Shawnee Mission East

2NC vs. FonkeyMonkey

SpecThe interp still stands, their response doesnt even begin to adequately answer this argument.

Interp: they must specify a form of surveillance that they curtailit wasnt include in their plan text

Violation: they only specify a location as to where they curtail surveillance. THIS MUST BE INCLUDED IN THE PLAN TEXT. Dont default on CX like they will prompt you to, its not binding and nobody flows it.

Completely concedes vagueness, dont let them answer this in the 1AR, here it is: Not specifying what form of surveillance they curtail is incredibly vague. Vagueness leads to unpredictability.Weitsman 6LL.B. (Haifa, Israel), LL.M. (UM)., ELIMINATING BARRIERS TO THE EXPORT OF GENERIC VERSIONS OF PATENTED DRUGS TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES -- FROM DOHA TO BILL C-9, 6 Asper Rev. Int'l Bus. & Trade L. 103It seems that the Canadian legislation strayed farther away from the WTO August 30 decision than other countries' legislation. While attempting to set up a relatively clear and feasible mechanism, Canada's Bill C-9 dropped the vague language of the Decision and replaced it with more or less accurate definitions. Obviously, it could be argued that providing detailed and often much burdened procedures rendered the mechanism inflexible. However, the vague and unclear regulations definitely add to the uncertainty and unpredictability of the compulsory license granting process. Eventually, the real effect of Canada's Bill will be seen when it is actually used by developing countries in need of generic drugs. We can probably answer this question while comparing Canada's legislation to other countries' attempts to implement the WTO August 30 decision. Compared to legislation in Norway and India and the EU's draft of regulations, Canada's Bill C-9 goes farther than the language of the WTO General Council's decision prescribes. The Bill sets clearer procedure than the one outlined in the WTO decision, although it is much burdened with the administrative details. It could be argued that the vaguer the provisions, the more flexible the legislation. However, lack of clear definitions of such important provisions as grounds and timeframe for seeking a voluntary license, lack of a formula for [*137] calculation of remuneration to a patentee, etc., can render legislation unreliable and uncertain in view of its future users.This means that they also concede to the warrant in this card clearly stating that vagueness renders legislation unreliable.

VaguenessI will still win, heres why:Plan: The United States federal government should substantially curtail its surveillance of the United States-Mexico border. their plan text

Their plan clearly says substantially curtail. You can cross apply my vagueness argument here since this is incredibly vague without certain specificationthis once again renders their plan unreliablethats Weitsman 6

First, their definition of substantial is vague as well. Their def: substantial is of ample or considerable amountnotice how it doesnt specify a certain numberprefer my def.

Second, They then say in their last speech that they curtail all surveillance at the border. WE ARE JUST LEARNING THIS IN THE 2AC, shouldve included in their plantext. They now meet my interp because they are a moving target due to their vague plan text.

Third, they can easily spike out of arguments through their vague plantext and definitions. This is incredibly abusive because it makes the aff a moving target.

The plans papers over the flaws in the legal system and locks in global biopolitical warthe ballot should side with the global countermovement against such violenceGulli 13. Bruno Gulli, professor of history, philosophy, and political science at Kingsborough College in New York, For the critique of sovereignty and violence, http://academia.edu/2527260/For_the_Critique_of_Sovereignty_and_Violence, pg. 1

