Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
rets4ydoc

Child Immigrants/ asylum seekers

Recommended Posts

What have people been successfull with in lay vs. child immigrants. Plan text ive seen have been to grant special juvenile status= foster care. I dont think its T with illegal immigrants and have won one on XO but id like to hear something more solid than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some questions to maybe trip an affirmative up:

-What age constitutes a juvenile?

-Does that include mentally retarded persons?

-Then what about an 18-year-old mentally retarded person with the faculties of an 8-year-old? Is he/she going to be prosecuted and persecuted like the rest of traditional "adult" immigrants?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Straight case.

And make it look really dumb in cross-x as the above states. They can't answer these questions and there isn't specific evidence to answer them for the aff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've run a similar case this year, but I didn't use the courts. If you want to run a T on it, just run a T that says a status doesn't equal a reduce in detention without charge. Other wise, the case is pretty topical under the resolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes I hit this before and it stops the detainment without charge of immigrant children.

 

1. these children aren't being DETAINED, they are simply living at a foster home. big T right there

2. we search these immigrant and THEn detain them other T..

3. a good overpop. Da and you would be all set

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

over pop, nativism, agent cp with net ben of ptx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's really good evidence out there that says that there aren't enough foster homes out there, that foster homes are bad for child immigrants (and for several reasons), and that the record keeping is terrible which would lead to bad things.

 

If the plan text is pass the UACPA, in section 202, I think, it says that they can still be detained without charge if the government feels it is necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

melavio "jon" was my partner and we had awesome success with this case. Ours was topical because rather than granting SIJ status (which wouldn't be topical, because people might not get SIJ) we had Congress remove the Attorney General's authority to veto APPLICATIONS for SIJ status. So it was a really sneaky, squirrelly way to be topical but we did it. All you have to do to win with that case is beat topicality. (not hard if you know the case) It doesn't link to anything, more or less. most CP's won't even solve for it. Also our case said they're being held in federal facilities, not foster homes. under our plan, they'd be able to go to foster homes. I don't know how people in your area ran that case but ours was pretty sweet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
melavio "jon" was my partner and we had awesome success with this case. Ours was topical because rather than granting SIJ status (which wouldn't be topical, because people might not get SIJ) we had Congress remove the Attorney General's authority to veto APPLICATIONS for SIJ status. So it was a really sneaky, squirrelly way to be topical but we did it. All you have to do to win with that case is beat topicality. (not hard if you know the case) It doesn't link to anything, more or less. most CP's won't even solve for it. Also our case said they're being held in federal facilities, not foster homes. under our plan, they'd be able to go to foster homes. I don't know how people in your area ran that case but ours was pretty sweet.

 

First, I would probably run FXT on your version. Removing the AG's authority does not on-face decrease our ability to detain without charge. You first get rid of the authority to veto, which in turn guarantees an increase in the number of SIJs, which in turn decrease the number of detentions without charge. Something along those lines - I don't know enough about the case to be 100% accurate. But either way, it sounds really FX.

 

Second, I can think of two counterplans that would be fabulous - Consult Mexico with a relations net benefit, or a Movements CP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...