T – No Refugees

T vs Refugees
 1NC Legal Immigration
Legal immigration includes family or employment based visas, refugees are distinct
Passel and Fix, 94 - Jeffrey S. Passel is Director, Program for Research for Immigration Policy, The
Urban Institute, Washington, D.C.; Michael Fix is Director, Immigrant Policy Program, The Urban Institute,
Washington, D.C (“U. S. Immigration in a Global Context: Past, Present, and Future” GLOBAL LEGAL
STUDIES JOURNAL 2:5, https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1024&context=ijgls

The structure and goals of U.S. immigration policy are frequently misunderstood in contemporary
debates. U.S. immigration policy needs to be viewed not as one, but as three fundamentally different
sets of rules. There are those that govern legal immigration (i.e., mainly sponsored admission for family
and work); those that govern humanitarian admissions (refugees and asylees); and those that govern
illegal entry. The distinction is important for several reasons. Each set of rules is governed by different
legislation, involves different networks of bureaucracies, is guided by different goals , and results in
immigrants with largely different characteristics.

Attention focused on the failure to control undocumented immigration has led journalists, the public,
and many politicians to conclude that U.S. immigration policy, as a whole, has failed. Our research and
that of others (some of which is presented below) indicate that this is not the case. However, as a result
of the focus on undocumented immigration, the "bright line" between legal and illegal policy has been
blurred and the legitimacy of legal and humanitarian admissions has been eroded.

Another result of failure to recognize these distinctions is the common misunderstanding that U.S.
immigration policy is driven almost entirely by economic goals. In fact, legal immigration policy serves
many goals. The economic ones can sometimes be contradictory-increasing U.S. competitiveness abroad
may conflict with raising the standard of living and protecting U.S. jobs. Immigration policy is also
intended to serve the important social goal of unifying families (principally of U.S. citizens) and the
cultural goals of promoting diversity in the U.S. population and immigrant stream. Refugee policy is
intended to serve the moral goal of promoting human rights. Most current assessments of U.S.
immigration policy do not acknowledge the power and value of these non-economic goals.

Finally, the number, characteristics, and patterns of adaptation of immigrants entering the United States
as refugees, as legal immigrants, and as illegal immigrants differ in important ways that are often
ignored in research and policy debates.

Violation – the affirmative deals with refugee policy

Limits – affirmatives should be confined to restrictions on family and employment
based immigration policy. Immigration policy is a broader category, including refugees
massively expands the topic.
Predictable Ground – the evidence says immigration policy includes broader legal
doctrines, refugees require an entirely different set of negative arguments.
 2NC Overview
Our interpretation is that topical affirmatives can only reduce restrictions on legal
immigration. That means family or employment based immigration with legal
permanent resident status.

Excluding refugees and the undocumented from the topic makes sense because it is an
entirely different set of laws and controversies. Uniqueness is worse for disads
because the people are already here, and the negative literature is more biased from
anti-immigrant think thanks. Its better to move away from this vision of the topic.

They are distinct bodies of law

1. Refugees don’t choose to come into the United States
2. Their status is determined by the United Nations, invites an entire topics worth of
research about that organization
Michelle Mark, 5-3-2018, Jeff Sessions said immigrants should 'wait their turn' to come to the US —
here's how complicated that process can be," Business Insider, https://www.businessinsider.com/how-
to-green-card-visa-legal-immigration-us-news-trump-2017-4, Accessed: 11-21-2018, /Kent Denver-MB

But the asylum-seeking process is a legal one that can only take place once a migrant is already on US
soil. Nevertheless, Sessions urged the migrants to apply for legal immigration status before showing up
at a port of entry.

"We want the world to know, and particularly our friends in the south, in central America and Mexico
and other countries — we want them to know that we have a generous legal system for immigration," he
said. "We admit 1.1 million people lawfully every year, and those people should wait their turn."

