T

C/I: Naturalization is legal immigration. Understanding legal immigration as a process

is key.
Li 2016 (Qianqian, Phd in Immigration Studies from the University of Marburg, Germany, Settling down
in a Foreign Country: A Comparison between U.S. and German Immigration Policies and Their
Consequences, dissertation, http://archiv.ub.uni-marburg.de/diss/z2016/0860/pdf/dql.pdf p.54-55)-tim

4. “I’m a Legal Alien”: Legal Immigration “I don’t drink coffee I take tea my dear / I like my toast done on one side / And you can hear it
in my accent when I talk / I’m an Englishman in New York. / See me walking down Fifth Avenue / A walking cane here at my side / I take it
everywhere I walk / I’m an Englishman in New York. / I’m an alien I’m a legal alien / I’m an Englishman in New York / I’m an alien I’m a legal
alien / I’m an Englishman in New York.” These are the first three verses in Sting’s song “Englishman in New York,” and they illustrate the cultural
differences a foreigner experiences. The term “alien” in the song has no negative connotations, and it is a common legal term, for it is used in
laws such as the Immigration and Nationality Act. Also, the
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)
uses the term “permanent resident alien” to refer to “a lawful permanent resident” (“Permanent
Resident,” my italics). However, the term “alien,” together with “illegal” as a noun and “illegal
immigrant,” became offensive in the past few years, and the Supreme Court started to omit these
terms “except when quot 2 - ing other sources,” which is considered “groundbreaking” (Garcia).
Instead, the terms “foreign resident,” “foreigner,” and “undocumented immigrant” are used to
describe such populations, because they are thought to be more politically correct. Therefore, I will
not use the terms “alien” or “illegal immigrants” unless in quotes to avoid unintended discrimination.
People emigrate from their home country to live in a new one for different reasons. Some only intend
to stay in the new country temporarily, but may decide to live there permanently later; some, on the
other hand, settle down in the new country and will live there permanently. I will focus on three types
of immigration. The first one is temporary immigration. In this part, I will only elaborate on guestworker and guestworker
programs, although there are other means of temporary immigration such as education, because guestworker programs result in immigrant
flows, and many of these guestworkers end up living in the receiving country permanently. Foreign students fully become part of the immigrant
society when they start looking for jobs in the receiving country after graduation, because, as students, their participation in work-related fields
is very limited, so natives do not often see them as competitors on the job market. Therefore, I will discuss immigration through education in
the second part — which is about the
second type of immigration, permanent residency — as one of the
pathways to permanent residency. I will also examine immigration policies through history in this part. The third type of
immigration is naturalization, which in some way symbolizes the end of immigration, because
immigrants change their status to citizens.

Immigration is not definitive—understanding it as a process is key

Liebich 2012 (Andre, PhD from Harvard University and Honorary Professor, International History and
Politics at the Graduate Institute Geneva, Citizenship East & West,
https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1136160930 p. 35-36)-tim

The classical citizenship solution to the problem of immigration is naturalization and, possibly,
automatic or semi-automatic attribution of citizenship to their descendents. Obviously, naturalization
laws vary greatly from one state to another and they tell us a great deal about the self-definition of
that state. They may also raise questions about the ethics of assimilation, the nature of nationalism
and other issues which do not concern us here. With respect to present-day immigration, however,
all past solutions are founded on a false premise: they assume that immigration is definitive, that the
process of movement which brought the immigrant to a given country is final and will not be
repeated.
4. Their evidence later explains that this whole question of admission does not matter
anyways because all aliens are considered “admitted” regardless of whether they
have been inspected or authorized so that their deportability grounds can be
determined
Cicchini and Hassell 12 – Daniel Cicchini and Joseph Hassell are Attorney Advisors at the
Immigration Court in Eloy, Arizona ("The Continuing Struggle To Define "Admission" and "Admitted" in
the Immigration and Nationality Act" Immigration Law Advisor, June, p.4-5
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/eoir/legacy/2012/08/07/vol6no6.pdf-tim

