Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
HulkKsGuru

Border Patrol

Recommended Posts

hmmm heard about an aff that combines border patrol with the armed forces to make border patrol more effective. I havent heard anything about the advantages so just off of the general idea what would you run against it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Potentially extra T, depending on the way the case is set up. If they don't claim advantages off of an increase in the armed forces. Depending on your interp/violation you could set up a violation with T-persons, with the extra T as a standard/hidden second violation. They claim advantages off of whom they increase rather than the increase.

 

As for a strat besides T: Perhaps, a CP increasing border patrol, with some sort of DOD spending tradeoff net benefit/ solvency benefit because Armed Forces wont focus on the border patrol aspect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol under their interpretation, the aff would be able to put the dea under the peace corps and claim a drug net benefit, combinging branches probably defeates the purpose of a list resolution...

 

cp - ya increase in boarder patrol but only bcasue when you ahve a politics net benefit and they own you at the link level (only read armed forces key cards and they'll not only read boarder patrol specific cards, but also they'll claim that theres no unique increase) it'll really help you on T. plus the cp probably sovles the case. OR you could pic out of that squirrel shit that was just posted and claim something sketchy off that lol... but they wont see that comming

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

heres my strat...

1. t cant combine programs

2. t in=throughout plan has 2 increase thoughout armed forces...u dont b/c border patrol is in the national guard which is in the armed forces

3. tix

4. cp that gives border patrol access to armed forces watever they claim is key to solve

4. impact turn the adv (they probably are immigration bad and drug interdiction good)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CP: Build a wall.

how does that solve...ppl will still get over...and this is the status quo...exept we cant fund

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hmmm heard about an aff that combines border patrol with the armed forces to make border patrol more effective. I havent heard anything about the advantages so just off of the general idea what would you run against it?

I'm pretty sure their advs. are something like terroism, drug smugling/humantrafficking, and um not sure about immigration. (I just watched the (2AR) But yah, I agree with everyone else in this forum just

 

Extra T

In T

Securitization K

Spending

Heg.

All the other offense (aside from the K) is there to prove the T, read armed forces links so you can say, "We have no evidence what so ever on boder patrol so either A. They conceed they're topical and they link or B. They don't link and they are un topical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, the BP can be justified as apart of the "Armed Forces" - plan doesn't need to add, but if they do without increasing then you can do extra-T and increase T != shift.

 

if they mean the BORDER PATROL BORDER PATROL not the NAT'L GUARD BORDER PATROL -- then President Bush declared he was going to like double the size after the STOTU, while he keeps sending the NAT'L Guard to the Border -- the entire 1AC is not non-unique.

 

Second of all, you can do more defense saying they will never stop "all" drugs, thus they cannot solve 100% for their impacts so the risk is inevitable thus the impact is inevitable and they judge can't vote for it -- especially if you offer a CP that can solve better, or at least outweight with Net Bens. Build-a-wall CP or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've all heard me say this at least 10000 times, but Foucault or Agamben eat this case alive, more than other cases. I personally think Agamben is better on this issue.

 

A good article to start with is:

Agamben in '94, “We Refugees” http://www.egs.edu/faculty/agamben/agamben-we-refugees.html

 

He argues that a state's distinction between a citizen and non citizen is the first step towards the death camps and it's a precondition for genocide.

Also, this exclusion creates a state of exception, a gap between human and citizen. It reduces all non citizens to bare life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You've all heard me say this at least 10000 times, but Foucault or Agamben eat this case alive, more than other cases. I personally think Agamben is better on this issue.

 

A good article to start with is:

Agamben in '94, “We Refugees” http://www.egs.edu/faculty/agamben/agamben-we-refugees.html

 

He argues that a state's distinction between a citizen and non citizen is the first step towards the death camps and it's a precondition for genocide.

Also, this exclusion creates a state of exception, a gap between human and citizen. It reduces all non citizens to bare life.

 

seconded and heres some awesome border/control society/security/biopower evidence

http://www.sociology.org/content/2005/tier1/ajana_biopolitics.pdf

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...