Border Fence

These will be my counter-rebutalls. Con is saying my sources are not reliable, because I used Wikipedia. Sure, wikipedia could be edited, but it doesn’t discredit it. Simply all you had to do is go to the citations section, and check whether the sources add up. So, here is the actual link. http://www.cbp.gov... Actually, if you look at the graph Pro provided, he misinterprets it, and says that it only cost 1.6 billion dollars. However, the cost doesn’t just include the building costs, but also the costs to maintain it. If you add up the costs for all the years, it exceeds 4 billion dollars. So, my claim of it being 4 billion dollars was actually wrong, but in a good way. Thanks to Pro, he proved that it costed more than that. Pro’s argument about me claiming it is a lot is misunderstood. I point out it is expensive just because compared to other forms of border control, it is the costliest. Sure, if you compare it the Defense budget, it is nothing. That is like me saying a 10000 dollar Desktop P.C is cheap, because my house costed more. It’s an Apples and Oranges comparison. Pro says that anything can be harmful to the environment, but again makes an Apples and Oranges comparison. Comparing a house to a border fence is not really accurate. A house is something people need to live in, whereas a border fence is something that could be avoided. Regardless, Con doesn’t actually refute how the Border fence is not harmful for the environment. Pro elaboration of using wood an metal is still wrong. Wood and Metal doesn’t improve or help the environment in any way. Pro is just arguing it isn’t as harmful, but that doesn’t mean it is actually helping the environment. Pro’s graph about warmer climates is also wrong, because how would those plants be growing there in the first place, if the climate was already warm? This isn’t really a good correlation for us to assess. Pro quotes Adam Smith who does not mention anything about the environment in his book, but Adam Smith is not the law of the U.S. Clearly, there would be no Environmental Protection Agency, if the government didn’t have the right to protect the environment. Whether or not it is the main priority, isn’t the question. The government’s job is to protect it’s people, not build a border fence, which is what we are arguing about. A government can protect it’s borders in other ways. Pro basically concedes my data on how Immigrants are a a net positive to the economy, when I showed how the GDP would basically decrease in some states. Pro’s rebuttal on Americans wanting to work jobs in McDonalds isn’t even stating anything about Americans wanting to work in McDonalds. It only talks about how the government is trying to go after employers who hire illegals, rather than illegals themselves. So, yes Obama’s new policy established a 3000 incentive over native workers, but it isn’t because they are illegals. If you read the article, it states that employers wouldn’t need to pay penalties for not giving healthcare insurance, so that would mean the illegals may not nessarily have access to insurance. Pro’s statement on the an increase in demand for pay, is wrong, because illegals will work for lower wages, which means lower prices, not higher. Pro says there is not perfect solution,and I agree. However, I do not believe the costs of the border fence justify the amount of illegals still managing to come into the country, even after part of the country has a border fence. Pro’s last source isn’t sourced, but I did find the website. The website doesn’t actually state this bill is for a border fence, just tougher border security, which is what I was talking about.