A fence ought to exist on the border between the U.S. and Mexico.
1. First round is for acceptance only
2. Second round is for cases only
3. Third round is for rebuttals
4. Forth round is counter rebuttals and conclusions.
3. BOP is shared
4. No kritiks/semantics
I accept the debate, and wish my opponent good luck for this, hopefully, great debate!
Thank you SnaxAttack for accepting this debate.
For one to understand what a border fence really would mean, they need to analyze how long the actual fence would actually be. In the case between the U.S and Mexico, the length of the fence would need to extend to a length of 1,954 miles. (1) So, now let’s look at an older premature attempt to have a border fence. In 2006, president George W Bush signed the Secure the Fence Act, an act that would build a fence which was about 700 miles. (2) The total cost of this project was about 4 billion dollars. Now, if were to build an additional fence which would be 1,954 miles, the cost would be a staggering 28 billion dollars to completely seal the border. The cost of this is extremely expensive as you can see, and there are still way immigrants can get in, because the fence is not a continuous barrier and can be climbed over or dug under in some areas. A border fence is simply ineffective and expensive at what it’s intention is. (3)
C2: Harmful to the environment.
Building a border fence would be very harmful to the environment. As witnessed with the Secure the Fence act, the border fence disrupted the habitat of jaguars, pygmy owls and other species in the area. Jaguars that would normally repopulate in the southwestern part of the U.S would be unable to do that if a border fence were put. This would likely disrupt the food cycle, as there will be a large amount of jaguars in Mexico. Not only does it harm animals, it also harms plants and other forms of life. A border fence would simply rid the saguaros and other plants, and many animals depend on these plants for food and water. According to the University of Texas, there even are smaller species that are at risk of extinction, because their isolated habitats are disrupted by the border fence. Such animals include the Northern aplomado falcon, Southwestern willow flycatcher, and Mexican wolf, could be a victim of the border fence. According to the article,
“Destruction and/or alteration of this habitat will impose additional stress on wildlife in a region that has already been cleared of 95% of its native vegetation. Major wildlife impacts from border wall construction include at least the following: increased road mortality along access and patrol roads, loss of habitat cover and connectivity, altered wildlife behavior and range due to high intensity lightning/construction/operational noise, and the interruption of mating activities necessary to sustain wildlife populations over time”
Simply put, the border fence is harming the environment, and these changes will dramatically change the way wildlife in the area are living. As the government, it as a obligation of protecting wild-life, not destroying it.
The border fence is also harmful to indigenous groups who depend of the natural environment near the border for their survival, and cultural values. Those animals I mentioned earlier are also part of their heritage, and building a border fence will impact their lives both mentally and physically. (4) (5)
C3: Mexican immigrants are not a bad thing for America
Essentially a Border Fence would stop illegal immigrant, but why stop them, when they are a net positive in our economy?
Despite rhetoric from the right-wingers that immigrants are here to steal American jobs, it really is not the case. Immigrants who come from Mexico, often work low paying hard labor jobs that regular American would generally avoid doing. That is a net-positive to the country and the economy. Even though many of those immigrant might not have a high school education, they are contributing by working long hours. You may the ask, “well what about the low skilled native born Americans”? Immigrants in fact actually helped actually drove up wages for native-born Americans without high school diplomas. These increases ranged from .6% to 1.7%. Another study also showed that when there are more immigrants, the high school graduation rates also rise. The way this works, is that native born are more likely to work harder at school, of fears of competing with low-skilled immigrants. (6)
Illegal immigrants help the economy is various sectors such as Agriculture. According to the U.S Department of Agriculture, “about half of the hired workers employed in U.S. crop agriculture were unauthorized, with the overwhelming majority of these workers coming from Mexico.” The USDA has also warned that, “any potential immigration reform could have significant impacts on the U.S. fruit and vegetable industry.” From the perspective of National Milk Producers Federation in 2009, retail milk prices would increase by 61 percent if its immigrant labor force were to be eliminated.” So, if we began to cut down on our illegal immigration, several industries would begin to lose their labor force, and prices for consumer product will begin to increase. Out of 2.5 million farmers in the U.S, 53% of them are actually illegal immigrants. A border fence would simply decrease the number of farmers we have, and would also make consumer prices rise up, because we would no longer have the immigrants who work long hours and receive low wages. Just in the state of Texas, if the undocumented immigrant population did not exist, Texas’ work force would decrease by 6.3 percent” and Texas’ gross state product would decrease by 2.1 percent. (7)
Despite attempts by Neo-Cons who think Mexicans are stealing jobs, Mexicans are a huge positive to the U.S, just because of their impact on the economy. Infact, only 16.7% of economists actually think the current rate of immigrant is high.