Sessions did not clarify what visas he believed the migrants should have applied for, but immigration
advocates have long sought to highlight how impossible it can be to navigate the US immigration system.
For many would-be immigrants, there is no "turn" they can wait for, and no line to stand in.

America's immigration system is designed to only admit newcomers who fall into very specific
categories. If someone falls outside those cases, as many central American migrants do, lawful
immigration will be challenging, if not impossible.

Here are the many pathways and roadblocks to lawful immigration:

It should be noted that the immigration process for asylum-seekers and refugees are a whole other
matter — refugees, for instance, don't necessarily choose to come to the US. The United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees determines which countries they are placed in.
 2NC Caselist
That allows for major cases like different kinds of employment, family, and diversity
migration with legal permanent resident status. These cases have core themes, involve
bringing in new people, and impact labor markets in a significant way.
 2NC Limits
Limits outweigh other impacts—they are key to research, and ensure stable debates
for both sides. Research is the internal link to education, which means limits precede
any other impact. Students run to generics when there are too many cases, because it
makes specific research unmanageable. Limits also outweigh ground because “good
ground” doesn’t matter if there isn’t enough time to read and prepare the literature.
 2NC Competing Interps
Finally, topicality is about competing interpretations. The judge should decide what
the best vision of the topic is and be able to make decisions about small differences.
This is key to real world education, and ensures that students are forced to compare
and debate nuanced details about their interpretation of the topic.
Reasonability makes debate too subjective, and still requires the aff to win
substantially advantages to their interpretation to prove that it is reasonable.
 2NC Interpretation
Prefer our interpretation. That’s Passel and Fix.
First, it’s a legal interpretation seeking clarify what legal immigration means.
Second, the authors are both directors at the urban institute a non-biased research
service and experts in immigration policy.
Third, it has the intent to define and exclude. That’s necessary to set clear limits on
terms of the topic.
And, our evidence indicts their research base. Legal immigration is a subset if
immigration policy, conflation results in confusing policy and worse research.
Next, refugees are not topical.
The legal framework is completely different for refugees – the aff creates confusing
debates that are difficult to prepare for and unlimits the topic
Passel and Fix, 94 - Jeffrey S. Passel is Director, Program for Research for Immigration Policy, The
Urban Institute, Washington, D.C.; Michael Fix is Director, Immigrant Policy Program, The Urban Institute,
Washington, D.C (“Immigration and Immigrants: Setting the Record Straight” 5/1,
http://webarchive.urban.org/publications/305184.html#II italics in original

MAKING SENSE OF IMMIGRATION POLICY

Making policy sense of the widely varying types of action represented in this chronological sketch
requires clear separation of three distinct parts of U.S. immigration policy: (1) legal immigration, (2)
humanitarian admissions, and (3) illegal immigration. Failure to keep these domains separate may be the
most important source of confusion in the current national debate.

The distinction is crucial because the three domains are governed by different legislation, administered
by different bureaucracies, and involve different administrative functions —functions that range from
paramilitary operations to apprehend illegals, to language training to facilitate immigrant integration.
The various parts of immigration policy are also motivated by different goals.

THE GOALS OF IMMIGRATION POLICY

The principal goals of U.S. immigration policy are:

Social—unifying U.S. citizens and legal residents with their families;

Economic—increasing U.S. productivity and standard of living;

Cultural—encouraging diversity;

Moral—promoting human rights;

National and economic security—controlling illegal immigration.

