The Instigator
MizMartin
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
dietorangesoda
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Border Fence is totally useless against illegal immigration

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 2 votes the winner is...
MizMartin
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/10/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 928 times Debate No: 84822
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

MizMartin

Pro

1 st round for acceptance
2 nd round for opinions
3 rd rounds and 4th rounds for rebutals
Debate Round No. 1
MizMartin

Pro

I will argue that the idea of a border fence between the US and Mexico is absolutely useless against illegal immigration, in addition to be extremeley costly.

. Ineffective : According to the Pure Research Center, almost 40% of undocumented immigrants from Mexico come by plane, and with a visa . They simply overstay their visas. Furthermore, if this fence is done in order to prevent immigration, in 2013, according to the Wall Street Journal, 125,000 Mexicans came to the US. That same year, 140,000 immigrants came from China. So Mexicans are not the largest group of immigrants, but the Chinese are, and we can't build a wall. So it doesn't make sense to build a war between the US and Mexico.

. Costly : The border is 1,954 Miles long, and there is already a fence of 670 M. So building the border fence would mean that we have to build a wall of 1,284 Miles. According to the NYT, each mile would cost about 16 million dollar, so they would have to pay $20 Bns to build the wall.

. Border Fences are most symbolic than something else, they create sorts of grey areas with a high level of criminality and corruption and smugglers. Mexican druglords fool poor people in order to make them think that they can help them crossing the borders. If it doesn't work they just kill them.
dietorangesoda

Con

i actually disagree because i'm anti open border if we didn't have a fence then immigrants would just come right thru flooding our country open borders is a failed policy while i do agree that the fence needs some reform and in some ways is very useless. I do believe that having no fence would be disastrous and as for the expense yes it can be expensive but only because the fence is not working the way it should and if we were to stop using it then the cost of all the immigrants pouring in would be even more costly.
Debate Round No. 2
MizMartin

Pro

MizMartin forfeited this round.
dietorangesoda

Con

i guess i win because my opponent has forfeited in the future please refrain from debates you can't commit to
Debate Round No. 3
MizMartin

Pro

MizMartin forfeited this round.
dietorangesoda

Con

dietorangesoda forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Hayd 1 year ago
Hayd
MizMartindietorangesodaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: First off, the topic is if border fences are effective in fighting illegal immigration. Thus arguments about cost are irrelevent, since they don't necessarily have to do with stopping people coming into the country. These arguments are relative to should be make a border fence. That being said, Pro's first argument is the only one that is relevent, showing that Mexicans arent even the biggest immigrant group, and that most people don't come across the border, and thus wouldnt have an effect. Con's response is a stream of claims that have no warrant or impact, and thus aren't convincing in the slightest. Con also drops Pro's arguments, and thus Pro wins.
Vote Placed by Cobalt 1 year ago
Cobalt
MizMartindietorangesodaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Both teams forfeit -- match goes to no one.