Administrative Waiver CP Final

8/8/2019 Administrative Waiver CP Final

1/63

CUNY 2010

1/26

Hi FI Waiver CP

Administrative Waiver CP

Administrative Waiver CP ........................................................................................................................ .1

Administrative Waiver CP ............................................................................................... 1*1NC* ................................................................................................................................................... ....5

*1NC* ................................................................................................................................. 5

Waiver CP 1NC ........................................................................................................................................6

Waiver CP 1NC .................................................................................................................6

Net Benefit: Politics ..................................................................................................................................7

Net Benefit: Politics .........................................................................................................7

*Solvency* ........................................................................................................................ 8

Solvency: Aggravated Felonies ................................................................................................................9Solvency: Aggravated Felonies ..................................................................................... 9

Solvency: Criminal Exclusion (1/2) .........................................................................................................10

Solvency: Criminal Exclusion (1/2) .............................................................................. 10

Solvency: Criminal Exclusion (2/2) .........................................................................................................11

Solvency: Criminal Exclusion (2/2) .............................................................................. 11

Solvency: Family Based Visas ...............................................................................................................12

Solvency: Family Based Visas ..................................................................................... 12

Solvency: Generic ..................................................................................................................................13

Solvency: Generic ..........................................................................................................13

Solvency: H-1B Visas .............................................................................................................................14

Solvency: H-1B Visas .................................................................................................... 14

Solvency: H-2 Visas .......................................................................................................................... .....15

Solvency: H-2 Visas ....................................................................................................... 15

Solvency: Ideological Exclusion ....................................................................................................... ......16

Solvency: Ideological Exclusion .................................................................................. 16

Solvency: Moral Turpitude Inadmissibility ................................................................................... ...........17

Solvency: Moral Turpitude Inadmissibility ................................................................. 17

Solvency: Refugees ............................................................................................................................ ...18

Solvency: Refugees ....................................................................................................... 18

Solvency: Terror Exclusion .....................................................................................................................19

Solvency: Terror Exclusion .......................................................................................... 19

*ILaw Net Benefit* .......................................................................................................... 20

1NC ILaw Shell.......................................................................................................................................21


2/63

CUNY 2010

2/26

Hi FI Waiver CP1NC ILaw Shell............................................................................................................... 21

ILaw Solvency Ext..................................................................................................................................22

ILaw Solvency Ext.......................................................................................................... 22

ILaw Impact Ext......................................................................................................................................23ILaw Impact Ext.............................................................................................................. 23

Damrosch & Mullerson, 95 [Lori, Professor of Law @ Columbia and Rein, Prof ofIntl Law @ Kings College, Beyond Confrontation, pg 1-2] .......................................23

2NC ILaw Module: Leadership (1/2) .......................................................................................................24

2NC ILaw Module: Leadership (1/2) ............................................................................. 24

2NC ILaw Module: Leadership (2/2) .......................................................................................................25

2NC ILaw Module: Leadership (2/2) ............................................................................. 25

Waivers ILaw K2 Global Stability .......................................................................................................26

Waivers ILaw K2 Global Stability ............................................................................ 26Waivers ILaw K2 Humanitarian Relief...................................................................................... .........27

Waivers ILaw K2 Humanitarian Relief .................................................................... 27*Impact Modules* ........................................................................................................... 28

Customary ILaw Module (1/3) ................................................................................................................29

Customary ILaw Module (1/3) ....................................................................................... 29





Human Rights Cred Module ................................................................................................................. ..32

Human Rights Cred Module .......................................................................................... 32

*A2: Aff Args* ................................................................................................................. 33

AG Strength Good: Generic ...................................................................................................................34

AG Strength Good: Generic .......................................................................................... 34

Agencies Solve: Generic ........................................................................................................................35

Agencies Solve: Generic ............................................................................................... 35

Agencies Good: Democracy ...................................................................................................................36

Agencies Good: Democracy ......................................................................................... 36

Agencies Good: SOP ....................................................................................................................... ......37

Agencies Good: SOP ..................................................................................................... 37

Delegation Good: Generic (1/2) ..............................................................................................................38

Delegation Good: Generic (1/2) .................................................................................... 38


3/63

CUNY 2010

3/26

Hi FI Waiver CPDelegation Good: Generic (2/2) ..............................................................................................................39

Delegation Good: Generic (2/2) .................................................................................... 39

Executive Power: Generic (1/2) ..............................................................................................................40

Executive Power: Generic (1/2) .................................................................................... 40Executive Power: Generic (2/2) ..............................................................................................................41

Executive Power: Generic (2/2) .................................................................................... 41

Plenary Power Bad: Generic ................................................................................................................ ..42

Plenary Power Bad: Generic .........................................................................................42

A2: Attorney General Cant Act........................................................................................................ .....43

A2: Attorney General Cant Act ................................................................................... 43

A2: Courts Solve .............................................................................................................................. ......44

A2: Courts Solve ............................................................................................................ 44

A2: Waivers Fail.................................................................................................................................. ...45

A2: Waivers Fail............................................................................................................. 45

**Aff Answers** .............................................................................................................. 46

*Solvency Answers* ...................................................................................................... 47

No Solvency: Admissibility .................................................................................................................. ...48

No Solvency: Admissibility ........................................................................................... 48

No Solvency: Deportability .....................................................................................................................49

No Solvency: Deportability ........................................................................................... 49

No Solvency: Familial Sponsorship ........................................................................................................50

No Solvency: Familial Sponsorship ............................................................................ 50

No Solvency: Firearm Crimes ..................................................................................................... ...........51

No Solvency: Firearm Crimes .......................................................................................51

No Solvency: Generic .............................................................................................................................52

No Solvency: Generic .................................................................................................... 52

*Mech Answers* ............................................................................................................. 53

Congress Must Delegate ............................................................................................... 54

Delegation Bad: Generic ........................................................................................................................55

Delegation Bad: Generic ............................................................................................... 55

Delegation Bad: SOP ....................................................................................................................... ......56

Delegation Bad: SOP ..................................................................................................... 56

*Net Benefit Answers* ................................................................................................... 57

I-Law Fails: Non-Binding ........................................................................................................................58

I-Law Fails: Non-Binding ............................................................................................... 58


4/63

CUNY 2010

4/26

Hi FI Waiver CPI-Law Bad: Constitutionality ....................................................................................................................59

I-Law Bad: Constitutionality ......................................................................................... 59

Customary ILaw Bad: Preemption ..........................................................................................................60

Customary ILaw Bad: Preemption ............................................................................... 60Customary ILaw Bad: Tensions ................................................................................... 61

HR Cred Bad: China ...............................................................................................................................62

HR Cred Bad: China .......................................................................................................62

HR Cred Bad: War ............................................................................................................................ .....63

HR Cred Bad: War .......................................................................................................... 63


5/63

CUNY 2010

5/26

Hi FI Waiver CP

*1NC*


6/63

CUNY 2010

6/26

Hi FI Waiver CP

Waiver CP 1NC

Text: The Attorney General of the United States should grant waivers of inadmissibility to all

visa applicants who are denied admissions because of _________________.