We live in an unprecedented time of crisis. The violence that characterized the twentieth century, and virtually all known human history before that, seems to have entered the twenty-first century with exceptional force and singularity. True, this century opened with the terrible events of September 11. However, September 11 is not the beginning of history. Nor are the histories of more forgotten places and people, the events that shape those histories, less terrible and violent though they may often be less spectacular. The singularity of this violence, this paradigm of terror, does not even simply lie in its globality, for that is something that our century shares with the whole history of capitalism and empire, of which it is a part. Rather, it must be seen in the fact that terror as a global phenomenon has now become self-conscious. Today, the struggle is for global dominance in a singularly new way, and war regardless of where it happensis also always global. Moreover, in its self-awareness, terror has become, more than it has ever been, an instrument of racism. Indeed, what is new in the singularity of this violent struggle, this racist and terrifying war, is that in the usual attempt to neutralize the enemy, there is a cleansing of immense proportion going on. To use a word which has become popular since Michel Foucault, it is a biopolitical cleansing. This is not the traditional ethnic cleansing, where one ethnic group is targeted by a state power though that is also part of the general paradigm of racism and violence. It is rather a global cleansing, where the sovereign elites, the global sovereigns in the political and financial arenas (capital and the political institutions), in all kinds of ways target those who do not belong with them on account of their race, class, gender, and so on, but above all, on account of their way of life and way of thinking. These are the multitudes of people who, for one reason or the other, are liable for scrutiny and surveillance, extortion (typically, in the form of over- taxation and fines) and arrest, brutality, torture, and violent death. The sovereigns target anyone who, as Giorgio Agamben (1998) shows with the figure of homo sacer, can be killed without being sacrificed anyone who can be reduced to the paradoxical and ultimately impossible condition of bare life, whose only horizon is death itself. In this sense, the biopolitical cleansing is also immediately a thanatopolitical instrument. The biopolitical struggle for dominance is a fight to the death. Those who wage the struggle to begin with, those who want to dominate, will not rest until they have prevailed. Their fanatical and self-serving drive is also very much the source of the crisis investing all others. The point of this essay is to show that the present crisis, which is systemic and permanent and thus something more than a mere crisis, cannot be solved unless the struggle for dominance is eliminated. The elimination of such struggle implies the demise of the global sovereigns, the global elites and this will not happen without a global revolution, a restructuring of the world (Fanon 1967: 82). This must be a revolution against the paradigm of violence and terror typical of the global sovereigns. It is not a movement that uses violence and terror, but rather one that counters the primordial terror and violence of the sovereign elites by living up to the vision of a new world already worked out and cherished by multitudes of people. This is the nature of counter-violence: not to use violence in ones own turn, but to deactivate and destroy its mechanism. At the beginning of the modern era, Niccol Machiavelli saw the main distinction is society in terms of dominance, the will to dominate, or the lack thereof. Freedom, Machiavelli says, is obviously on the side of those who reject the paradigm of domination: [A]nd doubtless, if we consider the objects of the nobles and of the people, we must see that the first have a great desire to dominate, whilst the latter have only the wish not to be dominated, and consequently a greater desire to live in the enjoyment of liberty (Discourses, I, V). Who can resist applying this amazing insight to the many situations of resistance and revolt that have been happening in the world for the last two years? From Tahrir Square to Bahrain, from Syntagma Square and Plaza Mayor to the streets of New York and Oakland, the people speak with one voice against the nobles; the 99% all face the same enemy: the same 1%; courage and freedom face the same police and military machine of cowardice and deceit, brutality and repression. Those who do not want to be dominated, and do not need to be governed, are ontologically on the terrain of freedom, always-already turned toward a poetic desire for the common good, the ethics of a just world. The point here is not to distinguish between good and evil, but rather to understand the twofold nature of power as domination or as care. The biopolitical (and thanatopolitical) struggle for dominance is unilateral, for there is only one side that wants to dominate. The other side ontologically, if not circumstantially, free and certainly wiserdoes not want to dominate; rather, it wants not to be dominated. This means that it rejects domination as such. The rejection of domination also implies the rejection of violence, and I have already spoken above of the meaning of counter-violence in this sense. To put it another way, with Melvilles (2012) Bartleby, this other side would prefer not to be dominated, and it would prefer not to be forced into the paradigm of violence. Yet, for this preference, this desire, to pass from potentiality into actuality, action must be taken an action which is a return and a going under, an uprising and a hurricane. Revolution is to turn oneself away from the terror and violence of the sovereign elites toward the horizon of freedom and care, which is the pre- existing ontological ground of the difference mentioned by Machiavelli between the nobles and the people, the 1% (to use a terminology different from Machiavellis) and the 99%. What is important is that the sovereign elite and its war machine, its police apparatuses, its false sense of the law, be done with. It is important that the sovereigns be shown, as Agamben says, in their original proximity to the criminal (2000: 107) and that they be dealt with accordingly. For this to happen, a true sense of the law must be recuperated, one whereby the law is also immediately ethics. The sovereigns will be brought to justice. The process is long, but it is in many ways already underway. The recent news that a human rights lawyer will lead a UN investigation into the question of drone strikes and other forms of targeted killing (The New York Times, January 24, 2013) is an indication of the fact that the movement of those who do not want to be dominated is not without effect. An initiative such as this is perhaps necessarily timid at the outset and it may be sidetracked in many ways by powerful interests in its course. Yet, even positing, at that institutional level, the possibility that drone strikes be a form of unlawful killing and war crime is a clear indication of what common reason (one is tempted to say, the General Intellect) already understands and knows. The hope of those who would prefer not to be involved in a violent practice such as this, is that those responsible for it be held accountable and that the horizon of terror be canceled and overcome. Indeed, the earth needs care. And when instead of caring for it, resources are dangerously wasted and abused, it is imperative that those who know and understand revolt and what they must revolt against is the squandering and irresponsible elites, the sovereign discourse, whose authority, beyond all nice rhetoric, ultimately rests on the threat of military violence and police brutalityThat militaristic framing guarantees endless violence that ensures planetary destruction and structural violenceLawrence 9 (Grant, Military Industrial "War" Consciousness Responsible for Economic and Social Collapse, OENOpEdNews, March 27)As a presidential candidate,Barack Obamacalled Afghanistan ''the war we must win.'' He was absolutely right. Now it is time to win it... Senators John McCain and Joseph Lieberman calling for an expanded war in Afghanistan "How true it is that war can destroy everything of value." Pope Benedict XVI decrying the suffering of Africa Where troops have been quartered, brambles and thorns spring up. In the track of great armies there must follow lean years. Lao Tzu on War As Americans we are raised on the utility of war to conquer every problem. We have a drug problem so we wage war on it. We have a cancer problem so we wage war on it. We have a crime problem so we wage war on it. Poverty cannot be dealt with but it has to be warred against. Terror is another problem that must be warred against. In the United States, solutions can only be found in terms of wars. In a society that functions to support a massive military industrial war machine and empire, it is important that the terms promoted support the conditioning of its citizens. We are conditioned to see war as the solution to major social ills and major political disagreements. That way when we see so much of our resources devoted to war then we don't question the utility of it. The term "war" excites mind and body and creates a fear mentality that looks at life in terms of attack. In war, there has to be an attack and a must win attitude to carry us to victory. But is this war mentality working for us? In an age when nearly half of our tax money goes to support the war machine and a good deal of the rest is going to support the elite that control the war machine, we can see that our present war mentality is not working. Our values have been so perverted by our war mentality that we see sex as sinful but killing as entertainment. Our society is dripping violence. The violence is fed by poverty, social injustice, the break down of family and community that also arises from economic injustice, and by the managed media. The cycle of violence that exists in our society exists because it is useful to those that control society. It is easier to sell the war machine when your population is conditioned to violence. Our military industrial consciousness may not be working for nearly all of the life of the planet but it does work for the very few that are the master manipulators of our values and our consciousness. Rupert Murdoch, the media monopoly man that runs the "Fair and Balanced" Fox Network, Sky Television, and News Corp just to name a few, had all of his 175 newspapers editorialize in favor of the Iraq war. Murdoch snickers when he says "we tried" to manipulate public opinion." The Iraq war was a good war to Murdoch because, "The death toll, certainly of Americans there, by the terms of any previous war are quite minute." But, to the media manipulators, the phony politicos, the military industrial elite, a million dead Iraqis are not to be considered. War is big business and it is supported by a war consciousness that allows it to prosper. That is why more war in Afghanistan, the war on Palestinians, and the other wars around the planet in which the military industrial complex builds massive wealth and power will continue. The military industrial war mentality is not only killing, maiming, and destroying but it is also contributing to the present social and economic collapse. As mentioned previously, the massive wealth transfer that occurs when the American people give half of their money to support death and destruction is money that could have gone to support a just society. It is no accident that after years of war and preparing for war, our society is crumbling. Science and technological resources along with economic and natural resources have been squandered in the never-ending pursuit of enemies. All of that energy could have been utilized for the good of humanity, instead of maintaining the power positions of the very few super wealthy. So the suffering that we give is ultimately the suffering we get. Humans want to believe that they can escape the consciousness that they live in. But that consciousness determines what we experience and how we live. As long as we choose to live in "War" in our minds then we will continue to get "War" in our lives. When humanity chooses to wage peace on the world then there will be a flowering of life. But until then we will be forced to live the life our present war consciousness is creating.

