The Instigator
Pro (for)
24 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

The U.S. Should Erect a Fence Along the Mexican Border

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/17/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,831 times Debate No: 17536
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (4)




I would like to propose a debate on the idea of a border fence along the U.S./Mexican border to curb Mexican drug violence and illegal immigration. I will argue for Pro.

Round 1 is acceptance, 2 is opening argument, 3 is rebuttals/cross, and 4 will be final rebuttals and closing arguments.

Thank you for your time; I hope you accept this challenge.



Thank you for the debate opportunity. I am very much interested in this debate, therefore to become engaged in this topic, I have chosen to argue as CON, which is not necessarily my true position.

One must think carefully about what the impact to all "players" would be if the fence along the USA and Mexico border were finally completed, as promised. One must take the time to consider, who are the "players", what is the game? Who stands to lose? Who stands to gain?

In my argument against the erection, I contend that anti-American businesses would falter and/or collapse, one would be Western Union, another would be Farm Contractors (who tend to abuse their own), anti-American Farmers are another, so would Political Groups who profit off illegal immigrants. The erection would end funds to these Anti-American entities, then where would we be? Money isn't everything, or is it??? Without the erection the US Tax Payer foots the bill for illegal immigrants, how great is that? Ask any politician that gains a vote from an anchor baby that would not be here, had the fence been erected..., where would we be without such an Anti-American Politician? America is leaning toward SOCIALISM, this can only continue to tip in that direction WITHOUT THE ERECTION, so to complete the FENCE would mean to lose the DREAM of let the American Tax Payer pick up the tab for corrupt businesses and politicians; that would mean unemployment for these Anti-American people, including the LOBBIESTS!
As I argue Against the Completion of the Erection, I argue for Corrupt Politicians, Corrupt Businesses, Corrupt Lobbiests, and for All Anti-American Entities, as well as for the Future Socialism of America.

Completing the Fence will force Businesses and Politicians to become legally abiding citizens of America and promote and encourage the continuation of capitalism and incentives for people to work hard for what the need and to stop distorting the reality of what laws are and why they should be enforced. Completing the fence would also send a message around the world that America values the quality of its citizens, the number one quality being Honesty and Integrity. Our jails are full of illegals, with a fence, the prisons would lose incomes as would the guards, as would the unions... that will hurt our economy, like Dr. Faust... maybe we should sell our soul and be done with it!

If we enforced our laws, stopped entitlements, and did E-verify, we would not have to build the fence. The fence is a symbol of our lack of cohesion to enforce our laws and to protect our citizens at all costs, it would tell US business that we have had enough of their lies and corruption, it would stifle the socialism movement that is taking place right under our noses, and it would dry up dirty money... can America afford that? Is America willing to pay for that? I argue against the fence because I am realistic, America does not want a fence against the good people of Mexico, America wants Honest Politicians, Fair Employment, and an End to Lobbiest Manipulation. Just like water, crooks always find a crack to flow through, don't fool yourself about the fence; it will not solve the problems of illegals, it will only create more hardship and worse, unrestrained hostilities with our southern neighbor.

Always hold your friend close, and your enemy closer... a fence will alienate, inviting a bigger enemy turf for the USA to deal with. Instead of a fence, get the losers on both sides of the aisle to stop puppeting the US Tax Payer around and do what is right: 1) No Entitlements to Illegals, 2) E-Verify, stiff punishment to violating employers, 3) Curb the influence of Lobbiests., 4) Get illegals identified and accountable, Pay to Stay with strict regulations and fines for violating US Immigration Laws. 5) Create a workable system for workers to come to USA and earn an honest living as needed, with priority given to American citizens first.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you to my opponent for her acceptance. Since she has chosen to use the acceptance round for her opening argument, I will be fair and use the second round as my opening argument, without any rebuttals. My opponent may then re-post her opening argument for me to write a rebuttal to in Round 3 per the established rules for this debate.

I am arguing the position that the U.S. needs to erect a protective, border control fence on the U.S.-Mexico line, due to crime and economic concerns.

First, let’s look at some statistics. While estimates of illegal aliens (further referred to as IAs to save space) vary, even the most conservative numbers put the total at 10 million, with the Bear Stearns Report claiming as many as 20 million in 2005. [1] According to the Pew Hispanic Research Center, over 1 million IAs cross the border every year. [1] That means at this moment, there are between 16 and 26 million people in this country who legally are not supposed to be here. Ten million is a big spread, but even if we use the smallest number of 16 million, that’s an incredible drain on our nation.

Now let’s look at their impact.


According to the Violent Crime Institute, “it is consistent to find sex offenders comprising 2% of illegals apprehended.” [2] Dr. Deborah Schrman-Kauflin goes on to say that this is a conservative estimate, but even based on those numbers, “there are approximately 240,000 illegal immigrant sex offenders in the United States.” The 1500 criminals she studied had “a total of 5,999 victims,” with each offender averaging four victims each. “This places the estimate for victimization numbers around 960,000 for the 88 months examined in this study.”

That is nearly one million victims of sexual crime that would not have happened if these criminals were not able to get into the U.S. Perhaps most disturbing was that in “22% of all sex crimes committed by illegal immigrants, victims with physical and mental disabilities were targeted. These disabled victims were each under age 18.” (I have only included sexual violence in an effort to save space. I reserve the right to cite additional statistics and expand my crime argument in later rounds.)

Gang violence spreading from Mexico into the U.S. is also an incredibly frightening problem. The Los Zetas, a particularly violent band of thugs, has come across the border and set up shop in states all over the country. Their signatures include “beheading and dismemberment of rival gang members, military personnel, law enforcement officers and public officials, and the random kidnappings and killings of civilians who get caught in its butchery and bloodletting.” [3]

Border sheriffs say they are “outgunned and outmanned” by an enemy with “automatic weapons, grenades and state-of-the-art communications and tracking systems,” all funded by drug profits. [3] In fact, the leader of the Zetas has an “arsenal at his disposal,” including “helicopters, armored vehicles, AK-47 assault rifles, AR-15 semi-automatic rifles, MP-5 submachine guns, 50-mm sniper rifles, shoulder-fired missiles, grenade launchers, bazookas, armor-piercing ammunition, plastic explosives, dynamite and improvised explosive devices (IEDs).”

MS-13, another notorious Mexican drug smuggling gang, now has roughly 10,000 members and operations in 42 states, according to the FBI.

Gone are the days of Al Capone, or the Italian mob. All told, Mexican drug cartels are in 276 cities across the U.S., and “represent the nation’s most serious organized crime threat.” [3] In Pinal County, Arizona, the sheriff says these groups “literally do control parts of Arizona.”

There is also a very real national security threat present in the number of Other Than Mexicans, or OTMs, crossing the border into the U.S. through Mexico. “45,008 illegal aliens from countries on the U.S. list of state-sponsors of terror or from countries that protected terrorist organizations and their members were released into the general public between 2001 and 2005 despite the fact that DHS couldn't confirm their identity.” [3]

In Texas, 54 percent of legal immigrants and 70 percent of illegal immigrants receive welfare assistance, with illegal immigrants generally receiving benefits on behalf of their U.S.-born children.” [4] According to the Center for Immigration Studies, state governments spend between $11 billion and $22 billion in welfare payments to IAs.

In Los Angeles County alone, illegal aliens’ children born in the United States collected nearly $570 million in welfare and food stamps in 2009.” [5] Annually, LA County taxpayers pay $1 billion per year in total costs from illegal immigrants, including healthcare, welfare, and public safety (crime costs).


The Urban Institute found that “California was subsidizing illegal immigrants to the tune of about $1.1 billion.” Several hospitals have had to close their doors in CA alone due to the staggering cost of treating IAs.

All told, illegal immigrants cost this country billions of dollars each year, create hundreds of thousands of crime victims, and waste government resources through multiple deportations, not to mention bringing incredible amounts of illegal drugs into this country, further draining funds that then need to go to fight addiction and drug-related crime.

Erecting a secure border fence is the most logical way to bar illegal aliens from entering this country.








A more logical solution to illegal immigration would be to stop the incentives that invite them into the USA and punish, recall, vote out any and all politicians that promote the welfare of IAs over that of law abiding, contributing American citizens and Resident Aliens.

With the current incentives and the participation of anti-American "Americans" pro IAs, a fence will only slow down the IAs, it will not stop them, especially the criminals and the free loaders! 16 million plus are here already and they have friends in the system, we need accountability across the country, now!

