Note: Note all research is here. I still need to research two bills, none of Chen's bills are here, they should get to you via email.
1. A Bill To Abloish Plea Bargaining
Pro:
c1: Causes
incorrect judgements
w1: According to Christian Sciene Monitor in '10, the late Mayor Dixon of Baltimore plea bargained and recieved no jail time and kept 83k
w2: according to NPR, 90% of cases resolved by plea bargains
w3:According to NPR, plea bargaining forfiets one's trial rights
w4: According to Cato, when it comes down to it, the prosecutor exploits the constitution and the whole system in order to win. It's a getaway for the defendant, a victory for the prosecutor.
Con:
C1: Benefits Society
W1: According to Christian Science monitor, the late mayor Dixon after recieving a plea bargian worked 500 hours of community service over a span of two years anddonated $45,000
C2: Lacking fundamental resources
W2: According to Cato, the system could not afford to run every case for days through court
W2: According to Pbs, quite frankly, there just isn't enough money nor time to do so.
14. Bill to Establish government run voucher program
Pro:
C: Its a smart investable dollar
W1: According to NCES (National Center for Educational Statistics) students in poor-income families have 4 1/2 times the dropout rate compared to middle and upper classes.
W: In a test in Florida state, according to the NYT, priv. school kids did better in reading tests than public schoolers.
C2:No significant harm
W2: According to Brookings, all schoolers, priv, public, homeschooled, etc., on balance perform the same.
Basic Impact2: With no major costs, and promise for no pro chioce complainers, why not.
Con:
C1: No major differences between the two
W:According to The Institute of Educational Services, nstudents did not report feeling safer or being more achieved in priv. schools of choice over public
W1:According to NYT, most public school kids--in local schools or whatever--performed the same and if not better than priv. school kids.
C2: Money is government's but goes to no significant effect
W2: According to Cato, voucher's unlike tax credit or other forms of payment, are from the people's pockets.
I2: taxpayer's have money used fo same result
15. Further the Advancement of Non-Embroyic Stem-cell Research
Pro:
W: According to the NYT, grants and prizes by the state of Cali have prompted 14 companies to research it
A resolution to Close all Non combat zones
Pro points
1. Waste of resources
2. Reflects badly on American image
3. Soldiers can be put to better use
1st warrants
Progressive Policy Institute: In May of 2009, the U.S currently has 289,000 soldiers where overseas. 57,000 of these are in Germany, 33,000 and over 27,000 in South Korea
http://japanfocus.org/-Hayashi-Kiminori/3185( Only read first paragraph use second paragraph for second speech)
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=5415&type=0&sequence=4( read everything up to switching from Individual Rotations to Unit Rotations)
2nd
http://www.thetrumpet.com/?q=5993.4356.0.0
http://asiancorrespondent.com/66776/2-us-soldiers-accused-of-raping-teenagers-in-korea/
3rd
General David Petraeus: In his testimony to congress he stated that that insurgent attacks have decreased due to an additional 120,000 men and women being relocated to the War on Terror.
Con points
1. Terrorist activity in the world
2. America stabilizes the world
1st
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2010/0805/Last-year-10-999-terrorist-attacks-worldwide-a-decline-from-2008
http://www.eurasiareview.com/20022011-spike-in-terrorism-in-north-caucasus/( Look at the bottom for the author and cite it instead of Eurasia)
2nd
http://www.cfr.org/us-strategy-and-politics/americas-destiny-police-world/p5559
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-03-11-us-reaction-tsunami_N.htm
A Resolution to replace welfare with Private Companies
Pro points
1. More efficient system
2. Helps teens in ways government can’t
1st warrants
http://www.miller-mccune.com/politics/welfare-reform-failing-poor-single-mothers-24778/
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/04/us/experts-say-bleak-account-of-poverty-missed-the-mark.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=400
http://www.nps.gov/partnerships/fundraising_individuals_statistics.htm
2nd
http://harborhouse.org/
http://www.covenanthouse.org/youth-homeless-programs/mother-child-teen-pregnancy
http://www.teenshelter.org/donate.html
http://www.teenshelter.org/donate.html
Con points
1. Private charities are unstable( basically with our current economy private charities can’t provide stability)
2. Private charities can’t handle to lowed
3. Government is more efficient
1st warrants
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/jun/06/us-economy-decline-recovery-challenges
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2011/08/how-long-will-it-take-for-the-economy-to-recover-too-damn-long.html
2nd
http://www.galvestonogp.org/GHA/SR_67.pdf
On the bill were it says 2.2 billion dollars go to pregnant teens
3rd
http://129.3.20.41/eps/mac/papers/0203/0203001.pdf
http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/News/DailyBulletin/1078915/Fall-fundraising-income-continues-says-Charity-Market-Monitor/8D7F8730F93B3AB2AC2554D9249243AE
A Resolution to increase Stability
Pro points
1.take out our enemies
2.help U.S economy
3.help keep peace with the world
1st warrants
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2011/10/mil-111024-afps06.htm
http://iraq.usembassy.gov/aboutus/american-iraqi.html
2nd
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-01-29/world/taiwan.arms_1_one-china-taiwan-strait-strong-indignation?_s=PM:WORLD
http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c2010.html
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1844547,00.html
http://www.ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/israel-fta
3rd
http://www.cfr.org/israel/israel-true-ally-middle-east/p26382