GenderExtend Peterson and Thorum, this turns their entire case.Their Grossberg ev they refer to has nothing to do with this alienation, they talk about how the left needs to recognize the necessity of institutionalizationHarrington is a hack. The state is a masculine construct that reproduces social hierarchies through a protection of women this objectifies women through social control and violence.Blanchard goes negBlanchard2003, Ph.D. U of S. CA., American Council of Learned Societies Faculty Fellow, (Eric M. Gender, International Relations, and the Development of Feminist Security Theory Signs, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp. 1289-1312. The University of Chicago Press)

Like Tickner, many IR feminists problematize the state and raise questions as to its status as protector of women. Peterson argues that, in addition to its relegation of sexual violence and its threat to the private domestic realm, the state is implicated in the ways that women become the objects of masculinist social control not only through direct violence (murder, rape, battering, incest), but also through ideological constructs, such as womens work and the cult of motherhood, that justify structural violence inadequate health care, sexual harassment, and sex-segregated wages, rights and resources (1992c, 46). However, while not denying the possibility of limited protection offered by the state (Harrington 1992), FST contests the notion of protectionthe exchange of obedience/subordination for (promises of) securityas a justification for state power (Peterson 1992c, 50). Peterson likens the states provision of security for women to a protection racket, implicated in the reproduction of hierarchies and in the structural violence against which they claim to offer protection (1992c, 51). In addition, Stiehm argues that the state typically denies women the opportunity to be societal protectors, assigning to them the role of protected despite the predatory threat often posed by their ostensible guardians (1983a). Governmental attempts to achieve total security versus an external threat can result in predictable oppression: The problem is that the potential victim is both more accessible and compliant than the marauder. Because the protector is embarrassed and frustrated by his failure to protect, he restricts his protectee instead (373). By circumscribing the possibilities of the female deployment of legitimate force, the masculine state effectively denies the development of what Stiehm calls a defender society, one composed of citizens equally liable to experience violence and equally responsible for exercising societys violence (367).

