ADI 20101
Fellows -- HingstmanTopicality AFF
Topicality—2AC Shells Index
2AC: substantially increase visas T 1/2......
2AC: substantially increase visas T 2/2......
2AC: substantially expand eligibility T 1/2......
2AC: substantially expand eligibility T 2/2......
2AC: new visa categories T 1/2......
2AC: new visa categories T 2/2......
2AC: Plan changes admissibility, not eligibility, standards for visas 1/2......
2AC: admissibility standards T 2/2......
2AC: Plan is asylum, not a trafficking visa increase 1/2......
2AC: Plan is asylum, not trafficking visa T 2/2......
2AC: Plan is asylum, not a trafficking visa increase 1/2......
2AC: Plan is asylum, not trafficking visa T 2/2......
2AC: Service Guarantees Eligibility T 1/2......
2AC: Service Guarantees Eligibility T 2/2......
2AC: Immigration Bonuses and US Improvements T 1/2......
2AC: Immigration Bonuses and US Improvements T 2/2......
2AC: Critical T --“Should” requires plan advocacy......
2AC: Critical T- -“Resolved” requires plan advocacy......
ADI 20101
Fellows -- HingstmanTopicality AFF
2AC: substantially increase visas T 1/2
_____ 1. COUNTERINTERPRETATION. “Substantial” means of considerable value or importance. Court interpretations support our position.
_____Words and Phrases, 1990 (Pocket Part, p. 212).
[Substantial]Important, essential, amount or extent. Considerable in importance, values, degree, amount or extent. Hepple v. State, 358 A.2d 283, 286, 31 Maryland Appeals 525.
“Increase” means to make greater in amount or degree.
_____Oxford English Dictionary in 71(1971, pp. 181-182)
6. To cause to wax or grow; to make greater in amount or degree, to augment, enlarge, extend, intensify.
_____ 2. COUNTERINTERPRETATION APPLIED. Courts have ruled that 20% is a “substantial decrease,” so the same should be true of a substantial increase.
______Words and Phrases 2002
Volume 40A, p. 559
SUBSTANTIAL DECREASE. Pa. Cmwlth. 1996. Approximately 20% decrease in school district’s enrollment during previous ten years constituted “substantial decrease” in enrollment under Public School Code, justifying demotion of certified secondary teacher to half-time status. 24 P.S. §11-1124—Battaglia v. Lakeland School Dist., 677 A.2d 1294—Schools 147.10.
_____ 3. WE MEET THE COUNTERINTERPRETATION. We lift the cap on H visas more than 20%.
______4. SPECIFIC PERCENTAGE DEFINITIONS ARE ARBITRARY. Legal definitions in Words and Phrases go from less than 1% to 90%! The term “substantial” is designed to give flexibility in contextual interpretations, not to serve as specifying competing interpretations. We deserve leeway and reasonableness because topicality is an all-or-nothing issuefor us.
______Mellinkoff, Law Professor UCLA, 1992
David, Mellinkoff’s Dictionary of American Legal Usage, p. 626).
Substantial is as flexible in the law as in ordinary English. That is its reason for continued existence in the law. Long use of substantial in combinations, e.g., substantial evidence, can produce an impression of prevision, which is lacking. The word is an alert! What substantial fastens itself to becomes infected with substantial’s flexibility. A place for discretion.
_____5. COUNTERINTERPRETATION IS BETTER FOR DEBATE.
A. Better contextual limits. Negative overlimits by forcing every debate to focus exclusively on the value of open borders. Our interpretation allows for discussion of the fine points of incremental changes in visa categories. Our case area is predictable and our education is more specific to current policy.
2AC: substantially increase visas T 2/2
B. Better clash. They have plenty of ground and literature to defend keeping caps or eligibility the same or decrease them. There is lots of anti-immigration literature. Their interpretation would kill affirmative clash by limiting ways to defend against generic counterplans and critiques.
_____ 6. ENCOURAGE CREATIVITY AND DEPTH OF ANALYSIS. Affirmatives should be encouraged to look into the details of visa policy. This leads into in-depth and creative discussions. Our interpretation allows that; theirs stops it.
_____ 7. THEY HAVE NO BRIGHT LINE. Their specification of a percentage threshold is arbitrary. We deal with considerable and important issues, as our case evidence illustrates, and that’s enough for a good debate.
_____ 8. OTHER WORDS CHECK PREPARATION ABUSE. The four specified categories of visa excludes a lot of potential cases. The issues, like employment, are similar enough to allow for negative preparation and clash.
