The Instigator
vortex86
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
trumpfor2016
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The Benefits of a Wall with Mexico

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 4 votes the winner is...
vortex86
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/11/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,059 times Debate No: 88069
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (4)

 

vortex86

Pro

While there is a lot of debate surrounding the claims of Trump to get a wall built between the US and Mexico border, many question the practicality as well as the feasibility of getting Mexico to pay for it.

I will argue that a wall is both enriching for the economy as well as a necessity to mitigate the harm that comes from illegal immigration, drug/human trafficking, terrorism, and a plethora of other negative ramifications of loose border security.
trumpfor2016

Con

Well, the wall is very exorbitant and the Mexican president refuses to pay for this wall. Not only can this wall put us in a deeper debt, but antagonize the Mexican population. This could cause a premature war between our two nations very easily.
Debate Round No. 1
vortex86

Pro

I mentioned the current political argument surrounding the wall, I did not however take a position that the Mexican Government would pay for said wall. However, in the interest of good fun, I will defend that position as well as my own.
In order to explain how to pay for it all, an estimate of the cost must be agreed upon. The most common amount thrown around is 10-12 billion.

Trump's Plans to Get Mexico to Pay Include:

Tariffs on trade - The US imports 294.7 billion dollars worth of Mexican goods. The US to Mexico balance of trade per the Census Bureau reported that the US imports 58.3 billion dollars more than we export to Mexico. So this is clearly in Mexico's favor (1). This alone with a little over a 4% tariff would reach the magic number of 10-12 billion.

Impound Remittances - The US sent nearly $24.8 billion in remittances to Mexico in 2015 (2). By halting that or putting a tax on that we are placing economic hardship on Mexico as well as potentially keeping that money circulating in the US economy. A 10% fee over the span of 5 years would accrue the 12 billion or even a 5% fee over the span of 10 years.

There are other economic sanctions we could impose to cause economic strain for Mexico, which don't really require further explanation as the above are more than enough to pay for this venture.
---------------------------------------------------
Now back on topic for my original argument. I think that the 10-12 billion is underestimated as far as a wall we should build. I think innovative 2-birds with one stone ideas could make this a feasible and beneficial feat. If we were to spend some of the $39 billion dollars annually(3) on alternative energy in perhaps making a secure alternative energy wall Or if you agree with the above premise of getting Mexico to fork over money for a wall and we spread the budget over 5-10 years. We are looking at a massive budget for this wall. One that could be such an impressive display of human development that it draws tourism, creates jobs, increases energy independence, and helps secure our borders.

In Response to your mention of a "premature war". If you look at the budgets of both countries for defense spending as well as the size of the military for each, not to mention the above economic sanctions we could impose. This event doesn't seem likely to cause such a war. Suppose we do make a massive wall that attracts tourism and Mexico did end up paying for part of it, it wouldn't be a bad idea to give them some of that money.

So the wall would reduce illegal immigration and crime that comes with it, increase US jobs (both for building the wall as well as replacing illegal immigrants), decrease the cost of government benefits, healthcare costs associated with illegals, and many other cost reductions.

(1) https://www.census.gov...
(2) http://www.nbcnews.com...
(3) http://humanevents.com...
trumpfor2016

Con

trumpfor2016 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
vortex86

Pro

Since 1990, the US has been erecting barriers to disrupt illegal immigration into the US from Mexico(1). This is not a new concept, and will continue to be an issue as majority of American support this idea 62% say that border security needs to be top priority in immigration policy (2) Currently, 3.7 billion being asked by the president to combat illegal immigration (3) We already have bills that are going to span $9 billion from 2016-2025. In 2006 the Secure Fence Act allocated 10.4 billion towards border security (4). We are already spending the money, why not make our money go further. We spend an exuberant amount maintaining in the amount of 6.5 billion over it's lifetime (5) the 600+ miles of fencing as it is with more than 4,000 breaches in 2010 alone (5). The wall would reduce the number of breeches, it would minimize maintenance (it's concrete vs fencing that can be cut).

If we're going to spend the money why not make it beneficial to the US and maybe even to Mexico. With the out of box thinking mentioned in previous arguments, alternative energy projects. The benefit of the Environmental Protection Act that cost $65 billion is estimated to benefit of $2 trillion dollars (health improvements and the effects of this). So how about we make the wall or parts of the wall with pollution eating concrete (6). This could clean up the air for both Mexican border cities as well as the US. We could also make part of the physical barrier water treatment facility to clean up shared polluted water (secured facility). This will once again benefit both Americans and Mexicans. This means we can start allocating funding for it from other avenues on the US side, and it might become mutually beneficial for the Mexican government to aide funding it. If we allowed them to assist in building it we are creating jobs for their country which has a growing unemployment. This could strengthen ties with our neighbors to the south which would avoid the potential for stirring up war as you mentioned previously.

By reducing illegal immigration to only those that overstay their welcome in the US. We are reducing the costs the US incurs from educating illegal immigrants both federally and at the state level. As well as reduce healthcare expenditures as a result of illegal immigration. Law enforcement of illegal immigration crimes would be reduced. The federal assistance that illegal immigrants would also be reduced drastically.

Through the previous described methods of funding (alternative energy funds mentioned above) we could use that for solar. The EPA funding that is already allocated for the border could go to make this a pollution reducing wall. A water treatment facility (secured) on the border could also be used. And any of a number of out of the box forward-thinking physical barriers that would provide security and have alternative benefits as well. All of these things create more jobs as well.

(1) https://ntrl.ntis.gov...
(2) http://i2.cdn.turner.com...
(3) http://www.nytimes.com...
(4) http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov...
(5) http://www.nytimes.com...
(6) http://precast.org...
trumpfor2016

Con

trumpfor2016 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
vortex86

Pro

As there is no counter-argument to rebuttal. I will continue with this thought.

The IRS is sitting on $1 billion dollars of uncollected tax returns for 2012 that expire this year if unclaimed (1). This is an example of funding that could be used towards this wall. With the previous creative ways of paying for this wall mentioned above. The benefits of making the wall not only a wall but making it infrastructure. The estimated earnings from the great wall of china in 2010 were the $2.88 billion (2). That easily offsets the costs of maintenance, and would pay for itself quickly. This is not to mention that the Government collected $2.4 trillion dollars in income taxes (3). That is $0.005 per dollar to fund this at the estimate of $10-12 billion. If the majority of tax payers support which the poll numbers in round 3 suggest. A transparent 0.1% tax over 5 years imposed (to reach 12 billion) is menial.

(1) https://www.irs.gov...
(2) http://regiosuisse.sswm.info...
(3) http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com...
trumpfor2016

Con

trumpfor2016 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
vortex86

Pro

In closing,

I've demonstrated that the wall is not only possible to build, as I've listed numerous avenues of funding it. I demonstrated how it could breed new growth for the economy through infrastructure development, jobs, and even tourism. Not to mention reduce illegal immigration and the crime that comes with it.

I proposed a cost-effective way in which we can kill two birds with one stone and even incentivize Mexico not through intimidation or coercion but in benefit to them as well.

As the opponent continues to forfeit (unfortunate for my first debate), obviously he has done little in the way of dissuading you from my opinions.

Thank you
trumpfor2016

Con

trumpfor2016 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
I'm flattered by all the attention.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: dsjpk5// Mod action: NOT Removed<

1 point to Pro (Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: Con ff many times, so conduct to Pro.

[*Reason for non-removal*] Full forfeit debates aren't moderated anyway, but forfeits, under the current voting standards, are sufficient reason to award conduct. The reporter's disagreement with that standard doesn't make this vote insufficient.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: SonicAndRapBattles// Mod action: NOT Removed<

7 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit and better conduct

[*Reason for non-removal*] Full forfeit debates are not moderated so long as the voter votes for the side that did not forfeit.
************************************************************************
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by fire_wings 1 year ago
fire_wings
vortex86trumpfor2016Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by TUF 1 year ago
TUF
vortex86trumpfor2016Tied
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:
Vote Placed by SonicAndRapBattles 1 year ago
SonicAndRapBattles
vortex86trumpfor2016Tied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit and better conduct
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
vortex86trumpfor2016Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Con ff many times, so conduct to Pro.