Terrorism Disadvantage

1NC Frontline

NAUDL 2015-16

Terror DA
Uniqueness- Domestic surveillance activities are expanding with no
expectation to decline
Dahl, Assistant Professor at Nataval Postgraduate School, 2011
Erik. Domestic Intelligence Today: More Security but Less Liberty?. Homeland Security Affairs
7, 10 Years After: The 9/11 Essays (September 2011). https://www.hsaj.org/articles/67
Unless the threat situation changes dramatically, we are not likely to see a new American
domestic intelligence agency anytime soon. In the place of an American MI-5, however, a
huge and expensive domestic intelligence system has been constructed . This system has thus
far succeeded in keeping America safer than most experts would have predicted ten years ago,
but it has also reduced civil liberties in ways that many Americans fail to understand. Precisely
because it was unplanned and is decentralized, this domestic intelligence system has not
received the oversight it deserves. In the long run, American liberty as well as security will gain
from a fuller discussion of the benefits and risks of homeland security intelligence.

Link- Curtailing domestic surveillance prevents intelligence agencies

from stopping a terrorist attack this is empirically true
Inserra, Research Associate from the Heritage Foundation, 2015
("68th Terrorist Plot Calls for Major Counterterrorism Reforms,"
www.heritage.org/research/reports/2015/05/68th-terrorist-plot-calls-for-major-counterterrorismreforms
This 68th Islamist terrorist plot or attack is the 57th homegrown terrorist attack or plot and the
10th targeting a mass gathering, the third most common target. The attack also comes as part of a
recent wave of attacks and plots, as this is the sixth Islamist terrorist plot or attack in 2015. All
of the plots and attacks this year have been perpetrated by individuals who claim to support the
Islamic State to varying degrees. The FBI has stated that Simpson wanted to commit jihad with ISIS, and press reports indicate
that he may have been in secret communications with ISIS members.[6]

Regardless, with these attacks and the increasing numbers of individuals in the U.S. seeking to
support or join ISIS and al-Qaeda affiliates, the U.S. is currently facing what is arguably the
most concentrated period of terrorist activity in the homeland since 9/11. Director James Comey of the
FBI has recent warned that hundreds, maybe thousands of individuals across the U.S. are being
directly solicited by ISIS and urged to attack . Other senior officials, including Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh
Johnson, the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and the director of the National Counterterrorism Center Nicholas
Rasmussen have also noted the increasing threat of terrorism here at home.[7]

Strengthening the Counterterrorism Enterprise

In light of these warnings, the U.S. cannot be passive. Heritage has recommended numerous
counterterrorism policies for Congress to address, including:

[The Evidence Continues]

Streamlining U.S. fusion centers. Congress should limit fusion centers to the approximately 30 areas with the greatest level of risk
as identified by the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI). Some exceptions might exist, such as certain fusion centers that are
leading cybersecurity or other important topical efforts. The remaining centers should then be fully funded and resourced by UASI.

Pushing the FBI toward being more effectively driven by intelligence. While the FBI has made

Terrorism Disadvantage

1NC Frontline

NAUDL 2015-16
high-level changes to its mission and organizational structure, the bureau is still working to
integrate intelligence and law enforcement activities. This will require overcoming cultural
barriers and providing FBI intelligence personnel with resources, opportunities, and the stature
they need to become a more effective and integral part of the FBI. Ensuring that the FBI shares
information more readily and regularly with state and local law enforcement and treats state and local partners as critical actors in
the fight against terrorism. State, local, and private-sector partners must send and receive timely information from the FBI. The
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) should play a role in supporting these partners efforts by acting as a source or conduit for
information to partners and coordinating information sharing between the FBI and its partners. Designating an office in DHS to
coordinate countering violent extremism (CVE) efforts. CVE efforts are spread across all levels of government and society. DHS is
uniquely situated to lead the federal governments efforts to empower local partners. Currently, DHSs CVE working group
coordinates efforts across DHS components, but a more substantial office will be necessary to manage this broader task.
Supporting state, local, and civil society partners. Congress and the Administration should not lose sight of the fact that all of the
federal governments efforts must be focused on empowering local partners. The federal government is not the tip of the spear for
CVE efforts; it exists to support local partners who are in the best position to recognize and counter radicalization in their own

