Border Fence

Thanks 32no I will start off refuting my points and then I will rebut my opponents. Here I go. ===Refutations=== Point 1- So first he talks about how my estimations may be inaccurate but then fails to state how or why. The statistics I have are from an actual source while all of his arguments are simply from his common knowledge. So then he says to look to points 3, 5, and 6. Lets look first to what he says about his point 3. He says that his point 3 shows how a Border Fence will do close to nothing. 1st I suggest this isn't true because people will be discouraged especially if we have patrols on that fence. 2nd even if you don't buy that then think of it like this, a fence is better than no fence. So now lets visit his point 5. His point 5 is all about staining our relationship with Mexico but 1st This wouldn't stain our relationship with Mexico because we're taking protective measures for our own citizens. We're not doing it based off of "Stereotype" Immigrants come from Mexico all the time and cause trouble just as my earlier statistics clearly show. 2nd Even if you don't buy that, even if building this fence does stain our relationship with Mexico, we need to worry about the safety and well-being of our citizens first. So if building a Border Fence does that then we should Affirm. Also he mentions the Berlin wall but fails to show the resemblance. I don't know much about the Berlin Wall so I can't properly refute it but I propose this Border Fence is more like a symbol of strength like the Great Wall of China. Its meant to defend our citizens from intruders and that in and of itself represents a strong Nation. Now lets visit Point 6. Point 6 is all about alternatives. He proposes that their are alternatives to a wall, but these alternatives aren't nearly as effective as a Border Fence. He doesn't really propose any actual alternatives to point 1. Point 2- Against point 2 he first says that illegal immigrants have no intention of returning to Mexico. We can't just assume this first of all because he gives no real empiric evidence. Then he also missed the point of that argument. I was saying that these immigrants send money they make in the U.S back to Mexico either to rebuild their country, or to bring even more illegal immigrants from their country to the U.S. Then he talks about my statistics from point 1 and point 2, but he totally misunderstands them. If you revisit point 1 it gives statistics on how much of Latino are made up of illegal immigrants. Then the statistic I give in point 2 is how many illegal immigrants are actually taking our jobs. These two do not contradict each other one says that 90% of MS-13 (The most notorious immigrant gang) is made up of illegal immigrants, that there are 1,000,000 illegal immigrants in gangs, and that a substantial amount of YOUNG illegal immigrants grow up to be in gangs. While the other states that there are 7.7 million illegals (as of 2008) taking jobs from Americans. Point 3- His only counter to point 3 is his argument on Alternatives, then he states some. The first is to pass a law that prohibits health care to illegals. While that may get rid of the issue there is still the issue of taxation. These illegal immigrants pay no taxes and still receive public benefits (School, police force, etc) the average citizen must now pay taxes for illegal immigrants. Then there is this automatic deportation law. This is in total contradiction of his point 2. His point 2 is about "Less Consumers" And if we affirm then we will have less consumers but presenting this automatic deportation act also causes less consumers, total contradiction. Then he talks about how the wall is drastic and inefficient but its better than these alternatives he presents. Then at the bottom of the rebuttal he offers more alternatives. Negotiating with Mexico- This still won't do much justice since during the Negotiations illegals are still crossing the border as well as Mexico can't really stop its citizens from crossing the border just as much as we can't stop them from coming over without this border fence Automatic Deportation Act-Once again in his point 2 he talks about if we Affirm there would be less consumers but then he presents this as an alternative in the Neg world. So this is in contradiction with his point 2 Refusing Health Care- There is still the issue of public taxation Enforce the border with U.S Troops- He talks about staining our relations with Mexico but then he presents this as an alternative to the Border Fence. This will still stain our relationship with Mexico because it will seem as though we are even more afraid of these illegals that we need troops to attack at the border rather than a wall just for defense. More serious punishment- They still caused some kind of damage by already coming over, a wall will better prevent that damage from ever happening Rewards- Cross apply what I say against more serious punishment. ==Rebuttal== Point 1- Money He says that this won't pay off directly and isn't a good investment but I propose that this will pay off because 1) More Americans will get jobs and be able to make money lifting the poverty line. 2) Less taxation U.S citizens for public affairs and costs. Point 2- Less Consumers So his point 2 is not only in contradiction in his proposal of an automatic deportation act but it also assumes that the Border Fence WILL be effective in keeping illegal immigrants out of the U.S since there will be less consumers. Point 3- Whats a fence going to do ? A fence will be more than no fence at all. It will discourage more and more illegals of trying to cross over than no Border Fence at all. He says so himself that less illegal immigrants will be coming in. Once again he concedes in point 2 that a fence will work. Point 4- Legalize Drugs Legalizing Drugs won't do any good. 1) It will put the public in even more danger than a Border Fence will. 2) Even we tax them and supposedly make more money we still put citizens at risk which isn't worth it. 3) Just because there are more serious punishment for illegal selling of drugs doesn't mean it will stop. There will still be illegals crossing the border and selling drugs. A border fence is the best way to make sure that the public is safe from crime and drugs. Point 5- Relations So once again he talks about how our relations with Mexico will be stained but 1) All of his proposals are still effectively offensive to Mexico and Illegal Immigrants. So basically he recognizes that Illegal Immigrants are a serious issue, and he says a Border Fence isn't a good solution and provides other solutions but these other solutions are still offensive. Either way our relations with Mexico might still be stained, but in the Aff world we have a better chance of protecting its citizens which is VERY important. So basically the huge points that the voters should definitely look to would be: 1st My opponent recognizes that illegal immigrants are a huge threat but says a Border Fence won't help and then provides alternatives. At the point where I effectively disprove all of these alternatives is reason enough to Aff. 2nd My opponent also argues that the Border Fence will do close to nothing but look back to his point 2 where he says there will be less consumers. This point assumes that the Border Fence will be effective. So at the point where my opponent also concedes that the Border Fence is effective is also reason enough to Aff. 3rd We've also established that Government has an obligation to its citizens to protect them and that these illegals are a threat. At the point where my opponents alternatives fail, and he concedes that the Border Fence will work then the Government fulfills its obligation to its citizens. This Border Fence won't be viewed as another Berlin Wall, rather it will be like the symbolic Great Wall of China protecting its citizens from intruders. For these reasons I urge an Affirmative Ballad.