Mary St.Hilaire wrote:
Is is just me or are cases about immigration courts nontopical? I have seen these cases a lot and the negative team always argues topicality but the affirmative always comes back with some argument that I don't really understand. Anyway, what bothers me is that some of the teams that have run this case have made it to semifinals or even finals. So, are the immigration courts part of the federal court system or not? And are those kinds of cases topical?
Well, it's definitely debatable. I myself have run T the two times I hit this case, and won on it both times. There are arguments on both sides. I personally believe cases of this sort are untopical, and I think you can definitely win on topicality if equipped with the right evidence, but plenty of people disagree.
- Findlaw's definition says federal courts handle "all immigration cases."
- They're courts, and they're federal. So they must be the federal court system.
- Some people say they aren't really courts at all, just administrative tribunals.
- They aren't part of the judicial branch. Many people will argue they therefore are not part of the federal court system.
- Experts within the system say they aren't part of the federal court system.
- Every definition besides Findlaw excludes them; including the court system website's definition and the DOJ's definition.
If you want evidence on Topicality, check out our trading thread in evidence center.
By the way, topics like this are normally put in NCFCA Resolution, not General Debate. So if any more people post on here, I'll go ahead and move it there.
_________________Check out my new website!
"Never quote yourself on internet forums" - Gabriel Blacklock, 2014