homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Mon Sep 25, 2017 7:18 am
Not a member? Guests can only see part of the forums. To see the whole thing (and add your voice!), just register a free account by following these steps.

All times are UTC+01:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Immigration Courts
PostPosted: Wed Apr 06, 2016 5:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2016 2:52 am
Posts: 5
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Nebraska
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?

_________________
Nebraska/Cornerstone/NCFCA/Team Policy


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Immigration Courts
PostPosted: Wed Apr 06, 2016 6:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2013 4:07 am
Posts: 1393
Home Schooled: Yes
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.

Arguments for:

- 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.

Arguments against:

- 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


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Immigration Courts
PostPosted: Wed Apr 06, 2016 6:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 4:02 am
Posts: 158
Home Schooled: Yes
It's sort of a grey area because "federal court system" isn't exactly a legal term. Are immigration courts part of the judicial branch? No. Are they Article III courts? No. Are they federal courts? Yes. Are they part of the federal court system? Maybe. It's grey enough that there are arguments to be made on both sides (they're not Article III courts for neg, they're federal and they're courts so what else are they on aff).

Personally, I believe immigration cases are topical (mainly because I'm running one myself :P ). And judges seem to agree - like you said, negatives basically always run topicality, but I've only lost 1 or 2 ballots on topicality all year. I'm not going to say specifically what my topicality responses are, but in general, I think the immigration courts are part of the federal court system because they're federal and they're courts (there's a piece of evidence negs read that say they aren't... but that's not *actually* what the evidence says and they have a judge and attorneys so). There's no reason to believe a federal court isn't part of the federal court system.

There are people who believe that immigration courts aren't part of the federal court system, and they're entitled to their opinions. Whether you believe it or not, though, topicality isn't going to be a winning argument. There are valid arguments on both sides, and judges don't like topicality anyways. You're better off saving your time for stronger arguments.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Immigration Courts
PostPosted: Wed Apr 06, 2016 6:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 3:01 am
Posts: 651
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Flying a UFO to an undisclosed location ;)
Depending on what version of the case you are hitting (make them independent specifically), much of the Affirmative team's case is making the argument that immigration courts SHOULD be considered regular courts. As neg, you can have a bunch of experts saying that they aren't and it still probably won't make an impact to the judge. If you want a strategy as to how to beat it neg, you need to find a reason why they SHOULDN'T be deemed regular courts.

I ran this case for a number of tournaments and still intend to run it against a few teams. I think that it is very borderline. From a purely legalistic perspective they aren't part of the federal court system, but THEY SHOULD BE (given what kind of cases they handle, the authority that they lack, the funds that they require, the oversight that the need, etc.).

_________________
John Mark Porter, Alumni
Arx Axiom/Carpe Dictum/Verdict/UADC/HSDC/HSDRC

2011-12 l Porter/Thomason, Light/Porter
2012-13 l Bailey/Porter
2013-14 l Bailey/Porter
2014-15 l Folkert/Porter

2015-16 I Childs/Porter


Last edited by Voice of Reason on Thu Apr 07, 2016 12:16 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Immigration Courts
PostPosted: Wed Apr 06, 2016 7:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2013 4:07 am
Posts: 1393
Home Schooled: Yes
Right, I agree with John Mark. That's the best way to make a solid and topical immigration case this year.

_________________
Check out my new website!

"Never quote yourself on internet forums" - Gabriel Blacklock, 2014


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Immigration Courts
PostPosted: Thu Apr 07, 2016 12:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2016 2:52 am
Posts: 5
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Nebraska
Cyberknight wrote:
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.

Arguments for:

- 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.

Arguments against:

- 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.



Thanks! Very interesting....so it's sort of topical I guess and sort of not.
Now I see that several other people have responded to my post but I don't know how to move it to NCFCA resolution! Help?!

_________________
Nebraska/Cornerstone/NCFCA/Team Policy


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Immigration Courts
PostPosted: Thu Apr 07, 2016 12:49 am 
Offline
Hint hint peoples.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 5:18 pm
Posts: 1370
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: San Diego, California
Mary St.Hilaire wrote:
Now I see that several other people have responded to my post but I don't know how to move it to NCFCA resolution! Help?!


Done!

_________________
Evan Buck, LD Coach

As the deer pants for the water brooks, so pants my soul for You, O God. -Psalm 42:1


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Immigration Courts
PostPosted: Thu Apr 07, 2016 5:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2016 2:57 pm
Posts: 28
Home Schooled: Yes
Noah and I hit an Immigration Court case last tournament. We debated Topicality in front of a former Immigration Lawyer and current SSA ALJ. Despite, hating all of our other arguments and calling them 'fallacious, inaccurate, and condescending' he voted on Topicality because there is no doubt that they are not part of the system plus they aren't even courts at all (Doubly Untopical: Not Courts + Not System). We have run Topicality on every single Immigration case we hit and have only lost once (we beat the same team on topicality at an earlier tournament). In my opinion, Immigration Courts are not topical. In addition, the DOJ which is over the Immigration Courts has a 3 page article about what the federal court system is ... and it doesn't mention immigration once!

