Build the Border Fence

I am going to try to pull this debate back on topic for the final round 1) Hindering the Drug Trade 1) I hold that having a full and complete border fence will severely hinder drug transportation across the border. How is this illogical? You do provide an alternative, but you did not prove me wrong. 2) You are missing the point. If drugs are legalized they will be used to exploit people in different ways. It seems a bit rhetorical to say that drug crime rates are low in a country where drug use/trade is not a crime. I really hate to resort to this, but Amsterdam and Portugal are not the United States. They are a lot smaller, easier to govern, and do not have a drug spewing country sharing a border with them. 2) Saving Money 1) Con fails to realize the extreme physiological and physcological dependace on hard drugs that alcohol cannot normally compare to. Comparing Prohibition to the WoD is a good way of showing how crime can diminish when restrictions are lifted, but the substances involved are too different to make this a valid comparison. 2) 600 miles still leaves a good 1300 miles open. Using manpower to patrol 1300 miles is highly unpractical. A wall would be far more productive, and aside from intial costs, would save far more money than having border agents drive up and down the line day in and day out. 3) Protecting Illegals 1) We cannot dictate what Mexico can and cannot do for its own people. We, as Americans, have no "legal" way to stop the drug cartels in Mexico. Even if we did decriminalize the WoD, Mexico would still be at war, and immigrants would still be entering our country to escape the violence, some dying before they even reach a city because they wandered too far into hostile desert. In your plan, both countries would have to decriminalize the WoD, which is really pushing the boundaries of what I'll allow as a plausible "courtesy". As it stands, a wall would physically hinder drug trade and keep the violence in Mexico from spilling into the US, and is the most practical idea presented thus far in this debate. 2) I never said that "a fence would somehow help us process more people more efficiently. " My contention was that it would allow everyone who passed from Mexico to the US to be processed, and that your system of IDing everyone would not be possible if everyone could not enter the country at specific points. 4) Knowing Who Comes to the Country 1) A fence is most effective where there aren't any holes in it, espcially 1300 mile long ones. What if I made a levy to hold back flood waters, but only had every other section reinforced strongly. That would work right? Your claim is based on speculation. I provided no plan for the migrants in the country, nor is this debate about that, and so is irrelevant. 2) "you're basically giving migrants a green light if they can get past the unmanned defenses out in the desert. " --- I think "if" is the key word there. A physical wall is a lot better than having thousands of border agents running around trying to catch people who already crossed over. Think if a prison had no walls, but just had more guards. Would you feel safer? Would it be cheaper this way? Maybe if the guards held hands they could make a wall, but its not the same as a concrete and steel reinforced one. 5) Illegals and Public Goods 1) People can cross the border en masse during times of election, make their vote, and return to their coutry. Border fence could stop this. I'm appalled to hear that you would require a dying man to prove his citizenship before being allowed to have life saving treatment at a public hospital. I'm also shocked to hear that you do not care if illegals pay taxes or not. A border fence could solve the latter, by keeping in their own country, and instead of running from their problems, maybe try to solve them. Closing 1) Your responbility as Con was to provide reasons as to why the border fence is a poor idea. You offered alternatives that contradict your original contentions. All of the ideas you provided involves years of legislation and lots of money. You even make it clear that Mexico has to play along with us. Maybe in the ideal world where the WoD doesn't exist this could work. But as it stands we have the option to build a fence. Its at the tip of Congress' fingers, and you prefer the status quo until the WoD can be ended. As a matter of fact you took the status quo in almost all the points. And it is very clear that its not working. 2) Saying that the WoD will end drug crime is speculation also. As where people could not be "hooked" on alcohol, you can indeed get seriously addicted to drugs. And this alone will be enough incentive for drug cartels to continue functioning. I know you are trying to make references to the fact that they will be outpriced, but when the demand can only get larger you see the problem. 3) yupp Conclusion I hope my opponent had fun with the debate, and i hope he appreciated my sarcasm. In closing, a border fence is a good solution. It physically hinders drug cartels from operating in the US and from their violence from coming into the US. It allows us a chance to ID everyone who enters the US. It prevents the deaths of Mexicans in the desert from exposure. Best of all, it is an option readily available. While ending the WoD is viable solution, it does not present a reason to not build a wall. It only counters one of my contentions, and for the most part, Con remained in the status quo which is not good.