Andrew+and+Ben

The aff is ICE. There are two versions.


 * Version One:**

State sovereignty over immigration has been crushed by ICE’s use of state and local police
Writing about immigration federalism has, like much federalism scholarship, long been stuck with AND __into an immigration screening event puts local officials in charge of those priorities__.
 * Cox and Miles 2014** † Professor of Law, NYU School of Law; Clifton R. Musser Professor of Law and Economics and Walter Mander Research Scholar, University of Chicago Law School. (Adam and Thomas, “The Real World of Immigration Federalism”, http://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/upload_documents/Adam%20Cox%20The%20Real%20World%20of%20Immigration%20Federalism_2.pdf)//AN

Changes to ICE’s 287g now compel state and local police to cooperate in surveilling for immigration through task forces AND technological gathering – This crushes immigration federalism
C. Informational End Runs and the Eroding Boundaries of Immigration Federalism Automated immigration policing AND __between federal, state, and local institutions__, on the other.120
 * Kalhan 2013** Associate Professor of Law, Drexel University (Anil, “Immigration Policing and Federalism Through the Lens of Technology, Surveillance, and Privacy”, Vol. 74:6, pg. 1134, http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/students/groups/oslj/files/2013/12/14-Kalhan.pdf)//AN

Federal limiting of state and local police cooperation with the ICE solves immigration federalism
B. Immigration Federalism and Information Federalism One important means of fostering and facilitating these AND __as a matter of__ constitutional doctrine, __legislation,__ or technological design.229
 * Kalhan 2013** Associate Professor of Law, Drexel University (Anil, “Immigration Policing and Federalism Through the Lens of Technology, Surveillance, and Privacy”, Vol. 74:6, http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/students/groups/oslj/files/2013/12/14-Kalhan.pdf)//AN

Federal policy is __already discriminatory__ against undocumented people—state experimentalism with immigration is best because impacts are small and states can foster better policies for the future
To demonstrate how a statutory preemption understanding of federal exclusivity works in practice, consider AND be repeated more widely, and __the harm will have been limited geographically.__
 * Huntington 2008** Associate Professor, University of Colorado Law School; J.D. Columbia Law School; (Clare, “The Constitutional Dimension of Immigration Federalism”, http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1181&context=faculty_scholarship)//AN

====Immigration federalism is key to international perception, policy experimentalism, and individual rights—also //none// of their turns apply either—It’s a “self-check” system that prevents states from enacting __racist__ policies==== B. Immigration through a Federalism Lens The federalism debate, raging for more than AND from undertaking particular immigration regulations, it always can statutorily preempt specified conduct.
 * Huntington 2008** Associate Professor, University of Colorado Law School; J.D. Columbia Law School; (Clare, “The Constitutional Dimension of Immigration Federalism”, http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1181&context=faculty_scholarship)//AN

A state based approach to immigration is __vital__ to solve the division of high skilled labor through state sponsored visas
U.S. immigration policy currently prevents many productive foreign workers and entrepreneurs from AND an untested approach to immigration policy. __Similar policies have worked well elsewhere__.
 * Fuller and Rust 2014** Research scholar at New York University and deputy director of the Urbanization Project at the NYU Stern School of Business. Rust is a practicing attorney and a recent graduate of Temple University’s Beasley School of Law (Brandon and Sean, “State-Based Visas A Federalist Approach to Reforming U.S. Immigration Policy”, http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa748_web_1.pdf)//AN

Independently, specialized immigration visas are __key__ to foster scientific growth—that solves science diplomacy
Leverage Science Diplomacy Now to Boost U.S. Foreign Policy In 1979, AND to strengthen that tool and advance our diplomatic goals should not be missed.
 * Pickering and Agre 10** (Thomas R., Advisory Council – Civilian Research and Development Foundation, and Dr. Peter, Director – Johns Hopkins Malaria Research Institute and President – American Association for the Advancement of Science, "More opportunities needed for U.S. researchers to work with their foreign counterparts", Partnership for a Secure America, 2-9, http://www.psaonline.org/article.php?id=634)//AN

Science diplomacy is key to solve a //litany// of impacts
Federoff 8 – professor of biology at Penn State University known for her research on biology and life sciences, president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (April 2008, “International Science and Technology Cooperation: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Research and Science Education,” Committee on Science and Technology, [] ) mj Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Ehlers, and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, thank AND __a means to enhance security__, increase global partnerships, and create sustainability.

Restrictive Visa policies bog down international cooperation over space policy—that decks any chance of space col or ** productive scientific progress **
Though these __foreign-born individuals____are an integral part of the continued success of__ __AND__ report, it is clear that present export control policies should be changed.
 * Abbey and Lane 2005** Senior Fellow in Space Policy – Baker Institute and Neal, Professor of Physics – Rice University (George and Neal, “United States Space Policy Challenges and Opportunities”, https://www.amacad.org/publications/spacePolicy.pdf)//AN

That’s key to space colonization—extinction
Collins and Autino, 08 [Dr. Patrick Collins, an exceptionally well known and respected authority on space economics, space tourism, reusable launch vehicles, and space solar power, professor of economics at Azabu University in Japan, AND Adriano Autino, President of Space Renaissance International, "What the Growth of a Space Tourism Industry Could Contribute to Employment, Economic Growth, Environmental Protection, Education, Culture and World Peace", Originally presented at Plenary Session of the International Academy of Astronautics' 1st Symposium on Private Human Access to Space, Arcachon, France, 25-28 May 2008,, Evan] 7.2. High return in safety from extra-terrestrial settlement Investment in AND to be achievable only through the development of a vigorous space tourism industry.

Space access solves inevitable __global resource wars__—kills vtl and causes extinction
Collins and Autino, 08 [Dr. Patrick Collins, an exceptionally well known and respected authority on space economics, space tourism, reusable launch vehicles, and space solar power, professor of economics at Azabu University in Japan, AND Adriano Autino, President of Space Renaissance International, "What the Growth of a Space Tourism Industry Could Contribute to Employment, Economic Growth, Environmental Protection, Education, Culture and World Peace", Originally presented at Plenary Session of the International Academy of Astronautics' 1st Symposium on Private Human Access to Space, Arcachon, France, 25-28 May 2008, Evan] 7. World peace and preservation of human civilisation The major source of social friction AND travel in space and have the use of all the resources they need!

An asteroid impact is inevitable—it’s only a question of how to deflect it—and US-International coop is key to prevent the collapse of civilization
AMERICANS who read the papers or watch Jay Leno have been aware for some time AND aren’t energizing the agency, perhaps public hearings would shame it into action.
 * Schweickart '7** (Russell L., Former Apollo Astronaut and Chair – B612 Foundation, New York Times, 3-16, Lexis)//AN

Local enforcement of ICE immigration law drives racial profiling, undermines trust of police, and overstretches police resources
Barry 9 (Tom Barry is an American political analyst. As of 2007 he is Senior Policy Analyst and Americas Policy Program Fellow at the advocacy group Center for International Policy (CIP). Barry began his career as a political activist and analyst at Georgetown University in the late 1960s. "Immigrant Crackdown Joins Failed Crime and Drug Wars." International Policy Report. April 2009. CIP's Americas Program.)//lb Like its other criminal alien programs, ICE claims that through the 287(g AND  (or in some cases at all) in the civil immigration context."

Post plan, the raids of immigrants will end – ICE doesn’t have the resources
Immigration law enforcement agents generally do not have license to walk up and down the AND Instead, ICE works closely with criminal law enforcement agencies to apprehend immigrants.
 * Golash-Boza 12’ ** (Tanya [Associate Professor at UC Merced] Racial Profiling and Mass Deportation of Black and Latino Men, __http://www.racismreview.com/blog/2012/05/15/racial-profiling-and-mass-deportation-of-black-and-latino-men/__ )

Fear of local police is crushing immigrant frequency of small businesses
Branche 11 ( Afton Branche -Georgetown University B.S. in Foreign Service, Culture and Politics, International Development. "The Cost of Failure: The Burden of Immigraton Enforcement in America's Cities." Drum Major Institute for Public Policy. April 2011. http://uncoverthetruth.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/DMI-Cost-of-Failure.pdf)//lb Immigration enforcement undercuts the vital contributions immigrants make to urban economies. In “Principles AND scarcely afford to pursue immigration enforcement policies that risk reducing immigrants’ economic activities.

** Latino’s are uniquely key to the success of small businesses **
RNC ’13 (May 2nd, “Latinos Are the Engine of Small Business in America” ,https://www.gop.com/latinos-are-the-engine-of-small-business-in-america/) The small business sector of the United States currently employs 60 million Americans full of AND , risk management, legal reform, healthcare, immigration and international trade.

The limitation of small businesses are preventing a recovery and actual growth
You can’t understand the current state of the U.S. economy without understanding AND that sluggish growth is now the “new normal”. It is not.
 * Shepherdson 13’** (Ian [Ian Shepherdson is an award-winning British economist. He is the founder and Chief Economist of Pantheon Macroeconomics, an economic research firm located in Newcastle, England, with an office in White Plains, New York] Small Businesses Are The (Missing) Key To A Full Economic Recovery, http://www.forbes.com/sites/ianshepherdson/2013/09/10/small-businesses-are-the-missing-key-to-a-full-economic-recovery/)

Causes global nuclear war
Harris & Burrows 9 Mathew, PhD European History @ Cambridge, counselor of the U.S. National Intelligence Council (NIC) and Jennifer, member of the NIC’s Long Range Analysis Unit “Revisiting the Future: Geopolitical Effects of the Financial Crisis” http://www.ciaonet.org/journals/twq/v32i2/f_0016178_13952.pdf Of course, the report encompasses more than economics and indeed believes the future is AND within and between states in a more dog-eat-dog world.

Status Quo immigrants stay away from public healthcare in fear of deportation, only the plan eliminates this fear by removing surveillance of immigrants
Moran ’10 ( Benedict Moran, Huffington post, 3/18/10, “Undocumented immigrants scared to seek free healthcare”, [] ) //AS "When we do this type of work," he explained, "if they AND  patients. But despite these protections //, those without papers often stay away.//// ¶ //

Lack of healthcare for immigrants leads to uncontrollable disease, the plan is a necessary mechanism to solve disease
Betzler 13 (Song Betzler, J.D., M.P.H., Legal Fellow at the Network for Public Health Law — Mid-States Region at the University of Michigan School of Public Health, “Undocumented Immigrants and Healthcare”, The Network for Public Health Care, []) //AS //Inadequate access to health care and treatment can lead to the spread of disease and// //AND// , thereby protecting the health of the entire U.S. population.

Disease spread causes extinction
THE golden age of antibiotics, the 20th Century's wonder drug, is over. __AND__ __problem of **apocalyptic proportions**.__ The misuse of antibiotics is threatening us all."
 * Collins 98’** (Columnist-Sunday Mirror (UK), “Doomsday fear as we over-use antibiotics,” 4/12, Lexis)


 * Version Two:**

ICE has targeted its surveillance of immigrant populations through extending federal authorities to state and local police officers
Inda et. al ’13 – Chair and Associate Professor of Latina/Latino Studies, Ph.D. in Anthropology from the University of California, Berkeley in 1997. His research areas include the politics of immigration, governmentality and life politics, the critical study of race and medicine, the anthropology of globalization, and Latino populations in the United States. Dr. Inda is currently Associate Professor of Latina/Latino Studies and Criticism and Interpretive Theory. (Jonathan Xavier Inda & Julie A. Dowling, “Governing Immigration through Crime”, TS)

Soon after ICE began raiding homes, the agency also started to focus on worksite enforcement. Indeed, during the latter half of the 2000s, ICE pursued an aggressive program of policing the nation's workplaces using raids. Between 2006 and 2008, the agency apprehended about 14,000 undocumented migrants through worksite raids (US ICE 2008c). This compares to only about 2,700 arrests between 2002 and 2005 (ibid.). Although raids have decreased in more recent years as ICE has shifted to workplace audits (see Bacon and Hing, this volume), they nevertheless continue to be a part of ICE's arsenal. Worksite enforcement is a priority, according to ICE, because "employment is a primary driving force behind illegal immigration . By working with employers to ensure a legal workforce, ICE is able to stem the tide of those who cross our borders illegally or unlawfully remain in our country to work" (US ICE 2009b). ICE deems the hiring of undocumented immigrants a problem for several reasons. First, the agency suggests that " illegal aliens often turn to criminal activity : including document fraud, Social Security fraud or identity theft, in order to get jobs " (ibid.) Such crimes are seen to impact negatively the lives of the U.S. citizens and legal immigrants whose identities are stolen. Second, the need of undocumented migrants for fraudulent documents is said to create thriving criminal markets. Third, there is a perception that for every job taken by an undocumented immigrant there is one less job for a lawful U.S. resident. Fourth, employers are believed to exploit "illegal" workers by ignoring wage laws and safety standards. Finally, undocumented migrants are seen "as easy targets for criminals who want to use them to gain access to sensitive facilities or to move illegal products " (ibid.). Worksite enforcement, then, is deemed necessary in order to stem the tide of illegality purportedly produced by undocumented migrants. The conviction seems to be that "illegal" immigration generally erodes respect for authority—that the toleration of lawlessness undermines consideration for law and order. For not only do the undocumented supposedly fail to conduct themselves responsibly, they also compel others to follow suit. Unauthorized immigrants are thus se en to represent a danger to the social body. Their disregard for the rule of law is understood to pose a threat to the general welfare of the population. Another strategy that ICEhas employed in policing the interior is to partner with local and state police forces, sometimes using them as proxy immigration officers .19 The idea behind these partnerships, and the devolution of immigration authority from federal powers to nonfederal law enforcement agencies , is that they serve as a “force multiplier” for the DHS, significantly expanding the reach of immigration policing authority (US ICE 2009a). ICE has placed its partnering initiatives under an umbrella program called ICE ACCESS (Agreements of Cooperation in Communities to Enhance Safety and Security) (US ICE 2008d). The most well known ICE ACCESS initiatives are probably the Criminal Alien Program (CAP), Secure Communities, and Delegation of Immigration Authority Section 287(g) (Gardner II and Kohli 2009; Keaney and Friedland 2009; Kohli and Varma 2011). CAP focuses on identifying “criminal aliens” detained in federal, state, and local jails and prisons in the United States. Under this program, ICE agents screen inmates for immigration status either in person, by phone, or by video teleconference, and then, after positive identification, work to secure a final order of removal prior to the end of an individual's sentence so that she or he will be deported and not released back into the general public. Secure Communities is essentially a technologically driven version of CAP. Through this program, local and state police are able to run the fingerprints of anyone they arrest, regardless of guilt or eventual prosecution, through DHS immigration and other databases. If there is a “hit,” the system automatically alerts ICE, which then interviews the individual and decides whether or not to seek his or her removal. The 287(g) program permits state and local law enforcement agencies, on the basis of a memorandum of agreement (MOA) with ICE, to function as immigration agents. By entering into such agreements, ICE can authorize local police officers to carry out certain immigration enforcement functions , ranging from arresting people for immigration violations and screening local jails for "criminal aliens” to working with ICE on immigration investigations . In theory, ICE ACCESS programs are supposed to prioritize targeting immigrants "who pose a danger to national security or risk to public safety” (Morton 2010). However, ICE tends to cast a very wide net. The majority of those apprehended are not immigrants convicted of serious criminal offenses—for example, murder, kidnapping, or rape (Barry 2009). Rather, they tend to be individuals who have committed minor transgressions such as speeding, driving without a license, and jaywalking. Also, in many cases, ICE programs ensnare immigrants who are never convicted of any crime but merely arrested or stopped by police officers. Importantly, interior immigration policing at the local level is taking place not just under the auspices of the federal government. Driven by the belief that federal authorities are not doing enough to secure the border and stop the flow of "illegal” immigrants, states and localities have independently taken it upon themselves to become involved in governing immigration. At the state level, Utah, Alabama, Georgia, and Arizona, to name only a few, have all recently passed tough immigration laws, while a number of other states have considered or are considering punitive legislation (Lacayo 2011). The best-known case is that of Arizona. On April 23, 2010, Governor Jan Brewer signed into law SB 1070, widely regarded as a highly punitive anti-immigrant measure (Sdenz, Menjivar, and Garcia, this volume; Cisneros 2012). This legislation requires police officers to determine a persons immigration status during the course of a “lawful stop, detention, or arrest” when there is “reasonable suspicion that the person is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States" (State of Arizona Senate 2010).ai Legal status is generally verified via a phone call to DHS authorities, and if a person is deemed deportable, the expectation is that he or she will be transferred to the custody of ICE or CBP. At the local level, since 2006, hundreds of cities and towns across the nation—from Escondido, California, and Farmers Branch, Texas, to Hazleton, Pennsylvania, and Prince William County, Virginia—have passed ordinances or strategically deployed existing laws to manage the presence of undocumented immigrants in their localities (Gilbert, this volume). Some of these ordinances are explicitly meant to regulate immigration. In Hazleton, for example, the city council approved a law to penalize landlords for renting to unauthorized residents and employers for hiring them. Other ordinances are used to police immigrants “through the back door” (Varsanyi 2008). These ordinances are not outwardly focused on immigration, but they are used tactically to constrain the life prospects and conduct of undocumented immigrants. In Escondido, for example, city officials have targeted Latino immigrants, who tend to live in poorer neighborhoods, through a crackdown on dilapidated homes, illegal garage conversions, graffiti, abandoned vehicles, and other violations of city regulations (Johnson 2009). And the local police department has set its sights on this population through traffic checkpoints designed to catch unlicensed drivers. Because undocumented immigrants are ineligible for driver’s licenses in California (as in many other states), they are disproportionately affected.

