Memories

Rentschler/Rentschler Page 1 of 22
Minchin/Minchin/Student Green cards/H-1B Arx Axiom
Minchin/Minchin Discrimination Neg Brief

Disad’s
1) Original Intent Violated.......................................................................................... 2

Link 1: Since 1965, Purpose of Immigration Policy is NOT Discriminatory..............2
Country-Based Quotas Ended in 1965: Foundation of Current Policy........................2
Pre-1965 Immigration Policy: Considered Highly Discriminatory..............................2
L2: Current Post-1965 Policy Considered Part of Civil Rights....................................3
SQ/Post-1965 Policy Perceived as Preserving Equality...............................................3
Original Intent Disad Extensions..................................................................................4
Pre-1965 Policy History................................................................................................4
Since 1965, Nationality-Based Policy Regarded as Racism.........................................5
2. International Relations Provoked..........................................................6

L1: MFN Allows for No Discrimination......................................................................6
L2: Immigration Favoritism Seen as Potential Violation of MFN...............................6
L3: Many Chinese Engaged in US Universities...........................................................7
43% Increase in Chinese Visa Applications.................................................................7
Chinese are Increasingly Studying Abroad..................................................................7
China Has a Lot of Students in US Universities!.........................................................7
L4: China Wants Us Economic Engagement: Retaliation if Denied.............................8
I: We lose China, which is really, really important........................................................9
I: Lost Soft Power with China (MFN Example)...........................................................9
3. Increased Internal Violence.....................................................................................11

L: Immigrants Perceived as Taking Away Jobs......................................................... 11
L2: Same Program, Increased Violence in Australia.................................................. 11
B: Indians at Risk for Violence................................................................................... 12
Internal Violence Extensions....................................................................................... 13
Violence in Germany................................................................................................. 13
Violence Devastates National Image/PR.................................................................... 13
Violence in Australia ................................................................................................ 14
Irish Hostility............................................................................................................ 15
Kritik: Discrimination/Racism.................................................................................. 16
CP .............................................................................................................................. 17
There’s Also...
Solv
1. Supreme Ct. Overturns Policy based on Perceived Racism
Sig
1. Same Innovation
2. No Demand: Businesses Not Expanding
1. Original Intent Violated
Link 1: Since 1965, Purpose of Immigration Policy is NOT Discriminatory

(Current Policy is based on 1965 Immigration Act)
Country-Based Quotas Ended in 1965: Foundation of Current Policy
The Journal of Gender, Race & Justice Fall, 2003 Racism and U.S. Immigration Law:
Prospects for Reform After "9/11?" Richard A. Boswell Professor of Law and Director,
Center for International Justice and Human Rights, University of California, Hastings
College of the Law. [Accessed via Lexis Nexis]
“As noted earlier, the