To avoid this result, in Matter of Rosas, 22 I&N Dec. 616, 621-23 (BIA 1999), the Board held that an
alien who was either authorized to enter after inspection or who has “adjusted status” after an
unlawful entry was “admitted” for purposes of determining whether the inadmissibility or
deportability grounds should apply. See also Matter of E.W. Rodriguez, 25 I&N Dec. 784, 789 (BIA 2012) (holding
that the Board is “constrained to treat adjustment as an admission in order to preserve the coherence
of the statutory scheme and avoid absurdities”); Matter of Espinosa Guillot, 25 I&N Dec. 653, 655-56 (BIA 2011)
(holding that an alien who adjusted to LPR status under the Cuban Refugee Adjustment Act was
admitted and therefore subject to charges of removability under section 237(a)); Matter of Alyazji, 25 I&N Dec.
397, 399- 401 (BIA 2011) (citing Board cases where “adjustment of status” is an admission, as well as circuit
decisions concluding otherwise); Matter of Koljenovic, 25 I&N Dec. 219, 225 (BIA 2010) (holding that, for
purposes of a section 212(h) waiver of inadmissibility, an alien whose status is adjusted to that of an
LPR has been “admitted” on the date he or she adjusted status). Other provisions of the Act
additionally suggest that an adjustment of status means that an alien is “in and admitted to the
United States,” making him or her deportable. See section 237(a)(1)(A) of the Act (entitled “Inadmissible aliens” and
providing, in pertinent part, that “[a]ny alien who at the time of entry or adjustment of status was within one or more classes of aliens [who
were] inadmissible . . . is deportable”) (emphasis added).
 CP
Double bind – Either the perm solves because having a legitimate strategy like the aff
is key to utilize spending, or no solvency because current spending is sufficient- any
more hurts national security
Korb 17 (Lawrence, Lawrence Korb is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and a
senior adviser to the Center for Defense Information, “Trump’s Defense Spending Increase Could
Actually Make the U.S. Less Safe,” 3-5-17, http://fortune.com/2017/03/05/donald-trump-defense-
spending-military-increase-national-security/)[AK-Caddo]

President Dwight Eisenhower said in 1960 that the U.S. should spend as much as necessary on defense,
but not one penny more. Before Congress approves the massive 10% increase in defense spending
proposed by President Donald Trump—which will be offset by slashing the budgets of the State
Department and Environmental Protection Agency, as well as killing several domestic programs—the
legislative body must be able to explain why current spending levels are insufficient. Even a cursory
look at our national security spending will show that they are not. The U.S. by itself spends more on
defense than the next seven highest-spending nations in the world combined. Regardless, no matter
how much the U.S. or any nation spends on defense, it cannot buy perfect security. Whatever level of
funding we provide for national security is not as important as having the appropriate strategy to deal
with the current challenges facing the nation. Spending large sums of money to deal with threats from a
bygone era like the Cold War, for instance, will not enhance national security. While Russia has rebuilt
its military somewhat, it is nowhere near as capable as that of the former Soviet Union. In fact, Russia’s
total defense budget is less than $50 billion. Just as the sequester is a non-strategic and unwise way to
limit a budget, increased funding that is not connected to a sound defensive strategy for the demands
we face today will be non-strategic, wasteful, and do more harm than good. Proponents of increased
Pentagon spending argue that our military is not prepared to deal with current threats and that the
defense budget is not receiving a large enough share of the nation’s gross domestic product. While it is
true that defense spending compared to GDP dropped over the Obama presidency, the economy has
grown—a lot. A lower ratio of spending to GDP is not an accurate representation of the readiness of our
military to respond to threats posed by terrorist groups like ISIS, as well as states like Russia, China,
North Korea, and Iran. In a recent article in Foreign Affairs, Gen. David Petraeus and the Brookings
Institution’s Michael O’Hanlon make clear that the current state of U.S. armed forces is “awesome,”
they are not facing a readiness crisis, and the current level of defense spending on the readiness
portions of the defense budget and procurement is more than adequate. Even with the limits placed
upon the Pentagon under the 2011 Budget Control Act (BCA), the amount of funding for defense in the
National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) recently signed by Obama amounts to more in real terms
than the U.S. spent on average in the Cold War and also more than was spent at the height of the
Reagan defense buildup. This amount is three times more than our nearest competitor, the Chinese, will
spend this year, and accounts for more than one-third of the world’s total military expenditures. Even
the BCA hasn’t hamstrung defense spending, as large amounts of the war budget, which is exempt from
BCA rules, have been used for enduring programs not associated with any war. hile the defense budget
is the most conspicuous dollar amount associated with national security, it is in no way the only federal
agency working to keep America safe. The State Department and the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID), for example, both play vital roles in protecting the country. State Department
diplomats forge relationships and bonds of trust with U.S. allies and potential adversaries, while USAID
provides humanitarian and development assistance that saves and improves the lives of millions of
people around the globe. As Defense Secretary James Mattis has noted, not fully funding these areas
makes new wars and conflicts more likely. Each of these face steep cuts in order to increase the defense
budget. If the government provides so much of its limited resources to the Pentagon that it cannot
fund these agencies adequately, U.S. national security will suffer.
 Parole CP
Permutation do the counter plan – they don’t have a historical understanding of the
parole system – it was initially created to parole military family members – this is an
executive action that the plan entails – we also specified the DoD which is an
executive federal agency – the CP is normal means – extending parole is reducing
restrictions on legal immigration.
Harrington ‘18 (Ben - Legislative Attorney, “An Overview of Discretionary Reprieves from Removal:
Deferred Action, DACA, TPS, and Others,” Congressional Research Service, April 10, 2018,
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R45158.pdf)-JN

