The Instigator
zach12
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
Illegalcombatant
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Border Fence

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...
zach12
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/2/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,154 times Debate No: 14655
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

zach12

Con

I am against the border fence and will await the arguments of someone who believes there should be a fence hundreds of miles long to prevent Mexicans from illegally entering the United States.
Illegalcombatant

Pro

I thank Con for instigating the debate.

I would like to mention that I am not am American, so my support of a border fence may not be exactly what you are expecting, but rather my justification for a border fence will include arguments that can be used not just for America but many nations seeking to justify like measures.

What is at the heart of the issue of the border fence ? simply it is who decides who can and who can't come into the USA. This question of who decides who can and can't come into a nation is hardly a question that only the USA asks of its self but pretty much every nation.

Now I assume, that Con would never adhere to a policy of allowing ANYONE at their own choosing to just come and go into the place they live. Con would reserve the right to determine who can and can't came into their place of residence. The reasons are obvious such as safety issues regarding life and property and use of resources.

Now why would Con think that these same issues don't exist on a national level ?. Just as Con would not allow people to just come and go in their own place of residence because of safety issues and use of resources (Con may appreciate this point more if a bunch of strangers kept eating the food in their fridge and they slowly died to death), thus on a national level the USA should not allow people to just come and go because of safety issues and the use of resources.

Thus the Mexico fence as part of trying to address these issues is justified.

I would also note that Con has not provided any reason why the fence should NOT be built.

I look forward to Cons reply.
Debate Round No. 1
zach12

Con

>>Now I assume, that Con would never adhere to a policy of allowing ANYONE at their own choosing to just come and go into the place they live eg. {Their personal home}<<

This is a faulty analogy because, unlike a personal home, the United States is an open country where ideally everyone should have a chance to achieve their dreams. Our country was built on immigration. All the British men who initially came to this land and started the original 13 colonies came for many of the same reasons that Mexicans come today. They wanted a better life. Who are we to make the process increasingly difficult with a government test that would baffle most born citizens.

>>Con may appreciate this point more if a bunch of strangers kept eating the food in their fridge and they slowly died to death<<

The United States is in no danger of "starving to death" as we have the highest GDP in the world by far and certainly the financial issues we do have are hardly due to illegal immigrants.

Now I'm going to present my own arguments.

The United States will need the jobs that Mexicans represent.

Women are giving birth to fewer and fewer children as almost every country moves closer to industrialization or post-industrialization. Children have shifted from being an asset from being a liability. Instead of helping on the farm they just spend their parents' money, over $200,000 before they're ready to move out. All of the world's systems, from job systems to health systems, are based on the fallacy that the world's population is going to continue growing indefinitely. So when, after a census, the US finds that the overall population has finally gone down, we're going to need immigrants, who won't be seen as competition for jobs anymore.

So if we're going to need more workers and immigrants, it doesn't make sense to spend millions of dollars on this government boondoggle to keep them out. The immigrants are going to come whether we have a barrier or not and adding the problem of the barrier to the already daunting task immigrants have crossing the Arizonan desert is cruel.

The fence irreparably damages the environment.

The ocelot and the jaguarondi as well as butterflies are being endangered by the wall and it could "block river access and destroy essential vegetation for many native and migratory species," according to Wikipedia.
Illegalcombatant

Pro

Con objects to my analogy about how Con would not just allow anyone to come into the place where they live. Con says "This is a faulty analogy because, unlike a personal home, the United States is an open country where ideally everyone should have a chance to achieve their dreams"

Con equates the right of Americans of free movement in America to the free movement of Mexicans who want to come into America. How is this equivalent ?

Con goes on to talk about the immigration and desire for a better life (who doesn't want a better life ?) of past immigrants. This history lesson does not refute the reasons I gave for having the border fence.

Which brings me to addressing Cons objections to my reasons for a border fence. Con says "The United States is in no danger of "starving to death" as we have the highest GDP in the world by far and certainly the financial issues we do have are hardly due to illegal immigrants"

I think Con here is taking food supply for granted. Humanity the USA included, has struggled to produce enough food, even today people starve to death in other regions of the world. If Con feels secure in the USA ability to produce or attain food, this is only cause alot of work is done to create this situation, its not the natural state of affairs in nature.

Part of creating this situation where food is plentiful, is creating a society and economy that is stable. Allowing anyone or any mexican to come into the USA at their own choosing hurts not helps this stability.

Con argues that the USA will need Mexicans for labour. This is false, cause it treats all Mexicans the same. For instance the Mexican that is a Doctor is alot different to the Mexican that can only do manual labour. For instance if the USA had a shortage of Doctors, allowing any Mexican at their own choosing to come into the USA such as the one who can only do manual labour does help meet this labour need.

Con says "Women are giving birth to fewer and fewer children as almost every country moves closer to industrialization or post-industrialization"

Although I agree that women are giving birth to fewer and fewer children, this does NOT equate too a lets let in any Mexican that wants to come in.

As a nation such as the USA advances economically and technologically, this means that more and more is able to be produced per unit of labour, meaning you can get more and more with less and less people.