====ICE, through local and state police surveillance, wreaks havoc on the psychological state of immigrant populations, engaging in varying policies that dehumanize entire communities, in an attempt to control and securitize====

Inda et. al ’13 – Chair and Associate Professor of Latina/Latino Studies, Ph.D. in Anthropology from the University of California, Berkeley in 1997. His research areas include the politics of immigration, governmentality and life politics, the critical study of race and medicine, the anthropology of globalization, and Latino populations in the United States. Dr. Inda is currently Associate Professor of Latina/Latino Studies and Criticism and Interpretive Theory. (Jonathan Xavier Inda & Julie A. Dowling, “Governing Immigration through Crime”, pg. 20-21)

Shifting to the effects of interior policing, we find that workplace raids have also had a severely negative impact on immigrants and their communiti es. The most palpable impact of such raids has been their effect on the families, particularly the children, of the individuals who have been apprehended and deported. In 2007, the Urban Institute released a report titled Paying the Price: The Impact of Immigration Raids on America's Children (Capps et al. 2007). The report focused on the aftermath of large-scale ICE raids in three communities: Greeley, Colorado; Grand Island, Nebraska; and New Bedford, Massachusetts. Greeley and Grand Island were two sites hit as part of a larger raid on Swift & Company meat-processing facilities in six states (Colorado, Nebraska, Texas, Utah, Iowa, and Minnesota). New Bedford was the location of a raid on Michael Bianco, Inc., a textile product company. The authors detail how the children and families of apprehended immigrants, who were mainly Latinos, experienced significant hardship, "including difficulty coping with the economic and psychological stress caused by the arrest and the uncertainty of not knowing when or if the arrested parent would be released " (ibid., 3). Moreover, they note that hardship increased over time, as families' meager savings and funds from previous pay-checks were spent. Privately funded assistance generally lasted for two to three months, but many parents were detained for up to five or six months, and others were released but waited for several months for a final appearance before an immigration judge—during which time they could not work. Hardship also increased among extended families and nonfamily networks over time, as they took on more and more responsibility for taking care of children with arrested parents. //After the arrest or disappearance of their parents, children experienced feelings of abandonment and showed symptoms of emotional trauma, psychological duress, and mental health problems.// Many lacked stability in child care and supervision. Families continued hiding and feared arrest if they ventured outside, increasing social isolation over time. Immigrant communities faced the fear of future raids, backlash from nonimmigrants, and the stigma of being labeled "illegal." The combination of fear, isolation, and economic hardship induced mental health problems such as depression, separation anxiety disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, and suicidal thoughts. However, due to cultural reasons, fear of possible consequences in asking for assistance, and barriers to accessing services, few affected immigrants sought mental health care for themselves or their children. (ibid., 3-4) By removing a parent and breadwinner from the home, then, worksite operations have significant consequences for families and children. Not only does the removal of a breadwinner reduce a family's income and increase its material hardship, it also creates a rather unstable home environment. Moreover, the fear and stigma produced by a raid can lead to the social isolation of immigrant families and have an adverse psychological effect on children. Worksite raids have also helped to erode the rights of immigrant workers. In a number of cases, ICE has conducted raids on workplacesthat were in the middle of labor disputesor being investigated by other government agencies (such as the Department of Labor ) for violation of workers’ rights (Smith, Avendano, and Martinez Ortega 2009). The Postville raid is particularly illustrative here. When the raid at Agriprocessors took place, at least three state and federal labor agencies were investigating the meatpacking plant for longstanding safety and workplace violations. Moreover, since 2006, the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) International Union had been waging a campaign to organize workers at the plant. ICE was very well aware of this situation. On May 2,2008, a week before the raid, the UFCW had sent a letter to the ICE special agent in charge of carrying out operations in Iowa, saying that the union was in the middle of an organizing campaign, that various local and federal labor agencies were investigating the plant , and that any immigration enforcement action would have a detrimental impact on labor rights. In the past, unions had achieved positive results with such letters, which alerted immigration officials to ongoing organizing efforts so that they would not interfere and undermine the enforcement of labor standards. The practice of sending letters was based on an internal ICE policy (put in place in 1996 by the INS) that cautioned agents about getting involved in labor disputes. The policy, initially known as Operating Instruction 287.3(a) and now redesignated 33.14(h) of the Special Agent Field Manual, specifies that when information is received concerning the employment of undocumented or unauthorized aliens, consideration should be given to whether the information is being provided to interfere with the rights of employees to form, join or assist labor organizations or to exercise their rights not to do so; to be paid minimum wages and overtime; to have safe work places; to receive compensation for work related injuries; to be free from discrimination based on race, gender, age, national origin, religion, handicap; or to retaliate against employees for seeking to vindicate these rights. (US INS 1996) In the case of Agriprocessors, ICE appears to have completely disregarded the policy, arresting hundreds of undocumented workers and in effect underminingthe UFCW’s organizing campaign. It also appears that ICE carried out the raid without consulting the various agencies investigating safety and other violations at the plant, thus undermining their work as well (Smith, Avendano, and Martinez Ortega 2009). Although workplace raids have had a significant impact on immigrant populations, ICE 's ACCESS programs have undoubtedly had an even more profound effect. This is partly a matter of sheer numbers: more deportations have resulted from initiatives such as 287(g) than from raids.28 Just as important, however, is that ICE ACCESS programs have generally helped to disrupt the everyday lives of immigrants and produce a heightened sense of insecurity. As we have indicated, ICE's law enforcement partners are supposed to target dangerous "criminal aliens," but most immigrants who get caught are actually low-level offenders or people who simply crossed paths with local police. Clearly, what is happening, at least in some locations, is that police officers are engaging in the heavy racial profiling of Latinos, making pretextual stops and arrests of people believed to be immigrants just so that their information (such as fingerprints) can be checked against DHS databases29 In Irving, Texas, for example, the number of Latinos arrested for minor offenses' increased two fold following the expansion of the CAP program (Gardner II and Kohli 2009). A typical police tactic is to set up sobriety checkpoints or other traffic operations in or near immigrant neighborhoods. Once caught in these traps, immigrants without authorization to be in the United States are routinely arrested, often for driving without a license. More generally, it has become common for police to pull over "immigrant-appearing" drivers for no obvious reasonor for minor traffic violations such as cracked windshields, broken taillights, improperly tinted windows, and so forth. Not surprisingly, this targeted policing has produced a deep distrust of local police authorities among Latinos in communities where ICE ACCESS programs operate. The distrust is such that Latinos, particularly those without documents, are scared to have any kind of interaction with local police for fear that they will be punished or end up in deportation proceedings. In fact, it appears that some immigrants have been prompted to change their behavior patterns in order to dodge contact with police officers or other authorities. Studies have reported that immigrants are, for example, failing to report crimes against them, visiting local businesses with less frequency, curtailing interaction with schools and other institutions, altering their driving habits, venturing into public spaces less often, and in some cases leaving particular communities altogether (Capps et al. 2011, 43). //ICE ACCESS programs//, then, //have basically hampered the ability of immigrants to go about their daily lives, making them afraid to go out in public and have contact with any kind of authorities or institutions// , and forcing some to look for a better life in more welcoming communities Altogether, there is no doubt that the effect of current immigration policing practices has generally been to //unsettle immigrant communities// in the United States, Latinos in particular. A survey conducted by the Pew Hispanic Center in 2008 paints a rather grim picture of the psychological state of U.S. Latinos — legal residents, citizens, and undocumented immigrants alike (Lopez and Minushkin 2008). Latinos generally reported feeling anxious and discriminated against amid //public immigrant bashing// and //enhanced immigration enforcement//. Among the survey’s general findings were the following: within the year prior to the taking of the survey, one in ten Latinos, both citizens and noncitizens, reported being stopped by the police or other authorities and asked about their immigration status ; one in seven said they had trouble finding or keeping a job because they are Latino ; and one in ten reported difficulties finding or keeping housing. Significantly, the survey also found that a majority of Latinos worry about deport ation. Approximately 40 percent reported being worried “a lot” that they, a family member, or a close friend would be deported, while 17 percent said they worried “some.” Not surprisingly, immigrants are particularly concerned about deportation, with 72 percent reporting being worried either “a lot” or “some.” In effect, then, the immigration enforcement climate has helped to create a sense of unease among Latinos , immigrants in particular. It has helped to produce an increased feeling of insecurity. Ultimately, it is clear that the governing of migrant illegality today //is not just about deterren// ce. It is also about incapacitation and attrition (Gilbert, this volume). Indeed, the creation of insecurity among immigrants — by depriving them of the ability to participate meaningfully in quotidian life — appears to be a willful production designed to isolate this population from society and //render them utterly powerless// .30 It is a tactic that seeks to incapacitate immigrants, Latinos in particular, in order to wear down their will to work and live in the U nited S tates. Immigration policing, particularly in the interio r, thus amounts to what has been called a policy of “ attrition through enforcement ” (Krikorian 2006). The goal is not so much to actually expel all unauthorized immigrants as it is to “ persuade ” a large share of this population to self-deport .3lAs Mark Krikorian, executive director of the antiimmigrant Center for Immigration Studies, puts it , //the idea is to “prevent illegals from being able to embed themselves in our society//. That would involve denying them access to jobs, identification, housing, and in general making it as difficult as possible for an illegal im-migrant to live a normal life here, so as to persuade a large number of them to give up and self-deport” (ibid.). Attrition through enforcement is not an official government policy, but it does appear to be the de facto way that undocumented immigration is being governed (Doty 2009). Current immigration policing practices are undoubtedly making it more difficult for undocumented immigrants to live normal lives. Such practices serve to //dehumanize immigrants//, undermine workers’ rights, break families apart, and generally //deny immigrants human dignity// and peace of mind.

====Even if ICE raids have reduced, PEP has ushered in a new era of immigration—local police tip off ICE officials who detain and even __deport__ immigrants—that sows distrust between communities and local law enforcement====


 * Foster 7/19/15** is a leading immigration law firm delivering the full spectrum of U.S. and global immigration solutions (“L.A. County considers new immigration program for jails in light of S.F. slaying”, http://www.lexology.com/library/document.ashx?g=2b5d4bd3-e954-4180-a520-d35b3e0783d7)//AN

At a community meeting in Duarte hosted by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department last week, one name surfaced often. “I’m here because of Kate Steinle’s death and because I care about illegal aliens being cut loose and let out on the streets,” Orange resident Mike McGetrick told a panel of sheriff’s officials who are pondering a shift in policy at the county’s jails. “When is the next American citizen going to be murdered?” When a five-time deportee with a history of drug-related felonies was charged in the fatal shooting of 32-year-old Kathryn Steinle on a San Francisco pier this month, a debate that had been simmering for years again roared into the national spotlight: Just __how much should local law enforcement cooperate with federal immigration__ authorities //?// Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, who has pleaded not guilty to murder, was released from a San Francisco County jail in April despite a request from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement that he be detained so that agents from a nearby field office could pick him up. Before Steinle’s death, the __debate over which inmates local jails should hand over for deportation was largely the realm of policy wonks__ and activists. But __the killing has pushed the issue into the national spotlight —__ Republican presidential candidate Donald __Trump has seized on it to call for stricter immigration enforcement__ — and has focused attention //on a new ICE program// that officials had been struggling to win support for. In Los Angeles and across the country, __local authorities are deciding to what degree they should participate in__ ICE’s new //P// riority //E// nforcement //P// rogram. Under the program, __ICE asks jails to notify federal agents when inmates flagged for potential deportation are being released__, __and__ in some cases __asks jails to hold such inmates so federal agents can pick them up__. Top Homeland Security officials had for months been promoting the new program, which began July 2, but had gained little traction. Since Steinle’s death, however, the new program has won unexpected support. U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who as mayor of San Francisco in the 1980s supported city policies protecting immigrants who were in the country illegally from discrimination by the city, has called on San Francisco to cooperate with the ICE requests. The __new program replaces ICE’s //S//__ ecure //Comm// unities initiative, which was scrapped in November by Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, who said that program’s “very name has become a symbol for general hostility toward the enforcement of our immigration laws.” Under Secure Communities, federal agents routinely requested that jails hold inmates beyond their release dates so ICE could pick them up. Immigrant advocates complained that __the practice eroded community trust in police__ and said __thousands__ of people __with no__ or only minor __criminal convictions were deported__ as a result. Last year, after a federal court deemed such holds unconstitutional, hundreds of jurisdictions nationwide stopped complying with ICE requests, including most counties in California. Since the beginning of 2014, according to ICE, cities and counties nationwide ignored 17,000 requests that they detain inmates. The new program does away with most requests that local jails hold people until federal agents can pick them up, opting more often for requests for notification, ICE officials say. Last week Johnson told a congressional panel that nearly __three dozen of the nation’s largest counties “have indicated a willingness to participate__ one way or another” __in the PEP program__. Five have said they won’t cooperate, and 11 are still deciding, Johnson said. In California, Los Angeles, Orange and Alameda __counties are__ among __those cooperating__ on some level __with the new ICE program__, county officials said. San Francisco has refused. Alameda County Sheriff Gregory J. Ahern said he would comply with ICE’s requests for notification but added that his department will “not hold anyone in our custody a minute past their release date or time” without a judicial warrant or order. ICE officials say the legal system has no mechanism for issuing such orders in routine deportation cases. At the hearing, Johnson faced heavy criticism from Republicans, who asked why ICE hasn’t required local agencies to comply with all aspects of the new program. “I do not believe that we should mandate the cooperation of state and local law enforcement officials,” Johnson said. “I believe that the most effective way to work with jurisdictions, particularly the larger ones, is through a cooperative effort with a program that removes the legal and political controversy.” Somebody sitting in Washington doesn’t know the details of how to do policing in San Jose or San Francisco or Chicago. - Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-San Jose) Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-San Jose) welcomed Johnson’s approach, which she called more “respectful to local communities” than previous ICE jails programs. While Secure Communities was at times presented as a mandatory program that local officials had to comply with, the new program acknowledges that local jurisdictions may craft their own policies about what types of criminal convictions would warrant notification, she said. “Somebody sitting in Washington doesn’t know the details of how to do policing in San Jose or San Francisco or Chicago,” she said. __For some local officials, giving ICE agents so much as a heads up on release — even for those previously convicted of violent felonies and facing new charges of violence — is //unacceptable// //without a warrant//.__ “The __idea of notifying undermines the interest of limiting compliance with ICE__ ,” said San Francisco Supervisor John Avalos. He is at odds with San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee, who told the Board of Supervisors last week that he believes __the city should notify federal agents of pending releases “for serious, violent__ or repeat __felons__, including those who have previously been deported on multiple occasions.” Many __immigrant advocates oppose the new program__ , __which__ they say continues to //blur the line between local police work and federal immigration enforcement and sows mistrust among potential crime victims and witnesses//. Chris Newman, legal director of the Los Angeles-based National Day Laborer Organizing Network, said __the “original sin” of both ICE programs__ “ __is they convert local__ criminal __law__ enforcement agencies __into civil immigration authorities____at the point of arrest__ .” “Local __police__ and //sheriffs have to pick winners and losers// in the application of unjust immigration law,” Newman said. In Los Angeles, county supervisors recently voted to instruct Sheriff Jim McDonnell to cooperate with the Priority Enforcement Program. But they also asked him to hold community meetings to map out exactly how to do so. Sheriff’s deputies almost outnumbered members of the public at the meeting in Duarte on Wednesday, where officials solicited public comment about what circumstances would call for the county to honor ICE requests for notifications. The deputies were there to keep the peace after a previous meeting devolved into a shouting match. About halfway through this forum, pro-immigrant protesters left to hold a demonstration outside, where they waved signs and chanted “no papers, no fear, immigrants are standing here.” They then walked into a busy intersection nearby and refused to budge. Marcela __Hernandez__, 25, an immigrant brought to the country illegally as a child, __said she believes the Sheriff’s Department should have no contact at all with federal officials__. __Her uncle__, she said, was deported after being jailed on minor drug charges. “He __hasn’t seen his U.S.-citizen children for five years__ ,” Hernandez said. “ //We should help people rehabilitate instead of deporting them// .”

