Donald Trump Wall Part 2

For the sake of the discussion- I will outline the dissent towards my opening argument, and then provide my rebuttal/ closing statement. The Con expressed concerns on the time, money, resources and harm the Trump proposed wall would do. Considering the argument made by Con, the financial, time, and resource considerations were placed on the United States; whereas, the harm would be placed on the people of Mexico. The Pro argument was a three pronged approach- 1) the United States is a nation who has borders 2) illegally crossing the border is a violation of law which is adopted by the citizens of the country 3) the wall represents a necessary barrier as a physical deterrent and as a means to show the intent of the violator for further prosecution under law Under Pro argument 1) Con contended the idea of sovereignty was irrelevant towards the importance of the Trump wall only to contend the establishment of citizenship. This expression validates the relevance of the "why" in respect to the conversation which has occurred. Without borders, illegal immigration and drug trafficking you would not need a Trump border wall. Under Pro argument 2) Con contended that the point was irrelevant other than to determine citizenship within the country. This point was contradicted by his acceptance of illegal immigrants dwelling within the United States within his original argument (e. g. "a notable portion of people in the US are illegal immigrants from Mexico"). Pro contended that citizens have laws which cover measures to legally migrate to the United States, and government has a responsibility to protect the people according to the U. S. Constitution. Under Pro argument 3) Con contended that illegal immigration occurs based off the premise of economic advantage, and the wall would serve no purpose because a psychological and physical barrier would not change their behavior. Con continues to assert that illegal immigrants do not really use the defense of unawareness when they cross the border. Con concedes Pro argument 1) "the United States is already recognized as a sovereign nation". Con asserts that there is a substantial difference between private property and the border- federal property. Con concludes by contending the wall would not be worth the expense, and making the process of becoming legal US citizens simpler would allow a diverse workforce and be a more effective deterrent to the prevention of illegal immigration. The purpose of the debate was to determine the relevance of the wall plan outline by Donald Trump. Con"s responsibility was to establish the wall would be a waste of time, money, resources and would do more harm than good. Through the Pro rebuttal these issues were all addressed. Waste of Time- Con indicated concern on the amount of time in Section 4 of the argument. Construction of the wall will take time, but how many people have still travel on roads effectively while construction alters traffic patterns. I contend time is not relevant when functionality would not be sacrificed while construction occurs. Waste of Money- The argument on money was brought forth from a US economic perspective. Con outlined the cost associated with the wall but failed to address the actual Trump Plan in which was used to cite the cost. Under the Trump Plan, the wall would not be funded by the United States; rather, the wall would be funded by Mexico. The Trump Wall will not cost money nor affect the debt according to the plan given. Waste of Resources- Con briefly mentioned the resources, and the distance of the border; however, he failed to meet the argument by only attaching cost to resources. Again, the United States is not funding the wall, and his financial impact was analyzed from the debt and cost associated to the United States. Do more harm than good- The argument provided by Con was considered from the perspective of illegal immigrants. I outlined the impact caused by illegal immigration, in the form of drug trafficking, cartel activity and damage caused to legal immigrants to the country. We considered the impact for the entire argument from the U. S. policy perspective. Why did we shift to the damage it was cause to the illegal immigrants without consideration to the impact these practices have on the citizens of the country which the unequal violations occur? In the course of the debate, Pro illustrated that the United States has borders (premise accepted by Con), has laws (premise accepted by acknowledgement of the idea that illegal immigrants live in the U. S. ), and concluded by illustrating the importance of psychological and physical deterrents. Con, asserts through rebuttal, that private property rights differ from federal property rights; Con further illustrates that "owners of private property" puts up a fence usually wants to keep everyone off their yard. " Under the example cited by Con is the contention that a fences intent is to keep everyone off their yard. If you feel that federal property rights (such as parks, military installations and borders) have similar property rights then you must vote for Pro. Con accepts that a private fence intent is to keep everyone off their yard. If a fence can do this, you can only imagine what a Trump Wall do to keep illegal immigrants and the drug cartel out. Pro has disproven each of the four points provided by Con, while their case. Con states that a fences purpose is to keep people out, accepts that illegal immigrants are in the country, and accepts they are breaking the law. The intent of the Trump Wall is to keep illegal immigrants out and Con accepts the intent if you feel federal property has similar, in not more, property rights as private property.