Maintaining essential counterterrorism tools . Support for important investigative tools

is essential to maintaining the security of the U.S. and combating terrorist threats. Legitimate
government surveillance programs are also a vital component of U.S. national security and
should be allowed to continue. The need for effective counterterrorism operations, however, does not relieve the
communities.

government of its obligation to follow the law and respect individual privacy and liberty. In the American system, the government
must do both equally well.

Impact- An attack on US soil is imminent and this inflicts suffering and

death against innocent people
Kephart, Researcher at Center for Immigration Studies, 2005 [Janice Kephart, Moving
Beyond the 9/11 Staff Report on Terrorist Travel, http://cis.org/articles/2005/kephart.html]
Al Qaeda operatives discussed here were strategically positioned throughout the United States -often in places not previously associated with terrorist activity, such as Peoria and Chicago, Illinois; Columbus, Ohio; Baltimore,
Maryland, and its suburbs; Seattle, Washington; Portland, Oregon; Minneapolis, Minnesota; and upstate New York. A couple of al
Qaeda operatives covered in this report are still at large and currently unindicted, including Adnan Shukrijumah and Aafia Siddiqui,
yet are included here because they are high on the FBI's list for questioning and spent long periods of time in the United States.

with Mir
Aimal Kansi, who in January 1993 opened fire outside CIA headquarters in McLean, Virginia; the most
The lists found throughout this report (under immigration benefit subject headings at the end of each section) begin

recent cases, from 2004, involve the surveillance cases in New York City; in Charlotte, North Carolina; Nashville, Tennessee; Las

21 of these terrorists committed five attacks against U.S.

interests causing a total of 3,341 deaths and 8,463 injuries ; 29 were involved in 12 unexecuted
plots. Five hijackers from 9/11 had clear immigration violations, while one (Marwan Al-Shehhi), had a
possible violation; thus, 13 hijackers are not included in the chart below. I do not discuss the 9/11 plotters in this report or
other earlier terrorists in detail, as each is covered in 9/11 and Terrorist Travel. In 47 instances, immigration benefits
sought or acquired prior to 9/11 enabled the terrorists to stay in the United States after 9/11
and continue their terrorist activities. This includes three terrorists whose visas or entries into the United States were
Vegas, Nevada; and southern California. All told,

on 9/2/01, 9/6/01 and 9/10/01. In three instances, terrorists sought immigration benefits after 9/11. One political asylee associated
with the 9/11 hijackers was denied and deported after having previous immigration violations. The second managed to maintain his

Although each
of these 94 terrorists had committed an immigration violation of some kind, criminal charges
alone were brought in at least 37 instances and immigration charges in 18 . Indictments in 50 cases
included both immigration and criminal charges. There have been a total of 15 deportations and 23 criminal
convictions. In 16 instances, individuals were not convicted (e.g., the six 9/11 hijackers), are being held as an enemy
student status in the United States through mid-2002. A third gained legal permanent residency status in 2002.

combatant (e.g., Khalid Sheikh Mohammed), or have fled the United States (e.g., Anwar Al-Aulaqi, an imam associated with the
9/11 hijackers and believed to be now in Yemen.)