====Those accepted by the state are deemed “normal citizens”, who are encouraged to take on a role of an undercover immigration agent in their everyday lives, solidifying the link between “different” and “illegal immigrant”—this creates a forceful divide between them and the Other====

Cisneros ’14 – Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication and affiliate faculty in the Department of Latina/Latino Studies and the Center for Writing Studies. His research focuses on the ways in which social and political identities are rhetorically constructed and contested in the public sphere. He specializes in issues of citizenship, race/ethnicity, Latin@ identity, and immigration. (Josue David Cisneros, “The Border Crossed Us: Rhetorics of Borders, Citizenship, and Latina/o Identity”, University of Alabama Press, http://muse.jhu.edu.proxy.lib.umich.edu/books/9780817387235/9780817387235-10.pdf)//cl

In addition to heightened surveillance of suspected undocumented immigrants, Beyond Borders? SB 1070 also created controversy through a “citizen suit” provision. This measure authorized any “legal resident” of Arizona to bring a civil suit against a government agent who failed to enforce immigration laws to their strictest extent (See Senate Bill 1070, §2[G]). SB 1070, therefore, //authorized residents themselves to become immigration agents implicated in the surveillance of suspected immigrants and the enforcement of the border//. If Arizona residents believed that police or other state officials failed to adequately scrutinize and prosecute suspected immigrants, the //legislation provided avenues for citizens to compel enforcement//. In effect, //citizens were encouraged to do their civic duty by helping to ferret out “illegal immigrants,” or at the very least to surveil the government in its acts of surveillance//. Because the legislation included measures for citizen enforcement of immigration laws, it implicated all residents in the practice of securing the border, converting border vigilantism into a mode of civic engagement, of doing one’s citizenly duty. The justification for the legislation went something like this. In the persistent absence of federal attention to the “problem” of immigration, state governments such as Arizona were forced to take action to secure their own borders. Governor Brewer emphasized this point during the signing ceremony for the legislation, stating, “We in Arizona have been more than patient waiting for Washington to act. But decades of federal inaction and misguided policy have created a dangerous and unacceptable situation.” Brewer’s stated desperation in the face of danger represented a broader sentiment of border anxiety. SB 1070 quickly became a rallying point for proponents of nativist immigration policy as well as a lightning rod for pro-immigrant activists. As a result, SB 1070 became one of the first and certainly the most publicized piece of a whole patchwork of state and local anti-immigrant measures to pass in 2010 //that aimed to address immigration and border security// in the absence of federal involvement. These anti-immigrant measures have since spread throughout the country and now //include unprecedented levels of deportations and detentions//, provisions //preventing the aiding of undocumented immigrants, and efforts to block access to work, housing, or public schools//.

These ICE programs act as a form of ‘racial governance’ used to manipulate populations that pose a risk to mainstream society
Inda et. al ’13 – Chair and Associate Professor of Latina/Latino Studies, Ph.D. in Anthropology from the University of California, Berkeley in 1997. His research areas include the politics of immigration, governmentality and life politics, the critical study of race and medicine, the anthropology of globalization, and Latino populations in the United States. Dr. Inda is currently Associate Professor of Latina/Latino Studies and Criticism and Interpretive Theory. (Jonathan Xavier Inda & Julie A. Dowling, “Governing Immigration through Crime”, pg. 21-22, TS)

Crucially, the heavy policing of migrant illegality has had a profound and highly negative impact on immigrants and their communities, with Latinos bearing the major brunt. In many ways, immigration enforcement functions as a form of racial governanc e , that is, as a mechanism for managing the conduct of somatically different , and putatively “unruly,” populations (see Hing 2009; Provine and Doty 2011). Indeed, it is quiet evident that the targets of immigration policing are not just any bodies, but physically and culturally distinct ones. It is thus racializcd migrants, Latinos in particular, who disproportionately suffer the consequences of immigration policin g. We can illustrate the impact of immigration enforcement as a form of racial governance usin g as examples the blockading of the U.S.-Mexico border, workplace raids, and local police involvement in immigration matters.

A form of that governance is through federal fingerprint scanning, which ICE uses to increase immigrant detainment.
Ramos 12 (Katarina Ramos- DePaul University - "LATCRIT XVI SYMPOSIUM - GLOBAL JUSTICE: THEORIES, HISTORIES, FUTURES: Immigration, Crime, and Neo-Segregation: Criminalizing Race in the Name of Secure Communities" California Western Law Review. Spring 2012. 48 Cal. W. L. Rev. 317.)//lb

The Secure Communities program (Secure Communities) was introduced by DHS as a less divisive method of involving local law enforcement in enforcing immigration statutes. n3 The program was introduced as a milder alternative to the Immigration and Nationality Act section 287(g) Memorandum of Agreement, n4 which allows local law enforcement officers to request immigration status during a mere traffic stop. n5 Secure Communities is designed as a modification of the basic fingerprinting system. n6 Previously, law enforcement checked only an arrestee's prior criminal history. Under Secure Communities, an arrestee's fingerprints are run, not just through the FBI system to find previous arrests, but also through the DHS Immigration system , to search for any outstanding immigration violations. If the FBI database has a hit of a Level 1 felony and there is also a hit in the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) database, an ICE detainer is automatically issued; anything lower than a Level 1 offense is left to the discretion of the local ICE agency office. n7 This program was sold to communities as preferable to a 287(g) memorandum because it would remove violent criminals, stop non-violent criminals from being put into removal proceedings, and place less discretion and responsibility in the hands of local law enforcement officers. n8 ICE has claimed that this program is a victory for DHS and its community partners against violent, undocumented [*320] criminal migrants. n9 ICE lists the high numbers of "criminal aliens" it has deported since the program was enacted as evidence of its success. n10 In the case of our driver, however, mere entry into the United States without permission is considered a removable offense. In fact, he is not deportable, because under immigration law, he never was admitted to this country. Under a neat piece of legal fiction, even though he has been physically present in this country for years he is considered "inadmissible" because he was not inspected by border patrol agents. The number of removals of people without a violent criminal history is almost double that of the Level 1 felons that are eligible for automatic removal under Secure Communities. n11 In states and counties in Illinois that have been traditionally white, the number of removals of non-criminal immigrants is high. n12 Under the new system, //officers are encouraged to target minorities//, particularly Hispanics. They know that the potential number of arrests is greater in the Latino population, particularly the undocumented portion. Furthermore, any arrest is enough to bring an undocumented person to the attention of ICE. While the arrestable activity may be a misdemeanor or even a ticketable offense, once ICE finds an undocumented person, their very presence makes them removable. n13 [*321] While Secure Communities removes the discretion to ask someone for their papers, a minor arrest is now sufficient to be placed in removal proceedings, even when criminal charges are dropped. Local law enforcement officials still have the discretion to choose who to arrest and run through the Automatic Biometric Identification System ( IDENT ). n14 Until recently, local officers were not given any training before beginning the program, which creates obvious problems. n15 Although the program was enacted in 2009, ICE did not propose training for local law enforcement in racial profiling until June 2011, after outside organizations began to draw attention to this issue. n16 As of March 29, 2012, "Avoiding Racial and Ethnic Profiling" is a topic under development. n17 Furthermore, //ICE's own enactment policies show a discriminatory bias against immigrants of Hispanic origin////. // The less than subtle racial overtones of Secure Communities demonstrate the problem of racial profiling in the national security debate. Although Secure Communities has been touted as an immigration enforcement plan that targets "criminal aliens," and as an answer to the racial profiling tendencies witnessed in enforcement of 287(g) traffic stops, the program is still inherently flawed in its dependence on racial profiling because the plan does not have sufficient safeguards. Many of these racial problems appear to be a response to the changing demographics in areas where the program has been introduced. These problems raise questions regarding what training is necessary before the country delegates enforcement of a federal immigration law to local law enforcement, and whether it is ever acceptable to base security decisions on race. [*322] This Essay will map out the basics of Secure Communities, and the racial profiling that is inherent to the program. Part II begins with a brief summary of Secure Communities. Part III examines the definitions of criminality used by ICE in drafting Secure Communities. Part IV addresses problems facing the program, includ ing lack of sufficient training for local law enforcement and the use of racial profiling to classify immigrants as criminals: starting with the phrase "illegal," and finishing with a discussion of the inherent trap in combining immigration and criminal legislation. Part V discusses demographic changes in some of the Illinois counties that have enacted the program, and how this leads to accepting a program that allows racial profiling. Part VI discusses the disturbing trend of aggression that ICE has shown in enforcing Secure Communities. The Essay concludes with a very brief discussion of Illinois's current attempts to withdraw from Secure Communities - the ideal solution for the problems in this inherently, racially flawed program.

That institutionalizes racism against immigrant populations
Hing 09’ (Bill Ong [University of San Francisco-School of Law] http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=331631)

This Article contends that the evolution of immigration laws and the manner in which **__immigration laws__** **__operate have institutionalized bias against Latino immigrants—Mexicans in particula__** r—and Asian immigrants. This has occurred through **__laws__** that initially **__manifested racist intent and__****__/or impact__**, **__amendments that perpetuated that racism__** , and enforcement strategies and legal interpretations reinforcing the racism. **__Racism has been institutionalized in our immigration laws and enforcement policies__**. **__Kwame Ture__** (a.k.a. Stokely Carmichael) **__coined the phrase “institutional racism”__** in the 1960s. He recognized it was important to distinguish personal bias from institutional bias, which is generally long-term and grounded more in inertia than in intent. Institutional racism has come to describe societal patterns that impose oppressive or otherwise negative conditions against identifiable groups on the basis of race or ethnicity. In the United States, institutional racism resulted from the social caste system of slavery and racial segregation. Much of its basic structure still stands to this day. **__By understanding the fundamental principles of institutionalized racism we begin to see the application of the concept beyond the conventional black-white paradigm. Institutional racism embodies discriminating against certain groups of people through the use of biased laws or practices__**. Structures and social arrangements become accepted, operate, and are manipulated in such a way as to support or acquiesce in acts of racism. **__Institutional racism can be subtle__** **__and less visible__**, but is no less destructive than individual acts of racism. Charles Lawrence’s discussion of unconscious racism also is relevant. Lawrence teaches us that the source of much racism lies in the unconscious mind. Individuals raised in a racist culture unknowingly absorb attitudes and stereotypes that influence behavior in subtle, but pernicious ways. “ **__Unconscious prejudice. . . is not subject to self-correction within the political process.__** ”70The forces of racism have become embodied in U.S. immigration laws.71 **__As these laws are enforced, they are accepted as__****__common practice, in spite of their racial effects__****__.__** We may not like particular laws or enforcement policies because of their harshness or their violations of human dignity or civil rights, but many of us do not sense the inherent racism because we are not cognizant of the dominant racial framework. Understanding the evolution of U.S. immigration laws and enforcement provides us with a better0 awareness of the institutional racism that controls those policies. This Part focuses on the evolution of immigration laws and enforcement policies. The history begins with slavery. Forced African labor migration set the stage for the Mexicans and the Chinese. This Part reviews the history of Mexican migration, the enforcement of the southwest border, and the sea change to enforcement through employer sanctions enacted in 1986.