1965 Amendments were regarded as groundbreaking because the
legislation dismantled a legacy of discriminatory immigration policy. The passage of the
1965 Immigration Act was heralded as removing "race and creed" and place of birth as a
basis for determining a person's admissibility to the United States. While most scholars have
lauded the 1965 Amendments as removing many of the discriminatory provisions from the immigration
laws, discriminatory aspects of the system remained intact and in fact continued to increase in the years
following 1965. In retrospect, it appears that the 1965 Amendments have been the last positive immigration
reform of the twentieth century.”
Increaseing numbers of one race hurts relations with other races of immigrants
The Journal of Gender, Race & Justice Fall, 2003 Racism and U.S. Immigration Law: Prospects
for Reform After "9/11?" Richard A. Boswell Professor of Law and Director, Center for International
Justice and Human Rights, University of California, Hastings College of the Law. [Accessed via Lexis
Nexis]
“Many immigrants chose to move to the United States because of increasingly intolerable situations
in their homeland. Most U.S. immigrant groups tell similar stories of their journey to the United
States. They describe their journey and treatment as a narrative of worsening conditions in their
ancestral land causing them to migrate, their voyage to the United States and the challenge to
attempt to build a better life for their families in their new home. Interspersed in this story of
migration, nearly every immigrant group also depicts a period of difficulty and hostility at the hands
of the immigrant group who preceded or overlapped them. For example, many Irish immigrants
came to the United States during a series of potato famines in the early part of the 1800's.n15 Their
numbers swelled to a level where they comprised approximately forty percent of the foreign born
population in the United States by the middle of the century. n16 Upon arrival, the Irish, most of
whom were poor and unskilled, took whatever work they could find. n17 In time, they advanced
within their jobs, becoming foremen and bosses. Eventually, other immigrants took their places in
the positions formerly held by Irish immigrants. The Irish experience was not an easy one and
their [*319] increasing numbers caused much hostility among those immigrants who had arrived
earlier; hostility which was directed primarily toward their differences-most Irish immigrants were
Catholic.n18”
National origin based immigration is perceived as racism
Nexis]
In July 1963, President Kennedy proposed immigration reforms that had their origins in work he had
started while he was in the Senate in 1957.n58 These proposed reforms would eliminate the
national origin quotas created in 1924. n59 The proposed legislation would remove spouses and
minor children and parents of U.S. citizens from quota restrictions. n60 The legislation also called
for removing parents of permanent residents from the national quota restrictions. n61 In place of
the National Origin Quota, n62 President Kennedy proposed a system based on skills needed in the
United States, family ties to U.S. citizens and issuing immigrant visas based on "priority of
registration." n63 Kennedy's proposal also contemplated the need for flexibility allowing for an
adjustment in the numbers of immigrants admitted in a given time frame as well as a transition
period to deal with the changes that the immigrant population would experience as a result of the
amendments. n64 With regard to immigrants coming to the United States based on their work
skills, the proposal included a preference for immigrants with special skills and even allowed for
some immigrants with lesser skills in that it would not require those immigrants to first have a U.S.
employer. n65 Kennedy also proposed to lessen the restrictions on those immigrants
with [*327] mental health problems.n66 President Kennedy's 1963 proposals were finally enacted
in 1965.n67 However the legislation was only enacted after significant compromise. While the 1965
amendments to U.S. immigration law removed the national origin barriers and were hailed as the
elimination of racial barriers to U.S. immigration admission, they were in no way a complete
solution to the problem of racial barriers that had taken so long to develop in the United States. The
1965 Amendments were enacted at the same time that pressure was building outside of the United
States with world leaders calling for the eradication of racial discrimination and the adoption of an
international convention to fight racism. n68 The United States was in a furious battle with the
communist Soviet Union for moral high ground in the international arena and was constantly
criticized for its domestic racist law and practices. While I am not arguing that there was a
concerted effort to take a two track approach in blunting international criticism-that of reforming
the immigration laws and removing some of the vestiges of slavery present in the current domestic
laws-I am arguing that international pressures made it imperative that both pieces of legislation be
enacted during this same historic period.
Pre-1965 Immigration Policy: Considered Highly Discriminatory
Jennifer Ludden, Correspondent, National Desk at NPR News, 2006 Cred’s: Jennifer
Ludden covers immigration and immigrant issues, filing stories that reflect the changing
demography of the U.S. Her pieces can be heard on all NPR News programs,
including All Things Considered, Morning Edition, and Weekend Edition. Ludden won
the Robert F. Kennedy award for her coverage of the fall of Zaire's Mobutu Sese Seko
and the rebellion of Laurent Kabila (who changed the country's name to the Democratic
Republic of Congo). Ludden was also part of the NPR team which won two awards for
coverage of Kosovo in 1999: the Overseas Press Club Lowell Thomas Award and the
Society of Professional Journalists' Sigma Delta Chi Award for Excellence in
Journalism. “1965 Immigration Law Changed Face of America”
“The current system of legal immigration dates to 1965. It marked a radical break with
previous policy and has led to profound demographic changes in America. But that's not how the law
was seen when it was passed -- at the height of the civil rights movement, at a time when ideals of freedom,
democracy and equality had seized the nation. Against this backdrop, the manner in which the United
States decided which foreigners could and could not enter the country had become an increasing
embarrassment. "The law was just unbelievable in its clarity of racism," says Stephen
Klineberg, a sociologist at Rice University. "It declared that Northern Europeans are a
superior subspecies of the white race. The Nordics were superior to the Alpines, who in
turn were superior to the Mediterraneans, and all of them were superior to the Jews and
the Asians." By the 1960s, Greeks, Poles, Portuguese and Italians were complaining that
immigration quotas discriminated against them in favor of Western Europeans. The
Democratic Party took up their cause, led by President John F. Kennedy. In a June 1963 speech to the
American Committee on Italian Migration, Kennedy called the system of quotas in place back then " nearly
intolerable."
1965 legislation removed racism

Nexis]
As noted earlier, the 1965 Amendments were regarded as groundbreaking because the legislation
dismantled a legacy of discriminatory immigration policy. The passage of the 1965 Immigration Act
was heralded as removing "race and creed" and place of birth as a basis for determining a person's
admissibility to the United States. While most scholars have lauded the 1965 Amendments as
removing many of the discriminatory provisions from the immigration laws, discriminatory aspects
of the system remained intact and in fact continued to increase in the years following 1965. In
retrospect, it appears that the 1965 Amendments have been the last positive immigration reform of
the twentieth century.
(Original Intent Disad, cont’d...)
L2: Current Post-1965 Policy Considered Part of Civil Rights
SQ/Post-1965 Immigration Policy is Linked to Preservation of Civil Rights

(example: 1965 legislation to end immigration discrimination)
Center for Immigration Studies, Three Decades of Mass Immigration, The Legacy of
the 1965 Immigration Act, September 1995,
http://www.cis.org/articles/1995/back395.html
“The liberalization of immigration policy reflected in the 1965 legislation can be understood as
part of the evolutionary trend in federal policy after World War II to end legal
discrimination based on race and ethnicity — essentially, the immigration bill was
mainly seen as an extension of the civil rights movement, and a symbolic one at that,
expected to bring few changes in its wake. In 1957, Congress passed the first civil rights law since
Reconstruction, another in 1960, and two important bills in 1964 and 1965. Moreover, Supreme Court
decisions and state and local laws also struck at the remnants of legal racism. The
immigration bill was merely another step in this process. The connection between civil
rights legislation and abolishing the national origins quotas was explicit. As Rep. Philip
Burton (D-CA) said in Congress: "Just as we sought to eliminate discrimination in our
land through the Civil Rights Act, today we seek by phasing out the national origins
quota system to eliminate discrimination in immigration to this nation composed of the
descendants of immigrants." (Congressional Record, Aug. 25, 1965, p. 21783.)”
SQ/Post-1965 Policy Perceived as Preserving Equality
Center for Immigration Studies, Three Decades of Mass Immigration, The Legacy of
the 1965 Immigration Act, September 1995,
http://www.cis.org/articles/1995/back395.html
“Rep. Sidney Yates (D-IL) supported the bill as a reaffirmation of "our devotion to the
principle of equal justice for peoples previously subject to discrimination," but did not see
it as ushering in a new era of mass immigration: "I am aware that this bill is more concerned
with the equality of immigrants than with their numbers. It is obvious in any event that the
great days of immigration have long since run their course. World population trends have changed, and
changing economic and social conditions at home and abroad dictate a changing migratory
pattern." (Congressional Record, August 25, 1965, p. 21793.)”
Brink: Affirmative Legislation Deviates from Original Intent; Reverts back to old
practice of showing favoritism and discrimination based upon nationality.
Impact 1. Makes Immigration about sanctioning and rewarding other nations,