This refutes Con argument that some how the USA will need Mexicans, such as where Con says "So if we're going to need more workers and immigrants, it doesn't make sense to spend millions of dollars on this government boondoggle to keep them out"

Con says "All of the world's systems, from job systems to health systems, are based on the fallacy that the world's population is going to continue growing indefinitely"

Con regards continuing population growth as fallacious, but is arguing that Mexicans should be allowed into the USA en mass, thus increasing population growth. This is an outright contradiction.

Con says "The fence irreparably damages the environment." Pretty much all human activity does environmental damage. Even if we went back to the stone age, the cutting down of trees for fire wood and killing animals for food damages the environment. Is Con arguing that something should not be done if it damages the environment ? I don't think so, I think Con is being selective with their environment damage reasoning.

Con says "The immigrants are going to come whether we have a barrier or not"
Using this type of reasoning, the USA should not try to stop murder, cause it is going to happen anyway, the USA should not try to stop rape, cause it will happen anyway, the USA should not try to stop death, cause everyone will die.

Con would reject such reasoning on these issues, thus Con should reject such reasoning in their argument.

Con says "the problem of the barrier to the already daunting task immigrants have crossing the Arizonan desert is cruel"
Then I suggest Con advocate policy that takes away the incentives for Mexicans to try to come into the USA by crossing the desert in the first place.

My reasons for the fence still stand.

I look forward to Cons reply.
Debate Round No. 2
zach12

Con

I am going to address Pro's arguments out of the order in which he presented them.

My opponent says >>"Humanity the USA included, has struggled to produce enough food, even today people starve to death in other regions of the world."<<

But this is a crapshoot with no relevance to the topic. My original statement was that the United States was in no danger of "starving" to death with regards to food and finances. My opponent says the United States is struggling to get enough food, yet it is a net exporter of agricultural products, with more than enough food for our current population, especially if people ate the amount they should.

>>If Con feels secure in the USA ability to produce or attain food, this is only cause alot of work is done to create this situation, its not the natural state of affairs in nature.<<

The natural state of affairs in nature requires that primitive man gather berries and hunt large game. Yet we farm and do other technological things to help sustain ourselves and diversity in labor distribution.

>>Allowing anyone or any Mexican to come into the USA at their own choosing hurts not helps this stability.<<

Pro offers nothing to support this statement and he is actually mistaken. A steady supply of immigrants helps a country maintain growth and business.

>>For instance if the USA had a shortage of Doctors, allowing any Mexican at their own choosing to come into the USA such as the one who can only do manual labour does help meet this labour need.<<

I don't think you understand. In the coming years the United States is going to have a shortage of ALL TYPES OF LABOR. We will be short on doctors and lawyers and construction workers and farmers and computer programmers and fast-food restaurant employees et al. All Mexican immigrants (and immigrants from other parts of the world) will be encouraged to come to the United States by our government. But by then, they may not want to come. Conditions are improving around the world and the US is no longer the shining beacon of hope that it once was. So why spend millions of dollars preventing these essential immigrants from reinforcing our economy? Regardless of their trade or occupation when they enter this country, any immigrant can go to Community College or a technical school to learn a new skill.

>>on regards continuing population growth as fallacious, but is arguing that Mexicans should be allowed into the USA en mass, thus increasing population growth. This is an outright contradiction.<<

You completely misunderstood the meaning of my argument. When I said that the world's systems are based on the fallacy that the world's population is going to increase, I was arguing that there will be chaos when the population slows down, as it has in Russia. Therefore, to prevent this decrease in population from happening, we can forestall it by letting Mexicans freely immigrate into the country. I have not contradicted myself in the slightest you simply misunderstood my argument.

>>Pretty much all human activity does environmental damage {therefore the fence should be built regardless of environmental impacts}<<

This is a terrible breach of ethics. If everyone thinks like that, our world is going to be a toxic wasteland before you can have kids Illegalcombatant. We need to consider the effects our actions will have on the environment especially when it comes to National policy.

>>sing this type of reasoning, the USA should not try to stop murder, cause it is going to happen anyway, the USA should not try to stop rape, cause it will happen anyway, the USA should not try to stop death, cause everyone will die.<<

Everyone WILL die and trying to outright stop it from happening would be a complete waste of time and money, just like the border fence is.

>>Then I suggest Con advocate policy that takes away the incentives for Mexicans to try to come into the USA by crossing the desert in the first place.<<

The United States cannot "take away incentives" for Mexicans to cross the desert! That would require that we make the United States a worse place than Mexico is, something I doubt even you would want for us in Australia, since our economies are so intermixed.

>>Con equates the right of Americans of free movement in America to the free movement of Mexicans who want to come into America. How is this equivalent ?<<

That is not what I equate at all, I equated the desires of the first immigrants to the desires of these current Mexican immigrants, who are in every way equivalent. Therefore, the argument still stands.

Summary

Pro has failed to refute my arguments regarding decreasing population, human rights, and environmental impacts and has made poor assertions based on a faulty morality scheme.
Illegalcombatant

Pro

Illegalcombatant forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by zach12 5 years ago
zach12
zach12IllegalcombatantTied
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:40