Arizona Immigration Law Public Forum Topic 25

Arizona Immigration Law Public Forum Topic 25 - Whitman...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Whitman College 1 Tournament 2009 File Title
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Topic Overview Recently, one of the most controversial state passed laws in the United States has sparked much news and controversy. Of course we are referring to the Arizona Immigration Bill 1070. This law makes it illegal for a person to simply walk the street without immigration documents. Literally if a police officer suspects person of being an illegal immigrant all they have to do is ask for their papers. It requires nothing more than a cops gut feelings. This law, however controversial it may be, has created an interesting divide of people for and against it. But being for and against it is not necessarily enough to discover the legality of such a law. Does a state such as Arizona have the right to racially profile people and demand their papers, or is this an unjust law that criminalizes ethnicities. This topic overview will go over some affirmative and negative ideas and strategies that will help you be successful when debating this prominent topic. First we shall discuss the affirmative strategies. The affirmative makes the claim the Arizona Immigration Law 1070 is unconstitutional. When considering how to best approach this topic, one should consider how to best prove impacts based on constitutionality. These impacts won’t always be as black and white as some others as they are much more intricate. The first argument you will want to make is that the Arizona Immigration law is a law that can not exist due to federal laws that prohibit racial profiling. By arguing that the Arizona law promotes profiling you can easily see how national laws make it clear that can not be tolerated. To prove it promotes racial profiling all you need to do is make two arguments. First the law allows officers to, without any probable cause, assess whether or not they think a person is an illegal alien based on appearance or clothes. This means that stereotypes will dictate who the police officers try to question about documents. Second the law offers no need for probable cause. It wants to racially profile in order to catch people who have illegally crossed the United States-Mexico border. After proving these are racial profiling you simply must argue that the federal law prohibits this, making in unconstitutional. A second affirmative argument is that this is unconstitutional simply because it ignores citizen’s 4 th amendment rights. The 4 th amendment protects citizens from search without reasonable charge. Any law that allows the police officers to usurp an amendment is clearly unconstitutional. Now the con will try to negate this by pointing out illegal immigrants do not have constitutional rights, but that can be easily answered. Police may be wrong in certain instances when they ask for documentation, which means they are forcing citizens to give up their rights. Now will discuss several strategies for the con. The con needs to view this as a game of states rights. The law
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 02/23/2012 for the course DEBATE 101 taught by Professor None during the Spring '12 term at University of California, Berkeley.

Page1 / 26

Arizona Immigration Law Public Forum Topic 25 - Whitman...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online