A border fence is needed along America and Mexico.

[[ Pro's Proposal ]] Many breaches of the border fence occur due to tunnels in the storm drains. Pro's proposal does not account for one of the biggest ways the fence is breached in the first place: under ground. This oversight is just one example that prove Pro's border fence would ultimately not serve as an effective or useful deterrent on a cost-benefit analysis. [[ Response to Pro's Arguments ]] P1: A border fence would stop all illegal immigrants coming from Central and South America, also stopping drugs.It has been estimated that at least 5 million immigrants in the U.S. did not run our borders, but were legally admitted into ports of entry and then went on to violate the terms of their admission. They do this by staying beyond their authorized period of admission, working illegally, failing to attend schools they were admitted to, attend or otherwise not abiding by the terms of their admission. They enter through tourist visas, student visas or exchange visitor visas and various categories of temporary work visas. In other words, immigrants from all over the world including Central and South America would still be able to enter this country even if a border fence is built. This negates P1's claim that ALL immigrants would be inhibited by the border fence. Furthermore, Pro only mentioned a Mexican-American border. This ignores the three other borders that can be breached into the U.S. In regard to drug traffic, studies already show that legalizing marijuana in America has caused harm to Mexican drug cartels power and profit. The U.S. could continue inhibiting Mexican drug cartels by legalizing marijuana (and more) federally, negating a need for Mexican drug cartels to push their stuff over the border in the first place. Either way, we have seen that where there's a will there's a way. Drugs are criminalized everywhere and yet corruption and other deficits allow for the perpetual drug pushing in and out of our borders. P2: Building a wall would be good for defense. We are not at war with Mexico or any other South or Central American country. Hardly any other countries have massive walls, and yet they do not experience war or increased risk of terrorism. Moreover terrorism and current warfare tactics would be mostly irrelevant to a border fence. These days wars are fought through economic policy, politics, cyber warfare, and of course through biochemical and nuclear warfare. P3: Building a wall would create jobs. Just because something would create jobs does not mean that it is a moral or useful endeavor. War creates a lot of jobs; however, costs a lot of lives and violates moral principles. I will argue in Con's Premise 1 that the cost to building this fence would completely off-set any alleged economic benefits of job creation. Remember that tax payers have to foot the bill for these government jobs. It would put more pressure on tax payers, particularly the middle class, further inhibit the lower class, and restrict the wealthy class with capital from creating useful jobs in other industries that require more demand with better utility value. [[ Con's Arguments Against the Fence ]] P1: Cost The price tag at constructing such a wall currently sits at $1.7 billion dollars with lifetime maintenance costs estimated close to $50 billion. A non-partisan budget watchdog group, estimates that the costs of building and maintaining the fence could prove astronomical, ranging "from $300 million to $1.7 billion per mile, depending on materials" [1]. This is a low-ball estimate, as history shows consistent low-balling the cost of these exorbitant government projects that exploit tax payers through inefficient cronyism. Border fence proposal bills have allocated $47 billion (billion!) to further secure the border that already exists with drones, high-tech surveillance, and enough additional agents to place one every 274 feet. The kind of wall Pro is talking about, plus accounting for other underground breaches, would require even more resources and funds. We simply cannot afford this right now, and the money would be much better spent elsewhere. The cost is likely to increase as it would take a long time to build, and the money would not be well spent as it would likely be ineffective at deterring illegal immigration in the long run. P2: World Relations Pro compared the border fence to the Berlin Wall in a positive light. Meanwhile, the Republican hero Ronald Reagan famously declared "Tear down this wall!" specifically in reference to the Berlin Wall that was perceived as definitively negative: oppressive (representing communism and government tyranny), exclusivity, xenophobia, etc. Why then are Republicans suddenly in favor of fostering those sentiments here in the U.S. after cheering Reagan loudly for his demolition of such values, literally and figuratively? Reagan supported amnesty. This anti-foreign perception of Americans the border fence would create could have damaging effects to the United States' reputation. It would be used as propaganda for our enemies, where they could portray the U.S. as hostile to outsiders and hypocritical (as we are a nation of immigrants). It might also significantly strain U.S. and Mexican relations. We need cooperation between both governments to address the problems that lead to illegal immigration in the first place. Corruption, cartels, trafficking, etc. need to be tackled so Mexico and other Central and South American countries can prosper. Otherwise they will always have an incentive to flee to the U.S. in pursuit of a better life, since they won't have a fighting chance of a decent life where they live. P3: Logistics Since people will still want to enter the U.S. illegally, they will inevitably try despite the danger. However the increased risk might deter seasonal workers from returning to their families in other countries during the off-season if they happen to sneak by the first time. This would compel them to stay in the U.S. where they would continue to live illegally instead of going back home. P4: Environment The fence would disrupt the environment and wild life, as it may potentially cross rivers, sanctuaries, preservations, parks, etc. Mexico argues the fence would deflect floodwaters to its side of the Rio Grande and violate a bi-national treaty. A 1970 treaty between the United States and Mexico called on both countries to prohibit the building of anything that "may cause deflection or obstruction of the normal flow of the river or of its flood flows." Apparently "The location, alignment and design of the proposed fence represent a clear obstruction of the Rio Grande hydraulic area, since in the towns of Rio Grande City and Roma, (Texas), the fence would occupy nearly all of the hydraulic area on the U.S. side, causing the deflection of flows towards the Mexican side," wrote principal engineer Luis Antonio Rascon Mendoza [3]. P5: Economy In a 2012 report about the economic benefits of comprehensive immigration reform published by the Cato Institute, UCLA professor and immigration expert Raúl Hinojosa-Ojeda found that passing immigration reform "would raise wages, increase consumption, create jobs, and generate additional tax revenue" [2]. "The Bush Administration Report Found That Immigration Adds $37 Billion To The U.S. Economy Annually. The White House Council of Economic Advisers found that immigrants increase gross domestic product "by roughly $37 billion each year because immigrants increase the size of the total labor force, complement the native-born workforce in terms of skills and education, and stimulate capital investment by adding workers to the labor pool." Innumerable other sources confirm that immigrants increase U.S. economic growth [2]. P6: Amnesty and Individual Rights The U.S. should not be so concerned with keeping illegal immigrants out. This country was founded by a nation of immigrants who hostily defeated another group of immigrants. Throughout our history we have continued to fear and ostracize the new immigrants, only for an even newer group of immigrants to inevitably emerge. We are all individual human beings with no inherent ties or explicit rights to land based on where we happened to be born. Instead, each individual should be able to engage in free and voluntary trade. If I want to rent my house to a family who happens to be from Costa Rica, I should be able to do that without the government telling me I can't. There is nothing that is inherently superior about an American citizen that should make him more eligible than a Costa Rican who wants to move here and rent my house. It should be my choice who I choose to trade with. Similarly, if I want to hire a Mexican to babysit my kids, I should be able to do that regardless of where she is from. Immigrants should be transitioned to become full American citizens via amnesty, even if there are stipulations (such as abiding by our laws and welfare restrictions or conditions). However citizenship would give these hard working human beings protection under the law that inhibits their exploitation and desperation. Further it would require them to be documented workers who pay taxes. [[ Sources ]] [1] http://immigration.about.com...[2]http://mediamatters.org...[3] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...