http://www.economist.com/node/16216247?story_id=16216247
Con points
1. Hurt Foreign relation
2. America already provides enough support to the world
3. Will cost American more than it gains
1st
http://www.jfklibrary.org/JFK/JFK-in-History/The-Bay-of-Pigs.aspx
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/07/world/asia/07iht-military.1.16744766.html
2nd
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/54199/morihiro-hosokawa/are-us-troops-in-japan-needed-reforming-the-alliance
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/korea-orbat.htm
http://icasualties.org/oef/
3rd
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/8780672/China-warns-US-over-Taiwan-arms-sales.html
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/bayofpigs/
Izzy’s Research
A resolution to stop unlawful detentions:
Pro Evidence:
Some Arrests made in ‘Secure Communities’ are illegal:
“The results are disturbing because they point to a system that is funneling people towards deportation without due process. Based on our findings, we recommend that the Department of Homeland Security suspend the program until the government addresses the issues we identify, particularly wrongful U.S. citizen arrests, potential racial profiling, and lack of discretion in detention,” said Aarti Kohli, director of immigration policy at the Warren Institute and lead author of the report.”
Key findings include: Approximately 3,600 United States citizens have been arrested by ICE through the Secure Communities program even though citizens, by definition, should not be subject to immigration detention; Approximately 88,000 families containing U.S. citizens have been affected by Secure Communities through the immigration arrest of a family member; Latinos comprise 93% of individuals arrested through Secure Communities though they only comprise 77% of the undocumented population in the United States; Only 52% of individuals arrested through Secure Communities were slated to appear before an immigration judge; Only 24% of the individuals arrested through Secure Communities who did have an immigration hearing were represented by an attorney. By contrast, 40% of all immigration court respondents have counsel; Only 2% of non-citizens arrested through Secure Communities are granted relief from deportation by an immigration judge. By contrast, 14% of all immigration court respondents are granted relief; A large majority (83%) of people arrested through Secure Communities is held in ICE detention as compared with an overall DHS immigration detention rate of 62%. ICE does not appear to be exercising discretion when deciding whether or not to detain Secure Communities arrestees
“The wrongful arrest of thousands of U.S. citizens demonstrates that, too often, ICE’s protocol is arrest first, investigate second.”
“The government’s own data has consistently shown that most of the people impacted by this program have no criminal record or are low-level offenders. To lock these people up in detention centers without access to attorneys or an opportunity to see a judge is undemocratic,” said Aarti Kohli, director of immigration policy at the Warren Institute and lead author of the report.
http://www.law.berkeley.edu/11876.htm (Wednesday, October 19, 2011)
Many deportations cause more harm than good:
According to Pbs: (October 19, 2011)
+ 1.6 percent of those arrested were actually U.S. citizens+ 39 percent of people arrested through Secure Communities have at least one child or spouse who is a U.S. citizen+ 93 percent of those arrested are Latinos, even though they account for 77 percent of the entire undocumented population
Secure Communities has led to the arrest of almost 227,000 people since its inception in 2008.Prisons are over crowded:
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (November 15, 2011)
As of 2009 over 760,000 people were in jail and over 1.5 million people were in prison.
http://www.law.berkeley.edu/11876.htm
According to the Immigration Policy Center: (11/4/2010)
Unnecessary or Prolonged Detention. The existence of a Secure Community detainer may limit an individual’s ability to access a lawyer, fight criminal charges, or get out of jail on bail. Profiling and pretextual arrests. While Secure Communities is a technological identification program through which all persons arrested are fingerprinted and checked against the various databases, there is a concern that police officers working in areas that have Secure Communities in their local jails may have an incentive, or at least the ability, to make arrests based on race or ethnicity, or to make pretextual arrests of persons they suspect to be in violation of immigration laws, in order to have them run through immigration databases once they are jailed.Lack of complaint mechanisms. Given the wide range of concerns about Secure Communities, it is essential that there be a complaint or redress procedure for individuals who believe they have been erroneously identified by DHS databases or who believe a DHS detainer has been issued in error. Currently there is no clear complaint procedure for persons who believe they have been victims of an error.
Con Evidence:
Secure Communities help maintain public safety:
According to The U.S. Immigration and Customs Agency:
“One important tool that ICE relies upon to advance this priority is Secure Communities, which facilitates ICE's ability to identify and remove aliens who pose a threat to public safety. Through June 30, 2011, more than 86,600 immigrants convicted of crimes, including more than 31,300 convicted of aggravated felony (level 1) offenses like murder, rape and the sexual abuse of children were removed from the United States after identification through Secure Communities. These removals significantly contributed to a 71 percent increase in the overall percentage of convicted criminals removed by ICE, and a 23 percent reduction in the removal of people without a criminal conviction, from October 2008 until the end of FY 2010.”