____Waivers forgive visa applicants found to be inadmissible or deportable

Shugall & Desnoyers, 8 [Ilyce, Associate Attorney at Van Der Hout, Brigagliano & Nightingale, LLP in SanFrancisco & Rebecca, JD Candidate Winter 2008, William Mitchell College of Law, Immigration Law: Case Note:Orozco v. Mukasey: When an entry may not be an admission and the fundamental problems with the ninthcircuits analysis, William Mitchell College of Law, 35 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 68, lexis]

In addition to being inspected and admitted, a non-citizen applying for adjustment of status under section245(a) must show [*86] that he or she is admissible to the United States. n107 There is a broad range ofconduct that can render someone inadmissible. One of the more common grounds is section 212(a)(6)(C)(i),

which relates to conduct involving fraud or misrepresentation. n108 Under that section, any non-citizen whofraudulently or willfully misrepresents a material fact in obtaining or seeking to obtain a visa,

documentation, or admission to the United States is inadmissible. n109 Congress enacted section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) in order to prevent non-citizens from obtaining entry into the country by fraudulent means and then, oncethis is exposed, continuing with the immigration application process as if nothing happened. n110 Recognizingthe harsh results of lifetime inadmissibility on non-citizens and their families, however, Congress enacted awaiver under section 212(i) for qualified individuals. n111 A waiver generally serves to temporarily orpermanently remove, or "forgive," a particular ground of inadmissibility or deportability. n112 A waiver[*87] granted under section 212(i) essentially forgives a non-citizen's inadmissibility under section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) due to fraud or misrepresentation. n113 Previously, section 212(i) was expanded by the Immigration Act of 1990("IMMACT90") n114 to allow a waiver for fraud or misrepresentation under former INA section 212(i)(1) for the spouse, parent, son, ordaughter of a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. n115 For non-citizens lacking the requisite family relationship, IMMACT90 also

permitted a waiver in circumstances [*88] where ten years had passed since the date of the fraudulent act. n116 Yet, IIRIRA significantlycurtailed section 212(i) relief. n117 First, a 212(i) waiver was no longer available to the parents of U.S. citizens or lawful permanentresidents. n118 IIRIRA also removed the ten-year provision, restricting the benefits of the waiver only to those who have the stated familyrelationship. n119 Further, Congress raised the threshold for granting section 212(i) waivers, requiring a showing of "extreme hardship" tothe non-citizen's qualifying family member if the waiver is not approved. n120 Additionally, under IIRIRA, judicial review of a section

212(i) waiver is barred. n121 Thus, inits present form, section 212(i) waives inadmissibility for fraud ormisrepresentation under 212(a)(6)(C)(i) only if the non-citizen can prove that his or her lawful permanentresident or U.S. citizen spouse or parent will suffer extreme hardship if the admission to the United States

is refused. n122 Additionally, the [*89] benefit of a 212(i) waiver is discretionary, meaning that theapplication may still be denied even if the non-citizen meets all of the statutory requirements. n123 If thenon-citizen is outside the United States, a 212(i) waiver is submitted to a consular officer in connection with animmigrant visa application. n124 If the individual is inside the United States, the 212(i) waiver application isfiled with the CIS field office director or with the Immigration Judge if the person is in removal proceedings.n125


7/63

CUNY 2010

7/26

Hi FI Waiver CP

Net Benefit: Politics

___Delegation allows unpopular action to happen without political backlash

Mezhburd, 2K[Serg, Managing Editor, The Unintelligible Standard: Rethinking the Mandate of the FTC From aNondelegation Perspective, NYU Annual Survey of American Law, 57 N.Y.U. Ann. Surv. Am. L. 361, lexis]

While agreeing that the Constitution mandates congressional lawmaking, public choice theorists add thatcongressional lawmaking is also crucial to representative democracy. n66 Using the economist-styled [*374]rational actor model, public choice theory argues that reelection serves as the major motive for all decisionsmade by legislators while in office. n67 Consequently, publicly elected officials who may be held accountableto their electorate should be promulgating the laws that affect such an electorate. Further, public choicetheorists argue, Congress may have selfish and even sinister reasons for delegating. n68 For example, a statutesetting universally desirable goals and broadly delegating the lawmaking authority to implement such goals is

politically beneficial, since it enables Congress to claim support for uncontroversial issues, such as protectionof children or the environment, while removing itself from politically unpopular but necessary costs, such as the

consequent rise in prices of consumer goods and services. n69 As nondelegation proponents are fond of saying,

delegation provides Congress with an escape route from making "hard choices." n70

___The CP avoids presidential and congressional backlash

Schoenbrod. 93 [David, Prof of Law @ NYU Law, Power and Responsibility; how Congress Abusesthe people through Delegation, p. 10, googlebooks]

Congress and the president delegate for much the same reason that they continue to run budget deficits. With

deficit spending, they can claim credit for the benefits of their expenditures yet escape blame for the costs.The public must pay ultimately of course, but through taxes levied at some future lime by some other officials. Thepoint is not that deficits always have bad economic consequences, but that they have the political consequence ofallowing officials to duck responsibility for costs. Likewise, delegation allows legislators to claim credit for the

ben efits which a regulatory statute promises yet escape the Name for the burdens it will impose, because theydo not issue the laws Deeded to achieve those benefits . The public inevitably must suffer regulatory burdens torealize regulatory benefits, but the laws will come from an agency that legislators can then criticize for imposingexcessive burdens on their constituents. Just as deficit spending allows legislators to appear to deliver money tosome people without taking it from others, delegation allows them to appear to deliver regulatory benefits withoutimposing regulatory costs. It provides "a handy set of mirrorsso useful in Washingtonby which a politician canappear to kiss both sides of the apple."


8/63

CUNY 2010

8/26

Hi FI Waiver CP

*Solvency*


9/63

CUNY 2010

9/26

Hi FI Waiver CP

Solvency: Aggravated Felonies

___Waivers solve aggravated felony exclusion and deportation

Rodriguez, 6 [Sara A., B.A. University of Wisconsin, 1990; M.A. University of Wisconsin, 1991; J.D. Universityof Houston, 1996; LL.M. Candidate, Public International Law, University of Houston Law Center, 2006, Exile andthe not-so-lawful Permanent Resident: Does International Law Require: A Humanitarian Waiver of Deportation forthe Non-Citizen Convictd of Certain Crimes? Georgetown Immigration Law Journal, 20 Geo. Immigr. L.J. 483,Spring]

Initially, the BIA held that the amendments eliminating the discretionary [*494] waiver would not applyretroactively to any individual who sought section 212(c) relief before the AEDPA's effective date of April 24,1996. n80 In a move that sparked much controversy, United States Attorney General Janet Reno vacated theBIA's decision, concluding that the AEDPA's restrictions on relief should be applied to all pending section212(c) waiver applications, even those triggered by criminal convictions entered prior to the April 24, 1996enactment date. n81 By adopting a policy of making the 1996 amendments and their elimination of theavailability of section 212(c) relief retroactive,

the Attorney General effectively precluded any non-citizenever convicted of an aggravated felony from obtaining this type of discretionary relief from a final order

of removal. n82 Eliminating permanent resident non-citizens convicted of certain crimes from eligibilityfor discretionary relief undoubtedly assured that more of these aliens will be deported. The consequences

of deportation for a criminal conviction are devastating for a non-citizen with family members who elect

to remain in the United States. In that regard, non-citizens convicted of an aggravated felony arepermanently barred from returning to the United States for even so much as a visit without a pardon or awaiver in advance from the Attorney General. n83


10/63


11/63

CUNY 2010

11/26

Hi FI Waiver CP

Solvency: Criminal Exclusion (2/2)

___Waivers solve criminal offenses

Rodriguez, 6 [Sara A., B.A. University of Wisconsin, 1990; M.A. University of Wisconsin, 1991; J.D.University of Houston, 1996; LL.M. Candidate, Public International Law, University of Houston Law Center, 2006,Exile and the not-so-lawful Permanent Resident: Does International Law Require: A Humanitarian Waiver ofDeportation for the Non-Citizen Convictd of Certain Crimes? Georgetown Immigration Law Journal, 20 Geo.Immigr. L.J. 483, Spring]

Ali's story is not an isolated one. United States immigration officials removed more than 79,000 "criminal aliens" during the year 2003 alone.n14 Many of the LPRs among this number learned the hard way that punishment imposed for criminal behavior is often followed by exile inthe form of immigration sanctions that may result in the relinquishment of home and [*485] family. n15 Legislative amendments to UnitedStates immigration statutes have steadily eroded the availability of relief for the LPR who is subject to an order of deportation, or removal asthat proceeding is now known, n16 because of a criminal conviction. The year 1996 was particularly hard for this category of non-citizenwith the advent of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (the "AEDPA") in April, n17 and the Illegal Immigrant Reform andImmigrant Responsibility Act (the "IIRIRA") in September. n18 These 1996 legislative changes drastically affected aliens convicted ofaggravated felonies, as that term is defined by the immigration statutes, when Attorney General Janet Reno announced that the amendments

restricting relief from removal for these individuals would apply retroactively. n19 As a result, a conviction for an aggravatedfelony offense at any time in the past not only rendered non-citizens subject to deportation, but it also

made them ineligible for relief from deportation in the form of a discretionary waiver.