Terrorism DATheir Impact D cards all take place in the status quo, with 0 surveillance going on at the border terrorism is 100% more likely.Refer to my Washington Times evprefer my empirical scenarios.Current border measures are key to stopping terrorists from entering our countrythats Washington TimesThe ONLY way that ISIS can get to us is through the bordertheir quest for an open border only risks millions of lives. ISIS goal is to destroy all of the infidels (non-believers) and they will stop at nothing to do so. MY TWO SPECIFIC SCENARIOS OUTWEIGHT ALL OF HIS IMPACT D!!!!CBS News 14, 10-8-2014, "GOP Rep: 'At Least Ten ISIS Fighters Have Been Caught Coming Across The Mexican Border'," No Publication, http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/10/08/gop-rep-at-least-ten-isis-fighters-have-been-caught-coming-across-the-mexican-border/ [Date Accessed: 5/25/15] //NMWASHINGTON (CBS DC) Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., says that at least ten fighters for the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria have been apprehended while attempting to enter the southern U.S. border. The California Republican claims that at least ten ISIS fighters have been caught coming across the Mexican border in Texas, in a conversation with Fox News on Tuesday. Hunter says that the Islamic terrorists are slipping into the U.S. through the porous southern border as several have already been captured. Theres nobody talking about it, Rep. Hunter told Fox. If you really want to protect Americans from ISIS, you secure the southern border. Its that simpleThey caught them at the border, therefore we know that ISIS is coming across the border. If they catch five or ten of them then you know theres going to be dozens more that did not get caught by the border patrol. In August, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey, warned that the open border posed an immediate threat for terrorist activity infiltrating the country. The government watchdog group, Judicial Watch, said ISIS terrorists were planning to attack the United States with car bombs or other vehicle born [sic] improvised explosive devices. Hunter, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, said that the 1,933-mile southern border with Mexico is the obvious entry point for Islamic State terrorists. He says that information regarding the capture of Islamic State terrorists crossing the border comes directly from U.S. Customs and Border Protection. ISIS doesnt have a navy, they dont have an air force, they dont have nuclear weapons. The only way that ISIS is going to harm Americans is by coming through the southern border which they already have, he added. They arent flying B-1 bombers, bombing American cities, said Hunter. But they are going to be bombing American cities coming across from MexicoAll you have to do is ask the border patrol. Border surveillance is needed to stop illegal activitydrug trafficking is an existential threatAliya Sternstein 14, 7-9-2014, "Obama Requests Drone Surge for U.S.-Mexico Border," Defense One, http://www.defenseone.com/threats/2014/07/obama-requests-drone-surge-us-mexico-border/88303/ (Aliya Sternstein reports on cybersecurity and homeland security systems. Shes covered technology for more than a decade at such publications asNational Journals Technology Daily,Federal Computer WeekandForbes. Before joiningGovernment Executive, Sternstein covered agriculture and derivatives trading forCongressional Quarterly. Shes been a guest commentator on C-SPAN,MSNBC,WAMUand Federal News Radio. Sternstein is a graduate of the University ofPennsylvania.) [Date Accessed: 5/25/15] //NMPresident Barack Obama today requested $39 million for aerial surveillance, including unmanned aircraft operations, as part of an effort to systemically take care of what he called an urgent humanitarian situation. The emergency funding would go toward 16,526 additional drone and manned aircraft flight hours for border surveillance, and 16 additional drone crews to better detect and stop illegal activity, according to administration officials. There currently is a flood of unaccompanied children, and adults with children, illegally crossing the border to escape violence and poverty in Central American communities. The remotely-piloted jets would not be deployed to look for these migrants, who are out in the open and turning themselves in. Rather, the drones would try to detect drug smugglers, human traffickers and others attempting to evade the law. The agencys unmanned and manned aircraft can continue to support ongoing border security operations, specifically regarding the tracking of illegal cross-border smuggling operations, a CBP official told Nextgov on Tuesday. Obama is asking for $3.7 billion total to deal with migrants and border security problems. This funding would support a sustained border security surge through enhanced domestic enforcement, including air surveillance, Obama wrote Tuesday in a letter to House Speaker Rep. John Boehner. The money also would help cover the cost of returning migrants, speeding immigration court cases and addressing the root causes of migration. CBP in the past has struggled to maintain and fly its fleet of 10 drones. In January, an unmanned jet went down off the California coast after experiencing a mechanical failure. A crew brought it down, after determining there was no way to return the drone to its launch point in Sierra Vista, Arizona. The agency then decided to ground the entire fleet as a precaution. A Department of Homeland Security inspector general in 2012 reprimanded CBP for letting drones sit idle 63 percent of the time they should have been airborne. The fleet of then-seven drones flew 3,909 hours annually, but should have been up at least 10,662 hours yearly, according to the IGs calculations. With three additional vehicles, the fleet put in 5,100 hours during fiscal 2013, officials said in January.CBP spent $55.3 million for aircraft operations and maintenance between 2006 and 2011. Separately, Marine Corps Gen. John Kelly, commander of U.S.Southern Command, has asked Congress this year for more money, drones and ships to combat the flow of illegal drugs, weapons and people from Central America. He told Nextgovs sister publication DefenseOne the near collapse of societies in the hemisphere with the associated drug and [undocumented immigrant] flow is an existential threat to the United States. But his request for military funding is unlikely to be met. Some House lawmakers Tuesday rejected Obamas new plan for leaving out certain law enforcement measures. President Obama has many tools at his disposal now to quell this activity at our southern border, such as enforcing immigration laws and cracking down on rampant asylum fraud, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., said in a statement. Unfortunately, none of these tools are mentioned in his proposal.