Secure Communities do not harm others’ rights: Secure Communities is a simple and common sense way to carry out ICE's priorities. It uses an already-existing federal information-sharing partnership between ICE and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) that helps to identify criminal aliens without imposing new or additional requirements on state and local law enforcement. For decades, local jurisdictions have shared the fingerprints of individuals who are booked into jails with the FBI to see if they have a criminal record. Under Secure Communities, the FBI automatically sends the fingerprints to ICE to check against its immigration databases. If these checks reveal that an individual is unlawfully present in the United States or otherwise removable due to a criminal conviction, ICE takes enforcement action – prioritizing the removal of individuals who present the most significant threats to public safety as determined by the severity of their crime, their criminal history, and other factors – as well as those who have repeatedly violated immigration laws.
FACT: Secure Communities was designed to reduce the potential for racial profiling. Under Secure Communities, the fingerprints of every single individual arrested and booked into custody, including U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents, are checked against immigration records – reducing the risk of discrimination or racial profiling. ICE and the DHS Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL) are implementing additional procedures to monitor state and local conduct and protect the program from potential abuses. These safeguards include strengthening protections for victims of abuse or other crimes; a formal complaint process for those who feel they have been the targets of ethnic discrimination; an investigative process involving CRCL with referral to the Department of Justice; and analysis by a statistician to identify any data irregularities that could indicate misconduct in particular jurisdictions so that we can immediately initiate corrective actions.
Secure Communities are wide spread, therefore it wouldn’t be a good idea to take them away: According to the Immigration Policy Center: 11/4/2010)
As of October 2010, Secure Communities is available in 686 jurisdictions in 33 states. ICE plans to have a Secure Communities presence in every state by 2011, and plans to implement Secure Communities in each of the 3,100 state and local jails across the country by 2013
A resolution to address Turkey and Isreal
Pro Evidence:
Turkey and Israel are at a diplomatic impasse:
According to the Guardian: (12 September 2011)
The Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, has declared emphatically that Israel will not tender an apology. While his stance may be dictated by coalition politics, it has created a diplomatic impasse. The Obama administration – worried about the ramifications of a major rift between Israel and Turkey for US strategic interests but afraid of taking on the Netanyahu government for domestic reasons – has not put any pressure on Israel. It thus risks alienating Turkey, a crucial Nato member.
This impasse could turn bad: the article continues to state:
This diplomatic episode has important implications for the future of the Middle East. First, it demonstrates that Israeli dominance of the eastern Mediterranean will no longer go unchallenged. Erdogan has made clear that the Turkish navy will play a more active role in the area, and Turkish sources have indicated that it may even escort flotillas carrying humanitarian aid to Gaza. Any future attempt by Israel to prevent aid from reaching Gaza could spark a military confrontation.Second, it demonstrates that Israel's defiance of international law, especially regarding its treatment of the occupied territories, will face increasing challenges in international forums. A referral to the ICJ will bring to the fore Israel's violation of provisions of the fourth Geneva convention that prohibit the demographic transformation of occupied lands, as well as its responsibility regarding the welfare of the occupied population. The issue of West Bank settlements will again become a topic of heated debate.
Good relations between these nations ins important for US interests: the article continues to state:
This diplomatic episode has important implications for the future of the Middle East. First, it demonstrates that Israeli dominance of the eastern Mediterranean will no longer go unchallenged. Erdogan has made clear that the Turkish navy will play a more active role in the area, and Turkish sources have indicated that it may even escort flotillas carrying humanitarian aid to Gaza. Any future attempt by Israel to prevent aid from reaching Gaza could spark a military confrontation.Second, it demonstrates that Israel's defiance of international law, especially regarding its treatment of the occupied territories, will face increasing challenges in international forums. A referral to the ICJ will bring to the fore Israel's violation of provisions of the fourth Geneva convention that prohibit the demographic transformation of occupied lands, as well as its responsibility regarding the welfare of the occupied population. The issue of West Bank settlements will again become a topic of heated debate.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/sep/12/turkey-israel-reverberates-washington
Turkey is becoming more powerful:
According to the Council on Foreign Relations (June 3, 2010)
Turkey's recent diplomatic differences with the United States and its sharpened deterioration of relations with Israel come from Turkey's desire to reestablish its role as a major influence in the Middle East and Central Asia, says F. Stephen Larrabee, an expert on Turkey at the RAND Corporation. "Turkey is returning to a more traditional role, one in which it was closely involved in the Middle East for centuries, going back to the Ottoman Empire," says Larrabee. He says the days when Turkey was a "junior partner" of the United States are over."We're dealing with a new Turkey, one that is more assertive and self confident," says Larrabee. "That doesn't mean our interests don't coincide in some areas, but we have to recognize that when it comes to the Middle East, U.S. and Turkish interests only partially coincide." He says the United States is "in danger of finding itself in a very weak position" unless it issues a stronger criticism of Israel for its attack on the Turkish ship headed to Gaza. And on Iran, he believes the Turks will abstain in the Security Council on new sanctions, which will only further strain relations with the United States and Turkey's European allies.
