Adrienne Brovero, Wake Forest University

1994 - Immigration Regulation : Borderline Policies

You are negative. The first affirmative is spewing along, and finally gets to the part you want to hear - the plan. "In order to support this year's resolution, we offer the following plan: The federal government will substantially strengthen the regulation of immigration to the United States. Affirmative speeches will clarify intent." You are dumbstruck. You ask your partner in disbelief, "What? That's it???" What's wrong with this picture?

The reason this situation seems so odd is that there is no real "plan" in any sense of the word; there is simply an endorsement of the resolution. It is generally expected in policy debate these days to actually propose a policy in the IAC. It is policy debate after all. The fact that is it policy debate implies you debate policies regarding the resolution, not simply the resolution. In most debates, in order to debate whether something should be done, such as strengthening regulation of immigration, you debate the pros and cons of a way it should be done. It is important to consider these pros and cons, because if more harm is done in the course of strengthening regulations, then maybe the strengthening of regulations (i.e. the resolution) is not worth voting for on the ballot. Affirmative teams, in order to uphold the resolution, should provide a way to meet the objective of the resolution without deleterious effects. Additionally, if there is not a way to strengthen regulations which are net beneficial (the advantages outweigh the disadvantages), then regulations should not be strengthened. For example, if there was not a regulation which could be strengthened, there would not be a plan. In this instance it would be impossible to vote for the resolution because the affirmative team would not be able to prove a way the resolution would be good.

Another reason we normally debate plans is because those are what vast quantities of the literature talk about ways to accomplish particular objectives, such as strengthening the regulation of immigration. Plenty of the literature on this topic discusses way to strengthen the regulation of immigration - enhancing border patrols, repatriating Haitians, issuing national identification cards, to name a few. Policy proposals, or hints at them, are almost inescapable in the literature, even in the popular press. The literature frequently lends itself to a debate over policies, and that is what we find ourselves debating.

Now imagine another debate. You are negative again, and this time as the first affirmative reads the 1 AC, the plan is "The federal Government will repatriate all Haitians." You go digging, in your boxes for your Haiti files and your disadvantage links. Meanwhile, your judge, a college debater who debated last year's NDT topic, crinkles up her nose and asks herself, "What? That's it???" Now what's wrong with this picture?

The problem is not that there is not a plan; this time there is one. The problem is that there is no agent specified. The federal government does not enact policies, agents or agencies within the federal government enact policies. The agent enacting a policy is a very important aspect of the policy. For some of the same reasons the affirmative team should specify a plan of action, the affirmative team should specify an agent of action.

In the "real world," when Congress votes on a bill, the bill would not be so simplistic as to say, "The federal government will repatriate all Haitians." The bill would discuss what part of the federal government should be responsible for enacting the policy. Frequently, prior to voting on a bill, Congress debates under which actor's jurisdiction the actions of the bill fall, and which actors would implement the policy with maximum advantage. Specifying an agent would incorporate this element of real world policymaking into policy debate, which is so often accused of not reflecting the "real world."

Agent specificity is also necessary to prove the resolution is a good idea. Using this year's resolution, the affirmative team has to provide an example of one good way to strengthen the regulation of immigration, which is net beneficial. In this instance, not only should a plan be specified, but also the agent(s) who will enact the plan. Without such specification there exists a potential for abuse by the affirmative team. For example, perhaps the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which frequently executes immigration policies, is not equipped to do or would fail at doing a particular policy. Yet, when the negative team makes these arguments, the affirmative team, whose plan only says "the federal government' will do the policy, can respond, "Maybe we could create an independent agency to do it." Requiring that the affirmative team specify the agent of the plan eliminates the ability to shift positions and ensures that the affirmative team is providing a definitive way in which the policy is to be done.

When the literature on an issue discusses a way the issue should be dealt with, that way frequently includes a particular agent of action. When an author argues for the passage of a bill, the author is usually arguing that Congress should pass the bill. To use evidence from that author to support an executive branch policy may be warping the author's intent. For example, when an author concludes that the Secretary of Health and Human Services should be responsible for determining the fate of HIV infected immigrants, there is probably a good reason the author chooses the Secretary of Health and Human Services as the agent. Perhaps it is because the Secretary of Health and Human Services has the expertise necessary to formulate such policy, or maybe because it would be politically difficult for Congress to pass such a policy. Specifying, the agent can help to ensure the affirmative team is using, solvency evidence in line with the author's intent. If the evidence is not used with the author's intent in mind, it undermines the solvency of the case.

