Border Fence

First, I shall rebut Pro’s response to my fifth point about a better alternative together with her second argument about unemployment and legal immigration since they kind of go hand in hand. I will then respond to her R4 and support arguments for my case.5) Better Alternative/Argument #2Pro seems to be saying that more immigration makes it harder for Americans to find jobs. However, her statistics seem to contradict the point she is trying to make. Pro states that employment actually increased, while unemployment remained nearly the same. She also claims that America “suffers” a low unemployment rate, when low unemployment rates are clearly a good thing. That aside, Pro also claims that immigrants take scarce job opportunities. This is incorrect. First, very few low-skilled jobs are filled by Americans. Those are mostly filled by immigrants, who are vital in helping to improve our economy. Certain industries, like agriculture, are almost entirely dependent upon illegal immigrants. For example, “retail milk prices would increase by 61 percent if its immigrant labor force were to be eliminated.” [1] The truth is that “most unskilled immigrants don't displace American workers. They fill niches — not just farmhand, but also chambermaid, busboy and others — that would otherwise go empty.” [2] “Of the 2.5 million farm workers in the U.S., over half (53 percent) are illegal immigrants,” which goes up to 70% if labor unions are added. Over two decades of research has proved that all types of revenue generated from illegal immigrants exceed the cost of the services they use. [1] “Every farm job supports three to four others up and downstream in the local economy,” so the idea that immigrants detract from the job market is untrue. [2] The standard of living for most Americans actually increased as a result of their contributions—and this is according to the consensus of over 500 economists who have researched this topic. [1]1) Cost and 2) EffectivenessPro once again admits that the cost of maintaining and expanding the border fence would be very substantial. She continues to reference her statistics about the number or attempted crossings going down as evidence that the border fence is effective and should be extended. Perhaps I was not completely clear in my previous round, but the problem is this: Pro has not shown that the border fence and the border fence alone is responsible for these decreases. I cited different factors—increased border patrols and better technology, for example—that would explain those statistics equally well, if not better. Merely restating statistics will not change anything. Pro has provided evidence, but the evidence does not speak for itself. She has failed to link this evidence specifically to the border fence. Therefore, her argument is unwarranted. Even if we accept for a moment that the fence actually does reduce the number of illegal crossings, it is far from certain that expanding the fence would outweigh the potential harms that I have explained—the extremely high cost, the environmental impact, and most importantly the price in thousands of human lives. Pro even partially acknowledges this when she says that many do fail in crossing the border—and yet her proposal to expand the fence would only claim more lives. In the light of these other factors, what we would gain from expanding the fence is almost negligible. It remains Pro’s burden to prove that expanding the border fence can have substantial positive impacts using reasoning that goes beyond simply arguing that because something is slightly good, much more of it is definitely better. Not everything that is good in small amounts is beneficial in larger portions.3) Immigration and povertyPro says that I support immigrants crossing. I would like to reiterate that my argument is for legal immigration. Reforming the existing system along the lines of what HR-15 proposes will take away the incentive for illegal crossings and encourage people to migrate legally instead. One thing must be made clear: immigration will exist, regardless of whether the fence is expanded, and regardless of whether reform is implemented, because the incentives exist for them to migrate. The difference is that, under Pro’s proposal, these immigrants will remain illegal, more people will die crossing, and people smugglers make much more money. My plan for immigration reform will take away the incentive for migrants to cross illegally, greatly reducing the money smugglers and traffickers can make. And when their motivation for dealing in this kind of business, namely money, is gone, they will no longer remain in that kind of work. This would partially solve for the harms regarding drug trafficking and human trafficking that Pro brought up earlier. Pro seems to assume that more immigration leads to poverty in America, a point that I have proven false in the paragraph above. Legal immigration also does not prevent us from dealing with poverty. Pro’s claim here is once again unwarranted.4) Environmental impactI fail to see how Pro concludes that I have not provided evidence for the immense environmental destruction that the border fence has already caused and will continue to cause if it is expanded. I cited specific examples, but those are hardly the only ones of their kind. I also referenced readers to the appropriate source listed in my R1 for more instances of the detrimental impact on our ecosystems.Sources:[1] http://thehill.com...[2] http://www.nytimes.com...Back over to Pro for the final round :)