It is often said that discretionary reprieves do not confer lawful immigration status. 78 But “lawful
immigration status” is an
imprecise term. The INA uses variations of it in some places79 but does not define it.80 Although a determination that an alien lacks
“lawful immigration status” triggers consequences under some INA provisions—most notably, a potential bar to adjustment of status81—it
does little to describe the alien’s legal condition in a formal sense. According to DHS regulations, TPS holders do not have “lawful status,”82
even though they have a statutory protection against removal. 83 Nonimmigrants, however, indisputably possess lawful status,84 but it can be
revoked more easily than TPS.85 Similarly, under the DHS definition, parole is a lawful status,86 even though it,
too, can be terminated at DHS’s discretion.87 Perhaps the only concrete legal meaning that can be
attributed to the term “lawful immigration status” is that aliens who lack it—including those unlawfully present
aliens who are granted discretionary reprieves—are removable under the inadmissibility or deportability grounds of
the INA. 88

1) The Philips evidence indicates that only cit prevents deportation- Parole is only
temporary.
AIC 14 (Washington, D.C.-based 501c nonprofit organization and advocacy group, “A Guide to the
Immigration Accountability Executive Action”, American Immigration Council, 11/30/14,
https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/guide-immigration-accountability-executive-
action Accessed 6/22/18)

On November 20 and 21, 2014, President

Obama announced his “immigration accountability executive action,”
which includes a series of measures that are first steps towards common-sense reforms to an outdated
immigration system. The series of executive actions presented by the administration range from new
temporary immigration protections for many unauthorized parents of U.S. citizens and lawful
permanent residents to highly technical regulatory proposals to fix outdated visa provisions. The series of
changes, updates, and temporary measures relies on the expansion of successfully implemented programs, enhanced efforts to coordinate
immigration enforcement and benefit policies across agencies, and attempts to use immigration as a tool of economic and social change. At the
same time, the
policies reflect the limits of executive authority, in many cases offering temporary
respites until Congress definitively acts to reform the law.
 Base DA
Trump’s approval low now – world feuds and voter fraud
Collinson, 11/ 15 [reporter for CNN Politics covering the White House, For Trump, there's no easy
way out of his funk, https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/15/politics/donald-trump-white-house-
mood/index.html]-x