instead of obtaining economic benefit. The purpose of immigration policy is
skewed and becomes only a political tool.
Impact 2. Other Nations Retaliate. (Kennedy faced a lot of pressure pre-1965 bill)
Original Intent Disad Extensions
Pre-1965 Policy: Highly Discriminatory

(History of US Immigration Policy: Chronology)
Center for Immigration Studies, Three Decades of Mass Immigration, The Legacy of the
1965 Immigration Act, September 1995, http://www.cis.org/articles/1995/back395.html
Point: By passing affirmative legislation, we revert back to old policy of

discriminating against immigrants of certain nationalities. The old policy is
considered highly racist. (See cards below)
“1882 Chinese Exclusion Act — Barred the entry of any Chinese for 10 years, made
permanent in 1904 until it was rescinded in 1943.
1907 Gentlemen's Agreement — Barred the entry of Japanese and Koreans.
1917 Immigration Act — Passed over President Wilson's veto, it established a literacy
test and created the "Asiatic Barred Zone," virtually prohibiting immigration from Asia.
1921 Quota Act (Johnson Act) — Set the first immigration quotas in the nation's
history, equal to 3 percent of the foreign born of admissible nationality in the 1910
census. There was still no limit on immigration from the Western Hemisphere.
1924 Immigration Act (Johnson-Reid Act) — Set an annual ceiling of 154,227 for the
Eastern Hemisphere. Each country had a quota representative of its population in the
U.S. as of the 1920 census.
1952 Immigration and Nationality Act (McCarran-Walter Act) — Passed over

President Truman's veto, it reaffirmed the basic provisions of the national origins quota
system, and the annual ceiling remained 154,277. It abolished immigration and
naturalization exclusions against Asians and allotted 100 visas for each Asian country.
In addition, the act instituted a system to give preference (within the national origins
quotas) to foreigners with education or skills, as well as relatives — this was the
predecessor of today's preference system. Immigration from Latin America and the
Caribbean remained exempt from numerical limits.
1965 Amendments to Immigration and Nationality Act (Hart-Celler Act) — See

"Details" section of this paper.”
Original Intent Disad Extension..
Since 1965, Nationality-Based Policy Regarded as Racism
“In July 1963, President Kennedy proposed immigration reforms that had their origins in work
he had started while he was in the Senate in 1957. These proposed reforms would eliminate the
national origin quotas created in 1924. The proposed legislation would remove spouses and minor
children and parents of U.S. citizens from quota restrictions. The legislation also called for removing
parents of permanent residents from the national quota restrictions. n61 In place of the National Origin
Quota, n62 President Kennedy proposed a system based on skills needed in the United States, family ties to
U.S. citizens and issuing immigrant visas based on "priority of registration." n63 Kennedy's proposal also
contemplated the need for flexibility allowing for an adjustment in the numbers of immigrants admitted in a
given time frame as well as a transition period to deal with the changes that the immigrant population
would experience as a result of the amendments. With regard to immigrants coming to the United States
based on their work skills, the proposal included a preference for immigrants with special skills and even
allowed for some immigrants with lesser skills in that it would not require those immigrants to first have a
U.S. employer. Kennedy also proposed to lessen the restrictions on those immigrants with mental health
problems. President Kennedy's 1963 proposals were finally enacted in 1965. However the
legislation was only enacted after significant compromise. While the 1965 amendments to U.S.
immigration law removed the national origin barriers and were hailed as the elimination of racial barriers to
U.S. immigration admission, they were in no way a complete solution to the problem of racial barriers that
had taken so long to develop in the United States. The 1965 Amendments were enacted at the
same time that pressure was building outside of the United States with world leaders
calling for the eradication of racial discrimination and the adoption of an international
convention to fight racism. The United States was in a furious battle with the communist Soviet
Union for moral high ground in the international arena and was constantly criticized for its domestic racist
law and practices. While I am not arguing that there was a concerted effort to take a two track approach in
blunting international criticism-that of reforming the immigration laws and removing some of the vestiges
of slavery present in the current domestic laws-I am arguing that international pressures made it imperative
that both pieces of legislation be enacted during this same historic period.”
2. International Relations Provoked
L1: MFN Allows for No Discrimination
World Trade Organization, 2009, UNDERSTANDING THE WTO: BASICS, Principles of

the trading system, http://www.wto.org/english/theWTO_e/whatis_e/tif_e/fact2_e.htm
“Under the WTO agreements, countries cannot normally discriminate between their
trading partners. Grant someone a special favour (such as a lower customs duty rate for
one of their products) and you have to do the same for all other WTO members. This
principle is known as most-favoured-nation (MFN) treatment It is so important that it is
the first article of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which governs
trade in goods. MFN is also a priority in the General Agreement on Trade in Services
(GATS) (Article 2) and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property
Rights (TRIPS) (Article 4), although in each agreement the principle is handled slightly
differently. Together, those three agreements cover all three main areas of trade handled
by the WTO.”
5. HI-Bs and MFN.

