Jump to content
Miro

Brainstorming For Cases

Recommended Posts

What will critical affirmatives be looking like?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Annex Venezuala

Irony aff

-Enslave the venezualans

-Key to US economy

-Key to US Hegemony

-Us Hegemony solves war

-Us hegemony key to stopping structural violence

-Then read like Imperialsm bad stuff Idk

Honestly kritikal affs are 3nxt lvl 5me

And switch side debate is kinda stupid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey thought we could brainstorm on case ideas

Also, first post in this subforum!

 

Edit: Here are some of my ideas

 

Obviously, cuban embargo is going to be a big case area,

 I don't know what the military-style affs are going to look like (maybe enter into a military pact with one of the above countries)

Opening up the border is going to be one for Mexico (immigration in general might be a hot topic)

 

Obviously there is going to be lots of opportunity for kritikal affirmatives

Maybe financing rebel groups? There might be a couple affs about drugs etc. (satire and non-satire)

U.S Embrago destroys US economy, and tourism doesn't cause the collapse of Communism

-Schlichivik 2000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What will critical affirmatives be looking like?

 

In my personal opinion running an anti-imperialist/ anti-cap/ anti-neoliberal/ anti-western critical affirmative is not a good idea as the resolution calls for 'increased economic engagement' which pre-supposes that a globablized free-market economy is good which is basically the opposite of what any K author says.

 

Can anyone explain to me how a critical aff will be topical without skewing the author's intent? It would be chill cause I'm kinda lost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my personal opinion running an anti-imperialist/ anti-cap/ anti-neoliberal/ anti-western critical affirmative is not a good idea as the resolution calls for 'increased economic engagement' which pre-supposes that a globablized free-market economy is good which is basically the opposite of what any K author says.

 

Can anyone explain to me how a critical aff will be topical without skewing the author's intent? It would be chill cause I'm kinda lost.

If you're running an anti-capitalist or anit-neoliberalism kritikal affirmative, then you're not going to be advocating increased economic engagement. You'll be criticizing the topic. Or, if you're more clever, you'll be increasing democratic or intellectual engagement with these nations by using your speech act as: radical democracy, micropolitics, etc. etc. Just because you're the aff doesn't mean you've got to follow the topic to the dot (aka be imperalist/capitalist/neoliberal), nahmean?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[i'm cross posting this from one of the other two threads with this topic....with some minor modifications]

 

 

This article is also by Stefan and speaks to the issue of what is topical.  It isolates a big distinction between conditional and unconditional nature of engagement.

 

It seems that any policy lever we use where we give them stuff is economic engagement--based on Stefans review of the literature, it includes:

 

-          Trade
-          Information technology
-          Investment
-          General environmental issues
-          Forest and wetland conservation
-          Water and air quality
-          Small & Medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)
-          Health care
-          Clean energy, including renewable energy
-          Electricity production and transmission
-          Nuclear power
-          General energy security
-          Defense and security
-          Economic development
-          Intellectual property
-          Reducing corruption
-          Food regulation
-          Environmental regulation

 

If sanctions are engagement.....that would seem to go against the heart of the topic.  I'm pretty sure they won't be included for most purposes, unless those cards are just on fire.

 

Very Important Update: I would also click over for the list of solvency mechanisms the article provides.  Also, you probably want to bookmark and re-read this article as its pretty fundamental to what

the debates are going to be about next year.

 

http://bauscharddebate.com/2013/03/defining-economic-engagement/

 

What I'm curious about is does the State Department for instance partner with our own organizations (USFG) in terms of providing the engagement (ie EPA, DOE, etc...) and how that interacts with solvency.

 

Also, I'm curious how much of the literature will speak to the mechanism it uses and/or if it will be strategic to specify.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

-          Clean energy, including renewable energy

-          Electricity production and transmission

-          Nuclear power

-          General energy security

 

These three could probably be condensed, but besides that, that looks like a really good start and helpful tool for brainstorming case ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a tooooon of great K aff ideas that aren't really being mentioned here. Making it topical will be a tad bit difficult, but I Levinas will come back huge next year for sure. Best topical K aff will probably be the Cuban Embargo aff (like the critical bering straits aff except waaaay more lit and probably overall better 'solvency'), easy to defend and lots of offense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that a lot of evidence from the college immigration topic will be helpful, if we can get access to it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

build huge US naval bases in Venezuela - econ engagement due to activity from military soldiers buying things from local markets

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

build huge US naval bases in Venezuela - econ engagement due to activity from military soldiers buying things from local markets

That's really sketchy and fx. You get economic engagment by doing something else. You could kind of sketch by this but I don't think it's that good of an idea.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WHYAREALLTHEGOODAFFSFX?!?!

lol dat rage. True though, probably will have better ones after camp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RESOLVELETSGIVEVENEZUELAABILLONGAZILLIONBUCKAROOSINCONDENSEDORANGEJUICETHUSCOLLAPSINGTHEECONOMY.....

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WHYAREALLTHEGOODAFFSFX?!?!

