A complete border wall along the U.S/Mexico border.
Debate Rounds (5)
!st round acceptance. No emotional arguments please, just fact. And when I say wall, I mean WALL. Something along the lines of the Berlin Wall or Great Wall of China.
1.) A border wall as I described in R1 is not as "fragile" per se as the chain link/sheet metal style of fence we have now along the U.S/Mexico border. When was the last time someone broke through a brick wall with a pair of bolt cutters? I'm not saying it can't be broken, it'd just be much harder to do so with a brick wall.
2.) A complete (By complete I mean it stretches from the West corner of California, to the Gulf of Mexico.) border wall provides a physical barrier that is nigh impassable to the average illegal immigrant, granted it is tall enough. Outfitted with supplementary technology, like a long range radar system and/or drones, and it will be more effective against drug dealers and criminals.
3.) America's prison population will free itself up, a little ,if we don't have as many illegals coming in. According to (1) illegal aliens make up 25% of the prison populace, yet only make up roughly 4% of the national populace according to (2). The less illegal immigrants we have in America, the less jobs they will take from Americans. Source (1) also shows that for every 100 illegals hired, 65 Americans are displaced.
1) I agree, a brick wall would require more time, energy, and resources to break through. However, what is stopping smugglers or any other illegal immigrants from... breaking through? The border police? What has the border police done to stop people cutting the fences with bolt cutters? I mean, sure, the illegals aren't always successful, but based on your statistics, and common knowledge, a lot of immigrants have gotten through. The wall isn't effective either, like I said. It is in the simplest terms a bigger and tougher version of the border fence, but no less ineffective.
2) In a utopian society, yes, this wall would be feasible. However, considering the national debt, the US does not need any more unnecessary spending. Even the simplest wall- bricks stacked on top of each other, held together by a sliver of cement- wouldn't be cheap if it were to range the entire border. And this is not considering Pro's suggestion, with it being implemented with technology such as a long range radar system and/or drones.
3) The less jobs they will take from Americans? What jobs are they taking exactly? Honestly, we aren't seeing very many, if any, illegal immigrants having jobs which pay above minimum wage. Illegal immigrants work in back-breaking labor kind of jobs, such as being a construction worker, or at the best a store owner. (1) For example, Pedro Chan, an illegal immigrant who escaped his Guatemalan village, travelled through Mexico, and passed the border, now works as a construction worker in Brooklyn. Even so, he earns $25,000 annually, while still earning less than the average worker.
If anything, the citizens of the United States should focus more on getting a higher paying job, as they are the ones who have the privileges over illegal immigrants.
Also, why are illegal aliens in American prisons? Shouldn't they be immediately deported once caught by the authorities?
Moving on to points of my own on why there shouldn't be a complete border wall along the US Mexico border.
1) Like I said in my rebuttals, a border wall would be incredibly inefficient, and incredibly expensive. Hiring volunteer border patrols would be more unpredictable, but much cheaper and probably more efficient. Furthermore, if you are so keen in keeping immigrants out for the sake of the well being of US citizens, you might as well send foreign aid to Mexico in the hope that they will do something with the aid to better their quality of life. After all, Mexicans (or in fact anybody passing through Mexico with the intention of illegally immigrating) are illegally immigrating to the US for a better life, no?
2) It would threaten peace in the border. If theoretically there was a wall, say, 50 feet tall, 2 feet thick, and lined with trained and armed guards, it would be nearly impossible for an average immigrant to get through. Now, there are two possible results to this: the immigrants would simply go back to their town and start a protest, or, they'll just find other ways through it. Either will result in at least some civil unrest.
3) The US simply cannot afford it. The national debt is, and has always been, skyrocketing. Millions are being added to the debt as you finish reading this, and you cannot deny that this border wall isn't exactly the most urgent of problems at this present time.
2. Yes, it would be expensive. But is it not a worthy investment towards the future of America if we halt the flood of low-skilled immigrants who don't have that much to offer to America? (1). And yes, we do have a debt problem, but that doesn't seem to stop the government from spending more than it makes anyway. The real problem is, the money the government wastes for no beneficial reason (2).
3. You claim that illegal immigrants are only taking laborious jobs, which is true. But think about how many people we have who are homeless. Think about the ones who are unemployed with no chance of a higher paying job. It is the responsibility of the Federal government to care for it's people, no? Then they should do everything they can to stop illegal immigration so the needy Americans can have those jobs, not illegals. It is not the responsibility of the government to care for the poor of other countries.
