The Instigator
CountCheechula
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

A border fence is needed along America and Mexico.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Danielle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/10/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,586 times Debate No: 60271
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (19)
Votes (1)

 

CountCheechula

Pro

I am arguing that America needs a border fence all along Mexico.
1st round acceptance
Please comment if you wish to be the Contender of this debate. Thank you.
Danielle

Con

I will use the first round for acceptance as per my opponent's request.

Thank you and good luck.
Debate Round No. 1
CountCheechula

Pro

Here is my proposition specifically. A 30 foot wall made of concrete with a Iron wall in between then another layer of concrete. A 50 foot gap between the complete different wall that is exactly the same.The top of the fences are laced with 3 feet of condense barbed wire. A tower 10 feet higher than the wall every 50 yards on each wall with one or two snipers counting on area. The openings that are already in existence will be added on to but kept.

Reasons for fence:
P1 - You stop all illegal immigrants coming from Central and South America. Also stopping drugs.
P2 - Defense against an army
P3 - Jobs

P1: It will be similar to that of the Berlin Wall. The Berlin wall had great success. Not many but for sure less than right now people will escape into America. Also it will decrease drug traffic because the openings are already hard to smuggle and with the new wall, more security.

P2: If for any reason any army from anywhere south of the boarder unless it was another outer Continental force that already invaded Central or South America it would have a harder time getting into America compared to right now.

P3: You need men to build this wall, the wall is an amazing project to jump start the economy. It takes many men to build such an epic wall many jobs will be given to the unemployed and young. It will also boost the southern economy on young men taking their families there to live while he works. Just like FDR made men build bridges and dams the wall is the next great project.Besides the builders look at upper on patrol and snipers getting jobs as well.

I look forward to your argument.
Danielle

Con

[[ Pro's Proposal ]]

Many breaches of the border fence occur due to tunnels in the storm drains. Pro's proposal does not account for one of the biggest ways the fence is breached in the first place: under ground. This oversight is just one example that prove Pro's border fence would ultimately not serve as an effective or useful deterrent on a cost-benefit analysis.


[[ Response to Pro's Arguments ]]

P1:
A border fence would stop all illegal immigrants coming from Central and South America, also stopping drugs.

It has been estimated that at least 5 million immigrants in the U.S. did not run our borders, but were legally admitted into ports of entry and then went on to violate the terms of their admission. They do this by staying beyond their authorized period of admission, working illegally, failing to attend schools they were admitted to, attend or otherwise not abiding by the terms of their admission. They enter through tourist visas, student visas or exchange visitor visas and various categories of temporary work visas. In other words, immigrants from all over the world including Central and South America would still be able to enter this country even if a border fence is built. This negates P1's claim that ALL immigrants would be inhibited by the border fence. Furthermore, Pro only mentioned a Mexican-American border. This ignores the three other borders that can be breached into the U.S.

In regard to drug traffic, studies already show that legalizing marijuana in America has caused harm to Mexican drug cartels power and profit. The U.S. could continue inhibiting Mexican drug cartels by legalizing marijuana (and more) federally, negating a need for Mexican drug cartels to push their stuff over the border in the first place. Either way, we have seen that where there's a will there's a way. Drugs are criminalized everywhere and yet corruption and other deficits allow for the perpetual drug pushing in and out of our borders.

P2: Building a wall would be good for defense.

We are not at war with Mexico or any other South or Central American country. Hardly any other countries have massive walls, and yet they do not experience war or increased risk of terrorism. Moreover terrorism and current warfare tactics would be mostly irrelevant to a border fence. These days wars are fought through economic policy, politics, cyber warfare, and of course through biochemical and nuclear warfare.

P3: Building a wall would create jobs.

Just because something would create jobs does not mean that it is a moral or useful endeavor. War creates a lot of jobs; however, costs a lot of lives and violates moral principles. I will argue in Con's Premise 1 that the cost to building this fence would completely off-set any alleged economic benefits of job creation. Remember that tax payers have to foot the bill for these government jobs. It would put more pressure on tax payers, particularly the middle class, further inhibit the lower class, and restrict the wealthy class with capital from creating useful jobs in other industries that require more demand with better utility value.