**Background info**(From the CFR)What has led to the widening split between Turkey and both the United States and Israel?The downward spiral of relations over the last eighteen months goes back to the Israeli Gaza offensive in December 2008, which marked an important turning point. Relations since then have really gone downhill. Turkey appears to be on a strongly anti-Israeli course, but in a broader sense one has to see this in a historical perspective because this represents the adjustment of Turkey to the aftermath of the Cold War. Turkey became less dependent on the United States for its security. The end of the Cold War opened up new opportunities for Turkish policies in areas Turkey historically has had strong political and economical interests, particularly in the Middle East and Central Asia. Turkey is returning to a more traditional role, one in which it was closely involved in the Middle East for centuries, going back to the Ottoman EmpireTurkey's reaction has both internal and external components. Internally, it's been very popular. It has shown everyone that it wants to be a strong leader. Externally, it's been popular with the Arab countries and enhanced its prestige in the Arab world. Turkey eventually wants to be an important regional player in the Middle East. There's a vacuum there, and it's trying to fill that vacuum.I've always thought that the U.S. problems with Turkey really began when the United States asked Turkey to let American troops come into Iraq from Turkey at the beginning of the Iraq War in 2003 and Turkey's parliament narrowly turned it down. That obviously was an important catalyst. The decision of the Turkish parliament not to allow the United States to use Turkish territory to invade Iraq was an important turning point in the relationship with the United States, but then again you have to see it a little bit from Turkey's perspective. Turkey never had any love for Saddam Hussein. They considered him a dictator just like the United States did. But Saddam kept the Kurds, which have a rebellious minority in Turkey, under control and he represented stability. They regarded the American invasion of Iraq as very detrimental to their own security.
Turkey continues to grow more powerful: the report continues to state:
It's part of their general feeling that they want to be a major player in the Middle East. They've shown that by their willingness to act as a mediator in the dispute between Israel and Syria, and they've continued to play a role as a mediator between the United States and Iran. What they did with the nuclear deal was again to become the broker, but it's part of the larger dimension of Turkish policy. This is part of the changes since the end of the Cold War, which opened up new opportunities for Turkey.
http://www.cfr.org/israel/managing-more-assertive-turkey/p22302
Con Evidence:
The US cant run relations between Israel and Turkey because the US has a bad relationship with Turkey:
According to the Council on Foreign Relations (June 21, 2006)
—“The growing schism between the West and the Islamic world is one of the primary challenges confronting American foreign and defense policymakers. As a consequence, the relationship between the United States and Turkey—a Western-oriented, democratizing Muslim country—is strategically more important than ever,”
While Turkey has the potential to be an invaluable partner as Washington seeks to improve its standing in the Muslim world, U.S.-Turkey relations have been severely damaged by the war in Iraq. “Turks believe that the Bush administration committed two sins.” Before the war, “Washington dismissed Ankara’s warnings about the consequences of invading Iraq.” And now, “Turks believe the United States has not taken sufficient care to address Turkey’s security concerns” about the emergence of an independent Kurdistan, which could stoke nationalist sentiment among Turkey’s Kurdish minority.
The U.S. should put more pressure on Israel to cooperate:
According to the CFR on June 3, 2010
The downward spiral of relations over the last eighteen months goes back to the Israeli Gaza offensive in December 2008, which marked an important turning point. Relations since then have really gone downhill. Turkey appears to be on a strongly anti-Israeli
According to BBC on Wednesday, 13 January 2010
Turkey has demanded that Israel apologise over what it called the "discourteous" way its ambassador was treated during a diplomatic meeting
According to Reuters on September 13 2011
Because of Isreal’s Naval Blockade of Gaza strip About one-third of Gaza's arable land and 85 percent of its fishing waters are totally or partially inaccessible due to Israeli military measures, said Olivier De Schutter, U.N. special rapporteur on the right to food, another of the five.At least two-thirds of Gazan households lack secure access to food, he said. "People are forced to make unacceptable trade-offs, often having to choose between food or medicine or water for their families."
The article also stated that the Israeli raid of May 2010 that killed nine Turkish activists said earlier this month that Israel had used unreasonable force in last year's raid,
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/13/us-un-gaza-rights-idUSTRE78C59R20110913
http://www.cfr.org/israel/managing-more-assertive-turkey/p22302
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8455460.stm
http://www.cfr.org/turkey/us-turkey-relations-seriously-damaged-iraq-war-finds-council-special-report/p10934
A Resolution to abolish the debt Ceiling
Pro:
According to Forbes Magazine on July 26 2011“The truth is that the United States doesn’t need, and shouldn’t have, a debt ceiling. Every other democratic country, with the exception of Denmark, does fine without one. There’s no debt limit in the Constitution. And, if Congress really wants to hold down government debt, it already has a way to do so that doesn’t risk economic chaos—namely, the annual budgeting process. The only reason we need to lift the debt ceiling, after all, is to pay for spending that Congress has already authorized. If the debt ceiling isn’t raised, we’ll face an absurd scenario in which Congress will have ordered the President to execute two laws that are flatly at odds with each other. If he obeys the debt ceiling, he cannot spend the money that Congress has told him to spend, which is why most government functions will be shut down. Yet if he spends the money as Congress has authorized him to he’ll end up violating the debt ceiling.”
“the [debt] ceiling is an artifact of a time when it was useful for reining in the president, because before 1974 Congress didn’t pass a comprehensive budget, and the president had much more freedom over spending.”
“Advocates of the ceiling like the way it turns the national debt into front-page news, focusing the minds of voters and politicians; they think it fosters accountability, straight talk, transparency. In reality, debt-ceiling votes merely perpetuate the illusion that balancing the budget is easy. That’s why politicians like the debt ceiling: it allows them to rail against borrowing more money (which voters hate) without having to vote to cut any specific programs or raise taxes (which voters also hate).”
“current events certainly confirm—”by turning dealmaking into a game of chicken, the debt ceiling favors fanaticism.” That is the most painful part of the present mess: that fanaticism appears to be prepared to bring down the national economy.”
A debt Ceiling doesn’t accomplish very much:
According to the LA Times on August 1 2011
For all the drama, the compromise achieves little in the short term and only delays what most see as the country's key financial decision: whether to raise taxes or reduce Medicare
A debt ceiling only gets in the way of borrowing
According to the Congressional Research Service:
Congress has raised the debt limit five timesSince 2001, Deficits each year since 2001 and the persistent increases in debt heldby government accounts repeatedly raised the debt to or near the limit in place at thetime. Congress raised the limit in June 2002, and by December 2002 theAdministration asked Congress for another increase.
Con
[The actual reason for the existence of the debt ceiling]
C:Without it the Government will continue to spend irresponsiblyW:According to the Congressional Research Service:
The debt limit can hinder the Treasury’s ability to manage the federal government’s finances, asnoted above. In extreme cases, when the federal debt is very near its statutory limit, the Treasurymust take unusual and extraordinary measures to meet federal obligations.18 While the debt limithas never caused the federal government to default on its obligations, it has at times caused greatinconvenience and has added uncertainty to Treasury operations.The debt limit also provides Congress with the strings to control the federal purse, allowingCongress to assert its constitutional prerogatives to control spending.19 The debt limit alsoimposes a form of fiscal accountability that compels Congress and the President to take visibleaction to allow further federal borrowing when the federal government spends more than itcollects in revenues. In the words of one author, the debt limit “expresses a national devotion tothe idea of thrift and to economical management of the fiscal affairs of the government.”20 On the
I:Without the debt limit Congress is liable to spend the country into oblivion
Izzy’s Research
A resolution to stop unlawful detentions:
Pro Evidence:
Some Arrests made in ‘Secure Communities’ are illegal:
“The results are disturbing because they point to a system that is funneling people towards deportation without due process. Based on our findings, we recommend that the Department of Homeland Security suspend the program until the government addresses the issues we identify, particularly wrongful U.S. citizen arrests, potential racial profiling, and lack of discretion in detention,” said Aarti Kohli, director of immigration policy at the Warren Institute and lead author of the report.”
Key findings include: Approximately 3,600 United States citizens have been arrested by ICE through the Secure Communities program even though citizens, by definition, should not be subject to immigration detention; Approximately 88,000 families containing U.S. citizens have been affected by Secure Communities through the immigration arrest of a family member; Latinos comprise 93% of individuals arrested through Secure Communities though they only comprise 77% of the undocumented population in the United States; Only 52% of individuals arrested through Secure Communities were slated to appear before an immigration judge; Only 24% of the individuals arrested through Secure Communities who did have an immigration hearing were represented by an attorney. By contrast, 40% of all immigration court respondents have counsel; Only 2% of non-citizens arrested through Secure Communities are granted relief from deportation by an immigration judge. By contrast, 14% of all immigration court respondents are granted relief; A large majority (83%) of people arrested through Secure Communities is held in ICE detention as compared with an overall DHS immigration detention rate of 62%. ICE does not appear to be exercising discretion when deciding whether or not to detain Secure Communities arrestees
“The wrongful arrest of thousands of U.S. citizens demonstrates that, too often, ICE’s protocol is arrest first, investigate second.”
“The government’s own data has consistently shown that most of the people impacted by this program have no criminal record or are low-level offenders. To lock these people up in detention centers without access to attorneys or an opportunity to see a judge is undemocratic,” said Aarti Kohli, director of immigration policy at the Warren Institute and lead author of the report.
http://www.law.berkeley.edu/11876.htm (Wednesday, October 19, 2011)
Many deportations cause more harm than good:
According to Pbs: (October 19, 2011)
+ 1.6 percent of those arrested were actually U.S. citizens+ 39 percent of people arrested through Secure Communities have at least one child or spouse who is a U.S. citizen+ 93 percent of those arrested are Latinos, even though they account for 77 percent of the entire undocumented population
Secure Communities has led to the arrest of almost 227,000 people since its inception in 2008.Prisons are over crowded:
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (November 15, 2011)
As of 2009 over 760,000 people were in jail and over 1.5 million people were in prison.
http://www.law.berkeley.edu/11876.htm
According to the Immigration Policy Center: (11/4/2010)
Unnecessary or Prolonged Detention. The existence of a Secure Community detainer may limit an individual’s ability to access a lawyer, fight criminal charges, or get out of jail on bail. Profiling and pretextual arrests. While Secure Communities is a technological identification program through which all persons arrested are fingerprinted and checked against the various databases, there is a concern that police officers working in areas that have Secure Communities in their local jails may have an incentive, or at least the ability, to make arrests based on race or ethnicity, or to make pretextual arrests of persons they suspect to be in violation of immigration laws, in order to have them run through immigration databases once they are jailed.Lack of complaint mechanisms. Given the wide range of concerns about Secure Communities, it is essential that there be a complaint or redress procedure for individuals who believe they have been erroneously identified by DHS databases or who believe a DHS detainer has been issued in error. Currently there is no clear complaint procedure for persons who believe they have been victims of an error.
Con Evidence:
Secure Communities help maintain public safety:
According to The U.S. Immigration and Customs Agency:
“One important tool that ICE relies upon to advance this priority is Secure Communities, which facilitates ICE's ability to identify and remove aliens who pose a threat to public safety. Through June 30, 2011, more than 86,600 immigrants convicted of crimes, including more than 31,300 convicted of aggravated felony (level 1) offenses like murder, rape and the sexual abuse of children were removed from the United States after identification through Secure Communities. These removals significantly contributed to a 71 percent increase in the overall percentage of convicted criminals removed by ICE, and a 23 percent reduction in the removal of people without a criminal conviction, from October 2008 until the end of FY 2010.”
Secure Communities do not harm others’ rights: Secure Communities is a simple and common sense way to carry out ICE's priorities. It uses an already-existing federal information-sharing partnership between ICE and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) that helps to identify criminal aliens without imposing new or additional requirements on state and local law enforcement. For decades, local jurisdictions have shared the fingerprints of individuals who are booked into jails with the FBI to see if they have a criminal record. Under Secure Communities, the FBI automatically sends the fingerprints to ICE to check against its immigration databases. If these checks reveal that an individual is unlawfully present in the United States or otherwise removable due to a criminal conviction, ICE takes enforcement action – prioritizing the removal of individuals who present the most significant threats to public safety as determined by the severity of their crime, their criminal history, and other factors – as well as those who have repeatedly violated immigration laws.
FACT: Secure Communities was designed to reduce the potential for racial profiling. Under Secure Communities, the fingerprints of every single individual arrested and booked into custody, including U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents, are checked against immigration records – reducing the risk of discrimination or racial profiling. ICE and the DHS Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL) are implementing additional procedures to monitor state and local conduct and protect the program from potential abuses. These safeguards include strengthening protections for victims of abuse or other crimes; a formal complaint process for those who feel they have been the targets of ethnic discrimination; an investigative process involving CRCL with referral to the Department of Justice; and analysis by a statistician to identify any data irregularities that could indicate misconduct in particular jurisdictions so that we can immediately initiate corrective actions.
Secure Communities are wide spread, therefore it wouldn’t be a good idea to take them away: According to the Immigration Policy Center: 11/4/2010)
As of October 2010, Secure Communities is available in 686 jurisdictions in 33 states. ICE plans to have a Secure Communities presence in every state by 2011, and plans to implement Secure Communities in each of the 3,100 state and local jails across the country by 2013
A resolution to address Turkey and Isreal
Pro Evidence:
Turkey and Israel are at a diplomatic impasse:
According to the Guardian: (12 September 2011)
The Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, has declared emphatically that Israel will not tender an apology. While his stance may be dictated by coalition politics, it has created a diplomatic impasse. The Obama administration – worried about the ramifications of a major rift between Israel and Turkey for US strategic interests but afraid of taking on the Netanyahu government for domestic reasons – has not put any pressure on Israel. It thus risks alienating Turkey, a crucial Nato member.
This impasse could turn bad: the article continues to state:
This diplomatic episode has important implications for the future of the Middle East. First, it demonstrates that Israeli dominance of the eastern Mediterranean will no longer go unchallenged. Erdogan has made clear that the Turkish navy will play a more active role in the area, and Turkish sources have indicated that it may even escort flotillas carrying humanitarian aid to Gaza. Any future attempt by Israel to prevent aid from reaching Gaza could spark a military confrontation.Second, it demonstrates that Israel's defiance of international law, especially regarding its treatment of the occupied territories, will face increasing challenges in international forums. A referral to the ICJ will bring to the fore Israel's violation of provisions of the fourth Geneva convention that prohibit the demographic transformation of occupied lands, as well as its responsibility regarding the welfare of the occupied population. The issue of West Bank settlements will again become a topic of heated debate.
Good relations between these nations ins important for US interests: the article continues to state:
This diplomatic episode has important implications for the future of the Middle East. First, it demonstrates that Israeli dominance of the eastern Mediterranean will no longer go unchallenged. Erdogan has made clear that the Turkish navy will play a more active role in the area, and Turkish sources have indicated that it may even escort flotillas carrying humanitarian aid to Gaza. Any future attempt by Israel to prevent aid from reaching Gaza could spark a military confrontation.Second, it demonstrates that Israel's defiance of international law, especially regarding its treatment of the occupied territories, will face increasing challenges in international forums. A referral to the ICJ will bring to the fore Israel's violation of provisions of the fourth Geneva convention that prohibit the demographic transformation of occupied lands, as well as its responsibility regarding the welfare of the occupied population. The issue of West Bank settlements will again become a topic of heated debate.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/sep/12/turkey-israel-reverberates-washington
Turkey is becoming more powerful:
According to the Council on Foreign Relations (June 3, 2010)
Turkey's recent diplomatic differences with the United States and its sharpened deterioration of relations with Israel come from Turkey's desire to reestablish its role as a major influence in the Middle East and Central Asia, says F. Stephen Larrabee, an expert on Turkey at the RAND Corporation. "Turkey is returning to a more traditional role, one in which it was closely involved in the Middle East for centuries, going back to the Ottoman Empire," says Larrabee. He says the days when Turkey was a "junior partner" of the United States are over."We're dealing with a new Turkey, one that is more assertive and self confident," says Larrabee. "That doesn't mean our interests don't coincide in some areas, but we have to recognize that when it comes to the Middle East, U.S. and Turkish interests only partially coincide." He says the United States is "in danger of finding itself in a very weak position" unless it issues a stronger criticism of Israel for its attack on the Turkish ship headed to Gaza. And on Iran, he believes the Turks will abstain in the Security Council on new sanctions, which will only further strain relations with the United States and Turkey's European allies.
**Background info**(From the CFR)What has led to the widening split between Turkey and both the United States and Israel?The downward spiral of relations over the last eighteen months goes back to the Israeli Gaza offensive in December 2008, which marked an important turning point. Relations since then have really gone downhill. Turkey appears to be on a strongly anti-Israeli course, but in a broader sense one has to see this in a historical perspective because this represents the adjustment of Turkey to the aftermath of the Cold War. Turkey became less dependent on the United States for its security. The end of the Cold War opened up new opportunities for Turkish policies in areas Turkey historically has had strong political and economical interests, particularly in the Middle East and Central Asia. Turkey is returning to a more traditional role, one in which it was closely involved in the Middle East for centuries, going back to the Ottoman EmpireTurkey's reaction has both internal and external components. Internally, it's been very popular. It has shown everyone that it wants to be a strong leader. Externally, it's been popular with the Arab countries and enhanced its prestige in the Arab world. Turkey eventually wants to be an important regional player in the Middle East. There's a vacuum there, and it's trying to fill that vacuum.I've always thought that the U.S. problems with Turkey really began when the United States asked Turkey to let American troops come into Iraq from Turkey at the beginning of the Iraq War in 2003 and Turkey's parliament narrowly turned it down. That obviously was an important catalyst. The decision of the Turkish parliament not to allow the United States to use Turkish territory to invade Iraq was an important turning point in the relationship with the United States, but then again you have to see it a little bit from Turkey's perspective. Turkey never had any love for Saddam Hussein. They considered him a dictator just like the United States did. But Saddam kept the Kurds, which have a rebellious minority in Turkey, under control and he represented stability. They regarded the American invasion of Iraq as very detrimental to their own security.
Turkey continues to grow more powerful: the report continues to state:
It's part of their general feeling that they want to be a major player in the Middle East. They've shown that by their willingness to act as a mediator in the dispute between Israel and Syria, and they've continued to play a role as a mediator between the United States and Iran. What they did with the nuclear deal was again to become the broker, but it's part of the larger dimension of Turkish policy. This is part of the changes since the end of the Cold War, which opened up new opportunities for Turkey.
http://www.cfr.org/israel/managing-more-assertive-turkey/p22302
Con Evidence:
The US cant run relations between Israel and Turkey because the US has a bad relationship with Turkey:
According to the Council on Foreign Relations (June 21, 2006)
—“The growing schism between the West and the Islamic world is one of the primary challenges confronting American foreign and defense policymakers. As a consequence, the relationship between the United States and Turkey—a Western-oriented, democratizing Muslim country—is strategically more important than ever,”
While Turkey has the potential to be an invaluable partner as Washington seeks to improve its standing in the Muslim world, U.S.-Turkey relations have been severely damaged by the war in Iraq. “Turks believe that the Bush administration committed two sins.” Before the war, “Washington dismissed Ankara’s warnings about the consequences of invading Iraq.” And now, “Turks believe the United States has not taken sufficient care to address Turkey’s security concerns” about the emergence of an independent Kurdistan, which could stoke nationalist sentiment among Turkey’s Kurdish minority.