4. They should, I'm a strong advocate for that measure. Why they're not, don't ask me. Go ask your Senator, Representative or Obama.
I'm going to address your points in Roman numerals.
I. I addressed cost and efficiency in my earlier point. i never advocated hiring volunteer border patrol agents. I don't believe that sending foreign aid to Mexico would be of any help, because of the levels of corruption due to the Massive drug cartels in Mexico(3). If you ask me, Mexico should be the one doing the most work in keeping control of their own citizens. That's just me.
2. I'm not quite sure of what you mean by peace on the border. The only people who should be at the border, are border patrol agents, and legal immigrants. If the protest in Mexico, that's Mexico's problem. And how exactly are they going to find another way through it, if there's guards lining the walls (Which I do not advocate.)?
3. I've already addressed finances.
(On a side note, I'm going out of town for the rest of the week, if my opponent could hold off on publishing his argument for at least 12 hours so I can get back to a computer by the weekend, I'd be very grateful.)
2) Yes, it certainly would be a worthy investment. If it were worthy at all. How much more useful would a wall be to the fence that we have now? Yes, it would be actually complete, and it would be taller and tougher. But nothing else is stopping illegals from breaking through, like I said in my previous arguments. Also, like you said, the BP are heavily outnumbered. With radar and drones, maybe, but wouldn't it make more sense to just complete our current fence and implement the technology on that if you really insist on proposing an investment?
3) Fine, let us say that the illegals are all out of America, theoretically. What then? Yes, part of the homeless would get jobs, but the rest would still be in the streets living on welfare or living on nothing. The government should take care of their own country first and fix their education, healthcare, etc before worrying about illegals taking your non-existent job vacancies.
4) I would, but unfortunately I live across the Pacific Ocean. I'll look into that though.
Now to defend my points.
I. I do agree that Mexico should take care of its own citizens, but it doesn't seem to be doing a very good job so far. Now, you keep saying that technology would help the BP locate illegals, but you also said that the BP are heavily outnumbered. That is why I am suggesting the idea of volunteer border patrol agents. Even with a wall lined with drones and equipped with a radar system, the BP wouldn't be able to make much use of it with their current numbers.
II. By threatening peace in the border, I mean the possibility of people rioting near/at the border and possibly a crowd collectively breaking down the border itself. And by "other ways through it" I mean other unorthodox methods such as tunneling below it, using water transport to cross somewhere else, etc.
III. And I've argued that what you're proposing wouldn't be worthwhile.
(I would like to apologize to my opponent, because I didn't really have the time to do this, as evident by me holding this off until the last 2 hours, and my arguments aren't as good as they should have been. Also, the website crashed on me as I was finishing my first, and better, draft of this argument. Cheers)
2. Nothing is stopping them from breaking through right now because the fence we have no is incomplete. They can just walk around it. Sure it would make sense to complete the fence, if you like having a barrier that a 6 year old with a pair of bolt cutters can get through. You would need more manpower or high explosives to get through a wall, another reason I suggested the technology that I did.
3. Part of the homeless? No I think all of the homeless would have jobs considering there's only about 2/3 of a million of them(1.) And the majority of the unemployed would have jobs considering the amount of illegals we have almost equal that of the unemployed (2.) . So just by getting rid of the illegal immigrants, we've given opportunities to the American people. That's the way it should be. Legal citizens of their home country should have "first dibs" if you will, at all their country has to offer before anything being offered to an illegal immigrant. Anything else is neglect of your own citizens.
I. I'm not a huge fan of the idea of volunteer bp unless they've gone through the same training that the BP has, and in that case, why not just allow them to be full time BP if they want? Secondly a volunteer force wouldn't be as professional and I suspect they may be more racist than a full time BP.
II. There wouldn't be a riot, because if there were, they would pretty much be admitting that they had intent to trespass on American soil. Which is a crime. I don't see how tunnelling under it would be any better, considering they'll just pop up on radar as soon as they come up ( If we had it) . All You have you have to do for water transport is just have all incoming vessels inspected by the coast guard.
III. Sure it would.
( I didn't notice it at all)
fmahaztra forfeited this round.
fmahaztra forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.