All their disads are non-unique – a Privatization’s inevitable internationally
nc – link The affirmative entrenches structural violence
Download 1.61 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- ***ADVANTAGE CP 1nc – cp – terrorism Brandt 11
- ***POLITICS 1nc – link Everyone hates this Verkuil 5
- Republican distaste
- 2nc – link It’s a bruising battle PW 12
1nc – link The affirmative entrenches structural violence Gammeltoft-Hansen 12 – NYT (Thomas Gammeltoft-Hansen, 4/1/12, “Can Privatization Kill?,” http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/02/opinion/when-it-comes-to-immigration-privatization-can-kill.html)//twemchen ON Oct. 12, 2010, Jimmy Mubenga was deported from Britain. The 46-year-old Angolan had come to the country as a refugee 16 years earlier. But after his involvement in a pub brawl and a subsequent criminal conviction, the government ordered his deportation. Three private security guards escorted him through Heathrow Airport and onto British Airways Flight 77 to Luanda, Angola. The exact details of what followed are still unclear and currently subject to criminal investigation. Several passengers onboard the plane reported that Mr. Mubenga repeatedly complained that he could not breathe and that he was being held down with his head between his knees by security guards. As the airplane taxied to the runway in London, Mr. Mubenga lost consciousness and later died. Continue reading the main story RELATED COVERAGE Times Topic: Privatization Immigration control has traditionally been viewed as an inalienable sovereign function of the state. But today migration management has increasingly been taken over by private contractors. Proponents of privatization have been keen to argue that the use of contractors does not mean that governments lose control. Yet, privatization introduces a corporate veil that blurs both public oversight and legal accountability. Photo Credit Keith Negley Despite efforts to introduce outside supervisors, performance reports and other monitoring mechanisms, the private nature of these companies breaks the ordinary administrative chain of command, placing both governments and the public at a disadvantage in terms of ensuring transparency. Private companies seldom have an interest in securing public oversight, as any criticism may entail negative economic consequences. Australasian Correctional Management, which ran detention centers in Australia from 1998 to 2004, was known to require medical staff members or teachers entering its facilities to sign confidentiality agreements preventing them from disclosing any information regarding detainees or the administration of the centers. Being foreigners, migrants and refugees have always had a hard time gaining access to outside complaint mechanisms and advocacy institutions. As an employee in charge of reviewing disciplinary cases at a Corrections Corporation of America facility in Houston once told a reporter from this paper, “I’m the Supreme Court.” The corporate veil also distorts lines of legal responsibility. Human rights law is largely designed on the presumption that it is states and not private companies that exercise sovereign powers like detention or border control. Legally holding governments accountable for human rights violations by contractors requires an additional step showing that it is the state and not just the corporation or individual employee that is responsible for the misconduct. Mr. Mubenga’s case is not unique. Numerous reports have been filed about misconduct, violence and abuse perpetrated by contractors carrying out migration functions. The three security guards responsible for deporting Mr. Mubenga worked for the Anglo-Danish security company G4S. Before Mr. Mubenga’s death, G4S held the exclusive contract with the U.K. Border Agency to provide escorts for immigration detainees deported from the country. The firm subsequently lost this contract, but this didn’t end its involvement in managing migration. As the world’s largest security company with more than 650,000 employees, G4S is involved in a plethora of migration functions all over the world, from operating immigration detention centers in Britain to carrying out passenger screening at airports in Europe, Canada and the Middle East. In America, G4S operates a fleet of custom-built fortified buses that serve as deportation transports for illegal migrants caught along the United States-Mexico border. Just last month, the U.K. Border Agency signed a new contract with G4S worth up to $337 million to house asylum seekers. G4S’s success in this market shows that deportation, detention and border control have become big business. Boeing’s current contract to set up and operate a high-tech border surveillance system along the United States-Mexico border is worth $1.3 billion and involves nearly 100 subcontractors. The Florida-based Geo Group — one of G4S’s main competitors — manages 7,000 detention beds in the United States and, until recently, at the Guantánamo Bay detention center, where migrants intercepted in the Caribbean are transferred. N.G.O.s and international organizations profit, too. In 2010, the International Organization for Migration was paid $265 million to assist governments in returning migrants to their home countries, among other activities. The migration control industry covers not only detention and deportations but also border control. Many airlines today employ former immigration officers or themselves contract security companies to perform the document, forgery and profiling checks required by destination states. In Israel, the