When you have a public school teacher instructing students to empathise with IAs not necessarily for today's IAs, but for IAs of tomorrow, "These kids will become our leaders, maybe even the people who make the laws," she said. "At the very least, they'll certainly be the people who vote on them. Shouldn't they learn something about it all now?" [1]

The Spanish class in Ohio forces students to assume a IA identity and go out into the community and "survive". The teacher has been successfully teaching the class with tax payer dollars for the past 5 years, she instructs students to come up with a plan to enter the USA illegally! [2]

The Judicial Watch [3] has case after case indicating USA citizens have been and continue to be stonewalled in the area of IAs through bad policies, lack of enforced policies, and straight up corruption within our borders that prevents the American Tax payer from getting the protection against IAs that it pays for. Until we deal with the IAs already in the USA, the current incentives, and pro-IA acts by people on the payroll of the American Tax Payer, a fence along the border will not be a logical way of dealing with the crime and economic drain as proposed by PRO.

Many sources agree that with the weakness in the US economy and stepped up border patrol the number of IAs in the US has decreased in the past few years. Eric Rodriquez, VP of the National Council of La Raza refers to the increase of border patrol agents from 9,000 to 20,000 has made it very difficult for people to go back and forth over the border. [4]

Instead of the fence, 1st: (note: order is not based on importance).

1) Overhaul Bad Policy:
a) Worker Programs, ie The Bacero Program. With the current process it is difficult even for a 6 month temporary worker visa. Sponsoring someone for permanent residency can take 10 years of work. For Mexicans over age 21, it is not unusual to have to wait 18 years to get into the USA legally, hence an incentive to come into the USA illegally. Note: I do not justify the illegal entry into the USA by IAs for any reason.
b) Correct the flaws in the 14th Amendment. It was not intended for Anchor Babies!
c) Stop incentives to schools, sanctuary cities, any all entities that are in any shape or form rewarded for embracing IAs.
*IAs are currently given Priority Status Above that of Legal Citizens in many areas of life in USA.
*Stop the Cooperation on behalf of IAs to the detriment of US Citizens (Free Legal Help, etc.)
*END Anchor Baby citizenship and reverse some of its effects via legislation to claw back the rewards given to those who became citizens via 14th Amendment misinterpretation
d) Pay to Stay policy for IAs here. Penalty and Punishment. No FREE PASS, NO AMNESTY!
e) Document the IAs. Put a micro chip in them upon deportation! You break into USA, you get tracking chip embedded.
f) Stop our corrupt politicians from selling out the US Tax Payer!
Judicial Watch has a document on their site:
AGREEMENT ON SOCIAL SECURITY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE UNITED MEXICAN STATES. This is financial treason! No fence can stop what our elected officials are doing to us, not today, not tomorrow!

It gets worse:

In 1993 with the enactment of NAFTA as a side agreement, our anti-American leaders did this: Created The Border Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC) and the North American Development Bank (NADB) "for the purpose of enhancing the environmental conditions of the US-Mexico border region and advancing the well being of residents of both nations." No fence can fix treason. It was funded with $30 Billion USA dollars and they have total immunity from our laws! [5]

Hold Accountable ALL Enemies of the American Tax Payer:

Employers who hire IAs over legal residents/citizens.
Politicians who support IAs
Employees paid/supported by the American Tax Payer who aid IAs
Landlord's that rent to IAs
Entities, schools, cities, that encourage IAs in any shape or form.

Where there is a will, there is a way. Desperate people do desperate things. As long as the US government invites IAs to the Free, no need to pay your dues, American Dream Life for Illegal Aliens at the expense of the American Tax Payer, the incentive for IAs to enter this country will continue and a fence although a deterrent to some, will not stop the desperate IA masses from using other modes of entry, whether it be tunnels, better deception with travel across the border, other modes, ie planes, boats, etc., and worse yet corruption with identification manipulation, crime, force, and last but not least the manipulation of our laws against us, the citizens!

If our government did its job of protecting the interests of it's citizens above those of IAs, businesses, politicians, anti-American "Americans", and lobbyists, IAs would not have the incentives that draw them to the USA. Simply put, stop the insanity, stop rewarding bad people, change bad policies, FIRM HARSH PUNISHMENT would be a great determent, go after the TRAITORS WITHIN OUR BORDERS and make the IAs here ACCOUNTABLE, ID THEM and punish them! Only then will a fence be logical. Otherwise its just a more insane game of cat and mouse and the enemies of true Americans know it!

I reserve the right to expand on my argument and add additional cites. I am up way past my bedtime! 19 DEC 2007 Judicial Watch Blog: Public School Teaches How to Enter US Illegally. ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION by Alan Gomez 2/1/2011 BECC and NADB
Debate Round No. 2


Thank you to Con for her reply. I shall now rebut her arguments. (Note: I am disregarding the Round 1 statement and will, per the rules of this debate, only respond to the Round 2 opening argument.)

Con states that “A more logical solution to illegal immigration would be to stop the incentives that invite them into the USA and punish, recall, vote out any and all politicians that promote the welfare of IAs over that of law abiding, contributing American citizens and Resident Aliens.” This is an interesting statement in that I partially agree. In fact, I agree with every single option that she posted. All of these should be part of a comprehensive program to stop illegal immigration and draining of the American taxpayer’s wallet.

However, none of this negates the need for a fence. All of these things, if in place, would potentially cut down on the number of illegals who come across looking for a free handout, granted. Unfortunately, there is more than one reason to sneak across the border, some of which I outlined in my opening statement. Please allow me to summarize:

- Drug smuggling operations are at an epidemic level.

- Gang violence has spilled across the border into almost 250 cities nationwide.

- Illegals coming across the border are committing heinous crimes and victimizing American citizens every day.

These three facts alone are enough reason to build a fence—simply to protect American citizens from dangerous people who seek to do us harm. Con is correct in that taking away the financial incentives to be here would make some illegals think twice. However, it will not stop the gangs, the drug smugglers, the criminals. It will not stop American citizens from being needlessly violated, kidnapped, or murdered. It will not stop billions of dollars worth of illegal drugs getting to our kids. And it won’t stop OTMs from terrorist countries using that porous border to enter the U.S. and engage in terrorist activity. Why? Because penalizing an employer isn’t going to affect someone who’s driving an armored car across the border to drop off a load of narcotics.

The fence proposed is not just a single chain link affair with a few strands of barbed wire at the top. The current fence under proposal has multiple layers of security, including tunnel-proofing, concertina wire, observation towers, a patrol lane for Border Patrol vehicles, and other facets that would make it nearly impossible for someone to get through it.

Arizona finally received clearance to build a border fence with private donations, and they raised almost $40,000 in the first day the fundraising was open. [1] That was 4 days ago. Ranchers are in danger. Their livestock are killed, they themselves are threatened, and the environment is being destroyed along the border. [2] Arizona Border Trash, a government website, has photos of the damage. More than 2,000 TONS of trash are left along the border every year by illegals. Who’s cleaning that up? We are.

The bottom line is simple: While legislative change is desperately needed, a solution in the form of a fence needs to be in place to protect our citizens and our environment.





I cannot argue against a deparate need for an effective, logical solution to the abuse that the American Tax Payer, American and legal Resident Aliens citizens are suffering, but I must bring to PRO's attention the abject failure of The Maginot Line.

ref. Wikipedia. Marginot Line.

Although the name "Maginot Line" suggests a rather thin linear fortification, the Line was quite deep, varying in depth (i.e., from the border to the rear area) from between 20 to 25 kilometres (12 to 16 miles). It was composed of an intricate system of strong points, fortifications, and military facilities such as border guard posts, communications centres, infantry shelters, barricades, artillery, machine gun, and anti-tank gun emplacements, supply depots, infrastructure facilities, observation posts, etc. These various structures reinforced a principal line of resistance, made up of the most heavily armed "ouvrages", which can be roughly translated as fortresses or major defensive works.

From the front and proceeding to the rear, the Line was composed of:

Border Post line (1): This consisted of blockhouses and strong houses which were often camouflaged as inoffensive residential homes, built within a few metres of the border, and manned by troops so as to give alarm in the event of sneak or surprise attack as well as delay enemy tanks with prepared explosives and barricades.
Outpost and Support Point line (2): Approximately 5 kilometres (3 miles) behind the border, a line of anti-tank blockhouses were intended to provide resistance to armoured assault sufficient to delay the enemy so as to allow the crews of the "C.O.R.F. ouvrages" to be ready at their battle stations. These outposts covered major passages within the principal line.
Principal line of resistance (3): This line began 10 kilometres (6 miles) behind the border. It was preceded by anti-tank obstacles which were metal rails planted vertically in 6 rows with heights varying from 0.70 to 1.40 metres (2 ft 4 in to 4 ft 7 in) and buried to a depth of 2 metres (6 ft 7 in). These anti-tank obstacles extended from end to end in front of the major works across hundreds of kilometres (miles), interrupted only by extremely dense forests, rivers, or other nearly-impassable terrain.
The anti-tank obstacle system was immediately followed by an anti-personnel obstacle system made primarily of very dense barbed wire. Anti-tank road barriers also made it possible to block roads at necessary points of passage through the tank obstacles.

Casemate de Dambach Nord - The frontageInfantry Casemates (4): These bunkers were armed with twin machine-guns (abbreviated as JM in French) and anti-tank guns of 37 or 47 mm (1.5 or 1.9 in). They could be single (with only one firing room in only one direction) or double (two firing rooms, in 2 opposite directions). These generally had 2 floors, with a firing level and a support/infrastructure level that provided the troops with rest and services (power generating units, reserves of water, fuel, food, ventilation equipment, etc.). The infantry casemates often had 1 or 2 "cloches" or turrets located on top of them. These GFM cloches sometimes were used to emplace machine guns or observation periscopes. Their crew was 20 to 30 men.
Petits ouvrages (5): These small fortresses reinforced the line of infantry bunkers. The petits ouvrages were generally made up of several infantry bunkers connected by an underground tunnel network to which were attached various buried facilities, such as barracks, electric generators, ventilation systems, mess halls, infirmaries, and supply caches. Their crew consisted of between 100 and 200 men.
Ouvrages (6): These fortresses were the most important fortifications on the Maginot Line, having the sturdiest construction and also the heaviest artillery. These were composed of at least six "forward bunker systems" or "combat blocks", as well as two entrances, and were interconnected via a network of underground tunnels that often featured narrow gauge electric railways for transport between bunker systems. The various blocks contained necessary infrastructure such as power stations with generating units, independent ventilating systems, barracks and mess halls, kitchens, water storage and distribution systems, hoists, ammunition stores, workshops, and stores of spare parts, food, etc. Their crews ranged from 500 to more than 1000 men.

A blockhouseObservation Posts (7) were located on hills that provided a good view of the surrounding area. Their purpose was to locate the enemy and direct and correct the indirect fire of artillery from the artillery fortifications as well as to report on the progress and position of key enemy units. These are large reinforced buried concrete bunkers, equipped with armoured turrets containing high-precision optics that were connected with the other fortifications by field telephone and wireless transmitters (known in French by the acronym T.S.F.).
Telephone Network (8): This system connected every fortification in the Maginot Line, including bunkers, infantry and artillery fortresses, observation posts, and shelters. Two telephone wires were placed parallel to the line of fortifications, providing redundancy in the event of a wire getting cut. There were places along the cable where dismounted soldiers could connect to the network.
Infantry Reserve Shelters (9): These were found between 500 and 1,000 metres (1,600 and 3,300 feet) behind of the principal line of resistance. These were buried concrete bunkers designed to house and shelter up to a company of infantry (200 to 250 men), and had such features as electric generators, ventilation systems, water supplies, kitchens and heating, which allowed their occupants to hold out in the event of an attack. They could also be used as a local headquarters and as a base from which to carry out counter-attacks.
Flood Zones (10) were natural basins or rivers that could be flooded on demand and thus constitute an additional obstacle in the event of an enemy offensive.

Anti-tanks rails around the casemate 9 of Hochwald ditchSafety Quarters (11) were built near the major fortifications in order to make it possible for fortress ("ouvrage") crews to reach their battle stations within the shortest possible time in the event of a surprise or sneak attack during peacetime.
Supply depots (12).
Ammunition dumps (13).
Narrow Gauge Railway System (14): A network of 600 mm (1 ft 11 5⁄8 in) narrow-gauge railways was built so as to rearm and resupply the major fortresses ("ouvrages") from supply depots up to 50 kilometres (31 miles) away. Petrol-engined armoured locomotives pulled supply trains along these narrow-gauge lines. (A similar system was developed with armoured steam engines back in 1914-1918.)
High-voltage Transmission Lines (15), initially above-ground but then buried, and connected to the civil power grid, provided electric power to the many fortifications and fortresses.
Heavy rail artillery (16) was hauled in by locomotives to predesignated locations so as to support the pre-emplaced artillery located in the fortresses, which was intentionally limited in range to 10–12 kilometres (6–7 miles).

The birth, growth, and strenght of the USA was founded on legislation, well-thought out with conviction and enforcement. Intelligent humans realize it is the rule of law and its enforcement that creates and sustains a civilized society, without it we end up with what we are currently experiencing, chaos!

The Fence Project to me, is a distraction to our intelligence and it is sucking us into a mindless, suicidal vortex...
simply stated, it will not solve the problem... as long as America does not enforce its laws, as long as America distorts its laws (14th Amendment), the list goes on and on and on, corruption, lobbyists, excessive union power, rights of illegals above those of citizens, funds to illegals putting them economically above enlistees.
Debate Round No. 3


Thank you to Con for her quick reply.

My opponent literally cut and pasted most of her rebuttal from Wikipedia. In addition, her example of the Maginot Line is "apples and oranges" from the border fence idea. Here's why.

1. The Maginot Line only stretched part of the way down the border. [1] In the referenced map, it clearly shows that there were "weak fortifications" along most of the border, with only the lower third of the border having the set-up that Con references. Naturally, the German Army came through the gaping security hole on the northern side of the line.

2. Currently, the United States has about the same set-up. Only part of the border is fenced, and illegals simply go around it.

Con reiterates the need for a comprehensive plan, which I again agree with. The fence will not solve the illegal immigration problem on its own. However, it IS part of that comprehensive plan--and legislation takes time. Even if we pass all the laws Con offers, thousands of people will pass through the border while it's being implemented. Hundreds or even thousands will be victimized by illegal criminals. Tons of illegal narcotics will be shipped across the border to our schools and streets.

My arguments stand. The border fence is necessary.



I thank PRO for pointing out the obvious, I did cut & paste the relevant part of the wikipedia article on the Marginot Line, but I also noted such with a direct reference prior to the C/P. It was strictly to make an easy read for the audience.

PRO reveals a lack of confidence in the fence as indicated as follows:
"The fence proposed"

CON: proposed and reality are two very different things, it was proposed that a 9/11 would never happen, yet it did, why? over-confidence in our agencies, in-fighting within our agencies, lack of sharing of critical data within our agencies, adults are just children in aging bodies.

PRO continues, "is not just a single chain link affair... muliple layers of security..."

CON: blah, blah, blah... Toto, I don't think that we are in Kansas anymore! who can we trust, seriously? I see lots of pockets getting lined with some green backs and nothing resolved for the American Tax Payer! PRO's final lack of conviction in her own argument is as follows:

PRO: "... that would make it nearly impossible for someone to get through it."

CON: NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE to me IS NOT SECURE and is nothing short of a casino approach with the American Tax Payer's money.

PRO initiated the argument as follows:
PRO: "... the most logical way to bar illegal aliens from entering this country."

CON: I stand firm on my argument that erecting a fence IS NOT the most logical way to bar illegal aliens from entering this country.

As per, Siobhan Gorman, NATIONAL JOURNAL, Nov. 30, 2001

Ironically, the nation's tangled border security network slows legitimate commerce and law-abiding travelers while doing virtually nothing to deter imaginative terrorists. Vast expanses of the U.S. border are, quite literally, unguarded most of the time. Short of hiring enough agents to link arms across the 5,525-mile Canadian border and the 1,989-mile Mexican border, it's difficult to imagine how to guarantee the security of the country's physical boundaries.

He goes on to write:

The North American continental perimeter; the U.S. borders with Canada and Mexico; and U.S. seaports also act as filters. Overall, this complicated protection system is in severe disrepair as a result of congressional neglect, outdated priorities, interagency turf wars, and economic globalization. In any case, the past suggests that selectively heightening scrutiny won't solve the problem. One of the men involved in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing did not even need a visa to enter the United States because he carried a forged passport from Sweden, one of 29 countries whose citizens may come in without visas.

CON: And even more compelling for my argument is, as Siobhan Gorman continues to write in his article, Border Controls must balance security and freedom.

"Veteran inspectors wonder how long it will be before the balance tips back toward economics."

CON: I say not too long, because here in America with its corruption, money talks and no border fence is going to change that, if you have the money, someone will take it and turn their head... or even to quickly move traffic, people that are paid to man the expensive, useless border fence will eventually let people thru just to speed things up, after all, how long do you think businesses on both sides of the border will go along with backed up traffic and lost business? I say not long!

CON: Also noted in the aforementioned article:

"The problem is, you've got to move the traffic," said Dave Houston, a retired border inspector in Detroit. "If a car pulls up and the inspector asks questions that try to elicit something more than a yes or no response, traffic is backed up 47 miles... The supervisor is screaming because the tunnel company is screaming. Right now, they're able to tell the tunnel company to wait, but a couple, three months down the road, I don't know."

CON: In the article, he continues to write:

On a recent morning, Canadian Jeffrey Hanlon drove through the Detroit-Windsor Tunnel and flashed his visa. The border inspector smiled, nodded, and waved him on. As Hanlon headed to his job in downtown Detroit, he realized that for the first time since September 11, the inspector hadn't asked him for a photo ID. "It was just like old times."

CON: I argue the same lax performance will happen with an Illogical U.S.-Mexico border fence, the ACLU will cost us tons of money in lawsuits, the enforcers will be accused of profiling, cherry-picking entrants, on and on and on!

CON: The fence will indeed be a money maker for some, but a major financial loss to the American Tax Payer. Start in the USA and make USA politicians pay for perverting USA laws and USA systems, make employers and landlords pay for making illegal money off IAs, make IAs pay for taking jobs, housing, food, services, assets, rights, etc., from USA citizens and Resident Aliens. America must be logical, use what has been learned from the past, what has worked, not some FENCE DREAM MONEY EATING MACHINE. Demand enforcement of USA laws, do not provide incentives, inact new laws as necessary and vote out/recall the politicians that lied when they were sworn in to to protect USA citizens. The USA needs accountability not more expenses. The USA quite frankly does not have the budget for the FENCE DREAM MONEY EATING MACHINE, especially when logic indicates it is failure waiting to slap the American Tax Payer in the face. The fence if it is ever completed should be a last resort. I have provided more than enough data to support my argument. PRO has not, she notes that we have a problem and agrees with basically all of my points, then she indicates skepticism with the security of her proposed fence as I remind you with her following quoted words, "... other facets that would make it nearly impossible for someone to get through it."

CON: Again, I reiterate, nearly impossible does not cut it when you consider the current collapse of the USA economy, we don't have the resources, therefore we will be sold out when businesses find that their loss in revenue and cheap labor encourages them to justify the pay off of officials, border patrol, lobbyists, on and on and on... let's overhaul our government and be logical and save the American Tax Payers another disaster of pouring gasoline onto the IA fire.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by adrianaesque 6 years ago
Forget the fence, we should have a wall like Troy with spikes/gates penetrating underground so that illegals can't dig under. Take the money from wasteful spending and put it towards a cause like this--not only would it more or less stop our illegal immigration problem, but it would save money in the long run because jobs wouldn't be stolen and much less money would be spent on welfare. It would be the next Great Wall.
Posted by Double_R 6 years ago
Where in the world is Peachykehn hiding? He deactivated his account as soon as I posted my response to his challenge ( yet he is still commenting on debates everywhere. If anyone sees Peachykehn please bring him back to the aforementioned debate so he can finish.
Posted by Peachykehn 6 years ago
Oooh this is gunna be a juicy debate.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Crevaux 5 years ago
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: Even though I agree with Con's side, it is clear her style of debating is still immature, disorganized, and unclear. Con should have given more arguments against the erection of a fence, rather than talking about "anti-American leaders of America".
Vote Placed by ApostateAbe 6 years ago
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: Plagiarism of paragraphs = big downer. aircraftmechgirl was wrong and she argued far more relevantly and effectively on all points.
Vote Placed by Double_R 6 years ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did not provide one valid reason to negate the resolution. The debate was about weather we should erect a fence along the boarder, not which solution would be more effective. Cons last round was irrelevant as she did not argue the resolution to that point. Con loses sources for copy and pasting her argument, and loses conduct for not following the rules in round 1.
Vote Placed by thett3 6 years ago
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con copy/pasted some of her arguments, and Pro was winning this debate anyway. Shame on you Con.