The ICE is the epitome of institutionalized racism—only solution is to end it

 * Hing 2009** - Professor of Law, University of California, Davis.(Bill Ong, “Institutional Racism, ICE Raids, and Immigration Reform”, http://lawblog.usfca.edu/lawreview/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/5-SAN-44-2-Hing.pdf)//AN

The construction of the __U.S. immigration policy__ and enforcement regime __has resulted in a framework that victimizes Latin__ and Asian __immigrants__. These __immigrants of color end up being the subject of ICE raids__. They are the ones who comprise the immigration visa backlogs. They are the ones that attempt to traverse the hostile southwest border. Their //victimization has been institutionalized//. Any complaint about immigrants, fiscal or social, can be voiced in non-racial, rule-of-law terms because the institution has masked the racialization with laws and operations that are couched in nonracial terms. Anti-immigrant pundits are shielded from charges of racism by labeling their targets “law breakers” or “unassimilable.” __Deportation, detention, and exclusion at the border can be declared race-neutral by the DHS because the system has already been molded by decades of racialized refinement__. Officials are simply “enforcing the laws.” __Like white privilege, institutionalized racism____generally goes unrecognized by those who are not negatively impacted__ .146We should know better. The cards are stacked against immigrants of color. The immigration law and enforcement traps are set through a militarized border and an anachronistic visa system. It is no surprise that Latin and Asian immigrants are the victims of those traps. __They have been set up by__ the vestiges of __blatantly racist Asian exclusion laws__, a border history of labor recruitment like the Bracero Program, __Supreme Court deference to enforcement__ , __and border militarization__ that laid the groundwork for current laws and enforcement policies. Many in the immigrant rights movement argue that __the appalling effects of ICE raids__, deaths at the border that __result__ from its militarization , horrible backlogs in family immigration categories, immigration detention conditions, and the lack of second chance opportunities for longtime, lawful permanent residents convicted of aggravated felonies are sufficient bases for overhauling immigration laws and enforcement policies. __If we are indeed a nation of__ immigrants, __fairness__, and family values, then without a doubt, __we need a fairer border policy and more open immigration__. Other critics of the Bush ICE raids focus on employers or process as the solution. One standard demand that has been made by Beltway experts is to focus more on employers rather than on employees when it comes to enforcement. Another tactic is that advanced by Senator John Kerry who asked that ICE raids be conducted in a more humane manner. __I am not sure that these positions will get us much satisfaction__. Senator //Kerry’s proposal would essentially result in kinder, gentler raids, but raids nonetheless//. And the focus-on-employer __enforcement position still results in the removal of undocumented workers__. For example, while Homeland Security Secretary Janet __Napolitano has directed federal agents to focus more on arresting and prosecuting employers than undocumented workers__, she also made it clear that there will be no halt to arrests of undocumented workers the investigations uncover.147 __As long as we remain mired in the belief that we need to prevent undocumented workers from working__ in the country through an employer sanctions system, __workers will continue to get deported, families will be separated, and communities will suffer damage__. The seemingly neutral logic that flows from an institutionally racist immigration system need not carry the day. __We should not be left to object to ICE raids__, border enforcement, and even criminal alien enforcement solely on non-racial terms. __Understanding these operations from an institutionalized racial perspective provides another basis for arguing that our system of immigration__ laws and enforcement policies __must be overhauled__ in order to address the menacing vestiges of racism within that system.

====Dominant narratives of the “migrant” have excluded undocumented immigrants from //health care access//- the violence that people have experienced is __unspeakable__—people can’t get help because of fear of deportation====


 * Clark 2008** - Professor of Law, Loyola Law School, Los Angeles; (Brietta, “The Immigrant Health Care Narrative and What It Tells Us about the U.S. Health Care System”, http://lawecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1126&context=annals)//AN

In San Diego, California, __a hospital used the private company Nextcare to "transfer" undocumented immigrants to a clinic in Mexico__ after providing stabilizing emergency care.1 A Los Angeles Times ("L.A. Times") __article recounted one patient's experience__ : the __patient was brought to the emergency room because he had been in a car accident.2 He required a rod for his shattered right leg and his broken jaw had to be wired shut__ .3 Unfortunately, the __patient was transferred to the Mexican clinic before the wires were taken off, and due to poor communication and follow-up, //his gums became infected and grew over the wires in his mouth//.__ 4 __He__ subsequently __suffered severe pain and hunger__ .5 Physicians and immigrants' rights groups have criticized this as a "de facto deportation" but hospital and Nextcare officials have insisted the "transfers are voluntary, the result of an unpressured discussion between Nextcare officials and the patient." 6 According to the patient, however, he had agreed to move primarily because he was hungry and had been promised that he could get his braces removed in Tijuana so he could resume eating solid food.7 As of November 2003, __Nextcare had contracted with five U.S. hospitals to remove at least fifty uninsured__, allegedly unauthorized, __immigrant patients__ to Mexico for follow-up care. 8 The method of how hospital officials determined the patients' immigration status is not clear from the L.A. Times article, given that hospital policy prohibits the officials from asking an individual about his or her citizenship status when coming to the emergency room for treatment. 9 It is also unclear whether the hospital correctly identified each patient's status as illegal, whether Mexico was in fact each patient's country of origin, why the patients agreed to the transfer, whether the transfer was truly voluntary, or how the transfer affected the patients' quality of care.10 A variety of other less extreme, but still effective, __methods are being used by hospitals to discourage__ uninsured and __undocumented immigrant patients in the //U//__ nited //S// tates __from seeking care__, especially in states along the Mexican border. For example, //one hospital in Texas had its own security personnel wear uniforms that resembled border patrol.// " Another Texas hospital questioned suspected immigrants about their status and asked for their papers when they arrived at the hospital, sending a clear "message that illegal immigrants are not welcome."' 2 Finally, a number of __hospitals__ in the border states and in New York //have been cited for failing to provide appropriate care, including epidurals, for non-English speaking pregnant women.// 13 Most recently, as immigration enforcement has increased and the number of detainees has risen, another healthcare __problem has emerged__ overcrowding __in detention centers__ and denial of medically necessary care.' 4 In fact, __this problem has drawn__ considerable __attention, with sixty-two people dying in custody__ since 2004 from lack of medical treatment, //among them people with AIDS, high blood pressure, and kidney disease, who died because they did not receive medication//. 15 Denial of medically necessary care for undocumented immigrants is not simply due to the isolated acts of hospital or detention center officials. Restricting health care access for immigrants is a touchstone of immigration-related and welfare reform initiatives enacted at the state and federal levels. Immigrant health care access is often part of a broader package of "immigration-related" initiatives designed either to limit immigrants' access to public services generally or to use public service agencies as de facto immigration agents to collect and report data relating to status. Since 1996, federal law has severely circumscribed public healthcare benefits for immigrants in the United States illegally, legally, and for those of uncertain status. 16 There has also been a resurgence of immigration-related initiatives at the state level over the last few years, with many states considering bills to further restrict immigrants' access to state and local public services, including health care. 17 Increasingly, __attention is being paid to the significant harmful effects on immigrants as well as the deleterious public health effects of these immigration-related benefit restrictions__. This __article examines__ the political, legal, and popular //discourse// in favor of and __against healthcare benefit restrictions__ for immigrants in order to focus on a different aspect of this problem. Through this discourse, narratives are created of immigrants' character and relationship to the rest of society. These //narratives influence our perception of immigrants// __and their effect on society, and this perception, in turn, seems to influence the policies enacted to regulate immigrants__ and immigration. These narratives have been constructed predominantly by those advocating for increased immigration control and benefit restrictions designed to make life in the United States for unauthorized immigrants less tolerable. __Arguments favoring benefit restrictions reflect the narrative of an //"Us-Them" dichotomy// in which immigrants are labeled as criminals and welfare-abusers who jeopardize the health care of law-abiding citizens__. Advocates for expanded health care access try to undermine this dominant narrative and offer a different one that portrays a more positive and complex relationship between immigrants, the health care system, and society generally. For example, those challenging benefit restrictions paint a very different picture of immigrants as self-sufficient, generally lawabiding, especially vulnerable to discrimination, and fearful of using public benefits. Immigrant rights groups and legal scholars also argue that many immigrant benefit restrictions are unduly harsh, racist,' 8 and irrational because they undermine public health goals. 19 __It is important to examine this discourse and determine the true impact of the immigrant health care narratives on policymaking__. __Narratives can influence popular opinion and grassroots coalitions that can__ either facilitate or hinder //public advocacy// for expanded access. They also help create or undermine the political will exerted on policy makers. But can pro-access advocates reconstruct the immigrant health narrative in a way that leads to greater health care access for immigrants? To the extent that pro-access groups hope to influence policy making through these reconstructed narratives, they should recognize two very important challenges they face. First, __they should be mindful of whether the narrative they create supports their policy goals.____If their discourse unintentionally reinforces parts of the dominant narrative used to fuel anti-immigrant initiatives, then //they are undermining their own goals//__. Unfortunately, to some extent the pro-access narrative unintentionally encourages a view of immigrants as potentially dangerous and as outsiders. Moreover, to the extent that the pro-access narrative labels supporters of benefit restrictions as antiimmigrant or racist, this can facilitate public divisiveness among groups that might otherwise have common interests in reforming the health care system in ways that benefit both groups. Such characterizations may have the perverse effect of strengthening demand for anti-immigrant measures, which some political officials will support (or at least not aggressively oppose), even if irrational or harmful to citizens. Second, any attempt by pro-access advocates to use the immigrant narrative to influence policy will be constrained by the structural defects and linedrawing inherent in our existing healthcare framework. Apart from any consideration of immigration status, __our health care system is largely based on an "Us-Them" paradigm in which access is not guaranteed for all, requests for coverage are automatically viewed with suspicion, and decisions about which groups in society should have access to health care are based on an amorphous analysis //of who is most "deserving//__ ." Moreover __, immigrants suffer discrimination along__ a number of axes, including race or ethnicity, __socioeconomic status, and__, in many cases, //gender//. Thus, discourse that successfully changes the immigrant narrative or increases public consciousness about their unique concerns will not necessarily garner public support for eliminating immigrant-specific barriers or ensure immigrants' access to care. Immigrants will still be left to compete with others for access to a health care system that perpetually pits one group against another. Considering our health system from the perspective of immigrants who are excluded because of immigration-specific barriers is still useful for a number of reasons. It shows how gaps in our current healthcare system have particularly harsh effects on those marginalized in society due to immigration status. It highlights the inherent, structural defects in our health system and shows how fighting for more rights for immigrants within an inherently inequitable system will only produce a limited benefit for some. Finally __, it suggests that more creative approaches should be explored to enhance coalition building and effect fundamental health care reform__ that will improve health care access for everyone, including immigrants.

Status quo immigrants live in fear of local law enforcement
Gascon 13 (George Gascon is the District Attorney in San Francisco, “Why cops should back immigration reform,” 6/19/13, Date Accessed: 7/7/15, [], SZ)

When immigrants -- unauthorized or authorized - feel isolated from the protection of law enforcement, the entire community suffers. I saw this evidenced during my tenure as police chief in Mesa, Arizona, where local Sheriff Joe Arpaio's reign of terror over the Latino community led to increased crime rates in his county. Arpaio blamed most crimes in Maricopa Country on undocumented immigrants and made racial profiling a common practice. He frequently detained people who "looked Latino" until they could prove their status in the country. In direct contrast to this approach, I worked side by side with community groups and civil rights organizations to foster a sense of trust between the Latino community and the Mesa Police Department. The effects of a broken immigration system were a constant thread in the stories of Latino mothers, fathers and workers who refused to report crime for fear of being detained or deported. In Mesa, we lowered crime by some 30%, according to FBI data -- a result of the trust our police department created with all communities, and not because of immigration enforcement. Law enforcement should focus on community safety, not enforcing immigration laws. That is not just my opinion, but that of the U.S. Supreme Court , which ruled against Arizona's SB1070, and of many police officers and law enforcement officials around the country. When undocumented immigrants live in the shadows, they become wary of law enforcement, crimes go unreported, perpetrators remain on the loose, and the safety of our communities is affected. Anti-immigrant forces have long scapegoated undocumented immigrants as the reason for higher crime rates and the need for greater border security. We in law enforcement must come together and inform our senators that immigrants are a valuable part of our communities. Research shows that areas with a high immigrant population often have much lower rates of crime than similar areas without high immigrant representation. Our borders are also more secure than they have ever been, with the United States already spending more than $17 billion annually on immigration and border enforcement.

Local enforcement of ICE immigration law drives racial profiling, undermines trust of police, and overstretches police resources
Barry 9 (Tom Barry is an American political analyst. As of 2007 he is Senior Policy Analyst and Americas Policy Program Fellow at the advocacy group Center for International Policy (CIP). Barry began his career as a political activist and analyst at Georgetown University in the late 1960s. "Immigrant Crackdown Joins Failed Crime and Drug Wars." International Policy Report. April 2009. CIP's Americas Program.)//lb

Like its other criminal alien programs, ICE claims that through the 287(g) program it aims to protect against threats to the community. In its description of the 287(g) program, ICE says the local law enforcement officials should be cross-designated as immigration agents because "during the course of daily duties, they will often encounter foreign-born criminals and immigration violators who pose a threat to national security or public safety." The program gives local police the "necessary resources and latitude to pursue investigations related to violent crimes, human smuggling, gang/organized crime activity, sexual-related offenses, narcotics smuggling, and money laundering ." //The 287(g) program has led to widespread concerns about racial profiling, reduced community trust, inadequate prioritization of dangerous criminals, and misplaced law enforcement resources.// A study of the operation of the program in North Carolina found that it has been used to "purge towns and cities of 'unwelcome' immigrants ." The Policies and Politics of Local Immigration Enforcement report noted: " Instead of focusing on those people who commit the violent crimes as stated by ICE, local law enforcement officers seem to be targeting drivers of a particular race or national origin and stopping them for traffic violations . For example, during the month of May 2008, 83% of the immigrants arrested by Gaston County ICE-authorized officers pursuant to the 287(g) program were charged with traffic violations. This pattern has continued as the program has been implemented throughout the state. The arrest data appears to indicate that Mecklenburg and Alamance Counties are typical in the targeting of Hispanics for traffic offenses for the purposes of a deportation policy." These problems were also highlighted in a January 2009 report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) titled Immigration Enforcement: Better Controls Needed over Program Authorizing State and Local Enforcement of Federal Immigration Laws. The GAO report discovered that despite ICE's claims that the program would target dangerous criminal aliens, the agency did nothing to ensure that the police and sheriff deputies it cross-designated prioritized immigrants who were suspected of "posing a threat to national security or public safety ." GAO concluded: "While ICE officials have stated that the main objective of the 287(g) program is to enhance the safety and security of communities by addressing serious criminal activity committed by removable aliens, they have not documented this objective in program-related materials consistent with internal control standards. As a result, some participating agencies are using their 287(g) authority to process for removal aliens who have committed minor offenses, such as speeding, carrying an open container of alcohol, and urinating in public. None of these crimes fall into the category of serious criminal activity that ICE officials described to us as the type of crime the 287(g) program is expected to pursue." The GAO found that ICE didn't even attempt to ensure that the local officers it //trained and designated// as immigration agents used their authority only for arrested immigrants. Of the 287(g) agreements studied by GAO, not one of the 29 "mentioned that an arrest should precede use of 287(g) program authority." In other words, cross-designated local police have been investigating the immigration status of people they stop or otherwise encounter even when there is no crime involved. A March 2008 report by Justice Strategies, Local Democracy on ICE, also pointed to the broader problem of mixing immigration law and criminal law. In their report, Aarti Shahani and Judith Greene warned: " 287 (g) represents the fusion of two separate systems of law enforcement powe r. Once in place, it can lead to further entanglement of these powers as state and local politicians jump into the campaign to 'crack down' on immigran ts. But //civil immigration and criminal law are fundamentally incompatible// . The grey area between civil and criminal law creates a situation ripe for abuse . The Constitution's protections against arrest without probable cause, indefinite detention, trial without counsel, double jeopardy, and self-incrimination, as well as the statute of limitations, do not apply equally (or in some cases at all) in the civil immigration context."

Ending local law enforcement through ICE preents future raids – ICE wont have the resources

 * Golash-Boza 12’ ** (Tanya [Associate Professor at UC Merced] Racial Profiling and Mass Deportation of Black and Latino Men, __http://www.racismreview.com/blog/2012/05/15/racial-profiling-and-mass-deportation-of-black-and-latino-men/__ )

Immigration law enforcement agents generally do not have license to walk up and down the streets of U.S. cities and demand proof of U.S. citizenship from pedestrians. The Border Patrol is only authorized to work in U.S. border areas. And, ICE, only has 20,000 employees overall, only a fractionof whom are officers engaged in raiding home s and worksites arresting illegally present immigrants. ICE does not have the staff or resources to patrol the county. Instead, ICE works closely with criminal law enforcement agencies to apprehend immigrants.