 

My theory: the resolution is interesting. Because the US is capitalist, the government doesn't control its businesses behavior directly. That makes it difficult for teams to target the type of economic engagement they'd like to support, so they're forced to either have the government do things which are indirectly topical or to defend generic advantages. Basically, what I said in this thread, with a tweak: http://www.cross-x.com/topic/54806-problem-with-la-resolution/?do=findComment&comment=870537

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My theory: the resolution is interesting. Because the US is capitalist, the government doesn't control its businesses behavior directly. That makes it difficult for teams to target the type of economic engagement they'd like to support, so they're forced to either have the government do things which are indirectly topical or to defend generic advantages. Basically, what I said in this thread, with a tweak: http://www.cross-x.com/topic/54806-problem-with-la-resolution/?do=findComment&comment=870537

There are also going to be lots of FX-T debates about whether getting something in return is FXT or not...

Edit: Meant Xtra-t, don't know why I wrote FX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It really depends.  Like if the return stuff is part of the deal then obviously not. But, if it's outside then fx is going to be a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are also going to be lots of FX-T debates about whether getting something in return is FXT or not...

 

Its going to be one of those things where everyone uses it,

then judges just stop voting on it. Or that's how I see it happening in my circuit at least.

 

EDIT: Well I mean if its actually abusively effects T then I'm sure you'll get the vote, I mean like on average. It'll be like trying to convince a judge that your definition of transportation infrastructure being only vehicles is more accurate. Nobody wants to hear that crap. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

towards [təˈwÉ”Ëdz tÉ”Ëdz]

prep
1. in the direction or vicinity of towards London

 

 

Towards = "in the vicinity of" :DDDDDDDD ENGAGE WITH URUGUAY GOGOGOGOGO

 

But srsly, a Prisons K aff / open the borders? Haven't done much work, here's what I've got:

 

 

 

PRISONS – Prisons and maquiladoras become synonymous – privatization of prison for labor exploitation is an extension of chattel slavery.

 

Marianna Wertz, 7-31-1998, former vice-president of the Schiller Institute, EIR news service, “Privatizing the prison system: ‘maquiladoras’ in the United States,†http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1998/eirv25n30-19980731/eirv25n30-19980731_048-privatizing_the_prison_system_ma.pdf

 

America’s rapidly growing prison system is now threatening to become a full-fledged domestic maquiladora zone—a cheap-labor haven for American free-enterprisers, who won’t have to go across the border or overseas to find a ready pool of labor, cheaper even than Mexico’s slave-labor plantations. U.S. Rep. Bill McCollum (R-Fla.), who got his job as a result of the FBI’s ABSCAM sting operation against incumbent Rep. Richard Kelly in 1980, has introduced “The Free Market Prison Industries Reform Act of 1998,†H.R. 4100, which is designed to throw open the Federal and state prison work programs in the United States to private control and profitmaking. McCollum’s bill will eliminate every protection of existing American law that prevents prison labor from being used to drive down wages and working conditions for this nation’s free labor force. It means that the 1.8 million Americans in Federal and state prisons—the result of the highest rate of incarceration in the world outside of Russia—will become the domestic equivalent of the Mexican maquiladora workers, working for pennies an hour. They will produce goods of every variety in open competition with the free labor force, saving their employers not only wages, as well as workmen’s compensation, unemployment compensation, and unions to deal with—as maquiladora labor does—but also saving the cost of setting up shops south of the border or in Asia. This is the ultimate in human “labor recycling,†as Lyndon LaRouche called it over two decades ago, when he warned of the coming financial crisis and its expected effects on the labor force, especially, then, in the use of welfare recipients in workfare programs. Indeed, when McCollum introduced H.R. 4100 on June 19, he called on American business to stop sending jobs overseas and put them instead into American prisons, where the labor is cheap, young, and plentiful. And, it is already happening. In 1997, a U.S. company operating in Mexico’s maquiladora zone shut down its data-processing shop and moved it to the San Quentin State Prison in California. While the 48 Feature EIR July 31, 1998 United Auto Workers (UAW) union has been rightly protesting the loss of thousands of jobs to the maquiladoras, in 1992, the Weastec Corp. in Ohio hired prison inmates to assemble parts for cars made at the non-union Honda plant in Marysville, Ohio. The company paid the state $1.05 an hour for inmate labor. From that, the prisoners got 35¢ an hour—less than maquiladora workers, who average about 90¢ an hour! In this case, the UAW caught on to the scheme and created enough public pressure to shut it down. But, if McCollum’s bill goes through, that kind of scheme will spread like wildfire. A return to slavery Lyndon LaRouche has denounced both the growing use of prison labor for profit-making and the rapid spread of privately run prisons—many of which also employ their inmates for profit—as a gross violation of human rights. Politicians such as Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.) and Rep. Chris Smith (RN. J.) score political points by denouncing the Chinese use of prison labor for making goods which are then sold in the United States. But, what about the goods that U.S. prisoners make, at near-nothing wages? LaRouche asks. If it’s not good for China to be doing this, what about America, the so-called “bastion†of human rights? In America, the privatization of prison labor and prison management is in fact a return to the saddest period of human rights violations in our nation’s history, to which President Clinton himself pointed, during his recent trip to China, when students at Peking University asked him about America’s human rights record. It is a return to slavery. LaRouche, in 1994, when the prison privatization rage was just getting under way, explained this history in an Oct. 6 radio interview with “EIR Talksâ€: “I can tell [the privatizers] about two experiences with privatization of prisons. One was right after the Civil War, when imprisonment was used to replace black slavery, as a form of black slavery; and that was private prisons, largely. I can tell them of another case, which came to the fore in 1934 in Europe, under Adolf Hitler, when they created concentration camps, and they used the slaves in the concentration camps, the prisoners, as slave labor until they were worn to death by overwork and undernourishment and sent to die and to be buried.†Auschwitz was, in fact, a privately run prison, operated by the IG Farben company to make synthetic rubber for Hitler’s war effort. Right now, only about 18% of Federal prisoners and 6% of state prisoners are employed in prison industry programs, largely because of the restrictions imposed in opposition to prison labor. If the McCollum bill is passed, those figures will rapidly change. The “fat cow†of cheap labor will be milked dry by increasingly desperate businesses, looking for the nearest looting source as the financial crisis continues to deepen. 