The current debate tends to focus on the economic outcomes and neglect the social, cultural, and moral
goals. Thus, many critiques of immigration policies ignore the intent of their framers.
LEGAL IMMIGRATION

Legal immigration policy is based primarily on the principles of family unification and meeting the labor
market's needs.1 The United States currently admits roughly 700,000 immigrants annually as legal
permanent ("green card") residents who after 5 years' continuous residence will be eligible to apply for
citizenship. (See Appendix A, Table A-1.) 2 The U.S. admits more such immigrants who are placed on this
type of citizenship track than all other countries combined.3

U.S. admissions policies are, to an extent that is generally under-recognized, the product of the civil
rights revolution of the 1960s. That is, they are guided by nondiscriminatory principles which eliminate
the racial, national, and ethnic biases that controlled before 1965, when annual quotas that tilted
immigration toward Europe were eliminated.4 These principles, coupled with the law's emphasis on
family unification, have driven a largely unexpected shift in the composition of new immigration from
Europe to Central America and Asia.

Legal immigration policy alone pursues the social, economic, and cultural goals noted above.

The social goal of family unification is principally intended to unite nuclear families. Strong, sustained
support for this goal derives in large part from the fact that its main beneficiaries are U.S. citizens—a
politically endowed constituency.

The economic goal of meeting the nation's labor force needs requires maneuvering among three
potentially conflicting objectives: (1) promoting the nation's competitiveness in the global economy, (2)
minimizing the burden placed on employers, and (3) protecting the wages and employment conditions
of U.S. workers. The rhetoric of making immigration policy more responsive to the nation's labor force
needs was central to the politics of the 1990 Immigration Act, which almost tripled admissions for highly
skilled workers and their families, raising the number admitted from 58,000 to 140,000 annually (Fix and
Passel 1991).

The architects of the 1990 Immigration Act also sought to advance the cultural goal of diversifying
immigration to the United States by diluting the degree to which immigration over the previous decade
had been dominated by Latin American and Asian admissions. In the 1990 Act, a new "diversity"
category was added to bring in immigrants from countries that had sent few immigrants to the U.S. in
recent decades. The varied objectives behind this innovation included (1) increasing European
immigration, (2) increasing the skills of new entrants, and (3) intensifying the role immigration plays in
promoting pluralism within the United States.

HUMANITARIAN ADMISSIONS

Between 1945 and 1990, one-quarter of all immigrants entering the United States were admitted on
humanitarian grounds. Humanitarian admissions policy is guided by the moral goal of promoting human
rights by extending protection to those fleeing persecution. The current legislative framework for
humanitarian admissions policy is set out principally in the 1980 Refugee Act, which seeks to accomplish
three goals:

Base humanitarian admissions on internationally recognized criteria (developed by the United Nations)
that depart from the largely ideological, anti-communist grounds that previously prevailed;5

Create a predictable, manageable flow of refugees;

Include a program for resettling refugees—involving cash, medical support, and social services. The
resettlement program recognized that refugees and asylees arrive with little money and no family or
business connections.

The 1980 Refugee Act covers two types of humanitarian admissions—refugees and asylees. Refugee
admissions are set annually by the President in consultation with Congress. Refugee admissions for FY
1994 are expected to total 120,000. While refugees apply for admission to the United States and are
processed overseas, asylees petition to remain in the U.S., usually after having entered illegally. Put
differently, the U.S. selects refugees; asylum seekers select the United States. Asylum applications
reached 147,000 in 1993, up from only 56,000 in 1991; only 4,465 petitions for asylum were approved in
fiscal 1993 (National Asylum Study Project 1993).

Although asylum was not a central concern of those who framed the Refugee Act, it has become an
extremely volatile issue—not just within this country but also across Europe. This concern is due in large
part to the fact that asylum is often granted after illegal entry, which puts efforts to offer humanitarian
admission in conflict with illegal immigration control. The controversy that has plagued asylum is fed
both by the number of applications that have been filed—yielding a current backlog of almost 350,000
unadjucated cases—and by the perception that the system is out of control.6 One explanation advanced
for the backlog has been the incentives built into the asylum process. Most asylum applicants have not
only been granted work authorization while they await their hearings, they have also been extended
broad procedural safeguards if their petitions are denied. Further, few denied applicants have ever been
deported. Thus, despite the fact that most asylum applicants come from countries where human rights
abuses have been documented, the process has been viewed skeptically by its critics (National Asylum
Study Project 1993).

A significant new door to safe refuge was opened by the 1990 Immigration Act: temporary protected
status (TPS). The law recognizes that in certain circumstances—war or natural disaster—selected
nationality groups should be allowed temporary residence in the United States without having individual
members' claims separately adjudicated. Three years into the program, 215,000 persons have been
granted TPS, more than half the number who entered with refugee status over the same period.7

CONTROLLING ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

Only with passage of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) did Congress lay out a more
or less coherent legislative scheme to control illegal immigration, thereby turning immigration policy to
the goals of promoting the nation's sovereignty and protecting the economic security of the U.S. labor
force. Before 1986, policy to control illegal immigration consisted mostly of intercepting illegals at the
border or apprehending them at their jobs. The 1986 Act changed this by making the hiring of illegal
immigrants a civil and, in some cases, a criminal violation.

IRCA attempted to strike a balance among five at least partially conflicting objectives: (1) cutting off the
work and welfare "magnets" thought to attract illegals; (2) minimizing the regulatory burden on
employers; (3) meeting the labor force needs of industries dependent historically on immigrant labor
(especially California agriculture); (4) averting discrimination against foreign-looking and -sounding
people; and (5) minimizing government intrusion on privacy. In addition to IRCA's employer sanction
provisions, the law mandates that states use the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE)
system, an automated verification system to track the immigration status of applicants for welfare.
IRCA also extends legal status to immigrants who have been in this country continuously since 1982 or
have worked in agriculture. This provision for one-time amnesty is intended to "wipe the slate clean."
IRCA has led to the legalization of more than 1 percent of the U.S. population, almost three million
residents—the largest such program in history.8

While the "carrot" of IRCA's amnesty provisions has been extremely successful, the "stick" of employer
sanctions has largely failed to control illegal immigration in the 1990s. Employer sanctions have proved
difficult to enforce because of the increased prevalence of fraudulent documents and the limited
resources thus far dedicated to enforcement by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). At the
same time, civil liberties principles have been invoked to defeat political initiatives for adopting a
national identity card, which further complicated enforcement (Fix 1991).

And our, interpretation of legal immigration as something distinct from refugees is

consistent with other legal scholars in the field—prefer multiple scholars who agree on
how to define the concept
Yakushko et al 5 (Oksana Yakushko, Counseling Psychology Department, University of Missouri–
Columbia; Krista M. Chronister, Counseling Psychology Department, University of Oregon. Oksana
Yakushko is now at the Counseling Psychology Department, University of Nebraska at Lincoln,
“Immigrant Women and Counseling: The Invisible Others”, http://www.access-dv.org/pdfs/Yakushko
%20&%20Chronister.pdf , 2005)
Immigration constitutes a wide array of relocation circumstances, which have a strong bearing on
women’s experiences in their host environments. The three broad categories of relocation that are
officially recognized in the U.S. are (a) legal immigration , (b) refugee relocation, and (c) undocumented
or “illegal” immigration. Legal immigration refers to relocation of noncitizens who are granted legal
permanent residence by the U.S. federal government. Legal permanent residence provides the right to
remain in the country indefinitely, to be gainfully employed, and to seek benefits of U.S. citizenship
through naturalization (Mulder et al., 2001). This status does not give the right to vote or receive
benefits, such as many federal subsidies reserved for U.S. citizens. A different type of immigration status
is granted to individuals who are considered refugees. Refugees are defined by the 1967 United Nations
Protocol on Refugees as those people outside their country of nationality who are unable or unwilling to
return to that country because of persecution or well-founded fear of persecution (Mulder et al.,
2001). The third category of U.S. immigrants represents individuals who seek to relocate to the U.S. in
search of employment and better living conditions. Often referred to as the “illegal” or “undocumented”
population, the unauthorized migrant population consists primarily of two groups: (a) those who enter
the U.S. without inspection and (b) those who enter the U.S. with legal temporary visas but stay beyond
the time allotment of their visas (Mulder et al., 2001). The U.S. Census Bureau (Mulder et al., 2001)
estimates that approximately 5 to 8 million individuals remain in the U.S. without legal documents, with
Mexicans constituting 95% of undocumented immigrants who are detained in the U.S. (Portes &
Rumbaut, 1996).
Next, Our definition follows the INA definition of legal immigration.
Immigrants refer to foreign nationals admitted for LPR status – it excludes refugees
Kandel, 17 – specialist in Immigration Policy at the Congressional Research Service (William, “A Primer
on U.S. Immigration Policy” CRS Report for Congress, 11/14,
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R45020.pdf italics in original