Terrorism Disadvantage

1NC Frontline

NAUDL 2015-16

EXO CP
Plan: The President should stop surveillance of undocumented
immigrants through executive order.
The CP solves, Executive has authority to change immigration
laws
Gorod, appellate counsel at Constitutional Accountability
Center, 15
[Brianne Gorod, 2 19 15, President Obamas Unproductive Statements About His
Productive Immigration Policy,
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121098/president-obamas-executive-orderimmigration-wasnt-overreach]
The presidents comments may have been motivated more by his sense of immigration politics than his views on
immigration lawreports in 2014 indicated that Obama was dial[ing] down the partisan rhetoric on immigration ...
[to] give House Republicans some breathing room to try to pass legislationbut they nonetheless fueled

Some on the right argued that the president didnt have the authority to take
when Obama ultimately did take action, they maintained he
was simply doing so in order to achieve unilaterally what he could not achieve by
working with Congress. Indeed, in the decision out of Texas, the district judge wrote, The Government
detractors.

executive action on immigration;

must concede that there is no specific law or statute that authorizes [Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and
Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA)]. In fact, the president announced that it was the failure of Congress to pass
such a law that prompted him ... to change the law. (The judge formally based his decision to halt implementation
not on the substance of the executive action, but on the governments failure to comply with certain procedural
requirements he felt were warranted.)

But President Obamas opponents are as wrong now as he was then: He does have the
authority to take executive action on immigration action, and that executive action
isnt a response to congressional inaction at all. Rather, its a response to
congressional actionactions by past Congresses that have passed immigration laws that it is now the
responsibility of the executive branch to enforce. Theres nothing novel about this. Presidents are
always asked to exercise discretion in determining how best to implement laws
passed by Congress (a responsibility and power often referred to as prosecutorial discretion), and
thats exactly what the Framers of our Constitution intended . When the Framers drafted the
Constitution, their views on the presidency were shaped not only by their experiences under British rule, but also by
their experiences under the Articles of Confederation, the precursor to the Constitution. The Articles lasted just
eight years, and one of the central weaknesses that led to its failure was the absence of a strong executive branch
capable of enforcing the nations laws.

Net Benefit- The President acting alone preserves executive

power prevents congress from stepping in
Wall Street Journal 2013
[Wall Street Journal, 9/5/2013. Obama's Curbs on Executive Power Draw Fire,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323893004579057463262293446.
html]
The president's moves on national-security issues reflect a mix of political
pragmatism as well as personal principles, and exactly how much power Mr. Obama

Terrorism Disadvantage

1NC Frontline

NAUDL 2015-16
actually has given up is the subject of debate. He has walked a fine line on Syria, for
example, saying he wasn't required to seek sign-off from lawmakers for a military
strike but asking for their approval anyway.
A senior administration official said that while the new drone-strike policy does rein
in executive authority, the NSA and Syria proposals weren't a reduction of power but
an effort to increase transparency and build public confidence.
Still, the president, who was criticized for seizing too much power through recess
appointments and other steps that some said circumvented Congress, now is being
criticized by veterans of past Republican administrations for weakening the
presidency.
John Yoo, a Justice Department official in the George W. Bush administration, said
Mr. Obama had unnecessarily limited his own authority. He noted that it is rare to
see a president restrict his powers.
Mr. Obama "has been trying to reduce the discretion of the president when it comes
to national security and foreign affairs," said Mr. Yoo, now a law professor at the
University of California at Berkeley. "These proposals that President Obama is
making really run counter to why we have a president and a constitution."
Others, though, said the president had given up a modicum of authority in an effort
to protect presidential power and guard against congressional action.
The question of the extent of executive power has been long debated in
Washington. President Lyndon Johnson was accused of using a narrow congressional
resolution to vastly and illegally expand the Vietnam War, for example, and
President Richard Nixon was accused of creating an "imperial presidency" before his
resignation.
More recently, Mr. Obama's predecessor, Mr. Bush, was accused by Democrats of
having inappropriately expanded executive powers in combating terrorism.
Jack Quinn, who served as White House counsel for President Bill Clinton, said Mr.
Obama's recent moves amount to threading a needle to reach agreements and
avoid larger setbacks for executive power. "Sometimes, it's important to show
tolerance for others in order to preserve the power that you have," he said. "I don't
think anyone can say that he is a shrinking violet when it comes to his use of power
as president."
A.B. Culvahouse, White House counsel under Ronald Reagan, agreed that the
president imposing constraints on executive authority is the preferable course if it
helps dissuade Congress from stepping in to impose the same or more onerous
limitations. Lawmakers retain the power of the purse, he noted, and also could
codify restrictions in statute.