Washington (CNN) By multiple accounts, Donald Trump is in one of the deepest funks of his presidency. The bad news is
that the challenges and threats that are making his mood so dark are likely to get worse before they get better. The President is angry at his
rebuke from voters in the midterm elections. The oppressive prospect of action by special counsel Robert Mueller
hangs like an immovable cloud over his White House. Staff chaos in the West Wing is producing lurid palace intrigue
stories in the media that the President hates. Abroad, he feuds with allied world leaders, and he's been so effective
in implementing his "America First" policy that he's the odd man out at summits. And things are unlikely to
improve quickly. Many legal observers expect new indictments to come soon in the Mueller probe, potentially bringing the investigation closer
to Trump's inner circle in its final stages. The President fulminated over the probe on Thursday morning, calling it on Twitter "A TOTAL WITCH
HUNT LIKE NO OTHER IN AMERICAN HISTORY!" Democrats
are prepping a barrage of investigations that will make
life in his White House a misery -- from attempts to seize his tax returns and probe his business
dealings to investigations into key policy areas like immigration. "He's pissed -- at damn near everyone," a White
House official told CNN on Wednesday. Trump is letting off steam where he can. He's feuding with a former friend, Emmanuel Macron, mocking
the French President's approval rating (at 29%, it is lower than Trump's) and the French jobless rate of over 9%. In an interview with the Daily
Caller on Wednesday, the
President betrayed his disturbed equilibrium, claiming that voter fraud had cost
Republicans key races. "When people get in line that have absolutely no right to vote and they go around in circles. Sometimes they
go to their car, put on a different hat, put on a different shirt, come in and vote again," Trump claimed, without evidence. Trump is not the first
President to feel isolated, angry, rejected by voters or down in the dumps. Everyone who sits in the Oval Office feels that way sooner or later,
though Trump's temperament is more volcanic than most. The question for Trump is, what can he do -- other than a few restorative weekends
on the golf course in Florida -- to improve his position ahead of a crucial period that will define opening chapters of his re-election campaign?
Often when they are in trouble, Presidents engineer staff shakeups to bring in new ideas and energy. They go looking for wins in foreign policy,
an area that pesky congressional foes can do little to disrupt. More fundamentally, Trump could examine his entire political approach. While his
strategy of division and tearing at cultural and racial divides helped him win the White House, it seemed to backfire in key House races. Failure
to win back the suburbs could harm his hopes of winning a second term in 2020. If Trump never gave another angry news
conference or swore off explosive tweets, it's possible that his political situation -- and his 39%
approval rating in the latest CNN poll -- would improve. After all he's kept many of his campaign promises.
Unemployment is at its lowest point in half a century and economic growth is going gangbusters. And conservatives will thank Trump for
decades for his two successful Supreme Court nominations. But the President is so identified with convention-tearing tactics that it's probably
impossible for him to change his style. It's probably too late as well, since he's made no effort to broaden his support base since taking office.
Trump's tempestuous personality and unwillingness to be constrained also likely mean that another remedy available to other Presidents -- a
hotshot new staffer to shake up operations in the West Wing -- is unlikely to work. His first chief of staff, Reince Priebus, failed to impose order
on Trump and was soon out the door. His successor, John Kelly, who is rumored to be on his way out, was soon drowned out by chaos. The idea
that Trump will look at election results, have some kind of political conversion and become a kinder, gentler President is also unthinkable. He
almost never admits he's wrong and he's been looking for people to blame for the GOP loss in the House. For instance, the President listed GOP
candidates who refused to accept his support -- or what he called "the embrace" -- at a post-midterm election news conference. So what about
a win on the world stage to boost the President's spirits? There's not a lot of low-hanging fruit. US Middle East policy is in uproar since it's
anchored on Saudi Arabia, which is being ostracized over the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in the kingdom's consulate in Istanbul. Still, a
breakthrough in a joint US and British diplomatic bid to end the war in Yemen would not just boost Trump's political prospects, it also would be
a significant victory for humanity. Trump's hopes of a second summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un have taken a dent, with Pyongyang
angry at the lack of concessions by the US and new indications that it is pressing ahead with its missile program. Later this month, Trump will
head to the G20 summit. Progress in defusing his trade war with China at his talks there with President Xi Jinping -- or even a ceasefire -- could
be spun as a foreign policy victory. Trump is also expected to meet with Vladimir Putin at the summit in Argentina. But that's a potential
political landmine, given allegations of Russian election interference that have produced unflattering media coverage of his chats with the
Russian leader, which has infuriated the President. The chances of significant wins at home also seem slim, given the gridlock that will descend
on Washington when Democrats take the House gavel. But Trump mused after the midterm elections that the new arrangements might be
more conducive to deal-making than had a thin GOP majority materialized. "This way, they'll come to me, we'll negotiate. Maybe we'll make a
deal, maybe we won't," he said. Trump seemed like someone trying to convince himself as much as the reporters in the room. But it's possible
there is common ground on issues like prescription drug prices or infrastructure. There was actually a ray of light on Wednesday when Trump
had Democrats and Republicans to the White House to sign a bill that represents a small step toward criminal justice reform. "Did I hear the
word bipartisan?" Trump quipped at the signing ceremony. Once the Democratic subpoenas start flying, however, the room for compromise
might shrivel. So Trump will have one final option -- elevate an enemy -- a device he has effectively used throughout his political and business
career. He could choose to stage a showdown over a year-end spending bill to wring more financing for his border wall out of Congress. Though
it's not clear that the possible government shutdown that could result would help him politically. There is an argument that Trump will actually
profit from lining up against a Democratic-led House next year -- especially if Nancy Pelosi, whose approval ratings are worse than his, gets her
old job back as speaker. When 2019 dawns, a flurry of Democrats are likely to begin launching presidential campaigns, giving him an excuse to
head out to the place where he always feels best: among his adoring throngs on the campaign trail.