U.S. immigration policy is governed largely by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which was first
codified in 1952 and has been amended significantly several times since.1 Implementation of INA
policies is carried out by multiple executive branch agencies. The Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) has primary responsibility for immigration functions through several agencies: U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services (USCIS), Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE). The Department of State (DOS) issues visas to foreign nationals overseas, and the
Department of Justice (DOJ) operates immigration courts through its Executive Office of Immigration
Review (EOIR).

Foreign-born populations with different legal statuses are referred to throughout this report. The term
aliens refers to people who are not U.S. citizens, including those legally and not legally present. 2 The
two basic types of legal aliens are (1) immigrants (not including refugees and asylees) and (2)
nonimmigrants. Immigrants refers to foreign nationals lawfully admitted to the United States for
permanent residence. 3 Nonimmigrants refers to foreign nationals temporarily and lawfully admitted to
the United States for a specific purpose and period of time, including tourists, diplomats, students,
temporary workers, and exchange visitors, among others.

Refugees and asylees refer to persons fleeing their countries because of persecution, or a wellfounded
fear of persecution, on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or
political opinion (see “Refugees and Asylees”). Refugees and asylees are not classified as immigrants
under the INA, but once admitted, they may adjust their status to lawful permanent resident (LPR).

Naturalized citizens refers to LPRs who become U.S. citizens through a process known as naturalization
(described below), generally after residing in the United States continuously for at least five years.
Noncitizens are persons who have not naturalized and may include immigrants as well as nonimmigrants.

Unauthorized aliens refers to foreign nationals who reside unlawfully in the United States and who either
entered the United States illegally (“without inspection”) or entered lawfully and temporarily (“with
inspection”) but subsequently violated the terms of their admission, typically by “overstaying” their visa
duration. 4

Refugees are legal aliens but are not immigrants – there’s a substantial delay before
they apply for LPR status
Kandel, 18 – specialist in Immigration Policy at the Congressional Research Service (William,
“Permanent Legal Immigration to the

United States: Policy Overview” CRS Report for Congress, 5/11,

https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/20180511_R42866_fd2ab8b30d16f4294c009ec8cfb101b3b3b127
41.pdf italics in original
Legal aliens3 are of three main types: immigrants, nonimmigrants and refugees. As defined in the INA ,
immigrants are synonymous with lawful permanent residents (LPRs) and refer to foreign nationals who
come to live lawfully and permanently in the United States. Nonimmigrants—such as tourists, foreign
students, diplomats, temporary agricultural workers, exchange visitors, or intracompany business
personnel—are admitted for a specific purpose and a temporary period of time.4 Nonimmigrants must
leave the United States before their visas expire, although certain classes of nonimmigrants may adjust
to LPR status if they otherwise qualify.5 Refugees and asylees are people fleeing their countries because
of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution. After one year in refugee status in the United
States, refugees must apply to adjust to LPR status. In contrast, asylees may, but are not required to,
apply for LPR status after one year.