A small chance of solving existential risk outweighs every other impactBostrom, Faculty of Philosophy at Oxford University, 2012(Nick, Global Policy, Existential Risk Prevention as Global Priority, Volume 4, Issue 1, p. 15-31, EB)But even this reflection fails to bring out the seriousness of existential risk. What makes existential catastrophes especially bad is not that they would show up robustly on a plot like the one in figure 3, causing a precipitous drop in world population or average quality of life. Instead, their significance lies primarily in the fact that they would destroy the future. The philosopher Derek Parfit made a similar point with the following thought experiment: I believe that if we destroy mankind, as we now can, this outcome will be much worse than most people think. Compare three outcomes: (1) Peace. (2) A nuclear war that kills 99% of the world's existing population. (3) A nuclear war that kills 100%. (2) would be worse than (1), and (3) would be worse than (2). Which is the greater of these two differences? Most people believe that the greater difference is between (1) and (2). I believe that the difference between (2) and (3) is very much greater. ... The Earth will remain habitable for at least another billion years. Civilization began only a few thousand years ago. If we do not destroy mankind, these few thousand years may be only a tiny fraction of the whole of civilized human history. The difference between (2) and (3) may thus be the difference between this tiny fraction and all of the rest of this history. If we compare this possible history to a day, what has occurred so far is only a fraction of a second. (Parfit 1984, pp. 453-454). To calculate the loss associated with an existential catastrophe, we must consider how much value would come to exist in its absence. It turns out that the ultimate potential for Earth-originating intelligent life is literally astronomical. One gets a large number even if one confines one's consideration to the potential for biological human beings living on Earth. If we suppose with Parfit that our planet will remain habitable for at least another billion years, and we assume that at least one billion people could live on it sustainably, then the potential exist for at least 1016 human lives of normal duration. These lives could also be considerably better than the average contemporary human life, which is so often marred by disease, poverty, injustice, and various biological limitations that could be partly overcome through continuing technological and moral progress. However, the relevant figure is not how many people could live on Earth but how many descendants we could have in total. One lower bound of the number of biological human life-years in the future accessible universe (based on current cosmological estimates) is 1034 years.7 Another estimate, which assumes that future minds will be mainly implemented in computational hardware instead of biological neuronal wetware, produces a lower bound of 1054 human-brain-emulation subjective life-years (or 1071 basic computational operations) (Bostrom 2003).8 If we make the less conservative assumption that future civilizations could eventually press close to the absolute bounds of known physics (using some as yet unimagined technology), we get radically higher estimates of the amount of computation and memory storage that is achievable and thus of the number of years of subjective experience that could be realized.9 Even if we use the most conservative of these estimates, which entirely ignores the possibility of space colonization and software minds, we find that the expected loss of an existential catastrophe is greater than the value of 1016 human lives. This implies that the expected value of reducing existential risk by a mere one millionth of one percentage point is at least a hundred times the value of a million human lives. The more technologically comprehensive estimate of 1054 human-brain-emulation subjective life-years (or 1052 lives of ordinary length) makes the same point even more starkly. Even if we give this allegedly lower bound on the cumulative output potential of a technologically mature civilization a mere 1% chance of being correct, we find that the expected value of reducing existential risk by a mere one billionth of one billionth of one percentage point is worth a hundred billion times as much as a billion human lives.Thanks to my dude Bostrom, Im now winning the impact debate.

People all over the country are attempting to go fight with ISIS. It is those people that the terrorists, ISIL, seek to control. THIS TURNS THE SHIT OUT OF THEIR BIOPOWER ADVANTANGETuman 03 Joseph Tuman, San Francisco State U Communication Prof, 2003 [Communicating Terror: The Rhetorical Dimensions of Terrorism, pg. 40]In the definition of terrorism, there is also an effect upon power-although this time, the redistributive effect of power occurs between the groups of the victims and the terrorists/aggressors. In many situations (if we are referencing dissent terrorism), the terrorists/aggressors begin in the role of those who are already oppressed or who have the self-perception of being in such a condition. When engaging in terror as a means of fighting back against a perceived oppression, the terrorists reverse the power relationship in that moment, for they now control life and death, destruction or tranquility. The victims, formerly perceived by the terrorists to be in a position benefiting from oppression or the like, are now in a position of becoming the oppressed.

Case DebateOpen BordersA country with no borders, is not a countryThomas Jefferson

Refer to their answer to my terrorism turn, they specifically say Opening the border vies up on the notion that we, as a nation are in control of who we are.

Ethics do not require fully open bordersShelley Wilcox 2009 Associate Professor of philosophy at San Francisco State University Philosophy Compass 4/1 (2009): 19, The Open Borders Debate on Immigration http://online.sfsu.edu/swilcox/Swilcox/Shelleys_webpage_files/Wilcox,%20The%20Open%20Borders%20Debate%20on%20Immigration.pdf 10.1111/j.1747-9991.2009.00230.xGlobal migration raises several important ethical issues. One of the most significant is the question of whether liberal democratic societies have strong moral obligations to admit immigrants. However, despite the theoretical and practical importance of this question, it has received little attention by philosophers. Those philosophers who have addressed immigration have typically defended the conventional view on immigration, which maintains that liberal states have broad discretion over immigration policy. According to this position, such states will typically admit immigrants whose talents, assets, characteristics, or skills are perceived to be in the national interest, but they are morally free to restrict immigration as they see fit, with few exceptions. Recently, however, some liberal egalitarians have begun to challenge this conventional view in two lines of argument. The first, defended most prominently by Joseph Carens, maintains that immigration restrictions are inconsistent with basic liberal egalitarian ideals, including freedom, equal opportunity, and moral equality. It follows, argues Carens, that liberal states have a prima facie duty to maintain open borders, welcoming all prospective immigrants who seek admission. The second line of argument, advanced by Frederick Whelan and myself, contends that affluent, liberal democratic societies are morally obli- gated to admit needy immigrants as a partial response to real-world global injustices, such as poverty and human rights violations. We conclude that liberal states have much broader duties to admit immigrants than the conventional position implies, yet without defending open borders per se.