So, what do I propose? I’m not saying we need to just let illegals in, but we need to make legal immigration a lot easier for people, especially since they are helping our economy grow. As the land of immigrants, we need to make the land itself feel more welcome as much as we can. Diversity is a major plus for America, as it always has been.
C4: Simply ineffective.
As I mentioned before. The border fence is simply ineffective at what it is trying to do. People will eventually dig under it or cut through it. All it really will do is slow down the rate of immigration, but not actually prevent it. Mexico has also enacted a Southern Border Plan, which will deploy 5,000 federal police to intercept migrants at highway points. Just from that So far this year, the number of detained migrants registered as "unaccompanied children" is down by 51 percent, about the same as the number of "family units" caught crossing illegally. So, illegal immigration is already declining, and an expensive option such as the border fence is useless.
So, a Border fence is too expensive, environmentally harmful, a drain on the economy, and is ineffective. As somebody who will be paying taxes in the future, I do not want my tax money spent on a useless and pathetic attempt to stop illegal immigration.
I await my opponents arguments.
I thank my opponent for this debate, and will argue my position.
C1: Why its needed?
Of course before I really go in depth on a border fences benefits, I would like to state the reasons of why a border fence is needed within the United States.
I. High Crime Rate from Illegals
In the United States, "Between 2008 and 2014, 40% of all murder convictions in Florida were criminal aliens. In New York it was 34% and Arizona 17.8%" (1). For illegal immigrants, that is a huge percentage of crime from them coming here instead of the supposed allegation that they came here for work and such. And for more crime, you can check source (2) for further inspection of crimes commited by illegal aliens within our country.
II. Illegal Immigrant Corruption by the Media
So why wasn't this brought up in the media. Of course as many will know that Liberals have heavy influence over the media, and because of this hides the details of stories about illegal aliens. "The media’s attempt to suppress public awareness over illegal alien crime and the effects of illegal immigration on American workers’ jobs and wages is nothing less than censorship on a massive scale" (1). One thing is Donald Trump's comments on building a wall obviously recieved negative feed back, "When Donald Trump said something not exuberantly enthusiastic about Mexican immigrants, the media’s response was to boycott him. One thing they didn’t do was produce any facts showing he was wrong" (3). The thing is, no facts were brought up on how he was wrong which shows how the media can easily corrupt us viewers on seeing the positives than negatives for illegal immigration.
III. Illegals Brings More Diseases to this Nation
Continuing on the corruption of media owned by a majority of Liberals, let me please bring up a news story not mentioned a lot. "The establishment media’s refusal to acknowledge that once-contained or eradicated diseases are re-entering the U.S. through the latest flood of illegal aliens" (4). Has this been proven? Actually yes, "More than 30% of U.S. border families are living at or below poverty level, and they are at risk of foodborne, waterborne, and infectious diseases (5). Why should we risk our health for theirs?
IV They Recieve Unequal Rights
And of course the main reason of arguing against illegal immigration is the inequality they recieve for breaking a law. Stated under "Illegal Aliens Taking U.S. Jobs" (6), it states: "About 8.5 million jobs encumbered by illegal alien workers". How is this fair especially to those who are trying to get a job, when they came here legally and deserved their right as a United States citizen. Also, to sum up my reason on why I disapprove illegal immigration in the U.S., here is a video depicting on the reason why I'm against it (7):
C2: Benefits from Border Fence
I. Reduces Crime
With a border fence, crime can and will reduce from illegal immigrant. According to Cawley (8), "A US government study points to an overall decrease in US border crime between 2004 to 2011". That is pretty good for having a border fence around our country, as well as can be stated within this chart:
More crime is reduced because of having a border fence, than not having one at all.
II. Economic Benefits
And yes, a border between the U.S and Mexico will benefit our country economically wise. According to David B. Carter (9), he states: "This is accomplished when the border’s jurisdictional rules are both widely recognized by and incentive compatible with the population at large. In other words, stable borders are demarcations that the populations on both sides recognize and (for the most part) honor. A border is unstable if its integrity is systematically violated by a subset of the population, thereby producing negative externalities for both states". He is basically stating that if we establish an authority over our country (Example in this case being a border fence), then we will benefit economically wise. How? According to this graph (10):
Those who deported those back to Mexico benefitted more economically than nothing else.
III. Helps the Environment
And yes, the Border Fence also benefits the environment within our country. How is a border fence made? A border fence is mainly made out of wood and metal (11). That is really about it, and just some construction, but the border fence is mainly a one time deal. After its construction, nothing else is truly needed. How does this really harm the environment? It doesn't because we are using sources that many people use everyday to build homes and such for society to live (12).
Thank you for the reply SnaxAttack
R1: High crime from Illegals
Pro starts out by saying that 40% of murder convictions in Florida were criminal aliens. There are a few issues I have with this. First of all, this argument is a red herring. Pro doesn't really explain why a border fence specifically would prevent these crimes. Like I had explained in my earlier argument, illegals are have still managed to enter the country. All these statistics that Pro provided take place after 2006, which was after the "Secure The Fence Act" was passed. So, an attempt to build a border and prevent crime has failed pretty much, and Pro doesn't give us any reason as to why it should work if we complete it. I would go into Pro's stats into more detail, but the statistics do not actually say where the immigrants actually came from. Breitbart.com, a "Conservative site" has left that detail out. If the immigrants came from the area where the border fence was built, I would be able to point that out or not. However, I'm not given a whole lot of information from Pro to refute.
My second argument is that immigrants aren't nessarily the direct correlation for the crime rates. "A new report from the Immigration Policy Center notes that while the illegal immigrant population in the U.S. more than tripled between 1990 and 2013 to more than 11.2 million, “FBI data indicate that the violent crime rate declined 48%—which included falling rates of aggravated assault, robbery, rape, and murder. Likewise, the property crime rate fell 41%, including declining rates of motor vehicle theft, larceny/robbery, and burglary.” (1) So, there isn't a whole lot of proof that immigrants are continuing to create crime, when the crime rate itself is on a steady decline. These stats are taken from primary sources such as the Immigration Policty Center, and feel free to check them out for any bias.
R2: Illegal Immigrant Corruption by the Media
This argument isn't related to the topic of Border Fence. So even if the "Liberal Media" is biased, why should be build a border fence? This argument doesn't explain anything about border fence, or does it even have the words "border fence" in it. I have no reason to trust a Conservative website that says a Liberal website is biased, no more than I would trust a liberal website accusing a conservative website of being biased. Regardless, it's irrelavant to the notion to build a border fence. As it simply adresses illegal alien crime.
R3: Illegals Brings More Diseases to this Nation
Pro is saying that illegals are bringing in more infections and diseases, and we shouldn't let them in because we should not risk our health for theirs. The source Pro provided has, said that those immigrants are "at risk" of being infected, and that most of those diseases can be cured by vaccines. Even if it isn't, I see not reason as to why we cannot just keep them from entering our country. A border fence essentially try to keep them out, but if we intecept those people, and quarantine them for their diseases, they can be kept from spreading it. Regardless, if they do get sick, immigrants will still have to pay for their health insurance, so It isn't like we are forced to pay to mend them back to health. I don't see why the 70% we aren't affected should pay for the 30% that could be infected. It isn't like terrorism, we aren't aware of who is the terrorist or not. If he is infected, we can see that with emperical evidence.
R4: They Recieve Unequal Rights
I'm not going to dispute the numbers of illegal holding jobs, as you actually gave a reliable source, but what the article does not tell you is how many American's would actually want those jobs. The article simply says "This is patently false because they are working in jobs in which U.S. workers are also employed — whether in construction, agricultural harvesting or service professions." This doesn't give us enough information. In an industry, there might be just a couple natives who are employed in that sector, and the rest are immigrants. That doesn't mean that American's want those jobs. It just means a few are working in that sector. Pro should have given us some survey or poll that states that americans want to work those jobs, because just sayinig a few guys work there, isn't a whole lot of information.
R5: Reduces crime
This argument is an example of whole correlation doesn't equal causation. The source you gave doesn't say that the border fence itself was responsible for these crimes. Infact, the study is showing 2004-2011, and there was no border fence back then. Only 2006 and after. Pro's graph on California is also misleading. Just because non-border counties have higher crime rates, doesn't mean that the border fence was responsible for that. Those counties may have just been more violent to begin with in the first place. Infact, you can see both non-border and border counties have a decrease in crime, so if border fence is reducing crime, then how come the non-border fence is also experiencing the same? Pro even said that immigrants are creating more crime earlier, so it doesn't add up.