Prefer INA it’s the gold standard and it’s a topic that uses the from legal immigration,
they are the agency that determines who qualifies for that status
 2NC Limits
Our topic is best for limits. It organizes the topic are two major themes family and
employment, which gives balance to affirmative arguments while still giving clear
negative ground.
Expanding the topic requires the negative to prepare for 3 distinct legal regimes. That
requires 3 sets of core negative generics and generic topic arguments like the wages
disad only apply to 1/3 of the topic.
Within each category are tons of qualitative and quantitative restrictions which means
and exponential amount of affirmatives that require specific negative case research.
We should err toward a smaller topic to make the research burden for the negative
more manageable.
Even if they win there is good negative ground, without clear limits that ground won’t
be researched or explored because there are too many things to prepare. Limits is a
perquisite to ground claims should precede them.
Allowing adjustment of status blows the top off the topic – there are thousands in the
U.S. that could possibly change status – the aff makes the topic “potentially legal
immigration”
Daniels ‘4
(Roger, Charles Phelps Taft Professor of History Emeritus at the University of Cincinnati. Guarding the
Golden Door: American Immigration Policy and Immigrants Since 1882, p. 249)

But the remaining 9.5 percent of nonimmigrants , amounting to 3,178,957 individuals-more than three times the number of
the year's legal "immigrants "-entered the United States legally in a bewildering number of categories,
most with the possibility of changing their legal category from nonimmigrant to immigrant at some

future date. It would be more precise to call most of these people " potential legal
immigrants ," a term that might also apply to all the illegal immigrants in the country at any
time. The INS calls the process of changing from one category to another "adjustment of status." During
2000 an absolute majority of the 849,807 legal "immigrants"-4-42,405 or '52 percent-were not, in the normal sense of the word, immigrants in
2000. Rather, they were persons who in some prior year had been admitted in a nonimmigrant category or who had entered il- legally, and had
their status legally changed in 2000.

Their arguments are based in common misunderstanding, but allowing refugees makes
this an i-law topic.
Borgen Project 18. (The Borgen Project is a nonprofit fighting global poverty that does national
mobilizing for activists and lobbies the United States Congress. What’s the Difference Between an
Immigrant and a Refugee? January 4, 2018. https://borgenproject.org/difference-between-an-
immigrant-and-a-refugee/)
What is the difference between an immigrant and a refugee ? The terms migrant and refugee are often
used interchangeably despite the fact that there are definitive differences between the two. A migrant is a person
who consciously makes a choice to leave their homeland and seek a better life in another state. These individuals or families can
take the time to learn about the country to which they intend on relocating and prepare themselves as much as possible for the journey. While the process

varies from country to country, it usually involves screening , pre-departure training , and obtaining
work permits . The process can take months, if not years, and migration has become more common in the last two centuries. According to the 1951 Refugee
Convention, a refugee is a person who “owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race,

religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country
of his nationality, and is unable to, or owing to such fear, unwilling to avail himself of the protection of
that country.” This definition falls under international law , and therefore a refugee that arrives on foreign
soil looking for safety and claiming refugee status cannot be deported immediately. Their case will be reviewed
before there is a chance they are sent back their homeland, as it must be considered whether their safety is in jeopardy. This is a United Nations convention that was