Terrorism Disadvantage

1NC Frontline

NAUDL 2015-16

A strong unchecked executive is necessary to prevent and win

inevitable conflicts
McCarthy, Director Center for law and counterterrorism at the
Foundation for Defense of Democracies, 2006
[Andrew C. McCarthy, March 2006. Directs the. The Powers of War and Peace by
John Yoo, Commentary, https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/thepowers-of-war-and-peace-by-john-yoo/]

Yoos thesis in this book is strongest as an argument grounded in textthe text,

that is, of our founding law. Precisely because the Constitution reposes such power
in the executive, he argues, it is adaptable to the demands of crisis (though one
must add that broad presidential power is necessarily also open to great abuse and
even disastrous miscalculation). It is also flexible enough to allow for international
cooperation in the name of the national interest without a wholesale commitment to
dreamy multilateral constructs (though this, too, can make for trouble in an age of
globalization in which dependable allies are essential).
But is Yoos reading, especially concerning the power of war, truly consistent with
the framers original understanding? As the constitutional scholar Cass Sunstein has
observed in reviewing Yoos book, George Washington himself construed Congresss
power to declare war as meaning that no offensive expedition of importance can
be undertaken until after they [Congress] have deliberated on the subject, and
authorized such a measure. Other giants of the foundingAdams, Jefferson,
Hamilton, Madison, Chief Justice John Marshallvoiced similar sentiments. Even
granting that the framers expressly resisted congressional war-making, and
promoted a vibrant executive, one need not interpret declare as narrowly and
legalistically as Yoo suggests.
In short, the tension reflected in the debates at the constitutional convention
persists. But one must also be alert to reality. In a world beset by the constant
threat of sudden destructive force, a robust and firmly grounded view of presidential
power is imperative. Potential perils come today not just from growing national
powers like China but from rogue states in Iran and North Korea as well as from
increasingly diffuse terror cells that have demonstrated their capacity to continue
striking globally even when, as now, they are under siege. If public safety is to be
something other than an illusion, securing it will demand the power to attack
quickly and, in appropriate circumstances, preemptively; the price of awaiting
consensus from 535 members of Congress may be too prohibitive. For showing how
that power derives from the very system the framers bequeathed us, John Yoo
deserves our deep thanks.

Terrorism Disadvantage

1NC Frontline

NAUDL 2015-16

On Case

Terrorism Disadvantage

1NC Frontline

NAUDL 2015-16

Inherency
The federal government is decreasing deportations now by only focusing
on deporting individuals convicted of a crime.
Washington Post, 2014
[Obama announces immigration overhaul shielding 4 million from deportation,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-immigration-plan-will-shield-37million-from-deportation/2014/11/20/3345d672-70dd-11e4-893f86bd390a3340_story.html]
President Obama sought to convince the American public Thursday that his plans to
unilaterally change immigration laws were well within the precedent set by previous
administrations and did not amount to an amnesty program for illegal immigrants.
In a prime-time address from the White House, Obama argued that a mass
deportation of the nations more than 11 million undocumented immigrants would
be both impossible and contrary to our character. Rather, the president said, the
measures he is enacting to defer the deportations of 4 million immigrants while
simultaneously refocusing federal border control agents on the highest-priority
cases, such as felons, gang members and recent border-crossers, are aimed at
actual threats to our security. Felons, not families, Obama said of who would be
in line for deportations. Criminals, not children. Gang members, not a mom whos
working hard to provide for her kids. Under Obamas plan, the undocumented
parents of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents who have lived in the country
for at least five years can apply, starting this spring, for relief from deportations for
a period of three years. About 3.7 million immigrants are expected to qualify under
the new guidelines. The president also is expanding a 2012 program that has
provided administrative relief to nearly 600,000 young people brought to the
country illegally as children. Officials said that expansion, which will remove an age
cap, could reach another 287,000 people.