R6: Economic Benefits
Pro's analysis on economic benefits does not make sense to me. The graph he provided is showing how many people were intercepted and deported. It has nothing to do with economics. Pro even says that Mexicans who are deported, benefit more econmically. This statement makes 0 sense. How do they benefit? Why would they even leave Mexico to come to the U.S, if they were getting more benefits in the first place? That doesn't make any sense. Pro basically fails to explain any point on economics in this argument.
R6: Helps the Environment
This argument doesn't explain how the border fence actually helps the environment. Pro simply says it is made out of wood and metal. So? how does that help the environment? That is simply saying it is made out of wood and metal. Pro ignores the wildlife that is displaced when we build such a long fence to "protect the border". Anyways, this argument doesn't explain at all how the environment is actually be helped by wood and metal.
I await Pro's rebutalls :)
Sorry it took me a little to post this. I've been real busy with stuff, so don't be surprised if I post an argument like five hours before the deadline. I apologize and hope you understand. For this round, I will Rebuttal my opponents statements, and any quote my opponent states will be italicized.
In the case between the U.S and Mexico, the length of the fence would need to extend to a length of 1,954 miles. (1) So, now let’s look at an older premature attempt to have a border fence. In 2006, president George W Bush signed the Secure the Fence Act, an act that would build a fence which was about 700 miles. (2) The total cost of this project was about 4 billion dollars
Few things I like to please point out about my opponents claim. Firstly, the sources that my opponent has used was from the website Wikipedia. Wikipedia is known for its false reliability because of its set up on beig changed by anyone. So my opponents claim is hard to tell if it is reliable or not, and because of this means that this point cannot be valid. While I do have the numbers on the cost for a border fence. Seen in this graph (1):
As it is seen, the most spent for a border fence is $1.4 billion dollars. Now my opponent can make the claim that is a lot, but comparatively for what is spent generally nowadays, it truly isn't that much. One example is corporate welfare, where according to the article "Government Spends More on Corporate Welfare Subsidies than Social Welfare Programs" (2), it states: "About $59 billion is spent on traditional social welfare programs. $92 billion is spent on corporate subsidies. So, the government spent 50% more on corporate welfare than it did on food stamps and housing assistance in 2006". Compare that to a border fence, it truly isn't that much to secure our borders.
C2: Harmful to the Environment
Building a border fence would be very harmful to the environment. As witnessed with the Secure the Fence act, the border fence disrupted the habitat of jaguars, pygmy owls and other species in the area. Jaguars that would normally repopulate in the southwestern part of the U.S would be unable to do that if a border fence were put. This would likely disrupt the food cycle, as there will be a large amount of jaguars in Mexico.
One thing I like to point out, anything can be harmful to the environment. Driving a car, or even building a house is harmful to the environment (3). If we are trying to protect the environment, should we stop building houses? Of course not because we as humans have a higher authority than animals. But to Rebuttal my opponents claim, he argues that if a border fence is built that the jaguars will not be able to adapt. When in actuallity, they can. According to the article "Experts believe the Jaguar can Adapt and Survive" (4), it supports my claim that jaguars can adapt to any environment. And if they have to move to Mexico, what is the issue? Also for the food chain being broken, if one animal doesn't participate another will take its place. A jaguar isn't the only mammal that survives off of meat. Not only can this effect apply to the jaguars, they can also be applied to truly any animal.
Then my opponent argues it can harm plant life. Is this true? Yes and no because anything can harm plant life, and the fact that many people use fences in their gardens. When people place a fence in their garden, does it kill the plants? Of course not because the plants eventually grow around the fence. In fact, here is an image of a garden with a fence that looks like a border fence:
s://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...; alt="" />
And for all the plants dying, I like to please address the different climates in the United States. It can be seen here, when all the southern states are either red, orange or yellow. This means that they have a hotter climate, and this could also be the reason of why plants are dying. Not because of a border fence necessarily, but maybe because of living in a hotter climate; meaning less water placed upon the plants.
Simply put, the border fence is harming the environment, and these changes will dramatically change the way wildlife in the area are living. As the government, it as a obligation of protecting wild-life, not destroying it.
