A border fence is needed along America and Mexico.

As Pro is the stater of policy, it should be noted that Pro has full BoP in supporting action for a border fence. I now turn to his arguments, broken up in one place to create four arguments: 1. It will decrease illegal immigration by those south of Texas and Arizona. 2. It will decrease the trafficking of illegal substances. 3. Defense against an army. 4. Jobs. I will assume that Pro"s arguments is based on the U.S. Federal Government building this fence, since any individual with the capability and perceived need of two big reinforced slabs with manned sniper nests has likely done so, and most individuals, frankly, don"t have the means to build a fence like that for their own land. I shall address points out of order to hit the weaker points first before moving to the stronger ones. Jobs-"You need men to build this wall, the wall is an amazing project to jump start the economy...and snipers getting jobs as well." This is a fallacious argument because of the nature of government expenditures, which I assume is how this project will be funded. Government first gains revenue by taxation, borrowing money from the private loans market, or by borrowing from the Federal Reserve, essentially creating the money out of thin air. Taxation simply reduces the money the private sector has on hand in favor of the Federal Government; considering that private owners are connected by the price system to make better economic judgements and it will be the most politically connected, rather than most efficient, building teams that get a government contract to build this wall, the taxation method would be inherently wasteful to job growth. In borrowing from the private sector, the government is essentially taking all the money that would have started businesses or expanded them and then coming into the same political problems as taxation. Which leads us to inflation, which will benefit the first receivers (those working on the wall), but will end up hurting the working poor and the retired the most; as the new money goes through the economy, the working poor and retired living on fixed incomes will see less of that new money as prices rise beyond what they own. Pro may claim this to be only a short-run effect, but when that short run effect affects a working couple"s education choices for their children or makes that one operation just to big to justify putting descendants in debt for, there are some really big human consequences. This may not mean the wall is not necessary, but the jobs point is moot considering all the jobs that might have been made in absence of increased spending. War- "If for any reason any army from anywhere south of the boarder unless it was another outer Continental force that already invaded Central or South America it would have a harder time getting into America compared to right now." First, highly unlikely; even Hollywood gives cubans a subsidiary role to a "greater" power in terms of foreign invasions, and the countries south of us are reliant on military aid from the U.S. to hold their regimes against dope-dealers and rebels; the U.S. is already fighting to keep puppets in control south of our border. [1] Second, there is one place this wall is almost certainly not going to be; the cities that serve as checkpoints between Mexico and the U.S. You may, possibly, have made cross-country troop movement through desert wasteland untenable (though that waste makes crossing a fighting force with enough gear to arrive anywhere deep in fighting form pretty hard already), but you have simply made the cities a far greater target; they have roads to other major cities for troop movements, and they have suddenly become the path of least resistance. So, as unlikely as it is to occur in the first place and given the civilian casualties you invite in case of war, this point is moot. So, that leads us to the next argument; Illegal Immigration. What exactly is the problem with illegal immigration? The arguments generally follow one of three points; "they take our jobs" "they just want free stuff" "they will vote for free stuff" Essentially, competition in the labor market, welfare, and they will vote democrat if given amnesty. First, competition in the labor market: So what? Jobs are not a fixed amount forever; jobs are created by production, and more labor means more opportunities for production. Claims abound that employers will skirt not only burdensome labor laws but actually harass the illegal immigrants and threaten turning them over to ICE. However, what group is willing to avoid justice between individuals for sake of documentation? This is a problem the government, the group supposed to be taking action in Pro"s resolution, can resolve! Further, there is the case of welfare, generally in the form of public schools and ER rooms. And who requires that all school-age children, regardless of education, and grants benefits to children of non-taxpayers to go to college, and requires ERs to accept all patients? Again, the group supposedly needing to take action, when the ceasing of action it currently takes would again solve a problem. So, what about the problem of illegals not voting for "traditional American values?" Don"t grant them citizenship! Allow them to work and live, paying for what they use, and you will have more production and real wealth, while not paying "free-loaders" or "fence-hoppers." Essentially, in this area a ceasing of action, rather than the effort of more action, would be more justifiable. However, say this wall is built; what about tunneling? There is incredible problems in policing the border as it is, and illegals have learned many tricks to avoiding detection and getting into the country. How much air-power has to circle into Mexican space to keep tabs on the numerous tunneling attempts, not to mention possible networks? Which brings us to drug smuggling; they would probably be a big funder of tunneling, paying for the tools to make tunneling possible and easier. The demand exists in the U.S. for the supply the cartels provide, and they will be heavily incentivized to get past that wall, whether by ship, balloons (high risk, higher reward), or tunneling. Such a wall would actually make defending the border from cartels even harder. So, by virtue of an economic fallacy concerning jobs, the unlikelihood of war and fact that civilian populations become more prime targets, the fact that most immigration "problems" are either caused by the government or non-existent, and the increased motive for drug cartels to get their product into the States, Pro"s Resolution for building a really large, expensive fence is refuted. I turn this debate back into Pro"s hands. Source: [1] http://www.tni.org...