Resolved: The United States Federal Government should build a border wall along the US-Mexico border

C1: MexicoYou will have to forgive me as I was unable to go into more details as I was down to under 50 characters last round for debating, so going into much detail was a bit hard, so much of my rebuttles may be seen as me going more indepth here. I do find it interesting enough that my opponent is bringing up geographical issues, as that very same issue would apply to my opponent as well. Geographical locations such as rivers is indeed problamatic, but the difference between the wall that I had provided and the one Trump is doing is that Trump's is more of a fense, while the wall that will be built under my counter-plan has multiple layers and this includes a technological aspect with sensors and this can be placed on river banks and such which can detect illegal immigration. Under the wall my opponent has, this geographical concern remains. This would show that my wall is preferrable due to the aspect that it reduces human error and the inability to constantly reduce and halt illegal immigration. This is something that solves for my opponent's harms and his issues still remain in this regards. My opponent states that the wall will be owned by Mexico and Mexican infrastructure, but most of this will be American companies and American infrastructure as private companies are doing this. Under my opponent's plan, the USFG is building the wall, which shows that under this plan the USFG will be taking on the entirety of the costs while under this plan, the US will be incurring no debt involved. President Trump has thought of many ways in which he will get Mexico to pay for the wall, these range from Tariffs to deal trade offs in NAFTA [1]. Mexico objects to paying it in a lump sum, but my opponent's plan to having the wall be paid for just saving finances from reduced reliance on Social services, this is more mythical than the way Mexico is already paying for the wall through tariffs and other deals that are occuring. If the reduced version of finances work in terms of the US paying for the wall, then why wouldn't it work for Mexico? The funding will likely come from trade and will be to US companies which will provide jobs for Americans and Mexicans alike, this will give the Mexican government to give lucrative deals to many companies willing to build the wall. C2: US HegemonyThe relation is quite simple in terms of how it is hegemony as I have explained in my previous round. By getting Mexico to pay for the wall and be able to build the wall, the US is exerting their influence in the region stregthening their hegemony in the world and showing that the US still remains a prominate player on the World Stage instead of the US beginning to give up the mantle of responsibility to the world, which the continuation of this allows for terror cells and other rogue nations to flourish without US influence. The wall will benefit both nations, especially Mexico. The US currently has a construction labor shortage and this means that there is one specific place where the nation can make up for the lack of workforce and this is Mexico [2]. One of Mexico's stipulations in the funding of the wall could be a tradeoff of Mexican workforce, but, of course, these things are all speculation at this point of time. With this being a likely tradeoff with Mexico, this brings up an important concern for my opponent, with there being a construction shortage, how will his wall be built under the current issue at hand in the marketplace? Under the status quo, my opponent's wall cannot be built under the status quo. The building of the wall will also benefit both nations, and this is through STEM jobs. Over the next 10 years, the US is expecting over an influx of about 10 million children to pass through our school systems and this plan, even if it inspires just 1% of them, we would see a massive boom in STEM jobs and as the world is progressing, these STEM jobs are becoming the key jobs of the future that are the engineers and the scientists. With the US 35th in the world in PISA on math and Mexico is near the bottom as of 2016, this plan is able to help both the US and Mexico [3]. This deal is extremely lucrative for Mexico as they will be able to have a new influx of STEM jobs into their economy as the shortage of labor in the US construction industry will allow Mexicans who will be on the labor teams become trained in these fields and this will allow them to take their trade back to Mexico when the wall has been built to help improve their economy by providing an overall boost. One example where a high tech project had actually helped the economy of the US as well as inspire years of people for generations is the Apollo program in sending men to the moon. The Apollo space program had helped the US have a massive boost in their economy as they saw a 36% increase on investment in capital goods and a 6% economic growth [4]. For both the US and Mexico to see similiar numbers would be a Godsend for both nations and, as my opponent has brought up, Mexico has a smaller economy and seeing an explosive economic expansion like this would make it much more appealing for them to help with the wall. Not to mention that they would be able to retain the knowledge their workers would gain from the STEM skills and be able to help improve their nation through that. This is a huge economic impact that both nations would need. The huge wall has massive impacts as it does help and the Spanish and Israeli walls are indeed effective, but as my opponent has brought up, the boarder lengths are extremely smaller than the US-Mexico border. This poses several different challenges which my opponent has also brought up. By having the use of technology in the walls, it not only boosts STEM technology, but helps eliminate human error and helps in cracking down on illegal immigration faster as one simply wouldn't be able to "dig a hole" under this wall. Making the current border wall that is being built, ineffective. Mexico would support the US and there being a wall wouldn't deter Mexico from helping in the event of a war. The US has actually already began to put their foot down on immigration as recent events have shown that President Trump has sent the National Guard to the US border [5]. My opponent even defeats his own argument with his answer by showing that as long as there's a mutual understanding then there wouldn't be a problem. Why wouldn't this apply for this case as well? C3: US DebtThe counter-plan requires no adding to the US debt, while the wall my opponent has brought up in this case will be built by the US government, meaning that all costs would be inhereted by the government placing the burden on the taxpayers. Even if, in the long run, the numbers my opponent has brought up does cover it in terms of reduced costs in other areas of the budget, it does not cover the Fiscal cliff argument that I have brought up. My opponent's spending on the wall can easily be enough to send the US over the Fiscal Cliff causing the next great depression of a 20% in the US economy. This is a harm that my opponent has not solved for, but my plan does. I appologize if I had missed anything as I am almost out of character space. With that, I turn things back over to my opponent. Sources1. (. https://www.cnbc.com...)2. (. http://time.com...)3. (. http://www.businessinsider.com...) 4. (. http://www.larouchepub.com...) 5. (. https://tinyurl.com...)