The Instigator
ConservativePolitico
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
Lesterfreeman
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points

Illegals Should Build the Border Fence

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 4 votes the winner is...
ConservativePolitico
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/16/2012 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,690 times Debate No: 20439
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (4)

 

ConservativePolitico

Pro

I will be taking the position that illegal immigrants from Mexico should be used to build a fence along the US-Mexican border.

Rules:

No ad hominem.
No new arguments in the final round.

First round acceptance only.
Lesterfreeman

Con

Dear sir,
I accept your challenge.
State your case
Debate Round No. 1
ConservativePolitico

Pro

Thank you for taking this debate and would like to say that you are turning out to be a most interesting and productive member of this site.

Deterrent

I think good hard manual labor along the US-Mexico border would be a decent deterrent for illegal immigration. Right now laws concerning illegal immigration are confused and inconsistent but with this new policy there would be no more confusion. If you are caught here illegally (esp. from Mexico) you will be shipped to the border where they will work for a predetermined amount of time before being deported back to their home country. This strong and consistent policy would be a strong deterrent against illegal immigration.

The Fence

Close to two-thirds of all Americans favor the construction of some sort of border fence, [1] so why not build it? Well cost is a major concern for many tax payers who want the fence but aren't willing to pony up and actually pay for it. Well with this new immigration policy you would be provided with free labor. Labor in any project naturally is a large cost, lets say half. Using the estimate provided to us by Gov. Perry, $30 billion dollars, [2] this would be cut in half by using free labor making the cost a much more managable $15 billion.

Keeping Watch

With labor groups on the border working around the clock with police and border patrol agents watching the border would also end up being watched as well. Now if illegals are approaching the US border they will see police keeping watch over their comrades who failed adding another level of deterrence.

In closing:

Many Americans support a border fence but make excuses about how to build it, lets knock out two birds with one stone. This plan puts up a get tough on immigration policy that will act as a deterrent to illegal immigration while putting up a border fence thereby securing the border on both sides.

[1] http://www.wnd.com...
[2] http://www.nytimes.com...
Lesterfreeman

Con

Thank you, I appreciate your remarks.

First off, This policy would be in violation of the 8th ammendment.(possibly the 5th and 13th too) The 8th ammendmate states: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
The idea that imigrants would be subjected to forced labor under supervision of police is cruel and unusual. Every last state in the union has done away with 'convict lease' system, the socalled 'chain-gangs',

Aside from it being unconstitutional, how about it being indecent, wrong, and not even a good way to get a fence built?

The United States welcomes imigrants, the criteria changes, but their always welcomed. A quick look at the INS website will show how many visas are available. 'investors' are offered an unlimited stay in the U.S. I want to dispell the notion that imigration policy is confused. It is not, Its valves are fined tuned to get what it wants.

Business wants cheap labor. It wants cheap labor more than it wants lower taxes, and thats saying alot. This countries imigration policy is set the way it is because business likes it that way. Illegal immigrants account for almost half of the industry that supplies our food.(1)

The math is simple: Legal worker must be paid $8 and hour(CA) plus employers portion of taxes e.g. unemployment,medicare,social secruity, workers comp. That worker must also be paid overtime if he goes over 40hours in a workweek, and the employer must provide some benifits. Not to mention the ever looming threat of getting sued.

Now lets compared that to an illegal imigrant
you can skip all of the above and pay $5 an hour, or a percentage of the goods they pick (as in strawberries).
mutiply that by 500 farm hands. In an 8-hour workday Thats (at the most conservative estimate)$36,000 a day.
Compared to our hero who only pays $20,000. Thats almost 80% higher! before tax!
Whose grapes are you going to buy at the supermarket, the $2.99 a pound or the $5.38 a pound? Either way you choose the free market will quickly do away with the former, whose use of Legal workers rendered him unable to compete.
This goverment will not see its food prices rise 50%. Forget about occupying, there'll be a storming of the bastille.

Lastly the true arguement to your case: Say we wanted to build a fence, If we used immigrants we would be losing valauble jobs....to immigrants!
The cost to house, feed, and supervise these immigrants would be higher than if we just hired contractors to do the job.

Even if it was cheaper to use immigrants, What kind of poorly constructed fence would we get? We've seen bridges collapse due to poor construction, Are we expecting a quality fence from these forced prisoners? I should think not.
After all what incentive would any of these indentured servants have to do a good job? Infact they have all the incentive to sabotage the project.