Link Turn –
1) Trump will sign bills that include provisions that protect immigrants who serve
in the military – defense bill proves
Horton, Washington Post, 17 (Alex, 12/12/17, The Washington Post, “Military spending bill provision
reduces deportation risk for immigrant recruits”,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2017/12/12/massive-military-spending-bill-
provision-reduces-deportation-risk-for-immigrant-recruits/?utm_term=.ab5358950f2c, accessed
6/27/18, GDI – AYH)

The defense authorization bill signed Tuesday by President Trump includes a measure to shield
immigrant recruits from enlistment contract cancellations — and the specter of deportation — as
they wait for drawn-out background checks to be completed, a positive development in the year-long
effort by advocates and lawmakers to keep skilled noncitizens as a reliable recruiting pool. The
amendment, inserted by Sens. Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif.) and Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) into the $700
billion spending bill, allows Defense Secretary Jim Mattis to give active-duty immigrant recruits one
additional year to wait for background checks to be finalized before they leave for basic training.
Previous rules allowed for two years of waiting time, but a host of time-consuming and complicated
security measures introduced in September 2016 slowed the verification process so severely that the
Pentagon shuttered the program last December under a logjam of background screenings and concerns
over foreign infiltrators. The result: Recruits waited so long that more than 1,000 identified by the
Pentagon in June lost legal immigration status and came under threat of deportation. Others proactively
sought asylum. One Iraqi national sought refuge in Canada to avoid deportation and capture by the
Islamic State, and others from countries with weak rule of law, such as Russia and China, feared jail time
if they were banished to their home nations and discovered to have enlisted in the U.S. military. “This
legislation will help ensure that they can continue to serve and not fall victim to a slow bureaucratic
process. Immigrants have built this country, and these patriots represent the best of our nation,”
Harris said in a release. While enlistment contracts alone do not shield recruits from deportation, it may
provide the Department of Homeland Security a reason to defer removal action if a recruit falls out of
status. More than 10,400 foreign recruits have entered the military through the Military Accessions
Vital to National Interest (MAVNI) program. The program trades fast-tracked citizenship to harness
language skills and medical specialties — including surgical trades and fluency in languages such as
Korean and Arabic — that the Pentagon determined were highly needed but rare among recruits
willing to serve. The program was championed by Special Operations troops who operate in remote
places where cultural and language expertise is especially prized. But the two-year waiting window was
too short, given the paralyzed bureaucracy of the Defense Department, said Margaret Stock, a retired
Army officer and current immigration lawyer who led the design and implementation of MAVNI. “The
law is a promising sign and provides a temporary reprieve. At the same time, the recruits still face
many obstacles,” Stock said, such as difficulty acquiring driver’s licenses and work as they wait for
background checks to finish, and concerns about immigration authorities detaining them amid a robust
deportation effort by the Trump administration. Army recruiters nationwide, responding to messages
in September about the two-year limit, erroneously canceled the contracts of probably hundreds of
immigrants in a wave of misunderstood policy enforcement. Some of those cancellations were
reversed after inquiries from The Washington Post. But those who passed the two-year limit and saw
their contracts revoked will not receive an additional year. Congressional Republicans watered down the
bill to eliminate retroactive measures, said a Senate staffer with knowledge of the process. “It’s a
shame,” Stock said. “The U.S. has now lost the benefit of their service.