West Bank checkpoints are gradually being transferred to private security companies. Placing responsibility at lower levels may serve to insulate governments from lawsuits. In the Mubenga case, the three private security guards involved in the deportation were initially arrested. Following accusations from G4S employees that senior management had repeatedly ignored internal warnings about poor training and unsafe restraint techniques, charges against the company are now being considered. Yet none of these lawsuits are likely to address whether the U.K. Border Agency should face criminal liability for Mr. Mubenga’s death because of its decision to outsource deportations in the first place. Even if governments want to re-establish state control over migration, it isn’t so easy. Political promises to renationalize immigration detention centers in Britain have so far remained unfulfilled despite repeated reports of abuse and mistreatment. And privatization, once pursued, is difficult to reverse. The United States discovered this when, in the aftermath of 9/11, it was faced with the challenge of hiring 45,000 employees for the newly established Transportation Security Administration to recoup sovereign control over previously private airport security. And private contractors work to shape policy as well. When Arizona’s notorious SB 1070 immigration bill was passed, 30 out of 36 co-sponsors had received donations from private prison companies or their lobbyists. Today, government outsourcing has given rise to an industry that encompasses nearly every aspect of migration management in countries across the globe. This shift comes at a price: It eliminates government accountability and runs roughshod over the rights of those subjected to private corporations control. And unless governments reassert control over what used to be a core sovereign function of the state, many more Jimmy Mubengas are likely to die. ***ADVANTAGE CP 1nc – cp – terrorism Brandt 11 – director at Lime, political risk consultancy based in the UAE, worked as a threat analyst for a major U.S. airline (Ben Brandt, 11/30/11, “TERRORIST THREATS TO COMMERCIAL AVIATION: A CONTEMPORARY ASSESSMENT,” https://www.ctc.usma.edu/posts/terrorist-threats-to-commercial-aviation-a-contemporary-assessment)//twemchen Given the breadth and complexity of threats to commercial aviation, those who criticize the TSA and other aviation security regulatory agencies for reactive policies and overly narrow focus appear to have substantial grounding. Three particularly serious charges can be levied against the TSA: it overemphasizes defending against specific attack vectors (such as hijackings or passenger-borne IEDs) at the expense of others (such as insider threats or attacks on airports); it overemphasizes securing U.S. airports while failing to acknowledge the significantly greater threat posed to flights arriving or departing from foreign airports; and it has failed to be transparent with the American people that certain threats are either extremely difficult or beyond the TSA’s ability to control. Furthermore, the adoption of cumbersome aviation security measures in the wake of failed attacks entails a financial burden on both governments and the airline industry, which has not gone unnoticed by jihadist propagandists and strategists. While the U.S. government has spent some $56 billion on aviation security measures since 9/11, AQAP prominently noted that its 2010 cargo plot cost a total of $4,900.[21] With this in mind, there are several measures that could be undertaken to improve U.S. aviation security. First, policymakers must recognize the timely collection and exploitation of intelligence will always be the most effective means of interdicting terrorist threats to aviation, whether by disrupting terrorist leadership in safe havens, breaking up nascent plots, or preventing would-be terrorists from boarding aircraft. The successful exploitation of intelligence gathered from the Bin Ladin raid in May 2011 has likely done far more to defend commercial aviation from al-Qa`ida than the use of advanced imaging equipment and patdowns. Second, the TSA and other aviation security regulators must increase their liaison with the airline industry regarding the development of risk mitigation strategies, as airlines are far more aware of the vulnerabilities inherent to commercial aviation, as well as the practical constraints on proposed security measures. Third, rather than increasing spending on screening equipment and employees deployed in the United States, the TSA and other regulators should instead provide financial support for airlines attempting to improve security for their overseas operations. This could include subsidizing background checks on airlines’ international employees and vendors, paying for armed guards at ticket counters, helping upgrade security for airlines’ computer networks and control centers, and paying for the deployment of ETD screening equipment. Aviation security regulators should also work to improve the quality of threat information shared with airlines, which is frequently dated, irrelevant, or inaccurate. Most importantly, the TSA and policymakers must publicly acknowledge that it is impossible to successfully protect every aspect of commercial aviation at all times. Intelligence gaps will occur, watch lists will not always be updated, scanners will fail to detect concealed items, and employees will become corrupt or radicalized. As politically painful as such an admission may be, it is essential to scale back bloated security measures that add significant expense and