Debunking the Myth of Mode 4 and the U.S. H-1B Visa Program, Lori Wallach and Todd Tucker, Public Citizen’s
Global Trade Watch, March 2006,
http://www.citizen.org/documents/Mode_Four_H1B_Visa_Memo.pdf
“This system does not allow for any allocation of visas per country. The entire system is strictly “first-come, first-
served” and when the overall cap is reached in each category that has caps (such as H-1B), applications from
companies are no longer accepted. The Singapore and Chile FTAs initially had separate sub-categories of visas under
this system, but now those guaranteed visa quotas have been rolled under the overall H-1B cap. This method of
guaranteeing certain numbers of H-1B visas for Chilean and Singaporean workers under the FTAs would not work in
the GATS context however, because GATS is a multilateral agreement that includes a Most Favored Nation (MFN)
rule. This is one of the areas of confusion that is currently being used to lure countries to make Mode 3
commitments. Because of GATS MFN rules, if there was an increase in the guaranteed number of “GATS visas” for
Mode 4 listed in the GATS text, this would simply provide an equal right to nationals from all WTO signatory
countries to compete for whatever number of H-1B visas they could already apply for (and more if the GATS number
was lower than the existing H-1B cap) under existing law. However, for reasons relating to the U.S. Constitution,
described below, the U.S. Congress would not agree to an increase in the bound number of H-1B visas. Congress has
exclusive authority to set the overall number of visas in each category allowed each year and would not permit itself to
be bound in a “trade” agreement to any minimum guaranteed number beyond that already committed.”
6. Immigration and MFN.

Migration and International Trade Policy: Parallel Worlds? Jan Niessen, Open Democracy – free thinking for the
world, 14 November 2003,
http://www.opendemocracy.net/people-migrationeurope/article_1585.jsp
“The non-discrimination provisions in GATS consist of the Most Favoured Nation (MFN) and the national treatment
principles. The former principle states that all foreign services and service suppliers have to be treated alike. This
obligation guarantees that every time a member state improves the benefits that it gives to one trading partner, it has to
give the same “best” treatment to all other trading partners as well, so that they remain equal.
This obligation covers all liberalisation steps, whether they are negotiated bilaterally or applied unilaterally.
Exemptions must be listed specifically and are limited in time. While the MFN covers access, the national treatment
principle means that once foreign companies have been permitted to enter a country, they must be treated in the same
way as domestic ones. Measures that put a foreign supplier at a disadvantage are not allowed.
GATS’s non-discrimination principles have meaningful analogies in the migration domain. Following the logic of the
MFN, immigration policies based on national, racial and ethnic preferences would not be allowed (these were and still
are practiced); the national treatment principle would imply that once in the country, foreigners would enjoy the same
rights as nationals. Equal treatment is a goal of immigrant advocates in Europe and elsewhere, but is still far from being
achieved across the board with regard to access to employment, services, civic rights and freedom of movement
amongst others.”
L2: Immigration Favoritism Seen as Potential Violation of MFN

(Discrimination could become a problem if disputed)
“Conflicts Between United States Immigration Law and the General Agreement on Trade
in Services: Most-Favored-Nation Obligation”, William Thomas Worster, Texas
International Law Journal, The University of Texas School of Law, Fall 2006,
http://tilj.org/journal/entry/42_55_worster/P2/
“United States laws establishing qualifications for temporary, nonimmigrant

classifications are potentially in violation of the United States’ obligations under the
World Trade Organization’s (WTO)1General Agreement on Trade in Services
(GATS).2 These violations, if ever the subject of a WTO dispute, may force the United
States to choose between accepting trade sanctions and changing existing immigration
policy under external pressure. In either case, by consenting to the GATS at the
conclusion of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations (Uruguay Round)
and not necessarily complying with it, the United States has incurred potential WTO
liabilities. If a dispute over immigration law was successful, the United States would be
forced by the coercive trade power of its international obligations to change what is
normally considered one of the most sovereign of attributes of statehood, the very power
to determine which aliens are qualified to enter and remain in the country.”
International Relations Disad, cont’d..
L3: Many Chinese Engaged in US Universities
43% Increase in Chinese Visa Applications
Overseas Education More Attainable for Chinese Students, Jenifer Pak, Voice of
America News, Beijing, 28 April 2008, http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2008-
04/2008-voa23.cfm?
CFID=176262588&CFTOKEN=91007136&jsessionid=88308c341e43e5a5ca984a317a
4f1b5e1539
“The U.S. government issued a record number of student visas in China last year - just
over 53,000 student visas. That is 43 percent more than the previous year. Officials at the
U.S. embassy say the increased number of visas issued is the result of the increased
number of applications and not a change in policy or any easing of regulations.”
Chinese are Increasingly Studying Abroad
Overseas Education More Attainable for Chinese Students, Jenifer Pak, Voice of
America News, Beijing, 28 April 2008, http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2008-
04/2008-voa23.cfm?
CFID=176262588&CFTOKEN=91007136&jsessionid=88308c341e43e5a5ca984a317a
4f1b5e1539
“A record number of Chinese students are expected to study abroad this year, as more
and more apply for visas to attend universities in the United States, Europe and Australia.
Many students say they want an overseas degree to help them compete in China's tough
job market. Jennifer Pak reports from Beijing.”
China Has a Lot of Students in US Universities!
Institute of International Education, January 26, 2005, Chinese Students at American