====Federal immigration policy makes state and local immigration enforcement ineffective and wrecks trust with the communities—the plan is the key federal action that solves the trust gaps and restores credibility in the states====

Biehl 7/15, staff writer at The Hill, (Richard, 7/15/15, Communities are safer when law enforcement roles are clear, The Hill, http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/homeland-security/247880-communities-are-safer-when-law-enforcement-roles-are)//kap

The circumstances surrounding the tragic murder of Kathryn Steinle in San Francisco last week have reignited the debate about “sanctuary cities” and the role of local police in enforcing immigration laws. The suspect in the killing, Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, had seven previous immigration-related and drug-related felony convictions and had already been deported on five occasions. Following Steinle’s senseless murder, many have right fully sought to examine how //the system failed//. The Steinle murder is a clarion call to resolve the important but different roles assigned to local police and officials of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement [ICE] in keeping our communities and country safe. At the heart of this debate is an important question — whether local police should carry out immigration policing functions or federal authorities should take the lead in carrying out these functions //. Relying on state and local law enforcement to carry out federal immigration enforcement responsibilities is highly problematic//. //Having state and local law enforcement take on the work of federal immigration officials undermines community policing and is counterproductive//. //When state and local law enforcement are entangled in these functions, immigrant communities view them with increased suspicion//. More often than not, these immigrant groups are then reluctant to report crimes committed against them or their neighbors, fearing that such reports will result in deportation after their immigration status — or the immigration status of friends and family members — is revealed. This fear has true costs, allowing dangerous criminals and criminal organizations to prey on immigrant communities, as well as the community at large. As a Chief of Police, my number one priority is to ensure community safety and security. Accordingly, in order to serve the greater community, all members of a community must feel free to call for police services without fear of undue repercussions. This improves community policing and safety for everyone. The Dayton Police Department has adopted three key policy revisions since 2008 to support community policing and better serve growing immigrant communities, including (1) refining our enforcement strategies that involve federal immigration personnel, (2) setting out department-wide guidelines for interacting with immigrant witnesses and victims, and (3) publicizing existing federal laws that offer protection to cooperative victims and witnesses. These changes have allowed the Department to focus on what is important, both in terms of building community partnerships and prioritizing and focusing enforcement resources. They also have produced concrete results, coinciding with significant reductions in crime in Dayton. Sanctuary policies and practices are not designed to harbor criminals. On the contrary, they exist to support community policing, ensuring that the community at large — including immigrant communities — trusts state and local law enforcement and feels secure in reporting criminal conduct. Cooperation with federal immigration enforcement officials still can exist, but //state and local law enforcement should carefully tailor policies to ensure that community policing is not undermined//. What everyone wants is a safe community. Police presence within an entire community is crucial to create a feeling of safety and trust for all residents and members of that community. Asking the immigration status of a victim or a witness in the course of an investigation not only detracts from the investigation, it is detrimental to relations with members of our community. We must balance investigative approaches that will encourage (and not discourage) public cooperation with investigations. The absence of effective, cogent action by Congress to address this issue has left state and local governments with the challenge of sorting this issue out on their own. Instead of considering how to punish these “sanctuary cities,” Congress should be working to reform our broken immigration system.

** There needs to be a sharp distinction between federal ICE policy and state and local policy—key to restoring trust and effectiveness **
Lansdowne 7/25, career police officer and contributor to The Sacramento Bee, (William, 7/25/15, Keep clear, separate roles for local law enforcement and ICE, The Sacramento Bee, http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/op-ed/soapbox/article28641010.html)//kap

The tragic killing of Kathryn Steinle by an undocumented immigran t in San Francisco has drawn national attention to the relationship between local police and immigration enforcement. In my four decades in uniform and 20 years as police chief, I saw again and again politicians’ temptation to respond to a singular, heart-wrenching incident with sweeping policy change //. In my experience//, this always does more harm than good. In response to Steinle’s senseless death, some have called for an end to policies that limit local agencies’ entanglement with federal immigration enforcement, blaming San Francisco for this tragedy. In the wake of a devastating incident like this, it is difficult, yet important, to take a step back to examine why it is that so many law enforcement officers believe //it is critical to maintain clear and separate roles for local law enforcement and federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement.// Carrying out our respective roles, we keep our communities and country safe. Helping to advance the technique of community-oriented policing is one of my proudest accomplishments in my decades of law enforcement service. Having officers meet regularly and frequently with the community members they are sworn to protect and serve is the foundational element of this proven technique. //Requiring// those same //officers to inquire about the immigration status of a victim//, witness or even a suspect //dismantles the trust we are working to build and undermines our ability to investigate and prevent crime//. When police officers and sheriff’s deputies are tasked with carrying out federal immigration enforcement, //immigrant families// – many of whom are of mixed status, with some members legal and some undocumented – //understandably become fearful of any encounter with law enforcement//. This has the ill effect of making routine law enforcement duties much more difficult and in some cases impossible. A study by the University of Illinois at Chicago found that //44 percent of Latinos// surveyed said they //would be less likely to contact police officers if they were the victims of a crime because they feared any interaction with police might lead officers to ask about their immigration status// or that of family members. Sound policing requires trust between law enforcers and the members of the public, so that community members share information that helps prevent crimes from occurring and so that victims and witnesses come forward to help police solve crimes. For years, we saw the negative consequences when cities and counties were forced to bear the costs of complying with federal immigration policies. We learned the hard way that wedding local law enforcement agencies’ work to the federal government’s deportation tactics breeds deep-seated mistrust in the police. To date, more than 320 localities throughout the country, including 50 in California, have stopped holding individuals beyond their ordinary release merely on the basis of an ICE detainer request. Instead, sheriffs and police departments have adopted due process protections to operate within the law, reduce the risk of deterring innocent crime victims and witnesses from coming forward, and restore community trust. In the tragic killing of Steinle, all ICE would have had to do is present San Francisco with a judicial order authorizing detention, and local authorities could legally have kept Lopez-Sanchez in custody. Instead of using Steinle’s tragic death as a vehicle to tear down smart policing policies across our state, our members of Congress should use this moment as an opportunity to ask law enforcement officials why they have worked so hard to establish trust and cooperation with immigrant communities.

Our culture hypocritically embraces race neutrality while promoting “national security” and “immigration/border enforcement” as justifications for unleashing racist nativism
Cisneros ’14 – Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication and affiliate faculty in the Department of Latina/Latino Studies and the Center for Writing Studies. His research focuses on the ways in which social and political identities are rhetorically constructed and contested in the public sphere. He specializes in issues of citizenship, race/ethnicity, Latin@ identity, and immigration. (Josue David Cisneros, “The Border Crossed Us: Rhetorics of Borders, Citizenship, and Latina/o Identity”, University of Alabama Press, http://muse.jhu.edu.proxy.lib.umich.edu/books/9780817387235/9780817387235-10.pdf)//cl

That bordering has taken on this militaristic and aggressive tone exemplified in attrition through enforcement is not surprising considering the persistent logics of citizenship and Latina/o identity discussed throughout this book. That is, when national belonging is wedded to an exclusionary gendered and racialized identity, and as long as some Latina/os can still be positioned as “others” by virtue of their difference(s), material and rhetorical bordering of U.S. citizenship remains the norm. //Recent antiimmigrant provisions//, of which SB 1070 is just an early example, //demonstrate a persistent conflation of Latinidad with Mexican illegality, the representation of Latina/os as threats, and persistent fears of a racialized and gendered citizenship//. However, it is also worth emphasizing that a color-blind double bind is evident in the increasingly militant and nativist immigration policies at the state and local level, including SB 1070. In the contemporary neoliberal moment, ideas of individualism, federal deregulation, and global free trade have come to structure immigration and border policy. Monica Varsanyi argues that “neoliberalizing economic policies. . . act as powerful push and pull factors promoting cross-border labor migration,” and yet heightened bordering practices, workplace raids, and de-unionization efforts demonstrate that “the neoliberal ideology of the global free market has not. . . extended to the labor market.” The push toward state and local immigration policy, the localization of border enforcement, and increasing focus on the individual immigrant as the locus of immigration policy—all elements of contemporary immigration policy—stem from the broader neoliberal ideology of federal deregulation and the focus on individualism.13 In this vein, the nation formally celebrates its respect for diversity and multiculturalism, its status as a “nation of immigrants,” and purports to enforce immigration and border policy in a “color-blind” way, all the while escalating the racialized and gendered policing and denial of full citizenship. The persistent celebration of a color-blind, post-race culture of individual responsibility masks the enduring significance of race, racialization, class, and gender in sociopolitical identity struggles including immigration policy. Thus //our culture embraces “race neutrality even as it licenses ‘limited’ racial profiling for purposes of security maintenance, targeted policing,” and immigration/border enforcement//. Meanwhile, attempts to address racial disparities or achieve diversity, such as affirmative action or bilingual education, are criticized as “monocultural,” anti-American, or even as reverse discrimination because they violate the supposedly color-blind and thus multicultural contours of contemporary society (by injecting race into the public sphere).14

Even if util is good, you still vote aff—it’s key to allowing society to begin to change the system—only the aff reverses the trend of deontology
Burkhart et al. 2007 (Laurie Burkhart, Michael Haubert, and Damon Thorley, undergraduate editors who published a book on surveillance under the supervision of Dr. Dirk S. Hovorka, “The Efect [sic] of Government Surveillance on Social Progress,” in Confronting Information Ethics in the New Millennium” [] )

//Under util//__itarian, duty-based, and rights-based ethical theories__ the act of heavy //government surveillance policy is an ethical violation. From a utilitarian perspective//, one must look at the consequences of an action, and determine which consequence would be the most desirable for the greatest number of people involved. In this case, the government is not acting in line with what is the greatest good for the greatest number. //The greatest good is allowing a society to// have the ability to //freely participate and change the system// in order to adhere to what is best for the people. By limiting radical political groups the government can effectively take away this ability. In taking the ability to change and progress away from the people in a democratic system the government violates the greatest good for the greatest number. The use of //government surveillance// to hinder radical movements //is causing a “chilling effect” on political participation and results in an obstruction of social progress//__. The consequences__ of these government actions __are undesirable__, the actions are considered to be unethical under utilitarian or consequence-based theory. The duty-based and rights-based theories also show extreme surveillance to be an ethical violation. __From a__ duty-based, or //deontological perspective//, heavy government //surveillance is an ethical violation// __because__ it does not treat people in a universal or impartial way. Immanuel Kant, one of the most famous and influential deontological theorists, claimed that __actions are unethical if they conflict with the idea that all people are free and rational beings__. He stated that //everyone has a duty to stop such unethical acts// and promote freedom and rationality. Furthermore he stated that rules should only be applied if they are universal and impartial. __Acts of__ government __surveillance are__ often __carried out with heavy biases against certain__ types of __groups and ideologies__, such as the civil rights or communist groups. In addition, __using surveillance tactics__ against certain groups and individuals goes against the idea that people are free and capable of making their own decisions, and __implies that people need to be monitored and controlled__. Certain types of monitoring and controlling are necessary in any society, but in a democratic society __when__ the __control__ tactics __goes as far to limit the effect the people can have on their own society then the system is not only undemocratic ,but unethical as well__. The surveillance bias towards particular groups also violates several rules and regulations stated in our countries legal doctrines. Rights-based theory states that an action is unethical if it goes against rights that have been given through contract or law. __Surveillance practices__ of the FBI and other government groups have shown to __violate__ several laws and the __rights__ that have been given to citizens by the government, such as freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, protection against illegal searches, and many more. In order to be ethical under a rights-based theory a democratic government must follow the laws and regulations set forth by the people ‟ s elected government agents. Past and present government surveillance tactics violate these principles __and are therefore unethical.__ “One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes a revolution in order to establish a dictatorship.” -- George Orwell16 Legal Implications Our democratic system is built on the people ‟ s participation in politics. This participation is most commonly practiced by voting in government elections and identifying with a major political party. Although these types of political participation are the most practiced and socially accepted they are not the only form of participation the system is built on. As outlined in Amendment I of the U.S. Constitution Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances17. Based on these laws the people of our country can speak out, challenge, and criticize the government as they see fit without fear of persecution. The theory behind this system is to allow for free and unaltered participation in the government by the people so that the laws and discourse of the country reflect that of the people ‟ s beliefs. For this legal system to function properly the free participation of the people must be protected. Although our society generally chooses to believe this to be true, U.S. historical evidence shows the contrary. Each radical social movement in the U.S. has posed a general threat to the government administration of that time. From a present day perspective some of these movements brought about positive social change. Aside from the moral value of each radical movement, the government agencies of their times determine what to be in the best interest of the country and exude enormous surveillance and propaganda tactics for or against them. At the time of the civil rights movements the FBI classified pro-black groups as threats to national security. Despite these past classifications, these groups made a large positive impact on our countries values and laws. As a result of these “threats to national security” citizens of our country can now expect to be treated equally under the law and not endure unjust policies based on race. At the basis of all social change there is an opposition to the norm or majority. In the case of the civil rights movement the norm was a predominately racist society with national laws and regulations to perpetuate the racist system. Despite the efforts of government agencies to curb the radical groups and halt the social progress being made the people were able to assemble and cause radical reformations to take place in legal and social aspects of the country. It can be said that although the FBI and government tried to curb the Civil Rights movement the social change did occur and the theory of free political participation was upheld. Although it is true that the government ultimately failed in stopping the movement and societal change, they did not have the same technology that is available today. During the civil rights movement the FBI used basic surveillance technology including wire taps, bugged rooms, stake outs and propaganda. Today __technology is advancing at a quicker rate than we can make use of it__. The government now has technology and the access to information far greater than that of the 1960 ‟ s and can use it however they see fit. __If not kept in check__ the __government surveillance can lead to a system in which social change__ brought about by the people __becomesimpossible__. Conclusion Demonstrated by the history in our country each government administration has used every resource they have in order to pursue the values and goals of their administration. __As technology increases, so does the power of the government to monitor citizens__, infiltrate groups, control information, and further push their view of what is best for the society. In an age of data mining, satellite surveillance, RFID chips, vast social networks, and an overall state of heightened security there is almost no limit to the capabilities of the government and its surveillance. We can assume based on historical facts that the government is currently monitoring to the best of their ability all radical groups in the country as well as the world. With current technology it ‟ s also safe to assume that this __surveillance__ and group monitoring is much more effective than in the past and __could__ possibly __end radical political influence before it starts__. Coupled with increased technology there has been a decrease of freedom in our legal system with war time laws such as the Patriot Act limiting fundamental rights and legal discourse outlined in the U.S. constitution. __The system is moving__ away from free political participation and __towards__ an information influenced __police state__. The U.S. legal system is based on change and adaptability. A historical example of this is the change in role the U.S. legal system took on in the nineteenth century. “An instrumental perspective of law did not simply emerge as a response to new economic forces in the nineteenth century. Rather, judges began to use law in order to encourage social change even in areas where they had previously refrained from doing so. It was not until the nineteenth century that the common law took on its innovating and transforming role in American society18.” Examples such as this show that the legal system has always played its part in influencing societal change since the early days of this country, but conversely the U.S. society members have also influenced changes to the legal system. The changes and innovation of U.S. law have consistently been influenced by social movements. The labor movements, civil rights movements, and feminist movements have all challenged the government of their time and as a result moved the U.S. towards a more equal and just society. As the power and technology of the government increases today so do the chances of any kind of societal change being halted. “Social movements are not distinct and self-contained; rather, they grow from and give birth to other movements, work in coalition with other movements, and influence each other indirectly through their effects on the larger cultural and political environment19.” If the government can monitor and stop one major movement they can influence and deter the masses from further radical ideology. In this lies the ethical violation. Under utilitarian, duty-based, and rights-based ethical theories the act of heavy government surveillance policy is an ethical violation. From a utilitarian perspective the government is not acting in line with what is the greatest good for the greatest number. The greatest good is allowing a society to have the ability to freely participate and change the system in order to adhere to what is best for the people. By limiting radical political groups the government can effectively take away this ability. In taking the ability to change and progress away from the people the government violates the greatest good for the greatest number. The duty-based and rights-based theories also show extreme surveillance to be an ethical violation. These theories examine how government surveillance is carried out and the ethical and legal violations that are inherent in the practices. From a duty-based perspective, heavy government surveillance is an ethical violation because it does not treat people in a universal or impartial way. It is often carried out with heavy biases against certain types of groups and ideologies. Not only is the surveillance bias towards particular groups but it also violates several rules and regulations stated in our countries legal doctrines. Surveillance practices of the FBI and other government groups have shown to violate several laws and the rights of the group participants. This type of surveillance discourse causes it to be an ethical violation. __The democratic system needs free political participation__ and radical movements __in order to progress__. History has shown the positive effects radical groups have played in the progression of American society through out U.S. history. //If// __the //unethical practices of government surveillance are not kept in check// into the future, the ideologies of freedom of speech and //the power of the people will be lost forever.//__