 

NEG PRISONS K – “Econ engagement†with Mexico is the international exportation of the prison industrial complex – effective resistance must oppose penitentiary cultures at home and abroad.

 

Nasim Chatha, 6-20-2012, “USA’s Prison Industrial Complex Moves South of the Border,†http://afgj.org/usa%E2%80%99s-prison-industrial-complex-moves-south-of-the-border

 

The United States today uses an extensive and unprecedented form of imprisonment and policing as social control of its most marginalized communities. It is a unique culture of incarceration: no other country locks up their population to the same degree that we do, nor has so perfected imprisonment as a tool of innocuously perpetuating racial division. (Michelle Alexander, The New Jim Crow)  Led in large part by William R. Brownfield, the Assistant Secretary of State for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, the US is aiding Latin American countries to build “a new penitentiary cultureâ€; a complete package to becoming more completely “Americanâ€, involving new prisons, new imprisonment style, and new community policing strategies. The US has long been heavy-handed in its involvement with Latin America, where for decades it has backed right-wing militaries to protect its financial interests and fight alleged threats of communism, and also created “development†programs for exactly the same reasons. This militarized relationship was maintained until the present through military bases, partnerships and free trade agreements. In the past several years, US military influence is seeping anew into Mexico and Central America, this time nominally in order to combat drug violence and reduce drug trade.  Within the past five years, the U.S. has been implementing programs directed at building or reshaping prisons and increasing community policing in Mexico, Honduras and the rest of Central America. The Merida initiative, which began programs in 2007, is the main agreement that funnels billions of U.S. dollars into Mexican President Felipe Calderón’s drug war. The plan mostly sends Mexican police military equipment bought from private U.S. contractors, but also has an important imprisonment aspect: the plan, as William R. Brownfield notes, is “multi-prongedâ€.  “In one of our more innovative and successful programs,†he says, “the State Department is working with the State Corrections Training Academies in Colorado and New Mexico, and the U.S. Federal Bureau of Prisons, to provide training and technical assistance for all levels of corrections staff†in Mexico, says Brownfield. This accompanies an increase in the number of Mexico’s federal prisons from six to twenty two, which Brownfield likes: these “will greatly relieve the state facilities of severe overcrowdingâ€, although he says nothing of the massive increase in police activity, domestic militarization and warfare that will increase convictions. His gratuitous approval in an article actually about the programs of Plan Mérida suggests that the U.S. exerted heavy sway in the creation of these new prisons. In a very similar plan enacted in Colombia ten years earlier, where the U.S. did explicitly build new prisons, the increased capacity lead up to an exponential increase in arrests and incarceration.  Another of Plan Mérida’s successful programs in Mexico, William Brownfield states, is a massive criminal database that the U.S. has helped build called Platforma Mexico, a component of which is supervision of emergency hotlines and centers for victims of crimes. According to La Jornada, the Mexican government awarded 29 sweetheart deals to private contractors to build the database. The paper also calls the database “failed and onerous.†The Mexican government organization ASF (Senior Auditor of the Federation) says that Platforma Mexico does not provide follow up information on any of the emergency calls or police station visits, which makes it useless for protecting citizens.  Plan Mérida has also helped Mexico develop a voice and fingerprint tracking system, which in combination with Platforma Mexico suggests that the U.S.’s “security†style of branding certain people as permanent criminals is moving south of the border. Another component of Plan Mérida is sending investigation equipment and training police officers to use it, especially around Mexico’s southern border. These largely illegal road and highway checkpoints are operated by a confusion of the military, police or both. They nominally seize drugs but also serve to track the movements of autonomous or indigenous groups and suppress political dissent.  The prison projects do not stop at Mexico, but continue south into the entirety of Central America under the Central American Regional Security Initiative (CARSI). CARSI is “a new security initiative sponsored by the United States, which is pressuring the weak states of Central American to assign their local armed forces to the fight against drug trafficking and organized crime,†notes André Maltais, a Canadian journalist. Training prison guards is a central component of the program’s security management in all the countries involved. Central America is an important region geographically for the U.S., especially for its rich natural resources. “While the [leftist guerrillas of the ‘80s] have disappeared, drug trafficking and violence, in addition to being profitable businesses for the U.S. banks and security industry, are now excellent pretexts for a permanent Pentagon military presence in the region.† William R. Brownfield visited Honduras in March this year, where he committed U.S. money to another “multi-pronged†program. The U.S. has been increasing military and police financing for the illegal government of President Porfirio Lobo since the military coup in 2009. This support has funded Honduras’s ongoing state repression against democracy activists. As the U.S. embassy report illuminates in bullet points, the new prison program will operate through CARSI. The plan includes anti-gang programs, a model precinct program which will be launched at a police precinct in Tegucigalpa, and a model prison program. The most “innovative†parts in this plan are the ones which involve previously civilian institutions: the U.S. ambassador Lisa Kubiske said “He’s going to show that… we have good relations as much with the people who apply the law as with the military side.