For the record, Illegal immigrants come many countries, not just mexico. The plan seems to send tresspassing canadians...to mexico.

I submit my contentions,
Thank you
The economic incentive to keep immigrants is there, and that is much more powerful than the loudest participant at any townhall.

(http://olsonpr.com...)

http://usgovinfo.about.com...
Debate Round No. 2
ConservativePolitico

Pro

The Constitution does not stictly apply to illegal immigrants for the US Constitution is mean for citizens of the United States. The 8th Amendment can be applied to illegals if you so wish but it does not have to be applied. Thus your argument is moot. However manual labor was indeed outlawed in the US but not on the basis of "cruel and unusual" punishment. Manual labor certaintly isn't unusual unless you think Home Depot and regular contractors are unusual and it certaintly isn't cruel. Once again unless you think that plank setting and post digging is cruel work.

Yes, the United States welcomes legal immigrants. We have never welcomed illegal immigrants. Why should we welcome the lazy, the impatient and those who believe themselves to be above the immigration proccess? We don't.

Let me clarify. Our immigration policy is not confused, our policy on how to deal with illegal immigrants is confused. We have no set definitive way to deal with illegal immigrants besides the occational roundup of illegals. This policy would eliminate that confusion. Like I said in my previous argument this would give us a set and solid way to deal with illegal immigrants. No more confusion. Our legal immigration policy is perfectly fine.

Your next argument is an attempt to justify and defend illegal immigration. Since this debate is not about the pros and cons of illegal immigration I am not going to respond to that at this time. This debate is about whether or not they should be building our fence.

Also they would build the fence to building codes because we will hold them and continue to make them do it until the fence is to code. The faster and better they preform the quicker they get home . This will boost morale and give the workers incentive to build the fence correctly. Work fast and work right and you're free to go, if not you're stuck until you do it right.

Next you say we will be losing jobs to immigrants: false. We are not currently building a border fence because people don't want to hire contracters to do it. However now we can build our fence AND save people the pain of dealing with contracters, just like I said before.

Now to your claim about the price of housing and feeding these people etc:

These people should be in jail anyways.

Illegal immigrants have broken our laws and belong in jail as they wait to be deported so we have to house and feed them anyways in jails across America so why not put them to work at the same time?

Notes:

This plan was targeted at illegal Mexican immigrants since that is where the heart of the problem lies. Obviously there would be no deportations of Canadians to Mexico, that is absurd.

My opponent dropped many points I made, including those about fence building being a deterrent and a way to get more boots on the ground on the border.

Thank you for a fun debate.
Lesterfreeman

Con

I'd like to thank my opponent and the peanut gallery for making it this far.

The constitution applies to everyone regardless of citizenship. The constitution is not conditional. No federal or state law can operate outside it. The United States Supreme court has held that the consitution applies to everybody "without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality," and to "an alien, who has entered the country, and has become subject in all respects to its jurisdiction, and a part of its population, although alleged to be illegally here." Yick Wo v. Hopkins(1)
My point is not moot. Illegal immigrants fall under the protection of the bill of rights. They also would deserve equal protection under the law as mandated by the 14th ammendment.

With regards to forced labor, It would fall under cruel and unusual punishment(making illegals build the border fence is ment to be humilating and you know it) Furthermore this Country is not about to have gulags. This idea of using immigrants as forced labor is clearlly cruel and unusal. It is not the same as a 'home depot contractors'. Being forced against your will to work under armed guard, to build a fence that is ment to keep you and your kind out is wholly disturtbing.how dare you for chalking it up to nothing more than a days work of a construction worker.
Also, Since immigrants fall under the protection of the 14th ammendment this would have prisoners who commited offenses of similar mangitude to be subject to the same punishment. Orwell would shake his head.

With regards to immigrants, Yes we do. Why should we? I've already explained the economic reasons. Political Rhetoric and history disagree. This country has on many occasions opened its arms to the illegal and llegal travel alike.

My original statement stands. This countries policy on dealing with immigrants is not confused. The united states removed thousands of indians off its lands. This country can move people if it wants. Your flaw is in assuming that that is its intention. The farmer example was not merly hyperbole, It underlines the view of business towards immigrants. Cheap labor is in demand. There is no confusion. The political Rhetoric speaks oof getting rid of immigrants, while real policy is to let immigrants roam into the country free for business to exploit. This is not an oversight. This is not confusion. Your plan has the support of some of the populus, but not business. Since they are the movers and the shakers it stands to refute your arguement that we 'don't welcome illegal immigrants'

I'm not justifing illegal immigrations,I'm explaining the reasons. I have not given a stance on my position of illegal immigration.