12/63

CUNY 2010

12/26

Hi FI Waiver CP

Solvency: Family Based Visas

___Waivers solve family based visas


Section 237(a)(1)(H) now contains the current version of the waiver and applies to a non-citizen who"is the spouse, parent, son, or daughter" of a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident and "was inpossession of an immigrant visa or equivalent document and was otherwise admissible to the United Statesat the time of such admission ... ." n136 A waiver granted under section [*91] 237(a)(1)(H) waives thenon-citizen's deportability and establishes his or her lawful admission for permanent residence in the

United States. n137


13/63

CUNY 2010

13/26

Hi FI Waiver CP

Solvency: Generic

___ Waivers solve


With these views in mind, the district judge found that "[s]ummary deportation ofthis long-term alien withoutallowing him to present the reasons he should not be deported violates the ICCPR's guarantee against

arbitrary interference with one's family, and the provision that the alien shall 'be allowed to submit the

reasons against his expulsion.'" n139 It further found that application of the INA to Beharry "would violate theprinciples of customary international law that the best interests of the child must be considered where

possible." n140 To ensure an interpretation in compliance with international law, the district court interpretedanother waiver provision, INA 212(h),

to afford an opportunity to present evidence that a long-termresident's removal would constitute an "extreme hardship" to a qualifying relative, warranting discretionon the part ofthe Attorney General to waive deportation. n141 In doing so, the district court ignored thefact that section 212(h) plainly excluded from relief lawful permanent residents convicted of an aggravatedfelony. n142 The district court also overlooked the fact that Beharry had not asked for any relief under thisstatute.

___Waivers solve inadmissibility

Vastine, 7 [Michael, Director of Immigration Clinic and Clinical Instructor, St. Thomas University School ofLaw, Being Careful What You Wish For: Divisible Statutes - Identifying a Non-Deportable Solution to a Non-Citizen's Criminal Problem, The Campbell Law Review, 29 Campbell L. Rev. 203, Winter, lexis]

A respondent arriving at a port of entry is considered an "arriving alien" and bears the burden of provingher admissibility. Even a returning permanent resident is considered an arriving alien if, since her initial

admission as a resident, she has been convicted of a crime that would render her inadmissible. n21Whether detected at a port of entry or through other contact with law enforcement, the criminal alien is issuedthe Notice to Appear and given a court date to answer to the charges regarding the grounds of removal(deportability or inadmissibility). n22


14/63

CUNY 2010

14/26

Hi FI Waiver CP

Solvency: H-1B Visas

___Waivers solve H1B visas

Traven, 6 [Michael, JD at Capital University Law School, Restricting Innovation: How Restrictive U.S.Visa Policies Have the Potential to Deplete our Innovative Economy, Capital University Law Review, 34Cap. U.L. Rev. 693, Summer, lexis]

To understand the ways in which the visa policies have changed under the post- 9/11 U.S. government, it isimportant to understand the basic [*712] structure of the U.S. visa system as it pertains to the creativeclass. Two basic types of visas exist: immigrant and nonimmigrant. n118 Immigrant visas are typicallyreserved for foreign individuals who desire to live in the U.S. permanently. n119 Conversely, anonimmigrant visa is issued on the condition that the person stays in the U.S. temporarily and only for aspecified purpose. n120 The foreign individuals upon whom this Comment focuses are those seeking anonimmigrant visa. Certain general requirements must be met before most nonimmigrant visas areissued. n121 First and foremost, the applicant must be able to prove that he has a permanent residenceabroad to which he intends to return after the expiration of his visa. n122 The foreign national musthave a valid passport, must be admissible or have received a waiver of inadmissibility, and in certain

cases, must prove that he will be financially stable during his visit to the U.S. n123 The foreign nationalmay also have the ability to obtain permanent status as a U.S. citizen if certain standards are met. n124Many different nonimmigrant visas are available, but three categories typically affect those in the

creative class: student visas, H-1B (or skilled employee) visas, and J-1 exchange visitor visas forvisiting scholars and researchers. n125


15/63

CUNY 2010

15/26

Hi FI Waiver CP

Solvency: H-2 Visas

___Waivers solve H-2 visas

Lichtenstein, 7 [Merav, Associate Notes Editor, Cardozo Public Law, Policy and Ethics Journal; J.D. Candidate(June 2007), Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law; B.A. Emory University (2003), An Examination of GuestWorker Immigration Reform Policies in the United States, Cardozo Public Law, Policy & Ethics Journal, 5Cardozo Pub. L. Poly & Ethics J. 689, Spring, lexis]

The Senate Bill also included plans to expand and reform the existing H-2A agricultural guest workerprogram (part of AgJOBS) n193 and create a new "Temporary Worker Visa Program" n194 by makingavailable [*714] 325,000 new H-2C temporary guest-worker visas a year. n195 To be eligible for the guestworker visa, the immigrant would have to pay $ 500 plus processing fees n196 (as well as $ 100 for their spouseand each child), submit to a medical examination and fill out an application containing information about health,criminal and gang history, immigration history and any terrorist involvement. n197 These proposed H-2C visaswould allow the guest workers to work in the United States for three years, and then renew the visa once for atotal of six years. n198 The visa would not tie a worker to his employer, n199 but rather, would allow the workerto move from one approved employer to another. n200 Additionally, after the worker has been employed for atleast four years, the new legislation would grant the worker or the employer the ability to file an employment-based visa petition on behalf of the worker, qualifying the worker to apply for lawful permanent resident status.n201 To qualify, the worker would have to obtain a U.S. Department of Labor Certification stating that there areinsufficient numbers of US workers available and qualified to fill the job, n202 and submit at least two specifieddocuments to establish current employment. n203 The new visa program outlined by the bill provided for awaiver of inadmissibility for specified labor certification, document, and prior unlawful presence

violations committed for humanitarian, family unity, or public interest purposes. n204 However, it wouldnot allow non-immigrants entering under the H-2C visa to change their status to any other nonimmigrantclassification n205 and would terminate the H-2C admission if the worker becomes unemployed for sixty ormore consecutive days, thus requiring them to return to their foreign residence. n206 If a [*715] worker doesnot depart to their foreign residence within ten days of expiration of authorized admission, they will be barredfrom entering the country for ten years and from receiving any future immigration benefits, other than asylum.

n207


16/63

CUNY 2010

16/26

Hi FI Waiver CP

Solvency: Ideological Exclusion

___Waiver solve ideological exclusion the McGovern Amendment

Vandiver, 6 [W. Aaron, J.D., Emory University School of Law, Checking Ideas at the Border:Evaluating the Possible Renewal of Ideological Exclusion, Emory Law Journal, 55 Emory L.J. 751, lexis]