2) Everyone would love the plan – boosts Trump

Ryan 18 (Maria Ryan is a lecturer in American History, University of Nottingham, 2-7-2018, “Trump
puts defence before diplomacy – and wants tanks on the streets of Washington”, Conversation,
https://theconversation.com/trump-puts-defence-before-diplomacy-and-wants-tanks-on-the-streets-of-
washington-90642, accessed 8-25-2018) jd
It seems Donald Trump’s visit to France last summer made a big impression on him. Having seen the full pomp of a French military display on
Bastille Day, he has reportedly ordered his military to top it with a rare parade of American forces through the streets of Washington DC. With
North Korea back in the habit of parading its own massive forces through Pyongyang, Trump is keen to
make it clear who’s still the biggest military power on Earth. But this isn’t just another chance for
Trump to show off; it actually matches the explicitly military-first foreign policy his administration has
been drawing up. The Trump administration’s National Defence Strategy, released in late January,
provides the most comprehensive insight yet into the US’s recalibrated global outlook. The strategy is
staunchly global in scope and militaristic in tone: under Donald Trump, the US will seek to aggressively
project power into every region of the world, promoting US leadership in the face of hostile rivals.
Produced every four years by the Department of Defence, the NDS is a means to operationalise the more general National Security
Strategyreleased by the White House. This
latest one paints a stark picture of a hostile world, one in which “inter-
state strategic competition, not terrorism, is now the primary concern in US national security”. The
resurgence of “long-term strategic competition” by “revisionist powers” – namely China and Russia –
has created “global disorder” and “a security environment more complex and volatile than any we have
experienced in recent memory”. This is a serious change. At the end of the Cold War, it seemed to some as though great power
competition had come to an end: the world became “unipolar”, with the US as its sole superpower. Its military and economic power seemed
unmatchable, and there was no serious competitor for the foreseeable future. But the NDS makes clear that the Pentagon now recognises that
the US is in relative decline. Back on top? The post-World War II global order shaped by American power, is, it says,
“weakening”. “China and Russia want to shape a world consistent with their authoritarian model”, while “rogue regimes” like Iran and
North Korea threaten US dominance in their respective regions. In this new era of inter-state competition, “America’s
military has no preordained right to victory” – but failure would “result in decreasing US global
influence … and reduced access to markets”. In this environment, the US will seek to “remain the preeminent
military power in the world, ensure the balances of power remain in our favour, and advance an
international order that is most conducive to our security and prosperity”. On the face of it, none of this is
drastically different from the existing norms that govern the way US foreign policy is made. But looked at in
context, it’s a decidedly hawkish turn. It also means the Trump administration has set out its stall as an
internationalist power, not an isolationist one.