Colleges and Universities, Remarks of Donald M. Bishop, Minister-Counselor for Press
and Cultural Affairs American Embassy Beijing, At the American Center for Educational
Exchange, http://www.iienetwork.org/?p=56814
The
“Chinese students have responded to these opportunities, to the welcome, and to the good value.
annual statistics gathered by the Institute for International Education show that during the
2003-2004 academic year, there were 61,765 Chinese students at institutions of higher
education in the United States. They are nearly 11 percent of all the foreign students in
our country. Only one country, India, sends more students to American campuses. Most Chinese
students in the United States – 82 percent – are graduate students. This is partly true because
Chinese students in mathematics, sciences, and engineering are often able to qualify to be Teaching
Assistants and Research Assistants, thus qualifying for free or lower tuition. These opportunities are not
generally available to undergraduates. There is a new flow of undergraduates to American colleges and
universities under the auspices of the new “1-2-1” undergraduate programs. A student studies one year at
his or her university in China and then studies for two years at a partner school in the United States. After
finishing senior year back in China, the student receives the bachelor’s degree.”
L4: China Wants US Economic Engagement; Retaliation if Denied (MFN Example)
Stanley O. Roth, Assistant Secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, U.S. Department
of State, Testimony Before the House Ways and Means Committee,
Subcommittee on Trade, Washington, DC, June 17, 1998 (when Chinese MFN first
instituted)
“China's economic ties with the world give it a huge incentive to participate in and abide by the rules of the
international system. If the United States, the world's largest and most open economy, were
to deny China a normal trading relationship, China's stake in the international system
would shrink significantly. Withdrawal of MFN would devastate our economic
relationship. Denial of MFN to China could invite Chinese retaliation against our $13
billion in exports; endanger the roughly 170,000 jobs in the United States those exports
support; hurt American consumers through price increases on basic goods; disadvantage
American business people hoping to compete in China's burgeoning market; and derail
ongoing multilateral and bilateral trade negotiations intended to increase access to the
China market and ensure China's compliance with international trade rules.”
Impact: We lose China, which is really, really important (good card)
instituted)
“Mr. Chairman, peace and stability in East Asia and the Pacific is a fundamental
prerequisite for U.S. security and prosperity. Nearly one-half the world's people live in
countries bordering the Asia-Pacific region and over half of all economic activity in the
world is conducted there. Four of the world's major powers rub shoulders in Northeast
Asia while some of the most strategically important waterways on the globe flow through
Southeast Asia. The U.S. itself is as much a Pacific nation as an Atlantic one, with the states of Alaska,
California, Oregon and Washington bordering on the Pacific Ocean and Hawaii surrounded by it. American
citizens in Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas live closer to Asian
capitals than to our own, vast numbers of Americans work in the Asia-Pacific region, and an increasingly
large number of Americans trace their ancestry back to the Pacific Rim. For these and many other reasons,
the U.S. has remained committed to the Asia-Pacific region and has spent its resources and blood defending
and strengthening our stake in the region. Since coming to office, President Clinton has repeatedly made
clear that America will remain an Asia-Pacific power. We maintain a sizable military presence in Asia;
enjoy a vibrant network of mutual security alliances with Australia, Japan, the Philippines, the Republic of
Korea and Thailand; and have significant economic ties with most countries in the region. China's sheer
size means we must deal with China in our capacity as an Asia-Pacific power. China is
home to one-quarter of humankind and occupies vast territory that borders on 14 nations.
But China's remarkable economic achievements, increasing diplomatic prominence and
growing military strength make it a nation that affects not only our interests in Asia but
our vital national interests across the board. In terms of security, China is already a global
player. China holds a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. It possesses nuclear
weapons, the world's largest standing army, and a rapidly advancing industrial and
technological capacity. It borders some of the globe's most troubled regions: the Indian
subcontinent to the west, the Korean Peninsula to the east, and the opium-producing
region known as the Golden Triangle to the south. Its economic importance is no less
profound. The Chinese economy is already one of the largest in the world, and many
observers predict that if current growth rates can be sustained, it will be the largest within
several decades.”
I: Lost Soft Power with China (MFN Example)
instituted)
“Denial of MFN could actually hinder our efforts to improve human rights in China.
Revocation of MFN would create a tense, hostile atmosphere in which Chinese leaders
would be less inclined to take the kind of actions we have worked painstakingly to
encourage: releasing political dissidents, allowing international visits to prisoners,
signing and ratifying international human rights covenants, and engaging international
religious leaders. Furthermore, the loss of the U.S. market might have the unintended effect of
weakening some of the most progressive elements of Chinese society. Private entrepreneurs have been able
to expand personal freedoms by being independent of the state, and our trade and investment have helped
to expand the habits of free enterprise and independent thinking. We need to encourage this sector, not
stunt its growth, and we can only do that by providing access to American markets and ideas.”
3. Increased Internal Violence
L: Immigrants Perceived as Taking Away Jobs, Spurning Racism/Violence

(Germany Example)
Migration News, September 2000, Volume 6 Number 4, Germany: Green Cards,