During its existence, intense scholarly criticism was levied at the McCarran-Walter Act, n46 and graduallythe harsh use of ideological controls on immigration gave way as the Cold War waned. In 1979, Congresspassed the "McGovern Amendment" which altered subsection 28, the provision that barred admission ofaliens affiliated with communism. n47 The McGovern Amendment required that the Secretary of Staterecommend a waiver of inadmissibility to the Attorney General for any alien denied a visa due tosubsection 28 organizational affiliation unless the Secretary certified to [*758] Congress that a waiverwould be detrimental to the security interests of the United States. n48 The McGovern amendmenteffectively ended the worst abuses of subsection 28 for ideological purposes. By the period from 1971to 1980, the number of actual subversive/anarchist exclusions fell to thirty-two. n49


17/63

CUNY 2010

17/26

Hi FI Waiver CP

Solvency: Moral Turpitude Inadmissibility

___Waivers solve inadmissibility based on violations of moral turpitude

Vastine, 7 [Michael, Director of Immigration Clinic and Clinical Instructor, St. Thomas University School ofLaw, Being Careful What You Wish For: Divisible Statutes - Identifying a Non-Deportable Solution to a Non-Citizen's Criminal Problem, The Campbell Law Review, 29 Campbell L. Rev. 203, Winter, lexis]

Two forms of waivers of inadmissibility exist under 212(h) of the INA. As a defense from removal, non-residents with an immigrant visa available to them may apply for residency and waive criminal grounds

of inadmissibility including most crimes involving moral turpitude, convictions of multiple crimes,

prostitution, and a single conviction of possession of less than thirty grams of marijuana. n11 In its secondform, permanent residents of seven years may re-acquire their residency and waive the same offenses,unless their conviction could be categorized as an aggravated felony. n12 In both forms of 212(h) theapplicant must also meet a threshold requirement of showing that [*206] denial and deportation would causeextreme hardship to a spouse, child, or parent. n13 In each of the forms of relief, once the prima facie case andany required standard of hardship is met, the alien must also show that she warrants a favorable exercise ofdiscretion. n14


18/63

CUNY 2010

18/26

Hi FI Waiver CP

Solvency: Refugees

___Waivers help refugees avoids deportation for fraud


Unlike the grounds of inadmissibility, the grounds of deportability apply to non-citizens who have already

been admitted to the United States. n126 There are several removal provisions unique to the deportabilitygrounds. n127 One of those provisions is section 237(a)(1)(A), which provides that a person is removable if heor she was inadmissible at the time of entry or adjustment of status. n128 In effect, the provision is adelayed finding of inadmissibility, and reaches all those individuals who managed to enter the United

States or adjust status in violation of a statute or regulation. n129 Thus, non-citizens inadmissible at thetime of entry for having engaged in fraud or misrepresentation within the meaning of section 212(a)(6)(C)(i)

are deportableunder section 237(a)(1)(A). Like the lifetime inadmissibility under section 212(a)(6)(C)(i),

however, recurring hardships in the enforcement of 237(a)(1)(A) eventually led to a legislative determinationthat the provision was excessively severe. n130 A major concern was the [*90] impact of the provision onrefugees who are often compelled to engage in fraud in order to escape persecution in their home

countries and seek protection in theUnited States. n131 As a result, legislation in 1957 and 1961 provided fora waiver of deportability, which was initially embodied in section 241(f). n132 Following extensive amendmentsin 1981, n133 section 241(f) was revised and replaced with section 241(a)(1)(H) in 1990 n134 and then renamedunder section 237 by IIRIRA in 1996. n135 Section 237(a)(1)(H) now contains the current version of the waiverand applies to a non-citizen who "is the spouse, parent, son, or daughter" of a U.S. citizen or lawful permanentresident and "was in possession of an immigrant visa or equivalent document and was otherwise admissible tothe United States at the time of such admission ... ." n136 A waiver granted under section [*91] 237(a)(1)(H)

waives the non-citizen's deportability and establishes his or her lawful admission for permanent residence

in the United States. n137


19/63

CUNY 2010

19/26

Hi FI Waiver CP

Solvency: Terror Exclusion

___Waivers can solve visa denials for terror exclusion

Vandiver, 6 [W. Aaron, J.D., Emory University School of Law, Checking Ideas at the Border:Evaluating the Possible Renewal of Ideological Exclusion, Emory Law Journal, 55 Emory L.J. 751, lexis]

A more feasible approach for avoiding unnecessary ideological exclusions would be to reinstate section 411's requirement that theSecretary of State specifically assess an alien's dangerousness. As a further step, Congress could enact a modest waiver scheme fornondangerous individuals modeled on the McGovern Amendment. Of course, this approach flies in the face of Congress' recentelimination of the Secretary of State's need to determine dangerousness. No matter how unlikely the change in the current political

climate, the fact remains thatsome kind of waiver scheme is probably the most effective device forpreventing unnecessary and abusive ideological exclusions. As explained in Part I, Congress' first majorattempt to rein in the abusive ideological exclusions taking place under the McCarran-Walter Act was theMcGovern Amendment of 1977. n228 The McGovern Amendment turned the voluntary waiver frameworkwhich was already in place upside down. Instead of simply allowing the Secretary of State the discretion toissue voluntary waivers for nondangerous individuals found inadmissible, the McGovern Amendmentrequired the Secretary of State to recommend a waiver of ineligibility to the Attorney General for

any alien denied a visa due to subsection 28 of the McCarran-Walter Act unless the Secretary

certified to Congress that a waiver would be detrimental to the security interests of the United States.

n229 Section 411's requirement of a determination by the Secretary of State that an alien'sstatements represented a threat to the U.S. war on terrorism operated in a similar, though more

modest, manner as the McGovern Amendment did. Both provisions assumed that an alien's statementsin favor of certain ideas may or may not indicate a threat to the United States. Thus, aliens wereexcludable for their speech under both provisions if they represented a threat, but aliens were not excludedsimply for speech without some higher threshold showing of danger. The Secretary of State had to certify,under both approaches, that the alien's entry was actually a threat to the United States' interests. Thus, whilethe McGovern Amendment's verbal formulation [*787] established a higher standard - requiring a"detriment" to U.S. "security interests" n230 - than section 411, the premises of the two were similar.Congress, therefore, should at least consider reinstating section 411's requirement that the Secretary ofState determine dangerousness. Congress could also consider a waiver scheme for those who fall underthe inadmissibility provisions of the current INA, as amended by the REAL ID Act. Such a waiver

framework could be modeled on the McGovern Amendment, but would not necessarily need to setthe same high standard to protect against wanton ideological exclusions. The case of Dora Maria Tellez

provides the perfect example of how such a waiver scheme might work. Because she took part in the overthrow of the Somoza regimein the 1970s, Professor Tellez undoubtedly participated in past terrorist activity and has been a member of a terrorist organizationunder the INA's definition of those terms. She personally participated in the Sandinista takeover of the Nicaraguan parliament inwhich over two thousand people were held hostage. n231 Moreover, she has endorsed and espoused her activity ever since, whichfalls under the definition of endorsement of terrorism under section 411 of the PATRIOT Act and the REAL ID Act. Her behavior,however, does not make Ms. Tellez a terrorist threat to the United States today. The civil war between Somoza and the Sandinistas,and later between the Sandinistas and the Contras, involved a great deal of political violence on both sides. But, advocacy of LatinAmerican political violence that took place in the 1970s and 1980s in no sense would make Ms. Tellez a "terrorist" in the common

usage of that word today. Under the hypothetical waiver scheme described above, it is very difficult toimagine that the Secretary of State would certify to Congress that Ms. Tellez's past revolutionaryactivity in a tiny Central American country over twenty-five years ago makes hera terrorist threat to theUnited States today. The Secretary of State, if faced with the choice of granting Ms. Tellez a waiver ofinadmissibility or certifying to Congress that Ms. Tellez represents a terrorist threat to the United States,would probably choose to waive inadmissibility. In this way, a waiver scheme would prevent the

suppression of legitimate political dialogue by making the exclusion of aliens based simply upon their

ideas less likely, while still allowing the executive to deny entry to dangerous individuals in its good-faithdiscretion.


