Build the Border Fence

Hindering the Drug Trade It's illogical because A) all you're doing is making that assertion without citing any kind of evidence relating different degrees of border security to the effectivenessf anti-drug activity, and B) you're assuming that the War on Drugs is a good thing. Why bother limiting the drugs that come into this country? Even if they're from cartels, they'll have to compete with better quality merchandise at lower prices from legitimate vendors a lot closer to home if we decriminalize. All you're really doing is restating your position. You haven't refuted my counterargument, and you certainly haven't provided new evidence or analysis. This argument is certainly out. "If drugs are legalized they will be used..." <-- appeal to probability. You've cited nothing suggesting that this will be the case, while I've cited plenty of times that decriminalization can have effects like lower abuse rates, practical eradication of drug crime, and even lower rates of HIV in needle-sharing. It's not just rhetorically pleasing--it's empirically verified, and claiming that my examples aren't of the United States doesn't change the way that the policy operates. At best, you've succeeded in proving that we need to be extra-careful about the language we use in writing up our own version--not that we need a bigger fence. Saving Money Dependence on hard drugs? Take a look at this chart a moment [http://drugwarfacts.org...]. Notice that, though alcohol does in fact rank only a 3 for dependence, the most addicting and dependence-creating drug isn't heroin or cocaine: it's nicotine. In other words, one of the main components of cigarettes is the most addicting drug you can find. If you're going to use addictiveness as a justification for the War on Drugs (which in turn is a non sequitur justification for a huge fence), you're barking up the wrong tree, since the most addictive subsance is already very, very legal. Taking the figure of 18,300 personnel I cited earlier, and dividing by 1,300 miles, you get about 14 officers per mile. I imagine that 14 men, more than a few in patrol vehicles, patrolling their respective routes, would probably be far more efficient than a couple thousand miles of mostly unmanned fence (the likes of which, true to the joke, could probably be "hopped" by immigrants caring more about making it over the border than evading security). Speculation on my part, but it seems to be a bit more common sense. This, of course, assumes that we should have as tight a border as we can possibly get. Frankly, I don't think that this argument is a round-winner even if we assume it to be true, since A) ending the War on Drugs nets a larger financial gain, B) you've never cited any analysis of how much money would be saved, and C) there's a problem if "building this huge fence will save money" is the round-deciding argument. Protecting Illegals That doesn't really respond to my argument, which was that you can't claim a humanitarian justification when fencing off the border sends migrants back into a region which is approximately 24 times deadlier than the potentially-perilous journey they may otherwise have made. It's like trapping a guy in a yard full of hungry wolves and claiming that you're in the right for preventing him from running out onto the highway. Furthermore, I never made the claim that we could dictate what went on in Mexico, so I'm not sure what offense that gains you. Regarding the War on Drugs, I specifically explained that we ought to use our diplomatic strength, fair relats with Mexico, and what's left of our superpower influence to try persuading the Mexican government to decriminalize. The strategy I listed doesn't require Mexico to follow suit, but it obviously helps. The current system "allows" people to be processed one-by-one; like your wall, however, it guarantees nothing. The wall is worse, however, since the vast and unmanned spans of fence that you would construct would be a pretty big incentive to try and cross, since it's almost a guarantee that you won't run into border patrol agents. I think you're really overestimating the effectiveness of a fence, especially given the sweeping claims you've made about stopping immigrants and drug cartels without citing any relevant facts. Knowing Who Comes to the Country First of all, false analogy. If we assume that both are better served by having no holes, it does not follow that the fence will actually be as effective as you claim it is. It might stop people from just straight walking through, but migrants tend to be really resourceful people. A good example would be border tunnels [http://www.usborderpatrol.com...]. We can safely assume that a fence isn't particularly useful if you can bypass it by tunneling underneath. The fact that many such tunnels are used for drug-smuggling [http://www.reuters.com...] is especially damaging to your argument that a fence would ward off cartels. "If" is, I suppose, the key word. And it's a pretty sure "if", given the massive number of immigrants who have already made their way, one way or another, over the border. Additionally, your claim that a straight fence is more effective than border patrols at keeping people out is suspiciously unsubstantiated. I suspect that this is not only because there is little evidence on the matter, but also because it's an unverifiable prospective claim about an anti-immigration strategy that can't be evaluated due to its nonexistence, which means that you're speculating and appealing to (unverified) probability again. Illegals and Public Goods Theoretically, yes. Illegals can cross the border to vote (probably--with as many unwarranted claims as you've put out there, I'm slightly skeptical about this, since I'm not intimately familiar with how voting works. Assuming this to be true, however, you've again presented no evidence listing the last time a case such as what you've described actually occurred. If border security is as inadequate as you seem to believe, it's likely (though not absolutely certain, I admit) that it would either have happened recently, or that any such en masse attempts would have been reported in the news. Also, this isn't really a substantial claim, but I get the feeling that, if a large and significant mass of illegals tried to cross the border all in the same day to vote, someone would probably notice and do something about it. As for the rest of your argument: First, you're upset that illegal immigrants are getting access to public services, but you complain when I propose a fairly effortless solution? You can't have your cake and eat it too. Plus, it's not as if getting out an ID while rushing the guy to the hospital is some sort of back-breaking activity. If you really care about saving a dying man's life that much, though, you may as well forgo the requirements and open access to anyone in need, just in case a desparate and dying illegal comes along. Second, I never claimed that I "don't care whether illegals pay taxes". You're straw-manning me. What I said was that the notion that illegals don't pay taxes was a complete lie, and provided two different sources which explained that an overwhelming majority of illegals do pay taxes, often without the luxury of a tax return. This proves that your "free" access argument is quite incorrect. Thank you for the debate.