inconvenience to commercial aviation without materially reducing risk. The TSA’s leadership has begun to take small steps in this direction, such as a current pilot program designed to prescreen travelers to facilitate expedited screening, but more must be done to ensure that commercial aviation remains both secure and commercially viable. ***POLITICS 1nc – link Everyone hates this Verkuil 5 – Prof Law, Cardozo Law School, Yeshiva University (Paul R. Verkuil, 3/1/5, “Public Law Limitations on Privatization of Government Functions,” SSRN, http://ssrn.com/abstract=681517)//twemchen The political battle was waged over the need for public employees.207 The prior screeners—the ones who were on duty on 9/11—had been private contractors for the airlines.208 Since these screeners were already privatized, they had to be brought back into government. In Professor Freeman’s words, the issue became whether after 9/11 screeners should be “publicized.”209 But the Republican distaste for increasing government employment stymied the legislation until the opt out compromise was accepted.210 The White House also objected to providing airport screeners with civil service protections and demanded the right to hire and fire personnel.211 The arguments in favor of federal employees turned on the issue of what functions should be inherently governmental. Proponents emphasized that since government was responsible for security functions (e.g., FBI, CIA, Border Patrol and INS), Congress should not privatize airport security because “law enforcement is a proper function of the federal government.”212 While that proposition may state matters too broadly (private security guards are sometimes employed by government), it does highlight the essential role of government when coercive force may be used. The presence of a badge, much like the requirement of an oath,213 is a reliable indicator of government control, constitutional or otherwise. 2nc – link It’s a bruising battle PW 12 – Privatization Watch (Monthly Archives: August 2012, 8/31/12, http://www.privatizationwatch.org/2012/08/)//twemchen IN: Privatizing infrastructure, like Cline, brews a political battle. If the response from local and state officials to the apparent resolution of the Cline Avenue Bridge quandary is any indication, the issue of replacing free roads and bridges with tolled infrastructure is likely to divide Hoosiers for years to come. Gov…. Mitch Daniels said toll bridges and toll roads are going to become a lot more common in Indiana and the United States in the future… Republican U.S. Rep. Mike Pence, who is running to succeed Daniels in the governor’s office, shares Daniels’ positive opinion on using public-private partnerships to build new infrastructure…Democratic gubernatorial candidate John Gregg said he is willing to discuss greater use of public-private partnerships, but said the Cline Avenue Bridge should have been immediately rebuilt as a free bridge. NWITimes Unions oppose it Rausnitz 14 – staff writer at FHS (Zach Rausnitz, 8/4/14, “Gulf between Republicans and union over TSA privatization still vast,” http://www.fiercehomelandsecurity.com/story/gulf-between-republicans-and-union-over-tsa-privatization-still-vast/2014-08-04)//twemchen Without a reliable way to compare the costs of Transportation Security Administration screeners to contractors, views on the merits of privatized airport security remained widely divergent during a House hearing July 29. Rep. Richard Hudson (R-N.C.), who chairs the House Homeland Security subcommittee on transportation security, said privatized screening had a number of "clear and substantial advantages." That's because, in his view, the private sector is inherently more efficient and better at providing customer service. He also suggested that TSA would be free from the burden of managing tens of thousands of screeners, allowing it to focus on setting security policy if it were to outsource screening to contractors. Currently, 18 airports (pdf) use a private screening workforce at checkpoints instead of TSA officers. Most of the participating airports are small, with a few exceptions such as San Francisco International Airport. While Hudson and several leaders of airports that use a contracted screening workforce praised privatization during the hearing, the head of the American Federation of Government Employees was adamantly opposed. The privatization program "harms security, costs more, and hurts the [TSA officers] who bear the brunt of the outsourcing program. Only security contractors benefit," said J. David Cox, president of the AFGE, which represents TSA officers. Cox said the union has heard complaints from screeners at a group of airports in Montana transitioning to a privatized workforce. While TSA screeners have been able to find work with the new contractor, they have received smaller pay and benefits packages even though they were supposed to be compensated at the same level they were as federal workers, Cox said. They don’t like the plan AFGE 9 – (11/18/9, “Union for Federal Prison Officers Supports Transfer of Gitmo Inmates to Bureau of Prisons,” https://www.afge.org/Index.cfm?Page=PressReleases&PressReleaseID=1076)//twemchen WASHINGTON—The American Federation of Government Employees’ (AFGE) Council of Prison Locals (CPL), which represents correctional officers nationwide, today backed the transfer of Guantanamo Bay detainees into the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) – presumably at the Thomson Correctional Center in northern Illinois. There have been a number of reports suggesting the federal government may