The U.S. should build a fence on its southern border in order to reduce illegal immigration.

My case is very simple: We should have an open border. That is, we should let everyone enjoy the freedom, liberty, and economic prosperity (comparatively) of our great nation. Up until fairly recently, anyone could come to America, and our nation prospered. The racism of the early 20th century regulated our borders, and led to our current immigration policy. We must end this policy, and revert to an open border. An open border has many advantages, and, it is completely free! Advantage 1: Immigrants are essential to our economy. The jobs that no Americans will take are taken by immigrants. Chicken processing plants, orange plantations, and those other "dirty" jobs rely on the unskilled labor that immigration provides. Businesses such as these have shown losses in labor force, and increases in price when there are crackdowns on illegal immigrants. If we bring in more immigrants, as would happen with an open border, we would have more labor, and our economy could grow. Jason Riley, member of the Wall Street Journal editorial board, points out that "The typical immigrant is either higher-skilled or lower-skilled than the average American, so they tend to complement the workforce rather than take jobs," this HELPS our economy! Obviously, helping our economy is good, so we want immigrants. A border fence would cut off this supply of immigrants by a large margin. Advantage 2: An open border presents the United States as an welcoming, open country, rather than the shady, paranoid country we are seen as currently. In 2007, the University of Maryland found that only 28% of the world found that the US was having a positive influence on the world. Having an open border can only improve our status. Advantage 3: An open border makes travel easy. No longer does one need visas, and green cards to travel throughout North America. One may argue that this makes illegal travel easier, but this argument does not hold weight, most drugs, and illegal substances come in by boat, as the sea ports are our weakest point. Customs officials don't actually check boats, the captains of the boats just have to check in. This means that criminals will just use this weak point, rather than the borders. Advantage 4: An open border is easy to maintain. No work is required at all, the only action required is passivity. Advantage 5: Open borders will lead to more cultural integration and understanding. If people can travel more freely, they will encounter each other more frequently, and we will have a "melting pot." Broad case: Open borders work in many places. In the EU, all members have open borders, and they see much success in economic, cultural, and political exchanges. Also, we have one with Canada, and we have no problems there. There is no reason why it wouldn't work with Mexico. Now, for anticipatory arguments: ==Illegal immigration causes crime, more welfare, and poverty!== Jason Riley, member of the Wall Street Journal editorial board, noted that all of these have decreased with the recent rise in immigration, so obviously immigration won't cause these. ==Terrorists will come in!== Most terrorists don't come in over the border. Usually they come here legally. ==What about drugs?== I pointed out that drug runners will have an easier time using our ports. ==Won't they steal our jobs== Like I said, they don't. You should read my evidence above. Opponent's case: "There are already several cities in the U.S. where fences are put up (San Diego, Nogales, El Paso.) All have reduced illegal immigration." That's bad, we want immigration. Therefore we shouldn't put up a fence. We don't need a Berlin Wall. "This is a main controversy of the...anti-border fence people. What good is 6-foot high chicken wire? Well first, it is cost effective. And any fence no matter how high can be climbed over. And the secret would be to guard the fence with cameras that cover the entire border. The fence slows them down and they get details on camera. Also it will be covered with barbed wire that's 3 inches apart which is harder to penetrate than normal. If the wire is cut a sensor will go off alerting the Border Patrol increasing the likelihood of arrest. Its also easy to fix. The DOI (Department of the Interior) won't allow non-government funding of it. They only choose to keep government standard fences barely within the limit because of lack of funding. Environmentalists won't allow a fence that is deemed harmful. A solid steel fence is too expensive for a non-profit company. The Border Patrol would be able to see through the fence because it is not concrete or steel. We are now building chain link security fencing on private land and reinforcing agricultural public fencing with chain link also. The chicken wire would be made to be as tough as 10 gauge wire. We are also considering walls made of recycled materials. This would be cost effective." But we want them to get through. Keeping them out is bad. Don't you get it? "2. We have the support of the environmentalists and the government. The DOI has been working with the government for solutions. The environmentalists who claim it is more harm than good usually lose in court. Plus zoologists have found that mostly sea animals and birds have migratory patterns. For those few animals who do want to cross they may be trapped but research shows they have plenty of habitat to survive on either side. Plus it wouldn't cut off an entire habitat. The current plan is to build on private land adjacent to Mexico." And cut through people's yards? I recently read an article about the fence in Brownsville, Texas. The fence goes through a family's yard, about ten feet from their door, it cuts off a rancher's cattle from their pastures, and it goes through the habitat of endangered species. Also, most environmental groups don't support a border fence, including Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, Nature Conservancy, etc. "The DOI has permission to undergo this project. Any attempts to stop Standard Form 299 and legal action will be taken." So? That doesn't mean they should. "4. The fence will be a great design. If you decide to submit an idea to the DOI they will take it under consideration if it passes legal judgment. So we can rest assured the fence will be a great design." Does it let everyone in? No. I rest my case. "5. It is not a scam. We can rest assured the Border Fence Project working with DOI and others is a legal non-profit organisation. All money goes to tools and materials among other necessities. Here is a link concerning the Border Fence Project's legal status. http://www.borderfenceproject.com...; No, it's what will trash our economy even more. We need immigration! "6.The rubber wall will work. If the illegals try to burn the wall it will be covered with inflammable material too hard to scrape or dissolve. The rubber inside would also be inflammable." We don't want it to keep them out. It is not good to do so. "7.It is a team coordinated effort. The Minutemen, Border Patrol, DOI, and most importantly the government are working together to come up with the best solution to illegal immigration. We can rest assured it will be an effective, safe, and legal solution." The Minutemen are a bunch of racist middle-aged white guys, they should be of with their biker gangs, not enforcing vigilante "justice." And the best dolution is to OPEN THE BORDER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Conclusion: My opponent's case rests on the fact that we want to keep them out. As I have shown, we want the immigration, and a border fence doesn't help immigration.