The United States should build and maintain a border fence

A border fence is inexpensive securityCon accepts that an effective double fence can be constructed and maintained at a cost of $1.1 billion per year, a very small part of the Homeland Security Budget of $60B. The current fence has conveniently placed openings allowing free access to the United States, and 750,000 people a year now enter illegally. The open border allows gun runners, criminals intent on kidnapping and human trafficking, terrorists fresh from jihad school, drug smugglers, producers of counterfeit drugs and vehicle parts, and anyone wishing economic benefits. Experience from the Israeli and Saudi fences shows over 99% effectiveness. The US experience confirms that effectiveness over the few miles of secure fence that have been built. The U.S. has adopted a policy of not fighting wars against terrorism on foreign soil. Terrorists will therefore have safe havens to construct WMDs and plan attacks. That means that border security is much more important than ever before, and will increase in importance. We are now banking everything on border security. Con did not dispute this. Con's argument is that terrorists will always find a way into the country. The experience in the Israel is that terrorist attacks were almost completely eliminated by a secure border fence, despite having unfenced coastline and continued access through portals. The objective is to reduce the influx to low levels. Under the Con plan only deportation of past illegal entrants would stop. That would has little effect on costs, because 59% of those now deported are felons and most of the rest are caught in the process of entry. [21. http://tinyurl.com...] Savings in deportation along more than pay for the fence.The supply of low-skilled workers should be controlled Con's sources do not address continued illegal immigration. At most they support amnesty for current illegals as an alternative to continued illegal status.Unskilled illegal immigrants are at the bottom strata of income earners, and we now need dramatic transfers of wealth to support the bottom strata, that unlimited low-skilled illegal immigrants have a high cost, especially for educating the children of illegals and providing medical care through free emergency-room services. The logic is inescapable. Con's [23] (i.e.... C23) say that having low-skilled workers let's citizens get higher paying jobs. If so, then legal immigration policy can allow that. C24 says that granting citizenship to illegal aliens presently in the country is better economically than retaining all the illegal immigrants without giving them legal status. That's not an argument for unlimited future illegal immigration. C3 clearly discusses both legal and illegal immigration. Every graph shows the legal immigration category, and there is a discussion of the highly educated H1-B immigrants in contrast to the low-skilled illegal population. I don't see any reference to a $1.8 trillion contribution to the economy, but such a claim must be compared to legal immigration. The cited advantage of illegal immigration is that they are effectively exempt from wage and benefits laws, lowering costs. If that's a good idea, it should made legal for everyone. C3 says, “If immigrants are a net fiscal drain, the total impact of immigration on the United States would be positive only if the immigration surplus exceeded the fiscal transfer made to immigrants. For low-skilled immigration, whether legal or illegal, this does not appear to be the case.” The study was written in 2007 and there were shortages of low-skilled labor, a key assumption of the analysis. That's no longer the case. The study pointedly ignores the costs of crime, terrorism, and smuggling. C5 is dated Jan 2000 that projects immigration economic benefits in future generations of the existing population. It says nothing about a policy of uncontrolled low-skilled immigration compared to legal immigration based on the needs of the economy. It ignores costs of criminals and terrorists. C7 says that an amnesty bill passed in the Senate would have a positive effect on Social Security for the next ten years, when new immigrants are contributing and few are collecting. It argues that immigrants will have so many contributing children, that contributions will keep up for 75 years. In other words, a Ponzi scheme can work for a while until it fails. The article also quotes a RAND expert on labor markets, “Immigrants [are]... a drain on state and local budgets, largely because of education. So isolating one program is always a mistake.” C25 says giving citizenship to current illegal residents would save money over not granting citizenship. It says nothing about continued open borders. The current US guest worker program doesn't work because “it's too bureaucratic and too costly, and farmers can't get workers fast enough.” The Canadian guest worker program is much better. The US guest worker program requires various benefits to the workers, and so long as there is an unlimited supply of undocumented workers, employers are unlikely to opt for bureaucratic burdens that cost more. Cutting off the illegal alternative and moving closer to the Canadian model solves those problems. [22. http://tinyurl.com...] Threat of sanctionsMexico has no credible threat of sanctions against the US. We could retaliate by cutting off the money sent home by immigrants, their greatest source of revenue according to the president of Mexico. The US imports $280 billion from Mexico and exports $225 billion. [23. http://tinyurl.com...l] However, the US has an economy 15 times that of Mexico, so Mexico would be foolish to even try. Other argumentsNo one travels to a border when they know crossing is impossible. I said that if natural obstacles are inadequate, then we should build more fence. Con's sources express general concern over wildlife, but gives no reason why wildlife crossings would not work. They work everywhere else a major road or rail line has been constructed. The 750,000 illegals crossing the border do far more ecological damage than a fence and little-use patrol road.Con claims that building a fence across Native Lands would be devastating, but nothing addresses my solution of building around the lands, if that's what Native Americans choose. Native Americans are in poverty because they live in little socialist paradises where private property is not allowed. It has nothing to do with fences. Con's sources say that the problem of water flow has been solved, and gives the solution. Con says that the US must honor every objection from Mexico, even if bogus. No, Mexico jealously guards it southern borders for economic reasons and is simply posturing.Con would illegal human trafficking until they eventually apply for citizenship. Far better to know who is in the country so they can be checked.Con argues that we should have open borders, let in terrorists and criminals, and use enforcement money for good works of charity. The United States Constitution requires by oath that protecting and defending the United States be the highest priority of government, not establishing a welfare state. That makes perfect sense, because only a secure country can prosper. Besides, I cited the high cost of criminality, easily prevented by background checks before entry.Cuba deliberately dumped their criminally insane into the US, and open borders makes that tactic available to any country. Con argued it would be racist to reject people just because they are criminally insane. Don't worry, I'd keep out criminally insane Swedes equally. it has nothing to do with race. Con argues that controlling borders is racist. That means that every country in the world, notably Mexico, is racist. Mexico has fences and extreme punishments for illegal entry from Central America. All countries recognize control of borders as part of sovereignty. So should the U.S.