consider acquiring the Thomson Correctional Center from the state of Illinois to house Guantanamo Bay detainees under Department of Defense and BOP supervision. “We fully support housing Guantanamo Bay detainees at the Thomson Correctional Center,” said AFGE National President John Gage. “This is an opportunity to bring thousands of good-paying jobs to an area in desperate need of an economic revival. Furthermore, we do not see a safety risk to the surrounding community. Our correctional officers are the best-trained, most-qualified candidates in the world for this job. We have no doubt BOP correctional officers are up to the task.” Additionally, CPL President Bryan Lowry added, “Supervising terrorists is nothing new for our BOP correctional officers. They’ve maintained a safe and secure environment at Supermax and they can do it at the Thomson Correctional Center. We welcome the idea of protecting our nation, and the world, from these detainees.” SBW 13 – Social Biz Wire (1/24/13, “American Federation of Government Employees Resists Airport Privatization,” SBW, Lexis)//twemchen US labour union American Federation of Government Employees claimed victory when the Sacramento County board of Supervisors for voting to rescind its approval for Sacramento International Airport to be allowed to privatise, or use corporate airport screeners in place of federal employees. The union, which represents TSA workers in Sacramento and nationwide, had been lobbying for close to one year and had launched a public campaign opposing the privatisation move. AFGE national president J. David Cox Sr characterised the privatisation push by the Sacramento airport authority as an attempt to abandon its public servants in favor of corporations, and was short-sighted. The Sacramento County board of Supervisors in January 2012 voted to allow the Sacramento County Airport System to apply to TSA's Screening Partnership Program, which allows commercial airports to apply to use private sector screeners. Of the nation's 450 airports, only 16 use private contractors. Upon learning of theSacramento airport plans, AFGE, working with the Sacramento County Labor Council, took immediate action to stop the privatization efforts. At AFGE's urging, the California Labor Federation passed a resolution opposing outsourcing at TSA, and members of the general public and the Sacramento City Council signed a constituent letter opposing the measure. AFGE is the largest federal employee union representing 670,000 workers in the federal government and the government of the District of Columbia, including 45,000 at the Transportation Security Administration. Ryan 13 – staff writer at the American Federation of Government Employees (Emily Ryan, 1/9/13, “TSA Union Gets Sacramento Airport Privatization Revoked,” PR Newswire, Lexis)//twemchen After close to one year of lobbying efforts and a public campaign, the American Federation of Government Employees-the union for TSA workers in Sacramento and nationwide-today applauded the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors for voting to rescind its approval for Sacramento International Airport to be allowed to privatize, or use corporate airport screeners in place of federal employees. "AFGE is very pleased that the Sacramento Board recognizes the value in a federal workforce at TSA and has revoked its previous approval for privatization," AFGE National President J. David Cox Sr. said. "The Sacramento airport authority's attempt to abandon its public servants in favor of corporations with only profit in mind was short-sighted at best. There simply are some functions too important to be left to companies that would be unaccountable to the American people, and securing American skies is definitely one of them." "Our officers lived with the threat of this over their heads for an entire year and can now go back to doing what they do best-protecting American skies," said James Mudrock, president of AFGE Local 1230, which represents TSA workers at Sacramento airport. "We are very grateful for the work by AFGE's national staff and the Sacramento County Labor Council, both of whom were instrumental in getting this vote turned around. We also would like to thank the Association of Flight Attendants [AFA-CWA] for their continued support and speaking out on our behalf." "The dedicated federal screening workforce at TSA is a crucial part of defending our nation from a repeat of the horror of 9/11," AFGE TSA Council 100 President Hydrick Thomas said. "Proponents of a private screening workforce are misinformed about costs and labor issues and should instead be working to empower federal screeners to do their jobs." The Sacramento County Board of Supervisors in January 2012 voted to allow the Sacramento County Airport System to apply to TSA's Screening Partnership Program, which allows commercial airports to apply to use private sector screeners. Of the nation's 450 airports, only 16 use private contractors. Upon learning of the Sacramento airport plans, AFGE, working with the Sacramento County Labor Council, took immediate action to stop the privatization efforts. At AFGE's urging, the California Labor Federation passed a resolution opposing outsourcing at TSA, and members of the general public and the Sacramento City Council signed a constituent letter opposing the measure. Davidson 13 – staff writer at WP (Joe Davidson, 1/10/13, “Decision to keep federal screeners at Calif. airport buoys labor,” WP, Lexis)//twemchen It's not everyday that the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors gives a national federal labor union based