Border Fence

The fixed version of my earlier picture can be found in the references[1].R1) Environmental ImpactsA fence will not likely have a positive effect on the environment I will admit, but this shouldn't be a major barrier to a fence being put up because that would be assuming that the lives of species are as or more important than human lives. I'd argue that keeping our country and citizens safe is more of a priority than protecting bears and wild animals. We can't take both options, so when it comes down to higher human atrocities in border states or some habitats, I would take the former option first.Illegals used to tromp through sensitive areas of the Tijuana estuary[2], so a fence wouldn't be all bad as it would decrease the amount of crossers that could damage the environment anyway.R2) Cost & EffectivenessOf course a fence isn't going to necessarily be cheap, but the benefits of it outweigh its expense. From Con's own source, illegal immigration costs $29 billion at the federal level but another $84 billion at the state and local level, totaling to $113 billion, which is over quadruple the cost of illegal immigration.It's not my job to argue for or against deportations since the topic at hand is the fence. However, if I concede that $400-$600 billion used for deporting all 11.2 illegal immigrants is too expensive, the argument in favor of a fence still stands. We must also acknowledge that a fence would reduce illegal apprehensions anyways as less illegals would cross through and have that effect. As shown earlier, the fence is effective and has slowed immigration along with crime down to record lows. 16k states that border enforcement is more expensive than allowing immigrants to stay, but the evidence for this is unclear. Con says that the US-Mexico border won't stop Asian immigrants from entering into the US. This is not an issue because 1) it's not supposed to, it's meant for Mexicans, and 2) the fence is designed to control illegal immigration, not necessarily legal. 16k combines the two, making the numbers seem different than they already are. If we look at the effects the fence has on border states, we see that it is effecient in what it is supposed to do. That's like arguing we should cut down an apple tree because it doesn't produce pears.In the last round I presented CBO's prediction of illegal immigration being halved by a fence, as well as Pew Research's report that Mexican illegal immigrant residence dropped a whole million in just five years, from 2007 to 2012. If we follow the trend, the amount of Mexican illegals would have reached 9 million by 2012, but thanks to border security 3 million illegals have been prevented from residing unlawfully in the US. Imagine how much higher costs would be for taxpayers if those 3 million were allowed to stay - more people would have to pay for their free health care, education, and benefits, as well as make up for the taxes the most of them don't pay. Not to mention, if deportations continue, there will be less of them. We must also recognize that the border fence isn't finished yet. The section that does exist has been effective in preventing the amount that I showed, which is actually really effective. With the whole fence completed, the numbers would go even lower.As well as significantly decreased crime in border states, "Apprehensions decreased by 67 percent in southern Luna County in New Mexico thanks to the construction of a border fence and increased resources...In Columbus, N.M., a 6-mile pedestrian fence has resulted in decreased apprehensions by 60 percent and a 100 percent decrease in narcotics."[3] By this point it should be quite clear that a fence actually does have a positive effect on country.R3) Net effect of immigrationWith increased immigration, we must understand the reality of the negative effects. Crime spillover has been proven and shown to rise with less border security, and drop with more of it, meaning that illegals have an effect on the stability of society. The workforce is scarce, and when more immigrants take jobs, they rob American citizens of the jobs that they had a right to. Immigrants also put a strain on the education and health care systems, as was mentioned earlier. We both agree that illegals cost America $113 billion, but Con suggests that they have a net benefit of $22-36 billion, but this positve doesn't outweigh the costs of hosting illegals.The Center for Immigration Studies suggests that immigrants actaully have a negative impact on wages[4]. On a table of the wage impact by immigration influx shown by the CIS, "if immigrants increased the total number of workers in a skill group by 10 percent, the wage trends observed over the past 50 years would suggest that the weekly earnings of working men would fall by 3.7 percent."[5] The reason for this is that immigrants are often unskilled and take the jobs with the lowest wages. Con suggests that prices would be reduced and inflation would decrease, but I fail to see how lower prices means lower inflation. If anything, lower prices create more room for inflation. [1] http://www.pewhispanic.org...[2] http://www.pri.org...[3] https://www.numbersusa.com...[4] http://cis.org...[5] http://cis.org...