Resolved: The US government should de-fund sanctuary cities

• "[Mark] Metcalf [in his book, Built to fail: Deception and disorder in America’s immigration courts ] found that between 1993 and 2004, every one of the 94 foreign-born persons involved in actual attacks on U.S. soil had committed an immigration law violation: 34 made a false statement to enter the United States, 18 of the 94 entered on student visas, another four were approved to study in the United States, 17 had improper travel documents, and 13 overstayed their visas. Immigration courts are unable to enforce removal decisions; the only agency that can arrest, detain, and remove illegal immigrants is the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). ICE was formed after passage of the Homeland Security Act in 2003 to provide enforcement of immigration laws, to investigate illegal trafficking of people and goods, and to prevent terrorism."
• Comment:  Sanctuary cities make it easier for foriegn born terrorist to seek refuge on American soil.

Framework

Utilitarianism is the principle by which we determine what is morally right by the amount of “good” is produced and the amount of “bad” is diminished (1). The principle asks both debaters to consider the utility we are providing people through a given policy. We are tasked with using this concept to weigh each side of the debate because of policy-maker’s duty to the people. The constitution grants significant leeway to Congress in policymaking. It suggests that policy makers are obligated to promote the general welfare of the people (2). While not at all specific, it does suggest that forming a policy, such as one that will defund sanctuary cities, there needs to be special consideration for the citizens of the US. In addition, illegal immigrants are also granted some rights per constitutional precedent (13). They are offered at least some human dignity as well. We aren’t legally allowed to kill, maim, or sexually assault illegal immigrants regardless of their status. The reason for this is simple. Regardless of national origins, the US still feels obligated to protect peoples’ rights as humans.

As a country, the US signed onto the UN Declaration of Human Rights which in the first article proclaims the following:

“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood” (16).

Clearly, the US being the main actor in the resolution, needs to see tangible benefits to defunding sanctuary cities as well as not completely dehumanize illegal immigrants for Pro to win. Pro’s job is to explain how both principles are upheld, while it is Con’s burden to show how both cannot be upheld in the Pro world.

1. "Tangible"
   
•  Dictionary.com has 4 definitions for "Tangible" the closest to my opponent's use is number 2, "real or actual, rather than imaginary or visionary:"
  
• My only concern with Tangible is that it does not apply to reasoned hypotheticals.  This would be a problem for me since some of my arguments deal with a "What If."  Since the defunding of sanctuary cities have not been realized, any benefits I sate would not be tangible. 
  
2. "completely dehumanize illegal immigrants" 
   
• My opponent is asking me to put forth arguments that prove that defunding sanctuary cities will not completely dehumanize illegal immigrants.  I find this an undue burden.  Again I am dealing mostly with hypotheticals based on reason and facts, so it would be almost impossible for me to prove that all illegal immigrants would not be dehumanized.  Furthermore, what does "dehumanize" even mean in this statement and what extent would it be applied?
  

• I would agree to "tangible or non-tangible"
  
• Again, I do not believe I can prove the "completely dehumanize illegal immigrants" clause as stated.
  
• Perhaps it would be best if my opponent and I could just make our arguments and rebuttals free of explicit constraints and let the voters decide who wins the debate.
  

C1: Suspended Funding Harms Citizens

• Citizen (from dictionary.com)
  
• "a native or naturalized member of a state or nation who owes allegiance to its government and is entitled to its protection (distinguished from alien)."
  

Despite being a popular proposal to crack down on illegal immigration by forcing states to cede to immigration authorities, there has been little to no focus on what the funding does. Forbes quantifies that the total federal funding given to sanctuary cities is roughly $27 billion (3). The $27 billion funded fire departments, housing, police departments, and schools (3). To see what affect this would have in a single city, CNN published an article detailing exactly what would be affected in 5 sanctuary cities. In NYC, the suspension of federal funds could result in an ever-growing testing backlog of over 50,000 DNA evidence samples in their crime lab (4).

Chicago’s fund of over $100 million to fight homelessness and build low-income housing would be put in jeopardy in the Pro world too (4). Finally, 28% of Seattle’s Human Services Department would be slashed as well (4). Of note is the last item on the list, since the Human Services Department has invested over $70 million dollars in combating homelessness (5). A budget contraction would devastate the homeless in the already destitute county.

Given the slate of blue states and localities that have enacted these policies, an action to cede their sanctuary city status to receive funding would take time.

Cities such as Chicago have even taken the federal government to task after threats were made against non-compliant states and won (6). There is no way to know which municipalities are going to engage in a prolonged legal battle and which ones are going to immediately reverse their sanctuary city status. Thus, millions of people could be affected by the budget cuts for a long period of time.

If the goal of the resolution is to intimidate localities into relinquish their sanctuary city status, then realize that the people who are most likely going to suffer from the Pro world will not be city officials. It would be homeless people without emergency shelters, low-income people unable to find accommodations, and the dwindling remains of the education system. Even if you find the actions of state officials to be abhorrent in hampering federal efforts to deport illegal immigrants, Pro’s position would hurt everyone living in the municipalities affected.

If the government’s duty is to guarantee the protection and general welfare of the public, then taking blatant actions to harm entire cities based off the actions of a few is a guaranteed vote for Con.

We are maximizing harm

by suspending funds because municipalities would be forced to discontinue certain services previously given to the people. Services such as homelessness rehabilitation protects people by offering housing and helping vulnerable people find jobs. DNA labs allow law enforcement to apprehend criminals and keep cities safer.  Overall, defunding overburdens states.

C2: Overburdened Immigration System 

Eventually, in Pro’s world, municipalities will reverse their sanctuary city policies. When this happens, deportation will spike. At the time of writing this, over 900,000 cases are pending related to immigration charges; which explains why detainees wait over 700 days on average for their cases to be heard according to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University (7). The Pew Research Center finds that Illegal immigrants tend to congregate in major municipalities such as Los Angeles, Seattle, Philadelphia, and NYC, all of which are sanctuary cities, (or in the case of California, a sanctuary state) (8). Suddenly, localities would be compelled to deport thousands if not millions of illegal immigrants who have gathered in these safe havens. As a result, American taxpayers are forced to foot the bill of the ballooning detention budget. The National Immigration Forum estimates that taxpayers pay roughly $8 million per day on immigration detention (9). This price will increase substantially when millions more are detained. More taxpayer dollars would be funneled into programs that don’t directly benefit citizens. Either taxes increase, or budgets are reallocated to prioritize ICE detainment, forcing healthcare, education, and welfare departments to get a smaller slice of the budget pie.

...

C3: Harms the Economy

Sanctuary cities benefit city inhabitants through increased demand, which creates new jobs and bolsters business growth. The National Bureau of Economic Research used economic modeling to determine that illegal immigrants contribute to 3% of private-sector GDP annually (14). The effects were magnified in California, where illegal immigrants account for 7% of private-sector GDP annually (14). There are 2 identifiable causes of this concentrated economic prowess. One, California has more illegal immigrants. Two, and most importantly, the same NBER paper estimated that legalization could increase economic contribution from illegal immigrants to 3.6% of the GDP, or a 20% increase in worker productivity (14). While not providing direct amnesty to the illegal population, the effects of sanctuary cities inoculate the illegal immigrant population from ICE and federal law enforcement. In effect, they are partially “legalized” in California. Removing the large illegal immigrant population would prove ruinous for sanctuary cities. The New American Economy found that if only 10% of the illegal population were removed from Colorado, then firms in construction, entertainment, and hospitality would lose a bulk of their employees, forcing drastic cuts and additional lay-offs to accommodate practically all their illegal-immigrant workers from leaving. Nearly 7,000 US citizen jobs would disappear, in addition to over $600 million dollars in lost wages attributed to deportation (15). In total, Colorado’s GDP would contract by $1.1 billion dollars in the event of only 10% of the illegal population leaving (15).