†Brownfield aims to follow the program of either Mano Dura or Super Mano Dura, both of which are anti-gang initiatives which failed in El Salvador, according to La Prensia. Says Sonja Wolf writing for Sustainable Security, Mano Dura resulted in massive gang incarceration, and “confinement in special prisons allowed gang members to strengthen group cohesion and structureâ€. (http://hondurasculturepolitics.blogspot.mx/2012/03/mano-dura-again.html  CARSI is very similar to Plan Colombia, enacted more than a decade earlier, in that it increases US military presence in the plan’s respective region; so similar that the Colombian Armed Forces provide training to Central American police and military officers through CARSI. Colombia has been in a state of turmoil for most of the past century due to an intense ongoing political, social and armed conflict, culminating in the 47 year old conflict between the Colombian government and paramilitaries with the Marxist-Leninist insurgent group, FARC (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia). The broader armed conflict also includes insurgent groups such as the ELN (Ejército de Liberación Nacional), as well as private armies of narco-traffickers.  In 2000 their Minister of Justice signed “The Program for the Improvement of the Colombian Prison System†together with the US Ambassador to Colombia, Anne Patterson. The agreement and ensuing “improvements†went largely unnoticed and unreported. However, USAID and the US Federal Bureau of Prisons funded and advised a project to construct and/or redesign as many as 16 medium and maximum security prisons, leading to a 40% increase in prisoner capacity.  The U.S.‘s overall involvement in Colombia was justified as part of the international War on Drugs. Nominally, the new prisons (an initial 4.5 million US dollars were spent) that resulted from this program were built to lessen overcrowded conditions at the previous maximum and medium security institutions. However, more prisons have not apparently improved conditions but instead have been filled; arrests have outpaced the newly built holding space. The prison program may have motivated a surge of arrests, or at the very least were positioned to receive the resulting prisoners. In addition, the new prisons are more militarized; greater blurring the lines between the civilian police forces and the military.  According to the Colombian Coalition Against Torture, “It is of serious concern that Colombia’s prisons are increasingly militarized. Indeed, the majority of prisons visited …are under the command of high-ranking members of the military and police forces, either retired or active, and lack the skills necessary to manage a prison.†At least five of the sixteen prisons were run by graduates of the notorious School of the Americas. The program in the end was no improvement, but instead an expansion of the role of the prison in social control.  Colombia’s notorious new prison, La Tramacua, with its filthy and violent conditions, has held scores of Colombia’s thousands of political prisoners and is known for using torture: currently, the Colombian prison system holds 9,500 political prisoners, the great majority being held for nonviolent resistance and political opposition. The prison population has grown by over 57% since 2000 while the population has grown only by 14%. In addition, the strange phrase “New Penitentiary Culture†used by the Colombia prison program, so captivating when it leads one to reflect on the nature of the culture we send abroad, was also used by the Dominican Republic’s attorney general Radhames Jimenez Peña in an announcement that six new prisons were being built: “We are beginning a new penitentiary culture in the Dominican Republic,†he said. Likely there is U.S. or Brownfield influence there as well, seeping quietly into the phrases that make it into press releases.  The pattern set in Colombia twelve years ago is significant to understanding how the newer security and prison agreements will develop in Mexico and Central America. The most obvious reason to expect similar results is William Brownfield, who has been central to the development of all of these country’s prison programs; while the Colombia program was initiated, he was ambassador to next-door neighbor Venezuela, and then inherited the prison program when he became ambassador to Colombia in 2007. We can expect more arrests and less true security in communities after the new prison programs are implemented. Moreover, the prison program in Colombia also accompanied the U.S.‘s international War on Drugs, a clumsy practice when decreasing drug flow is concerned, but excellent for maintaining military presence in an area and for niche US business interests like military suppliers. In Colombia the militarized and expanded prison system was an important tool for stifling dissent; the newer prison plans in Mexico and Central America will likely serve this purpose as well. We can expect many more arrests in the affected countries.  Yet we can look beyond even Colombia into the origins of these new prison programs: the original model for all is of course of the United States. Our home-grown Prison Industrial Complex has its roots in right-wing political campaigns of being “tough on crime†and warring against drugs. Drug sales persist freely, but ghettoized black and brown communities, victims of the decline of industry, are under constant police surveillance. In every city exists a population of men with felony records who have no redemption in the eyes of society and much less access to employment. This is the nature of our “penitentiary culture†which we have now begun to export. Our prison industrial complex perpetuates the spirit of Jim Crow legislation, the system created to psychologically privilege poor whites in order to kill interracial class-based political alliances against the rich business class (Alexander). It thus suppresses broad political dissent, and also holds very explicit political prisoners, notably many Black Panthers, Indigenous activists, and Puerto Ricans. The “War on Drugs†declared by the Reagan administration which led to current incarceration practices has never been contained within the US’s borders; all the internal violence is mirrored, and in some ways amplified and distorted, in much of the rest of the Americas.  What will happen in Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean as a result of the new prison programs is uncertain. The native imprisonment cultures in these countries are currently no match to the divisiveness, scope and intensity of U.S.A., but are likely heading in that direction. U.S. prisons are part of the “multi-pronged†policing weapon against communities wherever they are. The building of new prisons, and the implementation of our noxious penitentiary culture, should be opposed both at home and south of the border. 

