Pick your own topic

Pro's profile shows that you are Con on the issue of a border fence. To keep the Pro/Con identification in this debate, the resolution is: "The U.S. should not extend it's use of a border fence." I will take the Con position that the U.S. should extend its use of a border fence. The ResolutionA border fence should be one of the mechanism used to control immigration and the flow of goods over U.S. borders. There are already border fences in place and they should be maintained. Border fences should be extended as needed to aid border security. This should include a 700 mile double fence on the US border with Mexico.A border fence is not needed everywhere. There are natural obstacles in some places and in other places there are less expensive enforcement techniques. The fundamental contention is that border fences are a cost-effective part of border enforcement.The context of this debate is the present day United States. For this debate, there is no distinction between a "fence" and a "wall." We are talking about structural barriers.1. Border Security is NeededBorder security is needed:1.1. To control immigration-related benefit costs. Under the Constitution government benefits must be provided to every resident of the United States, whether legal or illegal. For example, anyone can go to a hospital emergency room and receive free medical care. Children may attend public schools and receive educational benefits without regard to citizenship. Even when times are tough in the United States, job opportunities are better than in poor countries. Immigration costs taxpayers an estimated $113 B, and in some states like Texas, the costs exceed budget deficits. [2] Without border security, the U.S. would be flooded with illegal immigrants, destroying the economy.1.2. For health and safety. The U.S. controls what can be imported into the United States so as to exclude unsafe food products, lead-based paints and ceramics. It regulates trucks and aircraft for safety. It forbids travel from places suffering outbreaks of communicable diseases.1.3. To protect against crime and terrorism. Watch lists are applied. There are visa restrictions that examine the suitability of immigrants from dangerous places in the world. Human trafficking is prohibited. "Human trafficking is the third-largest global criminal enterprise, exceeded only by drug and arms trafficking, … By some estimates, the industry is growing, and the [worldwide] illegitimate gain from the industry is as high as $32 billion per year." [1]California currently houses 19,000 illegals in its prison system, convicted of non-immigration crimes, comprising about 20% of it's $11 billion corrections budget. 17% in Federal prisons are illegal. [6, 7] Additionally, the crimes they committed extracted significant financial and emotional costs on their victims.1.4. To prohibit contraband. Recreational drugs are part of this, but there are also prohibitions on prescription drugs. Unregulated use of antibiotics, for example, poses a public health risk by facilitating the development of drug resistant strains. Endangered species and products derived from endangered species are prohibited. Fake prescription drugs, fake aircraft parts, fake luxury goods, and illegal use of intellectual property.1.5. To reduce illegal arms exports. Fences work both ways, so a border fence will help control export of weapons to drug lords and other unauthorized consumers.1.6. To collect taxes. Even if narcotics and other drugs were legalized, the US would still want to collect taxes on them. Judging from the "sin" taxes on alcohol and tobacco, the taxes would be steep, and well worth avoiding.2. A border fence is effective2.1 Most of the fence the US has built along the Mexican Border is ineffective because it can be easily traversed by climbing over it without a ladder or by punching a hole thorough it. However, effective border fencing has been developed and proven. Effective fencing comprises two reinforced fences with a patrol road between them. Congress authorized building 700 miles of such fence, but only 32 miles have been built. [3]The effectiveness of the fencing is proved in San Diego where a double fence cut illegal apprehensions by 79%, even though the protected segment was only 11.8 miles long and illegals could go around the short piece. [4] The fenced area itself is 95% effective. [10]The double fencing consists of two steel walls 15 feet high and 100 yards apart. Sensors placed between the walls, including cameras, detect intruders. [5] Additional obstacles may be included between the walls, such as barbed wire. The contained access road allows the Border Patrol to rush to an intrusion site before the intruders can traverse the second fence. One design features three rows of closely-spaced four-inch-diameter steel pipes filled with concrete and set in a reinforced concrete foundation. Other designs use welded steel walls.Fencing less effective than the proposed double fence reduced illegal crossings by 94% in the Yuma district. A 1.5 mile strip of even-more secure triple fencing is described as "impenetrable." [9]2.2 While most of the existing fencing is ineffective at keeping people from crossing the border, it is effective at preventing vehicle crossing. A vehicle barrier constructed on the ecologically sensitive border of Organ Pipe Nation Monument reduced crossings to nearly zero. [11]2.3 The cost of double fence varies between $3.8 million and $10 million per mile. [5] 700 miles of the fence would cost between $2.6 B and $7 B. The 2011 budget for the Department of Homeland Security is $56. billion. However, a fence would last for many years, say 25 years, so the amortized construction cost would be about $ 0.2 B. Maintenance costs might double that, so $ 0.4 billion per year is a reasonable cost estimate. That's a trivial part of the Homeland Security budget, and it would be repaid if it it reduced illegal immigration costs by even a half percent.In Israel, a 500 mile high-security fence was constructed in 2003 to deter terrorism. "Pursuant to the security fence's "sole purpose of saving lives of innocent citizens who continue to be targeted by the terrorist campaign that began in 2000," There has been more than a 70 percent drop in the number of fatal casualties, despite there being other illegal methods of entering the country. Israel is paying about $3.7 million per mile for its fence – which includes all the techno-sensors and monitors that go with it - and the castle-like structures - once all of the engineering, construction, and operational costs are calculated." [8] Terrorists, willing to die in suicide bombing, are considerably more determined than either ordinary illegal immigrants or drug smugglers, yet their fence is effective.The cost of border fence would easily be repaid even if the reduction in illegal traffic were a small percentage. I'm not arguing that a border fence is a complete solutions to illegal border traffic. It's a logical component in combating illegal immigration, drug and arms smuggling, and denying access to terrorists, The resolution is affirmed. [1] http://www.payvand.com... [2] http://www.foxnews.com... [3] http://www.nationalreview.com... [4] http://www.jimdemint.com... [5]http://www.globalsecurity.org... [6] http://www.california-criminal-law.com... [7] http://archive.newsmax.com... [8] http://www.hstoday.us...; [9] http://www.csmonitor.com...; [10] http://www.npr.org... [11] http://www.nps.gov...