in Washington something to brag about. But the folks in the Northern California wine country gave the American Federation of Government Employees reason to toast the board's decision Tuesday to withdraw its application to use private screeners at Sacramento International Airport. AFGE represents about 45,000 transportation security officers, federal employees who screen passengers and baggage at almost all of the nation's airports. At 16 airports, often smaller facilities, the screening duties generally are done by nonunion employees of private firms. Airports in San Francisco and Kansas City, which have private, unionized screeners, are exceptions. Republicans in Congress have repeatedly pushed for more privatization. AFGE and its Democratic allies have constantly pushed back. The Sacramento decision is an important victory in labor's effort to combat privatization efforts generally. "AFGE is very pleased that the Sacramento Board recognizes the value in a federal workforce at TSA [Transportation Security Administration] and has revoked its previous approval for privatization," AFGE President J. David Cox Sr. said. "The Sacramento airport authority's attempt to abandon its public servants in favor of corporations with only profit in mind was short-sighted at best. There simply are some functions too important to be left to companies that would be unaccountable to the American people, and securing American skies is definitely one of them." "It was a contract workforce that gave us 9/11," he added. "It wasn't a union workforce." At the time of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the airports used private contractors to screen passengers. The board voted 4 to 1 to cancel its request to TSA, made last January, for private contractors. At the time, the now-retired airport director was instrumental in convincing the board that a private contractor would improve the scheduling of screeners, according to Supervisor Phil Serna. But during the past year, there was "very little evidence produced . . . that there is any advantage to privatizing the screeners," Serna said. A Government Accountability Office (GAO) study helped convince supervisors that there was no need to upset the status quo. Supervisor Susan Peters, the lone vote in favor of continuing the privatization process, could not be reached for comment. During the year since the board initially decided to seek privatization, AFGE rallied its allies in organized labor and lobbied supervisors, city council members and state legislators in an attempt to block the plan. "We had several meetings with the individual supervisors during the past year," said James Mudrock, president of Local 1230 at the Sacramento airport. "This all took place over a long period of time, but we continued to stay on it. We had to change some minds." The union initially had one supervisor whose support was certain and another who was a maybe, so "we felt we had to do some work on the others," Mudrock added. TSA did not take a position in the debate, but the testimony of Kimberley Siro, the airport's federal security director, apparently helped convince supervisors that privatization was not necessary. She told the board about greater TSA flexibility in scheduling screeners so they could be available during high-traffic periods, according to Linda Cutler, an airport spokeswoman. Siro could not be reached for comment, but Cutler said, "Our local TSA is becoming very customer-focused. . . . Those customer service considerations were a big part of our request" to use private screeners. Another factor in the board's decision was the GAO report, issued in December. It said TSA does not compare performance by private and federal screeners, so there was no data indicating that privatization works better. A staff recommendation from the county's Department of Airports to the board said, "GAO found insufficient evidence to draw any conclusions of improved performance under SPP [Screening Partnership Program] when compared to federal screening services. "In conclusion, the GAO findings suggest that the County's participation in SPP may not be necessary to realize the original benefits anticipated." In any case, the debate over private or federal screeners "is a red herring," according to Richard Bloom, an airport security expert and chief academic officer with Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Prescott, Ariz. "This whole public/private thing has more to do with political ideology," he said. The real issue in screener performance is training, motivation and management, he added, saying screeners "can do a great job or a horrible job regardless" of their employer. Nonetheless, the public/private debate will continue. "I commend the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors for making the decision to withdraw its application to replace its federal screener workforce with privatized contractors," said Rep. Bennie Thompson (Miss.), the top Democrat on the House Homeland Security Committee. He favors federal screeners and urged "other airport operators considering the switch to contracted screeners to first consider the findings of GAO's recent report." Directory: file -> view view -> Western Europe after wwii view -> Author study: paul fleischman view -> Qpa1 7ela study Guide view -> Arctic Oil/Gas Neg view -> November 1970 Approximately 150,000-500,000 deaths Bhola Cyclone Bangladesh view -> Grade Level: 6 Unit of Study: Caribbean glce view -> Citation: Duffield, Katy view -> Table of Contents Lesson # view -> Chinese Wind Energy Disad Download 1.61 Mb. Share with your friends:
|