 

SOLVENCY – connection of immigrant justice struggles with prison abolition movements is necessary to dismantle status quo power relations.

 

Jodie Michelle Lawston1 and Martha Escobar2, Summer-xx-2009, Professor of Women's Studies @ California State University, Ph.D., research interests in women’s incarceration, immigrant detention, political and social activism, and most recently, women’s health1, Ph.D. from the Department of Ethnic Studies at the University of California, San Diego, assistant professor in the Department of Chicana/o Studies at California State University, North-ridge2, “Policing, Detention, Deportation, and Resistance: Situating Immigrant Justice and Carcerality in the 21st Century,†jstor

 

Liberal discourses, they argue, often employ a sympathy frame to characterize certain undocumented immigrants as "deserving" (inadvertently making other immigrants "undeserving") of entrance into the United States. Like anti-immigrant discourses, liberal discourses fail to historicize or contextualize immigration and the ongoing role of the United States in creating and maintaining the political and economic conditions that drive migrants northward. The authors suggest that because racist laws, discourses, and media images justify the incarceration of citizens and the detention/imprisonment of immigrants, immigrant justice advocates seeking to dismantle structures of dominance and privilege should highlight the connections between immigrant detention and prison expansion more broadly, rather than al? lowing the binary logic of "criminal/noncriminal" to define the debate. In the next article, Meghan G. McDowell and Nancy A. Wonders draw on nar? ratives obtained from focus groups and interviews to analyze how the localized expression of global disciplinary strategies racializes and restricts public space for migrants residing in Arizona. They use the narratives to examine whether and how interrelated technologies of control, surveillance, and enforcement rituals operate to shape migrants' experience of public space. The authors argue that global disciplin? ary strategies are used so that Western nations are able to maintain a cross-border flow of migrant labor that is both vulnerable and exploitable. Daysi Diaz-Strong, Christina Gomez, Maria Luna-Duarte, Erica Meiners, and Luvia Valentin broaden the discussion and analyze how the prison and military industrial complex intersect and attempt to constrain futures for undocumented youth. These activist-researchers draw upon their participatory action research, narratives from undocumented and formerly undocumented students, and reflections on their own statuses to examine legislation?particularly the DREAM Act?that offers military service as a potential path toward "legalization." The authors make crucial connections between immigration law and policies, the military, practices of deportation and detention, and the vast prison regime. They conclude with a call to reconstruct "the structures and traditions that safeguard power and privilege" as a basis for building an abolition democracy. Jenna M. Loyd, Andrew Burridge, and Matthew Mitchelson's commentary expands upon conversations developing between immigrant justice and anti-prison organizers. They note how the criminal justice system serves to mobilize and im? mobilize bodies. In addition, they outline how prisons and borders constitute each other, making it necessary to theorize about and engage in liberation through sites of (im)mobilization. These abolitionist scholar-activists seek to bridge the prison This content downloaded from 128.59.62.83 on Sat, 6 Apr 2013 11:17:13 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Policing, Detention, Deportation, and Resistance 5 abolition and immigrant justice movements by highlighting the transformative possibilities offered by an abolitionist vision, in which the freedom of movement and the freedom to inhabit space are imperative to the creation of strong, sustain? able communities. Two testimonies of imprisoned migrant women conclude this compilation. Instead of discussing their "crimes," they provide insight into the impact of crimi nalization on their lives and critique the limitations of mainstream immigrant rights organizing. The first testimony is that of an anonymous woman, currently detained, who will be deported to Mexico in June 2010. Her testimony addresses the limi? tations of language, culture, and racism for detained migrant women in securing their rights. Her standpoint is collective rather than individualized. It condemns the role of the United States in perpetrating violence against this captive group, as well as the Mexican government's neglect, which enables ongoing violence. This testimony underscores that such violence is a collaborative effort of both countries against this group. The second testimony is by Esther Morales Guzman, a migrant woman who spent five years in California prisons. After her deportation to Mexico, she joined the immigrant rights movement in Tijuana. Her subsequent attempt to reenter the United States resulted in her being caught and sentenced to 27 months in federal detention. Morales Guzman's testimony highlights the difficulties faced by deport? ees, especially individuals who are marked as criminals. Although the charge of crossing as a "criminal alien" was removed, the prosecutor used her record as an immigrant rights activist to argue that she was involved in a conspiracy to commit crimes against the United States by promoting undocumented migration. Atten? tion is drawn to the shifting definition of criminality. In her case, immigrant rights organizing became a crime, resulting in additional prison time. This issue of Social Justice brings together a multiplicity of voices that offer new insight into U.S. carcerality and the criminalization of migrants, while connecting immigrant justice and prison abolition work. In a political and economic climate that values corporatization, money, and silence over progressive social change, we hope that the contributions here will inspire more movement building and coalitions among immigrant justice and prison abolition activists, and unite these advocates with those struggling for environmental, gender, racial, queer, reproductive, worker, economic, and global justice. The time is ripe for dismantling systems of privilege and dominance. We urge activists, scholars, and scholar-activists to continue to make connections between the multiple forms of oppression in the United States and globally, and to form strong alliances that organize and fight for justice and emancipation for all people. 

