The US Federal Government Should Not Construct a Border Fence Between the US and Mexico

Cost of The WallI have already shown specifically what wall I would advocate being built and the complete costs. My opponent has dropped those arguments I made. He has not disputed the complete cost of the wall, and the rebuttal round was the place to dispute that It is not my fault that My opening arguments coincidentally acted as a rebuttal. A debate about a border wall practically mandates pro makes a statement on the cost to display the wall's affordability. My opponent has dropped the arument that the maintanence of the wall would be just a drop in the bucket of the DHS bucket, less than 2% of their 60 billion dollar bucket. He has not disputed this and it should count as a dropped argument. The only question is if the tiny little amount of money it would take to build the wall is worth it, and it is a tiny little amount. Even if our taxes had to be raised to 1/10 of a penny per paycheck to finance the wall. Nobody would notice the costs.This all ignores the fact that the border wall pays for itself. If immigrants had a wall in their way instead of just merely being able to take a stroll across the border we could avoid much of the cost for deportation. The cost of deporting an illegal immigrant is $12,500, for a total cost of about 5 billion dollars a year. http://blog.chron.com... a border wall is even 50% effective than that portion of the 5 billion alone not only pays for the cost of maintanence, but of building the wall as well, and all evidence suggests the wall will be close to 100% effective.I do think that voters should see what arguments of various costs they believe and do an impact anlysis to determine if the wall costs more than it saves in money to build. They should also take in the social costs such as the ones I brought up in the last round to detemine if the cost is worth it. Anyway, I have already spent too much time on an argument that my opponent dropped. Moving on.Benefits of Mexican ImmigrantsThere is a false conception that it is only Mexican immigrants coming across the border, This is untrue as pointed out about other arguments I made last round but con dropped in the rebuttal round. con had every opportunity but did not rebut that a lot of illegal immigrants come from other countries, and among them some suspected terrorists. Con dropped these arguments, and has forfeited the right to argue against those facts. More on that in the next round. These facts that he dropped tells us it is not just Mexicans crossing the border as my opponents is trying to imply. The loss of over 150 billion on 9/11 which does not account for the hundreds of bilions spent on warfare http://www.iags.org...; , The abiliy to prevent the next 9/11 covers the cost of the wall and is a good financial benefit. My opponent argues that immigrants contribute a lot to the American economy. The problem with his source is that it considers all immigrants, both legal and illegal, both crossing the border and coming here in other ways. For exaple he mentions that immigrants start a lot of new businesses in the United States, but does not tell us how many of those people are from illegal aliens. I would rightfully assume that a lot of these entrepenuers are from among those who come to America if they agree to invest one million dollars in the economy mostly from starting new businesses. http://fundersandfounders.com...; Many immigrants come here legally on Visas because they have a valuable skill or good education that is in demand. The illegal aliens and desperate people strolling through the border are not the doctors who come here from India or among the lawyers and engineers we welcome into the country legally with open arms. These are the people starting businesses. Not those that come over and work jobs at below minimum wage or leach offthe system. Immigrants to the United States come in 2 varieties. A large amount of them are high skilled workers or rich entrepenuers, the other half is dirt poor people from the lowest possible socio-economic classes. Claiming that the low skilled variety should be allowed to just flood undocumented over the border because the Doctors and engineers coming over the border contribute a lot to the economy in terms of job creation is ridiculous. I don't deny there is ssome benefit to having a large body of low skill imigrants, but they should not be coming across the border illegally. My opponent has made a case for the immigrants currently in the U.S., but not for allowing open borders, which is practically what we have considering my stat that 43% of the border has no security at all which my opponent doesn't contest. We can bring in the amount of immigrants our economy requires easily at legal border crossings by loosening rules for immigration, giving out more work visas, and through other means. We don't have to open up our border for drugs, terrorists and criminals to meet our immigration needs. Bringing them in legally has the benefit of giving us control of the flow of immigrants as well as making sure that nobody is bringing over unwanted diseases, and no bad elements are sneaking in with the good guys who merely want to make a better life for themselves. Effectiveness of the WallI have only glossed over my opponents rebuttals because my focus is on rebuttals right now as the guidelines he provided suggests. However I assume he likely ignored my arguments showing how the wall would be close to 100% effective as demonstrated by areas of the United States where it is the case as well as showing how the same wall was effective in Israel and Saudi Arabia. Those arguments work as rebuttals to any silly ladder or tunnel theory that my opponent may suggest. My opponent says that if the United States builds a wall murderers and rapists would just get temporary VISAs and overstay them. This is untrue for a couple of reasons. The main reason is that applying for VISAs allows the United States to conduct background checks on people in the country of their origin. Instead of degenerates being able to stroll across the 43% of completely ungaurded border, they can be stopped when a background check shows a warrant for their arrest or if they have a criminal history of raping and murdering people. Having immigrants come into the United States legally allows us more discretion and knowledge of people entering the United States.The other problem with his argument is that the United States does not give out unlimited VISAs. The amount of VISAs is limited. For example permanent VISAs are limited to 140,000 people. If we decided we need more immigrants to enter the United States to maximize the benefit of having them we can raise those numbers up and down at our own will. The other problem that is obvious with his arguments, is the argument that since people can get in the country illegally through other means that we should just give up on having secure borders. That because a solution is not perfect, we should just open up the floodgates. You don't see anyone arguing that since patrolling the streets and setting up DUI checkpoints is not 100% effective we should just give up on preventing drunk driving, but my opponent uses the same type of argument for immigration. I am starting to get fat so I occasionally eat a salad. I stll drink a lot of beer and eat pizza which is making me fat, but that doesn't mean I should stop eating salad, maybe I should just double down on salads. ConclusionThe minimal costs of the wall I outlined in the opening round and justified were never contested and it is too late to contest the cheapness of them. My opponent's arguments about ladders and tunnels is silly and my oppening statement though not a rebuttal, effectively acts as a rebuttal. My opponent's opening arguments assume a single fence that can easily be climbed via a fence or by tunnels, but they are useless at a well guarded border that has double walls, a barbed wire tringle in the middle of the walls, tunnel sensors and the ability for guards to react within just a few minutes to capture illegal immigrants before they even have a chance to breach the 2nd wall. Next round I will explain how the rest of my opponent's arguents are flawed. He drops many of my arguments so that leaves very little I have to contest. Thanks for reading god luck Subutai.