Turn: borders are good because they limit state control over individuals- its moralWilcox, 9 (Shelley, Associate professor at San Francisco State University in the Philosophy department, The Open Borders Debate on Immigration, The Author Philosophy Compass 4/1 (2009), 19, 10.1111/j.1747-9991.2009.00230.x, San Francisco State University, Journal Compilation 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd http://online.sfsu.edu/swilcox/Swilcox/Shelleys_webpage_files/Wilcox,%20The%20Open%20Borders%20Debate%20on%20Immigration.pdf) A second objection, offered by Michael Blake, takes issue with Carens suggestion that immigration restrictions violate the ideal of moral equality.14 Blake acknowledges that citizenship, like race and ethnicity, is morally arbitrary in the sense that all are produced by factors over which we have no control. However, he denies that citizenship is morally irrelevant, as Carens suggests. On the contrary, argues Blake, citizenship is morally signi- cant because it marks out the boundaries of the states authority; that is, the state has coercive authority over citizens that it does not have over foreigners. In liberal states, state authority must be justied to those who are subject to it. However, since foreigners are generally not subject to the authority of states other than their own, they are not entitled to this same justication. This explains why liberal states may withhold certain rights from foreigners without affronting their status as moral equals. Certain rights, suggests Blake, arise from the need to justify state authority. If a state is to be authorized to exercise coercive power, it owes some substantive protections and guarantees, in the form of rights, to those who are subject to this power. However, since foreigners generally do not live under authority of the state in question, that state owes no such guarantees to them. Blake gives the example of political rights. No liberal state is legitimate unless it grants political rights to citizens, yet such states need not extend these same political rights to foreigners. Blake contends that specic guarantees of liberty, including the right to free mobility, also arise from the need to justify state authority. Liberal states cannot deny free mobility to their citizens and expect them to accept its authority. However, such states need not grant admission to foreigners because they have no claim to such justication. Thus, Blake concludes, liberal states may legitimately restrict immigration without violating the ideal.Exclusion, otherization, and alienation are inevitable. The strange and unknown will permeate these notions- The aff does little to remedy the separation induced by the universe, systems, or oneselfKaufmann 80, Philosopher and poet who had a Ph.D. in Philosophy of Religion from Harvard University (Walter 1980, The Inevitability of Alienation http://www.jstor.org/stable/40369321 JSTOR)nasokan

We must ask not only from whom or what a person or group is supposed to be alienated but also what would constitute the absence of this alienation. Self-consciousness involves a sense of what is other - alienum in Latin. If anyone literally found nothing human alien to himself, he would be totally lacking in any sense of selfhood. (Terence's beautiful line, Homo sum; humani nil a me alienum puto - I am a man, and I hold nothing human strange to me - refers not to the total absence but to the overcoming of a sense of strangeness: a triumph that involves imagination and understanding, not imbecility.) If anyone could not tell a strange hand from his own and actually experienced one just as he did the other, we might as well say that he experienced his own hand as strange and was alienated from himself and specifically from his own body. Have we illicitly confounded otherhood and strangeness? A person of whom I realize that he is other than myself need not seem strange to me. He may be a familiar sight - no stranger nor strange to me: "I know him", But how well do I know him? I simply do not care enough to think about the 99 % of him that is for me terra incognita. We are strangers but not sufficiently interested to realize it or be bothered by it, and one might well hesitate to speak of alienation or estrangement in such cases lest one be taken to imply that there was a prior state of closer rapport. Now suppose that I am suddenly struck by the fact that I hardly know this person. This could happen as we began to talk to each other. I might never have hesitated to say "I know him"; but now that I actually got to know him at least a little better I might come to feel that I really do not know him at all and that he is quite strange. This paradox may seem to be reducible to the double meanings of "know" and "strange". As Hegel pointed out, what is bekannt or known by acquaintance and hence familiar is not necessarily erkannt or known in the sense of being comprehended. But that is not all. Familiarity actually obstructs knowledge, and comprehension involves the overcoming of a sense of strangeness. This point, too, is central in Hegel's thought. Another image may make it clearer. It is hard to see in perspective and comprehend what is very close to us: comprehension requires some distance and consists in a triumph over distance. It is often easier to understand the problems of others than our own. In these cases, of course, emotional involvement does its share to blind us. But the same phenomenon can be observed when a play, a painting, or some piece of music is exceedingly familiar to us: we lack distance and must become alienated if we would comprehend it. Plato and Aristotle remarked that philosophy begins in wonder or perplexity. We could also say that it begins when sometime suddently strikes us as strange - or that philosophy is born of estrangement. It need not be alienation from other human beings; it could be estrange- ment from oneself or the universe. Or a belief or system of beliefs, a moral conviction or a code that we had taken for granted may suddenly seem strange to us. Such alienation need not be a merely intellectual event; it may involve a deep estrangement from the faith and morals of our society. It may seem to be a reductio ad absurdum to speak of alienation when a child begins to ask questions about all sorts of things that but a few months earlier had not struck him as at all strange and that most Philistines would not dream of questioning. For it is clearly the child that does not ask questions that one has to worry about, and alienation of this type is a symptom of mental health, while lack of it is pathological. Those who assume that alienation is by definition regrettable would not think of applying the term to a healthy child. But adolescence is our second childhood; and when students start asking questions about their schools and the societies in which they live, it is often said that they are alienated. A healthy child ought not to be satisfied with the reply that this is simply how things are. Should an adolescent be content with such an answer? Some people, no doubt, would apply the term to adolescents only by way of registering regret or disapproval. But in purely descriptive terms, the adolescent who gains a sense of distance experiences a gulf between himself and all sorts of things and people, and he feels estranged. The curiosity of the small child that asks questions is not so regularly accompanied by a deep sense of alienation.

