The Instigator
blamonkey
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
ViceRegent
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Resolved: Donald Trump's border wall policy is a bad idea

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 2 votes the winner is...
blamonkey
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/23/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 414 times Debate No: 90125
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

blamonkey

Pro


BOP shared
Rebuttals should be saved for round 2
Don't be a troll

Contention 1: Ruined Relations






The US-Mexican wall that is proposed by Donald Trump will most certainly ruin relations between Mexico and the US. This is shown if we look at the recent comments made by the Treasury secretary of Mexico, where, according to the Guardian on the third of March in 2016, he says “I say it emphatically and categorically: Mexico, under no circumstance, is going to pay for the wall that Mr. Trump is proposing,” Of course, Trump has a plan in case the Mexican government refuses to comply with paying for the wall. Trump plans to punish Mexico economically according to Slate in 2015, by, among other things, “...increase fees at ports of entry to the United States from Mexico [Tariffs and foreign aid cuts are also options]. We will not be taken advantage of anymore.” Keep this in mind, if the Mexican government will not pay for the wall and the economic sanctions cripple Mexico economically, then the government would then be forced to dip into taxes and funds that actually help the Mexican people to pay for the wall. This would then harm the Mexican people, not the government, as Mexico would simply become not as economically stable, thus not being able to support the people of Mexico.While I can concede that Mr. Trump has good intentions to stop illegal immigration, he is doing this entirely in the wrong way if we are ruining our relation with our third largest trading partner. In fact, according to Foreign Policy in 2015, we currently trade over half of a trillion dollars annually with Mexico. While my opponent may point out the trade deficit between the two countries, we still see that Mexico is a nation that does supply us with plenty of goods for our everyday consumers. Also, we still mutually prosper with Mexico due to our trade relations as well, and without American exports to Mexico, we will see more impoverished people in the country of Mexico. We see a net benefit for both the United States and Mexico if we continue to trade and positive relations with Mexico, so we must affirm the resolution.








Contention 2: Border Wall Impossible To Maintain






To maintain the border wall, we would need an organization to do so. The Department of Homeland Security would be the most likely option as it already protects the border. However, if we were to look toward the Department of Homeland Security, we see rampant corruption and untrustworthy actions. If we turn toward PR Watch, we see that given a 10 billion dollar budget, the Department of Homeland Security has not shown to deter illegal immigration or drug trafficking. Also, we can look toward a report from a former senator named Tom Coburn who releases reports on corruption and money being misspent. According to the report by Senator Coburn, “DHS has not succeeded in its efforts to secure U.S. port facilities, infrastructure, and incoming cargo from potential terrorist attacks, despite spending upward of $5 billion on these initiatives since 2002.” Not only this, but rampant corruption spreads throughout the Department, with over 600 open cases of criminal activity of officers as of December 2012, again, from Coburn’s report. If the Department of Homeland Security can’t do its normal job, how can we trust that they have the competence to take on this mission as well? Especially considering the fact that there have been no alternatives offered to maintain the wall as well. Considering that Trump has not specified how we can maintain the border, or how effective we can determine the wall will be, we can only assume that he has no answer, so affirm the resolution.








Contention 3: Will Not Stop Drug Trafficking






Drug Cartels are now very creative in ways to get drugs over the border. According to Rear Admiral Christopher Tomney, "[Now] well over 95% of the drugs are moving on the water via container ships, non-commercial vessels, pleasure boats, sailboats, fishing boats. They also have fast boats which try to outrun our law enforcement assets” What we are looking at is not a border problem. Considering that even with a border, drugs are still coming over the wall already built, we also need to address the drug problem that Trump brings up in a different way. After all, according to the DEA, “These Mexican poly-drug organizations traffic heroin, methamphetamine, cocaine, and marijuana throughout the United States, using established transportation routes and distribution networks,” Also, many times drug cartels will utilize underground tunnels and drones to get under and over the border. So, what will the border wall do? Nothing. The drug problem will continue because we are not addressing the problem. The best way to attack the problem is to either legalize drugs and regulate them by the FDA or to directly attack the drug routes to stop the spread of drugs to the developed world. Either would be great alternatives to solve the problem at hand while not harming relations, or putting the program into an incompetent actor’s hand. So, if one of the main reasons to strengthen border security is, in fact, worthless since it will not work, then there is no reason to not affirm today’s resolution.











Sources:






http://www.theguardian.com...






http://www.slate.com...






http://www.prwatch.org...






http://www.nationalreview.com...






http://www.bbc.com...

ViceRegent

Con

So let me see if I get this straight, if we build a wall and force Mexico to pay for it, not only will we stem the tide of illegals sucking off the welfare state, but we will cause Mexico to stop trading with us, meaning American companies will hire American workers to take up the slack? This is bad, why?
Debate Round No. 1
blamonkey

Pro

Thank you for accepting the debate. In the future please keep the first round a constructive round.
On to my points.
R1: Will not decrease illegal immigration


If you would look toward my second argument in my constructive speech, you would see that the maintaining of the border wall is actually going to be difficult due to the corruption of the Department of Homeland Security. I have shown some examples of why the department is inherently corrupt, however, allow me to give you more.
According to the US Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs as well as Senator Coburn's report on the Department of Homeland Security,

  • The Department of Homeland Security spent $50 billion over the past eleven years on counterterrorism programs, including homeland security grants and other anti-terror initiatives, but the department cannot demonstrate if the nation is more secure as a result.
  • As of 2014, 700 miles of the Southern border remain unsecured.
  • DHS is not effectively administering or enforcing the nation’s immigration laws, and only 3 in 100 illegal immigrants will ever face deportation.

https://www.hsgac.senate.gov...