_____ 9. LITERATURE CHECKS ABUSE OF FAIR NOTICE. We read cards that say increase visa access and eligibility. This is enough notice for the negative. They can Google the words in advance and find the same cards we read.
ADI 20101
Fellows -- HingstmanTopicality AFF
2AC: substantially expand eligibility T 1/2
_____ 1. WE MEET THEIR DEFINITION, PROPERLY INTERPRETED. Their definition of “substantial” does not say that all material parts must be covered, just that some parts must be. We do expand some parts of visa eligibility, as our case evidence proves
_____ 2. COUNTERINTERPRETATION. “Substantial” means of material significance, not illusory.
_____Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law, 1996 (p. 478)
Substantial: 1a: of or relating to substance; b: not illusory: having merit (failed to raise a ~ constitutional
claim) c: having importance or significance: MATERIAL (a ~ step had not been taken toward commission of the crime -- W. R. LaFave and A. W. Scott, Jr.
“Expand” means to extend.
_____Google Dictionary, 2010 (July 29)
Expand: extend in one or more directions; "The dough expands"
“Eligibility” means the state of being qualified to be chosen.
_____Google Dictionary, 2010 (July 30)
the quality or state of being eligible; "eligibility of a candidate for office"; "eligibility for a loan" --wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
eligible - qualified for or allowed or worthy of being chosen; "eligible to run for office"; "eligible for retirement benefits"; "an eligible bachelor" -- wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
_____ 3. WE MEET OUR COUNTERINTERPRETATION. Our case evidence indicates that our plan will result in an extension of ways to qualify for visas that will be materially significant for a number of potential immigrants and visitors.
_____4. COUNTERINTERPRETATION IS BETTER FOR DEBATE.
A. Better contextual limits. Negative overlimits by forcing every debate into one kind of case – removing all requirements for a visa category. Our interpretation gives the aff flexibility to discuss material standards within the four visa categories. Our case area is predictable and our education is more specific to the literature about plans actually being considered.
B. Better clash. They have plenty of ground and literature to defend or increase eligibility standards. Very few mainstream sources defend eliminating all standards. Their interpretation hurts affirmative clash by limiting ways to defend against generic counterplans and critiques.
2AC: substantially expand eligibility T 2/2
C. More practical bright line. Our interpretation can be easily verified by looking at the requirements for each visa and seeing if we change one of them. Their interpretation forces the judge to track down every possible visa requirement, which is too difficult in a debate round.
_____ 5. ENCOURAGE CREATIVITY AND DEPTH OF ANALYSIS. Affirmatives should be encouraged to look into the details of visa policy. This leads into in-depth and creative discussions. Our interpretation allows that; theirs stops it.
_____ 6. COMPETING INTERPRETATIONS IS UNFAIR. “Substantially” is an inherent vague term hard to specify. Since we can only lose on topicality, we should get presumption on a reasonable interpretation.
_____ 7. OTHER WORDS CHECK PREPARATION ABUSE. The four specified categories of visa excludes a lot of potential cases. The issues, like employment, are similar enough to allow for negative preparation and clash.
_____ 8. LITERATURE CHECKS ABUSE OF FAIR NOTICE. We read cards that say we expand eligibility. This is enough notice for the negative. They can Google the words in advance and find the same cards we read.
ADI 20101
Fellows -- HingstmanTopicality AFF
2AC: new visa categories T 1/2
_____ 1. COUNTERINTERPRETATION. “Increase” and “expand” do not assume a preexisting thing, but only a prior concept. Both “increase” and “expand” are contextually used as bringing things into existence, or getting bigger starting from zero.
Words and Phrases, 08 (vol. 20B, p. 263).
U.S. 2007. Initial rates charged for new insurance policies may be "adverse actions" under Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA); quoting or charging a first-time premium is an "increase" in any charge for any insurance, existing or applied for, under FCRA; the "increase" required for "adverse action" speaks to disadvantageous rate even with no prior dealing, and term reaches initial rates for new applicants. Fair Credit Reporting Act, § 603(k)(1 )(B)(i), 15 U.S.C.A § 1681a(k)(1 )(B)(i).-Safeco Ins. Co. of America v. Burr, 127 S.Ct. 2201, 167 L.Ed.2d 1045, on remand Spano v. Safeco Corp., 511 F.3d 1206, on remand Edo v. GEICO Cas. Co., 512 F.3d 566.-Cred R A 1.
CMS Telehealth, Inc. 10
(Leadership and Management Team, August 3,
Joseph Rabinowitz is CMS Telehealth’s co-founder, overseeing the design and integration of all CMS Telehealth client solutions. Prior to founding CMST, Joseph was the CEO of his own IT firm which provided consulting services to companies in a wide range of industries including finance, healthcare and public services. With extensive knowledge of computer systems, software development, peripherals and networking, along with a team of technicians with certifications in Microsoft, Cisco and VMware platforms, Joseph is able to assure that CMST can fully execute all client needs.
Some of Joseph’s recent accomplishments include providing effective IT strategies for several local and statewide political figures and consultants in New York, New Jersey, and Florida. Joseph also designed a customized software and hardware solution for a manufacturing startup, as well as the development of innovative processes that allowed the company to expand from zero sales to $70 million over a two year period without an internal IT department. Joseph also assisted clients with compliance issues relating to electronic communication storage, archiving and encryption, and successfully implemented a server virtualization project for a major advertising agency in New York, consolidating servers by a factor of 10 to 1 and reducing downtime by over 95%.
_____ 2. WE MEET THE COUNTERINTERPRETATION. We increase the number or expand eligibility for visas in the area of [family-based, employment-based immigrant, temporary nonimmigrant employment, human trafficking-based] visas by adding more potential recipients or visas to this area.
_____3. COUNTERINTERPRETATION IS BETTER FOR DEBATE.
A. Better contextual limits. Negative hurts education with its overlimiting by forcing us to advocate small changes within the current visa categories. Our interpretation gives the aff flexibility to discuss how to make the four categories more relevant to contemporary needs. Our case area is predictable and our education is more specific to the literature about plans actually being considered.
B. Better clash. They have plenty of ground and literature to defend or increase within the existing subcategories under our interpretation. Their interpretation hurts affirmative clash by limiting ways to defend against generic counterplans and critiques.
2AC: new visa categories T 2/2
C. More real world. There are about 24 types of nonimmigrant visas alone, so it’s clear that Congress has not hesitated to create new visa types to meet employment and family needs. Our interpretation recognizes what the topic literature already has.
D. More practical bright line. Our interpretation does not require the judge to examine specific types of visas. If the plan has to do with family, employment, or trafficking issues and creates or expands eligibility for visas, it is topical. Their interpretation forces the judge to be expert on each type of visa, which is too much to expect and may lead to subjective, unfair decisions.
_____ 4. ENCOURAGE CREATIVITY AND DEPTH OF ANALYSIS. Affirmatives should be encouraged to consider how visas themselves should be recrafted. This leads into in-depth and creative discussions. Our interpretation allows that; theirs stops it.
_____ 5. COMPETING INTERPRETATIONS IS UNFAIR. The connotations of terms like increase and expand are inherently diverse and vague. Since we can only lose on topicality, we should get presumption on a reasonable interpretation.
_____ 6. OTHER WORDS CHECK PREPARATION ABUSE. The four specified categories of visa excludes a lot of potential cases. The issues, like employment, are similar enough to allow for negative preparation and clash.
_____ 7. LITERATURE CHECKS ABUSE OF FAIR NOTICE. We read cards that say we should create a new class of visas to increase numbers or eligibility for visas. This is enough notice for the negative. They can Google the words in advance and find the same cards we read.
ADI 20101
Fellows -- HingstmanTopicality AFF
2AC: Plan changes admissibility, not eligibility, standards for visas 1/2
_____ 1. COUNTERINTERPRETATION. “Eligibility” and “admissibility” are used interchangeably in the immigration literature, even by the INA law and the agencies that administer it. If someone is inadmissible, she or he is also ineligible for a visa.
US State Department 09
“Classes of Aliens Ineligible to Receive Visas,” Bureau of Consular Affairs, US Department of State, 2010
Section 212(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act reads:
(a) Classes of Aliens Ineligible for Visas or Admission.- Except as otherwise provided in this Act, aliens who are inadmissible under the following paragraphs are ineligible to receive visas and ineligible to be admitted to the United States:
This applies to the terrorism exclusion
Perez 09 Partner with Foster Quan LLP in Houston board certified in immigration & nationality law
Jose R., “Key Legislative Developments in Immigration Law Since September 11, 2001.” 17 Currents Intl Trade Law Journal 43, Summer 2009, lexis
Under Section 212(a) of the INA, the determination of inadmissibility commences with a lengthy catalog of "aliens who are ineligible to receive visas and ineligible to be admitted to the United States," n96 such as individuals guilty of crimes involving moral turpitude n97 or those predisposed to becoming a public charge. n98 In the wake of the terrorist acts of September 11, the inadmissibility grounds have intensified in scope, disqualifying a wider range of persons based on acts or status. One of these grounds relates to terrorism and threats to national security, producing what is now an extraordinarily complex provision. n99 Thus, individuals who publicly endorse or advocate terrorist activities are rendered inadmissible, unless the noncitizen applies for a waiver, subject to the "unreviewable discretion" of either the Secretary of Homeland Security or Secretary of State in consultation with the Attorney General. n100
_____ 2. WE MEET THE COUNTERINTERPRETATION. We expand eligibility for [family-based, employment-based, human trafficking-based visas] by expanding the ability of people once excluded from these visas for bad reasons.
_____3. COUNTERINTERPRETATION IS BETTER FOR DEBATE.
A. Better contextual limits. The negative overlimits because the number of good cases based solely on eligibility for individual cases is much smaller than it may look. Our interpretation adds a few more, but not so many that they can’t prepare specific arguments. Our case area is predictable and our education is more specific to the literature about plans actually being considered.
B. Better clash and ground. They have extra PIC ground to exclude certain types of visas from our plan expansion. Their interpretation hurts affirmative clash by limiting ways to defend against generic counterplans and critiques that apply to certain categories.
2AC: admissibility standards T 2/2
C. Better communication. We give meaning to “one or more” by allowing for more than one affirmative, open borders, that would expand eligibility to more than one kind of visa.
D. Equally good bright line. If our plan is a category that appears in Section 212 of the INA, it is topical. This is no harder or more subjective than deciding whether the plan involves a family, employment, or human trafficking visa. We are not extratopical because we don’t extend the eligibility beyond the visa categories listed in the topic.
_____ 4. ENCOURAGE CREATIVITY AND DEPTH OF ANALYSIS. Affirmatives should be encouraged to consider all of the ways that immigrants and visitors are denied visas. This leads into in-depth and creative discussions. Our interpretation allows that; theirs stops it.
_____ 5. COMPETING INTERPRETATIONS IS UNFAIR. As our evidence shows, there is not a clear exclusivity between eligibility and admissibility. Since we can only lose on topicality, we should get presumption on a reasonable interpretation.
_____ 6. OTHER WORDS CHECK PREPARATION ABUSE. Eligibility as we define it is still controlled by the explicit words of a statute, and must relate to a visa.
_____ 7. LITERATURE CHECKS ABUSE OF FAIR NOTICE. We read cards that say that eligibility depends on admission requirements. This is enough notice for the negative. They can Google the words in advance and find the same cards we read.
ADI 20101
Fellows -- HingstmanTopicality AFF
2AC: Plan is asylum, not a trafficking visa increase 1/2
_____ 1. COUNTERINTERPRETATION. There is no difference between trafficking visas and asylum or refugee visas, because human trafficking victims, asylum seekers and refugees are whatever the government says they are.
Allen 04recovering refugee worker
Tom, “T-Visas: The Refugee Industry’s Latest Racket.” July 7, 2004,
Hey immigration enthusiasts! Having a problem making our current asylum statutes work for Chinese women claiming to flee the communists' one-child policy? Simple! Have Congress pass a law declaring these women to be a "political group"—one of the 5 authorized asylum categories. Then you're nine-tenths of the way to a free pass to America! Basically, a "refugee" or an "asylum seeker" now means anyone that Congress applies the label to. Witness the invention of a whole new class of refugees. The Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 (TVPA) provides 5,000 "T visas" annually for "trafficking" victims. All illegal alien women under the age of 18 working as prostitutes are presumptive "trafficking" victims—they've been imported by their pimps. When discovered, they are not to be sent home (why not?) but automatically receive a T visa and can stay in the U.S. with no strings attached. Adults can receive a T visa if they can be shown to be a victim of trafficking and if they are "willing" to cooperate with law enforcement agencies. So what is "trafficking"? And how does one sign up to get "trafficked" into the U.S.? For starters, abuser, victim and client are invariably immigrants. In other words, it is an epiphenomenon of mass immigration. (Hmm! A clue here about how the problem might be solved?). Otherwise, it doesn't take much to establish trafficking victim status. According to the DOJ, the law can apply to "the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for labor or services, through the use of force, fraud, or coercion, in order to subject that person to involuntary servitude, peonage, debt bondage, or slavery". [My emphasis.] Which means, among other things, that basically all those domestic servants that the Third World elites like to travel with are eligible for T visas. Any illegal alien caught in a tractor trailer in Arizona is a candidate for a T-visa-if he can show that he was bound for a job with an identifiable employer to whom he owed a debt.
_____ 2. WE MEET THE COUNTERINTERPRETATION. We expand eligibility for human trafficking-based visas by giving asylum to people who have been compelled to do things they don’t want to do.