The border is a social construct --will remain even if it is physically removed. Politics and the social media are intrinsically tied to the constructionRodriguez 2, Department of Sociology at University of Texas at Austin (Nestor P. "The Social Construct of the U.S.-Mexico Border" http://adelasu.tripod.com/papers/Annotation01-usmexborder.pdf)nasokanThe border that separates Mexico and the United States is a social construct, that is, it is fictitious and yet has very real consequences. It is fictitious because what separates Mexico and the United States are not mountains, oceans, rivers or walls (although some parts are in fact delineated by rivers and walls). Rodriguez explains that "it is the daily reproduction of ideas and myths that socially construct borders." There is nothing real, true, or valid about the line, which was politically decided, which separates two very distinct worlds. Yet, the border is a fictitious line that represents hope, death, work, enslavement, opportunities, humiliation, chance, oppression. The U.S.-Mexico border is a fictitious line that becomes real when one tries to move from one side to the other; it becomes a reality when you move from one world to the other. The social construction of the U.S.-Mexico border did not have serious consequences, until the 1980s. It used to be common for people to cross the border without major consequences. However, as politicians and the media began to exploit ideas and myths of an unsettling flux of immigrants to the north, the realities of the border have changed. As Rodriguez explains, according to this [new] social construction, the country is facing a bordercontrol crisis that threatens societys capacity for social integration. This new reality of the border has been supplied, promoted and advanced by (1) the continuous visits to the border by politicians, (2) the constant affirmations of public figures that claim that immigrants abuse the system, and (3) the various reports that rationalize anti-immigrant reports. Moreover, the social construction of the Latino and Asian new immigrants as aliens who are innately different to the past European immigrants perpetuate the construction of the border as a dangerous zone of invasion. Identity Politics TurnEstablishment and preservation of a Mexican Identity is crucial to Identity politics-The plan would just absorb migrants into the collective of the Western perspectiveHoy 82, Terry Hoy author of The Review of Politics and works for the Cambridge University Press citing Octavio Paz*, Mexican writer, poet, diplomat and winner of the Nobel Prize for literature in 1990 (Terry, July 1982, Octavio Paz: The Search for Mexican Identity http://www.jstor.org/stable/1407050)nasokanThe question of national identity has been a central theme in Mexican thought since the Revolution of 1910. The writings of Octavio Paz, one of Mexico's most prominent literary figures, are an important and provocative locus for this question. The con- tribution of Paz to an analysis of Mexican identity must be seen in the broader context of an intellectual revolution in Mexico. This began in the late 1920's and was directed against the prevailing philosophical romanticism represented by Antonio Caso and Jose Vasconcelos.1. This was, in part, a protest against the anti- intellectualism inherent in an "aesthetic-intuitive" approach of these writers. But it was also the demand for a philosophital perspective more relevant to an emerging Mexican nationalism already being articulated in literature and art. The writings of the Spanish philosopher Ortega y Gasset were of crucial importance in influencing Mexican philosophy towards realism. The key con- cept taken from Ortega was that of "historical perspectivism": the view that reality cannot be grasped independently of the point of view from which it is being observed. Perspectives do not distort reality; they constitute it. Philosophy, then, is changed from something abstract and eternal to something concrete and historical. Ortega's historical perspectivism became the inspira- tion for Mexican thinkers who wished to develop a national philosophy and a concept of "Mexicanidad." One of the more influential pioneers in the department of a philosophy of Mexican identity was Samuel Ramos, who acknowledged his indebtedness to Ortega's emphasis upon the understanding of man in his concrete historical circumstances. Just as there is a Chinese perspective that is as fully justified as the Western, so by the same token there must be a Mexican point of view that is as fully justified as the European.2 In his book, Profile of Man and Culture in Mexico, Ramos sought to develop a psychoanalysis of Mexican character. Mexico's problems, Ramos contends, have been the result of imitation of European models without being able to overcome the legacy of revolutions, dictator- ships and economic stagnation. Mexican history is the expression of a collective inferiority complex stemming from the results of the Spanish conquest, racial mixture and a disadvantageous geographical position. In hiding their inferiority, Mexicans have resorted to unhealthy compensations including aggressive asser- tions of power that have isolated Mexicans from one another and prevented the attainment of a sense of community. As a solution to this problem, Ramos called for a greater self-consciousness of a uniquely Mexican identity, and the need for an educational system with a humanistic orientation that would counter the materialistic civilization stemming from North American in- fluence.3 While Ramos was an intellectual leader in the effort to develop a national philosophy more effectively geared to Mexican circumstances, he was vulnerable to the charge that he remained attached to a type of utopian thinking evident, for example, in his concept of a "New Humanism" as a moral community founded on "existence as charity." Ramos, in short, did not find a way to bridge the gap between the values to which he was attached and the concrete political-economic circumstances of Mexican society.4 Octavio Paz carries on the psychoanalytic approach to the Mexican character pioneered by Ramos. But he develops this in closer relationship to the concrete realities of Mexican historical developments and its contemporary economic-political problems. He also emphasizes Mexican identity in a broader context of Latin American and Third World political development.