[[ Con's Arguments Against the Fence ]]

P1: Cost

The price tag at constructing such a wall currently sits at $1.7 billion dollars with lifetime maintenance costs estimated close to $50 billion. A non-partisan budget watchdog group, estimates that the costs of building and maintaining the fence could prove astronomical, ranging "from $300 million to $1.7 billion per mile, depending on materials" [1]. This is a low-ball estimate, as history shows consistent low-balling the cost of these exorbitant government projects that exploit tax payers through inefficient cronyism.

Border fence proposal bills have allocated $47 billion (billion!) to further secure the border that already exists with drones, high-tech surveillance, and enough additional agents to place one every 274 feet. The kind of wall Pro is talking about, plus accounting for other underground breaches, would require even more resources and funds. We simply cannot afford this right now, and the money would be much better spent elsewhere. The cost is likely to increase as it would take a long time to build, and the money would not be well spent as it would likely be ineffective at deterring illegal immigration in the long run.


P2: World Relations

Pro compared the border fence to the Berlin Wall in a positive light. Meanwhile, the Republican hero Ronald Reagan famously declared "Tear down this wall!" specifically in reference to the Berlin Wall that was perceived as definitively negative: oppressive (representing communism and government tyranny), exclusivity, xenophobia, etc. Why then are Republicans suddenly in favor of fostering those sentiments here in the U.S. after cheering Reagan loudly for his demolition of such values, literally and figuratively? Reagan supported amnesty.

This anti-foreign perception of Americans the border fence would create could have damaging effects to the United States' reputation. It would be used as propaganda for our enemies, where they could portray the U.S. as hostile to outsiders and hypocritical (as we are a nation of immigrants). It might also significantly strain U.S. and Mexican relations. We need cooperation between both governments to address the problems that lead to illegal immigration in the first place. Corruption, cartels, trafficking, etc. need to be tackled so Mexico and other Central and South American countries can prosper. Otherwise they will always have an incentive to flee to the U.S. in pursuit of a better life, since they won't have a fighting chance of a decent life where they live.

P3: Logistics

Since people will still want to enter the U.S. illegally, they will inevitably try despite the danger. However the increased risk might deter seasonal workers from returning to their families in other countries during the off-season if they happen to sneak by the first time. This would compel them to stay in the U.S. where they would continue to live illegally instead of going back home.

P4: Environment

The fence would disrupt the environment and wild life, as it may potentially cross rivers, sanctuaries, preservations, parks, etc. Mexico argues the fence would deflect floodwaters to its side of the Rio Grande and violate a bi-national treaty. A 1970 treaty between the United States and Mexico called on both countries to prohibit the building of anything that "may cause deflection or obstruction of the normal flow of the river or of its flood flows." Apparently "The location, alignment and design of the proposed fence represent a clear obstruction of the Rio Grande hydraulic area, since in the towns of Rio Grande City and Roma, (Texas), the fence would occupy nearly all of the hydraulic area on the U.S. side, causing the deflection of flows towards the Mexican side," wrote principal engineer Luis Antonio Rascon Mendoza [3].

P5: Economy

In a 2012 report about the economic benefits of comprehensive immigration reform published by the Cato Institute, UCLA professor and immigration expert Raúl Hinojosa-Ojeda found that passing immigration reform "would raise wages, increase consumption, create jobs, and generate additional tax revenue" [2].

"The Bush Administration Report Found That Immigration Adds $37 Billion To The U.S. Economy Annually. The White House Council of Economic Advisers found that immigrants increase gross domestic product "by roughly $37 billion each year because immigrants increase the size of the total labor force, complement the native-born workforce in terms of skills and education, and stimulate capital investment by adding workers to the labor pool." Innumerable other sources confirm that immigrants increase U.S. economic growth [2].