 

 

 

NEG AT: Anzaldua / open borders – Wilderson k link.

 

Nicholas Brady, 4-06-2013, activist-scholar from Baltimore, an executive board member of Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle, a community-based think tank focused on empowering youth in the political process. He is also a recent graduate of Johns Hopkins with a bachelor’s degree in Philosophy and currently a doctoral student at the University of California-Irvine Culture and Theory program, “The Fire Every Time: Notes Towards a Blackened World,†http://www.academia.edu/3228725/The_Fire_Every_Time_Notes_Towards_a_Blackened_World

 

My Friends Chains are long things. From your sojourns of today Until your battle plans of tomorrow Please remember that blackness Travels without Moving; it crosses borders but stays in slavery.  Ya got that? fugitive don't mean free    Plan accordingly.  Thank you. With these epigraphs in mind, this paper will take explicit issue with the framing of this conference, specifically the idea that “crossing borders†is a radical mode of contestation. This paper will explicitly understand the concepts of “border crossing,†“cross-pollination,†“hybridization,†and “fluidity,†as neither notions to celebrate nor internal links to what we might inadequately describe as revolution; but instead as horizons of possibility made in disavowal of the nightmare of fixed-ness, static-ness, and incapacitation. This nightmare of incapacitation is nothing other than an intense, but disguised fear of blackness and what a blackened world means. As Gil-Scott Heron might say, these visions of a freedom from domination are just extensions of the “Free Doom†of modernity. This paper should not be confused with an indict of the dangerous way of living on and across the borderlands in this world. This paper will not critique those who are entangled in the forced, conscripted, travestied, and potentially hopeful journeys through dangerous borders. Instead, we will locate our gaze at the way these experiences are made coherent through particular narratives and frameworks. Our experiences do not simply become events on their own accord, but become comprehensible through performative subjectivities – reiterated narratives that are cited and signified upon. They also become coherent through the position of the unthought, the shadow of modernity itself – the libidinal economy of anti-blackness, which is to say the antagonism between life and death, or the world and blackness.  From this we can say tentatively that there is no border between nothingness and something. Borders only exist between two or more somethings, two or more subjects, albeit arranged by differing levels of power and legitimacy. Nothingness is not the same as having nothing . To have nothing, to actually own nothing, is to imply that you actually have the capacity to own. The capacity to own is not to be confused with the actual existence of something to own, but it is the bottom line of propriety.  There is a border between those who have nothing and those who have something – what people call colloquially the “haves and the have-nots.†But blackness is not the have-nots, the huddled masses, or even those who have nothing. No, blackness is synonymous with nothing-ness in a non-relation to the world. In this way, those who are nothing are the ones who are had and owned, those who have nothing have a property – their property is the ontological position of blackness.  This paper will seek to clarify and improvise on the following questions: what does it mean to cross a border? Where is the crosser departing from and where is she departing to? What does one take with them? What can one own in such a transitory mode of living? If we are contesting such dialectical notions of identity – ie stable notions of an “origin†and “destination†– and instead choosing to reside in the borderlands, what does it mean to reside there? And in this schema, what does mobility and movement mean? How does mobility and movement become coherent? What is the relationship between mobility and stillness? Can one be still, yet moving, like one growing up in a cocoon? Or is that just another form of imprisonment, another peculiar institution? What is the relationship between the border and the plantation, the border-crosser and the slave?  These questions will not be answered today, but perhaps we can begin to sketch an outline of a truer word we could speak to these inquiries. In an essay attempting to theorize a new Cultural Studies through the concept of the border, Jose David Saldivar defines this hermeneutic of the border, or la frontera, as “the invented lines along which different groups work and live with divergent understanding.†(Saldivar, 252).  The border is invoked both as a line of division between divergent groupings and a space of inhabitation. Here we can think of the border less as a physical line, but a discursive and psycho-somatic line performed through acts of reiterating normative relationships to difference. The border is a zone of negotiation and contestation, inhabited by bodies produced through and as difference and arranged along hierarchies of race, class, gender, and sexuality. Yet, as Saldivar warns us at the end of his text Border Matters, the “border†is not simply an evocation of trendy postmodern language, for it speaks to the existence of bodies on actual borders and living in verifiable borderlands. Specifically, the theorization of the border arises from radical Chicano literature, poetics, and performances in a specific relationship to the US-Mexico border. Instead of viewing this border as the limits of the nation-state, Saldivar theorizes the border as a “transfrontera contact zone†where subjects “negotiate with one another and manufacture new relations, hybrid cultures, and multiple-voiced aesthetics†(Saldivar, 14). It is here, between the southwest of the US and northern Mexico that the “third world†spills into the “first world,†producing what Saldivar calls a “third country… a near inter-cultural world… [that] changes pesos into dollars, humans into undocumented workers, Chicano youth culture into punks, people between cultures into people without culture.†(Saldivar, 8).  We find in many of the panels in this conference, discussions centered on a radical contestation of imperialism and colonialism. This paradigm allows us to focus on “racial formations†that make the immigrant, the queer, and the subaltern in general into a productive crisis for the dominant order. Yet, this raises the question of the ends – what is the world that we are working towards in affirming the “border-crosserâ€? Saldivar gives us a vision of the world of possibility the border-crosser opens up in the concluding thought for his text Border Matters. Quoting historian Lawrence Levine, Saldivar ends by saying, “I take solace in the brave (im)migrant students who enter my undergraduate classrooms at Berkeley, eager to earn the pride of their parents and their US-Mexico borderland teacher… “We who inhabit the United States at this moment are not unique, nor is our situation. Every previous generation of Americans has had its profound difficulties accepting ethnic and racial groups who did not seem to adhere to some earlier model; every previous generation of Americans had spied in the new immigration its own seeds of dissolution and chaos… And every previous generation of Americans has been incorrect in its fears.†(Saldivar, 197).  For Saldivar, the act of calling the American empire into question is not in the service of its dissolution, but in its liberalization. The bravery of his migrant students cannot be doubted, but who is to say that they are “eager to earn the pride of… their US-Mexico borderland teacher?†Why pride? Why is the conclusion of a text a moment of “solaceâ€? What is the connection between the pride of his students and his own comfort? Here these students represent a brave new world that will be built on their struggle to be recognized, to be worthy of pride. Yet, they want recognition not from the dominant order, but from the subjects of the borderland or what Saldivar earlier called a “third country.†They are the children of a new world being conceived of at the meeting of two nation-states, but is this a truly new world? In ending the text with a quote from Levine, he absorbs this new world into the historical and perpetual becoming of the American project. This group of brave migrants are like the old groups of immigrants who Americans saw as the “seeds of dissolution and chaos,†yet Levine gives us solace: “every previous generation of Americans has been incorrect in its fears.†At worst this seems to be a disguised call for gumbo-style assimilation, but we can be more generous to Saldivar. He is demanding the American empire and its citizenry to reorient their relationship to the borderlands and its people, those who crossover its territory. This radical re-orientation is not necessarily an absorption into the dominant order, but a transformation of America into one large contact zone. America, and perhaps the world, would be decentered and could become one large borderland, where cultures can touch and be touched by each other, subjects can be heard in their multivocality and are allowed to move freely. A utopic vision perhaps, but for Saldivar, Anzaldua, and others this is a world worth fighting for.  [PLAY LAURYN HILL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXN0_oaPoZQ]  Lauryn Hill evokes the image of the box in a similar way to Saldivar’s hermeneutic of the border. She is boxed in by the dominant order that surrounds her. The lines that make up the box are both physical and psychic, marking and separating bodies along axis of difference. Against this violence of boxes and border, one can hear in Lauryn Hill’s song an affirmation of her embodied identity as a mode of agency and resistance. Lauryn Hill’s spiritual and political journey is one of crossing over the lines established by the box, which is why at the end she continues to repeat “I’m choosing life.†Yet, what is life for Lauryn Hill? And does it differ from the vision given to us by border theorists such as Saldivar and Anzaldua?  We might say that Hill’s form of life is as dangerous as a border crosser, repeatedly mentioning the inevitability of her death for such a resistance. Yet, she finds no value in the dominant culture. Here “cross-pollination†is described as pollution that she must extricate herself from. Hill’s singing is a prayer for life, not as an assured status but as a status one must work to gain, struggle to attain, and fight to maintain. In this drama, every compromise is an act of violence that “represses her to death.†Against the backdrop of civil death and assured physical demise, Hill chokes on her own prayer for life at the end of the played clip. She takes a drink of water while the audience applauds, afterwards she repeats the line with a still noticeably scarred laugh. We might, pace Fred Moten and Nathaniel Mackey, call this moment a fugitive troubling of the song, where the phonic materiality of the voice irrupts against the content of the lyrics. This moment resists being absorbed into the script of the moment, for every transcription of the lyrics of this song call this moment a “pause†or “break.†Critics of the album have cited this as an example of Hill’s lack of professionalism and propriety. Here her fundamental moment of resistance and agency – her decision to take her life back – is interrupted by her own body and its pained expression that remains simultaneously unthought, incoherent, overdetermining, and punished. We may, pace Moten again, call this a “little moment of nothingness,†that cannot be understand in the terms of propriety – of self-ownership and subjectivity – but as an unowned, unasked question.   [PLAY BEN’S REMIX: http://debatevision.com/videos/255/octo-finals-csu-fullerton-emporia-ww-vs.-towson-em-2nc]  BP’s remix takes what is explicit in Lauryn Hill’s song and amplifies it so we can hear the hidden antagonism. From the very beginning the entire world is being called into question in its relation to the black. The black’s capacity to progress, move, and act is superimposed on by the projections of the world. Here the world is a jail, but it cannot recognize what it actually holds captive. The cognitive maps of the human cannot locate him. Yet, in its parasitic non-relation, the black’s death becomes the horizon of possibility for life itself within the world. BP is also pointing to the converse, that the black does not have the capacity to make itself known within the map of the human. Here we might think along with Moten and Mackey of blackness as a persistent previousness evading every map of the world. We can also think with BP of blackness as a trap outside of the heaven of the world. Through BP we can re-theorize Lauryn Hill’s concept of the “box†as an enclosed ontological existence instead of a borderland. The black’s social life is lived within the box of social death, to use Jared Sexton’s phrasing.   Against this backdrop of social death, BP does not pray for life, but recognizes the inevitability of his death as the condition of possibility for action. The black does not own its life nor its death, but there is an impossible action to be found in this death: “suicide is action.†BP begins his song with the call that Lauryn Hill ends her song with: “Get out.†There is no destination, no “third country,†no land or language to call its own. There is only one ethical position available: Just get out, by any means necessary. As Kara Keeling stated in “Looking for M---,†a black future looks like no future at all. A black future, a blackened world, is nothing.   This is to say that in the black radical tradition, there is a project against the very tenets of integrationism and liberal recognition that overdetermines the national black political agenda. This project is implicit in the lyrics of Lauryn Hill and made explicit through a specific remixing by BP: the project of ending the world. On this note, philosopher Lewis Gordon states that   “… there is no way to reject the thesis that there is something wrong with being black beyond the willingness to ‘be’ black – not in terms of convenient fads of playing blackness, but in paying the costs of anti-blackness on a global scale. Against the raceless credo, then, racism cannot be rejected without a dialectic in which humanity experiences a blackened world.† What does it mean to pay the costs of anti-blackness? Gordon does not mean a capitalist sense of payment. Instead he is demanding the world to be black or blackened, which is to say for the world to end, just as slavery did to black people long ago. This does not occur in giving those who have nothing something, or even everything. This is not a call for redemption, atonement, or forgiveness. This is very simply a demand for the world to become nothing,