Actions determine morality, not results—consequentialism might be good, but moral side constraints exist that we cannot violate
Nagel 79  (Thomas, 1979, Philosopher, Mortal Questions, p 58-59)

Many people feel, without being able to say much more about it, that __something has gone seriously wrong when certain measures are admitted into consideration in the first place. The fundamental mistake is made there, rather than at the point where the overall benefit of some monstrous measure is judged to outweigh its disadvantages__, and it is adopted. An account of absolutism might help us to understand this. __If it is not allowable to //do// certain things__, such as killing unarmed prisoners or civilians, __then no argument about what will happen if one does not do them can show that doing them would be all right__. //Absolutism does not//__, of course, //require one to ignore//the //consequences// of one’s acts. //It operates as a limitation on utlitiarian reasoning, not as a substitute for it//__. __An absolutist can be expected to try to maximize good and minimize evil, so long as this does not__ require him to __transgress an absolute prohibition__ like that against murder. __But when such a conflict occurs, the prohibition takes complete precedence over any consideration of consequences__. Some of the results of this view are clear enough. It requires us to forgo certain potentially useful military measures, such as the slaughter of hostages and prisoners or indiscriminate attempts to reduce the enemy population by starvation, epidemic infectious diseases like anthrax and bubonic plague, or mass incineration. It means that __we cannot deliberate on whether such measures are justified by the fact that they will avert still greater evils, for__ as intentional measures __they cannot be justified in terms of any consequences whatever__. __Someone__ unfamiliar with the events of this century __might imagine that utilitarian arguments__, or arguments of national interest, __would suffice to deter measures of this sort. But it has become evident that such considerations are insufficient to prevent the adoption and employment of enormous antipopulation weapons once their use is considered a serious moral possibility. The same is true of the piecemeal wiping out of__ rural civilian __populations__ in airborne antiguerrilla warfare. __Once the door is opened to calculations of utility and national interest, the usual //speculations about the future// of freedom, peace, and economic prosperity //can// be brought to bear to //ease the consciences of those responsible// for a certain number of charred babies__.

Our advantage is one of those side constraints—the injustices we have described should not be tolerated at any cost

 * Rawls 71** (John, 1971, philosopher, A Theory of Justice, p. 3-4)

__Justice is the first virtue of social institutions____as truth is of systems of thought__. __A theory however elegant__ and economical __must be rejected or revised if it is untrue__ ; __likewise laws and institutions no matter how efficient and well-arranged must be reformed or abolished if they are unjust__. __Each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override__. For this reason __justice denies that the loss of freedom for some is made right by a greater good shared by others. It does not allow that the sacrifices imposed on a few are outweighed by the larger sum of advantages enjoyed by the many__. Therefore in a just society the liberties of equal citizenship are taken as settled; __the rights secured by justice are not subject to political bargaining or to the calculus of social interests__. The only thing that permits us to acquiesce in an erroneous theory is the lack of a better one; analogously, an injustice is tolerable only when it is necessary to avoid an even greater injustice. __Being first virtues of human activities, truth and justice are uncompromising__.

====No consequence justifies voting neg—either rights are absolute and we win, or they’re not, and the neg’s moral calculus is incoherent. The question of this debate is whether the plan is a //moral action// or not. The judge as a moral agent is not responsible for intervening actors no matter how bad the consequences sound. The decisions of other agents are //outside your power to determine// and you should therefore say that you support the aff even if we should perhaps also stop bad consequences that stem from it because consequentialism with no limit results in constantly escalating evils which makes it self-defeating and also undermines the value of life====

Gewrith 81 (Alan, 1981, prof of philosophy at U Chicago, “Are There Any Absolute Rights?,” Philosophical Quarterly, January)