20/63

CUNY 2010

20/26

Hi FI Waiver CP

*ILaw Net Benefit*


21/63

CUNY 2010

21/26

Hi FI Waiver CP

1NC ILaw Shell

___Waivers bring the U.S. in compliance with International law

Rodriguez, 6 [Sara A.; J.D. University of Houston, 1996; LL.M. Candidate, Public International Law, Universityof Houston Law Center, 2006, Exile and the not-so-lawful Permanent Resident: Does International Law Require: AHumanitarian Waiver of Deportation for the Non-Citizen Convictd of Certain Crimes? Georgetown ImmigrationLaw Journal, 20 Geo. Immigr. L.J. 483, Spring]

The lengthy published opinion in Mojica v. Reno considered as an issue of "first impression" whether two long-term LPRs withfamily in the United States were "entitled to a hearing determining whether they should not be deported because of humanitarianfactors" of the sort formerly available under section 212(c). n89 After reviewing the history of immigration in United States and thecountry's human rights obligations under international law, n90 the district court refused to allow a retroactive application of theamended law to bar a "humanitarian" hearing on the petitioners' eligibility for section 212(c) relief. n91 In conducting a statutory

interpretation of the changes to section 212(c), the district court in Mojica stressed that"Congress - as the lawmaker of theleading proponent of international human rights law - is certainly aware of the elements of current

international law that, absent an overriding national policy, it will follow ." n92 Pointing in particularto provisions found in several international instruments, which include the prohibition against

arbitrary exile or expulsion without first having the benefit of a full and fair hearing, n93 and theprohibition against the imposition of a heavier penalty than the one [*496] applicable at the time analien's penal offense was committed, n94 the district court also credited at length the right of familymembers who were legally within the country not to suffer unduly because of the alien's expulsion.n95 Using these principles as a backdrop for statutory construction, the district court decided that it would becontrary to international law to eliminate retroactively the availability of a section 212(c) waiver ofdeportation. n96 After the Attorney General appealed, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed theMojica decision on other grounds without addressing any of the international issues raised by the district court. n97

___Effective international law solves every impact

Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, 02[Institute for Energy and Environmental Research,and the Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy, Rule of Power or Rule of Law? An Assessment of U.S. Policiesand Actions Regarding Security-Related Treaties, May,http://www.ieer.org/reports/treaties/execsumm.pdf]

The evolution of international law since World War II is largely a response to the demands of states and individuals living within a global

society with a deeply integrated world economy. In this global society, the repercussions of the actions of states, non-state actors, and individuals are not confined within borders, whether we look to greenhouse gas

accumulations, nuclear testing, the danger of accidental nuclear war, or the vast massacres of civilians

that have taken placeover the course of the last hundred years and still continue . Multilateral agreements increasinglyhave been a primary instrument employed by states to meet extremely serious challenges of this kind, for

several reasons. They clearly and publicly embody a set of universally applicable expectations, includingprohibited and required practices and policies. In other words,they articulate global norms, such as the protection ofhuman rights and the prohibitions of genocide and use of weapons of mass destruction. They establish

predictability and accountability in addressing a given issue. States are able to accumulate expertise and

confidence by participating in the structured system established by a treaty . However, influential U.S.

policymakers are resistant to the idea of a treaty-based international legal systembecause they fear infringementon U.S. sovereignty and they claim to lack confidence in compliance and enforcement mechanisms. This approach has dangerouspractical implications for international cooperation and compliance with norms. U.S. treaty partners do

not enter into treaties expecting that they are only political commitments that can be overridden based on

U.S. interests. When a powerful and influential state like the United States is seen to treat its legal

obligations as a matter of convenience or of national interest alone, other states will see this as a

justification to relax or withdraw from their own commitments. When the United States wants to require

another state to live up to its treaty obligations, it may find that the state has followed the U.S. example

and opted out of compliance.
http://www.ieer.org/reports/treaties/execsumm.pdfhttp://www.ieer.org/reports/treaties/execsumm.pdfhttp://www.ieer.org/reports/treaties/execsumm.pdf


22/63

CUNY 2010

22/26

Hi FI Waiver CP

ILaw Solvency Ext.

___Waivers for crimes solve international law


Controversy about the retroactive application of these legislative amendments produced widespread litigation inthe courts. n20 This article will review three novel immigration opinions, particularly Beharry v. Reno, whichattempted to remedy the harsh consequences of retroactivity by relying on international law to create a"humanitarian" waiver of removal for long-term LPRs convicted of certain crimes whose deportation

would visit hardship on guiltless family members. n21 Although the district court's decision in Beharry waseventually reversed on procedural grounds, n22 to some practitioners and commentators the decision appeared to

hold out a glimmer of hope for aliens facing deportation as a result of certain criminal offenses. n23 [*486] Thepromise posed by Beharry and its use of international law has not born fruit, as no court has followed itsreasoning. With all due respect for the noble effort to create a humanitarian waiver of removal, this article willdemonstrate that Beharry and its attempt to exploit international law was wrongly decided in several importantrespects. To facilitate this discussion, the article will briefly review the historical treatment of non-citizensconvicted of certain crimes and the modern statutory mechanism for removing those individuals from the UnitedStates. This article will examine a series of immigration decisions that culminated with Beharry and will thendiscuss the international norms identified in those cases as they relate to the removal of criminal aliens. Toexplain why courts have declined to follow Beharry, this article will also discuss some of the roadblocks thathave, to date, prevented the use ofthese international norms to contest removal proceedings undertaken inaccordance with the comprehensive federal statutory scheme in place in the United States. In doing so, thearticle hopes to clarify whetherthe current policy of removing criminal aliens without balancing extremehardship to family members comports orconflicts with international law and to examine whetherinternational norms are ofany aid to non-citizens facing deportation by reason of their criminal


23/63

CUNY 2010

23/26

Hi FI Waiver CP

ILaw Impact Ext.

Upholding the principles, norms, and procedures of International Law is critical to avoiding

nuclear war and ecological catastrophe

Damrosch & Mullerson, 95 [Lori, Professor of Law @ Columbia and Rein, Prof of Intl Law @ KingsCollege, Beyond Confrontation, pg 1-2]

The contemporary world has an ever-increasing need for an international legal system

that can respond to the demands of our time. Of the many reasons for this fact, we willsurvey only a few of the most salient. First and foremost is the increasing interdependenceof all peoples. Even as the world is riven with many contradictions and conflicts, it is alsobecoming more integrated with a greater need for orderly, predictable conduct. Events,and especially natural and social disasters, even when they occur within a single country, havemore noticeable effects on conditions in the world at large. The Chernobyl accident, theearthquake in Armenia, and internal political processes underway in the territories of theformer Soviet Union and Eastern Europe these and many other events occurring withinseparate countries or regions have a global significance affecting the destiny of all

peoples. The intertwining of the economic life of diverse countries today is even greater thanwas the interdependence of different regions within the same state only half a century ago.Order and predictability of the behavior of actors on the international scene can be

achieved first of all with the aid of social norms, among which international law occupies

an important place. A second reason for the growth of the role of international law isinextricably connected with the first. The threats of a thermonuclear catastrophe,universal ecological crisis, and acute economic problems in developing countries are of

global concern and endanger the very existence of humanity. Resolution of these

problems demands coordinated efforts of all states and peoples, which would be

impossible to achieve without the aid of international norms, procedures, institutions.


