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

I. The Supposed Reasons for a Border FenceOne of the main reasons women in particular are immigrating to the U. S. in the first place is because they are fleeing rape. “…females most feared rape or disappearance at the hands of the same groups. While over half of Salvadoran children list more than one reason for migrating, nearly 100 list only this fear. ” A border fence would do nothing to stop this. The rape that would be prevented along the border would simply be balanced by more rape happening south of the border areas. Thus, the overall incidence of rape would not decrease if a border fence was constructed. Only a country-wide reevaluation of how women should be treated would solve this problem in any effective manner. [1]No matter how militarized the fence becomes, it wouldn’t stop the flow of migrants across the border. “Its apparent fragility is not a mirage, as evidenced by the ladders, the 149 tunnels, and the holes in the mesh panels that make long stretches of the fence look like a patchwork quilt. In 2010 alone, more than 4,000 holes were cut. ” And this was through the part of the border where a fence actually was. The fence is only meant to make it more difficult for migrants to cross the border. “The fence is simply one component in the militarization of the border… It is designed less to stop people from crossing the border illegally than to apprehend them once they have crossed. ” This means that migrants are still going to go through difficult terrain, still causing thousands of them to die every year. It's just that it would potentially be easier to apprehend them after they cross the border fence. [2]The border between the U. S. and Mexico is only one small part of the full border of the U. S. While a border fence might better police the U. S. ’s southern border against terrorists, it wouldn’t prevent terrorists from entering the U. S. using other paths and means. While people from Syria and Afghanistan have crossed the Mexican border, the number who have done so is in the single digits, even though many more enter the U. S. Further, “Despite the border security buildups and a hundred billion dollars spent along the southwestern border, no terrorists or terrorist weapons have been seized. ” Even with other avenues of entrance considered, the southern border simply isn’t the primary avenue for terrorists. [3]Short of completely preventing immigrants from entering the U. S. or forcibly screening everyone that does, a border fence would not prevent epidemics from plaguing the U. S. Immigrants will still go over the fence, immigrants will still overstay their visas, and immigrants will still come from other locations besides Central America and Mexico, meaning that there are still a number of ways for immigrants to spread disease. It only takes one person to start an epidemic. In fact, the border fence itself is unhealthy. One study concluded that the current border fence has caused, “Significant new flooding, erosion, and sedimentation problems, ground disturbance resulting in the introduction and spread of exotic species… air and water pollution and effects on microclimate, [and] difficulties accessing areas for agricultural practices, fire management and habitat restoration. ” It can only be assumed that a longer, more sophisticated border fence would worsen these problems, and potentially introduce new ones. [4]While it seems like immigrants would be a burden on the healthcare system, in reality, it is exactly the opposite. “From 2000 to 2011, unauthorized immigrants contributed $2.2 to $3.8 billion more than they withdrew annually (a total surplus of $35.1 billion). ” This is due to the fact that, while the healthcare system is designed to care for the health of the average American, the average Mexican immigrant is healthier than the average American, meaning that while Mexican immigrants pay as much as Americans do, they require fewer services, and thus have less of a cost on the healthcare system. “Despite their low socioeconomic status, Mexican Americans tend to be healthier than non-Hispanic Whites… Contrary to popular belief, the cost of immigrants’ health care is very low compared with that of the U. S. -born population. ” Thus, not only are Mexican immigrants not a burden on the healthcare system, they benefit it. [5][6]Human trafficking, like rape, is a huge problem inside Central America and Mexico, meaning that a border fence would do little to stop it. It would simply block off one potential destination for the trafficking victims. For example, “But more Nicaraguans are deported from Guatemala than from any other country, suggesting that many Nicaraguans may be destined for intermediate countries rather than the United States. ” Similar situations hold for migrants from other Central American countries. The same amount of human trafficking would remain, but the destinations would change. [7]As I mentioned above, the border fence is designed not to stop the flow of migrants itself, but to make it easier to apprehend them and return them to Mexico. Thus, a better border fence would have no effect on housing costs. Further, if a better border fence were built, it would cost more to police it. As I explained in the last round, the current border fence is not doing a very good job of keeping contraband and drugs out of the U. S. Even if we assume the border fence could not be scaled by ladders, smugglers could still use tunnels and catapults to transport contraband and drugs over the border. This has occurred many times. In addition to methods detailed in the last round, there are the methods of smuggling contraband and drugs through checkpoints, ramps over walls, and ultralight planes. These methods, in addition to those of tunnels and catapults, cannot be stopped by building a better wall. [8]As for the general perception that Mexican immigrants cause more crime than native-born citizens, “The incarceration rate for foreignR08;born adults is 297 per 100,000 in the population, compared to 813 per 100,000 for U. S. R08;born adults. The foreignR08;born, who make up roughly 35% of California’s adult population, constitute 17% of the state prison population, a proportion that has remained fairly constant since 1990. ” Most immigrants, particularly ones in California, come from Central America and Mexico, as opposed to other locations as well. [9]While it is certainly true than Mexico is extremely corrupt, my opponent’s supposed solution to the problem seems ineffective. It is often best for government detractors to move to another country to make plans than to stay in their own country, where they are likely to be imprisoned or assassinated. Take the case of Lenin. Had he stayed in Russia, he probably would have been imprisoned or executed. However, he fled Russia for Switzerland until the political climate in Russia was more favorable to him. Thus, a border fence would not help corruption in Mexico. [10]Of course, pervading every argument is the question of whether or not a border fence is even effective at preventing immigrants from crossing the border. I argued in my first argument that it is not, and I will expand on that in the next round, so that point also makes every argument my opponent made here null. II. The LawRegardless of what border law says, this debate is about whether a border fence should be constructed, not about whether a border fence is to be constructed in accordance with border law. I hope to have shown over the course of my arguments so far that, if the law really says that we should build and improved border fence, then the law should be changed. I haven’t spent that much of my time arguing that a border fence is unjust, but my argument on multiculturalism addresses it. As for the notion that, if a border fence shouldn’t be constructed, then we shouldn’t have a border at all and should merge with Mexico, this is a slippery slope. Plenty of borders across the world are completely open, and yet different sovereign states exist on all sides of them. In this day in age, borders are pretty well respected (except for in a few trouble areas), so there’s no need to legitimize a border by building a wall on it or by placing extensive security along it. III. Costs and Effectiveness of the WallI’m sure my opponent will have much more to say about this in his next argument, given that he is going to address my previous argument directly. In addition, I don’t have a whole lot of space left. Thus, I’m not going to say much about these two points until my next round. However, I would like to say that I’ve shown above that the costs of the wall could not be recuperated by the supposed decrease in immigration, both because immigrants are, in general, a benefit to the economy and don’t suck up as much government money as is often claimed, and because the border fence is unlikely to deter people from crossing the border. Sources[1]: . http://www.immigrationpolicy.org...[2]: . http://prospect.org...[3]: . http://www.ciponline.org...[4]: . http://content.sierraclub.org...[5]: . http://d35brb9zkkbdsd.cloudfront.net...[6]: . http://www.rwjf.org...[7]: . https://www.unodc.org...[8]: . http://www.nbcnews.com...[9]: . http://www.ppic.org...[10]: . http://www.biography.com...