First off, the role of the government is not to protect the wildlife. The governments role is to govern the people, not put the wildlife as a priority. Who said this? Philosopher Adam Smith made this claim, and in his book An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (5), it states: "Smith outlined three important government functions: national defense, administration of justice (law and order), and the provision of certain public goods". Does not say anything about protecting the environment as its main priority. And we are governing the people by making them follow the law, and come here legally instead of illegally.
In the previous round, I thought I stated how the border fence does not harm the environment. Clearly my opponent didn't understand and would like to please elaborate. In the previous round, I stated that the border fence would be made out of wood and metal. My opponent asks how this helps, and will argue that with wood and metal these sources are the easiest to achieve from the environment. And how this helps with the environment is that the border fence is really a one time construction, meaning that less toxic fumes will need to be released in the air.
C3; Mexican Immigrants are not a Bad Thing for America
In this portion of my opponents argument, he argues that illegal immigration will help the economy, and not truly bad for America.
Immigrants who come from Mexico, often work low paying hard labor jobs that regular American would generally avoid doing.
This is false, because this is said to be a "Political Scheme" where they say this in order to get favoritism for illegal immigration. Stated by Michael Snyder (6), "Illegal immigrants don’t do jobs that Americans 'don’t want' to do. A million Americans recently showed up to apply for a job at McDonald’s. That is how desperate Americans are for work these days". What Snyder is trying to emphasize is that us Americans are desperate on jobs, and will work on any job; but we cannot if these illegals are stealing our jobs. Is there proof? Of course there is because according to the article "Who's Working in Your Kitchen"(7), it states: "The hiring of illegal immigrants, which might account for more than 700,000 of the industry’s 12.8 million employees". Thats for one business, and there are many more within the article. And also the fact that President Obama is making employers hire illegal immigrants, "Under the president’s new amnesty, businesses will have a $3,000-per-employee incentive to hire illegal immigrants over native-born workers" (8), how is this fair to us Americans? Its not.
And of course the common argument for illegal immigration is the "economic benefits". According to J. Hirby (9), he states: "Illegal immigration has a direct economic impact, though the details are a little more complicated than the storyline of "they're taking our jobs." It has more to do with the drive for companies to cut costs due to the pressures of a tight market". What is a tight market? A tight mark is "A physical market where supply in constrained with a high demand" (10). This means that with illegal immigration, people will hire and basically have an increase in demand for pay, raising the prices, and harming the economy. How is this good, when it causes more harm to our society than good?
C4: Simply Ineffective
As I mentioned before. The border fence is simply ineffective at what it is trying to do. People will eventually dig under it or cut through it.
I think both me and my opponent can agree that there is no "perfect solution". There are always issues of some sort, and the same can be said about the border wall and my opponents solution. According to the article "More Fencing May Cut Illegal Immigration by Half" (11), it states: "The CBO estimates that the net inflow would be reduced by between one-third and one-half compared with the projected net inflow under current law". With more walls, less illegal immigration will occur.
And for my opponents idea about the Southern Border Plan. I'm all for it as well, but having a wall will increase that number. Having both things to help prevent illegal immigration will benefit both societies generally.
These will be my counter-rebutalls.
Con is saying my sources are not reliable, because I used Wikipedia. Sure, wikipedia could be edited, but it doesn’t discredit it. Simply all you had to do is go to the citations section,
and check whether the sources add up.
So, here is the actual link.
Actually, if you look at the graph Pro provided, he misinterprets it, and says that it only cost 1.6 billion dollars. However, the cost doesn’t just include the building costs, but also the costs to maintain it. If you add up the costs for all the years, it exceeds 4 billion dollars. So, my claim of it being 4 billion dollars was actually wrong, but in a good way. Thanks to Pro, he proved that it costed more than that.
Pro’s argument about me claiming it is a lot is misunderstood. I point out it is expensive just because compared to other forms of border control, it is the costliest. Sure, if you compare it the Defense budget, it is nothing. That is like me saying a 10000 dollar Desktop P.C is cheap, because my house costed more. It’s an Apples and Oranges comparison.
Pro says that anything can be harmful to the environment, but again makes an Apples and Oranges comparison. Comparing a house to a border fence is not really accurate. A house is something people need to live in, whereas a border fence is something that could be avoided. Regardless, Con doesn’t actually refute how the Border fence is not harmful for the environment.
Pro elaboration of using wood an metal is still wrong. Wood and Metal doesn’t improve or help the environment in any way. Pro is just arguing it isn’t as harmful, but that doesn’t mean it is actually helping the environment. Pro’s graph about warmer climates is also wrong, because how would those plants be growing there in the first place, if the climate was already warm? This isn’t really a good correlation for us to assess.