Losing jobs to immigrants, well this is just plain logic. If immigrants build the fence, then it will take the job that a U.S. contractor could have done. Your outsourcing the job to immigrants.
'Save people the pain of dealing with contractors' your noot seriously saying that? You've undermined your enntire stance. The whole point of expelling illegals would be to have americans do the work the illegals are doing.

The jail arguement. Simply: Its less expensive to house a prisoner in an already built jail, than it is to build living quarters on the southern border, train, supervise, supply, feeed, and medically treat all on the southern border.(an area that is HUGE!) It would be outragously more expensive. Also it would not be a well built fence. Your a conservative, do you think the goverment or private business does a better job? case in point
But this are people being forced into labor, the work would not stand up to that of a skilled contractor.
The incentives to sabotage and do a poor job are there.

But this is all minusha when you consider the proposition: Its unconstiitional, indecent, wrong, and a poor way to construct a fence.
Thank you

http://usgovinfo.about.com...
Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by debateme 5 years ago
debateme
This

"And yes, I personally agree with you that we shouldn't have the wall because it is unconstitutional."

should have said

"And yes, I personally agree with you that we shouldn't have the >illegals build the< wall because it is unconstitutional."
Posted by debateme 5 years ago
debateme
That already happened, it's called Obamacare. And yes, I personally agree with you that we shouldn't have the wall because it is unconstitutional. My vote on this debate, however, was not based on my personal beliefs. You didn't have more convincing arguments because you never addressed his. The constitutionality argument was excellent, but outweighed by the fact that you never countered Pro's arguments.
Posted by Lesterfreeman 5 years ago
Lesterfreeman
I'm wondering what would happen if president obama came out one day and announced this new great plan, it was unconstitutional, but it was great plan. How many members here would have a field day pointing out it was unconstitutional. I'm surprised, one would think Ron Paul supporters would champion constitutional arguments
Posted by debateme 5 years ago
debateme
At least he addressed your argument on constitutionality. There were several of his arguments that you never addressed.
Posted by Lesterfreeman 5 years ago
Lesterfreeman
haha how can a consitutional argument be outweighed?
Posted by kyro90 5 years ago
kyro90
Doing this debate may not be good for Pro because, what if they build it, and then since, as much as they would like to, they know of a secret way through the border? Just saying since the debate is already finished....
Posted by Lesterfreeman 5 years ago
Lesterfreeman
My ethinicity is hispanic, specifically mexican. My nationallity is as you said american
Posted by ConservativePolitico 5 years ago
ConservativePolitico
lol no you're not, you're American.

Or are you not a citizen?
Posted by Lesterfreeman 5 years ago
Lesterfreeman
Full disclosure, I'm mexican
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Immigrants are not "criminals" that need to be made to build fences. But yeah, I'd probably have taken it too if I had time to research.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Ron-Paul 5 years ago
Ron-Paul
ConservativePoliticoLesterfreemanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con needs to address the points at hand instead of going off on tangents irrelevant to the resolution of this debate. And he needs to take a class on Grammar.
Vote Placed by debateme 5 years ago
debateme
ConservativePoliticoLesterfreemanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's s/g was abominable; Pro had a few mistakes but it didn't compare. Con also ignored many of Pro's arguments and had some irrelevant points. Con did have a good Constitutionality argument, but it was outweighed.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 5 years ago
Maikuru
ConservativePoliticoLesterfreemanTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con showed Pro's proposal to be unconstitutional, especially considering Pro's "you're stuck until you do it right" restriction. The cost to the American people in organizing this work is also demonstrated, eliminating Pro's primary argument in his favor.
Vote Placed by royalpaladin 5 years ago
royalpaladin
ConservativePoliticoLesterfreemanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I bought the Con's Constitution analysis, specifically the Yick Wo v. Hopkins case. If this is true, then the Constitution applies to all individuals on United States soil, so this would be a cruel and unusual punishment. The only way that Pro could have beat this argument is by somehow proving that this was neither cruel nor unusual, but Con notes that chain gangs have been deemed cruel and unusual and that Pro's Home Depot analogy is basically not analogous.