The U.S. should put more pressure on Israel to cooperate:
According to the CFR on June 3, 2010
The downward spiral of relations over the last eighteen months goes back to the Israeli Gaza offensive in December 2008, which marked an important turning point. Relations since then have really gone downhill. Turkey appears to be on a strongly anti-Israeli
According to BBC on Wednesday, 13 January 2010
Turkey has demanded that Israel apologise over what it called the "discourteous" way its ambassador was treated during a diplomatic meeting
According to Reuters on September 13 2011
Because of Isreal’s Naval Blockade of Gaza strip About one-third of Gaza's arable land and 85 percent of its fishing waters are totally or partially inaccessible due to Israeli military measures, said Olivier De Schutter, U.N. special rapporteur on the right to food, another of the five.At least two-thirds of Gazan households lack secure access to food, he said. "People are forced to make unacceptable trade-offs, often having to choose between food or medicine or water for their families."
The article also stated that the Israeli raid of May 2010 that killed nine Turkish activists said earlier this month that Israel had used unreasonable force in last year's raid,
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/13/us-un-gaza-rights-idUSTRE78C59R20110913
http://www.cfr.org/israel/managing-more-assertive-turkey/p22302
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8455460.stm
http://www.cfr.org/turkey/us-turkey-relations-seriously-damaged-iraq-war-finds-council-special-report/p10934
A Resolution to abolish the debt Ceiling
Pro:
According to Forbes Magazine on July 26 2011“The truth is that the United States doesn’t need, and shouldn’t have, a debt ceiling. Every other democratic country, with the exception of Denmark, does fine without one. There’s no debt limit in the Constitution. And, if Congress really wants to hold down government debt, it already has a way to do so that doesn’t risk economic chaos—namely, the annual budgeting process. The only reason we need to lift the debt ceiling, after all, is to pay for spending that Congress has already authorized. If the debt ceiling isn’t raised, we’ll face an absurd scenario in which Congress will have ordered the President to execute two laws that are flatly at odds with each other. If he obeys the debt ceiling, he cannot spend the money that Congress has told him to spend, which is why most government functions will be shut down. Yet if he spends the money as Congress has authorized him to he’ll end up violating the debt ceiling.”
“the [debt] ceiling is an artifact of a time when it was useful for reining in the president, because before 1974 Congress didn’t pass a comprehensive budget, and the president had much more freedom over spending.”
“Advocates of the ceiling like the way it turns the national debt into front-page news, focusing the minds of voters and politicians; they think it fosters accountability, straight talk, transparency. In reality, debt-ceiling votes merely perpetuate the illusion that balancing the budget is easy. That’s why politicians like the debt ceiling: it allows them to rail against borrowing more money (which voters hate) without having to vote to cut any specific programs or raise taxes (which voters also hate).”
“current events certainly confirm—”by turning dealmaking into a game of chicken, the debt ceiling favors fanaticism.” That is the most painful part of the present mess: that fanaticism appears to be prepared to bring down the national economy.”
A debt Ceiling doesn’t accomplish very much:
According to the LA Times on August 1 2011
For all the drama, the compromise achieves little in the short term and only delays what most see as the country's key financial decision: whether to raise taxes or reduce Medicare
A debt ceiling only gets in the way of borrowing
According to the Congressional Research Service:
Congress has raised the debt limit five timesSince 2001, Deficits each year since 2001 and the persistent increases in debt heldby government accounts repeatedly raised the debt to or near the limit in place at thetime. Congress raised the limit in June 2002, and by December 2002 theAdministration asked Congress for another increase.
Con
[The actual reason for the existence of the debt ceiling]
C:Without it the Government will continue to spend irresponsiblyW:According to the Congressional Research Service:
The debt limit can hinder the Treasury’s ability to manage the federal government’s finances, asnoted above. In extreme cases, when the federal debt is very near its statutory limit, the Treasurymust take unusual and extraordinary measures to meet federal obligations.18 While the debt limithas never caused the federal government to default on its obligations, it has at times caused greatinconvenience and has added uncertainty to Treasury operations.The debt limit also provides Congress with the strings to control the federal purse, allowingCongress to assert its constitutional prerogatives to control spending.19 The debt limit alsoimposes a form of fiscal accountability that compels Congress and the President to take visibleaction to allow further federal borrowing when the federal government spends more than itcollects in revenues. In the words of one author, the debt limit “expresses a national devotion tothe idea of thrift and to economical management of the fiscal affairs of the government.”20 On the
I:Without the debt limit Congress is liable to spend the country into oblivion