P6: Amnesty and Individual Rights

The U.S. should not be so concerned with keeping illegal immigrants out. This country was founded by a nation of immigrants who hostily defeated another group of immigrants. Throughout our history we have continued to fear and ostracize the new immigrants, only for an even newer group of immigrants to inevitably emerge. We are all individual human beings with no inherent ties or explicit rights to land based on where we happened to be born. Instead, each individual should be able to engage in free and voluntary trade. If I want to rent my house to a family who happens to be from Costa Rica, I should be able to do that without the government telling me I can't. There is nothing that is inherently superior about an American citizen that should make him more eligible than a Costa Rican who wants to move here and rent my house. It should be my choice who I choose to trade with. Similarly, if I want to hire a Mexican to babysit my kids, I should be able to do that regardless of where she is from.

Immigrants should be transitioned to become full American citizens via amnesty, even if there are stipulations (such as abiding by our laws and welfare restrictions or conditions). However citizenship would give these hard working human beings protection under the law that inhibits their exploitation and desperation. Further it would require them to be documented workers who pay taxes.

[[ Sources ]]

[1] http://immigration.about.com...
[2]http://mediamatters.org...

[3] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Debate Round No. 2
CountCheechula

Pro

P1: Defense and rebuttal;
You speak of immigrants that come to work, immigrants that contribute to society. They actually help the economy. I speak of ones that smuggle drugs into our our suburbs.
Sorry, but marijuana doesn't cut all of the traffic. Marijuana comes in third behind cocaine, and heroin. The cartels are still making money and should be stopped. The wall pays for itself. Less drug money means more for the economy, safer and more often traffic in and out of Mexico. The southern parts of America getting more population means more money spent. And families making it, surviving, living the American dream.

P2:
Heard of BRICS? That B stands for Brazil and their closet allies are Argentina, Chile, Columbia, and Venezuela. They also have strong sway on the poorer central countries and Mexico. Also Russia can land on Mexico or Canada for that matter and move in that way. A wall doesn't hurt us. Ronald Reagan was a horrible president but I am off topic. This is done for an economical reason not a military precaution.

P3:
The Government hires young men for 50$ a hour, with builders, engineers, company workers for supplies, support, and scrutiny. You are looking at 3 million man job. Giving a somewhat help to the economy. The taxes can go on the 1%. The ones can cross can stay it would be almost impossible.

P4:
No one cares about wild life, ecosystem concerns. We pump so much Carbon into the air and many more non-friendly things. No one care, or care and have the power to stop them.

*your other points are just humanitarian sob stories.

SOURCES
http://www.therichest.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://jeff61b.hubpages.com...
Danielle

Con

[ Pro's Arguments ]

P1: Keeping Central/South Americans and Drugs Out

I wrote that drugs would still enter the U.S. illegally despite a border fence (like they currently do) including through the air, by sea, or by being made in the U.S. itself. I also wrote that legalizing drugs would significantly stifle cartel power. Pro dropped my point about legalization (I would legalize all drugs) and says "the wall pays for itself." Pro offers not a shred of evidence or economic data to prove that the wall would pay for itself. Likewise he wrote that "Less drug money means more for the economy" and insinuates that people would spend money on other things instead of drugs if we got rid of drugs via the border fence. This implies that the border fence would be effective in the first place which is presumptious; I've argued that it would not be very effective at inhibiting drugs. Moreover, demand for drugs would probably increase if there were a crack down on supply, making the drug prices higher and addicts have to spend more (addicts would spend any amount). Either way the point about adding more to the economy simply isn't true.

