Border wall

Hello again, passwordstipulationssuck. I am glad to be hearing from you this time, and I must say, that was a well made argument. (now this is what I'm looking for in a debate) I would like to apologies though. When I made reference to Mitch McConnell, I was listening to a news story about how the speaker of the house Paul Ryan was quitting his position, and put his title to Mr. McConnell, I meant to say that he was the majority leader in the senate. I would like to thank you for not wasting time with Trump's idea that Mexico will pay for the wall. I would also like to thank you for giving me reason to do even more research on the wall, and immigration. Because of your argument I had to spend a lot of time researching more and more about the wall, and because of your challenge, I learned so much. Unfortunately for you I just kept finding more and more problems with Trump's plans for border control and immigration. The sources that I found were very much saying that we would not only be not gaining much of anything with the wall and complete deportations of Undocumented workers, but would be loosing a lot of money and recourses, for something that would be very ineffective, is illegal by multiple Treaties, and harmful to thousands of people living within the U.S., in ways that could lead to people having their homes and lands stolen, or even dying, all for something that could be overcame with a ladder, and some rope. (which was even pointed out by Trump himself) I'm going to start by using George Bush Jr. He figured that by putting up a 700 mile long fence, that it would help stop undocumented immigrants from entering the US. Now the fence was a fairly small protect, (compared to what is being proposed) so things like pipes and other tools used for getting to the Rio Grande could go through, it was much cheaper than a wall, and was substantially less destructive. It was also a complete waste of resources, and time. It cost the US land, money, and in many cases, it's morality. By setting up the wall, we will be repeating despicable acts, in a much bigger, grandiose way, in a much larger area. And all in a way that hurts us. By setting up this wall we will be needing to take several thing into consideration, we would need to take geography in to account, things like flood zones would need to be avoided, so we would have to build inland. Not to mention that we would need to stay back away from the Rio Grande, due to the Nov 23, 1970 treaties and other international acts series 7313 Treaty to resolve pending boundary differences and maintain the Rio Grande and Colorado river as international boundary. It says that neither side "may cause obstruction of the normal flow of the river" and putting a wall even close to the river would make a pretty big obstruction to the river. According to Quora.com we would loose about 40,920 acres of private land in Texas alone, which would effectively cede the river to Mexico which is a pretty big deal, especially to the border towns, who are in one of the worst deserts in the world. Towns like Brownsville, Mcallen, Los Ebanos, Roma who would loose a large amount of their land as well as access to their main water supply, and that's just south east Texas. And as for your argument that the Gov would just buy out those who live on the border, well some people won't want to give up their land so easily. And I can only guess that Trump will follow suit with Bush, when he (according to the Guardian, used eminent domain to condemn, and than steal properties from hundreds of people, including the Loop family, who lost 3/4 of their land. Just to make the fence, the Gov had to waive 36 laws including the endangered species act, the safe drinking water act, most disturbingly the native American graves protection and repatriation act. (which I'll get to in a minute) and the bald and golden eagle protection act. By making the wall we would be going through the wild life areas, like Las Palomas wild life management area, Bentsen-Rio Grande valley state park, Rama world birding center. As well as putting even more strain on 111 endangered species according to outsideonline.com, including animals like the jaguar, gray wolf, and Pygmy owls. Getting back to the native American graves protection and repatriation act. The fence (which didn't take up much space to build) I believe Ned Norrice Jr. who is a chairman for the Tohono O'odham Nation can describe it best, "Fragments of human remains where found in heavy equipment tracks on the Christian ranch archeological sight, a sight now crossed by barriers and the border road. Imagine a bull dowser in your family graveyard." And if you think that this is a moot point, now consider this, There are 3 sovereign native American nations that also share a border with Mexico, the Tohono, O'odham, the Kumeyaay, and Kickapoo nations, and they have all pledged to not allow the Guv to divide their lands any more, and are prepared to mount a DAPL like resistance, which will also probably bring more tribes, and American and Mexican citizens from both sides to offer their support, especially after what happened at Standing Rock. and this time they will probably get the support of the Dems, (not just the Greens, like with DAPL) I wonder will Trump take the same approach as his hero Andrew Jackson, (I seriously doubt he looks up to Jackson because of his anti big business views, or his founding of the democratic party, and theirs only one other thing that Jackson was famous for) I just hope that no blood is spilt this time. I would like to start talking about your point about crime now, I have to say that it has some parts that are kind of a straw man argument, and in other parts (according to my sources) misinformed. I'll start off with what I claimed was a straw man argument. You said "For another, it's well-known that immigrants in general have low crime rates, possibly because being in a new place induces caution. This effect doesn't persist in future generations, however." You say in your argument that it doesn't persist in future generations. Might I remind you that those future generations are born within the US, raised in the US, and are in fact US citizens same as you and I. I for one do not share in the policy of denying people access for what their decedents might do in the future, or what their ancestors did in the past, or ells we would all be given the death penalty. You also said "As for the argument that illegals commit on average fewer crimes that natives, according to the National Review, Using overall native crime rates as a benchmark for immigrant crime treats it as an excuse to let in illegals with higher crime rates than we would normally tolerate. (This also throws a wrench into state-by-state comparisons; some states are much more violent than others, in part owing to different racial demographics, which will make a given group of illegal immigrants look better or worse relative to natives depending on where they live.) Ok first off, what does pointing out that on average the illegals having a very low crime rate have to do with your argument? In fact your own source just confirmed my side's statement that we should not be wasting time and resources hunting them down, while their not committing crimes. But then you backtracked (I think, I had to read it a few times and am still not 100% sure I understand what you where saying) and said, "they have a crime rate similar to natives". Well according to my sources, that's not quite right. According to Christopher Sabs-Wright of Boston University, who does studies in anti social behaviors particularly in drug use, gambling, and fighting within members of different populations, (which includes undocumented immigrants) said, "The evidence is really compelling that immigrants are involved in these behaviors at a far lower rate than native-born Americans. And one study published in the journal criminology and public policy in 2008 wrote that there results as "lend no support to the ubiquitous assertion that deportable aliens are a unique threat to public safety." If we ask Florida state university professor Mears of criminology he'd say most research indicates immigrants actually commit less crimes at a lower rate that native born citizens, and according to the American immigration council, they found that 1.6% of immigrants were incarcerated, while the amount for undocumented immigrants was 1.7% compared to the 3.3% for native born civilians. I'm running out of space, so I'll try to keep my final argument for this round brief. (I do still have more) You said that we would save money with the wall and keeping undocumented Immigrants out, you quoted that it would save the taxpayer 34 billion over the curse of a decade, and I found that Fox news said that, Now I personally don't trust Fox as a source, and see them as CNN with more sexual harassment lawsuits. My source The Pew research center estimated that that their was at least 11 million immigrants in 2014, or 3.5% of the population, they make up 5% of the labor force with 8 million in the working age, Mcall.com also sighted the National Bureau of economic research, which said that the loss of all of the undocumented workers would cost the US economy 500 billion a year. And according to a report by City University of New York, their researchers claimed that the US GDP could decrease by 2.6% or 434 billion a year Ryan Edwards who works at CUNY claims "It is unlikely that the employers would just accept that they could pay US civilians and a more likely scenario is that they would simply shrink their workforce." And that doesn't include the businesses that would go out of business if we rounded up all of the undocumented workers, farther hurting our economy. I have a few more points to bring up, and to build up some of my existing points. But I am out of room. I can't wait to see what you have for me next, until next time.-DIT