Sanctuary cities and the law

My opponent suggests that under federal law, (which prohibits restrictions on communication between cities and immigration authorities,) sanctuary cities are illegal.

Maybe this is true, but so is the Pro position because it forces localities to enforce federal requests from ICE.

Restricting certain requests that ICE sends to localities is a protection of fundamental liberties promised by the Bill of Rights. Multiple SCOTUS precedents establish that illegal immigrants are due 4th and 5th amendment rights known as “due process” (2). It is noted in the Plyer v. Doe majority opinion that:

“Aliens, even aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful, have long been recognized as "persons" guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments (2).

Crime

Most of his citations only include serious crimes being committed by illegal immigrants with no mention of sanctuary cities protecting them from punishment. Pro even mentions that only some of the crime he listed took place in sanctuary cities. This point is in desperate need of a link stronger than a jumble of anecdotes recounting admittedly tragic events.

Holistic analyses concluded that sanctuary cities were, on average, safer than their non-sanctuary counterparts.

Tom Wong, Professor at the University of California wrote for the Center for American Progress and found on average, controlling for population characteristics such as income, sanctuary cities had 35.5 fewer crimes per 10,000 people in sanctuary counties (11).

This can be attributed to increased crime-reporting because of the increased trust between aliens and police. The Department of Urban Planning and Policy in Chicago found that communities that increased police involvement in immigration enforcement reduced legal and illegal immigrant’s desire to report crime. Out of the 4 cities studied, (Phoenix, Los Angeles, Houston, and Chicago,) over 60% of illegal immigrants reported that they were less likely to report crimes (12). Notably, increased fear of deportation wasn’t confined to illegal immigrants. Half of foreign-born immigrants and nearly 30% of US born Latinos reported increased fear of contacting the police about crimes that were committed (12). Using data from the National Crime Victimization Survey after the 1986 amnesty provision passed in the US, researchers at the Institute of Labor Economics found that the reporting rate of illegal immigrants was 11.2% (13). After amnesty was passed, the reporting rate of recently legalized immigrants jumped by about 20% (13). By reducing the threat of deportation, we can expect to see similar results. Conversely, by punishing entities that declare sanctuary status, we only put more people in danger. People who go unreported for their misdeeds are not incentivized to stop committing crime, creating repeat offenders.

Also, pro’s plan would suspend funding from sanctuary cities, which includes federal funds that would help police agencies. While it’ hard to quantify what funding would be rescinded after the passage of the resolution, Forbes reports that at least $21.5 billion dollars which funds schools, police agencies, and firefighters would be classified as federal funding and halted under my opponent’s plan (14). Training, hiring, and outfitting police officers is expensive. There needs to be a system that prevents police agencies from going belly up. Otherwise, crime increases dramatically. The Economic Policy Institute in 2011 measured the impact of police lay-offs in New Jersey cities and across the 5 cities studied in New Jersey, it was estimated that layoffs would cause 34 more murders, 527 more robberies, and 9 more forcible rapes (15).

Terrorism

....

The comparison Pro made is insufficient in proving that aliens pose a terrorist threat of any kind.

Legal Obligation

Pro cites two pieces of evidence to prove his point that the US has a legal obligation to defund sanctuary cities. He cites a 10th circuit victory and the “take care” clause of the constitution.

The 10th circuit victory doesn’t prove that the resolution should be passed, only that such an action wouldn’t violate the constitution. It isn’t unconstitutional to stick gum under a desk. It could land the vandalizer in hot water with police officers, but the constitution never explicitly prevents someone from committing the deed. Additionally, cross-apply both of my federal court-cases that deemed not honoring detainer requests constitutional.

Now to defend my case.

Framework

My opponent suggests that constitutional protections for illegal immigrants do not exist. This is patently false. Cross-apply my Plyer v. Doe evidence which suggests that aliens have the right of due process.

• I don't dispute this, but I would add that illegal immigrants are not afforded the full rights under the Constitution, which are rights derived by and for the Citizenry (i.e "We the People of the United States").
  

1. Notice the word "full."  The reason I said that was because I new there was a due process amendment right for illegals, but chose not to give my opponent any help.
   
2. Con has grossly misrepresented my position here!  I ask the voters to consider this when casting their vote
   

He also takes issue with my use of the word “tangible” to describe what Pro needs to demonstrate. I only ask that Pro demonstrate the real-world benefits of defunding sanctuary cities. 

Finally, he suggests that me asking him to show that his position doesn’t dehumanize illegal immigrants is abusive. I am not requiring that he provide defensive argumentation to address the humanitarian issues associated with defunding sanctuary cities. However, considering the constitutional precedents, it would be remiss to not consider the wellbeing of the illegal immigrants who would undoubtedly be affected. Weigh these impacts in the debate. 

Suspending Funding Harms Citizens

Pro tries to backtrack by alluding to the possibility that not all funds would be suspended under the passage of the resolution. His definition of “defund” offered at the beginning of his case would suggest otherwise. He requires that funding not only be withdrawn, but that existing grants be suspended, such as the COPS program which works with municipalities. His chance to explain what kind of funding would be affected has long passed as it is now the final round. Because I am restricted from responding further after this round is completed, I implore the judges to punish any last-minute plans that were not previously discussed by Pro in R1.

He also asks that I provide proof that all funds would be ended. Since his position requires that all funds should be suspended, and there was no previous plan-making that would only require some funds to be suspended, it can be rationally assumed that Pro’s plan would restrict all funding. 

My opponent wants more examples of harms of taking away federal funds because I only mention 1 program. I mention that the funding aids schools, the homeless, and law enforcement. Here are some more funds that would be cut according to the CNN evidence I provided beforehand.

In Seattle: “The Transportation Department is due more than $63 million in capital funds for maintenance, bridge replacements, seismic retrofits, and bike and pedestrian path improvements.”

In Chicago: “Also in danger are $100 million to fight homelessness and maintain affordable housing, $178 million for infrastructure, and $861 million for the Chicago Public Schools.” 

“Police could lose $9.6 million from the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant.”

The evidence suggests that in sanctuary cities, everything from infrastructure to education could be affected. This impacts everyone who uses roads, goes to school, or is protected by the police. Hence: “everyone who inhabits a sanctuary city is harmed” is an accurate statement. 

Also, whether a city flips to become a non-sanctuary city depends largely on the city in question. For example, Chicago is prepared for lengthy legal proceedings that could last months or years. In the meantime, cities would face budget contractions.

Overburdened Immigration System

Fine, for the rest of the post I won’t use “Pro’s world.” Other than that, my opponent essentially drops this point. He offers a metaphor comparing the affirmative position to chemotherapy to treat cancer. I disagree. This resolution is akin to prescribing cigarettes to a patient with lung cancer. If we want to talk about “fixing the immigration system,” (whatever that means,) then we could argue other, more tenable positions.

As it stands, he never refuted my claims suggesting that legal citizens would be deported, the inordinate cost of detention, or the lack of appropriate legal defense for people detained. Extend these points.

Economic Benefits

This point boils down to another concession. Regardless of whether an illegal immigrant has domestic tranquility, the people within sanctuary cities would also lose jobs according to my 15th source in my constructive if defunding occurs and cities rescind their sanctuary status.

Opponent’s final remarks

I would like to reiterate that my opponent never mentioned that some federal funds would still flow to sanctuary cities until now. His definition provided at the beginning and lack of plan on how the disbursement of funds would be handled means that it is too late to consider this a valid point.

Even if it was, what exactly wouldn’t be defunded? He never mentions what should be defunded at all in the debate.

If Pro wanted to run a plan, he needed to have specified every aspect of what he intended to do.

Otherwise, the judge and I will wonder exactly what would happen with sanctuary city funding. Also, if there are no specifics as to what would be defunded under Pro’s plan, then who is to say that the programs I specified won’t be defunded?

Finally, my opponent mentions the rule of law. Weigh this against the constitutional violations I already pointed out and the dropped contentions concerning the economy and overburdened immigration system.