Terrorism Disadvantage

1NC Frontline

NAUDL 2015-16

Human Rights
(__) Survival is a prerequisite to values and because of this we
should prioritize security over human rights, this is why you
weigh the impacts of our terror DA first.
Nye, Dean of the John F. Kennedy School of Government at
Harvard University, 86 [Joseph S. 1986; Phd Political Science Harvard.
University; Served as Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security
Affairs; Nuclear Ethics pg. 45-46]
Some people argue that "we are required to undergo gross injustice that will break
many souls sooner than ourselves be the authors of mass murder."73 Still others
say that "when a person makes survival the highest value, he has declared that
there is nothing he will not betray. But for a civilization to sacrifice itself makes no
sense since there are not survivors to give meaning to the sacrifical [sic] act. In that
case, survival may be worth betrayal." Is it possible to avoid the "moral calamity of
a policy like unilateral disarmament that forces us to choose between being dead or
red (while increasing the chances of both)"?74 How one judges the issue of ends
can be affected by how one poses the questions. If one asks "what is worth a billion
lives (or the survival of the species)," it is natural to resist contemplating a positive
answer. But suppose one asks, "is it possible to imagine any threat to our civilization
and values that would justify raising the threat to a billion lives from one in ten
thousand to one in a thousand for a specific period?" Then there are several
plausible answers, including a democratic way of life and cherished freedoms that
give meaning to life beyond mere survival. When we pursue several values
simultaneously, we face the fact that they often conflict and that we face difficult
tradeoffs. If we make one value absolute in priority, we are likely to get that value
and little else. Survival is a necessary condition for the enjoyment of other values,
but that does not make it sufficient. Logical priority does not make it an absolute
value. Few people act as though survival were an absolute value in their personal
lives, or they would never enter an automobile. We can give survival of the species
a very high priority without giving it the paralyzing status of an absolute value.
Some degree of risk is unavoidable if individuals or societies are to avoid paralysis
and enhance the quality of life beyond mere survival. The degree of that risk is a
justifiable topic of both prudential and moral reasoning.

(__) Absolute commitments to values like human rights fail

when confronted with violence in the real world because of
this we should prioritize security first
Isaac, Professor of Political Science at Indiana-Bloomington, 2002 [Director
of the Center for the Study of Democracy and Public Life, PhD from Yale, Jeffery C.,
Dissent Magazine, Vol. 49, Iss. 2, Ends, Means, and Politics, p. Proquest]
What should be done to respond to the violence of a Saddam Hussein, or a
Milosevic, or a Taliban regime? What means are likely to stop violence and bring

Terrorism Disadvantage

1NC Frontline

NAUDL 2015-16
criminals to justice? Calls for diplomacy and international law are well intended and
important; they implicate a decent and civilized ethic of global order. But they are
also vague and empty, because they are not accompanied by any account of how
diplomacy or international law can work effectively to address the problem at hand.
The campus left offers no such account. To do so would require it to contemplate
tragic choices in which moral goodness is of limited utility. Here what matters is not
purity of intention but the intelligent exercise of power. Power is not a dirty word or
an unfortunate feature of the world. It is the core of politics. Power is the ability to
effect outcomes in the world. Politics, in large part, involves contests over the
distribution and use of power. To accomplish anything in the political world, one
must attend to the means that are necessary to bring it about. And to develop such
means is to develop, and to exercise, power. To say this is not to say that power is
beyond morality. It is to say that power is not reducible to morality. As writers such
as Niccolo Machiavelli, Max Weber, Reinhold Niebuhr, and Hannah Arendt have
taught, an unyielding concern with moral goodness undercuts political
responsibility. The concern may be morally laudable, reflecting a kind of personal
integrity, but it suffers from three fatal flaws: (1) It fails to see that the purity of
one's intention does not ensure the achievement of what one intends. Abjuring
violence or refusing to make common cause with morally compromised parties may
seem like the right thing; but if such tactics entail impotence, then it is hard to view
them as serving any moral good beyond the clean conscience of their supporters;
(2) it fails to see that in a world of real violence and injustice, moral purity is not
simply a form of powerlessness; it is often a form of complicity in injustice. This is
why, from the standpoint of politics--as opposed to religion--pacifism is always a
potentially immoral stand. In categorically repudiating violence, it refuses in
principle to oppose certain violent injustices with any effect; and (3) it fails to see
that politics is as much about unintended consequences as it is about intentions; it
is the effects of action, rather than the motives of action, that is most significant.
Just as the alignment with "good" may engender impotence, it is often the pursuit of
"good" that generates evil. This is the lesson of communism in the twentieth
century: it is not enough that one's goals be sincere or idealistic; it is equally
important, always, to ask about the effects of pursuing these goals and to judge
these effects in pragmatic and historically contextualized ways. Moral absolutism
inhibits this judgment. It alienates those who are not true believers. It promotes
arrogance. And it undermines political effectiveness.

Terrorism Disadvantage

1NC Frontline

NAUDL 2015-16

Solvency
Ending surveillance fails because states will seek other ways to exclude
immigrants
Vaughan, Director of Policy Studies at the Center for Immigration Studies,
2006 [Attrition Through Enforcement, http://cis.org/Enforcement-IllegalPopulation]
Frustrated with the federal governments failure to make progress in reducing illegal
immigration, and under pressure from impatient voters, many state and local
jurisdictions are taking matters into their own hands by enacting laws and
ordinances to discourage illegal settlement and by taking advantage of federal
services, such as the database used for Basic Pilot, to verify immigration status.
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, lawmakers in 42 states
are considering 380 bills related to immigration; 70 of these bills deal with
employment.58 Many of these measures, such as laws to restrict access to drivers
licenses, are intended primarily to enhance security and minimize identity fraud;
nevertheless they have provided a powerful incentive for illegal immigrants to
voluntarily return home. In other cases, legislatures have considered more direct
approaches, such as mandatory work authorization verification. Because these laws
can have such a positive effect on compliance, and require little in the way or
federal resources, they must be more actively supported by federal immigration
authorities.
(__) There are hundreds of others immigration enforcement laws that are
still in the books
Munoz and Barberena,Professors at Loyola University Chicago and
University of Illinois Chicago, 2014 [Everyday Enforcement: Heightened
Immigration Enforcement and Community Responses in the United State, City &
Society, Vol. 26, Issue 1, pp. 39]
Immigration policy-making has also broken the confines of federal and state
legislative bodies and proliferated at the local level. Between 2006 and March of
2011, ordinances targeting undocumented immigrants had been passed and/or
considered in over 130 U.S. cities (Varsanyi 2011). These policies range from
English-only laws, to limits on the number of adults who can reside in a household,
to bans on sitting in public spaces; they seek to regulate and persecute everyday
behaviors associated with undocumented immigrants. As states and localities
implement their own brands of immigration-related policies, some friendly and
others hostile, they have created a patch quilt land- scape of policy and practice
(Quesada this volume) and intensified the significance of city, county, and state
borders in the lives of unauthorized people and their family members.
As immigration enforcement measures creep unevenly over the U.S., the threat of
enforcement seeps into a myriad of mundane activities and transforms peoples
everyday lives. Papers that grant legal status not only guard against deportation,
they confer eligibility to work and drive law- fully and to access public services.
Social security numbers are increas- ingly compulsory on financial aid applications,
health insurance forms, credit applications, and rental agreements. Government
IDs are required for such routine activities as conducting a bank transaction or

Terrorism Disadvantage

1NC Frontline

NAUDL 2015-16
buying beer at the local grocery store. For people without the right papers,
immigration enforcement in the current period penetrates all aspects of life, from
the public to the personal, from the economic to the intimate.