European countries should not place travel restrictions on potential ISIL fighters

Thank you for accepting. I apologize for not having my Aff case ready in advance. Whereas freedom of movement and freedom to travel are fundamental rights, and are themselves affirmed by Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Whereas countries such as the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China have denied their citizens those fundamental human rights, leaving them to live under oppression and injustice, Whereas young disillusioned militants may continue to cause terror in their own countries, even if they are denied passports, as in the stabbing case in Australia, I hereby stand resolved that European countries should not place travel restrictions on potential ISIL fighters. Harm 1: The government will inevitably place restrictions unjustly at some point. The government cannot deal at the highest levels on a case-by-case basis with every single case of a potential ISIL fighter. Therefore, it must delegate this responsibility to a lesser organ. The lesser organ must choose on a case-by-case basis whether to impose travel bans on an individual. Without strict guidelines for whether an individual should be placed on the list and even if these are put into place, the lesser organ might easily cross the boundaries and place restrictions on political opponents. Since the banned party is not indicted, the only recourse would be to petition the legislative body to change the law, which would be quite inconvenient and unlikely, and is the reason the lesser organ was put into place in the first place. Harm 2: Travel restrictions increase the size of government. When the legislative body delegates this power to some other organ to place restrictions on individuals, the government executes new powers it did not previously have. We have seen throughout history that greater powers given to the government only result in greater abuse of power. Harm 3: The Schengen Zone negates travel restrictions. While a country may say that certain citizens may not travel, there are indeed no border controls due to the Schengen Zone. A Portuguese citizen could travel by car all the way to Greece, where he could be smuggled through Turkey or even across the Mediterranean Sea directly into Syria. Justification 1: The status quo is quite good. When a suspect is convicted of conspiracy to commit terrorist acts, he is put into prison. He needs no travel restrictions because he is in prison, can't travel across the border while in prison, and can't participate in terrorist activity while in prison. When he is released, in many countries he is placed on parole. While the situation that a described above of the convict going across unguarded borders could still occur, the convict needs no travel restrictions that are not already placed on him by the conditions of his parole. In conclusion, while travel restrictions may be a good idea, they are not necessary considering the parole situation of the status quo, potentially amount to gross violations of human rights, and are negated by the Schengen Zone. For the foresaid reasons I encourage the voter to cast an affirmative ballot at the end of this round. Thank you. http://www.aljazeera.com... http://www.un.org...(2014)