24/63

CUNY 2010

24/26

Hi FI Waiver CP

2NC ILaw Module: Leadership (1/2)

___U.S. credibility in international law is key to leadership It stabilized US power,

reduces backlash against unilateralism and increases overall credibility

Krisch, 03 [Nico. Senior Fellow @ the Center for International Studies @ NYU Law. Unilateralism and USForeign Policy edited by Malone and Khong. Pp. 62-63]

However,when international instruments reflect U.S. policy preferences vis--vis other states as they oftendo (eg., in the area of arms control) careful analysis is needed on whether unilateral action can render similarresultsor whatever even the short-term interests of the United States demand adherence to the treaty. Even the United States itselfrecognizes the value of legal regulation of international relations, as the description of its attempts to create and enforce law by unilateral

means has shown. It is not ready to renounce law as an instrument, because law stabilizes expectations and reduces thecosts of later negotiation and of the enforcement of certain policies. Thus, the question is whether it is in the U.S.interest to accept the more egalitarian process of international law instead of using unilateral, hierarchal legal instruments. Although it isimpossible to enter into a comprehensive discussion of the general value of international law in this chapter, I shall outline at least some

arguments in favor of such an acceptance. First,a stronger use of international law could help stabilize the current

predominant positions of the United States. If the United States now concludes that treaties with otherstates that reflect its superior negotiating power(even if not to the degree the United States would wish), U.S.preferences can shape international relations in a longer perspective, as change in international law is

slower and more difficult than political change. It is worthwhile noting that past great powers similarly influenced theinternational legal order to such a degree that it is possible to divide the history of international law into epochs dominated by these powers

epochs that have left many traces in contemporary law. Second, even if the U.S. power continues to increase and thisargument therefore appears to be less appealing, the United States can gain from stronger reliance on

international law because the law can help legitimize its current exercise of power. Unilateralism in

international politics is always regarded suspiciously by other states, and it is quite probable that

perceptions of imperialism or bully hegemony will lead to stronger reactions by other states in the

long run. Already now, some states show greater unity. Although it remains to be seen whether in the Case of Russia and China thisgreater unity is only symbolic, other instances, such as the strong stance of the like-minded states in the ICC,indicate a more substantive regrouping in the face of U.S. predominance. Similarly, the accelerated

integration of the EU can be regarded as caused in part by the desire to counterbalance the United

States. IF the United States were able to channel its power into the more egalitarian process ofinternational law, it could gain much more legitimacy for its exercise of power and significantly reduce

the short and long term costs of its policies. This has been recognized in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks against theUnited States in September 2001, and the U.S. president not only sought to build an international ad hoc coalition but also taken steps to

bolster the international legal regime against terrorism, in particular by transmitting conventions against terrorism to the Senate in order to

proceed with ratification. Multilateralism is certainly valued more highlyby U.S. administration since the attacks, butreluctance still prevails in many areas, as enduring U.S. opposition to the ICC and to the additional protocol to the BWC

shows. Third, itis highly questionable whether the United States will in fact be able to pursue its strategy ofsubjecting international law in the future. In the past, it might have been possible to exert significant influence on the contentof international agreements and then not subscribe to them. Repeating this in the future is likely to be more difficult as the United Statesdiscovered in the case of the ICC statute after a certain point. As one observer to the ICC negotiations notes: Increasingly, the otherdelegations felt that it would be better to stop giving in to the Untied States; they believed that the United States would never be satisfiedwith the concessions it got and ultimately would never sign the treaty for completely unrelated domestic political reasons. Similarly, theuse of reservations in order to secure a privileged position has become increasingly difficult as other states become wary of this strategyand seek to foreclose the possibility of reservations to new treaties entirely, as in the ICC statute and the Ottawa Convention. And

discontent with U.S. behavior might backfire in unexpected circumstances as with the loss of the seat

in the Commission for Human Rights, or the suit brought and vigorously defended by Germany in the LaGrand case. Ingeneral, these effects are likely to undermine the U.S. capacity for leadership which to a large degree is

based on reputation, credibility, and persuasiveness not only on brute power. Moreover, as the United

States discovered in its failure to achieve desired goalsin the climate change and the landmine negotiations, leadershipcan be barred by too great a difference in opinion between the leader and those to be led. Compromise may thus be necessary to maintain

the momentum to lead. TheUnited States may be forced to choose between engagement, leadership, andcontrol, on the one hand, and free-riding, isolation, and a loss of influence on the other.


25/63

CUNY 2010

25/26

Hi FI Waiver CP

2NC ILaw Module: Leadership (2/2)

___ Soft power necessary to prevent disease, terrorism, and WMD

Nye, 2004, Professor of Government, Harvard,Joseph, US MILITARY PRIMACY IS FACT - SO, NOW, WORK ON 'SOFT POWER' OFPERSUASION, April 29,http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/news/opeds/2004/nye_soft_power_csm_042904.htm

Soft power co-opts people rather than coerces them. It rests on the ability to set the agenda or shape the

preferences of others. It is a mistake to discount soft power as just a question of image, public relations,and ephemeral popularity. It is a form of power - a means of pursuing national interests. When Americadiscounts the importance of its attractiveness to other countries, it pays a price. When US policies lose theirlegitimacy and credibility in the eyes of others, attitudes of distrust tend to fester and further reduce itsleverage. The manner with which the US went into Iraq undercut American soft power. That did notprevent the success of the four-week military campaign, but it made others less willing to help in thereconstruction of Iraq and made the American occupation more costly in the hard-power resources ofblood and treasure. Because of its leading edge in the information revolution and its past investment inmilitary power, the US probably will remain the world's single most powerful country well into the 21stcentury. But not all the important types of power come from the barrel of a gun. Hard power is relevant togetting desired outcomes, but transnational issues such as climate change, infectious diseases, international

crime, and terrorism cannot be resolved by military force alone. Soft power is particularly important in

dealing with these issues, where military power alone simply cannot produce success, and can even be

counterproductive. America's success in coping with the new transnational threats of terrorism and weapons

of mass destruction will depend on a deeper understanding of the role of soft power and developing a betterbalance of hard and soft power in foreign policy.


26/63


27/63

CUNY 2010

27/26

Hi FI Waiver CP

Waivers ILaw K2 Humanitarian Relief___Waivers use international law to create outlets for humanitarian relief


The harsh consequences of the 1996 amendments and their retroactive effect spawned an immediate reactionfrom the judiciary. Shortly after the full effect of the AEDPA and IIRIRA were felt, the United States DistrictCourt for the Eastern District of New York issued Mojica v. Reno, n84 which became one of the first opinions toreject the retroactive application of the 1996 amendments that eliminated eligibility for relief from deportationunder section 212(c) for aggravated felons. n85 Not long thereafter, the same district court reached a similarresult in Maria v. McElroy. n86 The United States Supreme Court addressed the elimination of section 212(c) in

2001, in INS v. [*495] St. Cyr, n87 and agreed that changes in the law could not apply retroactively to non-citizens who had entered a guilty plea before the 1996 amendments went into effect. After St. Cyr wasdecided, the same district judge that decided Mojica and Maria took another swipe at the elimination ofdiscretionary relief under section 212(c) in Beharry v. Reno. n88 In Beharry, the district court took exceptionto the complete elimination of eligibility for a waiver of removal under section 212(c) for non-citizens

convicted of an aggravated felony in an immigration system deemed inhospitable not only to the alien

facing deportation but also to family members affected by the alien's removal . What is particularlynotable about the decisions in Mojica, Maria, and Beharry is the district court's innovative use ofinternational law to create an opportunity for relief. These decisions are summarized below to demonstratehow the district court used international law in Beharry to create an opportunity for a humanitarianwaiver of removal for aggravated felons based on family hardship.