- Pro completely dropped my argument about people overstaying visas and work permits

- Pro completely dropped my argument about his fence only covering ONE of many U.S. borders
- Pro completely dropped my argument about people entering illegally through underground tunnels

P2: Defense

- Pro completely dropped my argument that we are not at war with Mexico or any other South American country
- Pro completely dropped my argument that most other countries have no walls and yet avoid war/terrorism
- Pro completely dropped my argument that a border fence is probably irrelevant to defense, as these days wars are fought through economic policy, politics, cyber warfare, and of course through biochemical and nuclear warfare

P3: Job Creation


- Pro completely dropped my argument that the cost to building the wall would off-set any benefits of job creation
- Pro completely dropped my argument that tax payers have to foot the bill for government projects and jobs
- Pro completely dropped my argument that the tax burden would hinder the economy in other, more useful areas
- Pro completely dropped my argument that even if something did create jobs, it doesn't necessarily make it moral or righteous

[ Con's Arguments ]

P1: Cost

Refer to the Rebuttal of Pro's P1. Pro offers no analysis proving that building a border fence would be cost beneficial. On the other hand, I've provided a lot of insight that proves it would be detrimental and misspent.

P2: World Relations


Pro says that the fence would be built for defense purposes, not economics. He also talks about the BRIC countries and says they could help Mexico instead of us (I think that's what he was trying to say...). Even if we do not outwardly help Mexico, my point was that we shouldn't strain a relationship with a bordering neighbor, especially one we have free trade agreements with. I also think having Mexico get into bed with Russia would be a horrible idea but I digress.

- Pro completely dropped my argument that the fence would tarnish the United States' reputation
- Pro completely dropped my argument that the fence fosters and emulates xenophobia, hypocrisy, hostility, tyranny, etc.

P3: Logistics

In response to my point that those who cross an even more difficult border would stay and not return home, Pro wrote, "The ones can cross can stay it would be almost impossible." Okay then. This point is moot.

P4: Environment


Pro's callous response to my point that the fence would destroy the environment (which he does not deny, ergo it's a consideration in my favor) was worded, "No one cares about wild life, ecosystem concerns. We pump so much Carbon into the air and many more non-friendly things. No one care, or care and have the power to stop them."

- Pro completely dropped my argument that the fence violates a government treaty with Mexico

- Pro completely dropped my argument that the fence would affect the way rivers flow into Mexico, impacting populations and property


>>>>>>Pro ends his arguments here, and says the rest of my points are just "humanitarian sob stories." <<<<<<<


P5: The Economy

Although Pro did not respond to P5, he does note in response to P3 (which was completely irrelevant there) that "The Government hires young men for 50$ a hour, with builders, engineers, company workers for supplies, support, and scrutiny. You are looking at a 3 million man job. Giving a somewhat help to the economy. The taxes can go on the 1%."

First, paying someone $50 an hour is around a $96,000 per year salary. With 3 million workers at a 96K salary, that's 288 trillion dollars. I have no idea what Pro is talking about or where he is getting this 50 dollar per hour salary figure. He hasn't provided a shred of eocnomic data at all to back up anything he says; I'm pretty sure he's just making stuff up. Regardless, I don't see how this fence helps the economy in any way and Pro hasn't explained how it would.

- Pro completely dropped my previous argument that suggests taxing the 1% would inhibit job creation

- Pro completely dropped my argument with cited and sourced economic analysis that suggests allowing for amnesty and/or more fluid immigration would provide significant benefits to the American economy. This is not a humanitarian sob story -- this is the economy of the United States we are talking about. This is what makes the world go round: money. It's what gives people influence, power, access to medicine, a more productive society and opportunities for prestige as well as top of the line defense and other amenities.

P6: Amnesty and Individual Rights

- Pro completely dropped my argument that a border fence inhibits individual rights
- Pro completely dropped my argument that a border fence inhibits free trade
- Pro completely dropped my argument that amnesty would give immigrants protection under the law
- Pro compeltely dropped my argument that amnesty would require immigrants to become *tax paying* citizens
- Pro completely dropped my argument that this country was founded by a nation of immigrants who defeated other immigrants, then acted hostily toward new immigrants who in turn acted more hostily to the newer immigrants and so on.

>>>>>>CONCLUSION <<<<<<<

I've negated all of Pro's arguments. He hasn't negated mine, and in fact has specifically dropped TWENTY ONE of my arguments, which I have highlighted via bullet points for Pro and the audience's convenience.