__It is a widely held opinion that there are no absolute rights__. Consider what would be generally regarded as the most plausible candidate: the right to life. This right entails at least the negative duty to refrain from killing any human being. But it is contended that this duty may be overridden, that a person may be justifiably killed if this is the only way to prevent him from killing some other, innocent person, or if he is engaged in combat in the army of an unjust aggressor nation with which one’s own country is at war. It is also maintained that even an innocent person may justifiably be killed if failure to do so will lead to the deaths of other such persons. Thus an innocent person’s right to life is held to be overridden when a fat man stuck in the mouth of a cave prevents the exit of speleologists who will other- wise drown, or when a child or some other guiltless person is strapped onto the front of an aggressor’s tank, or when an explorer’s choice to kill one among a group of harmless natives about to be executed is the necessary and sufficient condition of the others’ being spared, or when the driver of a runaway trolley can avoid killing five persons on one track only by killing one person on another track.1 And topping all such tragic examples is the cata-strophic situation __where a nuclear war or some other unmitigated disaster can be avoided only by infringing some innocent person’s right__ to life. Despite such cases, I shall argue that certain rights can be shown to be absolute. But first the concept of an absolute right must be clarified. I1. I begin with the Hohfeldian point that the rights here in question are claim-rights (as against liberties, powers, and so forth) in that they are justified claims or entitlements to the carrying out of correlative duties, positive or negative. A duty is a requirement that some action be performed or not be performed; in the latter, negative case, the requirement constitutes a prohibition. A right is fulfilled when the correlative duty is carried out, i.e., when the required action is performed or the proliibited action is not performed. A right is infringed when the correlative duty is not carried out, i.e., when the required action is not performed or the proliibited action is performed. Thus someone’s right to life is infringed when the prohibited action of killing him is performed; someone’s right to medical care is infringed when the required action of providing liim with medical care is not performed. A right is violated when it is unjustifiably infringed, i.e., when the required action is unjustifiably not performed or the prohibited action is unjustifiably performed. And a right is overridden when it is justifiably infringed, so that there is sufficient justification for not carrying out the correlative duty, and the required action is justifiably not performed or the prohibited action is justifiably performed. A right is absolute when it cannot be overridden in any circumstances, so that it can never be justifiably infringed and it must be fulfilled without any exceptions. The idea of an absolute right is thus doubly normative: it includes not only the idea, common to all claim-rights, of a justified claim or entitlement to the performance or non-performance of certain actions, but also the idea of the exceptionless justifiability of performing or not performing those actions as required. These components show that the question whether there are any absolute rights demands for its adequate answer an explicit concern with criteria of justification. I shall here assume what I have else- where argued for in some detail: that these criteria, insofar as they arc valid, are ultimately based on a certain supreme principle of morality, the Principle of Generic Consistency [PQC).* This principle requires of every agent that he act in accord with the generic rights of his recipients as well as of himself, i.e., that he fulfil these rights. The generic rights are rights to the necessary conditions of action, freedom and well-being, where the latter is defined in terms of the various substantive abilities and conditions needed for action and for successful action in general. The POC provides the ultimate justificatory basis for the validity of these rights by shoving that they are equally had by all prospective purposive agents, and it also provides in general for the ordering of the rights in cases of conflict. Thus if two moral rights are so related that each can be fulfilled only by infringing the other, that right takes precedence whose fulfilment is more necessary for action. This criterion of degrees of necessity for action explains, for example, why one person’s right not to be lied to must give way to another person’s right not to be killed when these two rights are in conflict. In some cases tho application of this criterion requires a context of institutional rules. 2. The general formula of a right is as follows: “A has a right to X against B by virtue of Y”. In addition to the right itself, there are four elements here: the subject of the right, the right-holder (A); the object of the right (X); the respondent of the right, the person who has the correlative duty (B); and the justificatory basis or ground of the right (Y). I shall refer to these elements jointly as the contents of the right. Each of the elements may vary in gener- ality. Various rights may conflict with one another as to one or another of these elements, so that not all rights can be absolute. One aspect of these conflicts is especially important for understanding the question of absolute rights. Although, as noted above, the objects of moral rights are hierarchically ordered (according to the degree of their necessity for action), this is not true of the subjects of the rights. If one class or group of persons inherently had superior moral rights over another class or group (as was held to be the case throughout much of human history), any conflict between their respective rights would be readily resoluble: the rights of the former group would always take precedence, they would never be overridden (at least by the rights of members of other groups), and to this extent they would be absolute.8 It is because (as is shown by the PGC as well as by other moral principles) moral rights are equally distributed among all human persons as prospective purposive agents that some of the main conflicts of rights arise. This is most obviously the case where one per- son’s right to life conflicts with another person’s, since in the absence of guilt on either side, it is assumed that the two persons have equal rights. Thus the difficulty of supporting the thesis that there are absolute rights derives much of its force from its connection with the principle that all persons are equal in their moral rights. 3. The differentiation of the elements of rights serves to explicate the various levels at which rights may be held to be absolute. We may distinguish three such levels. The first is that of Principle Absolutism. According to this, what is absolute, and thus always valid and never overridden, is only some moral principle of a very high degree of generality which, referring to the subjects, the respondents, and especially the objects of rights in a relatively undifferentiated way, presents a general formula for all the diverse duties of all respondents or agents toward all subjects or recipients. The PGC is such a principle; so too are the Golden Rule, the law of love, Kant’s categorical imperative, and the principle of utility. Principle Absolutism, however, may leave open the question whether any specific rights are always absolute, and what is to be done in cases of conflict. Even act-utilitarianism might be an example of Principle Absolutism, for it may be interpreted as saying that those rights are absolute whose fulfilment would serve to maxi- mize utility overall. These rights, whatever they may be, might of course vary in their specific contents from one situation to another. At the opposite extreme is Individual Absolutism, according to which an individual person has an absolute right to some particular object at a partic- ular time and place when all grounds for overriding the right in the particular case have been overcome. But this still leaves open the question of what are the general grounds or criteria for overriding any right, and what are the other specific relevant contents of such rights. It is at the intermediate level, that of Rule Absolutism, that the question of absolute rights arises most directly. At this level, the rights whose absoluteness is in question are characterized in terms of specific objects with possible specification also of subjects and respondents, so that a specific rule can be stated describing the content of the right and the correlative duty. The description will not use proper names and other individual referring expressions, as in the case of Individual Absolutism, nor will it consist only in a general formula applicable to many specifically different kinds of rights and duties and hence of objects, subjects, and respondents, as in the case of Principle Absolutism. It is at this level that one asks whether the right to life of all persons or of all innocent persons is absolute, whether the rights to freedom of speech and of religion are absolute, and so forth. The rights whose absoluteness is considered at the level of Rule Absolutism may vary in degree of generality, in that their objects, their subjects, and their respondents may be given with greater or lesser specificity. Thus there is greater specificity as we move along the following scale: the right of all persons to life, the right of all innocent persons to life, the right of all innocent persons to an economically secure life, the right of children to receive an economically secure and emotionally satisfying life from their parents, and so forth. This variability raises the following problem. For a right to be absolute, it must be conclusively valid without any exceptions. But, as we have seen, rights may vary in generality, and all the resulting specifications of their objects, subjects, or respondents may constitute exceptions to the more general rights in which such specifications are not present. For example, the right of innocent persons to life may incorporate an exception to the right of all persons to life, for the rule embodying the former right may be stated thus: All persons have a right not to be killed except when the persons are not innocent, or except when such killing is directly required in order to prevent them from killing somebody else. Similarly, when it is said that all persons have a right to life, the specification of ‘persons’ may suggest (although it does not strictly entail) the exception-making rule that all animals (or even all organisms) have a right to life except when they are not persons (or not human). Hence, since an absolute right is one that is valid without any exceptions, it may be concluded either that no rights are absolute because all involve some specification, or that all rights are equally absolute because once their specifications are admitted they are entirely valid without any further exceptions. The solution to this problem consists in seeing that not all specifications of the subjects, objects, or respondents of moral rights constitute the kinds of exception whose applicability to a right debars it from being absolute. I shall indicate three criteria for permissible specifications. First, when it is asked concerning some moral right whether it is absolute, the kind of specification that may be incorporated in the right can only be such as results in a concept that is recognizable to ordinary practical thinking. This excludes rights that are “overloaded with exceptions” as well as those whose application would require intricate utilitarian calculations.4 Second, the specifications must be justifiable through a valid moral principle. Since, as we saw above, the idea of an absolute right is doubly normative, a right with its specification would not even begin to be a candi- date for absoluteness unless the specification were moraljustified and could hence be admitted as a condition of the justifiability of the moral right. There is, for example, a good moral justification for incorporating the restriction of innocence on the subjects of the right not to be killed; but there is not a similarly good moral justification for incorporating racial, religious, and other such particularist specifications. It must be emphasized, however, that this moral specification guarantees only that the right thus specified is an appropriate candidate for being absolute; it is, of itself, not decisive as to whether the right is absolute. A third criterion is that __the__ permissible __specification of a right must exclude any reference to the possibly disastrous consequences of fulfilling the right__. Since a chief difficulty posed against absolute rights is that for any right there can be cases in which its fulfilment may have disastrous con- sequences, to put tliis reference into the very description of the right would remove one of the main grounds for raising the question of absoluteness. The relation between rights and __disasters__ is complicated by the fact that the latter, __when caused by the actions of persons, are themselves infringements of rights__. This point casts a new light on __the consequentialist’s thesis__ that there are no absolute rights. For when he says __that every right may be overridden if this is required in order to avoid certain catastrophes__ — such as when torture alone will enable the authorities to ascertain where a terrorist has hidden a fused charge of dynamite— __the consequentialist is appealing to basic rights__. He is __saying that__ in such a case __one right__ —the right not to be tortured— __is overridden by another right__ —the right to life of the many potential victims of the explosion. This raises the following question. __Can the process of one right’s overriding another continue in- definitely or does the process come to a stop with absolute rights?__ In order to deal with this question, two points must be kept in mind. First, even when catastrophes threatening the infringement of basic rights are invoked to override other rights, at least part of the problem created by such conflict depends, as wras noted above, on the assumption that all the persons involved have equal moral rights. There would be no serious con- flict of rights and no problem about absolute rights if, for example, the rights of the persons threatened by the catastrophe were deemed inferior to those of persons not so threatened. Second, despite the close connection between rights in general and the rights threatened by disastrous consequences, it is important to distinguish them. For if the appeal to avoidance of disastrous consequences w'ere to be construed simply as an appeal for the fulfilment or protection of certain basic rights, then, __on the assumption that certain disasters must always be avoided when they arc threatened, the consequentialist would__ himself __be an absolutist__. We can escape this untoward result and render more coherent the opposition between absolutism and consequentialism if we recognize a further important assumption of the question whether there are any absolute rights. Amid the various possible specifications of Rule Absolutism, the rights in question are the normative property of distinct individuals.6 In referring to some event as a “disaster” or a “catastrophe”, on the other hand, what is often meant is that a large mass of individuals taken collectively loses some basic good to which they have a right. It is their aggregate loss that constitutes the catastrophe. (This, of course, accounts for the close connec- tion between the appeal to disastrous consequences and utilitarianism.) Thus the question whether there are any absolute rights is to be construed as asking whether distinct individuals, each of whom has equal moral rights (and who are to be characterized, according to the conditions of Rule Abso- lutism, by specifications that are morally justifiable and recognizable to ordinary practical thinking), have any rights that may never be overridden by any other considerations, including even their catastrophic consequences for collective rights. II 4. We must now examine the merits of __the prime consequentialist argu- ment__ against the possibility of absolute moral rights: that circumstances can always be imagined in which the consequences of fulfilling the rights would be so disastrous that their requirements would be overridden. The formal structure of the argument __is__ as follows: (1) If R, then D. (2) 0 ('--'D). (3) Therefore, 0(~R). For example, (1) __if some person’s right__ to life __is fulfilled__ in certain circumstances, __then some great disaster may__ or will __occur. But__ (2) __such disaster ought never to (be allowed__ to) occur. __Hence__, (3) in such circumstances __the right__ ought not to be fulfilled, 80 that it __is not absolute__. __Proponents of this argument have usually failed to notice that a parallel argument can be given in the opposite direction. If exceptions to the fulfil- ment of any moral right can be justified by imagining the possible disastrous consequences of fulfilling it, why cannot exceptionless moral rights be justi- fied by giving them such contents that their infringement would be unspeak- ably evil?__ The argument to this effect may be put formally as follows: (1) If ~R, then E. (2) 0(~E). (3) __Therefore__, 0(R). __For example__, (1) __if a mother’s right not to be tortured to death by her own son is not fulfilled, then there will be unspeakable evil. But__ (2) __such evil ought never to (be allowed to) occur. Hence__, (3) __the right ought to be fulfilled without any exceptions, so that it is absolute__. Tw'o preliminary points must be made about these arguments. First, despite their formal parallelism, there is an important difference in the meaning of ‘then’ in their respective first premises. __In the first argument, ‘then’ signifies a consequential__ causal __connection__ : if someone’s right to life is fulfilled, there may or will ensue as a result the quite distinct phenomenon of a certain great disaster. __But in the second__ argument, __‘then’ signifies a moral conceptual relation: the unspeakable evil is not a causal consequence__ of a mother’s being tortured to death by her own son; __it is rather a central moral constituent of it. Thus the second argument is not consequentialist,__ as the first one is, despite the fact that each of their respective first premises has the logical form of antecedent and consequent. A related point bears on the second argument’s specification of the right in question as a mother’s right not to be tortured to death by her own son. This specification does not transgress the tliird requirement given above for permissible specifications: that reference to disastrous consequences must not be included in the formulation of the right. For the __torturing__ to death __is not a disastrous causal consequence of infringing the right; it is directly an infringement of the right itself__, just as not being tortured to death by her own son is not a consequence of fulfilling the right but is the right. This distinction can perhaps be seen more clearly in such a less extreme case as the right not to be lied to. Being told a lie is not a causal consequence of infringing this right; rather, it just is an infringement of the right. In each case, moreover, the first two requirements for permissible specifications of moral rights are also satisfied: their contents are recognizable to ordinary practical thinking and they are justified by a valid moral principle. 5. Let us now consider the right mentioned above: a mother’s right not to be tortured to death by her own son. Assume (although these specifica- tions are here quite dispensable) that she is innocent of any crime and has no knowledge of any. What justifiable exception could there be to such a right? I shall construct an example which, though fanciful, has sufficient analogues in past and present thought and action to make it relevant to the status of rights in the real world.6 __Suppose a__ clandestine __group__ of political extremists have __obtained an arsenal of nuclear weapons__ ; to prove that they have the weapons and know' how to use them, they have kidnapped a leading scientist, shown him the weapons, and then released him to make a public corroborative statement. The terrorists have now __announced that they will use the weapons__ against a designated large distant city __unless__ a certain prominent resident of the city, a young politically active lawyer named __Abrams, tortures his mother to death__, this torturing to be carried out publicly in a certain way at a specified place and time in that city. Since the gang members have already murdered several other prominent residents of the city, their threat is quite credible. Their declared motive is to advance their cause by showing how powerful they are and by unmasking the moralistic pretensions of their political opponents. __Ought Abrams to torture his mother to death in order to prevent the threatened nuclear catastrophe?__ Might he not merely pretend to torture his mother, so that she could then be safely hidden while the hunt for the gang members continued? Entirely apart from the fact that the gang could easily pierce this deception, the main objection to the very raising of such questions is the moral one that they seem to hold open the possibility of acquiescing and participating in an unspeakably evil project. __To inflict such extreme harm__ on one’s mother __would be an ultimate act of betrayal; in__ performing or **__even contemplating the performance of such an action__** __the son would lose all self-respect and would regard his life as no longer worth living__ .7 __A mother’s right not to be tortured__ to death by her own son __is beyond any compromise. It is absolute__. This absoluteness may be analysed in several different interrelated dimen- sions, all stemming from __the supreme principle of morality__. The principle __requires respect for the rights of all persons to the necessary conditions of human action__, and this includes respect for the persons themselves as having the rational capacity to reflect on their purposes and to control their behav- iour in the light of such reflection. __The principle hence prohibits using any person merely as a means to the well-being of other persons__. For a son to torture his mother to death even to protect the lives of others would be an extreme violation of this principle and hence of these rights, as would any attempt by others to force such an action. For this reason, __the concept appropriate to it is not merely ‘wrong’ but__ such others as **__‘despicable’__**, ‘dis- honourable’, **__‘base’, ‘monstrous’__**. In the scale of moral modalities, such con- cepts function as the contrary extremes of concepts like the supererogatory. What is supererogatory is not merely good or right but goes beyond these in various ways; it includes saintly and heroic actions whose moral merit surpasses what is strictly required of agents. In parallel fashion, what is base, dishonourable, or despicable is not merely bad or wrong but goes be- yond these in moral demerit since it subverts even the minimal worth or dignity both of its agent and of its recipient and hence the basic presupposi- tions of morality itself. Just as the supererogatory is superlatively good, so the despicable is superlatively evil and diabolic, and __its moral wrongness is so rotten that a moralty decent person will not even consider doing it__. This is but another way of saying that the __rights__ it would violate **__must remain absolute__**. 6. There is, however, another side to this story. __What of the thousands of innocent persons__ in the distant city __whose lives are imperilled__ by the threatened nuclear explosion? Don’t they too have rights to life which, because of their numbers, are far superior to the mother’s right? May they not contend that while it is all very well for Abrams to preserve his moral purity by not killing his mother, he has no right to purchase this at the ex- pense of their lives, thereby treating them as mere means to his ends and violating their own rights? Thus it may be argued that the morally correct description of the alternative confronting Abrams is not simply that it is one of not violating or violating an innocent person’s right to life, but rather not violating one innocent person’s right to life and thereby violating the right to life of thousands of other innocent persons through being partly responsible for their deaths, or violating one innocent person’s right to life and thereby protecting or fulfilling the right to life of thousands of other innocent persons. __We have__ here __a tragic conflict of rights__ and an illustration of the heavy price exacted by moral absolutism. The aggregative consequen- tialist who holds that that action ought always to be performed which maxi-mizes utility or minimizes disutility would maintain that in such a situation the lives of the thousands must be preferred. An initial answer may be that terrorists who make such demands and issue such threats cannot be trusted to keep their word not to drop the bombs if the mother is tortured to death; and even if they now do keep their word, __acceding in this case would only lead to further escalated demands__ and threats. It may also be argued that it is irrational to perpetrate a sure evil in order to forestall what is so far only a possible or threatened evil. Philippa Foot has sagely commented on cases of this sort that if it is the son’s duty to kill his mother in order to save the lives of the many other innocent residents of the city, __then “anyone who wants us to do something__ we think __wrong has only to threaten__ that otherwise he himself will do __ some- thing __ we think __ worse __ ”.8 Much depends, however, on the nature of the “wrong” and the “worse”. If someone threatens to commit suicide or to kill innocent hostages if we do not break our promise to do some relatively unimportant action, breaking the promise would be the obviously right course, by the criterion of degrees of necessity for action. The special diffi- culty of the present case stems from the fact that the conflicting rights arc of the same supreme degree of importance. It may be contended, however, that this whole answer, focusing on the probable outcome of obeying the terrorists’ demands, is a consequentialist argument and, as such, is not available to the absolutist who insists that Abrams must not torture his mother to death whatever the consequences.9 This contention imputes to the absolutist a kind of indifference or even callousness to the sufferings of others that is not warranted by a correct understanding of his position. He can be concerned about consequences so long as he does not regard them as possibly superseding or diminishing the right and duty he regards as absolute. It is a matter of priorities. So long as the mother’s right not to be tortured to death by her son is unqualifiedly respected, the absolutist can seek ways to mitigate the threatened disastrous consequences and possibly to avert, them altogether. A parallel case is found in the theory of legal punishment : the retributivist, while asserting that punish- ment must be meted out only to the persons who deserve it because of the crimes they have committed, may also uphold punishment for its deterrent effect so long as the latter, consequentialist consideration is subordinated to and limited by the conditions of the former, antecedentalist consideration.10 Thus the absolutist can accommodate at least part of the consequentialist’s substantive concerns within the limits of his own principle. Is any other answer available to the absolutist, one that reflects the core of his position? Various lines of argument may be used to show that in refusing to torture his mother to death Abrams is not violating the rights of the multitudes of other residents who may die as a result, because he is not morally responsible for their deaths. Thus the absolutist can maintain that even if these others die they still have an absolute right to life because the infringement of their right is not justified by the argument he upholds. At least three different distinctions may be adduced for this purpose. In the unqualified form in which they have hitherto been presented, however, they are not successful in establishing the envisaged conclusion. One distinction is between direct and oblique intention. When Abrams refrains from torturing his mother to death, he does not directly intend the many ensuing deaths of the other inhabitants either as end or as means. These are only the foreseen but unintended side-effects of his action or, in tliis case, inaction. Hence, he is not morally responsible for those deaths. Apart from other difficulties with the doctrine of doublo effect, this distinction as so far stated does not serve to exculpate Abrams. Consider some parallels. Industrialists who pollute the environment with poisonous chemicals and manufacturers who use carcinogenic food additives do not directly intend the resulting deaths; these are only the unintended but foreseen side-effects of what they do directly intend, namely, to provide profitable demand-fulfilling commodities. The entrepreneurs in question may even maintain that the enormous economic contributions they make to the gross national product outweigh in importance the relatively few deaths that regrettably occur. Still, since they have good reason to believe that deaths will occur from causes under their control, the fact that they do not directly intend the deaths does not remove their causal and moral responsi- bility for them. Isn’t this also true of Abrams’s relation to the deaths of the oity’s residents? A second distinction drawn by some absolutists is between killing and letting die. This distinction is often merged with others with which it is not entirely identical, such as the distinctions between commission and omission, bctwoen harming and not helping, between strict duties and generosity or supererogation. For the present discussion, however, the subtle differences between those may be overlooked. The contention, then, is that in refraining from killing his mother, Abrams does not kill the many innocent persons who will die as a result; he only lets them die. But one does not have the same strict moral duty to help persons or to prevent their dying as one has not to kill them; one is responsible only for w-hat ono does, not for what one merely allows to happen. Hence, Abrams is not morally responsible for the deaths he fails to prevent by letting the many innocent persons die, so that he does not violate their rights to life. The difficulty with this argument is that the dutios bearing on the right to life include not only that one not kill innocent persons but also that one not let them die when one can prevent their dying at no comparable cost. If, for example, one can rcscuc a drowning man by throwing him a rope, one has a moral duty to throw him the rope. Failure to do so is morally culpable. Hence, to this extent the son who lets the many residents die when he can prevent this by means within his power is morally responsible for their deaths. A third distinction is between respecting other persons and avoiding bad consequences. Respect for persons is an obligation so fundamental that it cannot be overridden even to prevent evil consequences from befalling some persons. If such prevention requires an action whereby respect is withheld from persons, then that action must not be performed, whatever the con- sequences. One of the difficulties with this important distinction is that it is unclear. May not respect be withheld from a person by failing to avert, from him some evil consequence? How can Abrams be held to respect the thousands of innocent persons or their rights if he lets them die when he could have prevented this? The distinction also fails to provide for degrees of moral urgency. One fails to respect a person if one lies to him or steals from him; but sometimes the only way to prevent the death of one innocent person may be by stealing from or telling a lie to some other innocent person. In such a case, respect for one person may lead to disrespect of a more serious kind for some other innocent person. 7. None of the above distinctions, then, serves its intended purpose of defending the absolutist against the consequentialist. They do not show that the son’s refusal to torture his mother to death does not violate the other persons’ rights to life and that he is not morally responsible for their deaths. Nevertheless, the distinctions can be supplemented in a way that does servo to establish these conclusions. The required supplement is provided by the principle of the intervening action. According to this principle, __when there is a causal connection be- tween some person__ A’s __performing some action__ (or inaction) X __and some other person__ C’s __incurring a certain harm__ Z, A’s __moral responsibility__ for Z __is removed if__, between X and Z, __there intervenes some other action__ Y __of some person__ B who knows the relevant circumstances of his action and who intends to produce Z or who produces Z through recklessness. __The__ reason for this removal is that B’b __intervening action__ Y __is the more direct or proximate cause__ of Z __and__, unlike A’s action (or inaction), Y is __the sufficient condition__ of Z as it actually occurs.11 An example of this principle may help to show its connection with the absolutist thesis. __Martin Luther King__ Jr. __was repeatedly told that because he led demonstrations in support of civil rights, he was morally responsible for the__ disorders, __riots__, and deaths __that ensued__ and that were shaking the American Republic to its foundations.12 By the principle of the intervening action, __however, it was King’s opponents who were responsible__ because their intervention operated as the sufficient conditions of the riots and injuries. King might __also__ have replied that __the Republic would **not be worth saving** if the price that had to be paid was the violation of__ the __civil rights__ of black Americans. As for the rights of the other Americans to peace and order, the reply would be that these rights cannot justifiably be secured at the price of the rights of blacks. It follows from the principle of the intervening action that it is not the son but rather the terrorists who are morally as well as causally responsible for the many deaths that do or may ensue on his refusal to torture his mother to death. The important point is not that he lets these persons die rather than kills them, or that he does not harm them but only fails to help them, or that he intends their deaths only obliquety but not directly. The point is rather that, it is only through the intervening lethal actions of the terrorists that his refusal eventuates in the many deaths. Since the moral responsibility is not the son’s, it does not affect his moral duty not to torture his mother to death, so that her correlative right remains absolute. This point also serves to answer some related questions about the rights of the many in relation to the mother’s right. Since the son’s refusal to torture his mother to death is justified, it may seem that the many deaths to which that refusal will lead are also justified, so that the rights to life of these many innocent persons are not absolute. But since they are innocent, why aren’t their rights to life as absolute as the mother’s? If, on the other hand, their deaths are unjustified, as seems obvious, then isn’t the son’s refusal to torture his mother to death also unjustified, since it leads to those deaths? But from this it would follow that the mother’s right not to be tortured to death by her son is not absolute, for if the son’s not infringing her right is unjustified, then his infringing it would presumably be justified. The solution to this difficulty is that it is a fallacy to infer, from the two premises (1) the son’s refusal to kill his mother is justified and (2) many innocent persons die as a result of that refusal, to the conclusion (3) their deaths are justified. For, __by the principle of the intervening action__, the son’s refusal is not causally or morally responsible for the deaths; rather, it is the terrorists who are responsible. Hence, the justification referred to in (1) does not carry through to (2). Since the terrorists’ action in ordering the killings i8 unjustified, the resulting deaths are unjustified. Hence, __the rights to life of the many innocent victims remain absolute even if they are killed as a result of the__ son’s __justified refusal__, and it is not he who violates their rights. He may be said to intend the many deaths obliquely, in that they arc a foreseen but unwanted side-eflfect of his refusal. But he is not responsible for that side-effect because of the terrorists’ intervening action. It would be unjustified to violate the mother’s right to life in order to protect the rights to life of the many other residents of the city. For __rights cannot be justifiably protected by violating another right__ which, according to the criterion of degrees of necessity for action, is at least equally important. Hence, the many other residents do not have a right that the mother’s right to life be violated for their sakes. To be sure, the mother also does not have a right that their equally important rights be violated in order to protect hers. But. here too it must be emphasized that in protecting his mother’s right the son does not violate the rights of the others; for by the principle of the intervening action, it is not he who is causally or morally responsible for their deaths. Hence too he is not treating them as mere means to his or his mother’s ends. 8. Where, then, docs this leave us? __From the absoluteness of the__ mother’s __right__ not to be tortured to death by her son, __does it follow that__ in the described circumstances __a nuclear explosion should be permitted to occur__ over the city so that countless thousands of innocent persons may be killed, possibly including Abrams and his mother? Properly to deal with this question, __it is vitally important to distinguish between abstract and concrete absolutism. The abstract absolutist at no point takes account of consequences__ or of empirical or causal connections that may affect the subsequent outcomes of the two alternatives he considers. He views the alternatives as being both mutually exclusive and exhaustive. His sole concern is for the moral guiltlessness of the agent, as against the effects of the agent’s choices for human weal or woe. __In contrast__, as I suggested earlier, __the concrete absolutist is concerned with consequences and empirical connections, but always within the limits of the right__ he upholds as absolute. His __consequentialism is thus limited__ rather than unlimited. Because of his concern with empirical connections, he takes account of a broader range of possible alternatives than the simple dualism to w'hich the abstract absolutist confines himself. His __primary focus is not on the moral guiltlessness of the agent but__ rather on __the basic rights of persons not to be subjected to unspeakable evils__. Within this focus, however, the concrete absolutist is also deeply concerned with the effects of the fulfilment of these rights on the basic well-being of other persons. The significance of tliis distinction can be seen by applying it to the case of Abrams. If he is an abstract absolutist, he deals with only two alternatives which he regards as mutually exclusive as wrell as exhaustive: (1) he tortures his mother to death; (2) the terrorists drop a nuclear bomb killing thousands of innocent persons. For the reasons indicated above, he rejects (1). He is thereby open to the accusation that he chooses (2) or at least that he allows (2) to happen, although the principle of the intervening action exempts him from moral guilt or responsibility. If, how'ever, __Abrams__ is a concrete absolutist, then he does not regard himself as being confronted only by these two terrible alternatives, nor does he regard them or their negations as mutually exclusive. His thought- proccsses include the following additional considerations. In accordance with a point suggested above, he __recognizes that his doing (1) will not assure the non-occurrence of (2). On the contrary, his doing (1) **will**__ probably **__lead to further threats__** __of the occurrence of (2) **unless** he__ or someone else **__performs further unspeakably evil actions__** (3), (4), and so forth. ( __A parallel example may be found in Hitler’s demand for Czechoslovakia at Munich after__ his taking over of __Austria, his further demand for Poland__ after the capitulation regarding Czechoslovakia, __and the ensuing tragedies__ .) Moreover, (2) may occur even if Abrams does (1). For persons who are prepared to threaten that they will do (2) cannot be trusted to keep their word. On the other hand, Abrams further reasons, his not doing (1) may well not lead to (2). This may be so for several reasons. He or the authorities or both must try to engage the terrorists in a dialogue in which their griev- ances are publicized and seriously considered. Whatever elements of ration- ality may exist among the terrorists will thereby be reinforced, so that other alternatives may be presented. At the same time, a vigorous search and preventive action must be pursued so as to avert the threatened bomb- ing and to avoid any recurrences of the threat. It is such __concrete absolutism__, taking due account of consequences and of possible alternatives, that constitutes the preferred pattern of ethical reasoning. It __serves to protect__ the __rights____presupposed in the very possibility of a moral community while at the same time__ it __gives the greatest probability of averting the threatened catastrophe__. In the remainder of this paper, I shall assume the background of concrete absolutism.ni 9. I have thus far argued that the right of a mother not to be tortured to death by her son is absolute. But the arguments would also ground an extension of the kind of right here at issue to many other subjects and respondents, including fathers, daughters, wives, husbands, grandparents, cousins, and friends. So there are many absolute rights, on the criterion of plurality supplied by Rule Absolutism. It is sometimes held that moral obligations are “agent-relative” in that, at least in cases of conflict, one ought to give priority to the welfare of those persons with whom one has special ties of family or affection.13 Applied to the present question, this view would suggest that the subjects having the absolute right that must be respected by respondents are limited to the kinds of relations listed above. It may also be thought that as we move away from familial and affectional relations, the proposed subjects of rights come to resemble more closely the anonymous masses of other persons who would be killed by a nuclear explosion, so that a quantitative measure of numbers of lives lost would become a more cogent consideration in allocating rights. These conclusions, however, do not follow. Most of the arguments I have given above for the mother’s absolute right not to be tortured to death apply to other possible human subjects without such specifications. My purpose in beginning with such an extreme case as the mother-son relation was to focus the issue as sharply as possible; but, this focus once gained, it may be widened in the ways just indicated. Although the mother has indeed a greater right to receive effective concern from her son than from other, unrelated persons, the unjustifiability of violating right® that are on the same level of necessity for action is not affected either by degrees of family relationship or by the numbers of persons affected. Abrams would not be justified in torturing to death some other innocent person in the described circumstances, and in failing to murder he would not be morally responsible for the deaths of other innocent persons who might be murdered by someone else as a consequence. These considerations also apply to various progressively less extreme objects of rights than the not being tortured to death to which I have so far confined the discussion. The general content of these objects may be stated as follows: All innocent persons have an absolute right not to be made the intended victims of a homicidal project. Tliis right, despite its increase in generality over the object, subject, and respondents of the previous right, still conforms to the requirements of Rule Absolutism. The word ‘intended’ here refers both to direct and to oblique intention, with the latter being subject to the principle of the intervening action. The word ‘project’ is meant to indicate a definite, deliberate design; hence, it excludes the kind of unforeseeable immediate crisis where, for example, the unfortunate driver of a trolley whose brakes have failed must choose between killing one person or five. The absolute right imposes a prohibition on any form of active participation in a homicidal project against innocent persons, whether by the original designers or by those who would accept its conditions with a viewr to w'arding off what they would regard as worse consequences. The meaning of ‘innocent’ raises many questions of interpretation into which I have no space to enter here, but some of its main criteria may be gathered from the first paragraph of this paper. As for ‘persons’, this refers to all prospective purposive agents. The right not to be made the intended victim of a homicidal project is not the only specific absolute right, but it is surely one of the most important. The general point underlying all absolute rights stems from the moral principle presented earlier. At the level of Principle Absolutism, it may be stated as follow's: __Agents and institutions are **absolutely prohibited** from degrading persons, treating them as if they had no rights or dignity. The benefit of this prohibition extends to all persons__, innocent or guilty; for the latter, when they are justly punished, are still treated as responsible moral agents who are capable of understanding the principle of morality and acting accordingly, and the punishment must not be cruel or arbitrary. Other specific absolute rights may also be generated from this principle. Since the principle requires of every agent that he act in accord with the generic rights of his recipients as well as of himself, specific rights are absolute insofar as they serve to protect the basic presuppositions of the valid principle of morality in its equal application to all persons.