Some affirmative teams might fear that specifying, an agent will enable negative teams to link disadvantages more easily. This may be true in some instances, but specifying can avoid or turn disadvantages too. Specifying Congress as the agent can weaken the link to a Clinton popularity disadvantage Also, specifying the agent enables the affirmative team to research back-up evidence for that agent which could strengthen their case. Another reason the affirmative might want to specify an agent is because if they do not specify one, the negative team might try to link disadvantages to the agent which would otherwise be most likely to do the plan. For example, if a plan only says a particular Supreme Court decision will be overruled, the negative team would be likely to assume the Supreme Court is the agent, and would read disadvantages to court action in the 1 NC. However, if the affirmative team specified that Congress, applying the Morgan Doctrine, would reverse the decision. they might avoid the

court debate altogether.

Affirmative teams may also fear agent specificity going too far. This often happens when the negative team is trying to link their political disadvantages like Clinton Popularity. In some debates, the negative team counterplans to have Congress pass a plan, which Clinton then vetoes, and then Congress overrides the veto. In doing so, Clinton loses popularity with public because his veto is overridden. In order to set up this counterplan, the negative team may ask in cross-examination, "What does Clinton do when Congress passes the bill?" Unsuspecting teams will answer, "Well, he signs it of course." Hence, the set up. Now the counterplan can be run. Debates over political processes can devolve into debates about whether or not Clinton vetoes the plan, or whether or not Senator Helms votes for it, or whether or not Justice Thomas dissents. While these are valid real world considerations, there is not enough time to discuss all these items in depth in a debate round. If every debate involved a lengthy discussion of how every senator and representative voted, the debate would be devolve into bickering over minute details. A literature standard prevents such nitpicking. If the affirmative team presents evidence supporting their agent doing the plan, that should suffice. Such a test accrues all the benefits of plan specificity noted above, while avoiding having the debate collapse down to minutia.

Specifying an agent can foster very interesting and sophisticated debates. Last year's NDT topic was "Resolved that: The commander-in-chief power of the president of the United States should be substantially curtailed." Much of the literature involving the outcome of such a curtailment was based on who the agent enacting such a curtailment was. From the first round of the year through to the late elimination rounds of the NDT, debates over the agent occurred. If Congress did the plan, it might be a violation of the separation of powers. If the president did the plan, it might not be a curtailment. Frequently negative teams counterplanned with the branch(es) of the government which the affirmative did not use. Such counterplans on the immigration topic may be less legitimate because they are likely to be topical. Whether debating agent counterplans or agent-linked disadvantages, debaters on that topic gained a vast amount of knowledge about the way the three branches of government operate in relation to each other. The same can occur on the high school level on this year's topic.

Take, for instance, the issue of separation of powers. In real world policymaking,, certain policies fall within the jurisdiction of different branches of government, and often within those branches, they fall within different agencies. For example, one would typically not expect the president to overrule a Supreme Court decision, nor would one typically expect Supreme Court clerks to do the work of CIA operatives. The boundaries of the powers each branch possesses is not always as clear cut as these examples, but perhaps that is what provides ample ground for debate about these powers.

A good example of this is the immigration issue. Some authors suggest that it is the executive's power to regulate immigration. Other authors suggest that Congress's constitutional authority over the naturalization process extends to cover the regulation of immigration as well. Frequently however, Congress has delegated this power to the I.N.S., an executive branch agency. Advocates of the "non-delegation doctrine," who think that congress should not (even willingly) relinquish power to the executive branch, fear this concentrates too much power in the hands of one branch, the executive. Such a concentration is a violation of the separation of powers.

Proponents of the "strict" or "formalist" model of separation of powers think any violation is tantamount to tyranny. This is because of the fact that when a violation occurs, it can be used as an example to justify another violation, and then another, and so on down the road to tyrannical control of the government by one branch. Many advocates of the "pragmatic" or "functionalist" model of separation of powers disagree, arguing it is far more dangerous to adhere to a strict model rather than adopt a needed policy. They believe the intent of the separation of powers was to protect citizens' rights, and even if a branch has the constitutional authority over a policy which violates rights, the other branches should not allow the separation of powers to obstruct them from protecting those rights.

There is plenty of ground on both sides of the link and impact debate in the immigration and separation of powers literature. And this is only one way in which a specific agent can factor into the debate. There are numerous advantage and disadvantage areas which can stem from which agent does the policy. Such debates can be both interesting and educational.

Imagine one last debate. The affirmative's plan is to have the executive branch repatriate all Haitians. You go digging in your boxes for your Haiti files and your separation of powers links. The judge in the back of the room smiles and all is right in the world.