Violence, http://migration.ucdavis.edu/MN/more.php?id=2190_0_4_0
“The arrival of the first green-card workers coincided with more attacks on immigrants.
In late July, nine immigrants from the ex-USSR were injured by a bomb in Duesseldorf. Six of the nine
were Jewish, prompting warnings of right-wing extremist violence. In August 2000, three German
skinheads in Dessau went on trial on murder charges for beating and kicking a 39-year old Mozambiquen
immigrant to death. The government showed its determination to punish those who commit racial violence
by sending the federal chief prosecutor to take charge of the prosecution. The interior minister of the state
of Saxony Anhalt issued a statement that said: "Without wishing to put the independence of the judiciary
into question, the culprits must feel the full force of the law." Schroeder took a 10-day trip through East
Germany in August, urging "civic courage against rightist extremism." Germany has provided $400 billion
in subsidies to the East since unification, about $25,000 a person, but unemployment remains high. A
review of the background for the killing in Dessau emphasized high unemployment in the
area-21 percent-and the German policy of distributing asylum applicants to each German state, giving
them pocket money and not allowing them to work. Many of the racist attacks have occurred
against Turks, Africans and Vietnamese in the former East Germany, where foreigners
are often blamed for unemployment. The rate is 17.3 percent in July 2000, compared to
7.7 percent in the former West Germany. On the first weekend in August, police detained
dozens of neo-Nazi supporters trying to hold a rally in Bad Berka, near Weimar in eastern
Germany, while hundreds of Germans took to the streets in Duesseldorf in an anti-Nazi
protest decrying a rise in racist attacks.”
L2: Same Program, Increased Violence in Australia
The Economic Times Violence a concern for Indian students in NZ and Australia
12 Jun 2008, Sangeeta Anand, The writer is editorial director of The Global Indian in
NZ http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/3121680.cms?prtpage=1
“A lot of violence against Indian students and professionals in Australia is stemmed of

racial abuse and discrimination. According to Victoria Police some of these crimes bear
the ‘us-versus-them’ racial overtone while most, come as “assaults and robberies”, and
many other cases go unreported, possibly for fear of a backlash. A student Kanan Kharbanda,
26, was left partially blinded after being bashed by a gang of 10 or more youths at Sunshine railway station
in March. He has now left Australia and is since undergoing medical treatment in India. It was reported
in the Australian on May 30, this year that Indians are being warned that Melbourne is
unsafe, after a series of attacks on students from the sub-continent. Boarding home fires,
car crashes, murders and drowning are taking their toll, with 17 foreign students dying in
Victoria in the past year. Federation of Indian Students of Australia secretary Gautam
Gupta told a local Australian newspaper that racism was rampant. Recently, a 23-year-old
Indian student, working as a taxi driver, was brutally stabbed and left bleeding on the roadside in
Melbourne. 200 Indian cabbies protested in a rally to demand that all vehicles be fitted with security
screens. Such are the perils of Indians who leave their shore for a better life be it for studying or working.”
Internal Violence Disad, cont’d...
B: Indians At Risk
Business Week, India Could Be the Next Target for Angry Americans, Posted by: Steve
Hamm on March 23, 2009
http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/blog/globespotting/archives/2009/03/will_india_
beco.html
“When the mob gets tired of pursuing AIG and Madoff, it will look for other targets to
bay after. India is at risk. Inciter Lou Dobbs keeps pounding away at the foreigner and immigrant.
Meanwhile, US Senators Richard Durbin and Chuck Grassley are crafting new legislation aimed at further
tightening H1B and L1 visa rules. It’s expected to be submitted to Congress by April 3. Visa reform is
legitimate, if there are abuses. But it becomes dangerous if the legislation ignites an angry broadbased
backlash against India and offshoring. Don’t get me wrong. I think a measured dose of protectionism can
be useful at times of crisis or in response to abuses by other nations. It’s legit if it’s done rationally and in a
carefully targeted way. It’s not okay if it erects major barriers to trade. It could harm both nations if the US
goes after India. For starters, where’s the harm or unfairness? Stats from the Bureau of Labor Statistics
show US employment in the category of computer systems design and related services at 1.463 million in
February. That’s down just 5,000 from a peak of 1.468 million last November. This is the category of
employee that would be most affected by IT offshoring. Yet it’s just off an all-time high—and at a time
when Wall Street has fired thousands of techies because of its own mistakes, not anything the
Indian tech industry has done.”
Internal Violence Disad Extensions
Violence in Germany

“Most German leaders condemned violence against foreigners. At the same time, there
were press reports of local German authorities "harassing" foreign professionals. When
American Steven Beckwith quit his job at the Max Planck Institute in Heidelberg after his
wife was denied a permanent residence permit, the newsmagazine Der Spiegel said the
Beckwith case showed that "Foreigners are basically unwelcome in Germanyâ€¦ Even
top- notch foreign specialists are being harassed by German authorities in a manner as if
they actually want to scare them off."
Violence is Devasting National Image/PR Abroad (Germany Example)

“The government also announced $35 million worth of educational and social projects in the next three
years to fight right-wing extremism. However, most law enforcement officials advised against a ban on
political parties such as the NPD, saying that a ban would only drive anti-foreigner groups underground.
Nazi hunter Simon Wiesenthal agreed, saying that the best way to combat rising neo-Nazism was to fight
unemployment. This latest round of anti-immigrant violence prompted Foreign Minister
Joschka Fischer to say that "We have reached a point where the majority of the
population that has been silent up to now can no longer remain silent." Fischer noted that
anti-foreigner and anti-immigrant violence was doing "devastating damage to the image
of Germany abroad." An Emnid Institute poll released August 11 found that 81 percent of
Germans would like to see stronger measures taken against extremists and that 65 percent
favored banning the NPD. In an ironic twist, Austria's Interior Minister Ernst Strasser urged Germany on
August 15 to toughen laws restricting the activities of right-wing extremists. Austria forbids neo-Nazi
organizations and bans the use of the Nazi symbol. Germany was one of the EU-member nations that
isolated Austria after the rightist Freedom Party joined the coalition government in 2000.”
Internal Violence Extensions, cont’d...
Violence in Australia
Big rise in attacks on Indians, BYLINE: ELLEN WHINNETT, Chief reporter Sunday
Herald Sun, Australia, March 2009 http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/News/News-By-
Industry/Services/Now-Indian-students-facing-hell-Down-
Under/articleshow/4325936.cms
“INDIAN students are being terrorized by gangs of thugs in Melbourne's suburbs in

racially-motivated attacks. The number of crimes being committed against Indians,
mainly in the western suburbs, has so alarmed police and the Government that several
taskforces have been formed in response. The problem is being widely reported in India,
threatening Victoria's multi-million-dollar foreign student industry. Police, the Government
and the Indian consulate have joined forces to try to protect Indian students and residents, some of whom
are moving out of the western suburbs because they no longer feel safe. With almost 35,000 Indian students
studying in Victoria last year, The Times of India has hosted forums on whether Melbourne is safe, saying
the suburbs had ``increasingly turned unsafe with a good number of attacks on migrant youth''. The Times
also reported last year: ``Some of these crimes bear the us-and-them racial overtone.'' Footscray, St Albans
and Sunshine are trouble hot-spots, with police increasing their presence at train stations to curb the
violence. Founder of the Footscray-based Bharat Times, Dinesh Malhotra, said crimes against Indian
residents and students had risen in the past year. ``Sunshine is pretty bad, quite violent for the Indian
residents and the students,'' he said. He said Melbourne was not a racist city and it was a minority who were
targeting Indian students for bashings and robberies. Community leaders said Indian students were
considered a soft target because they were not aggressive and often carried the latest gadgets such as
mobile phones and iPods. As they were required to pay full fees at university and colleges, most worked to
support themselves and were often travelling alone on public transport at high-risk times such as late at
night. As officials react to the violence: A POSTER urging Indian students to speak out against crime was
distributed at train stations across the western suburbs. A POLICE crackdown in the Brimbank and
Maribyrnong municipalities saw 50 charges laid over attacks on foreign students in four
months, with police identifying 150 victims. FOOTSCRAY police and Victoria University
compiled a DVD with safety advice for new students. Footscray MP Marsha Thomson, who has also set up
a taskforce, said: ``An Indian student came into my office to see me . . . he'd been assaulted.'' She said she
was concerned students were too afraid to report crimes, as they incorrectly feared interaction with police
might harm their migration chances.”
Violence in Australia
Indian students in Australia attacked, DNA (Newssource), November 2006, Neena
Bhandar, http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1063349
“During the attacks, armed groups have asked for cash and mobile phones, before
assaulting their victims. In two Adelaide cases, the victims were told, "Go back to your
country" after being bashed. While sporadic cases of attacks on Indian students have been
happening for sometime, in the past three months over two dozen such cases have been
reported. Jolan Patel, who is studying Master of Information Technology at the
University of Southern Queensland (Sydney campus) and is also a student representative
says, "Most of these cases have occurred between 7pm and 11pm, closer to the students
shared accommodation or home. Sometimes even guns have been used to intimidate. Not
all cases are reported, as students don't want to alarm their parents and families back
home."
Internal Violence Extension, Cont’d...
Irish Experience: Irish Faced Hostility
“Many immigrants chose to move to the United States because of increasingly intolerable
situations in their homeland. Most U.S. immigrant groups tell similar stories of their
journey to the United States. They describe their journey and treatment as a narrative of
worsening conditions in their ancestral land causing them to migrate, their voyage to the
United States and the challenge to attempt to build a better life for their families in their
new home. Interspersed in this story of migration, nearly every immigrant group also
depicts a period of difficulty and hostility at the hands of the immigrant group who
preceded or overlapped them. For example, many Irish immigrants came to the United
States during a series of potato famines in the early part of the 1800's. Their numbers
swelled to a level where they comprised approximately forty percent of the foreign born
population in the United States by the middle of the century. Upon arrival, the Irish, most
of whom were poor and unskilled, took whatever work they could find. In time, they
advanced within their jobs, becoming foremen and bosses. Eventually, other immigrants
took their places in the positions formerly held by Irish immigrants. The Irish experience
was not an easy one and their increasing numbers caused much hostility among those
immigrants who had arrived earlier; hostility which was directed primarily toward their
differences-most Irish immigrants were Catholic.”
Kritik: Discrimination Based on Nationality
“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”- Martin Luther King, Jr.
1) Link: Discrimination Based Upon Nationality/Racism: “the belief that race is the
primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an
inherent superiority of a particular race.”- Merriam Webster Online
In the case of institutional racism, certain racial groups may be denied rights or benefits,
or get preferential treatment.
*Aff legislation permits discrimination: sets value on “certain human beings”- Indians.
By the affirmative legislation, Indians are now perceived as more valuable than Chinese,
Russians, Japanese, because of their perceived “innovation”- and are now entitled to
more rights/privileges in the US.
2) Impact: This creates the perception of a “superior race”, leading to genocide.
Discrimination Ultimately Leads to Genocide
The Origins and Prevention of Genocide, Mass Killing, and Other Collective Violence
Ervin Staub, Department of Psychology, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, Peace
and Conflict, Vol. 5, 1999
“Difficult life conditions give rise to scapegoating and ideologies that identify enemies and lead a group to
turn against another. Conflict between groups and self-interest are additional instigators of
group violence. Discrimination and limited violence change individuals and groups and
can lead to an evolution that ends in mass killing or genocide. Certain cultural characteristics
make this process more likely. The passivity of bystanders allows it to unfold. This conception, previously
used to understand other instances of collective violence and further developed here, is applied to the
exploration of the roots of genocide in Rwanda. To halt violence, once it begins, action by nations and the
community of nations is essential. Reasons for bystanders' passivity and necessary forms of action are
discussed. To prevent group violence may require the healing of wounds due to past victimization,
reconciliation, and the resolution of conflict between antagonistic groups. Changes in elements of a group's
culture are also important. Without prevention, great social changes and other contemporary conditions
make frequent future group violence probable. We live in a time where genocide, mass killing,
and other violence by groups of people directed at groups defined by their ethnicity, race,
religion, culture, or political affiliation is widespread. Because the differentiation between
groups that engage in such violence can be of many kinds, I will refer to such violence across group lines
simply as collective violence .”
Alternative Solution: Counter-Plan