Pro quotes Adam Smith who does not mention anything about the environment in his book, but Adam Smith is not the law of the U.S. Clearly, there would be no Environmental Protection Agency, if the government didn’t have the right to protect the environment. Whether or not it is the main priority, isn’t the question. The government’s job is to protect it’s people, not build a border fence, which is what we are arguing about. A government can protect it’s borders in other ways.
Pro basically concedes my data on how Immigrants are a a net positive to the economy, when I showed how the GDP would basically decrease in some states. Pro’s rebuttal on Americans wanting to work jobs in McDonalds isn’t even stating anything about Americans wanting to work in McDonalds. It only talks about how the government is trying to go after employers who hire illegals, rather than illegals themselves.
So, yes Obama’s new policy established a 3000 incentive over native workers, but it isn’t because they are illegals. If you read the article, it states that employers wouldn’t need to pay penalties for not giving healthcare insurance, so that would mean the illegals may not nessarily have access to insurance.
Pro’s statement on the an increase in demand for pay, is wrong, because illegals will work for lower wages, which means lower prices, not higher.
Pro says there is not perfect solution,and I agree. However, I do not believe the costs of the border fence justify the amount of illegals still managing to come into the country, even after part of the country has a border fence. Pro’s last source isn’t sourced, but I did find the website. The website doesn’t actually state this bill is for a border fence, just tougher border security, which is what I was talking about.
R1: High Crime from Illegals
Pro starts out by saying that 40% of murder convictions in Florida were criminal aliens. There are a few issues I have with this. First of all, this argument is a red herring. Pro doesn't really explain why a border fence specifically would prevent these crimes. Like I had explained in my earlier argument, illegals are have still managed to enter the country. All these statistics that Pro provided take place after 2006, which was after the "Secure The Fence Act" was passed.
The crime statistics presented are factual, and there are actually more statistics that show illegal immigration does have an increase in crime after 2006. Stated from "Civitas Institute" (1): " North Carolina has experienced a disturbing surge in gang activity. Between 1999 and 2004, Wake County saw a 5,743.3 percent increase in gang membership". This was before Sevure the Fence Act was implemented, and as it is seen it reduced the crime. One example of reducing crime takes place in arizone, where when a fence was secured "Violent crime dropped 33 percent in border counties in Arizona, more than in California, Texas and New Mexico, the report by the Government Accountability Office said. Among Arizona’s non-border counties, violent crime fell 22 percent. The 11 percentage-point gap was the widest of the four states the GAO examined" (2). As seen here, a border fence can work and crime did reduce after 2006.
So, there isn't a whole lot of proof that immigrants are continuing to create crime, when the crime rate itself is on a steady decline. These stats are taken from primary sources such as the Immigration Policty Center, and feel free to check them out for any bias.
First off, my opponents source is technically biased as well for being known to support illegal immigration. Their site can argue that many immigrants are not criminals, but we must consider the fact that a portion of them will be criminals. in fact, Mexico themselves admitted on dropping off their criminals to our own country, and making us tax payers paying for their problems. With a border fence, at least this will reduce the crime (3).
R2: Illegal Immigrant Corruption by Media
The reason why I brought this up is because of liking to point out the fact that no one wants to look at the down falls. I am on the position of pointing out the downfalls on third party sources, while my opponents sources can be said as "biased" for only pointing out the benefits, than doubts of illegal immigration. No world is necessarily "perfect" in any means.
R3: Illegals Brings More Diseases to this Nation
Pro is saying that illegals are bringing in more infections and diseases, and we shouldn't let them in because we should not risk our health for theirs. The source Pro provided has, said that those immigrants are "at risk" of being infected, and that most of those diseases can be cured by vaccines. Even if it isn't, I see not reason as to why we cannot just keep them from entering our country. Regardless, if they do get sick, immigrants will still have to pay for their health insurance, so It isn't like we are forced to pay to mend them back to health.
My opponent argues we can vaccinate these illegals, but we must consider the fact on the amount of income an illegal immigrant makes. "The 2007 median household income of unauthorized immigrants was $36,000, well below the $50,000 median household income for U.S.-born residents" (4). That is truly not that much, and comparing that to the price for health insurance; welfare or health insurance support is necessary. Who pays that? The government, and with having to pay these illegals health insurance will be very costly as well as unjust. we must ask one question, "Where is the money coming from"?