 

AFF BORDER ADV – border militarization causes suffering and deaths, doesn’t solve immigrants.

 

Olivia Wood, 9-13-2010, Year 3 Single Honours American and Canadian Studies, “An Investigation into Exploitation of the Mexican Female Body along the U.S.-Mexico Border,†http://www.womenontheborder.org/documents/OliviaWooddissertation.pdf, p. 48-50

 

Militarization of the Border Before World War One Mexicans could cross the border legally and easily. 231 Then, after the Great Depression, immigration became a contentious issue. In 1924 the Border Patrol was created under the Immigration Bureau and by 1950 it was based predominantly at the southern border to tackle illegal immigration.232 Its size and powers have grown steadily in correlation with rising anti-immigration fervour in the U.S., particularly post-1965, in response to increasing numbers of Latin American and Asian arrivals, including a “second wave†of Mexican migrants. A diminished need for cheap labour combined with nativist fears of newcomers233 resulted in the reversal of previous “open door†policies that had welcomed Mexican labourers (such as Bracero). An increasingly belligerent attitude towards immigration resounded in American public, media, and governmental discourse.234 Particularly contentious was escalating undocumented Mexican migration, because, as Jonathan Xavier Inda explains, the U.S. public tends to blame “immigrants, primarily the undocumented, for . . . the socioeconomic ills of the United States: unemployment, crime, deteriorating schools, deficiencies in social services, and so forth.â€235 The issue was addressed through federal legislation (the 1986 Immigration and Control Act), but this failed to stem the flow. During the 1990s the government reassessed the “undocumented problem,†devising a strategy to tackle the issue head-on: border militarization. Following substantial budget increases, new technologies and resources such as “new lighting, fencing, ground sensors, mobile infra-red night scope cameras, more vehicles and computerized systemsâ€236 helped the Border Patrol apprehend illegal immigrants. Operations including ‘Hold the Line’ in El Paso (September 1993) and ‘Operation Gatekeeper’ in San Diego (October 1994), were a “show of force†in these particularly porous areas.237 The presence of high steel fences and numerous law-enforcement personnel have made border residents feel they are living in “an occupied territory.â€238 But the effect on migrants, especially the undocumented, is even more threatening. Mexicans attempting to travel north illegally have been forced to risk their lives by journeying “across the desert, over the mountains, and through rural areas where the physical dangers are considerable.â€239 Thus, contrary to the official line that boasts the “immediate success†of such operations, producing a “drastic reduction in apprehensions,â€240 it is widely reported that “these measures have failed to reduce the total number of migrantsâ€; but rather “redirected the flow to the deserts and mountainsâ€.241 The consequences are deadly: for example “between 1993 and 1996, it is estimated that at least 1,185 migrants died in the attempt to cross the border.â€242 

 

Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...