The plan lacks proper oversight which Trump has not provided, thus, the flood of immigrants will continue.

R2: Will not protect American jobs

My opponent’s logic follows as such: because the border wall will go up, Mexico will stop trading with us causing American companies to offshore to Mexico. While I will concede Mexico will not be offshored to that will simply mean jobs being offshored to other countries. Remember, Mexico is not the only country we offshore jobs to, and since the American workforce is lacking in availability for these companies, they will go overseas regardless. A company will always use the availability of cheap labor, so if you want to save American jobs, then you have to put limits on offshoring. Besides, there are other solutions to the American workforce being undervalued which can be solved with a different policy or resolution, not the one we see today.

R3: State of the debate

My opponent has not responded to my third argument yet.

Thanks and Good Luck!

ViceRegent

Con

Funny, the federal bureau of prisons has no problem maintaining its walls and they are very good at keeping drugs out, especially relative to no walls.

Now, explain to me how helping the American economy and working man by Mexico choosing to stop trade with us (as if?) is a bad thing?
Debate Round No. 2
blamonkey

Pro

Thanks for the quick response.


R1: Bureau of Prisons is not a good actor


My opponent states that the Bureau of Prisons is perfectly capable of carrying out the wall. This is not true. Not only does the Federal Bureau of Prisons have less funding and is already extremely busy with the largest amount of inmates in the developed world, according to the Prison Policy Initiative, but the job of the Federal Bureau of Prisons is not to protect the US from illegal immigration, that responsibility goes to the Department of Homeland Security, which I have already proven to be corrupt.


Remember, we are still talking about Trump’s plan anyway, and he has not specified what government program will take over the operation, so we can only make the logical decision and realize that the only government program that deals with the border is the Department of Homeland Security. Which, again, is corrupt.


R2: Economy


My opponent has claimed that not trading with Mexico will keep American jobs from going overseas. This is false. True, jobs will not go to Mexico, but jobs will still go to other countries such as India at a larger rate because Mexico is no longer available for offshoring. Businesses look for cheap labor, when it is not available in Mexico, it will simply go elsewhere, such as India. Also, remember that trading with Mexico produces a mutual benefit as goods are being exchanged meaning we would reap revenue. Finally, we need to look at the amount of people who will become impoverished, or more impoverished in Mexico if we were to stop providing goods and trading with Mexico.



Thanks, I await your response ViceRegent.








http://www.prisonpolicy.org...

ViceRegent

Con

I was not suggesting the FBP would do the Mexico wall, but that it is very possible for the federal government to build walls to be keep people and drugs out.

And please explain to us how you know every dollar that stays in the US from Mexico cutting off relations will go to another foreign country?
Debate Round No. 3
blamonkey

Pro


As we approach the end of this debate, I would like to thank ViceRegent for the interesting take on the wall.


R1: Another government organization


First, I would like to apologize if I misunderstood the point you were trying to make. However, what I say still stands. If Trump did not specify what government program is going to build the wall, then we can only assume the logical, that the Department of Homeland Security is going to take over the building of the wall.


Remember as well that the majority of drugs travel under the border already, (through tunnels), and over, (through drones), so we can’t assume that a wall will work. Again, legalizing and then heavily regulating drugs is a good alternative for the drug problem and attacking the drug trade routes is also a good idea.


R2: Economy pt. 2


I will concede that I have no way to guarantee that everyone who outsourced to Mexico will simply outsource to other countries. However, this problem can be solved with an alternate plan. We could, for example, put heavy restrictions on offshoring if necessary. Also, I have already shown the problem of stopping trade with Mexico, as we lose a mutual benefit of traded goods raising revenues for our already decrepit economy.


Thanks and good luck as we approach the end!


ViceRegent

Con

I have demonstrated that the wall can be built and built well and will help the economy. I win.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by ViceRegent 10 months ago
ViceRegent
Tell us how this will not happen? All that money that now goes to Mexico will go where?
Posted by ZeroSum 10 months ago
ZeroSum
Anyone who thinks that stopping trade with Mexico is a positive thing because "American companies will hire more american workers to pick up the slack," should go read up on comparative advantage.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by secarl19 10 months ago
secarl19
blamonkeyViceRegentTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro used a large amount of claims and was able to support those claims with facts. Con, on the other hand, did not give evidence to support anything. Con claims that he clearly showed that a wall will help the economy in his last argument, which is false as he did not give any real evidence to support his own claim, and barely provided any arguments at all.
Vote Placed by Sam7411 10 months ago
Sam7411
blamonkeyViceRegentTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Excellent debate from Pro. Pro made the more convincing argument, outlining the severe political and economic effects of the proposed wall. Con lacks any real argument based off of common Trump supporter tropes. Pro provided several unbiased sources to back up his argument, Con provided none.