Border wall

For your points against the CIS, your ad hominem attacks have zero weight in this regard. we aren't interpreting data points here, we're looking at rock solid math. if you run the numbers given to us by the institute for defense analyses and the census beureau we find that although after running the numbers myself and adjusting for additional variables it will take longer, the wall will pay for itself, especially if we increase funding to other aspects of border security. We would not give president trump the power. We would set up protocols enforced by any of the agencies involved with immigration with a few boxes to check. Education level, skill set, among other things. We would make exceptions for other circumstances like if they come from a country with little to no education available, we could give them probationary status for a period of years so they could get a job and be a benefit to the U.S. If they don't, then they don't get to stay. I don't think that we should give unilateral authority to the President in that regard for a number of reasons. It's impractical, there are to many immigrants for the President to decide who has the necessary meritorious qualities, and that would expand the power of the President over immigration which he has no business directly overseeing. My opponent admits that they can't disprove my special forces argument and falls back on argumentum ad hominem attacks on both the AP sources and the President. the Associated Press as you admitted is a good source and would likely not publish these sources if they were inaccurate or untrustworthy. I also doubt that the AP would give these sources any benefit of the doubt since the AP is a left wing source. I was able to find no source that states that border patrol has a habit of shooting illegals without provocation. The only case I could find was one where the defendant was acquitted because of the testimony that the illegal had tried to attack the agent with a rock. But even if that's not true and he did murder that person, one time does not prove a pattern. The point of my fort example was to show that we could force them to go through at certain places where we'll be waiting for them. your average illegal isn't a ninja or super spy. the vast majority of them if we tightly control those weak spots won't make it through. I already stated that we could provide access to water via guarded access gates or by subterranean pipes. This really is a non-issue. As for cutting through private property, Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country. everyone needs to make sacrifices sometimes for the good of the nation. If people refuse they would be in violation of the law and we would respond accordingly. Again, they would be compensated. As for Natives, the way you speak of their reservations, it sounds like they're massive. they aren't it would be a simple matter to move the boundary of the reservation the minuscule distance that would be the width of the wall. Only the Kickapoo would pose a challenge that would need to be addressed. We could refine the access gate idea by moving the reservations just a short distance from the wall so that the gate would be on American territory and the natives would have zero authority to stop us from guarding the gate. You are still lumping in legal immigrants with illegals which is taking to very different demographics and manipulating the data. When I make my arguments I isolate the illegals since I have no concern with legal immigration. I don't care what Trump's position on mass deportations are. I don't have to defend his ideas or his policies except for the border wall. In this debate, my only burden is to show that the border wall is a good idea, not mass deportations. The option is open for illegals to not pay taxes for one, and for another, I've already stated that if you are working verifiably, meaning you're paying taxes, you get to stay. regardless of what Trump may have to say on the issue. Are you talking about Syrian refugees? because that isn't relevant and that term refugee has legal implications that don't apply to illegal mexican immigrants. So a border wall is irrelevant in regard to refugees. In order to stop people from passing illicit substances through, we would make my proposed steel mesh lined with smooth concrete which would make the openings too small to fit any significant amount of drugs through. I'm also not opposed to some drug legalization to reduce the power of the cartels by making safer sources but that's a debate for another day. If natives decide to pose a challenge, they will need to have actual backing. you suggest the Dems but with them out of power and wanting DACA reinstated I wouldn't count on their support. They would be allowed to move a very short distance out of the way or they can stay and accept that there will be a wall on their land. Since the only objection they have is not letting their land be split, if their land isn't split they won't have a problem. To conclude my final point, the wall is a necessary action to curtail illegal immigration, to reduce the burden on the taxpayer for illegals welfare benefits, and to prevent future increased crime rates which can be mathematically predicted to happen using existing data and trends.