Build the Border Fence

I'll start with a rebuttal of your points and then make my counter. --Rebuttal-- 1. Hindering the Drug Trade 1) "it's been proven time and time again that retributive justice is an ineffective means of reducing the negative effects associated with drug proliferation. Clearly, adding another measure like this, preventative though it may be, will only add to the failure of the War on Drugs. .. " ---Con makes the illogical assumption that since retribution does not work against WoD (War on Drugs), neither will preventive measures. Con's propoal of allocation of funds to infrastructure or education does not help end the WoD or secure th border, which makes this comment irrelevant to the debate. 2) Decriminalization of drugs is not the topic of this debate. But, even if it were decriminalized, US citizens would still be manipulated by Mexican drug cartels for two reasons: 1) drugs are addictive and 2) life for drug cartels would be easier than ever and to think they would just stop selling is absurd. Its their way of life, and a violent one at that. 2. Saving Money 1) Con states that ending WoD would save a lot of money. Who's money? Not my money, especially if I became addicted to drugs, then I would be buying them nonstop. I would then have to pay for my rehabilitation, because despite drugs being legal you still have to be rehabilitated for some reason. And then when I'm out I would be stealing money to buy more drugs, since drugs wouldn't be considered a taboo anymore. Don't you see its a vicious cycle, and that instead of allowing an addictive and life destroying substance to be allowed, and of course exploited, we can just build a freakin fence? Imagine how many more customers Coca-cola could get if it started (again) lacing its soft drinks with actual coke? Ending the WoD is not an option. Even places like Amsterdam still prohibit the use of cocaaine and other hard drugs [. http://www.allamsterdam.nl...], and its for a good reason. 2) The US-Mexican Border is 1969 miles. Your source states that 370 miles of fencing exists. That doesn't cut it. The source also does not state if the other measures are evenly spaced, and they hopefully do not overlap. I would be more interested in hearing how long the stretches of unwatched desert are. 3. Protecting Illegals 1) I apologize for not providing evidence earlier, but over 1,954 people died crossing the US-Mexico border between the years 1998-2004 [. http://en.wikipedia.org...] A fence could have easily prevented this as the majority of deaths resulted from exposure after wandering too far into unknown territory. 2) This seems to only warrant a fence even more so. Being able to process who comes into the country is an excelllent way of stopping violence in Mexico from spilling over into the US. Decriminalization would also probably not stop the cartels, since now they will try to compete with businesses in the US. To assume they wil drop their guns is foolish, the highly addictive nature of drugs makes it the perfect money maker for these men. 4. Knowing Who Comes to the Country 1) I think creating order in an otherwise lawless section of desert is an excellent way of knowing who comes into the country. And a fence would provide a physical barrier to anyone trying to enter with less than pleasant intentions. 2) Programs like the one you suggested would require that a border be sealed and that migrants would have to pass through checkpoints in order to be processed. As it stands, this would be a waste of money without a fence since many people would just bypass the system by walking around it. Reducing manpower is also not counter-intuetive, since that manpower would be concetrated at checkpoints and more effectively used, instead of patrolling empty desert all day. 5. Illegals and Public Goods 1) Do you realise the public outcry that would ensue if you required everyone to provide proof of citizenship everytime they wanted to use public services? The ACLU would be set for life, they would be burning money to heat their homes. The fact is, American citizens should not have to suffer because their system is being abused by those who don't contribute (i. e. taxes) to it. --Arguement-- A) A big part of Con's arguement is that the fence would be a huge waste of money, and that money would be better spent elsewhere. But, instead of providing a cohesive solution to all 5 points of mine (like the fence does), he offers an individual solution for each one, which would probably end up costing more money than building a fence would. I know for sure that it would takes years more of legisaltaion for half of his ideas to become reality, such as the legalization of drugs. B) This is not the place to discuss the WoD and its outcome. The WoD is but one of five points I have made and how the fence could dampen it effects. Removing the WoD is not an option since there will always be a WoD. And if you say your going to end the WoD drugs, its all the drugs, not just marijuana. Because then you'd still have a WoD. C) What you should be asking youself is why so many policticans do not want a border fence. Since you don't need to prove citizenship, or anything for that matter, when you go to vote what is to stop illegals from voting? I am just highlighting a very real fact of life that votes = power, and that restricting or upsetting your voters is a way to lose power. Just throwing it out there, I don't have any hard facts to back it up, but it happens. Its alittle off topic, but not building the fence could be a way to please immigrants in order to keep their votes, something that should not be happening. --Summary-- I await rebuttall to my rebuttal. and I'm having a lot of fun.