Border Fence

Thanks again to Pro for instigating this debate. My main contentions against the expansion of the current fence are as follows. 1) Cost Although estimates for the cost of the existing border fence very widely, it is undeniable that the fence is extremely expensive. “Customs and Border Protection spent $2.4 billion between 2006 and 2009 to complete 670 miles of border fence, and the vast majority of that was single-layer…according to a Government Accountability Office report.” [1] In 2006, the Secure Fence Act was passed (although it has only partially been implemented since Obama froze construction in 2010). It called for “a reinforced, two-layer 15' fence, separated by a 100-yard gap, along the entire length of the US border with Mexico.” [2] The full cost of constructing such a fence has been “estimated at US$4.1 billion, or more than the Border Patrol’s entire annual budget of US$3.55 billion.” [3] At least some of this money would invariably come from taxpayer dollars. And if the fence was effective, it might even be worth it. But unfortunately, that is not the case, as illustrated by my next argument. 2) Effectiveness The Official Border Patrol estimates that only “1 in 5 illegal aliens are apprehended and arrested.” [1] In addition, increased fencing has not had a significant impact on the number of attempted crossings. According to research, “tightened border enforcement since 1993 has not stopped nor even discouraged unauthorized migrants from entering the United States. Even if apprehended, the vast majority (92–97%) keep trying until they succeed”, usually on the first or second try. [4] For example, after walls were built in San Diego in 2004, the Congressional Research Service found that the number of apprehensions that year was the same as the number apprehended in 1992, which highly suggests that migrant routes have simply shifted to more remote and inhospitable areas in order to avoid the fence. [5] We can therefore conclude that no matter where the fence is expanded, migrants will continue to find ways around the barrier, which defeats the purpose of extending it in the first place. 3) Price in human lives Within the last 13 years, there have been around 5,000 migrant deaths. [3] This is because crossing such inhospitable terrain is extremely dangerous, and yet many are willing to risk it if it means a better life for themselves and their families. There are three main very powerful incentives that Mexicans have for migrating—1) strong U.S. demand for immigrant labor, 2) the 10:1 wage gap at most low-skilled jobs between Mexico and the U.S., and 3) the fact that 60% of migrants have relatives in the U.S., which creates strong desire for reunification. [4] These reasons expose another large problem with extending the border fence—it does absolutely nothing to reduce the forces that drive migrants to cross the border. According to interviews conducted with the migrants themselves, “more than two-thirds had seen or heard PSAs warning of the dangers of clandestine border crossings, but fewer than one out of ten said that such messages would have any effect on their plans to migrate.” [4] Rather than reducing illegal immigration, extended fencing will actually have the opposite effect, the reasons for which I will now explain. Extending the border fence will increase the risks of crossing. Therefore, smugglers, called coyotes, will become essential to ensure migrants’ safe passage. But while the heightened danger has not deterred migrants in the slightest, it will give coyotes “an additional pretext for raising fees; divert clandestine crossings to more remote and dangerous areas, multiplying migrant deaths that are already running at 500-1,000 per year…and induce more migrants and their family members to settle permanently in this country” in far greater numbers. [4] 4) Environmental impact The Real-ID Act of 2005 gave the Secretary of Homeland Security the authority to completely waive around 30 environmental protection laws to construct the fence, including the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act. [3, 6] In addition, his decisions are “not subject to judiciary review.” [3] This has led to serious concerns about the preservation of the environment. “The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) filled in the canyon known as Smuggler's Gulch…with over 2 million cubic yards of earth that had been ripped from adjacent mountaintops, and planted the border wall on top of the berm. With no regulations in place and no oversight by other agencies, DHS put little effort into erosion control, and the still bare slopes of the earthen dam…wash tremendous amounts of dirt into the Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve, which is only 600 feet away.” [7] Several endangered species are also threatened. The bighorn sheep and desert tortoise suffer from habitat fragmentation resulting from the border and patrol roads slicing through their territory. The DHS also cut down more than 100 rare tecate trees, which are the host plant for the rarer Thorne’s hairstreak butterfly which is found nowhere else in the U.S. [7] These are but a few examples of the incredibly destructive impact that the border fence has had on the environment. Plenty more are described in the source referenced for those who are interested. 5) Better Alternative For reasons stated above, extending the border fence is evidently not the best solution to illegal immigration, as it does not address any of the issues that drive migrants to cross the border. Instead, we should focus on a plan that provides an easier path to citizenship and improves legal immigration, which would reduce the need to migrate illegally. HR-15 is one such plan. In short, it calls for “a Registered Provisional Immigrant program for undocumented immigrants that allows them to apply for citizenship in 13 years, after paying taxes and penalties, passing criminal and security background checks, and maintaining employment.” [8] It also “increases the number of immigrant visas, increases visas for highly skilled workers in technical fields, eliminates or changes some family-based immigration programs, and creates a new merit-based system that is based on points accrued through education, employment, and family ties.” [8] By making opportunities for a better life far more accessible to would-be migrants, such a program would reduce much of the incentive for immigrating illegally. This would also partially solve for problems presented by illegal immigrants already in the U.S., which is an impact that my opponent cannot claim since extending the border fence has no effect on those who are currently in the country illegally. This point shall be further elaborated on in the following rounds (I am nearing my character limit). Sources [1] http://usnews.nbcnews.com... [2] http://www.globalsecurity.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://commdocs.house.gov... [5] http://www.no-border-wall.com... [6] http://immigration.about.com... [7] http://www.no-border-wall.com... [8] http://www.latinamericancoalition.org... Back over to Pro.