Debate Round No. 3
CountCheechula

Pro

will choose to avoid the attacks for now., and move onto future arguments. I will have some form of mass rebuttal within the given 5 rounds.

The wall satisfies all. Countries in Central America want a strong powerful government, compared to cartel anarchy. We as Americans would want to support a very Democratic-Humantarian cause. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. We like puppet government and no horrible drugs Crack, Cocaine, Heroin, DMT, Salvia, and all forms of meth. The public and the officials in our Government want these things.
The wall is "Oh! Thank God we had that!" type of project. Imagine in the future lets say 200-300 years. All of South America untie to fight America. By then we would add on to the wall since, but this is the cornerstone...

We have governments, backed by the UN. Cartel controlled areas don't count.
A common cause.
Defense.

The Chinese never really stopped the Mongols. Maybe some walls only went 500 feet. But we learn from history, we surpass it. The wall is built from the edge of California to the Texas Tip. The river we can give the majority of Mexico because well Rio Grande! Unless tunnels are used, which hardly any work/end up collapsing. We have TV shows about it. It is gross propaganda and fear, tactics of conservatives.
Thank myself for reminding myself! This would be so bi-partisan if all of other aspects fall into place.
We will have more crossing and crossings than ever. I never specified the distances and measurements exactly.
Adding 15 new borders, for more looser traffic and more security officers. Also remember the Towers.

We have 1989 thousand miles of borders. we will add roughly 14 new crossings.

Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and thee American governments are happy. Happiness equals peace. Source: COMMON SENSE
Jamaica and other small Caribbean Island nations will lose out they might inherit more children refugees. But the power and complaints too stack high enough on the one world government. UN and BRICS don't care, it is not the 1770's anymore.

Greatest Defense System ever. I suppose a scenario:
BRICS nations are about to launch a global bank. The Bank will make up of Chinese currency. Not the US dollar.
Look this is crazy to think. Not just arming America most the planet. No time in history of humans, have two major banks both globally and not at the same time. This will cause chaos. The stock market will crash massively. Chaos will erupt. America and NATO nations might attack BRICS = Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa.
Notice the first? Brazil they have many allies like Argentina, Columbia, Cuba, Venezuela. And even huge sway on Mexico. A war breaks out and if WW3 did go down. The world may establish a no nuke war because of immortality and innocents. A mass ground offensive from South America gets stopped by the wall.
Danielle

Con

Because I only have 10 minutes left to write a reply for this round, I will c/p my opponent's arguments in bold, and respond underneath in regular text.

The wall satisfies all.

This is a bare assertion. Pro hasn't proven that "the wall satisfies all" and in fact I have argued why it is problematic.


Countries in Central America want a strong powerful government, compared to cartel anarchy. We as Americans would want to support a very Democratic-Humantarian cause. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

The enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend. Regardless, if Pro's point is that drug cartels are runing Central and South American governments, then extend my arguments about how legalizing drugs can and does cripple the power of drug cartels. Further this point is irrelevant to the productivity of constructing a Mexican-American border fence.


We like puppet government and no horrible drugs Crack, Cocaine, Heroin, DMT, Salvia, and all forms of meth. The public and the officials in our Government want these things.

Irrelevant?


The wall is "Oh! Thank God we had that!" type of project. Imagine in the future lets say 200-300 years. All of South America untie to fight America. By then we would add on to the wall since, but this is the cornerstone...

I'm not sure if this is proper English. I can't make sense of what this is supposed to say or how it is an argument in favor of the border fance.

We have governments, backed by the UN. Cartel controlled areas don't count.
A common cause.
Defense.

This is just a bunch of random words. I've already addressed the "defense" argument. Pro has ignored my rebuttal despite the fact that I highlighted all of his dropped arguments for him specifically by bullet point. How would a border fence specifically protect the U.S.? How would it combat nuclear warfare, biochemical warfare, economic warfare, etc.?

The Chinese never really stopped the Mongols. Maybe some walls only went 500 feet. But we learn from history, we surpass it. The wall is built from the edge of California to the Texas Tip. The river we can give the majority of Mexico because well Rio Grande! Unless tunnels are used, which hardly any work/end up collapsing. We have TV shows about it. It is gross propaganda and fear, tactics of conservatives... I never specified the distances and measurements exactly. Adding 15 new borders, for more looser traffic and more security officers. Also remember the Towers.

None of this remotely makes any sense or addresses my rebuttal about how the wall would fail to protect against most forms of modern warfare against make-believe enemies (none of whom are attacking or as we know plan to attack the U.S.).


We have 1989 thousand miles of borders. we will add roughly 14 new crossings.

Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and thee American governments are happy. Happiness equals peace. Source: COMMON SENSE

"Common sense" is not a source. Pro hasn't explained how we will fund all of these borders (or responded to my arguments about cost and inefficiency as well as U.S. borders that are nowhere near Mexico.

Greatest Defense System ever. I suppose a scenario:
BRICS nations are about to launch a global bank. The Bank will make up of Chinese currency. Not the US dollar.
Look this is crazy to think. Not just arming America most the planet. No time in history of humans, have two major banks both globally and not at the same time. This will cause chaos. The stock market will crash massively. Chaos will erupt. America and NATO nations might attack BRICS = Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa.
Notice the first? Brazil they have many allies like Argentina, Columbia, Cuba, Venezuela. And even huge sway on Mexico. A war breaks out and if WW3 did go down. The world may establish a no nuke war because of immortality and innocents. A mass ground offensive from South America gets stopped by the wall.

None of this remotely addresses any of my dropped arguments. None of this explains why the U.S. needs a wall. None of this explains how the wall would be efficient or worthwhile on a cost-benefit analysis. None of this explains why it is a moral endeavor to construct the wall.


Please extend my 21 dropped arguments.

Pro has not responded to them despite the fact that I singled them out by bullet-point for an easy reference as to all of my points that he ignored or did not refute.
Debate Round No. 4
CountCheechula

Pro

CountCheechula forfeited this round.
Danielle

Con

It seems Pro has forfeited the debate. Please extend all of my arguments.
Debate Round No. 5
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
If you build a 16 foot fence they will get an 18 foot ladder. How about two fences 10 feet high 200 yards apart and a mine field inbetween.That would just about do it.With signs in Spanish warning them of the danger.
Posted by MichaelColton 2 years ago
MichaelColton
I was browsing the open challenges because I am new here and did not find anything interesting or serious, then happened to come across this one. I wish I could have done it. I am more your size, no debates here yet. Just joined. =)
Posted by CountCheechula 2 years ago
CountCheechula
Sarcasm? Seriously?
Posted by MichaelColton 2 years ago
MichaelColton
Well, it could have been an interesting topic.
Posted by CountCheechula 2 years ago
CountCheechula
This is not funny, debate someone your own size? Smh...
Posted by missjones 2 years ago
missjones
Wow have fun getting destroyed Pro
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
pro is dead.
Posted by kbub 2 years ago
kbub
Oops
Posted by kbub 2 years ago
kbub
And Danielle returns to the debating scene. I'm so sorry Pro, but you are in big trouble.
Posted by kbub 2 years ago
kbub
And Danielle returns to the debating scene. I'm so sorry Pro, but you are in big trouble.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
CountCheechulaDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con rebutted all of Pro's case, and gave solid justification why not only had Pro failed in his BoP, but also why a border fence was *bad*. Pro's attempts to rebut those points were definitely lacking substance, as Con notes. And Pro forfeited his final round. Arguments and conduct to Con. I'm tempted to award S&G, because Con's was exemplary and Pro's had issues, but I think that might just be a bit unfair--Pro's was still legible, after all--so I'm not. As to sources, both sides presented sources well enough. Con's were better than Pro's, but there were only 3; sources were not a major part of this debate. I think arguments and conduct are quite clear enough. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.