Online from

The legislative power of the people of the state is plenary except as they have abridged it by the State
Constitution or consented to its restriction by the Federal Constitution. That power is vested in the
legislature. The statute under consideration is valid unless it transcends the constitutional restrictions
already quoted; if it overpassed them it was and is as inoperative and impotent, as to persons lawfully
assailing it, as if non-existent. Whether it did or did not is to be determined upon the general object or
purpose sought therein by the legislature and its efficiency to effect it. The purpose of a statute
impugned as unconstitutional must be determined from the natural and legal effect of the language
employed, and whether it is or is not repugnant to constitutional provisions must be determined from
its natural effect when put into operation. ( Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45, 64; Henderson v. Mayor,
etc., of N.Y., 92 U.S. 259, 268.) The statement already made of the intent and the general purpose to be
effected by the statute under consideration need not be repeated.
2NC - Restrictions
Only Congress has the formal authority to restrict immigration
Natelson 10 - Rob Natelson, Independence Institute’s Senior Fellow in Constitutional Jurisprudence,
law professor for 25 years, serving at three different universities, 2010(“Does the Constitution really give
Congress power over immigration?” Independence Institute, 12-17-2010, Available Online from

Article I, Section 8, Clause 10 of the Constitution granted power to Congress to “define and punish . . .
Offences against the Law of Nations.” I decided to dig more deeply into the eighteenth century legal sources to determine whether that might
include authority over immigration. Sure enough, it turns out that during the Founding Era, restrictions over immigration and emigration

comprised a well-recognized branch of the “Law of Nations.” In other words, Congress’s power to “define and punish . . .
Offenses against the Law of Nations” included authority to “define” immigration rules and “punish”
those who violated them. An explanation appears in latest update of my book, The Original Constitution: What It Really Said and Meant . Why is this
constitutional detective story significant? First, clarifies why the constitutional text assumes that after 1808 Congress could

regulate “Migration” from foreign lands. Second, it clarifies that Congress cannot use the interstate
commerce power to bar non-commercial travel within the United States. Third, it knocks one of the props out from under
an argument that, however silly, is solemnly advanced by some “liberal” writers – that “commerce” included non-business travel, and therefore that “commerce”
also included nearly all other human relationships. Finally, this story underscores a point I explain for the layperson in The Original Constitution: When the
Constitution is unclear, eighteenth century law offers us valuable trail marks toward the truth.
2NC – Legal Immigration
Legal immigration means entry authorized by statutes
Ramirez 83 – Jesus Ramirez, JD @ University of Texas, 1983("The Simpson-Mazolli Bill: Altering the
Policy of Neglect of Undocumented Immigration from South of the Border," Texas International Law
Journal, 18 Tex. Int'l L. J. 347, Available to Subscribing Institutions via HeinOnline)//BM


14. "Legal immigration" refers to entry pursuant to an immigration visa that is authorized by immigration
statutes and regulation. See generally I.N.A. of 1952, 8 U.S.C. §1181(1976 & Supp. V 1981); 8 C.F.R. §211.1-212.9 (1982); 8 U.S.C. §§1421-
1435, 1444-1449 (1976 & Supp.V 1981); 8 C.F.R. §§334.1-342.9 (1982).
2NC - Reduce
Courts can’t reduce—they rely on congressional members to rule
Hanson and Benforado 6 - Jon D. Hanson, professor at Harvard Law School; and Adam Benforado,
Frank Knox Fellow at Cambridge University, 2006("The Drifters: Why the Supreme Court Makes Justices
More Liberal", Boston Review, 1-2-2006, Available Online from

It would be a mistake to believe that the only situation that influences justices comes from within the
Supreme Court building or individual judges’ limited spheres of interaction. The mechanisms designed to
keep the judiciary independent of the other branches of government are necessarily incomplete, and
there is good evidence that judges frequently interpret laws in ways that align with the particular policy
desires of sitting members of Congress and the current president. This is not surprising given the forces
that Congress and the president can bring to bear on the judiciary—including limiting or even stripping
jurisdiction in certain areas, altering the size of federal courts, and instituting impeachment hearings.
Just as important is the fact that the court cannot implement its orders without the acquiescence and
assistance of other government actors. In addition, lower-court judges may be constrained by pressures
not to be overruled by higher courts or the need to stake out particular positions in order to improve
their chances of promotion within the judiciary.
2NC – Normal Means
Congress has complete authority over immigration policy
Han 16 – Henry Han, professor of immigration law at Cornell University, 2016(“Immigration,” Cornell
Law Review Legal Information Institute, June 2016, Available Online from

Federal immigration law determines whether a person is an alien, the rights, duties, and obligations
associated with being an alien in the United States, and how aliens gain residence or citizenship within
the United States. It also provides the means by which certain aliens can become legally naturalized
citizens with full rights of citizenship. Immigration law serves as a gatekeeper for the nation's border, determining who may enter,
how long they may stay, and when they must leave. Congress has complete authority over immigration. Presidential
power does not extend beyond refugee policy. Except for questions regarding aliens' constitutional
rights, the courts have generally found the immigration issue as nonjusticiable. States have limited
legislative authority regarding immigration, and 28 U.S.C. § 1251 details the full extent of state jurisdiction. Generally, 28 U.S.C.
§ 994 details the federal sentencing guidelines for illegal entry into the country. By controlling the visa process, the federal
government can achieve the goals of its immigration policies. There are two types of visas: immigrant visas and
nonimmigrant visas. The government primarily issues nonimmigrant visas to tourists and temporary business visitors. The government divides
nonimmigrant visas into eighteen different types, but for most types, does not impose a cap on the number that may be granted in a year. Only
a few categories of non-immigrant visas allow their holders to work in the United States.
Immigrant visas, on the other hand,
permit their holders to stay in the United States permanently and eventually to apply for citizenship.
Aliens with immigrant visas can also work in the United States. Congress limits the quantity of immigrant
visas, which numbered 675,000 in 1995 (480,000 family-sponsored immigrants, 140,000 employment-
based preference immigrants, 55,000 diversity visa lottery immigrants). This limit is sometimes referred
to as the "permeable cap," because it is often exceeded due to certain immigration categories that are
not limited. Many immigrant visas remain subject to per-country caps.

Congress is normal means – they have sole authority over immigration policy
Weissbrodt and Danielson 04 - David Weissbrodt, professor of law specializing in Immigration; and Laura Danielson
NATURALIZATION”, Human Rights Library, Available Online at

The plenary and unqualified power of the federal government to regulate immigration, naturalization,
and related foreign policy belongs to Congress. The possible international consequences of decisions in this area have made
the federal judiciary extremely reluctant to substitute its judgment for the legislature's. Justice Jackson articulated the Court's position in
Harisiades v. Shaughnessy (Sup.Ct.1952): "[A]ny policy towards aliens is vitally and intricately interwoven with
contemporaneous policies in regard to the conduct of foreign relations, the war power, and the
maintenance of a republican form of government. Such matters are so exclusively entrusted to the
political branches of government as to be largely immune from judicial inquiry or interference." Subsequent
decisions echo this sentiment. Since the judiciary poses no obstacle, Congress has been historically free to "exclude aliens
altogether or prescribe the terms and conditions upon which they may enter and stay in this country."
Lapina v. Williams (Sup.Ct.1914). For example, Congress exercised its plenary authority in the Illegal Immigration
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (“IIRIRA”) that facilitated the removal of non-citizens. IIRIRA appears
to show that the legislative branch wields the full measure of the federal plenary power over
immigration. In light of two 2001 Supreme Court decisions, some scholars have questioned whether the plenary power may have its limits,
but in each case the Court recognized the potential for legislative plenary power. In Nguyen v. INS (Sup.Ct.2001), the Court upheld INA §
309(a)’s distinction between illegitimate children of U.S. citizen fathers and mothers, but rather than a weak rational basis review, the Court
applied the same intermediate scrutiny standard it would apply for ordinary gender-based classifications. This appears to be a step toward
limiting the plenary power, but the Court noted that it did not need to address the “wide deference accorded to Congress in the exercise of its
immigration and naturalization power” because it held that no equal protection violation had occurred. Similarly in Zadvydas v. Davis
(Sup.Ct.2001), the Court held that a reasonable time limitation on post-removal detention must be inferred because “a statute permitting
indefinite detention would raise a serious constitutional problem.” In reaching this holding, the Court described the legislature’s plenary power
as being “subject to important constitutional limitations.” Despite these constitutional problems, the Court stated that had it found clear
Congressional intent to grant the Attorney General the power to indefinitely detain non-citizens ordered removed, it would have had to uphold
such detention.

Congress is the sole arbiter of immigration - the courts don’t have authority due to
plenary powers – and the executive defers to congress for the boundaries of its
enforcement in immigration law
Clarke 11 (Robbie Clarke, associate in the Financial Restructuring practice, received his J.D. magna cum laude from Washington and Lee
University School of Law, Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice Volume 17 | Issue 2 Article 64-1-2011, “Reaffirming the
Role of the Federal Courts: How the Sixties Provide Guidance for Immigration Reform”, Pg. 468-469,

Congress’s Plenary Powers The history of immigration must begin with Congress, because under the
accepted interpretation of Congress’s constitutional authority,23 the legislative branch maintains
essentially plenary control over immigration policy choices.24 This dominion not only includes the
ordinary power of Congress to legislate but also considerable autonomy from the Constitution itself in
fashioning these laws: "[O]ver no conceivable subject is the legislative power of Congress more complete
than it is over [immigration policy]."25 Immigration policy is then principally a creature of politics, and it
is this freedom from the sturdier foundations of the Constitution that has given this area such
uncertainty.26 Thus, any consideration of U.S. immigration policy is inherently an examination of Congress
and the political pressures that have come into play over the decades.27 Recent constraints placed by
Congress on judicial review also invoke another instance of its plenary authorities: the near-absolute
power to control the jurisdiction of the federal courts.28 "[D]ramatically limiting the scope of the
judiciary’s guaranteed institutional autonomy,"29 this capability to alter federal jurisdiction has allowed
Congress to reduce the judiciary’s role in immigration adjudications.30 In addition to the judiciary’s lack
of control, the executive branch has historically deferred to Congressional judgment for the boundaries
of its enforcement powers, and for decades Congress has expanded on these powers.31 The sum total of
this authority gives Congress the discretion to greatly empower the executive agencies to carry out
immigration policy and simultaneously relegate the judiciary to a minimal level of participation.32

The Constitution gives Congress the power for immigration reform

Chacon 14 - Jennifer Chacon, professor of law at the University of California, Irvine School of Law,
2014(“Who is Responsible for U.S. immigration policy?” American Bar Association, Spring 2014,
Available Online from

Article I, Section 8, clause 4 of the Con-stitution entrusts the federal legislative branch with the power
to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” This clear textual command for uniformity establishes
that the federal government, specifically Congress, is responsible for crafting the laws that determine
how and when noncitizens can become nat-uralized citizens of the United States.
Congress has sole authority to establish immigration laws – courts uphold
Chacon 14 - Jennifer Chacon, professor of law at the University of California, Irvine School of Law,
2014(“Who is Responsible for U.S. immigration policy?” American Bar Association, Spring 2014,
Available Online from

From that time on, the Court upheld federal immigration regulations against constitutional challenges,
although the underlying rationale shifted. With the Chinese Exclusion Case in 1889, the Court began
issuing a series of decisions in which it treated congressional power over the regulation of
immigration as a virtually unreviewable, plenary power. The Court upheld congressional immigration
laws and executive enforcement of those laws against a series of challenges, in spite of their patently
discriminatory nature and lack of due process guarantees for noncitizens. The Court repeatedly suggest-
ed that this federal power flowed from the federal government’s prerogative to control foreign affairs.

Congress delegates power to the courts and the executive under the plenary power
Zas 4 – Maria Zas, J.D., January 2004, The John Marshall Law School, Magna Cum Laude; J.D., 1986,
University of Buenos Aires Law School, 2004(“Consular Absolutism: The Need for Judicial Review in the
Adjudication of Immigrant Visas for Permanent Residence,” 37 J. Marshall L. Rev. 577, The John Marshall
Law Review, v.37 no.2, pg. 590-1, Available Online from

2. Plenary Congressional Power

The Supreme Court has always recognized Congress' plenary power to regulate immigration." 7
Congress can determine the terms and conditions to admit or exclude immigrants in the United
States. Under this power, Congress can delegate enforcement of immigration laws to the executive
branch and set out procedural rules under which such agents will operate." 9 But courts have
extended such power to encompass the doctrine of consular absolutism, resorting to obscure
interpretations of the INA."' The rationale is that Congress has empowered consular officers to enforce
the INA as Congress sees fit, and courts should not interfere with such a delegation of power. 2 '
However, this is a distorting interpretation of § 104 INA that only precludes the Secretary of State from
reviewing consular officers decisions regarding the issuance or denial of visas. 2 If anything, § 104
supports the preclusion of administrative review but has no relation to judicial review.22
2NC – Excludes Courts
Only Congress can regulate immigration – court action isn’t topical
Cox and Rodriguez 15 – Adam B. Cox, Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Chicago Law
School; and Cristina M. Rodriguez, Professor of Law at the New York University School of Law, 2015(“The
President and Immigration Law,” Yale Law Journal, 8-7-2015, Available Online from

Congress’s plenary power to regulate immigration sharply limits the judiciary’s involvement in
immigration regulation. Since the plenary power doctrine was first formulated, the Supreme Court has emphasized that
immigration represents an issue best left to the political branches. The resulting extended focus by scholars on the
implications of this distribution of power between courts and the political branches has obscured a second important separation-of-powers
issue: the question of how immigration authority is distributed between the political branches themselves. The
Court’s immigration jurisprudence has shed little light on this question, often treating the political branches as something of a singular entity.
Surprisingly little scholarly commentary has addressed the inter-relationship between the two branches or attempted to discern whether
consistent power-sharing patterns have emerged over time.

Courts can only make a law unenforceable – it can’t restrict itself

Treanor and Sperling 93 – William M. Treanor, Associate Professor of Law, Fordham University;
B.A., Yale College, 1979; A.M., Harvard University, 1982; J.D., Yale Law School, 1985; and Gene B.
Sperling, Deputy Assistant to the President for Economic Policy; B.A., University of Minnesota, 1981;
J.D., Yale Law School, 1985; 1993(“Prospective Overruling and the Revival of ‘Unconstitutional'
Statutes,” Columbia Law Review, v. 93, 1993, pg. 1913)//BM

Commentators have generally agreed with the overwhelming majority of courts that an overruling
decision has the effect of automatically reviving statutes. For example, Erica Frohman Plave observed
that revival was a necessary function of the limited scope of a judicial determination of
unconstitutionality: "Such laws found unconstitutional are merely unenforceable until such time as they
are found valid." 54 Professor Gerald Gunther has pronounced Attorney General Cummings's conclusion
that Adkins "simply "suspended' enforcement" 55 of the District of Columbia minimum wage statute
"persuasive," 56 and Professor Melville Nimmer similarly declared that "it seems clear that Attorney
General Homer Cummings' opinion was correct." 57 Finally, Professor Oliver Field noted that a statute
that has been found unconstitutional becomes enforceable when the case in which it was held
unconstitutional is reversed because "a declaration of unconstitutionality does not operate as a repeal
of a statute." 58 [*1916]

The courts can’t change the law, they only make parts of it unconstitutional
Treanor and Sperling 93 – William M. Treanor, Associate Professor of Law, Fordham University;
B.A., Yale College, 1979; A.M., Harvard University, 1982; J.D., Yale Law School, 1985; and Gene B.
Sperling, Deputy Assistant to the President for Economic Policy; B.A., University of Minnesota, 1981;
J.D., Yale Law School, 1985; 1993(“Prospective Overruling and the Revival of ‘Unconstitutional'
Statutes,” Columbia Law Review, v. 93, 1993, pg. 1913)//BM
Unlike the Supreme Court, several state courts have explicitly addressed the revival issue. The relevant state court cases have concerned the specific issue of
whether a statute that has been held unconstitutional is revived when the invalidating decision is overturned. n42 With one exception, they have concluded
that such statutes are immediately enforceable. The most noted instance in which the revival issue was resolved by a court involved the District of Columbia
minimum wage statute pronounced unconstitutional in Adkins. After the Court reversed Adkins in West Coast Hotel, President Roosevelt asked Attorney
General Homer [*1913] Cummings for an opinion on the status of the District of Columbia's statute. The Attorney General responded, The decisions are
practically in accord in holding that the courts have no power to repeal or abolish a statute, and that notwithstanding
a decision holding it unconstitutional a statute continues to remain on the statute books; and that if a
statute be declared unconstitutional and the decision so declaring it be subsequently overruled the statute will then be held valid from the date it became
effective. n43 Enforcement of the statute followed without congressional action. n44 When this enforcement was challenged, the Municipal Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia in Jawish v. Morlet n45 held that the decision in West Coast Hotel had had the effect of making the statute enforceable. The

court observed that previous opinions addressing the revival issue proceed on the principle that a
statute declared unconstitutional is void in the sense that it is inoperative or unenforceable, but not
void in the sense that it is repealed or abolished; that so long as the decision stands the statute is dormant but not dead; and that
if the decision is reversed the statute is valid from its first effective date. n46 The court declared this precedent sound since the cases were "in accord with the
principle "that a decision of a court of appellate jurisdiction overruling a former decision is retrospective in its operation, and the effect is not that the former
decision is bad law but that it never was the law.' " n47 Adkins was thus, and had always been, a nullity. The court acknowledged that, after Adkins, it had been
thought that the District of Columbia's minimum wage statute was unconstitutional. As the court put it, " "Just about everybody was fooled.' " n48
Nonetheless, the court's view was that since the minimum wage law had always been valid, although for a period judicially unenforceable, there was no need
to reenact it. n49 Almost all other courts that have addressed the issue of whether a statute that has been found unconstitutional can be revived have reached
the same result as the Jawish court, using a similar formalistic [*1914] analysis. n50 The sole decision in which a court adopted the nonrevival position is
Jefferson v. Jefferson, n51 a poorly reasoned decision of the Louisiana Supreme Court. The plaintiff in Jefferson sought child support and maintenance from her
husband. She prevailed at the trial level; he filed his notice of appeal one day after the end of the filing period established by the Louisiana Uniform Rules of
the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals rejected his appeal as untimely, even though the Louisiana Supreme Court had previously found that the applicable
section of the Uniform Rules violated the state constitution. One of Ms. Jefferson's arguments before the state Supreme Court was that that court's previous
ruling had been erroneous and that the rules should therefore be revived. In rejecting this claim and in finding for the husband, the Court stated: Since we
have declared the uniform court rule partially unconstitutional, it appears to be somewhat dubious that we have the right to reconsider this ruling in the
instant case as counsel for the respondent judges urges us to do. For a rule of court, like a statute, has the force and effect of law and, when a law is stricken as
void, it no longer has existence as law; the law cannot be resurrected thereafter by a judicial decree changing the final judgment of unconstitutionality to
constitutionality as this would constitute a reenactment of the law by the Court - an assumption of legislative power not delegated to it by the Constitution.
n52 The Louisiana Court thus took a mechanical approach to the revival question. According to its rationale, when a statute is found unconstitutional, it is
judicially determined never to have existed. Revival therefore entails judicial legislation and thereby violates constitutionally mandated separation of powers:
because the initial legislative passage [*1915] of the bill has no legitimacy, the bill's force is considered to be purely a creature of judicial decision-making.
Jefferson has little analytic appeal. Its view of the separation of powers doctrine is too simplistic. Contrary to the Jefferson rationale, a "revived" law is not the
pure product of judicial decision-making. It is, instead, a law that once gained the support of a legislature and that has never been legislatively repealed. Its
legitimacy rests on its initial legislative authorization. Moreover, the
view that a statute that has been found
unconstitutional should be treated as if it never existed may have had some support in the early
case law, but it has been clearly rejected by the Supreme Court. Instead of treating all statutes that it
has found unconstitutional as if they had never existed, the Court has recognized a range of
circumstances in which people who rely on an overturned decision are protected. Indeed, as will be
developed, the doctrine of prospective overruling evolved to shield from harm those who relied on
subsequently overruled judicial decisions. n53 In short, the one case in which there was a holding
that a statute did not revive does not offer a convincing rationale for nonrevival.

Courts can only provide review to an unjustifiable denial – they cannot issue or
regulate visas
Zas 4 – Maria Zas, J.D., January 2004, The John Marshall Law School, Magna Cum Laude; J.D., 1986,
University of Buenos Aires Law School, 2004(“Consular Absolutism: The Need for Judicial Review in the
Adjudication of Immigrant Visas for Permanent Residence,” 37 J. Marshall L. Rev. 577, The John Marshall
Law Review, v.37 no.2, pg. 586-88, Available Online from


A. Enunciation of the Doctrine

The lower courts have consistently applied the common law doctrine of consular absolutism, also known
as consular nonreviewability, for the last seventy years" since its enunciation in United States ex rel.
London v. Phelps."6 The doctrine establishes that consular officers' decisions to grant or deny visas are
not subject to judicial review.77 Although the doctrine is not absolute, the exceptions do not provide
much relief." First, the doctrine does not apply to non-discretionary regulatory duties.79 However, the
courts limited the regulatory duty of a consular officer to the mere adjudication of the case." In other
words, the court has jurisdiction solely to order the consul to either issue or deny the visa.8

Second, some courts seem to recognize an exception to the applicability of the doctrine when
petitioners' constitutional rights are violated and the government fails to provide a legitimate good faith
reason for denying the visa.8 The petitioner is the relative or U.S. employer, not the immigrant. This
exception is so narrow that no court has yet found an opportunity to apply the exception.' Finally, the
application of the doctrine remains an open question in cases where the consular officer disregards the
"procedural safeguards of due process" or clearly disregards applicable regulations." But the two courts
raising the question declined to answer it since it was not an issue for determination in the cases before
the court.87

Other than these limited exceptions the doctrine applies even if the consul acts capriciously, arbitrarily
or maliciously,88 and even if the decision relies on erroneous information or erroneous interpretation
of the law. 9


78. The only exception the courts clearly recognize to the doctrine of consular absolutism is the court's
power to order the consular officer to act; however, the court has no power to order the consular
officer to issue the visa or review the reasons for denial. Patel v. Reno, 134 F.3d 929, 931 (9th Cir. 1997).


82. See Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753, 768 (1972) (denying review of the visa denial to a journalist
professing communist ideas). The court held that courts lack jurisdiction to review denials of visas
when the government provides a "facially legitimate and bona fide reason" for its conduct. Id. at 770.
The court left open the question of reviewability as to decisions lacking such justification. Id. But see
Patel, 134 F.3d at 932 (interpreting the Mandel decision as providing for judicial review in cases where
the government does not provide for a good faith reason for the denial).


84. Mandel, 408 U.S. at 753. Even though petitioners' constitutional rights were violated the court held
that as long as the government provides a bona fide reason to deny the visa the court would not look
beyond that good faith reason. Id.

Congress has solve authority to restrict immigration under plenary power – only
congress can overcome that presumption
Zas 4 – Maria Zas, J.D., January 2004, The John Marshall Law School, Magna Cum Laude; J.D., 1986,
University of Buenos Aires Law School, 2004(“Consular Absolutism: The Need for Judicial Review in the
Adjudication of Immigrant Visas for Permanent Residence,” 37 J. Marshall L. Rev. 577, The John Marshall
Law Review, v.37 no.2, pg. 588, Available Online from

B. Arguments in support of the doctrine

Although not all the courts applying the doctrine elaborate legal reasons for its adoption,"' those who
do, focus mainly on three arguments: 1) The Administrative Procedural Act (APA) does not apply to
consular officers' decisions,"u 2) Congress has plenary power to regulate immigration,"u 3) the
issuance or denial of a visa is a discretional act in the realm of non-justiciable political questions."°

1. The Inapplicability of the APA

The APA creates a presumption in favor of judicial review of administrative acts that adversely affect,
aggrieve, or injure a person."5 The act recognizes two exceptions to the reviewability of an
administrative act: when a statute precludes review of the particular administrative act' °6 or when the
law commits the action to the discretion of the agency. 107

The INA does not preclude judicial review of consular officers' decisions. '08 The Supreme Court made
clear that inferences or implications from legislative history are not enough to preclude reviewability.' °
Congress must explicitly preclude review of the particular administrative act to overcome the strong

The second exception, an "act committed to agency discretion,""' has been argued in at least one
decision where the Secretary of State revoked a visa.'12 However, the appellate court in that case did
not hold that revocation of visas was committed to consular officers' discretion."3 The court
distinguished the discretional character of the decision when reached by a Secretary of State versus the
regulated character of the same decision when reached by a consular officer.14

Neither Congress nor the State Department's own regulations commit the issuance or denial of a visa
to the sole discretion of the consular officer."

In sum, there are no arguments to justify excepting consular officer's decisions from the strong
presumption of reviewability of administrative acts.1


93. The courts have interpreted § 1104 as precluding administrative review. Saavendra Bruno, 197 F.3d
at 1156.


102. Saavedra Bruno, 197 F.3d at 1157-60 (explaining that the doctrine of consular absolutism is one of
the exceptions to the APA). The court read a third exception into the APA interpreting the words of §
702, "any other appropriate legal or equitable ground" as referring to the consular absolutism doctrine.
Id. at 1158.


108. The INA only precludes administrative review. 8 U.S.C. § 1104 (2000).


113. Id. The court explained that an administrative act is committed to agency discretion when the court
has no standard to judge the agent's act because the statute is broad or vague. Id.
Courts don’t have any authority over immigration - 4 warrants - allowing courts to
change immigration processes would undermine efficiency, uniformity and capacity
Feere 9 (Jon Feere, former legal policy analyst, left the Center for a position at Immigration and Customs Enforcement B.A. in political science
and communications from the University of California, Davis and his J.D. from American University's Washington College of Law. “Plenary Power:
Should Judges Control U.S. Immigration Policy?”, February 25, 2009 ,
Immigration-Policy, [accessed 7/26])//SC

The U.S. Constitution provides no direction to any branch of government on “immigration,” although it
does invest the power of “naturalization” in Congress.1 Immigration law has developed over time through
numerous statutes and regulations created and adopted by the legislative and executive branches — the
political branches of the United States government. Historically, the U.S. Supreme Court has taken a
hands-off approach when asked to review the political branches’ immigration decisions and policymaking.
The ability of Congress and the executive branch to regulate immigration largely without judicial
intervention is what has come to be known as the political branches’ “plenary power” over immigration.2
Ever since immigration became an issue of political significance more than 100 years ago, the political
branches have been able to exclude and deport aliens or deny certain benefits according to political,
social, economic, or other considerations, largely without being second-guessed by the judicial branch.
The Supreme Court, in fact, did not seek to assert judicial authority and instead recognized that
immigration decisions “are frequently of a character more appropriate to either the Legislature or the
Executive than to the Judiciary.”3 Ultimately, for much of America’s history, immigration-related decisions
were made within the political branches by politically accountable actors according to legislation written
by elected representatives of the American citizenry. Courts have articulated numerous justifications for
keeping immigration regulation largely within the confines of the political branches. Some of those
justifications include:

 Political Question Doctrine: Federal courts generally refuse to hear cases that involve policy questions
best resolved by elected officials. The logic is that elected officials are more accountable to the public
and can best represent the public’s interests. Elected officials are also more likely to understand the
political implications of their decisions. The connection between immigration and foreign affairs,
national security, and similar policy-related fields has often resulted in courts invoking this doctrine.
 Lack of Capacity: Courts are designed to adjudicate legal issues and simply lack the institutional
capacity to make political judgments. Immigration law is inherently political because it’s created
entirely within the political branches. Any judicial invalidation of immigration statutes almost always
requires some amount of “legislating from the bench” and, even still, courts simply do not have the
ability to remedy the potentially far-reaching political, social, and economic effects of a ruling that
goes against statutory law.4
 Uniformity: The specifics of immigration (how many, who gets admitted, who gets deported, etc.) are
regulated by federal-level political-branch policies. If lower courts become too involved in this process
and craft unique statutory interpretations, there is a strong likelihood of an inconsistent immigration
system that varies from one jurisdiction to another. This would arguably be in direct violation of the
Constitution, which requires a “uniform rule of naturalization.” Such a result would make it difficult
for citizens to change the system if so desired. Aliens would also find it difficult to navigate the system.
 Efficiency: From a resource perspective, a court-run immigration system would be problematic.
Judges are already grappling with the ever-escalating onslaught of immigration cases; reducing the
authority of the political branches to easily remove or exclude aliens would obviously increase the
 Immigration Enforcement Is Not Punishment: The Supreme Court has held that due process
protections apply when an individual faces punishment in the form of deprivation of life, liberty, or
property, but that an alien being returned to his homeland or denied entry to the United States is not
being punished and therefore cannot expect the courts to grant him these protections. Deportation
and exclusion is simply an administrative procedure.
 History: The great weight of legal authority is in support of judicial deference to the political branches
on the issue of immigration. The concept of stare decisis, which stands for the principle that past
holdings should be respected by the courts, ensures that the plenary power doctrine cannot easily be
2NC – Excludes Executive
The executive branch can only parole – it’s not an immigration status, they’re
considered a nonimmigrant
Kandel 17 – William A. Kandel, Immigration Policy Specialist at Congressional Research Service with a
Ph.D. in Sociology and Demography from the University of Chicago, 2017(“A Primer on U.S. Immigration
Policy,” Congressional Research Service (Intent for Congress), 11-14-2017, Available Online from

DHS may, at its discretion and on a case-by-case basis, “parole” an alien into the United States for
urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit. Parole does not constitute formal admission
to the United States and is not classified as a formal immigration status (e.g. nonimmigrant,
immigrant). It is granted for a specified period of time. Parolees may obtain employment authorization
but must leave when the parole expires or, if eligible, be admitted in a lawful status.41

The executive branch has as much power as Congress delegates to them

Cox and Rodriguez 15 – Adam B. Cox, Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Chicago Law
School; and Cristina M. Rodriguez, Professor of Law at the New York University School of Law, 2015(“The
President and Immigration Law,” Yale Law Journal, 8-7-2015, Available Online from

For decades, immigration law and scholarship has been preoccupied with limits on the power of courts
to police immigration policy. But the focus on this separation-of-powers question has obscured a second: how is immigration
authority distributed between the political branches themselves? In this Article, we explore how the allocation of
immigration power between the President and Congress has evolved as a matter of historical practice and constitutional law. A long-overlooked
history hints that the President has at times asserted inherent executive authority to regulate immigration. At the same time, the explosive
growth of the administrative state has assimilated most executive policymaking into a model of delegated authority. The intricate immigration
code associated with this delegation framework may appear at first glance to limit the President’s policymaking discretion. In practice,
however, the modern structure of immigration law actually has enabled the President to exert considerable control over immigration law’s core
question: which types of noncitizens, and how many, should be permitted to enter and reside in the United States? Whether Congress
intended for the President to have such freedom is less important than understanding the breadth of
the Executive’s power and its asymmetric nature. The President has considerable authority to screen
immigrants at the back end of the system, through enforcement decisions, but minimal control over
screening at the front end, before immigrants enter the United States. We argue that this asymmetry
may sometimes have pathological consequences -- consequences Congress could mitigate by formally
delegating power to the President to adjust the quotas and admissions criteria at the heart of
immigration law. In general, Congress specifies in great detail the criteria for admission and removal,
particularly when it comes to the major categories of family and labor migration that make up the bulk
of admissions. In this sense, immigration law resembles tax law, where Congress retains control over
marginal rates, or criminal law, where Congress defines the elements of a crime, rather than other regulatory arenas in
which Congress has delegated broad authority to the executive branch to set standards.

Executive officers are bound to enforce requirements in INA statutes – they can’t rule
Zas 4 – Maria Zas, J.D., January 2004, The John Marshall Law School, Magna Cum Laude; J.D., 1986,
University of Buenos Aires Law School, 2004(“Consular Absolutism: The Need for Judicial Review in the
Adjudication of Immigrant Visas for Permanent Residence,” 37 J. Marshall L. Rev. 577, The John Marshall
Law Review, v.37 no.2, pg. 593, Available Online from

The threshold issue then is a determination of the extent of the duty the INA creates on consular
officers. 4 1 If we were to accept the courts' interpretation that the only duty created is the duty to
act,'" then courts would not have jurisdiction to judge consular officers' visa denials." But if we were to
interpret the consular officer's duty to adjudicate the case in conformity with the provisions of the INA,'
then the consular officers' acts become justiciable.

The two provisions applying to the issue support this second interpretation.17 The INA gives consular
officers the authority to grant or deny visas without intervention from the Secretary of State or the
INS." This provision taken alone would support the courts' interpretation. 149 However, consular
officers must exercise their authority to issue or deny visas "subject to the eligibility requirements in
the statute and corresponding regulations."50 Therefore, the duty the INA creates in a consular officer
is the duty to act in conformity with the lengthy and detailed INA provisions 151 when denying a visa.
Whether the agent violated this duty is justiciable.


151. See 8 U.S.C.S § 1182 (2003) (describing the conditions and terms under which aliens are ineligible
for visa or admission into the United States). Note that Congress classified the ineligibility provisions
according to the different grounds for denial. In each of the categories Congress precisely detailed the
requirements, circumstances and exceptions to find an alien ineligible. Most of these provisions leave
no room for discretion. See, e.g., § 1182(a)(1) (excluding aliens with a contagious disease according to
regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services); § 1182(a)(2) (excluding aliens
convicted of the commission of certain crimes such as those involving moral turpitude). Only a few of
these provisions admit discretional exercise. See, e.g, § 1182(a)(4) (excluding those aliens who "in the
opinion of the consular officer" could become a public charge). Note, however, that the same section
lists the factors that consular officers must consider at a minimum before excluding the immigrant on
the grounds of public charge.
2AC – Normal Means - Executive
Normal means - the president has the power to regulate immigration restrictions
Liptak 17 - Adam Liptak, Former lawyer and professor at the University of Chicago and Yale University,
2002 Pulitzer Prize finalist, Supreme Court and law reporter for the New York Times, 2017(“The
President Has Much Power Over Immigration, but How Much?” The New York Times, 2-5-2017,
Available Online from
WASHINGTON — President Trump’s executive order on immigration has prompted a constitutional showdown that could leave a mark on the
law for generations and seems likely to end in a landmark Supreme Court decision. A ruling by the court on Mr. Trump’s travel ban on seven
predominantly Muslim countries could help answer some crucial legal questions: How much independent constitutional authority
does the president have over immigration, and how much power has Congress given him? The likely answer to both questions:
a lot. But other parts of the Constitution may temper or defeat that power. Among them are the due process and equal protection clauses
and the First Amendment’s ban on government establishment of religion. Here is a look at the leading arguments in the case. What have the
judges said? Many trial judges around the country have blocked aspects of Mr. Trump’s executive order. But none have issued an order as
broad as the one by Judge James Robart, a federal judge in Seattle, who blocked the key partsof the executive order, which had suspended
travel from the seven countries and limited the nation’s refugee program. The case is now before the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco. That court on Saturday declined to issue an immediate stay of Judge Robart’s order, but it indicated that it would
weigh in soon after additional briefs were filed, with the last one due Monday afternoon. After it rules, an appeal to the Supreme Court seems
likely. Judge Robart’s brisk ruling contained almost no reasoning. By contrast, Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, of the Federal District Court in
Boston, issued a 21-page decision on Friday refusing to block the program and discussing the legal arguments in detail. Judge Gorton also
sketched out the broader picture. “The rich immigrant history of the United States has long been a source of strength and pride in this country,”
Judge Gorton wrote. “Conversely, the public interest in safety and security in this ever-more dangerous world is strong as well.” The balance, he
wrote, tipped in favor of Mr. Trump. How broad is the president’s constitutional power? Article
II of the Constitution confers
authority on the president, the Supreme Court has said, to conduct foreign affairs and address immigration. In
their brief to Judge Robart, lawyers for Washington State, one of the two plaintiffs, along with the State of Minnesota, said there were
constitutional checks on these powers. “While courts generally give more latitude to the political branches in the immigration context, this does
not mean that the political branches can act with impunity,” the brief said. “Federal courts,” the brief said, “have no more sacred role than
protecting marginalized groups against irrational, discriminatory conduct.” In the Ninth Circuit, the Trump administration said judges were ill-
equipped to decide cases involving national security. “Unlike the president,” the administration’s brief said, “courts do not have access to
classified information about the threat posed by terrorist organizations operating in particular nations, the efforts of those organizations to
infiltrate the United States, or gaps in the vetting process.” Noah G. Purcell, the solicitor general of Washington State, appeared to concede in
court that there were areas in which Mr. Trump was entitled to act. But he asked the court to protect people whose lives
had been changed by Mr. Trump’s order in a flash. “The focus of our claim,” he said, “is on people who have been here and have, overnight,
lost the right to travel, lost the right to visit their families, lost the right to go perform research, lost the right to go speak at conferences around
the world. And also people who had lived here for a long time and happened to be overseas at the time of this order, which came with no
warning whatsoever, and suddenly lost the right to return to the United States.” How much power has Congress given the president? On Friday,
defending Mr. Trump’s executive order in a Seattle courtroom, Michelle Bennett, a Justice Department lawyer, cited Youngstown Sheet & Tube
Co. v. Sawyer, a 1952 decision in which the Supreme Court rejected President Harry S. Truman’s assertion that he had the authority to seize
steel mills during the Korean War. The most famous part of the decision is a concurrence from Justice Robert H. Jackson, which set out a
framework for considering clashes between presidential power and congressional authority. The president has the most power when he acts
with congressional authorization, Justice Jackson said, and an intermediate amount when Congress is silent. The president’s power is at its
“lowest ebb,” Justice Jackson wrote, when Congress has forbidden a particular action. Truman’s actions fell into the third category, Justice
Jackson wrote. Ms. Bennett, by contrast, said Mr. Trump’s order was in the first category. “Here we have the president acting pursuant to
power that Congress gave him, which means, under the Youngstown steel seizure case, he’s acting at the apex of his power,” she said. A
part of immigration law does give the president broad power. It says, “Whenever the president finds that
the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the
interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary,
suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the
entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.” But another part of the law forbids discrimination
“because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth or place of residence,” but only “in the issuance of an immigrant visa.” The Trump
administration argues that the power to bar entry, the subject of the first law, is broader than the limits on issuing visas. What about arguments
based on religious discrimination? Lawyers for Washington State have said that the executive order violates the First Amendment’s prohibition
against government establishment of religion because its provisions on the refugee program favor minority religions. “President Trump and his
advisers have made clear that the very purpose of this order is to tilt the scales in favor of Christian refugees at the expense of Muslims,” they
wrote in their brief to Judge Robart. The Trump administration urged the Ninth Circuit to reject arguments based on religious discrimination,
even though Mr. Trump has said he meant to favor Christian refugees. Judicial consideration of the president’s motives, the brief said, would
violate the separation of powers. “The more searching inquiry envisioned by the states would create substantial separation-of-powers
problems, by permitting probing of the president’s subjective motive in issuing the order,” the brief said. Could the case founder on the issue of
injury? The states challenging the order face the initial hurdle of demonstrating that they have suffered the sort of direct and concrete harm
that gives them standing to sue. Judge Robart ruled that they did, relying on a decision from the federal appeals court in New Orleans, which
said Texas could sue to challenge President Barack Obama’s plan to defer the deportation of millions of unauthorized immigrants and allow
them to work. “The executive order adversely affects the states’ residents in areas of employment, education, business, family relations and
freedom to travel,” Judge Robart wrote. He said the states had been hurt because the order affected their public universities and their tax
bases. In its Ninth Circuit brief, the Trump administration called the states’ asserted injuries “attenuated and speculative” and did not address
the Texas decision. In court in Seattle on Friday, Ms. Bennett said the government disagreed with the Texas ruling.
2AC – Inclusive
Congress doesn’t have sole authority over immigration
Rappaport 16 - Mike Rappaport, Darling Foundation Professor of Law at the University of San Diego, Director of the Center for the
Study of Constitutional Originalism, 2016("Justice Scalia and Congress’s Power to Regulate Immigration", Law & Liberty, 10-12-2016, Available
Online from, Accessed on 7-25-

This is extremely weak. First, what international law says about the United States is not the relevant question. What is relevant is what the
Constitution says about the matter, and the
Constitution does not give Congress authority over immigration.
Congress does have the power to enforce offenses against the law of nations, but that would not confer
power to regulate immigration (since immigration is not an offense under international law). Second, there is no conflict with
international law. The entire immigration power would be shared between the federal government and the
states, which would meet any international law expectations for the country. Third as I have stated before, the Migration and
Importation Clause does not acknowledge a general immigration power, but is best read as merely
recognizing that Congress has some power over immigration through its Commerce Clause authority.
Congress could, for example, regulate ships that are coming from other nations and pass restrictions on immigration as to those ships. Congress
could also regulate immigration coming through the territories (which was a large part of the US in the early years) through its power to pass
legislation as to the territories. Claiming
that the federal government possesses an immigration power through
an inherent attribute of sovereignty is a stake in the heart of the enumerated powers and the Tenth
Amendment. This isn’t even reading an acknowledged power broadly, like the Commerce Power. It is just making up a new
power where there is no textual indication. It is hard to believe that the Tenth Amendment does not forbid this.
2AC – Parole
Parole is legal immigration – it’s solely a determination of who is to be admitted and
who should remain
Elrod 12 – Jennifer W. Elrod, Circuit Judge for the US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, 2012(“VILLAS
LIMITED, doing business as Lakeview at Parkside; CHATEAU RITZ PARTNERS, doing business as Chateau
De Ville; MARY MILLER SMITH; Plaintiffs-Appellees v. THE CITY OF FARMERS BRANCH, TEXAS, Defendant-
Plaintiffs-Appellees v. CITY OF FARMERS BRANCH, Defendant-Appellant,” 675 F.3d 802, United States
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 7-31-2012, Available to Subscribing Institutions via Lexis
The majority concludes that the Ordinance [**69] is preempted as an impermissible regulation of immigration and implicitly preempted via
conflict preemption. In crafting its conclusion, the majority conflates the distinct doctrines of regulation [*827] of immigration and conflict
preemption. Because a straightforward application of Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit precedent yields a different result, I must respectfully
concur in part and dissent in part. First, although
the Ordinance no doubt concerns illegal immigrants, it is simply not
a regulation of immigration as defined by the Supreme Court in De Canas. Second, because the Ordinance explicitly
defers to federal determinations of immigration status—similar to the statute the Supreme Court upheld last term in Whiting—it is not conflict
preempted, with the exception of its separate judicial review provisions.

I. Regulation of Immigration

In De Canas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351, 96 S. Ct. 933, 47 L. Ed. 2d 43 (1976), Justice Brennan wrote for a unanimous Supreme Court holding that a
state statute criminalizing the employment of illegal immigrants was not preempted by federal law. Before analyzing whether Congress had
preempted the statute, the Court examined whether the law was "a constitutionally proscribed regulation of immigration [**70] that Congress
itself would be powerless to authorize or approve." Id. at 356.

De Canas began that constitutional inquiry with the principle that the "[p]ower to regulate immigration is unquestionably exclusively a federal
power." Id. at 354. "But the Court has never held that every state enactment which in any way deals with aliens is a regulation of immigration
and thus per se preempted by this constitutional power, whether latent or exercised." Id. at 355. Thus, De Canas made clear that what
constitutes a "regulation of immigration" in the constitutional sense is not "the fact that aliens are the subject of a state statute." Id. Rather,
the Court narrowly defined a regulation of immigration as "essentially a determination of who should or
should not be admitted into the country, and the conditions under which a legal entrant may remain." Id.
2AC – Executive
The Executive and lower courts plays a key role in the admission of immigrants
Wasem 10 – Ruth Ellen Wasem, Clinical Professor of Public Policy Practice at UT Austin’s LBJ School of
Public Policy, former domestic policy specialist at the U.S. Library of Congress' Congressional Research
Service, Ph.D. in History, University of Michigan, 2010(“Visa Security Policy: Roles of the Departments of
State and Homeland Security,” Congressional Research Service, 3-8-2010, R41093, Available Online from

Foreign nationals (i.e., aliens) not already legally residing in the United States who wish to come to the
United States generally must obtain a visa to be admitted, with certain exceptions noted in law. The
Departments of State (DOS) and Homeland Security (DHS) each play key roles in administering the law
and policies on the admission of aliens. Although the DOS’s Consular Affairs is responsible for issuing
visas, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigrant Services (USCIS) in DHS approves immigrant petitions, the
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in DHS operates the Visa Security Program in selected
embassies abroad, and the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in DHS inspects all people who enter
the United States. In addition, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) in the U.S.
Department of Justice (DOJ) has a significant policy role through its adjudicatory decisions on specific
immigration cases.

Although there was a discussion of assigning all visa issuance responsibilities to DHS when the
department was being created, the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296) opted not to do so.
Rather, P.L. 107-296 drew on compromise language stating that DHS issues regulations regarding visa
issuances and assigns staff to consular posts abroad to advise, review, and conduct investigations, and
that DOS’s Consular Affairs continues to issue visas.

The executive has its own political power to delegate, regardless of the court’s
Zas 4 – Maria Zas, J.D., January 2004, The John Marshall Law School, Magna Cum Laude; J.D., 1986,
University of Buenos Aires Law School, 2004(“Consular Absolutism: The Need for Judicial Review in the
Adjudication of Immigrant Visas for Permanent Residence,” 37 J. Marshall L. Rev. 577, The John Marshall
Law Review, v.37 no.2, pg. 593, Available Online from


141. Id. at 139. Justice Marshall distinguished the political power conferred upon the President of the
United States, which the President can delegate to executive officers, from the legal duties created by
law and which administrative officers must follow. Id. Marshall recognized the discretional character of
the political power, and held that such discretion is not justiciable regardless of the opinion the courts
may have as to the manner in which the executive should exercise that power. Id. But Marshall also
pointed out that when the law assigns a duty to an administrative officer the manner in which the
officer executes the duty is subject to the control of the courts. Id. at 141.
Executive officers are not bound by the INA –
Zas 4 – Maria Zas, J.D., January 2004, The John Marshall Law School, Magna Cum Laude; J.D., 1986,
University of Buenos Aires Law School, 2004(“Consular Absolutism: The Need for Judicial Review in the
Adjudication of Immigrant Visas for Permanent Residence,” 37 J. Marshall L. Rev. 577, The John Marshall
Law Review, v.37 no.2, pg. 593, Available Online from


149. Id. None of these sections require that the consular officer comply with the eligibility
requirements of the INA, when issuing or denying a visa.

Executive actions are subject to the court, not to congress

Zas 4 – Maria Zas, J.D., January 2004, The John Marshall Law School, Magna Cum Laude; J.D., 1986,
University of Buenos Aires Law School, 2004(“Consular Absolutism: The Need for Judicial Review in the
Adjudication of Immigrant Visas for Permanent Residence,” 37 J. Marshall L. Rev. 577, The John Marshall
Law Review, v.37 no.2, pg. 593, Available Online from


146. Symposium, supra note 10, at 1622. A consular officer is not free to deny a visa based on his sole
discretion. The state department regulations require consular officers to inform the applicant under
what provision in the law the consul grounds his decision to deny the visa. 22 C.F.R. § 42.81(b) (1999);
Saavedra Bruno, 197 F.3d at 1156.
2AC – Congress and Executive
The congressional and executive branches have the sole authority to create and enforce
immigration policy
Davy et al 5 (Megan Davy, Deborah W. Meyers, and Jeanne Batalova, Deborah W. Meyers was formerly a Senior Policy Analyst at the
Migration Policy Institute. Jeanne Batalova is a Senior Policy Analyst at MPI and Manager of the Migration Data Hub.Megan Davy is a former MPI
intern. “Who Does What in U.S. Immigration”, Migration Policy Institute, December 1, 2015,

The United States has a long history of regulating and managing immigration, dating back to the 1860s.
The U.S. Congress — the legislative branch of the federal government of the United States — develops
and passes legislation, which the president signs into law, and federal agencies (executive branch)
implement legislation. The primary immigration law today is the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952
(the INA). Most immigration-related legislation since then has amended various sections of the INA.
Among the most significant pieces of immigration-related legislation over the last two decades are the
Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), the Immigration Act of 1990, the Illegal Immigration
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), and the Uniting and Strengthening America by
Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (USA-Patriot Act).
Limits – Courts
The courts don’t distinguish between immigrants and non-immigrants – they aren’t up
to date with statutes on immigration
Zas 4 – Maria Zas, J.D., January 2004, The John Marshall Law School, Magna Cum Laude; J.D., 1986,
University of Buenos Aires Law School, 2004(“Consular Absolutism: The Need for Judicial Review in the
Adjudication of Immigrant Visas for Permanent Residence,” 37 J. Marshall L. Rev. 577, The John Marshall
Law Review, v.37 no.2, pg. 588, Available Online from

The courts have applied the doctrine evenly to denials of nonimmigrant and immigrant visas.' The courts
failure to distinguish among types of visas and immigrants does not encompass congressional
amendments to the INA in recent years distinguishing between immigrants living in the United States
legalizing their status and those residing abroad applying for a visa.91


91. In 1994, Congress enacted § 245(i) providing for adjustment of status to illegal immigrants so long as
the immigrants pay a fine and comply with admissibility requirements. By this enactment, Congress
separated from the lot of aliens coming to United States those who were already living in the country
and had a close relative or American employer petitioning on their behalf. 8 U.S.C. § 1152(i). Congress
recognized that these immigrants needed a special process to avoid unnecessary separation from their
families and jobs.
Limits – Courts (AoS)
Courts can adjudicate adjustment of status cases – it opens the door for vast, overly
broad standards
Zas 4 – Maria Zas, J.D., January 2004, The John Marshall Law School, Magna Cum Laude; J.D., 1986,
University of Buenos Aires Law School, 2004(“Consular Absolutism: The Need for Judicial Review in the
Adjudication of Immigrant Visas for Permanent Residence,” 37 J. Marshall L. Rev. 577, The John Marshall
Law Review, v.37 no.2, pg. 598, Available Online from

2. Courts have standards to apply

The INA and federal courts' decisions in adjustment of status cases provide vast standards to judge the
consular officer's interpretation of the INA and the application of the law to the facts." First, the INA
contains detailed provisions regarding aliens' eligibility,197 which consular officers must apply when
denying a visa.9 In fact, few of the INA provisions leave the decision entirely to the discretion of the
administrative officer adjudicating the case.'9 Even in those cases, the pertinent regulation offers
guidelines that consular officers must follow in forming their decisions.0 0 Second, federal courts can
resort to other federal court decisions interpreting those eligibility requirements in adjustment of status
denials. 201

196. The INA provides a comprehensive statutory scheme to determine when an immigrant is eligible
to receive a visa and to come to the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (2000); Wildes, supra note 153, at
Limits - Regulations
Regulations would allow for a proliferation of tiny temporary affs – here’s 14
DHS 16 (“Retention of EB-1, EB-2, and EB-3 Immigrant Workers and Program Improvements Affecting High-Skilled Nonimmigrant Workers”,
A Rule by the Homeland Security Department on 11/18/2016,

A. Purpose and Summary of the Regulatory Action DHS is amending its regulations related to certain
employment-based immigrant and nonimmigrant visa programs. The final rule is intended to benefit U.S.
employers and foreign workers participating in these programs by streamlining the processes for
employer sponsorship of nonimmigrant workers for lawful permanent resident (LPR) status, increasing
job portability and otherwise providing stability and flexibility for such workers, and providing additional
transparency and consistency in the application of DHS policies and practices related to these programs.
These changes are primarily intended to better enable U.S. employers to employ and retain high-skilled
workers who are beneficiaries of employment-based immigrant visa (Form I-140) petitions, while
increasing the ability of these workers to further their careers by accepting promotions, changing
positions with current employers, changing employers, and pursuing other employment opportunities. 1.
Clarifications and Policy Improvements First, the final rule largely conforms DHS regulations to
longstanding DHS policies and practices established in response to certain sections of the American
Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of 1998 (ACWIA), Public Law 105-277, div. C, tit. IV, 112
Stat. 2681, and the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-first Century Act of 2000 (AC21), Public Law
106-313, 114 Stat. 1251, as amended by the 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations
Authorization Act, Public Law 107-273, 116 Stat. 1758 Start Printed Page 82400(2002).[1] Those sections
were intended, among other things, to provide greater flexibility and job portability to certain
nonimmigrant workers, particularly those who have been sponsored for LPR status as employment-based
immigrants, while enhancing opportunities for innovation and expansion, maintaining U.S.
competitiveness, and protecting U.S. workers. The final rule further clarifies and improves DHS policies
and practices in this area—policies and practices that have long been specified through a series of policy
memoranda and precedent decisions of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)
Administrative Appeals Office. By clarifying such policies in regulation, DHS provides greater transparency
and certainty to affected employers and workers, while increasing consistency among DHS adjudications.
In addition, this final rule clarifies several interpretive questions raised by AC21 and ACWIA. Specifically,
the final rule clarifies and improves policies and practices related to:

 H-1B extensions of stay under AC21. The final rule addresses the ability of H-1B nonimmigrant workers
who are being sponsored for LPR status (and their dependents in H-4 nonimmigrant status) to extend
their nonimmigrant stay beyond the otherwise applicable 6-year limit pursuant to AC21.
 INA 204(j) portability. The final rule addresses the ability of certain workers who have pending
applications for adjustment of status to change employers or jobs without endangering the approved
Form I-140 petitions filed on their behalf.
 H-1B portability. The final rule addresses the ability of H-1B nonimmigrant workers to change jobs or
employers, including: (1) Beginning employment with new H-1B employers upon the filing of non-
frivolous petitions for new H-1B employment (“H-1B portability petition”); and (2) allowing H-1B
employers to file successive H-1B portability petitions (often referred to as “bridge petitions”) and
clarifying how these petitions affect lawful status and work authorization.
 Counting against the H-1B annual cap. The final rule clarifies the way in which H-1B nonimmigrant
workers are counted against the annual H-1B numerical cap, including: (1) The method for calculating
when these workers may access so-called remainder time (i.e., time when they were physically
outside the United States), thus allowing them to use their full period of H-1B admission; and (2) the
method for determining which H-1B nonimmigrant workers are “cap-exempt” as a result of previously
being counted against the cap.
 H-1B cap exemptions. The final rule clarifies and improves the method for determining which H-1B
nonimmigrant workers are exempt from the H-1B numerical cap due to their employment at an
institution of higher education, a nonprofit entity related to or affiliated with such an institution, or a
governmental or nonprofit research organization, including a revision to the definition of the term
“related or affiliated nonprofit entity.”
 Protections for H-1B whistleblowers. The final rule addresses the ability of H-1B nonimmigrant
workers who are disclosing information in aid of, or otherwise participating in, investigations
regarding alleged violations of Labor Condition Application (LCA) obligations in the H-1B program to
provide documentary evidence to USCIS to demonstrate that their resulting failure to maintain H-1B
status was due to “extraordinary circumstances.”
 Form I-140 petition validity. The final rule clarifies the circumstances under which an approved
Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Form I-140 petition) remains valid, even after the petitioner
withdraws the petition or the petitioner's business terminates, including for purposes of status
extension applications filed on behalf of the beneficiary, job portability of H-1B nonimmigrants, and
job portability under section 204(j) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1154(j).
Second, this rule builds on the provisions listed above by making changes consistent with the goals of
AC21 and ACWIA to further provide stability and flexibility in certain immigrant and nonimmigrant
visa categories. The amended provisions improve the ability of certain foreign workers, particularly
those who are successfully sponsored for LPR status by their employers, to accept new employment
opportunities, pursue normal career progression, better establish their lives in the United States, and
contribute more fully to the U.S. economy. These changes also provide certainty for the regulated
community and improve consistency across DHS adjudications, thereby enhancing DHS's ability to
fulfill its responsibilities related to U.S. employers and certain foreign workers. Specifically, the final
rule provides the following:
 Establishment of priority dates. To enhance clarity for the regulated community, the final rule
provides that a priority date is generally established based upon the filing of certain applications or
petitions. The new regulatory language is consistent with existing DHS practice in establishing priority
dates for other Form I-140 petitions that do not require permanent labor certifications (labor
certifications)—such as petitions filed under the employment-based first preference immigrant visa
(EB-1) category.[2] See final 8 CFR 204.5(d).[3]
 Retention of priority dates. To enhance job portability for workers with approved Form I-140 petitions,
the final rule explains the circumstances under which workers may retain priority dates and effectively
transfer those dates to new and subsequently approved Form I-140 petitions. Priority date retention
will generally be available as long as the approval of the initial Form I-140 petition was not revoked
for fraud, willful misrepresentation of a material fact, the invalidation or revocation of a labor
certification, or material error. This provision improves the ability of certain workers to accept
promotions, change employers, or pursue other employment opportunities without fear of losing
their place in line for immigrant visas. See final 8 CFR 204.5(e).
 Retention of employment-based immigrant visa petitions. To enhance job portability for certain
workers with approved Form I-140 petitions in the EB-1, second preference (EB-2), and third
preference (EB-3) categories, but who are unable to obtain LPR status due to immigrant visa backlogs,
the final rule provides that Form I-140 petitions that have been approved for 180 days or more would
no longer be subject to automatic revocation based solely on withdrawal by the petitioner or the
termination of the petitioner's business. See final 8 CFR 205.1(a)(3)(iii)(C) and (D). Start Printed Page
 Eligibility for employment authorization in compelling circumstances. To enhance stability and job
flexibility for certain high-skilled nonimmigrant workers in the United States with approved Form I-
140 petitions who cannot obtain an immigrant visa due to statutory limits on the number of immigrant
visas that may be issued, the final rule allows certain beneficiaries in the United States in E-3, H-1B,
H-1B1, L-1, or O-1 nonimmigrant status to apply for separate employment authorization for a limited
period if there are compelling circumstances that, in the discretion of DHS, justify the issuance of
employment authorization. See final 8 CFR 204.5(p).
 10-day nonimmigrant grace periods. To promote stability and flexibility for certain high-skilled
nonimmigrant workers, the final rule provides two grace periods of up to 10 days, consistent with
those already available to individuals in some nonimmigrant classifications, to individuals in the E-1,
E-2, E-3, L-1, and TN classifications. The rule allows an initial grace period of up to 10 days prior to the
start of an authorized validity period, which provides nonimmigrants in the above classifications a
reasonable amount of time to enter the United States and prepare to begin employment in the
country. The rule also allows a second grace period of up to 10 days after the end of an authorized
validity period, which provides a reasonable amount of time for such nonimmigrants to depart the
United States or take other actions to extend, change, or otherwise maintain lawful status. See final
8 CFR 214.1(l)(1).
 60-day nonimmigrant grace periods. To further enhance job portability, the final rule establishes a
grace period of up to 60 consecutive days during each authorized validity period for individuals in the
E-1, E-2, E-3, H-1B, H-1B1, L-1, O-1 or TN classifications. This grace period allows high-skilled workers
in these classifications, including those whose employment ceases prior to the end of the petition
validity period, to more readily pursue new employment should they be eligible for other employer-
sponsored nonimmigrant classifications or employment in the same classification with a new
employer. The grace period also allows U.S. employers to more easily facilitate changes in
employment for existing or newly recruited nonimmigrant workers. See final 8 CFR 214.1(l)(2).
 H-1B licensing. To provide clarity and certainty to the regulated community, the final regulations
codify current DHS policy regarding exceptions to the requirement that makes the approval of an H-
1B petition contingent upon the beneficiary's licensure where licensure is required to fully perform
the duties of the relevant specialty occupation. The final rule generally allows for the temporary
approval of an H-1B petition for an otherwise eligible unlicensed worker, if the petitioner can
demonstrate that the worker is unable for certain technical reasons to obtain the required license
before obtaining H-1B status. The final rule also clarifies the types of evidence that would need to be
submitted to support approval of an H-1B petition on behalf of an unlicensed worker who will work
in a state that allows the individual to be employed in the relevant occupation under the supervision
of licensed senior or supervisory personnel. See final 8 CFR 214.2(h)(4)(v)(C).
1NC – Legal
‘Restriction’ – implies legal limitations not simply a functional one
Oxford English Dictionary 2012 “restriction”

Definition of restriction noun (often restrictions) a limiting condition or measure, especially a legal one: planning
restrictions on commercial development the limitation or control of someone or something, or the state of being
limited or restricted: the restriction of local government power

‘restriction’ refers to a legal instrument that is defined in context

Victorian Law Reform Commission (an independent, government-funded organisation that develops, reviews and
recommends reform of Victoria's state laws. The Commission has a charter to consult with the community and advise the Attorney-General on
how to improve and update Victorian laws.) 2010 “Purpose and Nature of Covenants”

The term ‘restriction’ is sometimes used in a functional sense, to mean the effect of any legal instrument
(such as a transfer, plan or statutory agreement) that imposes a specific restriction on the use of a lot. Sometimes it is used
to mean the instrument itself. For the sake of clarity, we use the term in its functional sense.30 6.33 ‘Restriction’
has no fixed meaning in legislation. Its meaning depends on the context. The Subdivision Act contains a definition
but it is inadequate and the related statutes do not assist: • The Subdivision Act defines ‘restriction’ as ‘a restrictive covenant or restriction
which can be registered or recorded in the register under the Transfer of Land Act’.31 • The Transfer of Land Act provides for the recording of
‘restrictive covenants’ only.32 Plans that may include restrictions can be registered, but the restrictions specified in the plans are not
recorded.33 • Adding to the confusion, the Planning and Environment Act defines ‘registered restrictive covenant’ to mean ‘a restriction within
the meaning of the Subdivision Act’.34
2NC – Legal
Making immigration tough, expensive, or unlikely isn’t a prohibition
Caiaccio 94 - Kevin T. Caiaccio, member of the State Bar of Georgia since 1995, J.D. University of
Georgia Law Review, Spring 1994, Available to Subscribing Institutions via Lexis-Nexis)//BM

While the Howard court acknowledged the enforceability of some law practice covenants under the
Business Code, the key issue became whether the agreement, which called for the loss of 82.5% of net
profits by the departing partners, was one that "restricted" [*820] the practice of law. n95 The court
essentially adopted the Haight court approach, stating that a reasonable cost imposed on a departing
partner does not restrict the practice of law. n96 The court labeled the cost a mere "economic
consequence" to an "unrestricted choice." n97

The majority in Howard reasoned that such a construction was consistent with Rule 1-500 and that this
construction struck a balance between competing interests. n98 According to the court, this
interpretation allowed a departing partner to practice law anywhere in the state and represent any of
the former firm's clients who were willing to follow. n99 The departing partner would, however, have to
compensate the firm for its loss of income. Therefore, the court remanded for a factual determination
as to whether the loss of withdrawal benefits constituted liquidated damages or an unacceptable
penalty. n100 The majority opinion justified this break with years of nationwide precedent by reasoning
that "a revolution in the practice of law has occurred." n101 This "revolution" required the "economic
interests of the law firm to be protected as they are in other business enterprises." n102 The court
supported its recognition of a "revolution" by noting the increased propensity of law firms--even large,
seemingly stable firms--to split up as partners grab clients on the way out. n103 As a result,
noncompetition agreements have become common, despite the near universal recognition by courts
and ethics committees that such agreements are unenforceable. n104 Furthermore, the court reasoned
that the pervasiveness of lateral hiring, even among high-level partners, has undermined the
assumption that firms are stable institutions. n105 The court concluded that, [*821] due to these
"sweeping changes" in the profession, the per se rule banning noncompetition agreements among law
partners should be abolished. n106

The court then addressed some of the arguments made by the dissent and by other courts upholding
the ban. According to the majority of the court, two primary arguments exist in support of the ban: (1)
an attorney should have the freedom to practice law where and for whom he or she pleases, n107 and
(2) clients are not commodities and should have the freedom to choose representation. n108 The
majority argued that these freedoms are merely "theoretical" because they are routinely circumscribed.
n109 For example, attorneys, like other professionals, may be fired or forced out by their partners
despite the wishes of the client. n110 Similarly, an attorney is not required to accept representation of
every client that seeks services, and a lawyer may even be required to decline representation of a
prospective client if a conflict of interest exists. n111 In fact, an attorney has many grounds to justify
terminating a relationship with a client. n112 Finally, the majority noted that, in civil cases, clients have
no "right" to an attorney at all. n113 Thus, these "freedoms," upon which the per se rule is justified, are
in fact already limited. n114
The court proceeded a step further, arguing that permitting restrictive covenants may even serve the
client. According to the court, the ban promoted a "culture of mistrust" and damaged the stability of law
firms. n115 Partners may be reluctant to refer clients to or support the practice of their fellow partners
if fear persists that a partner may leave with those clients at any time. n116 The court concluded that
the changing nature of the business of law, the permissibility of such covenants in other [*822]
professions, and the undesirable promotion of the culture of mistrust required the abolition of the per
se ban on lawyer restrictive covenants. n117 The court remanded the case to the trial court for analysis
under the test of reasonableness applicable to all restrictive covenants. n118

Justice Kennard, the sole dissenting justice, made several arguments in support of the per se ban. First,
Kennard offered a different interpretation of Rule 1-500 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, arguing
that the rule was unambiguous: agreements that restrict competition are unethical. n119 She criticized
the majority's argument as flawed because it interpreted "restrict" to mean "prohibit" and claimed that
a reasonable cost was not a restriction. n120 According to the dissent, this interpretation does not give
the words their plain and ordinary meaning. n121 In their ordinary meaning, restrict and prohibit are not
synonymous; a price as high as 82.5% of net profits certainly constitutes a restriction. n122 Therefore,
the partnership agreement violated the clear meaning of the rule.

In support of this interpretive argument, the dissent cited the "discussions" that accompany the Rules
and "provide guidance for interpretation." n123 The discussions accompanying Rule 1-500, which the
majority ignored, were unequivocal:

$ (Rule 1-500$ ) permits a restrictive covenant in a law corporation, partnership, or employment

agreement. The law corporation shareholder, partner, or associate may agree not to have a separate
practice during the existence of the relationship; however, upon termination of the relationship
(whether voluntary or involuntary), the member is free to practice law [*823] without any contractual
restriction . . . . n124

According to the dissent, the court should not have endorsed an interpretation completely inconsistent
with this unambiguous commentary. n125

Second, the dissent argued that, despite the majority's perceived "revolution" in the practice of law,
n126 the law is still primarily a profession, and lawyers should continue to strive for the highest ethical
standards. n127 Although no one in the private sector could continue to practice law without a profit, an
attorney has a very high fiduciary duty. This duty often requires an attorney to place the interest of a
client above her own interest. Therefore, the client's right to choose representation is paramount to the
interests of the attorney. n128 Enforcing covenants not to compete, on the other hand, would
subordinate the client's rights to the monetary interests of established firms. n129

Next, the dissent attacked the argument that, since noncompetition agreements are enforceable in
other professions, lawyers should not be treated differently. n130 According to the dissent, the ethics
rules of other professions are not helpful because "the nature, ideals, and practices of the various
professions are different." n131 Notwithstanding the rules with respect to other professions, lawyers
should strive to obtain the highest ethical standards because "ethics is not a subject in which the
objective is to achieve consensus at the level of the lowest common denominator." n132

Finally, the dissent noted that the purpose of ethics regulations is to protect the public, not the
monetary interests of law firms. n133 According to the dissent, the majority subordinated the rights of
clients and lawyers to the business interests of firms and justified this erosion of ethics standards by
concluding that these rights are merely "theoretical" because they are already circumscribed. n134 The
dissent strenuously disagreed with the majority's conclusion, arguing that this analysis was irrelevant.
The issue in this case was not whether a partner may be forced out of a law firm, nor whether a conflict
of interest existed; n135 the issue was whether the defendant-law firm could "prevent a willing attorney
from representing a willing client." n136 Therefore, the majority's analysis on this point was merely
"rationalization, not reasoning." n137

The dissent concluded that the court should not promote the weakening of ethical standards and that
the integrity of the legal profession demanded upholding the per se ban on covenants not to compete
between law partners. n138

IV. Analysis and Recommendations

Although the Howard court set out persuasive policy reasons for abolishing the per se ban on lawyer
restrictive covenants, the majority's reasoning contained several flaws. First, the court misconstrued the
meaning of the ethics rule: under the majority's interpretation, the rule prohibits only outright bans on
competition. In reaching this conclusion, the court violated several rules of statutory construction.
Second, the court failed to recognize the need to articulate a new standard for law partners. Instead, the
court held that agreements between law partners should be analyzed under the "rule of reason" test
applicable to ordinary business partnerships. This Comment contends that the rules of

[*825] ethics, as currently written, mandate a higher standard for attorneys than for other types of
partners. In abrogating the per se ban, courts should interpret the rule in a manner that balances the
changing nature of the practice of law with the competing ethical considerations.

a. proper construction of the rules of professional conduct

The Howard court began its analysis by examining the California Business and Professions Code, which
expressly permits reasonable restrictive covenants among business partners. n139 The court noted that
this provision had long applied to doctors and accountants and concluded that the general language of
the statute provided no indication of an exception for lawyers. n140 After reaching this conclusion,
however, the court noted that, since it had the authority to promulgate a higher standard for lawyers,
the statute alone did not necessarily control, n141 and the court therefore proceeded to examine the
California Rules of Professional Conduct. n142 The court avoided the apparent conflict between the
business statute and the ethics rule by undertaking a strained reading of the rule. In essence, the court
held that the word "restrict" referred only to outright prohibitions, and that a mere "economic
consequence" does not equal a prohibition. n143
2NC – Excludes Easement
Restriction is separate from Easement
Haneman 59 – Vincent S. Haneman, former Associate Justice of the New Jersey Supreme Court,
DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS,” 58 N.J. Super. 273, Superior Court of New Jersey (Appellate Division), 12-4-
1959, Available to Subscribing Institutions via Lexis-Nexis)//BM
An existing easement in lands to be conveyed violates the terms of an agreement to convey real estate free and clear of all encumbrances. Freedman v. Lieberman,
2 N.J.Super. 537, 543 (Ch. 1949). Although there have been cases in which the phrase "subject to restrictions of record" has been held to encompass easements, see
Nass v. Munzing, 100 N.J. Eq. 421 (Ch. 1927); Kutschinski v. Thompson, supra; Kaufhold v. Cador Construction Co., 109 N.J. Eq. 1 (Ch. 1931), the facts of the case sub
judice do not warrant such an interpretation. In the above cited cases the court found either that the complainants knew of the easement at the time of contracting
or that the easement was observable by a mere casual inspection of the property and that the complainants had inspected the property several times with a view of
purchase prior to the making of the contract. In the instant case, both plaintiffs and their counsel denied any actual knowledge of the existence of the easement on
September 16, 1957, and there was no proof adduced which would support a conclusion to the contrary. Furthermore, the sewer easement was not visible upon an
examination of the premises. In the Freedman case, supra, the United States had an unabandoned easement to enter upon the premises in order to construct
breakwaters or other barriers whenever necessary to prevent erosion on the ocean front, and the court declared that that portion of the agreement of sale reading
"title to be subject to all existing restrictions of record" did not include said easement. " The word `restriction' here connotes restrictive covenant."
Freedman v. Lieberman, supra, 2 N.J. Super. at page 546. Interestingly, the starter certificate listed " Restrictions" and "Easements" as

separate categories, and referred to several restrictions, but reported that there were no easements.
As here used, the word "restrictions" connotes restrictive covenants and not easements.
2NC – Enforceable
Restrictions must be enforceable- discouraging language doesn’t count
Barnett 3 – Stephen R. Barnett, Elizabeth J. Boalt Professor of Law Emeritus at University of California, Berkeley, 2003(“DEVELOPMENT
Arkansas at Little Rock School of Law: The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process, Fall 2003, Available to Subscribing Institutions via Lexis-

questions follow: (1) Are discouraging words "restrictions" on citation under Rule 32.1? (2) What difference, if any, does it

make? (3) What is the risk of judicial resistance to [*493] no-citation rules, through discouraging words or other means? and (4) Should discouraging words be forbidden?
1. Are Discouraging Words "Restrictions" under Rule 32.1?

it is not clear that discouraging words have to be considered "restrictions" on citation under
The committee's statement notwithstanding,

words may be wholly admonitory - and unenforceable. The Fourth Circuit's rule, for
the proposed Rule 32.1. These

example, states that citing unpublished opinions is "disfavored," but that it may be done "if counsel
believes, nevertheless, that [an unpublished opinion] has precedential value in relation to a material
issue in a case and that there is no published opinion that would serve as well." n129 On the question of what counsel "believes," surely
counsel should be taken at her word; counsel's asserted belief that an unpublished opinion has precedential or persuasive value should not be considered a falsifiable fact. Hence no sanction should be available for violating the
Fourth Circuit's rule, and the rule's discouraging language in turn would not be a "prohibition or restriction" that was barred by Rule 32.1 as presently drafted.

In the rules of some other circuits, however, the language disfavoring citation of unpublished opinions is unmoored from anyone's "belief" and arguably does impose an objective "prohibition or restriction" determinable by a court.
n130 A court might find, for example, that the required "persuasive value with respect to a material issue that has not been addressed in a published opinion" n131 was not present, and hence that the citation was not permitted
by the circuit rule.

With what result? It would follow, paradoxically, that the opinion could be cited - because the circuit rule would be struck down under Rule 32.1 as a forbidden "restriction" on citation.

. If the local rule's discouraging

The committee's double-negative drafting thus creates a Hall of Mirrors in which citation of an unpublished opinion [*494] would be allowed either way

language is merely hortatory, it is not a "restriction" forbidden by Rule 32.1; but that doesn't matter, because such a rule does not bar the citation in the first place.
If, on the other hand, the local rule's language has bite and is a "restriction," then Rule 32.1 strikes it down, and again the citation is permitted.
2AC - Regulations
Regulations on legal immigrants ARE restrictions
Bernstein-Baker 7 -- Judith Bernstein-Baker is the Executive Director of HIAS and Council Migration
Service of Philadelphia. She received her B.A. from Binghamton University, her M.S.W. from the
University of Pennsylvania School of Social Work, and her J.D. from Temple University School of Law., (--
2007, "Citizenship In A Restrictionist Era: The Mixed Messages Of Federal Policies, "16 Temp. Pol. &
Civ. Rts. L. Rev. 367, Lexis) //pleb

These efforts, however, are occurring at a time of fear and uncertainty for the foreign-born. 113Link to
the text of the note Although the pitched debate has been about "illegal immigration" since 1996, legal
immigrants have heard a drumbeat of restrictions: increased risk of deportation, limitation of social
rights in the form of denying public benefits previously available, proposals to abolish birthright
citizenship, increased application fees with more complex application requirements, heightened scrutiny
of applications from the most vulnerable individuals, increased delays for selected groups and
individuals due to security checks, and new proposals that make the cost of citizenship out of reach of
many low wage earners, while at the same time seeking to change the citizenship examination. 114
Many of the recent actions have been presented through administrative fiat, with little or no
opportunity for public review. The messages underscore an ambivalence and ambiguity about legal
immigration and citizenship: become a citizen if you want to be a full social and legally recognized
participant, but we will make the process more difficult, more risky, and more expensive.

Regulations can have the intent of substantially limiting immigration

Kasai 18 -- Nathan Kasai, Policy Advisor, He earned a J.D. from the George Washington University
School of Law and a bachelor’s degree from American University. While in law school, he worked in a
variety of public policy and advocacy positions, including with the Senate Judiciary Committee and the
National Center for Lesbian Rights. (4-11-2018, "Trump's Predictably Cruel Attack on Lawful Immigrants
Receiving Public Benefits – Third Way, "No Publication, )
predictably-cruel-attack-on-lawful-immigrants-receiving-public-benefits //pleb

Moreover, the regulatory changes appear to alter the weight of using a benefit in the overall public
charge determination. Federal law requires DHS to consider “totality of the circumstances” in public
charge determinations.26 The administration can’t change that with a regulatory change, but they can
modify how severely they consider certain factors they consider negative. The new rules, list receipt of
benefits under the category of “heavily weighted negative factors.”27 They also list medical conditions
without non-subsidized health insurance.28 The Administration not only wants to punish immigrants for
receiving an ACA health insurance subsidy, but it wants to double down on punishing them, if they get
sick. Immigration officials have long had substantial discretion in their public charge findings, but
everything in the proposed rules signals a draconian intent to substantially restrict lawful
2NC – Suspend
Reduce means to diminish – that’s just a less radical form of suspend -
Widener and Hamilton 1 - Hiram E. Widener Jr., United States Circuit Judge of the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit; and Clyde H. Hamilton, Senior United States Circuit Judge of the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, former Judge for the United States District Court
for the District of South Carolina; 2001(“CARRINGTON GARDENS ASSOCIATES, I, A VIRGINIA LIMITED
DEVELOPMENT, Defendant-Appellee,” 1 Fed. Appx. 239, United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit, 1-17-2001, Available to Subscribing Institutions via Lexis-Nexis)//BM
Under the regulation, 24 C.F.R. § 886.123, the payments to Carrington could have been stopped for good, the contract terms aside. For
construction of the contract terms, we adopt the wording of the opinion of the district court for the next three paragraphs of this opinion which
follow: The plain meaning of the word "withhold" is "to retain in one's possession that which belongs to or is claimed or sought by another. . . .
To refrain from paying that which is due." Black's Law Dictionary 1602 (6th ed. 1990). Using this common meaning of "withhold," HUD clearly
has the authority to retain housing assistance payments. But, the HAP Contract's withhold remedy also limits how long [**7] the funds may be
retained. The housing assistance payments may be retained only "until the default under this Contract has been cured." Tr. Ex. 8, § 26. Once the
default is cured, HUD may no longer keep the retained funds. This remedy, therefore, creates a trust type relationship where HUD has the
authority to keep the withheld funds on the owner's account only while the owner is in default and thereafter must pay out the withheld funds
when the default is cured. In contrast, the reduce-or-suspend remedy suggests a more permanent forfeiture of funds. The
"suspend" means "to interrupt; to cause to cease for a time; to post pone; to stay, delay, or hinder; to
discontinue temporarily, but with an expectation or purpose of resumption." Black's Law Dictionary 1446 (6th ed. 1990). "Reduce"
means "to diminish in size, amount, extent, or number." Webster's Third New International Dictionary 1905 (1981). <3>
Based on these definitions, "reduce" is merely a less radical form of "suspend." Under the common
meanings of "reduce" and "suspend," HUD has the authority to discontinue housing assistance
payments entirely or diminish the size of the payments while Carrington Gardens [**8] is in default. Like the withhold
remedy, this remedy limits how long payments may be discontinued or diminished -- only "until the default under this Contract has been
cured." Tr. Ex. 8, § 26. After the default has been cured, therefore, HUD must resume full housing assistance payments. Unlike the withhold
remedy, however, under the plain language of the reduce-or-suspend remedy, HUD is under no obligation to pay out any discontinued or
diminished funds. The words "suspend" or "reduce" furnish no inference or suggestion that HUD is obligated to retain suspended or reduced
funds on the owner's account until a default is cured. This language in the HAP Contract speaks [*243] only to HUD's obligation to begin full
payments after the default is cured. JA 546-548. <3> "Reduce" is not found in Black's Law Dictionary. Hence, the Court
defaults to Webster's.
Legal Immigration
2NC – Federal Government
Legal Immigration is the granting of LPR status by the federal government – its distinct
from citizenship
Perry et. al 1 – Marc Perry, Acting Chief of the Public Information Office at the Census Bureau, joined the Census Bureau in 1997 as a
demographer in the Population Division; Barbara Vandervate, Retired Census Bureau staff (37 years); Lea Auman, Population Division at the US
Census Bureau; and Kathy Morris, Population Division at the US Census Bureau, 2001("Evaluating Components of International Migration: Legal
Migrants", US Census Bureau, December 2001, Available Online from

1. Background

Legal immigration is the process by which a non-citizen of the United States is granted legal
permanent residence in the United States by the federal government. A non-citizen with legal
permanent residence status may remain in the country, be employed, and travel outside the United
States without restriction. A legal permanent resident may also seek naturalization. Attaining legal
permanent residence in the United States is not the same as becoming a United States citizen.

After dropping to relatively low levels during the period 1931 to 1970 (see Table 1), legal immigration to
the United States has increased significantly in recent decades, primarily as a result of a change in
immigration law in 1965. According to the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), 7.6 million
people attained legal permanent residence in the United States in the fiscal year 1991 to 1998 period--
an amount equaling the peak levels of immigration early in the Twentieth Century.
2NC – Legal Immigrant
Definitions that specify “Legal Immigrant” are bad – the term is not distinct from
Perry et. al 1 – Marc Perry, Acting Chief of the Public Information Office at the Census Bureau, joined the Census Bureau in 1997 as a
demographer in the Population Division; Barbara Vandervate, Retired Census Bureau staff (37 years); Lea Auman, Population Division at the US
Census Bureau; and Kathy Morris, Population Division at the US Census Bureau, 2001("Evaluating Components of International Migration: Legal
Migrants", US Census Bureau, December 2001, Available Online from

Perhaps the bigger limitation of legal immigration data is simply that it is increasingly difficult to easily
define what we mean by a "legal immigrant." The Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA) defines a
legal immigrant as a non-citizen of the United States who is granted legal permanent residence in the
United States. This is a straightforward, easily understood definition. However, its weakness is that it
makes no distinction between people who have applied for--but not yet received--legal permanent
residence and unauthorized people. The large backlog of adjustee applications is but one group of
quasi-legal immigrants. While adjustee applicants may not yet have legal permanent residence (and
some percentage of them will no doubt be denied legal permanent residence when their applications
are eventually processed), many of them will eventually become legal permanent residents. In the
meantime, most of them have the ability to legally seek employment in the United States. By not
including these categories of people with the legal immigration component, we are including them in
the residual foreign born. Thus, by dividing immigration into the categories of legal immigrant (those
with LPR) and unauthorized (all others who entered the country but do not have LPR), we lose a
category of authorized people who do not have LPR.
2NC – Asylees
Asylees blur the distinction between temporary and permanent
Perry et. al 1 – Marc Perry, Acting Chief of the Public Information Office at the Census Bureau, joined the Census Bureau in 1997 as a
demographer in the Population Division; Barbara Vandervate, Retired Census Bureau staff (37 years); Lea Auman, Population Division at the US
Census Bureau; and Kathy Morris, Population Division at the US Census Bureau, 2001("Evaluating Components of International Migration: Legal
Migrants", US Census Bureau, December 2001, Available Online from


The quality of existing statistics on asylees is hampered by several general limitations. First, there is
currently some degree of overlap and doublecounting between asylees and other components of legal
immigration, because asylees can have any legal status when they apply for asylum. For instance, most
of the people in temporary protected status are also seeking asylum.

Second, because the processes of applying for asylum, applying for legal permanent residence, and
receiving legal permanent residence often take a number of years, there is a large quasi-legal
population of pending asylees. As with the quasi-legal refugee component, these are not unauthorized
people in the strict sense of the word. Asylee applicants, for instance, are now authorized to work after
six months. Once registered, they are able to obtain a social security number and apply for other
benefits through ORR. Asylee applicants are not currently accounted for in any population estimates
methods, which relegates them to the residual foreign born.

We see from Table 7 that as of FY 1998, the overwhelming majority of asylee applicants come from
twelve countries, including nine countries in Central and South America, suggesting that a large
percentage of asylee applicants are Hispanic. Table 7 indicates also that only about half (32,822 of
69,407) of cases granted asylum between 1990 and 1998 were for these 12 countries, even though they
constitute an overwhelming majority of cases filed during the period and cases pending at the end of
the period.


Finally, a recent GAO report suggested that asylees are undercounted by a significant degree. INS
maintains statistics on asylees, while data on asylee appeals are maintained by EOIR. Some people win
asylum on appeal through EOIR, while in other cases "trailing relatives" (some already in the US, others
new arrivals) are not counted. In 1998 GAO estimated that these additional categories would have
increased the asylee count for 1996 from 18,000 to at least 29,000. By the end of the decade, this asylee
undercount had become sizable.
2AC – Includes Refugees and Asylees
Legal Immigration consists of both admittees and adjustees – that includes refugees
and asylees
Perry et. al 1 – Marc Perry, Acting Chief of the Public Information Office at the Census Bureau, joined the Census Bureau in 1997 as a
demographer in the Population Division; Barbara Vandervate, Retired Census Bureau staff (37 years); Lea Auman, Population Division at the US
Census Bureau; and Kathy Morris, Population Division at the US Census Bureau, 2001("Evaluating Components of International Migration: Legal
Migrants", US Census Bureau, December 2001, Available Online from

Major components of legal immigration

There are numerous ways to qualify for legal permanent residence in the United States, and the 7.6
million immigrants who received legal permanent residence in the fiscal year 1991 to 1998 period
represent a wide variety of immigrant situations. INS immigration data are therefore partitioned into a
number of different categories, based on the INS class of admission. These admissions vary in terms of
application procedure and data source. Differences in data sources and application procedures are
important because they impact how well we are able to estimate both the total number of legal
immigrants and their demographic characteristics. Consequently, throughout this document we will
present our findings separately for four types of legal immigrants: new arrivals, adjustees, refugees, and
asylees. These four groups are discussed briefly in the next section.

Two main administrative routes are open to aliens who wish to become legal permanent residents of
the United States, depending on their residence at time of application. New arrivals are people living
outside the United States at the time of application for legal permanent residence. They must apply
through the U.S. consular office in their country and are unable to enter the United States as legal
permanent residents until receiving their visa. From fiscal years 1991 to 1998, 3.5 million people
received legal permanent residency as new arrivals.1

Adjustees are people already living in the United States at the time of application for legal permanent
residence. These people are adjusting from a nonimmigrant status--such as foreign student, temporary
worker, refugee, or undocumented migrant--to legal immigrant status. Because adjustees are already
living in the United States when they apply for legal permanent residence, they do not apply through the
consular office in their previous country. Instead they apply directly to the Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS) for permanent resident visas. Roughly 4.1 million adjustees obtained legal
permanent residence in the United States between 1991 and 1998.2 This adjustee number includes 0.9
million refugees and asylees who adjusted status.

Among those adjusting status, there are two main groups of immigrants. Refugees are people who
cannot return to their country of nationality because of persecution or a well-founded fear of
persecution. Refugees must apply for refugee status from outside the United States, and must reside
in the U.S. for a minimum of one year before applying for legal permanent residency. According to INS
figures from the 1998 yearbook, 0.8 million refugees received legal permanent residency between fiscal
years 1991 and 1998. The Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) within the department of Health and
Human Services provides data on refugee arrivals to this country.

Asylees are defined as people who (1) are unable or unwilling to return to their country of nationality
because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution, (2) applied for asylum while living in the
United States or upon arriving at a port of entry, and have been granted asylum, or (3) applied for
asylum during deportation and were granted asylum by the Executive Office of Immigration Review
(EOIR). The applicant's legal status at time of application is not taken into account when INS makes the
decision about asylum. The Census Bureau includes asylees in the legal immigration component only
when they change status to legal permanent residence. About 106,000 asylees converted to legal
permanent residence during fiscal years 1991 through 1998, according to the 1998 INS yearbook.

The asylee process is a complex one involving multiple steps. In this paper, we will use the term 'asylee
applicant' to refer to people applying for asylee status. Successful applicants are known as 'asylees.'
Asylees applying for legal permanent residence will be referred to as 'pending asylee adjustees,' while
those who are granted this status are known as 'asylee adjustees.' For DAPE purposes, it is important to
realize that for both the asylee and refugee components there are people in various stages of
application for legal permanent residence.
Limits – Adjustment of Status
Including adjustees unlimits the topic - their numbers are innaccurate
Perry et. al 1 – Marc Perry, Acting Chief of the Public Information Office at the Census Bureau, joined the Census Bureau in 1997 as a
demographer in the Population Division; Barbara Vandervate, Retired Census Bureau staff (37 years); Lea Auman, Population Division at the US
Census Bureau; and Kathy Morris, Population Division at the US Census Bureau, 2001("Evaluating Components of International Migration: Legal
Migrants", US Census Bureau, December 2001, Available Online from

But while the numbers of applications for adjustment was increasing substantially from 1995 through
1997, the number of applications for adjustment actually completed by INS was not. For various
reasons, the numbers of applications completed declined for fiscal years 1997, 1998, and 1999. The
result was a large increase in the backlog of pending applications for adjustment of status, as shown by
Table 3.


These shifts in application processing are problematic in several ways. First, they cloud the immigration
data, making it difficult to know whether year to year changes in immigration numbers are due to actual
changes in immigration patterns or simply due to changes in processing. Second, the existence of a
large backlog has created a shadow, quasi-legal immigrant population that does not fit easily into
existing international migration categories. We'll return to this problem later on.

To correct for this backlog, the Census Bureau shifts adjustee cases from later years backwards, so that
the number of adjustees in a given fiscal year matches the number of applications in that year (with
certain exceptions and allowances). The class of admission variable is used to make sure that none of
the shifted adjustees exceeds existing numeric quotas in those immigration categories where quotas
exist. After the supply of adjustees from these later years is exhausted, cases from existing files are
replicated, under the assumption that future adjustees will have characteristics similar to current
successful adjustees. The result of this attempt to account for the adjustee backlog has been an increase
in the number of estimated adjustees for all years since 1995, in some cases by a large amount (see
Table 4).
Predictability – Refugees
Including refugees is unpredictable – admission numbers are unstable
Perry et. al 1 – Marc Perry, Acting Chief of the Public Information Office at the Census Bureau, joined the Census Bureau in 1997 as a
demographer in the Population Division; Barbara Vandervate, Retired Census Bureau staff (37 years); Lea Auman, Population Division at the US
Census Bureau; and Kathy Morris, Population Division at the US Census Bureau, 2001("Evaluating Components of International Migration: Legal
Migrants", US Census Bureau, December 2001, Available Online from


The Census Bureau produces an estimate of the number of refugees admitted to the U.S. each year by
using data from the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) of the Department of Health and Human
Services (DHHS). After the ORR data on refugees are compiled, we use INS microdata to impute missing
age and sex data for this population. Imputing race and Hispanic origin characteristics for refugees is
done similarly, but uses the 1990 census data on foreign-born migrants who entered the United States
in the preceding five years.

The refugee component is unique in that refugees often arrive in the U.S. in sudden "waves" as a result
of sudden political upheaval in foreign countries. Consequently, there is no assumption of a year-to-
year stability in the flow of refugees from a particular country. Because of the instability in refugee
flows, the time series of when refugees adjust to legal permanent residence would not be an accurate
reflection of their original entry to the United States. Refugees adjusting to legal permanent residence
are thus included as refugees at their time of arrival, based on time series of arrival data from ORR, and
are not included in the proxy rule.

For DAPE, our goal was to estimate the legal immigration component for the period 1990 to 2000. We
limited our refugee component to include only those refugees who arrived in the United States after
April 1, 1990 and received legal permanent residence before April 1, 2000. While 1.04 million people
entered the United States as refugees during the 1990s, only 0.8 million received legal permanent
residence before April 1, 2000. Some of the remaining 0.2 million refugees who have not yet received
legal permanent residence will undoubtedly adjust their status in the future.

Including refugees is unpredictable – there is no brightline as to when they become

Perry et. al 1 – Marc Perry, Acting Chief of the Public Information Office at the Census Bureau, joined the Census Bureau in 1997 as a
demographer in the Population Division; Barbara Vandervate, Retired Census Bureau staff (37 years); Lea Auman, Population Division at the US
Census Bureau; and Kathy Morris, Population Division at the US Census Bureau, 2001("Evaluating Components of International Migration: Legal
Migrants", US Census Bureau, December 2001, Available Online from


In general, the quality of refugee data is considered to be high, due to the existence of accurate
administrative records from the Office of Refugee Resettlement. The major source of error for the
refugee component is simply agreeing when to include refugees as legal immigrants. For DAPE, our
estimate of refugees for 1990 to 2000 was restricted to the 800,000 refugees who entered the United
States during these years and also adjusted status to become a legal permanent resident. ORR data
indicate that slightly more than one million refugees entered the country during the 1990s, indicating
that roughly 200,000 non-adjusted refugees (one million minus 800,000) are erroneously excluded from
DAPE's legal immigration component and are thus included in the residual foreign born.

Another limitation is the process by which demographic characteristics are assigned to refugees. We
assume that the race and Hispanic origin of refugees from a particular country matches the race and
Hispanic origin of recent immigrants from that country. This assumption is probably the most
reasonable way of establishing race and Hispanic origin detail for refugees. However, it might not hold
true in those circumstances where refugees are fleeing a particular country specifically because they are
ethnic minorities. This is certainly a possibility, because refugee status is conferred on people who claim
fear of persecution based in part on race, sex, religion, nationality, or membership in a particular social
Predictability – Asylees
Including asylees is unpredictable - asylees are governed under separate legislation,
but Asylee laws require changing overall laws
Perry et. al 1 – Marc Perry, Acting Chief of the Public Information Office at the Census Bureau, joined the Census Bureau in 1997 as a
demographer in the Population Division; Barbara Vandervate, Retired Census Bureau staff (37 years); Lea Auman, Population Division at the US
Census Bureau; and Kathy Morris, Population Division at the US Census Bureau, 2001("Evaluating Components of International Migration: Legal
Migrants", US Census Bureau, December 2001, Available Online from


The Census Bureau does not currently include asylees in the population estimates universe until they
apply for permanent residence status. Consequently, asylees' legal immigration information does not
coincide with their initial entry into the United States. Data for asylees who have adjusted their status
are available in the INS microdata file, and are processed in the same manner as the data for the rest of
the adjustee population. They are tallied and accounted for separately in the total adjustee population.

Asylees changing status to legal permanent residence are constrained by statutory limits. Through 1990,
the limit was 5,000 asylees adjusting status per year. In 1990 the limit was changed to 10,000 (effective
in 1991), with 22,700 asylees adjusting status in 1991 under a grandfather clause in the 1990 legislation.
For fiscal years 1992 through 1998, asylee adjustees have averaged slightly under 9,500 per year.
Asylees adjusting status are also subject to country limitations (as are the balance of the adjustees). This
requires that they wait until slots are available for their country of nationality.

There has been a large increase in the number of applications for asylum in recent decades. In the 1970s
applications averaged 3,100 per year. In the 1980s, applications increased to an average of 55,000 per
year, and in the 1990s further increased to an average of 123,000 per year. A relatively small and
declining percentage of the applicants are granted asylum: from 22.5 percent of those applying in the
1970s to 7.8 percent in the 1990s. Some applicants have become legal permanent residents through
legislation benefiting specific countries, such as El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Nicaragua, and countries
of the former Soviet Union. Applying for legal permanent residency through this legislation removes the
applicants from the regular asylum process.4

Once applicants are granted asylum, they must wait one year to apply for legal permanent residence,
and are subject to the same overall limit, and specific country limits, set for all adjustees. About 71,000
people were granted asylum by INS in fiscal years 1993 through 1997. During that same time, about
44,000 asylees became legal permanent residents. People can also appeal to Executive Office of
Immigration Review (EOIR) for asylum. Between 1993 and 1997, an additional 21,000 people received
asylee status through EIOR. These figures are not included in any INS statistics on asylees. Thus, while a
total of 92,000 people were granted asylum between 1993 and 1997, only 44,000 were granted legal
permanent residence, resulting in a backlog of more than 48,000 registered asylees awaiting adjustment
to legal permanent residence (Table 5).

Including adjustees is unpredictable – they are already resident in the US and its
impossible to determine when they count as LPR
Perry et. al 1 – Marc Perry, Acting Chief of the Public Information Office at the Census Bureau, joined the Census Bureau in 1997 as a
demographer in the Population Division; Barbara Vandervate, Retired Census Bureau staff (37 years); Lea Auman, Population Division at the US
Census Bureau; and Kathy Morris, Population Division at the US Census Bureau, 2001("Evaluating Components of International Migration: Legal
Migrants", US Census Bureau, December 2001, Available Online from


The adjustee component of legal immigration has perhaps the most limitations of any of the four
components. It has neither the refugee component's accurate system of administrative records nor the
new arrival component's conceptual simplicity. Adjustees are people already resident in the United
States at the time of their application for legal permanent residence; therefore data on adjustees at
their time of entry into the United States do not necessarily match data when legal permanent residency
is obtained. At what point, then, does someone make the transition from unauthorized to authorized?
Adjustee data are also complicated by definitional difficulties. At what point should an adjustee first be
included in our estimates of the resident United States population: when they apply for legal
permanent residence, or when they actually receive legal permanent residence?

The proxy rule we use to estimate the number of future adjustees entering the U.S. in the current year
also has its limitations. While the proxy rule may generally hold true when levels of new arrivals and
adjustees are constant, it is less applicable when annual levels of immigration are not constant. When
the number of new arrivals is increasing substantially each year, the proxy rule will underestimate the
number of future adjustees. When the number of new arrivals is decreasing each year, the proxy rule
will overestimate the number of future adjustees.

The increasing backlog of adjustee applicants has greatly complicated the ability to make accurate
estimates of the size and composition of the adjustee population. Currently we know very little about
the backlog population's demographic composition. After the supply of adjustees from these later years
is exhausted, cases from existing files are replicated, under the assumption that future adjustees will
have characteristics similar to current successful adjustees.
Predictability - Admission
Limiting the topic to admittees is the most predictable – its uncomplicated and has
few discrepancies
Perry et. al 1 – Marc Perry, Acting Chief of the Public Information Office at the Census Bureau, joined the Census Bureau in 1997 as a
demographer in the Population Division; Barbara Vandervate, Retired Census Bureau staff (37 years); Lea Auman, Population Division at the US
Census Bureau; and Kathy Morris, Population Division at the US Census Bureau, 2001("Evaluating Components of International Migration: Legal
Migrants", US Census Bureau, December 2001, Available Online from

New Arrivals

Unlike the adjustee component, the new arrival component is relatively straightforward and
uncomplicated. To examine the completeness of the flow, we compared INS new arrival data with
numbers of visas issued by the U.S. State Department's Bureau of Consular Affairs (BCA) for fiscal years
1993 through 1998 (see Table 6). Both the INS and BCA data exclude data on refugees and asylees. The
BCA totals are always higher, ranging from 1,167 higher in FY1996 to 35,996 higher in FY 1997. Possible
explanations for the discrepancies include situations where the applicants receiving the visa never
actually entered the U.S, applicants changed their minds, their circumstances changed, the political
situation in their country changed, the home country government created bureaucratic or legal
impediments, or the applicants became ill or died.


Other explanations are that the applicant entered the U.S. in the year following that in which the visa
was granted, or that the applicant received the visa but INS lost the paperwork, so that the applicant
was not in the INS file as a new arrival. INS indicated that paperwork does disappear on occasion, and
that the other possible explanations were credible. In any event, the discrepancies for these years are
relatively small and appear to be explainable. This suggests that the new arrival data we receive from
INS are reasonably complete and contain relatively few limitations.
** Aff Things
*I don’t believe that every card in the 1AC is necessary. For instance, the second Kelly card on the
advantage is repetitive with some other cards through the advantage/solvency.
Organ Trafficking Advantage
International organ trafficking is highly lucrative and targets impoverished citizens
Kelly 13 (Emily Kelly- Executive Comment Editor for the Boston College International & Comparative
HEART OF THE MATTER," Boston College International and Comparative Law Review; Newton Centre
Vol. 36, Iss. 2,,ín)

Trafficking in organs is a growing, lucrative enterprise much like the illicit markets for weapons, humans,
and drugs.14 The media has sensationalized myths concerning organ trafficking since the 1980s,15 reporting both exaggerated kidnapping
accounts and reliable reports of underground organ markets.16 Although the precise scope of the problem remains shrouded
in uncertainty, the international community recognizes organ trafficking as a human rights and public
health concern.17 The underground organ trade constitutes ten percent of worldwide organ transplants,
producing between $600 million and $1.2 billion in illicit revenue each year.18 Although organ trafficking
centers routinely shift locations, several countries have gained notoriety as hotbeds.19 Pakistan, one of the
largest “kidney bazaars” in the world, has a thriving underground market supplied by impoverished citizens.20 A legal
vacuum led to the growth of kidney transplants in the late 1980s:21 because there were no national laws or systems to address
organ donation, commercial kidney transactions quickly became prevalent.22 Today, brokers work with hospitals to locate impoverished
donors, who provide approximately 2000 kidneys each year.23 Egypt is also a center for organ trafficking, with more than eighty
percent of kidney transplants involving commercial donors.24 As in Pakistan, the absence of laws and transplant systems
made OTC trafficking the leading method for organ procurement in Egypt.25 Unlike Pakistan, however, where donors are predominately
Pakistani citizens, Egypt’s
organ vendor pool is comprised of both impoverished Egyptian citizens and sub-
Saharan African refugees.26 Increasingly, organ trafficking rings involve actors who operate simultaneously in
multiple countries to recruit donors and recipients.27 India, China, Egypt, Iraq, Turkey, Pakistan, and the
Philippines all constitute such organ supply countries.28 Patients from the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and
other wealthy countries travel to organ supply countries to purchase organs in the underground market.29 Such transactions represent OTC
trafficking because donors do not typically travel from their home country.30 For example, in 2008, Indian
authorities disbanded a
ring of doctors, nurses, paramedics, and hospitals that had performed 500 illegal transplants on
foreigners using predominantly impoverished Indian donors.31 Instances of human trafficking for organ removal are also
prevalent.32 This type of trafficking involves the transport of humans through threat, force, or other
coercion, including payment.33 For example, in November 2008, Yilman Altun, a Turkish national, was transported to
a clinic in Kosovo, where his kidney was removed and transplanted into an elderly Israeli who paid the clinic
more than $100,000.34 When Altun subsequently collapsed at the airport, authorities traced his operation to a network of organ
traffickers.35 The Kosovar clinic offered up to $20,000 for organs from impoverished Turkish, Russian, Moldovan, and Kazakh nationals; most
victims never received compensation.36 Trafficking
rings are not limited to the developing world; U.S. federal
authorities uncovered a trafficking ring when they arrested Levy-Izhak Rosenbaum for arranging the sale
of a kidney for $160,000.37 The subsequent investigation revealed Rosenbaum’s practice of importing foreign donors and selling their
organs to U.S. citizens.38

This form of trafficking is harmful for donors and dangers tourists

Kelly 13 (Emily Kelly- Executive Comment Editor for the Boston College International & Comparative
HEART OF THE MATTER," Boston College International and Comparative Law Review; Newton Centre
Vol. 36, Iss. 2,,ín)

Transplant tourism and organ trafficking have pervasive negative effects.57 Organ trafficking exploits
poor individuals who are desperate to make money for survival.58 Because profit-motivated facilitators
negotiate most transactions, donor compensation is often extremely low.59 For example, kidney donors
frequently receive less than one-third of the price that recipients pay for the organ, despite initial
promises of higher payment.60 Furthermore, donors rarely receive adequate health care after the
transplant, generating negative health outcomes that impede their ability to work and worsening their
long-run financial and physical condition.61 As a result, donors rarely succeed in paying off the very debts
that often lead them to sell an organ in the first place.62 In addition, studies have exposed the negative
sociological and psychological effects of organ sales.63 Kidney vendors frequently express regret and
disgrace associated with the decision to sell a body part.64 Communities with high rates of organ sales
also shame donors, leading many to conceal their decision out of embarrassment.65 1324 Boston College Law
Review [Symposium Issue With regard to recipients, the dangers of receiving medical care in developing countries can outweigh the benefits of
life-saving transplant tourism.66 Because governmental disease control agencies do not monitor underground organ trafficking, recipients risk
contracting infectious diseases like West Nile Virus and HIV.67 Tragically, transplant tourists also have “a higher cumulative incidence of acute
[organ] rejection in the first year after transplantation.”68 Transplant tourism also harms global public health policies.69
Most notably, the underground market impedes the success of legal organ donation frameworks.70 For
example, Thai patients have difficulty accessing health care because local doctors are preoccupied with the
lucrative practice of treating transplant tourists.71 In 2007, China banned transplant tourism because wealthy foreigners—
rather than the 1.5 million Chinese on the waiting list—received an overwhelming amount of organ transplants.72 Grisly tales of
transplant tourism and conspiracy theories surrounding organ theft may also discourage individuals
from agreeing to altruistic donation upon death out of fear that their bodies may be exploited.73 This
further contributes to the global organ shortage and exacerbates the underlying causes of OTC trafficking.74 Additionally, transplant tourism
and broader medical tourism facilitate the spread of antibioticresistant bacteria.75 Because
such bacteria are frequently found
in hospitals, tourists are easily exposed and transmit these unique strains across borders upon returning
to their home countries.76 As a result of these effects, transplant tourism has drawn increasing attention to the root of the problem:
organ shortages.77

Scenario 1 is Structural Violence:

Child organ trafficking is especially violent and manipulates the most vulnerable
Bagheri 16 (Alireza Bagheri- School of Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
"Child Organ Trafficking: Global Reality and Inadequate International Response." Medicine, Health Care,
and Philosophy, vol. 19, no. 2, 2016, pp. 239-246. ProQuest,,

Child organ trafficking: the worst of the worst Organ trafficking has been ethically condemned in many
professional guidelines as well as national and international laws and regulations (Istanbul Declaration 2008;
WHO Guiding Principles 2010). As stated in the Declaration of Istanbul, ‘‘organ trafficking and transplant tourism violate the principles of
equity, justice and respect for human dignity’’. In most of the cases, adults
are the subjects of organ trafficking or THOR,
however, there are numerous reports of child organ trafficking. The cases of child organ trafficking are more
horrifying as the victims are absolutely physically vulnerable defenseless children. For instance, while in
most cases of organ trafficking in adults, or THOR, the victims are released after organ removal, in the
confirmed cases of child organ trafficking, harvesting of organs from those trafficked or kidnapped
children cost their lives. Although, it cannot be claimed that all missing children were subject of organ trafficking, the confirmed cases
of child organ trafficking are missing children who have been found dead with transplantable organs
removed from their body. The UN Secretary General Report to the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, on
preventing, combating and punishing trafficking in human organs has stated that: ‘‘…many abducted or missing children have subsequently
been found dead with certain organs removed’’ (UN Secretary General Report 2006). The technical requirements of transplantation are so
formidable that to conduct such activities in a clandestine manner is a practical impossibility unless healthcare professionals are involved. In
order for an organ transplantation to have any chance of success, a number of sophisticated medical
procedures must be conducted, such as the determining of the suitability of organ for transplantation to
permit a match with potential recipients. In particular, correct tissue and blood typing is critical to matching
donor organs and potential transplant recipients. As a result, in organ trafficking not only are brokers and other
intermediaries involved, but also physicians and hospital staff. However, even in the case of adult organ trafficking, if healthcare
professionals try to justify their unethical and illegal acts by assuming that victims of organ trafficking
are convinced -often under false promises- or forced to sell their organs, and have consented to organ removal,
this unjustified reason cannot be assumed in case of child organ trafficking. How is it possible to assume that a
trafficked or kidnaped child who is under legal age has consented to organ removal? While there are several professional ethical guidelines
about the necessity of donors consent for organ removal as well as international documents against organ trade and trafficking (Istanbul
Declaration 2008; WHO Guiding Principles 2010; Asian Task Force 2008), there is no way to justify the immorality and illegality of their
involvement in removing an organ from a trafficked child and transplant it to a recipient patient. It is important to note that organ donation by
adults has been accepted by all international guidelines -given that, amongst other requirements, there is informed consentbut, as stated in the
World Health Organization Guiding Principles (2010), no organs should be removed from the body of a living minor for the purpose of
transplantation other than in narrow exceptions allowed under national law. Article 3(c) of the United Nations Trafficking in Persons Protocol
(2000), states: ‘‘The recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of a child for the purpose of exploitation shall be considered
trafficking in persons’’. Given the above mentioned guidelines, the question is, how physicians can be ignorant about the medical and social
history of a trafficked child before organ removal. There is another ugly picture of child organ trafficking which makes it the worst form of organ
trafficking. Whileparents have special duty to protect their children from unnecessary harms, there are
reported cases in which children have been brokered for organ removal by their parents. In these cases
usually a parent, who has been a victim of organ trafficking, is under pressure or threatened by organ
brokers or members of a gang group to victimize her child in organ trafficking to pay her further debts
(Budiani-Saberi 2012).

Organ trafficking is detrimental for victims—poor conditions for transplants ensure

long-terms health consequences and exploitation
Bowden 13 (Jacqueline Bowden- J.D. graduate from St. Thomas University School of Law. 2013,
Intercultural Human Rights Law Review.

A. Victims There are harmful implications for the donor, n134 the recipient, n135 and other victims who are
affected by the black market for organs. n136 A victim of organ trafficking is often a prisoner, young and
easily influenced, or an immigrant who is not aware of his or her rights. n137 A victim of organ trafficking may have
a cause of action for property rights to his or her body, coercion leading to pain and suffering, and exploitation of the poor. An
individual's human rights are at risk when an organ is [*475] extracted from his or her body involuntarily,
whether the organ is extracted from a living or nonliving person. n138 Currently, there is no U.S. legislation
granting a person property rights over their organs. n139 However, under common law, there are instances when
biological materials may be defined as property if stolen. n140 Additionally, victims endure pain and their
lives are threatened due to the lack of medical attention and poor conditions during the transplants.
n141 The profit involved motivates organ trafficking; therefore, the less expense incurred during the
organ transplants, the higher the profit for the doctors and brokers. Some victims have been admitted in
hospitals for sickness and then have had their organs removed without their consent. n142 Other
victims have reported "serious medical consequences including chronic pain,
weakness and ill health" after poorly performed transplants. n143 Once the transplant is
completed, the victim often will not receive postoperative care, causing physical disabilities or life
threatening illnesses. n144 Furthermore, the evidence suggests that organ trafficking benefits the wealthy n145
while exploiting the poor. n146 For a person [*476] who has been waiting on transplant lists and receiving dialysis
treatment, the cost of paying a donor for an illegal organ often is irrelevant. n147 To
ensure equality, the benefit to the organ
recipient must not exceed the interest of the non-consenting donor for a nonrelated recipient. n148 The
profit involved in the sale of organs often helps the impoverished escape poverty and is an incentive for them to
sell their organs. n149 Applying Rational Choice Theory (RCT) may be helpful in understanding the economics
driving the organ market. Under RCT, individuals will weigh the costs and benefits relative to their own
perspective and ultimately choose to act in a way that provides the maximum advantage for them . n150
Individuals tend to give high value to resources they lack. n151 Therefore, individuals with sufficient amounts
of money, who lack healthy organs, are willing to pay the necessary costs associated with the benefits of
new organs because this will provide maximum value for them. On the other hand, individuals who lack monetary means and
are desperate for money may be willing to bear the costs of parting with their organs to earn a decent sum if they
feel that they can live with this decision. Poor [*477] individuals may value the benefits of currency higher than the risks associated with the
sale of their organs and thereby may feel they are maximizing their opportunities. Living organ donors are often those living
in poverty,
as they are more vulnerable and are typically more willing to accept large amounts of money in exchange
for an organ. For example, at a Tsunami refugee camp in Chennai, India, the poor were exploited for their organs because, for some, it was
the only way to make money. n152 A victim from the Tsunami refugee camp gave her story of how she was
coerced into donating her kidney. n153 The victim was told her kidney was sold to the son of a wealthy
foreigner for $ 40,000. n154 However, the victim only received $ 700, yet she was promised to receive $ 3,500 and
was threatened when she attempted to collect the remaining balance. n155

Scenario 2 is Disease:

Transplant tourism increases the risk of infectious diseases

Babik and Hong 15 (Jennifer M. Babik & Peter Chin-Hong, 4-1-2015, "Transplant Tourism:
Understanding the Risks," SpringerLink,

Increased Risk of Infection The majority of studies on outcomes in transplant tourism show a significant
increased risk of infection in the tourism group, whose rate of infections are approximately 45–54 %
versus 5 % in the non-tourist group [16, 19, 20, 25]. One study showed that transplant tourism conferred an
increased risk of infection by 85-fold compared with domestic transplants [19]. These infections often occurred
early in the post-transplant course [12, 20]. Bacterial, viral, fungal, and parasitic infections have all been described
(Table 1). Infections in the setting of transplant tourism can be from procedural complications (such as wound
infections), nosocomial infections, blood-borne pathogens, or due to a geographically restricted pathogen
acquired as a donor-derived infection or acquired in the peri-transplant period while staying in an area of
endemicity [18••]. The risk of nosocomial infections is significantly higher in developing countries [26]. ICU
infection rates are 3.5-fold higher, and surgical site infection rates are twofold higher in developing countries
compared to developed nations [26]. Another sobering statistic is that 39 % of injections given in the developing world are
provided with reused equipment [27]. Explanations for the high rates of infection include the following: (1) many regions
where transplant tourism is practiced are tropical or subtropical areas with high rates of endemic
infections such as malaria, tuberculosis (TB), and other geographically restricted infections; (2) these
regions often have a high prevalence of pathogens such as HIV, hepatitis B virus (HBV), and hepatitis C
virus (HCV); (3) donor infectious diseases screening is likely variable and the assays used may be
substandard; (4) poor hygiene and operative conditions may exist; (5) inadequate education of patients
regarding infectious risk post-transplant; and (6) lack of prophylaxis against opportunistic infections [1, 11,
12, 14, 18••, 28]. Bacterial Infections Many reports describe wound infections, often severe, in patients
returning from a transplant abroad [4, 6, 9, 11, 21•, 20, 23]. These infections have been described with resistant
organisms, including multi-drug resistant Pseudomonas and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus [4, 11].
Urinary tract infections are also common, including infections with multidrug resistant Escherichia coli [16] and Acinetobacter [13]. Multi-
drug resistant organisms are a significant concern in many developing countries where antibiotics can be
purchased without a prescription, leading to overuse and widespread resistance [18••]. For example, ESBL rates
in India are 70–90 % [18••, 29]. In addition, the New Delhi-metallo-βlactamase (NDM) carbapenemases were
initially isolated in India but subsequently have been found in many other countries, often introduced by
patients who have pursued medical tourism abroad, including transplantation [18••, 29]. In the absence of
overt infection, travelers can also return colonized with multi-drug resistant pathogens [18••]. TB has been
described in 2–15 % of patients who have procured a transplant abroad [6, 16], including a fatal disseminated case in the USA that was acquired
in Pakistan [13]. Viral Infections Transplant
tourism increases the risk of several viral infections, most importantly
HIV, HBV, and cytomegalovirus (CMV). CMV has been reported in up to 33 % of patients returning from
transplants abroad, usually occurring in the first few months after transplant [4, 6, 11, 16]. This has been attributed
to very low rates of CMV prophylaxis use in this group [11, 14]. Patients returning from transplantation abroad have reportedly high rates of
seroconversion with HIV (4–6 %) and HBV (2–18 %) [4, 21•, 25]. Some cases of HBV infection have been fatal [11] and
others have led to local outbreaks, raising a public health concern for the introduction of
communicable diseases into the community from transplant tourism [30]. There also appears to be an
increased risk of HCV based on the high prevalence of HCV seropositivity in patients who have
undergone transplantation abroad (up to 37 % in one study), although limited pre-transplant screening in some cases
makes the exact number that have been transmitted via transplantation unknown [31]. These high rates of infection with blood-
borne pathogens are thought due to inadequate donor screening and/or transmission while on
hemodialysis in the foreign country [25]. A study of commercial kidney donors in Pakistan showed that 24 % were HCV antibody
positive and 4 % hepatitis B surface antigen positive following organ donation. It is not known if these donors had preexisting infections or
acquired infection in the setting of transplant, but the former was suspected [15]. Fungal Infections Fungal infection is perhaps
the most feared infectious complication of transplant tourism and occurs in approximately 4 % of patients [32]. The
most common fungi reported are Aspergillus and Zygomycetes but there are also rare cases of Ramichloridium, Pseudallescheria boydii, and
Trichosporon [17, 33–38]. These infections may directly involve the transplanted kidney and can be necrotic, form abscesses, and involve the
vasculature. A review of 19 fungal infections in 17 commercial renal transplants performed in Asia or the Middle East showed that 63 % were
Aspergillus and 26 % were Zygomycetes [34]. All infections were extrapulmonary or disseminated with direct involvement of the graft in 35 %
and infection of the CNS in 29 %. Graft loss occurred in 76 % and the overall mortality in this group was 59 %. The
very high rates of
direct infection of the graft were thought to be due to infection in the donor or contamination of the
organ during procurement, transport, or transplantation [33, 34, 36, 38]. Presumably as a result of this mechanism of
infection, transplant tourism accounts for 22 % of all donor-derived filamentous fungal infections [17].
Pneumocystis jiroveci (PCP) is also more commonly seen in the setting of transplant tourism. In one study, rates of PCP in patients undergoing
transplant in China was 8 % compared to 1 % in those done domestically in Korea [19]. Similar to the case of CMV, this may be due to variable
practices in prescribing prophylaxis [11, 14]. Parasitic
Infections The parasitic infection that has been reported most
commonly in the setting of transplant tourism is malaria. It has been most frequently described in
patients who received their transplants in India with a rate of 6–11 % [20, 23, 39–41]. Infections usually occur at a
mean of 44 days (range 20–83) after transplantation and have been described with Plasmodium falciparum, Plasmodium vivax, and
Plasmodium malariae [41]. In general, patients do well with rapid recovery following the initiation of antimalarial therapy [41]. It is presumed
that the infection is acquired via the organ itself, in the setting of blood transfusion peri-operatively, or by mosquito bites within the foreign
country [23].

This is ensured by a lack of medical follow-up and corrupt physician networks

Macias and Ma 17 (Macias-Konstantopoulos W., Ma Z.B. (2017) Physical Health of Human Trafficking
Survivors: Unmet Essentials. In: Chisolm-Straker M., Stoklosa H. (eds) Human Trafficking Is a Public
Health Issue. Springer, Cham//sabín)

A 2002 study of individuals who had undergone paid kidney removal in India found that 86%
of those exploited for organ
removal reported deterioration in their health [66]. Factors identified as contributing to their decline in
health included insufficient prior medical screening and pre-existing compromising health conditions. Commonly
reported complications of organ removal included the development of chronic pain and cramping at the
site of incision, inability to lift heavy objects or perform labor-intensive work, swelling of legs,
hypertension, loss of appetite, insomnia, and considerable fatigue [66–69]. One study found that the vast majority
(78%) of persons trafficked for organ removal did not receive medical follow-up care after kidney
removal. Many cited hesitance in consulting a doctor due to the association of physicians with their
exploitation and instead relied upon non-prescribed pain medicine from local pharmacies. Of the
minority of those who did receive post-removal care, it was never by the medical professional(s) who
performed the kidney removal, but rather by health care providers in local low-cost clinics. Additionally,
89% of those who disclosed the financial repercussions of their organ removal reported they could not
return to their labor-intensive jobs, thus limiting their ability to generate future income and leading to
further incurred debt. Finally, it is worth noting that all study participants unanimously regretted the
commercial removal of a kidney and would advise others against it [67]

Current donor screening fails

Franco-Paredes 10 (Carlos Franco-Paredes- Division of Infectious Diseases, Emory University School
of Medicine. March 2010, "Transplantation and tropical infectious diseases," International Journal of
Infectious Diseases. Volume 14, Issue 3, Pages e189-e196ín)

4. Recipient and donor screening for tropical infections Given

the urgency of non-elective transplantation protocols
once an organ donor has been identified, screening the donor for multiple diseases is often logistically
difficult and therefore having a low threshold for some of the above discussed tropical infections is
critical among those transplant recipients with different clinical syndromes.8, 110, 133, 134 The potential for
infectious disease transmission from a donor to a transplant recipient as the cause of illness may not be
initially considered in the clinical evaluation. Persistent fever without an etiology, atypical neurological, gastrointestinal, or
pulmonary presentations should alert clinicians to the possibility of the potential for some tropical infectious disease transmission from a donor
to a transplant recipient as the cause of illness. Investigation of
potential donor-transmitted infections requires
communication among physicians in multiple transplantation centers, public health authorities, and
organ procurement and transplantation networks.94, 101, 104 In this manner, emerging tropical viral, parasitic, bacterial,
and fungal pathogens have been identified and traced back to donors.6, 22, 94, 101, 104
Specifically, transplant tourism spreads tropical diseases
Franco-Paredes 10 (Carlos Franco-Paredes- Division of Infectious Diseases, Emory University School
of Medicine. March 2010, "Transplantation and tropical infectious diseases," International Journal of
Infectious Diseases. Volume 14, Issue 3, Pages e189-e196ín)

3.1. Viral infections and transplantation Many

transplanted patients may live or travel to regions where some of
the most frequent viral tropical infections are prevalent. Transplant recipients traveling to resource-
constrained settings endemic for tropical infections including yellow fever, dengue, rabies, and other
viral pathogens should seek expert pretravel medical advice to maximally decrease their risk of infection.8, 12 This is important as
immunosuppression associated with transplantation may affect the outcome of acute viral infections or
the course of virus latency, with potential life-threatening consequences.84 There are reports of HIV,11,
20, 21 hepatitis B,11, 20, 21 hepatitis C,20, 21 measles,85, 86 human T-lymphotropic virus type 1 (HTLV-1)
infection,87, 88, 89 dengue,90, 91, 92 and other viral pathogens being responsible for significant sequelae and
mortality in transplant recipients.93 In this regard, yellow fever presents a risk to transplant recipients who
are traveling to endemic areas in part because the vaccine is live and therefore should be avoided.8, 12
Transplant tourism has been responsible for a significant number of patients acquiring hepatitis B,
hepatitis C, or HIV-infection in those transplanted overseas.11, 20, 21, 93 There may also be an increased
risk of West Nile virus infection, lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus, or some hemorrhagic fever virus in
many tropical areas of the world, including some parts of the Indian subcontinent, sub-Saharan Africa,
and Latin America, but there are only recent descriptions, mostly in non-tropical settings.94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101,
102 It remains to be determined if other similar flaviviruses such as Japanese encephalitis virus may pose an increased risk of complications in
transplant recipients.103 Rabies is rarely observed after transplantation with only a few cases acquired from infected donors in industrialized
countries.3, 104, 105 However, with increasing travel of transplant recipients to areas where rabies may be
more prevalent and also due to transplant tourism, rabies becomes a potential pathogen for transplant
recipients. In addition, live rabies vaccine for use in wildlife has caused human disease and presents a potential risk to transplant recipients
who come into direct contact with wildlife.3 We discuss below, in more detail, some HTLV-1, measles, and dengue virus infections in transplant
recipients. Although these infections may be acquired in non-tropical settings, the risk of their acquisition is higher in developing tropical areas
of the world.

New diseases and globalization ensure extinction—assumes new advances

Franca 13 (R. F. O. França—Department of Pharmacology, School of Medicine of Ribeirão Preto,
University of São Paulo. 22 January 2013. "Recent advances in molecular medicine techniques for the
diagnosis, prevention, and control of infectious diseases." European Journal of Clinical Microbiology &
Infectious Diseases,

Despite the great advances in medicine, particularly in new therapeutic drugs, diagnostic tools, and even
ways to prevent diseases, the human species still faces serious health problems. Among these problems, those
that draw the most attention are infectious diseases, especially in poor regions. An important feature of
infectious disease is its potential to arise globally, as exemplified by known devastating past and
present pandemics such as the bubonic–pneumonic plague, Spanish flu (1918 influenza pandemic), and the
present pandemic of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), in which an estimated 33.3 million persons were living with
the HIV infection worldwide at the end of 2009 [1–3]. In addition, other non-viral diseases are significant public health
problems, as exemplified by tuberculosis (TB). This infectious disease accounts for one third of the
world’s bacterial infections (TB infected), and in 2010 a total of 8.8 million people worldwide became sick with TB [1, 4]. In recent
years, new forms of infectious diseases have become significantly important to medical and scientific
communities; these forms are now widely known as emergent and re-emergent infectious diseases.
With the appearance of new transmissible diseases, such as SARS, West Nile and H5N1/H1N1 Influenza
viruses, in addition to reemerging diseases like dengue fever, the concerns about a global epidemic are
not unfounded [5]. Moreover, in the tropical and subtropical regions of the world, parasitic infections are a
common cause of death. Since one of the major characteristics of infectious diseases is its inter-individual
transmission, advances in personal protection, effective public policy, and immunological procedures are efficient means of controlling the
spread of these diseases. Thus, improvement of pre-existing technologies commonly used to monitor, prevent, and treat infectious diseases is
of crucial importance not only to the medical community, but also to humankind.
The TVPA excludes organ trafficking victims from protections—expanding the
definition allows for equal treatment
Pugliese 07 (Elizabeth Pugliese- graduate of the Catholic University Columbus School of Law. She is
licensed to practice law in the state of Maryland. She holds a BA in Political Science and an MA in
International Relations. 2007, "Organ Trafficking and the TVPA: Why One Word Makes a Difference in
International Enforcement Efforts" 24 J. Contemp. Health L. & Pol'y 181,ín)

B. Lack of Inclusion Denies TVPA Protection to the Victims of Trafficking Brought to this Country While
the United States has an organ trafficking law, it does not provide for any protections for the victim of
organ trafficking.' 33 The trafficking law is a criminal statute focused on punishing the criminal. A victim
of a trafficker convicted under this law would not be eligible for any benefits or protections guaranteed
to victims under the TVPA.13 A person who is trafficked into this country is entitled to the same benefits as any refugee once the
victim is certified by the Department of Health and Human Services.' 35 This certification process requires that the victim had
been subjected to a severe form of trafficking as defined in the TVPA.1 36 Only those who are victims of
a severe form of trafficking may be certified and may then receive federal and/or state benefits. 137 A
victim of organ trafficking brought to the United States would not meet this definition
since organ trafficking is not found in the TVPA. While a victim could claim refugee status under another
standard, 138 few victims of trafficking are denied continuing presence status in the United States. 139 Without
this certification, a victim of organ trafficking can be held in a detention facility while a certified victim of
another form of trafficking would not.1 40 Certification grants a victim access to federal and state benefits denied to those who
are not legally in this country and/or are subject to deportation.'14 A victim of organ trafficking cannot prove a credible
fear of persecution upon return to his/her home country. A non-certified victim could not get housing,
access to job training, or even health care. 143 A victim of organ trafficking especially needs access to
health care because of the special health problems related to organ removal. 144 By changing the TVPA
to include organ trafficking, the victims of this form of human trafficking would be eligible for the same
benefits as those subject to other forms of human trafficking. There should be no discrimination
between victims of trafficking based on the form. All are victims and all are equally deserving of
protection. Extending the protection to the few victims of organ trafficking who might be trafficked into
this country probably would not overwhelm refugee services. There are few enough that they could most likely be easily
fit into the existing system. There is currently a cap of 5000 T-visas a year. 145 Thousands of T-visas remain available every
year. 146 Therefore, it is unlikely that extending the TVPA protections to organ trafficking victims will put
any further strain on a system designed to handle 5000 that in reality handles far less. Inclusion of organ
trafficking in human trafficking would enable all victims of any form of trafficking to be treated the
same, which would allow for easier delivery of services.

The aff challenges the victimized meta-narrative of human trafficking by recognizing

organ trafficking as its own form of violence
Columb 15 (Seán Columb- Lecturer in Law at the Liverpool School of Law and Social Justice. His
primary research area is on human trafficking and transnational crime. Seán's current research examines
how the organ trade fits into the anti-trafficking framework at national (UK), international and regional
(EU) levels; its link to organised crime and the wider political economy. "Beneath the Organ Trade: A
Critical Analysis of the Organ Trafficking Discourse." Crime, Law and Social Change, vol. 63, no. 1-2, 2015,
pp. 21-47. ProQuest,,

The meta-narrative of human trafficking The prevailing discourse or the meta-narrative of human
trafficking is premised on a number of assumptions put forward by government authorities, human
rights advocates, and NGOs. In general, human trafficking is constructed as a global crime and a grave violation of human
rights that exists on an enormous scale [117]. It is purported that human trafficking is primarily a problem of crime control that persists due to
weak regulations in ‘other’ States [116]. In response national anti-trafficking strategies should build expertise in law enforcement and
strengthen legislation to protect victims [118]. Victims are generally portrayed as un-educated, poor and vulnerable.
The following account taken from the US State Department Trafficking in Persons Report (US Department of State, 2012) is said to illustrate the
‘myriad forms of exploitation that comprise trafficking and the variety of cultures in which trafficking victims are found’ ([119]: 9). Uta was 7
years old when she was sent from Romania to work as a domestic servant in the United Kingdom. Her family thought this was an opportunity to
get Uta away from poverty, but the Romanian couple who recruited her physically and verbally abused her daily and forced her to sleep on the
floor. The couple also enslaved and raped another victim, Razvan, a 53-year-old Romanian man. After being severely beaten and seeing the way
the couple treated Uta, Razvan escaped and reported the offenses to the police. When the police rescued Uta she was dressed in filthy clothes,
had scabs covering her head, and her teeth were so rotten they had to be removed. She had never been to school and could not even count to
ten in her own language. The Romanian couple was found guilty of trafficking and was sentenced to a maximum of 14 years in prison [119].
Victim accounts, like the one above, are found in news media, captured in documentary films, feature on NGO
websites and are published in international government reports. The grim image of a beaten, raped and/or enslaved
individual is typically juxtaposed with a foreboding statistic reporting that "millions" of people are trafficked each year
[119]. 7 Extrapolating from the most extreme cases, an idealized image of victim suffering and criminality
becomes representative of the phenomenon as a whole, despite evidence based research indicating
otherwise [1, 122, 37]. Attitudes are adjusted and resources are allocated according to a particular regime
of truth, belonging to the meta-narrative of human trafficking. Other factors or variables, such as human
agency, migration patterns, cultural difference and socio-economic conditions are all overlooked.
While there is no doubt that trafficked persons can and do suffer from extreme forms of violence a
selective focus on exceptional cases of human trafficking, predominantly with a strong sexual
component, does not account for the diverse circumstances and environments that foster exploitation
of various kinds. In short, this discourse or meta-narrative represents a standard vision and approach to the
problem, despite important intersections of agency, identity, culture and politics. The genealogy of the
major international instruments that deal with human trafficking is revealing in this regard. Both the Protocol to
Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, Supplementing the United Nations Convention on
Transnational Organized Crime [112] (hereinafter the Trafficking Protocol) and the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA 2000) were,
largely, established in response to the persistent lobbying of abolitionist feminist groups and conservative Christian
groups opposed to sex-work [6, 123, 7]. For these groups the phenomenon of trafficking was assimilated
into a moral crusade to abolish ‘prostitution’. Advocates of this particular strand of feminism argue that women only resort to
selling sex because they lack the same socio-economic opportunities as men [123]; therefore prostitution represents female subjugation to
male dominance. Whereas the religious right is concerned with the threat commercial sex poses to marriage, family and moral order [123].
Integral to the construction of the meta-narrative was the belief that all sex-workers were in fact passive
victims of predatory men whose subjugation had reduced them to the lowest form of moral deprivation:
prostitution. As Laura Agustin reveals in her incisive book Sex at the Margins this narrative feeds into the governmentality (the techniques
and/or strategies by which the population is rendered governable) of regulatory agencies and politically motivated NGOs who respectively aim
to tighten migration control and abolish the sex trade [1]. 8 Without the sort of pressure described above, it is unlikely that trafficking as a
phenomenon would have been elevated beyond the margins of political debate to the mainstream of political concern. 9 A similar "moral
panic" precipitated the movement to make the illegal organ trade an object of international concern (see
Introduction). In this instance the meta-narrative of human trafficking is being instrumentalised to advance 7 It is unsurprising then that the TIP
report 2012 ‘estimates’ that there are currently around 27 million people trafficked around the world. A seemingly static figure alluded to by
several authors and advocates since Kevin Bale’s account of modern slavery in 2000. 8 This is evident in the legislative bias of
domestic human trafficking laws targeting trafficking for sexual exploitation ([8, 22]). 9 While originally
spearheaded by a moral campaign to abolish sex-trafficking the final draft of the Trafficking Protocol includes human trafficking in various
forms, i.e. organ removal. The TVPA does not directly recognise organ trafficking or the removal of organ(s) as a
form of exploitation. See, Pugliese, E. (2007). Organ Trafficking and the TVPA: Why One Word Makes a Difference in International
Enforcement Efforts. J. Contemp. Health L. & Poly, 24, 181. 24 S. Columb the interests of the transplant industry, 10 concerned that the illegal
organ trade will undermine the integrity/reputation of transplantation and essentially its economic validity. While it is important that organ
trafficking is recognized as a trafficking offence, evidence based research ([130, 85, 55, 12, 83, 128, 80]) indicates that
the majority
of organ sellers 11 do not conform to the typical victim profile popularized by the meta-narrative of
human trafficking.

The separation of organ trafficking from human trafficking prevents effective solutions
Kelly 13 (Emily Kelly- Executive Comment Editor for the Boston College International & Comparative
HEART OF THE MATTER," Boston College International and Comparative Law Review; Newton Centre
Vol. 36, Iss. 2,,ín)

Despite the UN/COE Study’s conclusion that existing legally binding instruments adequately address human
trafficking for organ removal, these instruments have not actually yielded successful results.310 Commentators
have criticized the placement of human trafficking within the scope of organized crime because it does not
adequately reflect the contours of such a complex problem.311 This line of criticism is further validated when considered
in tandem with the fact that organ trafficking is buried under the scope of both organized crime and human
trafficking in the Trafficking Protocol.312 The UN/COE Study correctly notes that the Protocol establishes a means for
criminalizing human trafficking for organ removal, but most countries have failed to do so because the
Protocol focuses more on other forms of human trafficking.313 For example, the U.S. TVPA fails to include
organ trafficking in its definition of human trafficking.314 As a result, the U.S. State Department’s 2011
Trafficking in Persons Report does not even mention organ trafficking.315 Because nations that receive unfavorable
evaluations are subject to mandatory sanctions from the United States, countries focus on forms of trafficking that fall
within the U.S. definition while ignoring human trafficking for organ removal.316 A new independent
instrument that includes human trafficking for organ removal would clarify the scope of the issue and
prompt countries to adequately address all aspects of organ trafficking.317 The UN/COE Study’s conclusion that the
two manifestations of organ trafficking require different solutions exposes the underlying bias toward a criminal law approach.318 The need
to differentiate between OTC trafficking and human trafficking for organ removal only arises in a
criminal law context because of the desire to criminalize the different actions resulting from each.319
Nevertheless, even in a criminal law context, the UN/COE Study notes that the two types of organ trafficking often
“overlap . . . in scope.”320 Thus, while the proposed instrument should address these differences when
delineating penal definitions, the broader purpose of eradicating the causes of organ trafficking would
not benefit from such bifurcation.321 The instrument’s requirement that countries revise organ
procurement systems to reduce the organ shortage, if successful, would diminish the demand for all types
of organ trafficking.322

Squo organ trafficking laws fail—they’re under the commerce clause which prevents
effective prosecution and treats people like commodities
Pugliese 07 (Elizabeth Pugliese- graduate of the Catholic University Columbus School of Law. She is
licensed to practice law in the state of Maryland. She holds a BA in Political Science and an MA in
International Relations. 2007, "Organ Trafficking and the TVPA: Why One Word Makes a Difference in
International Enforcement Efforts" 24 J. Contemp. Health L. & Pol'y 181,ín)

D. The United States Already Has a Law to Address Organ Trafficking There is a federal law already in existence that makes
it a crime to buy or sell an organ in such a way as to affect interstate commerce.165 An organ that is
internationally trafficked would also give Congress jurisdiction under the Commerce Clause, as this
clause concerns the regulation of commerce with foreign nations as well as between states.' 66 Therefore, it
would appear there is no need for another law regarding organ trafficking. The current organ trafficking law
prohibits anyone from acquiring, receiving or transferring any human organ. 16 On the plain face of the statute, it would
appear to cover everyone involved in organ trafficking, including any middle men who handle the organ. However, the
person who merely facilitates the meeting between the trafficker and the end user, since that person
is not actually transferring the organ, might not fall under this provision. The TVPA includes provisions
for anyone who benefits from a trafficking enterprise, even if the person is not actively involved in the
168 trafficking. Inclusion of organ trafficking in the TVPA would expand authorities' ability to prosecute
to those peripherally involved in the trafficking. The prohibition against organ trafficking only applies if it
affects interstate commerce. 169 However, this is the wrong jurisdictional hook for this crime. The TVPA was
enacted under the power given to Congress pursuant to the Thirteenth Amendment, not the Commerce
Clause. 70 The issue addressed by that amendment is the treatment of people, not the goods produced or
the effect on commerce. 17 It is the same with organ trafficking. Organ trafficking is not a commercial
venture that needs overseeing; it is a human rights violation. The scars left by organ trafficking-if the person survives
the encounter with the trafficker-are "badges and incidents of slavery."' 72 By adding organ trafficking to the TVPA, Congress would recognize
this issue for the real crime it represents. 73
IL—Black Market
The current state of organ donation explains the black market
Kuenzli 18 (Kristine D. Kuenzli- Assistant Professor of Law at the United States Air Force Academy.
Spring 2018. Journal of Law and Commerce 36 J.L. & Com. 131, "LexisNexis® Academic &amp; Library

Every day in the United States, 20 to 30 people die waiting for an organ donation. n3 There are more than
119,000 men, women, and children on the national transplant waiting list, and more than 80% of transplant
candidates are waiting for the donation of a kidney. n4 In 2015, a total of 37,910 organs were donated, however, more than 80% of the
donations were from deceased [*134] donors. n5 Further, only 3 in every 1,000 people die in such a way as to make
them eligible for organ donation, and only 48% of adults in the United States are currently signed up as
donors. n6 Finally, this problem is not resolving itself. Each year, the number of people on the waiting list
continues to grow, while the number of donors grows slowly. In fact, the number of people on the organ
donation waitlist has more than quadrupled in the last 22 years, while the number of organ donors has
remained relatively constant. n7 In economic terms, the current system does not adequately incentivize the market to adjust supply
to demand. This situation is only going to get worse as medical technology, combined with our country's
aging population, results in citizens living longer, which creates an increase in the demand for transplant
organs. Although living donors are an important source of kidneys, living donation rates are not
increasing at a level to satisfy demand.
It hurts the donor and the buyer
Huang 17 (Johnny W Huang, June 2017, "The Journey of Buying and Selling a Kidney: Is the Organ
Trade Worth it?," University of Toronto Medical Journal,ín)
Discussion This hypothetical case of organ trafficking from the perspectives of the donor and recipient illustrates the dismal side of transplant
tourism. Isthis organ trade worth it? It may be wise to do a cost-benefit analysis from the perspectives of
buying and selling a kidney (Table 1). While transplant tourism may bring short-lived benefits among organ
sellers, it often leads to declined quality of life, economic loss, post-operative complications, loss of
dignity, and social stigma.9-12 Using a cross-sectional study of 305 kidney sellers, Goyal and colleagues found that
most of the monetary compensation was used to pay off personal debt. However, the average family
income declined by one third after nephrectomy (P<0.001), and the number of increased.12 For organ
buyers, transplant tourism is associated with numerous acute complications (e.g. urinary infection, acute
kidney injury, graft rejection) and chronic complications (e.g. poor kidney function, graft survival, and
overall survival) that can result in graft failure and need for dialysis.13-18 Compared to domestic transplant recipients,
transplant tourists have significantly higher cumulative incidence of acute rejection at 1-year post-
transplant (P=0.02).17 Moreover, another study reported that transplant tourists were at higher risk for developing
donor-transmitted viral diseases such as hepatitis B and cytomegalovirus infections.17
AT: Reauthorization
672 T-Visas were given out last year
DOS 18. (Department of State. June, 2o18. "Trafficking In Person Report 2018",ín)
DHS provides trafficking-specific immigration options through Continued Presence, which is temporary, and T nonimmigrant status (commonly
referred to as the T visa). T visa applicants must have been victims of a severe form of trafficking in persons, be in the United States, American
Samoa, or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, or at a port of entry because of trafficking, and show cooperation with
reasonable requests from law enforcement unless they are younger than 18 years of age or unable to cooperate due to trauma suffered. They
must also demonstrate that they would suffer extreme hardship involving unusual and severe harm upon removal from the United States. T
visa applicants may petition for certain family members, including certain extended family members who face a present danger of retaliation; T
visa beneficiaries and their derivative family members are authorized to work and are eligible for certain federal public benefits and services. T
upon the completion
nonimmigrant status lasts for four years and may be extended under certain circumstances. After three years, or
of the investigation or prosecution, those with T visas may be eligible to apply for lawful permanent
resident status and eventually may be eligible for citizenship. DHS granted T nonimmigrant status to
672 victims and 690 eligible family members of victims in FY 2017, a decrease from 750 and 986 in FY

Congress allocated 300 billion dollars under 260 laws with expired authorization last year—
reauthorization doesn’t matter
Vinik 16 (Danny Vinik—Assistant Editor, The Agenda — POLITICO. 2-3-2016, "Meet your unauthorized
federal government," Agenda,

The Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Drug Enforcement Agency, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives have not been reauthorized by Congress since 2009. The State Department
hasn’t been reauthorized since 2003. For the Federal Trade Commission and National Weather Service,
it’s 1998 and 1993, respectively. The Federal Election Commission has been operating with an expired
authorization since way back in 1981. Meet your unauthorized government. Every federal agency is
supposed to operate under congressional authorization—the set of rules that define the priorities and activities of the
government. When they expire, it’s a chance to reconsider an agency’s mission, modernize it and impose
some accountability on what could otherwise become multi-billion-dollar zombie government programs.
But increasingly, Congress is just letting those bills languish. Annual reports from the Congressional Budget Office show
that a growing number of agencies and programs operate each year without congressional authorization.
In the 2016 fiscal year, Congress funded more than $300 billion in programs that lawmakers have not
reauthorized—more than a quarter of discretionary spending. That’s a huge jump from two decades ago, when
unauthorized programs were closer to $35 billion, just 10 percent of the budget. On Wednesday, this growing problem will receive
congressional attention when the Senate Budget Committee holds a hearing to examine CBO’s most recent report, bringing some formal
attention to an issue that tends to languish in bureaucratic obscurity. Congress’failure to pass reauthorizations doesn’t
prevent government agencies from functioning; an agency can keep operating as long as it gets money
in the budget. But critics say the inattention demonstrates a failure to uphold one of the most basic responsibilities of the legislative
branch: oversight. This negligence, they say, has allowed ineffective programs to continue for years, wasting taxpayer money and foregoing
much-needed modernization efforts to ensure the government has the resources and legal authority to address the top issues facing the
country. “Theoversight doesn’t get done,” said Allen Schick, a professor at the University of Maryland who has written one of the
most comprehensive books on the budget process. “That’s a good part of the rationale for temporary authorizations of
appropriations. [Congress said,] ‘Let’s reauthorize them and at the point of reauthorization, let’s look over and see how they’re doing.’ But
oversight is not exactly a booming business in Congress.” The traditional way Congress creates and funds a new government program is by
passing a law, then appropriating money for it. This process dates back to the very first Congress, in 1789, which passed a law establishing the
War Department and a separate law funding it. The goal was to separate the money and policy decisions, out of worries that disagreements
over policy would delay the flow of money, and that pressure to appropriate would lead lawmakers to pass legislation without proper
scrutiny—what we called “riders” today. Implicit in this budget process is a middle step: Congress granting the
authority for money to be spent. Historically, these so-called “authorizations” were permanent, and for
many years in the 19th century, they weren’t even put in writing. They were simply assumed. It wasn’t until after World War II
that Congress began putting an expiration date on its authorizations, ensuring that lawmakers would
regularly reevaluate programs and agencies. Some programs are supposed to be reauthorized every year,
like the defense spending bill; others operate on multiyear calendars, like the farm bill, which Congress
typically reauthorizes every five years. But increasingly often, authority lapses and Congress fails to pass
reauthorizations at all. “They tried to clamp down on [permanent reauthorizations] because they thought if we quit doing that, we’ll
have to actually stop and take the time and do reauthorizations, which is really well-intended,” said Kevin Kosar, a senior fellow at the R Street
Institute and former analyst at the Congressional Research Service. He added: “And they just failed at it.” Each January, the Congressional
Budget Office releases a report outlining every program that is operating with unauthorized
appropriations. The budget office’s most recent report, released about two weeks ago, found that in the 2016 fiscal year, Congress
has appropriated $310 billion under 260 laws with expired authorizations.

Agencies operate effectively without reauthorization

Vinik 16 (Danny Vinik—Assistant Editor, The Agenda — POLITICO. 2-3-2016, "Meet your unauthorized
federal government," Agenda,

For members of Congress, the political consequences of failing to pass these reauthorizations are almost
nonexistent. The courts have ruled that appropriations in absence of an authorization are legal,
relieving pressure on lawmakers. “The more you appropriate for an expired authorizations, the less
incentive you have to reauthorize,” said Schick. “Nothing bad happens.” The agencies themselves are affected in different ways.
Some, like the FEC, have become so accustomed to their status that they effectively operate on autopilot,
with little guidance from Congress. “If there is any impact of us not having [authorization], there would
be no way for me to know that,” said Ann Ravel, chair of the FEC, in an interview. ”But I don’t believe there is. …
Apparently, nobody has ever felt the need to try to make a change in this situation.” Ravel, in fact, said she hadn’t realized the FEC’s
authorization ran out. “I had no idea that was the case until you asked about it,” she said. “So, it’s interesting because I’ve
been in the finance committee meetings and the like and it has never been raised at the commission
level.” In fact, some agencies are not especially eager to be reauthorized because new legislation could
restrict their powers or give them more responsibilities without increased funding. And often, agencies
already feel they face enough oversight from Congress, even without an authorization.
AT: Squo Solves—WHO
WHO is ineffective—not enough credibility
Bagheri 16 (Alireza Bagheri- School of Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
"Child Organ Trafficking: Global Reality and Inadequate International Response." Medicine, Health Care,
and Philosophy, vol. 19, no. 2, 2016, pp. 239-246. ProQuest,,

There is a strong link between organ commercialism, transplant tourism and trafficking. While
these issues have to be dealt in a
comprehensive way, the WHO Guiding Principles has missed to address these global problems all
together. For instance, Article 4 of the Guiding Principles clearly prohibits the removal of organs from living minors
for the purpose of transplantation, but it does not address the issue of child organ trafficking in particular
and does not instruct the member states how to tackle this growing illegal and unethical phenomenon.
AT: Squo Solves—Professional Organizations
Professional organizations are insufficient
Bagheri 16 (Alireza Bagheri- School of Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
"Child Organ Trafficking: Global Reality and Inadequate International Response." Medicine, Health Care,
and Philosophy, vol. 19, no. 2, 2016, pp. 239-246. ProQuest,,

In 2008, an initiative
led by the Transplantation Society and the International Society of Nephrology
resulted in the Declaration of Istanbul on Organ Trafficking and Transplant Tourism. This initiative was
specifically intended to address the urgent and growing problems of organ sales, transplant tourism and trafficking (Istanbul Declaration 2008).
The Declaration consists of six principles and proposes several strategies to increase the donor pool and
to prevent organ trafficking, transplant commercialism and transplant tourism, and to encourage
legitimate life-saving transplantation programs. The Declaration states that organ trafficking and transplant tourism violate
the principles of equity, justice and respect for human dignity and that they should be prohibited. It calls for the development of programs to
prevent organ failure; national self-sufficiency in organ transplantation; and enhanced deceased organ donation programs. These two
documents have the potential to build consensus amongst the professional transplant community against
organ trafficking and transplant tourism around the world, however, none of them have addressed the
issue of child organ trafficking explicitly and failed to warn transplant surgeon about removing an
organ from a trafficked child.
Impact—Structural Violence
Donors do not benefit financially, face worse health conditions, and regret their
Budiani-Saberi 08 (Debra. A. Budiani-Saberi— Center for Bioethics, University of Pennsylvania,
Philadelphia, PA. 4-1-2008, "Organ Trafficking and Transplant Tourism: A Commentary on the Global
Realities," No Publication,

The Consequence to the Vendors What then of this emerging worldwide population of live kidney vendors? In Pakistan, the SIUT group has
carefully detailed a sample cohort of (n = 239) vendors in a follow‐up—the outcome all very troubling (12). The
majority of these CLDs (93%) who sold a kidney to repay a debt and (85%) reported no economic improvement
in their lives, as they were either still in debt or were unable to achieve their objective in selling the
kidney. The disturbing report by the SIUT group becomes not only an accounting of the Pakistani experience
but an indictment of the international transplant community because it overlooks the plight of the
donor whose interests are just as valid as the recipients. Egypt is one of the few countries that prohibits organ donation
from deceased donors. In the absence of an entity to govern allocation or standards for transplants, the market has become the distribution

mechanism. Egypt is also one of the countries in which COFS has conducted extensive field research and long‐term
outreach service programs for victims of the organ trade. In‐depth longitudinal interviews conducted
by Budiani reveal that 78% of the CLDs (n = 50) reported a deterioration in their health condition. This is likely a
result of factors such as insufficient donor medical screening for a donation, pre‐existing
compromised health conditions of CLD groups and that the majority of employed CLDs reported
working in labor‐intensive jobs. A kidney sale does not solve the most frequently given reason for being a
CLD, 81% spent the money within 5 months of the nephrectomy, mostly to pay off financial debts rather
than investing in quality of life enhancements. CLDs are not eager to reveal their identity; 91% expressed social
isolation about their donation and 85% were unwilling to be known publicly as an organ vendor.
Ninety‐four percent regretted their donation (13). The studies in Pakistan and Egypt are
consistent with findings in India (14), Iran (15) and the Philippines (16) that revealed deterioration in
the health condition of the CLDs. A long‐term financial disadvantage is evident following nephrectomy
from a compromised ability to generate a prior income level. The common experience also entails a
social rejection and regret about their commercial donation. These reports are consistent with the COFS experience in
the CLD interviews; a cash payment does not solve the destitution of the vendor.
China majorly profits off organ trafficking—prisoners are used for open markets
Bowden 13 (Jacqueline Bowden- J.D. graduate from St. Thomas University School of Law. 2013,
Intercultural Human Rights Law Review.

China's involvement and interest in organ trafficking is unique. n30 China is one of the few countries that permit the
sale of organs taken from prisoners who are sentenced to death. n31 The government in China is involved
in organ sales for profit, domestically and internationally. n32 The Chinese government, in legalizing the use of
organs from prisoners, created an open market making organs easily available for foreign buyers . n33 Chinese
transplant specialists estimate prisoner cadavers make up about 99 percent of organs used in transplant
surgeries. n34 The more prisoners the Chinese government can execute, n35 the more organs they have at
[*459] their disposition to sell at highly escalated prices. n36 Although China's constitution requires the "government to
preserve and protect human rights," n37 in 1984, China passed the "Temporary Rules Concerning the Utilization of
Corpses or Organs from the Corpses of Executed Criminals" (TRCU) order. n38 The legal removal of organs from
prisoners sparked controversy among human rights activists. n39 One claim is that the TRCU order fails to protect the rights of
prisoners' and there are reports of prisoner abuse during the organ removal process. n40 For example, it is
common practice for prisoners to be shot in the back of the head during execution. n41 Even [*460] though
there are times when prisoners do not die immediately, the surgeons still remove the organs to ensure freshness. n42 In 2006, China
amended the TRCU order by adding the "Provisions on the Administration of Entry and Exit of Cadavers
and Treatment of Cadavers" (Provisions on Administration) in an attempt to prohibit organ trafficking. n43 However,
this amendment still fails to protect prisoners from abuse. n44 For example, the order fails to address or
regulate the organ removal procedures. n45 To avoid allegations of abuse or violations, the Chinese government
claims to have the prisoners' consent for the removal of their organs. n46 However, there are reports that
prisoners are coerced into consenting for fear of being killed prior to their execution date. n47 The
efficacy of the TRCU and Provisions on Administration is undetermined as a result of China's "lack of transparency
in the prison system." n48 Despite the Chinese government's claim that prisoners consent, Gao Pei Qi, a deputy chief of the Public
Security Bureau (PSB) in China, stated "in the 10 years that I worked for the [PSB] I never saw or heard anything to suggest that death-row
prisoners were asked for consent [*461] before donating organs." n49 Therefore, it is unlikely the Chinese government will enforce orders such
as the TRCU.

Mexico profits off organ trafficking—young women are targeted by corrupt gov
Bowden 13 (Jacqueline Bowden- J.D. graduate from St. Thomas University School of Law. 2013,
Intercultural Human Rights Law Review.

Mexico is equally active in organ trafficking, with young women being the most common victims. n50
Reports indicate that organ trafficking increased the mortality rate for young women in Mexico. n51 A spokesman
for the group "We Want Our Daughters to Return Home" n52 stated, "[t]here is a sense of panic here, especially among the
mothers. Every time they see their daughters go out they are afraid they will not return." n53 Some authorities
believe these accounts are unsupported; but multiple bodies have been found in the desert outskirts of town with
organs already extracted. n54 In another case, amateur organ traffickers removed the organs of women and
[*462] disposed of their bodies in a building operating as a rehabilitation center. n55 Furthermore, the problem
is compounded by government corruption. n56 Local police officers reportedly assist traffickers by
tampering with evidence in an effort to prevent prosecution. n57 The absence of reliable data also makes it difficult to
investigate the parties involved in organ trafficking in Mexico. n58 Organ trafficking in Mexico takes various forms, and has
global implications because the organs are sold to wealthy purchasers from around the world. n59

Kosovo profits off organ trafficking—military involvement and government coverup

Bowden 13 (Jacqueline Bowden- J.D. graduate from St. Thomas University School of Law. 2013,
Intercultural Human Rights Law Review.

Organ trafficking has been a problem in Kosovo for several years. n60 Since the Kosovo War in 1999,
charges and reports against those involved have been brought forward. n61 Organ trafficking in [*463] Kosovo is different
from other countries because of the heavy involvement of the Kosovo Army. n62 Among the reported accounts, one
of the most disturbing revealed the involvement of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) taking Serbian captives to a
building referred to as the "Yellow House" where organs were extracted and sold. n63 Kosovo officials claim that
the charges against those involved in organ trafficking at the Yellow House are unfounded. n64 However, two KLA soldiers confirmed
they had taken Serbian and Albanian captives to the Yellow House for organ removal. n65 The two soldiers
vanished after stating this; one soldier was killed in an unrelated case, and the other soldier has not been seen since. n66 In 2004, it
was also reported that the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) destroyed approximately
400 pieces of organ trafficking evidence, which implicated the KLA. n67 Further in 2004, officials from the United
Nations (U.N.) and [*464] Hague War Crimes Tribunal investigators, visited the Yellow House and found traces of blood on the
floor and surgical equipment in the trash disposals. n68 Despite these findings, government officials maintain
that the claims are unsubstantiated. n69 One war crimes official commented: "No bodies. No witnesses. All the
reports and media attention to this issue have not been helpful to us. In fact they have not been helpful to anyone."
n70 The government continues to reject the claims despite the testimony and reports the ICTY received from sources describing how the organ
trafficking took place. n71 Nonetheless, the European Union (EU) has had some success prosecuting some of the guilty doctors involved in
extracting organs. n72 But that success has been limited due to the involvement of the Kosovo government following the war. n73

South Africa faces organ trafficking—prosecution isn’t an effective deterrent

Bowden 13 (Jacqueline Bowden- J.D. graduate from St. Thomas University School of Law. 2013,
Intercultural Human Rights Law Review.

South Africa commonly is involved in organ trafficking as a location where other countries send organ
recipients to have the procedures conducted. n74 Last year, Netcare St. Augustine Hospital, one of the
major privately owned hospitals in Durban, South Africa, was charged with organ trafficking. n75
Investigators believe that more than 100 kidney transplants illegally took place at the hospital. n76 As a
result, government authorities were able to negotiate a plea agreement with the hospital, in which the
hospital agreed to pay approximately $ 979,689.60 (7,820,000 rand) for conducting such criminal
activity. n77 Organ trafficking has been an ongoing problem in South Africa for several years. For
example, impoverished [*466] individuals from countries such as Brazil and Romania are coerced to
travel to Durban to forfeit their kidneys for compensation. n78 One notorious case involved an
individual who murdered six children in order to sell their organs. n79 Despite such prosecution, organ
trafficking still takes place in South Africa. n80

Mozambique encourages organ trafficking—doctor discretion

Bowden 13 (Jacqueline Bowden- J.D. graduate from St. Thomas University School of Law. 2013,
Intercultural Human Rights Law Review.

Organ trafficking is also taking place in Mozambique. n81 However, it is difficult to determine its magnitude because
police officers are suspected of colluding with traffickers. n82 Reports indicate that police officers "order the
burying of corpses without ordering any autopsy or inquiry and without any legal proceedings." n83
Mozambique passed the Human Tissue Act of 1983 (HTA), n84 which permits the removal of organs from
cadavers after attempts to contact the family of the deceased have failed. n85 Additionally, the HTA gives
doctors and medical officials the discretion to use unclaimed bodies for medical use. n86 This discretion,
granted to doctors, creates a loophole in the law that has caused an [*467] increase in organ trafficking
in Mozambique. n87

India faces serious organ trafficking—entrenched poverty encourages quid-pro-quo

organ removal
Bowden 13 (Jacqueline Bowden- J.D. graduate from St. Thomas University School of Law. 2013,
Intercultural Human Rights Law Review.

India may be considered home to organ trafficking because unlike countries where people are coerced,
forced or kidnapped for their organs, in this country poor people are actually willingly providing their
bodies for organ removal in exchange for compensation. n88 The typical transaction occurs when a
person receives a promise for a certain amount of money in exchange for their organ. n89 Ironically, once
the organ has been removed they are rarely compensated as promised. n90 Many times, surgeons in India
conduct kidney transplants from their houses by convincing impoverished individuals they will be paid
for their organs. n91 Once the organs are removed, they are sold to wealthy Indians or foreigners who
travel to India to receive the transplant. n92 Additionally, allowing payment for organ donations is creating
transplant practices that give poor and inadequate treatment to the donor, causing a higher mortality
rate. n93 In February 2008, [*468] police raided an organ trafficking ring in India where men posed as doctors to
remove kidneys from migrant workers. n94 The organs were intended for patients on waiting lists in other
countries. n95 Organ trafficking in India is increasing the amount of organized crime. n96 The government's
failure to enforce laws, such as the Transplantation of Human Organs Act (THOA), n97 allows organ
traffickers to continue committing such crimes. n98 The lack of enforcement stems from police corruption,
as well as, corruption among doctors who perform the surgeries. n99
a2 Legalize CP
Catch All
Legalization fails—it’s unethical, dangerous, and furthers exploitation
Spagnoli 9 (Filip Spagnoli—earned his PhD in political philosophy from the University of Brussels in
2002. He has published articles in De Standaard and De Morgen, the two leading Belgian newspapers.
11-30-2009, "The Ethics of Human Rights (25): Free Organ Trade and the Commodification of the Body,"

However, when organs are freely tradable, many extremely poor people, especially those struggling to
survive, will be tempted and even forced to sells parts of their bodies. Moreover, the rich will be able to
benefit disproportionately from the market because prices will be high, given that demand will outstrip
supply in an ageing society. The most obvious means to balance supply and demand, and to force down prices and allow the less than
wealthy patients to participate in and benefit from the market, is to create a global market without trade restrictions, an organ-GATT if you
want. This will bring in the masses of poor people from Africa and Asia, pushing up supply of organs and hence bringing down prices. This will
supposedly benefit both the less than wealthy patients and the very poor donors. The latter will benefit even with prices for organs falling
because of increased supply, because they start at extremely low levels of income. Even the sale of a cheap kidney can mean years of income
for them. The
problem with this global market is that organ extraction will take place in sub-optimal
medical conditions, creating risks for donors (if you can still call them that), also in the case of renewable tissue
donation. Paradoxically, the poor are driven to risk their lives in the process of saving their lives. Even in
the best healthcare systems in the world, organ extraction is often very risky. In the U.S., the extraction of a
section of the liver, for example, carries a risk to the donor’s life of almost 1 percent (source). That’s not negligible. I doubt anyone would cross
a street if that were the odds of getting hit by a car. I’m convinced that an opt-out regulation for cadaveric donors (meaning that everyone’s a
donor after death unless an explicit opt-out), combined with non-financial encouragement of voluntary pre-death donation, is the best way to
solve the organ shortage problem. A
free organ market will obviously also solve the organ shortage problem, but
will create new problems instead. The distinction between renewable tissue such as bone marrow, and
non-renewable organs such as kidneys, eyes, etc. is a relevant one. If the donation of renewable tissue can take place
in medically safe conditions, I can’t see a problem with being allowed to trade, on the condition that poor patients have the same opportunity
and power to buy as rich ones (and that’s a pretty big “if”). The needs of the sick or disabled who risk dying or suffering because of a lack of
available organ, clearly outweigh any remaining concerns. One of those remaining concerns is the problem of the commodification of the body.
Organ trade is obviously commodification, and commodification is dehumanization. I don’t want to
imply that organ trade liberalization necessarily results in “organ farms”, dystopian places where people
are “cultivated” solely for the harvesting of their organs – although the Chinese criminal justice and
capital punishment system for instance comes awfully close. (I sometimes wonder if deterrent and punishment is the
real goal of executions in China). But people can commodify and dehumanize themselves. And although we
should normally respect people’s self-regarding choices, what looks like a choice may not always be a
true choices. The logic of economics tends to overtake all other domains of life, even those where it
doesn’t belong and can do serious harm. Why is it so evident to so many that body parts are something
that it supposed to be tradable? Even the most outspoken proponents of organ trade draw the line
somewhere: they won’t allow people to sell parts of their brains, I guess, or their children and wives, or the
parts of aborted fetuses (perhaps fetuses specially conceived and “harvested” for their parts), not even if this would fill a
great social need. And yet they accept as natural that non-vital body parts should be tradable and seem
to forget that irreplaceable body parts form our body and that we can hardly exist without our body. If
we allow total freedom of organ trade, we will have to accept the case in which a poor father decides
to sell off every single one of his organs for the survival of his family. After all, he is the master of his
own body, he has a right to self-determination, and the government has no right to limit what masters
of their own bodies should be allowed to do with it. If you don’t accept the legitimacy of this extreme case, you accept
limitations on the freedom to trade organs. Since most opponents of organ trade also accept certain types of trade – e.g. renewable organs
such as bone marrow and skin – the disagreement isn’t a principled one but one about degree. Underlying the argument
in favor of organ trade is the fiction of a market populated by free, equal and self-determining individuals who make free and rational economic
decisions and agreements on what to sell and buy, free from government interference. The
reality is of course that organ trade
isn’t an expression of self-determination or autonomy but rather of the absence of it. And that organ
trade, just like a lot of other trade, is radically asymmetrical: some are forced to sell in order to survive,
especially if the price and hence the reward is very high, as it will be relatively speaking for the poor.
And others will sell without rationally examining the benefits for or risks to their interests (absence of
informed consent). It’s beyond my powers of comprehension that all this can be denied: It’s true that I don’t find any of the arguments about
the coercive effects of money on peoples’ decisions particularly compelling. Megan McArdle (source) Any potential paid organ donor is always
free to decline the transaction, and is left no worse off than before. What next, will you tell me that I “coerced” Apple into sending me a
Macbook? (source) This seems to me to be more correct, or at least less outrageous: Talk of individual rights and autonomy is hollow if those
with no options must “choose” to sell their organs to purchase life’s basic necessities. … Choice requires information, options and some degree
of freedom. (source) Of course, some would say: if someone is forced by poverty to sell her organs, would you
stop her and make her worse off by imposing legal restrictions on her autonomy and “reducing her
resources”? That’s again the myth that markets always make things better. What if she does get some
money, has a better life in the short run, but gets sick because of the operation (or do we also assume the myth
of perfect healthcare for the world’s poor?) or because of the lack of an organ? Who would make her worse off? The one
allowing her to sell, or the one stopping her? And anyway, there are better ways to protect the poor
than to allow them to harvest their organs. So, if we’re afraid that free organ trade might be exploitative for the poor, why
not allow free trade but exclude the poor from selling? Because the poor will be, in general, the only ones tempted to
sell. A wealthy person has no incentive to sell organs. Hence a free trade system restricted in this way
will not solve the shortage problem, the main concern of proponents of free trade.
Legalization magnifies exploitation
Arora 12 (Ishika Arora—contributing writor. 3-14-2012, "THE HUMAN MEAT MARKET: AN ANALYSIS

When considering the legalization of the organ trade, it is important to examine the donor’s
environmental situation. Although there are several health risks associated with organ donation, the
market is very prominent in countries such as India and Brazil where there is extreme poverty, lack of
clean water and little access to basic healthcare. In a study of India’s kidney market, 86 percent of donors had
major health issues after their surgery. Theoretically, it may seem that these risks would be minimal due to
an increase in medical technology, but an increase in health risks is inevitable in areas of poverty where
people perform extensive manual labor and have little access to clean water and food. Also, a free market
organ system would not allow these poor donors to ever be recipients, as organs would belong to the
highest bidder. The destitute would not be able to afford a transplant but would disproportionately be
the ones parting with their body parts. In addition, poverty tends to create a decrease in agency. A lack of
basic necessities allows poorer individuals to be exploited through organ trading. In India, this lack of
agency causes women to become collateral damage in the organ market. The same study of kidney sales in India
revealed that 79 percent of sellers regretted their decision to donate an organ and a shocking 71 percent of
sellers were married women. Because poor women in India have little power, they can be easily forced
by their husbands to sell their organs. In this case, the libertarian idea of “my body, my choice” is not

Their ev assumes perfectly regulated markets—they won’t be, markets are

Hentrich 14 (Michael Hentrich—Medical Scholar, December 20, 2o14. “Health Matters: Human Organ
Donations, Sales, and the Black Market.” SSRN:ín)

Even if organ sales were legalized, it is not clear what effect this would actually have on the shortage of
organs for transplant. Predictions of price and market behavior are highly uncertain. If sales of kidneys
were permitted, would the supply of kidneys catch up with the demand? What would happen to kidney
prices? Unregulated, it is difficult to imagine that prices would be affordable to all those in need (Corwin
2011). Contemporary sociologists have been quick to suggest that the supplyside shortage may be cured by legalizing sales; the truth of
such claims rests on whether the supply would increase enough to provide an organ for everyone in
need (Corwin 2011, Ben-David 2005). Of course, demand can only increase inasmuch as there are people in need of organs, while the
numbers who can give organs is practically limitless. Contingency theorists contend that there are limits to organizing society
because there is no single best way to make decisions; organizations need to remain flexible to respond
to changing environmental demands. The appropriate form of organization depends on the kind of task or environment one is
dealing with, and management must be free to adapt the organization to fit current circumstances. In the case of organ transplants,
management consists of government officials and politicians who control the laws pertaining to organ
procurement as well as OPOs and the doctors and hospitals who perform transplantation. Recent
advancements in medical technology used to preserve and transport organs demands precise and
intentionally exacted management about the issue at hand; achieving greater awareness of an issue that
has global significance is critical to changing the procurement system (Becker and Elias 2007, Harris and Alcorn 2000-
2001). Another related point of contingency theory explicitly stresses the role of management because in any group it is the managers
who make the decisions that most profoundly influence the rest of the population and who have the
greatest control over circumstance
The most vulnerable members of society are the ones who donated—Iran proves
Houser 17 (Kristin Houser—Senior Editor of Futurism. 11-6-2017, "Black market bodies: legalizing the
sale of human organs could save lives," Futurism,ín)

While the Iranian system does speed up the process of organ donation for patients — the average wait between
reaching out to the foundation and receiving a kidney is five months — Fatemi said the legal kidney market is not without
its shortcomings. One issue is that doctors often fail to follow up with donors post-surgery. It’s
important to follow donors for several decades after donation to see how the process affects them,
Fatemi stressed, but said doing so would be difficult, as donors often try to hide their identity to avoid the
stigma associated with selling a kidney. Educating the public on the benefits of donation, paid or not, could help solve this
problem, Fatemi said. Fatemi also noted that, just like the illegal kidney market, the poorest, more vulnerable
members of society are still the ones donating in Iran’s legal market, and they typically only do so
because they feel they have no other option to escape poverty. “I have been to the foundation. The people who
are donating are young and full of energy, but they are poor and selling a part of their body to solve
what may amount to very small problems in their everyday lives,” Fatemi said. Given the lack of follow-up,
no one even knows for sure if these vulnerable citizens benefit from the sale.

Legalization is insufficient—Iran proves—altruism empirically works to eliminate

Arora 12 (Ishika Arora—contributing writor. 3-14-2012, "THE HUMAN MEAT MARKET: AN ANALYSIS

Defenders of an organ market also reference Iran’s monopsony in which the government is the only
legal buyer of organs. In this model, all middlemen and medical professionals involved are not paid for
the transplant. The patients rely heavily on government-subsidized treatment and on the kindness of the
volunteers involved. This allows poor citizens to not only sell their organs but receive transplants when
in need. It also increases the umbrella of government healthcare by providing free care to those who donate organs. In addition, they
claim that sellers come from all socioeconomic classes and not disproportionately from the poor.
Because of a lack of data, however, it is unclear whether Iran’s method has truly eliminated organ waitlists
or if there are major loopholes. In an ideal environment, the Iran model would seem to be effective. However, it is important
to consider the economic culture and healthcare system of a nation before implementing such a model.
For example, could this system work in the U.S. where healthcare is not universal and economists are major
supporters of a free market system? In India, would the lack of funding for governmental regulation organizations as well as for healthcare
allow this model to be effective? The Iran model is worth consideration. Overall, it is possible that governmental regulation could, to a certain
extent help remove some of the social issues involved in organ trading. Assuming
an organ market was introduced, however,
would it solve its initial goal of increasing a healthy supply of available organs for ill patients? An analysis
of its effectiveness as a market will show that it will not be able to solve this issue and will create
additional problems. The purpose of legalizing organ trading is to save the lives of thousands of patients
on the transplant waiting lists. It is possible, however, that introducing this new market may not increase
the number of organs for transplantation. This idea can be understood by creating a parallel between the blood
market and organ trade. In Richard Titmuss’s study, The Gift Relationship, he reveals that altruistic donation is more
efficient. Titmuss claims that introducing blood markets “represses the expression of altruism [and]
erodes the sense of community.” Thus, those who would previously donate blood for purely altruistic
purposes may decline to give a part of their body for monetary compensation. If this occurred in the
organ market, it may not result in an increase of available organs. Altruistic donation is clearly a better
Legalization encourages dangerous donations for the sake of economic security
Arora 12 (Ishika Arora—contributing writor. 3-14-2012, "THE HUMAN MEAT MARKET: AN ANALYSIS

In addition, while
it would seem that legalization of organ trading would create national and international
quality standards, in reality it might create an “unclean” supply. Because many of the donors would be
of lower economic status, their desperation in destitution could cause them to lie about the health of
their organs. In addition, these sellers may have little access to healthcare, creating a situation in which
they may truly endanger their lives by parting with an organ their body cannot afford. Not only will an
organ market be unable to increase a healthy supply of organs, it will also create other issues. From a
purely economic perspective, legalizing the organ trade may force more poor citizens into selling their
organs. In anthropologist Lawrence Cohen’s study of the organ belt in rural India, he found that most of the money that sellers
received was used to paying back loans they had previously taken to feed their families. An increased
prevalence in the organ trade will cause organs to be considered an economic asset that everyone can
part with. This will cause an increase in loan collaterals and people who do not want to sell their organs
will have access to fewer loans. Essentially, poor people will have to “mortgage their organs” in order to
find a reasonable loan.
a2 Resource and Training CP
2AC—CP is the Squo
The counterplan is the squo—the advantage proves this is insufficient
DOJ 17 (US Department of Justice. 9-29-2017, "Justice Department Invests More Than $47 Million to
Combat Human Trafficking and Assist Victims," Justive.Gov,

The U.S.
Department of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs (OJP) today announced more than $47 million in
funding to combat human trafficking and provide vital services to trafficking victims throughout the
United States. As part of this announcement, Associate Attorney General Rachel L. Brand visited the national headquarters of the
International Association of Chiefs of Police this afternoon, where she met with Executive Director Vincent Talucci, Deputy Executive Director
Terrence Cunningham, and Director for Programs Domingo Herraiz. While there, she provided notification that the Bureau
of Justice Assistance (BJA) had awarded the organization a $1 million grant to support a National Anti-
Human Trafficking Training and Technical Assistance for Law Enforcement Task Force, which supports
criminal justice systems efforts to investigate, and prosecute all forms of human trafficking. “The Department
of Justice is committed to protecting the victims of human trafficking,” said Associate Attorney General Brand. “DOJ grants provide
training and technical assistance to state and local law governments, law enforcement, and victim
service organizations.” Approximately $31 million of the funds was awarded under nine OJP grant programs. The grants aim to
support the criminal justice system’s efforts to investigate and prosecute all forms of human trafficking; offer victims services
through experienced providers; and seeks to strengthen communities’ responses to the sexual
exploitation and forced labor of victims by raising community awareness and providing training and
technical assistance. Grants awarded under Fiscal Year 2017 OJP programs include the following: Specialized Services for
Victims of All Forms of Human Trafficking; About $7.5 million to 13 victim service organizations to
enhance the quality and quantity of specialized services available to all victims of human trafficking.
Legal Access to Victims of Crime: Innovations in Access to Justice Programs; Approximately $5 million
to support an award to Equal Justice Works, which will partner with qualified nonprofit organizations to
host attorneys who will provide comprehensive and holistic legal services to survivors of human
trafficking and enforce victims' rights. Improving Outcomes for Child and Youth Victims of Human
Trafficking: A Jurisdiction Wide Approach; Nearly $5.2 million to four states to improve jurisdiction-wide
coordination and multidisciplinary collaboration to address the trafficking of children and youth.
Comprehensive Services for Victims of All Forms of Human Trafficking; Over $3.6 million to five
community agencies under this program with a demonstrated history of serving victims of human
trafficking. Specialized Human Trafficking Training and Technical Assistance for Service Providers; $1.7
million to the Freedom Network USA and Futures Without Violence to help victim service providers
develop and implement housing and employment practices that better serve victims of human
Refugees Aff Case
2ac – at: travel ban good
While non-immigrant travel might be a security risk, immigration is not
Rothschild 18 Eric Rothschild - Senior Litigation Counsel at Americans United for Separation of Church
and State “The Government Has Yet to Produce Evidence Showing the Travel Ban is About National
Security” June 21, 2018 (
ban-national-security/) //wc

The very first thing that Solicitor General Noel Francisco told the court at oral argument in Hawaii v.
Trump was: “After a worldwide multi-agency review, the President’s acting Homeland Security Secretary
recommended that he adopt entry restrictions on countries that failed to provide the minimum baseline
of information needed to vet their nationals.” Francisco returned to the worldwide review time and
again, making it the linchpin in the government’s argument that the President’s Proclamation banning
entry of nationals from predominantly Muslim countries was based on a religiously neutral national-
security assessment by public servants and not the “shutdown of Muslims entering the United States”
that the president had called for during the campaign. According to the Solicitor General, if the
president’s cabinet had come to him and said, “‘Mr. President, there is honestly a national security risk
and you have to act’, I think that the President would be allowed to follow that advice even if in his
private heart of hearts he also harbored animus.”

But the government never presented any evidence about what the president’s cabinet found or
recommended—leaving the court with nothing but the government’s vague assertion that the agency
supported the president’s ban. If the court were to rule in favor of the government without requiring it
to offer proof, it would run the risk of repeating its mistake in the Japanese internment cases, the most
controversial modern decisions about the use of federal power to discriminate against one group of
people for the ostensible purpose of protecting national security. In those cases, the government relied
on a military report to support its claims about the national-security threat posed by Japanese
Americans, but that report turned out to be so riddled with misrepresentations that decades later the
United States government confessed error for having presented it to the court.

In the proclamation, the government represents that it performed an extensive analysis of the identity
systems, information practices, and security situation of every country in the world to determine which
ones should be subject to entry restrictions. If that’s true, the government’s findings should be reflected
in the two reports that DHS made to the president before he issued the proclamation. Those reports
have never been made public or produced in court. But according to an index produced in Freedom of
Information Act litigation brought by the Brennan Center (for whom this author is one of the counsel),
the worldwide review’s findings in their entirety comprise a three-page attachment to DHS’s first report
to the president and a one-page attachment to the agency’s final report—documents so short that they
could hardly even name all the countries of the world, much less set forth thorough assessments of
whether they pose national security risks befitting a bar on entry by their nationals to the United States.

Even more troubling: a close reading of the limited public record about the supposed worldwide review
suggests that the president imposed restrictions that may be materially different from what the then-
Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Eliane Duke recommended—indeed, that the acting secretary
may have specifically recommended against measures that the president took.
The ban comprises two different types of restrictions on entry visas. The first are restrictions on non-
immigrant visas to travel to the United States for a limited period for reasons such as education,
business, or pleasure. The second type are restrictions on immigrant visas to become a permanent legal
resident or citizen. The non-immigrant restrictions (which vary among the affected countries) are
characterized in the proclamation as a “tailored approach” adopted “in accordance withthe
recommendations of the Secretary of Homeland Security.” (Emphasis mine.)

The restrictions on immigrant visas, however, are not tailored—at least not for the Muslim-majority
countries that are banned. The poclamation imposes an absolute ban on immigrant visas for all those
countries even while acknowledging that “immigrants generally receive more extensive vetting than
nonimmigrants.” (Emphasis mine.) And unlike the travel restrictions, the immigrant-visa restrictions are
not described in the proclamation as having been made “in accordance with the recommendations of
the Secretary of Homeland Security.” Further supporting the inference that DHS didn’t recommend
immigration restrictions but that the president imposed them anyway, an affidavit submitted by a DHS
official in the Freedom of Information Act litigation represents that the agency’s second report to the
president “summarized DHS’s recommendations concerning which countries’ nationals should be
subject to travel restrictions or other lawful actions.” (Emphasis mine.) Nowhere does the official say
anything about recommendations by the agency concerning immigration restrictions.

In other words, DHS may have recommended restrictions on non-immigrant travel from specific
countries, but it appears not to have done so for immigration—which just makes sense, because federal
law prohibits it from doing so. 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1)(A) provides that “no person shall receive any
preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of . . .
nationality.” (No such express prohibition exists for non-immigrant travel visas.) It is quite possible that
DHS felt legally barred from recommending country-specific restrictions for immigrant visas—the agency
may have even recommended against them for this precise reason—but the president was undeterred.

Travel ban doesn’t improve national security

Stottlemyer 18 Patricia Stottlemyer -- Rule of Law and Human Rights Fellow at Human Rights First
“Ex-Military, Intelligence, and Foreign Policy Officials: Travel Ban Harms National Security” April 4, 2018
national-security/) //wc

micus brief, twenty-six retired generals and admirals urge the Court to invalidate the ban,
In one a

alternatively called Travel Ban 3.0, Muslim Ban 3.0, and EO-3 (disclaimer: I personally worked on this brief as part of the team at Human Rights First that helped
prepare it). The Ninth Circuit invalidated EO-3, which the administration argues has “severely restricted the ability of this and future Presidents to protect the nation.” As amici curiae, the nonpartisan group of retired flag officers of

They say it harms U.S. national security interests by perpetuating the

the U.S. Armed Forces submit that the travel ban won’t protect the nation.

perception that the United States is hostile to Muslims and Muslim-majority nations, frustrating
relationships with locals in foreign countries and partner governments, undermining U.S. military
operations, and “fuel[ing] the propaganda narrative spread by terrorists and others who seek to harm
U.S. interests.” A bipartisan group of fifty-two former national security, foreign policy, and intelligence
officials agrees. In a separate amicus brief, the officials contend the travel ban is not “an exercise of the Executive’s foreign policy and national security judgment” that warrants the Court’s customary deference.
The government, the former officials point out, has been unable to articulate any national security or foreign policy basis for the ban. EO-3 At issue in Trump v. Hawaii is the Presidential Proclamation Enhancing Vetting Capabilities
and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry Into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats. Signed on September 24, 2017, the proclamation purports to differ from the two earlier versions of the ban, including
the January 2017 executive order that caused chaos, an influx of attorneys, and days-long protests at the nation’s airports. The present version indefinitely bars the entry of nationals from six Muslim-majority countries— Chad,
Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen—as well as North Koreans and some Venezuelan government officials. It also subjects individuals from the Muslim-majority nation of Iraq to heightened vetting procedures. The two previous
bans faced court challenges, and before the Supreme Court could hear the merits of the second ban, its provisions expired. Then came EO-3. Procedural Posture In October 2017, the District Court of Hawaii barred the enforcement
of EO-3 against individuals from the six Muslim-majority countries. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, finding that EO-3 violates the Immigration and Nationality Act. On January 5, the administration asked the Supreme Court to intervene
in Trump v. Hawaii, presenting three questions: 1) Whether Hawaii’s challenge to the ban is justiciable, meaning whether federal courts can weigh in at all; 2) Whether the ban is a lawful exercise of the president’s authority over
immigration; and 3) Whether the district court’s injunction is impermissibly overbroad. The Court accepted those questions and also agreed to address whether the ban violates the Constitution’s Establishment Clause. Although
the Establishment Clause question was not before the Ninth Circuit, it was raised in a parallel case at the Fourth Circuit, International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump. The Fourth Circuit, too, invalidated the ban, and IRAP’s
petition for writ of certiorari, asking that its case be joined with Trump v. Hawaii, is pending before the Supreme Court. The Merits Dispute In defending the ban, the administration argues that the “Constitution and Acts of
Congress both confer on the President broad authority to suspend or restrict the entry of aliens outside the United States when he deems it in the Nation’s interest,” an authority presidents “have routinely invoked to advance
national-security and foreign-policy objectives.” This ban is different from its predecessors, the administration says, because it was based on the findings of a review of worldwide vetting procedures. The countries subject to the
ban, the administration argues, do not adequately share information with the United States, or they pose other national security threats. The ban, the administration claims, should “induce those governments to improve their
cooperation.” What’s more, the administration argues that the court should not review Hawaii’s claims, as separation of powers principles preclude judicial review of political branch decisions to exclude the entry of aliens. The
government also argues that the Court’s deference is especially warranted on matters of national security. Hawaii argues that EO-3 is a direct descendent—bearing the same intent and similar effects—of the prior bans. The ban,
Hawaii contends, exceeds the president’s authority over immigration, and raises “grave constitutional concerns.” Agreeing with the government’s line of argument, respondents assert, would result in granting the executive
“unbridled power.” Amicus Brief of Retired Generals and Admirals My colleagues at Human Rights First and I, in collaboration with pro-bono counsel at the law firm Debevoise and Plimpton, prepared the amicus brief on behalf of a

The brief argues that despite EO-3’s stated national-security rationale, the
group of retired generals and admirals of the U.S. armed forces.

ban harms U.S. national security by perpetuating the perception that the United States is pursuing an
anti-Muslim foreign policy agenda. This perception, amici write, is well-founded, not only because of the countries targeted (newly added Chad is also a Muslim-majority country, and
restrictions on North Korea and Venezuela have little effect on travel from those countries), but also because of the administration’s public commentary surrounding the bans. Because of this perception, the generals and admirals

The premise of the retired military leaders’

warn, EO-3 undermines relationships with key allies and individuals whose trust is critical to the success of U.S. military objectives.

brief is that discrimination against Muslims and Muslim-majority countries—and the perception of such
discrimination—discourages cooperation with the U.S. military. The erosion of cooperation, from both
locals in foreign countries and foreign governments, makes it more difficult to achieve our military’s
strategic objectives. Local individuals in Muslim-Majority countries are discouraged from assisting U.S. troops, for example, as translators and intelligence resources, and the goodwill of local communities
where U.S. troops are deployed recedes. The alienation of local individuals and communities, the generals and admirals write, can prolong the presence of U.S. troops in the theater and prevent the reduction of violence in zones of
conflict. Special Forces, for instance, rely on the creation of “force multipliers,” a process through which the U.S. military builds the capacity of local partners, with a view to ceding control over security to those forces. The U.S.
Army Field Manual on counterinsurgency also emphasizes the importance of building trust with local networks, security forces, and community leaders, in order to displace enemy networks. (That manual was notably coauthored

Trust-based relationships with our allies, the 2018 National Defense Strategy
by Gen. David Petraeus and Lt. Gen. James Mattis.)

states, enhance “access to critical regions, supporting a widespread basing and logistics system.” In that vein, the
generals and admirals note that relationships with partner governments and militaries are not without challenge, including when those allies violate international human rights norms. But EO-3, they argue, adds an additional and
unnecessary hurdle to our strategic objectives. In the wake of its inclusion in EO-3, Chad recalled 2,000 troops from a coalition mission against Boko Haram in Niger. The withdrawal of those troops has already had an effect on

security there—for both civilian residents and the remaining troops. The brief also argues that EO-3 endangers deployed U.S. service
members by encouraging the perception that the United States will violate international norms and
ideals. U.S. compliance with and support for the rule of law enhance the legitimacy of U.S. action in the world, which in turn serves U.S. national security interests. When the United States is viewed as a scofflaw willing to
defy the rule of law and international norms, other actors are less likely to comply with those norms. The anti-Muslim sentiments embedded in the ban also

give a propaganda and recruitment victory to U.S. enemies. The Department of Defense dedicates significant resources to battling enemy messaging, and EO-
3 feeds directly into the rhetoric of groups like ISIS. Less than a day after the first ban was enacted, ISIS propaganda branded it the “blessed ban.” Amicus Brief of Former National Security, Foreign Policy, and Intelligence Officials
Harold Koh of the Yale Law School Rule of Law Clinic is counsel of record for a group of 52 former public officials as amici curiae, among them senior officials from Democratic and Republican administrations. Many of these former
officials also had access to the U.S. government’s intelligence underlying national security threats until immediately prior to the implementation of the first travel ban. Amici argue that the Court should not defer to the
administration’s assertions that the ban serves national security interests. Any judicial deference to executive determinations of national security and foreign policy, they write, is not warranted in this instance. The administration,
amici point out, has presented no credible national security basis for the ban’s sweeping country-based restrictions. Furthermore, they argue, the Court should be more skeptical of the ban’s stated bases because the
administration failed to engage in an inter-agency review process for the policy—a process that provides the prudential foundation for judicial deference in some matters of executive national security policy. Not only do the travel
bans, they write, fail to serve the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States, but they also do “serious damage” to those interests. Amici contend that as former senior government officials, they understand
the importance of judicial deference to properly developed national security policy. Here, they argue, such deference is unwise. “While the Orders at issue in this case may be about national security, they do not reflect a bona fide
national security judgment that merits this Court’s deference.” They worry that if the Court were to defer in this case, where the executive action at issue so clearly defies the policymaking processes and careful review necessary to

A concern about unfettered executive discretion, so long

such deference, “it is difficult to imagine a case in which national security deference would be withheld.”

as an administration invokes the magic words “national security,” animates both amicus briefs discussed
here. The former government officials argue that for such deference to be warranted, there must be
“some threshold showing that professional judgment” of national security or foreign policy officials was
exercised. Furthermore, they argue that the ban is overbroad. Systems of vetting which are more
tailored to cognizable threats are already in part of the refugee vetting process and the Visa Waiver
Program procedures. While EO-3’s blanket, country-based ban claims a justification in preventing terrorism, amici note that the ban’s provisions are ill-suited to the apparent purposes. First, they write, the
ban will likely make information-sharing more difficult “by impairing economic and political interchange and spurring anti-American sentiment.” If the administration is concerned with remedying inadequate information-sharing,
amici point out, it should have included Belgium in the ban. Instead, nationals of the countries targeted “have committed no deadly terrorist attacks on U.S. soil in the last forty years.” The former U.S. officials warn that the ban
also makes domestic law enforcement more difficult, by alienating American Muslim communities who are often critical sources of intelligence. Furthermore, the ban “has had a devastating humanitarian impact” by “disrupt[ing]
the travel of numerous men, women, and children who have themselves been victimized by terrorists.” Lastly, amici argue that the ban will have a negative economic impact, especially in the defense, technology, and medical
sectors. It should go without saying (although perhaps it merits repeating in the present climate) that the human rights, dignity, and equal treatment of people from Muslim-majority countries should not hinge on the benefits they
offer to U.S. military, law enforcement, or foreign policy missions. But in light of the gratuitous invocation of “national security” as justification for the systematic vilification of Muslims—a bigotry that has found safe harbor in the
current administration’s rhetoric and policies—the arguments of the retired military leaders and former government officials defeat the administration on its own terms.

There’s no basis for National security claims

Somin 18 Ilya Somin – independent reporter “Evidence Indicates there is no "Extensive" Analysis
Backing Trump's Travel Ban” May. 24, 2018 (
indicates-there-is-no-extensive) //wc
Solicitor General Noel Francisco
During last month's Supreme Court oral argument on the the legal challenges to President Donald Trump's travel ban policy,

assured the justices that the president's numerous statements calling for a "Muslim ban" and equating
that with his later "territorial" policy of targeting residents Muslim-majority nations, had no connection
to the travel ban. Instead, Francisco claimed that the policy was actually based on an "extensive
worldwide process" analyzing of the security risks posed by entrants from all of the world's 200 nations, which in turn resulted in a "neutral baseline" of security criteria that
were evenly applied to "every nation in the world." Meanwhile, the administration refuses to release this supposed analysis to the courts (despite the availability of in camera proceedings
under which classified information could be released to the judges but withheld form the public), and Francisco claims that judges must accord the president "a very strong presumption that
what is set out there is the truth." But, as David Bier of the Cato Institute explains in a recent post, the evidence suggests that no such "extensive" analysis or "neutral baseline" actually exists.
All that actually exists is a perfunctory 17 page document with little or no analysis and evidence: In justifying President Trump's travel ban to the Supreme Court last month, his attorneys
repeatedly referenced a confidential report. They told the Court that this "extensive" analysis of "every country in the world" resulted from a "worldwide multi-agency review" and proves that
the president did not act with religious animus.... In response to a [Freedom of Information Act] lawsuit by the Brennan Center for Justice in New York, the government disclosed that its final
secret report filed in September was just 16 pages with a one-page attachment. Yet the president claims it reviewed "more than 200 countries," meaning it covered each country in less than a
tenth of a page.... We now know that this 60-word average is actually too generous for most countries because the government has said that the report included the information on the eight
targeted countries and the explanation for the ban contained in the president's 12-page travel ban order. If it dedicated the other five pages solely to the non-travel ban countries, this would
leave just 16 words for each... [T]he length of the report by itself gives the justices a very good reason to conclude that the government's report did not actually assess every country in the
world in 16 words or less.... Maybe the president could rebut this impression, but any presumption that he had in his favor at the outset should be forfeited based on what we know now. The
best evidence indicates that his "extensive" review simply never happened. Perhaps Trump has some other super-secret, totally terrific study that justifies the travel ban more fully. But, at this
point, there is no evidence that any such thing exists. If it did, the administration would have a strong incentive to reveal it, even if only in camera, or in some redacted form, to protect
classified information. It also did not indicate the existence of any such more extensive study in its response to the Brennan Center FOIA lawsuit. If such a thing did exist, the government
presumably would have had to reveal it in the response, even if it also claimed "presidential communication privilege" as a justification for withholding it (as it did in the case of the September

the short and perfunctory nature of the final report that supposedly justifies the travel
report). As Bier points out,

ban reinforces other evidence indicating that the security rationales offered by the administration are
not the true reason for the policy. Far from consistently applying "neutral criteria" to all the nations in the world, as Francisco claims, the administration in fact
applied its standards in a highly inconsistent manner. The security justification for the travel ban is also weakend by the fact that, in the forty year period for which we have data, no one has
ever been killed in a terrorist attack on US soil by an entrant from any of the nations covered by travel ban. Had Travel Ban 3.0 been in place since 9/11, it would not have prevented the entry

The risks posed by entrants from the nations covered by the

of a single terrorist (even one who did not commit any attacks on US soil).

travel ban are actually lower than those posed by native-born Americans. When Noel Francisco told the
Supreme Court that the the travel ban was based on a "extensive" worldwide analysis of security risks
that came up with "neutral criteria" on which the travel ban was based, it is likely that he was either
misinformed or attempting to deceive the justices. Either way the Court should not give any deference to such assurances from administration
lawyers. The paucity of evidence backing the travel ban strengthens the constitutional case against it. In cases
where there is evidence that a seemingly neutral policy was actually motivated by unconstitutional discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, or (in this case) religion, the government must
prove that it had a legitimate basis for the policy that would have led it to adopt it anyway. The administration claims that the "extensive" worldwide study and the "neutral" criteria developed

If the supposedly extensive analysis doesn't actually exist, and the "neutral"
as a result of it qualify as such a rationale.

criteria are not being consistently applied, that makes it even more likely that Trump's true motive in
adopting the travel ban was to make good on his "Muslim ban" campaign promise. It also suggests he was telling the truth
when he repeatedly said that the "territorial" policy embodied in the travel ban is just an extension of the Muslim ban. The nations included in the ban were chosen because they are
overwhelmingly Muslim, not because entrants from those countries pose any special security risk. For reasons I summarized here, the inclusion of North Korea and a few Venezuelans in the
ban does not alter this conclusion, since their addition to the list bars almost no entrants who might otherwise have come in. The fact that the policy does not cover all the Muslims in the

The administration's defenders argue that the government deserves special

world also should not be decisive.

deference in immigration and national security cases. In an amicus brief I coauthored on behalf of several fellow constitutional law scholars, we
argue that such special deference is unwarranted because the First Amendment's restrictions on religious discrimination constrain federal power over immigration no less than all other
exercises of federal authority. A long history of cruel, abusive, and often bigoted policies also shows that it is dangerous to give special deference in immigration and national security cases.

But even if some degree of special deference is generally appropriate, it should not apply in a case where there is strong evidence that the government is not acting in good faith.

main justification for deference is the executive's special expertise on national security matters. But that
expertise is irrelevant in a case where national security is not the true motive for the policy in question.
2ac – biotech sector declining
Biotech innovation declining now
URMC 15 University of Rochester Medical Center “U.S. Slipping as Global Leader in Medical Research”
January 13, 2015 (
medical-research.aspx) //wc

Once the undisputed center of global innovation in medicine , the U.S. is steadily losing ground to Asia and Europe and will, if trends
continue,relinquish its leadership in the coming decade. That is the conclusion of an analysis appearing
today in the Journal of the American Medical Association. “U.S. medical research remains the primary global source of new discoveries, drugs,
medical devices, and clinical procedures,” said University of Rochester neurologist Ray Dorsey, M.D., M.B.A., a co-author of the study. “However, a decade of

unprecedented growth in research activity has been followed by a decade of steady decline which now
leaves open the possibility that other nations could assume global leadership given their increasing
investment in biomedical research.” The study tracked medical research activity from 1994 to 2014 in the U.S., Europe, Asia, Canada, and Australia, compiling
data on funding by public and private sources, the creation of intellectual property, and the size of the medical and scientific workforce. U.S. spending on medical research grew at an average
annual rate of 6 percent between 1994 and 2004. This pace fell sharply in the following decade, where the annual rate of growth decreased to 0.6 percent, falling behind the pace of inflation.

With the exception of the temporary increases brought about by federal stimulus spending in 2009 and
2010, the last five years have seen a decrease in research funding when adjusted for inflation. Overall, medical
R&D funding has declined in real terms by 13 percent since 2004. Research funding, particularly by the private sector, has also shifted to later stages development and away from basic science.
Guided primarily by the desire to realize short-term economic benefits, the share of spending by pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and medical device companies on phase 3 clinical trials – large
studies in people that often represent the final step before regulatory approval – grew by 36 percent between 2004 and 2012. Industry spending is also now the largest component of U.S.

he move away from investing in early stage research has

medical R&D, increasing from 46 percent in 2004 to 58 percent in 2012. T

significant long-term implications, according to the authors. They point out that new knowledge often
takes from 15 to 25 years to move from the discovery made in the lab to its clinical application in people.
With the private sector moving more resources to late-stage research, this leaves the shrinking resources provide by the federal government and often very small companies as the primary

The authors also found that the allocation of research resources does not
sources of funding for early-stage, high-risk research.

reflect the burden of disease on society. Diseases that represent more than 80 percent of all U.S. deaths receive less than half of the funding from the
National Institutes of Health. The portion of total funding for cancer and HIV/AIDS research in particular are well above the levels that these diseases inflict in terms of death and disability.

The amount of money spent by the pharmaceutical industry on finding treatments for rare diseases is
also high, driven primarily by the lower barriers to market set forth in the Orphan Drug Act of 1983. Medical research has become an increasingly global endeavor and investments by
other countries, particularly in Asia, are eroding U.S. leadership. In 2004, U.S. medical R&D spending represented 57 percent of the global total. By 2014, the U.S. share had fallen to 44 percent
with Asia – led by China, Japan, South Korea, India, and Singapore – rapidly making up ground and increasing investment by 9.4 percent per year. If current trends continue, the U.S. will be
overtaken by China as the global leader in medical R&D in the next ten years. China has already surpassed the U.S. in terms of the size of its science and technology workforce and global share

The authors point to the low levels of research

of patents for medical technologies, and is closing the gap in published biomedical research articles.

funding in the field of health services as area in particular need of remedy. Health services – which study
topics such as access to care, cost, quality of care, and efforts to promote well-being – represent only
0.3 percent of U.S. research expenditures. “The low levels of investment in health services research represent a missed opportunity to improve many
aspects of health, especially the burden of chronic illness, aging populations, and the need for more effective ways to deliver care,” said Dorsey.

Labor shortage in biotech

Szaniszlo and Dowling 5/17 Marie Szaniszlo – Staff Writer, the Boston Herald; Brian Dowling –
Journalist in the Greater Boston Area “Biotech dives deep for talent” May 17, 2018

Biotech execs — sounding the alarm over a limited pool of talent in the Bay State — will meet tomorrow with
academic leaders to tackle the shortage of trained workers that threatens to slow growth in the
booming life sciences industry. A jobs report yesterday on the Massachusetts biotechnology sector raised concerns that positions are going
unfilled as companies wait for the right stuff, noting that two-thirds of companies surveyed said it is
taking more than 10 weeks to fill many openings — about three times the national average. Three in 10 employers
said the time-to-hire stretched to 13-plus weeks, with openings in research and development, clinical

research and regulatory compliance topping the most-difficult-to-fill list. “It’s clear we need to grow the available pool of
talent from which the industry can draw employees,” said Peter Abair, executive director of the Massachusetts Biotechnology Educational
Foundation, which authored the report. Tomorrow, more than 200 leaders from industry and academia will meet at the Life

Sciences Workforce Conference at Northeastern University to ensure that colleges and universities
understand what kind of training and specialities are needed as the industry expands. “What we’ve seen over the last
four years is the industry has grown by 20 percent, about twice the rate of the economy,” said Mark Bruso, manager of labor
market research for MassBioEd. In 2017, Massachusetts employment in the life sciences exceeded 70,000, more than at any other point in state history, Bruso said. There were also 28,000

companies are expanding, creating more job opportunities and, with them, more
biopharma job openings, he said, because

turnover than in many other industries.

2ac – biotech solves biodiversity
Biotech is key to remediate marine biodiversity loss
Kalogerakis et al. 15 Nicolas Kalogerakis - Technical University of Crete, Chania, Greece , Johanne
Arff - SINTEF, Norway , Ibrahim M. Banat - University of Ulster , Ole Jacob Broch - SINTEF, Norway ,
Daniele Daffonchio - University of Milan, Italy , Torgeir Edvardsen - SINTEF, Norway , Harkaitz Eguiraun -
University of the Basque Country, Spain , Laura Giuliano - CIESM, The Mediterranean Science
Commission, Monaco , Aleksander Handa - SINTEF, Norway , Karmele Lo´pez-de-Ipin˜ - University of the
Basque Country, Spain , Ionan Marigomez University of the Basque Country, Spain , Iciar Martinez
University of the Basque Country, Spain , Gunvor Øie - SINTEF, Norway , Fernando Rojo - CSIC, Spain ,
Jorunn Skjermo - SINTEF, Norway , Giulio Zanaroli - University of Bologna, Italy and Fabio Fava -
University of Bologna, Italy “The role of environmental biotechnology in exploring, exploiting,
monitoring, preserving, protecting and decontaminating the marine environment” January 2015
( //wc

The most recent international strategies to re-launch global (bio)economy consider the marine
environment as the last frontier. Baseline scenarios identify successful trends for high technology
marine sectors that operate in a truly global market place. Such a fast developing and diversifying
maritime industry can seriously threaten the marine environment. Environmental biotechnology may
provide important knowledge and tools that will help to protect the resource base upon which marine-
related economic and social activities depend. Environmental biotechnology can play a significant role in
addressing marine environmental problems. These are summarized in the following paragraphs grouped
in five focus areas. Early warning systems to foresee marine threats (natural and anthropogenic) The EU
has adopted several environmental directives, strategies, recommendations, and agreements aimed at
protecting the marine environment and its resources. The EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive
(MSFD; 2008/56/ EC [1]) includes 11 qualitative descriptors for determining good environmental status
(GES). Descriptors 5 (includes harmful algae blooms), 8 (contaminants and their effects), 9
(contaminants in seafood) and 10 (marine litter) are intimately related; however, their assessments
often follow different approaches and are based on unrelated technologies. Biotechnology can provide a
bridge to harmonize procedures and optimize resources for MSFD monitoring programs as well as to
implement nearly real time early warning systems for natural and anthropogenic threats to the marine
environment. MSFD focuses on biological endpoints with ecosystem health at the center of regulation
and management decision-making. Thus, the MSFD requires criteria and methodological standards to
allow consistency in approach in evaluating the extent to which GES is being achieved [2]. Establishing
criteria and methods to determine GES is therefore a priority challenge for basic research, aimed at
establishing solid foundations to achieve harmonized assessment and monitoring procedures. More
recently, chief research efforts have been addressed toward an omics approach for the diagnosis of
environmental syndromes due to, for example, pollution and climate change in marine biota and
ecosystems [3–5]. In this case, biomedical advances are followed more closely by environmental and
marine scientists but much remains still to be done. For instance, the use of biomarkers; a biomarker, or
biological marker, refers to any characteristic, which can be measured and serves as an indicator of
some biological state or condition. Molecular biomarkers measuring gene expression alterations (e.g.
microarrays) after chemical exposure are to-date the front line of research in marine ecotoxicology [6–
9]. We need sequence information for relevant pollution sentinel species that could be employed for the
design, fabrication and commercialization of oligonucleotide high-density microarrays. One weak point
in transcriptomic studies is the lack of information on the organismal/environmental relevance of
alterations in gene expression profiles. High-throughput transcriptomic studies need to be assessed
together to functional endpoints in order to link molecular mechanisms with phenotypic alterations.
These functional endpoints should be also high throughput such as proteomics and metabolomics, and
although the application of proteomics and metabolomics in the marine environment is still in its
beginning, – omic studies are already in progress for marine flora, fauna and microorganisms [6–13].
Interestingly, – omics biomarkers represent a continuum of cellular responses to chemical exposure and
to multiple sources of environmental stress, and provide linkages to mechanisms of cell injury/cell death
or carcinogenic transformation [14]. Overall, improving mechanistic understanding, determining natural
variability and baseline values, standardizing sampling and analytical procedures, integrating biomarkers
among them and with chemical endpoints and relating biomarkers to ecological effects are issues of
major concern for implementing biotools (biomarkers and omic diagnosis data sets) for the MSFD [15].
Criteria and methodological standards are urgently needed to allow consistency in the biomarker + omic
approach for evaluating the extent to which GES is achieved [16], as well long-time series that relate
pollutant exposure to effects on organisms and ecosystems at long-term scale [17]. Learning from
biomedical sciences to speed up the development and use of advanced biomarkers and high-throughput
technologies suitable to foresee marine threats will provide scientists, environmentalists and decision-
makers with up-to-date early warning systems for the monitoring of marine chemical pollution and its
effects. MSFD descriptors 8 and 9 deal with the environmental risk assessment of chemical
contaminants. Likewise, the Water Framework Directive (WFD; 2000/60/EC [18]) and the Registration,
Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH; 2006/1907/EC [19]) deal with the
compliance of environmental quality standards established for chemical substances at European level.
Chemical monitoring can be done with a combination of chemical technology and biosensors. Two major
FP7 calls were recently launched on the development of biosensors for the marine environment for
continuous monitoring of priority pollutants, emerging contaminants and biotoxins (funded projects:
BRAAVOO and SMS). Chemical biomonitoring, that is, methylmercury contamination can also be done
by measuring the behavior of fish in response to an external stimulus; in this case, the response of the
fish is the biomarker. This is a very promising area where research is still very scarce. Whole cell
biosensors are detection tools based on a live bacteria that can sense a signal (of interest is the presence
of a petroleum hydrocarbon), and deliver an output response that can be detected and quantified using
a suitable detector device. Biosensors can be very useful for a fast and cost-effective first-line screening
of the presence of particular pollutants [20–22]. Although biosensors are not aimed at substituting
analytical techniques such as gas chromatography or high-pressure liquid chromatography, they can be
attractive complementary tools to detect pollutants in situ in a cheap and flexible way, and do not need
heavy and expensive equipment. Importantly, biosensors respond to the amount of the pollutant that is
bioavailable (available to the cells), while chemical methods detect the total amount of the compound
present (bioavailable and not bioavailable), which may overestimate the real risks in terms of toxicity
[23]. Therefore, biosensors can be very useful for measuring the ecotoxicity of contaminants, as well as
for monitoring bioremediation processes. For example, a whole-cell biosensor based on an engineered
Escherichia coli bacterial strain has been successfully shown to be useful in field tests for the detection
of arsenic salts in groundwater [24].
Planetary boundaries mean marine biodiversity loss causes extinction – but it’s
Nash et al. 17 Kirsty L. Nash – Centre for Marine Socioecology, Private Bag 129, Hobart, Tasmania
7001, Australia; Christopher Cvitanovic - Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies, University of
Tasmania, Private Bag 129, Hobart, Tasmania 7001, Australia; Elizabeth A. Fulton – Faculty of Law,
University of Tasmania, Private Bag 129, Hobart, Tasmania 7001, Australia; Benjamin S. Halpern –
CSIRO, Castray Esplanade, Battery Point, Tasmania 2004, Australia; E. J. Milner-Gulland - National Centre
for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, University of California, 735 State St, Santa Barbara, CA 93101-
5504, USA; Reg A. Watson - Bren School of Environmental Science & Management, University of
California, Santa Barbara, CA 93101, USA; Julia L. Blanchard – Imperial College London, Silwood Park
Campus, Burkhurst Road, Ascot SL5 7PY, UK “Planetary boundaries for a blue planet” NOVEMBER 2017
( //wc

The planet is subject to increasing anthropogenic impacts and is exhibiting global environmental change
at an accelerating rate, eroding the natural capital that sustains human wellbeing and prosperity1 . The
challenge of understanding these large-scale changes and their consequences for human wellbeing led to the development of a set of planetary boundaries by refs 2,3 to guide Earth system

boundaries identify key biophysical limits (Box 1; Table 1); it is proposed that by staying within these limits,
governance. These

humanity may reduce the risk of crossing thresholds that could lead to devastating and potentially
irreversible environmental change, ensuring the maintenance of critical ecosystem services2,3 . The planetary
boundaries framework has generated significant research interest, particularly within the Earth systems governance literature, for example ref. 4 . Moreover, the ideas underpinning the
framework have been incorporated into multilateral discussions and agreements regarding sustainability, such as the Sustainable Development Goals5 . This level of engagement suggests that

planetary boundaries narrative has the potential to shape future environmental policy6 and

technological innovation7 . Planetary boundaries integrate knowledge across the biophysical sciences and have been intimately linked to analyses of the Great
Acceleration (see glossary Supplementary Note 1)1 . To date, much of the research literature has focused on terrestrial social–ecological systems, with less emphasis placed on marine systems

. In light of (1) the global spatial dominance of marine ecosystems; (2) the
(Supplementary Note 2; Supplementary Fig. 1)

fundamental ecological differences between marine and terrestrial biomes8 ; (3) the increasing human
pressures on the world’s oceans9 ; and (4) the critical role marine systems play in supporting human
wellbeing, particularly in developing nations10, this imbalance seriously hinders the efficacy of the planetary boundaries framework in supporting Earth
system governance. Here, we provide guidance for redressing this imbalance. We explore research to support characterization of planetary boundaries for a blue planet. We discuss the ways
in which the various boundaries interact, and options for assessing these interactions to provide a more integrated and holistic understanding of global environmental change. Finally, we

To develop the
articulate a research agenda to support implementation of the framework to enhance environmental governance. Characterizing boundaries for a blue planet

boundaries for a blue planet, we outline how the existing boundaries3 could be amended through
integration of concepts, processes and data that are applicable in marine systems (Fig. 1; Table 2). We highlight
the potential implications of including marine systems in relation to our risk of crossing specific
boundaries, and where important research gaps exist. Here, we explore four boundaries in more depth,
highlighting how broadening integration with marine research has significant implications for boundary
characterization: (1) land-system change to show how the scope of a boundary might be expanded to
encompass marine systems; (2) biogeochemical flows to explore how additional marine perspectives
might support more robust tracking of regional issues in a global boundary; (3) biosphere integrity to
highlight a key knowledge gap; and (4) human-appropriated net primary production (HANPP), a new
terrestrial boundary proposed by ref. 11 to provide an example of terrestrial–marine integration for a
boundary that follows a different strategy to the original boundary framework of ref. 12. Our focus on these boundaries is
illustrative but also pragmatic, as we believe modifications could be achieved over relatively short timescales because the

necessary datasets or underlying knowledge are already in place. Land-system change. The land-system change boundary addresses links
between habitat and climate3 . Vegetation cover mediates climate through carbon storage, and by affecting the transfer of moisture and energy at the Earth’s surface13. Habitat change that
shifts vegetation type alters carbon sequestration rates, albedo and evapotranspiration (see glossary Supplementary Note 1), and is likely to drive significant climatic changes, with
deforestation — particularly of boreal and tropical forests — estimated to contribute most to these shifts (Table 2)14. However, this boundary and the underlying analyses do not account for
the influence of marine biomes on climate, including that of ice, seagrass and mangroves (see ref. 15 for the description of vegetation classification that underpins the land-system change
boundary), nor do they account for how ocean–atmosphere coupling may counteract the effect of forest loss on climate14,16. Today, forests represent about 7% of the Earth’s surface17, and
potentially up to 13% historically14, an area matched by continental shelves (6.3%) and a percentage far outweighed by the coverage of marine biomes (70.9%). Critically, just as forest biomes
, mangroves and other marine systems are characterized by biogeophyscial
influence regional carbon and energy fluxes14

processes that influence climate18 (Fig. 2). More importantly, this influence is of sufficient magnitude to warrant
consideration in analyses of the impacts of habitat change on climate. For example, several coastal
marine habitats have the highest carbon sequestration rates of any habitat on the plant (for example, salt marshes:
218 ± 24 g C m−2 yr−1 (mean ± standard error) versus tropical forests: 4.0 ± 0.5 g C m−2 yr−1 )19,20. Furthermore, it is estimated that deforestation is driving emissions of 1.2 Pg CO2 yr−1 (ref.

hereas degradation of coastal wetlands (mangroves, seagrasses and marshes) alone is estimated to be driving
21), w

emissions of 0.12–1.0 Pg CO2 yr−1 (ref. 22), despite these wetlands covering <1% of the Earth’s surface. Similarly, the difference in albedo
between boreal forest and grasslands (0.08 versus 0.2) is smaller than the difference between sea ice and open
ocean (0.1–0.81 versus 0.07)23,24. In light of the large-scale habitat changes occurring in the coastal environment, modifying the land-system change boundary to incorporate marine
systems is likely to significantly influence our understanding of the current risk of experiencing large-scale climatic effects from habitat modification. Expanding the scope of the land-system
change boundary to include marine biomes would require an alteration to the existing control variable (forest cover remaining), or addition of subboundaries demarcating the loss of marine
habitats. Relative ice cover may be a useful sub-boundary across land and sea. Focusing more specifically on habitats unique to the oceans, due to the wide variety of marine biomes, a control
variable such as threedimensional (3D) structural complexity of the habitat25,26 or area of seabed undisturbed by anthropogenic activities such as seabed mining, coastal hardening or

Biome-specific boundaries have been set for land-system change; similar biome-
fishing27,28 may be appropriate.

specific boundaries could be set for marine systems, for example ‘acceptable’ loss of 3D structure on coral reefs may differ to that considered
‘acceptable’ for kelp forests. Such approaches are already getting attention as part of the European Union Habitats Directive and Marine Strategy Framework Directive29, which has put
significant effort into determining appropriate components for its aggregate ‘sea-floor integrity’ index (see glossary Supplementary Note 1)30, and the Integrated Ecosystem Assessment
process in the USA31, which includes more than 30 potential habitat indicators. Integrating sub-boundaries on land and in the ocean to produce a coherent ‘Earth surface change’ boundary is

While some of the boundaries

likely to prove challenging but represents an essential development in the planetary boundaries framework. Biogeochemical flows.

(for example, climate) are linked to global scale tipping points, others represent processes whereby
regional scale change accumulates to such a magnitude that there are global consequences (Table 2). The
biogeochemical flows boundary, which is expressed as two sub-boundaries (nitrogen (N) and phosphorous (P)), represents such aggregative
regional scale effects2 . The P boundary explicitly engages with cross-scale issues by incorporating a
regional boundary that recognizes heterogeneity in both nutrient inputs and the absorptive capacity of
freshwater systems32,33. However, the integration of regional information is inconsistently applied across systems and in relation to N. Currently, the N and P boundaries
purely focus on marine system change on the global scale (see Box 1, Table 1 and Table 2)3 . Background marine biogeochemical regimes are highly heterogeneous (horizontally and with
depth), driving differences in biogeochemical cycling, primary productivity and trophic pathways34,35. These differences cause spatial variability in the vulnerability of marine systems to
anthropogenic nutrient flows36, and suggest the need for a more nuanced treatment of this boundary to account for regional marine effects that are consistent with the existing regional
treatment of the P boundary in relation to freshwater systems. Importantly, a vast literature exists exploring the biogeochemistry of coastal and oceanic waters that could underpin such an
extension to the boundary. For example, data are available on the export of nutrients from watersheds and submarine ground water9,33,37. Furthermore, both ecosystem modelling and

. The
empirical research are supporting regionally derived water quality forecasts36 and increased understanding of the variability in nutrient biogeochemistry within the world’s oceans

implications for altered primary productivity, food web structure, ecosystem function and resilience,
and societal wellbeing have also been explored38–40. Given that eutrophication is one of the most frequently observed causes of ecosystem regime
shifts globally (see glossary Supplementary Note 1;, it seems that, of all the boundaries, scientists are best placed to provide quantified values for regional marine
biogeochemical boundaries. Accounting for regional marine biogeochemical flows goes beyond simply producing a more comprehensive boundary for human-derived N and P. Within the
marine system, the importance of other elements when considering the biogeochemical flows boundary has been recognized3 , but not explored further. The marine biogeochemistry
literature could inform the addition of other sub-boundaries such as iron (Fe) and silicon (Si). For example, Fe is regionally limiting within marine waters and Fe budgets are significantly

regional enrichment patterns of N, P, Si and Fe within marine systems

impacted by anthropogenic disturbances39,41. Furthermore,

have broader-scale climatic and biodiversity implications42,43. Integration of these different components into the existing framework would
help support an improved understanding of how the biogeochemical, climate and biosphere integrity boundaries interact to delimit a ‘safe operating space’ for humanity. So far, the focus of

the biogeochemical boundary has been on bottom-up anthropogenic drivers such as the addition of fertilizers. However, top-down effects such as the
influence of fisheries exploitation on biogeochemical cycles are likely to have impacts that are of
sufficient magnitude to affect the behaviour of this boundary44. While the indirect aspects of these effects are currently poorly understood,
they are, along with the effects of fishing on ecosystem structure and function, a topic of burgeoning interest. Just as with hunting on land, fishing has the potential to

influence geochemical cycling by disrupting ecosystem functioning via the removal of key species, the
redistribution of relative biomass across trophic levels and the dilution of some nutrient mediating
processes45,46. The magnitude of these effects and how they can be mitigated warrant further research
and consideration within the existing boundary framework. Biosphere integrity: functional diversity. The biosphere
integrity boundary was identified by ref. 3 as one of the two core planetary boundaries (along with climate change) as it
is central to the state of the Earth system — crossing either of these boundaries may shift the Earth into
a new state. This boundary focuses on the persistence and functioning of the biosphere. Persistence is underpinned by
genetic diversity, whereas function is determined by the diversity of functional traits (Table 2)3 . Characterizing the functional diversity sub-boundary has proved to be particularly challenging
because of the lack of a suitable control variable47. The biodiversity intactness index (BII), which estimates the proportion of biodiversity found in intact ecosystems that remains within a
corresponding human impacted ecosystem, was presented as a stopgap measure. Recently, BII has been estimated for terrestrial systems, using modelled intact area biodiversity as a
baseline3,48. Yet, there have been no studies estimating BII for marine systems. There is potential to broaden the coverage of BII studies to include the world’s oceans using marine wilderness
baselines (for example, ref. 49). However, this may prove challenging for less well studied marine ecosystems, and species level metrics such as BII are only indirectly linked to function. As a
result, we suggest directing efforts towards developing a more appropriate control variable using a trait-based metric that is more closely tied to the functions provided by communities47,50.

Size- and trait-based modelling of marine communities suggests one potentially robust avenue for
exploring trends in the functional composition of communities from the Holocene into the
Anthropocene51. Such an approach has three key advantages: (1) it allows estimation of undisturbed baseline states that are not reliant on wilderness areas that may be subject to
anthropogenic disturbance, and as such, are not representative of ‘Holocene-like’ conditions48,52; (2) the relative lack of focus on describing species within marine systems may prove
problematic when attempting to estimate biodiversity change using empirical observations alone53; and (3) recent integration of a range of traits into size-based modelling explicitly allows for
estimation of changes in function, historically and in response to future anthropogenic impacts54. Modelling changes in the functioning of ecosystems is an important step, but there is also the
need to choose specific indicators for the control variable to monitor changes empirically. This is a complex undertaking, but simulation testing, such as in fisheries indicator research, could be
used to understand which are the most informative indicators, to gain insights into current status, trends and thresholds in function55,56. For example, ecosystem models have been used in
simulations to test the efficacy of a range of indicators in the context of the effects of fishing and ecosystem state. The models are used to represent the ecosystem and its perturbation (for
example, fishing pressure and climate change scenarios) and to generate ‘data’. Indicators estimated from these data are then compared against the trajectories in the ecosystem model to see

how well they capture the true levels of change55. Regardless of the control variable used,accounting for marine systems in the functional
diversity sub-boundary is likely to have significant consequences for our understanding of the current
state of play. A previous study48 estimated that nearly 60% of terrestrial systems have crossed the
proposed functional diversity boundary to some degree, based on BII. Accounting for marine biomes,
which dominate the Earth’s surface, may give a very different picture. HANPP. Since the publication of the initial framework,
HANPP has been proposed as a new strategy that could potentially replace a number of the original
boundaries because it is relatively straightforward to measure and integrates many of the other
interacting boundaries; primary production is influenced by habitat type, climatic conditions, availability
of carbon dioxide, nutrients and freshwater, and in turn supports biosphere integrity11. The studies proposing HANPP as
a boundary have focused purely on terrestrial systems11,57, despite marine and terrestrial primary production being approximately equal in magnitude58, research suggesting that

similar proportions of productivity flow to fisheries on continental shelves as is appropriated by humans

on land59,60, and the oceans being comparable to land as a carbon sink61. However, it should be noted that the productivity estimates
focus on slightly different characterizations of primary productivity, for example marine estimates focus on surface waters and do not account for spatial variability in the vertical patterns in
primary productivity. Furthermore, terrestrial estimates represent biomass accumulation, whereas those in the ocean represent new production. If HANPP is to be used as a replacement,
integrative planetary boundary, addition of marine productivity is key and is achievable with existing knowledge (Supplementary Note 3), although further work will be needed to harmonize

HANPP highlights the highly

terrestrial and marine estimates to ensure they represent equivalent metrics. Nonetheless, preliminary mapping of terrestrial and marine

heterogeneous distribution of society’s appropriation of primary productivity; the regions of least

concern, such as the open ocean, and the regions where limits are being approached both on land and
in the sea, for example Southeast Asia (Fig. 3; Supplementary Note 3). Where fisheries catches are approaching
productivity limits, the problem is likely to be exacerbated by climate change62. Moreover, some of the geo-engineering
solutions proposed as technological options for addressing climate change involve the direct modification of marine ecosystems and production, for example via ocean fertilization63,

highlighting that planetary boundaries in the oceans may face large and increasingly pressing challenges.
2ac – yes thresholds
Criticism of planetary boundaries rely on misunderstandings
Rockström et al. 18 Johan Rockström – Faculty of Veterinary & Life Sciences, Murdoch University,
Murdoch, Western Australia, Australia; Katherine Richardson - Marine Megafauna Foundation, Truckee,
CA, USA; Will Steffen - Cetacean Research Unit, Faculty of Veterinary & Life Sciences, Murdoch
University, Murdoch, WA, Australia; Georgina Mace - Hawaiʻi Institute of Marine Biology, Kaneohe, HI,
USA “Planetary Boundaries: Separating Fact from Fiction. A Response to Montoya et al.” April 2018
( //wc
A recent article by Montoya et al. [1] in Trends in Ecology and Evolution presents a vitriolic and highly opinionated critique of the planetary boundaries (PBs) framework based on a fundamental misrepresentation of the framework and a repetition of earlier ill-informed and misguided

attacks on it. Herein we set the record straight and note more positive ways forward. Planetary Boundaries and Tipping Points Montoya et al. [1] conflate PBs with tipping points . Furthermore, they
mistakenly claim that the PB framework relies on the assumption of thresholds or tipping points. They state: ‘One solution (to environmental research and policy challenges) embraces the notion of Planetary Boundaries arguing that global environmental processes very generally have

major PB papers [2,3]

“tipping points”. These are catastrophes involving thresholds beyond which there will be rapid transitions to new states that are very much less favorable to human existence than current states.’ The fact is that both

state clearly that a PB is ‘not’ a global threshold or tipping point: ‘A planetary boundary as originally
defined is not equivalent to a global threshold or tipping point [3].’ In addition, throughout their paper Montoya et al. [1] focus on knocking down the ‘straw man’ of tipping

points in relation to the biodiversity (biosphere integrity) PB. In particular, they claim that: ‘The rate of human-caused extinctions – now 100–1000-fold the natural background rate – is one of two of the nine global processes deemed to have exceeded a purported tipping point of 10-fold

The fact is that neither PB paper [2,3] has ever claimed that there is a global-level tipping point for

biodiversity. In fact, we have gone out of our way to emphasize that we do not have scientifically
established evidence of such tipping point [3]: ‘Not all Earth-system processes included in the PB approach have singular thresholds at the global/continental/ocean basin level . . . Examples of such processes are

land-system change, freshwater use, changes in biosphere integrity (rate of biodiversity loss in [2]), and changes in other biogeochemical flows in addition to carbon (e.g., nitrogen and phosphorus).’ It is absolutely clear that the Montoya et al.’s [1] ‘definition’ of the PB framework is
blatantly incorrect. Indeed, one can only conclude that they have either not read or deliberately misrepresented the PB framework as described in [2,3]. Either explanation is unacceptable for a scholarly critique in the peer-reviewed literature, and renders their critique both meaningless

, one further misrepresentation and one additional point are useful to

and not applicable to the PB framework as it actually is formulated. Nevertheless

consider The PB framework is designed explicitly for the global level

. 232 Trends in Ecology & Evolution, April 2018, Vol. 33, No. 4 Purpose of Planetary Boundaries

only (as the name clearly indicates). It is a scientific approach for (i) identifying the processes that
regulate the state ofthe Earth system, and (ii) proposing boundaries for these processes to maintain a
Holocene-like (interglacial) state of the Earth system [2,3]. The PB framework is complementary to the
myriad methods and policies for ecosystemmanagement at subglobal levels, and is not meant to either
replace or override these necessary and important approaches, as erroneously inferred throughout [ 1]. There is
no doubt, however, that attempts have been made – and continue to be made – to apply the PB framework to levels lower than, and sometimes much lower than, the global. The fact is, however, that such ‘downscaling’ has never been either proposed or encouraged in the PB framework

six of the PBs indeed have atwo-level set of control variables and boundaries, with large
papers [2,3]. By necessity,

biome/ocean basin levels in addition to the global level [3]. This subglobal level recognizes that to
understandthefunctioning and stability of a complex system such as the Earth system, the influence of
processes, particularly feedback processes, at levels below that of the system itself can play an
important role in influencing or regulating the system’s functioning [ 4]. We were certainly aware of potential misunderstanding of this point, and so included an explicit

We emphasize that our sub-global level focus is based on the necessity to consider this level to
caution in [3]: ‘

understand the functioning of theEarth system as a whole. ThePBframework is therefore meant to

complement, not replace or supersede, efforts to address local and regional environmental issues.’ Again,

. Biodiversity and Ecosystem/Earth System Functioning

Montoya et al. [1] have apparently either not read or chosen to deliberately mispresent what the PB framework actually says [3]

Montoya et al. [1] appear to be somewhat confused in taking both a linear cause– effect approach to
ecosystems (e.g., ‘ . . . which species are vital to which processes’) and systems approaches [e.g.,
‘resilience (how fast systems recover), resistance (how much they change), variability (how much they
fluctuate over time), and persistence (how long they persist)’]. While both framings have their place, it is
the complex systems approachthat is central to the PB framework [2,3]. Here we agree completely with Montoya et al. [1]: ‘ . . . mounting evidence demonstrates the

, the PB framework is concerned with the role of the

patterns and mechanisms by which biodiversity loss altersthe provision offunctions and the stability of ecosystems.’ In precisely the same way

biosphere (consisting of myriad ecosystems) in regulating the stability of the Earth system. In fact, for
most of the 4.5 billionyear history of the Earth system, the geosphere and biosphere have co-evolved as
a single, interacting system, emphasizing the very important role that the biosphere plays in the
functioning and stability of the Earth system as a whole [5]
**T Visas Neg Things
Decriminalization CP
Text: The United States federal government should legalize organ sales through an
organ matching foundation.

Organ legalization prevents organ shortages that fuel black markets

Bowden 13 (Jacqueline Bowden- J.D. graduate from St. Thomas University School of Law. 2013,
Intercultural Human Rights Law Review.

The black market for human organs derives from the demand of needy recipients. Virtually all countries
are affected by the high demand for organs and the shortage of organs that can be legally obtained.
n250 For this reason, it is vital for governmental institutions to take necessary measures to increase
voluntary organ donors by creating a legal organ donor compensation program. n251 Moreover, if the
government does not allow an organ compensation program, raising criminal sanctions may help deter traffickers. Finally, it is important to
educate the public on how to properly donate organs before or after death. As
society continues to change, there may be
growing acceptance for organ donor compensation. Scholars and government officials already have proposed ways to
increase organ donations and deter organ trafficking. Two main proposals by government officials are public compensation and organ markets.
n252 Public compensation refers to compensating the donor in various ways, either through tax credits or
cash payments. n253 When the donor is deceased, the compensation may be through reimbursing funeral
expenses. n254 Under public compensation, the government would be responsible for regulating the
type(s) of compensation legally permitted. n255 Organ markets follow a similar concept to public compensation,
without government intervention. n256 Organ markets would allow either a living person or the family of
a deceased person to openly [*492] sell their organs for cash payment. n257 The difference is that an organ market
would allow "the freedom to buy at any price as well as [the] freedom to sell at any price." n258 However, allowing
the sale of organs at any price may create discrimination amongst the different classes and allow the wealthy to have access to the organs the
less affluent will not be able to afford. Public compensation is more effective because it will ensure an increase in
organ donors without the discriminatory effects against the poor. As the current problems illustrate,
government's involvement is required in regulating the organ sales to ensure fairness and safety of the
donors. For all reasons expanded upon in this comment, my proposal would be for the United States to legalize the
selling of organs by creating an organ matching foundation. The organ matching foundation will prescreen
potential donors to test their blood type beforehand in an effort to increase the number of live organ
donors. This proposed concept is similar to how they match bone marrow donors with a recipient. n259
Essentially, the potential donors are provided with an at-home test kit, which will allow them to provide
their blood type information. The test kit will include a finger lancet, alcohol prep, plastic applicator sticks, and testing card. The
potential donor will need to lance a finger and place a finger on the testing card to absorb the blood. Once the potential donor
completes the test, the blood samples are mailed to the foundation, which will test and publish the results
on an online profile for each potential donor. The information then will be entered into a national database for
organ recipients to view online. Further screening may be necessary to ensure the potential donor is
healthy. When a recipient is in need of an organ, he or she will have access to potential donors' blood type
information, making it easier and faster to find a matching donor. This will allow organ recipients to quickly find a
matching donor under emergency situations while providing government regulation. Also, people who
sign up to have their organs donated at death should participate in the prescreening program.
Prescreening would [*493] allow the organs to be matched quickly and avoid waste. n260 With the organ matching
foundation the
government will have the ability to monitor and regulate the sale of organs for both living
and non-living donors. Non-living donors may be given the option to either donate the organs or sell the
organs and apply the money to funeral expenses. Similarly, the United States may consider entering into agreements with
the United States allows the sale of organs, it likely
other countries for transnational operations. If

will decrease the crimes involved as a result of the black market for organs. Also,
the United States will have more control in ensuring organ removal is carried out
2NC Solvency
The aff makes the impacts inevitable, but legalization solves—opposition stems from a
lack of information
Gregory 11 (Anthony Gregory—research editor at the Independent Institute. 11-9-2011, "Why
Legalizing Organ Sales Would Help to Save Lives, End Violence," Atlantic,

Indeed, why are organ sales illegal? Donors of blood, semen, and eggs, and volunteers for medical trials,
are often compensated. Why not apply the same principle to organs? The very idea of legalization
might sound gruesome to most people, but it shouldn't, especially since research shows it would save
lives. In the United States, where the 1984 National Organ Transplantation Act prohibits compensation for organ donating, there are
only about 20,000 kidneys every year for the approximately 80,000 patients on the waiting list. In 2008,
nearly 5,000 died waiting. A global perspective shows how big the problem is. "Millions of people suffer
from kidney disease, but in 2007 there were just 64,606 kidney-transplant operations in the entire
world," according to George Mason University professor and Independent Institute research director Alexander Tabarrok, writing in the Wall
Street Journal. Almost every other country has prohibitions like America's. In Iran, however, selling one's kidney for profit is
legal. There are no patients anguishing on the waiting list. The Iranians have solved their kidney
shortage by legalizing sales. Many will protest that an organ market will lead to exploitation and unfair
advantages for the rich and powerful. But these are the characteristics of the current illicit organ trade.
Moreover, as with drug prohibition today and alcohol prohibition in the 1920s, pushing a market underground is the way to
make it rife with violence and criminality. In Japan, for the right price, you can buy livers and kidneys harvested from executed
Chinese prisoners. Three years ago in India, police broke up an organ ring that had taken as many as 500 kidneys from poor laborers. The
World Health Organization estimates that the black market accounts for 20 percent of kidney
transplants worldwide. Everywhere from Latin America to the former Soviet Republics, from the Philippines to South Africa, a huge
network has emerged typified by threats, coercion, intimidation, extortion, and shoddy surgeries. Although not every black market
transaction is exploitative -- demonstrating that organ sales, in and of themselves, are not the problem -
- the most unsavory parts of the trade can be attributed to the fact that it is illegal. Witnessing the horror
stories, many are calling on governments to crack down even more severely. Unfortunately, prohibition drives up black-market
profits, turns the market over to organized crime, and isolates those harmed in the trade from the
normal routes of recourse. Several years ago, transplant surgeon Nadley Hakim at St. Mary's Hospital in London pointed out that
"this trade is going on anyway, why not have a controlled trade where if someone wants to donate a
kidney for a particular price, that would be acceptable? If it is done safely, the donor will not suffer."
Bringing the market into the open is the best way to ensure the trade's appropriate activity. Since the
stakes would be very high, market forces and social pressure would ensure that people are not
intimidated or defrauded. In the United States, attitudes are not so casual as to allow gross degeneracy.
Enabling a process by which consenting people engage in open transactions would mitigate the
exploitation of innocent citizens and underhanded dealing by those seeking to skirt the law. The most
fundamental case for legalizing organ sales -- an appeal to civil liberty -- has proven highly controversial. Liberals like to say, "my body, my
choice," and conservatives claim to favor free markets, but true self-ownership would include the right to sell one's body parts, and genuine
free enterprise would imply a market in human organs. In any event, studies show that this has become a matter of life and death. Perhaps
the key to progress is more widespread exposure to the facts. In 2008, six experts took on this issue is
an Oxford-style debate hosted by National Public Radio. By the end, those in the audience who favored
allowing the market climbed from 44 to 60 percent. Yet, the organ trade continues to operate in the
shadows and questionable activities occur in the medical establishment under the color of law. Even
today, doctors sometimes legally harvest organ tissue from dead patients without consent. Meanwhile,
thousands are perishing and even more are suffering while we wait for the system to change.

Organ trafficking is prohibited for the wrong reasons—exploitation happens more when its illegal
Ambagtsheer 13 (Frederike Ambagtsheer , Damián Zaitch & Willem Weimar- Department of Internal
Medicine, Kidney Transplant Unit, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands; Willem
Pompe Institute for Criminal Law and Criminology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands (2013)
The battle for human organs: organ trafficking and transplant tourism in a global context, Global Crime,
14:1, 1-26, DOI: 10.1080/17440572.2012.753323//sabín)

4. A critical perspective: from trafficking, to commercialism, to tourism Perhaps the strongest claim of all is that transplant
commercialism is prohibited for the wrong reasons. Transplant commercialism and trafficking are
prohibited to protect those most prone to sell. Scholars have raised the question whether there is
anything intrinsically wrong with the buying and selling of organs (commercialism), or whether what is wrong
in practice is the circumstances under which it occurs and their undesirable consequences.54 They claim that harm (trafficking)
already caused to donors and recipients in prohibited black markets is sufficient proof that the protection argument is no longer valid. As
Radcliffe-Richards et al. wrote, ‘there is much more scope for exploitation and abuse when a supply of
desperately wanted goods is made illegal’.55 The point here is that prohibition does not prevent victimisation.
On the contrary, prohibition and criminalisation of sellers renders it more difficult to identify and help
potential victims of trafficking. The argument made in favour of prohibition (namely that putting a price on organs
will automatically lead to trafficking) is devoid of any empirical substance and is thus unconvincing.56 Radcliffe-
Richards et al. further argue that to justify the prohibition of kidney sales by poor vendors, it is necessary to
illustrate that organ selling must always be against the interests of potential vendors. Removing their
option to sell leaves them poor and makes their range of options smaller still. The only way to improve
their situation is to tackle the root cause of the problem (poverty) and develop effective strategies to
help vulnerable donors.57
AT: Trafficking=Unethical
Bans reinforce the problem—they increase organ profitability and don’t benefit the donor
Ambagtsheer 13 (Frederike Ambagtsheer , Damián Zaitch & Willem Weimar- Department of Internal
Medicine, Kidney Transplant Unit, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands; Willem
Pompe Institute for Criminal Law and Criminology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands (2013)
The battle for human organs: organ trafficking and transplant tourism in a global context, Global Crime,
14:1, 1-26, DOI: 10.1080/17440572.2012.753323//sabín)

Another critique is made against the belief that selling body parts violates human integrity and dignity. It
is claimed that it has never been empirically verified whether those selling organs, eggs or sperm indeed felt diminished self-dignity or are
considered to be or feel less altruistic.58 It is said that the alarming organ shortage and resulting deaths on the wait list
justifies the exploration of a legal, regulated market in organs (especially kidneys).59 The ban on organ
sales keeps organ supply low, increases their value, their potential profitability
and thus reinforces the problem. Furthermore, the ban is ‘hypocritical’.60 In contemporary
transplant medicine, everyone profits, except the donor: the hospital benefits, the surgeon and the
medical team are paid, the transplant coordinator gets paid and the recipient receives an enormous
benefit. In an ethical, regulated organ market, organ vendors should equally benefit and be rewarded
for their gift to the recipient and society. The foregoing arguments shed a different light on the negative image of
transplant commercialism. But they are more theoretical than empirical, thus raising the need for an evidence-
based approach. Yet, this is impossible to achieve with a maintained ban on organ sales. Opponents of
regulation often point to harms committed against organ vendors, yet these harms are the result of
transactions in unregulated markets. The large number of organ vendors included in studies on outcomes of kidney vending stand
in stark contrast to the number of organ recipients included in studies on outcomes of organ purchase. Studies on transplant tourism exist, yet
the number of reported organ buyers is much lower than reported organ sellers.61 There are strong indications that transplant tourism takes
place in the same hospitals and clinics where transplants to locals and other medical procedures are carried out. Search engines lead to
websites of centres worldwide that offer organ transplantations amongst many other common medical procedures. Health insurance
companies see the benefit of outsourcing transplants to contracted centres in places including Bangkok, New Delhi and Bombay. Patients are
encouraged to bring their own ‘legitimate donor with a desire to donate’.62 Transplant tourism is increasingly referred to as a perilous
procedure involving evils and dangers for recipients and suppliers.63 The DoI declares that ‘transplant tourism violates the principles of equity,
justice and respect for human dignity and should be prohibited’.64 It
is questionable whether transplant tourism, derived
from the universally and legally accepted phenomenon of medical tourism, deserves the reputation of a
crime.65 Closer scrutiny of studies that present data about transplant tourism reveals that the majority in
fact do not present any real evidence that the organs were illegally obtained.66 An information gap exists about
micro-level interactions between physicians and their patients who opt for presumed commercial transplants abroad.
AT: Public Dissaproval
Education solves public disapproval
Houser 17 (Kristin Houser—Senior Editor of Futurism. 11-6-2017, "Black market bodies: legalizing the
sale of human organs could save lives," Futurism,ín)

For now, Iran still stands alone in allowing citizens to legally sell their kidneys, and no other nation appears on the
cusp of doing so. However, that’s not to say a new legal kidney market couldn’t emerge. A 2015 study published
in the journal American Economic Review concluded that U.S. citizens were more open to the idea of
organ sales when presented with information on their potential benefits, so at least one barrier to
creating such a market — public disapproval — could potentially be eliminated through education
AT: Exploitation
CP solves exploitation—legal action if donor consent isn’t received
Hughes 09 (J. Andrew Hughes—Vanderbilt University Law School, May 2009; B.A., Rhodes College, "
You Get What You Pay For?: Rethinking U.S. Organ Procurement Policy in Light of Foreign Models."
Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law—Volume 42,

In light of the UAGA and NOTA ban on exchanging valuable consideration for human organs, such a pilot
program must begin with statutory authorization for an individual to dispose of his organs under a
contractual agreement in return for compensation to be paid to the donor’s estate or to his designated beneficiary.216 By
cutting the donor out of the financial benefits, this plan would minimize the risk of a donor entering into
a contract for quick cash.217 It would also reduce the potential for exploitation of the poor, though a donor
might still be motivated by an interest in providing for his family after his death.218 The decedent should also be protected by
prohibiting relatives from selling his organs without his express consent.219 This could be achieved by
including in the statutory authorization for this program an imposition of civil liability on relatives who
exert pressure while the would-be seller is alive and criminal liability for relatives who attempt to sell
organs without a decedent’s express consent.
AT: Hurts Poor
CP solve any disproportionate impacts—the government can regulate the market to
ensure access
Hughes 09 (J. Andrew Hughes—Vanderbilt University Law School, May 2009; B.A., Rhodes College, "
You Get What You Pay For?: Rethinking U.S. Organ Procurement Policy in Light of Foreign Models."
Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law—Volume 42,

The plan should eliminate concerns about inequitable organ allocation in an open market by limiting the
experiment to the supply side of the market.222 Waiting lists would continue to determine priority for
organ recipients, with organ prices capped at a flat-perorgan donation rate or otherwise determined in
advance according to a fee schedule, with an allowance for some market-driven price fluctuations.223
Moreover, inability to pay should not preclude a potential recipient from getting an organ. A
governmental funding source, such as Medicare or Medicaid, might cover the cost of the organ. In the
alternative, under the Harris and Alcorn plan, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) would oversee the organ market.224 The
FDA could support the cost of governmental oversight by charging licensing fees to private companies
that would serve as organ brokerage houses.225 The FDA could also use a portion of the fees to fund
transplant opportunities for the underinsured and uninsured.226
Science CP
Text: The United States federal government should allocate funding for research and
development of artificial organs.
Prevention is the only solution to shortage-driven black markets
Glazer 11 (Sarah Glazer- a London-based freelancer, is a regular contributor to CQ Global Researcher.
Her articles on health, education and social-policy issues also have appeared in The New York Times and
The Washington Post. She graduated from the University of Chicago with a B.A. in American history. 7-
19-2011, "Organ Trafficking," CQ Researcher by CQ Press,

Outlook Making Trafficking Obsolete Some experts think medical advances — such as the use of
regenerative medicine to produce artificial organs — could kill the black market in organs by reducing
the need for transplants. Although the use of artificial organs on a mass basis may not happen for at least another decade, many
experts say, surgeons in Sweden have just given a cancer patient a new windpipe, made with stem cells
from the patient's bone marrow, the BBC reported on July 7. It was the first transplant of a synthetic organ that did not require a
donor.75 “Thanks to nanotechnology, this new branch of regenerative medicine, we are now able to
produce a custom-made windpipe within two days or one week,” said Paolo Macchiarini, chairman of the Hospital Clínic
at the University of Barcelona in Spain, who led the transplant team. “This is a synthetic windpipe. The beauty of this is you
can have it immediately. There is no delay.” In addition, “This technique does not rely on a human
donation.”76 He said many other organs could be repaired or replaced in the same way. Other research
aims to use stem cells to repair defective organs or create hearts and livers from a patient's own cells by
growing cells on plastic or natural scaffolds.77 “If we pushed, we could see cell replacement in 10 years,” says bioethicist
Caplan, which he says will be far more effective in ending organ trafficking than politically charged market
proposals. “You're not going to get a solution to the needs of people in organ failure by arguing about
markets,” he says, noting that millions of patients aren't even on a transplant list “because there's no
transplant center where they live in Bolivia or Mozambique.” Other experts see an even simpler way to
reduce black market demand: better disease prevention so patients don't need a replacement organ. A
growing epidemic of obesity and the resultant growth in diabetes is a major driver of the increasing
demand for kidney transplants. In addition, “there are about to be several dramatic improvements in
treating hepatitis C — a major cause of end-stage liver disease,” which could “dramatically reduce the
need for liver transplants,” says UCLA's Danovitch. Waiting times for heart transplants have already declined, he
points out, because treatment of heart failure has improved over the past five to 10 years. “Prevention,”
Danovitch maintains, “is the best way and the only solution” to stem the shortage-driven black market and
the inevitable flow of organs from poor to rich countries. Otherwise, he says, the poor half of the world will continue
selling organs to the wealthier half.
2NC Solvency
New developments make artificial kidneys possible
Humphreys 15 (Benjamin Humphreys- a nephrologist and chief of the division of nephrology at
Washington University in St. Louis. He cares for patients with kidney disease and runs a research
laboratory aimed at developing new therapies to treat kidney disease, including stem-cell-based
therapies. "Will lab-grown kidneys fix our transplant waiting lists?", 31 Dec. 2015.
General OneFile,
Each week, In Theory takes on a big idea in the news and explores it from a range of perspectives. This week we're talking about government compensation for
organ donors. Need a primer? Catch up here. Benjamin D. Humphreys is a nephrologist and chief of the division of nephrology at Washington University in St. Louis.
He cares for patients with kidney disease and runs a research laboratory aimed at developing new therapies to treat kidney disease, including stem-cell-based
therapies. Kidney failure is a growing problem in the United States, with more than 100,000 new cases per
year. There are not enough kidneys available to transplant all of these patients, so the majority are
treated with dialysis. The therapy is certainly life-saving but is also costly, inconvenient for patients and itself causes
accelerated heart disease. The risk of death for an average dialysis patient is 20 percent per year. Dialysis
patients make up about one percent of the Medicare population, but paying for dialysis costs seven percent of the entire Medicare budget . Clearly there is

a strong need for innovative new therapies and approaches to the problem. We already have some new
ideas being developed -- at-home and portable dialysis, for example. Yet simply improving the existing technology is an evolutionary
change, one that falls well short of what is actually needed: a new kidney that frees patients from devices entirely. [

Other perspectives: The moral case for paying kidney donors] It is here that the stem-cell revolution of the past 10 years offers a

measure of hope. To understand the challenges in growing a kidney from stem cells, it is useful to compare the stem-cell
approaches to kidney failure with those for diabetes. Patients with Type 1 diabetes suffer from the failure of a single cell type in the
pancreas, called the beta cell. Over the past 10 years, scientists have been successful in generating beta cells in the lab -- billions of them -- and now the only
remaining challenge to cure Type 1 diabetes is find a way to deliver those cells to a patient and keep them alive. Kidney
failure, on the other hand,
represents failure of an entire organ comprised of over 30 distinct cell types, all organized in an intricate
and complicated pattern. The challenge is not only to grow 30 different cell types, but also how to
arrange them in proper orientation. Until two years ago, the prospects for surmounting these challenges
appeared slim, despite decades of effort by large teams of scientists around the world. But recent breakthroughs using human
pluripotent stem cells have demonstrated that growing a kidney in a dish may be feasible. Pluripotent
stem cells are special in that they possess the ability to differentiate into any cell type in the human
body. By coaxing stem cells to differentiate into two different types, kidney-specific stem cells, then combining
them, scientists have discovered that these cells will continue to differentiate on their own, generating a wide variety of cells that are
found in a mature kidney. Moreover, the cells pattern themselves into nephrons -- the functional unit of the kidney --

and these nephrons are structurally quite similar to real nephrons in our own kidney. This remarkable and
surprising advance has, in a short time, changed the way many of us think about the problem of growing
an artificial kidney. While still an enormous undertaking, the problem may have a potential solution. Rather than the challenge of generating 30 different
cell types, we may only need to develop the two critical kidney stem cells and make sure the conditions in the dish encourage

these two cell types to do what they want to do. A powerful aspect of this human stem-cell approach is that it can be

tailored specifically for each patient. Transplant patients generally must take immunosuppressive drugs for the remainder of their lives, to
prevent rejection of their kidney by the immune system. This same problem would exist if an artificial kidney were grown in the laboratory using cells from someone
other than the patient receiving the kidney. [Generosity won't fix our shortage of organs for transplants] However, we
now have the ability to turn
any patient's cells -- from skin or blood on the inside of the mouth, for example -- into pluripotent stem cells. One can imagine
generating patient-specific stem cells from a patient with kidney failure, using these cells to generate a
kidney in a laboratory, and then transplanting that kidney into the same patient. In this scenario, there would be no a
need for immunosuppression, and limited ethical concerns.
Organ Trafficking Adv
The aff is insufficient—it ignores socioeconomic factors and only ignores international
Yousaf and Purkayastha 16 (Yousaf, Farhan N- Professor of Sociology at the International Islamic
University. and Bandana Purkayastha- Professor of Sociology at Uconn. "Social World of Organ
Transplantation, Trafficking, and Policies." Journal of Public Health Policy, vol. 37, no. 2, 2016, pp. 190-
199. ProQuest,,

Curbing Organ Trafficking International and national policies tend to focus only on individual level perpetrators and victims. They neglect
the root causes of exploitation including socio-economic-political factors that produce vulnerabilities
and marginalization leading to organ trafficking. Moazam emphasized that the phenomena of illegal transplantation
and organ trafficking cannot be reduced simply to ‘medical-scientific’ and ‘donor-recipient’
transactions.27 We agree. Previous research shows that organ traffickers easily trap vulnerable segments of the
population, those who cannot stop or break the vicious cycle of their exploitation and
marginalization.2,11 The causes of vulnerability and the cycle of exploitation further suggest that
regularizing organ transplantation alone might not be sufficient. Our previous ethnographic research on organ
trafficking in Pakistan also revealed that after the enactment of THOTA, many illegal organ transplant centers
closed, at least publically. Those seeking to sell their organs to pay debts may still have found brokers, but
very likely the brokers would pay them less because THOTA had increased brokers’ risks.2 Interventions
should not rely solely on deterrence policy. It is also critically important to develop a more integrated
approach, protecting the rights of the disadvantaged groups and empowering them. Society must assure
that persons who have been exploited for organ removal are categorized as victims of organ trafficking
and in need support and protection like victims of other forms of human trafficking.28 Government
should also invest resources to prevent kidney failure in Pakistan. According to an estimate presented at a conference of
the Pakistan Society of Nephrology, because of rapidly growing chronic kidney disease, approximately 20 000 Pakistanis die of kidney failure
every year.29 Moreover,
as organ trafficking, organ trade, and transplant commercialism crosses
geographical boundaries, more concentrated international efforts are needed to punish the
perpetrators, whether the trafficking happened within the country of residence or in a foreign country.
As the recipients of organs generally need long-term medical care and follow-up medical examinations, one possible way to identify such
patients would be to make it mandatory for the doctors to report organ transplantation to concerned law enforcement agencies, whether the
procedure is performed locally or in some other country.30

Other countries are an alt cause

Pugliese 07 (Elizabeth Pugliese- graduate of the Catholic University Columbus School of Law. She is
licensed to practice law in the state of Maryland. She holds a BA in Political Science and an MA in
International Relations. 2007, "Organ Trafficking and the TVPA: Why One Word Makes a Difference in
International Enforcement Efforts" 24 J. Contemp. Health L. & Pol'y 181,ín)

Just as there is a sex tourism industry, 40 a medical tourism industry has developed. This occurs when
desperately ill and/or wealthy people from countries with no donor organ program, or one with long
waiting lists, travel to countries where organs are bought from poor people for miniscule sums of
money and then implanted in the ill person. In Thailand, the private hospitals are willing to treat
indigent accident victims because if the patient 42 dies and the family is willing to donate the victim's
organs, the hospital can have kidneys available for an expensive operation that is still much cheaper
than in the United States.43 Wealthy patients travel to Thailand and the hospital benefits. In another example, in Pakistan the
coerced donation of organs is so prevalent that the country is referred to as a "kidney bazaar. 4 The donors
arme paid up to $2,500, with the money usually going to pay off debts.45 Sometimes, the money is not enough to pay off the debts.4 6 Most
of the time, the donor receives no follow-up care; unable to work, the donor oes back into debt-
meaning the sacrifice of the kidney was meaningless. China has a thriving medical tourism industry. The
military itself runs several hospitals wherein prisoners are made involuntary donors.48 The recipients are
foreigners, many of them Canadians according to one article. 49 The practice has become so widespread that some
researchers are calling for pharmaceutical companies to stop selling anti-rejection drugs to China.50 They
also want hospitals and healthcare providers to deny postoperative care to patients when they return from medical tourism trips in the hopes
of ending the practice. 51
Trump ended parole status—that instills fear in survivors, they won’t apply for T-Visas
De Bourmont 18 (Martin De Bourmont—editorial fellow at Foreign Policy. He previously worked as a
reporter for the Phnom Penh Post in Cambodia and as a reporting intern for the New York Times in
Paris. 7-9-2018, "New U.S. Policy Raises Risk of Deportation for Immigrant Victims of Trafficking,"
Foreign Policy,

U.S. immigration authorities issued new guidelines last month that could make immigrant victims of
human trafficking more vulnerable to deportation, according to immigration lawyers and activists. The
guidelines, issued by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), affect immigrants forced into labor or sex
work in the United States by criminals preying on their vulnerability. According to the National Human Trafficking
Hotline, 8,524 cases of human trafficking were reported in the United States in 2017. Under the old policy,
the victims could apply for special permits, known as T visas, that allow them to remain in the United
States, work, and access benefits, often while cooperating with police investigations against their
traffickers. Even if the visa request was denied, immigration authorities usually refrained from taking
action to deport the immigrants, according to anti-human trafficking activists. But under the new
guidelines, denial of a T visa will trigger an automatic summons for a hearing before an immigration
judge — known as a “notice to appear.” Legal experts say such a notice effectively marks the start of the
deportation process. The change marks one more way the Trump administration is making it harder for
immigrants and asylum-seekers to remain in the United States, even when their immigration is motivated
by or bound up with traumatic ordeals. The policy is spelled out in a USCIS memo dated June 28. It states that “USCIS
will issue [a notice to appear] where, upon issuance of an unfavorable decision on an application,
petition, or benefit request, the alien is not lawfully present in the United States.” Jean Bruggeman, who runs a
national alliance of advocates for human trafficking victims known as Freedom Network USA, said immigrants already face stiff
requirements for proving they were victims of trafficking. As a result, genuine victims of trafficking are
sometimes denied the visa. Now, those victims will face deportation. “Under previous policy, as a routine matter, T
visa applicants were not referred [to immigration authorities],” Bruggeman said. “What we tell applicants now: If your story is
not presented perfectly, if you can’t convince someone immediately that you are a trafficking victim
through your application, you have this one opportunity and then if you are not able to do it you will
be deported.” Other legal experts said USCIS was simultaneously making it harder to receive a T visa.
According to the State Department’s 2018 Trafficking in Persons report, the United States granted T visas to
“672 victims and 690 eligible family members of victims in FY 2017, a decrease from 750 and 986 in FY
2016.” “The office that processes these cases has been denying [more petitions] and requesting more
evidence, specifically [for] T visas, requiring more and more documentation that often doesn’t exist,” said
Alicia Kinsman, a Connecticut immigration lawyer who works with victims of human trafficking. She said this was happening with most of her
serious cases, particularly ones in which the trafficking happened long ago or intersected with another crime. In one case, she said, her client
paid smugglers to enter the United States but was then trafficked. “Because she had paid smugglers to come in and they trafficked her, what
happened to her was a long and arduous situation and an abusive situation. … They are conflating the two issues and saying, ‘You were
smuggled’.” Bruggeman said the new policy was making victims more reluctant to come forward with evidence
against their traffickers — which in turn was making it harder for police to investigate the crimes. Some
law enforcement officials are worried as well. “We’ve spent many, many years building trust with our
immigrant communities, working with agencies and nonprofits to put together very clear messaging that
when we are dealing with victims of crime, we don’t differentiate or ask questions about citizenship,” said
San Diego County District Attorney Summer Stephan. “We’re hearing now there is reluctance to come forward and there is fear that
their immigration status could result in unintended consequences,” she said. A municipal police officer in a
California sanctuary city who works closely with his department’s Special Victims Unit — and spoke on condition of anonymity — also
noted that cooperation with immigrant communities regarding human trafficking is down. “It’s gotten to the
point where we’re putting out PR campaigns to fix that,” he said.
Reauthorization matters—long-term funding is necessary to combat trafficking profits
Abramowitz 18 (David Abramowitz—the managing director of Humanity United, which supports
efforts to change the systems that contribute to problems like human trafficking, mass atrocities, and
violent conflict. Prior to joining HU, David served as chief counsel to the House Foreign Affairs
Committee. 1-18-2018, "Fighting human trafficking, together," TheHill,

Just how important is the TVPA? If Congress fails to reauthorize this trafficking law, the stability of
funding for federal agencies and programs that are critical for preventing human trafficking, providing
for protection of survivors, and prosecuting perpetrators will be shaken. At stake is funding that enables
efficient, focused coordination among federal, state and local agencies to investigate and prosecute
human trafficking crimes like this Washington forced labor case. Other funding supports agencies such as the newly-established
Department of Health and Human Services Office on Trafficking in Person, which provides support for trafficking survivors as they escape from
their perpetrators, and legal resources to prosecute their trafficking cases. Authorization of these critical programs
establishes anti-trafficking funding as a priority and bolsters the case for maintaining or increasing
federal appropriations. Moreover, long-term funding that is specifically authorized for trafficking is more
important than ever in today’s environment of sequestration and funding cuts: each budget cycle
presents a tremendous challenge to maintain — let alone build — the programs whose resources are
dwarfed by the profits traffickers bring in. But TVPA reauthorization isn’t just about money — it speaks
to our moral standing as a nation. And, if Congress fails to pass it soon, there will be troubling
international ramifications. The United States’ role as a global leader in the fight against human trafficking will also be undermined, to
the detriment of millions of people trapped in modern slavery around the world. Right now, U.S. diplomats are meeting with
countries in the lead-up to the annual Trafficking in Persons (TIP) report, which ranks countries on their
anti-trafficking efforts. This process and the report itself have proven to be tremendous diplomatic tools to encourage progress. Yet,
how can we ask other countries to make policy changes and fund implementation of anti-trafficking
programs if we can’t even reauthorize the cornerstone U.S. legislation on trafficking? This potential loss
of diplomatic leadership on human trafficking is even more worrying given other gaps in our federal
anti-trafficking infrastructure. For example, even with all the work Congress has done to move four bipartisan anti-trafficking bills,
the administration has failed to appoint an ambassador to the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking
in Persons (TIP). The lack of a credible voice that can speak to all forms of human trafficking furthers the
perception that the Trump administration is abandoning human rights as a priority. A rash of resignations at the
State Department, including just last month when highly-regarded U.S. diplomat Elizabeth Shackelford submitted a pointed resignation letter to
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, demonstrates the risk of failing to fill key human rights related positions like the TIP ambassador.
**K Things
**Settlerism Neg**
Turn – Autoethnographies
Autoethnographies ultimately reinvest in the colonial structures they criticize as the
“presence of the self” is justified via the performativity of subjugated knowledges which
turns case
Gingrich-Philbrook 05 [Craig, Professor of Communication Studies at Southern Illinois University with
expertise in Performing Arts, Communication and Media, “Autoethnography’s Family Values: Easy Access
to Compulsory Experiences,” pp. 309-311]sg

Ultimately, my concern over the vision of the aesthetic offered by autoethnography stems from my reading of an
essay by Murray Krieger, ‘‘My Travels with the Aesthetic.’’ Here, Krieger recounts the ongoing development of his sense of the place of the
aesthetic relative to the epistemic/conceptual and the political. The essay appears in The Revenge of the Aesthetic: The
Place of Literature in Theory Today, edited by Michael P. Clark. I used the volume in a performance criticism course as one answer to my
perception that students and I had
begun to view performance solely in terms of its epistemic content, what it
argued propositionally, rather
than in terms of its ability to achieve the function Krieger assigns to literature: working ... to
prove itself resistant to the conceptual (as secondary), which, coming after, sifts that primary data [of experience] in accord with
the dictates of logical, propositional, and perhaps generally didactic or specifically political schemata. The literary search was for an order, a form,
that could precede the logically guided constraints of the conceptual and yet, on the other side, did not surrender to the welter of raw
experience itself. (213) Krieger’s position about the nature of the aesthetic contrasts sharply with Ellis and Bochner’s call for a textuality that
compels a particular emotional experience (by any reader) of a particular author’s particular account of a particular experience that author
intends to share in an accessible and easily read way. Krieger maintains that he ‘‘came to understand the extent to which the artistic
medium*/language in the specific case of literary art*/together with the conventions that became attached to it over the centuries, generates a
resistance to the intentions that the artist thought he or she had going into the process’’ (213). Ellis
and Bochner’s discourse
proposes a compulsory and transparent (accessible) emotional response to a text described as literary
because it possesses discernable commonsense features associated with literature in the popular imagination,
but not necessarily developed as strategies of inquiry by literary artists. In this way, they violate what Krieger
identifies as a critical movement ‘‘from the notion of the poem as a firmly fixed aesthetic object with
objectively discoverable characteristics (as in the New Criticism) to the phenomenological notion of the text as an intentional object,
responding to the way in which the reader intends it, as his or her text, to be read’’ (223, emphasis added). Far from
imposing a compulsory emotional experience, the aesthetic ... alerts us to the illusionary, the merely arbitrary claims to reality that authoritarian
discourse would impose upon us; because, unlike authoritarian discourse, the aesthetic takes back the ‘‘reality’’ it offers us in the very act of
offering it to us. It thus provides the cues for us to view other discourse critically, to reduce the ideological claims to the merely illusionary, since
there is in other discourse no self-awareness of their textual limitations, of their duplicity*/their closures, their exclusions, their expressions.
(225) From this perspective, ‘‘the role of any text, when we allow it to function in an aesthetic mode for us, is not to counter one ideology with
another, but rather, as with the moment of carnival, to reveal the inadequacies of ideology itself, as conceptual discourse, to deal with errant
particularity’’ (227). Rather than seeing it as a transparent textuality resulting in a compulsory experience, Krieger, with a nod to Wolfgang Iser,
‘‘claim[s] for the literary a primary anthropological function in helping us see and feel beneath our systematic and generalized languages, and
thus in protecting us from being misled by them’’ (230). I
believe autoethnography hopes to provide just this function, but
cannot do so in its current assimilationist form. Those of us interested in pursuing this potential must question our sense of
gestalt in the movement of literature and its value: are we working as literary artists, expanding the potentials of that particular
artistry, or are we working for discourse in general, tied to a rational system devoted to transparent access, compulsory
experience, and the ideological coordination required for that particular synchronized swim? Krieger describes the situation in telling familial
terms: The literary has been recaptured by the large and heterogenous family of discourse, subject to the
operational rules that apply to language generally. ... In this new domestication of its arrangements, it need no longer travel
with the aesthetic, be exposed to the glories and dangers along that road, resist or succumb to the misfortunes suffered by the arts in an
inhospitable time. (231) From this perspective, the family values of general discourse have recaptured , repaired,
and converted the literary, separating it from the political fate of the arts. In a nutshell, then, my fears come
down to the consequences of how badly autoethnography wants Daddy’s approval. Why do I hold this approval in
such suspicion? My father died when I was young. I lived through a march of increasingly bizarre stepfathers, each of whom wanted to remake
our family in his image by compelling our emotional responses. I’ve seen this pattern repeated by the comings and goings of deans, university
chancellors, and politicians, finally dubbing it ‘‘patriarchy du jour’’ to mark the force that remains invariant even when the particulars appear to
transform. Then there’s the being queer, the silences and oppressions that stem from that. Anyway. You get the picture: this
kind of
approval has long seemed moot. Moot. Sure, I hunger for it. I could tell stories of coaches and advisors whose love I’ve sought, whose
recognition of others I’ve envied however much I’ve tried to resist doing so. So it’s not a value judgment, exactly, though I won’t dissemble about
the stain of judgment that comes next: the autoethnographers exercise such privilege, such luxury, in their hope for
Daddy’s approval. Personally, I think they’re wasting their time. I swear to God, if I read one more essay attempting
to justify the presence of the self in writing to the patriarchal council of self-satisfied social scientists I’ll,
well, I could say ‘‘Scream’’ or ‘‘Go to Wal-Mart after all,’’ but I think I’ll let it go with this, I think I’ll put it this way: ‘‘If I read one more
essay blah blah blah, I think I’ll put it down.’’ The customary extremity of emotion and performance of vulnerability in
autoethnography aside, it’s just not worth it. Daddy’s hard to budge. But Daddy’s also mortal, as are we, so why spend our days
numbering his? Why not write? Why not develop alternative means of circulation, such as the intimate bureaucracies identified by Craig Saper,
exchanging writing, fine art, music, and other aesthetic forms of production with one another, rather than relying on traditional means of
commodifying our artistic labor? Oh, we won’t get the big government grants, you say, or jobs at the big universities kowtowing to our
increasingly fascistic government and morally bankrupt corporate structure? Okay. When was the last time they kept a promise to an artist

The 1AC’s autoethnographies are a move to reconciliation as their retelling of history in

relation to immigration policy does not dismantle the structures that produce that
violence, simply accepting the present as an accumulation of injuries that they believe their
settler apology can remedy.
Walcott 11 [Rinaldo Walcott, Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of Sociology and Equity
Studies in Education at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education and the Women’s and Gender
Studies Institute, “Into the Ranks of Man: Vicious Modernism and the Politics of Reconciliation,” part of
“Cultivating Canada: Reconciliation through the Lens of Cultural Diversity,” edited and put together by
Ashok Mathur, Jonathan Dewar, and Mike DeGagne, as part of the Aboriginal Healing Foundation
Research Series, pp. 76-77]sg
If we take Wynter and Buck-Morss seriously, the question of what constitutes European modernity is a complicated story of genocide, slavery,
ecocide, and, most strikingly, the production of a new world not just for those colonized and enslaved but for those engaged in the project of
expansion as well. The New World moniker is not a sentimental or history-denying term, but it does reference the brutal realities of life in the
Americas as the bedrock of European modernity and its satellite campuses like Canada. The Enlightenment’s naming and ordering of peoples,
places, and things has bequeathed to us those namings and orders as the very terms through which it might be challenged. The Haitian
revolution of 1791 took up liberty as its central rallying cry from the same French Revolution that sought to crush it. In
our time we have
become Black and Aboriginal, among other names we have been forced to take on, and internalized them out of the very
cartographies of Europe’s global expansion since the fifteenth century. It is indeed these names that only partially make
sense in the logics of, and appeals to, the invented genres of European Man that apologies are meant to assuage.
The question we are often faced with is: how are we to make other conceptions of being human and of traversing the globe appear? What
intellectual, political, and cultural—not to mention economical—space do different conceptions of human life have to offer our present
globalized, networked humanity? In my view the politics of reconciliation throws these questions up without offering answers. The
of reconciliation ask us to come into the apology as the people Europe invented, not as people we once were. And one
cannot be romantic about a past, given that how history has intervened to be a part of the conversation
often means one must in some way work with Europe’s violently profound re-ordering of the globe and the peoples within. Thus, one is often left
asking: whatis being reconciled, with whom, and to what? Reconciliation suggests a past action. It suggests that
some wrongdoing has been done for which the possibility of forgiveness is an act of coming together
again. Reconciliation suggests a significant rupture of some kind has occurred. Above I have suggested that European colonial expansion from
the fifteenth century onwards produced a rupture in the Americas, which in part produced the settler colonial nation-state of Canada, which also
produced new states of/for being indigenous peoples and belatedly African peoples. Those kinds of collective namings—Indigenous, African,
Indian, Asian, and even European—are the cataloguing evidence of the historical rupture for which European Man comes to overrepresent itself
as if it was indeed Man. As Paul Gilroy suggests, the “[b]lood–saturated histories of colonisation and conquest are rarely allowed to disrupt that
triumphalist tale,”11 and one that apologies and the politics of reconciliation attempt to make invisible in the contemporary moment. Thus
reconciliation also suggests a certain kind of suturing is possible in the aftermath of the brutalities that makes it a necessary response in the first
place. But what reconciliation does not appear to do is dismantle the institutional basis of the present
arrangements of human life. Reconciliation does not ask us to rethink where we are; it asks us to accept
the present as an accumulation of injuries for which apologies must suffice as the entry into the flawed
ecocidal, genocidal, anti-human, late-modern world still premised on Europe’s partial conception of the human as
the only option for being human in this world. Reconciliation might provide us a view towards new and, or more, hopeful
human relations, but it does not allow us to seriously grapple with the brutalities that have brought us together in these new geo-political zones
and their multiple disadvantaged relations of Europe’s invented Others. In short, reconciliation
does not absolve histories and
practices of brutality. For the immigrant population coming out of the Caribbean who, under the rules of European modernity, had to
make themselves “not native to the place we were in,”12 and whose histories of enslavement and colonization entangle in complexly creative
and maddening ways with Indigenous cultures of the Americas, the nation-state of Canada’s and European imperial powers’—past and present—
apologies and reconciliation mark the perversity and viciousness of modernity and its incomplete promise
of human liberation.

The aff is an endeavor to reconcile settler guilt and complicity- professions of privilege and
attempts to “raise consciousness” and “produce knowledge” do nothing to dismantle
structures of oppression and only rescue settler futurity
Hurwitz & Bourque 14 [Laura Hurwitz, Environment and Community MA in Social Science, Humboldt
State University indigenous activist for Unsettling Klamath River Coyuntura, & Shawn Bourque,
community activist for Unsettling Klamath River Coyuntura, “Settler Colonialism Primer, 6/06/14,]sg

McIntosh’s articulate analysis of white privilege begins to carve a path towards responsibility for white people, but sadly discourse
actions beyond recognizing white privilege remain sorely lacking. Professions of white privilege
from settlers without actions for change are not enough. Andrea Smith maintains that, “the undoing of privilege occurs
not by individuals confessing their privileges or trying to think themselves into a new subject position, but
through the creation of collective structures that dismantle the systems that enable these privileges.” In a settler
colonial context, narratives that demean and demonize people of color and discourse that assume the superiority of white people are infused
into settler psyche from birth, through children’s books, schools, social discourse and the media. The non-Indigenous might state that, “all people
are the same,” but underneath this proclamation lies an indoctrinated belief that settlers are entitled to the land, lest the settler would have
relinquished land, power and privilege long ago. For the benefactors of white supremacism and white privilege, acknowledging is a first
step. This must
be followed up with the creation of a collective ethic of accountability designed to take
these systems apart. Settler Moves to Innocence Settler identity has been built on a denial of settlers as non-Indigenous and a rejection
of Indigenous Peoples rights to the land. The initial theft of land was often justified by terra nullius, that is viewing the land as empty and virgin,
or at least not used to it’s fullest potential by Indigenous Peoples. Another complexity to settler identity is explained by wolfe: On the one hand,
settler society required the practical elimination of the natives in order to establish itself on their territory. On the symbolic level, however,
settler society subsequently sought to recuperate indigeneity in order to express its difference—and, accordingly, its independence—from the
mother country. A product of this schizo settler identity; simultaneously denying Indigenous Peoples rights, claiming to be “native” and also
wanting to be morally absolved of responsibility for the known atrocities that settler sovereignty rests upon, have been referred to as “moves to
innocence.” As Tuck and Yang write, There
is a long and bumbled history of non-Indigenous peoples making
moves to alleviate the impacts of colonization. We think of the enactment of these tropes as a series of moves to
innocence (Malwhinney, 1998), which problematically attempt to reconcile settler guilt and complicity,
and rescue settler futurity. Some of these moves to innocence include: Settler Nativism “In this move to innocence, settlers locate or
invent a long-lost ancestor who is rumored to have had “Indian blood,” and they use this claim to mark themselves as blameless in the attempted
eradications of Indigenous peoples.” As Vine Deloria points out, the relative is almost always an Indian grandmother. Tuck and Yang explain that
the claiming of an Indian grandmother not a grandfather fits into the history of rape and sexual assault against Indian women and the racilization
and assimilation practices of settler society. Fantasizing Adoption “These fantasies can mean the adoption of Indigenous practices and
knowledge, but more, refer to those narratives in the settler colonial imagination in which the Native (understanding that he is becoming extinct)
hands over his land, his claim to the land, his very Indian-ness to the settler for safe-keeping.” Often settlers see being adopted as a way out of
guilt and creating a place for themselves on the land absolved from settler status, which as Tuck and Yang point out, “is a reaffirmation of what
the settler project has been all along.” Colonial Equivocation In this move to innocence, settler colonialism and oppression/exploitation are
conflated which, “creates a convenient ambiguity between decolonization and social justice work.” As they put it, “‘We are all colonized,’ may be
a true statement but is deceptively embracive and vague, its inference: ‘None of us are settlers.’” Conscientization
or Free Your
Mind and the Rest Will Follow This is the idea if we change our thinking social conditions will transform.
Although we all do need to decolonize our minds, this is just a start. It is more comfortable for settlers to focus on
consciousness raising then confront the more unsettling undertaking of handing over stolen land
and material privilege. Other Observed Moves to Innocence There are as many moves to innocence as there are settlers. Here we present a non-
exhaustive list of observed examples. Indians are Drunk and Violent This move to Innocence is born of both the “Natives as savages” myth and
the “degenerating/disappearing Native” myth. Settlers can justify their place by viewing Indigenous peoples as not Indigenous enough nor
productive enough to deserve their land. Here Indigenous peoples become the scapegoat and the system of settler colonialism is left
unquestioned. Often this
move extrapolates that settlers are also more suitable stewards of the land,
justifying their ownership and occupation. One Love/One People This is similar to the “colonial equivocation” move, yet it
has been depoliticized. Settlers attest to their lack of regard for the race, creed or color of people and belief that all of humanity is one people.
How could the idea of equality and unity among people be a settler move to innocence? These sweeping claims of a “color blind” world are easy
to assert from a position of power and privilege. Distinct rights of Indigenous sovereignty and claims to the land are glossed over. Despite the fact
that all people belong to the human family we cannot all be one people while settler colonial systems remain intact. Land Bridge/Migration In this
move settlers use a historical “out” describing how people have always migrated around the planet and how Indigenous people’s themselves
migrated here. What this fails to take into account—besides Indigenous accounts of their own origin—is the vast time that Indigenous Peoples
have inhabited, managed and coexisted with their homelands. Not to mention the silencing of violence which has displaced Indigenous peoples;
migrants join a culture, settlers eradicate them. Indians are not Indians anymore Here settlers turn to blood quantum as a measure of Indigeneity
and attest to the fact that both settlers and Indian societies contain mixed heritage. Another aspect of this move to innocence is that Indigenous
people do not know much of their own cultures anymore and in fact at times settlers claim to know more. The throw backs to racialization,
assimilation and cultural appropriation flushed out elsewhere in this paper are clear. This move masks the fact that Indigenous Peoples do still
exist and have retained their cultural practices despite every attempt that could be thrown at them by colonization. Doing My Best as an
Individual Often, when settlers are faced with the reality that settler colonialism is an ongoing system of oppression from which they benefit,
they fall
back to a safe place that claims a person’s role in society is limited to what they can do as an
individual. This allows settlers to continue to remain complicit to settler colonialism while declaring that
they are a good person doing the “best they can” and this is all a person can do in this life. Taking responsibility for our
role as settlers must entail working collective for material changes to settler colonialism. “Helping” Indians As the saying goes, the road to hell is
paved with good intentions. While
many settlers have the intention of “helping” Indians, which makes them feel
good about themselves, these efforts often end up as colonial projects. Historically, many of the worst things that have
happened to Indigenous People’s came from the “help” of settlers. The group “Friends of the Indian” instituted boarding schools, the Dawes Act
claimed to be “helping” Indians (leading to a “paper-trail of tears,” and creating, “a faster method of land transference than the cavalry”) and
missionaries prided themselves on “saving” Indians. Today researchers, activists, and nonprofits continue this course, assuming they know what
Indigenous Peoples’ need. This usually follows settler myths and stereotypes about Indians and imposes settler values as to how Indigenous
people should live and what is best for them, continuing the project of assimilation. While all along, material conditions are
maintained. Bluntly said, settlers might do best to look at how to “save” themselves/ourselves and get there/our own selves together
before worrying about Indians. The colonizer is in the most need of decolonizing.

Their endless critique of the Settler self’s relation to settler colonial violence sustains the
dispossession of indigeneity without repatriation and relegates natives to the “victim” role
Christian 11 [Dorothy Christian, currently in PhD studies at the University of British Columbia where she
is seeking to reconcile Indigenous and Western systems of knowledge, a member of the Secwepemc
(Shuswap) people, “Reconciling with The People and the Land,” part of “Cultivating Canada:
Reconciliation through the Lens of Cultural Diversity,” edited and put together by Ashok Mathur,
Jonathan Dewar, and Mike DeGagne, as part of the Aboriginal Healing Foundation Research Series, pp.

It’s complicated, but it is all interrelated. At the University of Victoria, I also linked
Indigenous–settler relations in terms of the
environment; the lands that people have chosen to make their home. At the Victoria conference I explained how, in many
Indigenous cultures, there is a concept of giving back—it is complicated yet very simple. For instance, when we go out on the
land, we don’t take more than what is to be used for that season. If a person is being responsible, they will give back to the land by taking care of
their picking grounds, they will do what is needed to take care of those lands that provide food. Another simpler example is when we go and
harvest trees and branches to build a sweat lodge, we offer tobacco and ask the tree for its blessing as we explain what the branches are to be
used for. Of course, I acknowledge it is much more complicated in human relations. My point is, we
can’t just keep taking and taking
and taking and not give something back. Settler peoples come from all over the world to these lands to reap the
benefits of this land of milk and honey, and they send their financial and other resources to their
homelands. What do they give back to the Original Peoples of these lands? Do they ever take the time to learn about the
Indigenous people whose lands they occupy? In the healing process, once the silence is broken and each party is taking responsibility for their
part of the relationship and relating to each other as dignified, autonomous human beings, then a new relationship can begin. I see that a new
way of being in the cultural interface of Indigenous peoples and all settler communities has to begin with a shared active engagement in the
decolonizing process while simultaneously participating in a cultural healing of both communities, which I believe is necessary for both
Indigenous peoples and non-Indigenous settler peoples of Canada. One of the major things I have learned from my intercultural relationships
with both white and non-white settlers is that it is critical to relate outside of the usual colonial binary of
the colonizer and the colonized. In this approach, Indigenous peoples are consistently relegated to the
“victim” role, which paralyzes our ability to assume responsibility for our actions and locks us in the perceptions of the
common stereotypes; that is, the “noble savage,” Hollywood’s monosyllabic Tonto, the stoic cigar store Indian, the rebellious Billy Jack
hero, the natural environmentalist, or the all-knowing spiritual Medicine Man or Woman. You know, the one with all that “woo-woo” spiritual
energy who can do magical things! In my intercultural work, the primary focus has been searching for and trying to understand what “peaceful
coexistence” means in the cultural interface for Indigenous peoples who want to maintain their ancestral ties to their homelands, yet work
together with the larger societies in seeking a sustainable environment where Indigenous peoples can finally realize some economic benefits.
How can we work together? How do we stand together in alliances to fend off the globalization machine that perpetuates a neocolonial
approach? The land is integral to Indigenous cultures and, I argue, is the cause for the very “LOUD silence” that sits between us
because “I believe this is founded in the fear that Indigenous peoples want the land back, that our suppressed rage compounded over centuries
will explode at any given time on any given territory.”14 Settlers know that the original peoples of Canada have a birthright to our lands and any
benefits from its resources. I truly believe the denial of this entitlement and the lack of integrity that the settler governments have in the colonial
relationship is at the core of this fear. Settler governments know they have assumed a privilege and an entitlement to these lands; yet, at the
same time they deny the privilege and entitlement of Indigenous peoples.15 Although many Canadians in the interfaith groups and cultural
activists may theoreticallyunderstand the lack of integrity of the governments assuming this privilege on the
land, it is difficult to exercise effective political actions that may change the status quo, because any real
change is neutralized by diversity policies. Over the years, I have witnessed how we come together oh-so-politely
under the diversity policies that promote being tolerant of each other. I have sat in meetings where we are working
together on a shared goal; however, when it comes to the human part of developing relationships, many people have to run to other meetings,
answer phone calls/texts, or some other more important activities. Admittedly, most of the people who are engaged in intercultural/interfaith
work are overtaxed as it is, and until we take the time to get to know each other as human beings, I see the activist community getting stuck in
the policies of regulating aversion,16 rather than engaging in a truly respectful, collaborative, and peaceful approach. In her book, Regulating
Aversion: Tolerance in an Age of Identity and Empire, Wendy Brown says, “It is noteworthy, too, that within this [tolerance] discourse the aim of
learning tolerance is not to arrive at equality or solidarity with others but, rather, to learn how to put up with others.”17 If what Brown says is
true that the tolerance discourse of Western liberalism regulates the presence of the Other both inside and outside the liberal democratic nation-
state and that the notion of tolerance “affects all levels and domains of civil engagement”18 while it acts as a “substitute for or as a supplement
to formal liberal equality [that can] block the pursuit of substantive equality and freedom,”19 then individuals and groups within the nation-state
of Canada need to formulate new models of interrelating outside a tolerance discourse (including diversity or multicultural policies) that literally
paralyzes a substantive reconciliation in this pluralistic society. For me, part of reconciliation is taking the time to build respectful relationships
and to create opportunities where we develop a new model of interrelating, a model that takes us beyond the usual multicultural sharing of food
and dance and walks towards an authentic reconciliation. This will require a complex, multi-faceted approach; however, if the political will and
desire of settler and Indigenous communities are there, I truly believe it is possible to build a peaceful coexistence with each other.
**Puar Neg**
humanism link/case turn
Their creation of a self-annihilating post-humanist subject persists as the realm of life only
through the genocide of indigenous and black life and means that their attempt to
transcend identity through affect reinstantiates the white humanism they critique
King 17 [TIFFANY LETHABO KING is currently residing in Atlanta, Georgia, and is assistant professor in the
Institute for Women’s, Gender and Sexuality Studies. Since she has lived in Atlanta, she has been able to
touch ground where her maternal and paternal ancestors survived under enslavement as well as
experience the living land of the Muscogee, Creek, and Cherokee, Spring 2017, “Humans Involved:
Lurking in the Lines of Posthumanist Flight,” pp. 177-178]sg
Within the secular human’s mode of man, the ordered self, culture, or “we” needs the chaotic, not- us, or them in the Negro and the Indian in
order to know itself as culture— Logos, Reason— and therefore as human. The human as man, in its ordered, rational, gendered, sexed,
European, bourgeois form, needs chaos in order to secure a self, even as what is human changes. While the human as
man may become elastic and more diverse (as proletariat and woman), it still requires an outside. It still requires chaos,
even if those who were previously a part of the realm of chaos enter into the zone of order. It is within this lineated orbit of chaos
and order that even nonrepresentational poststructuralist theories retain the trace of the human as a
narrow ordering line of the self (even in subjectless guise). The line is but one geo- epistemology of white
posthumanist thought. The Deleuzoguattarian “lines of flight,” even as a nomadic line though supposedly not attached to a self or a
subject, carry the specter and trace of the human in the ordering and disciplining colonial lines of flight of conquest. As Wynter argues, there are
often reversals of the order and hierarchies of structural oppositions; the reversals fail to actually overcome and annihilate the need and desire
for structural opposition as an actual order of knowledge.42 While “natural man” may prevail over ecclesiastical, clergical, or theological man,
natural or rational man still needs to create himself as the center or norm in relation to those who lack
rationality and reason (the Black and Native). Similarly, poststructuralist theory may prevail over structuralist
narratives that center the self or the “I”; however, the impulse to kill and create the Indian without ancestors
alongside crafting a new self- annihilating posthumanist subject is still part of the order of knowledge of structural
opposition. The selfless, subjectless, posthuman still persists as the realm of life because of the annihilation of
Indigenous and Black life. Within critical theories, Black and Native people are rendered structuralist (or modernist
and dead) as white self- actualizing subjects disguise themselves as rhizomatic movements that transcend
representation and the human. Epistemes such as the line segregate the chaotic realm of death (Black and
Native) from the poststructuralist realm of life (white transcendence) through structural opposition
marked with blood. The line is a humanist geo- form and geo- episteme, which makes the kinds of segmentation that structural
oppositions are based on possible.43 Humans must perceive and come to some social or human agreement that lines even exist in the social
(cultural) and natural world. Even in Deleuze and Guattari’s ideal scenario in which lines are drawn and (re)drawn again outside the state’s
mandates, someone (as a subject) must still render them as an outside to something. Poststructuralist traditions that attempt
transcend identity actually function as a ruse of subjectlessness. In fact, queer subjectlessness and
nonrepresentational rhizomes are an expression of a posthumanism that resuscitates normative subjects
through the death of Black and Indigenous peoples. Continental theory has not typically had the stomach for sustaining an
investigation of the kind of unspeakable violence that enabled the Marxist worker, queer, and affective subjectless discourses (one can only strive
for subjectlessness if you possess it) to exist. The
erasure of the (white) bodyas- subject- as- ontology has been more
effective in covering the bloody trail of white/human- self- actualization than it has been at successfully offering a
way around and beyond the entrapments of liberal humanism. According to Amber Jamilla Musser, even in its postidentitarian and
subjectless modes, continental theories’ transgressive moves (affective, sensational, masochistic) tend to
reinstantiate the white male (sometimes queer) subject that it hopes to overcome.44 While not throwing away
affect theory in Sensational Flesh, Musser scrutinizes white queer theory’s moves toward subjectless, futurelessnes, and masochism as gestures
that actually recover and reify a subject (often white male gay) as they seek to annihilate the subject.
The aff’s terrorist assemblages are founded in Deleuzoguattarian theory, an endeavor to
displace humanist forms of subjectivity which is made possible only through the discursive
genocide of Indigenous people
King 17 [TIFFANY LETHABO KING is currently residing in Atlanta, Georgia, and is assistant professor in the
Institute for Women’s, Gender and Sexuality Studies. Since she has lived in Atlanta, she has been able to
touch ground where her maternal and paternal ancestors survived under enslavement as well as
experience the living land of the Muscogee, Creek, and Cherokee, Spring 2017, “Humans Involved:
Lurking in the Lines of Posthumanist Flight,” pp. 169-171]sg
Taking a cue from Simpson and Tuck and Yang, I turn to Tuck’s 2010 critique of Deleuze’s notion of “desire” as an example of the theoretical
practice of refusal, which Simpson wonders about and which Tuck and Yang elaborated on in 2014. Eve Tuck’s 2010 article “Breaking Up with
Deleuze” refuses Deleuze’s understanding and imposition of his definition of desire for Native studies and Native resurgence in particular. Tuck
refuses the Deleuzoguattarian nomadic due to its totalizing moves and specifically its evasion and refusal of
Native and alternative notions of refusal that emerge from Native struggles for survival.24 For Tuck, paying attention to “the
continuity of ancestors,” or genealogies, in Native and in all modes of knowledge production is imperative. For Indigenous
and Native studies, it reverses the erasure enacted by continental European and settler- colonial theory, which uses a
tradition of ongoing genocide to annihilate Native thinkers and subsequently their epistemologies and theories.
Prior to Byrd’s indictment of Deleuzoguattarian laudatory accounts of America’s terrain of “Indians without Ancestry,” Tuck reroutes us back to
ancestral and genealogical thinking as a way of asserting Indigenous presence and its epistemological systems and traditions, devoid of Cartesian
boundary- making impulses and desires. Tuck’s work also prepares us in 2010 for the critique that Byrd levies in 2011, which exposes the
traditions, roots, and genealogies of Western poststructuralist theory. Such theory created the conditions of
possibility and emergence for Deleuzoguattarian genocidal forms of rhizomatic and nonrepresentational
thought. Black Caribbean feminist Michelle V. Rowley argues we need to especially attend to a theory’s “politics and conditions of
emergence.”25 In other words, we need to consider on whose backs or through whose blood a theory developed and
then circulated while hiding its own violence. Jodi Byrd in particular attends to the colonialist, genocidal, and therefore humanist
impulses of the rhizome in her book Transit of Empire.26 What is particularly instructive is the way that Byrd operationalizes her critique of
Deleuze and Guattari’s first chapter, “Rhizome,” in their tome A Thousand Plateaus.27 Byrd’s deconstruction, or picking apart, of the
poststructuralist and nonsubject- and nonobject- related Deleuzoguattarian rhizomatics are a masterful (and frankly thuggish and
rude) demonstration of refusing to adapt or “repair” colonial epistemologies and geographies. Byrd’s refusal is a moment
that further helps one distinguish between the works of postcolonial and decolonial studies. Byrd performs an outright refusal that short circuits
the colonial and postcolonial comportments of politesse, which allow genocidal Western thought to continue uninterrupted. Byrd’s interrogation
of the “colonial nostalgia” latent in poststructural and nonrepresentational forms of thought like Deleuze and Guattari’s rhizome is an explicit
example of how the violence of white nonrepresentational theory creates an immediate space of impasse for
Indigenous, decolonial, Black, and abolitionist intellectual traditions. As Byrd argues, the Deleuzian and
Guattarian rhizome assumes its errant, untraceable, and de/reterritorializing path through Native genocide.
The rhizome obtains its metaphorical and theoretical elasticity from the discursive genocide of Indigenous peoples. The territory of
maneuver or ground that the rhizome gains its bearing on is unwittingly or perhaps indifferently anchored in the
disavowal of the Indigenous ancestral claims, history, presence, and ongoing relationship with the land in North
America. Deleuze and Guattari covet the free- range and bloody movements in the West, described as a land of “Indians
without Ancestry” primarily because they do not have to contend with the presence of Indigenous peoples and
their prior relationships (ancestors) to the land and space through which they move and clear as nomads. There are
no existing people to which Deleuze and Guattari have to be accountable. Therefore, their own and others’
self- actualizing, free- form whiteness can proceed unimpeded. The rhizomatic West— terra nullius— is without a people,
history, or a cosmology to navigate. Byrd’s reading of Deleuze and Guattari’s reproduction or transit of the “Indian” in their book A Thousand
Plateaus limns some of the methods in which colonialism and modes of conquest are enacted on behalf of the
selfactualization of white subjects who produce nonrepresentational theory. In fact, Byrd argues that the “Indian is
the ontological prior through which poststructuralism functions.”28 Byrd traces the appearance or deployment of the Indian as a
simulation or “present absent” in Jacques Derrida’s and then Deleuze and Guattari’s work, which creates space for the
white subject and the unending frontier. Byrd also argues that nonrepresentational theory heralded as a liberatory path beyond the subject
is colonialist. Byrd indicts Deleuze and Guattari’s use of Leslie Fiedler’s work in order to invoke the American West and the Indian as exceptional
cases that inspire rhizomatic movement through the notion of an ever- receding frontier.29 It is colonialist on (at least) two accounts: in
its need to render the Indian already and inevitably (ontologically) dead as “it” has no ancestors or living community to
whom one needs to be accountable; and in its invocation of the vanishing “Indian,” which opens up the possibility of an
“ever- receding frontier” and inspiration for the metaphor of the rhizome. This logic and mode of conquistador
thought undergirds the Deleuzian and Guattarian ethos of experimental and rhizomatic lines of flight. Their
nonrepresentational theory of lines of flight are only possible as a form of white selfactualizing posthumanism due to
the death of Indigenous peoples and their excision from the Earth/land. White posthumanism and its flows and lines of
flight are made possible through Native death. Because of this, Byrd haltingly stops the reader’s momentum as she critiques
Deleuzoguattarian and poststructuralist tendencies that often emerge in postcolonial work. Rather than allow the
preemptive rejoinder that white and some postcolonial scholars use, such as “I know that theorist X did not consider race or was racist, but he
enables us to do XYZ with his work,”30 Byrd instead cuts off Deleuze and Guattari’s rhizomatics at the path. As Byrd anticipates that following
Deleuze and Guattari will end in genocide, she allows the reader the time and space to let this reality sink in and consider a different route than
the normative impulse and course of action that is to repair Deleuze and Guattari’s work. Byrd’s work slows us down and brings us to a point of
impasse and a resting place where one can slow down, stop, and make a choice to stay put or move forward with the dismissive, whimsical, white
conceit that tolerates Native death. Byrd’s refusal allows the reader to feel the violent puncture of the nonrepresentational gash that it tries to
disavow. Byrd gives her reader the space and time to say, “Yes, I understand your attempt to evade signification and thus
representation but it is not compelling enough for me to overlook the reality that it requires Native
genocide.” The way that Byrd’s and others’ decolonial work brings these kinds of tensions and violence to a head enables us to make other
kinds of analytic and conceptual choices. The reader is allowed to think and then say, “If this line of thought requires Indigenous
death, why even venture down it? What could one possibly repair or salvage of it?”

alt solvency card – set col/antiblackness
Only black and indigenous scholarship can counter the humanist tendencies of continental
theory via abolishing the need for black and Indigenous death and creating the possibility
for new humanities
King 17 [TIFFANY LETHABO KING is currently residing in Atlanta, Georgia, and is assistant professor in the
Institute for Women’s, Gender and Sexuality Studies. Since she has lived in Atlanta, she has been able to
touch ground where her maternal and paternal ancestors survived under enslavement as well as
experience the living land of the Muscogee, Creek, and Cherokee, Spring 2017, “Humans Involved:
Lurking in the Lines of Posthumanist Flight,” pp. 179-180]sg

Jackson argues that a

call for movement beyond always happens from a very specific place. The posthumanist’s
horn often blows from a place situated securely within the folds of humanity. This is a very different place
than the space of nonbeing from which Black and Indigenous peoples moan, sing, or speak. Native feminist
refusal and Black feminist abolitionist skepticism function as intervening comportments, dispositions, and modes of
critique that expose the violent and unself- conscious ways that Western theory attempts to move beyond the
human through the annihilation of the Other. Because the crafting of the human is a process of relations, specifically the
relations of negation, then moving beyond the violence of the human is also a relational process. Transcendence is a relational process of
accountability. White subjects cannot transcend identity (e.g., whiteness, queerness), the subject (self- writing and
autonomy), or the human (self- actualization) without ending Native genocide and anti- Black racism. Identities,
subjects, and the human as they are currently configured come into formation through processes of negation. If there is no plan to
enable Black and Indigenous life, then there is no transcending the violence of the human. The scholarship
of Native/Indigenous and Black feminists force continental theory to come outside itself and gaze on the
way even the various attempts of nonrepresentational theory to annihilate the self actually end up reinventing
the subject and the human through new forms of violent invention. This article argues that both refusal and skepticism can
work in tandem and interrupt the performance of white innocence through less- than- effective attempts to evade
representation that jettison the garb of the human without abolishing the need for Black and Indigenous death.47 So what of Black and Native
stakes in identity? If theprimary concern for Black and Native studies is to interrogate and then destroy the
structures and lineaments that make the human- as- man possible, then Black and Native people do not
necessarily seek to inhabit the space of the human or identity as they currently exist. For example, if Black Lives
Matter (BLM) is asking to be absorbed into the category of the human, then BLM’s version of the human does not yet exist. Further, if Black
lives were to be absorbed into the category of the human, the social order and the scaffolding that
upends and holds together the human would collapse. For example, if Black Lives Matter (as a variety of local chapters with
their own unique politics) is actually making an appeal to be included within humanity— as an intelligible identity of the living— the request is
also accompanied by a demand for the abolition of the police. In addition to the BLM movement and its various local chapters, the Black Youth
Project, the Trayvon Martin Organizing Committee, and other voices of Black revolt are emerging from within and outside the movement and are
calling for the abolition of the police state.48 If the human is to exist in Black form, then the police state must wither
away. Reflecting on the Rodney King case and the initials N.H.I., Wynter effectively illustrates how the police state has the power to confer the
identity of “human” or “no human.”49 If the goal of Black activists to abolish the police is achieved, the police state would no longer have the
power to decide who was or who was not human. Further, if Native people were to be fully incorporated into the
category of the human, then the United States would cease to exist. The nation- state (United States) that gives
the “absolute” human (white “Americans”) excusive claims to the category of the human would have to be demolished. When the
United States, as the practice of genocide itself, ceases to exist, then Native/Indigenous peoples can exist
and identify as human. Rather than quibbling about “identity” itself, practices of Native refusal and decolonization and
Black “skepticism/pessimism” and abolition argue that the U.S. police state can no longer determine the
conditions of possibility for being considered human. Critical ethnic studies can continue to look to Black and
Native resistance against state- sanctioned killing and genocide as the praxis and theory that shift the terms of contemporary
discussions and contestations over identity.
AT: Perm
The permutation places native studies at the center of parasitic forms of situated
knowledge rather than contesting the flawed formation of their epistemology which
maintains the status quo
- AT: Perm – places native studies at center of rhizomes rather than contesting how those are
King 17 [TIFFANY LETHABO KING is currently residing in Atlanta, Georgia, and is assistant professor in the
Institute for Women’s, Gender and Sexuality Studies. Since she has lived in Atlanta, she has been able to
touch ground where her maternal and paternal ancestors survived under enslavement as well as
experience the living land of the Muscogee, Creek, and Cherokee, Spring 2017, “Humans Involved:
Lurking in the Lines of Posthumanist Flight,” pp. 172-174]sg

Byrd’s work, which is often postcolonial and has cited Jasbir Puar’s appropriation of Deleuze and Guattari as an
example, seeks out opportunities to repair and reclaim Western modes of critique such as feminism, queer, and nonrepresentational theories.
Postcolonial work (as well as white settlercolonial studies) often goes along with the linearity and temporality of white
equivocations that attempt to excuse how the feminist, the queer (nonsubject), and Deleuzoguattarian lines of
connectivity function as parasitic forms of situated knowledge and epistemes. This kind of acquiescence makes
the epistemic revolutions internal to white European humanity possible and seem natural as they dehumanize
and kill Indigenous and Black people.31 Byrd’s indictment of Deleuze and Guattari’s rhizomatics refuses and cuts off
the colonial and postcolonial equivocations, sanitization of affects, and speed and pace of the rhizomatic and nomadic line. As an
example of how the protocols, codes of conduct, and politesse of postcolonial “business as usual” unfold in the university, I reflect on my
encounters as a student and now professor in the graduate classroom, reading scholarly texts, listening, and taking part in scholarly critique and
the collegial repartee that occurs at academic conferences. Within these scenarios, I have observed the decorum of supposedly “engaged and
rigorous” critique proceed in the following ways. Often postcolonial interventions into colonial or critical theory travel through
phases, stages of progression, and levels of engagement with continental philosophy. First, in order to demonstrate your scholarly due
diligence, capacity for rigor, and abstraction, you must learn and rehearse the origins of and become fluent in the language, idioms, and grammar
of Deleuze and Guattari or whichever white scholar is in fashion. Second, you must figuratively inhabit and empathize with the white scholar’s
very personal and particular existential and ethical questions (even if you cannot relate to her particular kind of situatedness or experience). It is
often in graduate seminars where you have been asked— and we have been trained as faculty— to have you think about what it must have been
like to be Karl Marx, Michel Foucault, or Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari in the moment in which they lived. Imagine
the trials and
tribulations of being a European bourgeois male maverick in the academy and civil society. In other words, you
must internalize and perform this worldview as if it applies to you. After you internalize and perform, the third thing that you are allowed but by
no means required to do is list the problems with this theory or worldview. Once
you have identified the problems, even
irreconcilable ones, you are encouraged to make an intervention or slight adjustment to the discourse or theory by
asserting that you will now put Indigenous or Black life at the center of this body of thought. The challenge or
intervention usually reads as “what if we put Native or Black studies at the center of Deleuzoguattarian thought?”
Although we may become disillusioned with and challenge a metanarrative, we are rarely encouraged to do what Eve Tuck does when she
“Break[s] Up with Deleuze.” We are often prevented from getting to this stage of exasperation or justified disgust because we are not
allowed to stop, look at, and more importantly feel the violence of Western turns in critical theory. Because of academic
respectability politics that impose a kind of bourgeois politesse on all “communicative acts,” be they in person or in writing, it is impolite and
more importantly irrational to be rendered devastated, enraged, mute, or immobile by the violent terms on which continental theory proceeds.
One must tolerate that Deleuzoguattarianrhizomatic movements require Indigenous genocide. In fact, it is a
necessary evil in order for the West to model the kind of unfettered nomadic movement that Deleuze
and Guattari privilege. The neoliberal temporality of productivity also requires that scholars keep moving
unaffected in the midst of the violence. In fact, one is required to work through and repair or do damage control for Deleuze and
Guattari. This is what a “good scholar” does: puts Black or Native studies at the center of rhizomes rather than
contesting the very terms in which lines of flight become epistemic entities. But how do we perform or act otherwise in
the face of this kind of violence? I am not arguing that academics should not read Deleuze and Guattari. As scholars committed to decolonial
thought, we should read their work and understand how genocide and colonialism flow through it. However, we can read without becoming
seduced and attached to the work. I turn again to the writings of Black and Native feminists as an example of what this critical disinterest and
refusal might look like.32 As Simpson and Tuck and Yang argue, refusal can reroute one set of concerns and questions and redirect them toward
other pursuits. Better yet, disenchantment and pessimism can compel one to perceive or think about new questions. Refusal
misandry can move you out of the circuit that the corporate university imposes on critical thinking: know,
internalize, perform, disagree, and then center yourself.
**Queer Migration Neg**
link – settler colonialism
Their form of queer migration creates a parasitic relation between queerness and settler
colonialism, where their flight from oppression to freedom necessitates a consumerist and
imperial project hinged on global mobility
Perez 15 [Hiram Perez, Associate Professor of English at Vassar College, BA, BS, University of Miami; MA,
PhD, Columbia University, “A Taste for Brown Bodies: Gay Modernity and Cosmopolitan Desire,”
10/30/15, pp. 106-108]sg

The closet, as the primary cultural canon of mainstream gay and lesbian politics, is a spatial metaphor, yet there is insufficient
consideration of how that figurative space presupposes specific material conditions. The closet metaphor
spatially and temporally suggests access to privacy not collectively experienced by all sexual minorities . The privacy
this metaphor takes for granted requires specific economic, cultural, and familial circumstances. Likewise, the “coming out” metaphor suggests a
kind of mobility not universally available.
These canonized metaphors for gay and lesbian experience crystallize homosexual
identity within a tradition of possessive individualism. Coming out promises liberation and celebrates a species
of individualism in the form of self-determination. Conceptually and materially, that freedom and self-
determination are premised on the property of whiteness. The closet narrativizes gay and lesbian identity in a manner that
violently excludes or includes the subjects it names according to their access to specific kinds of privacy, property, and mobility. For Jasbir Kaur
Puar, as well as Hughes, the
link between travel and a specifically gay identity is also determined by
homophobia. Much of the writing on gay and lesbian travel narrativizes this movement primarily as a kind of
dislocation (a flight from oppression to freedom) without adequately examining how such movement also
constitutes an exercise in mobility and privilege. In her article on queer mobility, Puar departs from the dominant paradigms in
tourism studies, shifting her focus onto a theorization of gay and lesbian consumption. As an example of the traditional approach to
understanding gay and lesbian travel, she quotes Thomas Roth, a marketing strategist whose surveys are used by the gay and lesbian tourism
industry: “Many [tourists] are closeted, or come from repressive families, communities or societies. At least during our vacations, we should be
free to be ourselves in a welcoming environment.”14 What kinds of violences are necessary to consolidate the constituency designated by the
pronoun “we”? Roth makes it clear that the freedom “to be ourselves” requires the securing of a space. His use of the
pronoun “ourselves” signals the possessiveness of his subject, but the grammar suppresses the acquisitiveness that the
subject “we” must exercise to obtain and safeguard the possessive individuality coordinated by the infinitive phrase
“to be ourselves.” The mobility of Roth’s touristing subject is enabled by privileges of class, race, citizenship, and quite often also gender (hence
the need to also distinguish between cosmopolitan gay and lesbian mobilities). Roth’s gay travelers move not only from the domestic/repressive
to the foreign/liberating but also from isolation to publicity and, arguably, from obscurity to identity. “We”
exist so long as “we” can
freely consume abroad the pleasure that both defines and defiles us at home. Coming out of the closet, the
canonized narrative for gay and lesbian identity, hinges on mobility, a globalized consumerism, and imperialism. Before
they can be deemed “welcoming,” the “environments” Roth so vaguely references must be properly colonized to
satisfy the desires of gay and lesbian cosmopolitans. This is true not only for the international locations of gay and lesbian
tourism but also for the domestic locations of gay and lesbian gentrification. The formation of these identities,
and I focus here on the gay male cosmopolitan, demands spaces imagined as precivilized. The cosmopolitan calls upon
the native bodies to authenticate the underdevelopment (in every sense) and innocence of these
“welcoming” destinations. Puar points out that “on the one hand, there is the disruption of heterosexual space
and, on the other, the use of the exotic to transgress; in this case, the exotic is signaled by discourses of
homophobia.”15 This fantasy of the exotic is necessary to the formation of a modern gay male
cosmopolitan identity. Queer theorizing more resolutely needs to investigate how dominant Euro-American formations of gay, lesbian,
and queer cultures (not only during this era of normalization but also historically) collude with a hegemonic white masculinity.
Their analysis of queerness relies on categories of the human as gendered and sexual
power produces colonialism over those deemed Other
Morgenson 12 [Scott Lauria Morgenson, Associate Professor in Gender Studies and the Graduate
Program in Cultural Studies in Queen’s University, “Theorising Gender, Sexuality and Settler Colonialism:
An Introduction,” pp.2-4]sg

The child’s interruption of ‘empty land’ reminds us that the

ontology of settler colonialism has been premised on its own
boundlessness: always capable of projecting another horizon over which it might establish and incorporate a newest
frontier. Projecting onto the moon this fiction known as the United States is a specifically settler-colonial act; and not
merely in its long-term vision, in which after taking the moon back in his suitcase, his kind intend to return here to be emplaced. For in doing so,
this act ignores and thinks to erase that both he and the moon bear a relationship to this child of her
nations – a child, perhaps, with a potential to be any gender in her nations – and, as a youth, one through
whom the people sustain a future relationship to this land, regardless of whether he notices. In its break from the settler-
colonial narrative, the image invites irruptive possibilities for imagining alternative viewpoints and passages through time and space that centre a
critical awareness among those whom settlers attempted to eliminate. Yet, Tsinhnahjinnie tells us, against amnesia: the people survive,
and do not forget. This collection extends the effort of settler colonial studies to explain the specificities of settler colonialism by centering
analysis of gender and sexuality. The insight that colonialism is produced, extended, and illuminated by gendered and
sexual power is a hallmark of colonial studies, but that body of scholarship has left the power of settler colonialism under-theorised and in
need of distinctive accounts. Gender and sexuality are intrinsic to the colonisation of indigenous peoples and the
promulgation of European modernity by settlers, whether in pursuit of what Patrick Wolfe has theorised as a logic of
indigenous ‘elimination’, or of what Lorenzo Veracini, Philip Deloria, and scholars in indigenous studies have examined as the
indigenisation of settlers. Theories of settler colonisation will remain incomplete if they do not investigate how this political and
economic formation is constituted by gendered and sexual power. Addressing this demand, contributors to this
collection critically and creatively engage knowledges generated among colonised indigenous peoples who resist settler rule. In doing so they
displace the epistemic frame of settlers and enhance theory of the relationality of indigenous and settler subjects in colonial situations.
Contributors argue that to centre the knowledges of the colonised does not posit that the colonised think uniformly or never become complicit
with or co-responsible in colonial rule. Indeed, if
we understand heteropatriarchy on stolen land to be a settler-
colonial project, then arenas for conforming to settler rule will extend beyond those typically marked by
anti-colonialism and will foreground gendered and sexual spaces. Nevertheless, the contributors share an intention to
enhance indigenous peoples’ capacity for liberation by opening the societies established by ‘invaders/settlers’ (in Brendan Hokowhitu’s
formulation) to radical change. This intention is enhanced by the collection’s array of cases theorising Palestinians under Israeli occupation
alongside Māori in New Zealand, and Creek, Ho-Chunk, and many more indigenous nations and alliances in the United States and Canada. The
essays advance knowledge of settler colonialism and indigenous resistance by examining these disparate national contexts nearby, or at times
through explicit comparison. Settler colonial studies, indigenous studies, Palestinian, Arab, and Middle East studies, and all related fields can learn
how settler colonialisms may be theorised comparatively and interdependently, and how gender and sexuality immediately inform efforts to
comprehend and challenge settler-colonial power.
FW- Set Col 1st
Our scholarship must center settler colonialism as it determines the formation of modern
sexuality and queer power relations
Morgensen 10 [Scott Lauria Morgensen, Associate Professor in Gender Studies and the Graduate
Program in Cultural Studies in Queen’s University, “Settler Homonationalism: Theorizing Settler
Colonialism within Queer Modernities”]sg

Queer studies must center settler colonialism and processes of settlement in order to pursue these directions in
scholarship. Settler colonialism appears in the relational of colonial and modern sexual regimes; in narratives of sexuality
and gender based on Native absence and disappearance, despite evidence of Native survival and resistance; and in the
normative formation of settler sexual subjects, cultures, and politics. I argue that queer accounts of settler colonialism will be
supported by studying the colonial biopolitics of modern sexuality. The frame of colonial biopolitics makes the discursive and
institutional relationality of Native and settler subject positions relevant to any account of modern sexuality in
the United States. While such accounts have tended to exclude Native people, biopolitics marks erasure as
meaningful to narrating settlement, even as that move can be investigated for evidence of the irruption of
Native people amid stories of their demise. The frame of colonial biopolitics will also mark how the power relations
structuring "Native" and "settler" articulate diverse people, cultures, and politics across differences of race, nation, class,
disability, gender, and sexuality that exceed these two terms and their opposition. Yet the normativity of the terms within colonial
biopolitics will still inform every U.S. formation of modern sexuality. Studying their relationality can recall that the locations
they define for Native people always are exceeded by the discrepant histories and epistemologies of Native people's interdependent and
resistant lives. In turn, the term non-Native can help mark how subjects outside Native communities incompletely fit the term settler —whether
excluded from it categorically or asked to pass through or appeal to it —as they negotiate varied non-Native lives in a settler society. Differences
among non-Native people of color, or between them and white people, thus will not be erased by marking their shared inheritance of settler
colonialism; indeed, doing so will mark those differences, even as their distinctive relationships to settler colonialism and its naturalization
become relevant to study.52 In the process, analyzing the
colonial biopolitics of modern sexuality will focus queer
studies on the work of denaturalizing settlement. I mean here not just that settler colonialism will be marked as a condition of
all modern sexual power in the United States [End Page 120] but also that the meaningfulness of its naturalization will become a major area of
study. We
need many more, and more detailed accounts of the subjects, institutions, and power relations that form
whenever settler colonialism is naturalized within modern queer projects in the United States.
AT: Perm
This debate is a question of starting points – the permutation obscures the histories of
settler colonialism as it footnotes the study of Indigenous history which only stabilizes
settler subjectivity and maintains the status quo
Morgensen 10 [Scott Lauria Morgensen, Associate Professor in Gender Studies and the Graduate
Program in Cultural Studies in Queen’s University, “Settler Homonationalism: Theorizing Settler
Colonialism within Queer Modernities”]sg
Denaturalizing settler colonialism will mark it as not a fait accompli but a process open to change. While settlement suggests the appropriation of
land, that history was never fixed: even the violence of allotment failed to erase collective Native land claims, just as land expropriation is being
countered by tribal governments reacquiring sovereign land. In turn, as Thomas King and Paul Carter suggest, settlement narrates the land, and,
as storytelling, it remains open to debate, [End Page 122] such as in Native activisms that sustain Indigenous narratives of land or tell new stories
to denaturalize settler landscapes.56 The processes of settler colonialism produce contradictions, as settlers try to
contain or erase Native difference in order that they may inhabit Native land as if it were their own. Doing so
produces the contortions described by Deloria, as settler subjects argue that Native people or their land claims never existed,
no longer exist, or if they do are trumped by the priority of settler claims. Yet at the same time settler subjects study Native
history so that they may absorb it as their own and legitimate their place on stolen land.57 These contradictions are
informed by the knowledge, constantly displaced, of the genocidal histories of occupation. Working to stabilize settler subjectivity
produces the bizarre result of people admitting to histories of terrorizing violence while basing their
moral systems on continuing to benefit from them. The difference between conservative and liberal positions on settlement
often breaks between whether non-Natives feel morally justified or conscionably implicated in a society based on violence. But while the first
position embraces the status quo, the second does nothing necessarily to change it. As Smith pointedly argues, "It
is a consistent
practice among progressives to bemoan the genocide of Native peoples, but in the interest of political
expediency, implicitly sanction it by refusing to question the illegitimacy of the settler nation responsible
for this genocide."58 In writing with Kehaulani Kauanui, Smith argues that this complicity continues, as progressives have critiqued the
seeming erosion of civil liberties and democracy under the Bush regime. How is this critique affected if we understand the Bush regime not as the
erosion of U.S. democracy but as its fulfillment? If we understand American democracy as predicated on the genocide of indigenous people? . . .
Even scholars critical of the nation-state often tend to presume that the United States will always exist,
and thus they overlook indigenous feminist articulations of alternative forms of governance beyond the United
States in particular and the nation-state in general.59 Smith and Kauanui remind us here that Indigenous feminists crucially theorize life beyond
settler colonialism, including by fostering terms for national community that exceed the heteropatriarchal nation-state form.60 Non-Natives who
seek accountable alliance with Native people may align themselves with these stakes if they wish to commit to denaturalizing settler colonialism.
But as noted, their more frequent effort to stabilize their identities follows less from a belief that settlement is natural than from a compulsion to
foreclose the Pandora's box of contradictions [End Page 123] they know will open by calling it into question. In U.S. queer politics, this includes
the implications of my essay: queers will invoke and repeat the terrorizing histories of settler colonialism if these
remain obscured behind normatively white and national desires for Native roots and settler citizenship. A first
step for non-Native queers thus can be to examine critically and challenge how settler colonialism conditions
their lives, as a step toward imagining new and decolonial sexual subjectivities, cultures, and politics. This
work can be inspired by historical coalition politics formed by queers of color in accountable relationship to Native queer activists. Yet this work
invites even more forms, particularly when Native queers choose to organize apart. White queers challenging racism and colonialism can join
queers of color to create new queer politics marked explicitly as non-Native, in that they will form by answering Native queer critiques. As part of
that work, non-Native queers can study the colonial histories they differently yet mutually inherit, and can trouble the colonial institutions in
which they have sought their freedom, as steps toward shifting non-Native queer politics in decolonizing directions.
**Nomadism Neg**
State Key
Doublebind – either the nomad will settle at some point, which is empirically prove, thus making the aff a
double turn OR the nomadic population will be deemed as a threat by the state and they will be hunted
down no matter how much they ‘move’
Engebrigtsen 17—(Ada Engenbrigtsen, member of the department of Norwegian Social Research, 2017, Key figure of mobility: the

Nomads have, as long as we know, represented a threat and a source of wonder to settled populations
(Peters 2006; Cresswell 1997). There is no clear, precise definition of nomads, but the term is generally used for
pastoralists and people who depend on mobility for their livelihood and shift dwelling places according to
their movements; people without fixed settlement (Keesing 1975). But the boundaries between sedentarism
and nomadism are not neat. Some form of mobility has always been a part of settled life, and seasonal
settlement is part of the mobility patterns for most peoples termed nomadic (Glick Schiller and Salazar 2013;
Kabachnik 2012; Favell 2001; Piasere 1992; Keesing 1975). Wars and conflicts have scattered people over vast territories. Peasants and fishers
have been dependent on spatial mobility for their economic activities. Wandering merchants, expatriate experts, preachers, beggars, migrants,
tourists and other drifters have always been part of the lives of settled populations (Cresswell 1997; Kabachnik 2012). The
between mobility and stasis, in terms of freedom and security, and the fantasies of an independent, free-
floating existence, have perhaps always been part of European settled populations’ understanding of
themselves (Peters 2006) and the ‘other’. The figure of the nomad as the embodiment of freedom and
irresponsibility and a challenge to the order of things is thus deeply embedded in European
understandings of mobility and stasis. The threatening image of mobile peoples as destroyers of order
and progress is as old as the romantic fantasies. In Europe, Gypsies and vagabonds are the most
prominent representatives of ‘wandering threats’ who have been treated like kings and pilgrims and as
criminals and outcasts by shifting political regimes (Kabachnik 2012; Vitale 2009; Fraser 1995; Deleuze and Guattari 1986).
Although seldom nomads in the pastoral sense and even after having been settled for long periods, people called ‘Gypsies’ have been regarded
as nomadic and have been subject to forced settlement and persecution by governments (Vitale 2009; Achim 2004; Noyes 2000; Fraser 1995;
Deleuze and Guattari 1986), which gained force during modernity and nation-building processes. This nomadic figure is consequently a trope
used to frame life-worlds that do not fit into European concepts of territory and the nation-state; a form of othering or framing of the other.
Such assumptions echo descriptions by colonial observers of ‘natives’ and mobile people in most parts of
the world (Noyes 2000; Cresswell 1997). These cases illustrate how the connection between a specific mode of
production and a mental state – ‘the relationship between subjectivity and landscape’ (Noyes 2000: 48) – is
not an invention of post-modernity. As Peters notes: ‘The concept of nomadism, in short, was born
metaphorical’ (2006: 151). However, as several researchers show, nomadic adaptations and settlement, mobility and
stability have also formed parts of authorities’ political strategies in different periods and places (Noyes 2000;
Urry 2000; Glick Schiller and Salazar 2013). From the 14th to the late 19th century, parts of the enslaved Gypsy population in Romania were
nomadic; more or less forced to travel in groups, without fixed settlements, and served the inhabitants of their owners’ territories as artisans and
workers (Achim 2004; Fraser 1995). Forced
settlement of nomadic people all over the world was, however,
intensified and systematised in the 19th and 20th centuries. They were connected to industrialisation and
labour demands, to nation-building and the idea of the relationship between the soil and the person, and
to modernisation with authorities’ increased interest in the control of populations. The resistance to the
concentration of power is what makes stateless society a threat to state control and incorporation. The
political philosophy of Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari (1986) uses Clastres’s work as its point of
departure, founding ideas that are crucial to the development of the post-modern figure of the nomad.
Deleuze and Guattari’s ‘Nomad’ stands for the stateless subject and habitus that Clastres discussed. They
developed their philosophy on the idea of difference as the shattering of classification. They argue that
classification is the controlling force at the basis of hegemony and sovereignty. Instead of overcoming
differences by generalising them and rendering them subjected to control, Deleuze and Guattari develop
a notion of difference that one must embrace and acknowledge as the possibility for transformation.
They thus reject dialectics that see the negative as the power of change and instead install difference as a
negative/positive force that always has an element of what it differs from (Kristeva 1982). By rejecting
and shattering classification, difference also rejects incorporation into ‘common ground’ and thus evades
being made the object of a discourse that forces one to seek agreement or consensus. Thus, difference is
fluid, it dissolves the notion of the ‘centre’ by changing and being unpredictable.

Nomadism is abstracted from the true suffering of refugees and is a higher form of Ivory
Tower theory
Engebrigtsen 17—(Ada Engenbrigtsen, member of the department of Norwegian Social Research, 2017, Key figure of mobility: the

With the re-instalment of ‘imperial powers’ in Europe in terms of globalisation and the so-called free
movement of resources across boundaries, the post-modern development of the nomadic figure
advanced as a new leading paradigm. Although fantasies of mobility and nomadism always seem to have
been present in sedentary populations in Europe (Noyes 2000; Cresswell 1997), the idea of movement and
mobility became in many fields a leading metaphor and antithesis to the boundary keeping, classification
and identity-obsessed, and unifying ideology of the modern era. Thus mobility as a liberating way of being
and the nomad as a liberating figure and an agent of change fit hand in glove with the new political
ideology of globalisation in the West. The notion of sedentary metaphysics (Malkki 1992) is an expression of
this necessity to see beyond the blind spot of sedentarism in anthropology. The nomad became a figure
that condensed the feelings and thinking of the era, and thus a hero of post-modernity among European
and US intellectuals (Peters 2006). Fredrik Barth’s 21st-century recollections of his 20th-century fieldwork may be an expression of this
Zeitgeist of nomadism as freedom. However, this popular nomadic figure is not subversive to the new era of state-
instigated globalisation, which it embraces, but rather to the old era of modernity with the nation-state as
static power. Social scientists have pointed to the mismatch between the idealised idea of mobility and
the nomadic figure, and the actual regimes of mobility and settlement that both forced populations to
move and restricted the movements of others (see, for example, Glick Schiller and Salazar 2013; Salazar and Smart 2011; Noyes
2004; Favell 2001; Cresswell 1997). Others have discussed the ethnographic mismatch between conditions and
political organisations of living nomads and the figure of the de-territorialised free, modern nomad
(Kabachnik 2012; Cresswell 1997). Migration researchers have pointed out that most of the labour and refugee mobility of our time is the
outcome of unequal power relations and not at all a result of rebellious nomads attacking the walls of ‘the polis’ (Büscher 2014). Moreover,
it is worth adding that mobile subjects, as for instance refugees, are actually seeking a livelihood
protected by a state apparatus, are happy to, and seek to, be incorporated into that state. Those refused
as illegal migrants may, however, have no other choice than to join the hordes of vagabonds outside state
control (Papadopoulos and Tsianos 2007). Critics have also pointed to the severe restriction on mobility of unwanted categories of people such
as the mobile poor populations in Europe and elsewhere (Engebrigtsen et al. 2014; Glick Schiller and Salazar 2013; Noyes 2004; Vitale 2009;
Cunningham and Heyman 2004). Just like nomads and mobile groups in all times, they are seen as threats to state
stability today (Miller 1993 in Bogue 2010). As John Noyes has noted, one of the problems of the concept of the nomad
today lies with the dual productivity of mobile subjects: ‘mobility casts subjectivity between the ideal
freedom of the disembodied wanderer and the brute reality of the refugee’ (2004: 160). Noyes’s point seems to be
that the nomad as an analytical concept is too far removed from the reality of empirical nomads to be
analytically valid. However, the figure of the nomad is not without ethnographic grounding. Deleuze and
Guattari indeed built their nomadology on historiography, myth and ethnographic knowledge. So, the
question we need to ask with John Noyes is: ‘How do we take the conceptual model of a lifestyle, a socio-
economic regime, a mode of production, such as nomadism, as a model for critical thought?’ (2004: 164). In
other words, how closely must the figure of the nomad and the concept of nomadology represent an ethnographic reality in order to have
analytical power? The
critique of romanticising nomadism is closely connected to the critique of the lack of
correspondence between living nomad populations and figurative nomads. In Nomadology, Deleuze and
Guattari (1986: 15–17) write that one of the problems they see in Clastres’s discussion in Society against the
state (1977) is that he misinterprets the formal exteriority of ‘primitive’/nomadic peoples from the state
into a real independence. A similar misinterpretation is also the basis of much of the critique of the
romanticising of nomadic life and of the figure of the nomad and nomadology

Empirically, nomads in the exact context of the affirmative has had to use the state in order to actually
succeed in their ultimate ventures of never being pinned down. Double-bind either the affirmative must
use the state and they link to their own offense OR they don’t adhere to those standards and they have no
substantiated solvency and perceived as war machines by the state, thereby a threat to be eliminated
Engebrigtsen 17—(Ada Engenbrigtsen, member of the department of Norwegian Social Research, 2017, Key figure of mobility: the

However, Deleuze and Guattari never claimed that the nomad is free. It is precisely because she is
exterior and dependent on the state apparatus that she represents a war machine against the state; or in
other words a figure for critical thought. Deleuze and Guattari’s Nomad is the subject that, in line with
Michel de Certeau’s (1984) ‘tactical pedestrian’, ‘resides on the territory of the other, and always is
subject of the law of the other’ (1984: 37), but without subsuming to its power. The figurative nomad is not
defined by travel of physical movement, but in Braidotti’s words ‘by the subversion of conventions’ (1994:
5). Being a war machine means being an agent of change by challenging the conceptual ‘walls of the
polis’, the concepts and classifications that state power rests on and must preserve. Deleuze and
Guattari’s nomad is neither good nor bad, neither free nor bonded, she is both; a destructor of perfect
order. She can be seen both in the gangs of street children in Bogotá, in the offshore economies
described by John Urry (2014), in mobile and stateless jihad warriors and in peaceful nomadic groups
evading incorporation in states (Scott 2009). The conceptual gap between the figure of the nomad,
mobility, the ethnographic reality of living nomads and mobile people can best be bridged by thorough
anthropological work. In the following, I will discuss the relationship between the figure of the nomad as
it is developed in nomadology, with two cases of mobile people. My claim is that nomadology and the
figure of the nomad can enlighten our understanding of mobile people and their relations to the state
apparatus. The authorities see the Roma as a backward, conservative group that does not know what is best
for them. Seeing them as Deleuze and Guattari’s Nomads, however, opens up other interpretations; they are
struggling to keep the mental sanctuary they have developed through the centuries, in spite of
malevolent and controlling states. They are waging a silent but insistent war against state control by
consenting to it verbally and defying it in praxis. The Roma agree that wage labour is a good thing and
that they really want it, but as they are illiterate, they are not eligible. As their real earnings are by more
or less ‘shady’ business ventures, they generally do not pay taxes. To evade taxation on their earnings,
they register as unemployed and most adults are thus on social welfare. They speak Norwegian, but they speak it
broken, although most adults can speak it without an accent. They arrived in Norway as Catholics, then converted to Pentecostalism and have
now a separate Pentecostal community in Norway. They send their children to school, but only sporadically, and find reasons to take them out as
much as possible. Their
ongoing internal conflicts over respect, morality and influence make any centralised
institutions of power impossible. They only sporadically have any permanent relations with Norwegians,
and as most children only occasionally go to school, this segregation is perpetuated. They are
economically dependent on Norwegian society, but from a ‘nomadic’ perspective, they struggle to
maintain political, social and mental independence. It is important here to note that parts of the Roma
population in Norway are poor and are living a life in some sense at the fringes of society, but they are
still insisting on their autonomy, language and way of life as better than that of the non-Roma. This
complex amalgamation of consent and avoidance, of adaptation and resistance, of dependency and
autonomy is what makes these Roma difficult to control: their psychological remoteness, not their
physical remoteness. They see themselves as free from state control and consciously guard what they see
as their freedom. In Deleuze and Guattari’s (1986) sense, this is ‘the battle’ between the nomad and the polis, and in de Certeau’s (1984)
sense between the strategies of ‘the powerful’ and the evading tactics of ‘the powerless’ (see also Vergunst 2017, this issue). Thus the living
and struggling Roma in this case present themselves in much the same romantic image as the criticised
image of the nomad; they see movement as freedom from state power, see education and wage labour
as threats to what they see as their freedom. Applying nomadology to analyse their relations to state
authorities further illuminates their position as war machine; not by waging a war, but by subtle actions
of evasion and resistance woven into their habitus and way of life. Being a living nomad means struggling
to evade extinction or territorialisation, ‘by playing along and exploiting the cracks in the enemies’ armour’
(de Certeau 1984: 37). Deleuze and Guattari’s concepts of the nomad and the state are thus salient for the
anthropological interpretation of the social, political and cultural relationships between the Norwegian
Roma and the state.

Although nomadism may be useful in opening up new spaces of thought and understanding, it is always
either on the brink or is incorporated with state science and statist knowledge which independently internal
link turns their understanding of self and identity
Engebrigtsen 17—(Ada Engenbrigtsen, member of the department of Norwegian Social Research, 2017, Key figure of mobility: the

So what about other mobile groups, such as migrants? Can nomadology shed light on their situation?
Deleuze and Guattari claim that migrants are not nomads in their sense, because they move between
places and stay; they move in order to be re-territorialised. Contrary to Deleuze and Guattari, but inspired
by their nomadology, Dimitris Papadopoulos and Vassillis Tsianos illustrate how the figure of the nomad can illuminate the fate of
illegal/undocumented migrants who actually never arrive to stay. In ‘The autonomy of migration: the animals of undocumented mobility’ (2007),
they write about the increasing flows of undocumented mobility as a ‘Deleuzian force’. Not
being documented, defined and
individualised, and by being more or less forced to endless becoming, they represent the nomadic war
against sovereign control. The claim is that by perpetually changing identity and shape, by force, necessity
and/or will, illegal migrants escape control by becoming ‘nobody’, imperceptible. Papadopoulos and Tsianos give
the example of one of the interviewees they met in a refugee camp in northern Greece. He was Chinese by birth and on his way to France. On his
route, he was forced to stay in Romania where he married and received a residence permit. He then applied for an EU visa, and was first rejected,
but later got a 3-month work permit and travelled to Paris where he overstayed his visa by over 12 months. He was caught and sent back to
Romania. There he changed identity and gender, married again, now as a woman, and applied again for an EU visa. She travelled to Paris again,
changed identity again, married once more and finally got a residency permit. The researchers later received a letter from her from Canada.
Their other examples are refugees in Calais burning their identity documents and becoming ‘no-one or
everyone = imperceptible’. Given animal nicknames such as ‘coyotes’ (USA/Mexican border),
‘snakeheads’ (China), ‘sharks’ (by British sailors), ‘ravens’ (Greek/Albanian border) and ‘sheep’ (Turkey),
the traffickers/guides across national borders signify the de-humanisation of the undocumented migrant
(Papadopoulos and Tsianos 2007). The authors underline that their intention with the paper is to counteract what
they call ‘the discourse of migration as a humanitarian scandal or as a deviation from the evolutionist
human rights doctrine of western modernity, that also supply both the humanitarian discourses and the
xenophobic and racist politics of forced repatriation’ (Papadopoulos and Tsianos 2007: 6). Instead, they employ a
nomadic perspective to ‘approach migration as a constitutive moment of the current social
transformation, a moment which is primarily sustained by cooperation, solidarity, the usage of broad
networks and resources, shared knowledge, collective anticipation’ (Papadopoulos and Tsianos 2007: 6) Considering the
European origins of territory and its relationship with the modern nation-state (Elden 2014), and how these conceptualisations feed the
‘methodological nationalism’ (Wimmer and Glick Schiller 2003) still inherent in many studies of mobile people, the
alternative European
figure of the nomad creates space for different understandings of identity, movement and stasis, thus
providing perhaps the best foil to our own conceptual limitations. However, the figure of the nomad, as a
conceptual tool, does require careful ethnography to function as more than a superficial trope. Careful
ethnographic attention allows us to complicate a reductionist notion of the nomadic figure by illustrating
the relevance of mobile people’s life-worlds as challenges to state and territory-centred understandings
of humanity. Braidotti’s (1994) subversive analysis of gender relations, based on the celebration of difference as a means
to destroy hierarchical classification, the strategic situation of the Norwegian Roma as a ‘war machine’
against incorporation by the Norwegian state, and Papadopoulos and Tsianos’s (2007) ‘animals’ of illicit
migration, are only three examples of the analytical fruitfulness of nomadology and the figure of the
nomad as analytical concepts. Seeing this development as a turn towards state science questions
science’s ability to serve as a critical ‘force’ against the individualising, unifying and preserving forces of
public administration. This is especially the case in what is known as ‘migration research’. I see the concepts of
the migrant and of migration as products of state science. These concepts are based on a specific political view of the
world where nation-states make up the foundational ethos. In general, migration means movement
between nation-states. Of course, the concept also implies internal migration, but in this era of
globalisation it is transnational migration that is in focus. The concept thus presupposes that the nation-
state, its borders and thus control of it, is the frame of reference. This frame further implies the
preoccupation with crisis, with difference and labelling, with legality, with control and documentation; it
presupposes ideas of ‘them and us’, and questions about this relationship (Lithman 2004; Favell 2001; Audebert and
Doraï 2010). In migration politics, as in migration studies, integration becomes the key concept to understand
this relationship, together with concepts of identity, racism, ethnicity, discrimination, etc. Integration in
this epistemology means one-way incorporation into the core; the nation-state and its values. When the
social sciences are enmeshed in the interests and concerns of the political-administrative system, as they
are for instance in Norway, researchers are more or less driven into accepting the premises, definitions
and concepts handed down to them through this dependency. This has led to waves of similar analyses of
ethnic minorities and their ways into majority society, in integration studies and studies of different
aspects of otherness. While some illuminating research has been published inside this epistemology, the
majority only feeds into political demands without contesting them. The article on forced migration and
exile in this issue (Hackl 2017) argues for transgressing the idea of exile as bound up in territorial
displacement and suggests instead seeing the exile as ‘a certain interplay of power and identity in space
and over time’. In contrast, movement analysed from a nomadic and mobility-centred perspective, as
developed by Urry (2000), Deleuze and Guattari and others, can illuminate the relationship between state and nomadic
science, between mobility and stasis as power relations in Deleuze and Guattari’s sense. Nomadic
perspectives stand for continued wonderment of social phenomena that take social, inductive processes
as their point of departure. Based on ethnographic exploration of nomads and on nomadic life, the
nomad as figure may both enrich and explore our understanding and analysis of the social world. Not by
any romantic vision of freedom and independence, but by making visible and insisting on the subversive
possibilities of social life and science. In this vein, I see the concept of mobility as a nomadic tool that has
opened up new fields of inquiry and new perspectives on today’s social world. However, as with nomadic
forces, the concept of mobility stands in a perpetual interdependency with state science and is always on
the verge of being incorporated. In order to keep their character of becoming, mobility studies should be
inspired by nomadic science by developing its critical potential as a multi-layered, vague and indefinitely
becoming concept.
**Baudrillard Neg**
Is Racist
**Most of these are specific to settlerism**
Baudrillard and Bataille’s criticizing of the modern is inherently tied to otherization. The
notion of symbolic exchange structurally tied to a productivist myth that will force native
life into the shape of being a ‘savage’ – this independently turns their critique of

Li 6—(Victor Li, teaches courses in contemporary and postcolonial literature and theory in both the English Department and the Centre for
Comparative Literature at the University of Toronto, University of Toronto Press 2006, The Neo-Primitivist Turn: Critical Reflections on Alterity,
Culture, and Modernity)//CWD

The title of this section alludes to Jean-François Lyotard’s The Postmodern Condition in order to make the point that the so-called
postmodern critique of the modern relies heavily on the concept of the premodern or primitive. Tomoko
Masuzawa, in her deconstructive reading of the quest for the origin of religion, uneasily observes: ‘[W]e wonder ... as to the meaning of the
curious appendage post-. Is this an extension – some kind of an afterlife, perhaps, of what it qualifies (structuralist, modern, industrial)? Or does it
indicate a reversal of some sort, an atavistic return of what once was ... a return of the pre-? These are nervous questions ...’1 Masuzawa is
understandably nervous because her questions raise the possibility that the postmodern is not only still attached to what it seeks to supersede
but that it may in fact be strangely complicit with the premodern. As I hope to show, such a preposterous convolution of the pre- and the post-
exists in the work of Jean Baudrillard and Jean-François Lyotard, both of whom, though usually described as
postmodern theo- rists, may equally be seen as neo-primitivists. Where primitivism attempted directly to know,
appropriate, or incor- porate the primitive Other to serve its own (Western) ends, Baudrillard’s and Lyotard’s neo-primitivism
sees the primitive Other as that radical alterity which, by resisting universalizing Western metanarratives,
allows us to escape from what Baudrillard calls ‘the hell of the Same.’2 But the primitive Other’s resistance
also functions as a redemptive power that delivers the modern West from its own will to universality. At
once resistant alterity and redemptive force, the primitive Other has little choice or say in how it is positioned and used in neo-primitivist dis-
courses. Though critical of primitivism, neo-primitivism is, therefore, in the final analysis, similar to its predecessor in that its anti-ethnocentric
relativism reintroduces a subtler theoretical recuperation of the primi- tive. We see a clear example of this critical yet redemptive logic in Claude
Lévi-Strauss’s belief that in our encounter with primitive societies lies ‘the possibility, vital for life, of unhitching’ from our own.3 Lévi-Strauss’s
assertion that ‘we have a duty to free ourselves’4 from our society in order to achieve self-renewal is echoed in the following statement by
Lyotard: ‘The
real political task today, at least in so far as it is also concerned with the cultural ... is to carry
forward the resistance ... to established thought, to what has already been done, to what everyone
thinks, to what is well known, to what is widely recognized.’5 The break with established thought
advocated in Lyotard’s avant-gardist declara- tion finds one of its exemplifications in the challenge posed
to the modern West’s grand narratives of legitimation by the narrative pragmat- ics of a ‘savage’ society
such as that of Lyotard’s favourite Cashinahua (who pop up in The Postmodern Condition, Just Gaming, ‘Missive on Univer- sal History,’ and The
Differend).6 Similarly, Baudrillard’s
aphorism – ‘The Other is what allows me not to repeat myself for ever’7 –
puts as much weight on the challenge posed by radical alterity (the primitive Other) as on its role in
rescuing and renewing the creativity of the modern or postmodern subject. Baudrillard has claimed that
he has ‘nothing to do with postmodern- ism.’8 We should not take this statement as a flat denial or as
self- mockery, but see in it an example of Baudrillardian reversibility in which to understand the
postmodern is to re-address the premodern. Baudril- lard’s point, argued most clearly in The Mirror of
Production and Symbolic Exchange and Death,9 is that the West, since at least the Enlightenment, has
instituted societies based on the twin myths of production and semiology – that is, respectively, a political
economy that privileges an instrumental-rational view of labour, utility, and exchange value, and a
political economy of the sign based on an abstract structural-linguistic code. The myth of production
governed modern industrial society while the myth of semiology has given rise to our postmodern, post-
industrial culture of signs and simulacra. But these societies or cultures are made possible, according to
Baudrillard, only through the denial or repression of a radical and primordial principle he calls ‘symbolic
exchange,’ a principle he finds at work in primitive societies. Drawing on Marcel Mauss’s work on the social relations of the
gift, 48 The Neo-primitivist Turn Georges Bataille’s writings on expenditure and la part maudite, and Marshall
Sahlins’s substantivist economic anthropology, which challenges the orthodox economic axioms of
scarcity, need, and accumulation, Baudrillard argues that the symbolic exchange of primitive societies is
opposed to the productivist myth in so far as it bypasses material wealth, economic calculation, and
accumulation in favour of ‘symbolic wealth which, mocking natural necessity, comes conversely from
destruction, the deconstruction of value, transgression, or discharge.’10 Symbolic exchange is ‘based on
non-production, eventual destruction, and a process of continuous unlimited reciprocity between
persons.’11 In other words, in contrast to the productivist model, whose economic rationality presupposes the
threat of scarcity and the necessity of material accumu- lation, the symbolic exchange of primitive
societies, which privileges social reciprocity, obligation, and the ritual affirmation of community, requires
‘the consumption of the “surplus” and deliberate anti-produc- tion whenever accumulation (the thing not
exchanged, taken and not returned, earned and not wasted, produced and not destroyed) risks breaking
the reciprocity and begins to generate power.’12 Foregrounding the reciprocal, even antagonistic, relationship
between individuals in primitive symbolic exchange, Baudrillard pits its concrete, personal, and
immediate qualities against that other myth of modern or postmodern society, namely, semiology or the
political economy of the sign with its abstract structural code established on equivalence and
substitutability. The gift that is central to symbolic exchange is totally opposed to the sign’s
decontextualized abstraction and reproductivity. As Charles Levin points out: The gift is, in its purest form ...
something unique and irreplaceable, which cannot be substituted because it has no equivalent. It is
something whose very existence symbolizes the interaction which it occasions, and which likewise could
not have come into existence without the interaction ... The gift is not a sign because it cannot be
separated from its context, and transferred to any other: it simply embodies its own meaning, which is
nothing other than the way the bodies of the giver and receiver have come to exist in relation to each
other.13 The concrete reciprocity embodied in the gift takes on greater impor- tance for Baudrillard as the semiotic order becomes increasingly
simulacral in contemporary Western society with signs breaking free from their referents and becoming free-standing and self-reproducing.
Alterity: Baudrillard, Lyotard, Torgovnick 49 The centrality of symbolic exchange to Baudrillard’s
thought has been noted by
commentators such as Gary Genosko, for example, who sees symbolic exchange as initiating a ‘revolutionary
anthropology’ that seeks ‘to destroy the prevailing semiocracy.’14 Similarly, Douglas Kellner states that symbolic
exchange ‘emerges as Baudrillard’s “revolutionary” alter- native to the values and practices of capitalist
society,’15 and Julian Pefanis points out that it ‘operates as [Baudrillard’s] meta-position in the critique of political
economy and its contemporary avatar, semio- linguistics.’16 The critical standpoint provided by symbolic
exchange can be subjected, however, to a certain ironic reversal that might amuse Baudrillard but blunts
the force of his critique of Western thought. For while the principle of symbolic exchange allows
Baudrillard to critique both bourgeois and Marxist theories of social and economic organiza- tion for their
universalizing tendency, their ‘retrospective finality’17 that incorporates and assimilates the difference of
earlier societies into their own ethnocentric and teleological paradigms, symbolic exchange, as a concept,
can only function on the condition that it idealize primitive society as a positive antithesis to the West.
Such a move replicates, albeit in a different register, the primitivism and ethnocentrism that Baudrillard accuses a Marxist anthropologist like
Maurice Godelier of practising. Baudrillard
charges Godelier with inscribing primitive society in ‘the same
discourse as ours: with the same code. It means looking at primitive society from the wrong end.’18 But if
Baudrillard’s critique of Marxist anthropology is, on one level, anti-primitivist in that it seeks to correct a
certain ‘blindness about primitive societies,’19 on another level it is neo- primitivist in that it reinscribes
an all-too-familiar binary model of a debased modern West and an idealized primitive Other.

Baudrillard’s notions of radical alterity and methods of engagement that seek to dismantle
what we perceive as the modern are uniquely connected to racist perceptions of savagery,
otherization and the libidinal economy of hatred

Li 6—(Victor Li, teaches courses in contemporary and postcolonial literature and theory in both the English Department and the Centre for
Comparative Literature at the University of Toronto, University of Toronto Press 2006, The Neo-Primitivist Turn: Critical Reflections on Alterity,
Culture, and Modernity)//CWD

Among the first to point out the presence of this ironic reversal in Baudrillard’s theory of symbolic exchange was Jean-François Lyotard. In Libidinal Economy, Lyotard
argues that Baudrillard falls into the trap of primitivism by appropriating the primitive Other as a lost referent
or elusive alibi for his own theoretical disillusionment with Western moder- nity. ‘How is it,’ Lyotard asks,
‘that he [Baudrillard] does not see that the whole problematic of the gift, of symbolic exchange, such as
he receives it from Mauss ... belongs in its entirety to Western racism and imperial- ism – that it is still
ethnology’s good savage, slightly libidinalized, which he inherits with the concept?’20 Baudrillard’s
appropriation of the primi- tive Other as radical critique of and alternative to Western theory be- comes
for Lyotard merely the reintroduction of the Western primitivist fantasy of escaping to a ‘non-alienated
region.’21 To Lyotard, Baudrillard’s 50 The Neo-primitivist Turn critique of Western modernity ends up confirming
one of its long- standing desires – the desire to escape its own limits for a forgotten truth. Baudrillard’s
primitive ‘non-alienated region’ belongs to a utopian genre of writing that is generally careless when it
comes to verifying or documenting ethnographic details. This is a criticism that the anthro- pologist Robert Hefner has made of
Baudrillard’s The Mirror of Produc- tion. Hefner argues that although Baudrillard is quite right to insist that non-economic social

relations based on reciprocity, kinship, and ritual are embedded in primitive exchange, he is wrong in
ruling that the economic values of use and need are totally unheeded in primitive society. Thus, in
response to Baudrillard’s claim that to the primitives ‘survival is not a principle’ and that for them ‘eating,
drinking, and living are first of all acts that are exchanged, [and] if they are not exchanged do not
occur,’22 Hefner points out that not only is Baudrillard indulging in a ‘rather cavalier generalization’ that
would ‘leave most anthropolo- gists perplexed if not dumbfounded,’ but that survival is not a principle
would come as a surprise to ‘the starving Tikopia of Polynesia, who increasingly restricted the breadth of
their social exchange outside mini- mal kin units in the face of an island-wide famine.’23 In short, Hefner argues, not
only is Baudrillard unconcerned about ‘ethnographic par- ticulars,’ but his ‘romanticized’ image of symbolic

exchange though presenting ‘a perhaps admirable notion of reciprocity ... [is] one that never operated
anywhere simply for the sake of its own poetry.’2 Though Hefner’s criticisms of Baudrillard’s romanticized
anthropol- ogy and neglect of ethnographic particulars are cogent, they do not engage directly with the
larger theoretical project of Baudrillard’s work. Baudrillard is in fact not really interested in ethnographic
details be- cause for him ethnographic knowledge is part of the universalizing thrust of Western thought.
As he puts it sarcastically in a critique of Lévi- Strauss’s structuralist epistemology: This is the extreme of liberal thought and the most beautiful way of preserv- ing the
initiative and priority of Western thought within ‘dialogue’ and under the sign of universality of the human mind (as always for Enlighten- ment anthropology) ... This
harmonious vision of two thought processes renders their confrontation perfectly inoffensive, by denying the difference of the primitives as an element of rupture
with and subversion of (our) ‘objec- tified thought and its mechanisms.’25 In later works such as The Transparency of Evil and The Perfect Crime, Baudrillard’s

view of primitive difference as a rupture with Western thought develops into a full-fledged valorization of
a radical otherness that resolutely resists ethnographic comprehension.26 An anti-cognitive and anti-
representational stance is clearly evident in the distinction Baudrillard makes between difference, which
is dialectical and hence intelligible and recuperable as part of a single, universal order, and radical
otherness, which has to do with ‘radical incomparability,’ ‘eternal incomprehensibility,’ ‘ultimate
inscrutability,’ ‘unintelligibility,’ and ‘non-representability.’27 ‘Radical otherness,’ Baudrillard tells us, ‘is
simultaneously impossible to find and irreducible ... The worst thing here is understanding, which is
sentimental and useless. True knowl- edge is knowledge of exactly what we can never understand in the
other.’28 Advocating a form of anti-ethnography, Baudrillard recom- mends that one ‘be ignorant of how
one’s subjects live’ and respect ‘non-representability, the otherness of that which is foreign to ... self-
consciousness.’29 The problem with Baudrillard’s valorization of radical alterity is that its incomprehensibility and
incommensurability open up an absolute cognitive relativism that would not permit him to know or say anything about the

Other, about whom he has in fact quite a lot to say. The Other may resist ethnographic understanding but
Baudrillard not only knows about its resistance, he also confidently describes its feelings towards us.
Thus, about other non-Western cultures he has this to say: Outward conversion to Western ways
invariably conceals inward scoffing at Western hegemony. One is put in mind of those Dogons who made
up dreams to humour their psychoanalysts and then offered these dreams to their analysts as gifts. Once
we despised other cultures; now we respect them. They do not respect our culture, however; they feel
nothing but an immense condescension for it. We may have won the right by conquest to exploit and
subjugate these cultures, but they have offered themselves the luxury of mystifying us.30

Baudrillard uses the façade of critique to use the degrading language of savagery and relating it to
indigenous life. This is an independent reason to reject their scholarship
Li 6—(Victor Li, teaches courses in contemporary and postcolonial literature and theory in both the English Department and the Centre for
Comparative Literature at the University of Toronto, University of Toronto Press 2006, The Neo-Primitivist Turn: Critical Reflections on Alterity,
Culture, and Modernity)//CWD

Apart from the moral and factual dubiousness of Baudrillard’s argu- ment (it would be interesting to see
what contemporary South American Indians make of Baudrillard’s description of their ancestors’ ‘mass
self- immolation’), there is the epistemological question of how Baudrillard can know the intention
behind the Indians’ actions when these actions were precisely designed to preserve the secret of their
otherness. If the South American Indians were that radically Other, then how can Baudrillard so confidently know what they were up to?
The answer to this paradox lies in the realization that despite Baudrillard’s critique of Western
epistemology, he is not really con- cerned with epistemology at all. Though he may use historical and
ethnographic accounts to illustrate his theory of radical otherness, his theory does not require the actual,
living presence of the primitive Other since the Other is needed only as a discursive element of rupture, a
structural antithesis to Western thought. This is why Baudrillard is not bothered by criticism, such as
Hefner’s, that his generalizations lack ethnographic evidence, or troubled by the aporia of describing an
Other he is not supposed to know. The primitive Other functions primarily as a discursive proxy or
theoretical place-holder and the secondary question of its phenomenological or material actuality may in
fact interfere with or muddy its primary function. The real live ‘primitive’ can complicate matters with his
behaviour, whereas the discursive proxy cannot. We can now see why to Baudrillard the extinction or imminent disappearance
of the primitive Other can be turned into a theoretical advantage. The dead or disappearing Indian becomes a pure and
perfect example of the Other; through his physical death, the Indian gains theoretical immor- tality. We
have here an instance of a ‘pataphysical’ logic that Baudrillard elsewhere illustrates through the example
of Alfred Jarry’s dead cyclist who carries on cycling: ‘Rigor mortis is replaced by mobilitas mortis, and the
dead rider pedals on indefinitely, even accelerating, as a function of inertia. The energy released is
boosted by the inertia of the dead.’33 Similarly, the primitive Other’s death confers on it a greater power
to ‘destabilize Western rule.’ The dead primitive returns powerfully as a ‘phantom presence,’ its ‘viral,
spectral presence ... [infecting] the syn- apses of our [Western] brains.’34 Baudrillard’s neo-primitivism
thus ex- emplifies a bizarre logic in which the primitive dies as a presence to serve as an irreducible,
internalized idea. To be sure, Baudrillard is aware that in our time the primitive is allowed to exist only as a simulacrum, a model
constructed by the human sciences precisely to replace the vanished or vanishing original. Baudrillard argues that such a simulation of the
primitive occurred in 1971 when the government of the Philippines, on the advice of anthropologists, or- dered that a few dozen Tasaday, a
newly ‘discovered’ and allegedly ‘stone age’ tribe, be cordoned off in their remote jungle home and protected from further media and
ethnological contact and attention.35 The
eth- nologists were worried that the Tasaday would lose their primitive
inno- cence and thus lobbied that they be sealed off from further exposure to a decomposing modernity.
But this seemingly generous and self-denying gesture on the part of the scientists constitutes, for
Baudrillard, a self- serving justification of their own discipline, allowing them to render the Tasaday into
‘simulacra Indians who proclaim at last the universal truth of ethnology.’36 Baudrillard’s argument is
worth quoting at length: Science loses a precious capital, but the object will be safe – lost to science, but
intact in its ‘virginity.’ It isn’t a question of sacrifice (science never sacrifices itself: it is always murderous),
but of the simulated sacrifice of its object in order to save its reality principle. The Tasaday frozen in their
natural element, provide a perfect alibi, an eternal guarantee ... The Indian thereby driven back into the
ghetto, into the glass coffin of virgin forest, becomes the simulation model for all conceivable Indians
before ethnology. The latter thus allows itself the luxury of being incarnate beyond itself, in 54 The Neo-
primitivist Turn the ‘brute’ reality of these Indians it has entirely reinvented – Savages who are indebted to
ethnology for still being Savages: what a turn of events, what a triumph for this science which seemed
dedicated to their destruction!37

Theories of simulations are reliant upon the same ideas of natives not only being savages
but also that they are uncognible objects, such reductions of beings to fungible objects
foments mindsets of indifference and subjection towards Indigenous suffering and
experiences, their suffering must be for fronted before abstractions of totalizing theories
Li 6—(Victor Li, teaches courses in contemporary and postcolonial literature and theory in both the English Department and the Centre for
Comparative Literature at the University of Toronto, University of Toronto Press 2006, The Neo-Primitivist Turn: Critical Reflections on Alterity,
Culture, and Modernity)//CWD

Simulation can thus be seen as the strategy adopted by the ethnolo- gist, or subject of investigation, not
only to gain control and mastery over the primitive, or object of investigation, but also to dispense with
the primitive/object altogether. In the simulation model Baudrillard has sketched out, the Tasaday or
primitive/object, once cordoned off and controlled, can be entirely dispensed with since it is only their
theoreti- cal or simulated presence that is required to prove ethnology’s impor- tance as a science of the
primitive. But while this may appear to suggest that Baudrillard has deconstructed the concept of the primitive and shown it to be merely a
discursive construct or simulation of Western theory, a closer examination of his work reveals that far from abandon- ing the concept of the
primitive, he sees it as crucial and necessary to his theoretical enterprise. In fact, what Baudrillard
proposes is a simple binary
reversal in which the power of the formerly privileged ethnologist or Western subject is questioned and
replaced by the formerly disadvantaged primitive or non-Western object. What Baudrillard calls the
principle of reversibility results in the fatal revenge of the object on the subject. As he describes it, ‘The
Object and the world let themselves be surprised for an instant (a brief instant in the general cosmology)
by the subject and science, but today they are violently reasserting themselves and taking revenge ...
Such is the figure of our fatality, that of an objective turnaround, of an objective reversal of the world.’38
Though the object may appear passive, indifferent, and inert as opposed to the subject’s active will to
power and knowledge, Baudrillard points out that the object’s very indifference and passivity make it an
‘insoluble enigma,’ ‘an obstacle to all understand- ing,’ ‘ever more ungraspable,’ and ‘contemptuous of all
attempts to manipulate it.’39 The object is thus uncooperative and resistant to the subject’s attempt to
control and master it. Consequently, Baudrillard tells us, [s]cience has lost its interlocutor [the object],
which, like the ‘savage,’ appears not to have responded with genuine dialogue. It seems that it is not a
good object, ... that it secretly evades all attempts at scientific evangeliza- tion (rational objectification),
and that it is taking its revenge for having been ‘understood’ by surreptitiously undermining the
foundations of the edifice of science.40 Through an ironic reversal, the object, thought to be mastered by the subject, turns the
table on the latter. Baudrillard shows how such a reversal is fatal to our usual ways of thinking, which assume the centrality of the subject: The
main focus of interest has always been on the conditions in which the subject discovers the object, but
those in which the object discovers the subject have not been explored at all. We flatter ourselves that
we discover the object and conceive it as waiting there meekly to be discovered. But perhaps the cleverer
party here is not the one we think. What if it were the object which discovered us in all this? This would give us not merely an
uncertainty principle, which can be mastered by equations, but a principle of reversibility which is much more radical and more aggressive.
(Similarly, didn’t viruses discover us at least as much as we discovered them, with all the consequences that follow? And didn’t the American
Indians themselves discover us in the end?)41 According to Baudrillard’s reversibility principle, the
object, the virus, and the Indian
have the last laugh over those who had thought to master them. Similarly, returning to Baudrillard’s
comments on the Tasaday, it turns out that the primitive ultimately escapes its role as ethnology’s
simulacrum, as the alibi and guarantee of Western science, by stubbornly refusing to come alive and thus
validating its simulated role, choosing instead to remain inert and enigmatic like the dead. As Baudrillard
remarks, at the very moment of its putative triumph, ‘ethnology gives up its final and only lesson, the
secret which kills it (and which the savages understood much better): the vengeance of the dead ... It is
science which ostensibly masters the object, but it is the latter which deeply invests the former, following
an unconscious reversion, giving only dead and circular replies to a dead and circular interrogation.’42 The
primitive is thus both an ostensibly tamed or simulated object as well as a vengeful or fatal one. The
simulated primitive is a product of the assumption that, in the act of simulation, ethnology possesses
com- plete control and knowledge of its object. Baudrillard’s argument, how- ever, is that the primitive as
object can never be completely knowable and, as such, can never be fully simulated. Like the object that
wreaks vengeance on the subject, the primitive exceeds and subverts the simu- lated model produced by
ethnology. In Baudrillard’s thought, then, the primitive as simulation is deconstructed only to be replaced
by the primitive as pure or authentic object. The primitive is a pure object, however, only if it is
unknowable. 56 The Neo-primitivist Turn As Baudrillard describes it, ‘the Object is an insoluble enigma, because it is not itself and does not
know itself. It resembles ... [a] savage, whom one could not understand for the same reason that he could not under- stand himself.’43 It is
precisely because the object is unknowable that it is able to master the knowing subject. There
are a couple of problems,
however, with Baudrillard’s account of the triumph of the uncognizable object. First, the object’s (or
primitive’s) victory is surely pyrrhic; because it cannot know itself, it cannot know about its overcoming of
the subject. The primitive as pure object may defeat ethnology’s attempts to under- stand and
manipulate it, but it has neither conscious agency nor compre- hension of either its plight or its triumph.
Second, the pure primitive or object, described as being unlike the subject in that it is unknowing and
unknowable, seems nonetheless to exhibit subject-like intentions, motives, and emotions such as
vengeance, cunning, sly servility, and ‘the passion of indifference.’44 Supposed to be unknowable, the object appears
amenable to all kinds of descriptions and imputations. Perhaps the object is not as purely objective as Baudrillard thinks
it to be, and we may thus entertain the suspicion that the object may well be the most subtle theoretical
trick yet employed by the subject, the most realistic simulation currently available and one that would
offer an avant-garde edge to a theorist in the highly competitive Parisian academic scene. Douglas Kellner, for
example, has described Baudrillard in such terms, calling him a double agent who while champi- oning the object is really in fact speaking for the
subject: [A]lthough
Baudrillard wants to present himself as the voice and advocate of the object, he is really
a double agent, secretly representing the subject as he anthropomorphizes the object world in an
amazing creative display that out-Disneys Disney. For it is clear that, ultimately, he is projecting the
categories of subjectivity, as well as his own subjective imagination, into the domain of objects (ascribing
to them as objective features his subjective projections such as revenge, indifference and so on), thus
secretly continu- ing in a different form the very philosophy of subjectivity that he pretends to combat.45

Post-modernism uses representations of children to show the ‘unmodern’ and naïve

aspects of indigenous life which gets replicated to produce even more situated violence
against such folks
Li 6—(Victor Li, teaches courses in contemporary and postcolonial literature and theory in both the English Department and the Centre for
Comparative Literature at the University of Toronto, University of Toronto Press 2006, The Neo-Primitivist Turn: Critical Reflections on Alterity,
Culture, and Modernity)//CWD

In the end, then, despite

Baudrillard’s valorization of the object, it is the subject that continues to run the
theoretical show. Baudrillard’s theory of the fatal object turns out to be a covert theory of the subject’s
fetishistic approach to the object in the same way that his critique of ethnology’s simulation of the
primitive merely reintroduces the primitive as a pure object simulated by the theorist’s own subjective
imagination. Though in the past he declared, contra Baudrillard, that ‘there are no primitive societies,’46 in his later work Jean-François
Lyotard seems to have forgotten his own criticism in opposing the self-legitimating narra- tive pragmatics of a ‘savage’ society such as that of the
Cashinahua to the grand universalizing narratives of Western modernity.47 Criticizing
Baudrillard’s appropriation of the
primitive Other as a critical alterna- tive to the West, Lyotard succumbs to the same temptation. Lyotard’s
interrogation of the universal history of the modern West is built on that same civilization’s desire for an
external, utopian space – a non-univer- sal, particular, localized, self-enclosed, and unchanging primitive
society. To observe the differend and to do justice to the Cashinahua will demand a complete
epistemological break between Cashinahua culture and that of the West, a rupture not unlike that
described by Baudrillard between primitive and modern society. To be sure, Lyotard admits that historical
or anthropological attempts at understanding primitive cul- tures occur all the time. However, such
cognitive genres of discourse are ultimately incommensurable with the narrative genre of primitive cul-
tures. As Lyotard puts it: The heterogeneity between the cognitive genre and its referent, the ‘savage’
narrative genre, is not to be doubted ... There is an abyss between them. The savage thus suffers a wrong
on account of the fact that he or she is ‘cognized’ in this manner, that is, judged, both he or she and his or
her norms, according to criteria and in an idiom which are neither those which he or she obeys nor their
‘result.’ What is at stake in savage narratives is not what is at stake in the description of those
narratives.69 Lyotard’s insistence on incommensurability, on the ‘abyss’ between cognitive descriptions of
‘savage’ narratives and the narratives them- selves, leads, however, to a contradiction in his work. In his
book on Lyotard, Bill Readings points out that Lyotard was concerned to show that we cannot derive a prescriptive judgment that refers to an
indeter- minate idea of justice from a descriptive statement that refers to a determinate object of cognition.70 Political
injustice occurs
when this incommensurability or differend is ignored and the attempt is made ‘to establish the justice of
a prescriptive phrase by reference to a represent- able order of things (a descriptive statement).’71 We will
recall that Lyotard refers to the Cashinahua in order to establish a differend be- tween their culture and the
Western idea of a universal history. But such an incommensurable differend is made possible only
through Lyotard’s recourse to an ethnographic description of the Cashinahua provided in André-Marcel d’Ans’s
book. Lyotard is thus faced with a debilitating contradiction. To uphold the justice of his case against
Western univer- sality he has to commit the injustice of using descriptive statements about Cashinahua
culture to support a prescriptive critique. But if he wishes to save the Cashinahua’s differend by not
subjecting them to a descriptive or cognitive genre of discourse, then he loses the use of an important
counter-example in his criticism of the idea of universal history. In pursuing justice for the Cashinahua by
observing their differend from the West, Lyotard commits an injustice against them by re-cognizing and
describing their differend. As Allen Dunn has astutely remarked of this contradiction in Lyotard’s thought, ‘[T]he terms in which
the differend is described revive the very cognitive systems that the differend protests.’72 The primitive as
child, the child as primitive. This equation has often been made in the history of primitivism. In
evolutionary primitivism, the primitive/child is seen as undeveloped, not yet achieving the intellectual and
moral maturity (Mündigkeit) of modern man. In a more romantic vein, Lyotard inverts this evolutionary ranking to
make the primitive/ child, if not the father, then certainly the conscience of our modern civilization,
reminding it of its lack of humanity towards the ‘in-human,’ that is, the yet to be socialized, disciplined, or
civilized being. In Lyotard’s words: For Lyotard, then, the child’s undeveloped and indeterminate state, its in-
humanity, is precisely what forces the adult to question the defini- tion of his own humanity, to see his
humanity as perhaps inhuman. But if the child, like the Aboriginal, is an in-fans, a mute, then it must
remain not only indeterminate, but also, in its silence, inaccessible and incom- prehensible. The ‘debt to
childhood’ that Lyotard says we can ‘never pay off’ can only be a debt if we attribute a certain quality to
the child, if we see the child as representing an alternative to our (in)humanity.76 Chil- dren, like
primitives, must remain indeterminate and silent so that the adult theorist can speak about the debt we
owe to them for representing the role of the differend. As Tullio Maranhao observes of Lyotard’s re-
thinking of the (in)human: ‘Although Lyotard’s “human” differs from that of empirical anthropology in
most respects, there is at least this parallel: both seem to posit an inaccessible Other (the infant, the na-
tive), who cannot bridge the gap of representation or assert his identity in such a way as to pose a radical
challenge to the constructions of the writing or describing subject (the philosopher, the

Post-modernism’s, more specifically Baudrillard’s tales of the primitive other is only

broken down through deconstructing totalizing Western critique, which includes
Baudrillard and Psychoanalytical philosophers. This alternative is a pre-requisite to their
tautological depictions of media and technocratic society
Li 6—(Victor Li, teaches courses in contemporary and postcolonial literature and theory in both the English Department and the Centre for
Comparative Literature at the University of Toronto, University of Toronto Press 2006, The Neo-Primitivist Turn: Critical Reflections on Alterity,
Culture, and Modernity)//CWD

Like the work of the theorists and critics we have examined, ‘Under- standing the Ur-Bororo’ demonstrates that the
primitive Other,
even if it does not exist, has to be imagined in order for us to entertain not only the utopian hope for
something different from our present, but also the possibility of critical reflexivity in general. In other
words, to be critical means to be able to recognize our own conceptual limits, the ethnocen- tric
boundaries of our world view. This requires us to challenge those limits through the postulation of an
outside, an alternative to them. Such an alternative is readily supplied by the idea of the primitive. As we
have seen, Baudrillard, Lyotard, Torgovnick, Sahlins, and Habermas all turn to the concept of the premodern to test the
limits of the modern world-picture. The primitive is thus what enables them to ward off ethnocentrism
and to be critical of their own Western world. Moreover, as we have noted, it is the idea or concept of
the primitive that is important for these theorists, not the primitive’s actual presence, which may in fact
contradict or question its conceptualization or idealization. What Dipesh Chakrabarty has said of the utopian role of the
subaltern applies equally to the primitive in the work of the theorists we have studied: ‘The subaltern here is the ideal figure ... No actual member
of the subaltern classes would resemble what I imagine here.’ The subaltern embodies ‘a utopian line that may well designate the limit of how we
are trained to think.’16 The
idealization of the primitive Other, however, leads to a number of problematic, if
unintended consequences, as we have seen in the pre- ceding chapters. While the primitive Other
enables our theorists to expose the limits of Western thought, it also gains them a renewed epistemic
advantage that once again opens up a gap between the West and the rest. From Baudrillard to Habermas, what
we have observed is a troubling movement in which the West’s self-critical generosity to the primitive
Other returns as a greater form of Western awareness not necessarily shared by the Other. Generosity to
the Other wins for the Western thinker, but not for the incommensurable Other, theoretical insight. Thus
for Baudrillard, Lyotard, and Torgovnick the resistant Other who cannot be known is nonetheless also that which
redeems them from the Western will to universality. Conversely, for Sahlins, sensitivity to the difference of non-Western
cultures enables the Western anthropologist to escape his ethnocentrism and gain a truly universal understanding of humanity. Habermas too
urges respect for alterity, but, more openly than the others, he admits that this respect is one of the West’s greatest achievements and sets it
apart from others. In short, for
all our theorists the primitive Other who cannot be known fully and whose alterity
demands respect is nonetheless also the Other who en- ables the West to know its own limits, a
knowledge we cannot be sure the Other possesses. The West knows it does not know and therein lies its
epistemic advantage over other cultures that lack that reflexive knowl- edge. Their role appears simply to
be that of embodying a resistant alterity that makes possible Western critical reflexivity. What appears to
be an ethics of alterity that asymmetrically favours the Other turns out, on the epistemic and cultural
levels, to asymmetrically privilege the culture that produced that ethics.17 Theory’s need for a savage Other is
dramatically expressed in an interview in which Emmanuel Levinas rather casually makes the follow- ing pronouncement: ‘I often say, though it’s
a dangerous thing to say publicly, that humanity consists of the Bible and the Greeks. All the rest can be translated: all the rest – all the exotic – is
dance.’19 Similar sentiments are expressed in another interview where Levinas, referring to television images of South African Blacks dancing at
the funeral of a murdered victim, says that while he can, as a philosopher, try to understand (or theorize) their way of life, he is nevertheless
surprised by an event that ‘gives the impression of a dancing civilization in which they cry in another way.’20 While Levinas’s philosophical
writings on alterity provide some of the most useful tools for deconstructing the Western ontological tradition, his observations on ‘dancing’
cultures show that he has not completely extricated his own thought from that tradition. Be that as it may, what is of interest for our purposes is
the suggestion that in order for the West to reflect, the savage must dance. It is as though the identity of Western theoria can be confirmed and
validated only through a con- trast with the primitivist trope of dance – a trope we find everywhere in
Western writing from Conrad’s Heart of Darkness to the Globe and Mail’s foregrounding of dancing
Aborigines in its review of Living Tribes. What Levinas’s pronouncement clearly demonstrates is that theory’s distinc- tive
claim to critical knowledge comes into full focus only when it is contrasted to the visceral spontaneity of
savage dance. While theory allows the West, in Levinas’s words, ‘to understand the particular cul- tures which never understood
themselves,’21 dance traps those particu- lar cultures in unreflective self-ignorance. Nevertheless, Western theory does not appear
to be able to define itself or stand on its own without the ignorance of the savage Other to prove its
superior knowledge. The savage may be theoretically or cognitively deficient, but his presence, it seems,
is indispensable for Western theory’s very identity. If theory requires primitivism, then neo-primitivism
questions theory only to renew it. Unlike Levinas, neo-primitivists see the dancing savage in a positive
light as that being that resists assimilation into Western theory. The difference of the primitive marks the
limits of theorizing and rescues us from a monotonous universalism that Baudrillard calls ‘the hell of the
Same.’ From the differend of Cashinahua narrative in Lyotard’s work to Sahlins’s remark that ‘“Strange” should be the begin- ning of
anthropological wisdom rather than a way of putting an end to it,’22 the primitive has no other role than that of challenging
the ethno- centric universalism of Western theory. Even the empirical primitive’s disappearance, as we have seen, does not
affect its oppositional role to theory. In fact, its disappearance further empowers its opposition. For the primitive’s disappearance does not mean
the triumph of capitalist modernity or the Westernization of the world; it means just the opposite. It means that the vanished primitive has
become a counterfactual, spec- tral ideal. Loosened from its empirical and historical complexities, the spectral or virtual primitive
becomes a powerful presence that returns to haunt our troubled modernity. As Adam Kuper observes, the
discredited primitive has resurfaced even more powerfully in our imagination as the noble Green indigene who resists globalization and
represents ‘a world to which we should, apparently, wish to be returned, a world in which culture does not challenge nature.’ ‘As always,’ Kuper
further reminds us, ‘our conceptions of the primitive are best understood as counters in our own current ideological debates.’23 But
if neo-
primitivism uses the primitive to deconstruct Western theory, it is also the case that the primitive is used
to redeem theory. In primitiv- ism, theory needs the savage to affirm its epistemic distinctiveness and
superiority; in neo-primitivism, the savage is needed to deconstruct theory so that it can be saved from
itself. This is captured perceptively in Baudrillard’s aphorism: ‘The Other is what allows me not to repeat
myself forever.’24 What the Other is or wants is less important than its role in delivering the Western
theorist from himself, thereby also renewing theory by preventing it from repeating itself. The savage Other
plays a similar role in the work of Lyotard, Torgovnick, and Sahlins. Challeng- ing the ethnocentric universalism of Western theory, the Other
forces it to engage in self-criticism and to rethink its premises, hence helping it to renew itself. The
Other’s ancillary role in the
drama of Western theory’s renewal is most clearly articulated by Habermas, for whom the Other that
challenges Eurocentrism is also the Other that makes possible the self-reflection and self-critical
distancing that distinguish modern West- ern thought from premodern myth.
AT: Perf Con is Edgy Tho
Performative contradictions do not justify the affirmative’s logic of linguistic racism
Li 6—(Victor Li, teaches courses in contemporary and postcolonial literature and theory in both the English Department and the Centre for
Comparative Literature at the University of Toronto, University of Toronto Press 2006, The Neo-Primitivist Turn: Critical Reflections on Alterity,
Culture, and Modernity)//CWD

But, it will be asked, doesn’t such a conclusion about neo-primitivism as an unavoidable and insuperable
dilemma for contemporary theorists weaken the preceding pages’ critique of it? On the contrary, what
may appear as an undermining or self-deconstructing claim about neo- primitivism’s inescapability,
paradoxically, supports the book’s thesis about neo-primitivism’s persistence even in works that are
critical of it, that seek to go beyond it. What some readers may regard as the conclusion’s performative
contradiction can therefore be seen as the conclusion’s performative reinforcement of the book’s central
argument that even anti-primitivist discourses find themselves relying on primitivism, caught in an
aporetic logic that I have described in chapter 1 as an anti- primitivist primitivism. To admit to neo-
primitivism’s unavoidability is thus also to testify to its adaptable and persistent constitutive force. The
neo-primitivism present in certain forms of contemporary thought can- not simply be deconstructed or
dismissed. We need of course to be constantly vigilant in our examination of neo-primitivism’s shifting
traces, but this vigilance must also be accompanied by the recognition that neo- primitivism’s theoretical
power and productivity are not unrelated to that same vigilance at the heart of our critical enterprise.
Thus, it would be a failure of critical vigilance on my part were I to refuse to admit that my own book
contains the trace structure, the spectral presence of neo- primitivism itself. I cannot escape from this
aporia of at once criticizing neo-primitivism and of relying on certain of its theoretical assumptions. I can
only acknowledge my dilemma. For who would want to be a neo- primitivist uncritically, when one can at
least know critically the aporia in which one finds oneself?
**Gender K Updates**
Link- Bioterror
The national trauma of bioterror coalesces around the figure of vulnerable femininity
– those white women and children who represent the fragility and future of the nation
which must be protected from the dangers of the malicious, racialized foreign Other.
The paradoxical result is that the aff puts frontline health care workers, predominately
women, at the greatest risk of infection while normalizing the association of women
with care.
D’Arcangelis, 2009 (Gwen – Assistant Professor of Gender Studies @ Skidmore College, “The Bio
Scare: Anthrax, Smallpox, SARS, Flu and Post-9/11 U.S. Empire”, PhD dissertation, shae)

debate about smallpox immunity values and transmission rates was set in the backdrop of widespread and popular
Moreover, the scientific

characterizations of U.S. vulnerability. While the Bush Administration in particular had cultivated a heightened sense of U.S. vulnerability in reference to 9/11
and the subsequent anthrax attacks (disguising—or attempting to do so—U.S. aggression abroad and imperialist endeavors), in the backdrop of today's media culture in the U.S., most people

experienced 9/11 and the subsequent anthrax attacks through the highly sensationalized media (Kaplan 2005). Gendered versions of the U.S. as victim
became an important lens through which this national trauma became understood—through for instance the metaphor of
sexual violation and sexually deviant perpetrators (Cole 2007; Puar 2002). In the case of smallpox, the figuring of women as representative of a

nation vulnerable to disease threats was a common theme within the usual media fanning of public fears with
regards to bioterror133 and emphasis on lack of preparation for a potential attack. National security and
public health officials bemoaned a "large, susceptible civilian population" (NTI 2001b), a country "vulnerable
to the potentially calamitous consequences of a large bioterrorist attack" (Ruppe 2002), and the "national
urgency" requiring preparedness measures especially for protecting children (McNeil 2003). Even more so than quotes, the pictures
accompanying articles on smallpox vaccine preparedness conveyed this sense of national vulnerability. These were often outdated snapshots from the 1940's (the last period in which the U.S.
saw smallpox outbreaks) of white women and children receiving the vaccine or faceless hordes clamoring for the vaccine134 that were paired with contemporary articles in 2002 and 2003
leading up to and during the Smallpox Vaccination Program, and must be seen as a deliberate attempt to promote it. (The much fewer current pictures tended to be of high-level officials
getting vaccinated, also serving the purpose of promotion of the vaccine.) Even more so than the rhetorics of vulnerability, these vaccine-affirming pictures drew on the symbolic use of women

Calling upon this typical image of white women

and children to illustrate both the desirability of the vaccine and the security it would provide135.

and children as the civilian population needing to be protected (Berlant 1997; Enloe 1993; Yuval-Davis 1997), these images
served to strategically represent the vulnerability—and humanity—of the U.S. nation. The humanity written on the vaccinees' faces could
only further illustrate the urgency of the protective measures of the State.136 These portrayals of the vulnerability of white women and

children were the complement to the threat construction of the dangerous Middle Eastern Other, and both
supported the State's arguments for vaccine preparedness. The portrayal of women and children being protected against smallpox by the vaccine

were particularly ironic considering not only the arguments by the public health community that the vaccine for smallpox induced more harm than safety, but also the fact
that it was women who were—in their role as the majority of healthcare workers—the ones who would

actually be doing the protecting under the SVP. In other words, the conscription of public health into national security
via the SVP was really the conscription of women into national security service. This is even more the case in

terms of front-line care work, which is in the majority (four-fifths) performed by women (unlike hospital administrators, doctors, and the
like which is mostly performed by males) ("Workers" 2006). In the actual SVP, it was indeed the case that the majority (approximately two-thirds) of civilian vaccinees were female (Casey et al.
2005; Poland 2005). Neither the indirect deployment of public health regimes into the service of national security nor the enlisting of women to this end is particularly unprecedented.

Throughout U.S. history, the State has enforced women's roles as gatekeepers between the disease and
health of a population, as well as treated women's bodies and feminized domains as expendable
sacrifices in times of crises139 (Enloe 2000; Grosz 1994). Women have born the brunt of public health measures and
have been asked—in their roles as formal healthcare workers and informal caretakers—to sacrifice their
own health for the good of the nation or group. For instance, during disease outbreaks, governments have not only
quarantined populations according to race but further regulated the hygiene of members of those
populations by gender—in their roles as mothers, presumed domestic keepers of the home or community, and sex
workers, women have been the targets of specific health regimes and measures (Leavitt 1997; Shah 1999; Briggs 2002; Adams and Pigg
2005). Once again the SVP bears out this sexist history of public health—sacrificing their own health in their roles as vaccine receivers, women were approximately three-quarters of the civilian
vaccinees who had adverse events140 (Casey et al. 2005; CDC 2003 a).
Link- Environment
Securitizing the environment necessitates military control- energy efficiency becomes
a ‘force multiplier’ while maintaining the coherence of the military state that absorbs
Nature under its mission
Gilbert 12
(Emily, Canadian Studies and Geography University of Toronto, The Militarization of Climate Change, ACME: An
International Journal for Critical Geographies, Volume 11 Number 1 2012, JKS)

The priorities around climate change are thus skewed by the military. As President Obama affirmed in his March 2010
speech, the primary national interest is really with energy independence, not energy reduction.25 At the same time that he was applauding the
greening of the military, the President announced the expansion of offshore oil and gas exploration, including in the Bay of Mexico. (This
expansion was later suspended in wake of the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster, before being resumed.) The
military has also
presented a case for mitigating the reliance on (foreign) oil and developing renewable energy, which has
more to do with the impact on military personnel in the field than with ecological principles. In the last five
years, fuel consumption at US forward operating bases in conflict zones has increased from 50 million
gallons to 500 million gallons a year (Deloitte 2009: 15). This creates a dangerous situation for the ‘long tail’ of convoys that are
needed to supply these bases (Pew 2010: 7). Some reports indicate that more than three quarters of US casualties in war zones are the result of
supply vehicles that have been targeted by improvised explosive devices (IEDs), and convoys have been identified by Commandant General
James Conway as ‘one of his most pressing problems related to risk of casualties’ (Deloitte 2009: 15; see also CNA, 2009). Shachtman (2010)
reports that in Iraq, ‘In one month, 44 trucks and 220,000 gallons of fuel were lost.’ This is a problem that the QDR takes explicitly on board.
Whereas climate change is presented as a ‘threat multiplier,’ energy efficiency is described as a ‘force
multiplier, because it increases the range and endurance of forces in the field and can reduce the
number of combat forces diverted to protect energy supply lines, which are vulnerable to both
asymmetric and conventional attacks and disruptions’ (QDR 2010: 87). The reduction of casualties is thus propelling much
of the impetus for renewable energy, even though it is couched in climate change rhetoric (see also Warner and Singer 2009: 2; Deloitte 2009:
27). Notably, there
is no mention, across any of the policy documents that have appeared, about the
devastating environmental impact of war upon the landscapes where it takes place, and the need to
prevent or even mitigate this destruction.¶ Back at home, military personnel returning from war are being enrolled as climate
‘warriors.’ During the 2009 election campaign Obama announced a ‘Green Vets Initiative’ that would provide ‘green’ training and jobs in the
private sector for the 837,000 vets of Iraq and Afghanistan. While this exact initiative has not been introduced, the government has promoted
‘Green Energy Jobs’ through its Veterans Workforce Investment Program and through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.26 This is a
reconfiguration, and privatization, of the civilian- military pact of cradle-to-grave provision of social welfare (see Lutz 2002: 730). To this end,
programs have begun popping up across the US. The ‘Green Collar Vets’ is a non-profit organization in Texas that helps retrain and reskill vets
for the green economy.27 The organization ‘Veterans Green Jobs,’ in partnership with several educational institutions and organizations such as
Walmart, Whole Foods, and the Sierra Club, provides vets of four states with training opportunities for the ‘green’ economy. What
differentiates their program, they argue, is that their keystone course ‘Green 101,’ makes explicit the links between green programs and
national security. 28 Veterans are also taking on a more activist role to promote the shift to renewable energy. A group of US Vets, sponsored
by Operation Free (whose mission is ‘to secure America with clean energy’), travelled to Copenhagen to discuss the national security
dimensions of climate change (and groups have also travelled across the US to visit Senate Offices, and to the White House).29¶ Domestic
programs for vets, and resource and research investments for ‘greening’ the military point to some fundamental ways that domestic social
formations are being reorganized in support of the militarization of climate change. This
is part of militarism’s typical ‘double
move’: on the one hand, war is projected as being ‘over there’ while the ‘second move saturates our
daily lives with war- ness’ (Ferguson 2009: 478). Domestic measures to address energy security are put forward as calculable, rational
and even compassionate measures, while the ‘foreign’ threat is presented as non-state, elusive, and undetermined—and hence coherent with
much of the discourse around diffuse ‘new wars’ and terrorist threats (Kaldor, 2006). At the same time, there is also greater convergence
between the inside and the outside, and between the environment and the military in the ways that the discourses are mobilized and mapped
out (Cooper, 2006). Indeed, as Mikkel Vedby Rasmussen notes, there
is a coherence between pre-emptive military
doctrines and precautionary environmental strategies: both are based upon a rationale for urgent action
based on anticipated future disaster scenarios (Rasmussen 2006: 124). Notably, however, it is only when
environmental issues are harnessed to security claims that the precautionary approach gains traction.¶
Hiving climate change to national security ensures that environmental issues will garner more attention,
as is argued by many of the experts on the environment and security noted above. But as I have sought to illustrate in this paper, instead of
opening up questions regarding security or the environment, these are foreclosed by a military approach. It reduces the concept of
security to a nationalist, defensive strategy modelled on future disaster scenarios of resource conflict.
Moreover, it perpetuates an externalized concept of nature that is to be commanded and controlled, with
no real sense of ecological prioritization. Rather, energy security emerges as the primary focus for innovation and investment to
combat geopolitical concerns around the reliance on foreign oil and the threat to military personnel in the field. At the same time,
increased spending on the military is legitimized as it becomes a source of ‘green’ initiatives. Where does
this leave politics, and more precisely, as Melinda Cooper asks, ‘What becomes of an anti-war politics when the sphere of military action
infiltrates the ‘grey areas’ of everyday life, contaminating our ‘quality of life’ at the most elemental level?’ (Cooper 2006: 129). If we
support climate change initiatives, are we then pro-military? If we are anti-military, do we jeopardize
climate change action? As the militarization of climate change unfolds, it is this interpenetration that needs to be
disrupted, both with respect to martial approaches to the environment, and with respect to the
troubling attempts to use the mobilization of climate change to re-moralize war and the military.

The DOD is salivating over the aff- scientific research and ‘greening’ of the military
allows the most hypermasculine institution to redefine itself as the green masculine
Nagel 15
(Joane, April, Distinguished Professor of Sociology at the University of Kansas, is the author of Race, Ethnicity,
and Sexuality: Intimate Intersections, Forbidden Frontiers, Gender, Conflict, and the Militarization of Climate
Change Policy, Peace Review: A Journal of Social Justice, 27:202–208, JKS)
A preponderance of largely male governments and male-dominated economic interests protecting the unequal status quo can be understood mainly as hindrances
to successful climate negotiations. But they are not the only important gendered features of the international system responsible for influencing climate change
policy. As we saw above, the
military is another gendered institution intimately related to national governments
and economies. National militaries are less responsible for stalling organized responses to climate
change; they are critical articulators of climate change hazards and advocates for defining climate
change as a problem not of controlling carbon emissions, but of protecting national security.¶ Despite the end
of the Cold War (characterized by a large-scale U.S.–USSR arms race) in 1990, in 2010 world military expenditures were higher than in any year since the end of the
Second World War in 1945. The United States far outpaces other countries in military expenditures. The U.S. accounted for thirty-nine percent of global military
expenditures in 2012, when military expenditures consumed more than four percent of the U.S. gross domestic product. The United States is among a handful of
the most militarized countries in the world, as measured by military expenditures per capita, including Israel, South Sudan, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Russia,
Jordan, Algeria, and Azerbaijan. Even the world’s poorest countries sport national armies whose weapons and training are subsidized by or purchased from the
world’s major arms dealers, most notably the United States, Russia, France, the United Kingdom, and China. The world’s militaries are
historically hyper-masculine institutions with cultures embracing honor, bravery, loyalty, strength, and
violence. Men dominate the ranks and leadership of military institutions just as they dominate national politics and economics around the world.¶ In the
United States, the military plays a critical role in scientific re- search, including climate change research. The U.S.

Department of Defense (DOD) has a basic scientific research and development budget that is two and a half

times greater than the National Science Foundation (NSF)—the agency tasked with funding basic research across the sciences,
mathematics, and engineering. The NSF has a broad mission of supporting transformative research on all topics and issues across disciplines. The DOD’s much
narrower mission is to protect national security. This
focus on security—food security, energy security, water security, and
environmental security—determines the research projects it supports. As a result, the DOD has been a
powerful voice in emphasizing national security dangers from and defenses against climate change and
in shaping the work of the many researchers it supports in universities, industry, and national labs and research facilities.¶ The
DOD’s agenda reflects classical military/masculine tactics for at- tacking climate change: large-scale
geo-engineering approaches to manage solar radiation or sequester carbon, energy research focused
on military missions, conflict scenario planning, climate forecasting and modeling, and global resource
assessments. The DOD has very limited interest in funding “softer” (feminine) research topics on the
health, social, racial, gender, or age disparities in climate change impacts, factors that promote community resilience in the face of
disasters, or strategies for reducing the carbon emissions causing climate change.

GCMs and mainstream climate science are entrenched in masculinity which distorts
their conclusions and erases the gendered nature of warming
Nagel 16
(Joane, 2016, Distinguished Professor of Sociology at the University of Kansas, is the author of Race, Ethnicity,
and Sexuality: Intimate Intersections, Forbidden Frontiers., Gender and Climate Change: Impacts, Science,
Policy, Routledge, hardback, JKS)

Gender Critique of Climate Change Science

If gender matters in some medical research, does it matter in all medical research, or all scientific research, especially climate science? Various
critics of the research findings of the IPCC have focused on its reliance on large-scale general circulation models (GCMs).69 Feminist
scholars argue that GCMs reflect a classically masculine approach which minimizes knowledge gained
from human lived experience in favor of abstract mathematical representations of reality.7°Climate change
skeptics charge that the models are "alarmist" social constructions that generate "phantom threats" designed to satisfy environmental press
groups and to promote scientists' self-interest in fame and funding. Beyond their negative evaluations of GCMs, there is little other common
ground for proponents of these two critiques, though both likely would agree that:¶ [I]t is difficult to imagine an environmental phenomenon
less directly observable, more remote from everyday experience, and more dependent on the technical apparatus of science for con-structing
its apparent "reality" than the so-called greenhouse effect.72¶ Although GCMs are acknowledged by their designers to be complex, inaccurate,
and incomplete representations of the actual global climate system, they are the backbone of the IPCC reports.73 Climate
models rest
on the prestige of their mainly male designers (prominent scientists and engineers), advanced
technology used to create them (supercomputers), technical language (Navier-Stokes equations and computation ally
intensive numerical models), and elevated status of the institution where they are refined and tested (national
laboratories, scientific agencies, leading universities).¶ The work of climate scientists and the IPCC has been and remain
essential to understanding the physical processes associated with climate change and sounding the alarm about its seriousness. The predictions
of these models and the science that supported them were' the basis of our discussion of climate change and its impacts in the¶ previous three
chapters. In fact, we spent the last two entire chapters examining the impacts of climate change on men and women, relying largely on the
findings associated with GCMs reported in the 2013 IPCC's AR5, Climate Change 2013: 1he Physical Science Basis.
Despite the
importance of this research, there have been major blind spots weaknesses in¶ climate science and the
work of the IPCC, particularly in the area of¶ climate justice, and especially with regard to gender
inequalities related to climate change.¶ In the first three chapters of this book on gender and climate change we¶ depended on
the 1552-page IPCC Working Group I report on Climate Change 2013 - The Physical Science Basis to estimate the
gendered¶ implications of its predictions, though the words “gender” or¶ “women'' never appear in its pages. A word
search of the report does, however generate dozens of entries for "human," mostly referring to human
influence on the climate system. Apparently the IPCC's AR5 Working Group I is interested in humans, but not
men or women. A similar search of the IPCC AR5 of Working Group II's "Summary for Policymakers," which focused on climate change
"impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability," yields similar results - no men or women, only humans. The same absence of references to gender or
women characterized IPCC ARS of Working Group Ill's "Summary for Policymakers," which focused on "mitigation of climate change." Some of
the chapters of the full Working Group II and III reports do reference gender and women, but they do not discuss men, and few readers look
beyond the more succinct "Summary" documents, since presumably that is what is important for policymakers and non-specialists to know.¶
The disjuncture between "human'' causes and impacts of climate ¶ change and the gender causes and
impacts, or the class or racial or regional or age-related causes and impacts of reflects the level of
generality of much climate change science, including climate models. Climate science depicts the causes
and impacts of climate change as a universal process in which human distinctions are irrelevant. This
emphasis on "human" obscures differences between men and women, rich and poor, young and old,
educated and uneducated, urban and rural, or global North and global South as they¶ relate to the
causes and consequences of climate change. “Human" implies a common and equal contribution to and
fate in the face of climate chance.¶ “Human” ignores unequal inputs as well as unequal impacts within ¶
and across populations. A critique of this universalism is that while we all may be human, and we all
may be in this¶ together, we do not all equally contribute to the problem,¶ nor are we going to have
the same experience of climate change. The IPP acknowledges¶ that historically most greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions originated in the global North with increasingly catastrophic effects in the global South. Its
failure to deconstruct "anthropogenic” climate change, however, obscures the raced, classed, and gendered nature of both its causes and
The focus of GCMs and IPCC reports on "humans" creates a comfortable "objectivity" and
distance for the model makers- a safe space that equalizes blame for the problem being studied by¶
mostly male climate scientists from developed countries. By¶ emphasizing the “human contribution" to
climate change, researchers can¶ ignore exactly which groups of humans are doing the causing and
paper over who is responsible for climate injustices and inequality. How should we understand climate modelers'
difference-erasing focus on the universal "human'' aspects of climate change? The study of gender inequalities in European molecular biology
cited above offers two possible explanations: the
emphasis on "human" is because male scientists do not see any
significant differences among humans, or because they prefer not to acknowledge differences that are
an indictment of the system in which they have not only an investment,¶ but a controlling interest. Critics make a
direct connection between¶ the overrepresentation of men in climate science and policy and the¶ gender biases
and blind spots weaknesses in both climate science and climate policy.¶ Men dominate the issue at all levels, as scientific
and economic experts, entrepeneurs, policy makers and spokespeople. Since the 1970s climate change had been identified and explained by
natural scientists... It is not irrelevant that the majority of climate scientists are men. The Intergovernmental Panel on ¶ Climate Change (IPCC) is
mostly made up of male scientists, with "chairman'' Rajendra Pachauri leading at the global level. Men also dominate in the climate policy
arena ... The most
prominent politicians associated with the issue are male ... In 2007 an Internet survey of
"global consumers" in 47 countries¶ conducted by The Nielsen Company and Oxford University found that 18 out of the
22 "most influential spokespeople on climate change” are men.
Link- Terror
Their seemingly benign understanding of terror only regenerates masculine war-
Athanassiou 12
(Cerelia, PhD candidate at the School of Sociology, Politics and International Studies (SPAIS) at the University of
Bristol, UK. Her research is on conceptualisations of security post-9/11, focusing specifically on the discursive
strategies used by the Obama administration to disempower the Global War on Terror., ‘Gutsy’ Decisions and
Feminist Journal of Politics, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 1, 6–25, JKS)
Analytically, the exceptionality of the GWOT most usefully serves in high- lighting its continuities with ‘normal’ politics (see Grewal 2005: 197;
Puar 2007: 76; Richter-Montpetit 2007: 40; Parpart and Zalewski 2008: 5). The
effects of the Obama administration’s efforts
to roll back the GWOT’s overt militarization with a ‘return to the rule of law’ do not signify change
from the masculine ‘war machine’, but rather generate this ‘war machine’s’ very conditions of
existence. It is, after all, the warrior’s logic that is privileged and channelled through every decision, and
it is this logic that subordinates other, seemingly more passive, processes. The Washington Post editorial on the
killing of Osama bin Laden quoted Senator Lindsey Graham’s rationaliz- ation of the decision to kill and not capture: ‘From a Navy Seal
perspective, you had to believe that this guy [Osama bin Laden] was a walking IED [impro- vised explosive device]’ (Washington Post 2011).
militarized understanding and treatment of ‘national security’ continues to re-write itself into the ¶
workings of the State, enabling the hegemonic masculinity of the warrior decision-maker to keep
privileging itself, preventing meaningful change from happening. If we heed Enloe’s (2000: 3) invaluable advice on the
matter, we notice that these are exactly the workings of militarization, and through that, of a continuing
GWOT: ‘The more militarization transforms an individual or a society, the more that individual or society
comes to imagine military needs and militaristic presumptions to be not only valuable but also normal’.
It is this veneration of militarism, and its associated gender and race hierarchies, that offer the clue on
the lack of change. ¶ Obama’s insistence on reintroducing the rule of law went against the tra- ditional
understanding of ‘security’ because masculine posturing, not feminine public negotiation, is traditionally
seen as being most effective in protecting the nation-state and its ‘women and children’ (Enloe 2007: 60–1).
However, articulations on the importance of the law also prop up the warrior’s agenda: Abdulmutallab’s
prosecution is an aspect of an operation geared pre- cisely towards achieving the effects of the bin Laden episode (see Cohen 2011). With the
most recent debates centring on the validity of extrajudicially killing US citizens, we are shown a system in which the status of the warrior has
not diminished (see Holder 2012), despite the promise in 2008 that different atti- tudes might be prioritized. Carver (2008: 84) provides
valuable support here, because he points to the overarching framework of international politics that
‘incorporates a myth of a unitary, unproblematic masculinised being – “warrior man”/“economic man” –
whose world is not in fact bifurcated by a war/peace distinction, but is rather one world of competitive,
aggressive, self- interested and somewhat paranoid strategic interaction’ (emphasis in original). In such a
framework, the ‘rational decision-maker’ alone cannot deliver any meaningful change when he is so closely
correlated to the ‘warrior’; this was demonstrated by Obama’s reintroduction of the ‘rule of law’ only to
keep subor- dinating it to the demands of the GWOT’s framework of war. The hegemonic masculinity of
the executive decision-maker clearly has to privilege warrior definitions of ‘toughness’ over dangerous
forays into public deliberation and accountability; and that is the masculine reality of national
Link- Health Care Affs
Their research is oversaturated with masculinity
Doyal 95
(Lesley Doyal, Emeritus Professor of Health and Social Care at the School for Policy Studies, 1995, What Makes
Women Sick, pgs 17-18, JKS)

However it is not just its narrowly biological orientation that limits the capacity of medicine to deal with
women's health problems. Even within its own terms there is growing evidence that both the priorities and the
techniques of biomedical research reflect the white male domination of the profession (Kirchstein, 1991). Bias
has been identified in the choice and the definition of problems to be studied, the methods employed to
carry out the research, and the interpretation and application of results (Cotton, 1990; Rosser, 1992, pp. 129-30). While
women are in the majority as health care providers, they continue to be in the minority as practising doctors
(Doyal, 1994a, Lorber, 1984). They hold few positions of power and therefore have little influence on how funds are allocated or

research carried out (Rosser, 1992; US National Institutes of Health, 1992; Witz, 1992). There has been relatively little basic research into non-
reproductive conditions that mainly affect women - incontinence and osteoporosis for instance. In the United
States, Congressional Hearings in 1990 showed that only 13 per cent of government research funds were spent on health

issues specific to women (US National Institutes of Health, 1992). Even the menstrual cycle itself has not been extensively
researched. Hence we have little detailed knowledge about an extremely important aspect of women's
bodily functioning that generates a large amount of distress and many medical consultations (Koblinsky et al.,
1993). Where health problems affect both men and women, few studies have explored possible differences

between the sexes in their development, symptoms and treatment (American Medical Association, 1991). , Researchers
working on coronary heart disease, for example, have continued to act as though it were only a male' problem, despite
the fact that it is the single most important cause of death in postmenopausal women, killing half a million a year in the United

States. The Physician Health Study, which demonstrated the effectiveness of daily aspirin consumption in preventing cardiovascular disease, had a sample

of 20,000 men but no women, while the sample in the "Mr. Fit' study of the relationship between heart
disease, cholesterol and lifestyle consisted of 15,000 men (Freedman and Maine, 1993, p. 165). AIDS, too, has been treated for research
purposes as a predominantly male disease. Though it is now growing faster among women than among men, we still know very little about the differential effects it may have on them (Bell,

1992; Denenberg, 1990b, Kurth, 1993). As long as most biomedical research continues to be based on male samples there
will be significant gaps in our knowledge about women. Even more importantly, treatments tested only on men
will continue to be given to women, when they may not be appropriate to their needs (Hamilton, 1985). There have
recently been indications, for example, that anti-depressant drugs can have very different effects on men and women and

may affect women differently during the various phases of the menstrual cycle. However preliminary
testing excluded women, despite the fact that they are the major users of the drugs (ibid.) It is clear that
biomedicine has generated valuable knowledge that has been used to improve the health of individual
women. But as we have seen, this understanding is often partial and sometimes erroneous. This is because research
has selectively ignored many of the biological differences between the sexes while paying little or no
attention to the particularity of women's psychological and social circumstances. Hence it can offer little help in answering
the questions posed at the beginning of this section.

Epistemology comes first for women’s health research

Cook 09
(Charlene Cook, Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto, Toronto, Women’s health theorizing: a call for
epistemic action, Critical Public Health Vol. 19, No. 2, June 2009, 143–154, JKS)
While debate in women’s health theorizing is not novel, an explicit epistemological analysis of the broad
field of women’s health research remains immature. In the context of rapidly shifting biomedical advances, the escalating demand for
bioethical responses, the globalization of health and illness, and an increasing cognizance of – and political resistance to – the social determinants of health, the
contribution of women’s health must be significant and dynamic. In order
to guide women’s health through the opportunities
and challenges that will frame future health research and service delivery, an epistemological debate
must be prioritized. In particular, further examination of the limits and opportunities of binarisms, the roles sex and gender play as conceptual markers
of difference, and the value of critical theory to interrogate positivist and postmodern approaches to women’s health are required. While solidarity in an
epistemological approach for women’s health may not be practical or desirable, analysis
of the theoretical and conceptual challenges
and alternatives put forward by the women’s health community over the last century is required. As such, women’s
health researchers, practitioners, and activists can move beyond one worldview in order to form an
epistemological understanding to women’s health that is reflexive, progressive, and actionable. In doing so,
the priorities that have long defined the women’s health community will be upheld.
That means framework is a new link- the call for a neutral point of deliberation is an
attempt to androgynize our argument
Hooper 2k
(Charlotte, PhD, ‘Manly States: Masculinities, International Relations and Gender Politics’ (for which she thanks
the Economic and Social Science Research Council for financial support) and is currently involved in developing
and teaching a new master’s degree in gender and international relations in the Politics Department of Bristol
University. Recent and forthcoming publications include focus on the relationships among masculinist practices,
multiple masculinities and international relations. Youngs, Gillian. Political Economy, Power & the Body. New
York, NY, USA: Palgrave Macmillan, 2000. ProQuest ebrary., JKS)

The fantasy of disembodiment is another key feature of bourgeois rational masculinity which derives
from the mind/body split and depends on the apparent invisibility or absence of bodies in social
discourse, so that masculine reason could be separate from and untainted by the body. This apparent
invisibility has been assisted by a huge investment in the general social sanitization of bodies and bodily
functions, particularly in public spaces. There has been a gradual loss of vulgar and feminine orifices and excretions since the 17th
century so that the body becomes a mere container of rationality (Rose 1993). Even sensory perception has been altered. Take, for example,
the sense of smell. Leonard Duroche (1990) argues that with the exception of one or two designatedly ‘masculine’ smells such as tobacco and
sweat, olfactory sensibilities have gradually been increasingly associated with femininity or with ‘degeneration’ since the 18th century. This
process has been accompanied by the sanitization of smells from public places, which has led to an impoverishment of perception conducive to
impersonal relations between men. The fantasy of disembodiment is sustained by large-scale social and institutional practices as much as by
discursive conventions. Bourgeois rational masculinity employs a selective biology both to possess and repress
bodies (Rose 1993). The fantasy of disembodiment is not only produced through powerful social practices, it
also sustains bourgeois masculine privilege and makes bourgeois men appear natural leaders or rulers.
Impersonal relations are associated with objectivity and science, and the exnominated or unauthored ‘view
from nowhere’ of modernity, which appears as the disembodied ‘truth’ of power and authority.Closely
coupled to the mind/body split and the fantasy of disembodiment is the rational/emotional divide.
Emotions and desires are perceived as threatening to a bourgeois masculine subjectivity organized
around reason and control. Both Kantian thought and Protestant culture posit an inner freedom from emotionally-driven inclinations
as the ideal (Seidler 1987). Just as the body, with its involuntary processes and frailties, poses a threat to
masculinity and pure reason, so too do emotions and desires. Acting only from reason and duty serves
to strengthen the autonomy of men, otherwise they are in a position of servitude, when reason
becomes a slave to the passions. Therefore, selfcontrol over one’s emotions has come to be one of the hallmarks of masculinity.
Feelings and emotions are seen as both imperilling masculine superiority and questioning the sources of
masculine identity. Because of this, as Victor Seidler (1987: 86– 90) argues, emotional and dependency needs as well as sexual desires
are transformed into issues of performance and control. With their identity defined in opposition to ‘feminine’
dependency, emotionality and bodily enslavement, men have become by and large instrumentalist in
thought and goal-oriented in action (Seidler 1989: 12).
**Disad Things
Link –Refugees

Current refugee restrictions popular amongst Trump’s white evangelical base

Newman 7/19
(Brian, professor of political science at Pepperdine University, “Why evangelical voters support Trump’s
policy on refugees — even though evangelical leaders object”, 7/19/18,
that/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f74e166c5a79, Date Accessed: 7/26/18, //EY)

Every year since the passage of the U.S. Refugee Act in 1980, the United States has resettled more
refugees than the rest of the world combined. But that has changed. In 2017, the United States resettled
33,000 refugees, about one-third as many as in 2016 — and less than half the 69,000 refugees resettled
in other countries. What do evangelicals think about U.S. refugee policy? Leaders and lay people are
divided. The evangelical establishment has objected. Particularly in response to the Syrian refugee
crisis, many prominent evangelical leaders, media outlets and organizations made explicitly biblical
arguments calling on the United States to welcome more refugees. More than 500 evangelical leaders
signed an open letter opposing the Trump administration’s initial entry restrictions, which temporarily
suspended refugee resettlement. Signatories included many of the most well-known figures in the
evangelical community, including Beth Moore, Max Lucado and Tim Keller. Even the Trump-friendly
Christian Broadcasting Network discussed nine biblical passages conveying a responsibility to care for
refugees. We might expect that evangelical leaders’ Bible-based arguments would lead rank-and-file
evangelicals to welcome refugees. That’s not what’s happened. Instead, white evangelicals have
supported President Trump’s closed-door policies wholeheartedly. Early in Trump’s presidency, amid
marches and airport protests, 76 percent of white evangelicals supported his initial entry ban. There’s
been little change since. In one recent poll, 25 percent of evangelicals thought the United States has a
responsibility to accept refugees — a smaller proportion than of any other racial, age, educational or
religious group polled. Another poll found that when asked whether the United States should prevent all
refugees from coming into he country, 44 percent said no — and another 44 percent said yes. Compare
that with the public as a whole, which opposes this policy by nearly a 2-to-1 ratio, 59 to 31 percent. Why
are lay evangelicals broadly opposed to allowing refugees into the country, defying their leaders? My
research shows their position flows from three sources: loyalty to Trump, ideological conservatism, and
attention to conservative media. Those factors have led evangelicals to support a policy that their
leaders, religious identity, values and beliefs might otherwise lead them to oppose. How I did my
research I analyzed a survey from 2015 and two from 2016. I examined all respondents, but here I’ll
focus on the evangelicals surveyed. The richest of the surveys, the 2016 American National Election
Study, asked respondents how much they supported “allowing Syrian refugees to come to the United
States” on a 1-to-7 scale. Since evangelical opposition to resettling Syrians in the United States was
consistent across the surveys, answers to this question probably provide a reasonable proxy for
evangelicals’ attitudes today. White evangelical Republicans’ attitudes toward refugees are just like
those of other white Republicans White evangelicals overwhelmingly identify as Republicans.
Partisanship wins out over evangelical leaders’ biblical arguments. There is essentially no difference
between average scores of white evangelical Republicans (2.16) and other white Republicans (2.15) on
the 1-to-7 scale. Such is the overwhelming power of partisanship in today’s politics. Among white
Republican evangelicals, Trump, political conservatism and Fox News matter (a lot) White evangelical
Republicans who strongly supported Trump, identified as politically conservative and regularly watched
Fox News were especially opposed to bringing Syrian refugees onto U.S. soil. Evangelical Republicans
who regard Trump more favorably than the Republican average were 1.3 points more opposed to
resettlement than their evangelical counterparts with less favorable views of Trump. Conservatism
mattered less, but among Republican evangelicals, political conservatives favored refugee resettlement
by 0.4 points less than did other evangelical Republicans. And evangelical Republicans who said they
watched Fox News favored bringing refugees to the United States by 0.8 points less than evangelical
Republicans who didn’t watch Fox News. A single poll can’t show that Fox News causes people to feel
this way, since immigration hard-liners are probably more likely to watch the network. However, other
research finds that watching Fox News does influence political attitudes. Presumably, Fox News at least
reinforces attitudes toward refugees.
2nc – at: trade war thumper
Trump’s trade wars are turning off key supporters for the midterm elections
Merica ’18
(Dan, July 24th 2018, CNN political reporter, “'A Band-Aid on a broken leg': Farmers say Trump's aid
package isn't enough”,
farm-aid-package/index.html, Date Accessed: 7/25/18, //EY)

The Trump administration's move on Tuesday to help farmers hurt by the trade wars has not stopped
the barrage of criticism it has faced over its underlying trade policy. President Donald Trump has taken a beating for months
over how his tit-for-tat trade wars with China and a host of friendly countries has affected farmers across America. And on Tuesday, the administration

decided to act, pledging $12 billion in aid to farmers impacted by the trade wars. In fields across the
country and even in some Republicans offices in Washington, the reaction was similar: It's not enough.
"It's a Band-Aid on a broken leg," said Michael Petefish, a 33-year-old Trump supporter and fifth generation soybean farmer in southern
Minnesota. "And to be blunt, it seems pretty political and seems like they want to shore up some midterm

support." He added: "Pretend someone smashed your car, and then someone said, 'Don't worry, I will give you a ride to the next place you have to go.' Well,
thank you, I appreciate the ride, but what am I going to do the next 10 rides I need after that?" Joel Schreurs, a soybean farmer from Tyler, Minnesota, said the plan
was a "good start" but not a fix that works in the long run. "I
firmly believe we need to either create more markets or be able
to work it out with China because we are going to produce way too many soybeans for the markets that
we have," he said. "It's a short-term fix." Schreurs said the economics of the issue make it difficult to solve. He grows about 25,000 bushels of soybeans a year,
so if the price goes down $2, that costs him around $50,000. "Not many people would like it if they took $50,000 away from their business when it is something that
they didn't have anything to do with," Schreurs said. The
decision to authorize up to $12 billion in funding for farmers hurt
by tariffs comes after months of negative headlines, primarily in communities and states Trump won in
2016. Rural voters -- many who have deep ties to farming -- helped catapult Trump to the presidency in
2016, and China's retaliatory tariffs specifically targeted politically important states and areas.
Republican leaders across the country have been raising alarm bells to the administration for months,
worried that antipathy towards the administration from base Republican voters would make an already
precarious midterm election season more dangerous for Republicans. "It's desperate," a Republican operative working on
the midterms told CNN on Tuesday. Though the Republican said they would happily welcome the political benefits that will come from the farm aid plan, they
worried the damage may already be done with growers whose farm prices and commodity prices have shrunk in recent months. "It doesn't make me feel any
better," the operative said. "The
White House is finally realizing that this isn't going to get better before ballots
are cast." Trump publicly gave those concerns little due. "Tariffs are the greatest! Either a country which has treated the United States unfairly on Trade
negotiates a fair deal, or it gets hit with Tariffs," Trump wrote on Tuesday. "It's as simple as that - and everybody's talking! Remember, we are the "piggy bank"
that's being robbed. All will be Great!" While the President also attempted to blame farming issue on his predecessors, inside Republican circles, operatives tasked
with keeping Republican majorities in the House and Senate privately worried. The funds, however, will not be spent until Labor Day in early September, the
Department of Agriculture said Tuesday, just months before the midterm elections. And the
general reaction from farmers, many of
whom would benefit from the payments, is that it's a short-term fix that won't work in the long run.
Nationals Farmers Union President Roger Johnson calls the Trump administration's plan to cut checks to farmers impacted by the trade war "a short-term fix to a
long-term problem." "The administration must develop a support mechanism that will mitigate the significant
damage that is being inflicted upon our most vital international markets for years to come," he said in a
statement. "They should do this by working with Congress to ensure farm bill programs provide enough

assistance to farmers when markets collapse." Soybean prices -- in the face of trade fears with China -- have
hovered around historic lows for months, leading Republican lawmakers in red states to raise red flags about the impact these tariffs could
have on Trump country. "The $12 billion in farm aid announced today will provide a short-term fix, but it's not a

long-term solution," Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds said in response to the Trump announcement. "As I've said all along, nobody wins in
a trade war." South Dakota Republican Sen. John Thune, whose state produces significant pork, soybeans and grains, slammed the decision to offer farmers
aid without fixing the root problem. "It's a Band-Aid," Thune told CNN's Ted Barrett. "It's a short-term solution and it doesn't solve any of the problems agriculture
has got right now." He added: "I appreciate the fact that they realize the farmers are being hurt by this, but this is
not the right remedy." And the Koch Brothers-aligned Americans for Prosperity President Tim Phillips poured cold water on the plan shortly after it was
announced. "$12 billion to aid farmers means the US is essentially borrowing from China to offset the costs

of tariffs imposed by China," Phillips said. "It doesn't get more Washington than that."

Trump is not withdrawing from NAFTA – their evidence is old and doesn’t assume
recent negotiations.
Rodriguez, 7/25/18 – [Jesus, Staff-writer @ The Hill, “Trump urges Mexican president-elect to wrap
up NAFTA deal 'quickly'”, (

President Trumpis telling Mexico's president elect that he wants to renegotiate the North Atlantic Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA) "quickly" and warning of a "different route" otherwise. “I believe a successful
renegotiation of [NAFTA] will
lead to even more jobs and higher wages for hard-working American and Mexican workers—but only if it can go quickly,
because otherwise I must go a much different route,” Trump said in a letter to Mexican President-elect Andrés Manuel López Obrador. “It
would not be my preference, but would be far more profitable for the United States.” The letter was dated July 20, but released on Tuesday
night by López Obrador. Trump drafted the letter in response to a letter López Obrador sent to Trump. NAFTA has been in effect since 1994, but
Trump views the free trade pact as an unfair deal that benefits Mexico more than the U.S. The
U.S., Canada and Mexico have
been renegotiating the deal, but talks have been slow. López Obrador, who will be the country’s first leftist president in decades
after the July 1 election, outlined several steps his administration would take to encourage development on the Mexican side of the border,
such as raising the minimum wage and matching the local tax rates to that of the states in the U.S. side. Keeping
improving development is seen as a way to stem the flow of economic migrants coming to the United
States from Mexico, a common goal for both administrations. López Obrador said in his letter, sent to Trump with
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo who visited Mexico on July 13, that his administration will work “so that no Mexicans have to migrate because
of poverty or violence.” Both Trump and López Obrador also exchanged pleasantries — a sign that the pair
might find common ground. Political watchers have also drawn comparisons between the two populists.
“We both achieved electoral success by providing a clear vision for making our countries stronger and
better,” Trump said in his letter. "A stronger relationship will lead to a much stronger and more prosperous Mexico, which frankly would
make me very happy!" he added. Mexican Economy Minister Ildefonso Guajardo is set to meet on Thursday with U.S. Trade Representative
Robert Lighthizer. Guajardo has hinted a NAFTA deal could be reached by August. Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said in April the parties
needed to reach an agreement by that month for Congress to pass it before November's midterms.

Trump is halting trade wars and compensation solves the impact on farmers.
Economist, 7/28/18 – [“Donald Trump agrees to cease fire in the trade war with the EU”,

Trump agreed to hold off further tariffs halting

The meeting’s other outcomes have more immediate consequences. Mr punitive measures “ ”, the threat of on European cars

and avoiding escalation into a nastier tit-for-tat dispute for a man said to be itching to withdraw . Remarkably

from the WTO Trump announced he would work with the EU to reform it.
World Trade Organisation ( ), Mr that Rather than mindlessly bashing the WTO, Mr

Trump may have realised the benefits of using it to tackle China’s economic misdeeds. Given Mr Trump’s mercurial personality and his peeves over America’s bilateral trade deficit with the EU, the truce may prove fragile. That means the most lasting policy announcement of the week

Trump’s agriculture secretary outlined a relief package

could yet be the one made on the day before Mr Juncker’s arrival, when Sonny Perdue, Mr , of up to $12bn for
American farmers hit by retaliatory tariffs from America’s trade partners . American farmers have long worried about their position on the front line of Mr
Trump’s trade wars. Around a fifth of their production is exported, leaving them exposed to retaliation from the likes of China, Mexico and the EU; their political heft at home makes them prime targets for foreigners trying to make the Trump administration reverse course. The Trump-
Juncker deal offered American farmers little relief. Not only was agriculture conspicuously absent from their joint statement (beyond a promise to buy more soyabeans), but the EU accounts for less than 4% of the agricultural trade flows affected by the new tariffs. By contrast, $12bn is a
big increase in government support for an industry that already gets a lot. The OECD, a club of mostly rich countries, estimates that in 2016 American farms received $33bn in various types of support. As generous as Mr Perdue’s plan may be, only its outline is clear.

Producers of soyabeans, sorghum, corn, wheat, cotton, dairy and pigs can expect payments. They can
also expect the government to hoover up unexpected surpluses. Last, some of the cash will be spent
on developing new export markets for farm products.

Farmers will get back on track despite trade wars.

Collinson, 7/26/18 – [Stephen, Staff-writer @ CNN, “Why Trump blinked”,

Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump has spent weeks drawing battle lines for a trade war with Europe and
courting Vladimir Putin -- causing almost universal angst in Washington. On Wednesday, he blinked on both. Trump's
decisions to put trade hostilities with the European Union on hold and to delay the Russian President's visit he had
planned for the fall are likely to be widely welcomed among Republicans and among US allies who have been
concerned by his tendency to elevate US enemies while criticizing friends. At the White House, Trump declared what appeared at
first to be a stunning breakthrough in transatlantic trade amid fears of an all-out trade war. "We had a big day. Very big,"
Trump said, promising a "new phase" in the relationship in which both sides win, after meeting European Commission President Jean-Claude
Juncker. They sealed their meeting when Juncker kissed Trump, pictured in a tweet posted by Trump later Wednesday evening. It was a far cry
from the President's smoldering rage at Europe that was in evidence during his trip across the Atlantic earlier this month. "This was
a very
big day for free and fair trade. A very big day indeed." Trump said. A victory or a walk-back? Trump and top European
leader agree to work toward zero tariffs The President needed a big day. His White House reeled Wednesday over a tape
made by his former lawyer Michael Cohen aired on CNN'S "Cuomo Prime Time" that showed he knew about an effort to pay off a Playboy
model who said she had an affair with him that contradicted his previous denials. Trump refused to answer questions about the tape during an
photo-op with Juncker -- and the White House later banned CNN White House correspondent Kaitlan Collins from the trade announcement for
asking them. The announcement on trade was dressed up as a huge victory, held in the Rose Garden, the traditional venue for big state
announcements, and in front of a group of Republican lawmakers apparently called down from Capitol Hill to serve as a backdrop. Yet in
essence, its
real effect seemed to be to disguise a step back by the President who has imposed steel and
aluminum tariffs on US allies in Europe, repeatedly threatened to slap a 25% tariff on European cars imports and blasted the
European Union in public. The two sides said that they had agreed to discuss tearing down all tariffs, trade barriers and subsidies on non-auto
industrial goods. Trump said that they had also agreed to work together to resolve the issue of "retaliatory tariffs" imposed in recent months.
The President's announcement that Europe will buy more soybeans and liquid national gas could be
good news for US agriculture and industry. And Juncker, apparently keen to flatter Trump, was eager to play along in language
that the President appreciates. "When I was invited by the President to the White House, I had one intention: I had the intention to make a deal
today. And we made a deal today," he said. It
would be huge news if the US and Europe ever agreed to get to the
zero tariffs, zero subsidies and zero barriers standard that both leaders proposed on Wednesday.

Bailout solves --- they develop new markets which solves all base concerns
Ebbs et al 7/24 ---[ Stephanie Ebbs is a political reporter for ABC, Karolina Rivas is studying Journalism
and Political Science at the University of Nevada, and Tara Palmeri is an American journalist who works
as ABC News' White House correspondent. Most recently, she was a Politico White House
correspondent, and served as a CNN Political Analyst, ‘Trump administration announces $12 billion in
emergency aid to farmers hurt by president’s trade battle with China and others”, ABC News, 7/24/18,
tariffs/story?id=56780614] jk

The Trump administration will

extend billions in "temporary relief aid" to farmers who have been impacted by
an ongoing trade fight with China and other nations. The move, which includes several types of
assistance, could strengthen Trump's political position ahead of his trade negeotiations with European Commission President Jean-
Claude Juncker on Wednesday. The
U.S. Department of Agriculture said the agency will authorize $12 billion in
programs to provide payments to producers impacted by retaliatory tariffs, including soybeans, corn, wheat and
dairy farmers, implement a food purchase program to buy surplus products, and authorize a program to develop new export
markets for farm products. The USDA said in a press release the $12 billion is in line to offset the estimated $11
billion impact of the retaliatory tariffs. "The actions today are a firm statement that other nations cannot bully
our agricultural producers to force the United States to cave in," Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue told reporters. “This administration
will not stand by while our hard-working agricultural producers bear the brunt of unfriendly and illegal
tariffs." President Trump urged patience on the trade spat. "Just be a little patient. They are all aiming for anybody who likes me," Trump told the
crowd at the Veterans of Foreign Wars national convention in Kansas City on Tuesday as he spoke of foreign countries who have imposed retaliatory tariffs that
impact Trump's base.

The base supports the trade war

Hart 7/24 --- [Benjamin Hart is a journalist for the Huffington Post and New York Magazine, “Trump to
Veterans: Trust Me, Not Your Lying Eyes”, The New York Magazine, 7/24/18,
news.html] jk
During a stop campaigning for Missouri Senate candidate Josh Hawley at a VFW hall in Kansas City on Tuesday — which our gleefully norm-shattering commander-in-chief treated more like a

campaign rally than a taxpayer-funded event — President Trump broached the topic of tariffs. The president insisted that despite all the lost
agricultural revenue, despite the damage already done to marquee American businesses, and despite
the bad headlines, his bellicose trade policy is actually good news for everyone. Or, as he put it on Twitter earlier in the day, “Tariffs
are the greatest!” And, in a line for the ages, Trump neatly encapsulated both his entire political strategy, and his opinion of

the people who vote for him. If retaining base support is his goal, the president’s strategy of straightforward reality
distortion is working fairly well. A Pew poll last week showed that 73 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning

voters approved of the tariffs, a startling result for a party that once championed free trade as one of its defining policy planks.

Base supports the trade war

Miller and Boyer 7 /5---[S.A. Miller is the White House Correspondent at the Washington Times, and
Dave Boyer is a staff writer for the Washington Times, “China trade war kicks off: GOP base backs
Trump's get-tough tariffs”, The Washington Times, 7/5/18,
plans-/] jk

The U.S.-China trade war is set to dramatically escalate Friday as threatened higher tariffs go into effect, and President Trump is
going into battle with virtually no support from the Republican Party establishment. But that doesn’t mean Mr.
Trump is fighting alone. The president’s get-tough stance on China is bolstered by an electoral base
that for years has been moving away from the GOP’s long-held free trade orthodoxy, according to conservative and business
leaders who themselves oppose protectionist tariffs in trade disputes. “ We’ve recognized a lot of our own base — Republican primary

voters, conservatives — they are not as favorable toward free trade anymore,” said Tim Phillips, president Americans for
Prosperity, a conservative advocacy group that steadfastly opposes higher duties. “This didn’t start with the president,” he added. “The drift started well before him, and it’s not going to end
with this tariff and protectionist move.” Americans for Prosperity plans a multiyear multi-million-dollar campaign to corral Republican voters back into the free trade stable. Mr. Trump said
Thursday that the 25 percent tariff on $34 billion worth of Chinese goods was just the beginning of his crackdown. Higher duties would hit another $16 billion worth of goods in two weeks,
telling reporters en route to a rally in Montana he is prepared to considered another $500 billion in trade duties on Chinese goods if Beijing refuses to compromise. “It’s only on China,” said
Mr. Trump. Chinese President Xi Jinping’s government accused the U.S. of “firing first” in the trade war and vowed to shoot back. “China will not bow in the face of threats and blackmail, nor
will it be shaken in its resolve to defend global free trade,” said Gao Feng, spokesman for China’s Commerce Ministry. Mr. Trump insists that he is a free-trader, but that for too long the U.S.
has allowed what he calls “dumb trade,” charging low tariffs at home while allowing foreign rivals to impose high tariffs and other barriers to U.S. exports, leading to huge trade deficits. With
China, critics say, the uneven playing field is further tilted by Beijing’s theft or forced transfer of American businesses’ intellectual property. The president blames Beijing’s unfair trade

In the U.S., support for the president standing up to China

practices for driving up America’s annual trade deficit with China to $375 billion.

extends to blue-collar Democratic voters who crossed party lines in 2016 to help send Mr. Trump to the
White House. It’s also a position long championed by Democrats, although they have been mostly silent since Mr. Trump took up the cause. The tariff threats have
caused wild swings on Wall Street. However, stocks were strong Thursday with the Dow Jones Industrial average
gaining 181 points to close at 24,356. Still, Mr. Trump’s resolve and that of Americans facing higher import prices will be tested in a trade clash with China and
other countries. Economists expect a tit-for-tat tariffs to drive up prices paid by U.S. consumers and force job cuts in industries that rely on raw materials from China or sales to the huge
Chinese market. The higher U.S. duties will hit products including Chinese-made machinery, auto parts, medical equipment, rare earth metals and electronic cigarette devices. Beijing is
retaliating with tariffs on such U.S. goods as soybeans, sorghum and cotton, in many cases selecting products intended to inflict pain on areas that supported Mr. Trump politically in 2016..
“We have to at some point stand up to China. I think it is better to do it now that five or 10 years from now,” said Stephen Moore, an economist at the conservative Heritage Foundation who is
close to the president. He said China, with 4 percent of its GDP tied to trade with the U.S., has much more to lose in a trade war. “We both lose if this gets to be a tit-for-tat situation, but China
would be thrown into a recession if it couldn’t trade with the United States,” said Mr. Moore. Recent polls have shown voters are split over the president’s trade moves and on tariffs on China.

national poll last month found that voters support the idea of tariffs on China 52 percent to 36 percent.
Quinnipiac University

Republicans overwhelmingly approved, 78 percent to 15 percent. However, a Wall Street Journal/NBC News showed that 51 percent of registered
voters were either uncomfortable or had reservations voting for a candidate in the midterms who backed tariffs on countries such as Canada, German and China. Mr. Trump’s tariffs on steel
and aluminum hit all those counties, but he leveled the most sweeping new duties on China. “It’s classic Trump,” said GOP strategist and pollster Jim McLaughlin, who did work for the Trump
campaign in 2016. He credited the president with going after China without clear-cut support in the polls, as well as following through on trade policies that were a top campaign promise in

“It’s one of those things where he’s doing what he said he would do and he’s fighting for working-

class people,” said Mr. McLaughlin. “You don’t see anybody protesting other than the country-club Republicans.”

Trump’s aid to farmers has appeased base’s trade war concerns but has angered
Soergel 7-25-18 ( Andrew Soergel is a Senior Reporter at U.S. News, “Farmers, GOP Lawmakers
Question Trump's $12B Agriculture Lifeline”,

"The only real factor constraining Trump's prosecution of his trade war is the potential that workers in
red states will abandon the cause and turn on him. Aid to farmers mitigates that concern," Daniel
Ikenson, director of the Cato Institute's Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies, said in a
statement Tuesday. Indignation among Republican lawmakers was swift once news broke that the
Trump administration would funnel $12 billion into propping up an agriculture sector that's been
increasingly targeted by China and other U.S. trade partners as Trump and his international counterparts
announce a series of tit-for-tat tariffs and barriers. Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., is one of several GOP
lawmakers to frame the president's actions as equivalent to a series of "taxpayer-funded bailouts"
designed to address fallout from trade disputes in which Congress didn't formally choose to engage.
"These tariffs are a massive tax increase on American consumers and businesses, and instead of offering
welfare to farmers to solve a problem they themselves created, the administration should reverse
course and end this incoherent policy," Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., said in a statement Tuesday. Sen.
Orrin Hatch, meanwhile, indicated in a tweet that the U.S. needs to "find a better approach toward
current trade challenges" that doesn't involve "giving handouts." The Utah Republican has previously
expressed interest in advancing legislation that would place greater limits on the president's ability to
enact trade barriers without consulting Congress.
Spending Bill Thumper
Trump’s spending bill thumps – his base already feels betrayed
Root 3/24
(Wayne Allyn, political commentator @ LV Review journal, “COMMENTARY: Donald Trump alienates his
base by signing an awful federal spending bill”, 03/24/18,
trump-alienates-his-base-by-signing-an-awful-federal-spending-bill/, Date Accessed: 7/26/18, //EY)

President Donald Trump just made the worst mistake of his presidency. I thought he understood the
Golden Rule. Defend your base. Support your base. Love your base. Never betray your base. All that
matters is your base. The rest of the world doesn’t matter. The D.C. swamp doesn’t matter. The media
don’t matter. Liberals don’t matter. Illegal aliens don’t matter. The GOP establishment doesn’t matter.
You beat them all to win the GOP nomination against all odds. You beat them all to win the presidency
against all odds. As Sinatra said, you won because “you did it your way.” You never wavered. You never
suffered weak knees. You never gave a damn what the rest of them thought. And that was your
strength. So, what happened? Did you lose your mojo? Did the swamp finally come up with a threat or
offer you could not refuse? Who’s advising you? That someone is either corrupt or an idiot. President
Trump just signed the $1.3 trillion omnibus bill. It is a travesty. It will bankrupt America. It is filled with
pork and corruption. It sells out conservatives. It rewards liberals. It makes government far bigger and
stronger. It spends hundreds of millions on a wall … in the Middle East. But nothing on the Trump wall. It
spends billions on a tunnel between New York and New Jersey, the dream of Sen. Chuck Schumer. It
funds sanctuary cities. It gives millions in raises to Congress. Schumer and Pelosi are gloating. They
played you. They made you look like a fool, a loser. The GOP controls everything. White House. Senate.
House. Governorships. State houses. Supreme Court. And we got rolled. Your 63 million voters got
rolled. You got rolled. We voted for you, and we got nothing. Democrats lost at every level, and they just
got everything they wanted. Can anyone explain this? It may not be fatal. I sure hope it’s not fatal. But
it’s a grievous wound. President Trump had “the D.C. swamp” right where he wanted them. He had
them scared to death. Cornered. Embattled. Holding on for dear life. Lawyering up. And then strangely,
suddenly, Trump lifted his foot off the pedal. I received hundreds of emails and texts from the fans of
my national radio and TV shows on Friday morning. Here is a sampling: “Wayne, I never thought I’d say
this, but I am done. Not only am I done with Trump, I am done. Period. I’m never voting again. My votes
haven’t counted for a long time, but now they will never count, since the only votes that matter are by
illegals. He’s funding sanctuary cities, some frigging tunnel to nowhere for Chuck, and on and on. He is
neutered. He knuckled under to the Dems and the backstabbers. Impeachment is next on the agenda.
He’s a lame duck … and a member of the swamp now. What a disgrace. Have a nice day. Paula.”
“Wayne, I will no longer go to battle for Mr. Trump. As far as I’m concerned, he is just another liar, like
most of the rest of the Republicans. He has abandoned his major campaign pledges to the people who
voted for him. Just this morning I know phones were off the hook at WH w/Trump supporters stating
that if he signs the Omnibus Bill, they are all done with Trump. Sad day. Rich.” “Hi, Wayne. Today
President Trump betrayed his base by signing the Omnibus bill. No funds for a wall in the USA, but funds
for a wall in the Middle East? He totally caved to the Democrats. The Art of the Deal? I can no longer
support him or Republican candidates. If we are going to cave to the Democrats, we may as well elect
Democrats. Trump does not know the damage he has done today. He has been ROLLED. Jeff.” Trump
clearly made the worst mistake of his presidency. The question is: Can he recover? Contact Wayne Allyn
Root at Hear or watch the nationally syndicated “WAR Now: The Wayne
Allyn Root Show” from 3 to 6 p.m. daily at 790 Talk Now and at 5 p.m. on Newsmax TV.
1AR – Farmer Bailout
Promise to increase emergency aid does nothing --- too much uncertainty and
congressional backlash
Jones 7/25 --- [Sarah Jones is a staff writer for The New Republic, The New Republic, 7/25/18,] jk

Trump is spending billions to help farmers hurt by his trade war. The White House said on Tuesday that the administration will offer
farmers about $12 billion in emergency aid to offset the repercussions from the president’s tariffs
against China, which recently announced a 25 percent import tax on $50 billion in U.S. goods, including soybeans. Tariffs have not
been an easy sell. Members of Trump’s own party have raised objections to the policy, and they weren’t all
immediately mollified by news of aid. “This administration’s tariffs and bailouts aren’t going to make America great
again, they’re just going to make it 1929 again,” Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska told The New York Times. Like many of
Trump’s plans, the details about the emergency aid are murky; it’s not clear if the money will end up in the
pockets of soybean farmers or the agricultural conglomerates that dominate the industry. CNBC reports that
shares of John Deere went up after the news. Trump may take that as evidence that his solution worked, but he’s merely patching
holes that he himself punched.

Trumps bailout doesn’t solve --- farmers have lost too much money
Davis and Swanson 7/24 --- [Julie Hirschfield Davis is a White House correspondent at The New York
Times who graduated from Yale University and Ana Swanson writes about trade and international
economics previously covering trade, the Federal Reserve and the economy for The Washington Post,
“To Ease Pain of Trump’s Trade War: $12 Billion in Aid for Farmers”, New York Times, 7/24/18,] jk

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration announced on Tuesday that it would provide up to $12 billion in emergency
relief for farmers hurt by the president’s trade war, moving to blunt the financial damage to American
agriculture and the political fallout for Republicans as the consequences of President Trump’s protectionist policies roll through the economy. Unveiled two days before
the president is scheduled to visit Iowa, a politically important state that is the nation’s top soybean producer, the farm aid appeared calculated to show that Mr.

Trump cares about farmers and is working to protect them from the worst consequences of his trade
war. But the relief money, announced by the Department of Agriculture, was also an indication that Mr. Trump — ignoring the concerns
of farmers, their representatives in Congress and even some of his own aides — plans to extend his tit-for-tat tariff wars. “The actions today are a firm statement that
other nations cannot bully our agricultural producers to force the United States to cave in,” Sonny Perdue, the secretary of agriculture, said during a call with reporters to unveil the program. The move drew

swift condemnation from many farm groups and lawmakers, including several in his own party, who worry about a
cascade of unintended consequences that may be just beginning. One farm-group study estimates that corn, wheat and soybean farmers in

the United States have already lost more — $13 billion — than the administration is proposing to
provide as a result of the trade war. The prospect of retaliation has upended global markets for
soybeans, meat and other American farm exports, and farmers are warning that tariffs are costing them
valuable foreign contracts that took years to win. “You have a terrible policy that sends farmers to the
poorhouse, and then you put them on welfare, and we borrow the money from other countries,” Senator Bob
Corker, Republican of Tennessee, told reporters on Capitol Hill. “It’s hard to believe there isn’t an outright revolt right now in Congress.” Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, asked how the president could single out
farmers for help when the manufacturing and energy industries also stand to lose in the trade war. “Where do you draw the line?” Ms. Murkowski asked reporters. Mr. Trump could be forced to prop up other domestic industries
as retaliatory taxes imposed by trading partners begin to sting automobile manufacturers, distillers and other impacted sectors. Republicans who cherish their party’s reputation as the bastion of free markets and fiscal

The U.S. Department of Agriculture is trying to

responsibility wondered aloud on Tuesday about the president picking winners and losers in a trade war he is bent on waging. “

put a band-aid on a self-inflicted wound,” Senator Patrick J. Toomey, Republican of Pennsylvania, wrote on Twitter. “This bailout compounds bad
policy with more bad policy.” Farmers have borne the brunt of Mr. Trump’s decision to impose tariffs,
which is already costing American producers billions of dollars and threatens to inflict political pain on
Republicans in farm states in the midterm elections in November. “Tariffs are the greatest!” Mr. Trump declared on Twitter on Tuesday morning.
“Either a country which has treated the United States unfairly on Trade negotiates a fair deal, or it gets hit with Tariffs. It’s as simple as that — and everybody’s talking! Remember, we are the ‘piggy bank’ that’s being robbed. All
will be Great!” The European Union, Canada, Mexico, China and other countries have responded to Mr. Trump’s tariffs on steel, aluminum and $34 billion worth of Chinese products by imposing taxes of their own. They have often

American soybeans, pork, sugar, orange juice,

targeted farm country, the source of some of America’s biggest exports and an important political base for the president.

cherries and other products now face tariffs in foreign markets that make their products less desirable. At a
speech in Kansas City, Mo., on Tuesday, Mr. Trump said Americans should “just be a little patient” with the pain they may be feeling from the trade war, arguing that his actions were forcing other countries to the negotiating table
to cut deals that would be better for them in the long run. “They don’t want to have those tariffs put on them — they’re all coming to see us — and the farmers will be the biggest beneficiary,” Mr. Trump said at a Veterans of
Foreign Wars convention. “We’re opening up markets. You watch what’s going to happen.” Some farm groups praised the move, albeit as a short-term solution. “We are grateful for the administration’s recognition that farmers
and ranchers needed positive news now, and this will buy us some time,” said Zippy Duvall, the president of the American Farm Bureau Federation. “This announcement is substantial, but we cannot overstate the dire

lawmakers in both parties and many agricultural trade groups criticized the
consequences that farmers and ranchers are facing.” But

assistance program as a taxpayer-funded bailout for farmers imperiled by the president’s own policies, and
even Mr. Trump’s Republican allies made clear that they did not regard it as a genuine solution to the problems his tariffs had created. “The president’s announcement of billions of dollars in aid that will be made available to

What farmers in Iowa and throughout rural

struggling farmers later this year is encouraging for the short term,” Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, said in a statement. “

America need in the long term are markets and opportunity, not government handouts.” Agriculture Department officials
said farmers could begin signing up to receive the federal money in September, just weeks before voters go to the polls. The package includes direct payments to the producers of soybeans, sorghum, corn, wheat, cotton, dairy and
hogs, who would be compensated according to the size of their harvests this year. It will also include government purchases of surplus products — including fruit, nuts, rice, legumes, beef, pork and dairy — that would be sent to
food banks or other nutrition programs. Some of the funding would go to a program in which the Agriculture Department works with private companies to develop new export markets for American farm products. Mr. Trump and
his advisers have argued that while American producers may feel short-term pain, ultimately they will benefit as other countries are forced to lower their barriers to American products. Meantime, the administration has sought
ways to help farmers survive the pain of retaliation. The program announced on Tuesday will be funded by the Commodity Credit Corporation, which helps shore up American farmers by buying their crops. It marked the first time
that funding from the program — created after the Great Depression — has been used to compensate farmers for losses sustained because of trade, according to an Agriculture Department spokesman. The initiative, which does
not authorize any new money and thus does not need approval from Congress, was an unmistakable signal that the president has no plans to lift his tariffs anytime soon, as Farm Belt senators have pleaded with him to do.

“This trade war is cutting the legs out from under farmers, and the White House’s ‘plan’ is to spend
$12 billion on gold crutches,” said Senator Ben Sasse, Republican of Nebraska. “This administration’s tariffs and bailouts aren’t
going to make America great again, they’re just going to make it 1929 again.” Senator Ron Johnson, Republican of Wisconsin, said
farmers in his state “want trade, not aid.” “I support President Trump’s call for reciprocal trade and his effort to stop China’s theft of American intellectual property, but we should stop self-inflicting
permanent damage to America’s economy through tariffs and a trade war,” Mr. Johnson said. One trade group leader said farmers need contracts, not government assistance, for stability. “The best relief for

the president’s trade war would be ending the trade war,” said Brian Kuehl, the executive director of the trade group Farmers for Free Trade, adding,
“This proposed action would only be a short-term attempt at masking the long-term damage caused by
tariffs.” Administration officials argued on Tuesday that the assistance for farmers would help them absorb the pain while persuading other countries that they must offer concessions to forge trade agreements with the
United States. “What this will do is provide some hope to farmers and ranchers that the president and the secretary do have their back,” Greg Ibach, the under secretary of agriculture for marketing and regulatory programs, said of
the aid package. “We’re hoping that other countries will see that we’re serious now about negotiations.” But many farmers criticized the decision and said it would only compound the maze of federal subsidies and regulations they
already must wade through to make a living. “We don’t want to be dependent on another government program,” Casey Guernsey, a Missouri farmer and spokesman for Americans for Farmers & Families, an anti-tariff group, said
in an interview on Tuesday. “We already are very much in a situation in farming, in agriculture across the board, where we are held hostage to decisions made in Washington.” And some lawmakers argued that if he wanted to help

American farmers, Mr. Trump must simply call off his trade war. “Tariffs are taxes that punish American consumers and producers,” Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, said on Twitter. “ If tariffs punish
farmers, the answer is not welfare for farmers — the answer is remove the tariffs.”

Trade war decks base support and bailout doesn’t solve

Wise 7/25 --- [Justin Wise is a journalist for The Hill, “Soybean growers' leader: I may not support Trump
again in 2020”, The Hill, 7/25/18,
group-president-i-may-not-support-trump-again-in-2020] jk

The president of the Minnesota Soybean Growers Association said Wednesday that he may not vote for
President Trump in 2020 if he doesn't fix current trade disputes. "It’s not about the man or the party," Michael Petefish said
on CNN's "CNN Newsroom." "It’s about specific policies. We in agriculture are very supportive of trade, and this
president has not been." Asked by CNN host Poppy Harlow what that means in regards to the 2020 presidential election, Petefish said
“the jury’s still out on that.” “Timing is critical on this trade deal,” he added. “If, in three or five years we have a
better trade agreement, that won’t matter to most farmers because we’re hurting financially now and we
won’t have the ability to run our businesses in the red for the next several years. "The trade needs to get fixed now." The
comments from Petefish come as the U.S. is involved in trade disputes with countries such as China and the European Union. Many
agricultural groups have called on Trump to stop imposing tariffs because their products, such as pork
and soybeans, are being targeted for retaliation by top U.S. trading partners. The Trump administration
announced on Tuesday that it would offer about $12 billion in emergency relief to U.S. farmers, who have been hit
hardest by the administration's protracted trade battle. But Petefish said that "$12 billion damage is just
sort of scratching the surface of the economic impact." Petefish added that an argument could be made that the trade
war has caused $12 billion worth of damage to soybean farmers alone. "What's concerning is the future"
Petefish said. "Are we going to keep pumping $12 billion into the farming economy? What we need is
markets.” Multiple GOP lawmakers have echoed Petefish's concerns. Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.), for example, said on Tuesday that
"America's farmers don't want to be paid to lose — they want to win by feeding the world."

Farmers support the bailout --- Iowa proves

Petroski 7/24 --- [William Petroski is a senior reporter for the Des Moines Register, “Trump's $12 billion
bailout for farmers draws mixed reactions in Iowa”, Des Moines Register, 7/24/18,
farmers/827126002/] jk

President Donald Trump administration's plan to provide $12 billion in federal aid to American farmers
hurt by a trade war drew a sharp mix of reactions Tuesday from Iowa farm groups, politicians, agricultural economists
and others. U.S. Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue described the initiative as a short-term strategy that

will protect agricultural producers while Trump works on long-term trade deals to benefit agriculture
and the entire U.S. economy. But critics suggested the bailout is contrary to the traditional Republican
philosophy of free markets and smaller government. They also pointed out that while Iowa farm income has been down, agriculture
had been doing well from an export standpoint before it was negatively affected by Trump's decisions to impose tariffs and pick trade fights with China, Mexico,
Canada and other major trading partners of the United States. More: Trump will visit Dubuque in Iowa on Thursday. U.S.
Sen. Chuck Grassley, a New
Hartford farmer and a Republican, said
the president's plans to provide billions of dollars in federal aid for struggling
farmers is encouraging for the short term.
Dem Win Good -> Investigations
Dem win in House blocks Trump’s agenda and accelerates investigations – even the
risk of a dem wave is regulating the GOP, which the plan flips
Antle 7-10-18 ( W. James Antle III is the Washington Examiner's politics editor. He was previously
managing editor of the Daily Caller, associate editor of the American Spectator and senior writer for the
American Conservative. He is the author of Devouring Freedom: Can Big Government Ever Be Stopped?,
“Republicans are running out of time”, Washington Examiner, 7-10-18)//DT

Republicans are running out of time. Today they control all of Washington. Come January, they may be
confined to the White House. The loss of even just the House of Representatives after the midterm
elections in November, the likeliest scenario, would put Democrats in charge of originating tax and
spending bills as well as initiating the impeachment process. If the Senate falls, it will stymie President
Trump’s ability to fill executive and judicial branch vacancies. Either chamber falling under Democratic
control also means an uptick in congressional hearings about various scandals involving the Trump
administration and its officials. Time devoted to Russian interference into the 2016 presidential election
or potential violations of the emoluments clause will mean less time spent on Trump’s legislative
priorities. And investigations targeting the administration will be covered more sympathetically than
committee hearings on Whitewater or Benghazi. Additionally, lawmakers may augment or accelerate
investigations that are already underway. As the days tick down to the November election, incumbents
on Capitol Hill facing tough races will be increasingly reluctant to take hard votes. Note how little
Democrats did with majorities much bigger than the ones the Republicans have now after passing
Obamacare — which by itself arguably cost them the House. At-risk Republicans may decide
controversial votes to cut corporate tax rates and (mostly unsuccessfully) scuttle Obamacare are enough
for them to contend with on the campaign trail. Still, Republicans need to pass a dozen appropriations
bills with the fiscal year set to end Sept. 30. In the Senate, they will need some Democratic votes to do
so because of the filibuster rules. The more Republican defections there are, the more Democrats will be
required. Otherwise they risk a partial government shutdown just weeks out from the election.
UQ – Dems Win Now
Dems are soft favorites now – fundraising, generic ballot, forecasts – but turnout not
set in stone
Scott 7-24-18 ( Dylan Scott is a policy reporter for Vox News, “The odds that Democrats will take the
House in the 2018 midterms keep looking better”, Vox,

With a little more than three months left until Election Day, Democrats seem to be strengthening their
position to win control of the House in the 2018 midterm elections. Two data points will suffice to
explain the situation right now: On Tuesday, the University of Virginia’s Crystal Ball, one of the nation’s
premier election forecasters, changed its ratings for 17 House districts — and all of them moved in favor
of Democrats. Democrats’ lead in the generic ballot, if you go by the RealClearPolitics polling average,
has quietly doubled (and then some) since the beginning of June, from a mere 3.2 percentage points to
a healthy 7.1 points. That is roughly the margin political science nerds think they need. Real Clear Politics
If you want to add a third point, Democrats have been posting very strong fundraising numbers, with
Democratic challengers outraising GOP incumbents in some of the nation’s most competitive districts, as
Vox’s Tara Golshan recently noted. “Put it all together, and the Democrats now look like soft favorites to
win a House majority with a little more than 100 days to go,” the Crystal Ball’s Kyle Kondik wrote on
Tuesday. He emphasized how reluctant they have been to move the odds from 50-50, but the indicators
for Democrats keep looking better and better. A quick assessment of the House battleground further
supports the case. One GOP-held seat — in now de-gerrymandered Pennsylvania — is considered a Safe
Democratic win; two others are considered Likely Democratic pickups. Four Republican districts — three
of which are open seats with no incumbent — fall in the Lean Democratic camp, and 33 GOP-held seats
are rated as toss-ups, according to the Crystal Ball. If you added the 16 seats that merely Lean
Republican, then the 2018 House battlefield equals around 60 districts. Democrats need to flip 24
Republican seats to take back the House. By the looks of things, they could win less than half of the
competitive districts and still pull it off. Just one Democratic seat is considered a Safe Republican win
(again, a result of the Pennsylvania redistricting) and only two Democratic-held seats are rated as toss-
ups. In other words, almost the entire 2018 campaign will be fought over GOP-held territory. On the one
hand, good Democratic odds shouldn’t be such a shock. The minority party’s gains in midterm elections
are a fact of life in American politics. President Trump, in spite of relatively strong economic indicators,
is pretty unpopular. Issues like health care promise to dominate the campaign, and voters prefer
Democrats to Republicans in key policy debates. But Democrats are still facing a heavily gerrymandered
House map, and the frank reality that their (younger) supporters have historically been less reliable
voters in midterm elections than the GOP’s (older) base. Recent polling underscored the real risk that
millennial voters won’t turn out as hoped. So everything could still go wrong for Democrats in the 2018
midterms. But with about 100 days left in the campaign, they have a lot of reasons to be optimistic.

Dems win now

Breuninger and Newburger 7-24-18 ( Kevin Breuninger and Emma Nerburger are CNBC Special
associates and reporters, “Some good news for Democrats: Their odds to win the House are above 50%
for the first time, top forecaster says”,
For the first time this cycle, a leading elections forecaster has given Democrats a greater than 50 percent
chance to reclaim the House of Representatives in the 2018 midterms. An analysis by Sabato’s Crystal
Ball, a service of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics, published on Tuesday shows the House
tilting past 50-50 odds in favor of the Democrats taking it back. The party needs to flip 23 seats this fall
in order to regain the majority they haven't held since the first half of President Barack Obama's first
term. Crystal Ball's managing editor noted that it was “the first time this cycle we’ve gone beyond 50-50
odds on a House turnover.” The nonpartisan political newsletter, which tracks congressional,
presidential and gubernatorial elections, made changes in 17 House races over the past week — all in
Democrats’ favor. With under 100 days to go until the November elections, eight races labeled “Leans
Republican” were shifted to the “Toss-Up” category, including a special election in Ohio on Aug. 7. The
changes raise the total number of toss-up elections to 36. Thirty-four of those competitive races are for
seats currently held by Republicans, versus just two from Democrats. Other pollsters and analysts have
already signaled that Democrats have an edge heading into the midterms. Real Clear Politics’ generic
ballot, which averages leading polls, gives Democrats a seven-point lead over the GOP. Forecasting and
data site FiveThirtyEight estimates that Democrats have a higher chance than Republicans, 48 percent to
41 percent. The shift toward the minority party follows a week of intensely negative press for President
Donald Trump, whose performance during a press conference alongside Russian leader Vladimir Putin in
Helsinki, Finland, garnered bipartisan condemnation. The president’s approval rating is still largely stuck
in the low 40s, which analysts say is a red flag that has plagued similarly situated presidents in past
midterms. The House generic ballot, which has generally shown a Democratic lead of between six to
eight points, is currently at the higher end of the range right now. A poll by The Wall Street Journal and
NBC News that was published Sunday showed Trump’s favorables edging slightly higher in the wake of
the summit with Putin, helped almost entirely by high levels of support among Republicans. Eighty-eight
percent of members of the president’s party approve of the job he’s doing, according to that poll. In
Congress, however, Sabato’s Crystal Ball shows a less steady base of support for Republicans. A high
number of open seats in this election cycle provides Democrats with more opportunities to take back
seats than the GOP, since Republicans are defending 41 seats without an incumbent, while Democrats
are defending only 22 seats. The analysts also note that Republican incumbents in 56 districts were
badly outfunded by their Democratic challengers in the second quarter. It’s a potentially ominous sign
for the GOP, considering incumbents are generally expected to be able to handily outraise their
UQ – Dems Win (Young Voters)
Voter enthusiasm is high – new polls
Sparks 7-13-18 ( Grace Sparks is an associate producer for CNN Politics, where she specializes in
polling and data driven political coverage, “Voters are extremely interested in the 2018 midterms”,

Seven-in-10 registered voters say they're extremely or very interested in the November elections, a
record high in Fox News polling for their midterm election tracking since 2010. More Democrats, 77%,
say they're interested in the elections, compared with 74% of Republicans and 44% of independents.
The 70% figure for extremely or very interested is a new high. Interest in previous years has come close to that, but
only right before Election Day. In late October polls in 2014 and 2010, 68% said they were interested. It's now just the start of July, and already
voters have surpassed usual levels of interest. In a follow-up question, Fox
asked if, compared with previous congressional
elections, voters thought they were more enthusiastic about casting ballots than usual, less enthusiastic
or about the same as usual. Forty-four percent said they were more enthusiastic, 43% said they were
about the same as usual and only 10% said they were less enthusiastic. Republicans were more likely to
say they were about the same as usual in terms of excitement, while Democrats believed they're more
enthusiastic. Forty-eight percent of voters said they would support the Democratic candidate in the
upcoming election and 40% reported they preferred the Republican. However, the fact that they would support that
party member in their congressional election didn't mean they believe in the party as a whole. When asked if the Democratic Party has a clear
plan for the country, fewer people agreed with that statement than those who said the Republican Party has a plan. Especially interesting,
significantly more Republicans thought their own party had a plan for the country (65%) than Democrats who felt that way about the
Democratic Party, with about half of saying so. This could be attributed to the fact that Republicans are in power and their plan can be seen in
action, but it should be a troubling figure for Democratic leaders. Not everyone is as excited about talking about their political views as they are
about voting on them, however. Fox asked whether voters in the last year have intentionally avoided talking with friends and family who have
different political views. Respondents were exactly split, with 48% saying yes and the same amount saying no. Among the most likely to say
they had avoided talking about differing political beliefs were those who lived in union households (63%), women (56%) and whites with college
degrees (56%). Men (55%), nonwhite voters (55%) and Trump voters (52%) were the least likely to avoid discussing those matters. The Fox
News Poll is conducted under the joint direction of Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw &
Company Research (R). The poll was conducted by telephone with live interviewers July 9-11, 2018,
among a random national sample of 1,007 registered voters (RV). Results based on the full sample have
a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
UQ – AT: Black swans
Dems win now and black swans don’t thump, but major event can shift the election
Cillizza 7-25-18 ( Chris Cillizza is a CNN Politics Reporter and Editor-at-Large, covering national politics
including the White House, Congress and every district they represent, “Every sign is pointing to a
Democratic wave in November”, CNN Politics,

The 2018 election is in 105 days. And the playing field continues to tilt toward Democrats. On Tuesday,
Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball at the University of Virginia moved 17(!) House seats in Democrats' favor --
eight of which went from a "leans Republican" rating to a "toss-up." That means that of the 36 races
rated as "toss-ups" by the Center of Politics, 34 are held by Republicans. Remember that Democrats only
need a 23-seat pickup to regain the majority they lost in 2010. "Democrats are now a little better than
50-50 to win the House," concludes Kyle Kondik, the managing editor of UVA professor Larry Sabato's
Crystal Ball. "This is the first time this cycle we've gone beyond 50-50 odds on a House turnover." He
adds later: "At this point, we see the Democrats with slightly better odds to get their required share of
the 'toss-ups' based largely on the environment, but also because they appear to have well-funded and
credible challengers in these districts that can capitalize on that environment." These moves are broadly
consistent with how other non-partisan handicappers see the current state of play. The Cook Political
Report carries 34 seats that are either "toss-ups" or lean toward party that doesn't currently control the
seat; 31 of those are GOP districts. Inside Elections sees 26 Republican-held seats in serious jeopardy as
compared to just 5 for Democrats. In CNN's own ratings, there are 43 Republican-held seats in serious
jeopardy as compared to six Democratic-held seats. It's reflective of polling from swing districts. Take
Pennsylvania's 17th District in the southwestern part of the state where Reps. Conor Lamb (D) and Keith
Rothfus (R) are facing off. Even though President Donald Trump narrowly carried the seat in 2016, Lamb
leads Rothfus 51% to 39% in a new Monmouth University poll. And national generic ballot polling where
-- after a brief Republican resurgence in late spring/early summer -- Democrats' edge on the question is
now consistently in the high single digits. The building Democratic wave is also revealed in fundraising
reports filed last week. At least 55 Democratic challengers outraised their Republican incumbent
opponents during the second fundraising quarter which covers April 1 to June 30. 55! Fundraising is not,
obviously, the sole determining factor when it comes to who wins and who loses, but it does tend to be
an expression of passion and energy within the two party bases. When so many Democratic challengers
are outraising so many Republican incumbents, you can't ignore it. Candidate fundraising also matters in
another way: Expanding the playing field. While many of the more than four dozen Democratic
challengers who outraised their GOP incumbent opponents are already in targeted races, others remain
on the periphery of the landscape of what are commonly accepted as competitive districts. But if the
horizon continues to slide toward Democrats, some Republican House members who may not think they
are in trouble right now could find themselves suddenly vulnerable. And if their Democratic opponent
already has enough money in the bank to run ads and ensure voters know they have a choice, it could
be curtains for people who no one is even thinking about possibly losing right now. Add it all up -- and
throw in the weight of history that suggests the President's party loses, on average, 33 seats in midterm
elections -- and you have a devil's brew for Republicans. "Think it's safe to say the odds of a D House
takeover have never been higher this cycle," tweeted National Journal politics editor Josh Kraushaar.
"Time is running out for Rs to turn things around." But 105 days is an eternity in politics, you say! And it
is -- sort of. But the history of midterm elections won't be changing between now and November 6.
Fundraising tends to be momentum driven, meaning that if you don't have a lot of cash, it's harder to
just go and get it (unless, of course, you are independently wealthy). And once the playing field shifts in
a particular direction, it usually takes a cataclysmic event to shift it back in any meaningful way. All of
which is to say: The cake isn't totally baked on the 2018 election yet. But it's getting close to finished and
the final product isn't likely to be to Republicans' liking.
UQ - AT: Family Separation Thumps
Family separation executive order doesn’t thump
Antle 7-10-18 ( W. James Antle III is the Washington Examiner's politics editor. He was previously
managing editor of the Daily Caller, associate editor of the American Spectator and senior writer for the
American Conservative. He is the author of Devouring Freedom: Can Big Government Ever Be Stopped?,
“Republicans are running out of time”, Washington
Examiner,, 7-10-

Already the House has failed to advance an immigration bill after considering both a conservative
proposal and the leadership-backed compromise alternative. Trump appeared equivocal in his support
for both pieces of legislation. He also vacillated on whether they should take up the issue at all.
"Republicans should stop wasting their time on immigration until after we elect more Senators and
Congressmen/women in November," Trump tweeted last month. "Dems are just playing games, have no
intention of doing anything to solve this decades old problem. We can pass great legislation after the
Red Wave!" He later deflected blame by tweeting he “never pushed the Republicans in the House to
vote for the Immigration Bill.” This month, Trump tweeted a different tune. “Congress must pass smart,
fast and reasonable Immigration Laws now,” he wrote. “Law Enforcement at the Border is doing a great
job, but the laws they are forced to work with are insane.” Images of children being separated from
their parents at the border gave Republicans a black eye. Trump signed an executive order ending the
practice without abandoning his “zero-tolerance” policy on prosecuting illegal border-crossers, but
many obstacles to implementing that order remain in the absence of congressional action.
UQ - AT: Kavanaugh Thumper
Voters don’t care about the SCOTUS confirmation
Antle 7-10-18 ( W. James Antle III is the Washington Examiner's politics editor. He was previously
managing editor of the Daily Caller, associate editor of the American Spectator and senior writer for the
American Conservative. He is the author of Devouring Freedom: Can Big Government Ever Be Stopped?,
“Republicans are running out of time”, Washington Examiner,, 7-10-18)

No more recess Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., is keeping his troops — and vulnerable
Democrats who would prefer to be at home campaigning — in Washington to crank out last-minute
agenda items, having canceled most of the August recess. High-profile confirmation hearings to replace
retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy and former Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott
Pruitt are a better bet now, since the GOP majority is a sure thing and the Democrats have no filibuster
power to stop the nominations. “Due to the historic obstruction by Senate Democrats of the president’s
nominees, and the goal of passing appropriations bills prior to the end of the fiscal year, the August
recess has been canceled. Senators should expect to remain in session in August to pass legislation,
including appropriations bills, and to make additional progress on the president’s nominees,” McConnell
said at the time. The 51-49 Republican Senate majority could grow after November, given the number of
red state Democrats running for reelection. But it could also be gone in a blue wave, making it nearly
impossible to get reliable conservatives seated at either the Supreme Court or the EPA. If Trump wants
to replace any other officials whose positions require Senate confirmation — Attorney General Jeff
Sessions has been embattled since recusing himself from the Russia investigation in favor of the deputy
who ultimately appointed special counsel Robert Mueller — now would appear to be the time.
Democrats are already arguing that a Supreme Court confirmation vote should be held off until they
may have more power. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., insists that McConnell’s decision
to block then-President Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland in a presidential election year
means the same logic should apply to the midterm elections. Schumer also reportedly lobbied Trump to
pick Garland himself. The initial public opinion polling wasn’t kind to this Democratic argument. One poll
by NBC News/SurveyMonkey found that 62 percent wanted an up-or-down vote on Trump’s nominee
before this year’s elections while just 33 percent favored a delay. Perhaps as a residual effect of the
Garland debate, 55 percent of Democrats wanted a pre-election vote. “The second Anthony Kennedy
retired from the Supreme Court, the agenda on Capitol Hill became about one thing — confirming a new
justice to the bench,” said Ford O’Connell, a Republican strategist. “And given the slim majority
Republicans have in the Senate, both parties will have a laser-like focus on the confirmation process,
which will likely last through September. Beyond that Republicans will be counting on President Trump
to continue to deliver on his campaign promises, but that will likely be relegated to executive orders and
the foreign policy front.” That means both pushing through must-pass legislation under the wire as well
as getting congressional Democrats on record on issues that will rally the GOP base ahead of November.
UQ - AT: Helsinki Thumper
Helsinki and family separation xo changed nothing and immigration is key – the Dems
are running on the “resistance” strategy
Cassidy 7-24-18 ( John Cassidy has been a staff writer at The New Yorker since 1995. He also writes a
column about politics, economics, and more for, “Trump’s Post-Helsinki Poll Ratings
Portend a Nasty and Divisive Election Season”,

If you thought that Donald Trump’s bowing and scraping to Vladimir Putin in Helsinki would put a big
dent in his approval ratings, think again. Two new polls suggest that the President standing next to his
Russian counterpart and publicly questioning U.S. intelligence findings about Russian interference in the
2016 election didn’t change anything much. That’s a testament to the unprecedented level of
polarization in the American electorate. And it suggests that, as the midterms get closer, Trump will
descend further into race-baiting and demagoguery as a way to keep his supporters engaged. The
weekly Gallup poll, which was released on Monday afternoon, estimated Trump’s approval rating at
forty-two per cent, which represents a drop of one percentage point from the previous week. The latest
Wall Street Journal/NBC News survey, which was released over the weekend, put Trump’s rating at
forty-five per cent—a one-point gain since last month. Since there are substantial margins of error
attached to both polls, the over-all picture that they draw is one of stasis. Most Americans disapprove of
the rogue President, but Trump’s base of support remains solid, and it encompasses more than eight in
ten self-identified Republicans. It isn’t that all G.O.P. supporters were blind to what took place in
Finland. According to a Washington Post/ABC News poll published on Sunday, almost a third of
Republicans disapproved of Trump publicly expressing doubts about U.S. intelligence findings. By recent
standards, that’s a significant defection from the pro-Trump line. But any concerns that Republican
supporters had about the Helsinki summit don’t appear to have adversely affected their over-all level of
satisfaction with Trump. In the Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, eighty-eight per cent of Republican
voters said that they approved of the job he’s doing. For this poll, that was the highest figure of his
Presidency so far. The resilience of Trump’s support among self-identified Republicans helps explain why
elected G.O.P. officials are so loath to cross him, and it can be explained in various ways. Some analysts
see it as a reaction to the negative media coverage that Trump receives, especially after controversial
incidents like his press conference with Putin. “The more Trump gets criticized by the media, the more
his base seems to rally behind him,” Fred Yang, a Democratic pollster from Hart Research Associates,
one of the firms that carried out the new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, said. Doubtless, this is part
of the explanation. There may also be something of a statistical illusion at work. In many polls, the
proportion of self-identified Republicans has declined significantly since Trump was elected, suggesting
that some anti-Trump G.O.P. supporters may have left the Party, leaving him to garner a bigger share of
support among a smaller base. In this case, as FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver argued on Monday, the
headline poll figures may be misleading. But Charles Franklin, the founder of,
pointed out that the number of self-identified Democrats has also declined, and he suggested that the
over-all impact of these shifts is likely to be pretty small. In a close election, however, they could still
prove significant. Regardless of the underlying reasons for them, the new poll figures will surely only
encourage Trump to believe that his incendiary tactics of attacking the media and fanning resentments
about immigration, race, and unfair foreign competition are working. As we get closer to Election Day,
he seems certain to escalate this strategy. Perhaps foreshadowing what is to come, Steve Bannon,
Trump’s former campaign manager and political strategist, told CNN’s Fareed Zakaria last month that
the midterms would be a “base-plus” contest. Bannon argued that Trump should seek to “nationalize
the election” around his signature theme of immigration. Although the White House subsequently
modified its inhumane policy of separating migrant families at the southern border, the President, in his
public appearances and on his Twitter feed, continues to emphasize “strong borders,” his proposed wall,
and the threat represented by the MS-13 gang. The scaremongering seems to be working. In a Gallup
survey published last week, thirty-five per cent of Republicans named immigration as the top problem
facing the country, the highest proportion in more than a decade. “The 35% of Republicans who say
immigration is the country’s top problem is over twice as high as the 15% who mention government,”
Frank Newport, Gallup’s editor-in-chief, noted. In addition to whipping up fears about nonwhite
immigrants, Trump appears eager to rekindle his dispute with black football players. Last Friday, after
the N.F.L. and the players’ union announced that they were taking a timeout from resolving the dispute
about some players kneeling in protest during the national anthem, Trump tweeted, “The NFL National
Anthem Debate is alive and well again - can’t believe it! Isn’t it in contract that players must stand at
attention, hand on heart? The $40,000,000 Commissioner must now make a stand. First time kneeling,
out for game. Second time kneeling, out for season/no pay!” Of course, none of this means that Trump’s
divisive tactics will necessarily succeed in helping his party in November. For all his support among self-
identified Republicans, he is still one of the most unpopular Presidents in history—if not the most
unpopular. And his party isn’t doing much better. Recent polls show the Democrats retaining a seven- or
eight-point lead in the generic congressional vote, which many experts believe is roughly the margin of
victory that the Party needs to take control of the House of Representatives. Trump’s apparent
determination to insert himself into the race and stir things up will only provide more fuel to the
Democratic “resistance,” whose entire strategy is based on turning the election into a referendum on
his Presidency. In Republican-majority states, a Trump on the rampage may help some Republican
candidates. But in left-leaning states, such as California and New Jersey, G.O.P. incumbents will be
trying to localize their races and deëmphasize Trump. But that may well prove an impossibility:
although Trump’s name won’t be on the ballots, he is set to be an all-consuming presence.
Link – Social Issues
Social issues- like the plan – mobilize turnout
(Daniel R., PHD, Department of Government and Politics @ University of Maryland, “When Ballot Issues
Mater: Social Issue Ballot Measures and Their Impact on Turnout”, 4/1/2010, Political Behavior Journal
March 2011, Volume 33, Issue 1, pp 3–25, Date Accessed: 7/26/18, //EY)

Why Social Issues? While they are not the only type of issue that can mobilize turnout, social issues are
uniquely positioned to consistently do so. Such issues include abortion, the death penalty, euthanasia,
stem cell research, drug legalization, same-sex marriage, homosexual rights, and obscenity. These issues
relate to morality politics, which involves policies that attempt to regulate social norms or generate a
strong moral response from citizens (Mooney and Lee 1995) by invoking notions of right and wrong
(Haider-Markel and Kaufman 2006). These policies validate a particular set of moral values (Mooney
2001), and attitudes regarding them are based on core values rooted within an citizen’s system of
beliefs (Tatalovich et al. 1994) and primary identity, especially religion, which for many serves as the
basis of their most fundamental values (Tatalovich and Daynes 1998).4 In comparison to other ballot
measures, those that address social issues are particularly well known. Nicholson (2003) finds that 80%
or more of respondents were familiar with initiatives that dealt with social issues, as well as more likely
to be aware of initiatives addressing morality or civil liberties and rights issues than other initiatives.
Furthermore, social issues are consistently the most cited by respondents when asked about which
issues are on the ballot (Donovan et al. 2005). Many of these are “easy” issues (Carmines and Stimson
1980) in that they trigger a “gut response” and do not require a heightened level of sophistication. Such
issues are considered “easy” because they are often framed as morality based alternatives, such as the
simplification of abortion into a choice of pro-life versus pro-choice (Layman 2001). As they tap core
values that reflect deeply held beliefs (Carmines and Stimson 1980) and produce a highly emotional
response from citizens (Layman 2001), they are often seen as more meaningful to citizens than other,
more complex issues (Mooney 2001), and this technical simplicity may facilitate participation (Mooney
1999; Mooney and Lee 1995). More importantly, social issue propositions tap into existing social
cleavages, and they possess the ability to arise the passions of those in both the traditionalist and
modernist camps (Layman and Carsey 2002). Such issues heighten a sense of cultural embattlement and
feelings of religious threat for many evangelicals (Campbell 2006), while some on the other side of the
issue perceive the Christian right’s views as intolerant or extreme (Bolce and De Maio 1999). The
characteristics of these issues act to overcome key reasons as to why citizens do not participate in
politics. Individuals fail to vote because they cannot, do not want to, or are not asked (Verba et al.
1995). The religious nature of social issues, however, means that churches can play an active role in
developing the skills necessary to vote (Verba et al. 1995), and that individuals have sufficient
information (drawn from their religious identify) to participate. This nature also facilitates mobilization
on both sides of the issue (Barclay and Fisher 2003; Haider-Markel and Meier 1996; Roh and Haider-
Markel 2003), which serves to maximize participation (Wilcox and Larson 2006), lower the costs of
voting (Rosenstone and Hansen 1993; Verba et al. 1995), and may even partially reduce the
socioeconomic bias in participation (Verba et al. 1995). Social issue propositions are able to successfully
overcome these barriers because their significance to many voters can be explained within the
framework of expressive choice, which posits that there is a consumption benefit to voting (Brennan
and Buchanan 1984; Schuessler 2000). These measures can mobilize citizens because of their desire to
express a preference on the proposed policy, as such an expression has a direct influence on what they
consider to be their identity. To a certain degree, it is the individual’s statement, by voting, which makes
them pro-life or pro-choice. This explains why the turnout of groups attached to social issues can be
maximized when they are on the ballot, even when the outcome is certain (Donovan et al. 2005;
McDonald 2004; Witt and McCorkle 1997). The impact of social issue measures, specifically the eleven
same-sex marriage bans adopted in 2004, has received significant attention. While some scholars find
no effect on turnout (Abramowitz 2004; Burden 2004; Smith et al. 2006), others suggest that they raised
turnout in some states (Donovan et al. 2005; McDonald 2004) or among certain segments of the
population (Campbell and Monson 2008), even in the atmosphere of high information, mobilization, and
salience that characterizes presidential elections. Using aggregate-level data, Grummel (2008) finds that
turnout is higher in midterm but not presidential elections when a morality issue is on the ballot.5
Fears about ecological fallacy, however, do not allow us to determine the existence of an individual-level
relationship (see Hanushek and Jackson 1977).6 In addition, the scholar does not allow for a cumulative
effect of multiple social issues on the same ballot. While the groups that would be motivated by two
distinct social issues are likely similar, they are probably not exactly the same. Further work is needed to
establish the relationship at the individual-level and clarify the exact impact of such measures on
AT: Plan = Win for GOP
The plan isn’t a magic wand for the GOP – unfulfilled border promises, spending bills,
trade war tariffs
Antle 7-10-18 ( W. James Antle III is the Washington Examiner's politics editor. He was previously
managing editor of the Daily Caller, associate editor of the American Spectator and senior writer for the
American Conservative. He is the author of Devouring Freedom: Can Big Government Ever Be Stopped?,
“Republicans are running out of time”, Washington Examiner,, 7-10-18)//DT

All the while, opportunities to get funding to build the border wall — Trump’s most familiar campaign
promise — keep passing by. Both sides balked at a deal to codify Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals,
an Obama-era program offering deportation relief to a subset of young illegal immigrants, in exchange
for wall money. Time is running out, which is perhaps why Trump pressed appropriators to increase the
wall “down payment” to $5 billion from the $1.6 billion to $2 billion already planned. But this could itself
heighten the chances of a shutdown since Senate Democrats will be resistant to the change.
“Infrastructure Week” has become a punchline. "We're going to continue looking at ways to improve
the nation's infrastructure, but in terms of a specific piece of legislation, I'm not aware that that will
happen by the end of the year," White House press secretary Sarah Sanders told reporters in May. Then
in June, the Senate rejected a modest spending cuts package advanced by the White House. It mostly
targeted unused funds. The momentum generated by the tax cut bill has stalled. “Members are scared
they’ll be targeted by the president’s tweets one day and the Resistance the next,” said a Hill Republican
source. This has left a great deal of unfinished business to be completed between now and November. “I
would hope they could at least solve the border separation issue and get a government funding bill
passed,” said Jim Dornan, a Republican strategist. “And frankly, a bill that will rein in Trump’s ridiculous
tariff fixation so that farmers and manufacturers don't leave the party in droves in November would be a
Thumper – Health Care
Health care is the key issue for the upcoming midterms – above immigration and the
Jones 7-20-18 ( Sarah Jones is a staff writer for The New Republic, “The 2018 Midterms Are All About
Health Care”, //DT

“Real change begins with immediately repealing and replacing the disaster known as Obamacare,”
Donald Trump said during one of his final campaign rallies of the 2016 race. “We’re going to repeal it.
We’re going to have a really great plan that’s going to cost much less and be much better.” While Trump
has kept few of his campaign promises, this one is coming half-true—if not necessarily the way
Republicans had planned. Congress failed to repeal the Affordable Care Act, but Trump has attacked the
law in subtler, nonetheless devastating ways. For many Americans, Obamacare has effectively ceased to
exist. “Across the country, the details vary but the story is the same. The Trump administration has been
rolling back sections of the Obama-era health law piece by piece,” The Wall Street Journal reported on
Wednesday. “The result is that the country is increasingly returning to a pre-ACA landscape, where the
coverage you get, especially for people without employer-provided insurance, is largely determined by
where you live.” As for a “really great plan that’s going to cost much less,” Trump has been less
successful. Last month, he rolled out a rule allowing small businesses to band together to provide
cheaper health care to employees—without all of Obamacare’s coverage protections. But on Thursday,
Politico reported that the National Federation of Independent Business, a business group that has
advocated for so-called association health plans for two decades, won’t be creating such a plan because
Trump’s rule is unworkable. Other trade groups are reportedly tepid, too. In short, the health care
system in America, after modest improvements under Obama, is becoming a chaotic mess under
Trump—and his political opponents are poised to capitalize on it. On Thursday morning, 70 Democrats
in the House of Representatives launched a Medicare for All caucus. The roll includes a few expected
names—Representative Keith Ellison of Minnesota—but also more recent converts to the cause, proving
the policy no longer belongs to the fringe. In 2017, 122 House Democrats co-sponsored Representative
John Conyers’s Medicare for All bill before he resigned amid a sexual harassment scandal. As Trump’s
attacks on the ACA increase, so has Democratic support for a sweeping alternative. Since Trump took
office in 2017, the administration has repealed the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate and
expanded access to short-term, limited-duration health plans, which can’t be renewed and offer limited
coverage to beneficiaries. Without the individual mandate, SLDI plans can look like sensible, affordable
options for consumers—and that means fewer Americans will have health insurance that covers their
basic needs. It also influences premiums. As Axios reported in May, ACA premiums have increased by 34
percent since 2017, and the Congressional Budget Office estimates that they’ll increase by another 15
percent next year. Meanwhile, the administration cut spending for ACA outreach. If people don’t know
how to enroll in the ACA, they’re less likely to do so at all. For Republicans concerned about their
electoral prospects, Obamacare is no longer such a reliable foe. In 2017, roughly 350,000 Virginians
faced the prospect of losing their ACA plans when Optima Health followed the examples of Aetna and
Anthem and threatened to pull out of the exchange market. The move would have left nearly half of all
Virginia counties without an ACA insurer, with the losses concentrated in Virginia’s western counties—
among the poorest in the state. At the time, insurance companies cited market instability for their
decisions, and they blamed the Trump administration for causing it. Trump has repeatedly threatened to
cut subsidies for the ACA, and insurers worried that would put their profit mdargins at risk. Anthem
eventually agreed to cover Virginia’s so-called bare counties. But the crisis may have pushed state
Republicans away from Trump, at least on the issue of health care. The General Assembly passed
Medicaid expansion in 2018. “When you lost all the coal jobs, a lot of people lost their healthcare,”
Republican State Representative Terry Kilgore told Belt magazine last month. “People were working but
were going to jobs paying $8 to $15 per hour with no healthcare benefits. We need more healthcare
options and a healthier workforce.” Kilgore voted for Medicaid expansion. Medicare for All’s popularity
with Democrats can be traced back to Senator Bernie Sanders’s bid for the Democratic nomination in
2016, which brought national attention to the policy. Its appeal has only grown since then, as Democrats
have seen how easily a Republican president can weaken the signature achievement of the Obama
presidency. Single-payer health care, whether it’s Medicare for All or some other approach, hasn’t
proven to be the campaign-killer that some moderates have warned of. Insurgent candidates like
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ben Jealous have embraced the policy, and so have some Democrats
running in red states. This opening for Democrats may crack even wider as the material consequences of
gutting the ACA become clear. As the Journal reported in March, “Health-insurance premiums are likely
to jump right before the November elections, a result of Congress’s omission of federal money to shore
up insurance exchanges from its new spending package.” Fearful of the political damage, Republicans
are now scrambling to fix the problem. On Thursday, The Hill reported that the GOP House “is planning
to vote next week on several GOP-backed health-care measures that supporters say will lower
premiums.” Whether or not Republicans succeed there, they have handed Democrats an opening ahead
of the midterms, one that may crack even wider as the material consequences of gutting the ACA
become clear. That awakening is already underway, if polling is any indication. Health care topped all
issues, even the economy and immigration, in a YouGov/Huffington Post survey in April of registered
voters’ priorities ahead of the midterm elections; it consistently ranks in the top three. That’s perhaps
less surprising in light of a Navigator Research poll this week that found half of Americans say health
care is main cost concern. In an ominous sign for the GOP, independent voters said they trusted
Democrats more than Republicans, by an 18-point margin, to bring those costs down.
Thumper – Trade War
Trade war thumps
Davis and Swanson 7/24 --- [Julie Hirschfield Davis is a White House correspondent at The New York
Times who graduated from Yale University and Ana Swanson writes about trade and international
economics previously covering trade, the Federal Reserve and the economy for The Washington Post,
“To Ease Pain of Trump’s Trade War: $12 Billion in Aid for Farmers”, New York Times, 7/24/18,] jk

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration announced on Tuesday that it would provide up to $12 billion in emergency
relief for farmers hurt by the president’s trade war, moving to blunt the financial damage to American
agriculture and the political fallout for Republicans as the consequences of President Trump’s protectionist policies roll through the economy. Unveiled two days before
the president is scheduled to visit Iowa, a politically important state that is the nation’s top soybean producer, the farm aid appeared calculated to show that Mr.

Trump cares about farmers and is working to protect them from the worst consequences of his trade
war. But the relief money, announced by the Department of Agriculture, was also an indication that Mr. Trump — ignoring the concerns
of farmers, their representatives in Congress and even some of his own aides — plans to extend his tit-for-tat tariff wars. “The actions today are a firm statement that
other nations cannot bully our agricultural producers to force the United States to cave in,” Sonny Perdue, the secretary of agriculture, said during a call with reporters to unveil the program. The move drew

swift condemnation from many farm groups and lawmakers, including several in his own party, who worry about a
cascade of unintended consequences that may be just beginning. One farm-group study estimates that corn, wheat and soybean farmers in

the United States have already lost more — $13 billion — than the administration is proposing to
provide as a result of the trade war. The prospect of retaliation has upended global markets for
soybeans, meat and other American farm exports, and farmers are warning that tariffs are costing them
valuable foreign contracts that took years to win. “You have a terrible policy that sends farmers to the
poorhouse, and then you put them on welfare, and we borrow the money from other countries,” Senator Bob
Corker, Republican of Tennessee, told reporters on Capitol Hill. “It’s hard to believe there isn’t an outright revolt right now in Congress.” Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, asked how the president could single out
farmers for help when the manufacturing and energy industries also stand to lose in the trade war. “Where do you draw the line?” Ms. Murkowski asked reporters. Mr. Trump could be forced to prop up other domestic industries
as retaliatory taxes imposed by trading partners begin to sting automobile manufacturers, distillers and other impacted sectors. Republicans who cherish their party’s reputation as the bastion of free markets and fiscal

The U.S. Department of Agriculture is trying to

responsibility wondered aloud on Tuesday about the president picking winners and losers in a trade war he is bent on waging. “

put a band-aid on a self-inflicted wound,” Senator Patrick J. Toomey, Republican of Pennsylvania, wrote on Twitter. “This bailout compounds bad
policy with more bad policy.” Farmers have borne the brunt of Mr. Trump’s decision to impose tariffs,
which is already costing American producers billions of dollars and threatens to inflict political pain on
Republicans in farm states in the midterm elections in November. “Tariffs are the greatest!” Mr. Trump declared on Twitter on Tuesday morning.
“Either a country which has treated the United States unfairly on Trade negotiates a fair deal, or it gets hit with Tariffs. It’s as simple as that — and everybody’s talking! Remember, we are the ‘piggy bank’ that’s being robbed. All
will be Great!” The European Union, Canada, Mexico, China and other countries have responded to Mr. Trump’s tariffs on steel, aluminum and $34 billion worth of Chinese products by imposing taxes of their own. They have often

American soybeans, pork, sugar, orange juice,

targeted farm country, the source of some of America’s biggest exports and an important political base for the president.

cherries and other products now face tariffs in foreign markets that make their products less desirable. At a
speech in Kansas City, Mo., on Tuesday, Mr. Trump said Americans should “just be a little patient” with the pain they may be feeling from the trade war, arguing that his actions were forcing other countries to the negotiating table
to cut deals that would be better for them in the long run. “They don’t want to have those tariffs put on them — they’re all coming to see us — and the farmers will be the biggest beneficiary,” Mr. Trump said at a Veterans of
Foreign Wars convention. “We’re opening up markets. You watch what’s going to happen.” Some farm groups praised the move, albeit as a short-term solution. “We are grateful for the administration’s recognition that farmers
and ranchers needed positive news now, and this will buy us some time,” said Zippy Duvall, the president of the American Farm Bureau Federation. “This announcement is substantial, but we cannot overstate the dire

lawmakers in both parties and many agricultural trade groups criticized the
consequences that farmers and ranchers are facing.” But

assistance program as a taxpayer-funded bailout for farmers imperiled by the president’s own policies, and
even Mr. Trump’s Republican allies made clear that they did not regard it as a genuine solution to the problems his tariffs had created. “The president’s announcement of billions of dollars in aid that will be made available to

What farmers in Iowa and throughout rural

struggling farmers later this year is encouraging for the short term,” Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, said in a statement. “

America need in the long term are markets and opportunity, not government handouts.” Agriculture Department officials
said farmers could begin signing up to receive the federal money in September, just weeks before voters go to the polls. The package includes direct payments to the producers of soybeans, sorghum, corn, wheat, cotton, dairy and
hogs, who would be compensated according to the size of their harvests this year. It will also include government purchases of surplus products — including fruit, nuts, rice, legumes, beef, pork and dairy — that would be sent to
food banks or other nutrition programs. Some of the funding would go to a program in which the Agriculture Department works with private companies to develop new export markets for American farm products. Mr. Trump and
his advisers have argued that while American producers may feel short-term pain, ultimately they will benefit as other countries are forced to lower their barriers to American products. Meantime, the administration has sought
ways to help farmers survive the pain of retaliation. The program announced on Tuesday will be funded by the Commodity Credit Corporation, which helps shore up American farmers by buying their crops. It marked the first time
that funding from the program — created after the Great Depression — has been used to compensate farmers for losses sustained because of trade, according to an Agriculture Department spokesman. The initiative, which does
not authorize any new money and thus does not need approval from Congress, was an unmistakable signal that the president has no plans to lift his tariffs anytime soon, as Farm Belt senators have pleaded with him to do.

“This trade war is cutting the legs out from under farmers, and the White House’s ‘plan’ is to spend
$12 billion on gold crutches,” said Senator Ben Sasse, Republican of Nebraska. “This administration’s tariffs and bailouts aren’t
going to make America great again, they’re just going to make it 1929 again.” Senator Ron Johnson, Republican of Wisconsin, said
farmers in his state “want trade, not aid.” “I support President Trump’s call for reciprocal trade and his effort to stop China’s theft of American intellectual property, but we should stop self-inflicting
permanent damage to America’s economy through tariffs and a trade war,” Mr. Johnson said. One trade group leader said farmers need contracts, not government assistance, for stability. “The best relief for

the president’s trade war would be ending the trade war,” said Brian Kuehl, the executive director of the trade group Farmers for Free Trade, adding,
“This proposed action would only be a short-term attempt at masking the long-term damage caused by
tariffs.” Administration officials argued on Tuesday that the assistance for farmers would help them absorb the pain while persuading other countries that they must offer concessions to forge trade agreements with the
United States. “What this will do is provide some hope to farmers and ranchers that the president and the secretary do have their back,” Greg Ibach, the under secretary of agriculture for marketing and regulatory programs, said of
the aid package. “We’re hoping that other countries will see that we’re serious now about negotiations.” But many farmers criticized the decision and said it would only compound the maze of federal subsidies and regulations they
already must wade through to make a living. “We don’t want to be dependent on another government program,” Casey Guernsey, a Missouri farmer and spokesman for Americans for Farmers & Families, an anti-tariff group, said
in an interview on Tuesday. “We already are very much in a situation in farming, in agriculture across the board, where we are held hostage to decisions made in Washington.” And some lawmakers argued that if he wanted to help

American farmers, Mr. Trump must simply call off his trade war. “Tariffs are taxes that punish American consumers and producers,” Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, said on Twitter. “ If tariffs punish
farmers, the answer is not welfare for farmers — the answer is remove the tariffs.”
UQ– AT: Dems Win
To win the midterms the dems will need to win back red pockets, romneylands, and
blue-collar workers
Brownstein 4-11-18 ( Ronald Brownstein is a CNN senior political analyst, regularly appearing across
the network's programming and special political coverage, The places that will decide the 2018 midterm

Red pockets. Romneyland. Blue-collar blues. Those labels describe the three groups of seats in the
House of Representatives that will likely determine control of the chamber in November's midterm
election. Virtually all analysts in both parties agree that the epicenter of vulnerability for the House
Republican majority is in what could be called red pockets: These are the predominantly white-collar
suburban seats the GOP still holds in big metropolitan areas that are otherwise solidly Democratic.
Those include places such as Orange County, California; New Jersey; Miami; and suburbs outside of New
York City, Chicago, Denver, Philadelphia and Minneapolis. But even if Democrats make big gains in those
districts, there aren't quite enough of them to provide the party with the net gain of 24 seats it needs to
recapture the House. That means House Democrats would also need to make inroads into the two other
large groups of vulnerable GOP seats. One is what I call Romneyland: white-collar suburban seats in
purple and even red states where Mitt Romney, the 2012 Republican presidential nominee, almost
universally performed better than Donald Trump did in 2016. The third are the "blue-collar blues":
mostly blue-collar, non-urban seats in blue states, where Trump almost without exception improved on
Romney's performance. More distantly, the Democrats are also eyeing a few Republican-held blue-collar
seats in purple and Republican-leaning states. But control of the House will likely turn on how the battle
between the parties turns in the red pockets, Romneyland and the blue-collar blues. The red pockets
will likely be the most reliable source of gains for Democrats because they compound two sources of
Republican vulnerability: They are white-collar districts in areas with large numbers of Democrats, who
appear motivated to turn out at higher-than-usual levels next fall. The big question is how far Democrats
can reach into places where only one of those advantages is present: white-collar seats in traditionally
Republican-leaning areas, or seats in Democratic states that are more rural and blue-collar. This
battlefield reflects the long-term trends that have seen Democrats demonstrate increasing strength up
and down the ballot in diverse, heavily college-educated, major metropolitan areas -- even in
Republican-leaning states. In parallel, Republicans have established dominant control over
preponderantly white non-metro and blue-collar areas, even in otherwise Democratic-leaning states. All
of these trends have accelerated under Trump. Amid improving attitudes toward the Republican tax bill,
several recent polls have shown a small but measurable uptick in President Trump's job approval rating
and a narrowing into the mid-single digits of the previously double-digit advantage Democrats have held
in the "generic" ballot test of preferences for 2018. But even with those shifts, polls still consistently find
a deeply polarized electorate. Trump and the GOP retain solid support among white men without
college degrees, if slightly less than they attracted in 2016. But they are facing intense resistance from
younger and non-white voters -- especially African-Americans -- and much lower numbers than usual
among college-educated whites, especially, but not exclusively, women. Republicans are suddenly more
optimistic about the midterms White women without a college education, whose support was critical to
Trump's 2016 victory, loom as a wild card: Polls find they have cooled on him, but Democrats still face
many obstacles with them. These diverging demographic attitudes shape the geography of the 2018
battlefield. Red pockets The clearest opportunity for Democrats is the relatively few remaining
Republican-held districts in blue metro areas with large populations of college-educated whites, and in
many cases substantial minority and youth populations as well. These are places crowded with voters
who tilt toward liberal positions on social issues and recoil from Trump's volatile persona, particularly
the way he talks about race. The renewed visibility of gun control issues after the horrific Parkland,
Florida, massacre could provide Democrats another lever in these districts, since the Republicans in
them have almost universally voted with the National Rifle Association to loosen gun regulations in
recent years. These "red pockets" include the four seats Republicans control in Orange County -- the
districts held by Mimi Walters and Dana Rohrabacher and the open seats that will be vacated by Darrell
Issa and Ed Royce -- as well as their sole remaining seat in Los Angeles County, held by Steve Knight.
Others that fit this description include the seats in the western Chicago suburbs held by Republican
Peter Roskam and in the eastern Denver suburbs held by Mike Coffman; the three suburban
Philadelphia seats held by Ryan Costello, Mike Fitzpatrick and Pat Meehan (who has announced he will
not seek re-election amid a sex scandal); the northern Virginia seat held by Barbara Comstock; two open
seats in New Jersey as well as the one defended by Rep. Leonard Lance; Lee Zeldin's seat in eastern Long
Island; the suburban Minneapolis seats now held by Jason Lewis and Erik Paulsen; the Seattle-area seat
that Dave Reichert is leaving; as well as the Miami-area seat being vacated by Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and
the nearby seat held by Rep. Carlos Curbelo. Missouri Democrat wins district won by Trump Though
Romney carried many of these seats -- often narrowly -- in 2012, Hillary Clinton won all of those listed
above in 2016 except for the seats held by Lewis and Fitzpatrick, which Trump won by eyelash margins,
and Zeldin's, which Trump won more comfortably. These resemble the places where Democrats showed
the most dramatic gains in 2017, for instance in their sweep of legislative seats and the huge margins
they generated in the governor's race in northern Virginia. Compounding the GOP's vulnerability, the
new congressional map the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued Monday, after earlier ruling that the
current district lines represented an impermissible gerrymander, strengthened the Democrats' hand in
all three suburban Philadelphia seats. For Republicans, the key in these booming districts will be
whether the good economy helps them recapture voters recoiling from Trump's personal behavior. One
complication is these blue-state upper-middle-class suburbs are among the most likely losers from the
GOP tax plan, which limits the deductibility of mortgage interest and state and local taxes. Democrats
are highly unlikely to win back the House without maximizing their gains in the red pockets. Romneyland
The next bucket of seats is demographically similar to the red pockets but politically distinct because
they are in metro areas that lean much more reliably toward the GOP. I call this group of seats
Romneyland because they are filled with voters who resemble Romney demographically and
ideologically: professionals and corporate middle managers who want a president who will shrink
government and even pursue a center-right social agenda, but also exude professionalism and decorum.
Romney won virtually every seat in this category in 2012. In 2016, Trump lost ground relative to Romney
in almost all of them, though the residual Republican strength was great enough that he still carried
many, albeit often narrowly. The districts in this bucket include the Omaha-area seat held by Don Bacon;
the seats in suburban Houston and outside Dallas held by John Culberson and Pete Sessions,
respectively; the two suburban Atlanta seats held by Karen Handel and Rob Woodall; David Young's seat
outside Des Moines; the Tucson-area seat Martha McSally is vacating to run for the Senate from
Arizona; the Lexington, Kentucky-area seat held by Andy Barr; the seats outside Detroit that Dave Trott
is vacating and Mike Bishop is defending; and Kevin Yoder's seat in suburban Kansas City, Kansas. These
seats are not immune from the forces threatening the Republicans in the red pockets: Handel, for
instance, only narrowly survived last June's special election in Georgia, though her predecessor Tom
Price had carried over 60% of the vote there as recently as 2016. But as Handel's slim victory over
Democrat Jon Ossoff showed, Republicans have more of a cushion in these places than in the red
pockets. That's partly because more of the white-collar whites in them are social conservatives than
their counterparts in the Democratic-leaning metro areas. Blue-collar blues The third key test for
Democrats is the districts I call "blue-collar blues." These are the blue-collar, exurban, small town and
rural seats in states that generally lean Democratic. These include Republican seats held by John Faso,
John Katko and Claudia Tenney in upstate New York; Mike Bost, Rodney Davis and Randy Hultgren in
downstate Illinois; the northeast Iowa seat of Rod Blum; Bruce Poliquin's northern Maine district; and
the Central Valley, California, seats of Jeff Denham and David Valadao. Dems flip deep-red Missouri
state House seat These seats present an especially revealing test for Democrats. Former President
Barack Obama carried almost all of them at least once and many of them have elected Democratic
House members in the recent past. But House Democrats were routed in these places in the 2010 and
2014 midterm elections under Obama, and almost all of these districts turned further toward Trump in
2016. The 2017 results in Virginia and Alabama showed Democrats almost completely failing to crack
the GOP's hold on blue-collar and rural voters. But some Democrats argue that terrain is much tougher
for the party in the South than in the Northeastern and Midwestern states where these competitive
House seats are concentrated. Democrats see an opening in polling, such as the 2017 average of
Gallup's daily approval ratings for Trump, that shows a significant erosion in his support across the Rust
Belt among working-class white women, even as he remains very strong among blue-collar white men.
Converting that female disillusionment with Trump into votes for Democratic congressional candidates
is likely the key to seriously contesting the "blue-collar blue" seats. National Democrats stay on the
sidelines in close Pennsylvania House special election National Democrats stay on the sidelines in close
Pennsylvania House special election One early test will be March's special election in the heavily blue-
collar southwestern Pennsylvania district that Republican Rep. Tim Murphy has vacated: Democrat
Conor Lamb, a former Marine, is running competitively against Republican state Rep. Rick Saccone in a
district Trump carried by nearly 20 percentage points. Beyond the top-tier targets in the red pockets,
there's a spirited behind-the-scenes debate among Democratic strategists about which of the remaining
two buckets of seats represents the party's best opportunity in 2018. Some focus most on winning back
working-class voters in blue states, who have a recent history of voting for the party but are more
favorable to Trump. Others see more opportunity to convert white-collar suburbanites in red states,
who have a longer history of voting Republican but are also more disaffected from the President. To
recapture the House, Democrats will likely need to do a considerable amount of both. CORRECTION: This
story has been updated to note that President Donald Trump won the New York congressional district of
Republican Rep. Lee Zeldin, in eastern Long Island.
UQ – No Dem Wave
Blue wave unlikely
Naughton 7-25-18 ( Keith Naughton is a public affairs consultant, “NO BLUE WAVE: A MIDTERM

Just a few months ago Democrats envisioned a “Blue Wave,” gaining 40-50 seats. Today their
expectation have been tempered – and for good reason. Since 1946, Democrats have gained an average of 21
seats in the midterms when the president is a Republican. That gain would not be enough for a majority, where the
Democrats need to gain 25 seats. Using election data since 1946, on average the president’s party (Republican or Democratic) loses 21
seats in the first midterm election. But that average masks big swings, from a 63-seat loss in 2010 to an 8-seat gain in 2002. The median loss is
just 15 seats. The current partisan makeup is 236-193 with 6 vacancies. RealClearPolitics puts Republicans as favorites in 202 seats, Democrats
in 199 seats with 24 tossups. One thing is for certain, the president’s party struggles in midterm elections because that’s how politics works.
Presidents get elected by making a lot of promises to get elected. The result? The president’s voters can never be fully satisfied less than two
years into a given presidency. Some of those voters drop out, while the opposition becomes united, not in policy preferences, but just in
opposition to the president they didn’t vote for. Average
gains and losses are interesting, but they don’t tell the
whole story. For one thing, in three of nine first midterms the president’s party was in the minority.
Simply put: The fewer seats you have, the fewer you can lose. The average loss for the president’s party in the majority is
24 seats. However, on two occasions the president benefited from a major foreign policy bump. The successful resolution of the Cuban missile
crisis saw President Kennedy’s approval rating jump into the 70s, dampening Democratic losses to merely 4 seats. One year after the
September 11 attacks, President Bush’s approval was 68 percent, helping Republicans gain 8 seats. Taking out those two elections leaves us
with an average loss of 37 seats. So, what can we expect for a president whose approval rating is in the mid-40s and whose party is in the
majority? Superficially,
it looks like 1994 and 2010. In both cases, the incumbent president’s approval was
remarkably similar. President Clinton averaged 44 percent approval leading up to Election Day, while
President Obama averaged 45 percent. Currently, President Trump is averaging 43 percent (Rassmussen has generally had
President Trump between 45 percent and 48 percent, polling likely voters against other pollsters who either poll registered voters or have no
voter screen). It’s unlikely we should we expect Clinton/Obama-sized debacle. There are some important differences that favor the GOP. First,
in 2010 the Democrats held 256 seats, 20 more than the current Republican roster — so, more seats to lose. Entering the 1994 elections
Democrats had been the majority for 40 years and that election saw the electorate catch up with geographic and demographic changes that
had brewing for a long time. Retirements are a problem for the GOP – where 36 Republicans are departing against only 18 Democratic
retirements. But that particular headwind was not a problem in 2010 where the GOP also had more retirements (27-17) but still gained 63
seats. Democrats hope to see a repeat of the 2006 midterms where dissatisfaction with the Iraq War caused Republicans to lose their House
majority for the first time since 1994 with a Democratic gain of 31 seats. But that scenario is problematic. At that time George W. Bush’s
approval rating was 37 percent in the month prior to Election Day with a disapprove of 58 percent. Trump has a higher approval rating of 43
percent (46 percent Rassmussen) and lower disapproval rating of 53 percent. One confounding factor is Trump’s odd approval rating track. All
presidents get an initial approval rating bump followed by a steady fall. Early presidential approval ratings have averaged 73 percent. All
approvals fell at least 15 points within the first two years. Trump started out low, averaging 45 percent, and has barely moved – down to just 43
percent. These numbers indicate a more loyal base for Trump than for past presidents. Trump also polls slightly better in the likely voter
Rassmussen poll — and since elections are about who shows up, that could help Republicans. Both
current polling and the historic
data point to a very close result on Election Day. The biggest Democratic seat gain since the 1974
Watergate election (+48 seats) was the 2006 Iraq War election. With Trump polling at higher popularity
than Bush in 2006, it seems likely that the Democrats will not surpass their 31-seat gain. That leaves very
little margin for error to obtain a majority. In the end, the midterms will depend on turnout. With a
volatile electorate, a momentary downdraft on the part of the president could spell doom at the polls —
just as a jolt of good news could keep a Republican majority. One thing is for sure, whichever party ends
up in the minority is in for an orgy of recriminations and turmoil.
UQ – No Dem Wave (Fundraising)
The dems are quickly losing their fundraising advantage due to RNC donations
Vasquez and Bradner 7-26-18 ( Maegan Vazquez is a digital reporter for CNN Politics, where she
covers breaking news from Washington, Eric Bradner is a politics reporter for CNN, based in Washington
and focused on the 2018 midterm elections and the 2020 Democratic presidential contest, “RNC and
Trump campaign fork over millions to keep Republican majorities”,

President Donald Trump is sharing some of his campaign warchest with congressional Republicans
ahead of the 2018 midterm elections, part of a joint effort with the Republican National Committee
announced Thursday to protect GOP majorities in Congress and curry favor with Republicans on Capitol
Hill. The RNC will provide the largest contribution at the start, doling out $4 million to both the National
Republican Senatorial Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee. The Trump
campaign will max out contributions to nearly 100 candidates in its first found of contributions --
ensuring thousands of dollars for each candidate selected. The RNC raised more than $200 million for
this election cycle by mid-July -- the fastest the committee has reached the milestone in a midterm
period. But Thursday's cash infusion comes after another fundraising quarter in which dozens of House
Republican incumbents were outraised by their Democratic challengers. Trump has been the party's
most powerful fundraising force, helping the House GOP campaign arm haul in $32 million at a March
fundraising dinner. Trump and Vice President Mike Pence have also ramped up their appearances on the
campaign trail — particularly for Republicans challenging incumbent Democratic senators in states
Trump won in 2016. Still, despite polls consistently showing Trump's approval ratings remaining high
with GOP voters, they've also shown that Democrats, angered by Trump's presidency, are much more
enthusiastic about voting in November's midterm elections — putting the House up for grabs and
leaving Republican-held Senate seats in Nevada, Arizona, Tennessee, and perhaps even Texas
vulnerable. RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel credited Trump and his supporters for Thursday's move,
who she said have helped provide "the resources to protect and strengthen our Republican majorities in
Congress." "Together with our sister committees, I'm confident we can deliver that positive message to
Americans all across the country and elect more Republicans so President Trump can continue to deliver
for the American people," McDaniel said in a statement. Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale also
said in a statement that the decision to assist in congressional fundraising was authorized by the
President, "because he is committed to supporting the NRSC, NRCC, and congressional candidates who
will work with him as we make America great again."
1AR – Dem Win Impossible
Even if they win their uniqueness claims that dems are winning, structural factors
mean that dems can’t get enough seats to get the majority
--- takes into account the recent Crystal Ball forecast and general ballot poll

Voorhees 7-24-18 ( Josh Voorhees is a senior politics writer for Slate, “The Hard Truth About House
Democrats Being “Soft Favorites” This Fall”,

With a little more than 100 days until the midterms, things are looking increasingly bright for
Democrats’ bid to retake the House. The latest bit of good news for the party comes by way of a leading
nonpartisan handicapper, which for the first time this cycle is giving House Democrats slightly better-
than-even odds of picking up the 23 seats they need this November. Sabato’s Crystal Ball, the clunkily
named newsletter run by political scientist Larry Sabato and his colleagues at the University of Virginia
Center for Politics, nudged 17 congressional races in the direction of Democrats on Tuesday, eight of
which are Republican-held seats that shifted into the toss-up column. According to the updated ratings,
a whopping 40 GOP seats are toss-ups or worse for Republicans, and another 16 “lean Republican,”
suggesting they too could flip this fall. By contrast, a total of just six Democratic seats are “lean
Democrat” or better for the GOP. As a result, when the UVA team peers into its crystal ball, they now
see Democrats as the “soft favorite” to win control of the lower chamber. Other leading handicappers
are painting similar pictures. The Cook Political Report, the most well-known of the bunch, currently
rates 86 Republican seats and only 14 Democratic ones as potentially competitive, and already had
Democrats as “narrow favorites” to retake the House before a Democratic-favoring update earlier this
month. Inside Elections, another top prognosticator, has 68 GOP seats in play, compared with just nine
Democratic seats at last count. “[N]o one believes there is any chance the Republicans come out of this
election with more seats than they hold now,” Crystal Ball managing editor Kyle Kondik wrote. “Even
just a single-digit GOP seat loss would be shocking, an outcome driven by late developments
unforeseeable at this juncture.” But that is where the hard truth of being a soft favorite comes in—one
we all would be wise to remember in the wake of 2016: The flip side of Democrats being slight favorites
is that Republicans are only slight underdogs. Democrats could post double-digit gains nationwide this
fall and still find themselves in the minority next year. Thanks to gerrymandering, geographical quirks,
and other factors, the GOP has a sizable built-in advantage in the midterms. Some experts, like those at
the Brennan Center for Justice, believe that Democrats will need to win the national vote by nearly 11
percentage points to retake control of the House, while others think the magic margin could be a low as
4 percentage points. Democrats are splitting the difference in the generic ballot at the moment. They
currently enjoy a 7.1-percentage-point lead in RealClearPolitics’ unweighted running average and a 7.5-
percentage-point lead in FiveThirtyEight’s weighted one, which prioritizes higher-rated pollsters.
Democrats have plenty of reasons to be optimistic. They’ve fared remarkably well in special elections
this year. They’re fresh off an extraordinary fundraising quarter. And they boast a diverse lineup of
credible candidates, many with compelling life stories to offer voters. Republicans, meanwhile, are
fighting historical headwinds, as well as an usually high number of retirements from their ranks. The
question that matters, though, isn’t whether Democrats pick up seats in November; it’s whether they
can pick up enough.
1AR – AT: Young Voter Turnout
Young voter turnout is volatile and empirically low – breaks the blue wave
---implicates all their polls since people could say they WOULD vote democratic but won’t turn out

Golshan 7-18-18 ( Tara Golshan is a politics reporter ar VOX and covers Congress, elections, and just
about anything in politics that needs explaining. She has written comprehensive explainers about
congressional budgets, spending fights, the immigration debate, health care and tax reform. and keeps
close tabs on the internal divisions within the Republican party., “Poll: only 28 percent of young voters
say they will certainly vote in the 2018 midterms”,

Democrats are winning over younger voters by huge numbers, but as a highly contentious, voter
turnout-dependent midterm election inches closer, there’s a serious question of whether these young
Democrats will come to the polls. A recently released poll from the Public Religion Research Institute and
the Atlantic conducted in June showed only 28 percent of young adults ages 18 to 29 say they are
“absolutely certain” they’ll vote in midterms, compared to 74 percent of seniors. In a year when
Democrats are hoping an energized base can deliver them massive gains in Congress — and possibly
the majority in one or both chambers — this poll, on its face, should give Democrats some pause. Of
course, this is only one poll. There are other surveys with varied results; a recent poll conducted by the Associated Press and University of
Chicago’s NORC found that 32 percent of young voters would certainly vote and 56 percent were likely to. Another poll by Cosmopolitan
magazine and SurveyMonkey found that 48 percent of young voters were “absolutely certain” they’d vote in the midterms. And it’s actually a
big improvement for Democrats compared to past midterms. In the 2014 midterms, when Democrats lost control of the Senate, only 23
percent of young voters participated, according to the census, which considers young voters as aged 18 to 34. But the takeaway is still serious:
While Democratic voters are more enthusiastic to vote in the 2018 midterms than in past off-year
election cycles — and recent polls show they’re more eager to get out to the polls than Republicans —
young voter turnout could make the difference in 2018. “Right now the ‘blue wave’ is being powered by
suburban professional women, but to fully capitalize on 2018, Democrats need to energize young voters
and voters of color,” Dave Wasserman of the Cook Political Report said. Republicans have a millennial problem. Luckily for them,
millennials don’t consistently vote. To be clear, people ages 18 to 34 overwhelmingly vote for Democrats and prefer Democratic candidates
even if they are registered as “independent.” Democrats have a 35-point advantage with young female voters in the 2018 House midterm
elections so far, according to a CIVIQS surveys. That lead narrows to 10 points for young male voters. As Vox’s Li Zhou wrote, a recent Pew
Research Center survey found young women’s preference for Democratic congressional candidates is significantly higher than that of women of
other age groups: Women overall are likely to lean blue, with 54 percent supporting or leaning toward the Democratic candidate in their district
this fall, versus 38 percent who favor the Republican candidate. But 68 percent of young women are choosing Democrats, compared to 24
percent who prefer Republicans. This is in stark contrast to older voters, who are more likely to vote Republican than young voters. Younger
voters are also notably much more diverse than older voters. But
the problem for Democrats is that young people just
don’t always vote. “They are volatile in term of their turnout,” Wasserman said. “They are the likeliest voters
to drop out of the electorate — them and Latino voters … for Democrats there is a lot of room to
grow.” Even a jump from the 23 percent that participated in 2014 could have a serious impact on elections. Wasserman says part
of the reason Donald Trump won in 2016 was the young voters didn’t turn out — and those who did
cast ballots for third-party candidates. Young voter turnout in 2016 was slightly lower than in 2012,
when President Obama’s support among millennials saw a significant drop from his first election in
2008. Now, as young voters appear more engaged in the Trump era than they were under George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, they could
make a big difference in the so-called “blue wave” this midterm season. Correction: The PRRI poll classified young
voters as aged 18 to 29, not to age 34. The Census showed 23 percent of young adults voted in 2014, aged 18-34. We regret these errors.
1AR – AT: Resistance Strat Working
The democratic immigration “resistance” strategy is actually helping the GOP
Holland 7-24-18 ( Steve Holland is a political journalist for Reuters, “Trump injects immigration issue
into 2018 elections debate”,

President Donald Trump on Tuesday said he believed that the demands by some Democrats that a U.S.
government immigration enforcement agency be shut down will help Republicans in midterm
congressional elections in November. In a speech to war veterans in Kansas City, Missouri, Trump
defended the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, an arm of the Homeland Security
Department that has been responsible for arresting and deporting illegal immigrants. Some Democrats
have called for the abolishment of the agency, arguing that it has overstepped its authority. A new poll
by the Pew Research Center found that 44 percent of Americans view the agency favorably, compared
to 47 percent who view it unfavorably. Trump is fighting to help Republicans retain control of the House
of Representatives and Senate in Nov. 6 elections likely to be seen as a referendum on his presidency.
“Oh ICE, ICE, thank goodness for ICE,” Trump said. Trump’s policy of separating illegal immigrant parents
from their children added to a fierce national debate on American immigration policies. The outcry
prompted Trump to abandon the separation policy. “The Democrats want to abandon ICE. They want to
end ICE,” Trump said. “When you hear some of the things they are proposing you can’t even understand
it.” Trump said the issue will help Republicans in November and beyond, to his own re-election
campaign. “I hope they (Democrats) keep at it because we’re going to have a lot of fun in four months
and we’re going to have a lot of fun in 2020,” Trump said. Trump later attended two political events in
Kansas City to help raise money for state Attorney General Josh Hawley, the Republican candidate trying
to unseat Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri in the November elections.
1AR – Trump Endorsements
Donald Trump endorsements secure GOP seats – plan can’t change that
Glueck 7-26-18 (Katie Glueck is a National Political Correspondent at McClatchy DC, “Trump’s winning
streak with 2018 endorsements could have major impact in November”,

Donald Trump’s endorsees can’t stop winning. From Staten Island to South Carolina, Alabama to Athens,
Ga., Republicans blessed with the president’s endorsement in primary contests this summer have
notched victory after victory—proof that even when he’s not on the ballot, Trump can persuade and
turn out his base, a reality with significant implications for this fall’s midterm campaigns. When it comes
to moving Republican votes, said veteran GOP pollster Whit Ayres, a Trump endorsement is
“determinative.” “At this point,” he said, ticking through a number of primary contest results, “a Trump
endorsement can totally change the complexion of a race.” Nowhere was that clearer than in this
week’s Georgia gubernatorial primary runoff, where polls showed Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle’s standing begin
to plummet the day Trump endorsed his opponent, Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp. Kemp, who
had been trailing only days before according to some tracking numbers, went on to win by nearly 40
percentage points. “Simply because Donald Trump said ‘I’m supporting the other guy,’ [Cagle’s] image
took a 30-point hit,” marveled one shell-shocked national Republican strategist familiar with the Georgia
race. “If you got caught in a sex scandal or Anthony Weiner-type situation, I don’t think your numbers
move that quickly.” Now, as general election season arrives, Republican operatives in some
battleground states are working to harness the potency of a Trump endorsement to drive GOP turnout
and re-energize voters who may have turned out for Trump in 2016, but aren’t necessarily committed to
a particular political party—or to voting regularly. “He did it largely with disaffected former Democrats
and infrequent voters,” said Brad Todd, a senior GOP strategist involved in marquee Senate races. “We
have to find a way to get a good chunk of those folks out in the midterms. His endorsement, his
enthusiasm, is a good way to do that.” For many Republican House candidates running in more
moderate or Democratic-leaning districts, that strategy is fraught with peril. But, especially on the
Senate side where some of the most competitive contests are playing out in states Trump won,
Republican strategists looking to counter unbridled Democratic energy are, ever more confidently,
turning to Trump. This wasn’t always the case—indeed, Trump’s ability to juice Republican turnout was
once in question. Last year his initial favored candidate in an Alabama special election primary runoff,
Luther Strange, lost despite Trump rallying for him in one of the most pro-Trump states in the country.
Trump went on to back Roy Moore, the GOP nominee in that race accused of child molestation, who
also lost—nearly unthinkably in deep-red Alabama—to a Democrat. But more recently, his chosen
candidates have been on a winning streak, from his choice in the South Carolina gubernatorial primary
runoff to his pick in a Staten Island House primary and an Alabama House runoff. It’s evidence that,
whether with blue-collar voters on Staten Island or with evangelicals in the South, Trump has the ability
to move GOP votes. Republicans are hoping he will do just that as general elections near. Todd is an
adviser to Republican Josh Hawley, Missouri’s attorney general who is seeking to challenge Democratic
Sen. Claire McCaskill in one of the most closely-watched contests in the country. Hawley appeared with
Trump at an event with veterans, and the president headlined a fundraising luncheon for him in Kansas
City this week. “We hope he’ll come as many times as he’s willing to put the plane down,” Todd said.
Certainly, Missouri is a state Trump won by nearly 20 percentage points. While his margins were even
bigger in a number of other states with competitive Senate races—from North Dakota to West
Virginia—his favorability is also underwater in a host of competitive House districts. That creates a
challenge for candidates there who want to motivate their base—and know that there is no better GOP
motivator than Trump—without alienating centrist voters who despise the president. “In states or
districts where Trump’s job approval is above 50 percent, then obviously that’s a good move” to
embrace his endorsement, Ayres said. “In states or districts where Trump’s job approval is below 50
percent, it becomes far more problematic in those districts. Those Republicans need all of the Trump
supporters, plus a chunk of people who do not support the president. That becomes, strategically, a
finer line to walk.” Added the national GOP strategist in an interview Wednesday, referencing the
Georgia race, “where you have people like last night that will do whatever the hell he says, you also, on
the flip side, have people who are going to go out and vote, and violently vote, against anybody
endorsed by him.” But Todd said that for many Republican candidates, associations with Trump are
baked in—and it makes sense to embrace that. “Three-quarters of the way into the Democratic coalition
from left moving to the right, those voters already think every Republican is tied to Donald Trump,” he
said. “The only question becomes, can you get people who like Trump better than your candidate to
show up?”
UQ - Kavanaugh will be confirmed
Kavanaugh will be confirmed – empirics prove swing senators will support him and
midterm election means red state dems will confirm him
Stephens 7/12/18 (Bret, The New York Times Op-Ed columnist, “Just Confirm
Kavanaugh”, New York Times,
supreme-court-confirm.html, KC)

Kavanaugh will almost certainly be confirmed. Democrats who had pinned their hopes on flipping
Senators Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski probably aren’t going to get their wish, since both Republican
moderates voted to confirm Kavanaugh to his current judgeship in 2006 and have since spoken
approvingly of his nomination. Rand Paul can also be counted on to feign political independence, but he
usually falls into line.

Of course it’s possible Kavanaugh will make a bad public impression, like Robert Bork. Or maybe there
will be a #MeToo revelation, like with Clarence Thomas. Or maybe Democrats will figure out a way to
kick a vote past the midterms. In which case, Democrats can seize their chances. For now, however, the
first question Democrats ought to ask themselves is whether they really have political capital to waste
on a losing battle.

Fierce opposition to Kavanaugh hurts Democrats. This was already going to be a difficult year for Senate
Democrats, who are defending 10 seats in states won by Trump. Everyone knows that North Dakota’s
Heidi Heitkamp, West Virginia’s Joe Manchin and Indiana’s Joe Donnelly are vulnerable, which is why
they voted to confirm Neil Gorsuch last year. Florida’s Bill Nelson is struggling, too, as is Missouri’s Claire

So please explain the logic of convincing Democratic voters in these states that the Kavanaugh
nomination is the moral battle of our time — and then putting their senators to the choice of looking
like political sellouts if they vote for Kavanaugh, or moral cowards if they don’t (and vice versa)?

Liberals always cry wolf. In 1987, the National Organization for Women declared that Anthony Kennedy
would be a “disaster” for the rights of women and minorities. Yet the libertarian-minded Kennedy went
on to defend abortion rights in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) and cast the decisive vote for
marriage equality in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015). In 1990, Judith Lichtman of the Women’s Legal
Defense Fund warned in a Times op-ed that “Judge Souter’s confirmation must be denied” based on his
evasiveness during his confirmation hearings. Over time, Souter emerged as a reliably liberal vote on the
court. Similar fury greeted John Roberts’s 2005 nomination — until his vote to preserve Obamacare
remade him into a consensus-oriented pragmatist.

A plurality of Americans already want Kavanaugh confirmed, according to a Rasmussen poll. The
numbers will likely improve once Americans get a closer look at this temperate, intelligent, decidedly
non-scary nominee. And Democrats will again play to type as mindless obstructionists and one-note
alarmists — the same overheated opposition that, as the Times’s Jeremy Peters reported last month,
only hardens support for Trump.
McConnell confident Kavanaugh will be confirmed
Bailey 7/13/18 (Phillip, Writer for the Courier Journal, “McConnell optimistic Trump's
Supreme Court nominee will be confirmed”, Courier Journal, https://www.courier-
kavanaugh/782408002/, KC)

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was beaming Friday at the prospect that President Trump's
nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court will be on the bench by October.

McConnell spent the majority of the nearly 30-minute press conference promoting Judge Brett
Kavanaugh, who has come under fire from Democrats and liberal advocacy groups.

If confirmed, Kavanaugh will fill the seat left vacant by Justice Anthony Kennedy and solidify the high
court's conservative majority. McConnell referred to Kavanaugh as a legal "all-star" with an impressive

"I've been trying to find anybody whose known him over the last 20 years who dislikes him and can't
find anybody," McConnell said. "In short, if you were calling up central casting and said, 'send me the
perfect Supreme Court justice' it would be Brett Kavanaugh."

Kavanaugh will be confirmed

Quinn 7/25/18 (Melissa, Supreme Court and breaking news reporter for the
Washington Examiner, “Nearly all GOP governors push for Brett Kavanaugh's
confirmation”, Washington Examiner,
kavanaughs-confirmation, KC)

Most of the country’s Republican governors are urging the Senate to swiftly confirm Judge Brett
Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

Thirty-one GOP governors sent a letter Wednesday to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.,
and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., expressing their support for Kavanaugh’s
nomination and praising his credentials.

The four governors who did not sign the letter are: Bruce Rauner of Illinois, Larry Hogan of Maryland,
Charlie Baker of Massachusetts, and Phil Scott of Vermont. All four are Republican governors in blue

“As Judge Kavanaugh stated in his remarks to the nation, his judicial philosophy is straightforward. He
believes a judge must be independent and open-minded and must interpret the law as written,” the
governors wrote. “As his record shows, he will interpret the Constitution as written, informed by history,
tradition, and precedent. Judge Kavanaugh will adjudicate legal disputes with impartiality, preserving
the Constitution of the United States and the rule of law.”
Kavanaugh will be confirmed by October
Correll 7/13/18 (Diana, breaking news reporter for the Washington Examiner,
“McConnell aiming to confirm Brett Kavanaugh by October”, Washington Examiner,
supreme-court-by-october, KC)

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., signaled he is aiming for the Senate to confirm Supreme
Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh by October.

"The timetable typically for recent Supreme Court justices, if we stuck to that timetable and I intend to,
would give us an opportunity to get this new justice on the court by the first of October," McConnell
said in Kentucky on Friday.

He also anticipates that confirmation hearings will begin “in late August or early September,” and
predicted that there’s “only a fairly small number of people who are genuinely undecided” and will
determine how to vote following the hearings.

McConnell’s comments come after the White House encouraged the Senate earlier this week to confirm
Kavanaugh in the next 66 days, which falls in the middle of September.

“The last two Supreme Court confirmations occurred in 66 days,” principal deputy press secretary Raj
Shah said Tuesday.

He subsequently told reporters, “We think that’s a good benchmark.” Kavanaugh will need a simple
majority to be confirmed, which McConnell believes will happen. A total of 50 votes will be needed to
confirm Kavanaugh in the event that Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., remains in Arizona where he is battling
brain cancer.

Kavanaugh is the second Supreme Court justice President Trump has nominated. Neil Gorsuch was
Trump’s first pick; he was confirmed to the seat left by the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

Kavanaugh is expected to be confirmed but it’s contentious – multiple republican

senators could break rank
Siddiqui and Jacobs 18 – Political reporters for The Guardian (Sabrina, Ben, “Senators clash over Brett Kavanaugh amid scrutiny
of his tenure under Bush”, The Guardian, 7/25/18,
republicans-bush) // KZ

A brewing showdown over Donald Trump’s supreme court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, has escalated in the US Senate
amid a dispute over his record while serving in George W Bush’s White House. Democrats amplified their campaign this week
to force the release of millions of documents they say are critical to considering Kavanaugh, and accused
Republicans of stonewalling on the issue. Republicans, meanwhile, accused Democrats of resorting to a “delaying tactic” to bar
Trump’s nominee from moving forward. Kavanaugh was nominated by Trump this month to replace the retiring supreme court justice Anthony
Kennedy, setting the stage for a major battle in Washington before the 2018 midterm elections. Democrats insisted on the need for senators to
review documents from Kavanaugh’s service in the Bush White House, where he served as staff secretary. If Trump challenges the
constitutional order, will Kavanaugh defend it? Lawrence Douglas Read more There have long been concerns about whether Kavanaugh might
have misled the Senate about his role in Bush-era torture programs when he was confirmed to the DC circuit court of appeals in 2006. Also
under scrutiny is Kavanaugh’s work assisting the investigation of Bill Clinton led by the then independent counsel Ken Starr. “If Judge Kavanaugh
is the right man for the bench that the Republicans say he is, if he’s a fair-minded jurist that they claim he is, why are Republicans hiding his full
record from the Senate and from the American people?” Chuck Schumer, the Senate minority leader, told reporters on Capitol Hill on Tuesday.
Schumer pointed out Republicans had similarly demanded documents when Barack Obama nominated Elena Kagan, who served in the Clinton
White House, to the supreme court nearly a decade ago. “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander,” Schumer said. Republicans
dismissed the demands for document production as a political stunt. John Cornyn, the No 2 Republican in the Senate, told reporters: “Whatever
the demand for documents will be, you can be guaranteed it won’t be enough to satisfy the 20 Democrats who have already come out against
the nomination.” There
is little margin for error in Kavanaugh’s confirmation process, with Republicans
holding just a 51-seat majority in the Senate and John McCain absent while undergoing treatment for
brain cancer. Republicans enacted a rule change last year allowing for supreme court nominees to be approved with a simple majority
vote, paving the way for the confirmation of Trump’s first nominee, justice Neil Gorsuch. 2:31 Trump names Brett Kavanaugh as supreme court
nominee – video Democratssee a pair of moderate Republican senators, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan
Collins of Maine, as their best hope for thwarting Kavanaugh’s nomination. Both Murkowski and Collins
have said any supreme court nominee would have to commit to upholding Roe v Wade, the landmark
1973 decision that legalized abortion in the US. Republicans have in turn mounted pressure on a handful
of red-state Democrats facing tough re-election battles and who voted to confirm Gorsuch last year. The
libertarian-leaning Rand Paul, a senator from Kentucky, has also sounded the alarm over Kavanaugh’s
nomination, citing concerns over his record on privacy and torture. Paul, who met with Kavanaugh for more than an
hour and a half on Tuesday, has threatened to break ranks on multiple occasions during the Trump presidency but has typically fallen in line. Is
John Roberts poised to become the supreme court's key swing vote? Read more Despite the mounting rancor on Capitol Hill, the Senate
majority leader, Mitch McConnell,
made clear on Tuesday that Kavanaugh would be confirmed well before
November’s midterm elections. “We’re going to finish this nomination this fall, so let there be no misunderstanding that there will
be any kind of delaying tactic that would take us past first Tuesday in November,” he told reporters. Democrats nonetheless pressed on with
their efforts to warn of the consequences should Kavanaugh find a seat on the highest court in the land, which could recast the court in a
conservative mold for generations to come. “I’m
here to call on folks to understand that in a moral moment, there is
no neutral,” Cory Booker, a senator from New Jersey, said at a Tuesday press conference. “You are
either complicit in the evil, you are either contributing to the wrong, or you are fighting against it.”
AT – Red State Democrats
Red state democrats won’t vote for Kavanaugh – Polls and Clarence Thomas empiric
proves that it won’t be politically helpful
Hart 18 – Benjamin Writer is a Political Writer (“Red State Democrats Have No Good Reason to Vote for Brett Kavanaugh”, Daily
Intelligencer of The New York Magazine, 7/22/18,
brett-kavanaugh.html) // KZ

It’s a cold, hard truth: Republicans hold a 51-49 majority in the Senate — 50-49, taking into account John McCain’s enduring absence — so
there is no way that Senate Democrats can singlehandedly prevent Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh from settling into Anthony
Kennedy’s seat and steering the court sharply rightward. What Democrats can do is band together, as they have on Obamacare repeal and tax
cuts, and force complete Republican unanimity to squeeze Kavanaugh through, making any break in the GOP ranks, however unlikely one is to
materialize, fatal to his chances. Eight
Democratic Senators, most of whom face tough elections in November,
have not yet signaled which way they will vote on the 53-year-old conservative hero’s nomination.
(Three of these senators defected from the rest of their party to vote for Neil Gorsuch back in April.) But
while some reports have framed their dilemma as an agonizing, make-or-break choice, the stickiness of
their predicament is likely exaggerated. The available evidence — or lack thereof — shows that there is
simply no compelling reason for them to give Kavanaugh the green light. Here are five reasons why they
shouldn’t bend: 1) Kavanaugh’s nomination is not popular It’s still early going in what is likely to be a months-long
confirmation battle, but three polls taken in the days after President Trump’s announcement show Kavanaugh
as “one of the most unpopular Supreme Court nominees in recent history,” according to FiveThirtyEight,
with only slim majorities favoring his confirmation in each. Taken together, the polls, conducted by Fox News, Gallup, and the Pew Research
Center, show that Kavanaugh has a “net confirmation” rating of only five points, lower than any nominees in
recent history, with the notable exceptions of Harriet Miers and Robert Bork — neither of whom went
on to be confirmed. The second is that, unlike Neil Gorsuch, who earned marginally better initial poll numbers, Kavanaugh’s
confirmation would fundamentally change the balance of the Supreme Court. Many voters probably
view his nomination — correctly — as far more consequential. Republican voters really want Kavanaugh to be
confirmed. But Democratic Senators like Jon Tester of Montana or Claire McCaskill of Missouri should not
mistake their ardor for widespread support. And, a “yes” vote may be just as likely to alienate
Democrats and Independents who fiercely oppose Kavanaugh as it is to placate Republicans. 2) The
policies Brett Kavanaugh champions are even less popular Here is a sample of positions the potential next justice has
taken consistently over the years: He has voted to severely curtail the power of the government to regulate
climate change without explicit congressional approval. (Most Americans want stricter enforcement.) He
has endorsed a maximalist interpretation of the Second Amendment, arguing that state-level assault
weapons bans are unconstitutional. (Americans favor more stringent gun laws and the banning of semi-
automatic rifles.) He has been openly hostile to the Affordable Care Act, leading to worries that he could
help strike down the law altogether. (Obamacare is more popular with the public than ever.) And there’s
much more. The issue that may hang over Kavanaugh’s nomination most conspicuously is abortion. While Kavanagh has never
explicitly said he wants to overturn Roe v. Wade, he has made it clear, through his words and actions over the years,
that that he is an avowed foe of abortion rights. Last September, he spoke approvingly of former Justice
William Rehnquist’s dissent in Roe v. Wade. Those remarks flew in the face of the convention that possible Supreme Court
nominees should at least make the right noises about upholding precedent. Anti-abortion activists are wild about Kavanaugh, a sure sign that
they see him as the man who might finally end federal legalization of abortion, or at least roll it back drastically. Polls consistently show
that a large majority of the public favors preserving Roe v. Wade. Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, the two most
moderate Republican Senators, do too. It’s hard to find a policy Kavanaugh has championed that enjoys actual popularity among Americans. As
Eric Levitz wrote this week, Kavanaugh represents a well-mannered establishment conservatism that has diligently worked to “insulate the
policy preferences of reactionary elites from majoritarian opinion.” There is no vast constituency for Kavanaugh’s views, just as there isn’t one
for Paul Ryan’s. 3) There is no clear evidence that voting for Kavanaugh will help in November One reason vulnerable Democrats
have voted for some of President Trump’s most controversial judicial nominees is simple: They don’t
want to be labeled obstructionists in states where the president remains somewhat popular. (In a way, some
of those votes — like the ones to confirm torture-friendly CIA Director Gina Haspel — are less defensible than giving a nod to Kavanaugh, since
voters are very unlikely to keep in mind relatively under-the-radar confirmation fights when they’re casting their ballots.) Kavanaugh’s
case is different for two reasons. The prospect of a transformed Supreme Court make this inherently a
much higher-profile vote than anything to come down the pike in recent memory, and its proximity to
the midterm elections will automatically make it a campaign-trail talking point for conservatives. But the
New Yorker’s Jane Mayer writes that “if the past is prologue, what looks like the politically safest course now may turn out to be just the
opposite later.” She raises the example of Clarence Thomas, whose ultra-contentious 1991 confirmation hearing
taught Democrats some important and counterintuitive lessons. Centrist Democrats figured that voting
for Thomas would insulate them from Republican attacks and ease their paths to re-election the next
year. But Klain, who was an aide on the Senate Judiciary Committee at the time, recalls that, instead, the Thomas confirmation
triggered an unexpected political backlash, particularly among women who felt that the men in the
Senate had disrespected women’s rights. The following year, a wave of female candidates ran for office, much as they are
running now. In fact, 1992 came to be known as “the year of the woman.” Unexpectedly, several of the Democratic senators
who had voted to confirm Thomas, including Alan Dixon, of Illinois, and Wyche Fowler, of Georgia, found themselves
defeated. Dixon, in fact, was knocked out in the Democratic primary by a black female candidate, Carol Moseley Braun. Others, such as
Chuck Robb, of Virginia, were reelected but never fully escaped the cloud that hung over their records. Even Joe Biden, the Democratic
chairman of the Judiciary Committee, who opposed Thomas’s confirmation, but whose treatment of Thomas was
seen by critics as too deferential, continues to be dogged by it almost three decades later. Mayer also cites a Hart
Research Associates poll (admittedly conducted by two progressive groups) showing that red state voters would be forgiving of a
Democratic Senator’s “no” vote if the lawmaker framed their opposition “clearly as a matter of
conscience,” and based it on either checking the president’s power, protecting workers’ rights, or
preserving the Affordable Care Act. In the run-up to a midterm election that will mostly serve as a referendum on President
Trump, Democrats are rightly focused on turning out their base and convincing infrequent voters, many of whom disdain the president, to get
to the polls. Republicans in states like West Virginia and North Dakota who might defy their party to vote for a member of the opposition are
unlikely to alter their thinking based on good-faith opposition to Kavanaugh. And if Democrats think confirming a Supreme
Court justice will stave off vicious attacks from Trump and the GOP apparatus, they’ve got another thing
coming. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has threatened to hold a vote just weeks before the election if Democrats try to prolong
Kavanaugh’s confirmation with record requests. They should call his bluff. 4) Merrick Garland You may recall (if you haven’t blocked it
from your memory in an effort not to give in to insanity) that two years ago, Senate Republicans, led by McConnell, blocked
President Obama’s eminently qualified Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland from even receiving a
hearing after Antonin Scalia’s death — with the bogus justification that different rules apply during presidential election years. The
shameful episode is a salient illustration of just how little political effect Democratic resistance to voting
for Kavanaugh is likely to have. In 2016, Democrats tried (though probably not in the most effective way) to make
their unfairly spurned Supreme Court nominee into a major campaign issue. It did not work. It’s true that in
recent decades, the right has paid far closer attention than the left to matters of the judiciary; President Trump’s pre-election list of potential
Supreme Court nominees was a major reason some conservatives took a flyer on him. But
the people for whom Brett
Kavanaugh’s place on the Supreme Court takes priority over all other electoral issues are unlikely to vote
for Democrats in the first place. Red state Dems will be safe focusing on larger slices of the electorate
whose mind is on other matters, like health care, jobs, or even immigration. The Garland episode also
supplies another easy justification for Democrats to say no. Most Republicans found it in themselves to expound on a
made-up “Biden rule” with a straight face in 2016; there is no reason that Democrats should extend any courtesies to a president under a very
real investigation who appears to have tapped the nominee most likely to shield him from that investigation. 5) It’s the right thing to do If the
political survival of a Democratic Senator depended on voting for a nominee who is likely to be confirmed anyway, it would be understandable
for that senator to grudgingly get on board. And there’s certainly an argument to be made that if Collins and Murkowski signal their support for
Brett Kavanaugh, lawmakers like Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota would be fools not to join them. But
beyond the midterm calculations, there are moral ones. Brett Kavanaugh may be well-liked by seemingly everyone he has come into contact
with, from his law-school students to fellow Washington carpool dads. But make no mistake: On matters of abortion, labor unions,
concentration of corporate power, the environment, and so many other issues that are near and dear to (even red state) Democrats’ hearts, he
is a radical — and one who is likely to wield extraordinary power to codify once-unrealistic conservative priorities into law. He poses a clear and
present danger to the values Democrats hold dear. Voting for him may blow up in red state Democrats’ faces politically. But it would also,
clearly, be the wrong decision for America.
AT – Rand Paul
Paul is posturing - he’s not going to vote against Kavanaugh because of political
implications and empirics prove
Kucinich and Desiderio 18 - Jackie Kucinich is the Washington Bureau Chief at The Daily Beast and Andrew Desiderio is The
Daily Beast’s congressional reporter based in Capitol Hill (Jackie, Andrew, “No One Expects Rand Paul to Actually Vote Against Brett
Kavanaugh”, The Daily Beast, 7/24/18, //

No One Expects Rand Paul to Actually Vote Against Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court battles have grown more contentious. But that doesn’t
mean the dramatic, last-minute holdout will actually matter. JACKIE KUCINICH ANDREW DESIDERIO 07.24.18 10:30 PM ET Supreme Court
nominations are steeped in tradition. The pageantry of the announcement of the nominee, the escorted visits around Capitol Hill for meetings
with senators, the confirmation hearing and, most of the time, the vote. With Supreme Court confirmations now growing increasingly
contentious, it may be time to add another tradition to the list: the pretend holdout. It’s
the senator who, for any reason, decides
that he or she isn’t sure about a nominee that checks almost every box that his or her respective party
wants to see in a Supreme Court justice; who prolongs the announcement of a position on confirmation,
building sometimes artificial tension in the process. This time, that senator is Kentucky Republican Rand Paul. In an
interview with Politico, Paul said he was “honestly undecided” on whether to vote for Brett Kavanaugh, President Donald Trump’s choice to fill
the upcoming vacancy on the high court. Paul cited Kavanaugh’s views on the National Security Agency’s bulk collection of Americans’ data, a
program the senator has long opposed. “Kavanaugh’s position is basically that national security trumps privacy. And he said it very strongly and
explicitly. And that worries me,” Paul said. RELATED IN POLITICS Dems Pounce on Trump’s ‘Extreme’ Supreme Court Pick Trump’s SCOTUS Pick
Is Probably the End of Abortion Rights Progressives Pledged Army to Fight Kavanaugh. No One Showed. If all Democrats vote against
Kavanaugh—and if Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) is unable to make it back to the Senate due to his ongoing cancer treatment—Paul’s potential
“no” vote would sink Kavanaugh’s nomination. And it would put Paul on the receiving end of a
presidential tweet-storm of epic proportions. He would bear the blame for costing his party, at least
temporarily, a chance to reshape the Supreme Court for a generation. And that’s why his colleagues, on
both sides of the aisle, are under no illusion that the libertarian senator will end up voting against a
qualified, experienced, conservative nominee like Kavanaugh. “You guys get teased so easily,” Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) said
with a heavy laugh when asked if he thinks Paul could join most Democrats in opposing Kavanaugh. “We don’t usually count on that,” Sen. Tim
Kaine (D-VA) joked. There are reasons to be skeptical of Paul’s holdout on Kavanaugh. Recently, he vowed to do everything in his
power to block Mike Pompeo from becoming secretary of state, citing Pompeo’s positions on the Iraq war and regime
change. In the end, Paul voted to confirm Pompeo. GET THE BEAST IN YOUR INBOX! Enter your email address By clicking
“Subscribe,” you agree to have read the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy SUBSCRIBE More generally, Paul has been consistent in warning about
government overreach on issues related to privacy, data collection, and the Fourth Amendment. But even those who admire his philosophical
disposition on these fronts said they expect Paul to fall in line in the end. “On privacy, Sen. Paul has been a very consistent, very active legislator
on ensuring that Americans’ privacy is strongly protected. So this is not some new concerns of his,” Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) said in an interview.
“Unfortunately, Sen. Paul
has a history of making a big declaration about something that will change the
outcome of an important vote, and then in the last days or hours before the vote, changing his position.” Paul’s
Republican colleagues, likewise, don’t seem to be nervous about his holdout. For that reason, they aren’t
bothering to use valuable resources to sway him. Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-TX), who is in charge of the GOP’s
vote-counting operation, appeared unmoved by Paul’s apparent reservations about Kavanaugh. “[Privacy rights] are obviously an area of
particular concern of his, so he’s entitled to satisfy himself,” Cornyn told The Daily Beast. Paul formally sat down with Kavanaugh on Tuesday,
which an aide described as a “good meeting.” The senator’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment for this article. Like
Senate Republican leaders, conservative outside groups like Heritage Action and Americans for Prosperity aren’t planning on diverting any
funds to court Paul’s vote. Even so, Tim Chapman, the executive director of Heritage Action, said Paul’s exercise, as well as the efforts of
perpetual fence-sitters like Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), are important. “All of these people have specific issues that
they care a lot about as senators and they’ve staked a reputation on those issues, and so they want to make sure that people understand that
they still do care about those issues,” Chapman said. “So for Rand Paul, it’s the Fourth Amendment issue. That is part of his brand and it’s one
of the things his fiercest supporters like most about him.” “He has to kind of go through the process of making sure that Judge Kavanaugh hears
his perspective on it, I think,” Chapman added. “To me it’s a very rational process. If I were in the Senate I’d be doing the same thing on the
issues that I care about and I think that’s the important thing for the Senate to do.” So why is Paul bothering to air his reservations at all? Ron
Bonjean, a former Republican Senate leadership aide who helped usher then-Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch through the confirmation
process, said some of the GOP holdouts in the Gorsuch fight wanted to make a point to the White House. “Several Republicans seemed as if
they were on the fence last time because they wanted to make sure that the White House was not taking the nuclear option for granted and
that the Gorsuch team was doing all it could to get him confirmed,” he said, referring to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (R-KY)
decision to change the rules to apply a 50-vote threshold for Supreme Court nominees. “That’s why we created the ‘no stone unturned’
campaign to showcase the effort being made to court Senate Democrat votes and how difficult it was to achieve.”
Link - Generic
Immigration is a dividing issue
Snell 5/30/18 (Kelsey, congressional reporter for NPR, “House Split On Immigration
Might Be Good Politics For Some Moderate Republicans”, NPR,
some-moderate-republicans, KC)

House Republican leaders are struggling to contain a growing split within their party over immigration
policy. But for some vulnerable moderates breaking from some of the GOP's hardest-line proposals
could be the key to avoiding defeat in November.

Californian Steve Knight is one of nearly two dozen House Republicans who have signed on to a petition
to force the House to vote on immigration proposals as early as next month. The plan is to allow the
House to vote on at least four bills, including a pathway to citizenship that many conservatives hate.

That plan frustrates House leaders who worry a messy fight on immigration will divide the party and
boost Democrats' chances of winning control of the House in November. But Knight said Monday in an
interview at a Memorial Day event in his home district that he is confident that it's better for him if they
at least try to pass some immigration legislation.

"This is doing probably one of the hardest things in America that we've ever tried to do," Knight said. "I
understand that, but I think we have the votes to get something done."

Knight said the best path forward is a bill to combine some measures for increased border security with
legal protections for the roughly 800,000 people who stand to lose protections under Deferred Action
for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA. He said he's heard from voters in his district and he's confident
that is what they want.

"People have said that consistently," Knight said. "If I just don't listen then I'm not listening to the
people in my district."

That position puts him at odds with many in his party, including House conservatives and President

Trump continues to lean into the same hard-line position on immigration that was his signature in 2016
— he wants a wall along the border with Mexico and broad crackdowns on illegal immigration. He told a
crowd in Tennessee Tuesday night that Republicans need to be tough if they want to win.

"And you can say what you want, but I think border security and security in general is a great issue for
the Republican Party," Trump said. "I think it's a great issue. Not a bad issue."

But Democrats and many moderates disagree. They say a majority of Americans oppose a wall, and
point to polls like a recent ABC News/Washington Post survey that showed 86 percent of voters support
the DACA program.

The issue is even more personal in California, a state that is home to nearly 30 percent of all DACA
Immigration divides Republicans – discharge petitions prove
Wong and Zanona 5/17/18 (Scott, Writer for the Hill, Melanie, Writer for the Hill, “GOP
Split on Immigration is a Crisis for Ryan’s Team”, The Hill,, KC)

Momentum is building for an insurgent effort by centrist Republicans to force immigration votes on the
House floor despite GOP leadership’s attempt to tamp down the rebellion.

The unfolding legislative battle is a nightmare for Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and his lieutenants,
because it exposes a fervent intraparty split in the GOP and pits leadership against many of the
politically vulnerable members that are key to saving the Republican majority this fall.

A pair of GOP lawmakers on Wednesday signed on to a discharge petition that would set up a series of
votes on immigration bills on the House floor later this year. The move came just hours after party
leaders pleaded with rank-and-file members to stand down.

Rep. John Katko (R-N.Y.), a leader of the moderate Tuesday Group, and Rep. Dave Trott (R-Mich.), who is
retiring from Congress, both signed their names to the petition, becoming the 19th and 20th
Republicans to do so.

Now, just five more Republican signatures are needed to force the immigration votes if all 193
Democrats join the effort.

“We will have more Republicans signing on this week, and a lot more Democrats signing on. I am
confident we all have the votes we need,” said Rep. Jeff Denham (R-Calif.), who is leading the effort with
Reps. Carlos Curbelo (R-Fla.) and Will Hurd (R-Texas). All three lawmakers are facing challenging
elections this fall.

Denham added, “I’m not saying when our timeline is. I’m saying we have enough commitments to make
sure we’re going to be successful.”

The coming days will see a battle for those remaining five votes. Denham and Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.),
who are leading the discharge whip operation, will be targeting those who have spoken favorably of the
“Dreamer” issue but have yet to sign.

But those same Republicans are being whipped by GOP leadership not to sign. Ryan and House Majority
Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) reiterated during a closed-door meeting with Republicans on
Wednesday that such a petition effectively cedes control of the floor to Democrats.

McCarthy’s warning to GOP colleagues was even more dire: If a discharge petition goes forward, he said,
it could cost Republicans the House majority in the November midterm elections.
Link - Refugees
Criticism of Trump’s refugee policies proves that it’s decisive among Republicans
Fandos 17 (Nicholas, Reporter in the Washington Bureau covering Congress at the New
York Times, “Growing Number of G.O.P. Lawmakers Criticize Trump’s Refugee Policy”,
New York Times, January 29 2017,
refugees.html, KC)
WASHINGTON — A growing group of Republican lawmakers criticized President Trump’s refugee policy
on Sunday even as party leaders in Congress continued to show restraint.

The executive order Mr. Trump issued on Friday, which targets Syrian refugees and all travelers from
several predominantly Muslim nations, had drawn little dissent from Republicans initially even as
Democrats denounced it and protests erupted around the country and the world.

But on Sunday, several members of Mr. Trump’s party said that the process, while initiated with the
right intention, had been too hastily enacted and warned that it could backfire against United States

Two Republican senators, John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, led the
criticism, saying in a statement that Mr. Trump’s order was not properly vetted and that it could be seen
as the United States turning its back on Muslims who had risked their lives to serve as interpreters for
the country’s military and diplomats.

Ultimately, we fear this executive order will become a self-inflicted wound in the fight against
terrorism,” they said, adding, “That is why we fear this executive order may do more to help terrorist
recruitment than improve our security.”

Mr. McCain also said the plan was carried out without proper consultation of United States allies and
that it mistakenly lumped together the country’s adversaries, like Iran, with allies, like Iraq.

Republicans have largely supported Mr. Trump’s aggressive agenda, but in his first major decision on
national security, he is finding uncharacteristic opposition from his party in the blush of his early days in

Mr. Trump did not take well to the input, singling out Mr. McCain and Mr. Graham on Twitter as “sadly
weak on immigration.”
Link – GOP Unity Key
Narrow majority means that all Republicans are key to confirm Kavanaugh
Prokop 7/9/18 (Andrew, Senior Politics Reporter at Vox, “The key senators to watch for
Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation”, Vox,
kavanaugh-senate-confirmation, KC)

President Trump has announced he’ll nominate Brett Kavanaugh to replace the Supreme Court’s swing
justice, Anthony Kennedy — setting up an enormously consequential confirmation battle over his
replacement in the narrowly divided Senate for later this year.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has already announced that he’ll hold a confirmation vote for
Kavanaugh before this fall’s midterm elections. And after McConnell’s rules change last year, only a
simple majority is necessary to get a Supreme Court justice through the Senate.

Still, while Republicans do currently control a majority in the chamber, it’s quite a narrow one. They
have 51 seats, meaning they could theoretically confirm a new justice without any Democratic help. But
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has been absent from Washington all year for health reasons. If McCain
remains in his seat but unable to show up and vote, the Senate will effectively be composed of 50
Republicans and 49 Democrats — so, if any one Republican defects in a partisan vote, he or she can
sink a nomination.

And with abortion-rights precedents that have existed for decades suddenly at stake, all eyes will be on
two swing blocs: moderate Republicans and red-state Democrats.

By far the two most important senators to watch, overall, for Kavanaugh’s confirmation chances are
Susan Collins of Maine, and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. Both are pro-abortion rights. Both have also
proven willing to buck their party — for instance, they sank Obamacare repeal last year.

Both also, however, voted in favor of confirming Neil Gorsuch. But the stakes were lower for that vote.
Since he was filling Antonin Scalia’s seat, his confirmation meant only that the Supreme Court’s
ideological makeup would be restored to approximately where it was in February 2016, before Scalia’s
death. It was widely understood that, with Gorsuch, the court would still be short of the votes to
overturn or badly weaken Roe v. Wade — because Kennedy, though a conservative, had sided with the
liberal and moderate justices to uphold it.

Yet the replacement of Kennedy with a staunch conservative like Kavanaugh would mean the
overturning of Roe is a strong possibility. This would mean a serious test for Collins and Murkowski —
one they have not yet faced. Both seem to sincerely care about women’s reproductive rights. Collins in
particular may be concerned about her own reelection in a purple state in 2020.

If Democrats unite against Trump’s nominee, and McCain remains in his seat but is unable to come to
Washington and vote, then Kavanaugh will have to win both Collins and Murkowski’s votes. He can’t
afford to lose either one of them.

As it happens, neither Collins nor Murkowski chose to attend Trump’s announcement tonight. And don’t
expect them to announce their decisions anytime soon — historically, both have often tended to hold
off announcing their decisions on controversial votes until close to the very end.
Unified republicans key to confirmation
Deaton 7/11/18 (Chris, deputy online editor at The Weekly Standard, “Here’s How
Kavanaugh Gets Confirmed”, Weekly Standard,
deaton/the-senate-math-behind-brett-kavanaughs-confirmation, KC)

(4) If only 99 senators vote, then Republicans cannot afford to lose a single one of their own, assuming
that all 49 Democrats stick together to oppose. In this instance, a vote purely on partisan lines would be
50-49 for Kavanaugh. One Republican flipping would make it 49-50. (One Republican being a troll and
voting “present” would make it 49-49-1, and Pence would come to the rescue.)
2NC- I/L
Kavanaugh is going to reduce Chevron deference to a historical footnote – past rulings
and positions proves
McGarity 18 – Thomas McGarity is a leading scholar in the fields of administrative law and environmental law at The University of
Texas at Austin School of Law (“Judge Kavanaugh’s Deregulatory Agenda”, The American Prospect, 7/25/18,
kavanaugh%E2%80%99s-deregulatory-agenda) // KZ

Congress has assigned to the judiciary the task of reviewing agency regulations to ensure that agencies
have properly interpreted the statutes that empower them and to ensure that their decisions are supported by
substantial evidence and are not arbitrary and capricious. In the seminal case of Chevron, U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense
Council, the Supreme Court set out a two-step test for judicial review of an agency’s interpretation of a
statute. First, if the meaning of the statute is clear on its face, the court must confirm its clear meaning without deferring to the agency. If,
however, the statute is ambiguous, the court should defer to the agency’s interpretation the statute if it is reasonable. Ever since the Court
handed down that decision in 1984, some (mostly conservative) judges have chafed under its prescription for deference to agencies whose
judgment they do not trust. Kavanaugh has been one of the most forceful judicial advocates of limiting the
application of the Chevron prescription. The easiest way to avoid Chevron deference is to find the
relevant statutory language unambiguousand hold that the agency’s interpretation is inconsistent with
the statute’s unambiguous meaning. Ambiguity is, of course, a malleable concept. The deeper one probes into a statute’s
purpose, context and legislative history, the more likely one is to find ambiguity. In that regard, Kavanaugh has emulated Justice
Antonin Scalia’s formula of applying dictionary definitions to statutory terms with little regard for the
agency’s experience in working with the statute over the years. Kavanaugh has also played a leading role
in crafting a “major rules” exception to Chevron that could swallow the rule if he joins the Supreme
Court. In a controversial case involving the Food and Drug Administration’s attempt to regulate tobacco products during the Clinton
administration, the Supreme Court suggested that in “extraordinary cases” involving issues of great “economic and political magnitude,” a court
need not defer to the agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute. For a time, it appeared that the tobacco case was a one-off exception,
but Kavanaugh revived it in a case involving EPA’s attempt to regulate greenhouse gas emissions through its “new source review” permit
program. Following a recent Supreme Court holding that the words “air pollutant” in the definition section of the Clean Air Act included
greenhouse gases, EPA interpreted the phrase “any air pollutant” in the new source review section of the statute to include those gases.
Claiming that the case was “one of exceptional importance,” Kavanaugh, in a lengthy dissenting opinion, rejected EPA’s interpretation as
unreasonable. Without a hint of deference or a mention of Chevron, he concluded that “air pollutant” had a different meaning in the new
source review section than in the definition section and that the former meaning excluded greenhouse gases. The Supreme Court rejected
EPA’s interpretation, but without relying on the “major rules” exception. Kavanaugh elaborated on the major rule exception
in considerably more detail in his dissent in a case involving FCC’s net neutrality rule. In cases involving
“major social or economic activity,” he wrote, an ambiguous grant of statutory authority to an agency “is
not enough” to warrant deference. Conceding that the “major cases” exception was malleable, he noted that “determining
whether a rule constitutes a major rule sometimes has a bit of a ‘know it when you see it’ quality.” If Kavanaugh is confirmed, we
can expect that he will continue his project of creating exceptions until the Chevron rule is reduced to a
historical footnote. We can also expect Kavanaugh to interpret statutory language to require agencies to emphasize industry costs,
rather than focusing primarily on the statute’s protective goals and public benefits. For example, in dissenting from a holding that EPA had
lawfully vetoed a Corps of Engineers permit for a proposed mountaintop removal project, Kavanaugh concluded that in deciding whether the
project would have “unacceptable adverse impacts” on wildlife in the inundated streams below the project, EPA had to consider the cost to the
industry of preventing its disastrous impact on the environment. Wiping out the streams could be “acceptable,” in Kavanaugh’s view, if
preventing the catastrophic loss would cost the coal company too much in lost profits.
AT: Roe Turn (Generic)
Roe won’t be overturned – it’s too culturally significant – even if it is, abortion
restriction is non-unique because of Casey
McCarthy 7/7 – Senior Fellow at the National Review Institute and a Contributing Editor of National
Review (Andrew C., “‘Don’t You Dare Touch Roe!’ — Judicial Confirmation Silly Season Begins”, National
July 7, 2018)//CProst
I do not mean to suggest that Roe’s core is trivial. There are, after all, well over 600,000 abortions per year in the United States. But have you
noticed that the question of Roe’s vitality seems to arise only when there is a vacancy on the High Court
during a Republican administration? That is because the question is political theater: Democrats eliciting
verbal acrobatics from solid nominees who are well aware both that Roe is atrociously reasoned and
that saying so will imperil their confirmation chances. The real action on abortion today derives from
Casey, decided 19 years after Roe. The real legal action, that is. That’s a caveat worth adding. If abortion ever gets rolled
back in this country, it will be because a cultural shift forces legal change, not the other way around.
Suffice it to say, I’m not holding my breath (see this smart column by our Michael Brendan Dougherty on the implications of Ireland’s
referendum repealing its protection of the unborn). Casey was a triple gut punch for conservatives. First, in a bitterly divided
5–4 ruling, the Court upheld the constitutional abortion right it purported to discover in Roe. Second, the
main opinion, among the most farcical in the Court’s history, was jointly crafted by Reagan appointees Kennedy and Sandra Day O’Connor,
along with Bush 41 pick David Souter. Third, while paring Roe back in significant ways, the trio reaffirmed a potentially limitless
“substantive due process” right to “liberty” in any matter as to which five unelected lawyers decide dignity and privacy warrant
it. Bemoaning our democracy’s impertinent resistance to judicial ukase, Kennedy & Co. proclaimed in Casey’s opening line that “liberty finds no
refuge in a jurisprudence of doubt.” And who could possibly doubt the justices’ “jurisprudence”? An account of “liberty” sprung not from legal
precedent but from a metaphorical “heart” bursting with “the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and
of the mystery of human life.” Huh? We’d been warned that the “Constitution” is “living” and “organic,” but who knew it was hallucinogenic? If
the Supremes were the Beatles, I’d be urging that we play Kennedy’s opinions backwards. That seems as good a way as any to divine which
“attributes of personhood” are so “central to personal dignity and autonomy” that the Court must insulate them from the formerly
autonomous People. Casey’s fortune-cookie piffle is rivaled only by its arrogance: Where, in the performance of its judicial duties, the Court
decides a case in such a way as to resolve the sort of intensely divisive controversy reflected in Roe . . . its decision has a dimension that the
resolution of the normal case does not carry. It is the dimension present whenever the Court’s interpretation of the Constitution calls the
contending sides of a national controversy to end their national division by accepting a common mandate rooted in the Constitution. What
would the Left say if a peer branch of government tried that? Imagine President Trump saying, “When in the performance of my executive
duties, I resolve an intensely divisive border-security issue . . .” Or what if the Court had flexed its muscles this way in, say, Dred Scott or
Korematsu? Just wondering. There is so much stunning self-regard and overwrought prose in Casey that it’s easy to miss what, for purposes of
confirmation politics, are the most salient parts: the ruling’s demolition of Roe’s capricious trimester construct and some of its post-Roe
precedents. While you wouldn’t know it from listening to Senator Collins, the ruling that saved Roe was not exactly a bulwark of stare decisis. In
any event, as moderate Republicans tremble at the studied media-Democrat hysteria over Roe, it is
important to bear in mind that Casey — more than Roe — is the law. That means Roe’s core ruling is very
likely to survive, no matter who is appointed to the Supreme Court, for two reasons. First, for all its human-
resources-speak about the penumbral right of women to self-actualize in the modern world, Casey’s
reaffirmation of Roe is highly qualified. It made clear that the state is free to adhere to a strongly pro-life policy even before
“fetal viability.” The emphasis on state interest and viability, moreover, eroded the Roe fortress around first-
semester and pre-viability abortions. Regulations discouraging abortion were permissible as long as
access to pre-viability abortion was not made burdensome to the point of being practically unavailable. And viability
is a dynamic concept, so as evolving technology made it possible to preserve and protect unborn life at earlier stages, states would
have commensurate power to restrict or even outlaw abortion throughout more of pregnancy. (See, e.g.,
our Alexandra DeSanctis’s piece on the progress of federal legislation seeking to outlaw most abortions after 20 weeks, the point at which most
unborn children are sufficiently developed to feel pain.) To be sure, this is far from a perfect state of affairs for pro-lifers. But the national
abortion debate should never have been moved to the federal courthouse for resolution, and pro-lifers cannot win it there in any event. It has
to be won in the culture, from the ground up. Roe’s survival vel non will
be a lagging indicator. The second point is more
problematic for conservatives. Roe is not a one-off. It was a dramatic but foreseeable progression in the Court’s
oxymoronic “substantive due process” jurisprudence of the “mystery of human life” realm of “personhood.” The modern
phase started with contraception (first rationalized by a theory of marital privacy, then, in fine make-it-up-as-we-go-along contradiction,
extended by a conception of equality). It
has since moved on to gay rights (including same-sex marriage, endorsed in Justice
Kennedy’s Obergefell opinion in 2015), and now we are on to LGBTQ rights, three-partner marriage (and why stop at three?), and
who knows what other transgressive erosions of bourgeois culture. Regardless of a jurist’s legal position on substantive
due process, or of the jurist’s moral or policy positions on what it has wrought, Roe is part of a doctrinal edifice. To reach
out and try to overrule it, particularly in a case in which it is not necessary to do so, would be seen as an
attack on the entire edifice. The Supreme Court is not going to take that on. A more conservative Court
would reject the promiscuous language of Justice Kennedy’s “liberty” musings and admonish that the polling station, not the
courthouse, is the place for working out most clashes between the individual and society. It is not going to
turn back the cultural clock.
AT: Roe Turn (Specific)
Kavanaugh, along with Roberts, won’t overturn Roe – most qualified sources prove
[this is also the 1NC UQ author]
Stuart & Kaplan 7/20 – Tessa Stuart is a Reporter at Rolling Stone, David A. Kaplan is a Supreme
Court expert, award-winning Contributing Editor at Newsweek, and Adjunct Faculty Member at the New
York University Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute (“A Supreme Court Expert on Kavanaugh’s
Confirmation Chances and the Future of Roe v. Wade”, Rolling Stone,
701550/, July 20, 2018)//CProst

If Kavanaugh is confirmed, do you think the court will overturn Roe v. Wade? I think Roberts is troubled by
seeing the court get put in the maelstrom. And I think he recognizes that Roe v. Wade would put the court
in the maelstrom like no other ruling in modern times, even more so than Obamacare being decided in a
presidential election year. My guess would be that Roberts would not vote to explicitly overturn Roe, and my guess would
be that Kavanaugh would not do so either. If Roe v. Wade squarely came before the court in six months or
a year, my guess would be a 6-3 not to overturn it. But – and it’s a significant “but” – you can chip away at Roe without
overturning it. The Supreme Court has already upheld 24-hour waiting provisions. And you could easily imagine Kavanaugh and Roberts
upholding virtually any regulation, any restriction on abortion, short of an outright ban on abortion. Trump promised to nominate justices who
would overturn Roe – he’s not going to make good on that promise? I think if
overturning Roe was the coin of the realm in
Trump’s White House – or more accurately, in Don McGahn’s White House counsel’s office – then
Kavanaugh was the wrong pick. Virtually anybody in the judicial conservative arena in the last 20 years
is critical of Roe. But I think it is a big gap for people like Kavanaugh between saying it was a lousy decision
and taking the extraordinary step of overturning the ruling – all the more when the Supreme Court 25
years ago upheld it. But I think Don McGahn and other sophisticated lawyers in this administration and the
Federalist Society don’t particularly care about Roe. And, in some respects, [from their perspective] it’s nice to always
have Roe out there because it keeps mobilizing the base and helping you win, like in 2016. But the issue they really
care about – and for which it is legitimate, as a partisan matter, to fear a Roberts-Kavanaugh court – is the [issue of the] power of the federal

Kavanaugh won’t overturn Roe – past statements prove

Lott 7/26 – Formerly chief economist at the United States Sentencing Commission and columnist for
Fox News (John R., “Here's the real reason Democrats are so scared about Kavanaugh joining the
Supreme Court”, Fox News,
democrats-are-so-scared-about-kavanaugh-joining-supreme-court.html, July 26, 2018)//CProst

For those on the left who insist that Kavanaugh is dangerous because he supposedly won’t follow
precedent when it comes to Roe v Wade – the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion nationwide –
it seems clear that his critics haven’t read the book he co-authored on precedent. Kavanaugh argues
that precedents are particularly binding when they have been around for a long time, have had large
majorities on the court, and have been the subject of a number of Supreme Court decisions. All those
points surely apply to Roe v. Wade. In addition, during his confirmation hearing to the D.C. Circuit Court in
2006, Kavanaugh promised, “I would follow Roe v Wade faithfully and fully.”
There’s too much at stake for Kavanaugh to overturn Roe
Smith 7/17 – Senior fellow at the Discovery Institute’s Center on Human Exceptionalism (Wesley J.,
“With Kavanaugh, Roe Will Bend but not Break”, National Review,, July
17, 2018)//CProst

I worry that too many pro-lifers believe that the nomination and presumed confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to
the Supreme Court will finally bring down Roe v. Wade, returning the contentious issue of abortion to the states. Color me
very dubious. The Supreme Court has always been as much a political body as a legal one. Reversing Roe
would not just bring about increased social conflict, but spark a raging cultural conflagration. As he
demonstrated in confirming Obamacare, Chief Justice Roberts will be loath to allow his beloved
Supreme Court to be in the vortex of such turmoil — even though the Roe justices created the vortex in the first place. I
think some other conservative justices — other than Thomas — might be similarly reticent. If I am right, it would
take more than the 5-4 conservative majority on the High Bench to make Roe go the way of Plessy v.
Ferguson. I do, however, believe that Kavanaugh’s elevation will lead to SCOTUS allowing greater state
regulation of abortion than it has heretofore permitted. In other words, to the fury of the increasingly openly pro-
abortion enthusiasts — and the pronounced disappointment of pro-lifers — in the near term at least, Roe will probably
bend, but it will not break.
AT: Roe (Midterms Turn)
Overturning Roe gives the dems leverage to win the midterms – it increases voter
Zimmerman 7/5 – Professor of History of Education at the University of Pennsylvania and Ph.D. in
History at John Hopkins University (Jonathan, “Overturning Roe v. Wade Could Remake American
Politics”, The New Republic,
american-politics, July 5, 2018)//CProst
This scenario is precisely what excited social conservatives are envisioning, now that President Trump gets to nominate a replacement for
Justice Kennedy. Kennedy’s retirement was “an answer to prayer,” according to Iowa conservative Christian leader Bob
Vander Plaats. “We have a chance to take down Roe v. Wade,” Vander Plaats told Fox News last week. “This is a historic
moment.” But polls consistently show that most Americans support abortion rights and oppose the repeal
of Roe. On July 2, Quinnipiac released a new survey demonstrating that Americans back the Roe decision
two to one: 63 percent approve of the ruling and only 31 percent disagree with it. If the Supreme Court explicitly
overturned the decision, it might provide Democrats with a way to bring new voters to the polls—just
as Roe did for the GOP. Republican judges know that, too, which is why a flat-out repeal of Roe remains improbable. The more likely
path is a continued restriction of abortion rights, of the type that we’ve already seen over the past few years: parental notification laws, stricter
requirements for clinics, and so on. But if
Roe v. Wade gets struck down, liberal Democrats will finally receive a
symbolic weapon of the same magnitude as the 1973 ruling. Whatever the case reversing Roe is called,
it will be reviled—and, most of all, remembered—by millions of voters. And in ten or twenty years’ time, we might be
remembering how the Supreme Court triggered yet another revolution in American politics.
UQ - Red State Democrats
Uq overwhelms the link – A handful of Red-State democrats will vote for Kavanaugh
which ensures confirmation even if there’s GOP splippage
Lehman 18 – Charles Lehman is a staff writer for the Washington Free Beacon (“Poll: Red-State Voters Waint Their Dem. Senators to
Confirm Kavanaugh”, Free Beacon, 7/23/18, //

Constituents of four red-state Democrats in the Senate want to see Judge Brett Kavanaugh confirmed to
the Supreme Court, according to a new poll. The poll, administered by North Star Opinion Research on behalf of the Judicial
Crisis Network, surveyed voters in Alabama, Indiana, North Dakota, and West Virginia, all states with
incumbent Democratic senators which also voted for President Donald Trump in the 2016 election.
Three of those Senators—Joe Donnelly (Ind.), Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.), and Joe Manchin (W. Va.) are up
for reelection in November. According to North Star's poll, significant majorities of voters in all four states want
to see Kavanaugh confirmed. In North Dakota, 60 percent of voters support confirmation while only 22
percent oppose it; West Virginia is 55 to 30, Alabama 54 to 30, and Indiana 52 to 34. Support for
Kavanaugh is even stronger among self-identified independents. 60 percent of independents support
confirmation in North Dakota, versus 18 percent opposing; 59 support and 23 oppose in West Virginia;
54 to 30 in Alabama; and 48 to 34 in Indiana. "Judge Kavanaugh is a fair and independent judge who bases his decisions on the
Constitution, which is why President Trump nominated him and why a lopsided majority of voters in key states support his confirmation," Said
Carrie Severino, chief counsel and policy director at the Judicial Crisis Network. These
results may put further pressure on red-
state Democrats facing pressure from their Republican colleagues to back Kavanaugh. Heitkamp,
Manchin, and Donnelly all voted for President Donald Trump's first Supreme Court nominee, Neil
Gorsuch; Sen. Doug Jones (Ala.) was not in the Senate at the time of the confirmation, but is likely
dealing with similar lobbying from colleagues across the aisle. "Red-state Democrats have a choice: stand with their
constituents and support President Trump's extraordinarily qualified Supreme Court nominee, or stand with Chuck Schumer and be a rubber
stamp for the extreme liberal special interests," Severino said. The North Star poll also found that two
thirds of voters in the pivotal
states approve of the job the Supreme Court is doing, including with the addition of Gorsuch. The court
has a 68 percent approval rating in North Dakota, 67 percent in Indiana, 63 percent in West Virginia, and
60 percent in Alabama.
2AC – Kavanaugh Bad (Environment)
Kavanaugh is energizing deregulation activists, lobbiests, and government officials
Dlouhy and Eidelson 18 – Jennifer Dlouhy writes about energy policy and environmental regulations for Bloomberg, Josh
Eidelson covers labor for Bloomberg, “Trump’s Deregulators Emboldened by Kavanaugh Supreme Court Pick”, Bloomberg, 7/25/18, // KZ

Trump administration officials were putting the finishing touches on a strategy to roll back car pollution standards when they received a boost
from an unexpected source: the Supreme Court. The announced retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy, a swing vote on the court,
and the plan to replace him with a reliable conservative in Brett Kavanaugh, energized the regulators. They plan
to go with the boldest option, including a challenge to California’s ability to set its own limits, according to
people familiar with the deliberations. Similar conversations are going on at agencies across the government as
they develop plans to dial back Obama-era rules governing everything from the environment to labor relations.
Political appointees are growing more confident of prevailing in court and contemplating being more aggressive as a result, according to the
people. Their optimism is rooted in the expectation that Kavanaugh will be confirmed to the Supreme Court and
bring with him the same willingness to rein in regulations that has marked his judicial career. During his
tenure on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which hears most lawsuits challenging federal agencies, Kavanaugh
has voted to restrain regulators that stray beyond their congressional mandates. Reinforcing Confidence “The
likelihood of Justice Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court is affecting how political appointees in federal agencies think
about the deregulatory agenda right now,” said Mike McKenna, a Republican energy strategist. “It is expanding their
sense of the possible, and it is enforcing and reinforcing their confidence that more aggressive actions are
likely to withstand judicial scrutiny.” The first evidence of this new attitude may be the Trump administration’s coming proposal
to revoke California’s authority to regulate automobile greenhouse gas emissions and slam the brakes on federal rules boosting fuel efficiency.
The proposal amounts to a frontal assault on the nation’s most populous state as well as one of former President Barack Obama’s signature
efforts to combat climate change. The White House was already reviewing a draft of the vehicle standards proposal by the time Kennedy
announced his retirement June 27, and the major thrust of the measure has not been altered by subsequent interagency negotiations. But
inside the Transportation Department and the Environmental Protection Agency, officials believe Kavanaugh’s
nomination gives
them more room to maneuver. Read More: Trump Is Said to Seek Repeal of California Clean-Car Powers “It has increased their level
of confidence,” said Myron Ebell, director of the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Center for Energy and Environment. “Kavanaugh has been a
very sane voice on regulatory restraint for a very long time on the court, and I don’t see that he’s going to change his views on things.” The
new dynamic -- or, really, the prospect of it -- also could entice businesses to challenge more regulations in federal
court. “It will embolden the business community to challenge existing regulations and increase the burden and
risk for pro-labor, pro-consumer and pro-environment administrations to issue new protections in the future,” said Jordan Barab, who
previously was a deputy assistant secretary at the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Read More: Kavanaugh Could Usher in New
Business-Friendly Era on High Court To be sure, Kavanaugh’s confirmation in the narrowly divided Senate is not guaranteed, nor are any of his
future votes on questions over the legitimacy of federal rules. But Kavanaugh’s record on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit indicates he is willing to restrain federal agencies when they are acting without Congress’s explicit instruction -- and likely to give them a
long leash when it comes to removing regulations. He
is a staunch advocate of the separation of powers, ensuring that
administrative agencies stay within their constitutional bounds. In cases where former President Barack Obama’s
agencies strained the bounds of legislative authority, a narrower approach by the Trump administration could be bolstered by the high court.
Slam Dunk It isn’t a slam dunk, though. Jody Freeman, a Harvard environmental law professor and an architect of the Obama administration’s
fuel efficiency pact with California, said it’s not clear how Kavanaugh would view key legal questions around the fuel economy rollback. “I don’t
think we have enough of a record on Kavanaugh’s views of state powers and federalism to be confident about how this particular challenge
would come out,” she said. At the National Labor Relations Board, which sets precedents dictating what employees have workplace organizing
rights and what kinds of worker protests are protected, Republican appointees could “shift labor law violently to the right” secure in the
knowledge that a Supreme Court majority with Kavanaugh would uphold them, said Michael Duff, a University of Wyoming law professor and
former agency attorney. The new legal landscape could discourage regulators at the Occupational Safety and Health Administration from pro-
labor moves, while emboldening employers to challenge the agency’s enforcement, said Deborah Berkowitz, a former chief of staff there.
Challenge OSHA “It would encourage employers to challenge every single thing regarding worker safety and health right up to the Supreme
Court,” she said. “It would encourage employers that don’t want to provide safe conditions to thumb their nose at OSHA and the law and just
start challenging every agency action.” David Lopez, who was general counsel of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and is now
incoming co-dean of Rutgers Law School - Camden, said “I know everyone in that town who practices law at the highest level knows who’s on
the court, and they count the votes on the court.” For pro-business appointees at agencies seeking to loosen regulation, “It certainly would not
be unreasonable for them to think they have a little bit more latitude in terms of what they do.” The idea is just beginning to take hold in some
federal agencies, but business lobbyists and some activists are already looking for ways to exploit Kavanaugh’s
nomination. For instance, Ebell and other conservatives could highlight the shifting legal landscape as they push
the EPA to revisit and reverse its landmark conclusion that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public
health and the environment, a ruling that provided the legal foundation for rules stemming them. The
message is that “better times are around the corner in terms of some of these court decisions,” Ebell said. “Over the coming months if
Kavanaugh is confirmed, I think we will have a stronger argument to go to the EPA and say, ‘You really need to
consider the endangerment finding.’ ”

Kavanaugh will slash and prevent regulations that help the environment
Mintz 18 - Joel A. Mintz is a Professor of Law Emeritus and the C. William Trout Senior Fellow in Public Interest Law at Nova
Southeastern University College of Law and a Member Scholar at the Center for Progressive Reform. He has taught and written extensively
about environmental laws and issues (Joel, “Kavanaugh may limit environmental protections if confirmed to Supreme Court”, The Sun Sentinel,
7/25/18) // KZ

Recent events have underscored the vital importance of effective environmental regulation for Floridians.
Blue green algae — apparently caused by releases of contaminated water from Lake Okeechobee — has blanketed significant portions of our
state’s east and west coasts, causing major economic losses and posing a threat to the health of coastal residents. Pro-active regulation and
enforcement of environmental laws could (and should) have prevented these abysmal consequences. In fact, lawsuits play a critical role in
shaping the laws that guide government regulation of the environment; and the U.S. Supreme Court— which has lately been
almost evenly divided in important environmental cases — often has the last word on the government’s
crucial ability to protect public health and the environment from the perils of pollution. President Trump’s
controversial nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to replace centrist Justice Anthony Kennedy on the nation’s highest court is
thus a matter of crucial importance for the future of environmental pollution control. Unfortunately, a
preliminary review of Kavanaugh’s judicial writings and votes provides little basis for optimism regarding
the positions he will take in environmental cases if his nomination to join the Court is confirmed.
Indifference leads to the sliming of a Florida river | Opinion Kavanaugh has served for 12 years as a judge on the D.C.
Circuit, an intermediate federal court that handles numerous appeals from challenges to the actions of
EPA and other federal agencies with environmental responsibilities. With only a small number of
exceptions, his opinions have narrowly construed the authority of EPA and favored polluting industries
over environmental interests. A few examples will suffice. Kavanaugh voted to strike down EPA’s Clean Air
Interstate Rule, which regulates cross-state air pollution from power plants, only to be reversed by the U.S.
Supreme Court — with conservative Justices Kennedy and Roberts joining the Court’s majority opinion. To his credit, Kavanaugh
appears to accept the scientifically supported connection between human-generated greenhouse gas emissions and climate
change. Nonetheless, he has refused to recognize EPA’s legal authority to address this grave, ever-
growing, and paramount environmental problem. Thus, Kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion in a 2017
decision that struck down EPA’s regulation of hydroflourocarbons, a powerful greenhouse gas, and he expressed
skepticism regarding EPA’s efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions during oral arguments in a 2016 challenge to the agency’s Clean Power
Plan. He dissented from an opinion that upheld EPA’s decision to veto a state-proposed permit for an immense, environmentally damaging new
strip mine in West Virginia. And all that was long after the Supreme Court ruled that it was EPA’s obligation to regulate greenhouse gas
emissions. Kavanaugh’s past record in environmental cases presents a true contrast with the views of
Anthony Kennedy, the Associate Justice whose seat he would fill. While far from the most environmentally friendly justice on the Court,
Kennedy authored or signed onto opinions that reflected a sensitivity to the practical importance of vigorous environmental regulation — a
recognition that is substantially absent from Kavanaugh’s D.C. Circuit writings. Instead, Kavanaugh’s environmental opinions are more in line
with those of the late Justice Antonin Scalia and the justices who comprise the current “conservative wing” of the Supreme Court. Like Scalia,
Kavanaugh claims to adhere to a “textualist” approach to statutory analysis — the view that it is rarely necessary to look beyond the “plain
meaning” of the language of statutes and the Constitution. But as with Scalia and other textualists, the “plain meaning” seems always to agree
with Kavanaugh’s pro-industry slant. Kavanaugh also strongly favors a narrow cost-benefit analysis of new regulations — insisting that the
monetized benefits of a rule exceed the costs. The problem, of course, is that some
benefits — saving a few hundred lives, preventing
thousands of asthma attacks, and so on — aren’t so readily given to green eyeshade analysis, and they start with
the presumption that polluting industries have a right to impose all manner of health burdens on the
rest of us. Moreover, Kavanaugh has taken a narrow view of the doctrine of “standing to sue” — the
eligibility of parties to bring lawsuits to enforce environmental laws — an interpretation that tends to preclude public
interest organizations from using the courts to protect our health and the environment. Justices sometimes evolve during long judicial careers,
and predicting how any judge will vote on particular cases is a somewhat speculative enterprise. Nonetheless, at least to the extent that Judge
Kavanaugh’s prior record in environmental cases provides a guide, he appears likely to join with four other justices to
form a Supreme Court majority that takes a dim and narrow view of regulations designed to protect our
air, water and land, and all who breathe, drink, and tread the earth.
2AC - Kavanaugh Bad (Precedent)
Confirming Kavanaugh sets a harmful precedent
Brown 7/25/18 (Eleanor, professor of law and international affairs and a senior scientist
at the Rock Ethics Institute at The Pennsylvania State University, “Elite law professors
are brushing politics aside to support fellow elite Brett Kavanaugh. That’s inexcusable in
the Trump era”, Vox,
confirmation-yale-law-school-elites-supreme-court-amar, KC)

As someone from the “Third World,” I fear that legal elites are taking their country’s institutions for
granted. They see a colleague who is perhaps also a friend, with credentials very much like theirs, being
nominated for the highest court in the land, and they quite understandably want to applaud.

In less politically precarious times, we might debate whether Kavanaugh’s impressive resume should
earn him a “yes” vote, even from Democratic senators. But if anyone should realize that extraordinary
“constitutional politics” are required in these abnormal times, it is the legal elites who are now writing in
support of Kavanaugh.

As Jed Shugerman of Fordham Law School has noted, “no president [with] concrete and credible
evidence of high crimes has ever appointed a Justice to the Supreme Court.” We need to be having a
robust conversation about what it means that this is precisely what may be happening now.

And this is not a conversation for the pages of an obscure law review. Other law professors need to ask
this question persistently and loudly in the public domain. It is the minimum that legal elites owe to
their fellow citizens.

If legal elites fail to do so, they will be following a global practice where elites act to protect each other,
creating tremendous risk not only for legal institutions, but also for non-elites. And non-elites are much
more likely to need the law’s protection than are most graduates of Ivy League law schools.
2AC – Kavanaugh Bad (Generic)

Kavanaugh hinders congressional regulations

McGarity 18 – Thomas McGarity is a leading scholar in the fields of administrative law and environmental law at The University of
Texas at Austin School of Law (“Judge Kavanaugh’s Deregulatory Agenda”, The American Prospect, 7/25/18,
kavanaugh%E2%80%99s-deregulatory-agenda) //KZ

With Kavanaugh's confirmation, it became nearly impossible for Congress to put into place programs
designed to protect the weak and vulnerable from irresponsible businesses. Most of us take for granted the
federal regulations that make our air cleaner, our drinking water purer, our food, highways, and
workplaces safer, and our economic transactions less vulnerable to fraud and abuse. And few of us realize the
extent to which those protections are subject to reversal by federal courts applying legal principles
prescribed by the Supreme Court. If confirmed to the Supreme Court, Judge Brett Kavanaugh would be a fervent
vote against even well-established forms of regulation. A telling example of Kavanaugh’s ideological
aversion to even minimal government regulation is his dissent in a case in which the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) fined SeaWorld of Florida following a tragic incident at its Orlando facility in which a killer
whale named Tilikum pulled a trainer off a platform and held her underwater until she drowned. A panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, in
an opinion written by Judge Merrick Garland, upheld OSHA’s conclusions that training killer whales was a recognized occupational hazard and
that there were feasible ways to reduce that hazard. Tilikum had previously killed another trainer. The hazard could be substantially reduced by
requiring trainers to keep a greater distance from the whales or providing a clear plastic barrier that would allow them to guide the movements
of whales without risking attacks. The Court therefore upheld OSHA’s modest $7,000 penalty. Kavanaugh’s dissent did not focus
on the facts. Instead, he attacked the proposition that Congress meant to empower OSHA to regulate
the professional sports and entertainment industries. In his mind, the real questions before the court
were when “should we as a society paternalistically decide that the participants in ... sports and
entertainment activities must be protected from themselves” and, more important, “who decides that
the risk to participants is too high?” Kavanaugh argued that the participants in those activities were well aware of the risks and
elected to participate anyway, and he suggested that government efforts to make those activities safer would
cause employers to abandon them altogether. This is the same argument that employers raised in the
early 20th century when progressive state governments wanted to protect workers from the frightful
hazards of industrial workplaces. A Supreme Court committed to a limited government ideology
overturned many protective Progressive Era laws, and the carnage in the workplace continued until the
Court rejected that ideology during the New Deal and Congress created OSHA in 1970. Kavanaugh’s beef was with the very
fact of a powerful OSHA, and he hoped to limit its power by creating an exception for the sports and entertainment industries.
2AC – Roe Turn
Kavanaugh’s past decisions prove he’ll overturn Roe v. Wade – that harms women’s
abortion rights and causes violence against the most vulnerable women in society
NWLC 7/18 – Non-profit organization that advocates for women's rights through litigation and policy
initiatives (National Women's Law Center, “Judge Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court Nomination Puts Roe v.
Wade and Access to Abortion At Serious Risk”,
court-nomination-puts-roe-v-wade-and-access-to-abortion-at-serious-risk/, July 18, 2018)//CProst
On July 9, 2018, President Trump nominated Judge Brett Kavanaugh to fill Justice Kennedy’s seat on the United States Supreme Court.
President Trump has repeatedly promised to only nominate justices to the U.S. Supreme Court who will overturn Roe v. Wade. The
of Judge Kavanaugh shows extreme hostility to abortion. His confirmation to the Supreme Court would
mean that the balance of the Court would turn against the constitutional right to abortion and access
to abortion. Kavanaugh’s Anti-Abortion Record In 2017, Judge Kavanaugh issued an order allowing the Trump
Administration to continue blocking a young immigrant woman from obtaining an abortion. When the full
court overturned his order, Kavanaugh dissented, saying the majority had “badly erred.” He distorted existing
Supreme Court precedent in order to justify forcing a woman to remain pregnant against her will, and his
opinion showed disdain for a woman’s decision-making ability and a lack of concern for the hurdles placed in
the path of those seeking an abortion. Kavanaugh accused the majority of creating a new right to “immediate abortion on demand,” a phrase
that has long been a rallying cry for anti-abortion extremists. This decision was Kavanaugh’s audition for the Supreme Court. Shortly after this
decision, Kavanaugh’s name appeared on President Trump’s short list of potential Supreme Court nominees. The Supreme Court Could Review
a Challenge to Roe in the Near Future There are a number of abortion-related cases in the pipeline to the Supreme Court, and this is no
accident. It is part of a deliberate strategy by anti-abortion extremists to bring a case to a newly constituted Supreme Court. As a result, the
Supreme Court could have the opportunity to rule on abortion again as early as next term. The types of cases
most likely to make their way to the Supreme Court generally fall into three categories: Bans on abortion at a particular point in
pregnancy: States have passed laws banning abortion at various points in pregnancy, including bans on abortion starting at 6 weeks of
pregnancy, before most women even know they are pregnant. A case challenging Mississippi’s 15-week ban on abortion is currently before a
federal district court. Bans on a particular method of abortion: States are trying to restrict a common method of second-
trimester abortion. Challenges to method bans passed in Texas, Arkansas, and Alabama are currently pending in the 5th, 8th, and 11th Circuit
Courts of Appeals. Medically unnecessary and burdensome restrictions on abortion providers: States continue to
pass restrictions on abortion providers in an effort to shut them down, despite the Court’s 2016 Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt decision
holding such restrictions unconstitutional. A case challenging an Arkansas law that would force two of the three clinics in the state to stop
providing abortion and effectively ban medication abortion is currently working its way through the courts. Overturning
or Gutting
Roe Would be Devastating to Women’s Health, Lives, and Futures If Judge Kavanaugh were to join the
Supreme Court, he would turn the balance of the Court against a woman’s constitutional right to
abortion. If Roe were overturned, at least 20 states are poised to seek immediately to ban abortion. An
anti-abortion Congress and President could also ban abortion nationwide. Even if Roe were not
overturned, the Court with Kavanaugh as a Justice could vote to severely undermine its protections.
Allowing more abortion restrictions would create harmful barriers that delay access and increase both
the direct and indirect costs of abortion, including travel costs. For some women, these hurdles would act as a
complete obstacle, and they will be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. Women of color, young people, and
individuals in the LGBTQ community already face a host of barriers to getting health care and are
disproportionately affected by restrictions on access to abortion. Further restrictions on access to
abortion, and especially overturning Roe, will harm them the most. Judge Kavanaugh presents a dire
threat to Roe v. Wade and the constitutional right to abortion, and his nomination jeopardizes the
health, lives, equality, and dignity of individuals across the country.
1AR – Will Overturn
Kavanaugh will overturn or gut Roe – his decision on Garza v. Hargan proves
Stern 7/9 – Staff writer on courts and the law at Slate (Mark Joseph, “How Brett Kavanaugh Will Gut
Roe v. Wade”, Slate,
wade.html, July 9, 2018)//CProst
Kavanaugh is an obvious choice for Trump. A judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, he has maintained
staunchly conservative credentials without earning a reputation for being a bomb-thrower. Unless Republican Sen. Susan Collins grows a spine,
which she won’t, he has a clear path to Senate confirmation. During his hearings, Kavanaugh will
claim he cannot reveal his
true feelings about Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision establishing a constitutional right to
abortion access. But there is little doubt that Kavanaugh will gut Roe at the first opportunity. Indeed, he has
already provided a road map that shows precisely how he’ll do it. Kavanaugh was forced to confront the abortion question
in 2017 after the Trump administration barred an undocumented minor, known as Jane Doe, from
terminating an unwanted pregnancy. The American Civil Liberties Union sued on Doe’s behalf, and the dispute came before a
three-judge panel at the D.C. Circuit. Kavanaugh was joined on the panel by Judge Karen L. Henderson, an arch-conservative, and Judge Patricia
Millett, a moderate liberal. Doe, who was being held in a federally funded Texas shelter, had already obtained the necessary judicial bypass to
get an abortion. But the
Trump administration refused to let her see an abortion provider, instead sending her
to an anti-abortion “crisis pregnancy center.” The ACLU argued that the Trump administration was
violating Doe’s constitutional rights. Under current Supreme Court precedent, the government may not place an “undue burden”
on a woman’s access to abortion. And by preventing Doe from seeing an abortion provider, the ACLU asserted, the government had created
such an undue burden. The Trump administration, by contrast, alleged that it had not substantially burdened Doe’s right to an abortion,
because if she really wanted one she could just return to her home country. (In fact, abortion is outlawed in Doe’s country of origin.) The
government also asserted that Doe had the option of finding a sponsor in the U.S. who would be willing to house her and permit her to
terminate her pregnancy. Hours after hearing the case, the court issued a two-page order that reflected the views of
Kavanaugh alone. Millett would’ve ruled that Doe could receive an abortion immediately; Henderson would’ve held that, because she
entered the U.S. illegally, Doe has no constitutional rights at all. Kavanaugh, by contrast, struck what he clearly thought to be a middle
ground. First, he noted that all parties agreed that Roe v. Wade applies to undocumented minors. Second, he
gave the government nearly two weeks to find a sponsor for Doe, removing her from federal custody
and transferring responsibility to somebody else. If no sponsor could be found, then the parties could return to
court and argue the case all over again, with no assurance that Doe could get her abortion. By that point, Doe would be
about 18 weeks pregnant. Texas bans abortion after 20 weeks, and the procedure becomes more dangerous as the pregnancy advances.
Moreover, the process of finding and verifying a sponsor for an undocumented minor frequently takes
weeks or months. And Doe’s lawyers had already searched for a possible sponsor, to no avail. Kavanaugh’s ostensible
compromise, then, was nothing of the sort. At best, it would force Doe to suffer through her unwanted pregnancy for at least two
more weeks, increasing the odds of complications when she was finally able to obtain an abortion. At worst, it meant the government
could run down the clock to the point that an abortion would become illegal. Luckily for Doe, the full D.C. Circuit
swiftly reversed Kavanaugh’s decision and allowed her to terminate her pregnancy, which she did. This move prompted Kavanaugh to write
a bitter dissent explaining why the government’s bar on Doe’s abortion was not, in fact, an undue burden.
Kavanaugh began by accepting the Trump administration’s Orwellian argument that, by allowing Doe to
visit an abortion provider, the government itself was “facilitating” her abortion. He then explained, with maximum
condescension, why the Trump administration had a good reason for wanting to place Doe with a sponsor instead of allowing her to terminate
her pregnancy: The minor is alone and without family or friends. She is in a U.S. Government detention facility in a country that, for her, is
foreign. She is 17 years old. She is pregnant and has to make a major life decision. Is it really absurd for the United States to think that the
minor should be transferred to her immigration sponsor—ordinarily a family member, relative, or friend—before she makes that decision? And
keep in mind that the Government is not forcing the minor to talk to the sponsor about the decision, or to obtain consent. It is merely seeking
to place the minor in a better place when deciding whether to have an abortion. Kavanaugh believed that Doe was not mature enough to
decide on her own that she wanted an abortion. Rather, she needed the sage counsel of a family member to help her make “a major life
decision”—even though she was already so determined to make that decision that she sued the government so she could follow through with
it. In
an irate conclusion, Kavanaugh condemned his colleagues for declaring that “unlawful immigrant
minors have a right to immediate abortion on demand.” He insisted that the government should be allowed to “help
minors navigate what is undeniably a difficult situation by expeditiously transferring them to their sponsors.” By ruling for Doe, the court had
deviated from precedent “holding that the Government has permissible interests in favoring fetal life, protecting the best interests of a minor,
and refraining from facilitating abortion.” It
is laughable to pretend that the Trump administration wished to “help”
Doe “navigate” the abortion decision when it simply imposed a flat ban on her ability to terminate her
pregnancy. But it is even more absurd to claim that this ban was not an “undue burden” under Supreme Court precedent. The two
options the Trump administration presented to Doe—self-deport or find a sponsor in record time—were not real choices. They
were window dressing to conceal the obvious fact that the government was prohibiting Doe from
exercising her right to choose. Kavanaugh is far too intelligent to believe that the administration had
actually complied with Roe and other pro-choice precedent. Yet he played along with the government’s
ruse, asserting that the administration was helping Doe “navigate” her decision. And that is how the
Supreme Court will, in all probability, kill off Roe. A conservative state will pass a draconian anti-abortion
restriction—one that shutters all abortion clinics, perhaps, or outlaws abortion after a fetal “heartbeat” is detected. With
Kavanaugh providing the decisive fifth vote, the court will rule that the state law does not pose an
“undue burden” to abortion access; after all, the government has an interest in “favoring fetal life,” and
women who truly want an abortion can go to another state. The majority may not admit what it is doing. But in practice,
it will be overturning Roe. Kavanaugh is the ideal candidate to cast that fifth vote and even write the
opinion. He has already proved that he can pretend to adhere to Roe while hollowing out its core
holding. He has revealed a striking aptitude for intellectual dishonesty, pretending to follow precedent
while enshrining anti-abortion dogma into law. His disingenuousness will be an asset on the Supreme
Court. And within a few years, the United States will be a country of Jane Does.

Even if he doesn’t overturn Roe, he’ll severely restrict abortion – support of

Rehnquist’s dissent proves
Lithwick & Shugerman 7/18 – Dahlia Lithwick is a staff writer on courts and the law at Slate, Jed
Shugerman is a Professor of Law at Fordham University and the author of The People's Courts
(“Kavanaugh Already Has One of the Clearest Records Against Roe of Any Recent Supreme Court
Nominee”, Slate,
against-roe-v-wade.html, July 18, 2018)//CProst

Ahead of those hearings, senators should be analyzing that record candidly as they prepare their questions. This is particularly true on
question of abortion rights, an area in which Kavanaugh has the potential to dismantle current precedent in
a way that would reshape how women experience health care in this country. While Kavanaugh has not
ever publicly said, “I will overturn Roe,” his record transparently sends this message: 1) In September,
Kavanaugh spoke approvingly of Justice William Rehnquist’s Roe dissent. Further, Kavanaugh’s opinion
this year about a detained noncitizen seeking an abortion actually raises more questions both about his
views on Roe and potentially about how he might treat the rights of families detained at the border facing
separation; 2) his speech opens up these fair questions about his specific views on Roe and an expectation for
candid answers in the nomination hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee; and 3) some of his major decisions indicate that
he is not deferential to precedents even more settled than Roe. While it’s amply clear that abortion can be
made unavailable to most women without expressly overturning Roe explicitly, Kavanaugh has now
given significant hints of his willingness to do the bolder thing. That is worthy of serious scrutiny in the weeks to come.
First, let’s review what Kavanaugh said in a speech to the American Enterprise Institute in September to set the context. It was during a
tribute to the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist, whom Kavanaugh described in fawning terms as his “first judicial
hero,” that he said this: [I]n case after case after case during law school, I noticed something. After I read the assigned reading, I would
constantly make notes to myself: agree with Rehnquist majority opinion. Agree with Rehnquist dissent.
Agree with Rehnquist analysis. Rehnquist makes a good point here. Rehnquist destroys the majority’s reasoning here.
Kavanaugh then highlighted five specific aspects of Rehnquist’s legacy. The fourth was “the court’s power to recognize
unenumerated rights,” which led to a discussion of Roe and abortion rights: Rehnquist’s dissenting opinion did not
suggest that the Constitution protected no rights other than those enumerated in the text of the Bill of Rights. But he stated that under the
Court’s precedents, any such unenumerated right had to be rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people. Given the prevalence of
abortion regulations both historically and at the time, Rehnquist said he could not reach such a conclusion about abortion. He explained
that a law prohibiting an abortion, even where the mother’s life was in jeopardy, would violate the Constitution. But otherwise he stated the
states had the power to legislate with regard to this matter. … [I]t is fair to say that Justice Rehnquist was not successful
in convincing a majority of the justices in the context of abortion either in Roe itself or in the later cases such as Casey, but in the latter case
perhaps because of stare decisis. But he
was successful in stemming the general tide of freewheeling judicial
creation of unenumerated rights that were not rooted in the nation’s history and tradition. The Glucksberg case [his 5–4 majority
opinion rejecting a due process right to die] stands to this day as an important precedent, limiting the court’s role in the realm of social policy
and helping to ensure that the court operates more as a court of law and less as an institution of social policy. Does Kavanaugh say explicitly, “I
agree with Rehnquist’s Roe dissent”? Not in those precise words, but everyone in
the room understood what Kavanaugh
was signing on to. He was embracing Rehnquist’s Roe dissent and its doctrinal foundations. In so doing,
he is raising doubts about substantive due process and a general constitutional right to privacy.
1AR – Overturning Roe Bad
Overturning Roe restricts abortion and demeans women, causing death,
imprisonment, and suffering
Valenti 6/30 – Guardian US columnist, the author of multiple books on feminism, politics and culture,
and founder of (Jessica, “Here's what America would look like if Roe v Wade were
overturned”, The Guardian,
anthony-kennedy-retiring-abortion, June 30, 2018)//CProst

There’s enough news this week to break your heart, and all of it is important – but in the interest of brevity, I’ll choose one thing. Roe
Wade is in absolute danger of being overturned, thanks to Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement. The right is
planning on it, and we have to move forward knowing the consequences should such a horror happen. If
the supreme court overturns the decision, nearly half the states in the country will outlaw abortion –
maybe more. Women will die from illegal abortions – as they did before – and most of those women
will the poorest, youngest, and most vulnerable among us. (As has been pointed out for years: a “pro-life” world
has a lot of dead women in it.) Women will be imprisoned for trying to end their pregnancies. Doctors
and nurses will be, too. The tangible and troubling effects will be immediate. And then there’s the simple
message the decision will send to women: you don’t matter. You don’t get a choice about what happens
to your body, your family, or your future. You will be forced to be pregnant, whether you like it or not.
This is not the future I want for my daughter – and it’s not the present I want for myself or any woman. Now is the time to plan, and
to fight.
1AR – Privacy Impact
Overturning Roe would wreck the right to privacy, causing negative ripple effects for
personal autonomy
NWLC 13 – Non-profit organization that advocates for women's rights through litigation and policy
initiatives (National Women’s Law Center, “Even More Than Abortion: The Constitutional Importance of
Roe v. Wade and the Right to Privacy”,
importance-roe-v-wade-and-right-privacy/, January 18, 2013)//CProst

Roe did far more than establish the right to abortion; it solidified and expanded the constitutional “right
to privacy,” which has also been described as the right to autonomy or to be let alone. This right to privacy is part
of the right to liberty protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which state that no person shall be deprived of “life, liberty
or property, without due process of law.” The Constitution’s protection of liberty and privacy underlies the Supreme Court’s
recognition of fundamental rights related to contraception and procreation, marriage, family relations, child
rearing, and intimacy. Although the Supreme Court’s recognition of the right to privacy predates Roe, Roe is an important
affirmation of and foundation for a broad array of privacy rights. While not exclusively dependent on Roe, Roe
influenced privacy principles in each of these areas—principles that could be undermined if the Supreme
Court overturned Roe. The Right to Obtain Contraception and the Right to Procreate: Roe reaffirmed prior
decisions protecting individuals’ rights to obtain contraception and to decide whether to bear a child. Subsequent cases upholding the
right to obtain and use contraception, in turn, rely on Roe. For example, a 1977 Supreme Court case ruled it
unconstitutional to prohibit distribution of nonprescription contraceptives to adults by anyone other
than a pharmacist and to impose a blanket prohibition on sales or distribution of contraceptives to individuals under 16. The case
explicitly relied on Roe for its central holding that “the Constitution protects individual decisions in matters of
childbearing from unjustified intrusion by the State.” The Right to Marry: Loving v. Virginia acknowledged the constitutional right to
marry, and Roe affirmed that it is among the fundamental liberties protected by the right to privacy .
Subsequent cases protecting the right to marry have relied on Roe. For example, a 1978 Supreme Court decision upheld the
right of single parents obligated to pay child support to marry without first obtaining the permission of a judge and
based this conclusion in part on Roe. The Right to Maintain Family Relationships: The umbrella of privacy also protects family
relationships. For example, the Supreme Court relied on Roe to hold that the state cannot interfere in the realm
of family life by preventing close relatives from living together. As the Supreme Court put it, the challenged zoning
regulation, which banned a grandmother from living with her grandson, “slic[ed] deeply into the family itself . . . by select[ing] certain
categories of relatives who may live together and declar[ing] that others may not.” The Supreme Court went on to say that courts used Roe to
“consistently acknowledge[] a ‘private realm of family life which the state cannot enter.’” The
Right to Make Decisions About
How to Rear One’s Children: Yet another privacy right is the parents’ right to raise their children
according to their preferences, subject to certain limits (such as compulsory school attendance, mandatory vaccinations, or
laws criminalizing parental neglect). The Supreme Court has relied on Roe as important support for the proposition that “[a] person’s decision
whether to bear a child and a parent’s decision concerning the manner in which his child is to be educated may fairly be characterized as
exercises of familial rights and responsibilities” and thus protected by the Constitution. While these rights related to parental decision-making
were recognized before Roe, Roe relied on and strengthened the underlying principle—that parenting is best
when free from unwarranted government intrusion. The Right to Intimacy: Another privacy right profoundly
influenced by Roe is the right to form intimate relationships and the concomitant right for adults to engage in
consensual sexual relations in private. This right was first recognized in a 2003 decision striking down laws that
criminalized same-sex intimate activity. The case proclaimed that “Roe recognized the right of a woman to make certain
fundamental decisions affecting her destiny and confirmed once more that the protection of liberty under the Due
Process Clause has a substantive dimension of fundamental significance in defining the rights of the person,” such as autonomy in
decision-making about intimate relationships. Were Roe ever to be overturned, it could have ripple
effects beyond the right to an abortion. As privacy cases have recognized, “our laws and tradition afford constitutional
protection to personal decisions relating,” among other things, “to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing” and
intimacy. The
right to privacy, strengthened by Roe, supports each of these areas. Overturning Roe could
thus potentially erode the ability of individuals to make highly personal decisions free from intrusive
government regulations and harm the overall right to privacy.
AT: Chevron Impact
Kavanaugh won’t overturn Chevron – he applies it whenever possible
Reilly 7/10 – Reporter for E&E News who covers the Supreme Court, federal appellate courts and legal
issues for their Greenwire subsidy (Amanda, “Would Kavanaugh limit the Chevron doctrine?”, E&E
News,, July 10, 2018)//CProst

Unlike Justice Neil Gorsuch, Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh hasn't called the Chevron doctrine entirely into
question or questioned whether the law world would be better without it. But he could side with other
conservatives on the court in limiting its application. According to Chevron, courts defer to reasonable agency
interpretations when Congress has been silent or ambiguous on a topic. It's a key doctrine in
administrative law and one that's often invoked in environmental cases. From his 12-year record on the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and a review of his speeches and law articles over the last several years, Kavanaugh appears
mostly concerned with the first step of the Chevron test — discerning whether a statute is ambiguous. He
has also embraced a Supreme Court doctrine that calls for not applying Chevron to major agency rules. "I would expect him to
approach Chevron the way the chief justice does, which is to try and cabin its scope, so that agencies get deference
in a smaller category of cases, and only when there is no doubt Congress expressly intended to leave the matter to the agency's
discretion," said Jody Freeman, a law professor at Harvard Law School and a former climate adviser to President Obama. The Chevron doctrine,
which is named for a 1984 Supreme Court case, played a big role in the confirmation battle for Gorsuch, who wrote a scathing concurring
opinion slamming the doctrine shortly before he was nominated for the high court. Senators focused several questions on the doctrine during
Gorsuch's multiday hearing. While Chevron
is unlikely to make front-page news during the Kavanaugh
confirmation process, the debate over the future of the doctrine remains strong, particularly in conservative legal circles. During his
short time on the court, Gorsuch has written a handful of statements calling for limiting the doctrine. Shortly before announcing his retirement
in late June, Justice Anthony Kennedy, long the moderate of the court, expressed his own doubts (Greenwire, June 21). Kavanaugh, who
formerly clerked for Kennedy, would likely be similar to the retiring justice but "maybe a bit more muscular in language in
limiting Chevron," said Kent Barnett, a law professor at the University of Georgia who has studied the doctrine's application in the courts. "The
direction the court is likely to go is not overrule Chevron, but be really, really careful about where Congress would want
Chevron to apply," Barnett said. In his time in the D.C. Circuit, Kavanaugh often found that agencies don't have the authority to issue
regulations under the law, particularly in the context of the Clean Air Act. Kavanaugh wrote opinions and dissents rebuffing several of the
Obama administration's emissions regulations (E&E Daily, July 10). "Judge Kavanaugh's record suggests that he has no hesitation deciding when
agencies are out of bounds and don't deserve deference," Freeman said. When it comes to Chevron, Kavanaugh believes that it's a problem
that there's no "definitive guide" for determining whether a law is ambiguous. "Many judges do this, but sometimes he
avoids reaching
any Chevron question because he finds that the law is clear," said Lisa Heinzerling, a professor at Georgetown Law and a
former Obama EPA official. "He has a pretty pronounced tendency to find the law clear in cases where he's rejecting what the agency did."
Kavanaugh laid out his concerns in a 2017 speech at the University of Notre Dame. "How
do courts know when a statute is
clear or ambiguous?" he asked. "Quite simply, there is no good or predictable way for judges to do this," he said. "Judges go back and
forth. One judge will say it is clear. Another judge will say, 'No, it's ambiguous.' Neither judge can convince the other. Why not? The answer is
that there is no right answer." The issue has significant practical consequences, namely that "different judges will reach different
results," he said in a separate 2016 speech at George Mason University. 'Major questions' On the D.C. Circuit, Kavanaugh has also taken to
heart the Supreme Court's so-called major questions doctrine, which states that Chevron should not be applied to rules that are economically,
politically or socially significant. Notably, the late Justice Antonin Scalia invoked that doctrine in the Supreme Court's 2014 decision throwing
out portions of a rule requiring stationary facilities to obtain air permits for emissions of greenhouse gases. During marathon September 2016
arguments over the Clean Power Plan, the Obama administration's rule for cutting carbon dioxide from existing power plants, Kavanaugh
focused several questions on whether the rule was transformative enough to warrant the special standard of review. He said then that
"Congress should be making the big policy decisions" or clearly delegate them to federal agencies in laws. Harvard's Freeman said that view
"leaves less room for agencies to adapt old laws to new public health and environmental challenges by interpreting their statutes flexibly."
Kavanaugh refined his views on the doctrine in a 2017 dissent to the D.C. Circuit ruling that upheld the Obama administration's net neutrality
rule, which he called "one of the most consequential regulations ever issued by an executive or independent agency in the history of the United
States." He wrote that the Supreme Court had required "clear congressional authorization" for major agency rules. "The major rules doctrine
helps preserve the separation of powers and operates as a vital check on expansive and aggressive assertions of executive authority,"
Kavanaugh wrote. "He's come down pretty firmly on the side of saying an agency can't issue a major rule without clear congressional
authorization," Heinzerling said. "It would be a big deal if that rule had gotten embraced." 'Consistent in applying Chevron' According to new
research exploring the doctrine's political dynamics, Kavanaugh is "pretty neutral" about how he applies Chevron,
Barnett said. In a forthcoming article in the Vanderbilt Law Review, Barnett and other law professors found that Kavanaugh
applies the doctrine the same way regardless of whether the outcome could be deemed liberal versus
conservative. "He's pretty close to the middle," Barnett said. "He's consistent in applying Chevron." Dan Farber, a law
professor at the University of California, Berkeley, noted that while Kavanaugh has "rarely been on the environmental side of a case," he goes
"out of his way to express appreciation for the goals EPA is trying to pursue." For example, in his
majority opinion striking down
the Obama administration's effort to phase out hydrofluourocarbons, which are potent greenhouse
gases, Kavanaugh wrote that the court respected the effort to order the replacement of substances found to contribute to climate
change in the absence of congressional action on the issue. But, he wrote, "however much we might sympathize or agree
with EPA's policy objectives, EPA may act only within the boundaries of its statutory authority. Here, EPA
exceeded that authority." Farber said: "He does seem to understand that agencies have a fair amount of discretion within what he
thinks are statutory bounds." At a 2017 lecture at the conservative Heritage Foundation, Kavanaugh dismissed the idea that the debate over
statutory interpretation is "all politics" and "inherently complex." "In
my view, it is a mistake to think that this current
mess in statutory interpretation is somehow the natural and unalterable order of things," he said. "Put simply,
we can do better in the realm of statutory interpretation. And for the sake of the neutral and impartial rule of law, we must do better."
Farm Bill DA
Neg – National Security

Farm bill passage is an issue of national security

Noem 7/20/18
(Kirsti Noem, house representative from South Dakota, July 20th press release,
503A694409DE, Date Accessed: 7/25/18, //EY)

The Farm Bill, however, is just one aspect of agriculture policy that we're closely monitoring. For years,
China has exploited the American people, and they need to be held accountable for that. But in recent
months, farmers and ranchers have been forced to bear the burden of retaliatory tariffs. It's been a
tough few years for agriculture. Between a drought, hail, and low prices, net farm income has been cut
in half the last four years. The Farm Bill was designed to provide a safety net for our food supply during
stretches like this. In 2014, we approved a five-year Farm Bill, which offered strong crop insurance and
livestock disaster programs for producers. That legislation is now up for renewal, which we're making
steady progress on. The House's updated Farm Bill incorporates reforms I helped write to strengthen
commodity programs. It also increases CRP acreage, updates the wetland determination process, and
strengthens dairy policy. I've detailed many of these changes at Because the
Senate passed a separate version, we're in the process of merging the two documents into a final
proposal, and I'm hopeful we'll be able to wrap up negotiations quickly. In July, I invited Scott
VanderWal, a Volga-area farmer and president of the South Dakota Farm Bureau, to testify before
Congress about the impact of China's trade and tariff threats. "We understand other countries,
particularly China, have not played fairly, and we respect President Trump's desire to remedy those
situations," VanderWal said. "The problem is, those countries know just where to punch us back in a
dispute by targeting our agriculture products. Through no fault of our own, and unintentionally, our
industry ends up being used for leverage." I share these concerns and have personally expressed them
to top administration officials and President Trump himself. In addition to phone calls and meetings, I
wrote to President Trump this spring, warning that "All our hard-won gains in Farm Country are at
serious risk of being wiped away because China is threatening retaliation against American farmers."
Especially given the national security risks that would come if another country controls our food
supply, the administration must help provide a strong safety net for America's producers in the face of
China's retaliatory actions. Along with Senators Rounds and Thune, I urged President Trump in July to
make U.S. agriculture exports a priority with our trading partners around the world and explained how
recent market uncertainty has already cost South Dakota producers hundreds of millions of dollars.
Farmers and ranchers simply can't afford to be further entangled in global trade disputes. While there
were more than 200 rural congressional districts 50 years ago, just over 30 remain. There's no doubt
that creates a disconnect in Congress. So few understand that most producers take a loan out each year,
bury that money in the ground in the form of seed and fertilizer, and hope – not only for a good yield –
but for the right market conditions at the right time. It's a tough business.
2nc – at: recess thumper
House committee members will work during the recess to finish the Farm Bill
Ferguson 7/18 Ellyn Ferguson – appropriations, agriculture, nutrition and food safety journalist for CQ
“House Set to Start Farm Bill Talks With Senate Before Recess” Jul 17, 2018

The Senate is likely to respond to the motion early next week with a vote to go to conference with the
House and the naming of conferees, Conaway and Peterson said in separate interviews. The vote on the motion would be to reject Senate
changes to the House bill and request negotiations to develop a compromise bill. The goal is to produce a final bill that sets policies for farm,

conservation, crop insurance, rural development and other programs before the current farm law expires Sept. 30. Peterson said Tuesday
night he will get a motion to instruct conferees and will propose that House negotiators insist that the final farm bill authorize mandatory funding for an animal
vaccine bank and for long-term research into fever ticks, avian influenza and other diseases. Peterson
and Conaway said they will work
with their Senate counterparts, Agriculture Chairman Pat Roberts of Kansas and ranking Democrat Debbie Stabenow of Michigan over the
House’s August recess with conference calls and with staff from both committees working through
details. The two House committee leaders said it is possible there could be a public session of the full
conference committee next week before recess starts.
UQ – No Pass
The Bill won’t pass – food stamps disputes forecloses any chance for reconciliation
Dandes 7/23
(Rick, contributor to the Daily Item, “Food stamps at center of Farm Bill debate”,
debate/article_febd369e-66c1-523e-88f3-f51add8c80b2.html, Date Accessed: 7/23/18, //EY)

A showdown looms in the U.S. House of Representatives after the Senate passed a bill that makes
modest modifications to existing farm programs while largely avoiding changes to food stamps. The bill
passed 86-11 on Thursday. The legislation renews farm programs such as crop insurance and land
conservation. Farm programs are set to expire Sept. 30 unless Congress acts. Work on the legislation
comes at a time when farmers are facing low prices and a potential trade war that could depress
commodities prices further. "The Senate passage of the 2018 Farm Bill is a win for Pennsylvania
farmers, families and rural communities," said U.S. Senator Bob Casey, of Pennsylvania. "I'm pleased
that the Senate Farm Bill includes measures I have pioneered that work to improve our conservation
efforts and also to make sure our Seniors are taken care of. This is a strong bipartisan start and I look
forward to passage in the House of Representatives and ultimately reauthorization." Bipartisan perhaps,
but Casey's Senate Pennsylvania colleague, Pat Toomey, a Republican, said, “This Farm Bill is another
wasted opportunity to rein in excessive spending and end corporate welfare. It fails to reform, even
modestly, any of the numerous taxpayer subsidies for agriculture products. It also fails to include a
reasonable work requirement for adult, able-bodied food stamp recipients with no dependents, he said.
GOP aides said the farm bill is expected to go to conference, where Senate and House leadership will try
to reconcile their differences. On the food stamp front, the two sides are likely to clash. The House bill
tightens work requirements for recipients of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Currently,
able-bodied adults ages 18-49 without children are required to work 20 hours a week to maintain their
benefits. The bill raises the top age of recipients subject to work requirements from 49 to 59 and
requires parents with children older than 6 to work or participate in job training. Government auditors
estimate that in 10 years, the SNAP caseload would shrink by about 1.2 million people in an average
month if the bill becomes law. The Senate version aims to reduce fraud in SNAP, but doesn't cut funding
from the program, which helps feed more than 40 million people across the United States. The Central
Pennsylvania Food Bank applauded the Senate's version of the bill. "Not only does this Farm Bill
maintain eligibility and benefit levels for SNAP recipients," said Central Bank spokeswoman Erin Smith
Wachter, "but it also increases funding for the emergency food assistance program, contains a newly
established Farm to Food Bank program — modeled after PASS, Pennsylvania’s Ag Surplus System
Program — as well as a new Milk Donation Program to encourage the donation of milk to low-income
individuals. We are committed and eager to work with Pennsylvania’s congressional delegation to
advance conference legislation that strengthens federal food-assistance programs and supports
AT: Will Pass Now

Non-unique – differences over SNAP creates a legislative impasse during reconciliation

Kilgore 6/28/18
(Ed, Contributor for the NYM, “ Senate Clears Farm Bill, Setting Up Fight With House GOP Over SNAP”,
house.html, Date Accessed: 7/26/18, //EY)

It’s an old story by now. The GOP-controlled House takes what used to be a bipartisan, consensus
legislative goal — the Farm Bill typically passed every five years — and gives it a savage ideological
twist. In this instance it’s tightening eligibility for SNAP (the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program, a.k.a. food stamps) and adding more stringent work requirements for those that do qualify.
The House passed its bill on June 21 by a two-vote margin, with nary a Democratic vote, which didn’t
bother House Republicans one bit. Today the Senate, which has to operate on the basis of bipartisanship
because Democrats can filibuster legislation that doesn’t operate under some sort of special rules,
passed its own version of the Farm bill by a much broader 86-11 margin. All Democrats and a clear
majority of Republicans voted for it because it didn’t include the nasty SNAP provisions. The 11 GOP
senators voting “no” are expressing solidarity with their House counterparts. At this point the key
variable could be the ever-unpredictable president of the United States, who had earlier been signaling
strong support for the SNAP reforms. The latest word from the administration earlier this week wasn’t
so clear: The [White House] statement also said the Senate bill “misses key opportunities to reform the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Most notably, the bill does not strengthen work
requirements for able-bodied working age adults….” But the statement avoids any threat of a veto,
saying instead, “The Administration looks forward to working with the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry Committee to address these and other issues with the farm bill as the process moves forward.”
Authorization for most major agricultural programs runs out on September 30. Farm Belt Republicans
would sure hate to see any of them lapse right before a midterm election. Sure, Congress could work
out a temporary extension while public and private wrangling over SNAP continues, with conservatives
delighting in the opportunity to play the old “welfare” politics game that “the base” enjoys so
thoroughly. Or maybe the ancient tradition of farm bills linking the arms of rural agricultural interests
and urban retailers and food-stamp beneficiaries will prevail one more time, and this farm bill will creep
across the finish line.Meanwhile, the Senate’s agriculture committee leaders from each party, Pat
Roberts (R-Kansas) and Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) have made it clear that the House’s SNAP
requirements will never get win a filibuster-proof 60-vote majority in the upper chamber. So we have
an impasse: a House that really, really wants to squeeze SNAP recipients; and a Senate determined
not to let that happen; a looming deadline (Sept. 30) before the old farm bill expires, made more urgent
by the coming August recess; and a monumental midterm election in November, which could
completely rearrange—or further entrench—the current partisan power dynamics in Congress.

Reconciliation isn’t happening – Ryan’s stance on SNAP reforms creates a stalemate

Philpott 7/25
(Tom, Food & ag correspondent @ Mother Jones, “Paul Ryan Is Holding the Farm Bill Hostage Over Food
Stamps”, 07/25/18,
hostage-over-food-stamps/, Date Accessed: 7/26/18, //EY)

The House will only approve a farm bill that squeezes SNAP recipients; the Senate won’t let that happen.
The farm bill—once-every-five-years mega-legislation that shapes US agriculture and hunger policy—is
back on the legislative agenda. The House and Senate are jockeying for position as they prepare to
reconcile their two versions, with the hope of sending a finished bill to the president’s desk before the
previous bill expires on September 30. In June, the US House narrowly passed its version, (margin: 213-
211), which essentially preserved the previous bill’s status quo except for two big things: It would add
onerous work requirements for recipients of the Supplemental Nutrition Program or SNAP, formerly
known as food stamps, and it would cut a key conservation program that encourages farmers to take
measures that build soil and reduce chemical runoff. President Donald Trump hailed the work
requirements, signaling that he’d love to sign the bill into law. A week later, the Senate overwhelmingly
passed its version of the farm bill (margin: 86-11). This one essentially preserved the previous bill’s
status quo but didn’t mess with SNAP or conservation. So now we have a showdown, with the SNAP
work requirements at center stage. Anti-hunger advocates are generally aghast at the House bill’s work
provisions, which the Congressional Budget Office estimates would knock around 1.2 million people off
of SNAP. Under current SNAP rules, non-disabled adults between the ages of 18 and 49 who don’t have
dependents can only receive benefits for three months over a three-year period, unless they work or are
enrolled in job training for at least 80 hours per month. The House provision would extend the age
horizon to 59, and also apply to people whose dependents are over six years old. SNAP rules, here’s how
the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities describes it: Though the bill’s proponents say they want to
encourage work among more SNAP recipients, the bill is likely to leave many people who face
substantial barriers to work with neither earnings nor food assistance. Most people who participate in
SNAP are workers—most work while receiving SNAP, while many others are between jobs. The large
majority of those who aren’t working are caring for someone else, suffering from a disability or chronic
health condition that limits their ability to work, or going to school. Outgoing Speaker of the House Paul
Ryan (R.-Wisc.) has made clear he won’t budge on the SNAP changes, hailing them as part of his legacy
as a tireless proponent of “welfare reform.” That’s why long-time farm bill observers like Ferd Hoefner
of the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, think the reconciliation talks will end in a stalemate,
likely forcing Congress to pass a short-term extension of the previous farm bill before it lapses. Senate
negotiators can’t cave, because they know they won’t have the votes to pass changes to SNAP. As for
the House, says Hoefner, “Ryan seems determined that legacy his reflect that he fought to the death on
what he calls ‘welfare reform,’ and what everyone else calls kicking people off SNAP.”
2ac – i/l
No internal link – summer recess means the bill won’t meet the deadline but the
current bill will be renewed
Geiger 18 David Geiger, Agribusiness Report “Farm Bill Moves to Conference Committee” Jul 20, 2018

Another challenge is getting the bill done before the end of September, when the current farm bill
expires. If that happens, there will likely be a year renewal of the farm bill. This week, the legislature will likely
get to conference But Congress typically is out for the summer, However, Grassley says the Senate will stay in session for August,
"But if the House of Representatives is out for their summer recess during the month of August. I think it's

going to be impossible to get an agreement between the House and Senate before September."
2ac – recess thumper

Conflicting schedules make reconciliation and a vote impossible

Guebert 18 Alan Guebert – reporter for the Telegraph Herald “Guebert: Is it 2018 or 2012 or worse?”
Jul 22, 2018 (
218f0f9383e3.html) //wc

Trapped in this year’s pressure cooker is the 2018 Farm Bill. While the Senate and House each passed their
versions earlier this summer, neither is in a hurry to stir the two together before leaving town. Part of the
problem is the chambers’ competing calendars. House members plan to leave for “district work” July 28
and not return until Sept. 4. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, however, announced on June 5 that he would keep the Senate in session
most of August to address what he called the legislative backlog his Democratic colleagues caused by their “historic obstruction.” Baloney. McConnell’s real goal is to keep Senate Democrats
off the campaign trail for an entire month in the 10 very “red” states won by Donald J. Trump in 2016. That break might be all the crafty Senate boss needs to electorally wound a Dem or two

the joint
in the middle of a close race so he might add to his current one-vote majority. All that Senate sitting, however, will not advance the Farm Bill one inch. Here’s why: First,

Senate/House conference committee required to “reconcile” the different bills is just now getting
organized. The slowness isn’t Democratic obstruction; it’s Republican disorganization. Few in the GOP-
led House are in a hurry to move a bill that failed its first vote and squeaked by on its next. Second, even
if the conference committee is named, seated and meets before the August break — a tight, but doable
schedule — its task hits a wall when the committee’s House members head home for a month just days
thereafter. That means “there won’t be any meetings of conferees,” during August, explains an experienced Farm Bill watcher, but
there will be “an “occasional meeting of the Big Four” — the chairmen and ranking members of the Ag Committees — “behind closed doors.” Open or closed, everyone needs to hurry because

If all this sounds familiar it’s because it is almost exactly how the 2012
one month later, on Sept. 30, the 2014 Farm Bill expires.

Farm Bill became the 2014 Farm Bill: two far-apart bills sleepily tackled by a slowly convened conference committee that was then interrupted by the no-action
August break that led to a difficult reconciliation process stymied by House GOP hardliners who demanded work requirements for some food aid recipients. The standoff continued through
the 2012 November election and into the seating of a new Congress in early 2013. By law, that meant the 2012 Farm Bill process had to start over, which it did and, finally, 18 months later, the

That same pattern is emerging again because of the canyon-wide differences between the
2014 law was passed.

two bills. Again, food aid changes demanded by House Republicans face a unified wall of Senate
opposition. Again, cuts to conservation programs and the removal of virtually all program payment
limits in the House bill face strong opposition by key Senate negotiators. With these clear differences deeply rooted, are 2018 Farm
Bill talks as doomed as the 2012 effort? Not yet, but every passing day makes it increasingly likely.
2ac – reauthorization not key
If negotiations fail the current Farm bill will be extended
Ferguson 18 Ellyn Ferguson - CQ-Roll Call “Will Congress pass a new farm bill, or punt?” Jun 20, 2018
( //wc
The current law took three years of negotiations before going to President Barack Obama in 2014. There were fights over the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program, proposed limits on crop insurance, farm subsidy payments and dairy policy. This year’s House fight over the GOP effort to restructure SNAP — formerly
known as food stamps — has overshadowed other potential areas of dispute that are likely to emerge, including whether or not big farm operations or extended
lawmakers have two options before Sept. 30,
family members on farms should get government subsidies. What is clear, however, is that

when the current farm bill expires: reach a compromise bill between the two chambers or extend
current law through an expected lame-duck session in late fall or into 2019. In the absence of a new farm bill or extending
the current law, agriculture policy would revert to 1938 and 1949 farm bill laws, ending many current farm programs and setting crop and dairy subsidy levels
higher than current levels and far above market prices. Carl Zulauf, an Ohio State University agriculture economist who has tracked farm bills since 1981, said it’s
likely there will be an extension of some kind before there is a new bill. “In terms of an extension versus a new bill by Sept. 30, it’s probably 50-50. I think

will have major differences between the House and Senate beyond SNAP,” Zulauf said. If negotiations stall
and the rest of Congress gets caught up in the election year calendar, an extension could last for one
year or possibly two years, Zulauf said. That’s because the task of finishing a farm bill cycle would fall to a new Congress with a new speaker of the
House or a Democratic majority.
2ac – food security turn
The Farm bill makes long term food crisis inevitable
O’Reilly 18 KATIE O'REILLY - Sierra's adventure and lifestyle editor “The Draft 2018 Farm Bill Is Good
for Big Ag, Bad for Food Systems” 4/27/2018
good-for-big-ag-bad-for-food-systems //wc
While groups representing the largest dairy, corn, wheat, and beef producers applauded the House Agriculture Committee’s work (the American Farm Bureau Federation described the approval as “great news”), the National Young
Farmers Coalition, National Farmers Union, anti-hunger groups, and environmental advocates have expressed strong opposition. Dozens of organizations including the Sierra Club are opposing the draft bill outright, out of concern
that the bill puts the environment and public health at risk and will result in a food system more dependent than ever on factory farms and chemical- and energy-intensive pesticides and fertilizers. “Yet again we see House
Republicans offering tax breaks to corporations at the expense of American families,” said Athan Manuel, director of public lands protection for the Sierra Club. “This bill takes food off the table, makes it easier for corporate
polluters to contaminate drinking water supplies, weakens commonsense protections to keep wildlife safe from toxic pesticides, logs away the future for our forests, guts water conservation programs. The public deserves safe and
healthy food, water, wildlife and forests.” While Speaker Paul Ryan, the Wisconsin Republican, lauded the farm bill as “the precise thing we need to do to get people from welfare to work,” Democratic representative Chellie
Pingree of Maine described the farm bill as “the latest partisan battle, following in the steps of health-care and tax reform.” She stated, “The draft was written by Republicans behind closed doors, and they’re hoping it passes
quickly, before anyone even has time to read it.” Most of us won’t, indeed, have time to read the full proposed farm bill. But as taxpayers and eaters, we all have a stake in the food system. So, Sierra created a primer that lays out,

Federal programs that help farmers and ranchers improve

in broad strokes, exactly what’s at stake—and some actions you can take. Conservation Programs:

water and soil quality, decrease synthetic inputs, and protect wildlife face the biggest cutbacks—Conaway’s draft
proposes reducing them by about $7 billion over 10 years. The draft bill eliminates the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), which

helps supports holistic, multiyear management plans for 70 million acres of farm and ranchland. While the draft
does roll some of the CSP’s features into the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), which would grow from $1.75 billion to $3 billion annually, the EQIP is far narrower in scope. It simply provides funding for individual
projects or practices that are good for the environment (like cover cropping or planting a pollinator habitat). The problem is that CSP is actually a lot stronger than EQIP—you have to have a contract and holistic plan, the idea being
that people on-ramp from EQIP projects to CSP, which has farmers and ranchers fully adopting sustainable agriculture, not just doing little pieces here and there. Sarah Hackney, grassroots director for the National Sustainable

Its elimination means fewer

Agriculture Coalition, said, “The CSP is overwhelmingly popular with farmers for its ability to improve the health of the land’s soil, water, and profitability.

options for voluntary conservation, more pollution, and less resilient farms and ranches.” Adding insult to injury, EQIP,
unlike CSP, funds concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs)—a farm in which animals are raised in confinement—so critics anticipate that Conaway’s bill would result in more overall funding to CAFOs. “It sets back the
evolution of farm bill conservation by decades,” Hackney said. The House GOP proposal also weakens the Conservation Compliance Program for wetlands and fails to do what many environmentalists had hoped: to expand across
the United States that program to prevent the conversion of carbon-rich grasslands into production sites for industrial commodities. Forests, too, are at risk. The proposed farm bill would eliminate the requirement that the Forest
Service consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service or NOAA Fisheries about whether forest management activity is “not likely to adversely affect” an animal, plant, or habitat protected by the Endangered Species Act. The House
GOP’s farm bill also excludes a variety of activities from environmental reviews for certain forest management projects like logging. What You Can Do: Support the SOILS Act (HR 5188) and support clean water protections in the
farm bill. Send a message to save farm conservation programs by clicking here. Pesticides: In addition to slashing conservation programs that help farmers shift away from pesticide-intensive industrial farming, which threatens

the GOP House farm bill includes a number of outright giveaways to the pesticide
bees, butterflies, and other pollinators,

industry. It undercuts the Endangered Species Act via a provision that allows the EPA to approve
pesticides without considering the harm they pose to endangered species, such as salmon and
honeybees. The GOP bill would also preempt the rights of local governments to restrict certain uses of
pesticides and would weaken restrictions on methyl bromide, a highly toxic soil fumigant. The proposed House GOP farm
bill limits the extent to which the EPA has to consult with FWS and NOAA Fisheries before approving new pesticides. Critics say this would make it harder for public interest groups to sue federal agencies that rubberstamp

Those measures "would undercut a major procedural protection put in place to

pesticides proven to harm protected species.

ensure that you've got a disinterested and objective and sound look at the scientific evidence involving
these kinds of risks," said Bob Dreher, the senior vice president of conservation programs at Defenders of Wildlife. "So this is a pretty fundamental assault on one of the major procedural protections."
Meanwhile, the House Agriculture Committee’s Republican majority defended the proposed changes, in a fact sheet, as necessary to prevent “activist-initiated litigation.” What You Can Do: Call your representatives and ask them
to oppose farm bill pesticide deregulation. Nutrition Assistance: The proposed farm bill seeks to “fix” the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), commonly known as food stamps. Often described as the “meat and
potatoes” of the farm bill, SNAP provides food benefits to low-income individuals and families, and nutrition funding accounts for roughly 80 percent of the bill’s funding. The GOP draft mandates new work requirements for SNAP’s
recipients: All able-bodied adults between the ages of 18 and 59 would be required to work or be enrolled in a job-training program for at least 20 hours a week beginning in 2021 (and increasing to 25 hours per week in 2026), or
risk being cut from the program for up to three years. According to the USDA, nearly two-thirds of SNAP participants are children, elderly, or people with disabilities. The USDA also reports that SNAP benefits to nonworkers
typically only occur when someone is between jobs. Critics say these proposed changes could result in as many as 1 million people being dropped from the nutrition assistance program. Representative Pingree, who’s also an
organic farmer, wrote last week in Civil Eats that studies show that those SNAP recipients who can work, do work, but that their jobs are by nature unstable. “Work requirements will do nothing but snatch away a lifeline from those
who don’t know where their next meal will come from,” Pingree wrote. “The proposals in this bill would lead to greater hunger and poverty among all types of beneficiary families, including the working poor, as well as reduced
economic growth and productivity in communities across the country,” stated James D. Weill, president of the Food Research & Action Center. The draft farm bill does call for expansion of the obscure SNAP Employment & Training
(E&T) program, from about $90 million in annual funding to $1 billion a year over three years. Little evidence, however, shows that the SNAP training program actually works, and the bill doesn’t stipulate how people would actually
be served. The 2014 farm bill gave the USDA $200 million to launch 10 state pilots to test new approaches to SNAP E&T. However, that experiment is not on track to show results in time to inform the next farm bill. There is,
however, one glimmer of hope in this arena: The 2018 draft increases funding for the Food Insecurity Nutrition Incentive Program—which is designed to incentivize SNAP recipients to boost their SNAP benefits by buying more
fruits and vegetables—from $5 million to $30 million by 2023. What you can do: Oppose the farm bill. Send a message here. Organic Agriculture and Local/Regional Food Programs: Despite America’s burgeoning love for farmers’

markets, the GOP farm bill essentially abandons the Farmers Markets Promotion Program (FMPP). Since it was first
funded in 2006, the FMPP—which awards grants that “support outreach and promotional activities that help direct

producer-to-consumer markets become self-sustaining in communities across the country”—has helped the number of
farmers’ markets in the United States to more than double. The 2018 bill strips it of mandatory funding. It also cut funding for several other programs, including Value-Added Producer Grants, a competitive program that helps

, the new farm bill would also cut more than

beginning and socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers to expand and market their products. Beginning in fiscal year 2022

$40 million a year from the Rural Energy for America program, which helps agricultural producers
purchase and install renewable energy systems and participate in energy audits. Nor does the proposed
farm bill reauthorize any part of the Organic Certification Cost Share Program, which helps thousands of
small and mid-size farmers defray the significant (and often prohibitive) costs associated with obtaining and maintaining
organic certification. Critis say this is another blow to small and family-owned farms. And now for silver linings: The draft bill
would establish a Food Waste and Recovery Liaison position at the USDA. The National Organic Program would be expanded to address the fraudulent import of industrially grown food that fail to meet USDA standards for the
coveted organic label. And the Organic Research and Extension Initiative would grow from $45 million in fiscal 2019 to $65 million by 2023. What you can do: Support the Local FARMS Act (HR3941), a bipartisan proposal meant to
chip away at the 15.6 million U.S. households lacking adequate access to healthy food while helping small and midsize farmers secure a steady demand for the food they produce (send a message by clicking here), and the Organic

Agriculture Research Act (HR 2436). Send a message by clicking here. Subsidies for Big Ag: The GOP farm bill contains no meaningful limitations on subsidy
payments to industrialized mega-farms. In fact, the bill raises Farm Service Agency loan caps, making them less available to small, midsize, and beginning farms—and likely better
serving larger farms and CAFO operations. The bill also contains loopholes that critics say help those connected to Big Ag to

get even more money out of the federal treasury. For instance, the GOP farm bill allows farm owners’ first cousins, nieces, and nephews to qualify for up to $125,000 in commodity subsidies, so long as they
earn less than $900,000 in adjusted gross income. While Representative Conaway says this is intended to keep family farms intact across generations, groups including The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition and Taxpayers

“The proposal would not provide an

for Common Sense have criticized this proposal for its potential to pave the way for America’s largest farms to rake in virtually unlimited subsidies.

adequate safety net for farmers and ranchers who have seen a significant drop in net farm income over
the past five years,” said a spokesperson for the National Farmers Union. The House bill doesn’t make any changes to crop insurance
in order to help beginning and socially disadvantaged farmers access assistance. “It creates more
loopholes in subsidy payments that will continue to distort land prices and create an unfair playing field
for farmers,” Hackney of the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition said. The new bill also fails to remove barriers to conservation and
stewardship activities within the federal crop insurance program, which discourages farmers from
engaging in conservation practices such as cover crops by threatening penalties or the voiding of their
coverage. Kari Hamerschlag, deputy director for Friends of the Earth’s Food and Agriculture program, in an op-ed called the bill “Robin Hood in reverse”—taking from small-scale farmers and low-income families to
further enrich agribusiness, factory farms, and crop insurance companies.” She wrote, “Limitless subsidies to mega-farms proposed in this bill will drive land costs up, small farmers out, and result in increased concentration in the
agricultural sector.” What You Can Do: Support the Beginning Farmers and Ranchers Opportunity Act (HR 4316). Click here to endorse this legislation via the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition. Food system watchdogs agree
that this draft farm bill has a tough road ahead. Its fate on the House floor is uncertain—though many fear that all Republicans could, as we saw with December’s GOP tax plan, get browbeaten into submission. The Senate has

already pledged to work on a bipartisan bill that will be less controversial. Democratic senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, the ranking member of the Senate agriculture committee, has stated that

Republicans “abandoned the bipartisan coalition of farmers, conservationists, nutrition advocates, and
representatives of rural communities needed to get a farm bill done.”

Ending ag subsidies leads to a more sustainable system

Worstall 17 Tim Worstall – Fellow at the Adam Smith Institute in London “A Decent Design For The
2018 Farm Bill - Don't Have A 2018 Farm Bill” Jul 29, 2017
have-a-2018-farm-bill/#78b66e7f14c0) //wc
One of the most protected areas of the US economy is the agricultural sector. That 1% of the population producing 1% or so of the country's GDP gains more aid and help from the taxpayers

Given that DC is currently discussing what should be in the

via government than any other production sector of similar size in the economy.

2018 Farm Bill here's a sensible suggestion. Simply abolish, in its entirety, the whole system of
agricultural support in the United States. Go t