The United States should build and maintain a border fence

Thanks for the responce, Pro!Also, please don't forget to use new R4 arguments only to rebut new R3 arguments!Counterplan Pro misunderstands my counterplan, saying it grants citizenship to persons who will cross the border illegally; however, crossing the border illegally after the bill is passed will still be against the law. To restate, my counterplan: 1. Gives illegally-residing persons immunity from immigration charges and offers undocumented immigrants (without other charges) citizenship, and 2. Makes citizenship easy to acquire. This means less deportation. Undocumented (illegal) immigration is great for the US economy. All of my sources were addressing undocumented immigration [3, 4, 5, 7, 8]. -They pay taxes, but receive only minimal government services. They give far more money to the government than they receive [4, 5, 7]. -They fill a gap in the labor force of low-paying jobs, vastly increasing the net productivity of industries like agriculture [4].-They increase the wages of native-born persons [4]. -They prevent companies from taking their jobs overseas, opening up more jobs than they occupy [23]. Immigrants in general tend to avoid conflict with native jobs since they have different skill sets [24]. -They contribute a net of $1.8 trillion to the government and create 8.1 million new jobs [3]. Granting undocumented immigrants legal status will increase the gross domestic product (GDP) by $1.4 Trillion over the next 10 years (half the time of building the fence) and create over 200,000 net jobs each year [25].FAIR is a hate group [1], and its study has several "critical errors," including ignoring the fact that undocumented immigrant education benefits the US economy [2].I did not call Fox "racist." The US already has a guest worker program (H-2 Visa) [34]. It has done little to help the economy or stop undocumented immigration. Guest worker programs are bad for the US economy, because the workers can’t stay in the US to spend wages or give taxes. The fences would break the US-Mexico treaty. Pro says that the fence would not interrupt water flow; however, this is not only false [31] (construction WOULD change the flow) but also irrelevant because the issue at hand is the Mexican government’s interpretation, which calls the fence a violation of the treaty. If the US builds the triple-fence without Mexico’s consent, there would likely be trade sanctions, which would mean a loss of $500 B in trade imports/exports per year and millions of jobs [19]. Over 20 years, that would mean a loss of $10 T in trade. Counterplan increases security. With Easy Citizenship, almost no one will cross the border illegally because legally crossing would be easier, safer, more beneficial, etc. The only reason to cross the border would be criminal activity. Border patrol agents would only need to catch a few hundred persons instead of 750,000 persons, making them far more effective. Pro’s fence plan puts US at risk of terrorism. According to a study, “no terrorist or terrorist weapon” has ever been intercepted at the border checkpoint [29]. Even without the fence it would still be too risky for a terrorist to enter the US along the Mexico border. Persons trying to become citizens need a criminal background check in my counterplan. This is essentially the same security for legal citizenship, visas, or guest programs in Pro’s plan. Because Pro’s plan only blocks a tiny portion of the US borders, a terrorist could enter illegally using another route. Pro’s plan makes it harder to live in the US and breaks the US-Mexico treaty, both of which would heighten anti-US hatred and increase the risk of terrorism. Border fences would make drug/gun situation worse. Most of the drugs/guns enter through checkpoints because illegally transporting a truck (as opposed to a person) across a non-checkpoint border is very difficult. Pro neglects to give a single instance of a drug/gun smuggling success because of a faulty/absent fence. Pro drops my point that even if the new fence makes smuggling harder, it would also increase the price of drugs and incentivize drug cartels, greatly increasing violence and gangs near the border. Likewise, the fence would fund the more powerful gun runners, which would lead to the smuggling of more dangerous weapons. Easy Citizenship would decrease crime Pro dropped the point that my counterplan would allow immigrants to living according to the law, and would moreover dramatically reduce crime, short-term and long-term. This would save billions of dollars in prison stays and legal work. Alternative pt 1: Pro’s fence diverts $16 B away from Department of Homeland Security, decreasing security in the homeland. My counterplan instead gives $12 B to border patrol. Most contraband goes through the checkpoints. Currently, border patrol misses about 30% of this illegal contraband [30]. By diverting even part of the funds to the border patrol, they will be able to more effectively secure the US. In addition, these funds will be able to make border traffic faster, helping the economy and reducing pollution due to long waits [32]. Alternative pt. 2: Veterans and Indian Nations ($4 B) Indian nations have a very low college attendance rate [33]. Public schools near reservations are notoriously under-funded [33]. Thus, $2 B funding public schools near Indian nations would increase education, allow better jobs, and fight poverty. 1/3 of the US homeless population are veterans [26], mainly because they can’t afford housing and many are suffering from substance dependence [26]. My counterplan will give $2 B to non-interest loans to help veterans afford housing and provide veterans free therapy for substance abuse and PTSD. Easy Citizenship stops sex trafficking, but Pro’s plan does not. Pro dropped the fact that Easy Citizenship will eliminate nearly 100% of sex trafficking by ending recruitment, saving tens of thousands each year. The border fence will do little or nothing to help. Pro’s plan would destroy 3 species Pro’s proposed bypass would fail. The government had spent $80 M on trying to bring the species' populations together without a border fence [16] so a tiny tunnel would hardly unite the populations, especially alongside noise and light (especially during construction!) that stops breeding and the predator risk by the tunnel. The fences would increase the spread of non-native species [31]. The fences would increase erosion and water contamination [31]. The fences would devastate 3 Indian nations. Putting the fence to the north would mean that to enter the Indian nations one would need to pass border security, which would effectively smother business to and from the reservations. Native American reservations are already extremely impoverished (often as much as 60%) [28], with 10 times the average without electricity [27]. Their already fragile economies would be obliterated as a result of the fence, leading to unthinkable unemployment and poverty. If the fences go through instead of around the reservations, they will not only degrade the land but also destroy burial grounds and gravestones [31]. Pro’s plan steals land from the poor. Pro dropped that vast majority of the border fence will be taken from the land of poor persons who cannot represent themselves in court, and thus do not get fair monetary compensation [20]. The increasing fence security would cause immigrants to take dangerous routes, killing thousands [10, 14]. Pro's words are offensive. He says the US should reject the poor and mentally-handicapped from Cuba, a suggestion that is either elitist, ablest, racist, or a combination of the three. [23] http://tinyurl.com... [24] http://tinyurl.com... [25] http://tinyurl.com... [26] http://tinyurl.com... [27] http://tinyurl.com... [28] http://tinyurl.com... [29] http://tinyurl.com... [30] http://tinyurl.com... [31] http://tinyurl.com... [32] http://tinyurl.com... [33] http://tinyurl.com... [34] http://tinyurl.com...