Border Fence

Sorry it took me a little to post this. I've been real busy with stuff, so don't be surprised if I post an argument like five hours before the deadline. I apologize and hope you understand. For this round, I will Rebuttal my opponents statements, and any quote my opponent states will be italicized. C1: Cost In the case between the U.S and Mexico, the length of the fence would need to extend to a length of 1,954 miles. (1) So, now let’s look at an older premature attempt to have a border fence. In 2006, president George W Bush signed the Secure the Fence Act, an act that would build a fence which was about 700 miles. (2) The total cost of this project was about 4 billion dollarsFew things I like to please point out about my opponents claim. Firstly, the sources that my opponent has used was from the website Wikipedia. Wikipedia is known for its false reliability because of its set up on beig changed by anyone. So my opponents claim is hard to tell if it is reliable or not, and because of this means that this point cannot be valid. While I do have the numbers on the cost for a border fence. Seen in this graph (1): As it is seen, the most spent for a border fence is $1.4 billion dollars. Now my opponent can make the claim that is a lot, but comparatively for what is spent generally nowadays, it truly isn't that much. One example is corporate welfare, where according to the article "Government Spends More on Corporate Welfare Subsidies than Social Welfare Programs" (2), it states: "About $59 billion is spent on traditional social welfare programs. $92 billion is spent on corporate subsidies. So, the government spent 50% more on corporate welfare than it did on food stamps and housing assistance in 2006". Compare that to a border fence, it truly isn't that much to secure our borders.C2: Harmful to the EnvironmentBuilding a border fence would be very harmful to the environment. As witnessed with the Secure the Fence act, the border fence disrupted the habitat of jaguars, pygmy owls and other species in the area. Jaguars that would normally repopulate in the southwestern part of the U.S would be unable to do that if a border fence were put. This would likely disrupt the food cycle, as there will be a large amount of jaguars in Mexico. One thing I like to point out, anything can be harmful to the environment. Driving a car, or even building a house is harmful to the environment (3). If we are trying to protect the environment, should we stop building houses? Of course not because we as humans have a higher authority than animals. But to Rebuttal my opponents claim, he argues that if a border fence is built that the jaguars will not be able to adapt. When in actuallity, they can. According to the article "Experts believe the Jaguar can Adapt and Survive" (4), it supports my claim that jaguars can adapt to any environment. And if they have to move to Mexico, what is the issue? Also for the food chain being broken, if one animal doesn't participate another will take its place. A jaguar isn't the only mammal that survives off of meat. Not only can this effect apply to the jaguars, they can also be applied to truly any animal.Then my opponent argues it can harm plant life. Is this true? Yes and no because anything can harm plant life, and the fact that many people use fences in their gardens. When people place a fence in their garden, does it kill the plants? Of course not because the plants eventually grow around the fence. In fact, here is an image of a garden with a fence that looks like a border fence: s://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...; alt="" />And for all the plants dying, I like to please address the different climates in the United States. It can be seen here, when all the southern states are either red, orange or yellow. This means that they have a hotter climate, and this could also be the reason of why plants are dying. Not because of a border fence necessarily, but maybe because of living in a hotter climate; meaning less water placed upon the plants. Simply put, the border fence is harming the environment, and these changes will dramatically change the way wildlife in the area are living. As the government, it as a obligation of protecting wild-life, not destroying it. First off, the role of the government is not to protect the wildlife. The governments role is to govern the people, not put the wildlife as a priority. Who said this? Philosopher Adam Smith made this claim, and in his book An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (5), it states: "Smith outlined three important government functions: national defense, administration of justice (law and order), and the provision of certain public goods". Does not say anything about protecting the environment as its main priority. And we are governing the people by making them follow the law, and come here legally instead of illegally. In the previous round, I thought I stated how the border fence does not harm the environment. Clearly my opponent didn't understand and would like to please elaborate. In the previous round, I stated that the border fence would be made out of wood and metal. My opponent asks how this helps, and will argue that with wood and metal these sources are the easiest to achieve from the environment. And how this helps with the environment is that the border fence is really a one time construction, meaning that less toxic fumes will need to be released in the air. C3; Mexican Immigrants are not a Bad Thing for AmericaIn this portion of my opponents argument, he argues that illegal immigration will help the economy, and not truly bad for America. Immigrants who come from Mexico, often work low paying hard labor jobs that regular American would generally avoid doing.This is false, because this is said to be a "Political Scheme" where they say this in order to get favoritism for illegal immigration. Stated by Michael Snyder (6), "Illegal immigrants don’t do jobs that Americans 'don’t want' to do. A million Americans recently showed up to apply for a job at McDonald’s. That is how desperate Americans are for work these days". What Snyder is trying to emphasize is that us Americans are desperate on jobs, and will work on any job; but we cannot if these illegals are stealing our jobs. Is there proof? Of course there is because according to the article "Who's Working in Your Kitchen"(7), it states: "The hiring of illegal immigrants, which might account for more than 700,000 of the industry’s 12.8 million employees". Thats for one business, and there are many more within the article. And also the fact that President Obama is making employers hire illegal immigrants, "Under the president’s new amnesty, businesses will have a $3,000-per-employee incentive to hire illegal immigrants over native-born workers" (8), how is this fair to us Americans? Its not.And of course the common argument for illegal immigration is the "economic benefits". According to J. Hirby (9), he states: "Illegal immigration has a direct economic impact, though the details are a little more complicated than the storyline of "they're taking our jobs." It has more to do with the drive for companies to cut costs due to the pressures of a tight market". What is a tight market? A tight mark is "A physical market where supply in constrained with a high demand" (10). This means that with illegal immigration, people will hire and basically have an increase in demand for pay, raising the prices, and harming the economy. How is this good, when it causes more harm to our society than good?C4: Simply IneffectiveAs I mentioned before. The border fence is simply ineffective at what it is trying to do. People will eventually dig under it or cut through it.I think both me and my opponent can agree that there is no "perfect solution". There are always issues of some sort, and the same can be said about the border wall and my opponents solution. According to the article "More Fencing May Cut Illegal Immigration by Half" (11), it states: "The CBO estimates that the net inflow would be reduced by between one-third and one-half compared with the projected net inflow under current law". With more walls, less illegal immigration will occur. And for my opponents idea about the Southern Border Plan. I'm all for it as well, but having a wall will increase that number. Having both things to help prevent illegal immigration will benefit both societies generally.Sources:1. http://www.cnbc.com...2. http://thinkbynumbers.org...3. http://sciencenetlinks.com...4. https://www.washingtonpost.com...5. http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com...6. https://www.qsrmagazine.com...7. http://www.washingtontimes.com...8. http://thelawdictionary.org...9. http://www.investopedia.com...10. http://www.washingtontimes.com...