First, US immigration policy is being debated by the US congress. This morning’s Los Angeles Times talks about House Republicans pushing for stricter controls while the Bush administration is pushing for a guest-worker program. Wording the topic now OR even in the near future is difficult because the uniqueness ground for advantages will inevitably shift as Congressional legislation is passed and presidential vetoes are issued. But the overall direction of the legislation will be quickly established, and at that point, a more exact resolution can be solidified. The obvious question is how affirmatives will be able to generate inherency for their cases. However: Installing a direction in the resolution that is contrary to the emerging trend of legislation would easily solve this problem. Specifically: It looks like the House of Representatives will be able to get stricter controls passed. Thus, a resolution calling on the United States to relax its controls OR take action to humanely deal with immigrants would be fully inherent. Also, even with stricter controls, there is a good chance loops holes will be left open, so if the resolution was left bidirectional, a case to close such loop holes would be also be inherent. Worst case scenario, a team would have to continuously do updates to establish the inherency of their cases. AND such research forces speakers to be well versed not only in the more esoteric impact literature but also current events literature which is relevant outside of the context of debates.
This debate is clearly timely. The issue is a partisan issue, and with mid terms early in next year’s debate season, teams would be forced to examine political interaction. Moreover, enforcement of such policies is always expensive, and with budget numbers due halfway through next year’s season, the resolution would require teams to examine the fiscal implications of potential policy options. Being well versed on these questions is crucial regardless of one’s career choice. While this is definitely a domestic topic, with advantages outlined above, it also is able to exploit some of the advantages of an international topic: It still poses the question of international relations. AND immigration is a substantial question in US-Mexico relations, a dynamic that is not examined often enough. Moreover, as the Bush administration announces that it has a plan for the withdrawal from Iraq, the nexus question of US foreign policy, ie, homeland security, now shifts toward our borders. At that rate, the resolution is the next logical [domestic] step in a foreign policy that characterizes the post 9/11 world.
Finally: The question of immigration has been broached numerous times in the past. AND the concerns referenced years ago are equally applicable now as they were upon initial authoring. This guarantees a more stable literature base and better generic ground than foreign policy topics that moot out large literatures that fail to account for recent developments. The dynamic of the immigration problem really does not change in that regard.
In response to the specific questions posed by the topic selection process, this topic’s significance stems from the fact that it is on the agenda right now. US policy makers have identified the issue of immigration as a problem and whatever solutions they may propose OR pass have problems affirmatives can solve for, with very cohesive and current negative justifications in response.
It is of interest because of how relevant it is to the current policy sphere. It is challenging because teams would have to be on their game, making sure they are up to date regarding current political and economic situations.
It is provocative because it forces teams to weigh big picture ideas like the rights of individuals versus public security while simultaneously weighing the more specific and timely questions. Its educational value stems from the forced consideration of virtually the entire domestic policy perspective, along with potential social questions of assimilation, national security, etc.
A brief aside: A parallel idea, for which there is no official advocacy but still an interesting literature base is that of border security regarding goods coming into the US. That is to say, instead of focusing the discussion on people coming into the United States, the discussion could be focused on goods on ships OR planes coming into our ports. In either case, crafty wording of the resolution could gear the resolution more towards the War on Terror.
Webmaster's note: The specific references for the Los Angeles Times have been deleted since they expire after 7 days. We urge interested persons to consult Lexus-Nexus or another appropriate database to obtain the original articles.
- SELECTED READINGS:
- Los Angeles Times – December 15, 2005: “Illegal Immigration Could Be a Felony: House Republicans push legislation that defies Bush's guest-worker plan, under which criminals are not eligible for legal status.” By Nicole Gaouette.
- “U.S. Immigration Policy in an Age of Rights” (January 2002), available at http://www.ciaonet.org/
- Business Week, December 12, 2005. “The Melting Pot Is Still Melting,” by: Michael Mandel. Issue 3963.
- Time, December 5, 2005. “PLAYING BOTH SIDES OF THE FENCE” by: John Cloud, Mike Allen, Timothy J. Burger, Matt Kettmann, and Tim Padgett. Vol. 166, Issue 23.
- Wong, Carolyn. Lobbying for inclusion: rights politics and the making of immigration policy. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press: 2006.
- Griswold, Daniel T. “Willing Workers: Fixing the problem of Illegal Mexican Migration to the United States” Center for Trade Policy Studies. (http://www.freetrade.org/pubs/pas/tpa-019.pdf).
- By United States. General Accounting Office, book entitled: Homeland security: first phase of Visitor and Immigration Status Program operating, but improvements needed. Published by: U.S. General Accounting Office, May 2004.
Webmaster's Note: Documentation style and any grammatical errors were in original.