Chicago Debate League 2013/14 Core Files
AC Harms: A/t - #6 “Movement Succeeding Now” [2/2] 186
Download 3.16 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- 2AC Solvency: A/t 1 “Alternate Causality” 1 87
2AC Harms: A/t - #6 “Movement Succeeding Now” [2/2] 1864) Governments across the country are passing discriminatory legislation against immigrants from Mexico, and hatred and racism are becoming the mainstream. VARGAS, 07 [Sylvia R. Lazos, Justice Myron Leavitt Professor of Law, William S. Boyd School of Law; “FOREWORD: EMERGING LATINA/O NATION AND ANTIIMMIGRANT BACKLASH;" 7 Nev. L.J. 685 2006-2007] LatCrit XI, Working and Living in the Global Playground: Frontstage and Backstage, convened at William S. Boyd School of Law, in Las Vegas Nevada, during October 2006 and called upon over 150 academics to focus on the impacts of globalization and immigration. At no time has LatCrit's critical approach of interconnecting the structures of inequality, the market forces of globalization, and the cultural hostility towards outsider groups been more relevant. As this issue goes to press, backlash against immigrants, particularly Latina/o "illegals," is on the rise. The latest wave of local anti-immigrant legislation began a year ago, in April 2006, in San Bernardino, California with a ballot initiative aimed to deny employers of unauthorized workers access to city permits, grants, and contracts, as well as allow local police to seize vehicles that were used to pick up day laborers, ban landlords from renting units to undocumented persons, and make English the city's official language. Despite the initiative's failure, other cities across the country began to target undocumented persons with similar tactics. Hazleton, Pennsylvania passed Ordinance 2006-40 titled Illegal Immigration Relief Act Implementation Amendment. The ordinance seeks to sanction businesses and landlords by revoking the business permits, for five years, of anyone who employs an "illegal alien" and imposes a penalty on landlords renting to the undocumented. Two restraining orders initially blocked the ordinance from taking effect, but the ensuing federal trial concluded in March and a decision has not been issued as this issue goes to press. Even though the ordinance has not taken effect, a number of Hazleton's immigrants have already left town. Across the country, local governments have considered ordinances modeled after Hazleton's. For example, in Pahrump, Nevada, the ordinance local council enacted was so blatantly xenophobic that the city took the unconstitutional position of prohibiting residents from flying flags of foreign countries without also flying the U.S. flag at a higher level." This ordinance was later repealed after a newly-elected city council reconsidered the ordinance unduly divisive" and the local Sherriff publicly announced that he would not enforce the township's ordinance. State legislatures nationwide are considering and passing legislation that is hostile to immigrants, particularly the unauthorized. Between May and December 2006, twenty-eight pieces of local anti-immigrant legislation passed in thirteen states, and forty-four other pieces were pending in seventeen states. Missouri and Oklahoma now bar children who cannot secure a Social Security card from benefiting from in-state tuition at a state university. In Florida, Colorado, Missouri, and Oklahoma, access to driver's licenses is highly restrictive. Pennsylvania makes access to marriage conditioned on a valid Social Security card. Arizona, Indiana, and Idaho have all recently enacted English-only laws. Arizona, Rhode Island, and Missouri deny public assistance to immigrants, in some cases, regardless of whether their presence is documented as legal. This climate of anti-immigrant hostility has been interpreted as antiLatina/o hostility. A 2006 poll for the first time recorded that a majority of Latina/os nationwide believe that racism against them has increased. In a provocative New York Times June 2006 op-ed, Frank Rich ruminates that Latina/os have become the new "gays."' This is a succinct way of making the point that under the current climate of backlash politics it is now acceptable to target Latina/os for hate. It is no longer okay to call a Latina/o a "spic." However, the politics of immigration divisiveness have made it okay to target Latina/os as those "who would support illegals," are disloyal because they would proclaim their ethnicity by draping themselves in the flag of a Latin American country and are unassimilable because they speak a language other than English in public places. These are the politics of dominance, not of tolerance. 2AC Solvency: A/t #1 “Alternate Causality” 1871) Including narratives and new voices in the immigration struggle is a way to expand our movement beyond limited questions about immigration. Their evidence doesn’t say that other issues will overwhelm a race-focused movement, only that there are still people who will be racist and justify it for other reasons. Our demand forces those discussions into the open. Extend our HUBER evidence. 2) Focusing on non-racial issues regarding immigration only hides that race is the root cause of strict immigration policy. JOHNSON, 2000 [Kevin, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Professor of Law, University of California at Davis School of Law; “RACE MATTERS: IMMIGRATION LAW AND POLICY SCHOLARSHIP, LAW IN THE IVORY TOWER, AND THE LEGAL INDIFFERENCE OF THE RACE CRITIQUE;" 2000 U. Ill. L. Rev. 525 2000] Factors that appear racially neutral, however, may mask legally impermissible racial motives. This potential legal disguise poses analytical difficulty for immigration law scholars: Many critics of restrictionism charge that despite their more pragmatic appearance, cost arguments are really proxies for arguments about race .... There is not much question that the antidiscrimination norm has driven much of the racial animus in the immigration debates underground and that cost arguments [sometimes] have a racial subtext.4 This point, in my estimation, also applies to some extent to many of the arguments for restrictionist measures. At the same time, we must acknowledge that, since 1965, people of color have comprised a majority of all immigrants. Nine of the top ten immigrant-sending countries for fiscal year 1997 were Mexico, the Philippines, China, Vietnam, India, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, and Jamaica, thereby making it eminently clear that a racially diverse group of immigrants is coming to the United States.4 Consequently, one cannot categorically state that the U.S. immigration laws are "racist." Nonetheless, a greater percentage of immigrants would be people of color without the many screening devices that disparately impact potential immigrants from developing nations. In the end, one cannot plausibly contend that the racial demographics of immigration have not contributed to the negative reaction toward immigrants.42 The corpus of immigration law scholarship, however, lacks a systematic discussion of race. Not much immigration law scholarship, for example, considered the influence of race on the anti-immigrant backlash of the 1990s." Rather, doctrinal topics predominate. Reflecting the scholarship's focus, presentations and panels at the conventional immigration law conferences and programs generally have not considered race. Before the 1998 immigration law teacher workshop in Berkeley, which included a panel devoted to the topic, the two previous workshops, Albuquerque, 1994 and Boulder, 1996, did not offer much on the connection between race and the immigration laws." Similarly, the Section on Immigration Law programs at the annual meetings of the Association of American Law Schools until recently have not generally looked at issues of race.45 Directory: wp-content -> uploads -> 2011 2011 -> Voices of the Old Sea Norman Lewis 2011 -> Malevil Robert Merle 2011 -> The Elephant Keeper’s Children Peter Hoeg 2011 -> Jv packet •Mars Colonization Affirmative •Mars Colonization Negative 2011 -> Registration Form (Rev. 8-86) omb no. 1024-0018 2011 -> All America Looks Up to Virginia;” Virginia and the Declaration of Independence 2011 -> Rao bulletin 2011 -> Christopher Columbus was born between 25 August and 31 October 1451 in 2011 -> The Battle of Frenchtown (1855), Washington Territory: the Political and Demographic Context rev 9/4/11 2011 -> Seti aff •seti neg •Asteroids Aff Download 3.16 Mb. Share with your friends:
|