ratified by 144 countries. Not all migrants are refugees, but sometimes refugees can fall under the category of a migrant. Knowing the difference
between an immigrant and a refugee is especially important for international law and domestic law .
Immigration policies and requirements typically only apply to the country that established them . Basically,
they are different from country to country and are categorized under domestic law. For example, the application process for migrating into the United States is a
different application process than applying to Japan. However,
a refugee is protected by international law , therefore, while legal
documentation can be lacking, countries have an obligation to abide by these laws . Even the countries that didn’t ratify the convention
are still expected to respect it, because it falls under the protection of basic human rights.
 2NC Ground
This gives core negative arguments about wages and the economic effects of migration
as stable disadvantage ground, there is also significant topic counterplan and critique
literature about these kinds of migration.
And expanding the topic to include refugees, temporary immigration, and the
undocumented requires entirely different negative arguments, encourages hyper
generics, and requires the negative to use dubious anti-immigrant positions as
disadvantages. We should pick a smaller topic that encourages more focused and
better debates around the economic effects of migration and the legal regimes around
it.
Finally err negative, there is no uniqueness for disads if we expand legal immigration
since changing the status of people already in the US doesn’t link to disads about
increasing migration.
Additionally, refugee policy is migration—not “legal immigration.” It’s a whole
additional topic
Adrian Vore 15, the Local section editor, South/East County section editor and the Readers'
Representative at The San Diego Union-Tribune, “Opinion Readers' Representative 'Immigrant' vs.
'migrant'; what's the difference?”, http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/readers-rep/sdut-
immigrant-migranr-undocumented-europe-syria-2015sep25-story.html, September 25

migrants are more associated with refugees, or they are workers

Tatiana Sanchez, the U-T’s immigration reporter, said immigrants are willingly settling in a country. She said

moving from job to job with seasons. Migrant is L.A. Times reporter Alexandra Zavis, who’s covering the European crisis, explained why the word migrants is used, not immigrants, in reports on the subject. “

a broad term that includes refugees and those moving for economic reasons . We have been using the term in our reporting about the crisis in Europe

many of these people are still on the move, and some may wish to return home one day. Immigrant
because

refers to those who have moved to a foreign country with the intention of settling there.” Zavis wrote about the descriptions of
those flooding into Europe in an article Sept. 11 and the importance the meanings play in the crisis.

Legal immigration excludes refugees and unauthorized immigration

Yahkushko, 8 – professor of psychology at the Pacifica Graduate Institute (Oksana, “Stress and Coping
in the Lives of Recent Immigrants and Refugees: Considerations for Counseling” Int J Adv Counselling
(2008) 30:167–178 DOI 10.1007/s10447-008-9054-0 italics in original

Legal immigration refers to relocation of non-citizens who are granted legal permanent residence by the
government. Legal permanent residence provides the right to remain in the country indefinitely, to be
gainfully employed and to seek the benefits of citizenship (Mulder et al. 2001). A different type of
immigration status is granted to individuals who are considered refugees. Refugees are defined by the
1967 United Nations Protocol on Refugees as those people outside their country of nationality who are
unable or unwilling to return to that country because of persecution or well-founded fear of persecution
(Mulder et al. 2001). The third category of immigrants represents individuals who seek to relocate to
other countries in search of employment and better living conditions outside the permitted regulations.
Often referred to as the illegal or undocumented population, the unauthorized migrant population
consists primarily of two groups, (1) those entering the new country without inspection and (2) those
entering with legal temporary status but staying beyond the time allotment of their visas (Mulder et al.
2001).
 2NC AT: “Aff Education Good”
Fairness outweighs education – education comes from research, students to research
when they think it will give them an advantage in debates. When topics are unfair,
people do less specific research because it doesn’t have competitive value.
And, education is inevitable, it’s a counterplan of trade off disad about refugee
admissions, and education can be solved in other forms. Debate is a competitive game
it means fairness comes first.
Depth over breadth—better to exclude some things and learn about a few cases really
thoroughly. Large topics cause a race to generics and we don’t learn as much through
specific developments in debate over the course of the year
Finally, this is arbitrary – what is “good’ education. There is no way to judge what is
gained and lost from a topic with different cases, it’s a subjective standard.
 2NC AT: Reasonability
Reasonability is bad. Competing interpretations encourages intense comparison of
small differences in interpretations of the topic. That kind of research is important in
academic work, business and many other fields.
Reasonability results in judge intervention because there isn’t enough comparison to
effectively decide and takes the debate out of the hands of the debaters.
And, they can’t win their reasonable if we win a risk of our offense, it proves their
vision of the topic would make debates worse, proves it isn’t reasonable to select their
topic.