_________________
R7: Foster/Foster ~ 2013
R7: Foster/Lovett ~ 2014
R7: Foster/McReynolds ~ 2015
R7: Foster/Foster ~ 2016
LA TECH: Foster/McReynolds ~ 2017? (Hopefully)

~Nate Foster


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Immigration Courts
PostPosted: Thu Apr 07, 2016 6:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 3:01 am
Posts: 651
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Flying a UFO to an undisclosed location ;)
this_is_n8_speech wrote:
We debated Topicality in front of a former Immigration Lawyer and current SSA ALJ. Despite, hating all of our other arguments and calling them 'fallacious, inaccurate, and condescending' he voted on Topicality because there is no doubt that they are not part of the system plus they aren't even courts at all (Doubly Untopical: Not Courts + Not System).

Agreed on this point. While I don't particularly remember having any judges who voted against us on this, I do seem to recall some judges who were legal experts making the comment that the case is probably un-topical.
The case itself though is VERY good (in my opinion). There are dozens of scholarly advocates and the solution is fairly simple. My strategy at this point would be Topicality + side arguments about expenses, alt-cause, and solvency or a CP.

_________________
John Mark Porter, Alumni
Arx Axiom/Carpe Dictum/Verdict/UADC/HSDC/HSDRC

2011-12 l Porter/Thomason, Light/Porter
2012-13 l Bailey/Porter
2013-14 l Bailey/Porter
2014-15 l Folkert/Porter

2015-16 I Childs/Porter


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Immigration Courts
PostPosted: Fri Apr 08, 2016 4:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2016 2:57 pm
Posts: 28
Home Schooled: Yes
Voice of Reason wrote:
The case itself though is VERY good (in my opinion). There are dozens of scholarly advocates and the solution is fairly simple. My strategy at this point would be Topicality + side arguments about expenses, alt-cause, and solvency or a CP.


I agree that the cases are very good. I just don't think any of the Immigration Court cases will work stand alone. We ran approximately 7 alternate cause/inferred counterplan arguments against one Immigration case. Coupling Solvency and Topicality is really the only great way to beat an Immigration Court case.

_________________
R7: Foster/Foster ~ 2013
R7: Foster/Lovett ~ 2014
R7: Foster/McReynolds ~ 2015
R7: Foster/Foster ~ 2016
LA TECH: Foster/McReynolds ~ 2017? (Hopefully)

~Nate Foster


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Immigration Courts
PostPosted: Fri Apr 08, 2016 5:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 3:01 am
Posts: 651
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Flying a UFO to an undisclosed location ;)
this_is_n8_speech wrote:
I agree that the cases are very good. I just don't think any of the Immigration Court cases will work stand alone. We ran approximately 7 alternate cause/inferred counterplan arguments against one Immigration case. Coupling Solvency and Topicality is really the only great way to beat an Immigration Court case.

The problem with alternate causality arguments (though it depends on the strength of Aff's case, ours was fairly comprehensive so we usually solved for them anyway) is that they just show that the Aff's case isn't the panacea, but that doesn't mean Aff's case shouldn't pass. I tend to agree with the alternate causality argument that immigration is the problem and that people are flowing over the border, but I also think that if we had more immigration courts with empowered judges they would toss them back over faster and work as a force to discourage immigration (ie. it indirectly resolves that issue by discouraging mass migration).

No case is perfect, but unless Neg runs a CP to do more, I don't see why Alt. causality should win (we never lost on that issue that I'm aware of and we ran the case 15-20 times). And I don't see how you can run an inferred CP with Alternate Causality issues because those are addressing completely different problems usually (enforcement with the DHS is a problem, our border security is a problem, our welfare laws are problems, our immigration courts are problems, our immigration attorneys are problems). Inferred counter-plans tend to be based on the idea that if you pass the Aff's case then you COULDN'T fix those other problems (they tend to be basically opportunity lost DAs) and if the cases aren't mutually exclusive, then there is no opportunity lost and therefore no room for an inferred CP.

Now for cases like UACs I can see solvency being much more powerful because the cases only tend to encourage more immigration and therefore the lawyers will be burdened again in another 3 years (or they are just working to facilitate the system, not make better judgments).

_________________
John Mark Porter, Alumni
Arx Axiom/Carpe Dictum/Verdict/UADC/HSDC/HSDRC

2011-12 l Porter/Thomason, Light/Porter
2012-13 l Bailey/Porter
2013-14 l Bailey/Porter
2014-15 l Folkert/Porter

2015-16 I Childs/Porter


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Immigration Courts
PostPosted: Sat Apr 09, 2016 7:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2016 2:57 pm
Posts: 28
Home Schooled: Yes
I find it very hard to refute the theory behind your arguments. I am very tempted to agree with them. Our strategies, though, have worked all but one time (a split in Octafinals were the community judge voted that because there was a problem he had to vote AFF because we SHOULD reform the FCS even though AFF fails to provide a good plan [I hated that ballot]).

_________________
R7: Foster/Foster ~ 2013
R7: Foster/Lovett ~ 2014
R7: Foster/McReynolds ~ 2015
R7: Foster/Foster ~ 2016
LA TECH: Foster/McReynolds ~ 2017? (Hopefully)

~Nate Foster


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 

All times are UTC+01:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited