Border wall

Hello I would like to take this chance and thank you again for this debate. I have had a great time, and hope you have as well I wouldn't consider my pointing out that your source, the CIS is a bias source as a ad hominem attack nor was I breaching the rules that we established in the beginning of this debate. I was simply pointing out that according to the Sothern Poverty Law Center, they have been accused of falsifying data. (the definition of bias) And was pointing out that much of your argument hinged on a source that is known for trying to make up data to match their opinion, and not their opinion to match the data. If I didn't say why I believed that your source was biased, I wouldn't sound very intelligent It would sound like "I believe that an organization with a name like Center for Immigration Studies, is a source that's math should be questioned." See, I had to say why I believed their information to be suspect Because of their philosophy, they, as the SPLC accuses them, are known to give faulty data. It goes against the quote that you have on your own page for this site, a quote that I believe you want to follow "Facts don't care about your feelings"-Ben Shapiro. Listening to such blaintently bias sources is beneath the intelligence that you so clearly have shown me that you posses.(you've had me on the edge of my seat though out this entire debate. I've lost sleep researching all my known credible sources to use) It is as my old science teacher would always say, "Those who add their opinion to science are bias and should be discredited immediately" To farther argue the CIS source I will point out that they tried (as you did) to use the census bureau, for their argument. I don't see this as a logical way of doing things. Why would someone who is trying to hide, give information to the people who are trying to catch them... in a non mandatory survey Seriously, despite what the CIS said on their site (I did check it out) about their education, I know many of them still know about how they where brutally kicked out after they where promised Green cards in exchange for keeping the US manufacturing, and economy up while all the US men where fighting in WW2. (people died when being transported by the Gov during the deportations of operation Wetback" So they know not to revile themselves in such a stupid way For your next argument, You claimed that we would not be given Trump the power, But you are forgetting that all undocumented immigrates that are trying to get in, (whether they are refugees, wanting to make a better life, or came here legally but that statues is in question) (or they are one of the US citizens sent there because they didn't feel the need to have proof of their citizenship on hand when ICE got a hold of them. (it's happened) have to go through the executive branch, not the Judicial (even Immigration courts) and the executive branch is headed by Trump. This in turn, gives him power over how things go. The biggest thing standing in his way right now, is the fact that the judicial branch has been checking his power, by saying that his proposed actions involving foreign born people as unconstitutional. (The biggest and most well known example of this is the Muslim Ban) And I believe this would be the main thing, stopping him from just having the people under him from putting a C on the pages of those he wouldn't want(Not relevant to this debate, but you should look it up) For your next argument, yes I did admit I couldn't disprove your AP source, But what I was trying to do was point out that Trump has power over all (both) of their sources, and that his literal catchphrase is your fired. And him leaking that the special forces where not able to get over the wall, could easily be what is known as security theater. (the trying to make a system look more secure than it is) And I had to point out that the special forces would be able to get higher up the wall than what they where given credit for, simply by climbing a ladder, without even combing into direct contact with the wall I also just wanted to point out that I don't care if a source is left or right, I care about factual content (note my pointing out earlier in the debate that I don't see CNN as a credible source As for my statement about the border patrol The last time the US increased the agency's ranks in a massive way, the patrol had no choice but to try to go into a huge recruitment campaign that ended up bringing in many people who just shouldn't be in law enforcement. This is mainly because they where hiring people who didn't understand, or care about the humanitarian aspect of the job According to Politico, corruption and excessive force skyrocketed. and misconduct became such a problem that the BP issued a memo about the fact that their agents were averaging 2 alcoholic arrest per week, and that's only a few of their run-ins with the law. since 2005, 77 of their agents were arrested or indicted for corruption. According to the former head of Internal Affairs for US Customs and Border Protection, when talking about one of these agents, "He is part of a raid of corruption that exceeded that of any other federal law enforcement agency" The reason why I'm saying all this is because if you let people in to man the wall in another mass hiring, we would be making the same mistake all over again, and that could have lethal consequences. According to the CBP, Use of force review, "Too many cases do not appear to meet the test of objective reasonableness with regard to the use of deadly force." and one source had that rate at around 25% of cases that resulted in the shooting of someone.(which is a pattern) We can't man the border with another hiring surge, the border is already one of the most secure and militarized borders between 2 nation at peace Moving on, I was saying that the average person trying to cross the border would take their time, to get past the wall, and not fall for an obvious trap like those weak spots I believe I already pointed out the problem with the pipes. But here we go again. The pipes would be destroyed and would need to be entirely replaced. This means that the towns would have no running water, and no access to the river for the public I would like to point out again that most of the border districts were against Trump, and that shows that not everyone is ready to embrace that they need to give up their lands for their country. After all, have you listened to country music before? Half of them are about taking pride in where your from. And now the government is going to force them to surrender those places where they come from, were their family has lived for generations. Many of them won't give up without a fight. Despite the compensation that the Guv might offer You claim that you don't care, or have to defend Trump's ideas about anything but the border, but might I remind you, that it is important to my side of the argument, because earlier on you said that this is how we would save money spent on the wall. I needed to disprove that claim so then I could continue to point out that the wall is an huge cost to the tax payer As for your argument about the Natives, you are suggesting that we just ignore the reservation's will, and move their borders, because they are weaker than us. These are sovereign nations, who will have the backing of many other tribes, and citizens from the US, Mexico, as well as having a strong argument for the courts. We would be breaking so many treaties and violating their rights, not to mention that this could be used as an excuse to put sanctions on us. Plus this is a civil rights case, this is were the dems shine brightest, and they may not have much power right now, but they do have money, people, and resources Unlike with DAPL the infrastructure project would be going through their lands, not just threatening their water supply. So they have a huge advantage in the courts, and so in turn, the judicial branch would have to cheek the powers of either other branch that might try this method You have clamed again that I am lumping documented immigrants with undocumented immigrants, But have failed note, that I gave numbers for both, 1.6% for immigrants, 1.7% for undocumented, and 3.3% of native born civilians. You also failed to give a reliable source that said that they have a high crime rate, where as mine was a university professor of criminology According to the Institute on taxation and economic policy, Illegal immigrants pay 11 billion a year in taxes, (property, income, employer deductions... and so on and so forth I am not talking about Syrian refugees, I am referring to refugees from south, central America, as well as those fleeing the cartels in Mexico. They get have been getting turned down a lot since Trump got power You still haven't made a point against cartels getting drugs passed the wall by way of slingshot or tunnel You have failed to prove that the wall is worth the price we'd pay. You failed show how we could come up ahead with the lose of 100 Billon dollars a year and all the land we'd loose. You failed to give a reliable source to show how the undocumented immigrants increase our crime rate in a way that would justify the price of the wall, you failed to give a reasonable answer about how to deal with those who don't wish to loose THEIR land, And you failed to prove that the wall would make us safer. You also failed in proving any of my sources wrong The arguments that you have given have the US, reinvading the Native's lands, having the federal guv forcing it's own civilians to leave their homes, loosing multiple businesses, and setting the US into what could become another recession, while militarizing the border(even more) all for a wall, that's security is in question. (and the recession part would happen mainly if the wall is effective) I understand your views, but I don't believe that that is what we want the US to become-DIT