“The United States shall extend the affirmative mandates to apply to all nations in
accordance with the Most Favored Nation Status.”
Thus, we solve the Harms, get the advantages of innovation- without the Disads of
violating original intent, provoking international relations, and increasing internal
violence.
Not Topical: It doesn’t change policy towards India. It changes policy towards WTO
(Most Favored Nations). (Extra-topical)
Mutual Exclusive: You cannot enact legislation only towards India (exclusive), and also
enact legislation towards all nations (inclusive). You can’t have a policy that is both
exclusive and inclusive.
*Aff policy and CP have entirely different philosophical foundations: Exclusive vs.
Inclusive.
Sig
1. All Get Same Education: Same Innovation (Same University)
2. Businesses Are Not Expanding (see H1b Brief)
CX
Indians more innovative, correct? Does this theory apply to all Indians?
Italians make better pizza? French are slimmer?
Innovation: same schools as US, correct? What is the difference?
What is the original purpose of the immigration system? Economic?
What happened when this plan was tried in AU? Violence? Why?

Memories

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Memories

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Rentschler/Rentschler Page 1 of 22

Minchin/Minchin/Student Green cards/H-1B Arx Axiom

Minchin/Minchin Discrimination Neg Brief

1) Original Intent Violated.......................................................................................... 2

2. International Relations Provoked..........................................................6

3. Increased Internal Violence.....................................................................................11

1. Original Intent Violated

Link 1: Since 1965, Purpose of Immigration Policy is NOT Discriminatory

Country-Based Quotas Ended in 1965: Foundation of Current Policy

“As noted earlier, the

1965 legislation removed racism

SQ/Post-1965 Immigration Policy is Linked to Preservation of Civil Rights

SQ/Post-1965 Policy Perceived as Preserving Equality

Impact 1. Makes Immigration about sanctioning and rewarding other nations,

Original Intent Disad Extensions

Pre-1965 Policy: Highly Discriminatory

Point: By passing affirmative legislation, we revert back to old policy of

1907 Gentlemen's Agreement — Barred the entry of Japanese and Koreans.

1952 Immigration and Nationality Act (McCarran-Walter Act) — Passed over

1965 Amendments to Immigration and Nationality Act (Hart-Celler Act) — See

2. International Relations Provoked

L1: MFN Allows for No Discrimination

World Trade Organization, 2009, UNDERSTANDING THE WTO: BASICS, Principles of

5. HI-Bs and MFN.

6. Immigration and MFN.

L2: Immigration Favoritism Seen as Potential Violation of MFN

“United States laws establishing qualifications for temporary, nonimmigrant

43% Increase in Chinese Visa Applications

Chinese are Increasingly Studying Abroad

China Has a Lot of Students in US Universities!

Institute of International Education, January 26, 2005, Chinese Students at American

3. Increased Internal Violence

L: Immigrants Perceived as Taking Away Jobs, Spurning Racism/Violence

Migration News, September 2000, Volume 6 Number 4, Germany: Green Cards,

L2: Same Program, Increased Violence in Australia

“A lot of violence against Indian students and professionals in Australia is stemmed of

Migration News, September 2000, Volume 6 Number 4, Germany: Green Cards,

Violence is Devasting National Image/PR Abroad (Germany Example)

Migration News, September 2000, Volume 6 Number 4, Germany: Green Cards,

“INDIAN students are being terrorized by gangs of thugs in Melbourne's suburbs in

Kritik: Discrimination Based on Nationality

“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”- Martin Luther King, Jr.

2) Impact: This creates the perception of a “superior race”, leading to genocide.

Discrimination Ultimately Leads to Genocide

Alternative Solution: Counter-Plan

1. All Get Same Education: Same Innovation (Same University)

2. Businesses Are Not Expanding (see H1b Brief)

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi