I’m just about done with this year’s Mid-Season Supplement Briefs on the illegal immigration topic.  This year’s book will contain over 450 new pieces of evidence that were NOT covered in either Blue Book or Blue Book Advanced.

We have 7 completely new (and squirrely!) Affirmative cases in this year’s MSB.  These are more “advanced” cases because they are not dealing with topics that “everyone” has already thought of.  They require some in-depth study of the resolution and careful preparation before running them.  But because they are new and not well-known on discussion groups, etc., they may be able to provide an element of surprise or simply variety to the debater looking for new Affirmative case ideas. Here’s a preview:

CRITICAL CONDITION:  THE CASE FOR EMTALA/HEALTH CARE REFORM - Full reimbursement for EMTALA costs for illegals’ health care, substitute Article 36 for EMTALA for Mexicans, and stop Ventanillas de Salud.

COUNT ME OUT:  THE CASE FOR THE FAIR AND ACCURATE REPRESENTATION ACT (FARA) - Stop counting illegal immigrants in the Census for the purpose of apportioning Congressional representation.

YOU SAY YOU WANT A DEVOLUTION:  THE CASE FOR IMMIGRATION FEDERALISM - End the federal monopoly on illegal immigration regulations and let the states have more freedom to enact local laws restricting or relaxing society’s stance on illegal immigrants.

KNOCK KNOCK:  THE CASE FOR REVERSING INS v. LOPEZ-MENDOZA - Already available as a free sample download at www.speechsupplies.com, this case applies the Exclusionary Rule to evidence seized in violation of the 4th Amendment in illegal immigration cases.

A DOCTOR IN THE HOUSE: THE CASE FOR MEDICAL CARE STANDARDS FOR DETAINEES -  Establishes binding standards of medical care to be provided to illegal aliens in immigration detention, along with independent oversight.

MATCH GAME:  THE CASE FOR REVERSING AFL-CIO v. CHERTOFF - Reverses a recent federal court decision in order to allow DHS to send legal notices along with Social Security’s “no-match” letters, to scare employers into realizing what will happen to them if they knowingly continue to employ illegal aliens.

EVERYBODY IN THE WHOLE CELL BLOCK:  THE CASE FOR EXTENDING THE ORANTES INJUNCTION - Expands the scope of protection provided by the Orantes Injunction from only-Salvadorans to all illegal immigrants in federal detention, guaranteeing the protection of rights for all detainees.

We also have an exciting lineup of new Affirmative and Negative briefs:

Bi-National Authority - won’t work
Detention Conditions - doing fine
Employer Sanctions - bad idea
EMTALA / Health Care - not a problem, health voucher counterplan
Enforcement - Status Quo has lots of new enforcement policies
Fair & Accurate Representation Act - bad idea
Federalism - feds shouldn’t give more power to the states on immigration
Funding for Affirmative plans
Harms of illegal immigration
Health Care for Detainees - no changes needed
Human Smuggling - Status Quo working on it
Human Trafficking - extra-topical, can’t solve
Lopez-Mendoza - Exclusionary Rule won’t help
Mexico Economic Improvement - already doing fine
Mexican Relations - beating the “war with Mexico” disad
Military Recruitment of Illegals - bad idea
Minors/Families in Detention - problem is fixed
National Security - doesn’t justify immigration reform
No-Match Letters - SQ is fine
Orantes Injunction - not needed

Hot tip: We’re going to have an ORANTES INJUNCTION case in the Blue Book Mid Season Supplement.  I’m currently hard at work on some exciting new AFF cases that are off the radar for what debaters are currently working on.  Here’s a small introduction to one of them:

In 1981, a fellow named Orantes from El Salvador fled the then-raging civil war in that country and came illegally to the US. He got caught, asked for asylum since he feared returning home, and asylum was denied. He appealed through the Immigration Courts, the Board of Immigration Appeals, and finally to the federal Circuit Court of Appeals. The Federal court found that the Immigration officials had a bias against Salvadorans and tended to treat them with rudeness, contempt, disrespect, and pressured them to sign away their right to appeals and to apply for asylum, or even misleading them into believing they had no rights or no chance of applying for asylum, just to get rid of them.

Orantes ended up somehow getting a good lawyer who filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of not only Mr Orantes but all Salvadorans in immigration detention. Orantes won the case in the federal court, which awarded an injunction on future behavior of Immigration officials. An “injunction” is what you get when you win a lawsuit but you aren’t suing for monetary damages, you are suing to force the other guy to change his behavior. The injunction is the court’s way of setting up a new set of enforceable standards that the loser (the immigration officials in this case) must follow in order to be in compliance with the injunction. Since the Orantes case, immigration authorities must follow a special set of steps (sort of like the “Miranda rights” that cops have to do for all criminal suspects) when they arrest Salvadorans. It does NOT guarantee that all Salvadorans automatically get asylum. It does guarantee that their rights must be respected better while they are in detention.

The injunction does not apply to other nationalities, only to Salvadorans. If they rough up, abuse, lie to, or don’t tell other groups about their asylum rights, etc., then they can get away with it.

Just a few months ago, the Bush Administration filed a motion to have the Orantes injunction lifted, since the civil war in El Salvador is long over and, they argued, conditions have improved for Salvadoran detainees in US immigration facilities. The federal judge denied the motion and kept the Orantes Injunction in effect.