Debate.org members
Border Fence Debates
Border Fence Debates
History and Debate of Border Fence
The Mexico-United States barrier is the subject of a great deal of controversy in the United States. Also known as the border wall or border fence, it is constructed of several barriers that are intended to keep illegal Mexican immigrants from traveling across the border into the United States. The barriers were originally built as part of a three prong operation to curtail drug transportation routes from Latin America as well as illegal immigration. Operation Gatekeeper is in California, Operation Safeguard is in Arizona and Operation Hold-the-Line is in Texas.
The placement of the barriers was a strategic effort to mitigate the flow of illegal border crossings into the Southwest part of the United States. Unfortunately, opponents of the barriers claim that they are a drain on taxpayers' money and more of a political gambit. They see the Mexico-United States barrier as an ineffective deterrent to illegal immigration that ultimately and inappropriately jeopardizes the safety and health of people seeking sanctuary in the United States. Other concerns involve the impact on the environment with regards to animal habitats and migration patterns.
The border itself between Mexico and United States is fraught with a mix of urban and desert terrain and spans over 1,900 miles. Both the uninhabited areas of the border and urban areas are where the most drug trafficking and illegal crossings take place. Crime is prevalent in urban cities like El Paso, Texas and San Diego, California. The border is constructed of a series of short walls and virtual fence areas that are monitored by Border Patrol Agents through a system of cameras and sensors. In the last 13 years, over 5,000 migrant deaths occurred along the border according to a document from the Human Rights National Commission of Mexico.
In 2005, United States Representative Duncan Hunter from California proposed a plan to construct reinforced fencing along the entire border, including a 100-yard border zone on the United States side. An amendment to the Border Protection, Anti-terrorism and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005 was passed that called for mandatory fencing along 698 miles of the border. As a result of the legislation, the government of Mexico, as well as ministers of several Latin American countries, condemned the construction plans. Rick Perry, the governor of Texas, expressed his dissatisfaction and indicated that the border should be open with a technologically supported safe and legal migration. Residents of Laredo, Texas were also displeased as they were concerned about the economic ramifications of the fence.
Public Opinion - The Border Defense Debate
In 2006, a CNN poll showed that most Americans preferred the idea of more Border Patrol Agents rather than a 700 mile fence. Congress revisited the fence plans in 2007 as they wanted to see a comprehensive border security plan, and senators from Texas advocated a revision. The Secretary of Homeland Security was able to see the fence plan to fruition without any legal recourse due to a rider attached to the Real ID Act of 2005. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Coastal Zone Management Act, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, National Historic Preservation Act and National Environmental Policy Act were all waived when fencing was extended through a research reserve near San Diego, California. The United States Department of Homeland Security and United States Customs and Border Protection spent over $40 million and earmarked $50 million more to determine the adverse effects the fence would have on the environment. Despite these measures, by January 2010, the fence project from Yuma, Arizona to San Diego, California was completed. In March 2010, President Barack Obama froze the expansion of the virtual fence to use the money to upgrade current border technology.
For Border Fence
Pro
Comment: Intheory,buttooexpensiveinpractice.
Comment: Sure, I support it because there is a lot of proof that it reduces illegal immigration. Illegal immigration should be prevented at all cost, as should amnesty. Making an easier path to citizenship, though, is a viable option. But any illegal crossing should be deterred and prevented, because illegal immigrants hurt the country. I need to research legal immigration before I make a solid stance here, though.
Comment: strictly speaking I would like a WALL. china has a wall. why cant we have a wall. create jobs for the jobless and decrease illegal immigration....two birds being affected by one stone lets do it.
Comment: We need a strong border
Comment: Let's keep criminals out of our country.
Comment: Build one around both borders as the first part of immigration reform deal. Encourage legal immigration, punish lawbreakers.
Comment: Pro, but only as part of a larger immigration reform. would not support a fence and only a fence.
Comment: Immigration is uncontrolled right now
Comment: I support legal immigration; where immigrants have a radically simplified, legal path to citizenship. We need to allow more high skilled workers into America, so we can have a competitive workforce as well as more entrepreneurship and economic growth. We must secure our borders.
Comment: Most useful in preventing truck traffic, but generally discourages illegal immigration.
Against Border Fence
Con
Comment: We don't have the money to support it, and it is about as efficient in keeping people out as the Great Wall of China was during the Warring States Period in China.
Comment: Capitalism requires open borders for voluntary exchange.
Comment: People should have the right to come and go anywhere in the world.
Comment: When we don't have illegals crops rot in the fields. Hell, we should make em citizens so they pay taxes.
Comment: Every situation has to be dealt with on its own merits and weaknesses. Blanket policies are not the answer.
Comment: It is unconscionable that a nation of immigrants put up physical barriers to bar the huddled masses yearning to breathe free.
Comment: earth is our border
Comment: This idea would be very expensive and ineffective. It would take less than 5 minutes to get passed the fence. Methods include going over the fence, going under the fence, and breaking through the fence. Given the size of the border, there would be no way that the fence could be monitored effectively. That is, not without spending way more money than we can afford right now.
Comment: I would take one if it were free, but it just doesn't seem cost effective. I think, overall, I don't know enough about the details to make an educated decision on this one.
Comment: United States is not a fenced community