28/63

CUNY 2010

28/26

Hi FI Waiver CP

*Impact Modules*


29/63

CUNY 2010

29/26

Hi FI Waiver CP

Customary ILaw Module (1/3)

___Denying waivers violates the ICCPR and hurts customary international law

Rodriguez, 6 [Sara A., B.A. University of Wisconsin, 1990; M.A. University of Wisconsin, 1991; J.D. Universityof Houston, 1996; LL.M. Candidate, Public International Law, University of Houston Law Center, 2006, Exile andthe not-so-lawful Permanent Resident: Does International Law Require: A Humanitarian Waiver of Deportation forthe Non-Citizen Convictd of Certain Crimes? Georgetown Immigration Law Journal, 20 Geo. Immigr. L.J. 483,Spring]

In Maria, the district court undertook a statutory construction of the bar preventing aggravated felons from

eligibility for reliefin an effort to avoid "offending due process principles," n103 and found that the statutory language [*497]did not support a retroactive application of the 1996 amendments. n104 Although the district court found no need to decide whether ahearing on an alien's eligibility for relief "would be independently required as a matter of constitutional or international law," n105 it

stated in strongly worded dicta that "[t]he retroactive deprivation ofMr. Maria's statutory right to humanitarian

relief" in the form of a hearing to determine eligibility for a waiver under section 212(c), "would arguably be

contrary to both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ('ICCPR') and customary international

human rights law." n106 In support of the notion that a waiver was required for humanitarian reasons, the

district court pointed to the United States' position as a leader in the promotion of human rights and madethe following assumption when considering whether Congress had intended to comply with international law when it eliminated

aggravated felons from eligibility for a waiver under section 212(c): "Congress can be assumed, in the absence of a

statement to the contrary, to be legislating in conformity with international law and to be cognizant of this

country's global leadership position and the need for it to set an example with respect to human rights

obligations." n107 Noting that the ICCPR "applies to all people within the territory of the United States,"

the district court pointed to several rights embodied in that treaty, including the "right of family members

to live together," n108 and the requirement that an alien "be allowed to submit the reasons against his

expulsion" in the absence of compelling national security interests. n109 The district court concluded that, by deporting a non-

citizen such as Mr. Maria without providing a hearing to consider the "consequences of deportation for

remaining family members," a retroactive application of the AEDPA "threatens precisely the type of arbitrary

family break-up that the ICCPR guards against." n110 In Maria, the district court also considered the

application of customary international law, noting that "[a] nation's sovereign power to exclude and expel

aliens is limited by international human rights law's recognition of the rights of individuals." n111 In thedistrict court's view, "[e]very nation now must take the rights of foreigners into account when determining whether [*498] they

should be excluded or expelled from its territory." n112 After reviewing several treaties and conventions, the district court

concluded that "the rights to be free from arbitrary interference with family life and arbitrary expulsion

are part of customary international law." n113 Thus, it found that a retroactive application of the AEDPA to Maria

"would not only be contrary to this nation's obligations under the ICCPR, . . ., it would be a violation of

customary international human rights law, to which the United States is bound as a member of the

community of nations - violations that Congress, it can be assumed, would want to avoid. . . ." n114 Crediting

these findings, the district court found that Congress could not lawfully refuse Maria a "humanitarian

hearing" on his eligibility for relief from removal under section 212(c) by applying AEDPA retroactively. n115


30/63

CUNY 2010

30/26

Hi FI Waiver CP


___Broader incorporation of international law solves biodiversity loss

Glennon, 90, professor of law at the University of California, Davis

[Michael, Board of Editors @ American Journal of Intl Law, Jan., 84 A.J.I.L. 1]

It is now possible to conclude that customary international law requires states to take appropriate steps toprotect endangered species. Customary norms are created by state practice "followed by them from a

sense of legal obligation." 250 Like highly codified humanitarian law norms that have come to bind evenstates that are not parties to the instruments promulgating them, 251 wildlife protection norms also havebecome binding on nonparties as customary law. Closely related to this process of norm creation by

practice is that of norm creation by convention: customary norms are created by international

agreements "when such agreements are intended for adherence by states generally and are in fact

widely accepted." 252 Several such [*31] agreements are directed at wildlife protection, 253 and CITESis one of them. It is intended for adherence by states generally 254 and is accepted by the 103 states that have

become parties. In addition, some nonparties comply with certain CITES documentary requirements so as totrade with parties. 255 CITES is not "rejected by a significant number of states"; 256 only the United ArabEmirates has withdrawn from the agreement. In such circumstances, the International Court of Justice hasobserved, international agreements constitute state practice and represent law for nonparties. 257Moreover, customary norms are created by "the general principles of law recognized by civilizednations." 258 Because CITES requires domestic implementation by parties to it, 259 and because the overalllevel of compliance seems quite high, 260 the general principles embodied in states' domestic endangeredspecies laws may be relied upon as another source of customary law. 261 Even apart from the CITESrequirements, states that lack laws protecting endangered species seem now to be the clear exception ratherthan the rule. 262 That there exists opinio juris as to the binding character of this obligation 263 issuggested by the firm support given endangered species [*32] protection by the UN General Assembly

and various international conferences. 264


31/63

CUNY 2010

31/26

Hi FI Waiver CP


___Extinction

Diner, 94 [Diner, David N. B.S. Recipient. Ohio State University. J.D. Recipient. College of Law. Ohio StateUniversity. LL.M. The Judge Advocate Generals School. United States Army. Judge Advocates Generals Corps.United States Army. The Army and the Endangered Species Act: Whos Endangering Whom? Military LawReview. 143 Mil. L. Rev. 161. Winter, lexis]

No species has ever dominated its fellow species as man has. In most cases, people have assumed the God-like power of life and death --extinction or survival -- over the plants and animals of the world. For most of history, mankind pursued this domination with asingleminded determination to master the world, tame the wilderness, and exploit nature for the maximum benefit of the human race. n67In past mass extinction episodes, as many as ninety percent of the existing species perished, and yet the world moved forward, and newspecies replaced the old. So why should the world be concerned now? The prime reason is the world's survival. Like all animal life,

humans live off of other species. At some point, the number of species could decline to the point at whichthe ecosystem fails, and then humans also would become extinct.No one knows how many [*171] species the worldneeds to support human life, and to find out -- by allowing certain species to become extinct -- would not be sound policy. In addition tofood, species offer many direct and indirect benefits to mankind. n68 2. Ecological Value. -- Ecological value is the value that species have

in maintaining the environment. Pest, n69 erosion, and flood control are prime benefits certain species provide to man. Plants and animalsalso provide additional ecological services -- pollution control, n70 oxygen production, sewage treatment, and biodegradation. n71 3.Scientific and Utilitarian Value. -- Scientific value is the use of species for research into the physical processes of the world. n72 Without

plants and animals, a large portion of basic scientific research would be impossible. Utilitarian value is the direct utility humans draw fromplants and animals. n73 Only a fraction of the [*172] earth's species have been examined, and mankind may someday desperately need thespecies that it is exterminating today. To accept that the snail darter, harelip sucker, or Dismal Swamp southeastern shrew n74 could savemankind may be difficult for some. Many, if not most, species are useless to man in a direct utilitarian sense. Nonetheless, they may be

critical in an indirect role, because their extirpations could affect a directly useful species negatively.In a closely interconnectedecosystem, the loss of a species affects other species dependent on it. n75 Moreover, as the number ofspecies decline, the effect of each new extinction on the remaining species increases dramatically. n76 4.Biological Diversity. -- The main premise of species preservation is that diversity is better than simplicity. n77As the current mass extinction has progressed, the world's biological diversity generally has decreased. Thistrend occurs within ecosystems by reducing the number of species, and within species by reducing the numberof individuals. Both trends carry serious future implications. Biologically diverse ecosystems arecharacterized by a large number of specialist species, filling narrow ecological niches. These ecosystems

inherently are more stable than less diverse systems. "The more complex the ecosystem, the moresuccessfully it can resist a stress. . . .[l]ike a net, in which each knot is connected to others by several strands,such a fabric can resist collapse better than a simple, unbranched circle of threads -- which if cut anywherebreaks down as a whole." n79 By causing widespread extinctions, humans have artificially simplifiedmany ecosystems. As biologic simplicity increases, so does the risk of ecosystem failure. The spreadingSahara Desert in Africa, and the dustbowl conditions of the 1930s in the United States are relatively mildexamples of what might be expected if this trend continues. Theoretically, each new animal or plant extinction,with all its dimly perceived and intertwined affects, could cause total ecosystem collapse and humanextinction. Each new extinction increases the risk of disaster . Like a mechanic removing, one by one, therivets from an aircraft's wings, [hu]mankind may be edging closer to the abyss.


32/63

CUNY 2010

32/26

Hi FI Waiver CP

Human Rights Cred Module

___Waivers uphold the UDHR and ICCPR


Article 12 ofthe UDHR broadly declares that "[n]o one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference withhis . . . family. . . ." n213 Article 12 further specifically envisions "the right to the protection of the law againstsuch interference or attacks." n214 Prominent among the protections afforded by the ICCPR is itsrecognition in Article 23(1) that "the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and isentitled to protection by society and the State." Consistent with Article 12 of the UDHR, Article 17 oftheICCPR contains the same broad guarantee of the right to be free from "arbitrary or unlawful

interference" family and the right to protection from such interference.Although some regional

conventions include rights designed to protect private family life from unwarranted interference, n215 at leastone does not. n216

___Human Right Credibility solves extinction

Copelan, 99, NYT Law Professor

[Rhonda, The Indivisible Framework of International Human Rights: A Source of Social Justicein the U.S, New York University Law Review, p. 71-2]

The indivisible human rights framework survived the Cold War despite U.S. machinations to truncate it inthe international arena. The framework is there to shatter the myth of the superiority. Indeed, in the face ofsystemic inequality and crushing poverty, violence by official and private actors, globalization of the market

economy, and military and environmental depredation, the human rights framework is gaining newforce and new dimensions. It is being broadened today by the movements of people in different parts of

the world, particularly in the Southern Hemisphere and significantly of women, who understand the protectionof human rights as a matter of individual and collective human survival and betterment. Also emerging isa notion of third-generation rights, encompassing collective rights that cannot be solved on a state-by-statebasis and that call for new mechanisms of accountability, particularly affecting Northern countries. Theemerging rights include human-centered sustainable development, environmental protection, peace, andsecurity. Given the poverty and inequality in the United States as well as our role in the world, it isimperative that we bring the human rights framework to bear on both domestic and foreign policy.


33/63

CUNY 2010

33/26

Hi FI Waiver CP

*A2: Aff Args*


34/63

CUNY 2010

34/26

Hi FI Waiver CP

AG Strength Good: Generic

___A strong attorney general is good for the country

Robinson, 9 [Nick, visiting fellow at the Centre for Policy Research in New Delhi, It's the AG's job to enforcethe law, so it's a conflict of interest to have him appointed by the president, CSMonitor, January 30,http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2009/0130/p09s01-coop.html]

It is the attorney general's responsibility to ensure that the laws of the country are enforced,

including against the country's highest office holders. Yet, in our current system the attorney general'sloyalty is torn between the laws he or she swears to uphold and the president. Attorney Generals JohnAshcroft and Alberto Gonzales were widely seen by critics as too beholden to President Bush and his

far-reaching vision of executive power to effectively police the president or his administration. Suchconflicts of interest are not new. Eric Holder's nomination for attorney general is currently stalled becausehe supposedly showed too little independence as deputy attorney general when recommending pardonsfavored by President Clinton. The answer to this problem lies not in decrying the politicization of theattorney general's office by presidents, but instead in making the attorney general independent andpolitically accountable through nationwide election.


35/63

CUNY 2010

35/26

Hi FI Waiver CP

Agencies Solve: Generic

___Agencies solve best - they have the necessary enforcement and power to implement the

plan

Parelle, 02 [Richard, Prof of Poly Sci @ U Miss, of St Louis, The SupremeCourt in American Politics, p. 119, GoogleBooks

The argument that the courts lack capacity means that there are other political actors better suited to make thedifficult policy decisions. The bureaucratic agencies are populated by experts and specialists who are trainedin the substantive issue areas in which they operate. The congressional committees that make policy rec -

ommendations 10 the entire House and Senate ate composed of specialistswho have spent years on thatcommittee learning the nuances of the issues they face. " Members of Congress have access to an extensive

trained staffto help them with their policymaking responsibilities. (Davidson and Oleszek 1997). This is a sharpcontrast with most federal judges.!* If bureaucrats and members of Congress are better equipped than judges tomake decisions, they are also aided by the procedures that govern their behavior. Members of Congress and experts

in the agencies have broad access to information that judges lack. Congress holds hearings that allow a widerange of interested partiesand relevant agencies to participate and present their views. Once a piece oflegislation is passed, the agency has to develop rules and promulgate regulations to enforce it. During that period,there is provision tor public comment, allowing the agency to get a range of views to assist them. The agenciesand Congress have access to the feedback mechanisms necessary to keep the system moving (Kingdon 3995,27-34). Ifthere are problems with the law or the execution of it, groups will approach Congress or thebureaucratic agency to have corrections made^ 1 \ *\


36/63


37/63

CUNY 2010

37/26

Hi FI Waiver CP

Agencies Good: SOP

___Agencies uphold separation of powers

Bryner, 87 [Gary, Ph. D in Govt, Poli Sci @ BYU, Bureaucratic Discretion: Law and Policy in FederalRegulatory Agencies, p.5-6]

Bureaucratic discretion is also defended as a practical response to the inability of traditionally separatedgovernmental powers to deal effectively with the policy challenges confronting them. James Landis defended thebroad grants of discretionary authority to administrative agencies not as "simply an extension of executivepower" but a "full audit of authority nec essary for |them| in order to plan, to promote, and to police," thus

represent ing "an assemblage of rights normally exercisable by government as a whole." "The administrative

process." he argued, is an "answer to the inadequacy of the judicial and the legislative processes.'"*

Discretion is especially important in regulatory agencies, as it permits administrative officials to be flexible

and adaptable in tailoring their efforts to specific situations. Laws cannot be written to anticipate and address allof the possible situations within an agency's jurisdiction. They must permit a consideration of economic, regional,cultural, personal and other differences among those who fall within (he agency's regulatory reach. Discretion per-mits the regulators to tailor their efforts to particular circumstances and concerns, produce regulatory actions that arcreasonable and fair, and effectively accomplish policy objectives. Discretion Is a fundamental clement ofmodem administrative theory and is consistent with important norms of pluralism and democracy . It is alsoconsistent with political incentives and serves as an attractive way for legislators to delegate responsibility fordifficult decisions to bureaucrats. Credit can be claimed for legislative action, blame can be deflected when specificefforts clash with politically powerful interests, and constituents can be cultivated by intervening in unpopularagency actions.

___SOP violations carry the same risk as nuclear war

Martin H. Redish, Law Professor, Northwestern University and Elizabeth J. Cisar, Clerk Chief JudgeWilliam Bauer, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, Duke Law Journal, 1991, lexis.

In summary, no defender of separation of powers can prove with certitude that, but for the existence ofseparation of powers, tyranny would be the inevitable outcome. But the question is whether we wish to takethat risk, given the obvious severity of the harm that might result. Given both the relatively limited costimposed by use of separation of powers and the great severity of the harms sought to be avoided, oneshould not demand a great showing of the likelihood that the feared harm would result. For just as in

the case of the threat of nuclear war, no one wants to be forced into the position of saying, I told you

so.


38/63

CUNY 2010

38/26

Hi FI Waiver CP

Delegation Good: Generic (1/2)

___Executive delegation good for enacting immigration policy

Cox & Rodriguez, 9 [Adam B, Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School,. & Crist

Administrative Waiver CP Final

Documents

Transcript of Administrative Waiver CP Final