“Life key to rights” is backwards—life and death are not inherently good except for the things we enjoy about them which the status quo erodes and the plan protects
Nagel 12 [Thomas, University Professor of Philosophy and Law at New York University, “Mortal Questions”, Cambridge University Press, Mar 26, 2012, Pg.1-3]

If death is the unequivocal and permanent end of our existence, the question arises whether it is a bad thing to die. There is conspicuous disagreement about the matter: some people think death is dreadful; others have no objection to death per se, though they hope their own will be neither premature nor painful. Those in the former category tend to think those in the latter are blind [not privy] to the obvious, while the latter suppose the former to be prey to some sort of confusion. On the one hand it can be said that life is all we have and the loss of it is the greatest loss we can sustain. On the other hand it may be objected that death deprives this supposed loss of its subject, and that if we realize that death is not an unimaginable condition of the persisting person, but a mere blank, we will see that it can have no value whatever, positive or negative. Since I want to leave aside the question whether we are, or might be, immortal in some form, I shall simply use the word ‘death’ and its cognates in this discussion to mean permanent death, unsupplemented by any form of conscious survival. I want to ask whether death is in itself an evil; and how great an evil, and of what kind, it might be. The question should be of interest even to those who believe in some form of immortality, for one’s attitude toward immortality must depend in part on one’s attitude toward death. If death is an evil at all, it cannot be because of its positive features, but only because of what it deprives us of. I shall try to deal with the difficulties surround ing the natural view that death is an evil because it brings to an end all the goods that life__ contains __. We need not give an account of these goods here, except to observe that some of them, like perception, desire, activity, and thought, are so general as to be constitutive of human life. They are widely regarded as formidable benefits in themselves, despite the fact that they are conditions of misery as well as of happiness, and that a sufficient quantity of more particular evils can perhaps outweigh them.That is what is meant, I think, by the allegation that it is good simply to be alive, even if one is undergoing terrible experiences. The situation is roughly this: There are elements which, if added to one’s experience, make life better; there are other elementswhich, if added to one’s experience, make life worse. But what remains when these are set aside is not merely neutral: it is emphatically positive. Therefore life is worth living even when the bad elements of experience are plentiful, and the good ones too meager to outweigh the bad ones on their own. The additional positive weight is supplied by experience itself, rather than by any of its contents. I shall not discuss the value that one person’s life or death may have for others, or its objective value, but only the value it has for the person who is its subject. That seems to me the primary case, and the case which presents the greatest difficulties. Let me add only two observations. First, the value of life and its contents does not attach to mere organic survival : almost everyone would be indifferent (other things equal) between immediate death and immediate coma followed by death twenty years later without reawakening. And second, like most goods, this can be multiplied by time: more is better than less. The added quantities need not be temporally continuous (though continuity has its social advantages). People are attracted to the possibility of long-term suspended animation or freezing, followed by the resumption of conscious life, because they can regard it from within simply as continuation of their present life. If these techniques are ever perfected, what from outside appeared as a dormant interval of three hundred years could be experienced by the subject as nothing more than a sharp discontinuity in the character of his experiences. I do not deny, of course, that this has its own disadvantages. Family and friends may have died in the meantime; the language may have changed; the comforts of social, geographical, and cultural familiarity would be lacking. Nevertheless these inconveniences would not obliterate the basic advantage of continued, though discontinuous, existence. If we turn from what is good about life to what is bad about death, the case is completely different. Essentially, though there may be problems about their specification, what we find desirable in life are certain states, conditions, or types of activity. It is being alive, doing certain things, having certain experiences that we consider good. But if death is an evil, it is the loss of life, rather than the state of being dead, or nonexistent, or unconscious, that is objectionable. 1 This asymmetry is important. If it is good to be alive, that advantage can be attributed to a person at each point of his life. It is a good of which Bach had more than Schubert, simply because he lived longer. Death, however, is not an evil of which Shakespeare has so far received a larger portion than Proust. If death is a disadvantage, it is not easy to say when a man suffers it.

The obsession with human survival is self-defeating—the tyranny of survival paradoxically destroys more people in the long run and diminishes the value of life
CALLAHAN 1973  (Daniel, institute of Society and Ethics, The Tyranny of Survival, p. 91-3)

__The value of survival could not be so readily abused were it not for its evocative power. But abused it has been. In the name of survival, all manner of social and political evils have been committed against the rights of individuals, including the right to life__. The purported threat of Communist domination has for over two decades fueled the drive of militarists for ever-larger defense budgets, no matter what the cost to other social needs. During World War II, native Japanese-Americans were herded, without due process of law, to detention camps. This policy was later upheld by the Supreme Court in Korematsu v. United States (1944) in the general context that a threat to national security can justify acts otherwise blatantly unjustifiable. __The survival of the Aryan race was one of the official legitimations of Nazism. Under the banner of survival, the government of South Africa imposes a ruthless apartheid__, heedless of the most elementary human rights. The Vietnamese war has seen one of the greatest of the many absurdities tolerated in the name of survival: the destruction of villages in order to save them. But it is not only in a political setting that survival has been evoked as a final and unarguable value. The main rationale B. F. Skinner offers in Beyond Freedom and Dignity for the controlled and conditioned society is the need for survival. For Jacques Monod, in Chance and Necessity, survival requires that we overthrow almost every known religious, ethical and political system. __In genetics, the survival of the gene pool has been put forward as sufficient grounds for a forceful prohibition of bearers of offensive genetic traits from marrying and bearing children__. Some have even suggested that we do the cause of survival no good by our misguided medical efforts to find means by which those suffering from such common genetically based diseases as diabetes can live a normal life, and thus procreate even more diabetics. In the field of population and environment, one can do no better than to cite Paul Ehrlich, whose works have shown a high dedication to survival, and __in its holy name a willingness to contemplate governmentally enforced abortions and a denial of food to surviving populations of nations which have not enacted population-control policies. For all these reasons it is possible to counterpoise over against the need for survival a "tyranny of survival." There seems to be no imaginable evil which some group is not willing to inflict on another for sake of survival, no rights, liberties or dignities which it is not ready to suppress.__ It is easy, of course, to recognize the danger when survival is falsely and manipulatively invoked. Dictators never talk about their aggressions, but only about the need to defend the fatherland to save it from destruction at the hands of its enemies. But __my point__ goes deeper than that. It __is directed even at a legitimate concern for survival, when that concern is allowed to reach an intensity which would ignore, suppress or destroy other fundamental human rights and values. The potential tyranny survival as value is that it is capable, if not treated sanely, of wiping out all other values. Survival can become an obsession and a disease, provoking a destructive singlemindedness that will stop at nothing__. We come here to the fundamental moral dilemma. If, both biologically and psychologically, the need for survival is basic to man, and if survival is the precondition for any and all human achievements, and __if no other rights make much sense without the premise of a right to life—then how will it be possible to honor and act upon the need for survival without, in the process, destroying everything in human beings which makes them worthy of survival__. To put it more strongly, __if the price of survival is human degradation, then there is no moral reason why an effort should be made to ensure that survival. It would be the Pyrrhic victory to end all Pyrrhic victories__.