The US should build a wall along its border with Mexico

As pertaining to "Burdens":Con is attempting to deny me the prerogative which I, Pro, possess to determine the border wall policy which he than may criticize, including how much of the border gets a wall rather than a fence or simply letting the desert be a buffer zone and of what material the wall is made. I am not obligated to defend Trump`s proposal for the border wall nor the Tianshun Emperor`s proposal nor any one else`s but my own. I ask that in his rebuttals he consider my border barrier policy, which is to replicate San Diego or Mellila style barriers, even walls, across anywhere where an urban environment is. A wall can always be defeated, and in the middle of the desert tacking on another, say, 5 minutes isn`t really important when it takes several hours to reach an urban environment and disappear. But in such communities as San Diego, the Rio Grande sector, so on, so forth, the entire environment is urban and 5 minutes means the difference between a nearby border agent apprehending or repulsing or the individual blending in and disappearing, then those communities merit a wall. Many of Con`s arguments fall apart, including those of cost, on this basis, and such many I will not address as they do not apply.I invite Con instead to examine how much of the border (zoom in to see how close the communities are to the border) actually has urban centers remotely close to the border. I think it is less than 10%, and logistical costs of building a wall in or near an urban environment vs the middle of a rough desert are far lower. I invite Con to accept the figure of 2.5 billion as the cost of this more sensible border barrier, slightly less than 10% of Bloomberg`s 28 billion.http://www.nytimes.com...As pertaining to "Benefits of Immigration": Con has attempted to overload with sources. He cites a totally inapplicable example of legal immigrants from the FSU (his footnote 10). I invite readers to read his source and the author`s analysis to show why former Soviet Union immigrants to Israel do not apply. Con`s source about economists and immigration also does not have the economists distinguishing between legal and illegal immigration, but rather consults their consensus on immigration in general, which is a very different matter. As pertaining to "Moral Obligations":I dispute Mr. Chomsky`s assertion, but were it true it is irrelevant. Mexico entered into NAFTA not on terms of force, but because it sought to. Whatever consequences are derivative therefrom are Mexico`s responsibility. Con and I have reached a fundamental disagreement that is simply a matter of belief. We dispute whether the government`s role is, as the founders stated, to establish justice, secure domestic tranquility, etc. to ourselves and our posterity, or also to those beyond our borders. I submit that Con does not believe the position he has articulated. By equating those beyond our borders with those within, the logical consequence, if Con really believed that the government "comes from a simple framework of advancing benefit of all individuals" then he ought advocate the government confiscate nearly all the wealth in this country and ship it to Africa where the poor could leave starvation. Con has stated that the government does not arise from a contractual obligation. The Founding Fathers disagree:"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" (Declaration of Independence, July 4th 1776) The government gets its just powers from the consent of the governed. If you are not "governed" or do not consent to be governed, either because you are lawless or have another sovereign, your contribution to the just powers of the government is reduced. Continuing the quote,"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends (the alienable rights endowed by the Creator), it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness"Once again, the right of a people is to establish a government which to them will effect their safety and happpiness. Per the declaration, considerations of other nations, such as our allies, should only be considered in light of that ally`s contribution to our safety and happiness. Earlier in the document it indeed says that all men are endowed with inalienable rights, but it becomes apparent in the rest of the document that governments protect those rights to those who are governed by it, and if one does not recognize a government as being his by his lack of consent thereto, he and like-minded people ought create their own government or at least modify that government to get those rights protected. Con has asserted that there is no distinction between powers and responsibilities of the government vs. those of the people. That is his belief, but unsupported by the Constitution. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." (Tenth Amendment) The people therefore have powers different from the government. I personally participate in international charity extensively and I invite Con to do so as well, but I do not want him to use the government`s monopoly on force to appropriate from a governed people resources to a people who do not consent to be governed by it.