Sadly, that money is coming from the VA (Veterans Association) fund. "President Barack Obama announced Thursday evening that as a part of his newest executive order, which will grant amnesty to five million illegal aliens, he will also be cutting federal spending on military veterans by a staggering 65%, with those savings being handed out to those illegals who will be getting amnesty" (5). How is this fair to that group of people who served, and protected our country? They deserve much more rights, than granting this money to illegal immigrants. It would be costly, and put a risk to our country's population. With a border fence, this will lower that rate of diseases, and put it into a containment for our country to succeed (6).
R4: They Recieve Unequal Rights
In an industry, there might be just a couple natives who are employed in that sector, and the rest are immigrants. That doesn't mean that American's want those jobs. It just means a few are working in that sector. Pro should have given us some survey or poll that states that americans want to work those jobs, because just sayinig a few guys work there, isn't a whole lot of information.
My opponent ask for a source where American's do want these jobs. I did in the previous round mention that American's are becoming desperate for any labor, and with these illegals stealing those jobs create conflict in our society. "Illegal immigrants don’t do jobs that Americans 'don’t want' to do. A million Americans recently showed up to apply for a job at McDonald’s. That is how desperate Americans are for work these days" (7). The thing is, like stated previously, illegal immigrants are "supposedly" said to work on the farms but in reality are just trying to get more money leading to employers hiring less Americans and more illegals.
In this current round, my opponent states: "Pro’s rebuttal on Americans wanting to work jobs in McDonalds isn’t even stating anything about Americans wanting to work in McDonalds. It only talks about how the government is trying to go after employers who hire illegals, rather than illegals themselves". The article states that, and I agree, but employers can still have the option to hire illegals or not. they have thier own power to do so, and with this power can screw many Americans for looking for a job (8).
R5: Reduces Crime
This argument is an example of whole correlation doesn't equal causation. The source you gave doesn't say that the border fence itself was responsible for these crimes. Infact, the study is showing 2004-2011, and there was no border fence back then. Only 2006 and after. Pro's graph on California is also misleading. Just because non-border counties have higher crime rates, doesn't mean that the border fence was responsible for that.
Following the graph:
It obviously states that crime is reduced by putting up a border fence, which has reduced this crime. "In some areas, erecting fences is the best way to tackle the illegal-entry problem" (9).
R6: Economic Benefits
My opponent argues that the Border Fence is to much money, and shouldn't be implemented because of this. In this current round, my opponent states: "Actually, if you look at the graph Pro provided, he misinterprets it, and says that it only cost 1.6 billion dollars. However, the cost doesn’t just include the building costs, but also the costs to maintain it".
It does cost $1.4 billion for building it, and I agree that the maintainence is not included. After doing researce the maintenence for the Border Fence is "According to the U.S. Army Corps, maintenance of the border wall in some areas could cost $5 million to $8 million per mile per year" (10). Looking at my previous argument, our country spends more on welfare than these illegal immigrants and adding that price on is still less that the amount spent on welfare. So it is cheaper than other things so why not protect our country from these illegals?
R7: Helps the Environment
With a border fence is benefits on helping the environment. in this current round, my opponent states:
Pro says that anything can be harmful to the environment. Comparing a house to a border fence is not really accurate. Regardless, Con doesn’t actually refute how the Border fence is not harmful for the environment. Pro’s graph about warmer climates is also wrong, because how would those plants be growing there in the first place, if the climate was already warm? This isn’t really a good correlation for us to assess.
Different climates affect this, and the second image is an area with a mid-climate.
In conclusion, my opponent argues consistently throughout the debate that my sources aren't "reliable". They are in fact more reliable than my opponent's who fails to provide many sources throughout the debate. My opponent looks more as the positive aspects of illegal immigration, but we must look at the negative impacts of allowing free immigrants to our country. it will cause chaos in this country, and the best and simple solution to this crisis is by having a border fence.
My opponent also does the cheap tactic of "He didn't refute my points", but in reality I did; in which I will let the voters decide if I did or didn't. However, the debate went fluently but I feel that my argument is far superior by using more third party sources and bringing up the facts that Liberal Biased Media "forgot" to mention.
I thank my opponent for this debate, and hope for any more future ones!
Sources in the comments!
|Who won the debate:||-|
|Who won the debate:||-|