Border Fence

I am going to address Pro's arguments out of the order in which he presented them. My opponent says >>"Humanity the USA included, has struggled to produce enough food, even today people starve to death in other regions of the world."<< But this is a crapshoot with no relevance to the topic. My original statement was that the United States was in no danger of "starving" to death with regards to food and finances. My opponent says the United States is struggling to get enough food, yet it is a net exporter of agricultural products, with more than enough food for our current population, especially if people ate the amount they should. >>If Con feels secure in the USA ability to produce or attain food, this is only cause alot of work is done to create this situation, its not the natural state of affairs in nature.<< The natural state of affairs in nature requires that primitive man gather berries and hunt large game. Yet we farm and do other technological things to help sustain ourselves and diversity in labor distribution. >>Allowing anyone or any Mexican to come into the USA at their own choosing hurts not helps this stability.<< Pro offers nothing to support this statement and he is actually mistaken. A steady supply of immigrants helps a country maintain growth and business. >>For instance if the USA had a shortage of Doctors, allowing any Mexican at their own choosing to come into the USA such as the one who can only do manual labour does help meet this labour need.<< I don't think you understand. In the coming years the United States is going to have a shortage of ALL TYPES OF LABOR. We will be short on doctors and lawyers and construction workers and farmers and computer programmers and fast-food restaurant employees et al. All Mexican immigrants (and immigrants from other parts of the world) will be encouraged to come to the United States by our government. But by then, they may not want to come. Conditions are improving around the world and the US is no longer the shining beacon of hope that it once was. So why spend millions of dollars preventing these essential immigrants from reinforcing our economy? Regardless of their trade or occupation when they enter this country, any immigrant can go to Community College or a technical school to learn a new skill. >>on regards continuing population growth as fallacious, but is arguing that Mexicans should be allowed into the USA en mass, thus increasing population growth. This is an outright contradiction.<< You completely misunderstood the meaning of my argument. When I said that the world's systems are based on the fallacy that the world's population is going to increase, I was arguing that there will be chaos when the population slows down, as it has in Russia. Therefore, to prevent this decrease in population from happening, we can forestall it by letting Mexicans freely immigrate into the country. I have not contradicted myself in the slightest you simply misunderstood my argument. >>Pretty much all human activity does environmental damage {therefore the fence should be built regardless of environmental impacts}<< This is a terrible breach of ethics. If everyone thinks like that, our world is going to be a toxic wasteland before you can have kids Illegalcombatant. We need to consider the effects our actions will have on the environment especially when it comes to National policy. >>sing this type of reasoning, the USA should not try to stop murder, cause it is going to happen anyway, the USA should not try to stop rape, cause it will happen anyway, the USA should not try to stop death, cause everyone will die.<< Everyone WILL die and trying to outright stop it from happening would be a complete waste of time and money, just like the border fence is. >>Then I suggest Con advocate policy that takes away the incentives for Mexicans to try to come into the USA by crossing the desert in the first place.<< The United States cannot "take away incentives" for Mexicans to cross the desert! That would require that we make the United States a worse place than Mexico is, something I doubt even you would want for us in Australia, since our economies are so intermixed. >>Con equates the right of Americans of free movement in America to the free movement of Mexicans who want to come into America. How is this equivalent ?<< That is not what I equate at all, I equated the desires of the first immigrants to the desires of these current Mexican immigrants, who are in every way equivalent. Therefore, the argument still stands. Summary Pro has failed to refute my arguments regarding decreasing population, human rights, and environmental impacts and has made poor assertions based on a faulty morality scheme.