Further engagement would only force assimilation on migrant populationsEmbrick 8, David G. Embrick (2008 publication, US AND THEM http://www.sagepub.com/healeyregc6e/study/chapter/encycarticles/ch01/EMBRIC~1.PDF)nasokanAssimilation refers to the process by which people or groups voluntarily adopt or are forced to adopt the language and cultural norms and values of another group. In most cases, the minority group is expected to conform to normative practices and ideals associated with the majority group. Those who refuse to assimilate to the larger culture, such as immigrants who choose to retain their cultural practices and language, are typically viewed as anti-American or somehow different from typical Americans. Whether people are allowed to assimilate into the dominant culture largely depends on the whether they will fit into the political, social, and economic desires of the dominant group, a group that has historically been (and continues to be) made up of European White ethnic groups. In the United States, for example, Native Americans, African Americans, and Mexican Americans have lived in the United States much longer than most European American groups. Unfortunately, instead of being viewed as the normative culture (or part of the normative culture), these groups continue to be viewed as others who have cultures different from that of Americans or White culture.

That internal link turns racismEmbrick 8, David G. Embrick (2008 publication, US AND THEM http://www.sagepub.com/healeyregc6e/study/chapter/encycarticles/ch01/EMBRIC~1.PDF)nasokanThere have been numerous studies on the relationship between minority group size and racial prejudice and discrimination. As some scholars have suggested, when the dominant group perceives a racialized threat from a minority group, even if the threat is unfounded, there is increased prejudice against the minority group. Other research indicates that typically, the dominant groups prejudice against minority and immigrant groups increases during economic downturns, when the majority may blame them for perceived loss of jobs, economic insecurities, and threat of job competition. During such times, there may be an increase in the us versus them mentality. Recent debates indicate that there is no clear consensus on the future of race relations in the United States. According to some scholars, future race relations in the United States will largely remain a Black/White issue. Other scholars, however, argue that the United States is becoming a multiracial society similar to many South American countries. These researchers conclude that the United States will be further racially stratified, with White groups at the top, groups such as those who identify themselves as multiracial serving as a buffer group in the middle, and darker-skinned groups at the bottom of the racial hierarchy.

Corporations TurnCorporations benefit most from open bordersDoris Provine, 2008 , Professor, School of Justice & Social Inquiry, Arizona State U.Review of OPENING THE FLOODGATES: WHY AMERICA NEEDS TO RETHINK ITS BORDERS AND IMMIGRATION LAWS, by Kevin R. Johnson. Law & Politics Book Review, Vol. 18 No. 2 (February, 2008) pp.106-108 http://www.gvpt.umd.edu/lpbr/subpages/reviews/johnson0208.htmBut ultimately, one comes away from this book with the sense that the question Johnson raises is bigger, and tougher, than the answer that he provides. The United States, after all, is not the only nation resistant to the idea of opening its borders. Immigration is a volatile issue because it challenges national governments to defer to market forces. Advocacy for open borders makes for a curious result: Johnsons most ardent supporters are likely to be corporations and businesses looking for easier access to cheap labor. This book encourages a broader discussion than is currently circulating in American politics, one that looks to the foundations of immigration policy and imagines a major overhaul.The Other TurnTheir attempt to include the Other feeds the depoliticized world order, justifying endless wars in the name of peace Pourciau, 6 (Sarah, Johns Hopkins University, Bodily Negation: Carl Schmitt on the Meaning of Meaning MLN 120.5, Project Muse MGE)The potential for spilling real blood defines the concept of the political in its "original existential sense" by tying it definitively to that which indisputably exists. By thus affirming a notion that offers up for affirmation nothing beyond an irrefutable reality, Schmitt performs what looks like the ultimate reactionary gesture. It is difficult to imagine a definition of the political more purely "formal" than the one presented here, more devoid of precisely the kind of normative "content" his critics have so often endorsed as the only escape from an occasionalist decisionism. Nonetheless, a peculiar fate befalls his language the moment he begins to argue for the relation between politics and war: it lapses into the normative category of justification. To demand seriously of human beings that they kill others and be prepared to die themselves so that trade and industry may flourish for the survivors or that the purchasing power of subsequent generations may grow is sinister and crazy.... War, the readiness of combatants to die, the physical killing of human beings who stand on the side of the enemyall this has no normative meaning, but an existential meaning only.... If such physical annihilation of human life does not proceed from the existential assertion of one's own form of existence in the face of an equally existential negation, then it cannot be justified. Neither can war be rationalized by recourse to ethical and juristic norms. If there really are enemies in the existential sense intended here, then it makes sense, but only political sense, to repel them physically where necessary and to fight them. (48-49, translation modified)